Skip to main content

Full text of "DTIC ADA281259: Environmental Impact Statement. Disposal and Reuse of Wurtsmith Air Force Base, Michigan"

See other formats


o 


AD-A281 259 






DTIC 

ELECTE 
JUL0 819g4 

F 


D 


FINAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 
September 1993 


94-20840 / qI 

II mil mil mil mil mil Mi:i nil nil N 


IlilliilliPIlii 




DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF 
WURTSMITH AIR FORCE BASE, MICHIGAN 


This docuaaeat has b««o approved 
ioi public loleare or^d sale; its 
<tistribution is uniisuted. 


DTIS QUALITY INSPECTED 6 


■Qi 7 7 07S 













DISCIAIMEI NOnCE 



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


HNAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

I 

I 

I 

1 

DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF 
WURTSMITH AIR FORCE BASE, 
MICHIGAN 

SEPTEMBER 1993 


Accesion For ^ i 

NTIS CRA&I 

1 - 

OTIC TAB 

\ 

Ur;ai. ■•oi- .CvO 

1 

Jwstificatio.'i 

.1 












COVER SHEET 


FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 
DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF WURTSMITH AIR FORCE BASE, MICHIGAN 


a. Responsible Agency: U.S. Air Force 

b. Cooperating Agency: Federal Aviation Administration 

c. Proposed Action: Disposal and Reuse of Wurtsmith Air Force Base (AFB), Iosco County, 
Michigan 

d. Inquiries on this document may be directed to: Lt Col. Gary Baumgartel, Chief of 
Environmental Planning Division, AFCEE/ESE, 8106 Chennault Road, Brooks Air Force Base, 
Texas, 78235-5318, (210) 536-3869 

e. Designation: Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 

f. Abstract: Pursuant to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act, Wurtsmith AFB was 
closed in June 1993. 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 community setting, land use and aesthetics, transportation, utilities, hazardous 
materials/wastes, soils and geology, water resources, air quality, noise, biological resources, 
and cultural resources. Three reuse alternatives were examined: a Proposed Action that 
features aircraft maintenance and refurbishing and general aviation uses of the runway; a 
Fire Training Alternative that proposes using half of the base for a regional fire training 
academy; and a Recreation Alternative that would retain more than 90 percent of the base 
for public facilities/recreational land uses. All alternatives also include mixed industrial, 
commercial, and residential uses. A No-Action Alternative, which would entail no reuse of 
the base property, was also evaluated. 

Environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Action could include minor 
transportation, air quality, and noise effects. Appropriate management procedures would 
have to be implemented for use and handling of hazardous materials and wastes. Fire 
training activities associated with the Fire Training Alternative could result in effects to 
transportation, soils, water resources, air quality, and biological resources. Use of proper 
planning and implementation of appropriate management procedures for the use and 
handling of hazardous materials associated with fire training activities would minimize these 
effects. Controlled burning in the forested area in the northwestern part of the base could 
have beneficial effects on forest habitat. Environmental impacts associated with the 
Recreation Alternative would be related to traffic volumes and the disturbance and aesthetic 
effects of demolition of over half of the on-base facilities. These effects could be minimized 
with the implementation of appropriate planning techniques. The reduction in human 
activity could result in beneficial effects to biological resources. There would be no adverse 
effects from the No-Action Alternative, and possible beneficial effects to biological 
resources from the reduction in human activity. 

Because the Air Force is disposing of the property, some of the mitigation measures are 
beyond the control of the Air Force. Remediation of hazardous waste sites under the 
Installation Restoration Program is and will continue to be the responsibility of the Air Force. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







SUMMARY 








SUMMARY 


PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 

Wurtsmith Air Force Base (AFB), Michigan, was one of the bases 
recomntended for closure by the 1991 Defense Base Closure and 
Realignment Commission. The Commission's recommendations were 
accepted by the President and submitted to Congress on July 12, 1991. As 
Congress did not disapprove die recommendations in the time given under 
the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act (08CRA) of 1990 (Public 
Law 101-510, Title XXIX), the recommendations have become law. 
Wurtsmith AFB was closed on June 30, 1993. 

The Air Force is required to comply with the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA) in the implementation of the base disposal and reuse. The Air 
Force must now make a series of interrelated decisions concerning the 
disposition of base property. This environmental impact statement (EIS) has 
been prepared to provide information on the potential environmental impacts 
resulting from disposal and proposed reuse of the base property. Several 
alternative reuse concepts are studied to identify the range of potential 
direct and indirect environmental consequences of disposal. 

After completion and consideration of this EIS, the Air Force will prepare 
decision documents stating what property is excess and surplus, and the 
terms and conditions under which the dispositions will be made. These 
decisions may affect the environment by influencing the nature of the future 
use of the property. 

ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 

The land within the Wurtsmidi AFB boundary encompasses 4,626 acres, 
including the airfield, aviation support, industrial, institutional (medical), 
commercial, residential, and public facilities/recreational areas. The Air 
Force has fee simple (unconditional) ownership of approximately 42 percent 
of the lands within the base boundary. The remaining 58 percent has been 
leased or permitted for Air Force use for a limited duration. The Air Force 
must terminate or surrender its limited rights to the 58 percent of base 
property when the property is no longer needed for military purposes and 
after the Air Force has fulfilled its legal obligations pursuant to the leases 
and permits. The remaining 42 percent (Air Force fee-owned property) will 
be available for disposal for reuse. Because the Air Force decision on 
whether and how to dispose of the Air Force fee-owned property may 
influence how the other 58 percent of base property will be reused, the EIS 
analyzes the environmental effects of the overall reuse of all of the base 
property. The Proposed Action and alternatives evaluated in this EIS 
consider all of the area within the base boundary. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 


S-1 







Proposed Action. For the purpose of evaluating potential environmental 
impacts resulting from the reuse of this land, the Air Force has based its 
Proposed Action on the community's reuse plan, presented by the 
Wurtsmith Area Economic Adjustment Commission (WAEAC). The Proposed 
Action is a comprehensive plan for redevelopment of the base for aviation- 
related, industrial, commercial, residential, and recreational/tourism uses. It 
is planned to reuse the airfield and aviation support areas for maintenance 
and refurbishing of commercial aircraft and related activities. The existing 
Weapons Storage Area (WSA), alert area, and industrial areas on base would 
be redeveloped for light industrial uses. A convention center complex would 
be developed in the existing community center area on base, and 
commercial areas in the main base area would be retained for similar uses. 
The base hospital would be used as a medical/dental clinic. Most existing 
family housing would be retained for residential uses, including retirement 
and seasonal use, and a recreational vehicle park would be developed in the 
public facilities/recreation area next to the residential area. Existing open 
space and public facilities/recreation areas, including the large forested area 
in the northwestern part of the base, would be retained mostly in an 
undeveloped state for public recreational uses. 

The following alternatives to the Proposed Action are being considered: 

• Fire Training Alternative. The Fire Training Alternative features 
use of the northwestern portion of the base by the Great Lakes 
Fire Training Academy as a comprehensive regional fire training 
center. Facilities in the WSA and alert area would be used for 
laboratories, classrooms, administration, and housing; fire 
fighting training activities would be conducted on the runway, 
operational area, and taxiways. In addition, occasional forest 
fire training activities would be conducted, in conjunction with 
the U.S. Forest Service and Michigan Department of Natural 
Resources (MDNR), in the existing grenade launching and 
explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) areas and surrounding forest 
in the northwestern part of the base. Industrial, commercial, 
and educational uses would be developed in the main base area, 
and 855 family housing units in the existing residential area 
would be retained for permanent, seasonal, and retirement 
housing. This alternative includes buffer areas designated for 
public facilities/recreational uses around the fire training area to 
separate it from the other uses. 

• Recreation Alternative. The Recreation Alternative designates 
extensive areas on base for restoration and conservation of open 
space suitable for a variety of active and passive recreational 
opportunities, consonant with the recreational/tourism character 
of the region. More than one-half of the existing structures on 
base would be demolished or placed in low-maintenance status. 
The WSA, alert area, and existing industrial areas in the main 
base area would be redeveloped for light industrial use; other 


S-2 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 





facilities in the main base area would be developed for a variety 
of commercial and institutional uses. All but 95 residential units 
would be demolished to create open space and public 
facilities/recreation areas. 

• No-Action Alternative. The No-Action Alternative would leave 
the base property in caretaker status with no reuse. 

Other Land Use Concepts. One other land use concept has been identified 
that involves only a small portion of the property available for disposal and, 
therefore, could be implemented in conjunction with the Proposed Action or 
any of the alternatives under consideration. The Great Lakes and Mid- 
Atlantic Hazardous Substance Research Center (GLMAC) is proposing to 
establish an Advanced Environmental Technology Facility for research and 
development of bioremediation techniques at contaminated sites on 
Wurtsmith AFB. 


SCOPE OF STUDY 


The Notice of Intent (NOD to prepare an EIS for the disposal and reuse of 
Wurtsmith AFB was published in the Federal Register on October 9, 1991. 
Issues related to the disposal and reuse of Wurtsmith AFB were identified 
during a subsequent scoping period. A public scoping meeting was held on 
November 7, 1991, in Oscoda High School, Oscoda, Michigan. The 
comments and concerns expressed at that meeting and in written 
correspondence received by the Air Force, as well as information from other 
sources, 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 reasonable alternatives. In order to establish the 
context in which these environmental impacts may occur, potential changes 
in population and employment, land use and aesthetics, transportation, and 
community and public utility^ 'services are discussed as reuse-related 
influencing factors. Issues related to current and future management of 
hazardous materials and wastes are also discussed. Potential impacts to the 
physical and natural environment are evaluated for soils 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 result of changes to the local communities. 

The baseline against which the Proposed Action and alternatives are 
analyzed consists of the conditions projected at base closure in June 1993, 
and conditions under the No-Action Alternative projected for the years 
1998, 2003, and 2013. In addition, a reference to preclosure conditions is 
provided in several sections (e.g., air quality and noise) to allow a 
comparative analysis over time. This will assist the Air Force decision¬ 
maker, and other agencies that may be making decisions relating to reuse of 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


S-3 




Wurtsmith AFB, in understanding potential long-term trends in comparison to 
historic conditions when the installation was active. 

The Air Force has also prepared a separate Socioeconomic Impact Analysis 
Study (SIAS) on the potential economic impacts expected in the region as a 
result of the closure, disposal, and reuse of Wurtsmith AFB. That 
document, although not required by NEPA, will assist the local community in 
planning for the transition of die base from military to civilian use. The EIS 
uses population and employment projections from the SIAS to support the 
analysis of potential environmental impacts to biophysical resources. 

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

This EIS considers potential environmental impacts of the Air Force's 
disposal of the installation and portrays a variety of potential land uses to 
cover reasonable future uses of the property and facilities by others. 

Several alternative scenarios, including the community's proposed plan, 
were used to group reasonable land uses and to examine the reasonably 
foreseeable environmental effects of likely reuses of Wurtsmith AFB. 

Potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and reasonable 
alternatives are briefly described below. Influencing factors include 
projections of the reuse activities that would likely influence the biophysical 
environment, including ground disturbance, socioeconomic factors, and 
infrastructure demands, and are summarized in Table S-1. Projected 
employment and population trends are depicted in Figures S-1 and S-2. 
Potential impacts of the Proposed Action and reasonable alternatives over 
the 20-year study period are summarized in Table S-2. 

Mitigations and Pollution Prevention. Options of mitigating potential 
environmental impacts that might result from the Air Force disposing of 
property or from the implementation of the Proposed Action or alternatives 
by property recipients are presented and discussed. Since most potential 
environmental impacts Would result directly from the reuse by others, the 
Air Force would not typically be responsible for implementing such 
mitigations. Full responsibility for these suggested mitigations, therefore, 
would be borne primarily by future property recipients or local governmental 
agencies. Mitigation suggestions, where appropriate, are listed in terms of 
their potential effectiveness if implemented for affected resource areas and 
are summarized along with the environmental impacts of the Proposed 
Action and alternatives in Table S-2. 


S-4 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 













ALTBmATIVS 


IMt 

2808 

2812 

Proposed Action 

61 

4.781 

5,607 

6,867 

Fira Training 

61 

1,678 

2,789 

3,689 

Racraalion 

61 

845 

1,450 

2,185 

No-Action 

61 

0 

0 

0 


I 4.000 


43,000 
41,000 
M 39,000 

I 

37,000 

35,000 

33,000 




.1 

201 

13 



EXPLANATION 

....... Proclosurs 

' Proposed Action 
^ Fir® Training AKamativa 

- Racraalion Altamativa 

No-Action Aitomativa 


Reuse-Related 
Employment Effects 


(a) Tha 1993 values rapresant total basa-ralatad amploymant under the closura basalina. 

(b) Employmant effects rapresant the change in amploymant ralativa to the No-Action Altamativa. 


Rgure S-1 


S-6 


Wurtsmith AFB Dispose and Reuse FEIS 




















C 6.000 

S 

£ 4,000 


92,000 


88,000 

m 86,000 

C 

S 84,000 
“■ 82,000 
80.000 
78,000 
76,000 



EXPLANATION 


Praclosurs 


' Proposed Action 
“• —■ Fire Training Attamative 

- Recreation Altemativa 

No-Action Alternative 


Reuse-Related 
Population Effects 


(a) The 1993 values represent total base-related employment under the closure baseline. 

(b) Employment effects represent the change in employment relative to the No-Action Alternative. 


Rgure S-2 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


S- 




















I i 

8 | 

> 


M I 

§«» 


S-8 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 






Ill 

2^1 


5 j-S 5 

Is s 
Is *" 


•s ™ 

■* r I • • 
s sl| s 

lllll 

rsi%t 

9 o « o S 

I V f • ? 
E J 12 I 

• 7 S “S § 
ae • 'Q • c 


® o ? 

• si s S 

e .s S -s ■ 

•i § 

% S K S c 

■S'" • = c 
& -S ^ 2 1 

1 Si S I 

I s’s S ? 

II EI § 
I i -8 « I 


^ -a _ 

® o ? 

■* r s ■ • 
s S 'I -I " 

Hill 

15il| 

« O « O • 

> •« s O 

c • e • 2 
g ^ c ^ s 

oc « « e 


I«i ^ c 

E 3 « ■ S 
o .S a. TS 3 


* iliill 

t lllli! 
£ • 


8 1 -a 8^1 

3 S c 8 « 

^ S -2 3|i 

iUlil 

I lihtif 


• e 'P A o 9 

• o c ^ o • 

« o « 2 • S 


fio S 
Si'S 2 I 

9 O « . O 

- « 9 fl ^ ^ 

iliill 


8 X c -g If 

o *9 & 2 ^ 

-ll^iSd 

9 9 * o ^ e £ 

tS ^ S !S S O 

2 ^ S 9 ** 4! P 

« *9 rs e ^ ^ * 
P O ^ 2 • o 3 

5 • J e a o s 
2 « « o S • 5 


2rl* 

III 

s J J I I 
gllfl 
8 8 aj ^ 

K Z X 2 * 


Ui 

£s 3 


O u O 
Z 0. o 


<1 

M: 

•iil 

z£.| 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 























Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







S-12 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 






•o 

c 


o 

o 

e 

o 


* C C 

^ -2 I 

m ^ £ 

11: 
5 I 

° 

■go o 


lAc 


• •? 

=s t 

o > 

• m 

a a 

a I 


a S 

-D O 


5 §1 

.S .2 8- 

S V • 
• Mg 

|oi 

< § S 
111 
I 

I s i 

Z a. a. 
ail 

OT 

Isi" 


S-13 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






S-1 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 








Table S-2. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Suggested Mitigations from the Proposed Action 

and Reasonable Reuse Ahematives 
Page 8 of 8 



S-15 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






PROPOSED ACTION 


Local Community. Redevelopmant of base property under the Proposed 
Action would result in an increase in employment and population in the 
region of influence (ROD, which consists of the Michigan counties of Iosco, 
Alcona, Alpena, and Arenac. An increase of 4,285 direct jobs and 2,582 
secondary jobs is projected by 2013, compared with the 50 direct and 11 
secondary jobs projected under the No-Action Alternative. Approximately 
49 percent of the direct jobs and 10 percent of the secondary jobs are 
projected to be held by in-migrating workers. Total ROI employment would 
reach 42,471 by 2013, an increase of almost 20 percent over No-Action 
Alternative projections for that year. Population increase in the ROI as a 
result of the Proposed Action would be 8,352 by 2013. ROI population 
would reach 91,252 in 2013, an increase of 10 percent over No-Action 
Alternative projections for that year. 

Land use on base would be similar to existing uses, except that industrial 
and commercial development in the main base area, WSA, and alert area 
would increase. There would be a potential for land use conflicts between 
adjacent industrial and commercial uses in the main base area, but these 
could be avoided with proper planning. 

Traffic on local roads would be greater than under the No-Action Alternative. 
The level of service (LOS), a traffic volume-to-capacity ratio, along some 
segments of U.S. 23 through Oscoda and Au Sable would deteriorate to 
preclosure conditions (i.e., LOS F) by 1998. Implementation of road 
improvements could raise LOS to meet transportation planning criteria. No 
airspace or air transportation conflicts would be associated with the 
Proposed Action. 

Utility consumption associated with the Proposed Action would represent a 
relatively small increase in the total ROI demand based on existing capacity 
and past consumption levels. On-base utility systems would be 
interconnected to local systems to provide water and wastewater services 
for reuse. The Oscoda sewage treatment plant would eventually have to be 
upgraded. There is sufficient capacity in local utility systems to meet the 
projected demands. 

Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management. The types of 
hazardous materials used and hazardous wastes generated by the Proposed 
Action are expected to be similar to those present during preclosure use. 

The quantities are expected to be greater than under the No-Action 
Alternative. The responsibility for managing hazardous materials and wastes 
would shift from a single user to multiple, independent users, which may 
degrade the capability of responding to hazardous materials and hazardous 
waste spills. The use of pesticides in the aviation support, industrial, and 
commercial areas would increase from closure conditions. It is assumed that 


S-16 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 




adequate management procedures would be implemented, as required by 
applicable laws and regulations, to ensure proper use and handling of 
hazardous materials and wastes and pesticides. 

Reuse activities are not expected to affect the remediation of Installation 
Restoration Program (IRP) sites, which is proceeding according to the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 
(CERCLA). Remediation of the Air Force's IRP sites is. and will continue to 
be, the responsibility of the Air Force. Disposal and reuse of some 
Wurtsmith AFB properties may be delayed or limited by the extent and type 
of contamination at IRP sites and by current and future IRP remediation 
activities. Based on the results of IRP investigations, the Air Force may, 
where appropriate, place limits on land reuse of Air Force fee-owned 
property through deed restrictions on conveyances and use restrictions on 
leases. It is assumed that the Air Force will continue to have control of non¬ 
fee-owned property in order to complete remediation activities at IRP sites. 

Existing underground storage tanks (USTs) not in conformance with current 
regulations would be removed by the Air Force; the fuel hydrant system 
would be rendered inoperable (sections would be removed, filled with inert 
material, or otherwise treated), in accordance with applicable regulations. 

All polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) and PCB-contaminated equipment under 
Air Force control have been removed from the base. Demolition or 
renovation of certain structures with asbestos-containing materials would be 
the responsibility of new owners and would be conducted in compliance 
with applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 
regulations and National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
(NESHAP). A survey conducted on base revealed radon levels below the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended threshold for 
mitigation. The EOD and grenade ranges were cleared of unexploded 
ordnance prior to base closure; the berm at the small arms range will be 
sifted for lead bullets prior to disposal of that parcel. If the small arms range 
is reused as a public firing range, proper maintenance procedures would 
have to be followed to reduce the potential for lead contamination in the 
soils. 

Natural Environment. The Proposed Action would result in minor effects on 
soils, geology, and water resources from ground disturbance associated with 
facility construction, renovations, and demolition or infrastructure 
improvements. There is an abundant water supply from surface and 
groundwater sources in the ROI. Air pollutant emissions associated with the 
Proposed Action would be greater than under the No-Action Alternative, but 
would still remain below preclosure levels and below federal and state 
standards. 

Aircraft noise associated with the Proposed Action would be far less than 
that prior to base closure. Day-night noise levels (DNL) of 65 decibels (dB) 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


S-17 






or greater from aircraft operations would be contained within the airfield 
area. The number of people living in areas exposed to surface traffic noise 
levels of ONL 65 dB or greater would be 12 percent (156 people) greater 
than under the No-Action Alternative. Use of noise barriers and proper land 
use planning could reduce the effects of surface traffic noise. 

Disturbance to vegetation and wildlife from recreational use of forested 
areas would be limited and similar to that in the adjacent state and national 
forests. Although there could be localized, short-term effects on wildlife due 
to limited ground-disturbing activities, the Proposed Action would result in 
no adverse impacts to federally or state-listed threatened or endangered 
species. No disturbance is proposed near the on-base wetlands, so there 
would be no adverse effects on those sensitive habitats. In fact, reduction 
in activities in the northwestern part of the base (termination of use of the 
EDO area and grenade launching range) could result in beneficial effects to 
wetlands there. 

Archaeological site 201 s98, a lithic scatter, has not yet been evaluated for 
eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places. The site is located on 
land leased from the U.S. Forest Service, and would, thus, remain under 
federal jurisdiction after base closure. Any impacts would be managed in 
accordance with requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic 
Preservation Act. Mitigation measures that couid be employed to reduce 
potential impacts to a non-adverse level include avoidance, stabilization, 
preservation in place, or data recovery. There would be no effects on 
historic, traditional, or paleontological resources. 

FIRE TRAINING ALTERNATIVE 

Local Community. This alternative would generate an increase of 2,498 
direct jobs and an additional 1,191 secondary jobs by 2013, compared with 
the 50 direct and 11 secondary jobs projected under the No-Action 
Alternative. As with the Proposed Action, approximately 49 percent of 
direct jobs and 10 percent of secondary jobs are projected to be held by in- 
migrating workers. Total ROI employment would reach 39,293 by 2013, an 
increase of 10 percent over No-Action Alternative projections for that year. 
Population in the ROI under the Fire Training Alternative would increase by 
4,749 by 2013. This alternative would result in a total ROI population of 
87,649 by 2013, an increase of almost 6 percent over No-Action Alternative 
projections for that year. 

The major on-base land use changes would be associated with the fire 
training use planned for the northwestern part of the base. The fire training 
activities could represent a potential aesthetic conflict with recreational and 
tourist activities in the local area. This conflict could be avoided or 
minimized by use of careful scheduling of fire training activities and use of 
visual buffers around fire training areas. In addition, there would be a 


S-18 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






potential for land use conflicts between adjacent industrial and commercial 
uses in the main base area, but these could be avoided with proper planning. 

Traffic volumes on local roads would be greater than under the No-Action 
Alternative, and the LOS along some segments of U.S. 23 in Oscoda and Au 
Sable would deteriorate to preclosure conditions (LOS F) by 1998. 
Implementation of road improvements could raise LOS to meet 
transportation planning criteria. Utility demands would be lower than those 
under the Proposed Action and within the capacities of local utility systems. 
The on-base water and wastewater systems would be interconnected to 
local systems to support reuse. 

Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management. Some of the 
hazardous materials used in the Fire Training Alternative would be different 
from those used during preclosure conditions and the Proposed Action. 
These materials would include propane, fuel oil/gasoline mixtures, alcohols, 
flares, laboratory chemicals, and combustible metals such as magnesium and 
aluminum. All operations will comply with National Fire Protection 
Association standards for safety. The Great Lakes Fire Training Academy 
would be responsible for management of hazardous materials and wastes, 
and for compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations. 
The fire fighting water collection system and retention pond would be 
managed in accordance with applicable state permitting and environmental 
monitoring requirements. Other aspects of hazardous materials and 
hazardous waste management associated with this alternative would be 
similar to those discussed under the Proposed Action. 

Natural Environment. Effects on soils and geology would be smaller for this 
alternative than for the Proposed Action, because of the smaller amount of 
ground disturbance that would be associated with construction and 
demolition activities. Water runoff from fire training activities could cause 
adverse effects to soils and water quality. Measures to prevent or minimize 
effects to soils and groundwater include use of a double-lined retention pond 
for used fire fighting water, conducting pollution-generating exercises on 
bermed pads, channeling runoff in a collection system, and use of oil/water 
separators. Appropriate leak testing of the sewers and regular monitoring of 
groundwater quality (using existing equipment and wells) should be 
performed to ensure that effects are minor. 

Air emissions from routine fire training activities would be greater than under 
the No-Action Alternative, but pollutant concentrations should not rise above 
federal and state standards. Particulate emissions from forest fire training 
activities could exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 
allowable increments under Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
regulations for 24-hour average concentrations. These activities would be 
conducted only once or twice annually under meteorological conditions that 
favor dispersion, and effects would be short-term and localized. The number 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


S-19 





of residents exposed to surface traffic noise levels of DNL 65 dB or greater 
would be 11 percent (139 people) greater than under the No-Action 
Alternative. Mitigation measures similar to those discussed for the Proposed 
Action could be implemented to minimize surface traffic noise effects. 

There would be a potential for disturbance to wildlife and effects to 
wetlands as a result of forest fire training activities, but these effects would 
be minimal. The fire fighting water retention pond should be enclosed and 
covered to prevent wildlife from drinking the water, which could contain 
residual amounts of harmful substances. There would be no adverse effects 
on threatened and endangered species: in fact, controlled burning could 
increase the amount of habitat on base suitable for the endangered 
Kirtland's warbler. Controlled burning of some of the forested areas in the 
northwestern part of the base could also have general beneficial effects on 
the forest habitat by removing debris and increasing biological diversity. 
Effects on cultural resources would be identical to those under the Proposed 
Action. 

RECREATION ALTERNATIVE 

Local Community. This alternative would generate an increase of 1,473 
direct and 712 secondary jobs by 2013, compared with the 50 direct and 
11 indirect jobs projected under the No-Action Alternative. As with the 
Proposed Action and Fire Training Alternative, approximately 49 percent of 
direct jobs and 10 percent of indirect jobs are projected to be held by in- 
migrating workers. Total ROI employment would be 37,789 in the same 
year, an increase of 6 percent over No-Action Alternative projections for that 
year. Population in the ROI under this alternative would increase by 2,835 
by 2013, resulting in a total ROI population of 85,735. The total population 
figure represents an increase of more than 3 percent over No-Action 
Alternative projections for 2013. 

The major land use changes on base would be a decrease in the amount of 
development and an increase in open space, as a result of closing or 
demolishing more than one-half of the on-base facilities. There would be a 
potential for land use conflicts between adjacent industrial and commercial 
uses in the main base area, but these could be avoided with proper planning. 

Traffic on local roads would be greater than under the No-Action Alternative, 
and the LOS along some segments of U.S. 23 in Oscoda and Au Sable 
would deteriorate to preclosure conditions (LOS F) by 2003. Implementation 
of roadway improvements could raise the LOS to meet transportation 
planning criteria. Utility demands would be less than those described under 
the Proposed Action and Fire Training Alternative. The on-base water and 
wastewater systems would be interconnected to local systems to support 
reuse. 


S-20 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management. Use of hazardous 
materials and generation of hazardous wastes would be greater than under 
the No-Action Alternative, but much less than under the Proposed Action or 
Fire Training Alternative. Other aspects of hazardous materials and 
hazardous waste management would be similar to those discussed under the 
Proposed Action. 

Natural Environment. Potential impacts from this alternative on soils, 
geology, and water resources would be greater than for the Proposed Action 
and Fire Training Alternative because there would be more ground 
disturbance, primarily associated with demolition activities. With use of 
standard mitigation measures, however, impacts could be minimized. 

Effects on air quality in the region would be greater than under the No- 
Action Alternative, but less than under the other alternatives. The number 
of residents exposed to surface traffic noise levels of DNL 65 dB or greater 
would be 5 percent (68 people) greater than under the No-Action 
Alternative. Mitigations similar to those discussed for the Proposed Action 
could be implemented to reduce surface traffic noise effects. 

The Recreation Alternative could result in overall positive effects on 
biological resources due to the reduced amount of human activity and the 
proposal to conserve large areas for public and recreational uses. Other 
effects on biological resources would be similar to those under the Proposed 
Action. Effects on cultural resources would be identical to those under the 
Proposed Action. 

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

Local Community. The only Air Force activities associated with the No- 
Action Alternative would be caretaker maintenance of the Air Force fee- 
owned property by the Air Force Base Disposal Agency Operating Location 
(OL). The other property owners would be responsible for maintenance of 
their own properties. Caretaker activities would generate approximately 50 
direct and 11 secondary jobs throughout the 20-year analysis period. There 
would be no land use impacts from the No-Action Alternative, but keeping 
the base closed would represent a conflict with state and local plans for 
reuse. The LOS on U.S. 23 at the junction with County Road F-41 would 
drop to F by 2013 due to regional population growth; all other key local 
roads would operate at LOS B or better. No effects on air transportation are 
expected. Utility consumption in the ROI would decrease from 1993 
(closure) to 2013 without base reuse, as a result of a projected decline in 
population in the immediate Oscoda area over that time. 

Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management. Small quantities of 
various types of hazardous materials and pesticides would be used for 
caretaker activities. All materials and waste would be managed and 
controlled by the OL in accordance with applicable regulations. IRP activities 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


S-21 






would continue. Storage tanks would be removed or properly closed 
according to applicable standards. 

Natural Environment. The No-Action Alternative would not cause adverse 
effects to soils, geological resources, water resources, air quality, noise, or 
cultural resources. This alternative could have overall beneficial effects on 
biological resources as a result of the reduction in human activity, noise, and 
ground disturbance compared to preclosure conditions. 

OTHER LAND USE CONCEPTS 

Other potential land uses are analyzed in terms of their effects on 
employment, population, and tiie environment when combined with any of 
the alternatives. The GLMAC proposal for an Advanced Environmental 
Technology Facility is the one independent land use concept analyzed 
herein. Impacts on the local community and the environment if this proposal 
was implemented are summarized in Table S-3. 

Advanced Environmental Technology Facility. It is projected that a 
maximum of 20 permanent staff and up to 40 temporary research students 
annually would work at this research and development facility. The only 
potential additional effects associated with establishment of this facility in 
conjunction with any of the alternatives would be from small amounts of 
hazardous materials used and hazardous wastes generated during sampling 
and analysis activities. All hazardous materials and wastes would be 
managed in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations 
by qualified personnel. Implementation of this proposal could result in the 
acceleration of remediation activities at selected IRP sites, which could 
accelerate disposal of those parcels. 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS 

The Draft EIS (DEIS) for disposal and reuse of Wurtsmith AFB was made 
available for public review and comment in March 1993. A public hearing 
was held in Oscoda on April 5, 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 Chapter 9 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 
Chapter 9 indicate the relevant sections of the EIS that have been revised. 

The major comments received on the DEIS were: 

• Concerns regarding protection of public water supplies from 
contamination resulting from base reuse. 


S-22 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 





• Concerns regarding discussion of federal and Air Force 
requirements for talcing an action in a floodplain. 

• A recommendation from the Michigan State Historic Preservation 
Officer that additional archaeological investigations be 
conducted. 

SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM THE DEIS TO THE FEIS 

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

• Rgures and text referring to Air Force fee-owned property have 
been updated in accordance with a 1936 statute that deletes the 
reverter provision in the statute authorizing the 1935 
conveyance 

• Text discussing public water supplies and means to avoid 
contamination associated with base reuse activities has been 
added to the Water Resources section 

• Text has been added to Section 4.4.2, Water Resources, to 
address federal and Air Force regulations regarding actions taken 
in a floodplain 

• Text has been added to Section 4.4.6, Cultural Resources, 
discussing effects of base disposal and reuse on potentially 
eligible cultural resources. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


S-23 






Table S-3. Summary of Impacts from Other Land Use Concepts 


Resource Category 

Advanced Environmental 

Technology Facility 

Local Community 


• 

Land Use and Aesthetics 

No change in land use 

• 

Transportation 

No change in surface or air traffic 

• 

Utilities 

No change in utility demand 

Hazardous Materials and Hazardous 


Waste Management 


• 

Hazardous Materials 

Use of small quantities associated 


Management 

with a research laboratory 

• 

Hazardous Waste 
Management 

Small quantities generated 

• 

Installation Restoration 

Potential acceleration of 


Program Sites 

remediation activities and disposal 
of land parcels 

• 

Storage Tanks 

No new storage tanks 

• 

Asbestos 

Renovation of existing buildings 
may require removal and disposal 
and/or management in place 

• 

Pesticide Usage 

Small quantities to be utilized for 
landscaping 

• 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

No impact 

• 

Radon 

Below level of concern 

• 

Medical/Biohazardous 

Wastes 

None generated 

• 

Ordnance 

Not applicable 

Natural Environment 


• 

Soils and Geology 

No new disturbance 

• 

Water Resources 

No additional demand 

• 

Air Quality 

No new emissions 

• 

Noise 

No new sources; no increase in 
receptors 

• 

Biological Resources 

No impact 

• 

Cultural Resources 

No impact 


S-24 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 













TABLE OF CONTENTS 









TABLE OF CONTENTS 


Eios 


1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION.1-1 

1.1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR.1-1 

1.2 DECISIONS TO BE MADE.1-2 

1.3 DISPOSAL PROCESS AND REUSE PLANNING.1-4 

1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PROCESS.1-6 

1.4.1 Scoping Process.1-7 

1.4.2 Public Comment Process.1-8 

1.5 CHANGES FROM THE DEIS TO THE FEIS.1-8 

1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THIS EIS.1-9 

1.7 RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS.1-10 

1.8 FEDERAL PERMITS, UCENSES, AND ENTITLEMENTS .1-10 

2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION.2-1 

2.1 INTRODUCTION.2-1 

2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION.2-3 

2.2.1 Airfield.2-4 

2.2.2 Aviation Support .2-8 

2.2.3 IndustrisI.2-10 

2.2.4 Institutions!.2-10 

2.2.5 Commercial. 2-12 

2.2.6 Residential.2-12 

2.2.7 Public Facilities/Recreation.2-12 

2.2.8 Employment and Population.2-13 

2.2.9 Transportation.2-13 

2.2.10 Utilities.2-13 

2.3 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES .2-14 

2.3.1 Fire Training Alternative .2-14 

2.3.1.1 Industrial .2-16 

2.3.1.2 Institutional.2-17 

2.3.1.3 Commercial.2-18 

2.3.1.4 Residential .2-19 

2.3.1.5 Public Facilities/Recreation.2-19 

2.3.1.6 Employment and Population.2-19 

2.3.1.7 Transportation.2-20 

2.3.1.8 Utilities.2-20 

2.3.2 Recreation Alternative.2-20 

2.3.2.1 Industrial .2-22 

2.3.2.2 Institutional.2-22 

2.3.2.3 Commercial.2-23 

2.3.2.4 Residential .2-23 

2.3.2.5 Public Facilities/Recreation.2-23 

2.3.2.6 Employment and Population.2-23 

2.3.2.7 Transportation.2-24 

2.3.2.8 Utilities.2-24 

2.3.3 No-Action Alternative.2-24 

2.3.4 Other Land Use Concepts .2-25 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS i 





















































TABLE OF CONTENTS 
(ContinuAd) 


ElflB 


2.4 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION .2-25 

2.5 INTERIM USES.2-25 

2.6 OTHER FUTURE ACTIONS IN THE REGION.2-27 

2.7 COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .2-27 

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.3-1 

3.1 INTRODUCTION.3-1 

3.2 LOCAL COMMUNITY.3-1 

3.2.1 Community Sotting.3-5 

3:2.2 Land Usa and Aesthetics.3-7 

3.2.2.1 Land Use .3-7 

3.2.2.2 Aesthetics.3-16 

3.2.3 Transportation .3-17 

3.2.3.1 Roadways.3-17 

3.2.3.2 Airspace/Air Traffic .3-24 

3.2.3.3 Air Transportation .3-31 

3.2.3.4 Other Transportation Modes .3-31 

3.2.4 Utilities.3-32 

3.2.4.1 Water Supply .3-32 

3.2.4.2 Wastewater .3-34 

3.2.4.3 Solid Waste.3-35 

3.2.4.4 Energy.3-35 

3.3 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT.3-36 

3.3.1 Hazardous Materials Management.3-37 

3.3.2 Hazardous Waste Management .3-38 

3.3.3 Installation Restoration Program Sites.3-40 

3.3.4 Storage Tanks.3-54 

3.3.5 Asbestos.3-55 

3.3.6 Pesticide Usage.3-57 

3.3.7 Polychlorinated Biphenyls .3-58 

3.3.8 Radon.3-58 

3.3.9 Medical/Biohazardous Waste.3-60 

3.3.10 Ordnance .3-60 

3.4 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.3-61 

3.4.1 Soils and Geology.3-62 

3.4.1.1 Soils . 3-62 

3.4.1.2 Physiography and Geology .3-62 

3.4.2 Water Resources .3-65 

3.4.2.1 Surface Water.3-65 

3.4.2.2 Wetlands.3-67 

3.4.2.3 Surface Drainage.3-67 

3.4.2.4 Groundwater.3-67 

3.4.3 Air Quality.3-69 

3.4.3.1 Regional Air Quality.3-71 

3.4.3.2 Air Pollutant Emission Sources.3-74 

3.4.4 Noise.3-76 


ii 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 




















































TABLE OF CONTENTS 
(Continued) 


P«CM 

3.4.4.1 Existing NoiM Levels .3*78 

3.4.4.2 Noise-Sensitive Aress.3-83 

3.4.5 Botogicsi Resources.3-83 

3.4.5.1 Vegetstion .3-83 

3.4.5.2 Wildlife.3-86 

3.4.5.3 Threstened end Endsngered Species.3-88 

3.4.5.4 Sensitive Hsbitsts .3-89 

3.4.6 Cuhursi Resources.3-91 

3.4.6.1 Prehistoric Resources.3-92 

3.4.6.2 Historic Structures snd Resources .3-93 

3.4.6.3 TrsditionsI Resources.3-94 

3.4.6.4 Psieontoiogicsl Resources.3-94 

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .4-1 

4.1 INTROOUCTION.4-1 

4.2 LOCAL COMMUNITY.4-2 

4.2.1 Community Setting.4-2 

4.2.1.1 Proposed Action .4-3 

4.2.1.2 Fire Training Alternative .4-3 

4.2.1.3 Recreation Alternative.4-6 

4.2.1.4 No-Action Alternative.4-6 

4.2.1.5 Other Land Use Concepts.4-6 

4.2.2 Land Use and Aesthetics.4-6 

4.2.2.1 Proposed Action .4-7 

4.2.2.2 Rre Training Alternative .4-9 

4.2.2.3 Recreation Alternative.4-11 

4.2.2.4 No-Action Alternative.4-13 

4.2.2.5 Other Land Use Concepts.4-13 

4.2.3 Transportation.4-14 

4.2.3.1 Proposed Action .4-15 

4.2.3.2 Rre Training Alternative .4-18 

4.2.3.3 Recreation Alternative.4-19 

4.2.3.4 No-Action Alternative.4-21 

4.2.3.5 Other Land Use Concepts.4-21 

4.2.4 Utilities.4-22 

4.2.4.1 Proposed Action .4-23 

4.2.4.2 Rre Training Alternative .4-23 

4.2.4.3 Recreation Alternative.4-23 

4.2.4.4 No-Action Alternative.4-25 

4.2.4.5 Other Land Use Concepts.4-25 

4.3 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT.4-25 

4.3.1 Proposed Action.4-26 

4.3.1.1 Hazardous Materials Management .4-26 

4.3.1.2 Hazardous Waste Management .4-26 

4.3.1.3 Installation Restoration Program Sites.4-27 

4.3.1.4 Storage Tanks.4-31 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS iii 




















































TABLE OF CONTENTS 
(Continu«d) 


jqkh 

4.3.1.5 AtbMUM .4*32 

4.3.1.6 PMtidd«Usag«.4-32 

4.3.1.7 Polychlorinatad Biphenyls.4-32 

4.3.1.8 Radon .4-32 

4.3.1.9 Msdical/Biohazardous Waste.4-32 

4.3.1.10 Ordnance.4-32 

4.3.1.11 Mitigation Measuraa.4-32 

4.3.2 Fire Training Aitamative .4-33 

4.3.2.1 Hazardous Matariais Management .4-33 

4.3.2.2 Hazardous Waste Management .4-34 

4.3.2.3 Instailation Restoration Program Sites.4-34 

4.3.2.4 Storage Tanks.4-37 

4.3.2.5 Asbestos . 4-37 

4.3.2.6 Pesticide Usage.4-37 

4.3.2.7 Polychlorinated Biphenyls .4-37 

4.3.2.8 Radon .4-38 

4.3.2.9 Medical/Biohazardous Waste.4-38 

4.3.2.10 Ordnance.4-38 

4.3.2.11 Mitigation Measures.4-38 

4.3.3 Recreation Altemative.4-38 

4.3.3.1 Hazardous Matariais Management .4-38 

4.3.3.2 Hazardous Wssta Management .4-38 

4.3.3.3 Instaliation Restoration Program Sites.4-38 

4.3.3.4 Storage Tanks.4-41 

4.3.3.5 Asbestos .4-41 

4.3.3.6 Pesticide Usage.4-41 

4.3.3.7 Polychlorinated Biphenyls .4-41 

4.3.3.8 Radon .4-42 

4.3.3.9 Medicai/Biohazardous Waste.4-42 

4.3.3.10 Ordnance.4-42 

4.3.3.11 Mitigation Measures.4-42 

4.3.4 No-Action Alterrtative.4-42 

4.3.4.1 Hazardous Materials Management .4-42 

4.3.4.2 Hazardous Waste Management .4-42 

4.3.4.3 Installation Restoration Program Sites.4-42 

4.3.4.4 Storage Tanks.4-43 

4.3.4.5 Asbestos .4-43 

4.3.4.6 Pesticide Usage.4-43 

4.3.4.7 Polychlorinated Biphenyls.4-43 

4.3.4.8 Radon .4-43 

4.3.4.9 Medical/Biohazardous Waste.4-43 

4.3.4.10 Ordnance.4-43 

4.3.4.11 Mitigation Measures.4-43 

4.3.5 Other Land Use Concepts .4-44 

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.4-44 

4.4.1 Soils and Geology.4-44 


iv 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Rausa FE/S 





















































TABLE OF CONTENTS 
(Continued) 


Paoa 

4.4.1.1 Proposed Action .4-44 

4.4.1.2 Rrs Training Altsmativs .4-46 

4.4.1.3 Racreation Altsmativs.4-46 

4.4.1.4 No-ActkKi Altsmativs.4-47 

4.4.1.5 Othsr Land Uas Conespta.4-47 

4.4.2 Watsr Rssouresa .4-47 

4.4.2.1 Propossd Action .4-47 

4.4.2.2 Firs Training Altsmativs .4-50 

4.4.2.3 Rsersation Altsmativs.4-51 

4.4.2.4 No-Action Altsmativs.4-52 

4.4.2.5 Othsr Land Uas Concepts.4-52 

4.4.3 Air Quality.4-52 

4.4.3.1 Proposed Action .4-54 

4.4.3.2 Fire Training Alternative .4-56 

4.4.3.3 Recreation Alternative.4-58 

4.4.3.4 No-Action Alternative.4-61 

4.4.3.5 Other Land Use Concepts.4-61 

4.4.4 Noise.4-62 

4.4.4.1 Proposed Action .4-66 

4.4.4.2 Fire Training Alternative .4-72 

4.4.4.3 Recreation Alternative.4-72 

4.4.4.4 No-Action Alternative.4-73 

4.4.4.5 Other Land Use Concepts.4-73 

4.4.5 Biolooical Resources.4-73 

4.4.5.1 Proposed Action .4-73 

4.4.5.2 Rre Training Alternative .4-76 

4.4.5.3 Recreation Alternative.4-79 

4.4.5.4 No-Action Alternative.4-80 

4.4.5.5 Other Land Use Concepts.4-80 

4.4.6 Cultural Resources.4-80 

4.4.6.1 Proposed Action .4-81 

4.4.6.2 Hre Training Alternative .4-82 

4.4.6.3 Recreation Alternative.4-82 

4.4.6.4 No-Action Alternative.4-82 

4.4.6.5 Other Land Use Concepts.4-83 

5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION .5-1 

6.0 UST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS .6-1 

7.0 REFERENCES .7-1 

8.0 INDEX.8-1 

9.0 PUBUC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES .9-1 


Wurtsmith AFB Dispose and Reuse FEtS 


v 















































TABLE OF CONTENTS 
(Continued) 


APPENDICES 

A - Glotsary of Terms and Acronyms/Abbraviations 
B - Notice of Intent 

C • Hnel Envbonmental Impact Statement Mailing Liat 

D ‘ Wurtamith Air Force Base Inatailation Reatoration Program Bibliography 
E • Methods of Analysis 

F • Environmental Permits Held by Wurtamith Air Force Base 
G ■ Storage Tanks and Pesticide Storage at Wurtamith Air Force Base 
H • Air Force Policy. Management of Asbestos at Closing Bases and Results of Asbestos 
Survey at Wurtamith Air Force Base 

I Plant and Animal Species Occurring on or near Wurtsmith Air Force Base 
J • Noise 

K - Air Emissions Inventory 

L • Agency Letters and Certifications 

M * Influencing Factors and Environmental Impacts of Wurtsmith Air Force Base Reuse by Land 

Use Category 


Vi 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 





LIST OF TABLES 


Pace 

1.8*1 Fadaral Parmits, UcansM. and Entidamants Potantially Raquirad for Reusers 

or Davalopars of Disposed Base Property.1-11 

2.2*1 Land Use Acreage * Proposed Action.2*4 

2.2*2 Facility Oavalopniont * Proposed Action .2-6 

2.2*3 Acres Disturbed * Proposed Action .2-6 

2.2*4 Proiactod Right Operations * Proposed Action.2-9 

2.2*5 Sit^alatad Employmant and Population Effects - Proposed Action .2-13 

2.3*1 Land Use Acreage • Rre Training Alternative.2-16 

2.3*2 Facility Development * Rre Training Alternative.2-16 

2.3- 3 Acres Disturbed * Rre Training Alternative .2-17 

2.3- 4 Site-Related Employment and Population Effects - Rre Training Altemativa.2-19 

2.3*5 Land Use Acreage * Recreation Aitemative.2-20 

2.3- 6 Facility Development - Recreation Alternative .2-22 

2.3- 7 Acres Disturbed - Recreation Aitemative.2-22 

2.3- 8 Site-Related Employment and Population Effects - Recreation Alternative .2-23 

2.7- 1 Summary of Reuse-Related Influencing Factors.2-28 

2.7- 2 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Suggested Mitigations from the 

Proposed Action and Reasonable Reuse Alternatives .2-29 

2.7- 3 Summary of impacts from Other Land Use Concepts.2-37 

3.2- 1 Air Force Real Estate Interests at Wurtsmidi AFB. 3-3 

3.2- 2 Levels of Service (bObl for Basic Roadway Sections .3-19 

3.2- 3 July Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes on Key Roads .3-23 

3.2- 4 Wurtsmith AFB Annual Aircraft Operations, 1990 . 3-27 

3.2- 5 Projected Annual Aircraft Operations for Civil Public-Use Airports in the Vicinity of 

Wurtsmith AFB. 3-30 

3.2- 6 Estimated Utility Consumption .3-33 

3.3- 1 Hazardous Waste Accumulation Points.3-39 

3.3- 2 IRP Site Descriptions and Locations.3-46 

3.3- 3 Recommended Radon Surveys and Mitigations .3-59 

3.4- 1 National and Michigan Ambient Air Duality Standards . 3-70 

3.4- 2 Maximum Allowable Pollutant Concentration increases under PSD Regulations .3-73 ~ 

3.4- 3 Iosco County Air Emission Inventory (tons per year).3-75 

3.4- 4 Wurtsmith AFB Closure Emission Inventory (tons per year).3-76 

3.4- 5 Comparative Sound Levels.3-77 

3.4- 6 Land Use Compatibility with Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Levels.3-79 

3.4- 7 Distance to DNL from Roadway Centerline for the Preclosure Reference and Closure 

Baseline.3-82 

4.2- 1 Average Daily Trip Generation .4-15 

4.2- 2 July Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes - Proposed Action.4-16 

4.2- 3 July Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes - Rre Training Alternative.4-18 

4.2- 4 July Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes - Recreation Aitemative.4-20 

4.2- 5 Total Projected Utility Demand .4-24 

4.3- 1 Hazardous Material Usage by Land Use - Proposed Action .4-27 

4.3- 2 IRP Sites within Land Use Areas - Proposed Action .4-30 

4.3- 3 Hazardous Material Usage by Land Use - Rre Training Alternative .4-34 

4.3- 4 IRP Sites within Land Use Areas - Rre Training Alternative.4-36 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal artd Reuse FEiS vii 
















































UST OF TABLES 
(Continued) 

P«a« 

4.3- 5 Hazardous Matwial Usage by Lartd Use - Recreation Alternative.4-39 

4.3- 6 IRP Shea within Land Use Areas - Recreation Alternative .4-41 

4.4- 1 Projected Water Demand - Proposed Action .4-48 

4.4- 2 Pn^ected Water Demand - Fire Training Altemative.4-50 

4.4- 3 Prelected Water Demmd - Recreation Altemative .4-51 

4.4- 4 PoOutant Emissiona Associated with the Proposed Action .4-54 

4.4- 5 Air Quality Modeling Results for the Proposed Action (pg/m*) .4-56 

4.4- 6 PoUutant Emisskais Associated with the Rre Training Alternative.4-57 

4.4- 7 Air Quality Modeling Results for the Rre Trairting Ahemativa (^/m*).4-59 

4.4- 8 Air Quality Modeling Results for Forest Fire Training Activities (pg/m’).4-59 

4.4- 9 Pollutant Emissions Associated with the Recreation Altemative.4-60 

4.4- 10 Air Quality Modeling Results for the Recreation Altemative (pg/mg*).4-62 

4.4- 11 Percental^ of Population Highly Annoyed by Noise Exposure .4-63 

4.4- 12 Sourtd Exposure Levels at Representative Noise Receptors from Aircraft 

Operations - Proposed Action.4-71 


viii 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






















UST OF RGURES 


Paoa 

1.2- 1 Air Forca Real Estata intarasts on Wurtsmith AFB.1-3 

2.2- 1 Propoaad Action.2-5 

2.2- 2 PraUminary Airport Plan - Proposed Action .2-7 

2.2- 3 Oavalopad Areas On Base .2-11 

2.3- 1 Fire Training Altamativa.2-15 

2.3- 2 Recreation Altamativa.2-21 

2.3- 3 Other Land Use Concepts.2-2^ 

3.2- 1 Regional Map.3-2 

3.2- 2 Wurtsmith AFB and Vicinity.3-4 

3.2- 3 Local Government Boundaries in Iosco County .3-6 

3.2- 4 Local Zoning.3-9 

3.2- 5 Existing On-Basa Land Use.3-11 

3.2- 6 Existing Off-Base Land Use.3-13 

3.2- 7 Clear Zones and Accident Potential Zones.3-15 

3.2- 8 Visual Sensitivity.3-18 

3.2- 9 Monthly Traffic Trends in ROI .3-21 

3.2- 10 Local Transportation System.3-22 

3.2- 11 Airspace Region of Influence.3-26 

3.2- 12 Primary Arriving Aircraft Right Paths (Preciosure Condition) .3-28 

3.2- 13 Primary Departing Aircraft Right Paths (Preciosure Condition) . . .'.3-29 

3.3- 1 Pictorial Presentation of IRP Process .3-41 

3.3- 2 Installation Restoration Program Sites .3-45 

3.4- 1 Soils Distribution.3-63 

3.4- 2 Hydrology .3-66 

3.4- 3 Preciosure Aircraft Noise Contours .3-81 

3.4- 4 Vegetation.3-84 

3.4- 5 Sensitive Habitats.3-90 

4.2- 1 Reuse-Related Employment Effects .4-4 

4.2- 2 Reuse-Related Population Effects.4-5 

4.3- 1 IRP Sites - Proposed Action .4-29 

4.3- 2 IRP Sites - Rre Training Alternative .4-35 

4.3- 3 IRP Sites - Recreation Alternative .4-40 

4.4- 1 Primary Right Tracks - Proposed Action.4-65 

4.4- 2 DNL Noise Contours - Proposed Action (1998) . 4-67 

4.4- 3 DNL Noise Contours - Proposed Action (2003) . 4-68 

4.4- 4 DNL Noise Contours - Proposed Action (2013) . 4-69 

4.4- 5 Sound Exposure Level (SEL) Receptor Locations .4-70 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS ix 











































THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 








CHAPTER 1 

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 







1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 


This environmental impact statement (EiS) examines the potential for 
impacts to the environment as a result of the disposal and reuse of 
Wurtsmith Air Force Base (AFB), Michigan. This document has been 
prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
of 1969 and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations 
implementing NEPA. Appendix A presents a glossary of terms, acronyms, 
and abbreviations used in this document. 

1.1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR 

Due to the changing international political scene and the resultant shift 
toward a reduction in defense spending, the Department of Defense (DOD) 
must realign and reduce its military forces pursuant to the Defense Base 
Closure and Realignment Act (DBCRA) of 1990 (Public Law (P.L.l 101-510, 
Title XXIX). DBCRA established new procedures for closing or realigning 
military installations in the United States. 

DBCRA established an independent Defense Base Closure and Realignment 
Commission (hereafter "Commission") to review the Secretary of Defense's 
base closure and realignment recommendations. After reviewing these 
recommendations, the 1991 Commission forwarded its recommended list of 
base closures and realignments to the President, who accepted the 
recommendations and submitted them to Congress on July 12, 1991. Since 
Congress did not disapprove the recommendations within the time period 
provided under DBCRA, the recommendations became law. 

Because Wurtsmith AFB is on the 1991 Commission's list, the decision to 
close the base is final. Wurtsmith AFB was closed on June 30, 1993. 

To fulfill the requirement of reducing defense expenditures, the Air Force 
plans to dispose of excess and surplus real property and facilities at 
Wurtsmith AFB. DBCRA requirements relating to disposal of excess and 
surplus property include: 

• Environmental restoration of the property as soon as possible 
with funds made available for such restoration 

• Consideration of the local community's reuse plan prior to Air 
Force disposal of the property 

• Compliance with specific federal property disposal laws and 
regulations. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 


1-1 









The Air Force action, therefore, is to dispose of Wurtsmith AFB property and 
facilities. Usually, this action is taken by the Administrator of General 
Services. However, OBCRA required the Administrator to delegate to the 
Secretary of Defense the authorities to utilize excess property, dispose of 
surplus property, convey airport and airport-related property, and determine 
the availability of excess or surplus real property for wildlife conservation 
purposes. The Secretary of Defense has since redelegated these authorities 
to the respective Service Secretaries. 

1.2 DECISIONS TO BE MADE 

The purpose of this EIS is to provide information for interrelated decisions 
concerning the disposition of Wurtsmith AFB. The EIS is to provide the 
decision-maker and the public the information required to understand the 
future potential environmental consequences of disposal as a result of reuse 
options at Wurtsmith AFB. 

After completion of this EIS, the Air Force will issue a Record of Decision 
(ROD) on the Disposal of Wurtsmith AFB. The ROD will determine the 
following: 

• What property is excess to the needs of the DOD and what 
property is surplus to the needs of the United States of America 

• The methods of disposal to be followed by the Air Force 

• The terms and conditions of disposal. 

The methods of disposal granted by the Federal Property and Administrative 
Services Act of 1949 and the Surplus Property Act of 1944 and 
implemented in the Federal Property Management Regulations (FPMR) are: 

• Transfer to another federal agency 

• Public benefit conveyance to an eligible entity 

• Negotiated sale to a public body for a public purpose 

• Competitive sale by sealed bid or auction. 

The EIS considers the environmental impacts of the Air Force's disposal of 
that portion of the base property owned unconditionally by the Air Force. 

The real estate portion owned unconditionally by the Air Force comprises 
approximately 42 percent (1,943 acres) of the base land (Figure 1.2-1). The 
remaining 58 percent (2,683 acres) of base land (non-fee-owned property) 
currently controlled by the Air Force has been acquired for limited durations 
from numerous individuals and agencies, including the State of Michigan and 


1-2 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 








EXPLANATION 


Bas« Boundary 


Air Force Real 
Estate Interests on 
Wurtsmith AFB 



Air Force Fee-Owned 
Lease 

Permit from U.S. Forest Service 
Easement 


nn 

0 750 1500 3000 Feet 



Figure 1.2-1 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


1-3 


































the U.S. Forest Service. The Air Force must surrender its limited rights to 
this property when the land is no longer needed for military purposes and 
after all legal obligations relating to the Air Force's use of the property have 
been satisfied. Because the Air Force decision on whether and how to 
dispose of the Air Force fee-owned property may influence how the other 58 
percent of the base property will be reused, the EIS analyzes the 
environmental effects of the overall reuse of all of the base property. The 
Proposed Action and alternatives evaluated in this EIS consider all of the 
area within the base boundary. 

The EIS portrays, as alternatives, a variety of potential land uses to cover 
reasonably foreseeable reuses of the property and facilities by others. 

Several alternative scenarios were used to group reasonable land uses and to 
examine the environmental effects of redevelopment of Wurtsmith AFB. 

This methodology was employed because, although the disposal will have 
few, if any, direct effects, future use and control of use by others will create 
indirect effects. This EIS, therefore, seeks to analyze reasonable 
redevelopment scenarios to determine the potential indirect environmental 
effects of Air Force decisions. 

1.3 DISPOSAL PROCESS AND REUSE PLANNING 

DBCRA requires compliance with NEPA (with some exceptions! in the 
implementation of the base closures and realignments. Among the issues 
that were excluded from NEPA compliance are the selection of installations 
for closure or realignment and analysis of closure impacts. 

The Air Force goal is to dispose of its 1,943 acres of Wurtsmith AFB 
property through transfer and/or conveyance to other state or local 
government agencies or private parties. The Proposed Action in the EIS 
reflects the community's goal for base reuse. 

The Air Force has based its Proposed Action on plans developed by the 
Wurtsmith Area Economic Adjustment Commission (WAEAC) for the 
purpose of conducting the environmental analysis. The Air Force also 
considered additional reasonable alternatives in order to provide the decision¬ 
maker with multiple options regarding ultimate property disposition. The EIS 
becomes the basis for a broad environmental analysis, thus ensuring that 
reasonably foreseeable impacts resulting from potential reuse have been 
identified. Subject to the terms of transfer or conveyance, the recipients of 
the property, planning and zoning agencies, and elected officials will 
ultimately determine the reuse of the property. Three alternatives to the 
Proposed Action have been identified: two non-aviation reuse plans and a 
No-Action Alternative, which would not involve reuse. 

The Secretary of the Air Force has discretion in determining how the Air 
Force will dispose of its 1,943 acres of Air Force fee-owned property. 


1-4 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 






DBCRA requires the Air Force to comply with federal property disposal laws 
and federal property management regulations. Nevertheless, the Air Force 
must adhere to the law, including General Services Administration (GSA) 
regulations (41 CFR 101-47), in accordance with DBCRA. The services 
were authorized to issue additional regulations, if required, to implement 
their delegated authorities and the Air Force has issued supplemental 
regulations 41 CFR 132. DBCRA requires the services to consult with the 
state Governor, heads of local governments, or equivalent political 
organizations for the purpose of considering any plan for the use of such 
property by the local community concerned. Accordingly, the Air Force is 
working with state authorities and the WAEAC to meet this requirement. 

In some cases, compliance with environmental laws may delay reuse of 
some parts of the base. Until property can be disposed of or surrendered, 
the Air Force may execute interim or long-term leases to allow reuse-to 
begin as quickly as possible. The Air Force would structure the leases to 
provide the lessees with maximum control over the property, consistent with 
the terms of the final disposal. Restrictions may be necessary to ensure the 
protection of human health and the environment and to allow 
implementation of required remedial actions. Environmental analysis in the 
EIS ertcompasses those possible interim or long-term leasing decisions. 

Certain activities inherent in the development or expansion of an airport 
constitute federal actions that fall under the statutory and regulatory 
authority of the Federal Aviation Administration (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 utilization of airspace, 

(2) assess factors affecting the movement of air traffic, and (3) establish 
conformance with FAA design criteria. The FAA approval action may also 
include other specific elements such as preparation of the Airport 
Certification Manual (Part 139); the Airport Security Plan (Part 107); the 
location, construction, or modification of an air traffic control (ATC) tower, 
terminal radar approach control (TRACON) facility and other navigational and 
visual aids and facilities; and establishment of instrument approach 
procedures. 

In view of its possible direct involvement with the disposal of Wurtsmith 
AFB, the FAA is serving as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 
EIS. If surplus property is conveyed to a local agency for airport purposes, 
the FAA will be the federal agency that would enforce deed covenants 
requiring the property to be used for airport purposes. Additionally, the FAA 
may later provide airport improvement program grants to the airport sponsor 
(local agency taking title). The FAA also has special expertise and the legal 
responsibility to make recommendations to the Air Force for the disposal of 
surplus property for airport purposes. The Surplus Property Act of 1944 
(50 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) Appendix 1622[g]), authorized disposal of surplus 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 


1-5 







rMi and ralatad parsonal property for airport purpoaaa and raquirea the FAA 
to certify that the property ia neceaaary. auitabie, and deairaMe for an 
airport. 

The potential environmental impacts of airport development must be 
assessed prior to commitment of federal funding, in accordance with NEPA 
artd FAA Orders 10S0.1D, Poihies and Procaduras for Cons/darirtg 
Envkonmanta! Impacts, and 50S0.4A, Airport Environmental Handbook. 
Environmental impacts must be assessed prior to authorization of plans of 
local agencies for the development of the entire area in which the airport is 
located. Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation (DOT) Act 
(recodified at 49 U.S.C., Subtitle I, Section 303) provides that the Secretary 
of Transportation shall not approve any program or project which requires 
the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or 
wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance or land 
of an historic site of national, state, or local significance as determined by 
the officials having jurisdiction thereof unless there is no feasible and 
prudent alternative to the use of such land and such program or project 
includes all possible planning to minimize harm resulting from the use. 

Compliance with FAA regulations requires the preparation of a proposed 
airport development plan. This EIS presents the assessment of potential 
environmental impacts of available plans. If a reuse proponent has 
developed only conceptual plans for the airport area, the potential 
environmental impacts of that concept plan are analyzed. The FAA may 
then use this document to complete their NEPA requirements. This EIS also 
provides environmental analyses 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. 

1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PROCESS 

NEPA established a national policy to protect the environment and ensure 
that federal agencies consider the environmental effects of actions in their 
decision-making. The CEO is authorized to oversee and recommend national 
policies to improve the quality of the environment, and has published 
regulations that described how NEPA should be implemented. The CEQ 
regulations encourage federal agencies to develop and implement procedures 
that address the NEPA process in order to avoid or minimize adverse effects 
on the environment. Air Force Regulation (AFR) 19-2, Environmental Impact 
Analysis Process (EIAP), addresses implementation of NEPA as part of the 
Air Force planning and decision-making process. 

NEPA, CEQ regulations, FAA Orders 1050.ID and 5050.4A, and AFR 19-2 
provide guidance on the types of actions for which an EIS must be prepared. 
Once it has been determined that an EIS must be prepared, the proponent 
must publish a Notice of Intent (NOD to prepare an EIS. This formal 


1-6 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







•fMKHincaiTMnt signifiM tfM beginning of the scoping period, during which 
the meior environmental issues to be addressed in the EIS are identified. A 
Draft EIS (DEIS) is prepared, which includes the following: 

• A statement of dte purpose of and need for the action 

• A Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives, including 
the No-Action Alternative 

• A description of the environment that would be affected by the 
Proposed Action and alternatives 

• A description of the potential environmental consequences of 
the Proposed Action and alternatives. 

The DEIS is filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and 
is circulated to the interested public and government agencies for a period of 
at least 45 days for review and comments. During this period, a public 
hearing will be held so that the proponent can summarize the findings of the 
analysis and receive input from the affected public. At the end of the 
review period, all substantive comments received must be addressed. A 
Hnal EIS (FEIS) is produced that contains responses to comments as well as 
changes to the document, if necessary. 

The FEIS is then filed with EPA and distributed in the same manner as the 
DEIS. Once the FEIS has been available for at least 30 days the Air Force 
may publish its ROD for the action. 

1.4.1 Scoping Process 

The Air Force has complied with NEPA requirements for public involvement 
in the decision process for this EIS through the scoping process. In this 
process, the significant environmental issues relevant to disposal and reuse 
are identified and the public is given an opportunity to be involved in the 
development of the EIS. The NOI (Appendix B) to prepare an EIS for 
disposal and reuse of Wurtsmith AFB was published in the Federal Register 
on October 9, 1991. Notification of public scoping was also made through 
local media as well as through letters to federal, state, and local agencies 
and officials and interested groups and individuals. 

A public meeting was held on November 7, 1991 at Oscoda High School, in 
Oscoda, Michigan, to solicit comments and concerns from the general public 
on the disposal and reuse of Wurtsmith AFB. Approximately 50 people 
attended the meeting. Representatives of the Air Force presented an 
overview of the meeting's objectives, agenda, and procedures, and 
described the process and purpose for the development of a disposal and 
reuse EIS. In addition to verbal comments, written comments were received 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


1-7 







durino ttM scopino process. These comments, ss well ss informstion from 
the iocel community, experience with similsr progrsms, snd NEPA 
requirements, were used to determine the scope snd direction of 
studies/snslyses to sccomplish this EIS. 

1.4.2 Public Comment Process 

The DEIS was made svsilsbie for public review and comment in March 
1993. Copies of the DEIS were made available for review in local libraries 
and provided to those requesting copies. At a public hearing held on April 5, 
the Air Force presented the findings of the DEIS and invited public 
comments. All comments ware reviewed and addressed, when applicable, 
and have bean irtdudad in their entirety in this document. Responses to 
comments offering new or changes to data and questions about the 
presentation of data are also included. Commenu simply stating facts or 
opinions, although appreciated, did not require specific responses. 

Chapter 9. Public Comments and Responses, more thoroughly describes the 
comment and response process. 

1.5 CHANGES FROM THE DEIS TO THE FEIS 

The text of this EIS has been revised, where appropriate, to reflect concerns 
expressed in public comments. These changes range from typographical 
corrections to amendments of reuse plans. The responses to the comments 
indicate the relevant sections of the EIS that have been revised. The major 
comments received on the DEIS were: 

• Concerns regarding protection of public water supplies from 
contamination resulting from base reuse 

• Concerns regarding discussion of federal and Air Force 
requirements for taking an action in a floodplain 

• A recommerKlation from the Michigan State Historic Preservation 
Officer (SHPO) tiiat additional archaeological investigations be 
conducted. 

Based on more recent studies and/or comments received, the following 
sections of the EIS have been updated or revised: 

• Rgures and text referring to Air Force fee-owned property have 
been updated, in accordance with a 1936 statute that deletes 
the reverter provision in the statute authorizing the 1935 
conveyance. 

• Text discussing public water supplies and means to avoid 
contamination associated with base reuse activities has been 
added to Water Resources, Sections 3.4.2 and 4.4.2. 


1-8 


Wurtsnu’th AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 







• Text hae been added to Section 4.4.2. Water Resources, to 
address federal and Air Force regulations regarding actions taken 
in floodplains. 

• Text has been added to Section 4.4.6, Cultural Resources, 
discussing effects of base disposal and reuse on potentially 
eligible cultural resources. 


1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THIS EI8 

This EIS is organized into the following chapters and appendices. Chapter 2 
provides a description of the Proposed Action, reasonable alternatives to the 
Proposed Action, and other land use concepts that have been identified for 
reuse of Wurtsmith AFB property. Chapter 2 also briefly discusses 
alternatives eliminated from further consideration and identifies other, 
unrelated actions anticipated to occur in the region during the same time 
frame as the reuse activities to be considered in the analysis of cumulative 
impacts. Finally, Chapter 2 provides a comparative summary of the effects 
of the Proposed Action and alternatives with respect to effects on the local 
community aruJ the natural environment. Chapter 3 presents the affected 
environment under the baseline conditions of base closure, providing a basis 
for analyzing the impacts of die Proposed Action and alternatives. When 
needed for analytical comparisons, a preclosure reference is provided for 
certain resource areas, it describes a point in time at or near the closure 
announcement, and depicts an active base condition. The results of the 
environmental analysis are presented in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 lists 
individuals and organizations consulted during the preparation of the EIS, 
Chapter 6 provides a list of die document's preparers. Chapter 7 contains 
references, and Chapter 8 contains an index. Chapter 9 describes the public 
comment and response process, and contains the comments and responses. 

In addition to the main text, the following appendices are included in this 
document: 

• Appendix A • a glossary of terms, acronyms, and abbreviations 
used in this document 

• Appendix B - the NOI to prepare this disposal and reuse EIS 

• Appendix C • a list of individuals and organizations who were 
sent a copy of the FEIS 

• Appendix 0 • an Installation Restoration Program (IRP) 
bibliography 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


1-9 







• Appendix E • a description of the metitoda used to evaluate the 
impacts of base reuse on resources of the local community and 
the environment 

• Appendix F • a list of environmental permits held by Wurtsmith 
AFB 

• Appendix G • tables of storage tanks at the base and pesticides 
stored and used 

• Appendix H - Air Force policy regarding management of asbestos 
at basea that are closing and results of an asbestos survey at 
Wurtsmith AFB 

• Appendix I - a list of plant and animal species occurring on and 
near the base, and a list of threatened, endangered and 
candidate species occurring on and near the base 

• Appendix J • a detailed description of issues and assumptions 
related to noise effects 

• Appendix K • a detailed methods discussion and air emissions 
inventory for reuse of Wurtsmith AFB 

• Appendix L • letters and certifications from federal agencies 
regarding base conditions 

• Appendix M • a matrix summarizing the influencing factors and 
environmental impacts of each alternative by land use category. 

1.7 RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS 

The environmental documents listed below have been or are being prepared 
separately and address environmental issues at Wurtsmith AFB. These 
documents provided supporting information for the environmental analysis. 

• Comprehensive Pten, Wurtsmith Air Force Bese, Oscode, 
Michigen, 1990 

• Dreft Environmentei Impect Statement, Proposed Qosure of 
Baker Air Force Base, Arkansas, 1990 (with Wurtsmith AFB as 
candidate for closure). 

1.8 FEDERAL PERMITS, UCENSES, AND ENTITLEMENTS 

Federal permits, licenses, and entitlements that may be required of recipients 
of Wurtsmith AFB for purposes of redevelopment are presented in Table 
1 . 8 - 1 . 


1-10 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







1-11 


Wuftsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






-12 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 




CHAPTER 2 
ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE 

PROPOSED ACTION 






2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 


2.1 INTRODUCTION 

This section describes the Proposed Action, reasonable alternatives to the 
Proposed Action, and the No-Action Alternative. In addition, one 
independent reuse option is described and environmentally analyzed. The 
potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and alternatives are 
summarized in table form. 

Generally, the Administrator of the GSA has authority to dispose of excess 
and surplus real property belonging to the federal government. With regard 
to closure bases, however, the DBCRA requires the GSA Administrator to 
delegate disposal authority to the Secretary of Defense. FPMR, which 
govern property disposal methods associated with base closure, allow the 
Secretary of Defense to dispose of closure property by transfer to another 
federal agency, by public benefit conveyance, by negotiated sale to state or 
local government, and by public sale at auction or sealed bid. These 
methods, or a combination of them, could be used to dispose of property at 
Wurtsmith AFB. 

Provisions of DBCRA and FPMR require that the Air Force first notify other 
DOD departments that Wurtsmith AFB is scheduled for disposal. Any 
proposals from these departments for the transfer of Wurtsmith AFB are 
given priority consideration. 

Pursuant to the McKinney Act, 42 U.S.C. 11411, the Air Force is required 
to provide the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) with 
information regarding properties being disposed at Wurtsmith AFB. HUD 
makes a determination about the suitability of these properties for homeless 
assistance programs. HUD reported the suitability and potential availability 
of facilities at Wurtsmith in the November 13, 1992 Federal Register. 
Homeless assistance providers must express written interest to the 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) within 60 days of 
publication and submit a complete application within 150 days. After 
determination that the application is complete, HHS is required to approve or 
disapprove the application within 25 days, in disposing of surplus real 
property, the Air Force must give priority of consideration to uses that assist 
the homeless although "other compelling and meritorious uses may be 
considered". To date there has been no request by a homeless assistance 
provider for facilities or real property at Wurtsmith AFB. 

An Air Force Base Disposal Agency (AFBDA) Operating Location (OL) has 
been established at Wurtsmith AFB. The responsibilities of the OL include 
coordinating post-closure activities with the active force closure activities, 
establishing a caretaker force to maintain Air Force-controlled properties 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


2-1 








after closure, and serving as the Air Force local liaison to community reuse 
groups until lease termination, title surrender, or disposal (as appropriate) of 
the Air Force-controlled property has been completed. For the purposes of 
environmental analysis, it was assumed that this team would consist of 
approximately 50 people at the time of closure, conceptually composed of 
10 Air Force employees and 40 non-federal supporting personnel. The OL, 
as used in this document, may refer to either the AFBDA or non-federal 
personnel. 

In some cases each group may have distinct responsibilities. For example, 
under the No-Action Alternative, the non-federal personnel would be 
responsible for the management and disposition of their own hazardous 
materials and waste. The Air Force OL would be responsible for inspection 
and oversight to ensure that hazardous substance practices on Air Force- 
controlled property are in compliance with pertinent regulations. 

In order to address the range of potential environmental impacts of disposal 
and reuse, three conceptual reuse alternatives have been developed: 

• The Proposed Action centers around reuse of the airfield for 
maintenance and refurbishing and general aviation operations. 
Most of the existing, non-aviation, developed areas on base 
would be redeveloped for industrial and commercial uses. Open 
and undeveloped areas would primarily remain undeveloped. 

• The Fire Training Alternative proposes fire training activities on 
the airfield and the area to the northwest. Non-airfield facilities 
would be developed for reuses similar to those under the 
Proposed Action. 

• The Recreation Alternative would generate less employment and 
population than the other alternatives, but would provide the 
opportunity for numerous public and recreation uses within an 
extensive area of natural and potentially restored open space. 

In order to accomplish impact analyses for the three conceptual plans, 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 similar reuse options, the proportion of 
ground disturbance anticipated for each land use type, transportation and 
utility effects of each proposal as a function of proposed land use and 
employment 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). Details regarding the 
generation of these assumptions are found in Appendix E, Methods of 
Analysis. Specific assumptions developed for individual reuse plans are 
identified in the discussion of each proposal in Sections 2.2 and 2.3. Each 
alternative addresses all of the land within the base boundary. There are no 


2-2 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 





continuing use areas on or off base that are excluded from reuse plans. No 
off-base land use is proposed as part of any of the alternatives. 

During the development of alternatives addressed in the EIS, the Air Force 
considered the compatibility of future land uses with current site conditions 
that may restrict reuse activities to protect human health and the 
environment. These conditions include potential contamination from 
releases of hazardous substances and Air Force efforts to remediate the 
contamination under the IRP. IRP remediation at Wurtsmith AFB and other 
environmental studies may result in lease/deed restrictions on Air Force fee- 
owned property that limit reuse options at certain locations within the base. 
Additionally, the Air Force may retain access rights to these sites to 
implement IRP remediation (e.g., temporary easement for access to 
monitoring wells). It is assumed that the Air Force will continue to have 
control of non-fee-owned property in order to complete remediation activities 
at IRP sites. 

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

Section 2905(b)(2)(E) of DBCRA requires the Air Force, as part of the 
disposal process, to consult with the applicable state governor and heads of 
local governments, or equivalent political organizations, for the purposes of 
considering any plan for the use of such property by the concerned local 
community. Air Force policy is to encourage timely community reuse 
planning by offering to use the community's plan for reuse or development 
of land and facilities as the Proposed Action in the EIS. 

The redevelopment agency authorized to develop potential reuse options for 
Wurtsmith AFB is the WAEAC, formerly the Wurtsmith AFB Reuse 
Committee. WAEAC was formed in January 1992 as a formal advisory 
group. Charged with planning and implementing potential base reuse, 
WAEAC makes recommendations to the Oscoda Township Board of 
Trustees, who has the authority to make decisions regarding reuse. 
Recommendations from the Township Board of Trustees are referred to the 
Wurtsmith Base Conversion Authority (WBCA), which, under authority of 
the Michigan Department of Commerce, acts as a holding agency for 
receipt, maintenance, and disposition of base property it may receive. 

WAEAC comprises a Coordinating Committee, community advisory 
committees, and a management and liaison office headed by an executive 
director. The Coordinating Committee membership includes one 
representative each from the Boards of Trustees of Oscoda, Au Sable, and 
Greenbush townships, one each from the Boards of Commissioners of Iosco 
and Alcona counties, and two from the Oscoda community at large, 
nominated by WAEAC. Representatives of the Governor, Wurtsmith AFB, 
and the DOD Office of Economic Adjustment participate as nonvoting 
members. WAEAC and the Oscoda Township Board of Trustees selected 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 


2-3 







The Pathfinders to prepare the community reuse plan. The Proposed Action 
is based on the final reuse plan developed by The Pathfinders and approved 
by the Oscoda Township Board of Trustees in December 1992. 


Under the Proposed Action, some airfield facilities would be retained to 
support aircraft maintenance and refurbishing and general aviation activities. 
Commercial and light industrial redevelopment is proposed for the existing 
cantonment area. The Proposed Action would reuse existing facilities to the 
extent practicable; little new facility construction is planned. Other land use 
components in the Proposed Action include convention/tourist center, 
residential, and public facilities/recreation. Rgure 2.2-1 illustrates the 
Proposed Action land uses and Table 2.2-1 lists these land use components 
and their approximate acreages. (All acreages presented in the text are 
approximate.) 


Table 2.2-1. Land Use Acreage - Proposed Action 


Land Use 

Acreage 

Airfield 

1,025 

Aviation support 

275 

Industrial 

489 

Institutional 

12 

Commercial 

216 

Residential 

354 

Public facilities/recreation 

2,255 

Total 

4,626 


For all land uses, the Proposed Action assumes relatively rapid 
redevelopment in the period 1993-1998, moderate development from 1998 
to 2003, and little development thereafter. Reuse of facilities is anticipated 
to be similar to existing uses, and no major facility renovations are planned. 
The proposed amount of development, including existing facility demolition 
and retention and new facility construction for each land use under the 
Proposed Action, is presented in Table 2.2-2. The acreages within each 
land use assumed to be disturbed as a result of facility construction, 
demolition, or renovation and infrastructure improvements under the 
Proposed Action are presented in Table 2.2-3 for the three periods of 
analysis. 

2.2.1 Airfield 

The WAEAC has prepared a preliminary ALP (Figure 2.2-2) for submittal to 
the FA A, using FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design. This 
plan was used for the purposes of this environmental analysis. 


2-4 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 
















nn 9 

0 750 1500 3000 FM 


*NotAppHciMa 

Note: Rgura 1.2-1 shows Air Fores fes^iwnod property. 


Hgure 2.2-1 


Wurtsmhh AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


2-5 













TabI* 2.2-2. FacIHy Development - Proposed Action 


Land Use 

Existing Existing 

Facility Facility Now Facility 

Demolition Retention Construction 

(thousands of square feet of floor space) 

Airfield 

0 

0 

0 

Aviation support 

0 

465 

100 

Industrial 

87 

250 

0 

Institutional 

4 

113 

0 

Commercial 

19 

577 

100 

Residential 

175 

2,444 

0 

Public facilities/ 
recreation 

21 

5 

0 

Total 

306 

3,854 

200 


Table 2.2-3. Acres Disturbed - Proposed Action 


Land Use 

1993-1998 

Acres Disturbed (by phase) 

1998-2003 2003-2013 

Total 

Airfield 

50 

0 

0 

50 

Aviation support 

15 

8 

6 

29 

Industrial 

55 

14 

12 

81 

Institutional 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Commercial 

19 

17 

5 

41 

Residential 

36 

25 

11 

72 

Public facilities/ 
recreation 

255 

23 

0 

278 

Total 

430 

87 

34 

551 


The proposed airfield land use area contains 1,025 acres, or 22 percent of 
the total base acreage. It encompasses the existing 11,800-foot by 300- 
foot runway, parallel taxiway A, four connecting lateral taxiways, runway 
protection zones (RPZs), and the operational aprons. The hydrant fuel 
system would not be used; aviation fuel would be brought in by truck to 
support operations. This alternative assumes that an aircraft refurbishing 
and maintenance facility would locate at Wurtsmith AFB. A full-service 
Fixed Base Operator (FBO) would locate at the airport to provide general 
aviation functions and services. 


2-6 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 












EXPLANATION 

—— Bas* Boundary 
Airport BouiKlary 
— — — Building Restriction Line 
I " ."".'l Airfield Pavement 


rLn 

0 7S0 1500 3000 Feet 




Runway Protection Zone 


80 ^ 

50 ^ 



Runway Object Free Area 


Runway Safety Area 




Preliminary 
Airport Layout Plan 
Proposed Action 


Figure 2.2-2 


Note: Figure 1.2*1 shows Air Force fee*owned property. 

Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


2- 























The entire runway would be maintained to support reuse operational 
requirenrtents. The RPZs are areas at the end of die runway that are kept 
free of development, except for navigational aids, for added safety during 
aircraft arrivals and departures. Lateral safety zones necessary for the 
proposed operations include building restriction areas, RPZs, obstacle-free 
areas, and runway/taxiway safety areas. 

General aviation activity would constitute the majority of flight operations 
under the Proposed Action at Wurtsmith AFB. General aviation activities 
anticipated include corporate flying, private or pleasure flying, and 
instructional flying. Additional projected airport operations include flights by 
large commercial and/or cargo aircraft arriving for maintenance and 
refurbishing. 

Table 2.2*4 presents the projected flight operations assumed for this 
alternative for the periods 5, 10, and 20 years after closure (1998, 2003, 
and 2013, respectively). All aircraft listed in Table 2.2*4 for the years 2003 
and 2013 meet the FAA's Stage 3 noise standard. The change in aircraft 
from 1998 to 2013 reflects the varying aircraft types that would likely need 
refurbishing at those times. 

Approximately 90 percent of all aviation operations are assumed to occur 
between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.; the remaining 10 percent would occur 
between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. 

An airport authority with responsibility for the overall redevelopment and 
operation of Wurtsmith AFB has not been identified at this time; however, 
the WBCA is exploring the possibility of assuming that role. 

The flight tracks utilized by Wurtsmith AFB aircraft to transition to and from 
the area airspace will be eliminated upon closure. New flight tracks 
consisting of a straight arrival/departure path to each end of the runway 
would be instituted. Additionally, a closed left and right traffic pattern 
would be created for each runway. 

No airfield improvements are proposed for this action. The FAA plans to 
build a new very*high frequency omnidirectional range (VOP^ at the airfield, 
to be operational in late 1993. The existing operational apron would be 
reconfigured to accommodate parking of general aviation aircraft. Airfield 
lighting would be retained in this action, as would navigational aids. 

2.2.2 Aviation Support 

The proposed aviation support area encompasses 275 acres, or 
approximately 6 percent of the total base area. Reuse activities would be 
limited to aircraft maintenance and refurbishing services and small to 
moderately sized general aviation based aircraft service. These activities 


2*8 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 







Tabic 2.2-4. Projactad Right Operations - Proposad Action 


Year 

Operations 

Stag« 

% Reet Mix 

Annual Operations'*' 

1998 

General Aviation 

NA 

83 Single-engine piston 

13,770 



NA 

6 Muitiengine piston 

1,070 



NA 

1 Turboprop 

150 



3 

2 Turbojet 

310 



2 

<1 727-100 

48 



2 

2 727-200 

288 



3 

1 747-200 

144 



2 

<1 DC-9 

72 



1 

1 DC-8-50 

192 



3 

<1 MU-2 

72 



3 

2 Lear 35 

240 



NA 

2 Beech KingAir 

288 





Total 16,644 

2003 

General Aviation 

NA 

83 Single-engine piston 

15,660 



NA 

6 Muitiengine piston 

1,220 



NA 

1 Turboprop 

170 



3 

2 Turbojet 

350 



3 

2 727-200 (re-engined) 

288 



3 

1 747-400 

216 



3 

<1 MD-81 

72 



3 

1 DC-8-70 

144 



3 

<1 MU-2 

96 



3 

1 Lear 35 

240 



NA 

2 Beech KingAir 

336 





Total 18,792 

2013 

General Aviation 

NA 

83 Single-engine piston 

18,870 



NA 

7 Muitiengine piston 

1,480 



NA 

2 Turboprop 

420 



3 

2 Turbojet 

420 



3 

1 727-200 (re-engined) 

192 



3 

1 747-400 

336 



3 

<1 DC-8-70 

96 



3 

1 MU-2 

192 



3 

1 Lear 35 

240 



NA 

2 Beech KingAir 

384 





Total 22,630 

Note: <a) 

An operation it defined ae a landing or a takeoff. 



Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


2-9 







could be accommodated in existing facilities adjacent to. and southeast of, 
the apron. This area contains approximately 465,000 square feet of floor 
space in hangars, offices, warehouses, and aviation-related and industrial 
facilities. 

The area west of the existing aviation support facilities is proposed for 
future expansion of aviation-related development. This 100-acre area is 
situated generally parallel to the runway and taxiways and contains the fire 
station, control tower, a heated vehicle parking facility, and several 
thousand linear feet of taxiway. Some of these facilities would be used 
immediately, and future new development would occur here first. The 
existing aviation support area to the east incorporates the jet engine test 
cell, converted hangars, two fire stations, and maintenance shops. This 
area could support transitional development between aviation-related and 
commercial development abutting on the southeast. Construction of an 
additional 100,000 square feet of floor space for aviation-related 
manufacturing is proposed for this area. 

2.2.3 Industrial 

The industrial land use areas would encompass 489 acres, which is 
approximately 11 percent of the total base area. Proposed uses in these 
areas include light industrial, warehousing, and light manufacturing. Under 
the Proposed Action, the rail spur would be extended north through 
industrial, commercial, and aviation support land use areas to provide rail 
access for future activities. 

The southern industrial area covers 87 acres on both sides of the rail spur in 
the cantonment area (Figure 2.2-3). This area includes warehouses and 
maintenance and administrative facilities, which would be put to similar uses 
for the Proposed Action. 

The northern industrial area, encompassing 402 acres, contains the 
Weapons Storage Area (WSA) and the alert area with its associated parking 
aprons. Facilities in the WSA would be used for storage, maintenance, and 
light industrial uses. The adjacent alert area includes facilities suitable for 
use for small seminar groups, and space for future industrial development 
(after the 20-year analysis period). 

2.2.4 Institutional 

The proposed institutional land use area includes the existing base hospital, 
which would be reused as a medical facility to provide limited outpatient 
care (pharmacy, emergency, medical/dental clinic, etc.). The facilities 
proposed for medical-related uses contain about 113,000 square feet on 
12 acres. 


2-10 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







EXPLANATION 

Developed Areas 

—" Bass Boundary 

On Base 

run A 

0 750 1500 3000 Faat 

Figure 2.2-3 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


2-11 




















2.2.5 Commercial 


Approximately 5 percent (216 acres) of the total base acreage is proposed 
for various commercial uses. Commercial land uses would include office, 
retail (including crafts industries), and convention/tourist services. The 
office component covers 17 acres containing about 100,0(X) square feet of 
existing office space to supply a variety of educational, financial, service, 
administrative, and other reuse office needs. 

The retail component would encompass 42 acres, containing about 30,000 
square feet of retained facilities in three areas. The 12-acre commercial 
retail area at the intersection of County Road F-41 and Rea Road includes 
the Security Police kennels and the Defense Reutilization and Marketing 
Office (DRMO) storage facilities. The 8-acre parcel northeast of the existing 
family housing area contains the housing management office, a day care 
center, and a base exchange convenience store. The remaining acreage is in 
the Main Gate area. 

The Proposed Action includes a 157-acre area designated for convention/ 
tourist uses. This area encompasses most of the eastern cantonment area 
and includes a variety of facilities proposed to support a program of year- 
round events, major attractions, and educational programs. These facilities 
include the Commissary. Base Exchange, Officers' Club, airmen's dining hall, 
dormitories, family housing, most of the recreation facilities, and the 
Community Center. Construction of an additional 100,000 square feet of 
floor space for commercial uses is proposed for this area. 

2.2.6 Residential 

The residential land use area would contain 354 acres, or 8 percent of the 
total base area. Approximately 10 percent of the existing residential units 
may be demolished or removed to reduce the density in the westernmost 
portion of the residential area. About 1,100 single-family and multi-family 
dwelling units would be retained for use as single-family residences, 
retirement homes, second/vacation homes, tourist lodging, and public/ 
institutional housing. 

2.2.7 Public Facilities/Recreation 

In the Proposed Action, 48 percent (2,255 acres) of the base would be 
retained for public facilities, open space, and recreation uses. This acreage 
includes 132 acres of outdoor athletic and recreation facilities, 92 acres of 
recreational vehicle park, and 2,031 acres of open space, dominating the 
western half of the base. In addition to the existing uses on these lands, 
potential uses include natural open space, reforestation and land use 
buffering, undeveloped or passive recreation, developed (intensive) 
recreation facilities, or local parks/monuments. Outdoor facilities, including 


2-12 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






basebali/softball and soccer/football fields, and a running track, are 
concentrated in an area north of the existing military family housing, west of 
the cantonment. The small arms range just north of the runway would likely 
be reused as a public firing range. 

The large public facilities/recreation area in the northwestern part of the 
base encompasses forest and wetland areas outside the base security fence 
and contiguous with the Au Sable State Forest. Much of this area has 
remained relatively undisturbed by base activities, and offers valuable habitat 
for many wildlife species (see Section 3.4.5, Biological Resources). Under 
the Proposed Action, this area would be left undeveloped as a conservation 
area. 

2.2.8 Employment and Population 

The direct reuse-related employment generated for the operations phase of 
the Proposed Action for the 20-year period is estimated to total 4,285. The 
on-site population increase is estimated at 2,196. Employment and 
population effects are presented in Table 2.2-5. 


Table 2.2-5. Site-Related Employment and Population Effects - 

Proposed Action 



Closure 

1998 

2003 

2013 

Direct employment 

50 

2,938 

3,461 

4,285 

On-site population 

0 

1,098 

1,867 

2,196 


2.2.9 Transportation 

County Road F-41 is expected to be the major route to the developed 
portions of the base, with access points at the Main Gate, Arrow Street, 

Van Etten Street, the proposed commercial/industrial area (existing alert 
apron), the northernmost commercial area, and Capehart Gate leading to the 
residential area. Access to die southern portion of the base from River Road 
is blocked by the Au Sable River. Roadway improvements would be 
accomplished where local development plans dictate a need based on 
community standards for acceptable levels of service. Based on land use 
and employment projections, average weekday vehicular traffic to and from 
base property would be approximately 29,600 by 2013. 

2.2.10 Utilities 

On-site utility usage in 2013 from the activities associated with the 
Proposed Action would be: 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


2-13 









• Water • 0.5 million gallona per day (MGD) 

• Waatewatar - 0.33 MGD 

• Solid waste • 13.4 tone per day 

• Electricity • 67 megawatt hours (MWH) per day 

• Natural gas - 9.4 thousand therms per day. 

2.3 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 

Several constraints and opportunities were identified that had to be 
considered in developing reasonable reuse alternatives. Constraints 
included: 

• The presence of wetlands, inactive landfills, and potentially 
hazardous groundwater contamination areas 

• Undeveloped areas in the western half of the base that lack 
adequate access or infrastructure to support development 

• Infrastructure systems that need improvement, precluding 
inexpensive reuse of otherwise suitable facilities 

• The large size of some facilities, which would make most civilian 
uses inefficient. 

Development opportunities included: 

• An attractive, campus-like cantonment area of well maintained, 
mixed-use facilities suitable for commercial/industrial 
development 

• A corridor of land, varying in width from a few hundred to a few 
thousand feet, along the west side of County Road F-41 that 
provides access and development potential for commercial uses 

• A 4-mile strip along the Au Sable River that provides natural 
open space and access adjacent to federal and state forest lands 
for future recreational development. 

2.3.1 Fire Training Altemative 

Under the Rre Training Altemative (Rgure 2.3-1), the runway and all base 
property to the northwest would be used for a regional fire training facility. 
Commercial and industrial development are proposed for the existing 
cantonment and aviation support areas, and most of tiie existirH) residential 
areas would be retained. 

Major land use components proposed for the Rre Training Alternative include 
institutional (educational and medical), light industrial and warehousing, 
commercial office and retail, existing residential, and public facilities/ 


2-14 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







EXPLANATION 

Airfietd* 


Aviation 

Support* 


(D 


Industrial 


Institutionai 

(Madical) 


Institutkinai 

(Education) 


Agriculture * 


@ 


Commercial 

Residential 




Vacant Land * 


“ “ ■ “ Base Boundary 


Public Facilities/ 
Recresftion 


Access Points 


0 750 1500 3000 Feet 


* Not Applicable 

Note: Figure 1.2-1 shows Air Force fee-owned property. 


Fire Training 
Aiternative 


Figure 2.3-1 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


2-15 













recreation. Table 2.3*1 lists the land use components comprising the Fire 
Training Alternative with dieir approximate acreages. 


Table 2.3*1. Land Use Acreage * Fire Training Alternative 


Land Use 

Acreage 

Industrial 

234 

Institutional 

3,127 

Commercial 

130 

Residential 

250 

Public facilities/recreation 

885 

Total 

4,626 


Under the Fire Training Alternative, rapid development in the industrial, 
commercial, and institutional land use areas is projected to occur within the 
first 5 years after closure, leveling off after 1998. The public facilities/ 
recreation areas would be fully developed for reuse by 2003. Reuse of 
facilities is anticipated to be similar to existing uses, and limited facility 
renovations are planned. The proposed amount of development, including 
existing facility demolition and retention and new facility construction, for 
each land use under the Fire Training Alternative, is presented in 
Table 2.3*2. The acreages within each land use assumed to be disturbed 
under the Fire Training Alternative are presented in Table 2.3*3 for the three 
periods of analysis. 

Table 2.3*2. Facility Development * Fire Training Alternative 


Existing Facility Existing Facility New Facility 
Demolition Retention Construction 

Land Use (thousands of square feet of floor space) 


Industrial 

33 

753 

152 

Institutional 

53 

522 

31 

Commercial 

116 

552 

253 

Residential 

201 

1,828 

0 

Public facilities/ 
recreation 

31 

71 

0 

Total 

434 

3,726 

436 


2.3.1.1 Industrial. Industrial reuse in the Fire Training Alternative is 
proposed in two areas encompassing a total of 234 acres, or 5 percent of 
the base area. An area similar to that under the Proposed Action is in the 
existing industrial area of the cantonment, and includes acreage along the 
rail spur to provide rail access to future industrial development, if needed. 


2*16 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






















Table 2.3-3. Acres Disturbed - Fire Training Aitemative 


Land Use 

1993-1998 

Acres Disturbed (by phase) 

1998-2003 2003-2013 

Total 

Industrial 

15 

15 

13 

43 

Institutional 

101 

53 

50 

204 

Commercial 

11 

7 

27 

45 

Residential 

8 

6 

12 

26 

Public facilities/ 
recreation 

27 

6 

0 

33 

Total 

162 

87 

102 

351 


This large industrial parcel includes the former squadron operational area 
northwest of the cantonment. This area contains several former aircraft 
maintenance hangars that have been converted to non-aviation warehousing 
uses, communications and technical laboratories, two fire stations, 
administrative offices, the jet engine test cell, and maintenance shops. The 
former aircraft parking apron and an area northeast of the gymnasium would 
be available for new industrial development. 

The second area proposed for planned industrial redevelopment would 
occupy 50 acres in the Air Combat Command (ACC) operations apron area. 
The proposed reuse of this area would involve approximately 150,000 
square feet of industrial floor space through conversion of existing hangars. 

2.3.1.2 Institutional. The Rre Training Alternative proposes 3,127 acres, or 
nearly 68 percent of the base, for educational and medical uses (see 
Figure 2.3-1). 

The largest institutional area would encompass 3,075 acres in the 
northwestern half of the base to support a regional fire training facility 
operated by the Great Lakes Fire Training Academy. Large areas would be 
required to provide space for maneuvering aircraft rescue and fire fighting 
vehicles, burn areas, support facilities, and buffer zones to other land uses. 
Fire training activity areas would include the alert apron, WSA facilities, the 
entire runway, parallel taxiway, and the open space between them. Access 
would be from County Road F-41 and Rea Road. Existing facilities within 
the WSA could be reused to provide storage, administrative space, and 
maintenance support for training operations. The Alert/Readiness Crew 
Facilities and Burkhart Hail, a six-unit residential facility, would be used as 
housing for an estimated 30 students. 

The regional fire training academy would provide a variety of hands-on and 
classroom programs for training fire-fighting personnel. Structural and 
industrial fire mock-ups would be prepared along the southwestern portion 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 


2-17 









of the runway and parallel taxiway. Liquefied petroleum gas. rather than 
kerosene, would be used as a fuel to reduce air emissions from the fires. A 
pump station, water retention pond, and treatment station would be 
constructed in the area between the runway and the taxi way. All fire 
fighting training activities would be conducted on bermed concrete pads; the 
runoff would be channeled through an aboveground collection system and 
passed through an oil/water separator before discharging into the double* 
walled, 10-million-gallon retention pond. The water in the retention pond 
would be reused. 

Other fire training activities would include search and rescue operations, 
aircraft crash operations on the operational apron, fire and medical vehicle 
training north of the WSA, and forest fire training on the explosive ordnance 
disposal (EOO) and grenade launching ranges. The forest fire training 
activities would be conducted about once per year, in conjunction with the 
Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MONR) and U.S. Forest Service. 
Each prescribed fire would burn approximately 1 to 2 acres. The large 
forested area in the northwestern part of the base is included within the 
boundaries of the fire training academy, but most of this area would be left 
undisturbed as a buffer area around fire training operational areas. 

The proposed community education area occupies 7 acres in the cantonment 
and contains approximately 40,000 square feet of floor space, including the 
existing education center facilities. About one-third of the existing 
structures would be demolished and about 25,000 square feet of new 
educational facilities with ancillary parking and landscaping would be 
constructed. Possible uses of these facilities include various vocational, 
technical, or university-extension classes. 

The 33-acre parcel in the existing cantonment would support private 
institutional uses, such as church or community group seminars, camps, and 
retreats. Facilities in the Community Center and the Officer’s Club would be 
available for reuse. This area contains about 150,000 square feet of 
existing facilities; little demolition and no new construction are proposed. 

The fourth institutional land use area includes the base hospital, to be reused 
for limited outpatient care (pharmacy, emergency, medical/dental clinic, 
etc.). The facility contains about 117,000 square feet on 12 acres. 

2.3.1.3 Commercial. Approximately 3 percent (130 acres) of the total base 
area is proposed for various commercial uses. This area includes 31 acres 
for commercial retail use in the Commissary/Base Exchange area. 
Approximately 95,000 square feet of retained facilities would be augmented 
with an additional 25,000 square feet of new development. This 
component could be considered a regional convention/trade show/events 
center, with small retail services in the vicinity. 


2-18 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






About 165,000 square feet of existing maintenance shops and commercial 
office space on 21 acres in the operational area southeast of the hangars 
would be reused. Other facilities in this area include classrooms, 
administrative offices, and an 80,000-square-foot aircraft maintenance shop. 

A commercial office park is proposed on a 54-acre area that provides prime 
frontage along both County Road F-41 and a proposed new east-west 
arterial. This complex would consist of planned office development that 
would provide an anchor for related development. Over 150,000 square 
feet of residential housing and administrative office space would be 
demolished and replaced with over 200,000 square feet of new office floor 
space. The Base Headquarters would be reused as commercial offices. The 
Non-Commissioned Officers' (NCO) Club would be retained as a commercial 
retail (service-restaurant) facility. 

The Fire Training Alternative proposes development of a hotel on 23 acres 
designated as commercial area, intended for seasonal tourist overflow or to 
support convention center or trade show activities. Nearly 275,000 square 
feet of existing dormitories and the dining hall would be retained; 45,000 
square feet of dormitory space would be demolished and additional parking 
areas provided. 

2.3.1.4 Residential. The proposed residential land use includes 250 acres, 
or about 5 percent of the total base area. Demolition is proposed for ail of 
the residential units southwest of Perimeter Road and Mission Drive. The 
remaining 855 family housing units in the southeastern part of the base 
would be retained for use as permanent, seasonal, and retirement homes. 

2.3.1.5 Public Facilities/Recreation. Approximately 19 percent (885 acres) 
of the total base area would be retained for public facilities, open space, and 
recreation uses. This acreage includes 83 acres of indoor and outdoor 
athletic and recreation facilities, 70 acres of local community parks, and 732 
acres of open space along the southwestern base boundary and separating 
the cantonment and residential areas from fire training areas. 

2.3.1.6 Employment and Population. The direct reuse-related employment 
generated for both construction and operations phases for the Fire Training 
Alternative for the 20-year period is estimated to total 2,498. The on-site 
population increase is estimated at 1,383. Employment and population 
effects are presented in Table 2.3-4. 


Table 2.3-4. Site-Related Employment and Population Effects 
Fire Training Alternative 



Closure 

1998 

2003 

2013 

Direct employment 

50 

1,308 

1,876 

2,498 

On-site population 

0 

262 

609 

1,383 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


2-19 








2.3.1.7 Transportation. As in the Proposed Action. County Road F-41 is 
expected to provide the major route to the base, via accesses at the Main 
Gate, Arrow Street, Van Etten Street, the alert area, and Capehart Gate 
leading to the residential area. Based on land use and employment 
projections, average weekday vehicular traffic to and from base property 
would be approximately 26,100 by 2013. 

2.3.1.8 Utilities. On-site utility usage in 2013 from the activities of the Fire 
Training Alternative would be: 

• Water • 0.38 MGD 

• Wastewater • 0.23 MGD 

• Solid waste - 9 tons per day 

• Electricity - 66 MWH per day 

• Natural gas • 6.2 thousand therms per day. 

2.3.2 Recreation Alternative 

The focus of the Recreation Alternative (Figure 2.3-2) is restoration and 
conservation of natural open space for potential multi-use recreation 
development. Commercial, light industrial, and institutional reuses are 
proposed in the main base area on a smaller scale than in the other two 
alternatives. Over 50 percent of the existing structures would be 
demolished and very little construction is proposed. 

Major land use components for the Recreation Alternative would include 
public facilities/r.ecreation, light industrial and warehousing, public and 
private institutional education, residential, and commercial retail. Table 
2.3-5 lists the proposed land use components comprising the Recreation 
Alternative with their approximate acreages. 

Table 2.3-5. Land Use Acreage - Recreation Alternative 
Land Use Acreage 


Industrial 

193 

Institutional 

60 

Commercial 

62 

Residential 

92 

Public facilities/recreation 

4,219 

Total 

4,626 


Under the Recreation Alternative, approximately two-thirds of the planned 
industrial, commercial, residential, and institutional land use development is 
assumed to occur prior to 2003. The public facilities/recreation areas would 
be fully developed for reuse by 2003. Reuse of facilities is anticipated to be 


Wurtsmith AFB P ' -^nsa/ and Reuse FEIS 














EXPLA NATION 

^^^AklMd* 

AvMion 
Hm Support* 

Induatriat 


Irwttutlonal ■■■ 
m (Modiari) III 

0 750 1500 3000 Feet 


ll| InsIHutionai 
hH (Education) 

^1 Commercial 

FI ReaMentW 


Public FacWtlea/ 
Racraedon 


Racraadonal „ „ . 

VahldaPark -BaaaBoundary 

Agrlcuilura* ^ Acc«»Polnt» 
VccantLand* 


Recreation Alternative 




' Not Applicabla 

Note: Figure 1.2-1 shows Air Force fee-owned property. 


Figure 2.3>2 


WurtsmiO) AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


2-21 











similar to existing uses, and no major facility renovations are planned. The 
proposed amount of development, including existing facility demolition, 
retention, and new facility construction for each land use under the 
Recreation Alternative is presented in Table 2.3-6. The acreages within 
each land use assumed to be disturbed under the Recreation Alternative are 
presented in Table 2.3-7 for the three periods of analysis. 

Table 2.3-6. Faciity Development - Recreation Aitemativo 


Existing Facility Existing Facility New Facility 
Demolition Retention Construction 

Land Use (thousands of square feet of floor space) 


Industrial 

56 


621 

0 

Institutional 

25 


512 

0 

Commercial 

2 


296 

49 

Residential 

0 


201 

0 

Public facilities/ 
recreation 

2,293 


154 

6 

Total 

2,376 


1,784 

55 

Table 2.3-7. 

Acres Disturbed • Recreation Alternative 




Acres Disturbed (by phase) 


Land Use 

1993-1998 

1998-2003 2003-2013 

Total 

Industrial 

8 

4 

17 

29 

Institutional 

7 

1 

0 

8 

Commercial 

3 

10 

17 

30 

Residential 

1 

2 

3 

6 

Public facilities/ 
recreation 

445 

0 

96 

541 

Total 

464 

17 

133 

614 


2.3.2.1 Industrial. Industrial reuse in the Recreation Alternative, comprising 
about 193 acres, or 4 percent of the total base acreage, is proposed in three 
areas. One 46-acre parcel is located along the rail spur south of Arrow 
Street, configured similarly to the area in the Proposed Action. The second 
parcel includes the WSA and the southern portion of the alert area. The 
third parcel includes all of the hangars and aircraft maintenance shops 
adjacent to the squadron operations area, southeast of the runway. 

2.3.2.2 Institutional. Institutional land use would constitute slightly over 
1 percent (60 acres) of the total base acreage. The proposed community 
educational area covers 7 acres and contains the education center/youth 
facility. Private institutional use similar to that under the Fire Training 
Alternative is proposed for the 40-acre area containing the base Community 


2-22 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 














Cantar, tha Officara' Club, tha dormitoriaa, and dining hall. About 355,000 
aquara faat of axiating fadUtv apaca would ba rauaad; litda damolition and 
no naw conatruction ara propoaad. Uaa of tha 12-acra araa containing tha 
madicai facility would ba tha aama aa diacuaaa d undar tha Fira Training 
Altamativa. 

2.3.2.3 Conunarcial. Slightly mora than 1 parcant (62 acraa) of tha total 
baaa acraaga ia propoaad for varioua commarcial uaaa. A 29-acra parcal for 
commarcial ratail uaa in tha Commiaaary/Baaa Exchanga araa containa 
approximataly 160,000 aquara faat of ratainad faciiitiaa. Thia apaca would 
ba augmantad with an additional 5,(X)0 aquara faat of now ratail 
davolopmant. Approximataly 50,(XX) aquara faat of offico apaca on 8 acraa 
containing tha CE faciiitiaa would ba rauaad aa commarcial offica apaca. A 

12-acra commarcial offica park would ba locatad adjacont to tha axiating 
baaa aupply warahouaa and tha NCO Club. Tha wing/aquadron oparation 
officaa, claaarooma, and flight aimulator building, occupying a 13-acre parcel 
southeaat of tha operational apron, would ba reused aa commercial offices. 

2.3.2.4 Residential. Tha proposed residential area in the Recreation 
Alternative is considerably smaller than that of the other alternatives, 
occupying about 2 percent (92 acres) of the total base area. Forty duplex 
and fifteen single-family units, all with garages, would be retained for reuse 
as permanent and seasonal homes. 

2.3.2.5 Public Faclitias/Racraation. Over 90 percent (4,219 acres) of the 
total base araa would ba retained for public facilities, open space, and 
recreation uses. This acreage includes 90 acres of indoor and outdoor 
athletic or recreation facilities, 90 acres of local community parks, a 
proposed 120-acre golf course, and over 3,900 acres of open space. 
Recreation activities in these areas would most likely include camping, 
hiking, hunting, picnicking, and similar uses. As in the Proposed Action, the 
large forested area in the northwestern part of the base would remain 
undeveloped as a conservation area. 

2.3.2.6 Employment and Population. The reuse-related employment 
generation for both construction and operations phases for the Recreation 
Alternative is the smallest of the three alternatives, reflecting minimal 
redevelopment. Direct employment for the 20-year period is estimated to 
total 1,473. The on-site population increase, including 160 higher education 
students, is estimated at 269. Employment and population effects are 
presented in Table 2.3-8. 


Table 2.3-8. Site-Related Employment and Population Effects 
Recreation Alternative 



Closure 

1998 

2003 

2013 

Direct employment 

50 

572 

979 

1,473 

On-site population 

0 

137 

212 

269 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


2-23 







2.3.2.7 Transportation. Under this alternative, access points at Arrow 
Street. Van Etten Street, and the alert area would be provided from County 
Road F-41. in addition to d>e existing Main Gate and Capehart Gate. Based 
on land use and employment projections, average weekday vehicular traffic 
to and from base property would be approximately 21.000 by 2013. 

2.3.2.8 Utilities. On-site utility usage in 2013 from the activities of the 
Recreation Alternative would be: 

• Water-0.17 MGD 

• Wastewater - 0.06 MGD 

• Solid waste - 3.4 tons per day 

• Electricity - 37 MWH per day 

• Natural gas - 4.1 thousand therms per day. 

2.3.3 No-Action Aicemative 

The No-Action Alternative would result in the U. S. Government retaining 
ownership of the Air Force fee-owned property after closure. Non-fee- 
owned property would return to the lessee upon mutually agreed termination 
of the lease. The base property would not be put to further use, but would 
be preserved, i.e., placed in a condition intended to limit deterioration and 
ensure public safety. All base property would be placed in caretaker status. 
The Air Force would be responsible for caretaker activities on Air Force fee- 
owned land; it is assumed that other property owners would also maintain 
their property in caretaker status. Caretaker activities, whether by the Air 
Force or others, would consist of base resource protection, grounds 
maintenance, existing utilities operations as necessary, and building care. 

No other military activities/missions are anticipated to be performed on the 
property. 

The future land uses and levels of maintenance would be as follows: 

• Maintain structures to limit deterioration 

• Isolate or deactivate utility distribution lines on base 

• Provide limited maintenance of roads to ensure access 

• Provide limited grounds maintenance of open areas to eliminate 
fire, health, and safety hazards. 

The base would continue to fulfill its water requirements by pumping on- 
base well water, although the amount drawn would be significantly reduced. 
Nonessential water lines would be drained and shut off. Wastewater flows 
under caretaker status would be negligible or zero and temporary low- 
capacity systems would be installed. Solid waste generation on base would 


2-24 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Beuse FEiS 





likely be reduced to a negligible level under this alternative. The existing 
power and space-heating systems serving Wurtsmith AFB would likely be 
utilized at substantially reduced levels while the base is in caretaker status. 
Electrical 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. The central 
heating plant would probably be shut down. 

2.3.4 Other Land Use Concepts 

In compliance with the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 
1949, the Air Force solicited proposals from other federal agencies regarding 
their interest in acquiring any lands or facilities identified for disposal at 
Wurtsmith AFB. To date, no formal proposals for federal transfers or other 
independent land use concepts have been identified for Wurtsmith AFB. 
However, one independent land use concept, the Advanced Environmental 
Technology Facility, is analyzed herein. This land use concept is not part of 
any integrated reuse plan, but could be initiated on an individual basis or in 
combination with any one of the reuse alternatives, including the Proposed 
Action. 

Advanced Environmental Technology Facility. The Great Lakes and Mid- 
Atlantic Hazardous Substance Research Center (GLMAC) is proposing to 
establish a national facility at Wurtsmith AFB for field research, 
development, and demonstration of advanced applied technologies for the 
decontamination and bioremediation of hazardous wastes, spills, and 
disposal sites. This facility would involve use of the bioenvironmental 
engineering laboratory, to conduct sample analysis, and the vehicle 
maintenance facility, to store vehicles and equipment (Figure 2.3-3). The 
facility staff and students would conduct on-site research at contaminated 
sites on the base. It is estimated that, over the 20-year analysis period, the 
facility would accommodate up to 20 direct permanent employees and up to 
40 students per year, who would work at the facility temporarily (from 1 
week to 3 months each). 

2.4 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

To date, no other reuse proposals have been submitted for Wurtsmith AFB, 
nor has the Air Force identified other potential reuse alternatives. 

2.5 INTERIM USES 


Interim uses include predisposal short-term uses of the base facilities and 
property. Predisposal interim uses are conducted under lease agreements 
with the Air Force. The terms and conditions of the lease would be 
arranged to ensure that the predisposal interim uses do not prejudice future 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


2-25 








EXPLANATION 

—Basa Boundary 


Proposed Advanced 
Environmental Technology Facility 


Other Land Use 
Concepts 


run ^ 


1400 Feet 


Figure 2.3-3 


2-26 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 




















disposal and reuse plans of the base. The continuation of interim uses 
would be arranged through agreements with the new property owner(s). 

2.6 OTHER FUTURE ACTIONS IN THE REGION 

No reasonably foreseeable actions have been identified that could be 
considered as contributing to a potential cumulative impact on the disposal 
and reuse of Wurtsmith AFB. 

2.7 COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

A summary comparison of the influencing factors and environmental 
impacts, along with their potential mitigations, on each biophysical resource 
affected by the alternatives over the 20-year study period is presented in 
Tables 2.7-1 and 2.7-2. Influencing factors are non-biophysicai elements, 
such as population, employment, land use, aesthetics, transportation 
networks, and public utility systems that directly impact the environment. 
These activities have been analyzed to determine their effects on the 
environment. Impacts to the environment are described briefly in the 
summary and discussed in detail in Chapter 4. Table 2.7-3 presents 
influencing factors and environmental impacts of the independent land use 
concept. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


2-27 








2-28 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 










1 1 
£ i 


> « 

U K 


2-29 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 









0 



2-3i 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 





















c 

a tJ 

? 

S • 
« a 


Z i 

o o 
> o 
o .2 

a. o. 

H N 
flO 

O U 
a. a. 


2-31 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 





Table 2.7-2. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Suggested Mitigations from the Proposed Action 

and Reasonable Reuse Alternatives 
Page 4 of 8 



2-32 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 





Environmental Impacts and Suggested MKigations from the Proposed Action 
and Reasonable Reuse Ahematives 



o a 

* c 

cc S 


• 

« ® • 
i§| 

r ^ 2 

3 .2 
U) <0 *o 


11 


I a 1 

It 

c “ 1 


• 1^1 
s 2 o 2 

f i s. 

S 2 g 

® *■ s 

0^0 

3 * g 


^3 ti 

^0^-0 X 

g i»l . 

121 dig.? 

of:iii| 

s 11 

1 II 

I 

0 

9 

*3 

1 -1 • 1«i 2 

§ .? -a 1 £ -i s 
u E • ^ • £ » 


% » o 

* 2 S 

|s| 

3 in .2 

VJ « ^ 


o « ^ M 

J * S S C g 

'tt ^ M ^ *2 a 

J! ^ 2 S « c 

«B S « ^ c £ 

‘S J JS 3 

*1 ? I :S I 

I i S i M 

oa a S d. ° 


s 

S 

O X 

® J 
C 9 

« 4 . 

• c V 

® ‘5 
•S o « 
.2 o w 
'5 ^ ® 
Sea 
c c ^ 

* s ® 

CO •£ a 


' S o 

£ S ? 

1 e 2 

. » ® 
o .£ «• 

.£ Q. r; > 

■ I e “3 

I -1 ^ 

,1 I § S 
IT 2 ■§ • 

O <D I» > 


9 s 

SS . 

« • =s 

3 0 3 
O 3 7 
• *0 ^ 
^ 2 ® 

? 2 ® 
® 3 J 
? 8 § 

&|=5 

o a c 

« « £ 

.•g I 2 

m > ^ 


^ O 2 

I5l 

« I ^ 

& ® ® . 
^ “p X 

I a 8 
I c 2- 
^ .1 ■a 
^ 2 i 
S s I ■ 
5 £ -g, 


C 

W o 

3 2 

g 

•= 1 5 


11 ii 

a 5 8 S 
.S 3 ® • 

g S • S 

SlZ'i 

|ili 

^ o o o 


e * 

r 1 2 

II ^ 

u I K 

O Itf 
£ -S 2 

3 2 • 

S 3 S 

• S ^ 

® * • 

CC z * 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 









































Table 2.7-2. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Suggested Mitigations from the Proposed Action 



Wetland areas separated 
from burn areas by 
vegetative buffer. 


Appropriate forest 
management techrriques in 
forest fire planning. 


8^ 

If 

o « E 
» S J 
•- 2 

2 » g 

^90 


o 

a c 
c 5 
.2 £ 

c • 

• % 

SS 
5 ^ . 

f If 
I 


2-35 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 









2-36 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 






Table 2.7-3. Summary of Impacts from Other Land Use Concepts 


Resource Category 

Advanced Environmental 

Technology Facility 

Local Community 

• Land Use and Aesthetics 

No change in land use 

• Transportation 

No change in surface or air traffic 

• Utilities 

No change in utility demand 

Hazardous Materials and Hazardous 

Waste Management 

• Hazardous Materials Management 

Use of small quantities associated 
with a research laboratory 

• Hazardous Waste Management 

Small quantities generated 

• Installation Restoration Program 

Potential acceleration of 

Sites 

remediation activities and disposal 
of land parcels 

• Storage Tanks 

No new storage tanks 

• Asbestos 

Renovation of existing buildings 
may require removal and disposal 
and/or management in place 

• Pesticide Usage 

Small quantities to be utilized for 
landscaping 

• Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

No impact 

• Radon 

Below level of concern 

• Medical/Biohazardous Wastes 

None generated 

• Ordnance 

Not applicable 

Natural Environment 

• Soils and Geology 

No new disturbance 

• Water Resources 

No additional demand 

• Air Quality 

No new emissions 

• Noise 

No new sources; no increase in 
receptors 

• Biological Resources 

No impact 

• Cultural Resources 

No impact 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEtS 


2-37 









THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 


2-38 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






CHAPTER 3 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 








3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 


3.1 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter describes the environmental conditions of Wurtsmith AFB and 
its region of influence (ROD at the time of base closure. It provides 
information to serve as a baseline from which to identify and evaluate 
environmental changes resulting from disposal and reuse of Wurtsmith AFB. 
Although this EIS focuses on the biophysical environment, some non¬ 
biophysical elements are addressed. The non-biophysical elements 
(influencing factors) of population and employment, land use and aesthetics, 
transportation networks, and public utility systems in the region and local 
communities are addressed. This chapter also describes the storage, use, 
and management of hazardous materials and waste found on base, including 
storage tanks, asbestos, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), radon, 
medical/biohazardous waste, and ordnance. The current status of the IRP is 
also described. Finally, the chapter describes the pertinent natural resources 
of 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. 

The baseline conditions assumed for the purposes of analysis are the 
conditions at base closure in June 1993. Impacts associated with disposal 
and/or reuse activities may then be addressed by comparing projected 
conditions under various reuses to closure conditi A reference to 
preclosure conditions is provided, where approprib ;.g., air quality) in this 
document, in order to provide a comparative analysis over time. Data used 
to describe the preclosure reference point are those that depict conditions as 
close as possible to the closure announcement date. This will assist the 
decision-maker and agencies in understanding potential long-term impacts in 
comparison to conditions when the installation was active. 

3.2 LOCAL COMMUNITY 

Wurtsmith AFB is in Iosco County in northeastern Michigan, approximately 
2 miles from the western shore of Lake Huron (Figure 3.2-1). The base 
property encompasses 4,626 acres, which includes Air Force fee-owned 
land, land leased from the State of Michigan and various private entities, 
and land permitted for Air Force use from the U.S. Forest Service (see 
Figure 1.2-1). The acreages of each type of land interest are presented in 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 


3-1 






EXPLANATION 

^ Airports 

National Forest 

Regional Map 

^ Interstate Highway 

1 1 State Forest 


U. S. Highway 

® State Highway 

•*—+■ Railroad 


Map Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest 

0 3.5 7 14 Miles Service. 1986, 

Figure 3.2-1 


3-2 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 















Table 3.2-1. An additional 595 acres of land adjacent to the base property 
consist of various aviation easements (577 acres) and easements for storm 
sewer outfalls (18 acres). 


Table 3.2-1. Air Force Real Estate Interests at Wurtsmith AFB 


Interest Type 

Acreage 

Percent of Base 

Air Force fee-owned 

1,943 

42 

Lease 

2,464 

53 

Permit from U.S. Forest Service 

219 

5 

Total 

4,626 

100 


Wurtsmith AFB is on a relatively flat plain 3.5 miles wide, bounded on the 
west by 80-foot-high bluffs. Elevations on base range from 600 to 
645 feet. The base is bordered on the southeast by Oscoda Township, on 
the northeast by Van Etten Lake, on the northwest and west by the Au 
Sable State Forest, and on the southwest and south by the Huron National 
Forest. The Au Sable River, which flows into Lake Huron, is approximately 
0.5 mile south of the base (Figure 3.2-2). River Road, just south of the 
river, has been designated a National Scenic Byway. Iosco County and 
surrounding areas along Lake Huron are popular resort areas, offering 
fishing, hunting, boating, skiing, snowmobiling, camping, and other 
recreational opportunities. 

The climate in the region is humid, characterized by harsh winters and short, 
mild summers. Mean monthly temperatures range from 21'’F in January to 
68®F in July, although temperatures as low as -22'’F and as high as 102°F 
have been recorded. The average annual temperature is 44‘’F. Precipitation 
in the area averages about 30 inches of rainfall and 50 inches of snow 
annually. The heaviest snows occur from November through March. Winds 
generally blow from the east, over Lake Huron. 

Transportation in the Wurtsmith AFB region is primarily by road. The main 
access route to the base is County Road F-41, which runs along the base's 
northeastern boundary. U.S. 23, the major north-south highway running 
along the shore of Lake Huron, is the primary regional access. The Detroit 
and Mackinac Railroad provides freight service to the base and local area; 
there is no passenger rail service. Iosco County Airport is approximately 
15 miles south of the base, and supports private aviation uses only. The 
closest commercial airports are Alpena Regional Airport, approximately 
45 miles north of the base, and the Tri-City International Airport near 
Saginaw, approximately 90 miles south. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-3 















EXPLANATION Wuitsmith AFB 

—Bas 0 Boundary and Vicinity 


PJ-l 

0 1000 2000 4000 Faot 




Map Source; U.S. Geological Survey, 19B8a, 1988b. 


Figure 3.2-2 


3 - 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 























Instaliatlon Background 


Military use of the area now known as Wurtsmith AFB began in 1924 when 
the Army Air Service started using it as a gunnery range and for winter 
maneuvers. At that time the area was called Camp Skeel. Beginning in 
1942 and continuing through World War II, the base, renamed Oscoda Army 
Air Reid, was used as a support base for aircrew training. The base was 
closed in 1945, then reactivated in 1947 under the Continental Air 
Command and used for transient activities. With the creation of the 
Department of the Air Force, the base was renamed Oscoda AFB in 1948, 
and hosted units from the Air Defense Command. In 1953, the base was 
renamed Wurtsmith AFB, after Major General Paul B. Wurtsmith of Michigan, 
the only flying general to win the Distinguished Service Medal in combat, 
during World War II. 

A major expansion of the base was begun in 1958, to support the Air 
Force's Strategic Air Command (SAC). Over the next 3 years, SAC moved 
the 4026th Strategic Wing, the 920th Air Refueling Squadron (AREFS), and 
the 379th Bombardment Wing (BMW) to the base. The 379th BMW 
became the host unit at Wurtsmith AFB in 1961, assimilating personnel and 
equipment from the 4026th, which was inactivated. The 379th BMW and 
the 920th AREFS were involved in air combat operations during the conflict 
in Vietnam and in Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Major tenant units 
include the 2030th Communications Squadron; Detachment 28, 26th 
Weather Squadron; Detachment 14, 3904th Management Engineering 
Squadron; Detachment 224, 3753rd Reid Training Squadron; and the 71st 
Rying Training Wing. In 1992, responsibility for the base was transferred to 
the newly established ACC. The basv was closed on June 30, 1993. 

3.2.1 Community Setting 

The area surrounding Wurtsmith AFB is a popular Michigan resort and 
vacation area with mostly small, unincorporated communities dispersed 
throughout county townships. The ROI for communities potentially affected 
by base disposal and reuse comprises the four counties of Alpena, Alcona, 
Iosco, and Arenac. 

The base is within Oscoda Township in the northeast part of Iosco County 
(Figure 3.2-3). The greatest effects of reuse of the base are expected to 
occur in Oscoda and Au Sable townships in Iosco County and Greenbush 
Township in Alcona County, where most of the base-related population 
reside. Lesser effects are also expected in East Tawas, located in Baldwin 
Township, and in Tawas City, in Tawas Township. 

Employment in the ROI was 38,272 in 1990 and is projected to be 33,495 
in 1993, at base closure. Overall employment growth in the region 
averaged 1.8 percent annually between 1970 and 1990, slightly lower than 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-5 








EXPLANATION 

Local 

Bass Boundary 

Government 

Oscoda Township 

Boundaries in 

^ ^ ^ 

Iosco County 

aty Areas 


Iosco County Boundary 


nn ^ 

0 1.25 2.5 5 Milas 

Figure 3.2-3 


3-6 Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 








th« national average. The major employment sectors in the ROI are 
government, services, retail trade, and manufacturing, in 1990, the 
government sector provided 25.9 percent of the jobs in the ROI. Wurtsmith 
AFB employed 3,969 personnel (3,062 military, 907 civilian) in 1990 (U.S. 
Air Force, 1990b). By closure, employment at Wurtsmith AFB will decrease 
to 50 direct and 11 indirect jobs associated with the OL. 

Population in the four-county region was about 85,890 in 1990, and is 
projected to be 78,139 at closure in 1993. Population growth in the ROI 
averaged 0.1 percent annually between 1980 and 1990. This growth rate is 
expected to continue after base closure, primarily as a result of in-migration 
associated with recreational resources, retirees, and tourism. 

The populations of Oscoda, Au Sable, and Greenbush townships all 
increased from 1980 to 1990. The population centers of these townships 
are the unincorporated communities of Oscoda, Au Sable, and Greenbush. 
These communities are generally located in the eastern portions of the three 
townships, along U.S. 23 and the shore of Lake Huron. Oscoda and Au 
Sable, at the mouth of the Au Sable River, together form the largest 
developed area in the three townships, providing the main support 
community adjacent to Wurtsmith AFB. 

Although the township populations increased, the population of the 
unincorporated communities of Oscoda and Au Sable decreased an average 
of 4.6 percent annually from 1980. The 1990 population of 2,603 in these 
two communities represented 27 percent of the off-base population in 
Oscoda and Au Sable townships. The population in these communities can 
double or even triple during the peak tourist months of July and August. 

3.2.2 Land Use and Aesthetics 

This section describes the existing land uses and aesthetics for the base 
property and the surrounding areas of Wurtsmith AFB at base closure. Land 
uses at closure are assumed to be similar to existing land uses in the vicinity 
of the base unless specific development plans project a change. The ROI 
includes the base property and potentially affected adjacent properties that 
are within the jurisdiction of Oscoda Township in Iosco County. 

3.2.2.1 Land Use 

Land Use Plans and Regulations. The general plan for a jurisdiction 
represents the official position on long-range development and resource 
management. The position is expressed in goals, policies, plans, and actions 
regarding the physical, social, and economic environments, both now and in 
the long term. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 


3- 





Iosco County has specific goals and objectives with respect to economic 
development, housing, county services, and land use. Oscoda Township, 
chartered by the state to develop and implement land use policies within its 
boundaries, is guided by a General Development Plan (GDP), last revised in 
October 1987 (Ronald F. Nino and Associates, 1987). The township does 
not include major changes in its land use plan for the area adjacent to the 
base. The only area of concern is in the southeast quadrsnt, immediately 
outside the base near the Main Gate. The township plans to promote 
industrial development in this commercial and residential area, which abuts 
the base family housing area. 

The State of Michigan has adopted two acts administered by the 
Department of National Resources to regulate development adjacent to 
streams and lakes. The Inland Lakes and Streams Act (Public Act 346, 

1972) requires a permit for any dredging, filling, or construction of a 
permanent structure below the ordinary high water mark of a lake or stream 
or for dredging within 500 feet of a lake or stream. The shoreline of Van 
Etten Lake would be covered by this Act. The Shoreiands Protection and 
Management Act (Public Act 245, 1990) manages the coastal land uses for 
a zone approximately 1,500 feet wide adjacent to Lake Huron, in the vicinity 
of Wurtsmith AFB. Since Wurtsmith AFB property is approximately 1 mile 
from the shoreline of Lake Huron, it is not subject to this Act. 

Zoning. Basically, zoning provides for the division of the jurisdiction, in 
conformity with the GDP, into districts within which the height, open space, 
building coverage, density, and type of future land uses are set forth. 

Zoning is designated to achieve various community development goals, 
including base reuse plans. 

Oscoda's zoning regulations have established most of the area around the 
base as forestry to promote the development of small forestry operations 
and wildlife management in wooded areas (Oscoda, 1984). Other zoning 
designations adjacent to the base include mixed residential, industrial, 
agriculture, and commercial (i.e., general business). Wurtsmith AFB, as 
federal property, is not zoned. The Oscoda Township zoning designations 
for the area are presented in Figure 3.2*4. 

On-Base Land Use. Land use identifies the present land usage by various 
general categories. Existing (preclosure) land uses on the base property are 
described in this section. 


3-8 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 







Ibr* ^l/ktc y<*M^ MM 4**V A <« 4% «4 ft. r <■ 

ft « 4 4 ■« ^4 f**-4 Vt* ft , - t • 

Jpfc* <♦ 4‘4 4 *a » ,« % •*»» r i »» 


i'';t»9«««):’ 


EXPLANATION 


Agriculture — - - — Base Boundary 


Vacant Land * 


Local Zoning 


Forestry 


Not Zoned 


0 750 1500 3000 Feet 


* Not Applicable 

Note: Hgure 1 2-1 shows Air Force fee-owned property 


Figure 3.2-4 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 










Tlw IMM prafMTty indudw th* foiotwino land usm: 


LMtiUsm 


Airfiaid 

1,372 

Aviation support 

106 

Industrid 

653 

Iftstitutiond 

27 

Commardd 

82 

Raairtanfid 

386 

Public fadiitias/racroation 

2,000 

Totd 

4,626 


Tha axiatino land uaaa for WdrtamHh AFB ara shown in Rgura 3.2-5. The 
foNowino taxt briafly daacribas on-basa land uaa catagorias. 

Tha air fi al d land uaa araa is tha principal faatura on basa, with tadlitias 
capabla of supporting a variaty of airfiald oparations. Tha runway and Ciaar 
Zonas (CZs) divida tha ralativaly undavalopad northwast half of tha basa 
from tha cantonmam in tha southaast. Tha airfiaid indudas Runway 06/24, 
supporting taxiways and oparatioruil aprons, and safety araas. Other 
fiaatures induda tha aiart apron (twrth of tha northeast and of the runway), 
an ATC towar, throa aircraft rascua and fira fightirni fadiitias, and 
navigational aids. Airfiald fadiitias aiKi aquipmant ara generally wdl 
maintainad and in good condition. An axtartsiva hydrant rafuding system is 
instsHad in tha oparationai apron, south of the northeast and of tha runway, 
near tha hangars. 

Tha aviadon aupport araas contain facilities for aircraft operation and 
makitananca. Aviation support is concentrated in araas south of tha 
oparationai apron in tha south-central portion of the base. Facflitias induda 
hangars, aircraft maintananca shops, and administrative offices. Other 
aviation support fadiitias ara scattered around tha east end of the airfiald. 


Tha industrial araas induda the heating plant; dvM anginaaring shops; basa 
supply; vahida maintananca; and transportation, fud, and utility plants. The 
EOD range in tha forested northwast quadrant of tha basa is also considered 
an industrid use araa. 

Tha in s titutiortd land use category indudas both madicd artd aducationd 
uses. Tha madicd araa indudas tha basa hospitd and dinic, which provida 
amargancy and daily madcd needs for military parsonnd aruf thdr 
dapandants. This sits is in tha canter of tha cantonment, near the 
residantid areas. Tha education araas induda tha education center in tha 
northwest portion of the ca nt o nm am araa, and various training fadiitias. 
Classrooms in tha Field Oatachmem Training facility and tha squadron 
oparations area, as wdl as tha small arms and grenade launching ranges in 


3-10 


\Mjrtsmith AK Disposal and Rausa RE/S 





EXPLA NATION 


Aviallon 

Support 


IrtsUlutional 

(MadfcaQ 


Institutional 

(Education) 

^Icommardal 


Agriculture* 


Vacant Land* 


Industrial Rasidantial — - • > Base Boutrdary 


0 750 1500 3000 Feet 


Public FadMes/ 

Recreation 

^ *NotApp«cd)le 

Note: Figure 1.2-1 shows Air Force lee-owned property. 
W Source: Adaptedfrom Ayres Assodates, 1990. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


Existing On-Base 
Land Use 


Rgure 3.2>5 














th« northwMt quadrant of tha baaa (north of the runway), are included in 
thia land uae. 

The commercial areaa include the administrative offices of the base, the 
community center, exchange shops, and commissary, and are located in the 
southeast quadrant. 

The resMentiai areas include 1,342 single-family, duplex, and multi-family 
units and 647 double-occupancy dormitory rooms and suites. There are also 
42 single- and double-occupancy units for visiting officers and airmen. The 
family housing areas are in the southeast quadrant of the base; the 
dormitories and visitors' quarters are near the Main Gate in the cantonment. 

The public facIMes/recreation areas offer both outdoor and indoor recreation 
facilities, such as football/soccer and baseball fields, bowling lanes, and the 
library. Other recreation areas include cross-country jogging/skiing trails 
north of the military family housing and the physical readiness training 
course, at the south-central base boundary. Air Force Beach is a recreation 
area on the shoreline of Van Etten Lake along County Road F-41; it offers 
facilities for swimming, boating, and picnicking. 

Adjacent Land Use. Typical of most unplanned development, land use may 
or may not conform with zoning. The existing land uses in the immediate 
vicinity of the base are discussed in this section. 

Most of the area around the base is devoted to public facilities/recreation 
uses. The Au Sable State Forest is adjacent to the base on the north and 
west. South of the base is the Huron National Forest, which includes the 
floodplain along the Au Sable River. Hunting and camping are popular in the 
forest and wooded areas, and tite Au Sable River provides excellent fishing. 

Aviation easements at the southeast end of the runway comprise 577 acres. 
Four additional easements in separate locations east and southeast of the 
base, totaling 18 acres, are used for storm sewer outfalls into Van Etten 
Creek and the Au Sable River. 

Urban development is primarily confined to areas southeast of the base 
(Figure 3.2-6). East of the base, along the shore of Van Etten Lake, low- 
density residential and public faciiities/recreation land uses predominate. 
Regional residential density is ap(Koximately one dwelling unit per acre or 
less. Similar residential development occurs farther north, beyond the state 
forest boundary, and on the northeast side of Van Etten Lake, where a 
planned residential and recreational development is located. 

East of the base, residential density increases and commercial development 
is present along County Road F>41. Relatively dense multi-family and mobile 
home housing is also located in this area. An abandoned golf course abuts 


3-12 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 






EXPLANATION 



AlrlWd* 



Avtatton 

Support* 



Industrial 


D 

Inelitullonal 

(Medical)* 


nn j 

0 1375 2750 5500 Feet 


In s aiutlonal 

(Educaflon) 

ComimrcW 




Aoricuttura* 
Vacant Land* 
Property 






* Not AppNcabto 

Note: Figure 1.2-1 ahowrs Air Force tee owned property. 


Existing Off-Base 
Land Use 


Rgure 3.2-6 


Wurtsmtth AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-13 























the militarY family housing area on the east side of the base, straddling the 
base rail spur. These uses are generally compatible with adjacwit on-base 

uses. 


Air Force Policies Affecting Adjacent Land Uses. The Air Force has 
developed the Air Installation Contpatible Use Zone (AlCUZ) program to 
minimize (tevelopment that is irKompatible with aviatkm operations in areas 
on and adjacent to military airfields. The AlCUZ land use recommendations 
are based on (1) land uses compatible with exposure to aircraft noise and (2) 
safety considerations. Recommended compatible land uses are derived from 
data on rtoise contours (noise zones) and safety zones (Accident Potential 
Zones (APZsl). These zones are delineated specifically for each base, using 
operational information derived from the base mission. Municipalfties with 
jurisdiction over adjacent lands may zone this land in accordance with 
AlCUZ recommendations, but they are not required to do so. 

AlCUZ noise contours are based on standard noise ratings that are 
calculated from types of aircraft, number of daily aircraft operations, time of 
day flown, aircraft flight patterns, power settings, air speeds, altitudes, and 
climatic conditions (U.S. Air Force, 1978a). A day-night weighted average 
sound level (DNL) is used to describe the noise environment. Noise contours 
for preclosure conditions at Wurtsmith AFB are presented and discussed in 
Section 3.4.4, Noise. In 1990, a total of 37,5(X) acres were exposed to 
DNL of 65 decibels (dB) or more from aircraft operations. These areas 
contain residential, public facilities/recreation, and commercial land uses. 

The AlCUZ delineates areas at both ends of the runway where the 
probability of aircraft accidents is highest, based on the locations of past 
aircraft accidents at various bases. The risk of accidents is so high in the 
areas at either end of the runway (known as the CZ) that the Air Force has a 
program to acquire easements to preclude most land uses. Certain land use 
restrictions are recommended in lower risk areas, identified as APZ I and 
APZ II. 

At Wurtsmith AFB, only the airfield land use exists within the CZ. Industrial, 
agricultural, recreation, and vacant land uses are compatible with APZ I, but 
residential and other high population density land uses are discouraged. 

Even so, low-density residential and public facilities/recreation uses, 
including Van Etten Lake, are present within APZ I. Low-density (maximum 
of 20 percent building coverage) residential and nonresidential uses are 
compatible with APZ II, in addition to those uses listed for APZ I 
(Figure 3.2-7). At Wurtsmith AFB, there is a low-density residential area 
containing about 40 units within APZ II northeast of the base, and Foote 
Site Village, a residential area containing about 70 units, is within APZ II 
southwest of the base. 


3-14 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 





EXPLA HATION 

AvtaDon 
HiB Support* 

Induabial* 


li w Mt u l ta wl 

(Modical)* 


!!■ InstMuHortal 
§■ (Education)* 

Commardal* 


R e a idantlal 




AgrtcuMura* 


Vacant Lartd’ 


Ifl Baaa Property 


run ® 


!■ Public FactHlies/__ _ 

fil Recreation -BaaeBoundary 

* Not Applicable 

>«t Note: Figure 1, 2-1 shows Air Force fee-owned property. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


Clear Zones and 
Accident Potential 
Zones 


Rgure 3.2-7 





The Oscoda Township GDP of 1987 established a policy restricting the 
runway approach zone to the lowest possible densities. The comprehensive 
land use plan indicates that the general area should contain low-density 
residential, agricultural, and industrial uses. 

Closure Baseline. Under closure baseline conditions, Wurtsmith AFB would 
be closed and all military activities on base property would be terminated, 
except those associated with the OL. All land use conflicts and constraints 
associated with the AlCUZ would be eliminated. 

3.2.2.2 Aesthetics. Visual resources include natural and man-made 
features that give a particular environment its aesthetic qualities. One of the 
criteria used in the analysis of these resources is visual sensitivity, which 
indicates the degree of public interesi in a visual resource and concern over 
adverse changes in its quality. Visual sensitivity is categorized in terms of 
high, medium, or low levels. 

High visual sensitivity exists in areas where views are rare, unique, or in 
other ways special, such as in remote or pristine environments. High- 
sensitivity views would include landscapes that have landforms, vegetative 
patterns, water bodies, or rock formations of unusual or outstanding quality. 

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 vehicles and other evidence of modem civilization is 
commonplace. These landscapes generally have features containing 
varieties in form, line, color, and texture, but tend to be more common than 
high visual sensitivity areas. 

Low visual sensitivity areas tend to have minimal landscape features, with 
little change in form, line, color, and texture. 

The natural features of the area constitute an aesthetic resource that is 
important to the public, in terms of use and enjoyment, although these 
features are generally of a common regional type, visually. By contrast, the 
local man-made features do not constitute a visual resource of a quality 
above medium sensitivity and, in many cases, they detract from the 
aesthetic qualities of the perceived environment. 

The area around Wurtsmith AFB is typical of the Central Lowlands 
Physiographic Province, with flat, straight lines and smooth to medium 
textures. The base is flat with a bluff rising to the west. Most of the area 
is coniferous and deciduous forest, green and well vegetated in the spring 
and summer but bare and brown in winter. 

According to the definitions of visual sensitivity above, no areas of high 
visual sensitivity exist in the vicinity. Many areas are considered to be of 


3-16 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 







medium visual sensitivity (Figure 3.2-8), including Van Etten Lake and 
shoreline, the Au Sable River corridor south of the base, and the forested 
areas in the northwest quadrant and along much of the base boundary. 
Because there is strong public interest in the quality of the forested 
environment and the associated recreational opportunities in the area, some 
of the forested areas along the base boundary are also considered of 
medium visual sensitivity. Low sensitivity areas occur primarily in urbanized 
areas on and southeast of tite base. 

Architectural styles on base are eclectic and of a few fundamental types. 

The styles reflect the time period in which they were built, generally post- 
1950 to 1990. Most of the buildings in the cantonment have brick facades 
and are one to four stories in height. The industrial structures have exterior 
surfaces of painted metal siding, concrete masonry, or massive concrete. 

High-bay, single-story structures, with a consistent color scheme, dominate 
the flightline. Cantonment facilities are generally sited with ample setbacks 
and parking facilities. Roofiines are typically fiat or low gables. In some 
areas, facilities can be seen from off base and vice versa. Generally, the 
quality and complementary character of on-base architecture and 
development improvements exceed that of the surrounding region. 

3.2.3 Transportation 

Transportation addresses roadways, airspace and air transportation, and 
other modes of transportation. The ROI for the transportation analysis 
includes the existing principal road, air, and rail networks that serve as direct 
or key indirect linkages to the base, with emphasis on the immediate area on 
and surrounding Wurtsmith AFB. 

3.2.3.1 Roadways. The evaluation of the existing roadway conditions 
focuses on capacity, which reflects the ability of the network to serve the 
traffic demand and volume. The capacity of a roadway segment depends 
mainly on the street width, number of lanes, intersection control, and other 
physical and environmental factors. Traffic volumes typically are reported, 
depending on the project and data base available, as the daily number of 
vehicles in both directions on a segment of roadway averaged over a full 
calendar year to give average annual daily traffic (AADT) or simply averaged 
over a certain time period less than 365 consecutive days to give the 
average daily traffic (AOT) volume, and/or the number of vehicles on a road 
segment during the average peak hour. For this analysis, a peak-hour 
volume of 10 percent of the ADT is used, based on research findings 
(Transportation Research Board, 1985) and supported by station counts on 
U.S. 23 for the previous 10 years (these counts show a predominant 
afternoon peak representing 7 to 10 percent of ADT). These figures are 
useful indicators in determining the extent to which the roadway segment is 
used and in assessing the potential for congestion and other problems. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 


3-17 






EXPLANATION 

—Base Boundary 


Low Visual Sensitivity 


Medium Visual Sensitivity 


nj^ 

0 750 1500 3000 Feet 


Visual Sensitivity 


Figure 3.2-8 


3-18 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 

















The performance of a roadway segment is generally expressed in terms of 
level of service (LOS). The LOS scale ranges from A to F with each level 
defined by a range of volume-to*capacity ratios. LOS A, B, and C are 
considered good operating conditions in which minor or tolerable delays are 
experienced by motorists. LOS D and E represent below average conditions. 
LOS F represents a traffic jam. Table 3.2*2 presents the LOS designations 
and their associated volume*to*capacity ratios. These levels are based 
primarily on the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 

1985), and are adjusted for local conditions. 


Table 3.2*2. Levels of Service (LOS) for Basic Roadway Sections 


Criteria (Voiume/Capacity) 


LOS 

Description 

Freeway" 

4*Lane" 

Arterial 

2*Lane'‘' 

Highway 

A 

Free flow with users unaffected by presence 
of other users of roadway 

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 

0.76 

0.40*0.57 

E 

Unstable flow; operating conditions near 
capacity with reduced speeds, maneuvering 
difficulty, and extremely poor levels of 
comfort and convenience 

0.94*1.00 

0.77*1.00 

0.58*0.94 

F 

Forced or breakdown flow with traffic 

1.00 

1.00 

0.94-1.00 


demand exceeding capacity; unstable stop- 
and*go traffic 


Notm: (a) Table 3-1, Lavala of Sarvica for Baaic Fraaway Saction, Highway Capacity Manual, Tranaportation Raaaarch 
Board, 1985. 


(b) Table 7-1, Levels of Service Criteria for Multilaite Highways, 4-lane arterial, 50 mph Design Speed, Highway 
Capacity Martual, Transportation Research Board, 1985. 

(c) Table 8-1, Level of Service Criteria for General two larte Highway Segments, Rolling Terrain, 20 percent no 
passing zones. Highway Capacity Manual, Trartsportation Research Board, 1985. 


A major traffic characteristic of the ROI is its seasonal variation. The 
Michigan Department of Transportation (MOOT) has prepared a seasonal 
trend analysis for various locations in the state. This analysis identifies the 
ROI as a recreational region with high summer peak traffic and high 


Wurtstnith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3*19 






variability in tnonthiy traffto. Figura 3.2*9 displays tha monthly trends 
applicable to the ROI and used in the LOS analysis. This figure shows that 
traffic volumes peak in July and August and decline in the winter. Peak 
summer traffic volumes are particularly high on weekends and involve a high 
percentage of recreational v^ides. The LOS analysis for this EIS is 
conducted for July, the peak month of the year. 

Regional access to Wurtsmith AFB is provided by U.S. 23. a principal north- 
south roadway to Iosco, Aranac, and Alcona counties. U.S. 23 provides a 
major link between the industrial area arourtd Bay City and the northern 
peninsula via Starulish, Tawas. Oscoda, and Alpena. Outside Oscoda and 
Au Sable, this is a two-lane rural highway with lanes 12 feet wide and 
usable shoulders of 6 feet or wider. The terrain is generally level. Within a 
portion of the urbanized areas of south Oscoda and Au Sable, the two lanes 
become four through lartes with traffic control at intersections. Region ’ 
accesses to Wurtsmith AFB are provided by Michigan Route 55, a m, 
east-west roadway connecting U.S. 23 at Tawas City with Interstate 
Michigan Route 65, a north-south roadway parallel to U.S. 23, located 
about 20 miles to the west (see Rgure 3.2-1); and the primary roads. River 
Road and Rea Road, in Oscoda Township (Rgure 3.2-10). 

Rgure 3.2-10 shows the general local road network now in place and 
projected to be in place at ^e time of closure in the Wurtsmith AFB vicinity. 
For the purposes of this analysis, the following roads have been identified as 
the most important in providing access to the base area: 

• County Road F-41 between U.S. 23 and the Main Gate to 
Wurtsmith AFB provides the main access to the base. It is a 
four-lane roadway with three signalized intersections (at 

U.S. 23, Cedar Lake Road, and Skeel Avenue) and one at-grade 
rail crossing. North of the Main Gate, F-41 is a two-lane 
roadway. 

• Cedar Lake Road is a two-lane roadway connecting County Road 
F-41 to a residential area in north Oscoda. 

• Loud Road is a two-lane residential roadway from Cedar Lake 
Road that provides access to the eastern shore of Van Etten 
Lake. 

• River Road between U.S. 23 and Grass Lake Road is a two-lane, 
east-west urban street in the southern part of Oscoda. Farther 
west. River Road is a two-lane rural roadway. 

• Rea Road is a two-lane rural roadway connecting F-41 to River 
Road on the west side of the base. 


3-20 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposai and Reuse FEIS 






EXPLANATION 


Average Daily Traffic as a Percent 
of Average Annual Daily Traffic 


Monthly Traffic 
Trends in ROi 


Source: Adapted from Michigan Department of Transportation, 1991. 


Figure 3.2-9 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 

















EXPLANATION Local Transportation 

Bm* Boundary SyStSITI 


^^ Railroad 

U. S. H^^ay 


nn ^ 

0 1750 3500 7000 Foot ^ ^ 


Figure 3.2-10 


3-22 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







• Bissonettt Road is a two-iana rural roadway connecting Rea 
Road to western Iosco County. 

Wurtsmith AFB is currently accessible through two gates (see Figure 
3.2-10). The Main Gate at Skeel Avenue is used by civilian and military 
personnel, visitors, and contractors, and for industrial and commercial 
deliveries. All incoming vehicles associated with base activity, other than 
housing, travel on Skeel Avenue from the Main Gate, with most traffic 
dividing at the Arrow Street Intersection. The Capehart Gate, on Bissonette 
Drive, is the primary access to on-base family housing. 

On-base roads are primarily two-way, two-lane, paved roads, with no street 
parking and a speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph). In the family housing 
areas, street parking is permitted and the speed limit is 15 mph. Traffic 
control is achieved by yield and stop signs with priority given to major 
streets. The on-base roads with the heaviest traffic are Skeel Avenue, 
Arrow Street, and a segment of Perimeter Road off of Skeel Avenue. 

Predosure Reference. Preclosure (1990) and closure (1993) conditions on 
key roads in the vicinity are summarized in Table 3.2-3. The table shows 
hourly capacity, traffic volumes, and the corresponding LOS during peak 
hours of the peak month (July) for key roads. 


Table 3.2-3. July Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes on Key Roads 




Preclosure (1990) 

Closure (1993) 

Road 

Capacity 

Traffic 

LOS 

Traffic 

LOS 

U.S. 23 (at F-41 
junction) 

3,3(X) 

4,500 

F 

2,600 

E 

County Road F-41 
(Cedar Lake Road to 
Skeel Avenue) 

5,500 

2,100 

B 

400 

A 

County Road F-41 
(Skeel Avenue to Rea 

2.500 

500 

B 

300 

A 

Road) 

Cedar L^ke Road 

2,500 

850 

C 

250 

A 

Loud Road 

2,500 

250 

A 

100 

A 

River Road 

2,500 

650 

C 

200 

A 

Rea Road 

2,500 

150 

A 

150 

A 

Bissonette Road 

2,500 

150 

A 

150 

A 


The most critical preclosure traffic conditions are concentrated along the 
urban section of U.S. 23 extending through Au Sable and Oscoda. U.S. 23 
operates at LOS F at the junction with County Road F-41 in Oscoda, at LOS 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 


3-23 







D at th« north Iosco County lina, and at LOS E along most other segments. 
The preclosure LOS along County Road F-41 between U.S. 23 and Rea Road 
is B or better. Cedar Lake Road in the vicinity of the F-41 intersection and 
River Road at the rail crossing both operate at LOS C. All other local roads 
operate at LOS A. On-base roads operate at LOS B or better throughout the 
year, except Skeel Avenue, which operates at LOS C during the peak hour. 

Closure Baseline. Upon closure of Wurtsmith AFB, traffic in the vicinity of 
the base will decrease. Traffic generated by the base will primarily be 
limited to the 50-person OL team. Off-site traffic on key roads will change 
in correlation with the cumulative effects of population changes (growth, in- 
and out-migration) and with future land uses. Table 3.2-3 shows the 
performance of key roads for closure conditions. 

Upon base closure, the LOS alorH) U.S. 23 through Oscoda and Au Sable 
will improve from E to O; at the F-41 junction, the LOS will improve from F 
to E. All other local road segments will operate at LOS A throughout the 
year, compared to LOS C or better in 1990. Traffic on base will be limited 
to the movement of the OL team, which, when compared to preclosure 
conditions, will be minimal. The resulting traffic volumes are likely to be 
less than 50 vehicles per day. All on-base roads will operate at LOS A. 

Public Transportation. The major intercity bus route in the area is provided 
by Greyhound from Bay City to Alpena via U.S. 23. The Iosco Transit 
Corporation, in East Tawas, operates six 20-seat buses between Oscoda and 
Tawas. School children and the elderly are the main customers. Upon 
closure of Wurtsmith AFB, there will be minimal change in bus traffic on key 
regional roads, a reduction in school bus traffic on local roads, and no bus 
traffic on base roads. 

3.2.3.2 Airspace/Air Traffic. Airspace is a finite resource that can be 
defirted vertically and 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 intei’ests. The FAA is responsible for the overall 
management of airspace and has established different airspace designations 
that are desigrrad to protect aircraft while operating to or from an airport, 
transitioning en route between airports, or operating within special use areas 
identified for defense-related purposes. Rules of flight and ATC procedures 
have been established that govern how aircraft must operate within each 
type of designated airspace. All aircraft operate under either instrument 
flight rules (IFR) or visual flight rules (VFR). 

The type and dimension of individual airspace areas established within a 
given region and their spatial and procedural relationships to one another are 
contingent upon the different aviation activities conducted in that region. 
When any significant change is planned for this region, such as airport 


3-24 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 





expansion, a new military flight mission, etc., the FAA will reassess the 
airspace configuration to determine if such changes will adversely affect (1) 
ATC 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.. Military 
Operating Areas (MOAsl or restricted areas). 

Airspace ROI. The ROI selected for this study is an area within a radius of 
26 statute miles of Wurtsmith AFB from the surface up to 12,000 feet mean 
sea level (MSL) (Rgure 3.2*11). The ROI selected for Wurtsmith AFB 
represents the airspace that has been delegated to Wurtsmith Radar 
Approach Control (RAPCON) for providing approach and departure control 
for all IFR aircraft. The airspace controlled by Wurtsmith RAPCON is 
bounded by airspace controlled by Minneapolis Air Route Traffic Control 
Center (ARTCC) to the west, Toronto ARTCC to the north and east, and 
Cleveland ARTCC to the souflt. Airspace above 12,000 feet in the 
geographical area of the ROI is controlled by Minneapolis ARTCC. 

The Wurtsmith ROI contains controlled, uncontrolled, special use, and other 
airspace. Controlled airspace within the Wurtsmith ROI consists of control 
areas, C2[s, and transition areas. Within these areas some or all aircraft may 
be subject to ATC. Safety, user's needs, and volume of flight operations are 
some of the factors considered in the designation of controlled airspace. 
Controlled airspace is supported by ground communications, navigational 
aids, and air traffic services. Special use airspace within the ROI consists of 
a restricted area and MOAs. Special use airspace is delineated in areas 
wherein activities must be confined because of their nature, or wherein 
limitations are imposed upon aircraft operations that are not a part of these 
activities or both. Uncontrolled airspace is that portion of the airspace that 
has not been designated as controlled airspace. Aircraft operating in 
uncontrolled airspace are not subject to any ATC. Other airspace within 
Wurtsmith's ROI includes an airport advisory area, military training routes 
(MTRs), and airport traffic areas. 

Two public-use general aviation airports are within the ROI: Harrisville City 
Airport, 13 miles north of Wurtsmith near U.S. 23, and Iosco County 
Airport, approximately 10 miles south of the base. Also within the ROI are 
six restricted/private-use airports: Boyer, 30 miles west of Wurtsmith; Circle 
T Ranch, 21 miles northwest; Rying M Ranch, 17 miles north; Stier, 13 
miles west-northwest; Timbers Sky Camp, 21 miles west; and Thompson, 

31 miles west-southwest. 

Aircraft operations associated with Wurtsmith AFB do not conflict with 
operations or air traffic flows at Iosco County or Harrisville airports. Military 
aircraft flying under VFRs avoid air traffic conflicts through the use of flight 
tracks that remain well clear of flight tracks used by civilian aircraft. For 
aircraft operating under IFRs, ATC tower personnel are responsible for 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 


3-25 





CIRCLET^ 
RANCH wi 


A\ 


Q FLYING M RANCH 


^HARRISVILLE 


R-4207 


TIMBERS^ 
' SKY CAMPW 

Q BOYER 

Lthompson 



WESTBRANCH 




(ii** I WurttffiKh ( 




AFB At* 




COUNTY 


PECK MOA 


VR-1624 


RALPH MOA 


VR-1644- 


f 

K 


Raglon of Intluenco 


EXPLANATION 

Q Public Uso Airport 
^ Rostrictsd/Privato Uso Airport 
iHmmiNi Wurtsmith AFB Control Zorw 
mmmm WUrtsmHh AFB Airport Traffic Area 
Military Training Routs 


nj I 


— — Airspace ROI 

Federal Airway 

WMM Transition Area 

(Floor at 700 Feet Above Ground Level) 


Transition Area 

(Floor at 1200 Feet Above Ground Level) 


QQQQQS Special Use Airspace Area 


0 3 6 


12 Nautical Miles 




Airspace Region of 
influence 


Figure 3.2-11 


3-26 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







ensuring that no air traffic conflicts occur between participating IFR aircraft 
artd any other air traffic. 


Predosure Reference. An understanding of the ROI airspace/air traffic 
environment and its use under the preclosure reference is necessary to help 
determine its capability and capacity to assimilate future activities into the 
National Airspace System. 

The Wurtsmith AFB RAPCON has been delegated airspace by Minneapolis 
ARTCC to provide control of the IFR traffic. Wurtsmith AFB provides ATC 
services to all aircraft operating under IFR flight rules within the ROI. 
Additional services are also provided to aircraft operating under VFR flight 
rules, if specifically requested. Overall, the Wurtsmith RAPCON provides 
service to a low volume of air tfaffic. 

The traffic patterns, instrument approaches, and departure procedures used 
at Wurtsmith AFB under preclosure conditions basically represent the 
airspace requirements for aircraft operating at the base and transitioning 
between the base and the en route airspace system. Approximately 62,500 
aircraft operations were conducted at Wurtsmith AFB in 1990. These 
operations were conducted by both transient aircraft and aircraft based at 
Wurtsmith AFB (Table 3.2-4). 


Table 3.2-4. Wurtsmith AFB Annual Aircraft Operations, 1990 


Assignment 


Aircraft Operations'** 


Typo 

Day 

Night 

Total 

Aircraft based at Wurtsmith 

B-52G 

20,254 

1,369 

21,623 


KC-135A 

13,848 

1,548 

15,396 


T-37 

20,316 

0 

20,316 

Primary transients 

F-16 

1,394 

0 

1,394 


P-3 

934 

0 

934 

Other transients 

Misc. 

2,847 

0 

2,847 

Total 


59,593 

2^91^ 

62,510 


Note: (a) An aircraft operation is one takeoff or one landing. 


Rgures 3.2-12 and 3.2-13 depict the primary flight tracks for aircraft 
arriving at or departing from Wurtsmith AFB and Iosco County Airport. No 
definable flight tracks exist for Harrisville's airport. 

Airspace that is delineated for military flight training within the ROI includes 
a portion of the Peck and Ralph MOAs and Restricted Area R-4207 (see 
Rgure 3.2-11). The Peck MOA, approximately 17 statute miles southeast of 
Wurtsmith AFB, extends from 4,000 up to, but not including, 18,000 feet 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-27 









EXPLANATION 

Primary Arriving 

Arrivmg Right Paths 

Aircraft Flight Paths 

fc>r Wurtsmith AFB 

(Preciosure Condition) 

■ ■■■ Arriving Right Paths 


for losoo County Airport 


njn ® 

Figure 3.2-12 


3-28 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 











EXPLANATION 

Primary Departing 

Departing Flight Paths 

Aircraft Flight Paths 

for Wurtsmith AFB 

(Preclosure Condition) 

mmm Departing Flight Paths 


for Iosco County Airport 



Figure 3.2-13 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-29 









MSL and is continuously in affect. The 127th Tactical Fighter Wing at 
Selfridge AFB owns the Peck MOA and operates F-16, A-7, T-37, Lear 25, 
KC-135, and F-18 aircraft in it. Ralph MOA, approximately 22 statute miles 
east of Wurtsmith AFB, extends from the surface up to, but not including, 

18,000 feet MSL and is in effect from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. It is used by F-16, 
A-7, T-37, Lear 25, and KC-135 aircraft. Restricted Area R-4207, 
approximately 22 statute miles northeast of Wurtsmith AFB, extends from 
the surface to 45,000 feet MSL, and is in effect from sunrise to sunset. 
F-16, A-7, T-37, Lear 35, KC-135, and B-52 aircraft are operated in this 
airspace. The Phelps-Collins Air National Guard base at Alpena owns the 
Ralph MOA and Restricted Area R-4207. 

Five MTRs transit the Wurtsmith ROI: VR-1624, VR-1625, VR-1627, 
VR-1644, and VR-1645. These routes are all for flight training of military 
aircraft at or below 1,500 feet (above ground level). Rights on these routes 
are conducted only in VFR weather conditions. The 127th Tactical Fighter 
Wing at Selfridge AFB owns the MTRs and uses them for F-16 aircraft 
operations. 

Aircraft operating at the Iosco and Harrisville public airports are generally 
unaffected by flight operations at Wurtsmith AFB. The Wurtsmith AFB 
airport traffic area has a radius of 5 statute miles from the airport and 
extends from the surface up to, but not including, 3,000 feet above ground 
level. Aircraft stay outside the Wurtsmith AFB airport traffic area or contact 
the Wurtsmith tower when transitioning through that airspace. Table 3.2-5 
presents preclosure (1991) and projected closure (1993) operations at these 
two airports. 


Table 3.2-5. Projected Annual Aircraft Operations for Civil Public-Use 
Airports in the Vicinity of Wurtsmith AFB 



Annual Operations 


Airport 

1991 

1993 


Harrisville 

1,800 

2,000 


Iosco County 

7,500 




Source: FA A, 1991. 


Closure Baseline. Upon base closure and the termination of flight operations 
at Wurtsmith AFB, all designated ATC airspace areas and published 
instrument procedures would be canceled and the area would revert back to 
control by Minneapolis ARTCC. The RAPCON, control tower, and 
navigational aids would be removed from service, pending any reuse 
requirements for these facilities, it is not likely that the airspace would be 
used by Minneapolis ARTCC for new IFR transit routes. VFR aircraft 
operating from the surrounding public and private airports could transit freely 


3-30 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 











n 


through the airspace surrounding the closed airfield without any tower 
communication requirements or concerns with military aircraft operations. 
The MTRs transitioning the ROi should be unaffected because these routes 
were not used by Wurtsmith AFB aircraft and will remain in use by military 
aircraft from other bases. Restricted area R-4207 and the Peck and Ralph 
MOAs will continue to support ongoing DOD missions. Air traffic on the 
federal airways transitioning the ROi would no longer be affected by military 
aircraft arriving and departing Wurtsmith AFB. 

3.2.3.3 Air Transportation. Air transportation includes passenger travel by 
commercial airline and charter flights, business and recreational travel by 
private aircraft (general aviation), and priority package and freight delivery 
by commercial carriers. 

The Wurtsmith AFB ROI contains no airports that support commercial 
passenger service. The nearest airport with significant passenger service is 
Tri-City International, near Saginaw, approximately 90 miles south of 
Oscoda, which is well beyond the airspace ROI for Wurtsmith AFB. Iosco 
County travelers use Tri-City for commercial passenger service. Scheduled 
passenger service is also offered at Alpena Regional Airport, 45 miles north 
of the base. Two public-use general aviation airports are within the ROI: 
Harrisville City Airport, 13 miles north of the base, and Iosco County 
Airport, 10 miles south of the base. There are also six restricted/private-use 
airports within the ROi. 

Preciosure Reference. Iosco County had scheduled passenger service in 
1988, but the service was discontinued in 1989 due to low passenger 
levels. Neither public-use airport had scheduled passenger service in 1990. 
There is currently a limited level of general aviation passenger and cargo 
demand at Iosco County Airport. Annual levels of passenger and cargo are 
not definable for such a small operation, because many of the occurrences 
are not scheduled or recorded by the company in question. 

Closure Baseline. The Iosco County Airport would remain open. There 
would be a negligible reduction in air passenger traffic through Tri-City and 
Alpena airports due to the relocation of base personnel and dependents who 
currently use these airports. 

3.2.3.4 Other Transportation Modes. There is no rail passenger service in 
the area. The closest intercity rail route (AMTRAK) is the Kalamazoo- 
Lansing-Flint-Port Huron-Toronto line, 140 miles south of the base. Rail 
freight service to northeastern Michigan is provided by the Detroit and 
Mackinac rail system, headquartered in Tawas City. Two trains per day 
pass through Tawas City. Early in 1992, the railroad was sold to Lake State 
Railway Company. Since the 1950s, rail freight has been declining and 
losing markets to trucks. In the ROI, there is one-way track with at-grade 
crossings and many sharp curves, which appreciably reduce the average 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-31 






speed. Rail freight service to Wurtsmith AFB, primarily carrying JP-4 fuel, is 
provided by an on-base spur. Upon closure of Wurtsmith AFB, there will be 
no jet fuel hauled to the base. 

Major ports on Lake Hurm are at Alpena to the north and Bay City to the 
south. Within Iosco County, there are two docks just south of Tawas City 
where gypsum from the local quarry is loaded. 

3.2.4 Utilities 

The utility systems addressed in this analysis include the facilities and 
infrastructure used for: 

• Potable water pumping, treatment, storage, and distribution 

• Wastewater collection and treatment 

• Solid waste collection and disposal 

• Energy generation and distribution, including the provision of 
electricity, natural gas. and central heating systems. 

The ROI for each utility is made up of the service areas of that utility 
provider serving the base and local communities that would be most 
affected by the disposal and reuse of Wurtsmith AFB. The major attributes 
of utility systems are processing and distribution capacities, storage 
capacities, and related factors such as average daily consumption and peak 
demand that are required in making a determination of adequacy of such 
systems to provide services in the future. 

Utility consumption is projected to decrease from 1990 until June 1993 
(closure) as the base-related population decreases. Table 3.2-6 presents the 
projected utility consumption in the ROI from 1990 to closure, based on 
population projections and available data for each utility service area. 

3.2.4.1 Water Supply 

On-Base. Wurtsmith AFB currently derives its water for domestic use from 
on-base wells drilled into a shallow groundwater aquifer. This aquifer 
extends to a depth of about 65 feet and is composed of sand and gravel 
deposits. Underlying the aquifer are silty clays and, at a depth of 200 to 
250 feet, bedrock. The total pumping capacity of the seven currently active 
wells is 2.2 MGO. In areas where groundwater contamination has been 
identified, restrictions have been placed on the locations and amount of 
water that can be pumped. The water at each well is chlorinated, 
fluoridated, and pumped directly into the wate ... itribution system. The 
Michigan Department of Public Health indicated that the on-base wells could 


3-32 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal artd Reuse FEIS 






Table 3.2-6. Estimatad Utility Conaumption'*' 



1990 

1991 

1992 

1993" 

Water consumption (MGD) 

2.23 

2.23 

2.04 

1.51 

Wastewater treatment (MGD) 

1.82 

1.79 

1.67 

1.22 

Solid waste disposal (tons/day) 

45 

45 

38 

21.6 

Electrical consumption (MWH/day) 

227 

231 

202 

92 

Natural gas consumption (thousand therms/day) 

31.9 

31.7 

28.5 

19.0 


NotM: (a) For oooh utility aorvioo aroa. 


(b) Raproaanta aatimatad daily oonaumption at doaura in Juna 1993. 


be used after closure, provided that extensive testing is conducted to 
monitor contaminant levels IWade-Trim/Edmands, 1992). On-base water 
usage in 1990 averaged 0.62 MOD; use is projected to decline to 0.20 MOD 
by June 1993. 

Domestic water storage capacity at the base consists of two elevated 
300,000-gallon tanks and one 200,000-gallon tank at ground level. In 
addition, a 100,000-gallon ground-level tank with backflow protection 
adjacent to the WSA feeds a separate fire protection hydrant system. 

Off-Base. The water storage and distribution system requirements for 
pressure, domestic, fire, and sprinkler demand are met by two systems: the 
Oscoda Township water system and the East Tawas water system. 

The Oscoda Township water supply system serves Oscoda and Au Sable 
from nine wells. Seven wells along River Road (west of the railroad) pump 
water from the same aquifer at depths of approximately 50 feet. Two wells 
on the east side of Van Etten Lake pump water from a different aquifer with 
high iron content; an iron removal plant was constructed and placed in 
service in 1991. The nine wells can provide a total capacity of 1.9 MGD; 
usage in 1990 was 0.8 MGD. The Oscoda Township storage system 
consists of one 1 -million-gallon elevated tank and one 400,000-gallon 
elevated tank. 

The East Tawas water system draws its water from Lake Huron and serves 
Tawas City, the city of East Tawas, and part of Baldwin Township. East 
Tawas is constructing a new plant at Tawas Point to replace the existing 
plant. In 1990, Tawas City and East Tawas used 0.77 MGD. The new 
plant will be able to produce 3.5 MGD; the intake from Lake Huron is sized 
to accept 7 MGD. Storage in the Tawas City/East Tawas/Baldwin water 
system consists of one 500,000-gallon ground tank and two 500,000-gallon 
elevated tanks. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-33 










3.2.4.2 Wastewater 


On-Baaa. Domestic sawage at Wurtsmith AFB is discharged to the base 
sanitary sewer system. The base collection system consists of a main 
gravity pipe and ten sewage lift stations, built between 1959 and 1982. 
Sewage influent is first collected and screened at a facility south of the 
cantonment area (originally a treatment plant), then pumped 2.5 miles to 
three aerated ponds with impermeable membrane liners. Under average flow 
conditions, the sewage is retained for 30 days prior to release into seepage 
beds. The effluent is discharged from the seepage beds into the 
groundwater, and ultimately drains into the Au Sable River. The treatment 
system is designed for average flows of 1.0 MGD, with a 0.5 MGD 
minimum and a 3.0 MGD maximum capacity. In 1990, the base produced 
an average of 0.48 MGD of wastewater. The system, which provides 
secondary treatment, is designed to remove an estimated 90 percent of 
biological oxygen demand and 70 to 90 percent of suspended solids. 

Discharge to groundwater from the sewage lagoons is regulated by an 
MDNR Groundwater Discharge Permit. The permit expired in October 1988 
and was not renewed because the discharge could not meet new state 
guidelines for nitrogen of 5 milligrams per liter. The base was working with 
the MDNR to develop a new plan when the base closure was announced. 
The base has completed a hydrogeological survey and is currently 
negotiating a Memorandum of Agreement with the U.S. Forest Service to 
ensure that no potable water wells will be installed downgradient of the 
effluent discharge. An application for a new permit and variance has been 
submitted to allow continued operation of the sewage lagoons. An NPDES 
permit is not required because there is no discharge to surface waters. 

At closure, the average daily flow from OL activities would be 0.01 MGD. 

Off-Base. The ROI for wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal 
consists of the communities of Oscoda and Au Sable and, to some extent. 
East Tawas and Tawas City. Williams and Works Operation Services, a 
private company, currently operates the two wastewater treatment plants 
(WWTP) in Oscoda and Tawas City. 

The Oscoda sewage collection system consists of a network of sewers 
conveying the sanitary sewage to the 11 lift stations and ultimately to the 
treatment plant. In general, flow through the sewer mains is by gravity. 

The wastewater is treated using the extended aeration mode of the 
activated sludge process. Clarified secondary effluent is disinfected with 
chlorine and dechlorinated with sulfur dioxide (SOj) prior to discharge in the 
Au Sable River. The Oscoda plant, built in 1975, has a design capacity of 
0.8 MGD and serves Oscoda and Au Sable townships. In 1990, the system 
treated an average of 0.23 MGD. 


3-34 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






East Tawas and Tawas City share a more modern wastewater treatment 
plant. As in the Oscoda plant, the wastewater is treated using the extended 
aeration mode of the activated sludge process. The clarified secondary 
effluent is disinfected with chlorine and dechlorinated prior to discharge into 
the Tawas River. The design flow is 2.4 MOD; in 1990, flows averaged 
1.08 MOD. 

3.2.4.3 Solid Waste. Refuse generated at Wurtsmith AFB consists of 
paper, gartuge, glass, ntetai, and other general municipal and construction 
refuse. Solid waste generated on base and in the ROI is hauled by an 
independent contractor to the Tawas transfer station, then to the Pinconning 
Landfill, an MDNR-permitted sanitary landfill. The landfill is about 60 miles 
south of the base, in Bay County. This landfill is currently used by 12 
counties including Iosco; it has an area of 104 acres and has a life span of 
20 more years. There are no permitted landfills in Iosco County. 

Upon base closure, Wurtsmith AFB will generate minimal amounts of solid 
waste associated with OL maintenance of buildings and grounds. The 
amount of solid waste generated off base will decrease in proportion to 
population out-migration. 

3.2.4.4 Energy 
Electricity 

On-Base. Wurtsmith AFB purchases its electric power from Consumers 
Power Company (CPCO). At the main substation on base, the power is 
allocated to two distribution systems: two 2,500-kilovolt-ampere (kVA) 
transformers supply power to central base facilities and a 5,000-kVA 
transformer supplies power to family housing. The three transformers are 
owned by CPCO. The primary distribution system is an ungrounded delta 
system that delivers 12 kilovolts (kV) through primarily overhead and some 
underground lines. Currently, the distribution system is operating near 
capacity: the peak electrical demand regularly exceeds 9,000 kVA; the 
substation capacity is 10,620 kVA. Electrical consumption for the base has 
decreased since 1985, when the family housing was converted to natural 
gas for water heating and cooking. 

Off-Base. Electrical energy to the ROI is supplied by CPCO through a 46-kV 
transmission line from the Bay City, Weadock, and Karn steam plants, via 
Tawas to Alpena (parallel to U.S. 23). 

Natural Gas 

On-Base. Natural gas is supplied to Wurtsmith AFB by Michigan 
Consolidated Gas Company (MichCon). Natural gas has been used on base 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-35 





for wator boating and cooking purpoaaa sinca 1985. Natural gaa baa also 
boon uaad aa tba primary fuel for tba control boating plant sinca 1987. 

Off<Baaa. MicbCon supplias tba ROi with natural gas. wbicb is used 
primarily for rasidantial boating. Thara ara no constraints to tba natural gas 
supply in tba region. 

On*Baaa High Tamparatura Hot Water Heating System. Tba majority of the 
Wurtsmitb AFB cantonment area, including the hospital, dormitorias. and 
savaral buildings is served by a central heating plant consisting of four 
high-temperature hot water ganarators. The generators were converted 
from No. 2 fuel oil to rtaturai gas in 1987; No. 2 fuel oil is still used as a 
backup. The plant provides heating as wail as hot water for domestic use. 
The base utilizes underground mains, consisting of two pipes (supply and 
return), providirtg hot wanr at 400^F and 250 pounds per square inch. The 
plant was installed in the late 1950s and has exceeded its 25-year design 
life. Improvements to the plant, as well as continuous maintenance and 
surveillance by skilled technicians, are required to keep the plant in operating 
condition. 

The average demand on the plant in 1990 was 56 million British thermal 
units (MBTU) per hour; the capacity is 81 MBTU per hour. The total energy 
produced for the highest month of 1990 (February) was about 34,000 
MBTU; during the summer, energy production was reduced to 5,000 MBTU. 
Upon base closure, the maintenance cost of the central heating plant would 
maka its continued operation uneconomical for the small size of the OL. 

3.3 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT 

Hazardous materials and hazardous waste management activities at 
Wurtsmith AFB are governed by specific environmental regulations. For the 
purpose of the following analysis, the term 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.C. S $9601-9675, as amended, and the Solid Waste 
Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
(RCRA), 42 U.S.C. $$6901-6992, as amended. 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 die environment when released into the 
environment. The State of Michigan defines hazardous substances under 
Section 3(P) of the Michigan Environmental Response Act (MERA) 307, 
Michigan compiled laws 299.603(P), which is enforced by the MDNR. 

Transportation of hazardous materials is regulated by the DOT regulations 
within Chapter 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Part 4 of the 


3-36 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






Michigan Hazardous Wasta Managamsnt rules, R299.9401 to R299.9412, 
addresses state regulations regarding transporting hazardous waste. 

Treatment and disposal of nonhazardous waste, including wastewater, is 
discussed in Section 3.2.4, as part of utilities. 

The ROi encompasses all geographic areas that are exposed to the 
possibility of a release. The ROI for IRP sites is within the existing base 
boundaries, with the exception of groundwater contamination plumes that 
exterKi beyond the base boundary in the northeast, east, and south-central 
portiorM of the base. Specific geographic areas affected by past artd current 
hazardous waste operations, including remediation activities, are presented 
in detail below. 

3.3.1 Hazardous Materials Managemant 

Predosure Reference. Wurtsmith AFB receives, stores, and uses large 
quantities of hazardous mattriais. The most commonly utilized include 
aviation and motor fuels, various grades of petroleum products, lubricants, 
hydraulic fluids, solvents, paints, thinners, and compressed gases. These 
materials are delivered through base supply (Building 3791 and the Contract 
and Government Operated Civil Engineering Supply Systems (COCESS and 
GOCESS), and from this point distributed to the workplaces in which the 
materials are used, with the exception of solvents from Safety Kleen and 
bulk fuel deliveries (see Section 3.3.4). 

The Hazardous Waste Management Plan (HWMP) (U.S. Air Force, 1985a) 
provides an outline and guidance for storage, handling, and disposal of 
hazardous substances at Wurtsmith AFB. The HWMP also provides a 
contingency plan identifying key personnel, responsibilities, and procedures 
to follow in the event of a hazardous substance spill. 

A repository of Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) for all hazardous 
materials utilized on base is managed by base Bioenvironmental Engineering. 
MSDSs are also available at base supply, and each workplace has MSDSs 
for each hazardous material utilized or stored at that location. 

Closure Baseline. After base closure, only the OL will be using hazardous 
materials. All parties will be responsible for managing these materials in 
accordance with federal, state, and local regulations to protect employees 
from occupational exposure to hazardous materials and to protect the public 
health of the surrounding community. This would be accomplished by 
adhering to the community right-to-know requirements set forth under the 
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), Title III, of 1986. 

The OL will be responsible for the safe storage and handling of all hazardous 
materials used in coniuncdon with preventive and regular maintenance 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 


3-37 






activitiM, grounds mslntensncs, and water and waatawatar treatment. 
Hazardous materials may include paint, paint thinner, solvents, corrosives, 
ignitables, pesticides, artd miscelianeous materials associated with vehicle 
and machinery maintenance (motor oiis/fuels). These materials will be 
deliverad to the base in compliance with the federal Hazardous Materials 
Transportation Act (HMTA) urtder 49 CFR. 

3.3.2 Hazardous Waste Management 

Predosure Reference. Normal operationa at Wurtsmith AFB currently 
produce wastes defined as hazardous by RCRA, 40 CFR 261*265, and by 
the Michigan Administrative Code, R299.9101 to R299.11107, Hazardous 
Waste Management Rules. 

The Environmental Compliartce Office oversees the management of 
hazardous wastes at Wurtsmith AFB. The base is currently operating under 
an RCRA Interim Part A Hazardous Waste Storage permit issued by EPA 
Region V. Under this permit, hazardous wastes can be stored in the DRMO 
facility for up to 1 year. Hazardous wastes generated on base are collected 
in drums at 22 satellite accumulation points located at various industrial area 
and flightline facilities that generate hazardous wastes (Table 3.3*1). Most 
of the accumulation points are designated recycling points and are used to 
collect waste oils and solvents, which are regularly picked up and recycled 
by an outside contractor. The Recoverable and Waste Liquid Petroleum 
Products Management Plan (U.S. Air Force, 1986) was implemented in 
1986 to govern the handling, storage, marking, and disposal of base 
recoverable and waste petroleum products, which are considered 
nonhazardous under the Michigan Recycling and Reuse Laws R319.11* 
R319.316. 

Accumulation points can store hazardous waste for up to 90 days. All 
accumulation points are regularly inspected by Environmental Compliance 
Office personnel. Prior to expiration of permitted time frames, wastes are 
transferred to the DRMO storage facility (Building 5606), located at the 
northern tip of the base. DRMO utilizes a permitted contractor for disposal 
of these wastes to a permitted facility off base. 

An estimated 340,000 pounds of RCRA and non*RCRA wastes were 
generated by operations at Wurtsmith AFB in 1991. RCRA wastes are 
considered hazardous due to tiieir physical and chemical characteristics and 
their potential to harm humans and the environment. Non*RCRA wastes are 
defined wastes excluded from hazardous waste regulation and include 
recyclable wastes (except for sludge or listed wastes). Non*RCRA waste 
constituted approximateiy 240,000 pounds, or 70 percent of all waste 
generated by the base. Approximately 53 percent of wastes generated on 
base were recycled; all other wastes were disposed through DRMO. 


3*38 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 



TaM* 3.3*1. Haiardous Wasta Accumulation Pointa 


Location 

Sito (Building #) Description 


Accumulation Points (90-day storagal 


1 

16“ 

2 

43“ 

3 

140“ 

4 

201“ 

5 

290“ 

6 

305“ 

7 

385“ 

8 

388“ 

9 

394“ 

10 

460“ 

11 

5008“ 

12 

5009“ 

13 

5043“ 

14 

5059“ 

15 

5058 

16 

5306“ 

17 

7006 

18 

7007 

19 

7008 

20 

7009 

21 

7010 

22 

7011 


Rre Truck Maintenance 

Propulsion Branch 

Pavement/Grounds 

Zona • 1 Maintenance 

Vertical Construction 

Heat Plant 

Power Production 

Auto Hobby Shop 

Vehicle Maintertance 

Service Station 

Hydraulics Shop 

Flight Maintenance 

Munitions Maintenance 

Right Maintenance - Nose Docks 

Right Maintenance 

Weapons Storage Area 

Munitions Maintenance 

Vehicle Maintenance 

Right Maintenance 

Propulsion Branch 

Corrosion Control 

Civil Engineering Storage 


Storage Faclity 

_1_ 5606 _ DRMO 

Not*; (•) 0**ign*t*d recycling point*. 


Personnel housed on base dropped off hazardous household products at the 
U-Rx-lt store (Building 9421). 

Closure Baseline. At the time of base closure, all of the hazardous waste 
generated by base functions will have been collected from all designated 
accumulation points and transferred to DRMO prior to final disposal off site. 
In accordance with RCRA, the closure plan for the DRMO facility will then 
be implemented. The plan calls for final facility closure 180 days following 


Wurtsmith APB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 


3-39 










th« bsM dosurt dat«. Hazardous waata ganaratad by tha OL wiH ba trackad 
to anaura propar idandfication. storaga, transportation, and disposal, as wall 
as implafnantation of waatt minimization programs. 

3.3.3 Installation Ra at or a tlon Program SHss 

Tha IRP is an Air FOrca program to idantify, chwactariza, and ramadiata past 
anvironmantal contamination on its installations. Although widaly accaptad 
at tha tima, procaduras foUowad prior to tha mid-1970s for managirtg and 
disposing of many wastaa oftan raaultad in contamination of tha 
anvirorwnant. Tha program has astabliahad a procass to avaiuata past 
disposal aitas, comrol tha migration of contaminants, arnl control potantiai 
hazards to human haalth and tha anvironmant. Saction 211 of SARA, 
codifiad as tha Dafansa Environmantal Rastoration Program (DERP), of which 
tha Air Forca IRP is a subsat, ansuras that tha 000 has tha authority to 
conduct its own anvironnrtantal rastoration programs. 

Prior to passaga of SARA and tha astablishmant of tha National Contingency 
Plan (NCP) for hazardous waste sites. Air Force IRP procedures followed 
000 policy guidelines mirroring tha EPA's Suparfund Program. Since SARA 
was passed, many fadarai facilities have bean placed on a federal docket 
and tha EPA has bean evaluating the facilities' waste sites for possible 
inclusion on tha National Prioritias List (NPL). Tha EPA has not proposed 
Wurtsmith AFB for listing on tha NPL. Tha base is currently being 
reevaluated for possible NPL listing according to tha EPA's revised scoring 
criteria. 

Ongoing activitias at identified IRP sites may delay or limit soma proposed 
land uses at or near those sites. Future land uses by the recipients 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. Reasonably 
foreseeable land use constraints are discussed in this EIS. Regulatory review 
as required by the Air Force programs will also ensure that any site-specific 
land use limitations are identified and considered. A representation of the 
IRP management process followed by Wurtsmith AFB is shown in 
Figure 3.3-1. 

The original IRP was divided into four phases, consistent with CERCLA: 

• Phase I: Problem Identification and Records Search 

• Phase 11: Problem Confirmation and Quantification 

• Phase III: Technology Development 

• Phase IV: Corrective Action. 


3-40 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM PROCESS 
(TIm CERCLA ProcMs) 


Site Discovery 


Preliminary Assessment/ 
Site Inspection (PA/Sl) 


Sources of Information on IRP 

Information Repository (Public Library) 

U.S. Air Force Base Public Affairs Office 

U.S. Air Force Base Disposal Agency Operating Location (OL) 

Administrative Record (U.S. Air Force and EPA) 

Technical Review Committee (Local and Regulatory Officials) 
Media News Releases 
Public Meetings 
Public Notices 


Remedial Investigation/ 
Feasibility Study (Ri/FS) 


Formal Proposal to Regulator of 
Remedial Action Altemattvea 


Proposed Plan 
(PP) 


Formal Response from Regulator 
and Decision on Remediation 


Decision Document 
(DD) 


Formal Review by Regulator on 
Design and Operationa 


Remedial Design/ 
Remedial Action (RD/RA) 


Pictorial Presentation 
of IRP Process 



Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-41 










After SARA was passed in 1986, the IRP was realigned to incorporate the 
terminotogy used by the EPA and to integrate the new requirements in the 
NCP. The result was the creation of three action stages: 

• Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection (PA/SI) 

• Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) 

• Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/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 and interviews to determine if 
potential problems exist. A brief SI that may include soil and water sampling 
is performed to give an initial characterization or confirm the presence of 
contamination at a potential site. 

An Rl is similar to the original Phase II and consists of additional fieldwork 
and evaluations in order to assess the nature and extent of contamination. 

It includes a risk assessment and determines the need for site remediation. 

The original IRP Phase IV has been replaced by the FS and the RD within the 
third stage. The FS documents the development, evaluation, and selection 
of remedial action alternatives to remediate the site. The selected 
alternative is then designed (RO) and implemented (RA). Long-term 
monitoring is often performed in association with site remediation to assure 
future compliance with contaminant standards or achievement of 
remediation goals. The Phase III portion of the IRP process is not included in 
the normal SARA process. Technology development under SARA is done 
under separate processes including the Superfund Innovative Technology 
Evaluation program. The Air Force has an active technology development 
program in cooperation with the EPA to find solutions to problems common 
to Air Force facilities. 

Wurtsmith AFB has prepared preliminary finished documents for ten IRP 
sites where groundwater remediation measures are in-place. The final 
documents will be dependent on the SI results. No Further Action Decision 
Documents (NFADD) have been submitted to the EPA and the MDNR for 
approval for four IRP sites where no further remediation is required. 

The closure of Wurtsmith AFB will not affect the ongoing IRP. These IRP 
activities, managed by the OL, will continue in accordance with federal, 
state, and local regulations to protect human health and the environment, 
regardless of the disposal decision. 

The public may keep abreast of the IRP at Wurtsmith AFB through various 
sources of information (see Figure 3.3-1). The Air Force will, with the 


3-42 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal artd Reuse FEIS 





acceptance of each RI/FS by the regulatory community, prepare a proposed 
plan for the remediation of a site(s). which will include a discussion of 
alternatives considered. The proposed plan will be distributed to regulator^' 
agencies for comment. The Air Force will then respond to all comments, 
making those responses part of a public Decision Document (DD) on what 
the remediation will entail prior to any remedial action being taken. 

Predosure Reference. In 1977, prior to the initiation of the IRP program, 
Wurtsmith AFB identified two drinking water wells contaminated with 
trichloroethylene (TCE) that had leaked from an underground storage tank 
(UST) near Building 43. The wells were shut down and the Air Force 
installed a groundwater pump and treat system to inhibit migration of the 
plume and remediate the contamination. This system involved extraction 
and aeration of groundwater, which allowed the TCE to volatilize as it came 
in contact with air; aerated water was then discharged to the sanitary sewer 
and finally into the WWTP. Carbon filters and an air stripper were added to 
the system in 1979 and 1982, respectively. These modifications remove or 
absorb the TCE from the groundwater rather than allow its release into the 
air. The MDNR issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES) permit allowing effluent from the treatment system to be 
discharged to Van Etten Creek via the storm sewer. The area of 
groundwater contamination is migrating eastward and is referred to as the 
Arrow Street Plume. (U.S. Air Force, 1990a.) 

In 1979, the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) began a series of geologic and 
hydrologic investigations at Wurtsmith AFB. Monitoring wells indicated the 
presence of benzene, toluene, and other organic compounds under the 
petroleum, oil, and lubricants (POL) bulk storage area. The Northern Landfill 
Plume was discovered during the 1979*1980 investigation and found to be 
migrating in a northeasterly direction. The contamination included benzene, 
TCE, and dichloroethylene (DCE), a chemical produced by decomposition of 
TCE. In 1971, two 6,000-gaHon tank trailers were buried in the center of 
the landfill and used as a central solvent disposal site. In 1979, the trailers 
were removed and tested for leaks. No leaks were discovered; therefore, 
the tanks were not the source of contamination. 

As a result of the groundwater contamination discovered in 1979, the State 
of Michigan sued the DOD, despite remediation activities undertaken by the 
Air Force. The result was a negotiated Consent Decree, signed in 1980, 
which governs what the Air Force must do to clean up the groundwater 
contamination on base and that which has migrated off base. 

In 1982-1983, the USGS identified a number of additional plumes. The 
Mission Drive Plume, which originates in the maintenance complex area and 
migrates south through the military family housing area, is contaminated 
with TCE and DCE. An exact source of the plume could not be identified. 

In 1988, the Air Force installed a pump and treat system to remediate and 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 


3-43 





contain the Mission Drive Plume. The 1983 USGS study also identified TCE, 
DCE. and benzene in the groundwater under the base operational apron. 
Another plume, the Pierce's Point Plume, was confirmed during the USGS's 
investigation. This plume originates from the WSA and flows into Van Etten 
Lake, where it volatizes naturally. The plume was discovered by sampling 
the drinking water well at an off-base residence. The plume is contaminated 
with TCE and DCE, and is thought to have originated from an old sump in 
the WSA, which has been removed. 

In 1983, the State of Michigan filed a motion to enforce the Consent 
Decree. The State contended that the Air Force, by allowing the 
groundwater contamination from the Pierce's Point and Northern Landfill 
plumes to flow into Van Etten Lake and volatilize naturally, was considered 
in breach of the Consent Decree. In 1989 the Fede''al Court ruled that the 
Air Force was in compliance with the Consent Decree and was not required 
to install additional groundwater treatment systems, as requested by the 
State. 

Because the Air Force formally began the IRP process at Wurtsmith AFB in 
October 1984, prior to terminology and procedural changes, both phases 
and stages are contained in the IRP administrative record. The IRP Phase I 
Records Search was published in April 1985. It initially identified 29 
potential sites: 7 landfills, 2 fire training areas, 16 spill sites, 2 surface 
impoundment areas, and 2 sludge drying areas. Since completion of the 
Phase I study and the USGS groundwater investigations, two sites from the 
original list were combined and 25 additional possible contamination sites 
have been identified: 14 spill sites, 7 leaking underground storage tanks, 2 
landfills, and 2 surface impoundments. These sites were incorporated into 
the IRP, due to the potential for contamination. Figure 3.3-2 identifies all 53 
IRP sites, as well as the groundwater plumes on and near Wurtsmith AFB. 
Table 3.3-2 provides a brief description and location of each IRP site. As 
indicated on the table, the sites have been grouped into six operable units, 
based on geographic location, to facilitate remediation activities. 

An additional pump and treat system was installed and became operational 
in 1991. The system is remediating and containing the groundwater plume 
originating from the POL bulk storage yard. 

Prior to the transfer of any property at Wurtsmith AFB, the Air Force must 
also comply with the provisions of CERCLA § 120(h). CERCLA SI20(h) 
requires that, before property can be transferred from federal ownership, the 
United States must provide notice of specific hazardous substance activities 
and conditions on the property and, when there have been any such 
hazardous substance activities, 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, for 


3-44 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 







EXPLANATION 

IRPSito 


— Bose Boundary 


Installation Restoration 
Program Sites 


Groundvnrtar Plume 
Direction of Groundvwriar Flow 


( J EOD Range Safety Zone 

V f 


0 750 1500 3000 Feet 




Figure 3.3-2 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-45 












Table 3.3-2. IRP Site Descriptions and Locations 
Page 1 of 8 


E A A 

C 


.§ i • 

•«5 

a f 5 

% I > 

Z * •£ 
« • > 
§ *0 “O 
£ o c 

• S « 
'J-gur 

§30 

J £ o 

9 -a uj 

2 

® « j- 

a « 

5 o> g 

«B N 

M .£ • 

" -P 5 
? s-g 

« 5 S 
3 u 
*0 0 5 
c X « 

WOT) 


S • S 
.gS a 

ijl 

£ • u 

5^3. 

a= c 

8i > 

sis 

S • H 
u .£ . 
c ^ UJ 

8'Sg 

|si 
■I a I 

gi^ >2 

^ ii 

8*2 

8 |.£ 

o ^ g 
« • .£ 
in S? ^ 
I 

s- a 

O S s 

S 

.S f** « 

5S C 
*0 e 3 

8 P S 

is ^ o 


85 

.9^3 


tSS « w 
3 B W c c 
■o _ • iff p 

•SS ^ 2rl 

?2i Ss 

* _ B ff 9 

O I g J -o 

a*^ s && 

£.§£«.§ 
o a tt •-_ 
■® 8 5 £ 9 

TJ s € .2 .£ 
S c 9 S 
.2 c tS c 9 

S .9 .2 1 I 
S 811 I 
s gi 
=S ® ? 8 = 

8*8 c o I 
" 82 *=' 
2 B ill 
8 I S | • 
s J a -.g n 
l85l2 


.2 6 


3 

s § 

8 a 

l< 

^ Sc 
0 -5 9 
2 5< 


.o 

2 CD 
« cs 
S li. 

O -I 


3-46 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 






"2 « - 
9 o s 

5 £ } 

6 g -g 

Mi 

If- 

2o£ 


§ :5 ^ « 

Iasi 

I s s 8 

m O S S 
(u (0 'Q .A 


• 

o • 9 

e .5 € 

Q a * 
ui • -9 g 

I« si 
1 a 

(B k. « -0 

'S « g s 

!?• • 

M -S «-• jS 

■5 J 5 ‘5 

s-l g 

* « c .E 

* g O 0» 

n A A c 

o 2 ® o 
a O ^ *0 

ISls 

® J* s 

OHO® 
<0 • «*» 2 
c - 

l|il 

8 8 if 

>8 si 

9 5115 

e ® ^ s 

•i I § ^ 

S S 10 o 
A « -2 ? 
< K o 2 


I? 

S? 

” l§ 

o * - 

^ S.E 

«€it 

• -3 ^ 

1*2 
00 9 *0 
” -2 g 
® o 

C TS 3 

-- e uj 
■ 0^0 

o o- is 
= 3 _ 

* 8 2 
§ i 'E 

V A 

S E 8 
*• o “ 

oi^ 

o ^ 

M ® ^ 

C -x H 

o ® W 
= ♦- «0 
® o S 
®.E E 
10 ^ s 

N = 2 
_ ® “* 
^ .9 
«s at > 
® e 2 
E ® s 

8 § 

CM® 

< O € 


= < 

a . 

* 2 « 

3 2 E 

.£ M 
“ 3=5 

«I * 
its 
2 ® ® 
tf « > 

sis 

^ 5 .£ 

^11 

■s |s 

M ® «0 
C *0 (0 

^ " c 

“ll 

8 «« 
S g.£ 

o| E 

3 10 
O Q £ 

9 . o 
^ > o 

■3 > E 
® 5 o 
= *s ^ 

^ (D (P 
(A ^ Q 

CM !fc 2 

10 & -o 
5> tj ^ 

"■g e 

00 8 3 
5 5 

-8^ 

£ i a 


c 

•8 f 

3 a 

o c 
=?* £ 
I I 

a 

Z CM 

® A 
*£ O 


2 

a< o 
® > > 
as <0 ^ 

|i i 

£ K X 
^ « CO 

CO H H 


o ® 
S 3 
CO O 


CO 9 

-I o 


3-47 


preiicninary finished document was signed in 1991 and will become final 
dependent on SI results. 









3-48 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






Table 3.3-2. IRP Site Descriptions and Locations 
Page 4 of 8 



3-49 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






o 

z 


e 

3 


I 


& 

O 



3-5( 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 


































\ 



Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 








Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 

































Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






ail govamment property transfers by deed, a covenant must also warrant 
that any additional remedial action found to be riecessary after the date of 
such transfer shall be conducted by the United States. 

The Air Force must complete the IRP for the contaminated sites on 
Wurtsmith AFB and provide the assurances required by CERCLA i 120(h) for 
all properties disposed. The combination of these requirements may delay 
dispoaal or surrender of parcels that affect reuse. 

The Air Force is committed to the identification, assessment, and 
remediation of the contamination from hazardous substances at Wurtsmith 
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 disposal or 
surrender of property occurs at the earliest reasonable date so as not to 
impede the economic redevelopment of the area through reuse of Wurtsmith 
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. 

Closure Baseline. The closure of Wurtsmith AFB will not affect the ongoing 
IRP activity. These IRP activities will continue in accordance with EPA, 
state, and local regulatory agency regulations to protect human health and 
the environment, regardless of the alternative chosen for reuse. The Air 
Force will continue to abide by the 1980 Consent Decree with the State of 
Michigan. 

The OL will oversee the coordination of the contractors and assure that the 
EPA, MONR, and local regulatory agency concerns are addressed. The Air 
Force will retain necessary interests (for example, easements) in order to 
perform operations and maintenance on all remediation systems. 

3.3.4 Storage Tanks 

USTs are subject to federal regulations within RCRA, 40 CFR 280. These 
regulations were mandated by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments 
of 1984. in Michigan, USTs are regulated under the Underground Storage 
Tank Act, Public Act 423 of 1984, as amended. The MDNR and the Fire 
Marshal Division of the State Police enforce the regulations set forth under 
this act. Additionally, leaking USTs are regulated under the Leaking 
Underground Storage Tank Act, Public Act 478 of 1988, as amended. 

Aboveground storage tanks are regulated by the National Fire Protection 
Association guidelines. The Michigan Fire Marshal is authorized to enforce 
these guidelines under Act 207, the Michigan Fire Protection Code. 


3*54 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






PrsdOMir* ftofcranc*. 'Riare are currently 151 active storage tanks in place 
at Wurtsmith AFB, of which 53 are USTs and 98 are aboveground storage 
tanks. Ten inactive USTs and 25 inactive aboveground storage tanks also 
remain in place. Storage tanks of less than 1,000 gallons or tanks used for 
domestic heating fuels are not regulated by the state. Detailed lists of 
storage tanks are presented in Appendix G. 

The Underground Storage Tank Management Plan outlines Wurtsmith AFB's 
program to meet federal and state laws governing the testing, upgrading, 
and replacement of USTs. The Air Force plans to remove all USTs not 
identified for reuse prior to closure. All tanks out of service over 12 months 
will be considered abandoned according to state law, unless they have been 
identified for reuse and the state has granted a waiver. All known heating 
oil USTs associated with base family housing units were removed during the 
conversion to gas heating. 

The two largest aboveground bulk storage tanks hold 1,260,000 and 
568,000-gallons of JP-4. These tanks were supplied by railroad tank cars 
and used to feed the operational apron underground hydrant system. This 
system is regulated by 40 CFR 60.110 Subpart K, has leak detection in- 
place, and undergoes an annual nonvolumetric tightness test. The fuel 
storage area and the hydrant system are managed by the Supply Fuels 
Branch. 

Twenty-two oil/water separators are located throughout Wurtsmith AFB and 
range in size from 60 to 12,030 gallons. Oil/water separators are not 
regulated by the state. An inventory of these oil/water separators is 
provided in Appendix G. 

Closure Baseline. USTs that meet state regulations may be left in place to 
support reuse activities. USTs that do not meet current regulations and 
have not been identified for reuse will be deactivated and removed prior to 
closure. The aboveground storage tanks will be emptied of product, purged 
of fumes to minimize fire hazards, and secured (safeguarded against 
trespassing) at base closure. These operations will be monitored by the Fire 
Marshal Division of the Michigan State Police. If not identified for reuse, the 
fuel hydrant system would be purged of product and rendered inoperable. 
Sections located under parking aprons or taxiways would be filled with 
concrete; more accessible sections would be removed. All oil/water 
separators will be pumped and cleaned of any contents as well as integrity 
tested; those found to be unfit will be closed. 

3.3.5 Asbestos 

Asbestos-containing building material remediation is regulated by the EPA, 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Michigan 
Department of Public Health, and the Air Quality Division of the MDNR. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 


3-55 






Asbestos fiber emissions into smbient air are regulated in accordance with 
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). which establishes the National 
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). The NESHAP 
regulations address the demolition or renovation of buildings with asbestos- 
containing materials (ACM). The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and 
the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) provide the 
regulatory basis for handling ACM in kindergarten through 12th grade school 
buildings. AHERA and OSHA regulations cover worker protection for 
employees who work around or remediate ACM. 

Rertovation or demolition of buildings with ACM has a potential for releasing 
asbestos fibers into the air. Asbestos fibers could be released due to 
disturbance or damage from various building materials, such as pipe and 
boiler insulation, acoustical ceilings, sprayed-on fire proofing, and other 
material used for soundproofing or insulation. 

There are two primary categories that describe ACM. Friable ACM is 
defined as any material containing more than 1 percent asbestos (as 
determined using the method specified in Appendix A, Subpart F. 40 
CFR 763, Section 1, polarized light microscopy) that, when dry, can be 
crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure. Nonfriable 
ACM are those materials that contain more than 1 percent asbestos, but do 
not meet the rest of the criteria for friable ACM. 

Preclosure Reference. The current Air Force practice is to manage or 
remove ACM in active facilities, and remove ACM, following regulatory 
requirements, prior to facility demolition. Removal of ACM occurs when 
there is a potential for asbestos fiber release that would affect the 
environment or human health. The Air Force policy concerning the 
management of asbestos for base closures can be found in Appendix H. 

A comprehensive asbestos survey for Wurtsmith AFB was performed in 
September and October of 1992. ACM was found in most of the 177 
buildings surveyed; the survey results, by facility, are summarized in 
Appendix H. Military family housing was randomly sampled and survey 
results were assumed to apply to all similar housing units. ACM was 
identified within all housing units sampled. Unsurveyed facilities may require 
further study. 

The Asbestos Management and Operations Plan describes identification, 
removal, and disposal of ACM at Wurtsmith AFB. The plan also outlines 
responsibility assignments and procedures to provide for proper management 
of asbestos. The implementation of this plan is the responsibility of base 
CE. Bioenvironmental Engineering supports CE by conducting site surveys, 
bulk sampling, and air monitoring. Bioenvironmental Engineering personnel 
also monitor asbestos removal projects, which can be performed by the on- 
base asbestos abatement team or by an outside contractor. 


3-56 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 



Closure Baseline. Asbestos will be removed as necessary to protect human 
health. Beyond that, an analysis will be conducted to determine the cost 
effectiveness of removing ACM versus considering the impacts of ACM on 
the market value of the property, when sale of the property is planned. 

ACM will be removed if a building is, or is intended to be, used as a school 
or child-care facility. Exposed friable asbestos will be removed or 
remediated in accordance with applicable Air Force policy (Appendix H), 
health laws, regulations, and standards, if it is determined that a health 
hazard exists. 

3.3.6 Pesticide Usage 

The federal regulations that control the use of pesticides are contained 
within the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodentidde Act (FIFRA). 
Pesticide management activities are subject to federal regulations contained 
in 40 CFR 162, 165, 166. 170, and 171. State regulations are promulgated 
under Act 171, The Pesticide Control Act of 1976 (as amended). Pest 
management activities at Wurtsmith AFB are conducted in accordance with 
Air Force regulations and management recommendations, which follow 
FIFRA. 

Preciosure Reference. The base entomologist is responsible for 
implementing the Pest Management Program at Wurtsmith AFB. On-base 
pesticide application practices are frequently inspected by the base 
Bioenvironmental Engineer. Additional inspections include biannual Medical 
Entomological and annual Environmental Compliance Assessment and 
Management Program reviews by ACC. An inventory of pesticides 
commonly used by certified applicators at Wurtsmith AFB is presented in 
Appendix G. 

The majority of pesticides are stored at the Entomology Shop located within 
the Grounds Maintenance Facility Shop (Building 140); additional pesticides 
are stored at the entomology storage facility (Building 141). The majority of 
pesticides utilized on base are for grounds maintenance and basewide pest 
management, although household pesticides are available at the base 
exchange (Building 406) and the "U-Fix-lt” store (Building 9421). 

Pesticide usage is seasonal, with considerable amounts applied during the 
spring and summer. Mec Amine-D is a broadleaf herbicide utilized during the 
late spring and early summer. Malathion is used against mosquitos in the 
spring and summer; approximately 20 gallons of Malathion are applied 
throughout the base two to three times a week. Aerial spraying for gypsy 
moths occurs in late May in coordination with the U.S. Forest Service and 
the state. In 1991, 178 acres at Wurtsmith AFB were sprayed utilizing 
approximately 1 quart of Bacillus thuringiensis (BT) per acre. Pesticides are 
purchased locally or ordered through base supply on an as-needed basis. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-57 





Closura Bas«lin«. At the time of closure, pesticides will continue to be 
utilized by the OL for pest msnaoement end grounds msintenance. 

3.3.7 Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

Commercial PCBs are industrial compounds produced by chlorination of 
biphenyls. PCBs persist in the environment, accumulate in organisms, and 
concentrate in the food chain. PCBs are used in electrical equipment, 
primarily in capacitors and transformers, because they are electrically 
nonconductive and stable at high temperatures. 

The disposal of these compounds is regulated under the federal TSCA, 
which banned the manufacture and distribution of PCBs with the exception 
of PCBs used in enclosed systems. By federal definition, PCB equipment 
contairts 500 parts per million (ppm) PCBs or more, whereas PCB- 
contaminated equipment contains PCB concentrations equal to or greater 
than 50 ppm but less than 500 ppm. In accordance with TSCA, EPA 
regulates the removal and disposal of all sources of PCBs containing 50 ppm 
or more: the regulations are more stringent for PCB equipment than for PCB- 
contaminated equipment. The State of Michigan has no specific PCB 
regulations, and follows federal regulations. 

Predosure Reference. The Environmental Compliance Office is responsible 
for the management of PCBs at Wurtsmith AFB. Currently no PCB or PCB- 
contaminated equipment exists on base. 

Closure Baseline. There will be no federally regulated PCB or PCB- 
contaminated equipment on base at closure. 

3.3.8 Radon 

Radon is a naturally occurring, colorless and odorless radioactive gas that is 
produced by radioactive decay of naturally occurring uranium. Uranium 
decays to radium, of which radon gas is a by-product. Radon is found in 
high concentration in rocks containing uranium, such as granite, shale, 
phosphate, and pitchblende. Atmospheric radon is diluted to insignificant 
concentrations. Radon that is present in soil, however, can enter a building 
through small spaces and openings, accumulating in enclosed areas, such as 
basements. The cancer risk caused by exposure, through the inhalation of 
radon, is currently a topic of concern. 

There are no federal or state standards regulating radon exposure at the 
present time. The EPA offers a pamphlet, "A Citizens Guide to Radon” (U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1992), which offers advice to persons 
concerned about radon in their homes. U.S. Air Force policy requires 
implementation of the Air Force Radon Assessment and Mitigation Program 
to determine levels of radon exposure of military personnel and their 


3-58 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 






dependents. The EPA has made testing recommendations for both 
residential structures and schools. For residential structures, using a 2- to 
7-day charcoal canister test, a level between 4 and 20 picocuries per liter 
(pCi/l) should lead to additional screening within a few years. For levels of 
20 to 200 pCi/l, additional confirmation sampling should be accomplished 
within a few months. If the level is in excess of 200 pCi/l, the structure 
should be evacuated immediately. Schools are to use a 2-day charcoal 
canister test: if readings are 4 to 20 pCi/l, a 9-month school year survey is 
required, if all readings are below 4 pCi/l, no further action is 
recommended. Table 3.3-3 summarizes the recommended radon surveys 
and action levels. 


Table 3.3-3. Reconunended Radon Surveys and Mitigations 


Facility 


EPA Action Level'** Recommendation 


Residential 


4 to 20 pCi/l 


Residential 20 to 200 pCi/l 


Residential Above 200 pCi/l 


Two-Day Weekend Measurement 
School 4 to 20 pCi/l 


Additional screening. 
Expose detector for 1 year. 
Reduce radon levels within 
3 years if confirmed high 
readings exist. 

Perform follow-up 
measurements. Expose 
detectors for no more than 
6 months. 

Follow-up measurements. 
Expose detectors for no 
more than 1 week. 
Immediately reduce radon 
levels. 


Confirmatory 9-month 
survey. Alpha track or ion 
chamber survey. 


School Greater than 20 pCi/l Diagnostic survey or 

mitigation. 


Note: Congress has set a national goal for indoor radon concantration equal to tha outdoor 

ambient levels of 0.2 to 0.7 pCi/l. 

(a) for levels below 4 pCi/l, no further action is racommanded. 

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992. 


Predosure Reference. A radon screening survey was conducted at 
Wurtsmith AFB in 1988 by the base Bioenvironmental Engineering group. 
The survey consisted of 36 samples taken from military housing units, the 
child care center, billeting, and the airman's dormitories. All samples 
resulted in radon levels below the EPA's recommended mitigation level of 
4 pCi/i; therefore, a detailed assessment survey is not needed and mitigation 
activities are not necessary or advised. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal artd Reuse FEIS 


3-59 









Clotura BaMiin*. Radon screening sample results were all below 4 pCi/l; no 
further action was necessary. 

3.3.9 Medical/Biohazardous Waste 

Current federal regulations do not provide for regulation of medical wastes, 
but do allow for states to individually regulate medical wastes. The state 
regulates medical waste under the Michigan Medical Waste Management 
Act, Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated, Chapter 333 • Public Health Code 
Part 138. 

Predosure Reference. Wurtsmith AFB operates a 25-bed hospital that 
provides inpatient services such as general surgery, X-ray, and labor and 
delivery, as well as outpatient care. The dental clinic is incorporated within 
the same facility and both provide services to active military personnel and 
their dependents as well as military retirees and their dependents. 

The hospital and dental clinic generate approximately 2,500 pounds of 
medical waste monthly. The waste is disposed of utilizing the on-base 
pathological incinerator, which is permitted by MDNR. Incinerated waste is 
then disposed of by ORMO. Hospital personnel dispose of expired 
pharmaceuticals under the Department of the Army methods (U.S. 
Department of the Army, 1991). 

The medical radiology unit (Building 1842) processes both medical and 
dental X-ray film. The effluent is passed through an in-line silver recovery 
filter: the remaining effluent is discharged into the sanitary sewer and further 
treated at the WWTP. 

The base photographic laboratory (Building 5065) utilizes an electrolytic 
silver recovery system. Recovered silver and spent photographic solutions 
are sent to DRMO: the final effluent is disposed into the sanitary sewer and 
is further treated at the WWTP. 

Closure Baseline. The hospital and dental clinic will be inactive; therefore, 
no biohazardous waste will be generated at base closure. Existing 
biohazardous waste will be processed and ashes removed prior to closure in 
accordance with appropriate federal and state regulations. 

3.3.10 Ordnance 

At Wurtsmith AFB, ordnance was used on three ranges: an EOD range, a 
grenade range, and a small arms range. The EOD range consists of a "bum 
furnace” situated in the center of a 2,400-foot radius circular clearing in the 
northwest section of the base (see Figure 3.3-2). This facility has been in 
operation since the mid-1950s. The grenade range consists of a firing area 
approximately 1,400 feet long and 400 feet wide with a 900-foot clear zone 


3-60 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






on all sides. The grenande range is located in a wooded area in the 
northwest portion of the base west of Rea Road. The smaii arms range is 
iocated adjacent to Rea Road in the western portion of Wurtsmith AFB and 
consists of an open range with firing faciiity and a single earthen berm 
which is used as a backstop. 

The open area at the eastern end of the runway has been identified as a 
former practice bombing area. Small (17 to 25 pounds), sand-filled practice 
bombs were dropped at this location during the mid- to late-1920s by the 
27th and 94th Hghter Squadrons of the Army Air Corps, stationed at 
Selfridge Held. 

Transportation of all ordnance is regulated by the DOT; any ordnance 
remaining after disposal would be regulated under RCRA. 

Preclosure Reference. Materials disposed by burning at the Wurtsmith AFB 
EOD range included flares, impulse cartridges, jet engine ignition cartridges, 
and various types of small arms ammunition up to 50 caliber. Diesel fuel 
was utilized as the primary ignition source. The nonreactive residue would 
then be placed in a burial pit and covered with soil. For disposal of items 
such as bomb fuses, which are destroyed by detonation using plastic 
explosives, a pit was excavated and then backfilled following destruction of 
the ordnance. Ordnance was accumulated at a holding area in the WSA, 
and approximately 8 pounds of ordnance was disposed of monthly. 

The EOD range was closed in 1991; the grenade range was closed in 1992. 
Both of these areas, as well as the WSA and the former ordnance drop zone 
at the eastern end of the runway, were cleared of unexploded ordnance in 
April 1993 by the 2701 st EOD Squadron from Hill AFB. Ordnance was 
collected and properly disposed. The earthen berm at the small arms range 
is scheduled for soil sifting to remove lead in the fall of 1994. 

Closure Baseline. All ordnance accumulated since these ranges have been 
closed will be properly packaged and transported off base for utilization or 
disposal by other Air Force units. The EOD range, grenade range, and 
former ordnance drop zone have been cleared of all unexploded ordnance. 
The small arms range will be inspected and certified as clean prior to 
property disposal. 

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 

This section describes the affected environment for natural resources: soils 
and geology, water resources, air quality, noise, biological resources, and 
cultural resources. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 


3-61 







3.4.1 Soto and Gooiogy 


Soils, geology, mineral resources, and seismic issues are addressed in this 
section. The ROI for soils is localized and limited to Wurtsmith AFB. The 
ROI for geology includes d)e general tectonic framework that encompasses 
Iosco County. 

3.4.1.1 Soto. A detailed soil survey has not been completed by the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (SCSI for Iosco County 
or Wurtsmith AFB. The Air Force and SCS surveyed the base in 1977 and 
developed a general soils association map (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
SCS. 1977). The Grayling Complex, which includes sand, silt, and a small 
amount of clay, is present throughout the base. In the undeveloped areas of 
the base these soils are excessively drained (U.S. Air Force, 1990b). Hydric 
soils have been identified in four locations on Wurtsmith AFB (Figure 3.4-1). 
Three of these locations have been identified as wetlands (see Section 
3.4.5. Biological Resources). The distribution of soils on base is presented 
in Rgure 3.4-1. 

The soils result from the weathering of Quaternary glacial fluvial deposits, 
and minor effects of recent eolian (windblown) action. Wind erosion of 
unvegetated/disturbed ground in the area is a regional concern but has not 
been identified as a major problem for soils on and surrounding the base 
(U.S. Air Force. 1990b). Erosion by water is not a problem because the 
sandy, permeable soils on base provide adequate drainage to undeveloped 
land and the base is relatively flat. In addition, vegetative cover serves to 
stabilize the soils by impeding the flow of water. 

No prime or unique farmlands are present on the base (U.S.Department of 
Agriculture, SCS, 1977). No areas at Wurtsmith AFB are used for field 
crops. The Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form, AD-1006, is 
presented in Appendix L. 

There are several areas on Wurtsmith AFB where soils are likely to be 
contaminated. These areas are being investigated under the IRP to 
determine the extent of contamination, if any. Descriptions and locations of 
these areas are presented in Section 3.3, Hazardous Materials and 
Hazardous Waste Management. 

3.4.1.2 Physiography and Geology 

Physiography. Wurtsmith AFB is located within a nearly level coastal sand 
plain of the Eastern Lake section of the Central Lowland Physiographic 
Province. The base is bounded on the east by Van Etten Lake and Van Etten 
Creek, and on the west by 80-foot high bluffs, which are remnants of 
Pleistocene deltaic deposits (U.S. Geological Survey, 1991). The 3.5-mile 
wide sandy plain between Lake Huron and the bluffs is part of the Oscoda 


3-62 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 









EXPLANATION 

Bass Boundary 
10B Grayling Sand 
12B Croswoll Sand 
13A Avgras Sand 
14 Roscommon Mucky Sand 
70 Loxley Muck 

76 Lupton Muck 

77 Tawas Muck 
97B Urban Land- Grayling Complex 


□ 


Hydric Soils 


Soils Distribution 


rtn ^ 

0 750 1500 3000 Feet 


Note: Figure 1.2-1 shows Air Force fee-owned property. 
Source: U.S. Department of Agricuiture SCS, 1977. 


Figure 3.4-1 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-63 















Lake Plain (Burgis, 1977). The terrain at Wurtsmith AFB is flat to gently 
rolling and is interrupted by several long, linear ridges that generally rise 5 to 
10 feet above the sandy plain; the ridges are geomorphic expressions of 
ancient beaches and sand dunes. The elevation of the land surface ranges 
from 580 feet above MSL along the Lake Huron shoreline east of the base, 
to 730 feet above MSL at the top of the bluffs to the west of the base. 

Geology. Geologic units at Wurtsmith AFB consist of unconsolidated glacial 
deposits and underlying bedrock. The glacial deposits, which range in 
thickness from approximately 100 to approximately 250 feet, consist of 
gravel, sand, silt, and clay deposited by glaciers in and around glacial lakes. 
Surficial deposits include ice^ontact sediments such as till la mixture of 
gravel, sand, silt, and clay); lacustrine sediments such as deltas, beaches, 
and lakebed sand and clay; and alluvium near drainage channels (U.S. 
Geological Survey. 1991). Near Van Etten Lake, in the eastern part of the 
base, eoiian deposits are present. 

Mississippian bedrock of carbonaceous shales and dolomitic limestone 
underlies the glacial deposits. The uppermost units in the bedrock consist of 
sandstones, siltstones, and shales of the Coldwater Shale and the Marshall 
Formation (U.S. Geological Survey, 1991). The Coldwater Shale is primarily 
shale with thin lenses of limestone, dolomite, sandstone, and siltstone. The 
Marshall Formation is a very fine* to coarse*grained sandstone containing 
layers of shale, sandy shale, and siltstone. 

No oil and natural gas resources have been identified in the vicinity of 
Wurtsmith AFB (Leighton. 1993). However, because of the presence of 
producing fields south of Alpena County (e.g., the Saginaw and Deep River 
fields), some speculative leases have been acquired, and a few exploration 
wells have been drilled in the vicinity. None of the wells in Iosco County 
have produced sufficient oil/gas to be viable (Dorr and Eschman, 1970; 
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1976). 

One oil and gas lease has been acquired on Air Force fee-owned land on 
Wurtsmith AFB; the lease is administered by the Bureau of Land 
Management. The lease is for approximately 260 acres in the south-central 
and north-central portions of the base. Because of safety considerations for 
flight operations at Wurtsmith AFB, all drilling into this lease area must be 
performed using directional drilling from areas outside of Wurtsmith AFB 
property. If oil and gas are not produced from the property, the lease will 
expire in October 1995; otherwise, the lease will be valid as long as oil and 
gas are being produced from the property. 

The glacial deposits contain sand and gravel constituents, but no portion of 
these deposits has been identified as an economic source of aggregate, 
construction materials, or other sand or gravel resources. Generally, the 
State of Michigan is a major producer of sand and sandstone (Heinrich, 


3-64 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






1979; Sundeen, 1979), and Iosco County is known to have large reserves 
of sand resources (Heinrich, 1979). No uranium mines/leases. Known 
Geothermal Resource Areas, or critical and strategic metallic/nonmetallic 
mineral resource mining or leasing activities occur at or near the base (U.S. 
Air Force, 1990b). 

Wurtsmith AFB lies within a seismic risk zone classified as Seismic Zone 0 
(International Conference of Building Officials, 1991). Seismic Zone 0 
represents a very low potential risk for large seismic events. The maximum 
credible earthquake predicted for the area has a magnitude of 6.1 on the 
Richter Scale (U.S. Air Force, 1990b). Active faults have not been identified 
in the vicinity, and the area is not susceptible to liquefaction. 

3.4.2 Water Resources 

The ROI for surface water and groundwater generally extends beyond the 
base property to areas affected by changes in resource usage. 

3.4.2.1 Surface Water. The Au Sable River is the principal river in the area 
of Wurtsmith AFB and flows eastward south of the base (Figure 3.4-2) to 
discharge into Lake Huron. Stretches of the Au Sable River west of the 
base have been designated as a scenic river under the federal Wild and 
Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. $1,721 et seq.) and as a wild and 
scenic river under Act No. 231 of the Michigan Public Acts of 1970 
(Michigan Compiled Laws 281.761 et seq.). Several small hydroelectric 
dams confine the lower Au Sable River, including Foote Dam, upstream from 
the base. Van Etten Creek flows along the eastern side of the base, 
connecting Van Etten Lake with the Au Sable River. 

Van Etten Lake is a man-made lake 4 miles long and 0.5 mile wide. The Au 
Sable River, from its mouth to Foote Dam, Foote Dam Pond, and Van Etten 
Lake are considered cold-water fisheries. Lake Huron is used for public 
water supply and recreation. Two small lakes, Allen Lake and Duell Lake, 
are located just south of the base border. The recharge sources to the 
surface water bodies are precipitation and snowmelt. 

Executive Order 11988 (Roodplain Management) governs federal actions 
(including disposal of property) and Air Force Regulation 19-9 (Chapter 5, 
Floodplain Management and Wetlands Protection) implements the Executive 
Order for Air Force actions. One requirement is the identification of 
floodplains that would be affected by an action. 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has studied and mapped 100- 
year floodplains in Oscoda and Au Sable townships (Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, 1982; 1988); however, the locations of floodplains 
have not been mapped onto Wurtsmith AFB. Extrapolation of the published 
data (U.S. Air Force, 1990a; Federal Emergency Management Agency, 




Wurtsmith AFB Disposal artd Reuse FEIS 


3-65 









EXPLANATION 

Bass Boundary 

^ 1 . ... —. Intarmittant Straam 
or Ditch 

a aa a ■ Local Groundwater 
OKrida 

. Drainage Ditch 


nn o 

0 850 1700 3400 Feet 


3-66 


Overland Surface 
Drainage Direction 

Surface Water Divide 


100-Year Floodplain 


Hydrology 


Source; Modified from FEMA, 1982,1988; 

U.S. Air Force. 1990a; 1990t>. 

Notes: a. Van Ettsn Lake floodplain shown only 
in vicinity of Wurtsmith AFB. 
b. Figure 1.2-1 shows Air Force fee- 
owned property. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


Figure 3.4-2 











1982. 1988; U.S. Geological Survey, 1988a, 1988b) onto Wurtsmith AFB 
identifies on-base floodplains along the Au Sable River and adjacent to Van 
Etten Lake (see Rgure 3.4-2). 

Some of the floodplain area is fee-owned by the Air Force, some is 
permitted land from the U.S. Forest Service, and some is leased. In 
addition, some of the off-base easements fall within the 100-year floodplain. 

Surface Water Quality. No water quality standards violations have been 
recorded for Van Etten Creek or Foote Dam Pond (U.S. Air Force, 1990b). 
Surface water quality in the area is generally excellent and appears to 
support current uses (U.S. Air Force, 1990b). 

3.4.2.2 Wetlands. Wetland areas are located in the forest in the 
northwestern part of the base and along the southwest border of the base. 
Wetlands are protected under federal and state regulations because of their 
ecological value. Wetlands on base are discussed in Section 3.4.5.4, 
Sensitive l-labitats. 

3.4.2.3 Surface Drainage. General drainage patterns and discharge points 
are shown in Figure 3.4-2. The sandy, permeable soils throughout 
Wurtsmith AFB generally provide adequate drainage (U.S. Air Force, 1990b). 
The storm water collection systems consist of open drainage courses and 
underground storm drains that carry water to two ditches, which convey the 
water to the Au Sable River. Another underground storm drain network 
discharges water to Van Etten Creek. Seepage ponds and three aerated 
ponds are located along the southern border of the base (see Figure 3.4-2). 
The permeable soils and storm water collection systems at Wurtsmith AFB 
provide adequate drainage. 

Effluent from two groundwater treatment systems and storm water runoff 
discharges to the local surface waters of Van Etten Creek and the Au Sable 
River via storm sewer networks (see Figure 3.4-2). The discharge is 
permitted under the NPDES, and effluent is in compliance with permit 
requirements. 

Oscoda Township discharged 0.22 MGD of treated wastewater into the Au 
Sable River in 1987 (U.S. Air Force, 1990b). 

3.4.2.4 Groundwater. The principal groundwater aquifer in the region 
extends from the ground surface to a depth of approximately 65 feet. The 
unconfined aquifer consists of a medium to coarse sand containing some 
gravels. A bed of relatively impermeable clay lies below the aquifer. 
Fluctuations in the water table level (1 to 3 feet) reflect changes in 
groundwater storage, which is controlled by precipitation and snowmelt, 
groundwater withdrawals, and the levels of nearby streams, lakes, and 
swamps. Natural discharge from the aquifer is to the Au Sable River, Van 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-67 






Etten Lake, and Van Etten Creek, and ultimately to Lake Huron. Recharge to 
the groundwater and aquifer is directly from rainfall, snowmelt, and 
infiltration. Groundwater flow from the highlands west of the bluffs 
recharges the sand and gravel aquifer at the west edge of the base. 

A groundwater divide extends diagonally from the northwestern to the 
southeastern part of the base. South of the divide, groundwater flows 
toward the Au Sable River; north of the divide, groundwater flows toward 
Van Etten Creek and Van Etten Lake as shown in Figure 3.4-2. The depth 
to water in on-base wells ranges from 5 to 20 feet below land surface. The 
water table rises slightly along the western margin of the base when 
groundwater recharge west of the base exceeds recharge from rainfall on 
the base (Stark et al., 1983). In the eastern part of the base, water supply 
and groundwater pump and treat well withdrawals lower the water table 
locally (U.S. Geological Survey, 1991). 

As described in Section 3.2.4.1, the Township of Oscoda currently draws 
water from the shallow aquifer, using two wells east of Van Etten Lake, and 
five wells south of the Au Sable River along River Road. These wells are 
subject to requirements of the state program to identify and manage 
wellhead protection areas, a program established to protect groundwater 
quality under the Clean Water Act. In Michigan, communities voluntarily 
participate in the program by using state guidelines to develop measures that 
would ensure a clean drinking water supply. Oscoda Township has not 
developed wellhead protection areas, and currently is not actively pursuing 
these programs. However, the township has enacted ordinances to reduce 
potential impacts to wells: the primary restriction is that all buildings must 
be constructed with at least a 200-foot setback from each well. 

Groundwater Quality. In 1990, Wurtsmith AFB discharged 0.5 MGD of 
wastewater from seepage beds into the principal groundwater aquifer in the 
region (U.S. Air Force, 1990b). The infiltrated wastewater flows a short 
distance before discharging to the Au Sable River and does not affect any 
existing water supply wells (U.S. Air Force, 1990a). 

The highly permeable sand and gravel aquifer is extremely susceptible to 
contamination from surface chemical spills and leaking storage tanks 
(U.S. Air Force, 1990a). Groundwater underlying some areas of the base 
contains moderate to high levels of TCE, DCE, and benzene. Descriptions 
and locations of these areas are found in Section 3.3, Hazardous Materials 
and Hazardous Waste Management. In the past, several water supply wells 
have been closed because of contaminated groundwater. Pump and treat 
systems have been installed to remove and treat some of the contaminated 
groundwater and prevent its migration off base or into adjacent base supply 
wells. Currently, water in good quantity and quality is provided from the 
base potable water system (U.S. Air Force, 1990a). 


3-68 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 




The sewage lagoons on base have been operating on an expired discharge 
permit since 1988 (see Section 3.2.4.2, Wastewater). Results of the 
monthly shallow groundwater sampling and analyses indicate that nitrogen 
levels exceed the acceptable level of 5 milligrams per liter. The groundwater 
containing high levels of nitrogen could eventually migrate to the Au Sable 
River. The new permit application (in progress) will include a request for a 
variance of effluent limitations. The state is expected to issue a 
Groundwater Discharge Permit for the sewage lagoons that will be valid 
through base closure. An NPOES permit is not required because there is no 
discharge to surface water. 

The water supplies on base and in the surrounding areas are discussed in 
Section 3.2.4.1, Water Supply. The migration of contaminated groundwater 
plumes may result in the closure of additional on-base wells. On-base wells 
are presently sampled monthly, both at the wells and at the taps. The 
Michigan Department of Public Health has indicated that these wells can 
provide an adequate water supply in the short term, but that alternate long¬ 
term water sources will have to be identified. The communities surrounding 
Wurtsmith AFB are currently considering several water supply alternatives, 
including a regional water system supplied from Lake Huron or installation of 
additional groundwater wells to meet long-term water supply needs. 

3.4.3 Air Quality 

Air quality in a given location is described as the concentration of various 
pollutants in the atmosphere, generally expressed in units of ppm or 
micrograms per cubic meter (//g/m^). Air quality is determined by the type 
and amount of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere, the size and 
topography of the air basin, and the prevailing meteorological conditions. 

The significance of a pollutant concentration is determined by comparing it 
to federal, state, and local ambient air quality standards. These standards 
represent the maximum allowable atmospheric concentrations that may 
occur and still protect public health and welfare, with a reasonable margin of 
safety. The federal standards are established by the EPA and termed the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Michigan has adopted 
federal standards as Michigan Ambient Air Quality Standards (MAAQS). The 
NAAQS and MAAQS are presented in Table 3.4-1. 

The main pollutants considered in this EIS are ozone (O3), carbon monoxide 
(CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ). SOj, and particulate matter equal to or less 
than 10 microns in diameter (PM,o). The previous NAAQS for particulate 
matter was based upon total suspended particulate (TSP) levels; it was 
replaced in 1987 by an ambient standard based only on the PM,o fraction. 
Lead is not addressed in this EIS because there are no known lead emission 
sources in the region. Lead concentrations are monitored in a number of 
high population density areas elsewhere in the state and all sites meet the 
quarterly primary and secondary standard of 1.5 //g/m^. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-69 





Table 3.4'1. National and Michigan Ambient Air Quality Standards*** 


Pollutants 

Averaging Time 

Primary **•** 

Secondary**-*' 

Ozone 

1-hour 

0.12 ppm 
(235 pQ/m^) 

Same as primary standard 

Carbon 

monoxide 

8-hour 

9 ppm 
(10 mg/m*) 

• 


1-hour 

35 ppm 
(40 mg/m*) 

- 

Nitrogen dioxide 

Annual average 

0.053 ppm 
(lOO/pg/m*) 

Same as primary standard 

Sulfur dioxide 

Annual average 

0.03 ppm 
(80 pg/m*) 

■ 


24-hour 

0.14 ppm 
(365 ;yg/m*) 

• 


3-hour 

- 

1.3(X) >i/g/m* 

(0.5 ppm) 

PM,o 

Annual 

24-hour 

50 //g/m* 

150 pg/m* 

Same as primary standard 

Lead 

Quarterly 

1.5 /;g/m* 

Same as primary standard 


National standarda, othar than ozona and thosa baaad on annual avaragaa or annual 
arithmatic maans, ara not to ba axcaedad mora than onca a yaar. Tha ozona standard is 
attainad whan tha axpactad numbar of days par calaixlar yaar, with maxitnum hourly 
avaraga concantrations abova tha standard, is aqual to or lass than 1. 

Concantration axprassad first in units in which it was promulgatad. Equivaiant units given 
in paranthesis ara basad on a rafaronca tamparatura of 2S*C and a rafarortca prassura of 
760 millimeters of mercury. All measuramants of air quality ara to ba corrected to a 
reference temperature of 25* C and a rafaranca prassura of 760 miHimatars of mercury 
(1,013.2 millibar): ppm in this table refers to ppm by voluma, or micromolas of pollutant 
per mole of gas. 

National Primary Standards: Tha levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin 
of safety to protect tha public health. 

National Secondary Standards: Tha levels of air quality necessary to protect tha public 
welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. 

Source: Clean Air Act, Title U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 


Notes: (a) 


(b) 


(c) 

(d) 


The existing air quality of the affected environment is defined by air quality 
data and emissions information. Air quality data are obtained by examining 
records from air quality monitoring stations maintained by the Air Quality 
Division of the MDNR. Information on pollutant concentrations measured 
for short-term (24 hours or less) and long-term (annual) averaging periods is 
extracted from the monitoring station data in order to characterize the 
existing air quality background of the area. Emission inventory information 
for the affected environment was obtained from the MONR, EPA, and 
Wurtsmith AFB. Inventory data are separated by pollutant and reported in 
tons per day in order to describe pollutant emissions in the area. 


3-70 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal arid Reuse FEIS 









Identifying the ROI for an air quality assessment requires knowledge of the 
pollutant types, source emission rates and release parameters, the proximity 
relationships of project emission sources to other emission sources, and 
local artd regional meteorological conditions. For all pollutants other than 
ozone and its precursors, the ROI is generally limited to an area extending a 
few miles downwind from the source. 

Ozone is a secondary pollutant formed in the atmosphere by photochemical 
reactions of previously emitted pollutants or precursors. Ozone precursors 
are mainly reactive organic gases (ROG), in the form of hydrocarbons, and 
nitrogen oxides (NO.). ROG are a subset of the groups of volatile organic 
compounds (VOC), which are compounds containing carbon, excluding CO, 
carbonic acid, metallic carbides, metallic carbonates, and ammonium 
carbonate. ROGs are gaseous forms of VOCs and do not include methane 
or other nonreactive methane and ethane derivatives. NO. is the designation 
given to the groups of all oxygenated nitrogen species, including nitric oxide 
(NO), nitrogen dioxide (NOj), nitrous oxide (NjO). nitric anhydride (NjOg), 
and nitrous anhydride (N^Oa). 

The ROI for ozone may extend much farther downwind than the ROI for 
inert pollutants. In the presence of solar radiation, the maximum effect of 
precursor emissions on ozone levels usually occurs several hours after they 
are emitted and, therefore, many miles from the source. Ozone and its 
precursors transported from other regions can also combine with local 
emissions to produce high local ozone concentrations. Ozone 
concentrations are generally the highest during the summer months and 
coincide with periods of maximum solar radiation. Maximum ozone 
concentrations tend to be regionally distributed, because precursor 
emissions are homogeneously dispersed in the atmosphere. 

For the purpose of air quality analysis, the ROI for emissions of ozone 
precursors from project construction or operational activities would be the 
existing airshed surrounding Wurtsmith AF6, i.e., Iosco County and portions 
of Alcona County, including portions of Huron National Forest. The ROI for 
emissions of other pollutants (CO, SO 2 , and PM,o) is limited to the more 
immediate area surrounding the base. 

The CAA, as amended in August 1977 and November 1990, dictates that 
project emission sources must comply with the air quality standards and 
regulations that have boen 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 and combined with other surrounding sources, 
and (2) the maximum allowable emissions from the project. 

3.4.3.1 Regional Air Quality. Wurtsmith AFB is located close enough to 
Lake Huron that local weather conditions and air quality dispersion patterns 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-71 







can be influenced, at times, by lake breezes. During the summer months, 
when temperatures and solar radiation levels are higher, ozone and its 
precursors, transported from other (nonattainment) regions to the south, 
could produce locally elevated ozone concentrations. 

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. 
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. 

Wurtsmith AFB is located in an area that is unclassified and assumed by the 
EPA and MONR to be in attainment for all federal and state criteria pollutants 
(Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1991a). The closest air quality 
monitoring station is in Hillman, Montmorency County, approximately 
50 miles northwest of the base. A Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
(PSD) air monitoring site was established in May 1989 for LFC Power 
Systems in Hillman. The facility operated two PM,o monitors and 
meteorological equipment for 1 year. Average annual reported levels of 
PMio were 18 and 11 //g/m^ for the 1989 and the 1990 portions of the 
monitoring period, respectively (Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 
1991a). Three MDNR-operated PM,o monitoring stations in Bay County, 
approximately 75 miles southwest of the base, averaged 26 //g/m^ (of PM,o) 
for the 1990 reporting year (Schroeder, 1992; Toland, 1992). These levels 
are well below the NAAQS and MAAQS. 

Wurtsmith AFB is in Michigan's Air Quality Region It, which includes all of 
the upper part of the Lower Peninsula. Region I includes the Upper 
Peninsula and Region III the lower part of the Lower Peninsula. Region III 
contains two moderate ozone nonattainment areas and one serious ozone 
nonattainment area; the remainder of Region III is unclassified but assumed 
to be nonattainment for ozone. Except for ozone in Region III, the entire 
state is in attainment or unclassified and assumed to be in attainment for all 
criteria pollutants. 

Michigan is currently rewriting its State Implementation Plan (SIP) to meet 
the requirements of the federal CAA Amendments of 1990. The SIP is 
developed for those areas of the state that are not in attainment of criteria 
pollutant standards. 

Preciosure Reference. Monitoring for air quality data has not been 
conducted in the Wurtsmith AFB area. Because of its isolated location and 
rural, forested surroundings, as well as the absence of large point sources, 
the existing air quality around the base is good. 


3-72 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 





Based on the attainment classification, major new or modified stationary 
sources in the area of Wurtsmith AFB are subject to PSD review to ensure 
that these sources are constructed without significant adverse deterioration 
of the clean air in the area. Emissions from any new or modified source 
must be controlled using best available control technology. The air quality 
impacts in combination with other PSD sources in the area must not exceed 
the maximum allowable incremental increases identified in Table 3.4-2. 
Certain national parks and wilderness areas are designated as Class I areas, 
where any appreciable deterioration in air quality is considered significant. 
Class II areas are those where moderate, well-controlled industrial growth 
could be permitted. Class III areas allow for greater industrial development. 
No PSD Class I areas have been identified within 50 miles of the base. All 
of the surrounding area is designated by the EPA as Class II. 


Table 3.4-2. Maximum Allowable Pollutant Concentration Increases under 

PSD Regulations 


Maximum Allowable Increment i/jg/m^) 


Pollutant 

Averaging Time 

Class 1 

Class II 

Class III 

TSP 

Annual 

5 

19 

37 


24-Hour 

10 

37 

75 

Sulfur dioxide 

Annual 

2 

20 

40 


24-Hour 

5 

91 

182 


3-Hour 

25 

512 

700 

Nitrogen 

Annual 

2.5 

25 

50 


dioxide 

Notes: Class I areas are regions in which the air quality is intended to be kept pristine, such 

as national parks and wilderness areas. All other lands are initially designated Class 
II. Individual states have the authority to redesignate Class II lands to Class III to 
allow for maximum industrial use. 

&ouice: 40 CFR 52.21. 

Closure Baseline. It can be reasonably assumed that pollutant 
concentrations at base closure would be similar to, or somewhat less than, 
concentrations experienced under preclosure conditions. This is because 
numerous emission sources would be eliminated by closure of the base (e.g., 
aircraft operations and aerospace ground activity). The closure would also 
reduce the number of motor vehicles operating in the surrounding area. 
Emissions associated with vehicles assigned to the base, military and 
commuting civilian employees, retirees visiting Wurtsmith AFB facilities, and 
truck traffic associated with base operations would be eliminated, with the 
exception of activities associated with the OL. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-73 
















3.4.3.2 Air Pollutant Emission Sources 

Preclosure Reference. Emission inventories for Wurtsmith AFB and Iosco 
County are presented in Table 3.4-3. The air quality emissions inventory for 
Iosco County represents 1987 data extracted from the EPA National 
Emission Data System. The data represent the four most important air 
emission source categories: fuel combustion in stationary sources, industrial 
processes, solid waste disposal, and transportation (mobile sources), as well 
as a fifth source category, miscellaneous. Stationary fuel combustion 
sources include both area sources and point sources of fuel used for heat 
and power in residences, industries, institutions, and commercial buildings. 
Emissions from industrial processes include only those industrial air 
pollutants emitted during the manufacturing process. Solid waste disposal 
emissions include those from all sources of open burning and incineration. 
Transportation emissions data distinguish between land-based (automobiles, 
trucks, buses, trains) mobile sources and air/water-based sources (aircraft, 
ships, boats). Miscellaneous emission types vary according to the region 
involved, but most commonly include fugitive dust, solvent evaporation, 
agricultural burning, forest fires, and structural fires. The inventory data 
indicate that CO and NO„ emissions in Iosco County derive primarily from 
land-based transportation-related sources. 

The emission inventory for Wurtsmith AFB is representative of preclosure 
conditions in 1990. The primary emission sources at the base include 
aircraft flying operations, aircraft ground operations, aerospace ground 
equipment, motor vehicles, fire training exercises, boilers, furnaces, and 
incinerators. The largest air pollutant source for the base is aircraft flying 
operations, which account for 1 percent of particulate emissions in the 
county, 17 percent of sulfur oxide (as SOj) emissions, 13 percent of CO 
emissions, 27 percent of ROG emissions, and 14 percent of NO. (as NOj) 
emissions. 

Wurtsmith AFB has seven air emission permits issued by MDNR and one 
permit pending. Three of these permits allow Wurtsmith AFB to emit ROGs 
to the atmosphere after they have been removed from the contaminated 
groundwater treatment systems. Another permit allows OHM Remediation 
Services to operate a soil remediation project. A fifth air use permit is for 
the central heating plant, which provides high temperature hot water for 
heating the base cantonment. The permit authorizes emissions from the 
plant's boilers regardless of whether they are operating on natural gas, the 
primary fuel, or No. 2 fuel oil, the plant's alternate fuel source. The oil-fired 
burners contribute approximately 30 percent of the sulfur oxide (SO.) 
emissions in the county. A sixth air use permit authorizes the base hospital 
to operate the incinerator to burn pathological waste. A seventh air permit 
allows Wurtsmith AFB to operate a transportation paint booth. One permit 
concerning a Jet engine test cell is pending approval from MDNR. 


3-74 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 





Table 3.4-3. loaco County Air Emission Inventory (tons per year) 


Emission Source 

TSP*^ 

PM,o 

SO. 

NO. 

ROG 

CO 

Iosco County*^' 

Fuel combustion 

634 


74 

116 

1,372 

3,893 

Industrial process 

0 


0 

0 

918 

0 

Solid waste disposal 

25 


4 

7 

46 

139 

Air/water transportation 

0 


3 

17 

360 

1,345 

La’^sd transportation 

447 


83 

1,106 

841 

5,066 

Miscellaneous 

959 


0 

0 

0 

0 

Subtotal (excluding 

2,065 


164 

1,246 

3,537 

10,443 

Wurtsmith AFB) 

Wurtsmith AFB'“ 

Aircraft flying operations 


16 

33 

219 

1,395 

1,634 

Aircraft ground operations 


0.4 

0.3 

3 

7 

9 

Aerospace ground equipment 


3 

0.6 

46 

4 

32 

Motor vehicles (military and 


0.3 

0.2 

2 

2 

13 

civilian) 

Hospital incinerator 


0.04 

0.02 

0.02 

0.02 

0.06 

Heating and power 


0.02 

0.001 

2.3 

0.02 

0.04 

production 

Fire training exercises 


5 

0.02 

0.2 

12 

21 

Surface coatings and 


0 

0 

0 

24 

0 

solvents 

Fuel storage and transfer 


0 

0 

0 

195 

0 

Base Total 


25 

34 

273 

1,639 

1,709 

County Total 

• 

- 

198 

1,519 

5,176 

12,152 


Notes: (a) PM,g data were not available at the time of tNs inventory, 
(bl Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988. 

(c) Source: U.S. Air Force, 1990b. 


Closure Baseline. Although emissions projections for Iosco County were not 
available, these emissions are not expected to change significantly from the 
1987 inventory information (Table 3.4-3). Closure baseline emissions 
resulting from OL activities at Wurtsmith AFB, as described in Chapter 2, are 
presented in Table 3.4-4. The closure emission inventory for the base was 
estimated by assuming that all emissions other than those associated with 
heating and power production and groundwater treatment would be 
eliminated. The central heating plant and power generators were assumed 
to operate at 20 percent of the preclosure demand in order to fulfill minimum 
building heating and power requirements. Emissions from motor vehicles 
and surface coating are assumed to be negligible compared to preclosure 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 


3-75 








Tabl« 3.4-4. Wurttmith AFB Closure Emission Inventory (tons per yeer) 


Source 

PM,o 

SO. 

NO. 

ROG 

CO 

Wurtsmith AFB 

0.004 

0.0003 

0.05 

0.004 

0.009 


levels. Emissions from the groundwater treatment systems will continue at 
the same level as under preclosure conditions. 

3.4.4 Noise 

The ROI for noise sources at Wurtsmith AFB is defined using FAA-developed 
land use compatibility criteria. The area most affected by noise due to the 
base disposal and reuse is limited to the base property itself and areas along 
major roadways leading to the base. 

The characteristics of sound include parameters such as amplitude, 
frequency, and duration. Sound can vary over an extremely large range of 
amplitudes. The dB, a logarithmic unit that accounts for the large variations 
in amplitude, is the accepted standard unit for the measurement of sound. 
Table 3.4-5 presents examples of typical sound levels. Different sounds 
may have different frequency contents. When measuring sound to 
determine its effects on a human population, A-weighted sound levels are 
typically used to account for the response of the human ear. A-weighted 
sound levels represent the sound measurement adjusted for the human 
sensitivity to audio frequencies between 1,000 and 8,000 cycles per second 
(American National Standards Institute, 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 time: 
therefore, to compare levels 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 compatibility, sleep disturbance, 
annoyance, hearing loss, speech interference, and staale effects. 

The DNL was developed to evaluate the total community noise environment. 
ONL, sometimes abbreviated as L^, is the average A-weighted acoustical 
energy during a 24-hour period with a 10 dB adjustment added to the 
nighttime levels (between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.). This adjustment is an effort 
to account for the increased sensitivity to nighttime noise events. DNL was 
endorsed by the EPA for use by federal agencies and has been adopted by 
HUD, FAA, and DOD. 


3-76 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 










Table 3.4-5. Comparative Sound Levels 


Common Outdoor 

Sound Level 

Common Indoor 

Sound Levels 

(decibels) 

Sound Levels 


— 

pllO 

Rock Band 

Jet Flyover at 1,000 ft 

— 

-100 

Inside Subway Train (New York) 

Gas Lawnmower at 3 ft 


-90 


Diesel Truck at 50 ft 



Food Blender at 3 ft 

Noisy Urban Daytime 


— 80 

Garbage Disposal at 3 ft 




Shouting at 3 ft 

Gas Lawnmower at 100 ft 


-70 

Vacuum Cleaner at 10 ft 

Commercial Area 



Normal Speech at 3 ft 

Heavy T raffic at 300 ft 

— 

-60 

Large Business Office 




Dishwasher Next Room 



-50 

Small Theater, Large Conference 

Quiet Urban Nighttime 

— 

-40 

Room (Background) 

Quiet Suburban Nighttime 



Library 


— 

-30 

Bedroom at Night 

Quiet Rural Nighttime 


-20 

Concert Hall (Background) 




Broadcast and Recording Studio 


— 

-10 

Threshold of Hearing 


— 

— 0 



Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FFi‘=! 


3-77 












ONL 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 compatibility guidelines for 
noise in terms of DNL (U.S. Department of Transportation, 1980). Table 
3.4-6 provides FAA-recommended DNL ranges for various land use 
categories based upon the committee's guidelines. The FAA guidelines were 
used in this study to determine noise impacts. 

DNL is used in this report because it is the noise descriptor recognized by 
the FAA and Air Force for airfield environments. DNL is sometimes 
supplemented with other metrics, primarily the equivalent sound level (L^). 
The L^ is the equivalent, steady-state level that would contain the same 
acoustical energy as the time-varying level during the same time interval. 
Occasionally, the Sound Exposure Level (SEL) is used to supplement DNL, 
especially where sleep disturbance is a concern. The SEL value represents 
the A-weighted sound level integrated over the entire duration of the noise 
event and referenced to a duration of 1 second. When an event lasts longer 
than 1 second, the SEL value will be higher than the highest sound level 
during the event. SEL is used in this report when discussing sleep 
disturbance effects. 

Appendix J provides additional information about the measurement and 
prediction of noise. This appendix also provides more information on the 
units used in describing noise, as well as information about 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 aircraft, surface traffic, and other human activities. Military 
(and civilian) aircraft operations and surface traffic on local streets and 
highways are the existing primary sources of noise in the vicinity of 
Wurtsmith AFB. In airport analyses, areas with DNL above 65 dB are often 
considered in land-use compatibility planning and impact assessment; 
therefore, the contours of DNL greater than 65 dB are of particular interest. 
Contours above DNL 65 dB are modeled and presented in 5 dB intervals. 

Preclosure nnce. Aircraft noise at Wurtsmith AFB occurs during aircraft 
engine warro , , maintenance and testing, taxiings, takeoffs, approaches, 
and landings. Noise contours for preclosure aircraft operations were 
modeled using information on aircraft types; runway use; runup locations; 
takeoff and landing flight tracks; aircraft 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. The noise contours for 1990 (Figure 3.4-3) were 
generated using the FAA-approved model NOISEMAP, version 5.2. Only 
those contours equal to or greater than DNL 65 dB are shown. 


3-78 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






Letters irt parentheses refer to notes (see next page). The designations contained in tNs table do not constitute a federal 
determination that any use of lartd covered by the program is acceptable or unacceptable under federal, state, or local law. The 
responsibility for determining the acceptable and permissible lartd uses sr>d the relationship between specific properties and 
specific noise contours rests with the local authorities. FAA determinations under Part 150 are not intended to substitute 
federally determined land uses for those determined to be appropriate by local authorities in response to locally determinad needs 
and values in achieving noise compatible land uses. 

Key 

Y (Yes) Lartd use and related structures competibla without restrictions. 

N (No) Land use and related structures are not compatible and should be prohibited. 

25, 30, or 35 Land use and related structures genersHy compatible; meesures to achieve Noise Level Reduction (NLR) 

of 25, 30, or 35 dB must be incorporated into design artd construction of structure. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-79 










Table 3.4-6. Land Usa Compatibiity with Yaariy Day-Night Average Sound Levels 

Page 2 of 2 


Notes 

(a) Whara tha community datarminaa that raaidantial or aohool uaaa muat ba allowad, maaauraa to achiava outdoor 
to indoor Noiaa Laval Raduotion (NLR) of at laaat 2S dB and 30 dB ahouid ba incorporatad into buildinfl codaa 
and ba conaidarad in individual approvala. Normal raaidantial conatiuction can ba axpactad to provida an NLR of 
20 dB, thua, tha raduotion raquiramanta arc oftan atatad aa S. 10, or 15 dB ovor atandard conatruction and 
nonnatty aaauma machanical ventilation aitd cloaad windowa yaar round. Howavor, tha uaa of NLR criteria will 
not alimittato outdoor noiaa problama. 

(b) Maa au raa to achiava an NLR of 25 dB muat ba incorporatad into tha daaign and conatruction of portiorta of thaaa 
buildinga whara tha pubiio ia raeaivad, office araaa, tMiaa>aanaitiva araaa or whara tha normal noiaa lava! ia tow. 

(c) Maaauraa to achiava an NLR of 30 dB muat ba irtcorporatad into tha daaign and conatruction of portiona of thaaa 
buildinga whara tha pubiio ia received, office araaa, noiaa-eanaitiva araaa, or whara tha normal rtoiaa (aval ia low. 

(d) M aa au raa to achiava an NLR of 35 dB muat ba incorporatad into tha daaign atvl conatruction of portiona of thaaa 
buildinga whara tha public ia raeaivad, office araaa, ttoiaa-aanaitiva araaa, or where tha normal iwiaa level ia low. 

(a) Laitd uaa compatibla, provided apacial eourtd rainforcamant ayatama arc inatallad. 

(f) Raaidantial buildinga require an NLR of 25. 

(g) Raaidantial buildirtga require an NLR of 30. 

(hi Raaidantial buildinga not permitted. 

Source: Oarivad from FAR Part 150 Airport Noiaa Compatibility Platming (FAA, 1989b). 


Surface vehicle traffic noise levels for roadways in the vicinity of Wurtsmith 
AFB were estimated using the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA's) 
Highway Noise Model (1978). This model incorporates vehicle mix, traffic 
volume projections, and speed to generate DNL. The noise levels are then 
presented as a function of distance from the centerline of the nearest road. 
The results of the modeling for surface traffic are presented in Table 3.4-7. 
The actual distances to the DNLs may be less than those presented in the 
table because the screening effects of intervening buildings, terrain, and 
walls were not accounted for in the modeling. 

Table 3.4-7 presents noise levels due to traffic during the July peak month 
(refer to Section 3.2.3, Transportation). Noise levels based on the average 
daily traffic would be lower. The peak month noise levels were estimated 
based on posted speed limits; however, as traffic volumes increase, LOS and 
speed may be reduced, which would result in lower noise levels than those 
indicated in Table 3.4-7. 

Appendix J contains the data used in the surface traffic analysis. These 
data include daily traffic volumes, traffic mix, and speeds. 


3-80 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 






EXPLANATION 


Preclosure Aircraft 
Noise Contours 


DNL Noiss Contours 
(in 5 dB intervals) 


nn 

0 12 4 Miles 



Map Sources: U.S. Geological Survey, 1983,1984. 


Wurtsmiih AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


Figure 3.4-3 


3-81 









3.4-7. Distance to PNL from Ro adway C«ntertin< for the Pr>do«ur« 

Pittance 


o 

a 






n 

K 


qH 


•I 

oH 


Z>A 

^ Ml 


O O O OO OOO O O O OO 


8 S 1 3 3 


O O 


• O OOO o o o 


? 9 S 8$ 888 


3 3 3 


a» o <M 


^ n 
« •- 


OOO o o o 


s 


8 S 8 8 8 8 8 


8 * 8 


3 X 


o o 


3 3 


o o 


8 8 


O O O OO OOO O O O OO 


8888888331 


s® o S So OOO o o o 


? s 8 o g 5 g 


8 8 3 8 


s O « M 

fM 0* 


woo •- 


10 

iO 


8 ^ 

8 8 8 8 8 


8 


o o 


o 

w 


X 3 


o o 


3 3 


o o 


o o 

M r* 




3 

8 

O 

oc 


s 



£ 




2- 

c 

£ 

s 

S 

• 

1 

u 

e 

ea 

s 

s 

• 

• 

« 

8 

O 

s 

•K 

• 

0. 

5 

< 

1 

xf 

OC 

1 

A 

§ 

u 

f 

g 

e 

IJ 

% 

OC 


<0 

S 

o 

s 

o 

OC 

s 

8 

s 

5 

1| 

o 

M 

<*» 

i 

< 

S 

tj 

np 

«*> 

oc 

co2 

MflC 

u 

n 

w 

iL 

« 

e4 

*3 

ao 

<0 

1 

w 

IK 

• 

« 




vi 

.£ 

? 


5: 

3ae 

3 3 

3ii. 

3 

3 C 

IL 

U. 

U.J 


"O 

flC 


^ W 

2 3 


m 

§ 

■go 

m 


o-g o| 

sJ 


sis 

ll3 


s 

S 

s 

£ 

s 

m 

9 

ec 


•D 

OC 


flC 

is 

e e 

S2l 

a< 


3 

8 

s 

c 

2 

I 


o 

O 


o 

z 


3-82 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


Closur* Basdin*. At closure it is assumed that there would be ru) aircraft 
operations and, therefore, there would be no areas impacted by aircraft 
noise. 

The projected noise levels for the closure baseline were calculated using the 
surface traffic projections at base closure (Appendix J). The results of the 
modeling for the roadways analyzed are presented in Table 3.4-7. At 
closure, 682 people would reside in areas exposed to surface traffic noise 
levels of DNL 65 dB or greater. Again, the actual distances to the DNLs 
may be less than those presented in the table because the model does not 
account for screening effects of intervening buildings, terrain, and walls. 

3.4.4.2 Noise-SensHive Areas. The preclosure ROI for Wurtsmith AFB 
includes noise-sensitive receptors such as residences that are within the DNL 
65 dB contour. The modeled contours (see Figure 3.4-3) indicate that there 
are 37,500 acres exposed to DNL 65 dB or greater in and around Wurtsmith 
AFB. This includes 17,700 acres with approximately 3,300 residents in the 
region between DNL 65 and 70 dB, 11,300 acres with approximately 2,200 
residents in the region between DNL 70 and 75 dB, and 8,500 acres with 
approximately 4,300 residents in the region of DNL 75 dB or greater. 

Section 3.2.3, Land Use and Aesthetics, describes land uses on and near the 
base. 

3.4.5 Biological Resources 

Biological resources include the native and introduced plants and animals in 
the project area. For discussion purposes, these are divided into vegetation, 
wildlife (including aquatic biota), threatened and endangered species, and 
sensitive habitats. A reconnaissance survey of the base and surrounding 
area was conducted in April 1992. 

The ROI used for discussions of biological resources present and potential 
impacts on these resources is Wurtsmith AFB and the surrounding area 
within approximately 5 miles of the base. A list of species potentially 
present on Wurtsmith AFB and in the vicinity is presented in Table 1-1, 
Appendix I. 

3.4.5.1 Vegetation. Prior to development, the sandy soils on Wurtsmith 
AFB probably supported extensive mixed forests, which were transitional 
between the boreal forests to the north and the deciduous forests to the 
south and southeast. This portion of Michigan has been logged in the past 
and the current forests do not contain old growth. The distribution of 
vegetation on Wurtsmith AFB is shown in Figure 3.4-4. 

The majority of the base within the security fence has been altered by 
human activity. Where there are remnant stands of forest, they are either 
extremely small or disturbed through heavy use. However, property outside 


Wurtsmith AFB Dispose! and Reuse FEiS 


3-83 






EXPLANATION 

Landscaped 


0 


Vegetation 


Agriculture * 

HEEH Grassland | 
Shrubland* | 

run 

0 750 1500 3000 Feel 


Swamp/Marsh 


Forest Water 

mu Developed 
Tundra* Disturbed 

^ I Barron — - - — Base Boundary 

* Not Applicable 




Nots; Figure 1.2-1 shows Air Force fee-owned property. 


Figure 3.4-4 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-84 

















the security fence is relatively undisturbed, extensive, and ecologically 
valuable. This property includes a large area of fo'ested land north of the 
airstrip, and smaller areas southeast of the runway along the floodplain of 
the Au Sable River. The northern area is bordered by the Au Sable State 
Forest to the west and north, and privately owned forest to the east. 

There are 1,392 acres of forest on Wurtsmith AFB including transitional 
mixed deciduous/evergreen forest, planted forest, and forested wetland. 

Most of the undisturbed areas on base are transitional mixed deciduous/ 
evergreen forests dominated by red oak, jack pine, and northern or red pine. 
Bigtooth aspen is usually found near the edges of these forests. Forested 
areas vary in tree density and species composition as well as understory 
species and densities. Most of these areas are closed-canopy forests. 
Understory species of the mixed deciduous/evergreen forests include 
Labrador tea, late low blueberry, sweet fern, bracken fern, bush 
honeysuckle, spreading dogbane, barren strawberry, and serviceberry. 

Small patches of mature mixed forest are found throughout Wurtsmith AFB, 
including the northeast boundary of the base and the ski trail and training 
area in the southern portion of the base. Understory species are generally 
sparse in these areas. The largest concentration of mature mixed forest is 
surrounding, and just north of, the small arms range, outside the security 
fence. Farther north, closer to the wetland areas, the canopy becomes more 
open and there is a dense understory of Labrador tea. 

A large area west of the north-south section of Rea Road has been disturbed 
previously and now supports a young mixed forest made up of jack pine, red 
pine, and red oak, growing to a height of about 6 feet. There is also a 
relatively pure stand of young pines in the now inactive landfill area. 

Forested wetland and swamp/marsh habitat are described in 
Section 3.4.5.4, Sensitive Habitats. 

Disturbed grasslands cover a total of 1,712 acres on base. Most of these 
areas are dominated by meadow fescue, orchard grass, native grasses, 
sedges, and other herbaceous plants. Large shrubby species such as 
staghorn sumac and willow grow on the edges of some disturbed grassy 
areas. Included within this category are the areas around the runways and 
associated base facilities, which are maintained grassy lawns. Different 
areas have different mowing specifications and schedules but the minimum 
height is between 3 and 5 inches and the maximum height is between 6 and 
8 inches. 

Sites dominated by shrub cover are uncommon. Where present, they are 
probably the result of disturbance rather than some other environmental 
condition, such as change in soil type. Solitary shrubs appear in some 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-85 




disturbed grassland areas, and shrubs cover a portion of the inactive landfill 
in the northern part of the base. 

Developed areas occupy 395 acres on base and include unvegetated places 
that are paved, graded, filled, or covered with structures. 

Landscaped areas cover 607 acres. The areas around the base housing and 
the cantonment are planted with many species of deciduous and evergreen 
shrubs and trees. 

Several common types of herbicides are used between April and October for 
control measures on lawns, along roadsides, around the runway areas, and 
along the fenceline. 

Air Force Fee-Owned Land. The Air Force fee-owned property contains 
primarily areas that are categorized as landscaped or disturbed grassland. 
There are also several small forest areas adjacent to family housing in the 
southeastern corner of the base and along County Road F-41 in the eastern 
portion of the base. 

3.4.5.2 Wildlife. Wurtsmith AFB lies in a transitional zone between the 
boreal forest to the north and the deciduous forest to the south. The 
presettlement wildlife was also transitional in nature and included species 
from the northern and southern forest habitats, i.e., red and gray squirrels, 
snowshoe hare and eastern cottontail, and spruce and ruffed grouse. 
Currently, many of the species originating from the north that once 
frequented the region (such as moose, elk, gray wolf, wolverine, and 
marten) are either rare or no longer found in the area. The fauna now 
comprise more southerly species representative of successional stages of 
forest growth (Stearns-Rogers Services, Inc., 1984). Typical species include 
white-tailed deer, coyote, striped skunk, raccoon, opossum, gray and fox 
squirrels, eastern cottontail, and ruffed grouse. Wildlife activity is highest in 
the undisturbed habitats along the Au Sable River floodplain and in the 
northwest section of the base, and is lowest in areas disturbed by human 
activities and urbanization, where little natural habitat remains. 

The habitat areas within the security fence of Wurtsmith AFB support few 
large mammals but a wide variety of small mammals and birds. No hunting 
is permitted within the security fence. Small mammals such as gray and fox 
squirrels, thirteen-lir H ground squirrel, eastern chipmunk, deer mouse, and 
house mouse are coi. ^non to the developed and landscaped areas of the 
base. The little brown bat forages for insects over these open areas after 
dark. Birds that frequent the developed and landscaped areas on base 
include European starling, robin, house sparrow, crow, and house finch. 

The inactive landfill in the northern portion of the base is covered by 
grasses, other herbs, and small woody shrubs, and is surrounded by stands 


3-86 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







of mixed woodlands. This area provides habitat for the Virginia opossum, 
snowshoe hare, masked shrew, striped skunk, woodchuck, white-footed 
mouse, and meadow vole (Schuman, 1987). The open area also provides 
foraging habitat for the American woodcock, wild turkey, eastern bluebird, 
and field sparrow. The abundance of prey attracts predators such as 
coyote, long-tailed weasel, badger, great horned owl, red-tailed hawk, and 
American kestrel. 

The forested areas within the fence boundary provide habitat for the 
raccoon, skunk, chipmunk, squirrel, rabbit, mouse, and a variety of 
songbirds such as black-capped chickadee, tufted titmouse, red-breasted 
nuthatch, palm warbler, song sparrow, and American tree sparrow. 

White-tailed deer occur in ail the habitats outside the security fence but are 
more common where there are small herbaceous and brushy openings in the 
forest cover. Coyote, gray fox, and occasionally black bear hunt throughout 
the forest. Gray and fox squirrels are common where there are oaks in 
maturing hardwood stands. The northern flying squirrel is found in mature 
forest stands where snags provide dens and dense canopies allow arboreal 
lichens to grow. Slow-flowing Dry Creek meanders through the forest to the 
east of the large wetland in the northwestern part of the base, and provides 
excellent habitat for beaver, which utilize the maple, alder, and birch trees 
for food and for the construction of dams and lodges. Raccoon, mink, 
muskrat, and long-tailed weasel also reside near the creek (U.S. Department 
of Agriculture, n.d.). 

The forest and wetland habitats of Wurtsmith AFB support over 200 species 
of birds. The barred owl, great horned owl, northern saw-whet owl. 
Cooper's hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, and red-tailed hawk nest in the forests 
and hunt over all habitats of the base. A variety of woodpeckers, including 
the pileated woodpecker, inhabit the mature forests. Game birds such as 
ruffed grouse, wild turkey, and American woodcock forage in the forest 
undergrowth. Numerous songbirds nest in the diverse vegetation types of 
the base. The chestnut-sided warbler and golden-winged warbler inhabit 
deciduous tree-dominated stands, the Lincoln's sparrow prefers young 
conifers, and the scarlet tanager prefers the maturing mixed forests. A 
variety of waterfowl may be found in the wetland areas on and near 
Wurtsmith AFB. Common types include the Canada goose, ring-billed gull, 
American coot, green-winged teal, wood duck, and canvasback. 

Reptiles and amphibians are associated primarily with the wetland habitats 
outside the fence. Reptiles found in and near the wetland areas include 
eastern box turtle, five-lined skink, and several species of snake, including 
the northern water snake, northern ringneck snake, and red-bellied snake. 
The hognose snake and blue racer may be found in the woodlands and 
brushy areas of the base. The wood turtle, a state-listed Species of Special 
Concern (a watch list species), is found in the mature forest in the 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-87 



northwestern area of the base. The eastern gray treefrog, pickerel frog, 
American toad, spring peeper, and eastern newt are among the many 
amphibian species that reside in the wooded swamps and streams of the 
region. 

There is no permanent surface water on Wurtsmith AFB so no fish species 
are present. The Au Sable River, Lake Huron, and Van Etten Lake provide 
habitat for several species of fish, including the lake sturgeon and channel 
darter, considered sensitive by the state and federal governments (see 
Appendix 1). Brown trout, walleye, crappie, largemouth bass, yellow perch, 
and bluegill are some of the common game fish occurring in these water 
bodies. 

Air Force Fee-Owned Land. Wildlife present on the Air Force fee-owned 
portions of the base property are classified as developed and disturbed. The 
wildlife present is as previously described for that habitat. 

3.4.5.3 Threatened and Endangered Species. The Michigan Natural 
Features Inventory. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and published 
literature were consulted for information on rare and protected species. 
USFWS has indicated that no state- or federally listed threatened or 
endangered species are known to occur at Wurtsmith AFB (see letter in 
Appendix L). However, based on known habitat requirements and 
distribution, a number of state- and federally listed threatened, endangered, 
and candidate species may occur. Table 1-2 in Appendix I summarizes 
information on habitat requirements and distribution of species in the vicinity 
that are listed or candidates for listing as federal or state threatened or 
endangered. 

Candidate species known to occur at Wurtsmith AFB include the 
massasauga rattlesnake and secretive locust, both considered Category 2 
candidates for federal listing as a threatened or endangered species and 
state-listed Species of Special Concern (a watch list of species whose 
numbers, distribution, or habitat may be declining). The massasauga occurs 
in the swampv areas along the Au Sable River floodplain on base. One 
undated sighting of the secretive locust is reported in the Michigan Natural 
Features In ^entory from the large forested wetland in the northwest portion 
of the base. Many other sightings of the secretive locust in boggy areas 
near Oscoda were reported in the 1930s (Hubbell and Cantrall, 1938). 

Although not known to occur on base, several additional listed and 
candidate species may be present in the vicinity of the base. Kirtiand's 
warbler, federally and state-listed as endangered, is present 1 mile south of 
the base in the Huron National Forest Kirtiand's Warbler Management Area. 
The warbler nests in young jack pine forests when the trees are between the 
ages of 8 and 25 years. A previous report indicated that Wurtsmith AFB 
and its immediate vicinity did not have habitat suitable for the Kirtiand's 


3-88 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 



warbler (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1983). Over time, 
however, there is a potential for development of suitable habitat at 
Wurtsmith AFB as stands of jack pine on base reach the appropriate age and 
habitat elsewhere is lost (Weise, 1992). Lake cress, a plant listed by the 
state as threatened and a federal candidate for listing, and wild rice, a state- 
listed threatened species, may occur downstream along the Au Sable River 
but have not been recorded on the base. 

Air Force Fee-Owned Land. There are no threatened or endangered species 
known to be present on the Air Force fee-owned portion of the base 
property, although the federal candidate Massasauga rattlesnake lives in the 
wetlands in the fee-owned area at the southwestern end of the runway. 

3.4.S.4 Sensitive Habitats. Sensitive habitats include wetlands; plant 
communities that are unusual or of limited distribution; threatened, 
endangered, and sensitive species habitat; and important seasonal use areas 
for wildlife (e.g., breeding areas). Wetlands are the primary sensitive 
habitats on Wurtsmith AFB (Figure 3.4-5). 

Data from several sources including the Base Comprehensive Plan, USGS 
topographic maps, federal and state agencies, and interpretation of aerial 
photographs supported by site visits indicate the presence of extensive 
forested wetlands, as depicted in Figure 3.4-5. Wetlands are defined as 
"those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a 
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal 
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for 
life in saturated soil conditions” (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987). The 
majority of jurisdictional wetlands in the United States meet three wetland 
delineation criteria (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland 
hydrology) and are subject to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act. 
The wetlands on Wurtsmith AFB meet all three wetland delineation criteria. 

In the State of Michigan, the Goemaere-Anderson Wetland Protection Act 
also regulates the use of wetlands. 

The 438-acre forested wetland in the northwest corner of the base is 
dominated almost exclusively by northern white cedar, although black 
spruce, paper birch, and very thick sphagnum moss are also present. Most 
of the ground was covered by standing water during a field survey 
conducted in late April 1992. In areas lacking standing water, the soil was 
saturated and covered with a thick mat of moss. 

Dry Creek is dammed in many locations by beavers, resulting in a network of 
ponds. The area surrounding the creek is a mixed forest of red oak and jack 
pine. Silver maple is the dominant tree species on the edge of this wetland, 
and common alders grow in the deeper part of the stream. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-89 






EXPLANATION 

Sensitive Habitats 

Bass Boundary 


Iffei Wedands 


root ^ *'*°**' ^9“^* ^shows Air Fores fss-ownsd propsrty. 

Figure 3.4-5 


3-90 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 










Swamp/marsh land occupies 67 acres on base along the Au Sable River 
floodplain south of the runway. This habitat is frequently covered with 
standing water and supports a variety of vegetation, including cattails, paper 
birch, Labrador tea, common aider, northern white cedar, and sphagnum 
moss. Also present in the southern wetlands are sedges, willows, skunk 
cabbage, star flower, swamp dewberry, tamarack, bunchberry, lady fern, 
flowering or royal fern, sensitive fern, and silky dogwood. These wetlands 
provide habitat for the federal candidate massasauga rattlesnake (see 
Section 3.4.5.3). A section of this floodplain may be contaminated by 
pollutants originating from on-base activities. Investigation and remediation, 
as needed, are under way as part of the IRP (see Section 3.3.3). 

The large forested areas outside the base security fence may also be 
considered sensitive habitat. Much of the land in this part of Michigan has 
been cleared, and large stands of forest are limited. The mature mixed 
evergreen/deciduous forest north of the runway provides important habitat 
for wildlife including the wood turtle, a state-listed Species of Special 
Concern. The area also serves as a buffer between disturbed habitats and 
the large wetland in the northwest portion of the base. The planted forest 
dominated by young jack pine to the west of the north-south segment of 
Rea Road may represent potential habitat for the Kirtland's warbler, federally 
and state-listed as endangered (see Section 3.4.5.3). 

Air Force Fee-Owned Land. Approximately 30 acres of swamp/marsh are 
present on the Air Force fee-owned land at the southwestern end of the 
runway (see Figure 3.4-5). 

3.4.6 Cultural Resources 

Cultural resources are prehistoric and historic sites, structures, districts, 
artifacts, or any other physical evidence of human activity considered 
important to a culture, subculture, or community for scientific, traditional, 
religious or any other reason. Cultural resources have been divided for ease 
of discussion into three main categories: prehistoric resources, historic 
structures and resources, and traditional resources. These types of 
resources are defined in Appendix E, Methods. For the purposes of this 
analysis, paleontological remains, the fossil evidence of past plant and 
animal life, have been included within the cultural resources category. 

The ROI for the analysis of cultural resources includes all areas within the 
base boundaries, whether or not certain parcels would be subject to ground 
disturbance. For this analysis, the ROI is synonymous with the Area of 
Potential Effect as defined by regulations implementing the National Historic 
Preservation Act (NHPA). The potential conveyance of federal property to a 
private party or non-federal agency constitutes an undertaking, or a project 
that falls under the requirements of cultural resource legislative mandates, 
because any historic properties located on that property would cease to be 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 


3-91 








protected by federal law. However, impacts resulting from conveyance 
could be reduced to a nonadverse level by placing preservation covenants on 
the lease or disposal document. Reuse activities within designated parcels 
that may affect historic properties would require the reuser to comply with 
the requirements contained in the preservation covenants. 

Numerous laws and regulations require federal agencies to consider the 
effects of a proposed project on cultural resources. These laws and 
regulations stipulate a process for compliance, define the responsibilities of 
the federal agency proposing the action, and prescribe the relationship 
among other involved agencies (e.g.. State Office of Historic Preservation 
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation). Methods used to 
achieve compliance with these requirements are presented in Appendix E. 

Only those potential historic properties determined to be significant under 
cultural resource legislation are subject to protection or consideration by a 
federal agency. The quality of significance, in terms of applicability to 
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria and of integrity, is 
discussed in Appendix E, Methods. Significant cultural resources, either 
prehistoric or historic in age. are referred to as "historic properties.” 

In compliance with the NHPA, the Air Force has initiated the Section 106 
review process with the Michigan SHPO. The most recent records search 
for cultural resources on Wurtsmith AFB was conducted in 1990. At that 
time, the site files of the Bureau of History and the holdings of the State 
Library of Michigan were examined to assess the cultural resource potential 
of the base (Branstner, 1991). Reports of previous surveys were also 
consulted, i.i.^jlly, the SHPO indicated that "the project [disposal and reuse 
of the base] will affect no historic orooerites (no known sites eligible for 
listing in the National Register of Historic Places) and that the project is 
cleared under federal regulation 36 CFR 800 for the "Protection of Historic 
Properties." Subsequently, after further research, the SHPO withdrew this 
finding, and recommended further investigations (Appendix L). 

3.4.6.1 Prehistoric Resources. Paleo-Indian people first entered southern 
Michigan around 11,500 years ago. However, the Iosco County area was 
probably not occupied until the very end of the Paleo-Indian period, being 
submerged before that time. The Archaic period lasted from 10,000 to 
2,500 years ago. Sites of this period are rare until (ate in the period, when 
people exploited the river, lake, and forest environments for fish, plant 
foods, deer, and waterfowl. During the Woodland period, beginning around 
600 B.C., pottery was first developed and new burial practices were 
introduced. The Late Woodland period, which began around A.D. 700, 
witnessed an increase in the number and variety of sites, primarily 
associated with fishing and hunting activities (Prahl, 1989). 


3-92 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 




The majority of Wurtsmith AFB has been inspected by archaeologists. 

Shovel testing at 10-meter intervals of 26 acres, in 1983, produced no 
cultural material. A 1988 surface survey at 15- to 60-meter intervals 
covered 211 acres (Prahl, 1989); limited subsurface testing was conducted 
in areas considered sensitive for cultural resources. Two prehistoric 
archaeological sites (20ls87 and 20ls88) and three isolated prehistoric 
artifacts were found as a result of these investigations. 

Site 201s87 is a low-density scatter of chipped stone and fire-cracked rock 
on top of Nipissing dune. The site was dated to the Middle Woodland period 
and it was possibly also used during the Middle and Late Archaic periods. 
Limited test excavations revealed no subsurface component. Site 20is88 is 
on the Au Sable River bluff outside the perimeter fence at the end of the 
runway. It is a small, low-density lithic scatter with no subsurface 
component. These two sites are not considered eligible for listing on the 
NRHP. 

In 1990, a surface survey at 15-meter intervals was performed on 850 acres 
on base (Branstner, 1991). One prehistoric site (20ls98), consisting of a 
thin scatter of chert flakes and fire-cracked rock, was found on a bluff 
overlooking the Au Sable River valley. When the site was inspected again in 
1992, a projectile point, probably dating from the Late Woodland period, and 
scattered stone flakes were observed. This site has not been evaluated; 
therefore, until testing is complete and SIHPO concurrence has been obtained 
on a determination of eligibility, the site must be considered eligible. 

Due to poor ground visibility, the Michigan SiHPO has recommended that 
additional subsurface investigations (e.g., augers, shovel test pits) be 
conducted prior to completion of identification efforts required under Section 
106 of the NHPA. Further consultation with the SHPO is planned to 
complete the Air Force's responsibilities under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

3.4.6.2 Historic Structures and Resources. The historic period in the region 
began during the 17th century with the arrival of the first Europeans, who 
began trading, trapping, and lumbering activities in the area in the early 
1800s. According to base records, no structures built before 1941 remain 
on the base. Of the buildings constructed between 1941 and 1943, 
according to real property records, only six remain. The six buildings have 
been inspected, photographed, and evaluated. The Air Force concluded, and 
the Michigan SHPO concurred, that none of the buildings is eligible for listing 
on the NRHP because they lack integrity. The NRHP criteria used to define 
significance are listed in Appendix E. 

An abandoned narrow-gauge railroad bed in the southwestern portion of the 
base has been recorded but has not received a formal site designation. This 
railroad was probably part of the Au Sable and Northwestern Railroad, 50 
miles long, built around 1883 for use by the J.E. Potts Salt and Lumber 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 


3-93 






Company at the mouth of the Au Sable River (Prahl, 1989) and used until 
the fire of 1911. 

3.4.6.3 Traditional Resources. In 1990, the Michigan Commission of Indian 
Affairs and local representatives of the Chippewa and Ottawa, Native 
American groups traditionally associated with northeastern Michigan, were 
contacted to identify any known sacred areas or other concerns within 
Wurtsmith AFB. No known areas or resources of importance to modern 
Native Americans have been identified. 

3.4.6.4 Paleontological Resources. Wurtsmith AFB lies on a sandy plain 
formed by the retreat of ancient seas and large-scale glacial movement. 
Bedrock formations in the vicinity of the base are covered with at least 

100 feet of glacial deposits. No paleontological resources have been found 
on the base, and none are expected. 


3-94 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 





CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 









4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 


4.1 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter discusses the potential environmental consequences associated 
with the Proposed Action and alternatives. To provide the context in which 
potential environmental impacts may occur, discussions of potential changes 
to the local communities, including population, land use and aesthetics, 
transportation, and community and public utility 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 soils and geology, water resources, air 
quality, noise, biological resources, and cultural 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. Possible mitigation 
measures to minimize or eliminate the adverse environmental impacts are 
also presented. 

Cumulative impacts result from "the incremental impact of the action when 
added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 
regardless of what agency undertakes such other actions. Cumulative 
impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions 
taking place over a period of time" (Council on Environmental Quality, 

1978). No other reasonably foreseeable future actions have been identified 
in the region that could contribute to potential cumulative impacts; 
therefore, cumulative impacts are not discussed. 

Means of mitigating adverse environmental impacts that may result from 
implementation of the Proposed Action and alternatives are discussed as 
required by NEPA. Mitigation measures are suggested for those components 
likely to experience substantial and adverse changes under any or all of 
these alternatives. 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 implementation 

(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the 
affected environment 

(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and 
maintenance operations during the life of the action 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 


4-1 










(el 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 mitigation 
measures for impacts to biological resources. Where appropriate, a 
discussion regarding the probability of success associated with a particular 
mitigation is included. 

Although reuse development would be decided by recipients and local zoning 
authorities, probable reuse scenarios were evaluated to analyze 
environmental impacts. 

Alternatives are defined for this analysis on the basis of (1) plans of local 
communities and interested individuals, (2) general land use planning 
considerations, and (3) Air Force-generated plans to provide a broad range of 
reuse options. Reuse scenarios considered in this EIS must be sufficiently 
detailed to permit environmental analysis. Initial concepts and plans are 
taken as starting points for scenarios to be analyzed. Available information 
on any reuse alternative is then supplemented with economic, demographic, 
transportation, and other planning data to provide a reuse scenario for 
analysis. It is projected that 20 years or more would be required to fully 
develop the base under civilian reuse. 

4.2 LOCAL COMMUNITY 

This section discusses potential effects on local communities as a result of 
disposal and reuse of Wuasmith AFB. 

4.2.1 Community Setting 

Socioeconomic effects are addressed here only to the extent that they are 
interrelated with the biophysical environment. A complete ass<’<;sment of 
socioeconomic effects is presented in the Socioeconomic Imi. Analysis 
Study, Disposal and Reuse of Wurtsmith AFB. The following o..^^ussion is 
limited to the key employment and population effects of the Proposed 
Action and alternatives in comparison to projected conditions under the 
No-Action Alternative. 

Under the No-Action Alternative, site-related employment levels of 50 direct 
and 11 secondary jobs are projected throughout the 20-year analysis period. 
Without reuse, total ROi employment is forecasted to increase from 33,495 
at closure to 35,604 in 2013, an average annual growth rate of 0.3 percent 
per year (extrapolated from a projection by the Michigan Department of 
Management and Budget, 1985). The total ROI population without reuse 
would increase from 78,139 persons at closure to 82,900 in 2013, an 
average annual increase of 0.3 percent. 


4-2 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 




This analysis recoonizes the potential for impacts to communities arising 
from "announcement effects" stemming from information regarding the 
base’s closure or reuse. Such announcements may affect community 
perceptions and. in turn, could have important local economic effects. An 
example would be the in-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, therefore, result in an 
initial, temporary increase in population followed by a decline in population 
as people leave the area. Changes associated with announcement effects, 
while potentially important, are highly unpredictable and difficult to quantify. 
Therefore, such effects were excluded from the quantitative analysis in this 
study, and are not included in the numeric data presented in this report. 

4.2.1.1 Proposed Action. Reuse activities at Wurtsmith AFB under the 
Proposed Action would generate an increase of 4,285 direct jobs and 2,582 
secondary jobs by 2013, compared to the 50 direct and 11 secondary jobs 
projected under the No-Action Alternative. All direct jobs would be located 
on site, in Oscoda Township. Secondary jobs would be created throughout 
the ROI. Approximately 49 percent of direct jobs and 10 percent of 
secondary jobs are projected to be held by in-migrating workers. Total 
employment in the ROI would be 42,471 in 2013 under the Proposed 
Action, an increase of 19 percent over No-Action Alternative projections for 
that year. ROI employment growth is projected to average 1.2 percent 
annually between closure and 2013. Figure 4.2-1 shows the effects of the 
Proposed Action and alternatives on employment levels in the ROI. 

Population in the ROI would increase by 8,352 from closure to 2013 as a 
result of new employment generated by the Proposed Action (Figure 4.2-2). 
Thus, ROI population is expected to increase by an average of 0.8 percent 
per year between closure and 2013, to a total of 91,252; that figure 
represents an increase of 10 percent over No-Action Alternative projections 
for that year. Most of the in-migrants are expected to locate in Oscoda, Au 
Sable, and Greenbush townships. 

4.2.1.2 Fire Training Alternative. The level of economic activity under this 
alternative would be less than that projected for the Proposed Action. 

Reuse of the base under this alternative would generate an increase of 
2,498 direct jobs and 1,191 secondary jobs by 2013 (Figure 4.2-1) . 
compared to the 50 direct and 11 secondary jobs projected under the 
No-Action Alternative. Approximately 49 percent of direct jobs and 10 
percent of secondary jobs are projected to be held by in-migrating workers. 
Total employment in the ROI would be 39,293 in 2013 under this 
alternative, an increase of 10 percent over No-Action Alternative projections 
for that year. ROI employment growth is projected to average 0.8 percent 
per year between closure and 2013. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


-3 




Proposed Actton 
Pff« Training 
l^9craalion 
No-Action 


1M3<a> 

1M6 



6f 

4.781 

2088 ^ 

5,607 

20t8 

6.867 

61 

1.878 

2.789 

3.689 

61 

845 

1,450 

2.185 

61 

0 




««UM4JoJ,tod 

fxiptoyniMt 

Efiieii 


8.0001 


6,000 


J 4,0001 


2,000 




®"»Ploym*nt 


1969 


1993 


1998 


2003 


Vw 


2073 




1969 


^XPLANATJON 

Prsclosura 

^ Pfoposod Action 

'^'^«Train/ng Alternative 
■ ~~ f’^Jfsation Alternative 
No-Aclion Alternative 


1993 


1998 


2003 


Year 


Total 

Eiwpteyinent 

<ncliiiiina 

Raue. 

Effiaels 


2013 


Reuse-Related 
^^P^oyment Effects 


(a) The 1993 values 

--. 


Figure 4.2-1 






ALTERNATIVE 


im 


2013 



Proposad Action 

0 5,002 

6,203 

8,352 

Rra Training 

0 2,148 

3,275 

4,749 

Racroaiion 

0 977 

1,736 

2,835 

No-Action 

0 0 

0 

0 


R«JM-Raiatod 

Population 

EffOeta 


10,000 

8,000 

6,000 


S- 4,000 


92,000 

90,000 

88,000 

m 66,000 

e 

S 84,000 

« 

“■ 82,000 
80,000 
78,000 
76,000 




Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


























Population in the ROI would increase by 4,749 persons between closure and 
2013 as a result of the Rre Training Alternative (see Figure 4.2-2), an 
average growth rate of 0.6 percent per year. Total ROI population in 2013 
with this alternative would be 87,649, an increase of 6 percent over 
No-Action Alternative projections for that year. The geographic distribution 
of employment and population growth is expected to be similar to that 
discussed under the Proposed Action. 

4.2.1.3 Recreation Alternative. This alternative would create an increase of 
1,473 direct jobs and 712 secondary jobs in the ROI by 2013 (see 
Rgure 4.2-1), compared with 50 direct jobs and 11 secondary jobs 
projected under the No-Action Alternative. Approximately 49 percent of 
direct jobs and 10 percent of secondary jobs are projected to be held by 
in-migrating workers. This represents a 0.6-percent annual average- 
employment growth during this 20-year period. By 2013, employment in 
the ROI would total 37,789, an increase of 6 percent over No-Action 
Alternative projections for that year. 

Population in the ROI is projected to increase by 2,835 persons between 
closure and 2013 (see Rgure 4.2-2), an average growth of 0.5 percent 
annually. Total population in the ROI in 2013 would reach 85,735 with this 
alternative, an increase of 3 percent over No-Action Alternative projections 
for that year. The geographic distribution of employment and population 
growth is expected to be similar to that discussed under the Proposed 
Action. 


4.2.1.4 No-Action Altemativr Under the No-Action Alternative, only 
caretaker activities would occur at the base. It is estimated that the 
caretaker activities at Wurtsmith AFB would maintain approximately 50 
direct and 11 secondary jobs in the ROI through 2013. By 2013, total 
employment in the ROI is projected to reach 35,604, and total population in 
the ROI is expected to be 82,900. 

4.2.1.5 Other Land Use Concepts. The Advanced Environmental 
Technology Facility would result in a minimal (less than 1 percent) increase 
in the ROI population. Up to 20 direct jobs would be generated under this 
reuse. 

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 general plans, 
zoning, land use, and aesthetics. Land use compatibility with aircraft noise 
is discussed in Section 4.4.4, Noise. 


4-6 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 





4.2.2.1 Proposed Action 

General Plans. The GDP for Oscoda Township provides for a variety of 
future development options in the vicinity of the base and includes primarily 
open space, some residential, and a few recreational land uses. Planned 
on-base land uses under the Proposed Action are generally compatible with 
the general plans for surrounding land uses. However, the retention of 
residential areas in the southeastern part of the base may be inconsistent 
with the adjacent off-base industrial uses identified in the GOP. 

Zoning. The Township of Oscoda is in the process of amending its zoning 
ordinance to encompass the base. The Proposed Action land uses are 
generally compatible with adjacent zoning. The Proposed Action, however, 
would introduce land uses not previously categorized in the zoning 
ordinance, including airfield, aviation support, institutional, and public 
facilities/recreation. 

The proposed airport operational parameters would require that future zoning 
for areas at each end of the runway be compatible for noise and safety. 

Land Use. The Proposed Action would result in some changes to the land 
use patterns within the ROi. The major changes would be associated with 
conversion of existing military land uses to a variety of mixed civilian land 
uses. Specific changes in major on-base land use categories associated with 
the Proposed Action would include: 

• The airfield land use would decrease by 347 acres, including 
aircraft safety zones, taxiways, and apron areas not incorporated 
into the proposed civilian airfield. 

• The aviation support land use would increase by 169 acres, 
including the conversion of public facilities/recreation (open 
space) areas and a portion of the airfield proposed for reuse as 
future aviation-related development. 

• The industrial land use category would decrease by 164 acres, 
primarily as a result of converting the waste treatment settling 
ponds and the grenade range to public facilities/recreation uses. 

• Commercial land use areas would increase by 134 acres, 
developing commercial office, retail, and convention/tourist uses 
in facilities now used for a variety of administrative, service, and 
community commercial activities. 

• The residential areas would decrease by 32 acres as a result of 
converting housing areas in the cantonment to commercial 
(convention/tourist) areas. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






• The public facilities/recreation land use areas would increase by 
255 acres with the inclusion of the areas at both ends of the 
runway. 

The proposed on-base land uses would generally be compatible with one 
another, except in one area where the proposed commercial/tourist land use 
may not be fully compatible with nearby industrial and aviation support land 
uses because of potential noise, safety, traffic, and air quality impacts and 
concerns. 

Any dredging, filling, or construction of a permanent structure below the 
ordinary high water mark of Van Etten Lake or dredging within 500 feet of 
Van Etten Lake would require a permit from the MDNR under Michigan's 
Inland Lakes and Streams Act (Public Act 346, 1972). 

Section 4(f) of the DOT Act provides that the Secretary of Transportation 
shall not approve any transportation-related program or project which 
requires the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation 
area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance 
or land of an historic site of national, state, or local significance as 
determined by the officials having jurisdiction thereof unless there is no 
feasible or prudent alternative to the use of such land and such program or 
project includes all possible planning to minimize harm resulting from the 
use. No wildlife or waterfowl refuges or recreational facilities or parks will 
be directly impacted as a result of construction activities for airport or 
aviation-related development purposes at Wurtsmith AFB. The proposed 
reuse of the base includes making some existing on-base facilities available 
for public use which would then quality them as Section 4(f) lands. Under 
the Proposed Action, ail noise contours of DNL 65 dB or greater would be 
contained within the airport boundary (see Section 4.4.4.1), and no public 
parks or recreation areas in the vicinity of Wurtsmith AFB would be exposed 
to incompatible noise levels. The only potentially significant cultural 
resource known on Wurtsmith AFB lies within property that is leased from 
and will return to the U.S. Forest Service after base closure. Therefore, any 
impact to the site would be subject to requirements of Section 106 of the 
NHPA, which calls for minimization of project effects to a non-ad verse level. 
Based on this information, there should be no adverse impacts on Section 
4(f) lands. 

Aesthetics. The industrial and commercial development under the Proposed 
Action would alter the visual character of the cantonment, WSA, and alert 
area. With appropriate planning, design, and implementation of these land 
uses, the overall character of the region could be enhanced. The visual 
character of the wooded areas along much of the base boundary, the Au 
Sable River corridor, and the large forested tract in the northwest quadrant 
of the base would not be affected because development is not proposed in 


4-8 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 








these sreas. The waste treatment settling ponds south of the western end 
of the runway would be closed. 

Industrial development along the existing rail spur, aviation-related 
development south of the runway, and more intensive use of existing 
facilities visible from County Road F-41 and Rea Road could alter views of 
these areas. The possible addition of parking lots, streets, and increased 
activities would create a more urbanized setting. 

Mitigation Measures. The Township of Oscoda would need to incorporate 
airfield, aviation support, institutional, and public facilities/recreation uses 
into other zoning categories set forth in the Township of Oscoda zoning 
ordinance or revise the zoning ordinance to include these categories. Minor 
land use conflicts within the cantonment area could be mitigated by 
appropriate use of key design elements, including landscape screening, 
building access orientation, and street design to visually separate land uses. 

4.2.2.2 Fire Training Alternative 

General Plans. The GOP for Oscoda Township provides for a variety of 
future development options in the vicinity of the base, including open space, 
residential, and recreational land uses. On-base land uses in the southern 
half of the base would be adjacent to compatible surrounding land uses. 
There is a potential for land use conflicts off base where the fire training 
areas are adjacent to lakeshore residential and recreation land uses, and the 
same conflicts discussed above for the Proposed Action. 

Zoning. The Township of Oscoda is in the process of amending its zoning 
ordinance to encompass the base. The existing zoning pattern is generally 
compatible with adjacent land uses in the Fire Training Alternative. The Fire 
Training Alternative, however, would introduce land uses not previously 
categorized in the zoning ordinance, including institutional and public 
facilities/recreation. 

Land Use. The Rre Training Alternative would result in changes to the land 
use patterns within the ROI. The amount and intensity of facility 
development would be greater than that under the Proposed Action. As 
under the Proposed Action, tfiere would be noticeable changes in the land 
use patterns on base resulting from conversion to a variety of mixed land 
uses, including industrial, commercial, and institutional (education) 
components. Specific changes in major on-base land use categories 
associated with the Fire Training Alternative would include; 

• The industrial land use category would decrease by 419 acres, 
primarily as a result of converting the former landfill north of the 
WSA, the grenade range northwest of Rea Road, and the WSA 
to institutional (fire training). Former aviation-related facilities 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 


4-9 








and areas would be converted to industrial areas, surrounded by 
open space buffer areas. 

• The institutional (education) land use areas would comprise 

3.115 acres, including the extensive fire training area and a 
small campus complex located in the cantonment. The 
mixed'use campus facilities were formerly used for community 
service and retail activities. The proposed fire training areas 
total 3,075 acres and include the former airfield, WSA, and alert 
area, which would be used for fire training activities, as well as 
large open areas that would be left undeveloped as buffers from 
adjacent land uses. The fire training academy proposes to use 
existing facilities, and plans little new facility development. Fire 
training activities would include classroom instruction, hands-on 
equipment and technical training, and actual fire-fighting 
episodes for all types of fires. 

• Commercial land use areas would increase by 48 acres with the 
development of commercial office and retail services in facilities 
now used for aviation support, administration, service, and 
community commercial activities. 

• The residential land use area would decrease by 136 acres as a 
result of converting residential a> eas in the cantonment to 
commercial areas, as well as converting the westernmost family 
housing area to public facilities/recreation. 

• The public facilities/recreation land use areas would decrease by 

1.115 acres. Most of this acreage would be converted to 
institutional (education) but would remain undeveloped as a 
buffer between fire training areas and adjacent uses. 

The proposed land uses would generally be compatible with one another 
but, as in the Proposed Action, the proposed commercial office and retail 
land uses may not be fully compatible with nearby industrial development 
because of potential noise, safety, traffic, and air quality impacts and 
concerns. This incompatibility is the result of a planning choice to logically 
maintain the existing land use pattern and optimize facility usage. 

Any dredging, filling, or construction of a permanent structure below the 
ordinary high water mark of Van Etten Lake or any dredging within 500 feet 
of Van Etten Lake would require a permit from the MONR under Michigan's 
Inland Lakes and Streams Act (Public Act 346, 1972). 

Aesthetics. The industrial and commercial development under the Fire 
Training Alternative would alter the visual character of the cantonment area. 
The visual character of the forested tract in the northwest quadrant of the 
base could be affected by some of the proposed fire training activities if 


4-10 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







trees are burned or cleared for access or for training purposes. Fire training 
activities would occur on the southwest portion of the runway and would be 
visible from Rea Road. In addition, any smoke plumes generated by live 
burning could be visible for several miles. The wooded areas along much of 
the base boundary would remain undisturbed. As in the Proposed Action, 
the Au Sable River corridor would remain visually separated from all land 
uses. Industrial development along the rail spur and more intensive use of 
existing facilities adjacent to or visible from County Road F-41 could alter 
views of these areas by creating a more urbanized setting. 

Overall development of the Fire Training Alternative could have an adverse 
effect on aesthetics in the area and thereby present a conflict with the 
natural environment that is a major recreational/tourist focus in the region. 

Mitigation Measures. The Township of Oscoda would need to incorporate 
institutional and public facilities/recreation uses into other zoning categories 
in the township zoning ordinance or revise the zoning ordinance to include 
these categories. Potential mitigation of the fire training activities would 
include the modification or rescheduling of some activities, for example, not 
planning multiple fires simultaneously, scheduling fewer fires during the peak 
tourist season, or using fuels that produce less smoke. In addition, open 
space buffers and/or landscape screening between fire training areas and 
off-base land uses could lessen the visual impacts. 

Minor land use conflicts within the cantonment could be mitigated as 
discussed under the Proposed Action. 

4.2.2.3 Recreation Alternative 

General Plans. The GDP for Oscoda Township provides for a variety of 
options for future development in the vicinity of the base, including open 
space, residential, and recreational land uses. On-base land uses in the 
Recreation Alternative are compatible with plans for surrounding areas, 
except in the southeast corner of the base, where the industrial area abuts 
the existing housing area. 

Zoning. The Township of Oscoda is in the process of amending its zoning 
ordinance to encompass the base. However, the existing zoning pattern is 
generally compatible with adjacent land uses in the Recreation Alternative. 
The Recreation Alternative, however, would introduce land uses not 
previously categorized in the zoning ordinance, including institutional and 
public facilities/recreation. 

Land Use. The Recreation Alternative would result in substantial changes to 
the land use patterns within the ROI. One significant change would be the 
mothballing or demolition of more than half of the base facilities, including 
the airfield and most of the residential structures, i.e., all of the former base 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-11 







except portions of the cantonment. WSA, alert area, the former operational 
areas, and a small residential area. Specific changes in major on-base land 
use categories associated with the Recreation Alternative would include the 
following: 

• The industrial land use category would decrease by 460 acres, 
primarily as a result of converting the former landfill north of the 
WSA, the grenade range, and the northern half of the alert apron 
to public facilities/recreation uses. Existing aviation-related 
areas, including aviation-related facilities, would be converted to 
industrial uses. 

• The educational land use area would comprise 48 acres, and 
include a small campus complex in the cantonment that was 
formerly used for community service and retail activities. 

• Commercial land uses would decrease by 20 acres as a result of 
converting existing administrative, community service, and retail 
facilities to public facilities/recreation areas. 

• The residential area would decrease by 294 acres as a result of 
converting base housing areas to public facilities/recreation and 
institutional (education). 

• The public facilities/recreation land use areas would increase by 
2,219 acres through conversion of developed areas, especially 
the airfield, landfill, and grenade range, for public facilities/ 
recreational uses. 

The proposed land uses would generally be compatible with one another, 
except where the proposed commercial office and retail area adjoins 
industrial development, presenting potential noise, safety, traffic, and air 
quality impacts and concerns. This planning choice was made to maintain 
the existing land use pattern and optimize use of existing facilities. 

Any dredging, filling, or construction of a permanent structure below the 
ordinary high water mark of Van Etten Lake or any dredging within 500 feet 
of Van Etten Lake would require a permit from the MDNR under Michigan's 
Inland Lakes and Streams Act (Public Act 346, 1972). 

Aesthetics. Under the Recreation Alternative, the proposed 
decommissioning and demolition of more than half of the base facilities 
would substantially alter the visual character of the area. With appropriate 
planning, design, and implementation of these changes, the overall character 
of the region could be enhanced. Areas of medium sensitivity, including the 
forested tract in the northwest quadrant of the base, would be improved by 
careful reclamation of the remaining landscape. To help maintain its 
aesthetic character, the Au Sable River corridor would remain well separated 


4-12 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







from all nonresidential land use by a large, partially reclaimed open 
space/recreation buffer area. 

More intensive use of existing facilities adjacent to or visible from County 
Road F-41 and the addition of parking lots and/or structures could alter or 
obstruct view into these areas. Demolition of facilities could increase vistas 
of forest and open space. 

Mitigation Measures. The mitigation measures to revise the Township of 
Oscoda zoning ordinance would be the same as under the Fire Training 
Alternative. Mitigation could include the development and implementation of 
an overall reuse plan that is sensitive to. and seeks to reduce, the perceived 
environmental disruption of widespread demolition. The plan could include 
provisions for a logical and orderly sequence of demolition and reclamation, 
to ensure comprehensive restoration of the landscape and for contracting 
and monitoring requirements of reclamation efforts. 

Minor land use conflicts within the cantonment could be mitigated by 
application of key design elements, including landscape screening, building 
access orientation, and street system layout and design. 

4.2.2.4 NO'Action Alternative 

Land Use. The No-Action Alternative would cause no physical changes in 
on-base land use from conditions at closure. Functionally, there would be 
no use of base (and and facilities. Caretaker personnel would continue to 
maintain the buildings and grounds. Keeping the base closed, however, 
would be inconsistent with state and local plans for reuse. 

Aesthetics. The No-Action Alternative would have little effect on the visual 
and aesthetic quality of the base or the surrounding area. The absence of 
activity on the base could enhance and accelerate the return to natural 
conditions in some areas, which could contribute positively to the aesthetic 
quality of those areas. Some landscaped portions of the base would receive 
less intensive maintenance. 

4.2.2.5 Other Land Use Concepts. Impacts of the Advanced Environmental 
Technology Facility have been evaluated for compatibility with land use 
plans and regulations, impacts to on- and ofr-base land uses, and general 
land use trends in the region. 

Land Use. This proposal would be compatible with all other reuse plans 
because it would be located in a proposed industrial land use area. This 
proposal would generally be compatible with surrounding land uses. 

Aesthetics. This land use concept v^’ould be visually compatible with 
adjacent development. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-13 





4.2.3 Transportation 


The effects of the Proposed Action and alternatives on each component of 
the transportation system, including roadways, airspace and air traffic, and 
other modes of transportation, are presented in this section. Possible 
mitigation measures are discussed for those components likely to experience 
substantial impacts under the Proposed Action or any alternative. 

Roadways. Reuse-related effects on roadway traffic were assessed by 
estimating the number of trips generated by each land use, considering 
employees, visitors, residents, and service vehicles associated with 
construction and all other on-site activities for the Proposed Action and each 
alternative. Principal trip-generating land uses included industrial, office, 
commercial, recreational, residential, and airport uses. These trips were 
distributed to the roadway system based on proposed land uses and existing 
travel patterns. This analysis is based on the peak-hour trips as distributed, 
data on roadway capacities, traffic volumes, and standards established by 
state and local transportation agencies (Michigan Department of 
Transportation, 1990, 1991, 1992b; Iosco County Road Commission, 

1992). Vehicle trip generation for each reuse alternative and for a variety of 
land uses has been analyzed and quantified. Based on the reuse 
development schedule for each land use, the variation in vehicle trips 
generated by the on-site activities has been determined for the average 
week day and for the morning and afternoon peak hours. 

The distribution of trips to and from the site is based on existing travel 
patterns for commuters and on the locations of residences of base personnel 
as obtained from zip code data. It was assumed that the residential choices 
of the project-related employees would correspond to those of the current 
base personnel. The resulting peak-hour volumes from the project were then 
added to the July peak hour of non-project-generated traffic (background) 
projected under post-closure baseline conditions. Future traffic in the area 
was projected using average population growth rates during the period of 
analysis, and applied to ail of the existing traffic movements and volumes on 
key roads. 

Traffic impacts were determined based on LOS changes for each of the key 
roads. Intersections along key roads that would experience heavy traffic 
were examined for deficiencies. Details on reuse are not sufficiently 
developed to permit an in-depth evaluation of intersection capacities. 

Airspace/Air Traffic. The airspace analysis examined the type and level of 
aircraft operations projected for the Proposed Action and alternatives and 
compared them to the airspace configuration and use under the preclosure 
reference. The impact analysis considered the relationship of the projected 
aircraft operations to the operational capacity of the airport, using criteria 
established by the FAA for determining airport service volumes. Potential 


4-14 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 





effects on airspace use were assessed based on the extent to which the 
Proposed Action or alternatives could (1) require modifications to the 
airspace structure or ATC systems and/or facilities; (2) restrict, limit, or 
otherwise delay other air traffic in the region; or (3) encroach on other 
airspace areas and uses. 

The FAA is ultimately responsible for evaluating the specific effects that the 
reuse of an airport will have on the safe and efficient use of navigable 
airspace by aircraft. Such a study is based on details from the airport 
proponent's ALP and consists of an airspace analysis, a flight safety review, 
and a review of the potential effect of the proposal on ATC and air 
navigational facilities. Once this study is completed, the FAA can then 
determine the actual requirements for facilities, terminal and en route 
airspace, and instrument flight procedures. 

Other Transportation Modes. Because neither the Proposed Action nor any 
of the alternatives assumes direct use of local railroads or waterways, direct 
effects on rail and waterway transport are expected to be minimal. 

4.2.3.1 Proposed Action 

Roadways. Traffic generated as a result of the Proposed Action land use 
changes and direct employment is estimated to be 29,600 vehicles per day 
for a typical weekday by the year 2013 (Table 4.2-1). These trips include 
construction activity and pass-by trips created by land use activity. The 
proiected afternoon peak hour would amount to 3,050 vehicles, which 
represent a little more than 10 percent of the total number of daily trips. 

The morning peak hour would amount to 2,650 vehicles, which represents a 
little less than 9 percent of the total ADT. Based on the proposed 
redevelopment schedule, the traffic generated by the Proposed Action would 
increase steadily during the 20-year study period. 


Table 4.2-1 Average Daily Trip Generation 



1998 

2003 

2013 

Proposed Action 

17,000 

25,600 

29,600 

Fire Training Alternative 

16,900 

21,900 

26,100 

Recreation Alternative 

12,700 

16,600 

21,000 

No-Action Alternative 

500 

500 

500 


Notes: Oaily trips shown are defined as one-way vehicle trips. All values are rounded to the 


nearest 100. 


The Proposed Action includes six access points to the site. However, most 
traffic generated by the proposed development would use only three access 
points: the existing access at the Main Gate, the proposed access aligned 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-15 











with Arrow Street, and the proposed northern access aligned with Van Etten 
Street. The Capehart Gate to the housing area would provide the main 
access to the residential area and to the recreational vehicle park. The 
segment of County Road F-41 between these access points would 
experience an appreciable amount of traffic throughout the day, with 
numerous left turns entering the site during the morning peak hour and 
numerous right turns leaving the site during the afternoon peak hour. 

Table 4.2*2 presents the projected peak-hour traffic for closure (1993), 
1998, 2003, and 2013 for key local roads, and the associated LOS that 
would result under the Proposed Action. By 2013, the Proposed Action 
would add 250 to 950 vehicles along segments of County Road F-41, and 
up to 700 vehicles on Cedar Lake Road during the peak hour. Fewer than 
500 vehicles would be added to other key local roads during the peak hour. 


Table 4.2-2. July Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes - Proposed Action 


Road 

Capacity 

1993 

1998 

2003 

2013 

LOS in 
2013 

U.S. 23 

3,300 

2,600 

3,400 

3,900 

4,500 

F 

County Road F-41 (Cedar 
Lake Road to Skeei 

Avenue) 

5,500 

400 

1,500 

2,050 

2,350 

B 

County Road F-41 (Skeei 
Avenue to Rea Road) 

2,500 

300 

1,000 

1,400 

1,600 

D 

Cedar Lake Road 

2,500 

250 

700 

900 

1,000 

D 

Loud Road 

2,500 

100 

300 

400 

450 

B 

River Road 

2,500 

200 

400 

550 

600 

B 

Rea Road 

2,500 

150 

200 

250 

300 

A 

Bissonnette Road 

2,500 

150 

200 

250 

300 

A 


By the year 1998, the LOS at the intersection of U.S. 23 and County Road 
F-41 would deteriorate to the preclosure condition of F; other segments 
along U.S. 23 would continue to operate at LOS E or better. By 2013, LOS 
on all segments of U.S. 23 within Oscoda and Au Sable would have dropped 
to E or F. Although MOOT is considering improvements along segments of 
U.S. 23 south of Au Sable and Oscoda, there are currently no plans to 
improve segments of this highway within these communities. Throughout 
the 20-year period of analysis, all other key local roads would operate at 
LOS D or better. The intersections on County Road F-41 between Skeei 
Avenue and Rea Road are likely to experience numerous left- and right-turn 


4-16 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 










movements during peak hours and by 1998 the LOS along that segment of 
County Road F-41 would drop to D. 

The Proposed Action assumes that existing on-base roads would be used 
during the construction period, but eventually the on-base network would be 
upgraded where local development plans dictate a need based on community 
standards for acceptable LOS. 

The implementation of the Proposed Action could increase ridership on the 
local bus system (Iosco Transit Corporation); however, the projected effects 
would be minimal. 

Airspace/Air Traffic. The Proposed Action would include large aircraft 
maintenance and refurbishment and general aviation activities. Because the 
volume of flight operations that would occur at the base would be quite low 
compared to preclosure, the airport's ATC tower and RAPCON would be 
decommissioned. As a result of the loss of these services, the airport traffic 
area and control zone associated with the base would also be 
decommissioned. The airspace in the vicinity of the base would revert back 
to uncontrolled airspace. 

Although IFR radar coverage will be lost when the RAPCON is 
decommissioned, no impacts are anticipated due to the very low volume of 
aircraft activity in the Wurtsmith AFB area. Communication at the base 
between aircraft would be conducted on a common frequency (UNICOM). 
This is the standard procedure for communication at uncontrolled airports in 
the United States. 

Iosco County Airport would remain open and all airspace and instrument 
approach procedures related to that airport would continue as previously. 
There would be no airspace or air traffic impacts. 

Based on FAA guidelines, Wurtsmith AFB can accommodate approximately 
200,000 aircraft operations a year. By 2013, the operations projected for 
the Proposed Action would account for slightly more than 10 percent of the 
total capacity; therefore, no additional runways would be required. 

Air Transportation. The Proposed Action does not assume any passenger 
activity at Wurtsmith AFB during the planning period. Air travelers in the 
region would continue to utilize the services available at the Alpena and 
Tri-City airports. These airports would not realize a measurable decrease in 
passenger traffic as a result of base closure. Aviation traffic currently being 
conducted at Iosco County Airport would continue. 

Mitigation Measures. Improvements to U.S. 23 in Oscoda and Au Sable 
would be required to preclude some segments from dropping to LOS F. 
Suggested improvements could include control of access and intersection 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 


4-17 





upgrades to raise the LOS to a level consistent with transportation planning 
criteria. 

4.2.3.2 Fire Training Alternative 

Roadways. Traffic generated as a result of this alternative's land use 
changes and direct employment is estimated at 26,100 vehicles per day by 
2013 (see Table 4.2-1). These trips include construction activity and 
pass-by trips created by land use activity. The project is expected to add 
2,450 vehicles during the afternoon peak hour and 1,800 vehicles during 
the morning peak hour. 

The Fire Training Alternative includes six access points to the site. Five are 
identical to those for the Proposed Action: Main Gate, Capehart Gate, 

Arrow Street, Van Etten Street, and from County Road F-41 near the alert 
area. The sixth access is on Rea Road in the far western section of the 
base. As for the Proposed Action, most traffic entering or leaving the base 
would use three access points on County Road F-41 at the Main Gate, 

Arrow Street, and Van Etten Street. The existing Capehart Gate would 
provide access to the residential area. The trip distribution to various access 
points is similar to that assumed for the Proposed Action. 

Table 4.2-3 presents the projected peak-hour traffic for closure (1993), 

1998, 2003, and 2013 for key local roads, and the associated LOS that 
would result under the Fire Training Alternative. By 2013, this alternative 
would add 200 to 850 vehicles along segments of U.S. 23, 1,050 to 1,700 
vehicles along segments of County Road F-41, and up to 650 vehicles on 
Cedar Lake Road during the peak hour. Fewer than 300 vehicles would be 
added to other key local roads during the peak hour. 


Table 4.2-3. July Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes • Fire Training Alternative 


Road 

Capacity 

1993 

1998 

2003 

2013 

LOS in 
2013 

U.S. 23 

3,300 

2,600 

3,400 

3,800 

4,400 

F 

County Road F-41 (Cedar 
Lake Road to Skeel 

Avenue) 

5,500 

400 

1,500 

1,800 

2,150 

B 

County Road F-41 (Skeel 
Avenue to Rea Road) 

2,500 

300 

1,000 

1,250 

1,450 

D 

Cedar Lake Road 

2,500 

250 

700 

800 

950 

C 

Loud Road 

2,500 

100 

300 

350 

400 

B 

River Road 

2,500 

200 

400 

500 

600 

B 

Rea Road 

2,500 

150 

200 

250 

300 

A 

Bissonnette Road 

2,500 

150 

200 

250 

250 

A 









4-18 Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 









By 1998, the LOS along some segments of U.S. 23 would deteriorate to the 
preclosure condition of F; other segments along this highway would 
continue to operate at LOS E or better. By 2013, LOS on all segments of 
U.S. 23 within Oscoda and Au Sable would have dropped to E or F. 
Although MOOT is considering improvements along segments of U.S. 23 
south of Au Sable and Oscoda, there are currently no plans to improve 
segments of this highway within these communities. Throughout the 
20-year period of analysis, ail other key local roads would operate at LOS D 
or better. As under the Proposed Action, the intersections on County Road 
F-41 between Skeel Avenue and Rea Road would experience numerous left- 
and right-turn movements during peak hours and by 1998 the LOS along 
this segment of County Road F-41 would drop to D. 

The Fire Training Alternative assumes that existing on-base roads would be 
used during the construction period, but eventually the on-base network 
would be upgraded as needed to meet community standards for acceptable 
LOS. 

The implementation of the Fire Training Alternative could result in a minimal 
increase in ridership on the local bus system (Iosco Transit Corporation). 

Airspace/Air Traffic. Under this alternative the base would have no aviation 
reuse component. As a result, all existing navigational aids, airspace, and 
air traffic services associated with the base would be discontinued. 
Operations at Iosco County Airport would continue. Although IFR radar 
coverage will be lost due to the decommissioning of the RAPCON, no 
impacts are anticipated due to the very low volume of aircraft movements in 
the Wurtsmith area. No airspace or air traffic impacts would result from 
closure of the base. 

Air Transportation. There would be no impact to the region's air 
transpoaation under the Fire Training Alternative. 

Mitigation Measures. Recommended improvements to U.S. 23 in Oscoda 
and Au Sable adjacent to the base would be the same as discussed for the 
Proposed Action. 

4.2.3.3 Recreation Alternative 

Roadways. Traffic generated under the Recreation Alternative as a result of 
proposed land use changes and direct employment is estimated at 21,000 , 
vehicles per day by 2013 (see Table 4.2-1). The project is expected to add 
2,000 vehicles during the afternoon peak hour and 1,420 vehicles to the 
morning peak hour. Based on the proposed development schedule, the 
traffic generated by the Recreation Alternative would increase steadily 
during the 20-year study period. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal artd Reuse FEIS 


4-19 








The Recreation Alternative includes six access points to the site, identical to 
those described for the Fire Training Alternative. Trip distribution and 
assignment to various access points would be the same as those assumed 
for the Rre Training Alternative. The access points at Arrow Street and the 
Main Gate would likely experience the greatest percentage of trips. 

Table 4.2*4 presents the projected peak-hour traffic for closure (1993), 
1998, 2003, and 2013 for key local roads, and the associated LOS that 
would result under the Recreation Alternative. By 2013, this alternative 
would add 200 to 700 vehicles along segments of U.S. 23, 900 to 1,450 
vehicles along segments of County Road P-41, and up to 550 vehicles on 
Cedar Lake Road during the peak hour. Fewer than 350 vehicles would be 
added to other key local roads during the peak hour. 


Table 4.2-4. July Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes - Recreation Alternative 


Road 

Capacity 

1993 

1998 

2003 

2013 

LOS in 
2013 

U.S. 23 

3,300 

2,600 

3,300 

3,700 

4,300 

F 

County Road F-41 (Cedar 
Lake Road to Skeel 

Avenue) 

5,500 

400 

1,250 

1,550 

1,900 

B 

County Road F-41 (Skeel 
Avenue to Rea Road) 

2,500 

300 

900 

1,050 

1,300 

0 

Cedar Lake Road 

2,500 

250 

600 

700 

850 

C 

Loud Road 

2,500 

100 

250 

300 

350 

B 

River Road 

2,500 

200 

400 

450 

550 

B 

Rea Road 

2,500 

150 

200 

250 

250 

A 

Bissonnette Road 

2,500 

150 

200 

200 

250 

A 


By the year 1998, the LOS along some segments of U.S. 23 would 
deteriorate to the preclosure condition of F; other segments along this 
highway would continue to operate at LOS E or better. By 2013, LOS on all 
segments of U.S. 23 within Oscoda and Au Sable would have dropped to E 
or F. Although MOOT is considering improvements along segments of U.S. 
23 south of Au Sable and Oscoda, there are currently no plans to improve 
segments of this highway within these communities. Throughout the 
20-year period of analysis, all other key local roads would operate at LOS 0 
or better. As under the Proposed Action, the intersections on County Road 
F-41 between Skeel Avenue and Rea Road would experience numerous left- 
and right-turn movements during peak hours, and by 1998 the LOS along 
this segment of County Road F-41 would drop to D. 


4-20 


Wur*!tmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 










Th« Recreation Alternative assumes that existing on-base roads would be 
used during the construction period, but eventually the on-base network 
would be upgraded as needed to community standards for acceptable LOS. 

The implementation of the Recreation Alternative could result in a minimal 
increase in ridership on the local bus system (Iosco Transit Corporation). 

Airspace/Air Traffic. This alternative does not include any aviation reuse. 

As such, all airspace impacts and air traffic procedures would be the same 
as described in the Rre Training Alternative. Operations at Iosco County 
Airport would continue as previously. 

Air Transportation. There would be no impact to the region's air 
transportation under the Recreation Alternative. 

Mitigation Measures. Recommended improvements to U.S. 2:: coda 

and Au Sable adjacent to the base would be the same as those u . .ussed for 
the Proposed Action. 

4.2.3.4 No-Action Alternative 

Roadways. Under the No-Action Alternative, the expected population 
growth and development unrelated to reuse of Wurtsmith AFB would lead to 
traffic volume increases on local roadways through the year 2013. It is 
projected that traffic on the key local roads would increase in proportion to 
the area's population growth, plus the traffic generated by the OL. 

Under the No-Action Alternative, segments of U.S. 23 in Oscoda and Au 
Sable would operate at LOS E by 2003 and continue to deteriorate 
thereafter. By 2013, U.S. 23 at County Road F-41 would operate at LOS F, 
compared to level E at closure. Key local roads would experience a net 
reduction in traffic volume and would operate at LOS B or better throughout 
the analysis period. The only traffic on base would be generated by the OL 
and all on-base roads would operate at LOS A. 

Airspace/Air Traffic. Cessation of all air operations at Wurtsmith AFB and 
the decommissioning of the navigational equipment would have the same 
effects on airspace in the ROI as discussed for the Fire Training and 
Recreation alternatives. 

Air Transportation. There would be no impact to air transportation under 
the No-Action Alternative. 

4.2.3.5 Other Land Use Concepts. The Advanced Environmental 
Technology Facility would result in little net change in total trips generated 
under the Proposed Action or alternatives. This use, in general, would not 
measurably affect airspace, air transportation, or rail transportation. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 


4-21 






4.2.4 Utilities 


Direct and indirect changes in future utility demand for each alternative were 
estimated based on historic, preclosure, and per-capita average daily use on 
Wurtsmith AFB and in nearby communities. These factors were applied to 
projections of numbers of future residents and employees associated with 
each of the alternatives. No*Action Alternative projections generally reflect 
the change expected in utility usage without redevelopment of the base, and 
are estimated based on projected population changes and per-capita use. 
Population projections for Iosco County indicate a slight decline from 2003 
to 2013 under the No-Action Alternative, and this decline is reflected in the 
utility projections for that alternative. The projections for the other 
alternatives reflect the anticipated growth due to base reuse. Effects of 
reuse on utility systems were assessed by comparing projected demand 
under the reuse alternatives to capacity and to projected demand under the 
No-Action Alternative for each period of analysis (1998, 2003, 2013). 

The following assumptions were made in the analysis of potential effects on 
utilities: 

• The site would be serviced by local utility providers. 

• The existing distribution/collection systems would be available in 
their current conditions for reuse. 

• Wells on base would be available in the short term to provide 
water for reuse activities. 

The Proposed Action and alternatives would require some changes to the 
on-base utility systems. Specifically: 

• Connections to the Oscoda water supply system may be 
required. The Michigan Department of Public Health has 
indicated that on-base wells could be used in the short-term but, 
because of concerns about migration of contaminated 
groundwater, reusers would have to find another source of 
water to supply long-term needs. Local communities are 
exploring several options for meeting long-term water supply 
needs, including connection to the plant at Tawas Point, which 
draws water from Lake Huron. (Groundwater availability and 
quality and other water supply issues are discussed in Section 
4.4.2, Water Resources.) 

• Oscoda Township is pursuing funding to connect the on-base 
sewage collection system to the Oscoda WWTP. It is assumed 
that reusers of the base property would continue to use the base 
sanitary sewer system under a Groundwater Discharge Permit 
with a waiver from the MDNR until the connection to the 
Oscoda WWTP is completed and in operation. During that 


4-22 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 







period, some modifications to the base system may be required 
to adjust for low flow conditions. Until the connection to the 
Oscoda WWTP is established, monitoring downgradient of the 
on-base lagoons may be required to ensure that contaminant 
levels do not exceed regulatory standards. Upgrades to the 
Oscoda WWTP would be required over the 20-year analysis 
period to accommodate increased flows generated by the 
in-migrating population as redevelopment of the base property 
progresses. Industrial users may have to provide pretreatment 
of industrial wastewaters. 

• In July 1992, the Iosco County Board of Commissioners signed 
an agreement that would allow trash haulers from Iosco County 
to use the Crawford-Otsego County landfill. Use of this landfill 
could increase the lifespan of the Pinconning landfill. 

• Individual metering of facilities, improvements to the distribution 
systems, and appropriate utility corridors and easements would 
be required for the electrical and gas systems. 

4.2.4.1 Proposed Action. Table 4.2-5 summarizes the projected utility 
demands under the Proposed Action at 5, 10, and 20 years after closure. 
Demand would be 57 to 92 percent greater under this alternative than under 
No-Action Alternative conditions. Projected utility demands in the year 
2013 would be less than or approximately equal to preclosure (1990) 
demands, and within the capacity of existing utility systems. 

On-site water demand in the year 2013 would be 0.5 MOD, less than 1990 
base demands, and within the 2.2-MGD capacity of existing on-base wells. 

There would be no environmental impacts associated with utility systems 
and no mitigations would be required. 

4.2.4.2 Fire Training Alternative. Table 4.2-5 summarizes the projected 
utility demands under the Fire Training Alternative at 5, 10, and 20 years 
after closure. Demand would be 32 to 53 percent greater under this 
alternative than under No-Action Alternative conditions, and less than 
projected demands under the Proposed Action. There would be no 
environmental impacts associated with utility systems and no mitigations 
would be required. 

4.2.4.3 Recreation Alternative. Table 4.2-5 summarizes the projected 
utility demands under the Recreation Alternative at 5, 10, and 20 years after 
closure. Demand would be 20 to 31 percent greater under this alternative 
than under No-Action Alternative conditions, and less than projected 
demands under the Proposed Action or Fire Training Alternative. There 
would be no environmental impacts associated with utility systems and no 
mitigations would be required. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-23 






Tabla 4.2-5. Total Projactod Utility Demand^ 


Percent Percent Percent 



1998 

Change'*' 

2003 

Change"” 

2013 

Change' 

Watw Ownand (M6DI 







No-Action*** Altomativo 

1.44 


1.44 


1.43 


PropoMd Action 

1.92 

33 

2.04 

42 

2.24 

57 

Firo Training Altemative 

1.65 

15 

1.76 

22 

1.89 

32 

Racreation AKamativa 

1.54 

7 

1.61 

12 

1.71 

20 

Waatawatar (MGO) 







No-Actton**' Altamativa 

1.16 


1.16 


1.15 


Propoaad Action 

1.56 

34 

1.66 

43 

1.82 

58 

Rra Training Altamativa 

1.33 

15 

1.42 

22 

1.53 

33 

Racraation Altamativa 

1.24 

7 

1.30 

12 

1.38 

20 

Solid Waata (tona/day) 







No-Action*** Altamativa 

20.5 


20.5 


20.4 


Proposad Action 

30.1 

* 47 

32.4 

58 

36.4 

78 

Fira Training Altamativa 

24.7 

20 

26.8 

31 

29.6 

45 

Racraation Altamativa 

22.4 

9 

23.9 

17 

25.9 

27 

Bactricity (MWH/day) 







No-Action*** Altamativa 

87.5 


87.5 


87.1 


Proposad Action 

135.8 

55 

147.5 

69 

167.6 

92 

Fira Training Altamativa 

108.4 

24 

119.3 

36 

133.1 

53 

Recreation Altemative 

97.2 

11 

104.6 

20 

114.5 

31 

Natural Gas (thousarul tharms/day) 







No-Action'** Alternative 

18.1 


18.1 


18.1 


Proposed Action 

25.0 

38 

26.6 

47 

29.5 

63 

Rra Training 

21.1 

17 

22.6 

25 

24.6 

36 

Racraation Altamativa 

19.5 

8 

20.6 

14 

22.0 

22 


NotM: (a) Vakiaa for Proposad Action and rauaa altarnativoa rapraaant total projected demattd in the service area for each 

utiNty. 

(b) Rapraaants pareant change from utility consumption without reuse projected for that year. 

(c) Rapraaants total damaiKf forecasted for the service area for the years irtdicated, based on projected changes in 
population and par capita usa, and data from local utility purveyors. 


4-24 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 









4.2.4.4 No-Action Alternative. Projected utility demand under the 
No-Action Alternative is presented in Table 4.2-5. Over the 20-year analysis 
period, utility usage would decline slightly as a result of the projected 
decline in population in Iosco County and the communities adjacent to the 
base. 

Utility usage on site would be minimal in comparison to the Proposed Action 
and other alternatives. The disuse of utility systems, however, could result 
in their degradation over the long term. The small volume of wastewater 
that would be generated under the No-Action Alternative would make 
operation of the existing wastewater treatment system uneconomical. A 
small, on-site system would likely be used to support OL activities, and the 
existing wastewater lagoons would be closed in accordance with applicable 
state regulations. 

4.2.4.5 Other Land Use Concepts. Establishment of the Advanced 
Environmental Technology Facility would result in a very small (less than 

1 percent) increase in population in the ROI, and so there would be little net 
change in utility demand. 

4.3 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT 

This section addresses the potential impacts of existing contaminated sites 
on the various reuse options, and the potential for environmental impacts 
caused by hazardous materials/waste management practices associated with 
the reuse options. Hazardous materials/wastes, IRP sites, storage tanks, 
asbestos, pesticides, PCBs, radon, medical/biohazardous wastes, and 
ordnance will be discussed within this section. The issue of lead 
contamination associated with the small arms range is addressed under the 
IRP. 

The U.S. Air Force is committed to the remediation of all contamination at 
Wurtsmith A^-B due to past Air Force activities. The OL will remain after 
base closure to coordinate remediation activities. Delays or restrictions in 
disposal and reuse of property may occur due to the extent of contamination 
and the results of both the risk assessment and remedial designs determined 
for contaminated sites. Examples of conditions resulting in land use 
restrictions would be the capping of landfills and the constraints from 
methane generation and cap integrity, as well as the location of long-term 
monitoring wells. These conditions would have to be considered in the 
layout of future development. Options to recipients include creation of 
parks, greenbelts, or open spaces over these areas. 

Regulatory standards and guidelines have been applied in determining the 
impacts caused by hazardous materials/waste. The following criteria were 
used to identify potential impacts: 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 


4-25 







• Accidental release of friable asbestos during the demolition or 
modification of a structure 

• Generation of 100 kilograms (or more) of hazardous waste in a 
calendar month, resulting in increased regulatory requirements 
under MERA 307 

• New operational requirements or service for all UST and tank 
systems 

• Any spill or release of a reportable quantity of a hazardous 
material 

• Manufacturing 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 

4.3.1.1 Hazardous Materials Management. The hazardous materials likely 
to be utilized for activities occupying the proposed land use zones are 
identified in Table 4.3*1. The types of hazardous materials used would be 
similar to those used by the base prior to closure. The quantity of 
hazardous materials utilized under the Proposed Action would increase over 
No'Action Alternative conditions due to the increase in reuse activities 
associated with all land uses. Specific chemical compositions and exact use 
rates under the Proposed Action are not now known. 

If the Proposed Action were implemented, each separate organization would 
be responsible for the management of hazardous materials according to 
applicable regulations. Additionally, each organization would have to comply 
with SARA, Section 311, Title III, which requires that local communities be 
informed of the use of hazardous materials. 

4.3.1.2 Hazardous Waste Management. Under the Proposed Action 
hazardous wastes generated would consist of waste oils, fuels, solvents, 
paints, thinners, and heavy metals. These wastes would be generated from 
the hazardous materials and the processes implemented under this reuse 
proposal. The quantity of wastes generated would be greater than those 
produced under the No-Action Alternative due to increased reuse activities. 

Upon disposal of parcels, hazardous waste management would become the 
responsibility of the recipients. Once these responsibilities 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 


4-26 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 





Table 4.3*1. Hazardous Material Usage by Land Use • Proposed Action 


Land Use 

Operation Process 

Hazardous Materials 

Airfield 

Aircraft refueling: utilization of 
Control Zones, runways, 
taxiways, corporate and private 
aviation facilities, aircraft parking 

Aviation fuels, glycols, heating 
oils 

Aviation support 

Operations associated with 
aircraft maintenance and 
manufacturing, air 
transportation-related industry 
and warehousing, fire station, 
other administrative services 

Fuels, solvents, paints, POL, 
hydraulic fluids, degreasers, 
corrosives, heavy metals, 
reactives, thinners, paints, 
glycols, ignitibles, heating oils, 
cyanides 

Industrial 

Activities associated with light 
industry, manufacturing, 
research and development, 
warehousing 

Solvents, heavy metals, POL, 
corrosives, catalysts, aerosols, 
fuels, heating oils, ignitibles, 
pesticides 

Institutional (medical) 

Hospitai/clinic, dental clinic, x-ray 
unit 

Pharmaceuticals, 
chemotherapeutic drugs, 
radiological sources, heavy 
metals 

Commercial 

Activities associated with 
offices, warehousing, retail, 
service industries, restaurants 

Fuels, solvents, corrosives, POL, 
ignitibles, heating oils, pesticides 

Convention/tourist 

Activities associated with 
conventions, including housing 
and food services, retail, and 
associated services: community 
centers 

Heating oils, fuels, paint, 
thinners, POL, fuels, dry-cleaning 
solvents, aerosols 

Residential 

Utilization/maintenance of 
singie-family and multi-family 
units, landscaping 

Pesticides, fertilizers, fuels, oils, 
chlorine, household chemicals 

Public facilities/ 
recreation 

Maintenance of existing 
recreational facilities including 
indoor and outdoor sports 
complex, swimming pools, other 
recreational facilities 

Pesticides, fertilizers, chlorine, 
heating oils, paints, thinners, 
cleaners, solvents, aerosols, POL 

Recreational vehicle park 

Maintenance of park facilities 
and campsites 

Pesticides, fuels, oils, solvents, 
paints, thinners 


POL « Patrolaum, oil, and lubricants. 


emergency staff. The presence of numerous independent owners/operators 
on the base would change the regulatory requirements and probably increase 
the regulatory burden relative to hazardous waste management on the base 
as a whole. 

4.3.1.3 Installation Restoration Program Sites. The U.S. Air Force is 
committed to continue IRP activities under DERP and CERCLA. 

Groundwater remediation would continue under the Consent Decree 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-27 













tMtwMn the U.S. Air Force and the MONR. After closure, IRP activities will 
be coordinated by the OL and the aforementioned agencies. 

The type of development that is appropriate for property adjacent to or over 
an IRP site may be limited by the risk to human health and the environment 
posed by contaminants at the site. For example, residential development 
over an IRP landfill is generally not appropriate. The risk posed by IRP sites 
is measured by a risk assessment that analyzes the types of substances 
present at a site and the potential means by which the public and the 
environment may be exposed to them. The RD, or blueprint for remediating 
the IRP site, is based on the results of the risk assessment and the 
geographical extent of the contamination. 

Disposal and reuse of some Wurtsmith AFB properties may be delayed or 
limited by the extent and type of contamination at IRP sites and by current 
and future IRP remediation activities (Figure 4.3-1). Based on the results of 
IRP investigations, the Air Force may. where appropriate, place limits on land 
reuse through deed restrictions on conveyances and use restrictions on 
leases. The Air Force may also retain right of access to other properties to 
inspect monitoring wells or conduct other remedial activities. 

The IRP sites within each land use area for the Proposed Action are 
discussed below and summarized in Table 4.3-2. 

Airfield. Spill sites SS-05, SS-09, SS-10, and SS-11 are directly adjacent to 
the runway, site SS-12 is at the west end of the main taxiway, and site 
SS-51 is just north of the center of the runway. Preliminary NFADOs have 
been submitted to the EPA and MDNR for sites SS-09, SS-11, and SS-12; 
any needed remediation activities associated with these sites may require a 
short-term shutdown of airfield operations. Remediation of LF-28, LF-62. 
and OT-35, if required, could cause similar short-term impacts to airfield 
operations; however, preliminary finished documents for these sites were 
submitted to MONR in September 1991 and may become final depending on 
Si results. Remediation of sites SS-57 and SS-60, adjacent to the 
operational apron, could cause a short-term disruption or restricted use of 
the apron areas. Remediation activities and installation of long-term 
monitoring wells associated with the Arrow Street and Operational Apron 
plumes should not impact airfield operations. Groundwater contamination 
caused by SS-53 is being remediated by existing pump and treat systems 
and should not impact reuse. 

Aviation Support. Land use restriction and delays in property disposal may 
occur to support ongoing as well as future groundwater pump and treat 
remediation activities of the Arrow Street, Operational Apron, and the 
Mission Drive plumes. Installation of monitoring wells could also result in 
land use restrictions. Delays in property disposal could occur due to 


4-28 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







EXPLANATION 


|AJrfield 


InstHutlonal * 
(Education) 


1 Aviation 

1 Support 


Commerciai 

© 

j Industrial 


Convention/ 

Tourist 


1 Institutional 

1 (MedtoaO 

0 

Residenlial 



Public Facttities/ —BaseBoundaiy 
n 0 cr 88 oon 


IRP Sites - 
Proposed Action 


Recreational 

VehiciePaffc 

Agriculture * 
Vacant Land* 


nn 

0 750 1500 3000 Feet 




Access Points 

IRP Site 

Groundwater 

Pkime 

Oirsction of 

Grourrdwatsr 

Row 


* Not Applicable 


Figure 4.3-1 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposed and Reuse FEIS 


4-29 














Table 4.3-2. 

IRP Sites within Land Use Areas - Proposed Action 

Airfield 

LF-28, LF-62, OT-35. SS-09, SS-10, SS-11, SS-12, SS-51, 

SS-53, SS-57, SS-60, Arrow Street Plume, Operational Apron 
Plume 

Aviation support 

FT-01, SD-43, SS-03, SS-08, SS-17, SS-20, SS-21, SS-22, 
SS-42, SS-54, ST-41, Arrow Street Plume, Mission Drive Plume, 
Operational Apron Plume 

Industrial 

LF-23, LF-29, LF-30, LF-31, LF-63, SS-05, SS-06, SS-13, 

SS-14, SS-19, SS-48, SS-59, ST-40, ST-44, ST-46, ST-61, 
Inactive WWTP Plume, Northern Landfill Plume, Pierce's Point 
Plume, POL Storage Area Plume 

Institutional (medical) 

None 

Commercial 

Arrow Street Plume, Inactive WWTP Plume, POL Storage Area 
Plume, SS-52, ST-45 

Convention/tourist 

SS-47, SS-58, WP-04, Arrow Street Plume, Inactive WWTP 

Plume, POL Storage Area Plume 

Residential 

Mission Drive Plums 

Public facilities/recreation 

FT-02, LF-23, LF-26, LF-27, LF-30, LF-31, OT-16, OT-35, 

OT-49, SS-55, SS-56, WP-32. WP-33, Fire Training Area Plume, 
Mission Drive Plume, Northern Landfill Plume, Operational Apron 
Plume, Pierce's Point Plume 

Recreational vehicle park 

None 


POL > P«troi«um, oil, and lubrioanu. 
WWTP > Waatowatar traatmant plant. 


ramediation of numerous spill sites, storage tanks, and the inactive fire 
protection training area (site FT-01) associated with this land use. 

Industrial. Remediation activities associated with the seven spill sites in the 
southern industrial area and sites ST-44 and SS-59 in the northern industrial 
area could delay disposal, thus delaying reuse. Land use restrictions and 
property disposal delay could occur due to remediation of LF-29, LF-30, 
LF-31, and LF-63 in the northern portion of the base and LF-23 in the 
southeast. Remediation activities of the Inactive WWTP and POL Storage 
Area plumes in the south and Northern Landfill and Pierce's Point plumes, 
including sites SS-05 and ST-61, in the north could delay property disposal; 
installation of groundwater treatment systems could restrict land use. 

Institutionai (Medical). No IRP sites are located within this land use aone. 

Commercial. Remediation of the Arrow Street, POL Storage Area, and 
Inactive WWTP plumes could involve land use restrictions and delay property 
disposal. The disposal of the commercial area in the north central portion of 


4-30 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 









the base could be delayed by remediation of site ST-45, and disposal of the 
central base commercial area could be delayed by remediation of site SS-52. 

Convention/Tourist. Remediation of the base service station (SS-471, the 
fuel oil USTs associated with SS-58 and the drying beds at site WP-04, all 
located in the southeastern portion of the base, could delay property 
disposal at that site. Remediation and monitoring activities associated with 
the Arrow Street, POL Storage Area, and Inactive WWTP plumes could 
restrict land use, delaying property disposal. 

Residential. Remediation activities and installation of long-term monitoring 
wells associated with the Mission Drive Plume could result in land use 
restrictions and could delay some property disposal. 

Public Facflities/Recreation. Remediation activities and long-term monitoring 
associated with the five plumes, as well as the northern landfills, could 
result in land use restrictions and could delay property disposal. 

Remediation of the smaller landfills LF-23, LF-26, and LF-27; the EOD 
(OT-49) and small arms (SS-55) ranges; and sites OT-16, OT-35, FT-02, 
SS-56, and the wastewater lagoons (WP-32, WP-33) could also delay 
disposal as well as require land use restrictions. 

Recreational Vehicle Park. No IRP sites are associated with this land use. 

Determination of future base land uses will be, to a certain extent, 
dependent upon a regulatory review of the remedial design of the IRP sites. 
This regulatory review would identify monitoring well locations and future 
land use limitations as a result of their presence. The regulatory review 
process would include notifying the FAA concerning the construction and 
locations of any monitoring wells. 

4.3.1.4 Storage Tanks. Flight and maintenance operations under the 
Proposed Action would require both aboveground tanks and USTs. Reused 
and new USTs and aboveground storage tanks that would be required by 
the new owner/operators will be subject to all applicable federal, state, and 
local regulations. These regulations include acceptable leak detection 
methodologies, spill and overfill protection, cathodic protection, secondary 
containment for the tank systems including the piping, and liability 
insurance. USTs that would not support reuse activities would be removed 
in conformance with the appropriate federal, state, and local regulations. 

The fuel hydrant system would be rendered inoperable, removing some 
sections and filling other less accessible sections (those under aprons and 
taxiways) with inert materials or other treatment. Oil/water separators 
would be pumped and cleaned of all wastes prior to disposal of properties. 
Oil/water separators would also be integrity tested, and those found to be 
unfit would be closed. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-31 







Aboveground fuel storage tanks that would not be initially utilized to support 
reuse activities would be emptied, purged of fumes to preclude fire hazards, 
and secured, in accordance with regulations of the Rre Marshal Division of 
the Michigan State Police. The Rre Marshal Division may also order the 
removal of tanks that are out of service. 

4.3.1.5 Asbestos. Renovation and demolition of existing structures with 
ACM may occur with reuse development. Such activities would be subject 
to all applicable federal, statt, and local regulations. Therefore, no threat to 
human health or the environment will result under the Proposed Action. 

4.3.1.6 Pesticide Usage. Pesticide use associated with the Proposed 
Action would be greater than amounts used under No-Action Alternative 
conditions as a result of the airfield, aviation support, industrial, and 
commercial reuses. An increase in household pesticide usage over closure 
conditions would occur due to reuse of on-base housing. Management 
practices would be subject to FI FRA and state regulations. 

4.3.1.7 Polychlorinated Biphenyls. All federally regulated PCB and 
PCB-contaminated equipment has been removed from Wurtsmith AFB; 
therefore, these materials will not create any impacts to reuse. 

4.3.1.8 Radon. Since all radon screening survey results were below EPA's 
recommended mitigation level of 4 pCi/l, there would be no impact on reuse 
activities. 

4.3.1.9 Medical/Biohazardous Waste. Biohazardous materials generated 
with the reuse of the hospital would be subject to conformance with the 
Michigan Medical Waste Management Act. The generation rates for waste 
products and disposal requirements would increase over No-Action 
Alternative conditions as a result of facility reuse. This increase would not 
represent an appreciable change from waste quantities generated during 
preclosure, nor represent an impact on this reuse option if managed under all 
applicable regulations. 

4.3.1.10 Ordnance. The EOD range, grenade range, and former ordnance 
drop zone have been cleared of unexploded ordnance. The earthen berm at 
the small arms range will be sifted for bullets prior to disposal of that parcel. 
If the small arms range is reused, the earthen berms surrounding the range 
could become contaminated with lead from bullets. This would not create 
an impact to reuse, and should not be an environmental impact if the range 
is properly maintained and the lead bullets are removed on a regular basis. 

4.3.1.11 Mitigation Measures. A cooperative planning body for hazardous 
materials and waste management could be established with the support of 
the new individual operators on the base. Establishment of such a body 
could reduce the costs of environmental compliance training, health and 


4-32 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 





safety training, and waste management, and could increase recycling, 
minimize waste, and assist in mutual spill responses. 

The scheduling of collection days for hazardous household materials, such 
as paints, pesticides, and cleaners, could mitigate publicly owned treatment 
works and storm water discharge concerns. Articles in the local papers and 
classes offered by community educational programs could increase public 
awareness on recycling, appropriate use of pesticides, waste minimization, 
and waste disposal. 

All of the IRP sites may not need to be remediated: however, all of them 
must be addressed and properly closed out. Active coordination between 
the OL and new construction planning agencies could mitigate potential 
problems. The presence of IRP sites may limit certain land uses within 
overlying areas; options could include reuse as open space, greenbelt, or 
parks. Current and future facilities utilized for pump and treat remediation of 
groundwater contamination would require access rights-of-way. 

Use of USTs that would remain in service would have to be coordinated 
with planning agencies to preclude construction of facilities that would 
endanger the integrity of the tanks or piping systems. 

Potential impacts from lead-contaminated soils through reuse of the small 
arms firing range could be mitigated with routine sifting of the earthen 
berms that surround the range. 

Coordination of asbestos removal or management in conjunction with 
demolition or renovation activities could mitigate environmental releases into 
the ambient air. Compliance with OSHA would preclude asbestos exposure 
during renovation and demolition. 

4.3.2 Fire Training Alternative 

4.3.2.1 Hazardous Materials Management. The types of hazardous 
materials utilized under this alternative are identified in Table 4.3-3. 

Materials to be used for training by the fire academy would consist of 
propane, fuel oil/gasoline mixtures, alcohols, flares, laboratory chemicals, 
and combustible metals such as magnesium and aluminum. Management of 
these materials would be the responsibility of the owner/operator and would 
comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Some of the 
materials to be used by the fire training academy were not utilized at 
Wurtsmith AFB during preclosure conditions; the introduction and 
management of these materials are not expected to impact reuse. Materials 
used for grounds and facility maintenance by the fire training academy as 
well as the other reuse proponents would in''iude heating oil, POL, cleaners, 
solvents, paints, thinners, and pesticides, ne overall quantity of hazardous 
materials usage would increase over No-Action Alternative conditions due to 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 


4-33 








Table 4.3-3. Hazardous Material Usage by Land Use • Firs Training Altamativs 


Land Use 

Operation Process 

Hazardous Materials 

Industrial 

Activities associated with light 
industry and manufacturing 
research and development, 
warehousing 

Solvents, heavy metals, POL, 
corrosives, catalysts, aerosols, fuels, 
heating oils, ignitibles, pesticides 

Educational 

(medical) 

Hospital/clinic, dental clinic, x-ray 
unit 

Pharmaceuticals, chemotherapeutic 
drugs, radiological sources, heavy 
metals 

Institutional 

(educational) 

Private/public education, fire 
training, corporate training facilities, 
vocational schools, chemistry 
laboratory 

Fuels/fuel oils, flares, propane, 
solvents, heating oils, solvents, 
cleaners, pesticides, paints, thinners, 
fire extinguishing agents, ignitibles, 
alcohol, magnesium, aluminum 

Commercial 

Activities associated with offices, 
retail, service industries, 
restaurants, convention community 
center and facilities 

Fuels, solvents, corrosives, POL, 
ignitibles, heating oils, pesticides 

Residential 

Utilization/maintenance of 
single-family and multi-family units, 
landscaping 

Pesticides, fertilizers, fuels, oils, 
household chemicals 

Public facilities/ 
recreation 

Maintenance of existing recreational 
facilities including golf course, 
sports complex, swimming pools, 
other recreational facilities 

Pesticides, fertilizers, chlorine, heating 
oils, paints, thinners, cleaners, 
solvents, aerosols, POL 


POL > P«trol«um, oil, and lubrieantt. 


an increase in reuse activities, but should not impact reuse if properly 
managed. 

4.3.2.2 Hazardous Waste Management. Hazardous waste would be 
generated under the Fire Training Alternative from the hazardous materials 
and processes utilized, and would consist of solvents, paints, thinners, and 
waste oils. The fire training academy would generate a large amount of 
wastewater with fuel/oil, heavy metal, and/or fire extinguishing agent 
residue. Used fire fighting water would be captured and returned to a 
retention pond via an oii/water separator. The water collection system and 
retention pond would be managed in accordance with applicable state 
permitting and environmental monitoring requirements. Proper disposal of 
oil/water separator wastes would be the responsibility of the fire training 
academy. 

4.3.2.3 Installation Restoration Program Sites. The IRP sites within each 
land use area for the Fire Training Alternative are identified in Figure 4.3-2 
and summarized in Table 4.3-4. 


4-34 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 





EXPLA NATION 

^^AiriMd* HH^ 

AvMian MW 

HiB Support* Hil_ 

Industrial ® 

■PM Inslilutional HW 

■iB(MadicaO Bw 

run 

0 750 1500 3000 Foat 


^ Inslitulional 
lIB (Educalian) 

1^1 Commardal 


Agriculture* 


VacsvitLand* 


Pubic FacaWes/ 
Racreallon 


Base Boundary 
Access Points 


IRP Site 

GrouiKlwatar 

Phjme 

DIreclionof 

GrouiKlwatar 

Flow 


IRP Sites - 
Fire Training 
Alternative 




*NotAppicabla 


Rgure 4.3-2 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-35 















TaU* 4.3>4. IRP SHm within Land Usa Araat - Fka Trabiing AHamativa 


industrial 

SS-03. SS-06, SS-13, SS-14, SS-IT, SS-19, SS-20, SS-21, 
SS-22, SS-48. SS-S2, SS-60, ST-40, ST-46, WP-04, Arrow 
Street Plume, Inactive WWTP Shop Plume, Operational Apron 
Plume. POL Storage Area Plume 

Institutional (medical) 

None 

Institutional (educational) 

LF-26. LF-28, LF-29, LF-30, LF-31, LF-62, LF-63. OT-35. 
OT-49. SS-05, SS-08, SS-09, SS-10, SS-11, SS-12, SS-51, 
SS-53. SS-54. SS-55. SS-59. ST-44, ST-45, ST-61, Arrow 
Street Plume, Fire Training Area Plume, Northern Landfiil 

Plume, Operational Apron Plume, Pierce's Point Plume, POL 
Storage Area Plume 

Commercial 

SS-47, SS-S8, Arrow Street Plume, Inactive WWTP Plume, 
Mission Drive Plume, Operational Apron Plume, POL Storage 
Area Plume 

Residential 

Mission Drive Plume 

Public facilities/recreation 

FT-01, FT-02, LF-23, LF-27, OT-16, SD-43, SS-42, SS-56, 
SS-57, ST-41, WP-32, WP-33, Arrow Street Plume, Fire 
Training Area Plume, Mission Drive Plume, Operational Apron 
Plume, POL Storage Area Plume 


POL - Petroleum, oil, and lubrieanta. 
WWTP m Waatowotor troatmont plant. 


Industrial. Present and future groundwater pump and treat facilities, and 
monitoring well locations for the four plumes in the main base areas could 
restrict land use and delay property disposal. Remediation activities at the 
numerous spill sites associated with this land use (see Table 4.3*4) may 
delay reuse development. 

Institutional (Medical). No IRP sites are associated with this land use area. 

Institutionai (Educational). Installation of groundwater treatment facilities 
and monitoring wells for the Rre Training Area, Arrow Street, Operational 
Apron, Pierce's Point, and Northern Landfiil plumes could restrict land use 
and cause some delays in property disposal. Remediation activities 
associated with all other IRP sites located within the northern educational 
land use zone (see Table 4.3-4) could restrict land use and delay property 
disposal. However, these constraints should not impact the reuse of this 
area as a fire training academy. Reuse in educational areas in the main 
cantonment area could be delayed due to remediation activities associated 
with the Arrow Street and POL Storage Area plumes. 

Commercial. Land use restrictions and property disposal delays could occur 
during remediation and monitoring activities of the five plumes under this 


4-36 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 








land usa. Dalays in property disposal could result due to remediation of sites 
SS^7 and SS-58. 

Residential. Remediation and long-term monitoring activities associated with 
the Mission Drive Plume could result in land use restriction and delays in 
property disposal. 

Public Faclities/Racreation. Groundwater remediation activities associated 
with the Arrow Street and POL Storage Area plumes could delay property 
disposal as well as restrict recreational uses in the central base areas, 
adjacent to Arrow Street. Remediation of the five plumes, as well as ail 
other IRP sites including the wastewater lagoons, could delay disposal of 
some properties and require land use restrictions, but these conditions 
should not impact the final reuse of these areas. 

4.3.2.4 Storage Tanks. Facility and training operations conducted by the 
fire training academy would require both USTs and aboveground storage 
tanks. These tanks would be utilized for storage of fuel/oil mixtures which 
are used as an ignition source, heating oils for the numerous facilities 
associated with the academy, and POL and motor fuel for fleet maintenance. 
Additional tanks may be utilized for other reuses under the Fire Training 
Alternative. Reused and new tanks required by the new owners/operators, 
including the fire training academy, would be subject to the same federal, 
state, and local regulations discussed under the Proposed Action. 

Ail USTs and aboveground storage tanks not initially utilized under this 
alternative would be removed or emptied and secured in compliance with all 
applicable regulations mentioned under the Proposed Action. All oil/water 
separators would be closed using the methods discussed for the Proposed 
Action. The fuel hydrant system would not be utilized and would be 
rendered inoperable, as discussed for the Proposed Action. 

4.3.2.5 Asbestos. The residential units southwest of Perimeter Road and 
Mission Drive could contain ACM. Demolition planned for any 
ACM-containing structures would be conducted in accordance with ail 
applicable abatement standards. 

4.3.2.6 Pesticide Usage. The amounts of pesticides used in association 
with the Rre Training Alternative would increase from No-Action Alternative 
conditions, due mainly to industrial, commercial, and institutional reuses. 
There would also be some household pesticide use associated with the 
retained residential area. 

4.3.2.7 Polychlorinated Biphenyls. All federally regulated 
PCB-contaminated equipment has been removed from the base; therefore, 
no impacts on reuse activities would occur. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-37 







4.3.2.8 Radon. Since ail screening survey results were below EPA's 
recommerKled mitigation level of 4 pCi/l, there would be no impact on reuse 
activities. 

4.3.2.9 Medical/Biohaxardous Waste. Impacts from medical/biohazardous 
wastes under the Fire Training Alternative would be similar to those under 
the Proposed Action. 

4.3.2.10 Ordnance. The EOO range, grenade range, and former ordnance 
drop zone have been cleared of unexploded ordnance. The earthen berm at 
the small arms firing range will be sifted prior to property disposal. 
Therefore, no impacts would occur. 

4.3.2.11 Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures under this alternative 
would be similar to those under the Proposed Action. 

4.3.3 Recreation Alternative 

4.3.3.1 Hazardous Materials Management. The types of hazardous 
materials utilized under the Recreation Alternative are identified in 
Table 4.3-5. Materials could include heating oils, POL, fuels, paints, 
thinners, solvents, and pesticides. The quantities of these materials would 
be greater than those used under the No-Action Alternative due to an 
increase in reuse activities. 

4.3.3.2 Hazardous Waste Management. Under this alternative, hazardous 
wastes would be generated from the hazardous materials and the various 
processes utilized, and could include waste oils, solvents, paints, thinners, 
and heavy metals. The amounts generated under this alternative would be 
greater than those produced under the No-Action Alternative due to an 
increase in reuse activities, but considerably less than the quantities 
generated by the other alternatives. 

4.3.3.3 Installation Restoration Program Sites. The IRP sites within each 
land use area for the Recreation Alternative are identified in Rgure 4.3-3, 
and an inventory of IRP sites is provided in Table 4.3-6. 

Industrial. Remediation and monitoring of the six plumes could delay reuse 
as well as result in land use restrictions. Remediation activities associated 
with a number of spill sites and leaking USTs in the central base area, WSA, 
and the operational apron area could delay property disposal. 

Institutional (medical}. No IRP sites are associated with this land use zone. 

Institutional (educational). Remediation and long-term monitoring of the 
Arrow Street and POL Storage Area plumes could impact reuse, through 
land use restrictions and delays in property disposal. 


4-38 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







Tabic 4.3*5. Hazardous Matariai Usago by Land Uss • Rscraation Altamativa 


Lartd Use 

Operation Process 

Hazardous Materials 

Industrial 

Activities associated wid\ light 
industry and manufacturing 
research and development, 
warehousing 

Solvents, heavy metals, POL, 
corrosives, catalysts, aerosols, fuels, 
heating oils, ignitibles, pesticides 

Institutional 

(medical) 

Hospital/clinic, dental clinic, x-ray 

Pharmaceutical, chemotherapeutic 
drugs, radiological sources, heavy 
metals 

Institutional 

(educational) 

Private/public education, youth 
center, corporate training facilities 
(includes lodging and food 
services), vocational schools 

Corrosives, ignitibles, solvents, 
heating oils, lubricants, cleaners, 
pesticides, paints, thinners 

Commercial 

Activities associated with office 
park, retail, service industries, 
restaurants, community facilities 

Fuels, solvents, corrosives, POL, 
ignitibles, heating oils, pesticides. 

Residential 

Utilization/maintenance of 
single-family and multi-family units, 
landscaping 

Pesticides, fertilizers, fuels, oils, 
household chemicals 

Public facilities/ 
recreation 

Maintenance of existing recreational 
facilities including indoor and 
outdoor sports complex, swimming 
pools, other recreational facilities 

Pesticides, fertilizers, chlorine, 
heating oils, paints, thinners, 
cleaners, solvents, aerosols, POL 


POL m Patrolcum, oil and hibricont*. 


Commarcial. Ramediation and monitoring activities associated with four 
plumes under this land use could create delays in reuse and/or restrict land 
use. Delays in property disposal could result due to remediation of sites 
SS-47. SS-52. and WP-04. 

Residential. Land use restrictions and delays in property disposal could 
impact this land use area due to groundwater remediation associated with 
the Mission Drive Plume. 

Public Faclities/Recreation. Remediation of all eight plumes on Wurtsmith 
AFB could cause some property disposal delays, and long-term monitoring 
would require land use restrictions for property access. Similar impacts 
would occur during remediation of the nine base landfills and the 
wastewater treatment lagoons associated with this land use area. Delays in 
property disposal could occur from remediation activities associated with the 
fire training sites, the sludge drying areas, and the EOD and small arms 
ranges, as well as the numerous spill sites and storage tanks (see 
Table 4.3*6) located within this land use. 

Recreational vehicle park. Delays in property disposal could result due to 
remediation activities associated with sites FT-01, SS-56, and SD-43. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 


4-39 













EXPLANATION 

[iMAiriMd* 

n Avtaflon 
I Support* 

I Industrial 

I Institutional 

|(Madk»0 

nn 

0 7S0 1500 aOOOFset 




Institutional 

(Education) 

Commsrcial 

Residential 




Recreational 

VehideParit 

Agriculture* 
Vacant Land* 


FacMties/ _ _ « _ Boundary 

Recreation oounoary 

Access Pcints 

*NotApp«cable 


IRP Site 

Groundwater 

Phime 

Direction of 

Groundwater 

Row 


IRP Sites - 

Recreation Alternative 


Hgure 4.3-3 


4-40 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 













Table 4.3-6 IRP Sites within Land Use Areas • Recreation Alternative 


Industrial 

SS-05, SS-06. SS-08, SS-13, SS-14, SS-19, SS-42, SS-48, 
SS-54. SS-59, ST-40, ST-41, ST-44, ST-46, ST-61, Arrow 
Street Plume, Inactive WWTP Plume, Mission Drive Plume, 
Operational Apron Plume, Pierce's Point Plume, POL Storage 

Area Plume 

Institutional (medical) 

None 

Institutional (educational) 

Arrow Street Plume, POL Storage Area Plume 

Commercial 

SS-20, SS-47, SS-52, WP-04, Arrow Street Plume, Inactive 
WWTP Plume, Mission Drive Plume, Operational Apron Plume 

Residential 

Mission Drive Plume 

Public facilities/recreation 

FT-02, LF-23, LF-26, LF-27, LF-28, LF-29, LF-30, LF-31, 

LF-62. LF-63, OT-16, OT-35, OT-49, SS-03, SS-09, SS-10, 
SS-11. SS-12, SS-17, SS-21, SS-22, SS-42, SS-51, SS-53, 
SS-55, SS-57, SS-58, SS-60, ST-45, WP-32, WP-33, Arrow 
Street Plume, Fire Training Area Plume, Inactive WWTP 
Locomotive Shop Mission Drive Plume, Northern Landfill 

Plume, Operational Apron Plume, Pierce's Point Plume, POL 
Storage Area Plume 

Recreational vehicle park 

FT-01, SD-43, SS-56 


POL = Patrolaum, oil, and lubricants. 
WWTP a: Waste water traatmant plant. 


4.3.3.4 Storage Tanks. Reuse and/or closure of existing USTs and 
aboveground storage tanks under this alternative would be subject to all 
applicable regulations mentioned under the Proposed Action. The fuel 
hydrant system would be rendered inoperable, as discussed for the Proposed 
Action. 

4.3.3.5 Asbestos. The on-base military housing units, as well as other 
structures, could contain ACM. Renovation or demolition of these 
structures would be subject to all applicable federal, state, and local 
regulations. 

4.3.3.6 Pesticide Usage. The amounts of pesticides used in association 
with the Recreation Alternative would be greater than the amounts used 
under the No-Action Alternative due to the reuse of industrial and 
institutional facilities. However, the quantities of pesticides that would be 
used under this alternative would be considerably less than those used under 
the other alternatives, as a result of restoration and conversion of the airfield 
area to natural open space, as well as less residential and industrial reuse. 

4.3.3.7 Polychlorinated Biphenyls. All federally regulated 
PCB-contaminated equipment has been removed from the base; therefore, 
no impacts on reuse activities would occur. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-41 













4.3.3.8 Radon, Since ail screening survey results were below EPA's 
recommended mitigation level of 4 pCi/1, there would be no impact on reuse 
activities. 

4.3.3.9 Medical/Biohazardous Waste. Impacts from medical/biohazardous 
wastes under the Recreation Alternative would be similar to those under the 
Proposed Action and the Fire Training Alternative. 

4.3.3.10 Ordnance. The EOD range, grenade range, and former ordnance 
drop zone have been cleared of unexploded ordnance. The earthen berm at 
the small arms range will be sifted prior to property disposal. Therefore, no 
impacts to reuse activities would occur under this alternative. 

4.3.3.11 Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures under this alternative 
would be similar to those under the Proposed Action. 

4.3.4 No-Action Alternative 

Painting and maintenance would be the primary activities under this 
alternative that would involve hazardous materials. The OL would manage 
all wastes generated under the applicable regulations as well as the final 
phases of the IRP activities. 

4.3.4.1 Hazardous Materials Management. Hazardous materials would be 
utilized in preventive and regular maintenance activities, grounds 
maintenance, and water and wastewater treatment. The materials used for 
these activities would include pesticides, fuels, paints, and corrosives. The 
OL would be responsible for hazardous materials handling training, as well as 
hazardous materials communication requirements of OSHA regulations. 
Quantities of hazardous materials used would be similar to those used at 
closure. 

4.3.4.2 Hazardous Waste Management. With the exception of facilities 
utilized by OL personnel, all satellite accumulation points would be closed 
and the DRMO would dispose of all hazardous waste prior to closure. The 
small amount of hazardous waste that would be generated under the 
No-Action Alternative would be equal to that at closure and may enable the 
OL to become an exempt, small-quantity generator. The OL must comply 
with all RCRA and state regulations. 

4.3.4.3 Installation Restoration Program Sites. Ongoing sampling and 
remedial design activities would be continued by the individual IRP 
contractors. The OL would support the utility requirements for these 
contractors and provide security for the IRP areas. Pump and treat 
remediation and monitoring of the groundwater contamination would 
continue and possibly expand in scope. These activities would be supported 
by the OL. 


4-42 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 





4.3.4.4 Storage Tanks. USTs remaining at Wurtsmith AFB would be 
managed by the OL. Cathodic protection and leak detection systems on the 
USTs would be the responsibility of the OL. Federal and state regulations 
require the proper closure of USTs out of service for 1 year or longer. The 
fuel hydrant system would be rendered inoperable, as discussed for the 
Proposed Action. 

The aboveground storage tanks that would not be used to support reuse 
activities would be emptied, purged of fuel fumes to preclude fire hazards, 
and secured. The Rre Marshal Division of the Michigan State Police may 
order the removal of tanks that are out of service. The OL would provide 
cathodic protection, repair, and general maintenance for the aboveground 
storage tanks and piping. 

4.3.4.5 Asbestos. The impacts from the No-Action Alternative would be 
minimal. Vacated buildings would be secured to prevent contact with ACM 
if the No-Action Alternative were implemented. Upon completion of the 
asbestos survey, management of ACM would be accomplished to ensure a 
safe site environment. 

4.3.4.6 Pesticide Usage. Under the No-Action Alternative, the grounds 
would be maintained in a manner to facilitate economic resumption of use. 
There should not be an appreciable increase in the use of pesticides from the 
closure baseline. Application of pesticides would be conducted in 
accordance with FIFRA and state regulations to assure the proper and safe 
handling and application of all chemicals. 

4.3.4.7 Polychlorinated Biphenyls. All federally regulated 
PCB-contaminated equipment has been removed; therefore, these materials 
would not create any impacts. 

4.3.4.8 Radon. Since all radon screening survey results were below EPA's 
recommended mitigation level of 4 pCi/l, there would be no impacts from 
implementation of the No-Action Alternative. 

4.3.4.9 Medical/Biohazardous Waste. All existing materials will be removed 
prior to closure; therefore, these materials would not create an impact under 
the No-Action Alternative. 

4.3.4.10 Ordnance. The EOO range, grenade range, and former ordnance 
drop zone have been cleared of unexploded ordnance, and the earthen berm 
at the small arms range will be sifted. Therefore no impacts would occur. 

4.3.4.11 Mitigation Measures. Under the No-Action Alternative, 
contingency plans developed to address spill response would be less 
extensive than those required for the Proposed Action or the other reuse 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 


4-43 






aitematives. Implementation of such procedures could effectively mitigate 
any potential impacts associated with the No-Action Alternative. 

4.3.S Other Land Use Concepts 

Hazardous materials to be utilized under the Advanced Environmental 
Technology Facility proposal would be those associated with a small 
research laboratory. Hazardous wastes generated at this facility would 
consist of soil and/or water samples taken from various sites. Samples 
would be analyzed on site and properly disposed of or sent off site for 
analysis. All hazardous materials and wastes would be managed in 
accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations by 
qualified personnel. GLMAC bioremediation activities at identified IRP sites 
would be coordinated with the OL, including appropriate approvals that may 
be required from the MONR. Implementation of this proposal could result in 
the acceleration of remediation activities at selected IRP sites, which in turn 
could accelerate disposal of those parcels. 

4.4 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 

This section describes the potential environmental effects of the Proposed 
Action and alternatives on the natural resources of soils and geology, water 
resources, air quality, noise, biological resources, and cultural resources on 
the base and in the surrounding region. 

4.4.1 Soils and Geology 

The potential environmental effects of the Proposed Action and reuse 
aitematives on the local soils and geology have been analyzed based on 
review of published literature. Soils and geology would be affected primarily 
during ground-disturbing activities, when local soil profiles could be altered. 
Soils in these areas would remain relatively stable in the long term because 
they would be overlain by facilities or pavement, or managed following SCS 
recommendations to minimize erosion. Acreages to be disturbed under the 
three alternatives between closure and 5, 10, and 20 years of 
redevelopment are presented in Chapter 2. Soil contamination from 
hazardous material/wastes is discussed in Section 4.3, Hazardous Materials 
and Hazardous Waste Management. 

4.4.1.1 Proposed Action. Effects of the Proposed Action on the regional 
soils and geology would be minimal, and would result primarily from limited 
ground disturbance associated with facility construction, renovation, and 
demolition and infrastructure improvement. These activities could alter the 
soil profiles and local topography. 

Use of sand and gravel resources (e.g., for construction material and 
concrete) for new facilities and roadways would not be expected to reduce 


4-44 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 




availability of these materials from local suppliers. No sand and gravel 
deposits of economic interest are known or expected to be present on 
Wurtsmith AFB. Conversion of sand or gravel deposits on base to other 
uses would not cause substantial impacts because the uses proposed would 
not necessarily cause an irretrievable loss and because the state contains a 
large quantity of these resources. 

The Proposed Action is not expected to cause any impacts to potential oil 
and gas resources. The proposed reuse activities are similar to existing base 
operations; therefore, conditions regarding petroleum are not expected to 
change. These actions would not cause any irreversible or irretrievable loss 
of resources. During the disposal process, the Air Force would coordinate 
the transfer and conditions of the existing oil and gas lease with the reuse 
entity. 

Under this alternative, 551 acres of land would be disturbed. Because local 
soils are susceptible to wind erosion, short-term impacts could occur. 

During ground-disturbing activities, removal of vegetative cover and grading 
activities would increase the potential for wind erosion. However, once 
these areas have been covered with pavement, buildings or facilities, or 
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion would be minimal. 

As indicated by the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating (Appendix L), no 
impacts to prime or unique farmland would occur under the Proposed 
Action. Further, because the soils are well suited for roadway and facility 
development, there would be no impacts to soils from construction activities 
(East Central Michigan Planning and Development Regional Commission. 
1973). 

Air Force Fee-Owned Land. Minor erosion effects could occur on Air Force 
fee-owned land as a result of ground disturbance, particularly during 
demolition of housing units in the southeastern portion of the base. As 
discussed above, disposal of property containing oil and gas lease rights 
would be coordinated with the new landowner. 

Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures are available to minimize erosion 
problems associated with wind, especially during ground-disturbing activities 
when trenches and cut slopes are exposed. When cut slopes are exposed, 
the following measures may be useful in limiting erosion: 

• Addition of protective coverings such as mulch, straw, or other 
material (tacking will be required) 

• Limiting the amount of area disturbed and the length of time 
slopes and barren ground are left exposed. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-45 








After the construction phase, long-term erosion control can be accomplished 
by keeping soils under vegetative cover and planting windbreaks. The type 
of vegetation used as windbreaks must comply with FAA standards in areas 
intended for aircraft runways. After construction, soils underlying facilities 
and pavements would not be subject to erosion. 

4.4.1.2 Fire Training Alternative. Types of impacts associated with soils 
and geology under this alternative would be similar to those under the 
Proposed Action, except that less land (351 acres) would be disturbed. 
Additional impacts could be associated with runoff from the burn areas, 
which could contaminate soils. However, proper management practices 
associated with used fire fighting water (refer to Section 2.3.1.2) would 
minimize the potential for runoff from the burn areas to infiltrate the existing 
storm water system and contaminate soils along drainage courses and 
ditches. There would be some potential for increased erosion of soils by 
wind and water in the forest fire training areas until vegetation becomes 
re-established. Because of the permeable soils and flat topography, water 
erosion effects would be minimal. Impacts related to potential oil and gas 
resources would be the same as for the Proposed Action. 

Air Force Fee-Owned Land. Minor erosion effects could occur on Air Force 
fee-owned land as a result of ground disturbance, particularly during 
demolition of housing units in the southeastern portion of the base or 
demolition of any industrial or commercial buildings in the east-central 
portion of the base. Disposal of property containing oil and gas lease rights 
would be coordinated with the new landowner. 

Mitigation Measures. Potential mitigation measures to minimize erosion 
would be similar to those discussed for the Proposed Action. In addition, 
mitigation measures to minimize the potential for soil contamination from 
bum area runoff would have to be established. Measures to minimize the 
potential for soil contamination by collecting and treating used fire fighting 
water have been incorporated in the Fire Training Alternative proposal (see 
Section 2.3.1.2). In addition, it is recommended that regular leak testing of 
the aboveground sewer system, the oil/water separator, and the water 
retention pond be conducted. 

4.4.1.3 Recreation Alternative. Types of impacts associated with soils and 
geology under this alternative would be similar to those under the Proposed 
Action, except that slightly more land (614 acres) would be disturbed. 
Exposure of soils caused by the demolition of more than one-half of the 
existing structures and development of a golf course would increase the 
potential for erosion, but these impacts would be short term until 
revegetation is established. 

Air Force Fee-Owned Land. Erosion effects could occur on Air Force 
fee-owned land as a result of ground disturbance, particularly during 


4-46 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 






demolition of most of the housing units in the southeastern portion of the 
base. 

Mitigation Measures. Potential mitigation measures would be similar to 
those discussed for the Proposed Action. After demolition of existing 
structures, the length of time vegetation and other cover are absent should 
be minimized. 

4.4.1.4 No-Action Alternative. The No-Action Alternative would result in 
no impacts to the soils and geology of the base area or the surrounding 
region. The construction activities associated with this alternative would be 
minimal or nonexistent and restricted to maintenance-type activities. 
Therefore, no mitigation measures would be required. 

4.4.1.5 Other Land Use Concepts. The Advanced Environmental 
Technology Facility would not create any impacts to soils or geology 
because no ground disturbance would be involved. 

4.4.2 Water Resources 

The following section describes the potential environmental effects on water 
resources as a result of the Proposed Action and reuse alternatives. 
Ground-disturbing activities could alter soil profiles and natural drainages, 
which, in turn, could alter water flow patterns temporarily. Impacts on 
water quality from hazardous waste contamination are addressed in 
Section 4.3, Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management. 

4.4.2.1 Proposed Action 

Surface Water. Under the Proposed Action, soils would be compacted 
during facility construction, renovation, and demolition and infrastructure 
improvements and overlain by asphalt, asphaltic concrete, or buildings, 
creating impervious surfaces that would cause increased storm water runoff 
to local storm sewers and sewage systems. As a result, drainage patterns 
would be altered to divert water away from facilities and airfield pavements. 
Storm water discharge (non-point source) from the airfield, airfield support 
areas, and other heavy industrial areas may contain fuels, oils, and other 
residual contaminants, which could degrade surface water resources in the 
Au Sable River and Van Etten Creek. 

It is assumed that ground-disturbing activities (see Table 2.2-3) under the 
Proposed Action would occur in areas historically subject to development 
(i.e., in the eastern part of the base, in or adjacent to the cantonment area). 
As a result, minimal or no ground disturbance would occur in the floodplains 
along the Au Sable River and adjacent to Van Etten Lake (see Figure 3.4-2). 
Therefore, impacts to floodplains would be minimal. The establishment of 
these areas as recreation areas could indirectly cause positive impacts, in 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-47 








that these uses would preserve the floodplains and prevent future 
development. 


To ensure minimal potential for future impacts to floodplains, the Air Force 
would comply with appropriate requirements for disposal of property in 
floodplains, as established in Executive Order 11988 and Air Force 
Regulation 19-9. Property transferred to other federal agencies (e.g., the 
U.S. Forest Service property) would continue to be subject to these 
requirements: disposal of lands to non-federal agencies or private entities 
would require full disclosure of federal, state, and local restrictions on use of 
the floodplains. 

Nearby Lake Huron provides an abundant supply of surface water, and 
would be a possible alternate water source in the event that existing on-base 
groundwater wells are closed. The communities surrounding Wurtsmith AFB 
are currently considering several long-term water supply alternatives, 
including connection to the plant as Tawas Point, which is supplied from 
Lake Huron. 

The project may also be subject to NPOES permit requirements for storm 
water discharges during the construction period and for the duration of 
airport operations. This provision is contained in the NPDES Permit 
Application Regulations for Storm Water Discharges issued by the EPA as a 
final rule on November 16, 1990. Oil/water separators could be installed to 
improve water quality prior to discharge to storm water drainage systems. 

Groundwater. Under the Proposed Action, there would be minimal adverse 
impacts to groundwater resources. In fact, closing the wastewater seepage 
beds would result in a beneficial effect on groundwater quality. Projected 
water demand in the ROI for the years 1998, 2003, and 2013 is shown in 
Table 4.4-1. Local groundwater supplies would be sufficient to meet 
projected demands. 



Table 4.4-1. Projected Water Demand 

- Proposed Action 


Year 

Projected demand 
(MGD) 

Projected Annual Demand 
(MG/yr) 

Projected Baseline 
Demand (MG/yr) 

Percent Increase 
above Baseline 

1998 

1.92 

701 

526 

33 

2003 

2.04 

745 

526 

42 

2013 

2.24 

818 

522 

57 


Note: Pracloaure (1990) ROI damand avaragaa approximataly 0.62 MGD (226 million gallons (MGI/yr). 


In the year 2013, on-site demand is expected to be 0.50 MGO, which is 
approximately 81 percent of the preclosure (1990) base demand. The 
current production capacity of the on-base wells is 2.2 MGD (U.S. Air Force, 


4-48 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 














1990b), which would be adequate to meet the anticipated needs. However, 
if the migration of contaminated groundwater plumes results in the closure 
of the on-base wells, an alternate supply source would have to be 
developed. 

Consideration of Township of Oscoda wellhead protection areas in terms of 
^e Proposed Action may require some coordination and related activities 
during reuse, but the Proposed Action itself is expected to have minimal 
environmental impact on the wellhead areas. Construction activities would 
occur no closer than 0.75 mile from either Oscoda well field, and both well 
fields are separated from the base by hydrologic divides (i.e.. Van Etten Lake 
and the Au Sable River). Therefore, groundwater contamination from the 
Wurtsmith AFB area would not be able to reach the well locations under 
current hydrologic conditions, because the contamination could not flow 
upgradient to the wells from the hydrologic divide. 

Water supply wells on Wurtsmith AFB may continue to be used in the short 
term under the Proposed Action. Because of known existing groundwater 
contamination on Wurtsmith AFB, careful monitoring of water quality 
conditions at these wells would be appropriate. Also, these wells would 
become subject to the local ordinances, and may need to be considered in 
terms of the state wellhead protection program; these factors may restrict 
future development/activities adjacent to the wells. 

The wellhead area issues would be resolved if current plans are implemented 
to connect Oscoda and the base to the Tawas City water supply system. In 
that case, all existing water supply wells on Wurtsmith AFB and within 
Oscoda would be abandoned, and there would be no impacts to wellhead 
areas. 

Air Force Fee-Owned Land. Minor surface runoff effects could occur on Air 
Force fee-owned land as a result of ground disturbance, particularly during 
demolition of housing units in the southeastern portion of the base or 
demolition of any industrial or commercial buildings in the east-central 
portion of the base. In disposing of fee-owned lands within floodplains, the 
Air Force would comply with disposal activities established by Executive 
Order 11988. 

Mitigation Measures. To minimize the potential impacts of surface water 
runoff, construction designs should incorporate provisions to reduce storm 
water runoff. The following practices could be implemented to reduce the 
impacts to surface water quality: 

• Create landscaped areas that are pervious to surface water 

• Minimize areas of surface disturbance 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-49 







• Control site runoff 


• Minimize time that disturbed areas are exposed to erosion 

• Schedule surface-disturbing activities during dry seasons 

• Provide regular street sweeping. 

If Wurtsmith AFB water supply wells remain in use, continued remediation 
activities under the IRP program as well as continued monitoring of the 
water quality in the wells would assist in minimizing impacts. 

Implementation of a wellhead protection program for the base wells would 
reduce the possibility of impacts to water supply. Development of new 
water supply sources (as discussed above) would eliminate the potential for 
impacts by eliminating the use of the wells themselves. 

4.4.2.2 Fire Training Aitemative 

Surface Water. The types of impacts to surface water resources under this 
aitemative would be similar to those under the Proposed Action. The runoff 
from the bum areas could potentially contaminate surface waters through 
infiltration of the existing storm water systems that discharge into the Au 
Sable River. 

Groundwater. The quantity of groundwater extracted under this aitemative 
would be less than that required for the Proposed Action. As under the 
Proposed Action, there would be minimal adverse effects on groundwater, 
and a likely beneficial effect from closing the wastewater seepage beds. 
Projected ROI water demand for the years 1998, 2003, and 2013 is shown 
in Table 4.4-2. Local groundwater supplies would be sufficient to meet 
projected demands. 


Table 4.4-2. Projected Water Demand - Fire Training Aitemative 


Year 

Projected Demand 
(MGD) 

Projected Annual Demand 
(MG/yr) 

Projected Baseline 
Demand (MG/yr) 

Percent Increase 
above Baseline 

1998 

1.65 

602 

526 

14 

2003 

1.76 

642 

526 

22 

2013 

1.89 

690 

522 

32 


Note; PradoMirw (1990) ROI demand average* approximataiy 0.62 MGO (226 MG/yr). 


By the year 2013, water demand on-site is expected to be 0.38 MGO, 
approximately 61 percent of the 1990 base demand. This projected demand 
could be met by the capacities of the existing on-base wells. Effects are 


4-50 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 










expected to be similar to those under the Proposed Action. Used water 
from the bum areas would be channeled in lined drainages and contained in 
a double-lined retention pond after passing through an oil/water separator to 
prevent contamination of groundwater. 

Air Force Fee-Owned Land. Minor surface runoff effects could occur on Air 
Force fee-owned land as a result of ground disturbance, particularly during 
demolition of housing units in the southeastern portion of the base or 
demolition of any industrial or commercial buildings in the east-central 
portion of the base. 

MWgstion Measures. Potential mitigation measures would be similar to 
those discussed for the Proposed Action. Measures to minimize the 
potential for surface water and groundwater contamination by collecting and 
treating used fire fighting water have been incorporated in the Fire Training 
Ahemative proposal (see Section 2.3.1.2). The following additional 
measures may be useful in minimizing the potential for contamination: 

• Regular leak testing of the aboveground sewer system, the 
oil/water separator, and the water retention pond 

• Groundwater monitoring utilizing the existing groundwater 
monitoring devices in the alert facility. 

4.4.2.3 Recreation Alternative 

Surface Water. The types of impacts to surface water resources under this 
alternative would be similar to those under the Proposed Action. 

Groundwater. The quantity of groundwater extracted under this alternative 
would be significantly less than that required for the Proposed Action. As 
under the Proposed Action, tiiere would be minimal adverse effects, and 
likely beneficial effects from closing the groundwater seepage beds. 
Projected water demand in the ROI for the years 1998, 2003, and 2013 is 
shown in Table 4.4-3. Local groundwater supplies would be sufficient to 
meet projected demands. 



Table 4.4-3. 

Projected Water Demand 

- Recreation Alternative 


Year 

Projected demand 
(MGO) 

Projected Annual Demand 
(MG/yr) 

Projected Baseline 
Demand (MG/yr) 

Percent Increase 
above Baseline 

1998 


562 

526 

7 

2003 

1.61 

588 

526 

12 

2013 

1.71 

624 

522 

20 


Not*: ProcloMir* (1990) ROI damond avorago* approximatalv 0.62 MGO (226 MG/yr). 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-51 












By th« year 2013, water demand on-site is expected to be 0.17 MGO, 
which is approximately 27 percent of the 1990 base demand. This 
projected demand could be met by the capacities of the existing on-base 
wells. 


Air Force Fee-Owned Land. Surface runoff effects could occur on Air Force 
fee-owned land as a result of ground disturbance, particularly during 
demolition of most of the housing units in the southeastern portion of the 
base or demolition of any industrial or commercial buildings in the 
east-central portion of the base. 

Mitigation Measures. Potential mitigation measures would be similar to 
those discussed for the Proposed Action. 

4.4.2.4 No-Action Alternative. The No-Action Alternative would have 
positive effects on surface and groundwater quality because there would be 
very limKed operations and no increase in population. Water demands for 
OL personnel and activities would be minimal and could be accommodated 
from existing supply systems. No mitigation measures would be required. 

4.4.2.8 Other Land Use Concepts. Implementation of the Advanced 
Environmental Technology Facility in combination with the Proposed Action 
or alternatives would not create any additional impacts to water resources 
because it would result in only a minimal net increase in water demand, 
which could be met by existing supplies. 

4.4.3 Air Quality 

Air quality impacts could occur during reuse activities associated with the 
Proposed Action and alternatives for the reuse of Wurtsmith AFB. 
Intermittent construction-related impacts could result from fugitive dust 
(particulate matter). Reuse-related impacts could occur from: (1) mobile 
sources such as aircraft, aircraft operation support equipment, commercial 
transport vehicles, construction vehicles, and personal vehicles; (2) point 
sources such as heating/power plants, generators, incinerators, and storage 
tanks; (3) fugitive dust due to construction activities; and (4) 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. Air quality analytical methods are 
summarized here and presented in detail in Appendix K. The primary 
emission source categories associated with the Proposed Action and 
alternatives include construction, aircraft, vehicles, point sources, and 
indirect source emissions related to population increase. Analysis for the 
construction phase is limited to estimating the amount of uncontrolled 
fugitive dust that may be emitted from disturbed areas. Analysis for point 


4-52 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 







source and indirect source emissions during the operations phase consists of 
quantifying the emissions using per-capita emission factors based on 
regional emissions and population. Aircraft and vehicular emissions were 
estimated using the emission factors in Emissions and Dispersion Modeling 
System (EDMS). The impacts of project-related annual emissions were 
evaluated based on how these emissions would affect maintenance of the 
NAAQS and MAAQS. 

The local air quality impacts of aircraft and mobile source emissions are 
analyzed by modeling. The EDMS is used to simulate the dispersion of 
emissions from aircraft operations (Segal, 1991). EDMS was developed 
jointly by the FAA and the U.S. Air Force specifically for the purpose of 
generating airport and airbase emission inventories and for calculating the 
concentrations caused by these emissions as they disperse downwind. The 
EDMS model uses EPA aircraft emission factors and information on peak and 
annual landing and takeoff cycles to produce an emissions inventory report 
for the aircraft operations. 

Air quality analysis is presented for the Proposed Action and alternatives 
through the year 2003. The effects of the 1990 CAA Amendments, such 
as electric and other low emission vehicle ownership percentage, cannot be 
accurately predicted very far into the 21st Century. The uncertainties of 
long-range population and traffic projections, future CAA changes, and the 
complex interaction of meteorology with emission inventories makes a 
20-year emission and air quality projection too speculative. 

The following assumptions were made in estimating the effects of the 
Proposed Action and alternatives: 

• With the exception of fugitive dust, aircraft, and fire training 
emissions, emission inventory amounts of ROG, NOj, PM,q, SOj, 
and CO are based on the ratio of emissions to population, as 
defined by available preclosure emissions and population for 
Iosco County. 

• Mobile source emissions associated with the base residential 
area were estimated by assuming that the area was similar to a 
parking lot and was modeled using EDMS. 

The process by which a regulatory agency permits major new sources or 
modifications of existing sources depends on the attainment status of the 
source location. In an area meeting the NAAQS, or attainment area, the 
process is called PSD and it limits the allowable ambient impact of emissions 
to specific increments as previously shown in Table 3.4-2. The increments 
are designed to prevent significant degradation of the area's acceptable air 
quality. Because Wurtsmith AFB is in an area that is unclassified and 
assumed to be in attainment of all criteria pollutants, PSD requirements for 
major new or modified sources would apply. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-53 








Emissions sssociated with the proposed industrial and fire training activities 
will be subject to review by the MONR. The federal CAA and Michigan air 
quality regulations require that industrial sources obtain operating permits 
and institute pollution reduction measures if a source is determined to be a 
major source or to cause a significant environmental impact. Specific 
requirements are determined on a case*by-case basis. 

4.4.3.1 Proposed Action. Total estimated emissions of the Proposed 
Action are presented in Table 4.4-4 for the years 1998 and 2003. The table 
also provides a comparison of the magnitude of reuse-related emissions in 
relation to preclosure emission levels. 

Table 4.4-4. Pollutant Emissions Associated with the Proposed Action 


Preclosure Emissions Base Reuse Pgrgentaflg Increase in 

(tons/davl Emissions (tons/dav) Countv Emissions 


Pollutant 

County" 

Wurtsmith" AFB 

1998 

2003 

1998 

2003 

Nitrogen 

dioxide 

4.2 

0.7 

0.38 

0.48 

9 

11 

ROG 

14.2 

4.5 

1.08 

1.35 

8 

10 

PM,o 

<el 

0.07 

0.68 

0.77 

(ej 

lei 

Sulfur 

dioxide 

0.5 

0.08 

0.05 

0.06 

10 

12 

Carbon 

monoxide 

33.3 

4.7 

3.30 

4.75 

10 

14 


Notea: (a) Includaa Wurtamith AFB. 


(b) Baaa aotivitiaa only. 

(c) Data not available. 


Construction. Fugitive dust would be generated during construction 
activities associated with construction, site clearing, and improvements to 
structures, roads, and utilities. Uncontrolled fugitive dust (particulate 
matter) emissions from ground-disturbing activities would be emitted at a 
rate of 110 pounds per acre per day (EPA, 1985). The PM^g fraction of the 
total fugitive dust emissions is assumed to be 50 percent, or 55 pounds per 
acre per working day. 

It is estimated that construction on base would disturb 517 acres over the 
10-year period of project development (see Table 2.2-3). It was assumed 
that the disturbance would be equally distributed within each period of 
analysis. The average daily PM^g emissions are estimated to be 0.09 ton 
between 1993 and 1998, and 0.02 ton between 1998 and 2003 (see 
Appendix K). These PM,g emissions would cause elevated short-term 
concentrations at receptors located close to the construction areas. 

However, the elevated concentrations would be temporary and would fall off 
rapidly with distance. 


4-54 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 









Operations. Total estimated operations emissions associated with 
operations under the Proposed Action are included with the construction 
emissions in Table 4.4-4 for the years 1998 and 2003. Aircraft emissions 
were calculated using EDMS. Estimates for all other categories of emissions 
were calculated using per-capita estimates as described in Appendix K. 

Potential impacts to air quality as a result of air emissions from the 
operations under 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 Iosco County. The local-scale analysis evaluated the potential 
impact to ambient air quality concentrations in the immediate vicinity of the 
base. 

Regional Scale. The evaluation of regional-scale impacts from the Proposed 
Action considered the effect any new air emissions would have on 
maintaining the air quality attainment status of Iosco County. The following 
paragraphs summarize the results of the regional-scale impact analysis on a 
pollutant-by-pollutant basis. Table 4.4-4 summarizes the results of the 
emission calculations for the Proposed Action for the years 1998 and 2003. 

Ozone Precursors . The reuse emissions of NOj and ROG would increase 
from No-Action Alternative conditions but would remain below the 
preclosure emission levels for Wurtsmith APB. The regional air quality 
impacts associated with those emissions would be negligible. 

CO. NO,. PM . ». and SO, . Projected NOj and SOj emissions from the 
Proposed Action would be lower than preclosure emissions from Wurtsmith 
APB. Emissions of PM^q and CO would be greater than preclosure base 
emissions, but still represent an increase of less than 15 percent in county 
emissions. 

The majority of emissions associated with the base reuse inventory are from 
the category "Other Activities" (see tables in Appendix K). These emissions, 
with the exception of a small percentage from industrial activities, would be 
directly related to the increased population associated with the Proposed 
Action. The population of Iosco County in the year 2003 is predicted to be 
26,500 (including the Proposed Action), which is lower than the Iosco 
County population census of 30,209 in 1990. This decrease in population, 
and the associated per-capita emissions, would, to a certain extent, offset 
the increase in emissions associated with Proposed Action operations. 

Local Scale. A summary of the EDMS analysis results is presented in 
Table 4.4-5. The results show that during peak-hour operations, the 
maximum 1-hour pollutant concentration would occur approximately 
1,000 feet downwind of the runway centerline. All of the pollutant 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 


4-55 




Table 4.4-5. Air Quality Modeling Results for the Proposed Action (//g/m*)'*^ 


Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

NAAQS 

Preclosure'*' 

Concentrations 

1998 

2003 

Carbon monoxide 

8-Hour 

10,000 

400 

672 

697 


1 -Hour 

40,000 

700 

960 

996 

Sulfur dioxide 

Annual 

80 

10 

2.1 

2.2 


24-Hour 

365 

40 

8.3 

8.6 


3-Hour 

1,300 

100 

18.7 

19.4 

O 

a. 

Annual 

50 

20 

1.2 

1.2 


24-Hour 

150 

55 

4.9 

4.9 


Modeled impect ie en on-baee location in proximity to roadways and parking lots. 
Additional impact points are located approximately 1,000 feet 1300 meters) downwind 
of the ertds of the runway. 

These emissions include aircraft and motor vehicle activity. 

Estimated concentrations, provided by MDNR, Air Quality Division, reflect preclosure 
ambient air quality. 


Notes: (a) 


(bl 

(c) 


concentrations would be below the applicable standard in the immediate 
area surrounding the airport, and would have no measurable effect on the 
local air quality. 

Mitigation Measures. Air quality impacts during construction would occur 
primarily from fugitive dust emissions from ground-disturbing activities. 
Water application during ground-disturbing activities could mitigate fugitive 
dust emissions by at least 50 percent (EPA, 1985). Decreasing the time 
period during which newly graded sites are exposed to the elements would 
further mitigate fugitive dust emissions. Implementation of these measures 
would substantially reduce air quality effects from construction activities 
associated with the Proposed Action. In addition, all aviation development 
during the construction phase would comply with measures contained in the 
FAA Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports (FAA, 1990d). 

Although the impacts caused by reuse emissions are minimal and well below 
standards, pollution prevention measures could be implemented to reduce 
motor vehicle emissions. These measures would probably involve land use 
or transportation planning and management methods to reduce vehicle miles 
traveled, vehicle trips, and peak-hour travel. These reductions would, 
therefore, reduce both regional and localized vehicle-related emissions of 
NO,, ROG, and PM,o. 

4.4.3.2 Fire Training Alternative. Table 4.4-6 summarizes the results of the 
emission calculations for the Fire Training Alternative for the years 1998 and 
2003. This table also provides a comparison of the magnitude of the reuse- 
related emissions in relation to the preclosure emission levels. 


4-56 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 












Table 4.4-6. Pollutant Emissions Associated with the Fire Training Alternative 


Preclosure Emissions Base Reuse Emissions Percentage Increase 
(tons/dav) <tons/dav) in ggynty gmissignj 

Wurtsmith*” 


Pollutant 

County'** 

AFB 

1998 

2003 

1998 

2003 

Nitrogen dioxide 

4.2 

0.7 

0.20 

0.28 

5 

7 

ROG 

14.2 

4.5 

0.51 

0.73 

4 

5 

PM,o 

Id 

0.07 

0.65 

0.75 

Id 

(C) 

Sulfur dioxide 

0.5 

0.09 

0.02 

0.03 

14 

6 

Carbon monoxide 

33.3 

4.7 

4.79 

5.47 

14 

16 


Notes: (a) Includes Wunsmith AFB. 

(b) Base activities only. 

(c) Data not available. 


Construction. Construction impacts from this alternative would be less than 
under the Proposed Action because of the smaller amount of land 
disturbance that would occur. It is estimated that 249 acres would be 
disturbed by construction over the 10-year period of analysis, releasing an 
estimated 0.05 and 0.02 tons of PM,o per working day, respectively, for the 
two periods of analysis. The impact of these emissions would cause 
elevated concentrations of particulates at receptors close to the construction 
areas, decreasing rapidly with distance from the construction areas. 

Operations. Table 4.4-6 summarizes the results of the Fire Training 
Alternative for the years 1998 and 2003. Estimates of emissions from the 
fire training activities were calculated using EPA emission factors for forest 
fires, open burning propane, and fuel oil. Emissions from fire training 
activities were modeled using the EPA SCREEN model, as discussed in 
Appendix K. EDMS was used to model emissions from motor vehicles. 
Estimates for all other categories of emissions were calculated using per- 
capita estimates, as described in Appendix K. 

Potential impacts to air quality as a result of air emissions from the 
operations under the Fire Training Alternative 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 Iosco County. The local-scale analysis evaluated 
the potential impact to ambient air quality concentrations in the immediate 
vicinity of the base. 

Regional Scale. The evaluation of regional-scale impacts from the Fire 
Training Alternative considered the effect any new emissions would have on 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-57 










maintaining the air quality attainment status of Iosco County. The following 
paragraphs summarize the results of the regional-scale impact analysis on a 
pollutant-by-pollutant basis. Table 4.4-6 summarizes the results of the NOj 
and ROG emission calculations for the Fire Training Alternative for the years 
1998 and 2003. 

Ozone Precursors . The reuse emissions of ROG and NO} would be much 
lower than the preclosure base emissions and would have no adverse effect 
on regional air quality. 

CO. NO,. PM . ... and SO, . Table 4.4-6 shows that NO} and SO} emissions 
from the Fire Training Alternative would be lower than preclosure base 
emissions. Although reuse emissions of PM,o and CO would be greater than 
the corresponding preclosure base emissions, there would be no adverse 
impacts to regional air quality associated with these emissions. 

Local Scale. Dispersion modeling results indicated that daily emissions from 
the training fires would not have an impact on local ambient conditions 
(Table 4.4-7). Modeling results from the forest fire training activities 
(Table 4.4-8) indicate that ambient air concentration of PM,o may exceed 
the 24-hour NAAQS when existing background levels are considered. 
Furthermore, the predicted impact exceeds the PSD increment for PM,o (see 
Table 3.4-2). 

Since the forest fires would be planned only once or twice per year (if at all), 
under the direction of the MDNR and during suitable meteorological 
conditions, the impacts predicted by the dispersion modeling analysis may 
somewhat overestimate potential impacts. The ambient air quality impact of 
fire training activities should be reevaluated using more refined models when 
a more definite plan is developed. The MDNR should be consulted regarding 
the choice of computer model, dispersion parameters, and PSD 
requirements. 

Mitigation Measures. The impact of emissions from fire training activities 
can be mitigated by restricting the staging of fires to periods of time when 
meteorological conditions provide for good dispersion of pollutants in the 
ambient air. In general, this can be accomplished by avoiding nighttime and 
early morning hours or periods of atmospheric inversion (rainy or heavily 
clouded days). Impacts can also be minimized by restricting activities to one 
fire staging area at a time. 

Mitigation measures for other activities under this alternative would be 
similar to those discussed for the Proposed Action. 

4.4.3.3 Recreation Alternative. Total estimated emissions for this 
alternative are shown in Table 4.4-9 for the years 1998 and 2003. The 


4-58 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 



Table 4.4'7. Air Quality Modeling Results for the 
Fire Training Alternative 



Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 


4-59 





















Table 4.4*9. Pollutant Emissions Associated with the Recreation Alternative 



Pollutant 

County 

Wurtsmith®*' 

AFB 

1998 

2003 

1998 

2003 

Nitrogen dioxide 

4.2 

0.7 

0.07 

0.12 

2 

3 

ROG 

14.2 

4.5 

0.20 

0.35 

1 

2 

PM,o 

(el 

0.07 

0.22 

0.21 

(el 

(el 

Sulfur dioxide 

0.5 

0.09 

0.01 

0.02 

2 

4 

Carbon monoxide 

33.3 

4.7 

0.58 

1.04 

2 

3 


Notes: (a) Includes Wurtsmith AFB. 

(b) Bess activities only. 

(c) Date not available. 


table also provides a comparison of the magnitude of reuse-related emissions 
in relation to preclosure emission levels. 

Construction. It is estimated that a total of 481 acres would be disturbed 
over the 10 years after closure, resulting in release of an estimated 0.10 and 
0.004 ton per day over the two periods of analysis. The impact of these 
emissions would cause elevated concentrations of particulates at receptors 
close to the construction areas, decreasing rapidly with distance from the 
construction areas. 

Operations. Table 4.4-9 summarizes the results of the emissions 
calculations associated with the Recreation Alternative for the years 1998 
and 2003. Emissions were calculated using per-capita estimates as 
described in Appendix K. 

Potentiai impacts to air quality as a result of air emissions from the 
operations under the Recreation Alternative 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 Iosco County. The local-scale analysis evaluated the potential 
impact to ambient air quality concentrations in the immediate vicinity of the 
base. 

Regional Scale. The evaluation of regional-scale impacts from the 
Recreation Alternative considered the effect any new air emissions would 


4-60 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 













have on maintaining the air quality attainment status of Iosco County. The 
following paragraphs summarize the results of the regional-scale impact 
analysis on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. Table 4.4-9 summarizes the 
results of the emission calculations for the Proposed Action for the years 
1998 and 2003. 

Ozone Precursors . The reuse emissions of NOj and ROG would be much 
lower than the preclosure base emission levels. There would be no adverse 
impacts to regional air quality associated with these emissions. 

CO. NO.. PM . > and SO, . Table 4.4-9 shows that, with the exception of 
PM,o. emissions from the Recreation Alternative would be lower than 
preclosure emissions from Wurtsmith APB. The majority of PM,o emissions 
would be short-term emissions associated with construction and demolition 
activities. There would be no adverse impacts to regional air quality. 

The majority of emissions associated with the base reuse inventory are from 
the category, "Other Activities" (see tables in Appendix K). These 
emissions, with the exception of a small percentage from industrial 
activities, would be directly related to the increased population associated 
with the Recreation Alternative. The population of Iosco County in the year 
2003 is predicted to be 23,727 (including the Recreation Alternative), which 
is lower than the Iosco County population census of 30,209 in 1990. This 
decrease in population, and associated per-capita emissions would, to a 
certain extent, offset increases in emissions associated with Recreation 
Alternative activities. 

Local Scale. A summary of the EDMS analysis is presented in Table 4.4-10. 
The modeling results indicate that all of the pollutant concentrations would 
be below the applicable standard in the immediate area surrounding the 
base, and would have an insignificant effect on the local air quality. 

Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures would be the same as those 
discussed for the Proposed Action. 

4.4.3.4 No-Action Alternative. The No-Action Alternative would have no 
adverse impact on air quality. Air quality conditions at the time of closure 
would not be adversely affected by continued maintenance of the base at 
the closure level of activity. 

Mitigation Measures. Air quality mitigation measures are not required for the 
No-Action Alternative because there are no adverse impacts associated with 
this alternative. 

4.4.3.5 Other Land Use Concepts. Advanced Environmental Technology 
Facility activities would generate stationary source air emissions associated 
with power requirements and mobile source emissions related to vehicle 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-61 








Table 4.4-10. Air Quality Modeling Results for the Recreation Alternative O/g/ma’i*^ 


Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

NAAQS 

Preclosure'*' 

Concentrations 

1998 

2003 

2013 

Carbon 

8-Hour 

10,000 

400 

341 

457 

531 

monoxide 

1 -Hour 

40,000 

700 

487 

653 

759 

Sulfur dioxide 

Annual 

80 

10 

0.073 

0.092 

0.110 


24-Hour 

365 

40 

0.080 

0.110 

0.124 


3-Hour 

1,300 

100 

0.184 

0.244 

0.284 

PM^o 

Annual 

50 

20 

0.134 

0.179 

0.209 


24-Hour 

150 

55 

0.148 

0.203 

0.230 


NotM: (a) Modalad impact ia an on-bata location in proximity to roadwaya and parking lota. 

(b) Thaaa amiaaioita indudo motor vahicia activity. 

(c) Eatimatad corwantratiorM, providad by MDNR, Air Quality Division, raflaet praclosura ambiant air 


quality. 


traffic. These emissions would be minimal and would not affect the current 
attainment status of Iosco County. 

4.4.4 Noise 

Environmental impact analysis related to noise includes the potential effects 
on the local human and animal populations. This analysis will estimate the 
extent 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 will then be assessed with 
respect to potential annoyance, sleep disturbance, and land use impacts. 

The metrics used to evaluate noise are DNL and L«,, which are supplemented 
occasionally by SEL and the A-weighted maximum sound level (L„m,). These 
metrics are measured in units of A-weighted dB. See Appendix J for an 
expanded discussion of these metrics. 

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 
reliable measures at present are noise-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 it does not provide definitive answers to the question of 
health effects, other than to the auditory system, of long-term exposure to 
noised (National Academy of Sciences, 1981). The effects of noise are 
summarized within this section and a detailed description is provided in 
Appendix J. 


4-62 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 









Annoyance. Noise annoyance is defined by the EPA as any negative 
subjective reaction to noise on the part of an individual or group. 

Table 4.4-11 presents the results of over a dozen studies of transportation 
modes, including airports, investigating the relationship between noise and 
annoyance levels. This relationship has been suggested by the National 
Academy of Sciences (1977) and recently reevaluated (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 ONL of 65 to 70 dB are expected to be highly annoyed 
by the noise levels. 


Table 4.4-11. 

Percentage of Population Highly Annoyed 
by Noise Exposure 

DNL Interval in dB 

Percentage of Persons Highly Annoyed 

<65 

<15 

65-70 

15-25 

70-75 

25-37 

75-80 

37-52 


Source: Adapted from National Academy of Sciences, 1977. 


Sleep Interference. The effects of noise on sleep are of concern, primarily in 
assuring suitable residential environments. ONL incorporates consideration 
of sleep disturbance by assigning a 10 dB penalty to nighttime noise events. 
SEL may be used to supplement ONL in evaluating sleep disturbance. When 
SEL is used to evaluate sleep disturbance, SEL values are translated to 
percent of people awakened. The relationship between percent awakened 
and SEL is presented in Appendix J. This relationship, however, does not 
reflect habituation; therefore, long-term sleep disturbance effects are not 
addressed by SEL. 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 al., 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 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-63 













would estimate seven times more awakening than the field results reported 
by Pearsons. 

Land Use Compatibility. 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 land-use compatibility guidelines for 
noise (U.S. Department of Transportation, 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 land use compatibility guidelines are based on 
annoyance and hearing loss considerations 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 prescribes 
use of yearly ONL 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 takeoff, 
landing, and touch-and-go operations at Wurtsmith AFB, the FAA-developed 
Integrated Noise Model (INM), version 3.10, was utilized to predict DNL 65, 
70, and 75 dB noise contours and SEL values for noise-sensitive receptors. 
The FAA-approved noise exposure model (NOISEMAP), version 6.1, was 
used to calculate noise levels associated with engine runup activity. 
Appendix J describes these models. The contours were generated for the 
Proposed Action for three future year projections (5, 10, and 20 years after 
closure). These contours were overlaid on a USGS map of the base and 
vicinity. Input data to INM 3.10 include information on aircraft types; 
runway use; takeoff and landing flight tracks; aircraft 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 Wurtsmith 
AFB were analyzed using the FHWA's Highway Noise Model (Federal 
Highway Administration, 1978). This model incorporates vehicle mix, traffic 
volume projections, and speed to generate DNL. 

Major Assumptions. Half of all aircraft operations were assumed to be 
takeoffs and half landings. Flight tracks (incoming and outgoing), aircraft 
operations, and mix are included in Appendix J. Vicinity flight tracks 
assumed for modeling are shown in Figure 4.4-1. All operations were 
assumed to follow standard glide slopes and takeoff profiles provided by the 
FAA's INM 3.10. The phasing out of Stage 2 aircraft and subsequent 
replacement with Stage 3 aircraft are reflected in the aircraft operations. 


4-64 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 












EXPLANATION 

Arriving FNght Track 

Oaparting Flight Track 


Primary Flight 
Tracks - 

Proposed Action 


-T> 


Touch and Go Right Track 


ru I A 

0 6000 12000 24000Faat^^ 


Hgure 4.4-1 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-65 















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 analysis presented in Section 4.2.3, Transportation. Traffic data used 
in this analysis are presented in Appendix J. 

4.4.4.1 Proposed Action. The results of the aircraft noise modeling for the 
Proposed Action are presented as noise contours in Figures 4.4-2 through 
4.4-4. The contribution from runup noise is evident as separate contours to 
the southeast of the runway. The DNL 65 dB noise contours would be 
contained within the airfield area. The maximum exposure is projected for 
1998, when approximately 275 acres would fall within the DNL 65 dB or 
greater: this acreage is substantially smaller than the 37,500 acres within 
DNL 65 dB under preciosure conditions. After the year 2000, the area 
within the DNL 65 dB contours would decrease to less than 180 acres as 
quieter aircraft are introduced. 

No residences would be exposed to noise levels of DNL 65 dB or greater 
resulting from aircraft operations. No incompatible land uses were identified 
due to aircraft noise. The modeled operations reflect the FAA-required 
conversion of Stage 2 to Stage 3 aircraft. The criteria that define Stage 2 
and Stage 3 aircraft are described in FAA Part 36 (FAA, 1988c). Noise level 
limits are defined for takeoff, approach, and sideline measurements. The 
modeled aircraft operations reflect this phase-out by replacing the Stage 2 
727-100, 727-200, DC-9-50, and DC-8-50 with the Stage 3 727-200 (re¬ 
engined), MD-81, and DC-8-70. Based on the certification test results 
presented in the FAA Advisory Circular 36-1F (FAA, 1992), the modeled 
Stage 3 aircraft are approximately 3 to 10 dB quieter than the modeled 
Stage 2 aircraft for takeoffs, and approximately 4 to 12 dB quieter for 
approaches. 

SEL was calculated at representative residential locations (Rgure 4.4-5) for 
the noisiest and most common jet aircraft: the results are presented in 
Table 4.4-12. The noisiest aircraft were determined from the INM data 
base. The analysis suggests that, for the Proposed Action, some aircraft 
overflights could affect the sleep of some residents in the area. However, 
because only 10 percent of the flights would take place at night, sleep 
disturbance due to aircraft noise would be minimal. 

For the model year 1998, the two noisiest aircraft would be the 727-200 
and the DC-8-50, and the most common aircraft would be the Learjet 35. 
After phase-out of Stage 2 aircraft in the year 2000, the re-engined 
727-200 and the 747-400 would be the noisiest aircraft for model years 
2003 and 2013. The Learjet 35 would remain the most common jet aircraft 
through all years. 

Surface traffic noise levels for several road segments are presented in 
Appendix J. These levels are presented in terms of DNL as a function of 

I _ 


4-66 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 











EXPLANATION 


—— Bass Boundary 

- DNL Noise Contours 

(in 5dB intervals) 


DNL Noise Contours - 
Proposed Action 
( 1998 ) 


nsn 

0 750 1500 3000 Feet 



Rgure 4.4-2 

Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-67 









EXPLANATION 

——— BaM Boundary 

- DNL Noisa Contours 

(in 5dB intarvals) 


DNL Noise Contours 
Proposed Action 
( 2003 ) 


on 

0 750 1500 3000 Faat 



Rgure 4.4-3 


4-68 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 












EXPLANATION 

DNL Noise Contours - 

____ Boundary 

Proposed Action 

DNL Noise Contours 

(2013) 

(in 5dB intervals) 


n_rn 

0 750 1500 3000 Feet 

Figure 4.4*4 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-69 












EXPLANATION 

Sound Exposure Level 

——— Base Boundary 

(SEL) 

# SEL Receptor Location 

Receptor Locations 

Note: 2 SEL locations are not shown 


(in northern Rural Oscoda County) 


Note: Numbers correspond to numbered entries 

1 1 on Table 4.4-12. 

0 1250 2500 5000 Foot ^ Map Source: U.S. Geological Survey, 1988a. 1988b. 

Figure 4.4>5 


4-70 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 




















Tabic 4.4*12. Sound Exposure Levels at Representative Noise Receptors from Aircraft 

Operations • Proposed Action 


Receptor 

No.“ 

Community 

Receptor 

Location 

727-200 

Sound Exposure Level (dB) 
Aircraft Type 

727-200 

ra- 

engined DC-8-50 747-400 

Lear jet 35 

1 

On Base 

NW corner of base 
housing 

85 

81 

85 

80 

72 

2 

On Base 

NE corner of base 
housing 

81 

78 

79 

76 

66 

3 

On Baas 

SE corner of base 
housing 

77 

73 

74 

72 

60 

4 

Oscoda 

Residential area at Cedar 
Lake Rd. and Loud Rd. 

84 

81 

81 

77 

69 

S 

Oscoda 

Residential area at 
Jordanville Rd. and U.S. 

23 

81 

78 

79 

75 

66 

S 

Oscoda 

Trailer park north of 

Huron Church 

91 

86 

88 

81 

76 

7 

Oscoda 

Residential area at South 
End of Cedar Lake Rd. 

92 

87 

89 

81 

76 

8 

Oscoda 

Residential area North of 
Roadside Park on U.S. 

23 

93 

89 

96 

83 

78 

9 

Oscoda 

Residential area at 
Evergreen St. and U.S. 

23 

70 

67 

65 

66 

51 

10 

Au Sable 

Residential area at 
Johnson Rd. and U.S. 

23 

60 

58 

56 

59 

40 

11 

Foote Site Village 

Residential area at Rea 

Rd. and River Rd. 

102 

96 

104 

95 

83 

12 

Rural Oscoda 
County 

Residential area at Alvin 
Rd. and Bissonette Rd. 

88 

85 

86 

80 

73 

13 

Rural Oscoda 
County 

Residential area at U.S. 

23 at County Line 

79 

77 

77 

72 

64 

14 

Rural Oscoda 
County 

Residential area, F-41 at 
County Lina 

63 

61 

59 

61 

44 

15 

Rural Oscoda 
County 

Residential area at Loud 
Rd. directly off runway 

105 

102 

107 

98 

88 

16 

Rural Oscoda 
County 

Residential area north of 
Air Force Beach 

107 

104 

106 

97 

92 

17 

Rural Oscoda 
County 

Recreational at Camp 
Nissokone 

85 

83 

84 

80 

72 

18 

Rural Oscoda 
County 

Residential area at River 
Rd. arKf Michigan St. 

70 

67 

66 

65 

51 

19 

Rural Oscoda 
County 

Residential area at 
Kennedy Rd. and River 

Rd. 

75 

73 

75 

72 

61 

20 

Rural Oscoda 
County 

Residential area at 

Lincoln Junction 

84 

80 

82 

76 

69 


Note: (a) Numbers correspond to numbered locations on Figure 4.4-5. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEtS 


4-71 













distance from the centerline of the roadways analyzed. An estimated 1,409 
people would live in areas exposed to noise levels of DNL 65 dB or greater 
due to surface traffic by the year 2013, an increase of 12 percent (156 
people) from No-Action Alternative projections for that year. Most of these 
affected residents would be living along U.S. 23 through Oscoda and Au 
Sable. 

Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures would be necessary for 
aircraft noise, because no incompatible land uses have been identified. 

Several methods could be used to mitigate surface traffic noise along 
roadways with impacts. Barrier walls could be constructed; additional 
analysis would be necessary to determine the optimum locations, height, 
and/or feasibility of the barrier wail. A sound insulation program could be 
implemented to reduce interior noise levels for sensitive receptors exposed 
to ONL 65 dB or greater. Land use planning for future development should 
incorporate noise compatibility measures when establishing residential 
zoning. Measures such as restricting residential development to areas 
outside DNL 65 dB and incorporating barriers and buffer zones into 
community development can be used. The effectiveness of the operational 
and management noise mitigation measures presented here cannot be 
completely determined without extensive modeling and/or noise 
measurements. 

4.4.4.2 Fire Training Alternative. For this alternative, there would be no 
airport activity and, therefore, no aircraft noise impacts. 

Surface traffic sound levels are presented by representative year in 
Appendix J. These levels are presented in terms of DNL as a function of 
distance from the centerline of the roadways analyzed. By the year 2013, 
an estimated 1,392 people would live within areas exposed to DNL 65 dB 
and above, primarily along U.S. 23 through Oscoda and Au Sable. This 
represents an increase of 11 percent (139 people) over No-Action 
Alternative projections for that year. 

Mitigation Measures. Mitigations to reduce surface traffic noise would be 
the same as those discussed for the Proposed Action. 

4.4.4.3 Recreation Alternative. For this alternative, there would be no 
airport activity and, therefore, no aircraft noise impacts. 

Surface traffic sound levels are presented by representative year in 
Appendix J. These levels are presented in terms of DNL as a function of 
distance from the centerline of the roadways analyzed. By the year 2013, 
an estimated 1,321 people would live within areas exposed to DNL 65 dB 
and above, primarily along U.S. 23 through Oscoda and Au Sable. This 


4-72 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 










represents an increase of 5 percent (68 people) over No-Action Alternative 
projections for that year. 

Mitigation Measures. Mitigations to reduce surface traffic noise would be 
the same as discussed for the Proposed Action. 

4.4.4.4 Mo-Action Alternative. There would be no airport activity and 
minimal surface traffic under the No-Action Alternative. Surface traffic 
sound levels are presented in Appendix J. These levels are presented in 
terms of ONL as a function of distance from the centerline of the roadways 
analyzed. In 1993, an estimated 682 people would live within areas 
exposed to DNL 65 dB and above. This number would increase to 1,253 
people by 2013, primarily due to increased traffic and associated noise 
levels along U.S. 23 through Oscoda and Au Sable. 

4.4.4.5 Other Land Use Concepts. Implementation of the Advanced 
Environmental Technology Facility would not create additional noise impacts. 

4.4.5 Biological Resources 

The Proposed Action and reuse alternatives could potentially affect biological 
resources through alteration or loss of vegetation and wildlife habitat. These 
impacts are described below for each alternative. 

Assumptions used in analyzing the impacts of the Proposed Action and 
alternatives include: 

• All staging and other areas temporarily disturbed by 
construction, demolition, and renovation 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 designated locations anywhere within that category. 

4.4.5.1 Proposed Action. The Proposed Action would have minimal 
impacts on biological resources. It is estimated that 551 acres would be 
disturbed over a 20-year period by facility construction, demolition, and 
renovation; infrastructure improvements; and vegetation removal and 
maintenance. The areas with the historically highest levels of activity are 
designated for reuse activity. Most of the large undisturbed areas on base 
would remain intact. 

Vegetation. The Proposed Action would result in a potential disturbance of 
551 acres from construction, demolition, and renovation activities by the 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse F£/S 


4-73 







year 2013. Most of this disturbance would occur within low-quality habitat 
(e.g., in landscaped areas or small areas of disturbed forest), although some 
limited disturbance may occur in forested areas along the southern base 
boundary. Due to the low quality of the vegetation to be disturbed, the 
impacts are expected to be minimal. 

Under the Proposed Action, the 617-acre forested area in the northwestern 
part of the base, which includes a large cedar swamp, would remain 
undeveloped as a conservation area. Preservation of this ecologically 
valuable area would be a beneficial impact. Effects from recreational use 
(hiking, camping, hunting) in this area would be limited and similar to those 
in the adjacent state and national forest areas. 

Air Force Fee-Owned Land. Proposed Action activities would cause minor 
impacts to vegetation on Air Force fee-owned land as a result of ground 
disturbance, but the majority of the vegetation has been previously disturbed 
and is of low quality. No disturbing activities are planned near the wetlands 
on Air Force fee-owned land at the southwestern end of the runway. 

Wildlife. Effects on wildlife would be related to habitat loss, demolition 
activities, and operations. 

Species that would be immediately affected by a loss or alteration of 
landscaped areas and small forested areas include those that are sedentary 
or have relatively small home ranges such as some nesting birds (e.g., 
American woodcock and field sparrow), mammals (e.g., fox squirrel, masked 
shrew, and woodchuck), amphibians, and reptiles. The loss of habitat could 
also affect wider-ranging species that forage in the area such as raptors 
(e.g., red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, and great-horned owl) and 
predatory mammals (e.g., coyote and gray fox). Because of the low habitat 
value, however, these impacts are expected to be minimal. 

Activity and noise associated with demolition and renovation would have 
short-term effects on local wildlife in adjacent areas by causing individuals of 
species intolerant of such disturbance to avoid the area. Noise, activity, and 
lighting associated with operation of the airport and industrial and/or 
commercial facilities would continue to discourage intolerant species and 
attract tolerant species. Noise impacts would generally be less than those 
experienced under preclosure conditions. Although some startle effects may 
occur as a result of increased activity from closure, species currently 
residing in overflight areas would be expected to become tolerant to the 
noise associated with civilian aircraft. Effects from recreational use (hiking, 
camping, hunting) in this area would be limited and similar to those in the 
adjacent state and national forest areas. Noise impacts on wildlife are 
expected to be minimal. 


4-74 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






Air Force Fee-Owned Land. The majority of Air Force fee-owned land has 
low habitat value for wildlife, but there could be minor effects associated 
with ground disturbance, as discussed above. 

Threatened and Endangered Species. No federally or state-listed threatened 
or endangered species are expected to be impacted by the Proposed Action 
(letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is in Appendix L). The 69 acres of 
wetlands along the Au Sable River floodplain are habitat to the massasauga 
rattlesnake, a federal candidate for listing as threatened or endangered, 
which could be disturbed by recreational uses. The disturbance of its 
habitat is expected to be minimai. Lake cress, a plant listed by the state as 
threatened and a federal candidate for listing, and wild rice, a state-listed 
threatened species, may both occur downstream along the Au Sable River. 
No indirect effects to their downstream environment are expected as a result 
of Proposed Action activities. These two plant species have not been 
recorded on the base. 

Air Force Fee-Owned Land. Wetland habitat is present on Air Force fee- 
owned land at the southeastern end of the runway. However, no activities 
are planned in this area that would disturb the wetlands. 

Sensitive Habitats. The large wetland in the northwest part of the base 
would be left undeveloped as a conservation area. Depending on the 
management objectives for this area, any impacts would most likely be 
beneficial. Effects from recreational uses of this area would be limited and 
similar to those in the adjacent state forest areas. 

Along the Au Sable River floodplain, 69 acres of wetlands could potentially 
be affected by activities of the Proposed Action. Increased recreational use 
of the area could cause minor disturbance to wetland vegetation. Because 
the terrain is relatively flat and the soils permeable, indirect impacts to 
downstream off-base wetlands from activities on the base would also be 
minimal. 

Air Force Fee-Owned Land. A portion of the wetlands at the southwest end 
of the runway is on Air Force fee-owned land, but no activities are planned 
in this area that would cause disturbance to these wetlands. 

Mitigation Measures. Avoidance of pristine forest or wetland areas on 
Wurtsmith AFB would result in minor or no impacts to vegetation and 
wildlife and no mitigation would be required. 

Reuse activities affecting wetlands would be subject to Section 404 of the 
Clean Water Act, and Michigan's Goemaere-Anderson Wetland Protection 
Act, as appropriate. Wetlands on U.S. Forest Service property would be 
protected in compliance with Executive Order 11990. Mitigations could 
include avoidance of direct or indirect disturbance of wetlands through 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-75 




appropriate land use planning. Avoidance of disturbance could include 
controlling runoff from demolition sites into drainages through the use of 
berms, silt cuaains, straw bales, and other appropriate techniques. 
Equipment could be washed in areas where wash water could be contained 
and treated or evaporated. 

Protection of wetland areas should suffice to protect potential habitat for 
candidate species (massasauga, lake cress, and wild rice) that require 
wetland habitat for their survival. 

4.4.5.2 Fire Training Alternative. Under this alternative, a total of 
351 acres could potentially be disturbed. The major areas of disturbance 
would be associated with fire training activities along the airfield and with 
development of new industrial and commercial facilities in the cantonment. 

Fire training activities could potentially present impacts to biological 
resources. Forest fire training activities, which would be conducted in 
conjunction with MDNR and the U.S. Forest Service, have the potential to 
cause impacts to forest and wetland areas in the northwestern portion of 
the base. However, these activities would be planned to burn only 1 to 
2 acres per year, and would be conducted under suitable conditions to 
control the fire. Structural and chemical fire training would be conducted on 
the runway and taxiway areas, and fire fighting water contaminated with 
fuels and fire fighting agents would be channeled in a lined collection 
system, passed through an oil/water separator, and stored for reuse in a 
double-lined, 10-million-gallon retention pond. 

Vegetation. Impacts to landscaped, disturbed grassland, and small forested 
areas are expected to be minimal in terms of biological value. 

Educational uses associated with the fire training facility may occur in 
disturbed grasslands, developed areas, forested cover, or swamp/marsh 
areas. Disturbance to vegetated areas from fire training activities would 
most likely result from prescribed forest fires within the forested cover in the 
northwestern part of the base. A remote potential exists that a prescribed 
fire would escape control and burn areas not intended to be burned. With 
careful management of prescribed fires, however, impacts to vegetation 
would be positive. Benefits of prescribed fires include an overall reduction 
of the risk of catastrophic forest fire occurrences. Prescribed burns tend to 
remove dead debris from the forest floor that could ignite under uncontrolled 
conditions. The periodic removal of debris makes a prescribed fire generally 
burn cooler than wildfires, thereby often preserving the forest canopy, 
perennial plant roots, and soil structure. Burning of forests controls 
diseases: creates light gaps where shade-intolerant seedlings, including jack 
pine, can become established: and assists in dissemination of seeds. These 
seedlings could therefore become established in a mosaic pattern with 


4-76 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






larger, more mature stands. Under this scenario, an increase in vegetative 
species diversity is possible. 

Air Force Fee-Owned Land. There would be few, if any, impacts to 
vegetation on Air Force fee-owned land because little ground disturbance is 
planned in those areas and ^e majority of the vegetation has been 
previously disturbed and is of low quality. No disturbing activities are 
planned near the wetlands on Air Force fee-owned land at the southwestern 
end of the runway. 

Wildlife. With the exception of forest fire training activities, the effects of 
habitat alteration and loss on wildlife under the Fire Training Alternative 
would be similar to those described in the Proposed Action, but no aviation 
noise would disturb wildlife under this alternative. 

A potential for disturbance to wildlife habitat exists as a result of the forest 
fire training activities associated with this alternative. An increase of fires 
and related activities in the northwestern portion of the base would reduce 
forest habitat in the short term. This could result in the mortality of less 
mobile species (including the wood turtle, designated by the State of 
Michigan as a Species of Special Concern), as well as the displacement of 
mobile species. The openings created by prescribed fires would, however, 
provide increased habitat for wildlife such as white-tailed deer and wild 
turkey. During prescribed burns the possibility exists that an unusual event 
could cause a large-scale forest fire, with short- to long-term effects. 
However, this risk would be offset by the forest fire prevention benefits of 
prescribed fire as described above. Species that would be most adversely 
affected by an escaped prescribed fire include inhabitants of mature forests 
such as the pileated woodpecker, northern saw-whet owl, and the northern 
flying squirrel. 

Activity and noise associated with aircraft would decrease compared to the 
preclosure condition. Temporary noise sources associated with demolition 
and construction would have short-term, minor impacts similar to those 
described for the Proposed Action. Wildlife species intolerant of such 
disturbance would avoid the vicinity of the project during the time of the 
activity, but impacts on their populations would be minimal. 

Residual amounts of fuels (e.g., propane and gasoline used to create 
practice fires) as well as chemical fuels, such as magnesium and aluminum, 
could be present in the water retention pond. Open water attracts 
waterfowl and thirsty animals. The pond water may not be suitable for 
consumption or other use by animals. 

Air Force Fee-Owned Land. The Air Force fee-owned land presents little 
habitat for wildlife, and little ground disturbance is planned; so effects would 
be minimal. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-77 







Threatened and Endangered Species. Although the endangered Kirtland's 
warbler does not exist on Wurtsmith APB, regeneration of jack pine stands 
after prescribed fires may result in a beneficial impact by creating habitat 
favorable for the Kirtland's warbler. Continuous fire management activities 
in this area have the potential to create small 5- to 20-year-old stands of 
jack pine, the habitat requirement for the Kirtland's warbler. As these 
stands increase in age beyond 20 years, new seedlings would become 
established and fall into the 5- to 20-year-aoe class in nearby areas, if 
allowed to occur over time, these activities could ensure continued 
generation of Kirtland's warbler habitat within the educational land use zone. 
As under the Proposed Action, impacts to the massasauga, lake cress, and 
wild rice are expected to be minimal. 

Air Force Fee-Owned Land. Wetland habitat is present on Air Force fee- 
owned land at the southwestern end of the runway, but no activities are 
planned in this area that would disturb the wetlands. 

Sensitive Habitats. There is a remote potential for wetland habitat to be 
disturbed as a result of prescribed fires escaping into wetland areas in the 
northwest portion of the base. However, this potential risk is largely offset 
by higher fuel moistures found there and, thus, reduced risk of an 
uncontrolled, unmonitored ignition in fuels found in the planned burn areas. 
Potential beneficial impacts of burning wetland areas could occur through 
the removal of dead plant material, thereby opening the wetland for new 
growth and increased productivity. Impacts from sedimentation and runoff 
of ash deposits as a result of prescribed fires may slightly increase nutrient 
ioading into the forested and the Dry Creek wetland areas. However, 
leaching of nutrients through permeable sandy soils and the relatively flat 
slope of the area would tend to minimize this effect. 

Impacts from this alternative on wetlands in other areas of the base would 
tend to be similar to those experienced under the Proposed Action. 

Air Force Fee-Owned Land. A portion of the wetlands at the southwest end 
of the runway is on Air Force fee-owned land, but no activities are planned 
in this area th jt would cause disturbance to these wetlands. 

Mitigation Measures. Mitigation would be the same as for the Proposed 
Action, with the following additions: 

• Wetland areas that abut wildland fire training areas should be 
protected by a vegetative buffer designed to minimize ash and 
sediment runoff into these areas. 

• Prescribed burning could be managed to enhance biodiversity by 
creating a mosaic of areas burned at different times and 
consequently having different stages of vegetation development 
throughout the area. Management activities should focus on 


4-78 


Wurtsmith AFB Dispos 


' Reuse FE/S 







maintaining 5* to 20-year-old stands of jack pine, if possible, to 
enhance habitat for the Kirtland's warbler. 

• Prior to initiation of prescribed burning activities, the burn area 
and immediate vicinity could be inspected for wood turtles. If 
wood turtles were found on site, they could be transported by 
qualified wildlife biologists to safer habitat. 

• The fire fighting water retention pond should be enclosed and 
covered to discourage wildlife from drinking the water, which 
could contain potentially harmful substances. 

4.4.5.3 Recreation Alternative. The Recreation Alternative could potentially 
have an overall positive impact on biological resources, although negative 
impacts could occur at individual sites. Over 90 percent of the base would 
be set aside for public open space and recreation uses. Disturbance would 
largely be limited to the existing cantonment area. 

Vegetation. Under this alternative, up to 614 acres would potentially be 
disturbed by such land uses as a golf course, recreational vehicle park, and 
other recreational facilities. Relative impacts to vegetation would be minimal 
in the cantonment area, where most of the disturbance would occur in 
landscaped areas or disturbed grassland. Some construction could occur in 
areas that are forested, but these areas are small and are already disturbed. 
Impacts in these smaller stands are expected to be minimal. The large 
forested tract in the northwestern portion of the base would remain 
undeveloped as a conservation area, resulting in a beneficial impact. Effects 
from recreational uses (hiking, camping, and hunting) of this area would be 
limited and similar to those in the adjacent state and national forest areas. 

Air Force Fee-Owned Land. There could be minor impacts to vegetation on 
Air Force fee-owned land as a result of ground disturbance, but the majority 
of the vegetation has been previously disturbed and is of low quality. 

Wildiif« Effects of habitat alteration and loss would be similar to those of 
the .ed Action. Under the Recreation Alternative, some disturbances 
wou ' ate positive impacts to wildlife in the long term. Activities under 
the Recreation Alternative would occur largely in areas that are already 
disturbed and impacts would be minimal. Noise and activities associated 
with demolition and construction would have impacts similar to those 
described for the Proposed Action. Effects from recreational uses (hiking, 
camping, and hunting) of this area would be limited and similar to those in 
the adjacent state and national forest areas. 

Air Force Fee-Owned Land. The majority of habitat on Air Force fee-owned 
land has low value for wildlife, but there could be minor effects associated 
with ground disturbance and human activity, as discussed above. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-79 








Threatened and Endangered Species. Effects on sensitive species from this 
alternative are expected to be similar to those in the Proposed Action. 

Air Force Fee-Owned Land. Wetland habitat is present on Air Force fee- 
owned land at the southwestern end of the runway but no activities are 
planned in this area that would disturb the wetlands. 

Sensitive Habitats. Effects on sensitive habitats are expected to be similar 
to those described under the Proposed Action depending on location. 

Effects from recreational uses (hiking, camping, and hunting) of this area 
would be limited and similar to those in the adjacent state and national 
forest areas. Pesticide- and fertilizer-contaminated runoff from the proposed 
golf course could flow into on- and off-base wetlands, possibly affecting 
native plants and animals. The potential for this is low, however, based on 
the relatively flat terrain, permeable soils, and relatively rapid chemical 
breakdown of applied pesticides and fertilizers in the environment. 

Air Force Fee-Owned Land. A portion of the wetlands at the southwest end 
of the runway is on Air Force fee-owned land, but no activities are planned 
in this area that would cause disturbance to these wetlands. 

Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures would be similar to those 
discussed for the Proposed Action. 

4.4.5.4 No-Action Alternative. Maintenance of the base would have 
minimal adverse effects on biological resources. A reduction in human 
activity and a cessation of aircraft flights would reduce disturbance to 
wildlife on and in the vicinity of the base. Habitat quality for wildlife could 
improve if mowing of noniandscaped areas were terminated, thereby 
allowing vegetation to grow to a height that would greatly benefit wildlife 
species. 

4.4.5.5 Other Land Use Concepts. Disturbances caused as a result of 
population influx under the Advanced Environmental Technology Facility 
would be minimal, and impacts to biological resources would be negligible. 

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, and (2) identifying the nature and potential significance of cultural 
resources in the potentially affected areas. Pursuant to the NHPA, 
consultation, as directed by the Section 106 review p.^ocess, has been 
initiated with the Michigan SHPO. Initially, the SHPO indicated that "the 
project [disposal and reuse of the base] will affect no historic orooerties (no 
known sites eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places) and 
that the project is cleared under federal regulation 36 CFR 800 for the 


4-80 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







"Protection of Historic Properties." Subsequently, after further research, the 
SHPO withdrew this finding, and recommended further investigations 
(Appendix L). 


Historic properties, under 36 CFR 800, are defined as "any prehistoric or 
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for 
inclusion in, the NRHP. This term includes, for the purposes of these 
regulations, artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located 
within such properties. The term 'eligible for inclusion in the National 
Register' includes both properties formally determined as such by the 
Secretary of the Interior and all other properties that meet National Register 
listing criteria." Therefore, sites not yet evaluated are considered potentially 
eligible to the NRHP and, as such, are afforded the same regulatory 
consideration as nominated historic properties, or properties actually on the 
NRHP. 

As a federal agency, the Air Force is responsible for identifying any historic 
properties at Wurtsmith AFB. This identification process includes not only 
field surveys and recording of cultural resources, but also evaluations to 
develop determinations of significance in terms of NRHP criteria. (NRHP 
criteria and related qualities of significance are discussed in Appendix E, 
Methods of Analysis.) Completion of this process results in a listing, if 
applicable, of historic properties subject to federal regulations regarding the 
treatment of cultural resources. 

The identification process as defined by the NHPA is currently ongoing at 
Wurtsmith AFB. The reconnaissance survey is complete. The Air Force will 
engage in further consultation with the SHPO to complete the Air Force's 
responsibilities under Section 106 of the NHPA. The Air Force will place 
appropriate restrictions on the one unevaluated archaeological site (201 s98), 
until it can be evaluated, and until the Section 106 consultation process is 
complete. 

4.4.6.1 Proposed Action. The lithic scatter (201 s98) lies within property 
leased from the U.S. Forest Service. After base closure, the site would 
remain under federal jurisdiction, and thus would be subject to the 
consideration afforded by federal regulations. Under the Proposed Action, 
the site would be located within a public facilities/recreation area. Because 
only a small proportion of this parcel would be disturbed under this reuse 
scenario, it is possible that avoidance of the site would be feasible. 

Due to the lack of significant historic structures and resources, traditional 
resources, and paleontological resources on Wurtsmith AFB, reuse under the 
Proposed Action would have no effect on these types of cultural resources. 

Mitigation Measures. Since the potential historic property would remain 
under federal control, any development within the parcel that could impact 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 


4-81 







the site would, therefore, fall under the requirements of Section 106 of the 
NHPA. Mitigation measures may be developed that meet the Secretary of 
the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation Projects (36 
CFR 68), or Archaeology and Historic Preservation (48 CFR 190). These 
mitigation measures could include avoidance, stabilization, preservation in 
place, or data recovery. 

The Air Force will consult with the SHPO and the Advisory Council on 
Historic Preservation to implement an appropriate mitigation approach, if one 
is required. Consultation will proceed in compliance with Section 106 of the 
NHPA and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800). A Memorandum of 
Agreement may be developed to document the accepted mitigations. 
Additionally, the archaeological site investigations described in 3.4.6 are an 
indication there may be some potential for other archaeological sites or 
remains within the boundaries of the base. Therefore, the following 
additional mitigation measures are suggested until a Memorandum of 
Agreement is finalized. 

• Prior to any digging or excavating, the Air Force should be 
notified. 

• During any digging or excavating, care should be exercised in 
case archaeological artifacts or remains are encountered. 

• If archaeological artifacts or remains are encountered during an 
excavation, work must be stopped and the Air Force and the 
SHPO must be notified. 

4.4.6.2 Fire Training Alternative. Under this alternative, impacts to cultural 
resources would be the same as those discussed under the Proposed Action, 
with the following exception. The recorded archaeological site, 201 s98, 
would be located along the border of the institutional (education) and public 
facilities/recreation land use parcels. 

Mitigation Measures. Appropriate mitigation measures would be the same 
as those outlined for the Proposed Action. 

4.4.6.3 Recreation Alternative. Under this alternative, impacts to cultural 
resources would be the same as those discussed under the Proposed Action. 

Mitigation Measures. Appropriate mitigation measures would be the same 
as those outlined for the Proposed Action. 

4.4.6.4 No-Action Alternative. There would be no effect on cultural 
resources resulting from the implementation of the No-Action Alternative. 
The OL should continue to ensure adequate security to discourage illegal 


4-82 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse Ft!S 






looting of the archaeological site, and thus inadvertent violation of the 
Archaeological Resources Protection Act. 

4.4.6.5 Other Land Use Concepts. There would be no effect on cultural 
resources from the establishment of the Advanced Environmental 
Technology Facility. 


Wurtsm/th AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 


4-83 







THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 


4-84 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 








CHAPTER 5 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 










5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 


The federal, state, and local agencies and private agencies/organizations that were contacted during 
the course of preparing this EIS are listed below. 


FEDERAL AGENCIES 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Federal Highway Administration 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service 

United States Department of the Interior 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service 


STATE AGENCIES 

Great Lakes Fire Training Academy 
Michigan Commission on Indian Affairs 

Michigan Department of Commerce, Wurtsmith Base Conversion Agency 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources 

Michigan Department of Transportation 

Michigan Employment Security Commission 

Michigan Fire Fighters Training Council 

Michigan Natural Features Inventory 

Michigan Office of Tax and Revenue Analysis 

Michigan Public Health Department 

Michigan State Historic Preservation Office 

Michigan Transportation Commission 

Michigan Travel Bureau 

Saginaw Valley State University 

LOCAL/REGIONAL AGENCIES 

Alcona County Building and Housing Office 
Alcona County Sheriff's Department 
Alpena Community College 
Arenac County Housing Commission 
Arenac County Sheriff's Department 
Au Sable Township 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


5-1 








LOCAUREGIONAL AGENCIES (Continued) 


East Tawas Fire Department 

Greenbush Township 

iosco County Airport 

Iosco County Board of Commissioners 

Iosco County Building Permit Public Counter 

Iosco County Housing Commission 

Iosco County Road Commission 

Iosco County Sheriff's Department 

Iosco Intermediate School District 

Office of Economic Adjustment (Oscoda Township) 

Oscoda Area Schools 

Oscoda Township 

Oscoda Township Fire Department 

Oscoda Township Police Department 

Tawas Area School District 

Tawas City 

Tawas City Fire Department 
Tawas Utility Authority 

Wurtsmith Area Economic Adjustment Commission 

PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS 

Consumers Power Company 

First of America Bank 

Hager Sanitation Service 

Heritage House Realty 

Iosco County Transit Corporation 

ITT Higbie Bayiock 

Lake State Railway Company 

Lakewood Shores Golf Course 

Lakewood Shores Property Owners Association 

Michigan Consolidated Gas Company 

Michigan Sunrise Side, Inc. 

Oscoda-Au Sable Chamber of Commerce 
Redwood Motor Lodge 
Target 2000 

Tawas Area Chamber of Commerce 
The Straits Corporation 
White Feather Development 
Williams and Works Operation Services 


5-2 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 








CHAPTER 6 
LIST OF PREPARERS AND 

CONTRIBUTORS 










6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS 


Thomas F. Adamcyk, Economist, AFCEE/ESER 

B.S., 1972, Education, History and Economics, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston 
M.A., 1975, Economics, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston 
Years of Experience: 18 

W. David Ahibom, Project Environmental Professional, The Earth Technology Corporation 
B.A., 1980, Geography, California State University, San Bernardino 
Years of Experience: 10 

Raul Alonzo, Environmental Specialist, The Earth Technology Corporation 

A. A., 1980, Graphic Arts, Santa Ana Community College, Santa Ana, California 
Years of Experience: 13 

Sandra E. Andres, Senior Project Environmental Professional, The Earth Technology Corporation 

B. A., 1972, Sociology, University of Connecticut, Storrs 

M.U.P., 1978, Urban Planning, Michigan State University, East Lansing 
Years of Experience: 14 

Gary P. Baumgartel, Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Air Force, P.E., Chief, AFCEE/ESE 

B.S., 1972, Science Degree in Civil Engineering, Lowell Technological Institute, Lowell, 
Massachusetts 

M.S., 1979, Facilities Management, Air Force Institute of Technology, School of Systems and 
Logistics, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 
Years of Experience: 20 

Therese M. Benkowski, Air Quality Technician, The Earth Technology Corporation 
B.S., 1988, Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee 
Years of Experience: 4 

Paul Burgd, Consultant, Acentr ;h, Inc. 

B.S., 1988, Mechanical Engineering, California State University, Long Beach 
Years of Experience: 4 

Chantal Cagle, Archaeologist, Science Applications International Corporation 
B.A., 1982, Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara 
M.A., 1986, Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara 
Years of Experience: 9 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 


6-1 








Jon Ciartotta, Consultant. Acentech, Inc. 

B.A., 1987, Psychology. California State University, Northridge 

M.S., 1992, Experimental Psychology, California State University, Northridge 

Years of Experience: 5 

Alexarulra Cole, Principal, Preservation Planning Associates 

B.A., 1961, American History, Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts 
M.L.S., 1968, Columbia University. New York, New York 
M.S., 1984, Historic Preservation, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont 
Years of Experie.ice: 8 

Sandra Lee Cuttino, P.E., Environmental Manager, The Earth Technology Corporation 
B.S.. 1979, Civil Engineering, University of California, Davis 
Years of Experience: 13 

Paul J. Davis. Deputy Program Manager, Robert D. Niehaus, Inc. 

B.S., 1978, Environmental Science. University of California. Riverside, 

M.Admin., 1984, Environmental Administration. University of California, Riverside, 

Years of Experience: 13 

Jean 8. Donahue, Drafter II, The Earth Technology Corporation 

8.A., 1988, Landscape Architecture, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge 
Years of Experience: 4 

Gregory T. Duecker, Senior Project Environmental Specialist, The Earth Technology Corporation 
8.A., 1982. Geology. Rutgers University, New Jersey 
M.S., 1985, Geological Sciences, University of California, Riverside 
Years of Experience: 9 

Michael Dungan, Senior Ecologist, Science Applications International Corporation 
B.A., 1975, Zoology, University of California, Santa Barbara 
M.S., 1979, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona 
Ph.D., 1984, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona 
Years of Experience: 16 

Russel Farringer, Project Officer, AFCEE/ESER 

B.S., 1975, Biology, Baylor University, Waco, Texas 

M.S., 1977, Environmental Science, Baylor University, Waco, Texas 

Years of Experience: 15 


6-2 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






Mahmoud Y. Fawaz, Civil/Transportation Engineer, Robert D. Niehaus, Inc. 

B.S., 1970, .Civil Engineering, St. Joseph University, Beirut, Lebanon 
M.S., 1970, Physics, Center of Mathematics, Beirut, Lebanon 
M.S., 1971, Transportation, University of California, Berkeley 
Ph.D., 1974, Transportation, University of California, Berkeley 
Years of Experience: 17 

Jane N. Hildreth, Senior Project Environmental Professional, The Earth Technology Corporation 
B.S., 1983, Biology and Environmental Science, University of California, Riverside 
M.S., 1989, Biology, California State University, San Bernardino 
Years of Experience: 10 

James W. Hoyt, Project Environmental Professional, The Earth Technology Corporation 
B.S., 1983, Forestry, Humboldt State University, Areata, California 
Years of Experience: 11 

Langdon A. Kellogg, Community Planner, AFCEE/ESEP 

B.S., 1971, Geography, Florida State University, Tallahassee 

M.S.*1973, Urban and Regional Planning, Florida State University, Tallahassee 

Years of Experience: 19 

Tamara Klug, Botanist, Science Applications International Corporation 

B.A., 1992, Ecology and Evolution, University of California, Santa Barbara 
Years of Experience: 1 

Timothy J. Knapp, Planner, AFCEE/ESEP 

B.S., 1967, Environmental Resource Management, California State University, Sacramento 
Years of Experience: 20 

Bruce R. Leighton, P.E., Deputy Director, AFCEE/ESE 

B.S., 1967, Civil Engineering, Sanitary Engineer Option, University of Maine, Orono 
M.S., 1971, Advanced Structural Design, University of Maine, Orono 
Years of Experience: 26 

Stephen Lind, Consultant, Acentech, Inc. 

B.A., 1984, Physics, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls 
M.S., 1988, Engineering, University of Texas, Austin 
Years of Experience: 6 

George Maier, Senior Environmental Scientist, The Earth Technology Corporation 
B.S., 1973, Cher iistry, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia 
Years of Experience: 21 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 


6-3 





Cathy McConnell, Senior Environmental Scientist, The Earth Technology Corporation 
B.S., 1966, Chemistry, Beloit College, Beloit, Wisconsin 
Years of Experience: 26 

Douglas McDonald, Project Environmental Professional, The Earth Technology Corporation 

B.L.A., 1986, Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning, Utah State University, Logan 
Years of Experience: 6 

Joe Meyer, Consultant, Acentech, Inc. 

B.S., 1986, Mechanical Engineering, Kansas State University, Manhattan 
Years of Experience: 6 

Michael R. Mullaney, Senior Consultant, Aviation Planning Associates, Inc. 

B.S., 1988, Aviation Management/Plight Technology, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne 
Years of Experience: 4 

Thomas W. Mulroy, Principal Scientist, Science Applications International Corporation 
B.A., 1968, Zoology, Pomona College, Claremont, California 
M.S., 1971, Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson 

Ph.D., 1976, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine 
Years of Experience: 22 

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 
Years of Experience: 22 

Mary Pearson, Staff Environmental Specialist, The Earth Technology Corporation 
B.A., 1985, Environmental Studies, Pitzer College, Claremont, California 
Years of Experience: 6 

Karen Pope, Biologist, Science Applications International Corporation 

B.A., 1990, Environmental Science, Claremont McKenna College, Claremont, California 
Years of Experience: 2 

James L. Rudolph, Archaeologist, Science Applications International Corporation 
B.A., 1972, Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens 
M.A., 1977, Anthropology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale 
Ph.D., 1992, Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara 
Years of Experience: 16 


6-4 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







Sam C. Rupe. Major, U.S. Air Force. Staff Judge Advocate, AFCEE/JA 

B.S., 1977, History, U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colorado 
J.O., 1984, Law, University of Miami, Miami, Florida 

LL.M., 1991. Environmental Law, George Washington University, Washington, DC 
Years of Experience: 7 

Nancy Schling, Staff Environmental Specialist, The Earth Technology Corporation 
B.A., 1988, Geography, California State University, Long Beach 
Years of Experience: 4 

David Slater, Vice President, Hammer, Siler, George Associates 
B.S., 1961, City Planning, Michigan State University 
M.R.P., 1965, Regional Planning, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 
Years of Experience: 25 

Wayne Snowbarger, Senior Engineer, The Earth Technology Corporation 
B.S., 1970, Civil Engineering, Colorado State University 
M.S., 1975, Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West La Fayette, Indiana 
Years of Experience: 21 

Linda Spitzer, Technical Editor, The Earth Technology Corporation 

A. B.A., 1959, Business, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado 
Years of Experience: 16 

Jill Tiedt, AlCP, Project Managei, Aviation Planning Associates, Inc. 

B. A., 1972, Political Science, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 
M.U.P., 1974, Urban Planning, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana 
Years of Experience: 17 

James G. Van Ness, Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Air Force, Attorney, AFCEE/JA 
B.S., 1971, Distributed Studies, University of Iowa, Iowa City 
J.D., 1974, University of Iowa Law School, Iowa City 

LL.M., 1984, Law and Marine Affairs, University of Washington School of Law, Seattle 
Years of Experience: 18 

Kent E. Vanden Oever, Senior Consultant, Aviation Planning Associates, Inc. 

B.S., 1988, Decision Science, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio 
Years of Experience: 4 

John F. Walcher, Staff Economist, The Earth Technology Corporation 
B.S., 1991, Economics, University of California, Riverside 
Years of Experience: 2 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEtS 






Terri Caruso Wessel, Senior Project Environmental Specialist. The Earth Technology Corporation 
B.A., 1979, Anthropology, California State University, Northridge 
M.A., 1988, Anthropology, California State University, Northridge 
Years of Experience: 14 

Barbara Zeman, Senior Project Environmental Professional. The Earth Technology Corporation 
B.S., 1976, Electrical Engineering, Rutgers University, New Jersey 
M.S., 1978, Biomedical Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles 
Years of Experience: 12 

Keith R. Zwick, Site Planning Manager, The Eardi Technology Corporation 

B.S., 1966, Landscape Architecture, Kansas State University, Manhattan 
Years of Experience: 23 


6-6 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







CHAPTER 7 
REFERENCES 













7.0 REFERENCES 


American National Standards Institute, 1983. Specification for Sound Level Meters. ANSI 
SI .4-1983. 

Ames. D.R.. 1974. Sound Stress and Meat Animals, in Proceedings of the International Livestock 
Environment Symposium. Lincoln. Nebraska, pp. 324-330. 

Anton-Guirgis. H., B. Culver, S. Wang and T. Taylor, 1986. Exploratory Study of the Potential 

Effects of Exposure to Sonic Boom on Human Health. Vol 2: Epidemiological Study . Report 
No. AAMRL-TR-86-020. 

Ayres Associates, 1990. Comprehensive Plan. Wurtsmith AFB. Oscoda. Michigan, prepared for the 
U.S. Air Force, February. 

Balanovskii, A.S., and V.A. Omel'yanenko, 1982. Acoustic Stress in Commercial Poultry 
Production, Soviet Agricultural Science (11): 60-62. 

Bennett, R.L., and K.S. Pearsons, 1981. Handbook of Aircraft Noise Metrics. Report No. NASA 
CR-3406, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC. 

Branstner, M.C., 1991. Cultural Resources Survey. Wurtsmith Air Force Base. Michigan, prepared 
for the U.S. Air Force, AFRCE-BMS, Norton Air Force Base, California. 

Burgis, W.A., 1977. Late-Wisconsian History of Northeastern Lower Michigan: Ann Arbor. 
University of Michigan, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, pp. 203-206. 

Council on Environmental Quality, 1978. Regulations for Imolementino the Procedural Provisions of 
the National Environmental Policy Act . 

Crook, M.A., and F.J. Langdon, 1974. The Ef'ects of Aircraft Noise on Schools around London 
Airport, Journal of Sound and Vibration. 34(2): 221-232. 

Dorr, J.A., and D.F. Eschman, 1970. "Petroleum and Natural Gas in Michigan", in Geology of 
Michigan. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, pp. 228-243. 

East Central Michigan Planning and Development Regional Commission, 1973. Environmental and 
Natural Elements of Iosco Countv. June. 

EPA, see U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

FAA, see Federal Aviation Administration. 

Federal Aviation Administration, 1983. Airport Capacity and Delay. Advisory Circular 150/5060-5, 
September. 

Federal Aviation Administration, 1986. Census of U.S. Civil Aircraft . 

Federal Aviation Administration, 1987. Census of U.S. Civil Aircraft . 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


7-1 














Federal Aviation Administration, 1988a. Census of U.S. Civil Aircraft . 


Federal Aviation Administration, 1988b. Part 36 - Noise Standards: Aircraft Type and 
Airworthiness Certification (effective May 6). 


Federal Aviation Administration, 1989a. 

Federal Aviation Administration, 1989b. 
Compatibility Planning. 

Federal Aviation Administration, 1990a. 
Carriers. 

Federal Aviation Administration, 1990b. 


Census of U .S. Civil Aircraft. 

Federal Avia tion Reoulations Part 150 Airport Noise 

Airport Activity Statistic s of Certificated Route Air 

Census of U.S. Civil Aircraft . 


Federal Aviation Administration, 1990c. Estimated Airplane Noise Levels in A-Weiohted Decibels. 
Advisory Circular No. 36*3F. 

Federal Aviation Administration, 1990d. Standards for Specifvino Construction of Airports (Change 
10), Temporary Air and Water Pollution, Soil Erosion and Situation Control, Advisory 
Circular 150/5370*10, June. 


Federal Aviation Administration, 1991a. Advisory Circular 150/5300-5. Airport Design . 

Federal Aviation Administration, 1991b. FAA Form 5010, Airport Master Record. 

Federal Aviation Administration, 1992. Noise Levels for U.S. Certified and Foreign Aircraft. 
Advisory Circular No. 36*1 F. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1982. Flood Insurance Rate Mao. Township of Oscoda, 
Michigan. Iosco Countv. Community Number 26101, Panel Numbers 0025 C and 0050 C, 
scale 1" = 800'. 


Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1988. Flood Insurance Study, Au Sable. Michigan, Iosco 
County. Community Number 260098. 

Federal Highway Administration, 1978. FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. Report 
No. FHWA*RD*77*108. 

Fidell, S., D. Barber and T. Schultz, 1989. Updating a Dosaoe-Effect Relationship for the 

Prevalence of Annoyance Due to General Transportation Noise (HSD*TR*89*009), Noise and 
Sonic Boom Impact Technology, Human Systems Division, Air Force Systems Command, 
Brooks Air Force B&se, Texas 78235*5000. 

Frerichs, R.R., B.L. Beeman, and A.H. Coulson, 1980. Los Angeles Airport Noise and Mortality - 
Faulty Analysis and Public Policy, American Journal of Public Health. 70 (4): 357*362. 

Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc., 1986. Draft Phase II Feasibility Study: Waste*to*Enerov in 
Iosco County. Michigan, prepared for the Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, 
Michigan, and for Iosco County Board of Commissioners, Tawas City, Michigan, December. 


7*2 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 









Goldstein, J. and J. Lukas, 1980. Noise and Sleep: Information Needs for Noise Control, 

Proceedings of the Third International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem . ASHA 
Report No. 10, pp. 442-448. 

Heinrich, E.W., 1979. Economic Geology of the Sand and Sandstone Resources of Michigan. 
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Division, Report of 
Investigation 21. 

Hubbel, T.H., and I.J. Cantrall, 1938. A New Species of Appalachia from Michigan lOrthootera. 
Acrididae. Crvtacanthacridinae). Occ. Pap., University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. 

Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1990. Traffic Access and Impact Studies for Site 
Development . 

Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991a. Traffic Enoineerino Handbook. J.L. Pline, ed. 

(4th ed.), Prentice-Hall. 

Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991b. Trio Generation, and Informational Report (5th ed.). 

International Conference of Building Officials, 1991. Uniform Building Code . 

Iosco County Road Commission, 1992. Traffic Record. Tawas City, Michigan. 

Kull, R.C., and A.D. Fisher, 1986. Supersonic and Subsonic Aircraft Noise Effects on Animals: A 
Literature Survey. AAMRL-TR-87-032, Noise and Sonic Boom Impact Technology (NSBIT) 
ADPO, Human Systems Division, Air Force Systems Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force 
Base, Ohio 45433-6573. 

Leighton, F., 1993. Personal communication with Floyd Leighton of the Michigan Department of 
Natural Resources, concerning oil and gas potential for Wurtsmith AFB vicinity. 

Lukas, J., 1975. Noise and Sleep: A Literature Review and a Proposed Criterion for Assessing 
Effect, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 58(6): 1232-1242. 

Merritt, F., 1988. Standard Handbook for Civil Engineers (3rd ed.), McGraw-H 

Michigan Department of Management and Budget, 1985. Michigan Population Proiections 
(Computer Printout), Office of Revenue and Tax Analysis, Lansing, Michigan, March. 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1976. Oil and Gas Wells. Iosco Countv. Michigan : 
Department of Natural Resources Geology Division, scale 1:62,500. 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1990. Compliance Guide for Owners and Operators of 
Underground Storage Tanks in Michigan . 

Michigan Department of National Resources, 1991a. Michigan 1990 Annual Air Quality Report. Air 
Quality Division, March. 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1991b. Report from the Natural Features Inventory . 

Michigan Department of Transportation, 1990. Procedures for Calculating Average Annual Daily 
Traffic and Commercial Traffic. Data Management Section, Traffic Information Unit, May. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


-3 








Michigan Department of Transportation, 1991. Seasonal Analysis of Michigan's PTR Data for 

1988. 1989. 1990. Bureau of Transportation Planning, Traffic Information Unit, December. 

Michigan Department of Transportation, 1992a. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the 
Proposed Improvements of U.S.-23 from M-13 to M-65 in Arenac Countv. Michigan . 

Michigan Department of Transportation. 1992b. 1990 Final APT File Listing and Station Counts 
for U.S.-23. for selected locations and years. Data Management Section, Traffic 
Information Unit. 

Michigan, State of, 1990. Michigan Aviation System Plan . 

Military Traffic Management Command Transportation Engineering Agency, 1975. Traffic 

Enoineerina Study. Wurtsmith Air Force Base. Michigan. MTMC Report 75-34, Newport 
News. Virginia, November. 

National Academy of Sciences, 1977. Guidelines for Preparing Environmental Impact Statements 
on Noise. Report of Working Group 69 on the Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and 
Biomechanics, National Research Council. Washington, DC. 

National Academy of Sciences, 1981. The Effects on Human Health from Long-Term Exposure to 
Noise. Report of Working Group 81, Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and 
Biomechanics, National Research Council. Washington, DC. 

Nino, Ronald F., and Associates, 1987. General Development Plan for the Charter Township of 
Oscoda. Grand Blanc, Michigan. 

Oscoda, 1984. Ordinances 165, 172 (Zoning). 

Pearsons, K., D. Barber and B. Tabachnick, 1989. Analyses of the Predictability of Noise-Induced 
Sleep Disturbance. Report No. HSD-TR-89-029, BBN Systems and Technologies 
Corporation, Canoga Park, California. 

Prahl, E.J., 1989. Cultural Resources Survey of Portions of Wurtsmith Air Force Base. Michigan. 
prepared for the U.S. Air Force AFRCE-6MS, Norton Air Force Base, California. 

Radian Corporation, 1985. Installation Restoration Program. Phase 1: Records Search. Wurtsmith 
AFB. Michigan. McLean, Virginia, April. 

Schroeder, J. 1992. Personal Communication with John Schroeder, Michigan Department of 
Natural Resources, Air Quality Division, Gaylord Office, May 28. 

Schuman, L.E. 1987. Fish and Wildlife Management Plan for Wurtsmith Air Force Base. Michigan . 
Revision 1, for Plan Period October 1986 to October 1991. 

Segal, H.M., 1991. A Microcomputer Pollution Model for Civilian Airports and Air Force Bases - 

Model Description. FAA Report No. FAA-EE-88-4, U.S. Air Force Report No. ESL-TR-88-53. 

Stark, J.R., T.R. Cummings, and F.R. Twenter, 1983. Ground-water Contamination at Wurtsmith 
Air Force Base. Michigan: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations 
Report 83-4002 . 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 













Stearns-Rogers Sarvices, Inc. 1984. Draft Environmental Assessment of Wurtsmith AFB Central 
Heat Plant, prepared for Department of the Army, Omaha District, Corps of Engineers. 

Sundeen, S.P., 1979. Geological Study of the Sand Deposits in the State of Michigan Phase II. 

Final Report, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Division, Open 
File Report MGSD OFR 78-4. 

Thompson, S., S. Fidell, and B.G. Tabachnick, 1989. Feasibility of Epidemiologic Research on 
Nonauditorv Health Effects of Aircraft Noise Exposure (Vols. I. II. and III) . BBN Report 
6738, BBN Systems and Technologies, Canoga Park, California. 

Toland A., 1992. Personal Communication with Arden Toland, Michigan Department of Natural 
Resources, Air Quality Division, Gaylord Office, May 28. 

Transportation Research Board, 1985. Highway Capacity Manual. Special Report 209. National 
Research Council, Washington DC. 

U.S. Air Force, 1978a. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AlCUZ). Wurtsmith AFB. Michigan . 

U.S. Air Force. 1978b. Wurtsmith Air Force Base Tab A-1 Environmental Narrative . 

U.S. Air Force, 1985a. Hazardous Waste Management Plan. 379th BMW. Wurtsmith AFB . 

U.S. Air Force, 1985b. 379 BMW Wurtsmith Air Force Base Spill Prevention and Response Plan. 
Management Plan 19-1. April. 

U.S. Air Force, 1986. Recoverable and Waste Petroleum Products Management Plan. Wurtsmith 
AFB. 


U.S. Air Force, 1989. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Peacekeeper Rail Garrison Program. 
February. 

U.S. Air Force, 1990a. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Proposed Closure of Eaker Air 
Force Base. Arkansas (with Wurtsmith option). 

U.S. Air Force, 1990b. Environmental Impact Analysis Process Environmental Assessment of the 
Proposed Force Structure Change at Wurtsmith AFB. Michigan . March. 

U.S. Air Force, 1991a. 379th BMW Wurtsmith Air Force Base Asbestos Management and 
Operations Plan. Wurtsmith Air Force Base Regulation 91-3, January. 

U.S. Air Force, 1991b. Underground Storage Tank Management Plan. Wurtsmith AFB . 

U.S. Air Force, 1991c. 1990 Air Emissions Inventory. Wurtsmith AFB . October. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. U.S. 
Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, January. 

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1981. Housing Units Authorized bv Building Permits and Public 
Contracts: Annual 1980. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


7-5 







U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1991. Housing Units Authorized bv Building Permits and Public 
Contracts: Annual 1990. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1983. Regional Guide for the Eastern Region. 
Forest Service, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1986. Huron National Forest, Michigan, Michigan 
Meridian, 1985, U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Eastern Region), n.d. Rnal Environmental Impact 
Statement: Land and Resource Management Plan. Huron-Manistee National Forests. 
Huron-Manistee National Forests, Cadillac, Michigan. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1977. Michigan Department of Natural 
Resources letter. Joint Site Investigation for Prime and Unique Farmlands. 

U.S. Department of the Army, 1991. Methods of Destruction for Serviceable Item of Medical 
Materials. Supply Bulletin SB-8-79-59, September. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1991a. Detroit 
Sectional Aeronautical Chart (43rd ed.). 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1991b. Lake 
Huron Sectional Aeronautical Chart (43rd ed.). 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1991c. U.S. 
Terminal Procedures - South Central (E C). Volume 1 of 2. July-September. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1980. Guidelines for Considering Noise in Land Use Planning 
and Control. Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise, June. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise 

Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. EPA 
Publication No. 550/9-74-004, Washington, DC. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985. AP-42. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

Factors. Volume 1. Stationary Point and Area Sources. Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, September. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988. Iosco County, Michigan Air Quality Inventory: 
National Emission Data System, Region 5, Chicago. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992. A Citizen's Guide to Radon . 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1983. Hubbard Lake, Michigan, 30 x 60 minute guadrangle, topographic 

( 1 : 100 , 000 ). 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1984. Tawas City, Michigan, 30 x 60 minute quadrangle, planimetric 

( 1 : 100 , 000 ). 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1986. Assessment of Ground-Water Contamination at Wurtsmith Air 
Force Base. Michigan. 1982-85. Water-Resources Investigations Report 86-4188 . 


-6 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 






U.S. Geological Survey, 1988a. East Tawas NE Quadrangle, Michigan, 7.5 minute series, 
topographic, modified for USOA Forest Service use. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1988b. East Tawas NW Quadrangle, Michigan, 7.5 minute series, 
topographic, modified for USOA Forest Service use. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1990. Installation Restoration Program. Phase II Confirmation/ 

Quantification. Staoe 2. Wurtsmith AFB. Michioan: An Environmental Database System- 
Final Report. 

U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, 1986. installation Restoration Program Phase II 
Confirmation/Quantification Staoe I. Wurtsmith Air Force Base. Michigan: Investigations of 
Ground-Water and Soil Contamination at Selected Sites. Final Reports . 

U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, 1991. Installation Restoration Program. Phase 
II- Confirmation/Quantification. Staoe I. Wurtsmith AFB. Michigan: Investigations of 
Groundwater and Soil Contamination at Selected Sites. Final Reports . 

Wade-Trim/Edmands, 1992. Water SudpIv Update, prepared for Iosco County Economic 
Development Commission, April. 

Weise, T., 1992. Personal Communication with Thomas Weise, Wildlife Biologist, Michigan 
Department of Natural Resources, April. 

Williams and Works Operation Services, 1990a. Monthly Ooeratino Reports for Contract Operation 
of the Oscoda Charter Township. Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Oscoda, 
Michigan. 

Williams and Works Operation Services, 1990b. Monthly Operating Reports for Contract Operation 
of the Tawas Utility Authority. Wastewater Treatment Facility. Tawas City, Michigan. 

Williams and Works Operation Services, 1991a. Monthly Operating Reports for Contract Operation 
of the Oscoda Charter Township. Water and Wastewater Trea ^ nent Facilities. Oscoda, 
Michigan. 

Williams and Works Operation Services, 1991b. Monthly Operating Reports for Contract Operation 
of the Tawas Utility Authority. Wastewater Treatment Facility. Tawas City, Michigan. 

Williams and Works Operation Services, 1992a. Monthly Operating Reports for Contract Operation 
of the Oscoda Charter Township. Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Oscoda, 
Michigan. 

Williams and Works Operation Services, 1992b. Monthly Operating Reports for Contract Operation 
of the Tawas Utility Authority. Wastewater Treatment Facility. Tawas City, Michigan. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 
















THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 


7-8 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






CHAPTER 8 
INDEX 






8.0 INDEX 


A 

Aboveground storage tanks 3*54, 3-55, 
4-31, 4-37, 4-41, 4-43 
Accident Potential Zone (APZ) 3-14, 3-15 
Advanced Environmental Technology Facility 

2- 25, 4-6, 4-13, 4-21, 4-25, 4-44, 4-47, 
4-52, 4-81, 4-73, 4-80, 4-83 

Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AlCUZ) 

3- 14, 3-16 

Air traffic control (ATC) 1-5, 3-10, 3-24, 

3- 25, 3-27, 3-30, 4-15, 4-17 

Airport Layout Plan (ALP) 1-5, 1-6, 2-4, 4-15 
Asbestos 1-10, 3-1, 3-55, 3-56, 3-57, 4-25, 

4- 26, 4-32, 4-33, 4-37, 4-41, 4-43 

Au Sable River 2-13, 2-14, 3-3, 3-7, 3-12, 
3-17, 3-34, 3-65, 3-67, 3-68, 3-69, 3-85, 

3- 86, 3-88, 3-89, 3-91, 3-93, 3-94, 4-8. 

4- 11, 4-12, 4-47, 4-49, 4-50, 4-75 
Aviation support 2-4, 2-6, 2-8, 2-10, 2-14, 

3- 10, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, 4-27, 4-28, 

4- 32 

C 

Carbon monoxide (CO) 3-69, 3-70, 3-71, 

3- 74, 3-75, 3-76, 4-53, 4-54, 4-55, 4-56, 

4- 57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-62 
Central heating plant 2-25, 3-36, 3-74, 3-75 
Clear Zone(s) (CZs) 3-10, 3-14, 3-25, 3-60 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1-5, 3-36, 

3- 38, 3-54, 3-55, 3-56, 3-57, 3-73, 3-92, 

4- 26, 4-80, 4-81, 4-82 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) 
3-36, 3-40, 3-44, 3-54, 4-27 
Consent Decree 3-43, 3-44, 3-54, 4-27 
Construction 1-5,2-4,2-5,2-10,2-12, 

2- 16, 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-22, 2-23, 3-8, 

3- 35, 3-39, 3-64, 3-71, 3-79, 3-87, 4-8, 

4- 10, 4-12, 4-14, 4-15, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 
4-21, 4-31, 4-33, 4-44, 4-45, 4-46, 4-47, 
4-48, 4-49, 4-52, 4-54, 4-55, 4-56, 4-57, 

4-60, 4-61, 4-73, 4-77, 4-79 


Contamination 1-8, 2-3, 2-14, 3-32, 3-37, 

3- 40, 3-42, 3-43, 3-44, 3-54, 3-62, 3-68, 

4- 25, 4-28, 4-33, 4-42, 4-44, 4-46, 4-47, 
4-49, 4-51 

Convention/tourist 2-4, 2-12, 4-7, 4-27, 
4-30, 4-31 

Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) 1-1, 

1- 6, 4-1 

D 

Day-night average sound level (DNL) 3-14, 

3- 76, 3-78, 3-79, 3-80, 3-83, 4-8, 4-62, 

4- 63, 4-64, 4-66, 4-67, 4-72, 4-73 
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act 

(DBCRA) 1-1, 1-2, 1-4, 1-5, 2-1, 2-3 
Defense Environmental Restoration Program 
(DERP) 3-40, 4-27 

Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office 
(DRMO) 2-12, 3-38, 3-39, 3-60, 4-42 
Demolition 2-4, 2-16, 2-18, 2-19, 2-22, 

2- 23, 3-56, 4-11, 4-12, 4-13, 4-26, 4-32, 
4-33, 4-37, 4-41, 4-44, 4-45, 4-46, 4-47, 
4-49, 4-51, 4-52, 4-61, 4-73, 4-74, 4-76, 
4-77, 4-79 

Department of Defense (DOD) 1-1, 1-2, 2-1, 

2- 3, 3-31, 3-40, 3-43, 3-76 
Department of Transportation (DOT) 1-6, 

3- 19, 3-36, 3-61, 3-78, 4-8, 4-14, 4-64 
Detroit and Mackinac 3-3, 3-31 
dichloroethylene (DCE) 3-43, 3-44, 3-68 

E 

Easement(s) 2-3, 3-3, 3-12, 3-14, 3-54, 

3- 67, 4-23 

Educational 2-12, 2-17, 2-18, 2-22, 3-10, 

4- 12, 4-33, 4-34, 4-36, 4-38, 4-39, 4-76, 

4-78 

Employment 2-2, 2-13, 2-19, 2-20, 2-23, 
2-24, 2-27, 3-1, 3-5, 3-7, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 
4-6, 4-15, 4-18, 4-19 

Endangered species 3-83, 3-88, 3-89, 4-75, 
4-78, 4-80 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse F£IS 


8-1 






EnvkronfiMntal Impact Anatyais Procaaa (EIAPI 
1-6 

Environmantai impacts 1-2, 1-6, 1-10, 2-1, 

2- 2, 2-27, 2-29, 4-1, 4-2, 4-23, 4-25 
Environmantai Protection Apancy (EPA) 1-7, 

3- 40, 3-42, 3-64, 3-55, 3-58, 3-59, 3-69, 

3- 70, 3-72, 3-74, 3-75. 4-28, 4-32. 4-38. 

4- 42. 4-43, 4-48. 453, 4-57, 4-63 
Erosion 3-82.4-44.4-45,4-46,4-50 
Explosiva Ordnance Disposal (EOO) 2-18, 

3- 10, 3-80, 3-61, 4-31, 4-32. 4-38, 4-39, 

4- 42, 4-43 

F 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 1-5. 

1- 8, 2-4, 2-8, 3-24, 3-25, 3-30, 3-76, 

3- 78. 3-79, 4-14, 4-15, 4-17, 4-31. 4-46. 

4- 53. 4-56. 4-64, 4-66 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

3- 80, 4-64 

Federal Property Management Regulation 
(FPMR) 1-2, 1-5, 2-1 

Right tracks 2-8, 3-25, 3-27, 3-78, 4-64, 

4- 85 

Roodplain(s) 1-8, 3-12, 3-65, 3-67, 3-85, 

3- 86. 3-88, 3-91, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49, 4-75 
Forest fire(s) 2-18, 3-74, 4-46, 4-58, 4-59, 

4- 76, 4-77 

G 

General aviation 2-2, 2-4, 2-6, 2-8, 2-9, 

3- 25, 3-31, 4-17 

General Development Plan (GDP) 3-8, 3-16, 

4- 7, 4-9, 4-11 

Great Lakes and Mid-Atlantic Hazardous 
Substance Research Center (GLMAC) 

2- 25, 4-44 

H 

Habitat(s) 2-13, 3-83, 3-85, 3-86, 3-87, 

3- 88, 3-89, 3-91, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-76, 

4- 77, 4-78, 4-79, 4-80 

Hospital 2-10, 2-18. 3-10, 3-36, 3-60, 3-74, 
3-75, 4-27, 4-32, 4-34, 4-39 


Hunting 2-23, 3-3, 3-12, 3-86, 3-92, 4-74, 
4-79, 4-80 

Hydrant 2-6, 3-10, 3-33, 3-55, 4-31. 4-37, 
4-41, 4-43 

I 

Industrial 2-2, 2-4, 2-6, 2-10, 2-13, 2-14, 

2- 16, 2-17, 2-20, 2-22, 3-8, 3-10, 3-14, 

3- 16, 3-17, 3-20, 3-23, 3-38, 3-58, 3-73, 

3- 74. 3-75, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10. 4-11, 

4- 12, 4-13, 4-14, 4-23, 4-27, 4-29. 4-30, 
4-32. 4-34, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-41, 
4-46, 4-47, 4-49, 4-51, 4-52, 4-54, 4-55, 
4-61, 4-74, 4-76 

Instrument flight rules (IFR) 3-24, 3-25, 3-27, 

3- 30, 4-17, 4-19 

Iosco County Airport 3-3, 3-25, 3-27, 3-31, 

4- 17. 4-19, 4-21 

K 

Kirtland's warbler 3-88, 3-91, 4-78, 4-79 
L 

Lake Huron 3-1, 3-3, 3-7, 3-8, 3-32, 3-33, 

3- 62, 3-64, 3-65, 3-68, 3-69, 3-71, 3-88, 

4- 22, 4-48 

Landfillis) 3-35, 3-43, 3-44, 3-86, 4-9, 4-12, 
4-23, 4-25. 4-28, 4-30, 4-31, 4-36, 4-39, 
4-41 

Lease(s) 1-5, 2-2, 2-3, 2-24, 2-25, 3-3, 

3-64, 3-92, 4-45, 4-46 

M 

Medical 2-10, 2-14, 2-17, 2-18, 2-23, 3-1, 

3- 10, 3-57, 3-60, 4-25, 4-27, 4-30, 4-32, 

4- 34, 4-36. 4-38, 4-39, 4-42, 4-43 
Michigan Department of Natural Resources 

IMDNR) 2-18.3-34,3-35.3-36,3-42, 
3-43, 3-54, 3-55, 3-60, 3-54, 3-70, 3-72, 

3- 74, 4-8, 4-10, 4-12, 4-22, 4-28, 4-44, 

4- 54, 4-56, 4-58, 4-62, 4-76 
Michigan Department of Transportation 

(MOOT) 3-19,4-16,4-19,4-20 


8-2 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 






Mitigation meaauras 4-1, 4-2, 4-9, 4-11. 
4-13, 4-14, 4-17, 4-19, 4-21, 4-32, 4-38, 
4-42, 4-43, 4-45. 4-46, 4-47, 4-49, 4-51. 
4-52, 4-56. 4-58, 4-61, 4-72, 4-73, 4-75. 
4-78, 4-80, 4-81. 4-82 

N 

Nationai Environmentai Policy Act (NEPA) 

1-1, 1-4, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 4-1 
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 

3- 91, 3-92, 3-93, 4-80, 4-81. 4-82 
National Pollution Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) 3-34, 3-43, 3-67, 3-69, 

4- 48 

Nationai Priorities List (NPL) 3-40 

Native American 3-94 

Nitrogen dioxide (NO,) 3-69, 3-70, 3-71, 

3- 73, 3-74, 4-53, 4-54, 4-55, 4-57, 4-58, 

4- 60, 4-61 

Nitrogen oxides (NO,) 3-71, 3-74, 3-75, 

3- 76, 4-56 

0 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) 3-55, 3-56, 4-26, 

4- 33, 4-42 

Oil/water separator(s) 2-18, 3-55, 4-31, 
4-34, 4-46, 4-51, 4-76 
Operating Location (OL) 2-1, 2-2, 3-7, 3-16, 
3-24, 3-34, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-40, 3-42, 

3- 54, 3-58, 3-73, 3-75, 4-21, 4-25, 4-28. 

4- 33, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-52. 4-82 
Ordnance 2-18, 3-1, 3-60, 3-61, 4-25, 4-32, 

4-38, 4-42, 4-43 

Oscoda 1-7, 1-10, 2-3, 2-4, 3-3, 3-5, 3-7, 
3-8, 3-16, 3-20, 3-23, 3-24, 3*31. 3-33, 

3- 34, 3-35, 3-62, 3-65, 3-67, 3-68, 3-88, 

4- 3, 4-7, 4-9, 4-11, 4-13, 4-16, 4-17, 
4-19, 4-20, 4-21. 4-22, 4-23, 4-49. 4-67, 
4-71, 4-72, 4-73 

Ozone IO3) 3-69, 3-70, 3-71, 3-72, 4-55, 
4-58, 4-61 


P 

Particulate matter (PM,o) 3-69, 3-70, 3-71, 

3- 72, 3-75. 3-76, 4-53. 4-54, 4-55, 4-56, 

4- 57. 4-58, 4-59. 4-61. 4-60. 4-62 
Permit(s) 1-10, 1-11, 1-12, 3-8, 3-34, 3-38, 

3- 43, 3-67, 3-69, 3-74, 4-8, 4-10, 4-12, 

4- 22. 4-48, 4-53, 4-54 

plume(s) 3-37. 3-43, 3-44, 3-69, 4-28, 

4-30, 4-31, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-41, 
4-49 

Petroleum, oils, and lubricants (POL) 3-43, 

3- 44, 4-27, 4-30, 4-31, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 

4- 36. 4-37, 4-38, 4-39 

Population 2-2, 2-13, 2-19, 2-23, 2-27, 3-1, 
3-5, 3-7, 3-14, 3-24, 3-32, 3-35, 3-69, 

3- 76, 4-1, 4-2. 4-3, 4-4, 4-6, 4-14, 4-21, 

4- 22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-52, 4-53, 4-55, 
4-61, 4-63, 4-80 

Pump and treat 3-43, 3-44, 3-68, 4-28, 
4-33, 4-36, 4-42 

R 

Railroad 3-3, 3-31, 3-33, 3-55, 3-93 
Recreation 1-6, 2-2, 2-4, 2-6, 2-12, 2-13, 

2- 16, 2-17, 2-19, 2-20, 2-22, 2-23, 2-24, 

3- 10, 3-12, 3-14, 3-65, 3-79, 4-6, 4-7, 

4- 8, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-12, 4-13, 4-15, 
4-19. 4-20, 4-21, 4-23, 4-24, 4-27, 4-31, 
4-34, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-41, 4-42, 4-46, 
4-47, 4-51, 4-58, 4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-72, 
4-79, 4-81, 4-82 

Remediation 2-3, 3-37, 3-40, 3-42, 3-43, 

3- 44. 3-54, 3-55, 3-74, 3-91, 4-25, 4-27, 

4- 28, 4-30, 4-31, 4-33, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 
4-39, 4-42, 4-44, 4-50 

Residential 2-4, 2-6, 2-12, 2-13, 2-14, 2-16, 

2- 17, 2-19, 2-20. 2-22. 2-23, 3-8, 3-10, 

3- 12. 3-14, 3-16, 3-20. 3-36, 3-59, 3-79, 

4- 7, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-12. 4-14, 4-16, 
4-18, 4-27, 4-28, 4-29, 4-31. 4-34, 4-35, 
4-36, 4-37, 4-39, 4-41, 4-52, 4-53, 4-63, 
4-66. 4-67, 4-71, 4-72 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
(RCRA) 3-36, 3-38, 3-39, 3-54, 3-61, 
4-42 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


8-3 





Retention pond 2*18. 4-34, 4-46, 4-51, 
4-76, 4-77, 4-79 

runoff 2-18, 3-67, 4-46, 4-47, 4-49, 4-50, 
4-51, 4-52, 4-76, 4-78, 4-80 
Runwey Protection Zones (RPZs) 2-6, 2-8 

S 

Smell arms range 2-13, 3-60, 3-61, 3-85, 
4-25, 4-32, 4-42, 4-43 
Sound exposure level (SEL) 3-78, 4-62, 4-63, 
4-64, 4-66 

Sulfur dioxide (SO,) 3-34, 3-69, 3-70, 3-71, 

3- 73, 3-74, 4-53, 4-54, 4-55, 4-57, 4-58, 

4- 59, 4-61, 4-62 

Superfund Amendments Reauthorization Act 
(SARA) 3-37, 3-40, 3-42, 4-26 

T 

Tourist 2-4, 2-12, 2-19, 3-7, 4-7, 4-8, 4-11, 
4-27, 4-30, 4-31 

Tri-City International Airport 3-3, 3-31, 4-17 
Trichloroethylene (TCE) 3-43, 3-44, 3-68 

U 

Underground storage tank(s) (USTs) 3-43, 

3- 54, 3-55, 4-26, 4-31, 4-33, 4-37, 4-38, 

4- 41, 4-43 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 3-62, 3-87, 

3- 89 

U.S. Department of Transportation 3-78, 

4- 64 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 3-88, 
4-75 

U.S. Forest Service 1-4, 2-18, 3-1, 3-3, 

3- 34, 3-57, 3-67, 4-8, 4-48, 4-75, 4-76, 

4- 81 

U.S. Geological Survey 3-43, 3,44, 3-62, 
3-64, 3-67, 3-68, 3-89, 4-64 


V 

Van Etten Creek 3-12, 3-43, 3-62, 3-65, 
3-67, 3-68, 4-47 

Van Etten Uke 3-3, 3-8, 3-12, 3-14, 3-17, 
3-20, 3-33, 3-44, 3-62, 3-64, 3-65, 3-67, 
3-68, 3-88, 4-8, 4-10, 4-12, 4-47, 4-49 
Visual sensitivity 3-16, 3-17, 3-18 

W 

Wastewater 2-14, 2-20, 2-24, 3-32, 3-33, 

3- 34, 3-35, 3-37, 3-38, 3-67, 3-68, 3-69, 

4- 24, 4-25, 4-31, 4-34, 4-37, 4-39, 4-41, 
4-42, 4-48, 4-50 

Wastewater Treatment plant (WWTP) 3-34, 

3- 35, 3-43, 3-60, 4-22, 4-23, 4-30, 4-31, 

4- 39 

Weapons Storage Area (WSA) 2-10, 2-17, 

2- 18, 2-22, 3-33, 3-39, 3-44, 3-61, 4-8, 
4-9, 4-10, 4-12, 4-38 

Wetland(s) 2-13, 2-14, 3-62, 3-65, 3-67, 

3- 85, 3-87, 3-88, 3-89, 3-91, 4-74, 4-75, 

4- 76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-80 
Wurtsmith Area Economic Commission 

(WAEAC) 1-4, 1-5, 2-3, 2-4 
Wurtsmith Base Conversion Authority 
(WBCA) 2-3, 2-8 

Z 

Zoning 1-4, 3-8, 3-12, 4-2, 4-6, 4-7, 4-9, 
4-11, 4-13, 4-72 


8-4 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






CHAPTER 9 

PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 








9.0 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 


INTRODUCTION 


The Air Force has complied with the NEPA mandate of public participation in 
the EIAP primarily in three ways: 

• A scoping meeting was held in Oscoda, Michigan, on 
November 7, 1991, at which the Air Force reviewed the EIAP 
and invited public input regarding the disposal and reuse of 
Wurtsmith AFB. 

• A public hearing was held in Oscoda, Michigan, on 

April 5. 1993, at which the Air Force presented the findings of 
the DEIS for disposal and reuse of Wurtsmith AFB and invited 
public comments. 

• The subject DEIS was made available for public review and 
comment during March and April 1993. 

Public comments received both verbally at the scoping meeting and public 
hearing, and in writing during the response period, have been reviewed and 
are addressed by the Air Force in this section. 


ORGANIZATION 


This Public Comment and Response section is organized into several 
subsections, as follows: 

• This Introduction, which describes the process, organization, and 
approach taken in addressing public comments 

• A consolidated comment-response document 

• An index of commentors 

• A transcript of the public hearing 

• Photocopies of ail written comments received. 

These sections are described below. 

Some comments simply state a fact or an opinion, for example, "the DEIS 
adequately assesses the impacts on la resource area]." Such comments, 
although appreciated, do not require a specific response and are not called 
out herein. The comments and responses are grouped by area of concern, 
as follows: 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


9-1 








1.0 Air Fore* Policy 


2.0 PurpoM of and Naad for Action 

3.0 Altamatives Including the Proposed Action 

4.0 Land Tranafer/Oisposal 

5.0 Local Community 

6.0 Land Use/Aestiietics 

7.0 Transportation 

8.0 Airspace 

9.0 Utilities 

10.0 Hazardous Materials/Waste Management 
11.0 Soils and Geology 

12.0 Water Resources 

13.0 Air Quality 

14.0 Noise 

15.0 Biological Resources 

16.0 Cultural Resources 

17.0 Socioeconomic Impact Analysis Study 

Within each area, each comment-response is numbered sequentially. For 
example, under 9.0 Utilities, individual comments-responses are numbered 
9.1, 9.2, etc. At the end of each numbered comment is a set of numbers 
that refers to the specific comment in the documents received, e.g., 16-8). 
Comment 6-8, for example, refers to document 6, comment number 8. A 
reader who wishes to read tiie specific comment(s) received may turn to the 
photocopies of the documents included in this section. Below each 
comment number is the number of the specific comment-response within 
the area of concern, e.g. 7.5. Thus, the reader may reference back and 
forth between the comments-responses and the specific comment 
documents as they were received. 


9-2 


Wwtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






Finally, it should be emphasized that not only have responses to EIS 
comments been addressed in this comment-response chapter, as explained,, 
but the text of the EIS itself has also been revised, as appropriate, to reflect 
the concerns expressed in the public comments. 

The list of commentors includes the name of the commentor, the identifying 
document number that has been assigned to it, and the page number in this 
section on which the photocopy of the document is presented. 


1.0 AIR FORCE POLICY 


1.1 Comment : The DEIS only contains three coordination letters. 
National Environmental Policy Act environmental assessment 
procedures require more extensive coordination with federal, state, 
and local agencies and interest groups than is evident in Appendix L. 
12-3) 

Response : Chapters 1 and 2 describe in detail the Air Force 
consultation and coordination process for closure and disposal. 
Chapter 5, Consultation and Coordination, lists the various agencies 
contacted by the Air Force in the preparation of the DEIS. 
Coordination letters are included only for resources for which formal 
federal or state agency concurrence is required by law (e.g., USFWS 
coordination regarding threatened and endangered species, and 
consultation with SHPO). 

1.2 Comment : Any money the Air Force receives from lease agreements 
should go towards environmental clean-up. (3-1) 

Response : The IRP and other environmental programs are funded by 
the Department of Defense. Federal law (10 U.S.C. $2667) sets 
forth into which accounts the money rentals received from the 
interim leasing of nonexcess property are deposited and how these 
monies may be used. A designated percentage of the rentals is 
available for environmental restoration. 

1.3 Comment : The review period for the document is inadequate and 
does not allow volunteer citizen's groups such as those I represent 
sufficient time to properly evaluate its content and prepare detailed 
comments. (9-1) 

Response : The 45-day review period was chosen because it is the 
standard promulgated by the CEQ guidelines. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


9-3 







1.4 Comment : The failure to include in the DEIS comments submitted at 
the EIS Scoping Meeting, held on November 7, 1991, in Oscoda is 
reason for concern, especially in that the Air Force claims that said 
comments have played an important role in the formulation of the 
DEIS. As one who attended and commented at that meeting, I feel 
that it is essential diat the remarks made by a broad representation 
of community interests on that occasion be part of the DEIS 
document. (9-2) 

Response : All scoping comments within the scope of this EIS have 
been addressed in the respective sections of this FEIS, as required by 
NEPA and Air Force regulations. Comments received on the DEIS 
are included in the FEIS, in accordance with NEPA. 

1.5 Comment : Why was the Citizen's Advisory Committee on 
Wurtsmith AFB Contamination excluded from the Consultation and 
Coordination list? The Citizen's Advisory Committee has been very 
active in its role of keeping the public informed about the toxic 
contamination at and emanating from Wurtsmith AFB. The failure of 
the Air Force to work with this citizen's group is most unfortunate 
and unwarranted, especially in light of the fact that the Air Force 
Technical Review Committee has a policy of excluding citizens and 
media from attending and participating in its meetings. (9-3, 9-4) 

Response : The Air Force is aware of public concern regarding 
contamination at die base, and communicates with the public and 
appropriate agencies regarding these issues under the IRP, as 
discussed in Section 3.3.3. 

1.6 Comment : The EIS document fails to comment on the refusal of the 
Department of Defense to sign the September 1992 consent 
agreement proposed by the Michigan Attorney General and the 
MDNR. The consent agreement was intended to serve as a legal 
blueprint for the clean-up of toxins at Wurtsmith AFB, establishing 
the responsibility and methodology for the remediation of all the 
contaminated sites and ensuring environmental restoration in 
accordance with the standards and guidelines of Michigan Act 307c. 
(9-6) 

Response : The Air Force is committed to the cleanup of hazardous 
substances (including toxins) and ensuring compliance with CERCLA 
through its IRP. The Air Force continues its groundwater 
remediation activities in compliance with the 1980 Consent Decree 
between the Air Force and MDNR. These remediation activities are 
now part of the IRP at Wurtsmith. There is a disagreement between 
the Air Force and the Michigan Attorney General's Office as to the 
necessity and form of any new agreement. 


9 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 







2.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 


No comments were received for this area of concern. 


3.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 


3.1 Comment : There is little information regarding federal government 
plans regarding housing and other federal properties. (5-3) 

Response ; As stated in Chapter 1, only 42 percent of the base is 
feeniwned by the Air Force and available for direct federal disposal. 
As indicated in Chapter 2, the Air Force has notified other federal 
agencies, including the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, that Wurtsmith AFB is scheduled for disposal. To 
date, no federal agencies have expressed an interest in acquiring 
properties on Wurtsmith AFB. The DEIS is prepared to provide the 
decision maker with a clear understanding of the potential 
environmental impacts of disposal and reuse; actual development 
plans and final recipients of the properties have not been determined 
at this time. 

3.2 Comment : Objective comparison of alternatives is difficult due to 
the fact tfiat information concerning the implementation costs and 
level of benefit for each alternative is lacking. The basis for 
selecting the preferred alternative should be firmly established and 
clearly presented. (8*1) 

Response ; The EIS addresses only potential environmental impacts 
of reuse alternatives. Implementation costs, selection of a preferred 
alternative, and other factors involved in the disposal and reuse 
decisions are considered by the decision-makers, but are outside the 
scope of the EIS. 

3.3 Comment : No information is presented to support the likelihood of 
securing an "aircraft refurbishing and maintenance facility" as a 
tenant despite the fact the DEIS assumes, without foundation, that 
this will occur. No information is presented concerning the projected 
demand for "light industrial" properties in the region of impact, 
additional commercial or institutional facilities, or dwelling units. 

18-2) 

Response : As discussed in Section 2.2, the Air Force has adopted 
the community's reuse plan as the Proposed Action and developed 
other reasonable alternatives for analysis. The EIS addresses only 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


9-5 







th« potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and 
alternatives, not the market demand or likelihood of occurrence. The 
environmental impact analysis was designed to address the Scope of 
what may occur over a 20*year period. Less intense development 
would, therefore, be considered within the scope of this analysis. 

3.4 Comment : The Great Lakes and Mid-Atlantic Hazardous Substance 
Research Center (GLMAC) is proposing to establish a facility at 
WAFB for research of bioremediation of certain identified IRP sites. 
The U.S.A.F. and GLMAC should coordinate these activities with 
approvals from this Department. (10-2) 

Response : AFBOA OL is responsible for oversight of all IRP activities 
at the base, including obtaining appropriate approvals from MONR. 

All activities of the GLMAC would be fully coordinated with the 
overall conduct of the IRP. 


4.0 LAND TRANSFER/OiSPOSAL 


4.1 Comment : We believe that the feasibility of transferring portions of 
the base to other entities should be assessed. As much as possible, 
natural areas within the base's perimeter should be opened up for 
public access for hunting, fishing, trapping and other outdoor 
recreation. Specifically, the large undeveloped northwestern portion 
of the base may be better managed if it is consolidated with 
contiguous state forest lands. Some portions of the base's southern 
fringe may also be better managed separately from the developed 
areas. And the existing small arms range should be conveyed to a 
local governmental unit or nonprofit organization so that it may be 
made available to the public. (8-3) 

Response : The Proposed Action analysis evaluates use of the 
northwestern part of the base for public recreational uses, similar to 
the adjacent state forest areas, and indicates that the small arms 
range would be used as a public firing range. As stated in Chapter 
1, only 42 percent of the land within the base boundary is Air Force 
fee-owned land subject to disposal. The remainder, including the 
large, undeveloped northwestern portion of the base, is leased or 
granted to the Air Force and will be returned to the owner when the 
Air Force's need for the land ends. 


9-6 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






5.0 LOCAL COMMU:: .Y 


No comments were received for this ares of concern. 


6.0 LAND USE/AESTHETICS 


No comments were received for this area of concern. 


7.0 TRANSPORTATION 


No comments were received for this area of concern. 


8.0 AIRSPACE 


No comments were received for this area of concern. 


9.0 UTILITIES 


9.1 Comment ; We asked for impact studies regarding reuse i it relates 
to water and sewer lines, heating system, etc. (5-2) 

Response ; Potential environmental impacts of reuse of base utility 
systems are addressed in Section 4.2.4 of the EIS. Adequate 
capacity exists in the region for all utility systems. Detailed analysis 
such as assessing individual facility connections is beyond the 
conceptual nature of the alternative reuse scenarios. 

9.2 Comment : The Air Force fails to adequately address the concerns 
about the WAFB sewage and water supply systems. Referring to 
the malfunctioning sewage plant, the DEIS states on page 3-68 that 
”the new permit applicable (in progress) will include a request for a 
variance of effluent limitations." (9-8) 

Response ; Chapter 3 of the EIS describes existing conditions; 
Chapter 4 addresses potential environmental impacts. Section 4.2.4 
indicates that the community will likely decide to connect base water 
and sewer lines to community systems, which have sufficient 
capacity. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 


9- 




9.3 Comment ; Section 3.2.4.2 discusses wastewater issues. It is not 
clear who will be responsible for operation of the sewage lagoons 
after the U.S.A.F. leaves. Impacts from the current lagoons would 
have to be monitored to ensure contaminant levels do not exceed 
regulatory levels. (10*5) 

Response ; Refer to response to comment 9.2. The Air Force will 
conduct appropriate remediation actions at tfie sewage lagoons 
under the IRP. A statement has been added to Section 4.2.4, 
indicating that monitoring near the on-base lagoons would be 
required until the connection to the Oscoda plant is established. 

10.0 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/WASTE MANAGEMENT 


10.1 Comment ; Why isn't anyone addressing the severe contamination 
problem on Wurtsmith Air Force Base? (3-2) 

Response ; The Air Force is conducting the IRP in accordance with 
CERCLA. IRP activities will continue as necessary after closure. The 
IRP process includes review of remediation plans by cognizant 
regulatory agencies, as well as keeping the public informed (see 
Figure 3.3-1, page 3-42). Detailed discussion of the IRP is beyond 
the scope of this EIS. 

10.2 Comment ; I wanted to know the health effects of drinking 
contaminated water. I did not find the information I was looking for. 

I also wanted to see statistics on the extent of the contamination. 

My husband drank that water for 6 years, and I want to know the 
health risks. (4-1) 

Response ; As stated in Section 3.3, Wurtsmith AFB has been 
treating groundwater contamination and monitoring water quality 
since 1979. As contaminant levels have exceeded standards in 
potable wells, the Air Force has shut down the wells and made other 
provisions for water supply for on- and off-base residents. The 
monitoring program ensures that all drinking water meets applicable 
water quality standards. IRP documentation provides detailed 
information on health risks, and is available to the public via the local 
library and AFBDA OL. Detailed discussion of contaminant levels is 
beyond the scope of this EIS. 

10.3 Comment ; Nearly every person at the 1991 hearing requested 
environmental cleanup plans from the Air Force. We asked for 
timetable, methods, who would be employed and suggested that the 


9-8 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







final draft respond to die priority reuses identified through the 
Onward Oscoda Survey. (5-1) 

Response : IRP documentation includes detailed plans and schedules 
for remediation of contaminated sites. Concerned citizens may keep 
abreast of the IRP via public meetings and information contained in 
the Administrative Record, copies of which are available at the 
AFBOA OL and the local library located at 110 South State Street in 
Oscoda, Michigan. The Air Force responded to community desires 
for reuse by adopting die community's reuse plan, developed after 
the Onward Oscoda Survey, as the Proposed Action in this EIS. 

10.4 Comment : We emphasize the need to, in addition to surveying 
Weapons Storage Areas (WSA) for ordnance, carefully check any 
historical records for the WSA and the entire base for possible 
underground disposal of highly explosive and chemical warfare 
material. (7-1) 

Response : In addition to the IRP conducted at each Air Force base, 
as part of the closure process, the Air Force is conducting an 
environmental baseline survey of each closing base to identify 
current and historic activities that may involve contamination, in 
compliance with CERCLA 120(h) and other applicable disclosure 
requirements. The environmental baseline survey will evaluate the 
likelihood of the existence of and contamination from highly 
explosive or chemical warfare material throughout the base. 

10.5 Comment : We have significant concerns about the lack of 
information concerning remediation plans for contamination problems 
remaining from base operations. While the extent of the problem is 
characterized, no plan or schedule for clean-up operations or 
discussion of how the phasing of remedial actions could affect plan 
implementation is presented. Given the extensive history of 
contamination problems at the base, this important issue should 
have been addressed in far more detail in the DEIS. (8-4) 

Response : Refer to response to comment 10.3. Additionally, 
disposal of properties and reuse thereon will be closely coordinated 
with the IRP. 

10.6 Comment : The document is inadequate in that it does not have as 
its central focus the environmental restoration of Wurtsmith AFB and 
the surrounding area and the protection of the community from any 
additional environmental problems that may arise from the civilian 
redevelopment of the WAFB facilities. (9-5) 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 


9-9 






Rasoonse : The cw^tral focus of the EIS is the proposed federal 
action (i.a., the disposal and reuse of the base property). The IRP is 
a separate process that addresses remediation of sites contaminated 
by Air Force activities. New users would be responsible for 
management of hasardous materials and wastes associated with 
reuse activities, and would be subject to applicable federal, state, 
and local regulations for the protection of human health and the 
environment. 

10.7 Comment : The Air Force states in the DEIS that it is undertaking 
environmental restoration at Wurtsmith according to the standards 
and guidelines of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Unfortunately. CERCLA 
will not provide for oromot and comprehensive environmental 
restoration of the Wurtsmith site. Many of the contaminated sites 
listed by the MONR would not be remediated by CERCLA, in 
particular, petroleum (jet fuel) spills. CERCLA also does not provide 
for indemnification for future property recipients. (9-7) 

Response : The Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act 
(CERFA) of October 1992 eliminated the petroleum exclusion for 
closing bases. As indicated in Table 3.3-2, jet fuel spills are being 
addressed by the IRP at Wurtsmith AFB. Remediation schedule 
considerations are addressed under the IRP. Details of the IRP 
process and indemnification issues are outside the scope of this EIS. 

10.8 Comment : A waiver of responsibility is given to problems with 
asbestos on the base ~ page S-16: "Demolition or renovation of 
certain structures with Asbestos-containing materials would be the 
responsibility of new owners." (9-9) 

Response : As stated in the EIS, the primary concern regarding 
asbestos is release into the air, which generally comes about as a 
result of renovations or demolition of structures with ACM. Air 
Force policy and EPA guidelines recommend management in place, 
to avoid release. Regulations require that the Air Force disclose the 
potential presence of asbestos in structures to new owners prior to 
transfer or lease. Results of the asbestos survey completed in late 
1992 have been incorporated into Section 3.3.5 and Appendix H of 
the Rnal EIS. 

10.9 Comment ; The DEIS endorses a proposed action plan that calls for 
intensive development of the Wurtsmith site, including re-use of the 
aviation facilities, industrial development, and renovation of the base 
housing. The DEIS fails to detail the numerous problems that could 
arise from such development. On page 4-25, the DEIS states: 
"Under the Proposed Action hazardous wastes generated would 


9-10 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 





consist of waste oils, fuels, solvents, paints, thinners, and heavy 
metals." Many of these waste products are the same as those 
which are presently the source of the contamination problems at 
Wurtsmith. Why allow any activity that has the potential to 
contribute to already existing environmental problems? 

On page 4-4S, the DEIS states that: "Storm water discharge (non¬ 
point source) from the airfield, airfield support areas, and other 
heavy industrial areas may contain fuels, oils, and other residual 
contaminants which could degrade surface water resources in the Au 
Sable River and Van Etten Creek." Once again, why risk further 
environmental degradation by endorsing the same type of 
development - aviation related activities, in particular - that has 
already caused toxic contamination? (9-10) 

Response : Refer to the response to comment 10.6. Additionally, 
most of the contamination resulting from Air Force activities 
occurred prior to many environmental management regulations. 
Therefore, the risks of future contamination from the activities 
described under the Proposed Action and alternatives are considered 
low. 

10.10 Comment : Generally, the DEIS acknowledges the responsibilities of 
the U.S.A.F. to fulfill its obligations to leases, grants, permits, the 
court-ordered consent decree, and federal environmental regulations. 
It has, however, arbitrarily decided to meet certain State 
environmental regulations while ignoring others. For instance, the 
U.S.A.F. has agreed to follow the State of Michigan State Police Fire 
Marshal requirements for abandonment and reuse of UST's but has 
not agreed to meet Michigan's cleanup standards under MERA. 

( 10 - 1 ) 

Response : Because the base is a federal installation, the Air Force is 
required to comply with federal regulations addressing management 
of hazardous materials and wastes. In complying with federal 
regulations regarding USTs, the Air Force is also complying with 
Michigan's UST regulations, which parallel the federal regulations. 
This is not necessarily true for other regulated materials. 

10.11 Comment : Table 2.7-2 outlines the summary of environmental 
impacts from the proposed action and other reuse alternatives. 

ERD's primary concern is what effects each of the reuses will have 
on soils, groundwater and remedial actions at IRP sites. 

Table 2.7-2 does not indicate remedial actions at IRP sites will be 
affected in any way other than possible delays in disposition of some 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 


9-11 





parcels of land. If the U.S.A.F. continues to meet its obligations, 
this will remain true. (10*3) 

Response ; Chapter 4 of the DEIS addresses the potential 
environmental impacts of each conceptual reuse alternative on soils 
(Section 4.4.1), groundwater (Section 4.4.2), and remedial actions 
at IRP sites (Section 4.3). Where potential impacts have been 
identified, mitigation measures are suggested to reduce or eliminate 
adverse impacts. These effects and mitigations are summarized in 
Table 2.7-2. The Air Force must complete the IRP for the 
contaminated sites on Wurtsmith AFB and provide the assurances 
required by CERCLA S 120(h) for all properties disposed. 

10.12 Comment ; Section 3.3.3. It should be noted that the EPA has 
proposed WAFB for listing on the NPL. (10-6) 

Response ; Comment noted. The EPA proposed listing Wurtsmith 
AFB on the NPL after publication of the DEIS. The final decision 
regarding listing is pending as the Rnai EIS goes to press. 


11.0 SOILS AND GEOLOGY 


11.1 Comment ; In regard to sand and gravel resources, the document 
seems to display conflicting conclusions. The presence of glacial 
deposits 100 to 250 feet thick containing sand and gravel is 
mentioned on Page 3-64. However, on Page 3-65, the statement is 
made "There are no sand and gravel deposits on the base”, and on 

Page 4-44, it is stated ”.no mineral or sand and gravel 

deposits of economic interest are known or expected to be present 
on Wurtsmith Air Force Base.” On Pages E-6 and E-7, it is 
emphasized that information on availability of aggregate (sand and 
gravel) was obtained from literature and official sources, indicating 
that the subject has been studied in some detail. 

Glacial deposits usually contain sand and gravel, although such 
material is not always useable owing to various factors. It appears 
in this case that sand and gravel is present, but that it is not 
regarded as a resource. This apparent incongruity should be 
explained in future versions of the environmental statement. 
Otherwise, we find that the document, as written, has adequately 
described mineral resources and the potential impacts of the 
proposed project upon these resources. (6-2) 


9-12 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 







Ragponsa ; The text (Sections 3.4.1.2 and 4.4.1) has been revised 
in response to the comment to clarify the availability of sand and 
gravel resources on Wurtsmith AFB. 

11.2 Comment : Table 2.7*2 does identify potential soil impacts resulting 
from activities associated with the Fire Training Alternative. Runoff 
from burn areas could adversely impact the environment. Any of 
these activities must be designed to prevent the release of 
contaminants to the environment. (10-4) 

Response ; The OEIS suggests appropriate mitigation measures to 
reduce or avoid impacts from reuse activities. Ultimately, 
mitigations for reuse would be the responsibility of the new user. 
The Great Lakes Rre Training Academy is aware of the permitting 
and coordination process required should it establish a fire training 
use at Wurtsmith AFB. 


12.0 WATER RESOURCES 


12.1 Comment : The document fails to make the required Rnding of No 
Practicable Alternative to taking an action in the base ("lOO-year”) 
floodplain. Portions of the south perimeter of the base are in the 
100-year floodplain and reuse alternatives may affect this area. 

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, and AFR 19-9 
(14 February 1986) specify USAF responsibilities for actions in the 
floodplain, including base disposal. The final EIS needs a separate 
Rnding of No Practicable Alternative if there are no alternatives to 
taking the action in the floodplain. Also, an eight-step public review 
and mitigation process needs to be initiated if an action in the 
floodplain is undertaken. (2-1) 

Response : The text has been revised to discuss floodplain 
management requirements (including Executive Order 11988 and Air 
Force Regulation 19-9) and steps associated with federal disposal of 
property in a floodplain. A "Rnding of No Practicable Alternative" 
for proposals concerning the floodplains is not applicable at this 
point in the base disposal and reuse process because the Air Force is 
currently performing die NEPA-mandated process of evaluating 
several practicable alternatives in this EIS. The Air Force will follow 
procedures required by Executive Order 11988 and Air Force 
Regulation 19-9 (including a Finding of No Practicable Alternative, as 
applicable) at the appropriate point in the disposal process. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 


9-13 






12.2 Comment : We suggest the final EIS include a copy of the Oscoda 
Township Flood Insurance Rate Map and a discussion of the source 
of the 100-year flood information shown in Rgure 3.4-2. (2-2) 

Response ; The figure was based on the Oscoda Township Flood 
Insurance Rate Map. Tlte figure has been slightly revised to show 
more completely the configuration of the floodplain (as detailed in 
the Rood insurance Rate Map). The accompanying text has also 
been revised accordingly. 

12.3 Comment : Table 2.7-2 does identify potential groundwater impacts 
resulting from activities associated with the Rre Training Alternative. 
Runoff from bum areas could adversely impact the environment. 

Any of these activities must be designed to prevent the release of 
contaminants to the environment. (10-4) 

Response : Refer to response to comment 11.2. 

12.4 Comment : Redevelopment plans should recognize that public water 
supply wells are nearby and residences or businesses may be within 
the future wellhead protection area. Proximity of proposed 
development and activities to these wells should be considered in 
land use zoning plans. The Rnal EIS should identify the location of 
these wells, and consider how impacts would be avoided within 
wellhead protection areas. (11-1) 

Response ; Locations of the Oscoda wells have been added to Rgure 
3.4-2. Information regarding implementation of wellhead protection 
area delineation in Michigan, and the status of the process at Oscoda 
has been added to Section 3.4.2.4. Discussion has been added to 
Section 4.4.2 describing the potential for wellhead impacts, 
considering construction of new facilities, groundwater 
contamination from future actions, potential abandonment of the 
base well field, and conversion to a new water supply system for 
Oscoda. 

12.5 Comment ; Selection of the fire training alternative could lead to 
groundwater contamination via improperly constructed fire training 
pits. Plans for fire training facilities will need to include groundwater 
protection measures, such as lined pits, proper storage of training 
chemicals, and proper disposal of wastes. If the fire training 
alternative is selected, then implementation of these mitigation 
measures should be committed to in the Final EIS. (11-2) 

Response : Refer to response to comment 11.2. 


9-14 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 





13.0 AIR QUALITY 


13.1 Comment : The DEIS makes the assumption that air quality would 
not be affected by development in the Proposed Action plan. As 
there is a heavy industrial component in the plan, that claim can not 
be substantiated. (9-11) 

Response : Air quality modeling indicates that emissions from 
Proposed Action activities would not result in violation of federal or 
state air quality standards. New users will be required to comply 
with federal and Michigan air quality regulations, which, as stated in 
Section 4.4.3 of the DEIS, require that industrial sources obtain 
operating permits and institute pollution reduction measures if a 
source is determined to be a major source or to cause a significant 
environmental impact. 


14.0 NOISE 


No comments were received for this area of concern. 


15.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 


15.1 Comment : Based upon the information supplied in the document, 
we do not anticipate any impacts to wetlands or other aquatic 
resources that would require a permit under Section 404 of the 
Clean Water Act. However, the final determination of the need for a 
permit lies with the agencies having regulatory responsible for such 
activities - the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District. 16-1) 

Response : Comment noted. 


16.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES 


No comments were received for this area of concern. However, the 
Michigan SHPO has recommended further site investigations, and the 
consultation process as required under Section 106 of the NHPA is 
proceeding. 


17.0 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS STUDY 


No comments were received for this area of concern. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


9-15 




INDEX OF COMMENTORS 


Page Number 


Document Number 


Author 


Transcript of Public Hearing 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Margie Matts 

Margie Matts 

Ardeth Platte, O.P. 

U.S. Department of the Interior 
Department of Health & Human Services 
Michigan United Conservation Clubs 
Paul L. Bruce 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 



9-16 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 








WurtsmUh AFB Disposai and Reuse FEIS 


9-17 















Wurtsmith Disposed and Reuse FEiS 














DoeumMitl 


Doeunwfitl 


ciMC w«*v« 90 c up h«rt •howtng Lapucmmic CoIomI Q«fy 
■auavart*!'* cmm. Sut ic'f iiportAat tli«e you tcy to 
9 ot bock. «ny cohnaci or •cotoMnc you hovo. ao that tho 
Air Porco rocoivM it by April 3Cth. TIm Air Pore# will 
continuo to occopt coManea aCtar that tiaa but it canaoc 
9 uarantao that lata coaaanta will ba includad in tha 
final anvironaantal ii^act atataaant. 

Okay. At thia point, t would lika to alao 
indicata with raaard to tha oral atataaanta and writtan 
atataaanta. tha wai^ht la tha aaaa. So you*ra walcoaa to 
■aka an oral atataaant or you'ra waleaaa to aaka writtaa 
atataaanta or writtan coaMota or you’ra waleoaa to do 
both. 

It whan you com up hara. if you hava praparad 
stataaianta or a praparad praaantation. wa*d lika to 
ancourapa you to 90 ahaad and laava that and I'd aak you 
]uat to aat it up on tha ataga whan you'ra dOM with your 
stataMOt. 

Again. Cor tha paopla that caM in lata. I'd 
ancouraga you to com on down to tha front. I — X would 
aak all of you. ainea it ia a aehool eaa^ua, plaaaa 
rafrain froai saeking in tha auditorium. 

Now. Ona thing I cannot atraaa aaough •• you 
amy hava infotMtion about anvironmantal influancaa that 
ara unknown to ua. wa'ra vary intaraatad in haaring and 


I 


analyiing all potaatial anv&roonantal inpacta of tha 
propoaad action and tna altamativaa. You hava cha axpa 
rianea that coMa from living in thia araa. So tha aac* 
Qttd part of tonigitt'a coamunication. that part chat !i<jwa ; 
free you to us. is laportant and plaaaa do not haaitata 
to ba a part of tha procaadinga Wa ancouraga you to 
participata. 

At this tiM. it’a ay plaaaura to introduca Nr. 
TM Kaapatar who will daacriba tha Air Forca baaa dis- 
poaal procaaa. Nr. Kaa^atar. 

Ml. XIMFS'llIl: Thank you. Colonal Haupal. Hy 
naM ia torn Kampatar and Z work tor cha Air Forca Bate 
Disposal Aganey. an offica craatad to nanaga cha ciaanup 
and disposal of Air Forca basas closad undar cha 
authoritiaa of tha baaa cloaura and raalignawnc laws. In 
diacuaaing tha Air Forea's propoaad action for disposing 
of Wurtamith Air Forca Baaa, !'■ going to cover four 
ganaral topica. 

First la diapoaal planning. Sacood la cha 
disposal objactiva used by the Air Force &o guide ics 
planning. Third ia diapoaal considarationa wa will use 
to arrive at a daciaien and last is tha Air Forca deci- 
Sion itaalf. that la, what actions tha Air Forca will 
taka baaed on tha findings cn cha EZS and ocher consider- 
ationa. 

10 


Doeumsnti 


Doeunwnti 






.. 


1 

Tha Sacratary of tha Air Pores has bean dale- 


1 

raeegnisaa tha significant aconamic iMcct that cloaura 



2 

gated tha authority to act as tha fadaral disposal agane 


2 

will hava on cha local coMsinitiaa. Tha fadaral govern* 



3 

undar cha 1968 Baaa Closure and BasligoaMnc Act and cha 


3 

MOC and cha Air Force in particular ara coMitted to • 



4 

Oafanaa Base Closure and Raalignamnt Act of 1990 to 


4 

aaaiating ccMsmitiaa in their afforca to replace cha 



5 

utilise or dispose of cha fadaral property which smkaa up 


5 

departing Bilitary aetivicias with viable public and 



6 

cha Air Force's closing bsaaa. Usually thia raaponai- 


6 

private antarprisaa. Ha ara developing a coaprahansiva 



7 

bility rests with cha General Sarvicaa Ateiniacratiao. 


7 

disposal plan that atesMts to balanca tha needs of cha 



8 

Oaspica this change, cha traditional staeutaa for die- 


6 

coMunicy, cha anvironmantal consaquancas of our disposal 



9 

poMl of fadaral property ara still in affect. 


9 

decision and cha needs of cha Air Forca. 



10 

Tha Air Force nuat adhere to those lawa and GSA 


10 

However. Congraas haa provided only part of cha 



11 

regulations chat ara in place at cha CiM of tha paaaaga 


11 

funding for iMlcNdntation of cha raaiignaants and 



12 

of cha cloaura acta. Tha Air Force has alee isauad 


12 

closuraa. kavanuas from property salsa will ba used to 



13 

additional policies and procaduraa required to isvlaMnt 


13 

offset tha funding shortfall. Tha Air Force also sup* 



14 

our dalagacad authority. Another provision of tha 198B 


14 

ports tha uaa of intarin laaaaa and early transfer of 



IS 

and 1990 acts raquiraa ua to conault with cha scats 


15 

property to bring }oba into tha coanunicy. 


1 

16 

governor and heads of local govanaants for the purpose 


i “ 

Tha diapoaal of property is accmpl^shad in a 


i 

s 

17 

of considering any plan for Cha use of such property by 


i 

chraa-part planning process which includes cha Air 


i 

18 

tha local caansmicy concamad. We ara Mating thia con- 



Force's anvironawncal isMct statSMne analysing cha 


1 

19 

sulcacion raquirsMnt by working with cha thirtsauth Baaa 


1 i» 

various raasonabla disposal and reuse alcamacivas for 


j 

20 

Conversion Authority. 


i " 

tha base, cha caaastnity’s plan for cha future use of cha 


1 

21 

Finally, our planning racognizas chat tha 


1 “ 

property and tha Air Force's disposal plan which analyzes 


! 

22 

Secretary of cha Air Forca haa full diacration in dacid- 


1 

tha various disposal options. Tha disposal plan is based 



23 

ing how cha Air Forca will dispose of tha property. 


23 

00 a thorough real ascata analysis of cha base and 



24 

It IS tha Air Force's goal to coaiplata closuraa 


24 

region, results from cha EZS. intarast shown by ocher 



25 

ss quickly and afficiancly as potaibla. Tha Air Forca 


29 

fadaral aganciaa and inputs from cha coMunity reuse organizacio 

1 . 



11 











Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


9-19 












Oo cu imn t i 








i 

It ahould ba nocad that fadaral aganciaa oaaar* 


1 

with ana anothar during tha diapoaal planning procaaa 


2 

•ily work wtth tha coMun&cy to tol&cit evg^ovt for tharr 


2 

tha diapoaal daciaion procaaa culninataa with | 

) 

propoaai to acquira proparty. Howavar. it haa baan tha 


1 

tha laauanca of a racord of daciaion which docunancs 'tw j 

4 

Air Porea't axparianca that such uaaa for a portioa of 


4 

daciaiona for tha diapoaal of tha raal proparty and 

5 

tha proparty and facilitiaa caa ba accoModacad wiehin 


5 

apacitiaa what anvirononotal aicigacion aay ba naadad to 


« 

tha coaaunity'a ovarall piannad futura uaaa for tha 


4 

protact hiaan haalth and tha anvironwant aa a raauic of 


7 

antira baaa. 


7 

tha di^oaal and rauaa daciaion aalactad. 


a 

In 9 anaral. tha dxapoaal optiooa aca tranafar 


8 

tha laat aubiaet I'd lika to addraaa la that of 


9 

to anothar fadaral aqaocy. public banafit convayaaca to 


9 

anviroanantal claanup. Tha Air Porca la cowictad to 


10 

atacaa and aliqibla non-profit iaatitutiona. napotiatad 


10 

elaaning up all araaa contaaonatad by paat Air Porca 


u 

aalaa to public aqaaciaa and coapatitiva aalaa to tha 


11 

activitiaa and to protacting tha haalth and aafaty of cha 


12 

ganaral public. Iha lawa and raqulationa qovanina dia- 


12 

public and any futura ownara of Uurcamch Air Porca Baaa. 


U 

puaal do not aatabliah a riqid priority for diapoaal kait 


13 

Claanup activitiaa ara continuing and additional acudiaa 


u 

provida tha fadaral diapoaal aqaat with tha ability to 


14 

ara undar way chat will fully characcariza contaninacion 


15 

anaura that all fadaral raal proparty intaraata ara dia- 


15 

of all of tha aitaa to datarmna tha baat aiaans to ciaan 


1 

poaad of in an officiant and affactiva aannar. lha 



14 

CiMN up. 


Sacratary of tha Air Porca will dacida on tha actual 



17 

Zt abould ba claar chat if concamnaead araaa 


1 

j la 

diapoaal plan. 



it 

ara not randy for diapennl nt tha cina of cloaura. tha 


1 

Undor currant law. othar fadaral aponeiaa and 



15 

Air Porca will rataia ownarnhip until tha proparty is 


i ■“ 

hoaalaaa aaaiatanca providara wuat ba qivon priority 




claaaad 19 . On othar propartiaa. wa nay raguira aaaa- 


a 

} 

conaidaration in tha uaa and acpuiaition of oxcaaa baaa 




nantn or righea of antry to parait long-tarat groundwatar 


1 

raal proparty. It la tha Air Porca policy to infon tha 




noaitoriag and traatnant. Navarthalaaa. daapica tha Air 


n 

local coaauAity rapraaantativaa of any ai^raaaad intaraat 


23 

Porca's coMSitnanta to elaaning up all paat contaninacad 


24 

frow fadaral aqanciaa or of haa»laaa aaaiatanca pro- 


24 

araaa nod protacting tha public, wa do not axpact any 


25 

vidara. wa ancouraqa all partiaa to coMuoicaca opaniy 

1 ) 


25 

claam^ activitiaa to dalay cha rauaa of uncontaaunacad 

14 






OoeumMitl 

Doeuifianti 

1 

proparty at Wurtawith Air Porca baaa. 


1 

This anviroonantal affort was bagun Octobar 9 


2 

Thank you for tha opportunity to naat with you 


2 

of 1991 with a necica of intant to prapara an anviron- 


3 

thia avaninq. Now. I'd lika to turn tha aaatinq back to 


3 

■ancal iaipacc scataaMnt. or what Z'll rafar to and Col. 


4 

Colonal Maupal. 


4 

Haupal rafarrad to aa an BZS. for baaa diapoaal and 


5 

cmJMKL HCUPCL: Thank you. Mr. KOMpatar. Now. 


5 

rauaa. 


6 

I'll praaant Nr. Williaa Nyara froai tha Air Porca Cantor 


8 

A scoping naacing was hald hara on Nov—bsr 


7 

for Bovironaantal CKcallanca who will briaf ua on tha 


7 

1991 to racaiva public input on tha scopa of tha laauaa 


8 

anvironnantal procaaa. Nr. Nyara. 


8 

to ba addr—aad in tha BZS and cq id—tify rauaa altarna- 


9 

NR. NYCRS: Thank you. Colonal Haupal. Good 


9 

Civaa and laauaa ralacing to proparty diapoaal. During 


10 

avaninq. ladiaa and gantlaawn. My naa« la Rill Nyara and 


10 

tha scoping proema. our offica racaivad input fron cha 


11 

!'■ tha Planninq Coordinator at tha Air Porca Cantor (or 


11 

public and a rauaa propoaai fron tha wurc—ich Baaa 


12 

Bnvironaantal KKcallanca and that'a at Rrooka Air Porca 


12 

C—varai— Authority. Tha wurcsauch Ms# Convarsion 


n 

Baaa in Taxaa. 


13 

Authority proposal includm a civili— aviation 


14 

Our organization la conducting tha anviron- 


14 

coap—t. 


15 

mantal inpact analyaia procaaa for tha diapoaal and rauaa 


15 

Bacauaa of tha pot—cial for an aviation rauaa 


1 

i 

of wurtsauth Air Porca Baaa and tha othar aajor inatal- 


1 

“ 

of tha baaa. tha Padaral Aviation AcNiinistration. Midwaac 


lationa around tha country chat ara anndatad to cloaa 




Ragi—. was invicad and agraad to bacons a cooparac mg 


1 

during Round IZ of tha Baaa Cloaura and Raaligiwnt Act. 


j 

11 

agancy in cha praparacion of cha BZS. TTm Air Forca it 


} i’ 

Tonight Z will praaant tha achadula for thia 


1 

1> 

working with cha FAA to includa chair axpartisa m anvi- 


1 

anvironawntal lapact analyaia procaaa and ahew how tha 


j 

20 

ro—ttal raquiran—ca in this BZS. Afcar scoping, wa 


i 

public coaawint pariod fita into thia achadula. I'll alao 


1 


collactad tha naemaary data and conductad cha — viron- 


1 

diacuaa tha scopa of tha atudy and tha ralationahip 


1 

22 

— ntal analysis. Tha draft BZS was filad with tha U.S. 


23 

batwaan tha anvironawntal inpact atatoManc and tha aoeio- 


23 

Cnvironn—tal Protaccion Agancy on March 12. 1993. 


24 

aconoauc atudy and I will praaant tha raaulta of our 


24 

In additi— to tonight's hmring. write— cctn- 


25 

analyaia by raaourca catagory. 


25 

n—ts on cha draft BIS will c—cinua to ba accapead ut 



15 



16 





_ 1 


9-20 Wurtsmith AFB DisposaJ and Reuse FEIS 











OeeumMitl 


Do cu mw rt i 






1 

clus «4dr«S8 until April ch« 28th of thi« yonr. Aftnr 


1 

1 

1 

will aatar into tha final disposal daemon. wa axpacc i 

2 

eh« coMnnt poriod i» ovnr. «• will •vnlunto nil cem^ 


2 

to aceoaplish tha racord of dacision m lata Saptsnbsr I 

i 

Motn. both writtnn end vorbnl. *nd pnrfom ndditioanl 


3 

this yaar. 

4 

*n«ly«i8 or chAOpo chn SIS whnro nocMMcy. Apnia. •• ia 


4 

Tha draft KZS was praparad to coi^ly with tha 

5 

tha scoping procasa. aqual coaaidaratioa will ba giwaa to 


5 

National ■avironaantal Policy Act and tha Council on 

« 

all cooMnts. wbathar thay sra praaaaead hara toaighe or 


8 

toviroansncal ftiality Ragulations- Efforts wars aads to 


■ailad prior to April 28th. 


7 

raduca nsadlaas bulk, writs in plain languaga. focus only 

• 

Onca tha raviaw procaaa is coivlata. wa will 


• 

on thoaa issuaa that ara claarly ralatad to tha anviron* 

» 

preduea a final SZS schadulad for eas^latioa la July of 


9 

BSBC aad to latograta with othar docusMts raquirad as 

10 

*93 Md wa will aail it to all thoaa on ttia original 


10 

part of tha dacisioa asking procass. Rausa altamativas 

11 

draft tZS distribution list. If you ara aoc oa our nail« 


11 

Chat wars davalopad during tha scoping procass wars 

12 

ing list, you can raquast a copy by writiag to this 


12 

individually analysad to provida an anvironaantal con- 

13 

addraas. Itia final CIS will locluda coswata roeaiwad 


13 

parisoa. 

U 

during tha public raviaw pariod aad our rasponsa to thoaa 


14 

this analysis focuaas on lapacts to t.ha natural 

15 

COaMHlCS. 


15 

aaviroanant chat aay occur as a diracc rasult of bass 

16 

Zf appropriata. wa will group conaaocs iaeo 



18 

diapcaal and rauaa or indiractly through changaa in tha 

17 

catagorias and raspond accordiagly. Dapaadlag on tha 



17 

coHsuiity. Aaaourcaa avaluatad ara soils and gaology. 

18 

nuabar and divarsity of coMants or tha aaad to cooduet 



18 

wacar both aurfaca aad groundwatar. air quality, noisa. 

19 

additional analyaas. tha final tZS aay coaaiac of a sapa* 



1* 

biological raaourcaa and cultural raaourcaa. tndiracc 

20 

rata voluas as a cospanioa to tha draft IZS or ba dis> 




changaa to tho coMunity that provida naaauraa against 

21 

tributad as a covar lattar aad arrata ahaacs. Itia docu' 




which anviroaaMotal lapacta could bo analyxad includa 

22 

aants will sarva as input for tha racord of dacisioa 




chaagaa to tha local population. land uaa and aasthacics. 

23 

which will loeuaaat tha dacisioa by tha Air forea. As 


23 

traaaportatioa aad coMuaity utility sarvicaa. Zn addi- 

24 

you just haard froa Mr. Ka^patar. othar atudiaa aad con* 


24 

tioa. iaauao ralatad to currant and futura uaa. storaga 

25 

sidarationa of issuaa baaidaa thoaa addrasaad lo tha ezs 


25 

and anaapMaat of hatardoua aatarials ara discuaaad in 


1‘f 



18 


Ooeumsntl 

Doeumsntl 

1 

tha dociaant. Thaaa issuaa includa hasardous aatariala 


1 

cion, govariwant. polica aad fira. aadical. tranaporta- 


2 

and waataa. tha Air Forea's Installation fiaatoration 


2 

tien and utilieias. Copiaa of this docuaant wara 


3 

Prograa. storaga tanks, asbsstos. pasticidas. polychlori- 


3 

raeaatly providad to kay fadaral, stata and local 


4 

natsd biphaayls or PCB's. radon, swdical or biohssardous 


4 

officials aad ara availabla for raviaw at librarias in 


5 

wssts twansgsasnt and ordnancs. 


5 

tha araa. TTia doewant will ba foewardad to tha dacisi^ 


6 

If. as a rasult of our analysis, it was dstsr> 


8 

■akar for input into this disposal procass. 


7 

sunad chat advarss anvironawncsl islets would occur 


7 

Now. I’ll peasant an ovarviaw of tha proposad 


8 

through i^lsaancacion of s rsusa slcamstiva. potantisl 


8 

action and altamativas that hava baan analyxad. Aftar- 


9 

fliicigacion asasuras wars idancifiad and includad in this 


9 

wards I will peasant a synopsis of tha rasults of our 


10 

dociBsnt. 


10 

analysia by raaourea cacagory. 


11 

As I Bsntionad aarliar. this draft SIS focuaas 


11 

Plaasa nota that tha cicla of aach altamativa 


12 

on chs isgMcca to chs natural snvironawnc that would 


12 

ia praaantsd to giva tha raadar only a ganaral idaa of 


13 

occur aithar diraccly or indiractly froai tha disposal and 


13 

tha radavalopaanc concapea. Sach of tha altamativas 


14 

rausa of wurtsaith. Tha docuaant addramsaa socioaconoaac 


14 

contains ntaacous plana and activitiaa which nay not ba 


15 

factors reharm thara is s ralacionship bstwssn bass dis- 


15 

includad ia tha titla. 


1 

1 “ 

poaal and changaa to socioaconoauc conditions that would 



18 

Tha Air Fores owns only about 12 parcant of tha 



! 

rasult in lo^ccs to tha natural anvironswnt. Our 



17 

land within tha wurtssuth Air Fores Bass boundary and it 



i 

organization has raesnely producad a saparata socioaco> 



18 

ia in this araa that it is availabla for disposal, dis* 



1 19 

ncaiic study chat is not rsquirsd undar tha National 



19 

poaal by tha Air Fores BOA. Tha rsawindar of the base 


j 

• 

Eovironanntsl Policy Act- It daacribaa in datail how 


i 

i 

proparty has baan Laaaad. parsiictad, or granted to tha 


1 

1 

disposal and rausa of Wurcsaiich any affacc tha aconomaa 


1 

! 

Air Fores for a linicad duration. Howavar. bacause tha 


! 

! “ 

of tha surrounding sraaa. 


i 

1 

Air Fores dacision on whsthar and how to dispose of its 


23 

Spacificslly. tha socioaconcnic study addrassaa 


21 

property any influence how tha othar portions of the base 


24 

tha following factors for aach of tha rauaa altamacivaa. 


24 

property will ba reused, tha EZS analyxas tha environ' 


25 

Population, asployawnt. housing, public finaaea, aduca- 


25 

nantal affects of ths ovarsll rausa of all of tha base 



19 



2 C 





_ 


Wurtsmiffi AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


9-21 









Dooumwitl 

Ooeumanti 

1 

property. Yhia Cipur* ahOMp ch« iMd ump for thp pro> 


1 

uppd aa a buffer between the fire traieit,g activieiea «nd 


i 

poppd pctiOA. ttip focup of chp propoppd pct&oo iP thp 


2 

othpr uppp. Lapp induptrial and cawareial davplopapnc 

i 

rpupp of PMscing pvipcioo rplpcod lofropcmetuxo to 


3 

IP propoppd under thia alcemative chan in tha prcpoaad 

4 

pptpbiith a civilipo pviptioo fpcxiity. Itw pirfiol4 pad 


4 

action. Sopp educational developaMnt la proponed ;ha 

5 

pdjpcpnt avipcion pupport proip aouid bo upod for oointo* 


5 

eantonpant area and aoet of the fanuly houaing would dp | 

6 

noacp pad rofurbiph&np pad gpaorpl pvipcxoa oporpcioop. 


a 

retained for reaidantial uppp. Aa in the propoaod 

7 

Cxvilipo rpdPvplopPMnt of noa-pviotioa portxoap of thp 


T 

petiOB, thp bppp hoppital would be retained for utp aa a 


i 

bppp would locludp ladupcripl. odueptioaoi. eoMprciPi 


• 

nodical clinic. Again, educational uae areaa are ahMn 


9 

pad rppxdontipl upop pp wall pp tho rptoneioa of tho 


9 

in pink, indupcrial in gray. coPMarcial in red. ceaiden* 


10 

ppiptiap hoppxtpl for upo pp p apdicpl elioie. Ihp iprpo 


10 

tiPl in yellow, nedieal in purple and recreational and 


11 

foroptpd prpp xn thp northwoptom portion of thP bopo 


11 

open arena in graen. 


12 

would roMin undpvolopod for futuro public roerpotioa pad 


12 

Thin nap show the land uaee for the rocraacion 


11 

conporvption uppp. 


12 

pltanative. Undar fhip plan, neat of tha bane would ba 


14 

Aviption rolptod load upp propp pro ahowa la 


14 

convertad for racraaciooal activities, open spaca and 


15 

brown pad blup. XnduatriPl pad officp/induatripl pork 


15 

conservation uaee. Over half of tha scructurea rn baaa 


1 “ 

propp prp dopictpd 10 grpy. 19 m aadicpl prppp pro ahowa 



1 

would be dopBliahed to acconoodaca chaea uaaa. Snail 


I 

in purplp. pducptionpl propp in pink. coMpreiPl ia rod. 



1? 

aoeuntP of loduatrial. conoercial. aducational and raei' 


i “ 

rppidpntipl in ypliow pad roeroPtion pad opaa apaco aroop 



18 

dantial develogoont are also proposed. Aa in cha ocher 


1 

in grppn. 



18 

alteraativea. tha base hoapital would ba rauaed as a 


1 

Ihia Mp ahowp ipad uppp for thp firo trpiaiad 



2. 

■adieal clinic. 


i 

pltpmptivp. itiia pleomptivo laeludpp thp dovolopMae 




Reeraational. rasidantial. nedical. aduca- 


! 

of p rogioopl fir# trpioing pcpdaibr thp pirfiold. 




tioaal. eopOMrcial and induacrial uaaa ara shomt in 


23 

wppponp storpgp proa and alare prop. JUthou^ thP 


22 

graao, yellow, purple, pink, red and gray reapactivaly as 


24 

pcidaay boundary pncoapppaop thP Ccroptad iaado in thp 


24 

were the ocher nape. 


25 

northwpptpm part of thp bopo. aopt of that aroo would bo 


25 

Aa requirad by cha National Bavironnencal Poll- 



21 



22 





_ 

OoeumMrtI 

Ooeumanti 

I 

cy Act. thp no'PCtion plcpmativp wop pvpluptpd. ondor 


1 

and all altemacives warn analyted to the eamm level of 


2 

thp no'Pction altomptivo. thp bppp eoodltioap at tha 


2 

detail. The baaeline uaed was wurtsnith apb at closure. 


3 

tiao of cloaurp would raapin unchaagpd in tho loag torm. 


3 

19m following slidea show the c^Mperative le^cta anong 


4 

Soap propprty would ranpin undpr earptakpr atPtua with no 


4 

tha reuae altamativea. 


5 

civilian rpupp. Carptakor activttipp would eoaaiat of 


5 

19m BXS analysed iuMPcta to reeources ahown on 


6 

roaourcp protpction. grouada apintpaancp. pxiotiag utili* 


4 

the alide broadly grouped into the categories of local 


7 

cipa opprptiona aa npcpaaary and buildlag carp. 


7 

coPBunity. hasardoua nateriala and hasardoua weaep sen- 


a 

Along with thp four principal altprapcivop X 


8 

agspent and the natural anvironaMot. 


9 

hpvp ]u8t dppcribpd. onp othpr land upp coocppt hap bppo 


9 

In several of these reeource areaa. cha analy 


10 

propoppd which hP8 not boon captured within pay of tho 


10 

aia indicated that there would be no or few islets. 


11 

rpupp plctmptivpa but it could ba initiPtpd on an 


11 

ItMpp reeourcea are highlighted on this slid# and ; will 


12 

individual baaia. You way think of thia ooocppt aa an 


12 

briefly sinMarise the results of our analysis. 


n 

ovarlpy that can bo uaod with any of thp altpmativpp. 


12 

Although there would be changes to land uses 


14 

Thia concept la the propoeal of the Groat Lakoa and Hid- 


14 

and the visual character of the baae. these would be 


15 

Atlantic Hpzardoup SubatPfiCP Rppoorch Cantor to potabliah 


15 

■inor and could be controlled through uae of standard 


1 “ 

an pdvancpd anvironoantal technology facility at the 



“ 

land use planning techniques to guide de\ elopaient. 


1 

bpop. ITiia would be a national facility for raaopreh and 


I 


Utility ianand under reuse would incrMse from closure 


i “ 

dpvplopPMnt of tpchnologipp for difrcntaaUaacion and bio- 



18 

conditions but would be within the capacity of the 


} 19 

rpppdiation of harardoua waataa. ap^w.a and diapopol 


i 

19 

regional ayacann. Rpupp of thp on-bppp wpstpwpter traat* 


1 

sitaa. Thp area ahown in color o* Lha figure indicataa 



2. 

npne pyptpn would roquirp upgrpdps, but thp on-baae 


1 

the buildinga raqueatad for thp facility, apaeifically 




aypcpn could bp connpctpd to tho nearby Opcoda plant 


i 

the biopnvironppntal pnginppring laboratory and the vphi* 



22 

which hap aufficipnt capacity. 


23 

clp ppintanancp facility at the baae. 


22 

Hasardoua npcaripls and waste sMnagaaMnt sctiv- 


24 

X will now diacuaa the raoulta of our analyapo 


24 

itipp would bo thp rppponaibility of tha npw users and 


25 

that are praopncpd in thp draft BXS. The proponed action 


25 

would ba aubjpct to applicabla rogulations. Stoceg# 



21 



24 





_ 


9-22 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 















OoeumMill 


Deeumanti 






1 

e«fUi» not plAOMd (or rouoo would bo roaovod. Aobootoo 


1 

and the locondary }obo created in loaco. Alcona. Alpena 


3 

in tcmcturoo would bo rooevod it it poooo o booleh 


2 

and Arenac couneioa. Poaicive economic bono(ica would 

) 

chrooc. Othorwioo. it will bo oonogod in ploeo ia occor- 


3 

rooulc (roa tho incroosod regional aaminga. incoaa and | 

4 

donco with (odocoi roguiotiona oad guidoiiaoo. Footieido 


4 

■ponding coagurod to cloouro baaolino conditiona. 


5 

uaogo uador rouoo would bo oubjoct to (odorol «Ad ococo 


5 

Dapending on the alternative leploaontod. touao 


« 

roguiotiona. All polychlorinotod biphanyia hovo boon 


4 

aetivicioo at the base could rooult in an additional 2185 


7 

raaovod (cob tho boon and aooaurod radon lovola aro bolow 


7 

to 4t47 direct and aocoodary ]obo m the region by 2013. 


• 

tho tM roeoaoMBdod action lovola. SmU aaDuata o( 


a 

Itiia incroaao cranolatoo to an incroaaod growth m cno 


9 

■odical and biohatardoua waato would bo goaoratod by tho 


t 

local 30 b aarkat o( about 0.4 to 1.2 percent annually 


10 

clinic and would bo nanagod in accordanco with atato 


10 

baewean cloaura and 2013. 


11 

rogulationa. 


11 

Population incraeaaa are ai^accad under the 


12 

Rolativoly littlo aurfaco diaeurboaeo in 


12 

rauaa altamecivaa aa workara and chair (aailiaa novo 


13 

plnnnod (or rodovolopawat aetivitioa and tho baao aroo la 


13 

into the rogioa to (ill aoao o( the 3 oba croocod by 


14 

quit# (lot, ao aroaion affocta on aoila would bo minor. 


14 

rouao. Depending on the altomacivo aoloccod. 2435 to 


IS 

Tho Air Porca and tho Michigan Stato hiatoric prooorva* 


15 

1352 people would enter the region br 2013. This ropro* 


1 


tion o((icor havo dotorminod chat thoro aro no hiatoric 



14 

aonta aa average locraaaa in the region's prosaccad popu- 



17 

pcoportioo on baao ao thoro would bo ao la^acta to 



17 

letioa growth o( 0.5 to Q.t percent annually (roa closure 




cultural roaourcoa. 



It 

to 2013. 



n 

BavironaoBtal analyaia hao indleacod tho poton* 



19 

19m redovelopaant o( wurtaaith will a((act 



.0 

tial (or iapaeca to tho raaaining rooourcoo and X will 



20 

local and ragional tranaportation natworka. Rauaa o( the 




spoab about aach o( choaa in aora dotail. 



21 

baaa will incraaaa tra((ic on local roads near the base. 




Ihia gra^ ahowo tn* potantial or pooaibla 



22 

particularly U.S. Highway 23. 


23 

incroaao in aaployaanc in th« oacoda rogioa duo aololy to 


23 

Hm chart shows the aacinacad nuabar o( average 


24 

rouao rolatod aetivitioa projactad through tho yoar 2013. 


24 

daily trips projected to be ganaratad by aach o( the 


25 

Ihoao incroaaoa includo en« Siroct }obo goooratod on-aito 


25 

rauae altaraativaa. lha nuabar o( daily trips to and 



25 



26 






_ 

Ooewmantl 

Doeunwntl 

1 

(row tho aico duo to rouao would rango (roa approxiaatoly 


1 

■aro. ty 2013. the niaibar o( annual (light oparaciona 


2 

21.000 undor tho rocroocion altomacivo to 29.400 uador 


2 

would incroaao to obout 22,400 under the proposed action. 


3 

tho propoaod action by 2013. 


3 

The prepoood action would include eivilion uao 


4 

It ahould bo nocod hoco that tho 8XS cra((ic 


4 

o( CQMorciol end general aviaciMi aircra(t. No adverse 


5 

analyais woo baaod on avorago tra((ic voIubmo in July, 


5 

lapacta to the region's airspace are anticipated undor 


6 

tho poak cra((ic aonch boeauoo o( incroaaod touriaa. 


4 

any of the reuse altamativaa. 


7 

Moat roadwoya would gonorally aaintain aceoptablo lovola 


7 

Surface water and surface drainage could also 


8 

o( aorvico undor oach rouao altomacivo. Howovor, aog* 


8 

bo affected by reuse activieioo. Construction of new 


9 

aonta o( U.S. 23 through Oacoda and AuSablo m^orioncod 


9 

(aeilitioa and infraatructura aoy change the existing 


10 

July poak hour tra((ic voluaoo Chat oxcoodod tho road'o 


10 

(low of aurfaca water runoK. Rauaa activiciaa aro 


11 

capacity bo(oro cloouro. Tra((ic voluaoo would doeroaoo 


11 

oxpoctod to ccovly with applicable (odoral and state 


12 

at cloouro. but undor all alcornativoo. thoro would bo a 


12 

rogulationa to reduce the potential to affect the quality 


13 

return to procloouro tra((ic conditiono. 


13 

of ground and surface waters, installation Restoration 


14 

Iho rodovolopaont plana would incorporato 


14 

Prograa activities will continue aa naadad to aaaura chat 


IS 

appropriate tranaportation planning aaaouroo to accoa- 


15 

greun^aatar contaainacion la cleaned up. 


1 

§ 17 

nodato tho rouao activieioo and provide aceoptablo lovola 




Air pollutant oaiaaions resulting from or 


o( aorvico within tho on-baao road network and (roa the 




related to reuse of tho baao would includo carbon 



la 

accooa pointa to the local network. 



It 

aonoxido. nitrogen oxidoo. sulfur dioxide, particulate 


I 

Ihia chart ahowa the nuabar o( annual air opor> 



19 

aattor leas than 10 microns in diaaatar. also roforrad co 



20 

ationa proioctod through 2013 undor tho propoaod action. 



20 

aa PM-'ID. and ozone which is formed by the reaction of 


i 

Por ro(oronco. approxiaatoly 62.S00 (light oporationa 




nitrogen dioxides and reactive organic gases. Air qual- 


i 

conaiating priaorily o( B>S2‘a. KC-135'a and tranaionc 




ity in the airshed surrounding Wurtsaith is assumed by 


23 

aircra(t occurrad at wurtaaith in 1990. At cloouro. 


23 

the mvironaantal Protection Agency and the Michigan 


24 

(light aetivitioa would bo reduced to soro. Aa a aattor 


24 

Dapartaant of Natural Raaourcaa co be in accainaanc of 


25 

o( (act. wo'VO boon cold they've already boon reduced to 


25 

all national and Michigan ambient air quality standards. 



27 



28 








Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuso FEIS 9-23 









Ooeunwitl 


Mum (ulatM poilutMC mimaqiui uMid 
incrMM ovur ciosur* cooditiOM but ueuld na t f liy 
r«MiA baiCM prueloauru «usb&on l«v«ls (or *11 critorio 
pei^utMts. fM^lO M&MioM M « t oQult o( tM (oroot 
(iro croiOiBo octivitiot undor tho (&r« troxoiav oitotM- 
Civo could oacMd tho 24 hour scoodordo (or thoe eritori* 
pollutonc. Mouovor. choM croiakof worciMa would bo 
conductod only onco or tw&co ooeh yoor uodar eoodieiooo 
COOdUCiVO CO dXOpO'Ml 0( OdlOOlQM OAd Cho U4P0CC0 would 
bo locolisod ood shore eoro. >foroll LOdoceo on roo&oaol 
sir quolicy would bo oiniaol. 

4 cosaenly occspcod nooouro o( imam is na.. 
cho doy>ni 4 hc ovorodo sound louol. OML is oMTOOood in 
docibols. or Db. wrch o ponolcy iddod (or laerooood 
onnoyonco froo noiao during cho night. 4S doeiboio is 
•quivslont eo norosl s poo ch st chroo (oot ond is tho 
secoptod ehroohold (or rootrietiooo on load uooo. 

tn I4t0. MurtsButh (light oporotloao mvoaod on 
sroo o( spproniaocoly 37.SOO scroo to CMt <S or grootor. 
An ostiaotod 9t00 porsons livod in ehis oroo. Ondor tho 
propoaod setion, 45 Ob contours (roa civilioa oirero(t 


opototions would oncoiVOM o i 


I o( 301 scroo in 


1951. Afeor cho yoor 2000. this ocrosgs would doerooM 
ss guiotor sircro(t sro introducod undsr fbb rogulociono. 
boesuM cho 45 Ob contours would bo ontiroly contsinod 


within cho sirporc boundary, no rooidoncs would bo 
SMpOOOd CO oxcoosivo noiM lovols. 

Moim Crow sur(sco cra((ie along U.S- 21 xn. 
Os co da and Auboblo would locrosM (rosi closure condic:^.^s 
wich rouso. Tra((ie locrooaoo ondor cho propoaod action 
would roaulc in an incrosM o( 154 poepla onpoaad co 
avoraga sur(oeo cro((ic noiM lovols o( 45 Ob or groscor 
by 2013. l((oecs undor cho ochor alcomscivoo would bo 


Iharo 10 s pocontiol (or lopoccs co cho woe- 
loads in cho northwootom portion o( cho boM ss s rosulc 
o( runoff (rea (orooc (iro crsiaing bum sroos- Howovor. 
with u^loaoBCscioo of sppropriocs nitigation aassuros. 
choM offoecs eon bo ninisutod. Ovoroil offoccs o( con* 
crollod burning on (orooc hobicac can ba bonoficial. 
onhaoeing cha divarsity o( tha acological cossninity. 
bouM aetivitiaa (or tha ochor slcomocivoo would not 
pr oos ne uppoetB to wntlondo or ochor biological 


tho Air Porco is conducting invostigocions co 
idontity. ehoroccoriro sad raaodisco snvironaancal con* 
esaiaotion on wurtaaich Air Perea boM choc has rotulcod 
(r«a post oetieno. This coaprohonoivo o((orc is csllod 
cho Xnotolloeion RMCeroCion Progron, or CbP. 

Iho tbP includoo preeoduroo (or idonrifymg 


Decuimnll 


Do cim u t l 


sicoo o( concaainoeiQo. dotorauiing opproprioto 
roaodiocion cochniquoo and rsaodiatiag and aoaiceriag aa 


nocosaary co onauro chot cho sico lo do 


lha propoaod 


plan (or cloonup of a sico is distribucod co rolovanc 
rogulococy sgoncios (or roviow ond coaaont. A schodulo 
IS proporod for ooch psrt of cho procooo at ooch sico. 
Coogrooo hoo coaauctod funding for cho tbP and cho pro- 
coss IS in progroos ac mirtssach. Iho Air Poreo aokoo 
inforascioo about cho XHP ovoiloblo co tho public through 
publishod infonacion ovoiloblo at public librorioo oo 
wall oo chrough sourcoo such os Cho boos public offoiro 
offico, cho boM disposal ogoney oporoeing lococioo and 
public aootingo and nocicoo. 

Claanup activicioo will bo occcopliohod in 
sccordonco wich opplicoblo (odorol and scoco lows ond 
rogulociono. RosMdiol occiono and smitoring will con- 
cinua afear baoa closura and long tor* accooa co corcain 
sicos nay bo roquirod co onouro cho succooo of cho rsaod’' 
iscion offorca. 

Tha Air Poreo will coho oil nocoooory acciono 
(or onvironswncal cloanuo of cha bOM co protoct public 
hoalch and tho onvironownc. P ood s of proporcy cronofor 
will concoin this asauronco and all proporcy eransfors 
will bo conductod in cosiplianco with cho Coavrohonoivo 
Cnvirofwoncol booponM. Conponootion ond Liability Act. 


otborwiM Mown os CBCIA. 

Tho OBMleoivo ordnonco. gronodo ond sswll srM 
rongoo will bo cloorod of unoMlodod ordnonco and sponc 
MBMUCieo boforo bOM cloouro. 

In ordor co cosily with (odorol disclosuro laws 
rogording diopoool of proporcy. cho Air Poreo is conduce 
ing on oovlransnncol bOMlino survoy oc wurcMich Air 
Poreo boM. This offorc will idoncify oil aroas of cho 
bOM chot noy contain conotroincs to cronofor of 
proporcy. T>poo of conotrointa includo conconinocod 
oicoo Chot roguiro ronodiotion, proooneo of hosordous 
■otoriolo such os ss b ootoo choc susc bo proporly nonogod 
CO niniaiso hooleh chrooes. sad rotourcos chsc aro sub- 
}OCt to (odorsl or scoco procoction, such as wotlands and 
historic proportiao. Tha onvironswncal bosoline survoy 
rooulta and ropert will bo cosvlocod prior co disposal of 
say poreol oo wurtasuth. 

Xn closing, x rsound you chsc this study is in 
o drsft tcogo. Our gosl is co provide Air Fores docision 
Bokors with occuroco infomscion oo cho onvironawncai 
consoquoneoo of this propossl. To do this, wo ars soiic* 
iting your cosaancs on tho draft IIS. This inCorsncion 
will support laforaod Air Poreo docision Mking. 2*d now 
lika CO Cum cho nootmg bock ovor co Colonol Houpol. 

COU3MIL HfUPEL: Thank you. Nr. Nyors. woll 


9-24 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Bouse FEIS 









OO CU lWWHI 


t«lM • r«c«M HOT until fiv« nimitOT nftnr ttOO. M chnc 


Doeumwitl 


point. OT‘11 go into tho public < 


pnriod. An X 


indicntnd to you onrlior. thn tim pnriod nomlly nllot> 
end IS fivn wautnn. Mot. if thorn nrn nano pnovln thnt 
would likn to '* fnnl thny onnd amm thnn fivn aiautnn. 
1*11 pivn thonn pnopln nn opportunity to com bnch up 
nftnr nvnrybo^ nlnn hnn hnd nn opportunity to nnhn thnir 


Apnin. X*d mnind you thnt thnrn'n no naofeinp. 
It'S our uadnmtnnding. not only in thn nuditoriuo but in 
thn buildinp. So if you'rn n snoknr. durinp thn c n e nnn. 
June atnp outaidn if you would, plnnnn. wn'll conn bock 
nt fivn nftnr StOO. Ihnok you. 

(Anennn froa 7:94 to 1:09 p.n.i 

COLONBL KBJraL: At this tiaa. wo'll po nhood 


nnd novn into thn public < 


AC pnriod. X should point 


out thnt thn pnanl SMnbnrs nrn not thn dneinion ankom 
rnonrdino thn p r oponnd necion or thn nltncnntivno. 


If. durinp thn public 


at pnriod. n ipinknr 


rnpuirnn nay elnrifiention or infocantioo prior to pro* 
vidinp conaant. thn pnnnl asAborn will try to snoanr 
punntionn to nnsurn nvnryoon hnn nn opportunity. Noll. 
I'a not nvnn poinp to pe into thnt. t'll toll you non. 
X'vn got only onn enrd. 

X do wnnt to nncauropn you. if you hnvn nay 



Ooetmanll 


coaaasts with rnpnrd to lahnt'a in thn drnCt SXS or vAnc s 
bona brintnd toaipht. don't bo shy or hnsitnnt about 
ankinp n stntsnaoc. I'a poinp to pivn you soon tiao m n 
asaanti nvna though I'vn only pottnn onn pnrson chntt 
fillnd OM n cord, loaobody also any hnvn dncidnd thnt 
th^r'rn willinp to sponk if choy don't hnvn to fill out n 
enrd. X*a poinp to pivn you your shot nc thnt. too. 
bn e nuan wo'rn vary snrious whnn wn sny thnt wn nrn intnr- 


nnead in pottinp < 


at frea thn public, you do know 


thn local nroa and thorn any bn : 


I things thnt thn Air 


I of. So wn cnrtninly do wont your 


khan wn whan you coan doMn. i*a going nsk 
thnt you coaa down to thn podiua down in front, if •• 
eaen I'vn rncopnisnd you, plnnnn indicntn your nnas nnd 
Hhnt city you'rn froa nnd go nhond nnd start in. I'n 
going to bn vary libnrnl in iv fivo-ainutn ruin. I'a 
poinp to bnsienlly kind of sot nsidn ay fivn-ainutn ruin 
b ne n uan that's not n -- that's not n problna nt this 
point. But X do want to nacourspn scan of thn rose of 
you. nftnr our knowa spnnknr npnnks, if you hnvn som> 
thing thnt you'd likn to any. I do wnnt to pivo you nn 
opportunity to sponk boenunn your vinwo nrn laportnnc to 


At thin tisa. I’n going to nok Mr. Dnnn wiitsn 


to spook. Mr. Wiitsn. nnd if you'd plnnnn nddrnon your 


iPt. wiLTSI: Okay. Thsnk you. My naas is Onsn 
Wiitsn nnd I an thn Supnrvisor of Oncodn XOTnship ns wall 
ns opnrstor of s local buniansn. Pmvioun to ay currnnt 
position. I was prnsidant of thn Oseodn*AuSnbin Chnabar 


of CoOTarco nnd nn activn aa 
Military Affairs CoOTUctnn. 


ar and sigiportar of tha 


As tha chiof nlaccad ofticar of Oscoda 


Townnhip, I na n i 


ar of tha ihircsaith Bssa Convarsioa 


Authority, tha ngancy craatad by tha Stnea of Niehigan to 
ovorso# tho convarsion of tha bona by tha gova r nor nnd 


tha Ingislntura of tha Stnta of Michigan. 


X hnvn raviowad tha nnvir 


ntnl ispact stnta* 


none nnd basically ngraa with icn conclusionn. chat is. 
ns X road it. tha neenpennea of thn rausa anntar plan 
dosignod by Oncodn Townnhip's and tha WAIAC casBUsniatt 
offorn thn boot hepn of our nrna rncovnring froa thn 
nconosuc cntnncrophn known na thn clonurn of thn thirt' 
south Air Foren Bnsn. 

Howovnr. whnt thn BXS innvna to qunneion nnd 
opnn to rsaily junt hopo in tha isnua of hew invelvad tha 
Air Porea will ba in supporting tho Oscoda eoOTUity'n 
rnusn serntngy. ihnc is. thn projnetloo offnrnd by this 
docusanc by tha Air Porea will ba sapty unions wa naa n 


grantor offort on tha part of thn Air Pores to bnccaa 
nctiva pnrtnnrn in tho rnusn offore. 

Xt in ironic thnt nnrlinr today X pnrticipntnd 
in n spneini anntiag of thn canvnrnion authority to 
npprovn thn intnria Innnn bntwnna thn Air Pores and thn 
bona convarsioa suthority so thst our first rsusar. 

Oseods Plssties. can start opsrntions. 

Ths irony in thst it took six snaths to tha dsy 
to ranch this point sod thsa only sftsr Oseods Plssties 
thrastnaad to walk sway. At this point. X wnnt to not# 
thst whsB X rsfar to ths Air Pores in thssa stsesasnts, I 
OT prineipsily spanking of ths wsshington Air Pores 
policy askars. not choaa rsprasaneseivas har# in Oseods. 

lha coeparstion wa hsva racaivad froa tho Wurt- 
OTith sssigaad parsoaoal hss boon sxcnilnne. On thn 
othnr hand, thn rnnponsn froa thn Washington Air Porco 
hasn't nnsrly astchnd locsl nfforcs. in fact, if thn 
pnen of s up port continuss ss ws'vs sosn it in thn past, 
thn jobs you'vn aaatlonnd bning ernaend by 1999, which I 
bnlinvn nrn just undnr 9.000, esnnot possibly occur until 
St Isssc ths ynsr 300). 

Pnrhsps ths EXS should bs lookod sc m thn 
light of thn othsr Air Pores wsshington prosusM. X 
don't doubt thst Bsny will bn fulfillnd but I wondnr if 
wn can nesnd to wait until chan. I think it is tins for 


IVurts/n/fft AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


9-25 











OOQUflHfit 

1 


Deeumantl 

i 

ch« Air fore* to rMMMUM • proe«M chAC it clMrly 


1 

the atruetuTM on the bOM. Our conauitanc haa Aaciaatod 

i 

2 

f Ail mg to Amp th« r«pMC«6 prom am of kxt forco amIot 


2 

that thia rMtoratioo clauM in the ataca iMaa of ;and | 

i 

offiCiAlA m MAAhiAptOn. 


1 

to the Air Force for Wurtaauth would coat the Ait Fcrra 

4 

TO tiM CoapfMA. to thA OAM ClOAUrA e«MUA> 


4 

17.0 Million doiiara. 


S 

Aion. AAd to thA COMMAltiM iBVOlvOd. tiM Ait POTCA iMA 


5 

X hope thoM eoMonta will bo aaen aa I have 


4 

offArod AAAurAacM thAt tiMy Mil AAlp coMOUtiM eao> 


4 

intandod than. The Air Force and the coaautnitiaa whoa* 


7 

VArt bAAM to ClViliAA UM. Xt MUrtAKith lA AO AOAOplA. 


7 

livAA they are lapactiop need to be partnara in the rauaa 


6 

caa Air Fore# x» not ao ouch eoMottod to eoooArtiOf 


• 

of thaM bAAM. xt la aad tMtinony chat i dM C beliave 


» 

bAAM but to ClMinp thAO OO A ACbAdUlA CbAy UOilACACAlly 


9 

we are there today. 


10 

ArrAOgAd■ 


10 

19m bAM cloaura procMa nuat be chaopad if the 


11 

TtM Air rorcA ia aIao coAOittod to kAApiop aa 


11 

policy nakara la Naahinoton are rMliy Mrioua about 


U 

■ueh of thA oquipAMOt in it a oiai lavAototy. ITtoyqh our 


13 

eoavertiap tomar Military baoM into viable aconomc 


n 

coAMunity rAproAAOtAtivM hovo follouod tbo proeoM out- 


13 

opportunitiM for the connunitiM that have aupported 


14 

linod by thA Air PorcA. uo hAVA hod to fipht tooth AOd 


14 

than throupbout thair exiatanea. Thank you. 


15 

AAil for AVAty AiaoiA piACA of oquipMOt «A*VA idAOtlflOd 


15 

COtom ttUFPL: Thank you. Suparviaor wiltaa. 


. 14 




■ k 


1 

\ 

coovArt thA bAM by oflAriag pAroeoAl propArty that could 


1 “ 

la tbare aaybody aIm that hM any coananc that they 


i 

bo Adopted to AUCCAMful CAUM, «*A hOVA bOAO fOTCOd tO 


1 

would like to anka toaiphtl Xf ao. raiM up your hand 


1 19 



1 11 



f 

i ” 

AithAt to Attract tAuAoro or to opAratA the bAM aftor 


1 " 

plAAM atata your naaa aad whara you'ra froa. 


! “ 



i “ 

Ml. ITAUaP: Oura. Mr nmm la bob Stalker and 


1 

THa ^AciAl lAod ouoArahip at MurtAouth hM 


1 

X*M the Oacoda lOwnahip Suparintaadaat and I would like 


a 

givAO ua thA ability to offer the Air Force ao epportu- 


33 

to follow up oa wiltM'n coanantn. Althouph X’va 


24 

nity. Our offer ia tranafor the lead to ue aod uo will 


34 

baaa daaply involved in the eoavoraien procMS at 


25 

uAivA our ripht to require the Air Force to reaeuA all 


39 

Nurtaaitb. aad X think froa Mr parapactiva thnra'a nn 



It 



30 







Deeummtl 

Doeunnnll 

1 

lahArent conflict in the too priaecy poola of tryinq to 


1 

COtCiML MPFlLt NobO^ alM7 


2 

convert Military facilitiM uhich are clMiof and at the 


3 

(Hb rnaponnn.) 


) 

AAoa tiaa rMlite aa pueh eceoeaic booafit aa pMAible 


3 

CObOML nurSL: Wall. X want to thank you vary 


5 

Atandpoint. that tho OApartoant of OaCaom noAda to toko 


9 

tlaaaa that apoka for thair eoMwnta aad thair involvo' 


4 

A MriouA look At that. 


0 

aaat. da ■ppraciata your eoauap out tonipht. The 


7 

TTiarA are two aiqnifidoot prioritiM thMA that 


7 

wMthar WM a little •> a little anowy for whara X*m 


t 

have to be AMOunod. It'a difficult. X uaderotaod. to 


• 

not uaad to all the enow, but X think -• X auapaet tor 


9 

purauA both thoM poala at the aaaa tiaa. Tba peeple 


9 

you it'a rMlXy baginainp to look a lot like aprinp. but 


to 

that have to uvlanant that policy and tho folka on the 


10 

X know that naay of you probably want to po and taka a 


11 

front line in thoM efforta have to dMl with that and t 


11 

look at your talaviaion aata. ao X*a poinp to daclara 


12 

would ancourapo you to AvaluatA that aituation. 


13 

thia naatiap adjourned. Thank you vary auch. 


13 

X think a clear anoivlA of that ia the Iaam 


13 

(baariap adjoumad at 8;14 p.a.) 


14 

which Nr. wiltM aada rafATAncA to. The coaaMaity m 


14 



15 

well ao the Dopartaont of DafanM raprMantativM have 


15 

- 


1 “ 

worked lonq and hard to pat to the point wtiorA wa'ra 


1 




ready to OKACuta a Iaam and at the iMt aiaute. thore la 






controvaray over wtio'a poinp to rocAivA the procaada froa 


I 

I 



1 *’ 

the Iaam payaant itMlf. and it aocaa to aa that that'a 


1 



1 

a aituation which should have boon rooolwad lonp before 


t 

STkt* or tOCNIOAN i 


1 “ 

this and la indieativA of the type of policy conflict 


1 

coiam or xoico i 


i “ 

that*a inharent in the proeoM. Thank you. 


1 

X. Deborah A. bondon, CSR-2344. Cartifiad Shorthand 


23 

cotown MUFIL: Thank you for your eoManta. 



baportar. do hereby certify that the forapoinp tranacript. 


24 

Are there any other coManta? 



eoaaiatinp of 40 typawrittan papM. conatitutM a true, accu- 


25 

(No reaponM. ) 



rata, aad eeaplaca tranacript of the procaodiapa had at the 



39 



40 





_1 


9-26 WurtamKh AFB Di^xtsaland R»W 0 FEIS 











OoeumMitl 


Doewmnt 2 


Public HMring held ia %tm mtormmationmA eauM at Oacoda. 
Miehidaa. on Maaday. April $. iftS. 



iTf wcmMmp ahd. dm fimt 

CUmp^IL «PiM 


I*, cal. 9mgf Uafirtil 


aad aamm q€ Mtrtfpdtt MU Mmp daM, alaUpM* atmM 1999. 

f9m ficxt aaatlaaA iaalputai gHwpUlaa Car tiM Mm laMa advar aad 
ba» tbar aay ba lipanrad by tba raaaa altaaaabivaa. bat tba 
I daaMaft (alia ta aalta cba Tatatrad riadiaf ot aa braetioabla 
bltaaaatlaa ca tablap aa aotlaa ia tba baaa (*ioo-yaar*| 
flaadplaia. fmfimm mi tba aaatb uriaatar aC tba baaa ara U tba 
iM»yaar Claa^lala aad raaaa altaaaatiaaa My affaat tbia araa. 

iMOMtlaa otMm iiMt* Plaadplaia NaMpaaMt, aad bPb la-a (14 
rabtaary lfPd> ^aaiCy OBtr raapaaalbiiitiM tm aetlaM U tba 
flaadplala, iMladiap baM diapaaal. iba Claai Iti aaada a aaparata 

diadiap aC ba traat Arabia JUtacaatiaa if tbaaa ara aa altarMtivM 
ta tabfap tba aetiM ia tba ClaaripUia. JOaa, aa aipbt-atap pablie 
caaiaa aad aitlaatiaa pranaaa aaada ta ba iaitiatad if aa aetioa ia 
tba Claa^laia ia aadartakM. Ma aapaeially parapr^ba P-«(9l aad 
aC API la^ for tbia rapairaMM aad tba aaaaaaary 


I ba aappaat tba Ciaal na iaelada a eapy of tba Oaooda Tiwaiabip 
Piaad ZaaanaM data Mp aad a diaaoMiaa of tba aauroa of tba laa- 
yaar fioad iafavaatiaa abaaa ia Pipara 3.4-t. 

Piaaliy. tba Ntd aaiy oaataiaa tbtaa oaerdiaatiaa lattara. 
■atiaaal ■nricaaaaatal Paliey bat aawrlrnMWital ■aaaaaaaat 
praaadBTM rapaira aaca aataMiaa nnardlaatina vitb fadaral, atata, 
aad loMl ■pwimia aad iataraat prwpa tbaa ia aai daat ia Appaadia 

*Padacal Raarpaaey NBMMai^* MaTaiacraUaa* ia ippaadlw C. ** 

Zf yaa baaa aay paaatiaaa aa Claaf^laia aaaapaaaat, piaoM call 
Daaid dabaia. Paaiar PraprM tpaaialiat, aa PH iai-9S)« or 
eodaaroiai 3U-4M-P9i». 

•iaeacaly. 


Cbiaf* dataral i Taebnalapioal 
baaarda. Oialblaa 


WMHn Comnm SMM 


Disposal and Reuse 

Draft Environuiental Impact Statement 
Wurtsmith AFB, MI 


'nanfeyaulgri 


|M(««MBhnikig. OurpwtanaorhMlngHiinMtntkia^Mycv 



WurtsmUh AFB Disposal and Rouse FEIS 


9-27 














"T* • ^ 8 »»ii I 

Sm. t, llfl f --r- I 1 *--• 4 ^ -JC 

St^ CS^ «w .^ > i i g .>J..^ 

^iiT* uT T Sm.i JL J , '^" I B^aa. 

J^,...^, '<TX. ww /—-*-Jk. -«. -fet.. 


- W ^-^ •—• i*!**-^ ^ .■■y..i » r « - - ^ ^• 

/- J • 

,^^, —xa, j— ^ 

A -tt— *WB=.*Jf. J f-'*- 

■>*'**»■ ** «V« rr ■■ •< :> u/ 1 -fci-A. A— - 
^ —*». 

.' ‘ j ""■ ■ "tiW.i AA-jtAJir. ■*"”*^ 

’ (j *-'** ” <<<< '^■*'*' - t •»*-j-«-rt*A. I-1 ■ i-Vrf 

cJ »A.A>y «- ^ ^ Al» TI~»A . (a/». ■ »rL JL £«~ 

-f iaA. i Jl f m. ^ j»~*> .»*w ^ "*^-» “' »■■ ■ '* ♦ —wl ' V AAi aaJl 

j * » jl. 

Aa.,.£Z^L)U- --^T^aJUL /U-^L^ 


]g™cCU_. ^ 

U^aJUL JU 


f'JU^ 


tt-. -A-y-f- JunA_ 

jl. 


<^wJLta '^**'''**'^ > X. j“T lT 

I fA-A- 

/i Mc iU, |.|i- Ml a T :;«aa > ^ a«Ai-i^ ^ Ji«A t ' y «*r. 


■ J*~- ^ 

^-“A^-yuC fi-- 

aaAaA^. ^ 

Po fi.x ts^ 

'^>*'*~-rv^ ^1. y»/v/ 


Ooeumante 





fDoeumMite 


XI, 1999 


^*^1—1 C«v 


*10# rfc —; U teatf 

tfl. T«M* 7n».S919 


Dm* C«1«mi *-^iim 

5 2r- - --* 

*•••• C*My. 1^ M •■«•• •§ TllliBlll Air thr, 

CMalteTAClM. ^ •• •'*•» «*• (•llMtl^ •^21^“ 

flt* aiAjMt Mmmc f«r ek* - 

cMeariM af cW •«f**r**** f**Ja*« •Aafwcal* 

sssjtCii 5?*L!r^.*!** *f «*» «»r£wirr''s-g;! ^ 

2sir2,=r-s*,i%rAr‘«s^ 

HMlfu — —.***■ ''■*■ »«»•,•« *-,1niMi%.!'7?r^.'i^^ 


rmuu^ll^,^ t,*iiSSr™Ll2l!* •»• •AJm, *Mnc f 

SKl.‘ir**.j r!""» "?SSr.yig,SS^L!r^ “g.'r ^w,.. u 

s^;^:^ 2 r?/ 2 Hi• £Sirrjs.TF££’-C‘"‘*‘ 

.?^£r£S^ 

r~~ «— -^SrrLy! «• w pn>Z. - -»***** **»«tt. 


a9»«Si SllLlf*r!S?f* **** **^ <c*S^^‘^JSa? ** ***•« 

"==S^£ 3 fs^At?ir=i"=~ *“ 

*«jAi, .M uA^niLsiT"** *** *• bMrai^r^ 


■*•» » rartar dA mii 


»u1a tf 


^MmmAFBDbpoMMR^FEm 



OecumMit 8 


Document 9 


3 It it iimwlltitij Kith flottlfma teratt Itait. tm pattimm tC tha 
M i hM8*8 MKthMB (riofi «lM b» b e tf f aiMpi iMMCBisly Cr«a tha 

«i«aiapiri avaaa. IM tha artatlai tmlX mm nufa aEa^ ha aaMfah ta a 

taeal leiian—nai uait or iwapriiflt nrpaltliw aa that it aar ha aa* 
awailiMa ba tha pahUa. 

4 aa hava alvaCioab eoaaacM ahaat tha iach aC inft—tliai eoaeacaiaf 
•raaahiatliM pitM for eatHhaatiaa pcahiaaa rMlalaf ffoa haaa 

. aaaratiaaa. MUla tha aataat off tha pwhlai ia Bhaiartarlaad* na plaa or 
10.9 achiAiia Car rf\wm maratlnaa or 41aeaa8iai off hoa tha ^laatat off 
- niooB oaald affCoet pUa —*---“ “ 


■at—ira hlatery tff < 


eloi pcohloat at tha h—, this lih 
id Ui Car aaca dataU ia tha BBS. 


za eoaelaaloa, far tha —a— —aaratad Ba«a. tha Bihipa Ohitad 
0 —aiiatlf ClBa c—at ■daraa tha aropBaad aetiaa or aar othor 
altacaativa aooaoaad. thawa off ai^Cie— iaCaa—iai* ladi off ohjao t ioa 
eritaria Cor oalaotioa, tad tha vataa aad —oti—Ma aaoiB*!— ah— 
fatara — off h— CaeUitioo hova i — md a—— Cor oaf opaelCie 
aitacaatioa I—ailhli at thia tiaa. 

OB bahaiff off tha BOC. th— foa for tha or—b—tr Co pr—4a th— 
Siaaacaiy. 

-- 


Va«l t» Iraea 
CMC harth o.h. 3) 
Oaea<a> n. 4tTSO 

April 33* l»f3 


L8> Cal* Oary haaavartal 

ucnnn 

•IM O—aoBlb M. 

iraaaa An* Tana 78a3S-93lt 


t oaald liha ta offfar eaaaaaba oa tha Draft laTlraaMaatai 
lapact Itata—it far aartaalth Air roraa haaa la oaeoda* 
Hlehlgaa oa hahalf of tha Citiaaa’a AdTiaery Coaaittaa oa 
Hartaalth Ar* Coataalaatloa* tae. aad tha aorthaaat 
mehlpaa Oraap of tha siarra Clah’o Hatfklaae Chaptar. 

Tha Cltiaaa'a Adotaary Co—ittaa oa Part—ith ATh c—taa- 
iaati— ia a atata appoiatod proap of Oa e o da am roaid—ta 
oho— prlaary ohjaetioa ta kooplap tha p—lie iaforaad 
ah—t prahlo— off t—le e—t—l—tl— at Partaaith aad 
oarhlap to—r— tha laplo—atati— of —latle— to the— 
prohlo—. mD*dlarra Clab ta tha rapioaal —tlty of tha 
St—ra Clah* on off t— —ti—*o oldaat aad larpaat .e—- 
a—tl— asf—1—tlo—. Tha folloolag eaa—ata ara — t at 
to raflaet tha aharad eaaeam off —th pp—pa* 

aaffara eooa—tiap — tha e—t—t of tha Draft taotro—tal 
, lapaet Statonat (DtXS>* X riad it aac e oaaary to ranrk 
Mthat tha r—1— parlod for t— do—ant ia laadaqaato aad 
1.3jda— a— all— —loat—r ettim*a pr—pa aaeh ao the— t 
Irapraa—t —ffie—t ti— to pro—rly a—lute ita —at—t 
Jaad prapara detail— eoa—ata* . Tharafera* ec—ta — the 
DSID nil — pa—ral a— liait— ta op—Ifie port!—a of 
t— do—at. 

2 Tha failara to iaeloda ia tha DIXS lu— iita oahaitt— at 
tha tXS Seopi— N—tiap* hald — P oo— b a r ?« tPPl 1 a Oaeoda 
la al— rota— for ea a —ra, tap—ialir ia that tha Air 
Per— elal— that —id eoa—ata ha— play— — iapertaat 
rala ia tha for—lati— off tha DffXS. Aa —a who attaad— 
a— conaaiod at that a—tiap, X f—1 that it la oaa—tial 
that the ra—rka aa4a by a hr—d rapraa—tati— of eoa—a- 
Ity iato—ata — that oeeaai— — part of tha oils doea—at* 

A fi—1 e——ra abeot tha IXS preea— ia la roforaa— to 
. t— Hat off orpniaatte— I—l— ia aaetloa S«l of the 
^ do—at* *Ce—altatt— a— C—rdi—ti—Phy oaa t— 
cttia—*0 Adn— ry Canitt— — Port—ith API c— t—i—ti— 
1>9 0—1— fr— that liatr Tha Citia—*a Advl—ry Cooaitt— 
h— ba— Tory actioo ia ita role of k—piap the pobiie ia* 
(ora— ab—t tha e—ie e—taai—tl— at a— oa—atlap fr— 


Wur^mith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


9-29 













































DoeumMitt 


Doeuinwit9 


1.S|««r%aattk Aft. i 

feM • MVlM 9t lBf«l 

rpfWWf t4%— t Uw McMgM Di 

Ml4 tiM HlCHifM ■ •# PvMIC 

■MitJi tew Mtet9< tte c«tetei»7 m« kte atel* «• tte 

%% MtetMttb. Tte r«ll«te tf tte hiw ten* te 
wrt vtte ttea ettiBM** flr«te !• ■••• wf«r««Mte ate. 
t .5 vMfttrMtte* ■■lacialiy is llfH* t tte ta«t ttet tes U* 
tere* twtetesl ■•vlsv tetedttM te« • telisf te SMltetsf 
ettlMM ate Mila froa attatelai ate paatiaite*4te its 


10.61 


X» ateraaalat tte eMtast of tte Draft terlr 


atal lapart 


ttataaaat, l rite it aa e aaa ar y ta aaptaataa ttet tte < 
aaat ta laa«a<aata la ttet It aaaa aat teaa aa Ita aaatrai 
faeaa tte aaricaaMatai raataratlaa^ af tertaaltli avi ate 
tte aarraateiaa araa ate tte arataatlaa at tte aaaBaaity 
rraa aay atettiaaai aaviraaaaatal praMaaa ttet aay ariaa 
fraa tte eiaiiiaa ratevaiafaaat aC tte wifl facilitiaa. 
aartateth tea taa# taaa laelaDte aa tte IBM MTa Liat af 
teat Caataaiaatte tltaa. Oaar. fifty aitaa af taaie eaat f 
laatiaa teaa teaa eitte Dy tte'laairaaMatal tea»aaaa Olala- 
iaa af tte mm. Tte ottt 4aaa aaatlaa tte aaTiraaaaatal 
Dratiaaa aaaaatatte aite aartateth teti 

(teta S*4t) • •Tte ttftey yaraaaDla aate ate fraval aqaifar 
la aatramty aaacaataDia ta eaataaiaatiaa traa aarfaea 
eteaiieai ayilla ate laafeiat atarata taaaa* 

•Oraaateatar aateriyiat aaaa araaa af tte teaa eaataiaa 
ae t arata ta tift iavaia af TCt* 0CI« ate t a a a aaa*. 

"Tte aaatfa lafaaaa aa teaa tew aaaa awratiag aa aa aa« 
plate flaeterva paval* aiaea I9tt«. 

"Tte traaafvatar eaataiaiaf bite lawia af aitrapaa eaaif 
awataally aiprtta ta tte tatebia liwr*. 

Tte aaaitaaaaatal prablaaa ara laiaaf aataaaiw at tte atri 
atta. Tte D.D. jaairnaaiatal Prataatlaa apaary tea ratte 
tte aaaa aa alpaificaatly aaeatelap tte alalaw eritara far 
llatiap oa tte Saparfute Matlaaai Prlaritlaa Liat. Plaaaa 
af caataaiaatte graaateacar ara aipratiap fraa tte teaa lata 
a4)aeaat taa Ittaa Late ate tha aaaray atPabia aiwr ia caa> 
taaiaatte at tte Thraa Plpaa tiaeterpa* Tte van Mrttera 
Latefili ta a taava aaarea af praaateatar eaataaiaatiaa. 

Tte teaa aaaapa plaat baa caataaiaatte a aatlate babitat la 
tte aPjaeaat itaraa>Haalataa Hatiaaai Paraat. oafartaaataiy 


Parca tea aaaa laai 
atal raataratiaa. 


at praaraaa tawcba 


1.6 


10.7 


9.a 


10.1 


10 

10.0 


tip aaeaaaai faila ta eawaat aa tte rafaaat af tte 
t at Oafaaaa ta aipa tte tapiaabar mi caaaaat 
by tte Nieblfaa attaraap Oaa a ral ate 
Tte c aaaaat apraaaaat vaa lataaite ta aarw aa 
la iapal blaapriat far tte eiaaa-ap af taslaa at bartaaitb 
llPBi aatabliabiap tte raapaaaibility tte aatbabaiapy far 

iatiaa at ail tte caataaiaatte aitaa ate aaaarlap 
[aavtraaaaatal raataratiaa ia aecar4aaaa vltb tte ataabarPa 
ate paiballaaa af Nieblpaa bet MTe. Tte caaaaat apraaaaat 
■af aabarate by oawraar Jaba taplar. lapraaaatatiw Taa 
biiay* tte tiarra eiab« tte Cltiaaa'a bbvlaary Caaaittaa 
aa bartaaitb bPP eaataaiaatiaa* ate tte laviraaaaatai 
Caacaraa caatettaa at tte bartaaitb braa tc aaaatc bbjaat- 

Tte bir Parca atataa la tte DtlS that It la ateartablap 
aaviraaaaatal raataratiaa at bartaaitb aecarbiap ta tte 
ataabarCa ate paibailaaa af tte C aap rab aaalw Pariraaaaatal 
Daapaaaa* Caapaaaatiaa* ate Liability bet <CtMLb). Da* 
fartaaataly cnCLb aili aat'pravlba far araaa t aab 
teltln aavlraaaaatai raataratiaa of tte bartaaitb aita. 

Naay of tte caataaiaatte aitaa iiatab by tte NOm waib 
aat te raateiatab by CttCLb* la partlcalar patroiaaaljot 
foal) apilla. enOA alaa baaa aat prevlba for labaaif- 
teatioa far fatara p r aparty raeipiaata. 

Tte bir Parca alaa faila ta abapaataly abbroaa tte caacaraa 
abaat tte bbPt aaa a pa ate aatar aappty oyataaa. lofarlap 
to tte aalfoaetloaibp aaa ap a plaat* tte Otit atptaa oa papa 
I-bD that " tte aaa parait applicatiaa (ia propraaa) aiii 
laeiaba a rapaaat far a aarlaaea of aftlaaat lialtatioaa." 
b oibilar aaiwr of raapaaaibility la piaw to probiaaa 
altb aabaataa oa tte baaa - papa S-lbi "Oaaoiltloa or rao- 
owtiaa af eartaia atraetaraa aitb babaataa-caataialap 
aatariaia aaalb ba tte raapaa a ibility of aaa oaaara." 

To awaariaa* ttera ara a aipaifieaat aaabar of oaai r oaaaat- 
al caacaraa that aiii eaatiaaa ta baaate ottaatioa after tte 
acbabalab cloaiap of bartaaitb bPP ate at tte prooaat tiaa 
ttera ta aa abapaata plaa far tte raaaiatiaa of tbaaa eaa* 
earaa. Tte caawrataa af bartaaitb to eiailiaa aaa will ba 
oteaabtably Iteactte by tte aaclraaaaatal llabllitioa aa- 
aociatab aitb tte aita. 

Tte DIXt aabaroaa a prapaaab aetioa plaa that calla for 
iataaaiw bawlopaoat of tte bartaaitb aita* iaeiteiap 
ra-oaa of tte aaiatiaa facilitiaa* iabaatriai bawlopaaat. 
ate raaoaattoa of tte baaa boaalap. Tba Dill faila ta 
batail tte aaaaraaa probiaaa that eaalb ariaa frea oaeb 


DoeunwntS 


bawlopaoat. Oa papa 4-lS* tte 0119 atataai "Oabar tte 
Prapaaab betiaa baaarboaa vaotao paaaratab aaalb ccaaiat 
of aaata alia* faaib* aalaaata* palate* tbiaaara* ate 
baaay aataia.* Naay of tbaaa aaata prabacta arc tte aaao 
aa tbaaa ahicb ara praaaatly tte aaarea of tba coataaiaat- 
ioa probloco at bartaaitb. b^ ggx gr octlvitr gg 
Oil iitt oetaatlal g coatribata g alraabT oalotiaa 
▼Iroaawtal Grebloao T 

lO.Oioa papa 4-49* tba 01X9 atataa tbati •Ptora aatar bioebarpa 
(aea-paiat aaarea) fraa tba alrfialb* airfialb rapport 
araaa* ate otter baavy iabaatriai araaa aay cootaia faala* 
alia* aab otter raaibaal eoataciaaata which eaalb baproba 
aarfaea wtor roaaareao la tba aababla ilwr ate vaa tttaa 
Craab*. Oaea apaia* why riob fartbar oawiraaaoatal bapra- 
batlaa hr aobaraiap tba awa typo of bawiopwat - owiatloa 
raiatab aetiwltiaa la partiealar - that haa airaaby caaaab 
taaie caataclaatleaT 

111 Tte DIXS alte aabaa tha aaaawtloa that air paality aaalb 
1311?^ ba affaette by bawiapcoat la tte ^ opooab Aetioa plaa. 


Ooeunwnt 10 


-Taatar- 


Aa ttera la a baawy iabaatriai eocpaaaat 
clalb caa oat ba aobataatiatab 


ia tba plaa that 


la ceoeiaaioB* tba Air Parea baa atatab that it baa a aaa 
eocBltaaat to "tawiraaboatal tacalloaea*. oafartaaataiy* 
tte Draft tawtroaaoatai Xapaet stataaaat far cartacitb Air 
Perea Obaa oheva-little awibaa c a of that eowitboat. Tbaab 
yoa for tba eppartaalty ta eowaat. 


Siacoraiy* 


lofloo II HaabaMrtars 
P.O. lax lit 

RatcoMO. Niebitaa iiiU 

/Ipril 29. 1991 


It. Cal. 6ary liiirtal 
AFCCE/CSC 

9109 CtewaaU laab 
Iraakt Afl. TX 79»S-»19 

Daar Caleoal Iwiirtal; 

Attadwb ara cacMOtt of tha Eawirawantal Raspaata Divitiaa af tha Nichifaa 
Dcpirtaaot af Hataral Raiaarcaf rafarblap tha Draft Eiwlrpwaantal lopact 
Stataabrt (DEIS) far Vartsbttb Air farca lata. At inbicitab ia tha cacaaatt. 
thara ara athar Divltlaat althta thit Oapartaant. at wall at athar 
Oapartaaatt. that My with ta praviba cawaati oa tha OEIS. 


Plaata ba nat hatttata ta caatact m at tha 
qaattlant ar cowMtt aa tha attachad. 


balaa If yaa hava aay 




Paal L. 

Chair, aim Siarra ciob 
Chair* cltisaa’a Abwlaory Cea 
ea Nartocitb APD Ceataaiaatia 


littaa 
I* lae. 


Siocaraly. 

0.—f -s JvLs:^ 

Oaofa) Schalti 
RMlaaa) S gparwltar 
EmiROMCNTAL RESPORSC OITISIOH 
S17-27$-S)$t 


0S:Jf 

tot. 


Saaator Can Lawia 
Saaatar Ooaalb Paipla 

Rapraaaatatiw JaMO lareta 


. Oaaalb liwa, fC 
Nr. larry Tbenitaa, 
Nr. Stava Takaei. MI 
fnt/e.fl 1 a 


9-30 


Wur^mith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






Doeunwnt 10 


Doeuirant 10 


f or MMnukL unooKBS 


TAkl* 2.T>a. OtttiiM* tte 


xntoomcs ceiMiincATXos 


Olatrlcc 7 Oraylinf Offie* 
IMS liMrtfe W9 u. 

Onyliaf, Miofeifui 4t73S 
April 31« ISO) 


TO: Oaii SeOttlts. irgiosi ZI Suparvlror, InvironMotAl 

RMponM Oivirion ' 

raORt staw M. Takaea* Oaolafiat 

tealronaatal Haaponaa Olvialan. Orayliaf offica 

SOaJMT: vartaaith APB, OraPt BnrtraaaanCal Xapaet StataMst 
(DBZS) 

X bava raviaaad tha BUS aabaittad by tba O.S.A.P. 4ata« HarcB 
1093. Haat of tha rapart, eantara oa tba affacta that eloaiira of 
MAPB will hava or rauaa of tba preparty. A aalority of tba itmm 
■ddraaaatf in tba raport aboalB ba ravlawai by etbar Stata apoaaiaa 
Inelodlnf; Dapt. of Afrieultura, Stata Poliea Pira Harabal, Air 
Quality Oivtaioa, Surfaea Matar Quality Oiviaioa, Paata Raeapaaaat 
Oiviaion aaS otbara aa approprlata. 

Ztaaa of apaeifio eoneam to BA ara tboaa that aSdraaa knowa 
araaa of aoil and proundwatar caataainatioa, aad tba affaot of 
cLoaura on reoadial activitiaa at tbaaa aitaa. 

^ Ganarally, tba OBXS aeJuwwladpaa tba raapoaaibilitiaa of tba 
U.S.A.P. to fulfill ita obligatioaa to laaaaa, pranta, pacmita, 
tba court ordarad cenaant daeraa aad fadaral anviranaantal 
rapulatioaa. it haa, bowawar, arbitrarily daaidad to aaat eartaia 
10.10 stata aavireaaantal rapulatioaa wbila ipnorinp otbara. for 
iaatanca, tba U.S.A.P. baa apraa d to follow tba Stata of RiAiipaa 
Stata Poliea Pira Harabal rapuiraaaata for abaadonaaat aad rauaa 
of tlST*a but baa net oprbad to aaat Hiebipan*a elaanup ataadarda 


what affaeta aaeh of tba 


of oavireaMatal 
la altamatiwaa. I 


{ STbuaduatai' aad raaadial actio 


I at IW aitaa. 


will bawa oa aoila. 


Tbbla 3.7-2. daaa net indieata raaadial actiaaa at IRP aitaa will 
ha affactad ia aay way other than poaaibla dalaya in diapoaicioa 
of aaaa pareala of laad. If tba U.S.A.P. eoatinuaa to aaat ita 
ablipatioaa, tbia will raaain true. 

SW tabla doaa identify pataatial aoil aad prouadwatar lapaeta 
raoultiaa frea activitiaa ■aaociatad with tba Pira Traininp 
Aitaraativa. lunoff frea bum arena could advaraaly iRianT tba 
aavirennaat. Any of tbaaa activitiaa nuat oa daaipnad to prevent 
tba ralaaaa of cont aainaata to tba aavironaont. uaata Hanapaaoat 
Qlviaioa abould ba eentaetad rapardiap pravaatioa aaaauraa. 

Sactiea 3.2.4.2 diaeuaaaa waatawatar iaauaa. It ia not clear who 
will ba raapeaaibla for operation of tba aawapa lapoeaa aftw tba 
O.S.A.P. laavaa. lapaeta frea tba eurreat lapoeaa would have to 
ba aeaiterod to inauro contaainant lavala do net ■send rapulatory 
lavala. 

1 Sactiea 3.3.3. It abould ba noted that tba VA biB propaaed mapB 
for liatiap on tba SPt. 

Tba raaaindar of tba r eport appaaro to addroaa tba cencam a of 
tbia Diviaiea. 




2 Tba Croat Lakaa and Hid-Atlaatie Haaardoua Subataaea B aaaa r cb 
cantar (SLHAC) ia prepoainp to aatabliab a facility at MAPB for 
3.4 raaaarcb of bioranadiation of certain idantifiad IIP aitaa. Tha 
U.S.A.P. and CAMAC ohould coordinate tbaaa activitiaa with 
apprevala frea tbia oepartaant. 


Doeunwnt 11 


Doeunwnt 11 




UMWrAT mi llS M I —r SA^WOl lC tBHAQBICr 
fCOMMf 

rr wesT incKSQN BouuEVAHO 
CMcnoab ms4d8so 


murm 


Lt. cel. Oary Bauapartal 
Oopaifnnt of tba Air Poroa 
AfCH/BSB 

siod Cbannaolt load 

Breo fca APB, Taaaa 7S239-931S 

Dear Lt. Cel. Bauapartal: 

In aeeordanea with our roaponaibility under tba national 
iRvirecBantal Policy Act (HBPA) and Section 309 of tba Claaa Air 
Act, wa have roviawad tba Draft Bnvlrennaatal Znpact statMont 
(tZS) for tba Oiapeaal and lauaa of tfurtanltb Air Poreo Baaa 
(APB) ia loace county, Hiehipan. tha cleauro and rouao of 
Nurtanitb APB ia conalatant with tba ropuiroBonta of tba Oofanaa 
Baaa Cleauro and laalipnoant Act which aandataa raalipnBont and 
roductien of tba Nation'a nilitary forcaa. 

Murtanitb Air Perea Baaa onuo npoaaaa 4,dad acM within ita 
aatabliabad beundariao, and ineludaa an airfield, aviation 
auppert facilltlaa, indoatrial faeilitiaa, public rocraaticn 
facilitlaa, a cantowant aroa and a raaidantial area. Of tbia 
acraapo, only 12 paroant ia actually ow n ed by tha Air Perea, and 
tba raaalninp SB percent ia faa-ewnad and will autonatically 
rwart to tba pravioua ownorabip after cloaura of tba baaa. tha 
pdbl of tba Air Porca la to diapeaa of ita 9SS acraa of Murtanitb 
APB property through tranafar and/or convayanca to other Stata or 
local povomaant apanciaa or private partiaa, accordinp to tba 
Draft BIS. 

the purpeaa of tba Draft BIS la to oeapaa tba anvirenaantal 
li^aeta of varioua rauaa altamativaa relative to tba currant, 
baaolina condition. Per tbia raaaen, tba Draft BIS doaa net 
contain detailed Infomation on eontaninatad proundwatar plwaa 
etnaart by pact activitiaa on tha baaa. Tbaaa proundwatar lapaeta 
have bean aipnificant, aa Indicated in a Ha n a pan a n t Action Plan 
for tba baaa that wan iaauad at tha aaaa tine aa tha Draft BIS. 
Tha Hanapanant Action Plan la not a NBPA doeunant, but our Maata 
Hanapanant Diviaien provided ua a copy ao that our two diviaion'a 
araaa of raaponaibility with ra a po e t to Murtanitb APB could ba 
intapratad. Tha Hanapanant Action Plan containa datailad 
infomation for aona 51 eontaninatad proundwatar aitaa at tba 
baaa, but no infomation boyond tba location of tbaaa aitaa la 
Included In tba Draft BIS. 


Oaapita tba appaamnoa of aipnlfienat oniaaiena, wa ■uHpart tba 
purpeaa of tba Draft BZS to aaaaaa only tbaaa iivacta ■aaociatad 
with rauaa activitiaa ralatlvo to tba oaiatlnp cenditlan. Thia 
atratopy ia cenoiatant with tba Intarapancy doewant, t*Baaa 
Cleauro aad Bnvirefantal laviaw Hanual: Infomation to Aid ia 
tba SBPA laviaw Pr oo aa a of MIAC Daciaiona.* Aocordinp to tbia 
doeunant, baaa eloauroa am to ba bandied under tba c a^ r ab an aiva 
BivirooMBtal laaponaa, ca^anaatlon, and Liability Act (CSBCIA) 
aad Suparfund Aaoateaota aad laautberisatlan Act (SAIA) procaaa 
whan wivironnantal lapaeta include basardeua aubataneaa. 
otbarwiaa, baaa oleaum is handled by tba MBPA prooaaa. The 
praaanoa of haaa r deua aubatanoaa and aaaooiatad lapaeta to 
preundwntar at Murtaadtb APB cannet ba dlaputad. lanadtal 
invaatipatieno and cleanup activitiaa at tba baaa am currently 
being handled under a C o n aa nt Daeraa between tba Air Pareo and 
tba Stata of Hicblpan. Thia Co na ant Daeraa haa bean in piaeo 
aineo mvinbar ifSO. In addition to nnatinp tbo roquirananta of 
tba C o n n an t Oaema, tbn Air Poren will conduct ail Inatallatlon 
wuatomtlon Proprin actlvltioo in a nannar conalatant wltb 
Saetlon 120 of Clicm, aa anandad by SAIA, according to tba 
Hanapanant Aetlco Plan. 

Altboopb tba baaa ia praaaatly net on tbo suporfund National 
Prioritiaa Liat, tbia Hating ia ospactad to occur in tba near 
fufcim. Murtanitb APB is currantly being avaluatad by tha 
Suparfund Site Aaaaaanant prepran, purauiM to section 120 of 
SAIA of itss. Tbo SAIA mpolotiona indicate that all Padaml 
faoilitias listed on tbo Podoral Paoiltty deekat, including 
Murtanitb API, aaat ba a aa aa aad for plicanont on tha Natlonai 
Prioritiaa Liat. Thia ia dona by avaluatinp infomation froa a 
Pmliainaxy Aaaaaanant and Sits XnapaetlMi, mieh than laada to 
tbo pmpamtlen of a Haiard lanbinp Systan paekapa. Infomation 
providad by Murtanitb APB was avaluatad and was found to bo 
autflclant for Pmlialnary Aaaoaanant, Situ Inapaction and tba 
Hatard Banking Systan. Tha dmft Hasard Banking Syaten package 
la currently ba.l^ p r epa r ed by a u.s. BPA contractor and will bo 
seat to U.S. BPA Kaadpuartam upon mvlaw by legion S staff. Our 
Ag ency*# waata Hanapanant Oiviaion plana on subaitting tbo 
packapo to l aadquartam in tbn near futum. pellowlng 
Hoadquartar'a raviaw and approval, tha site will ba proposed for 
tbo National Prioritiaa List. Although our Apaney ia unabla to 
identify dnfinitn dataa whan tbaaa actions will taka place, this 
p r oo aa a ia procaading and is ultiaataly axpaetad to result in tba 
ineluaion of Murtanitb APB on tbo National Prioritiaa List. 

Poor altamativaa vnm avaluatad in Draft BIS for considaration 
of rauna at Murtanitb API. Those four altamativaa include: i) 
r adaval o pna nt for industrial, cennareial. raaidantial, and 
moraatlonal uaa (tba proposed option). 2 ) full radavolopnant 
plus tba addition of a fim traininp oantar in tba nortbwastam 
region of tbo baaa, 3) axtansiva racraational uaa of baaa area, 
vitb lipbt industrial and eonnoreial uaa but no roaidoneas, and 


Wurtsmith AFB DispossJ and Reuse FEIS 


9-31 










Docu m utll 


Doeumantll 


4 ) — t»» tna ia U*« la aaaa-taKaa ataua, 

ait* aa alaaaa* aaa. ffea titwt af tMaa a^ aaaatlaaa la 

-Vja 5«a« alaMlt U ItiaCUlaa la ^ Jtyt^Pa aa 

aSmmm >iltk*a>tarutanauS,*aa*fra(aa^t ta tka tin tnlalai 
amtm altaaaaUn. ma a mk aaa t factlaa at tha kaaa aaacalaa 

mnata aat aCkaa aaa l a tla a l ... Uwt ania ka la >i iin t ^ 

tka tin tnlalat aeclaltlaa. 

aa kan aaaa a al anaakaatar aaaaaan altk tka al t a n a t laaa la tka 
kntt na. kakaaalnaaat plan akaalk mn a l» tkat taklla 
aatac aafplr aalla an iii ta r aa* n i>«n n aa «* ka alaaaan aar ka 
altkla tka tacan aallkaa* a c a t a trtln a aaaa. malaltr at 

■ I If- aaaalapant aa* aatlvltlaa ta tkan aalla tkaa l * ka 

iiiaaUiril la laa* an taala* plan, tka riaal fX* akn l t 
tkaatlt* tka laoatlaa at tkan aalla, aa* nn aa l ta r kn t nt nt a 
OOBI* n aaalta* altkla nllkaa* pntaetln ann. kin, 

**^****‘* ‘'ontiaintln^***'lnann**''oaMnnta!*tln 
SalaSf^Sta. Plan tor tin txalalaf’^taoUltln alll aaa* ta 
Inlan naan aatar ptataatln aaaaana, aaek n llaak pita, 
paaaar atan*a ot tnlala* tkaolaala, an trap i t ti ap n aa l at 
aaotn. It tka tin tnlalat altanatlaa la oalaotn, tkn 
laalaaaatatln at tkan altl*ttln nan n a akaol* n oonlttn 
to u tn naal n*. 

Tka artpaait n*aaalapaaat altamtla* oaol* n aaaoaaatallp 
mar*— altk alntnl aaalxonoatal lapaot, pnal*n tkot tatan 
latootrln an taaoliaaiat pnlaota aikian ta itata an Padanl 
aaalrooaaatal ra*al at lan. tha n)ar otaea n (or nkaaolopatat 
la tn oataat at aoataalntln alnaty ptati n t oa alta. m 
aaparfon protm ropocta tktn trlcklonatkylan (TCt) plaan ia 


: yn tor tn appaataalty n naln tn natt l ai l iinaa t i 
* miMnl tar tn ninaaal an kaon at karrnltk klr 
I tan. It an kan aa* «ta**lan n ta r t i a* aa* aaaaaan 
a oaaaaat ati. kakaoan at op atatt at (>U) u*-l*«t. 


itmm 

1 Plmmimt mA rnmm 


OlaoMSiM o( hmm i 
tte MOM of this 4i 


dUtiOO* iMMVMt 

OM, oa« oUl M 


^poora to bo otttoldo 


■oood on oar rooloo oad U oooontiaoo wltb o«r polter* «o bovo 
ratbd tbo Qroft BXb oo "IC-a*. tbo "be* ■■■■■ tbot oo hooo oa 
Motrwoafil ooaoorM oltb tbo propBOod oltaraotioo, oad tbo *2* 
aoMO odittloaol iafocMtloa ia'aooooaory to foUf ooaoM oil 
lapoetoa our e o M o r ao olll bo ootiofloi oboa tbo loeotloM of 
noBiliy poblle oator oopplloo oro idoatlflod* oad odi Uttna o l 
lafocMtioa U providod ooaootniaf tbo oooldoaoo of lapoeto to 
oollbood protoetloa oroooa IboM eoaoonia oboold bo oddr oooo il ia 
tbo Piaol ns oad boeecd of OMloion. 



9-32 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reusa FEIS 









APPENDICES 



















APPENDIX A 


GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 







GLOSSARY OF TERMS 


Accidant PotantW Zoom (APZt). Safety zones delineated using operational information derived 
from the base mission. 

Advisory CouncI on Historic Preservation. A 19-member body appointed, in part, by the President 
of the United States to advise the President and Congress and to coordinate the actions of federal 
agencies on matters relating to historic preservation, to comment on the effects of such actions on 
historic and archaeological cultural resources, and to perform other duties as required by law (Public 
Law 89-655; 16 U.S. Code §470). 

Aesthetics. Referring to the perception of beauty. 

Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AlCUZ). An area delineated as part of an Air Force program 
to minimize development that is incompatible with aviation operation in areas on or adjacent to 
miiitary airfields. 

Aircraft operation. A takeoff or landing at an airport. 

Alluvium. Clay, silt, sand, gravel, or similar material deposited by running water. 

Ambient Air Quality Standards. Standards established on a state or federal level that define the 
limits for airborne concentrations of designated ’criteria” pollutants (nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, 
carbon monoxide, total suspended particulates, ozone and lead), to protect public health with an 
adequate margin of safety (primary standards) and to protect public welfare, including plant and 
animal life, visibility, and materials (secondary standards). 

Apron. An area on an airport intended to accommodate aircraft for purposes of loading or 
unloading passengers or cargo, refueling, or maintenance. 

Aquifer. The water-bearing portion of subsurface earth material that yields or is capable of yielding 
useful quantities of water to wells. 

Asbestos. A carcinogenic substance formerly used widely as an insulation material by the 
construction industry; often found in older buildings. 

Attainment area. A region that meets the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for a criteria 
pollutant under the Clean Air Act. 

Average Annual Daily Traffic (AAOT). For a one-year period, the total traffic volume passing a 
point or segment of a highway facility in both directions, divided by the number of days in the year. 

Benzene. Colorless, volatile, flammable, toxic, liquid aromatic hydrocarbon. 

Biophysical. Pertaining to the physical and biological environment, including the environmental 
conditions crafted by man. 

Boreal forest. A northern evergreen forest comprising mainly fir, pine, and spruce. 

Canopy. The uppermost branchy layer of a forest. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 


A-1 







Cantonment. The main developed portion of a military base containing administrative and 
community support facilities. 

Capacity (roadway). The maximum rate of flow at which vehicles can be reasonably expected to 
traverse a point or uniform segment of a lane or roadway during a specified time period under 
prevailing roadway, traffic, and control conditions. 

Carbon monoxide (CO). A colorless, odorless, poisonous gas produced by incomplete fossil-fuel 
combustion. One of the six pollutants for which there is a national ambient standard. See Criteria 
pollutants. 

Class I. II. and III Areas. Area classifications, defined by the Clean Air Act, for which there are 
established limits to the annual amount of air pollution increase. Qass I areas include international 
parks and certain national parks and wilderness areas; allowable increases in air pollution are very 
limited. Air pollution increases in Class II areas are less limited, and are least limited in Class III 
areas. Areas not designated as Class I start out as Class II and may be reclassified up or down by 
the state, subject to federal requirements. 

Clear Zone. The immediate end of a runway, where tiie probability of accidents is highest and 
most land uses are discouraged. 

Commercial aviation. Aircraft activity licensed by state or federal authority to transport passengers 
and/or cargo for hire on a scheduled or nonscheduled basis. 

Comprehensive Plan. A public document, usually consisting of maps, text, and supporting 
materials, adopted and approved by a local government legislative body, which describes future 
land uses, goals, and policies. 

Contaminants. Undesirable substances rendering something unfit for use. 

Control Zone. Controlled airspace which extends upward from the surface of the earth and 
terminates at the base of the continental control area. Control zones that do not underlie the 
continental control area have no upper limit. A control zone may include one or more airports and 
is normally a circular area with a radius of 5 statute miles and any extensions necessary to include 
instrument approach and departure paths. 

Conveyance. The transfer of property from federal ownership to a non-federal group or agency. 

Corrosive. A material that has the ability to cause visible destruction of living tissue and has a 
destructive effect on other substances. An acid or a base. 

CouncS on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Established by the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA), the CEQ consists of three members appointed by the President. CEQ regulations (40 CFR 
1500-1508, as of July 1, 1986) described the process for implementing NEPA, including 
preparation of environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, and the timing 
and extent of public participation. 

Criteria pollutants. The Clean Air Act required the Environmental Protection Agency to set air 
quality standards for common and widespread pollutants after preparing "criteria documents* 
summarizing scientific knowledge on their health effects. Today there are standards in effect for 
six "criteria pollutants": sulfur dioxide (SOj), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter equal to or 
less than 10 microns in diameter (PM,o), nitrogen dioxide (NOj), ozone (O,), and lead (Pb). 


A-2 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 






Cultural ratourcas. Prehistoric and historic districts, sites, buildings, objects, or any other physical 
evidence of human activity considered important to a culture, subculture, or a community for 
scientific, traditional, religious, or any other reason. 

Cumulative impacts. The combined impacts resulting from all activities occurring concurrently at a 
given location. 

DayNight Average Sound Level (ONU. The 24-hour average-energy sound level expressed in 
decibels, with a 10-decibei penalty added to sound levels between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. to 
account for incrtaased annoyance due to noise during night hours. 

Decibel IdB). A unit of measurement on a logarithmic scale which describes the magnitude of a 
particular quantity of sound pressure or power with respect to a standard reference value. 

Dichloroethylene (DCE). A product of trichloroethylene decomposition. 

Disposal. Legal transfer of Air Force property to other ownership. 

Easement. A right or privilege (agreement) that a person may have on another's property. 

Effluent. Waste material discharged into the environment. 

Endangered species. A species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range. 

Environmental Impact Analysis Process. The process of conducting environmental studies as 
outlined in Air Force Regulation 19-2. 

Erosion. Wearing away of soil and rock by weathering and the action of streams, wind, and 
underground water. 

Reet mix. Combination of aircraft used by a given agency. 

Floodplain. The lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters including 
flood-prone areas of offshore islands; including, at a minimum, that area subject to a 1 percent or 
greater change of flooding in any given year. 

Frequency. The time rate (number of times per second) that the wave of sound repeats itself, or 
that a vibrating object repeats itseif-now expressed in Hertz (Hz), formerly in cycles per second 
(cps). 

Friable. Easily crumbled or reduced to powder. 

General aviation. Ail aircraft which are not commercial or military aircraft. 

General Development Plan (GDP). A plan regulating long-range development and resource 
management within a city. 

Geomorphic. Pertaining to the form of the earth or its surface features. 

Groundwater. Water within the earth that supplies wells and springs. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 





HabftiMt*. To bocomo accustomod to froquont ropotitton or prolongod oxposuro. 

Hydrocarbons. Any of a vast family of compounds containing hydrogen and carbon. Used loosely 
to include many organic compounds in various combinations: most fossil fuels are composed 
predominately of hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons in the atmosphere mix with nitrogen oxides in the 
presence of sunlight to form ozone. 

Hydrology. A science dealing with the properties, distribution, and circulation of water both above 
and below the earth's surface. 

Impacts. An assessment of the meaning of changes in all attributes being studied for a given 
resource; an aggregation of all the adverse effects, usually measured using a qualitative and 
nominally subjective technique. In this EIS, as well as in the CEQ regulations, the word impact is 
used synonymously with the word effect. 

Infrastructure. The basic installations and facilities on which the continuance and growth of a local 
community, state, etc., depend (roads, schools, power plants, transportation and communication 
systems, etc.) 

Interstate. The designated National System of Interstate and Defense Highways located in both 
rural and urban areas; they connect the east and west coasts and extend from points on the 
Canadian border to various points on the Mexican border. 

trine. Of or having to do with a lake or lakes. 

L^. The equivalent steady state sound level which in a stated period of time would contain the 
same acoustical energy as time-varying sound level during the same period. 

The highest A-weighted sound level observed during a single event of any duration. 

Lead (Pb). A heavy metal used in many industries, which can accumulate in the body and cause a 
variety of negative effects. One of the six pollutants for which there is a national ambient air 
quality standard. See Criteria pollutants. 

Level of service (LOS). In transportation analyses, a qualitative measure describing operational 
conditions within a traffic stream and how they are perceived by motorists and/or passengers, in 
public services, a measure describing the amount of public services (e.g., fire protection and law 
enforcement services) available to community residents, generally expressed as the number of 
personnel providing the services per 1,000 population. 

Lithic scatter. Concentration of stone chipped artifacts. 

Loudness. The qualitative judgment of intensity of a sound perceived by a human being. 

Masking. The action of bringing one sound (audible when heard alone) to inaudibility or to 
unintelligibility by the introduction of another sound. 

Military Operations Area. Airspace areas of defined vertical and lateral limits established for the 
purpose of separating certain training activities, such as air combat maneuvers, air intercepts, and 
acrobatics, from other air traffic operating under instrument flight rules. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







Mineral raaourcaa. Mineral deposits that may eventually become available: known deposits not 
recoverable at present or yet undiscovered. 

Mitigation. A method or action to reduce or eliminate program impacts. 

Muiti-famly housing. Townhouse or apartment units that accommodate more than one family, 
although each dwelling unit is occupied by only one household. 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Section 109 of the Clean Air Act requires the 
Environmental Protection Agency to set nationwide standards, the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards, for widespread air pollutants. Currently, six pollutants are regulated by primary and 
secondary NAAQS: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter equal to or 
less than 10 microns in diameter, and sulfur dioxide. See Criteria poHutants. 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Public Law 91-190, passed by Congress in 1969. The 
Act established a national policy designed to encourage consideration of the influences of human 
activities (e.g., population growth, high-density urbanization, industrial development) on the natural 
environment. NEPA also established the Council on Environmental Quality. NEPA procedures 
require that environmental information be made available to the public before decisions are made. 
Inform^^ jn contained in NEPA documents must focus on the relevant issues in order to facilitate 
the decision-making process. 

National Priorities List. A list of sites (federal and state) where releases of hazardous materials may 
have occurred and may cause an unreasonable risk to the health and safety of an individuals, 
property, or the environment. 

National Register of Historic Places. A register of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects 
important in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture, maintained by the Secretary 
of the Interior under authority of Section 2(b) of the Historic Sites Act of 1935 and Section 
101(a)(1) of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. 

Native Americans. Used in a collective sense to refer to individuals, bands, or tribes who trace 
their ancestry to indigenous populations of North America prior to Euro-American contact. 

Nitrogen dioxide (NO,). Gas formed primarily from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when 
combustion takes place at high temperature. NQ, emissions contribute to acid deposition and 
formation of atmosphere ozone. One of the six pollutants for which there is a national ambient 
standard. See Criteria pollutants. 

Nitrogen oxides (NO.). Gases formed primarily by fuel combustion, which contribute to the 
formation of acid rain. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides combine in the presence of sunlight to 
form ozone, a major constituent of smog. 

Noise. Any sound that is undesirable because it interferes with speech and hearing, or is intense 
enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying (unwanted sound). 

Noise attenuation. Ths reduction of a noise level from a source by such means as distance, ground 
effects, or shielding. 

Noise contour. A line connecting points of equal noise exposure on a map. Noise exposure is 
often expressed using the average day-night sound level, DNL. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


r5 





Nonattainmant araa. An araa that haa baan designated by the Environmental Protection Agency or 
the appropriate state air quality agency, as exceeding one or more National or State Ambient Air 
Quality Standards. 

100-year floodplain. See floodplain. 

Operable Unit. One or more IRP sites grouped togetfter because of similar geographic area, types 
of contamination, or cleanup methods. 

Operating Location (OL). An organizational element of die Air Force Base Disposal Agency located 
at a closing base. The OL is responsible for the care and custody of closed areas of the base, 
disposal of real and related personal property, and environmental cleanup. This office is the 
primary point of contact for local community reuse organizations and the general public who deal 
with the disposal and reuse of the base. 

Ozone (ground level). A major ingredient of smog. Ozone is produced from reactions of 
hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight and heat. One of the six pollutants 
for which there is a national ambient standard. See Criteria pollutants. 

Ozone precursors. Emitted air pollutants that chemically combine to produce ozone in the presence 
of sunlight. 

Particulate matter (PM,o). Solid particles consisting of dust, soot, and various types of chemical 
species that have been emitted into the atmosphere and can remain suspended for several days or 
weeks. Particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter iPM,o) can be hazardous to 
human health because it is small enough to penetrate the lung's natural defenses and may contain 
toxic or other chemicals that present a health concern. One of the six pollutants for which there is 
a national ambient standard. See Criteria pollutants. 

PCBs. See Polychlorinated biphenyls. 

PCB-contaminated equipment. Equipment which contains a concentration of polychlorinated 
biphenyls (PCBs, see definition) from 50 to 499 ppm and is regulated by the EPA. 

PCB equipment. Equipment which contains a concentration of PCBs of 500 ppm or greater and is 
regulated by the EPA. 

Permeability. The capacity of a porous rock or sediment to transmit a fluid. 

Pesticides. Any substance, organic or inorganic, used to destroy or inhibit the action of plant or 
animal pests; the term thus includes insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, rodenticides, miticides, 
fumigants, and repellents. All pesticides are toxic to humans to a greater or lesser degree. 
Pesticides vary in biodegradability. 

Physiographic province. A region in which ail parts are similar in geologic structure and climate. 

Pleistocene. An earlier epoch of the Quaternary period during the "ice age" beginning 
approximately 3 million years ago and ending 10,000 years ago. Also refers to the rocks and 
sediments deposited during that time. 

Plume. An elongated mass of contaminated fluid moving with the flow. 


-6 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 





PM,o. See Particulate matter. 

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Any of a family of industrial compounds produced by 
chlorination of biphenyl. These compounds are noted chiefly as an environmental pollutant that 
accumulates in organisms and concentrates in the food chain with resultant pathogenic and 
teratogenic effects. They also decompose very slowly. 

Potable water. Suitable for drinking. 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). In the 1977 Amendments to the Clean Air Act, 
Congress mandated that areas with air cleaner than required by national ambient air quality 
standards must be protected from significant deterioration. The Clean Air Act's PSD program 
consists of two elements: requirements for best available control technology on major new or 
modified sources, and compliance with an air quality increment system. 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Area. A requirement of the Clean Air Act that limits the 
increases in ambient air pollutant concentrations in attainment areas to certain increments even 
though ambient air quality standards are met. 

Primary roads. A consolidated system of connected main roads important to regional, statewide, 
and interstate travel; they consist of rural arterial routes and their extensions into and through 
urban areas of 5,000 or more population. 

Prime farmland. Environmentally significant agricultural lands protected from irreversible conversion 
to other uses. 

Reactive organic gases (ROGs). Reactive organic gases in the form of hydrocarbons that combine 
photochemically with nitrogen oxides to produce ozone. 

Recent. The time period from approximately 10,000 years ago to the present and the rocks and 
sediments deposited during that time. 

Remediation. The process of removing or detoxifying environmental contamination. 

Restricted area. Designated airspace in which aircraft activity, while not prohibited, is subject to 
certain restrictions. 

Reuse. Development plan for use of former Air Force property after base closure. 

Richter scale. A logarithmic scale for measurement of the energy released by an earthquake. 

Runway protection zones (RPZs). The zone beyond the end of the runway area usable for takeoff 
or landing. 

Sediment. Material deposited by wind or water. 

Single-family housing. A conventionally built house consisting of a single dwelling unit occupied by 
one household. 

Site. As it relates to cultural/resources, any location where humans have altered the terrain or 
discarded artifacts. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 


A-7 




Sludg*. A heavy, slimy deposit, sediment, or mass resuitina from industrial activity: solids removed 
from wastewater. 

Sol association. Two or more soils occurring together in a characteristic pattern. 

Solvent. A substance that dissolves or can dissolve another substance. 

Sound. The auditory sensation evoked by the compression and rarefaction of the air or other 
transmitting medium. 

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The official within each state, authorized by the state 
at the request of the Secretary of the Interior, to act as liaison for purposes of implementing the 
National Historic Preservation Act. 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). Program developed for those areas of the state that are not in 
attainment of criteria air pollutant standards. 

Statute MPe. Unit of distance equal to 5,280 feet. 

Sulfur dioxide (SO,). A toxic gas that is produced when fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, are 
burned. SO 2 is the main pollutant involved in the formation of acid rain. SO 3 also can irritate the 
upper respiratory tract and cause lung damage. The major source of SO 2 in the United States is 
coal-burning electric utilities. One of the six pollutants for which there is a national ambient 
standard. See Criteria pollutants. 

Therm. A measurement of units of heat equal to 100,000 British thermal units (BTUs). 

Threatened species. Plant and wildlife species likely to become endangered in the foreseeable 
future. 

Toluene. Liquid aromatic hydrocarbon used as a solvent. 

Total suspended particulates (TSP). The particulate matter in the ambient air. The previous 
national ambient air quality standard for particulates was based on TSP levels; it was replaced in 
1987 by an ambient standard based on PM^o levels. 

Traffic volume. The number of vehicles passing a point on a lane, roadway, or other trafficway 
during some time interval. 

Transfer. Deliver U.S. Government property accountability to another federal agency. 

Trichloroethylene (TCE). An organic solvent used in dry cleaning and removal of grease from 
metal. 

Trip distribution. A determination of the interchange of trips among zones in the region. 

Trip generation. A determination of the quantity of trip ends associated with a parcel of land. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The independent federal agency, established in 
1970, that regulates federal environmental matters and oversees the implementation of federal 
environmental laws. 


A-8 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






Wetlands. Areas that are inundated or saturated with surface or groundwater at a frequency and 
duration sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil. 
This classification includes swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Jurisdictional wetlands are 
those wetlands that meet the hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology criteria 
under normal circumstances (or meet the special circumstances as described in the CE, 1987 
wetland delineation manual where one or more of these criteria may be absent and are a subset of 
"waters of the United States.* 

Xylene. Liquid aromatic hydrocarbon used as a solvent. 

Zoning. The division of a municipality (or county) into districts for the purpose of regulating land 
use, types of building, required yards, necessary off-street parking, and other prerequisites to 
development. Zones are generally shown on a map and the text of the zoning ordinance specifies 
requirements for each zoning category. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


A-9 







ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS 


AADT 

ACC 

ACM 

ADT 

AFB 

AFBOA 

AFR 

af/yr 

AGE 

AHERA 

AlCUZ 

ALP 

APZ 

AREFS 

ARTCC 

ATC 

BMW 

CAA 

CE 

CEO 

CERCLA 

CFR 

COCESS 

CO 

CPCO 

CZ 

dB 

DBCRA 

DCE 

DD 

DEIS 

DERP 

DNL 

DOO 

DOT 

DRMO 

EDMS 

EIS 

EIAP 

EOD 


average annual daily traffic 
Air Combat Command 
asbestos-containing matariai(s) 
average daily traffic 
Air Force Base 

Air Force Base Disposal Agency 

Air Force Regulation 

acre-feet per year 

aerospace ground equipment 

Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act 

Air installation Compatible Use Zone 

Airport Layout Plan 

Accident; Potential Zone 

Air Refueling Squadron 

Air Route Traffic Control Center 

air traffic control 

Bombardment Wing 

Clean Air Act 

Civil Engineering 

Council on Environmental Quality 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 
Code of Federal Regulations 

Contractor Operated Civil Engineering Supply System 

carbon monoxide 

Consumers Power Company 

Clear Zone 

decibel 

Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act 

dichloroethylene 

Decision Document 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Defense Environmental Restoration Program 

day-night average sound level 

Department of Defense 

Department of Transportation (federal) 

Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office 
Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System 
Environmental Impact Statement 
Environmental Impact Analysis Process 
explosive ordnance disposal 


A-10 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 






EPA 

FAA 

FBO 

FEiS 

FHWA 

FIFRA 

FPMR 

FS 

GDP 

GLMAC 

GOCESS 

GSA 

HHS 

HMTA 

HUO 

HWMP 

IFR 

INM 

IRP 

JP-4 

kV 

kVA 

U, 

U 

LOS 

MAAQS 

MBTU 

MONR 

MOOT 

MERA 

MG 

MGD 

MichCon 

MOA 

MOGAS 

mph 

MSA 

MSL 

MSDS 

MTR 

MWH 


Environmantal Protection Aoency 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Fixed Base Operator 

Rnal Environmental Impact Statement 

Federal Highwav Administration 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

Federal Property Management Regulations 

Feasibility Study 

General Development Plan 

Great Lakes and Mid*Atlantic Hazardous Substance Research Center 

Government Operated Civil Engineering Supply System 

General Services Administration 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Hazardous Materials Transportation Act 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Hazardous Waste Management Plan 

instrument flight rules 

Integrated Noise Model 

Installation Restoration Program 

jet fuel 

kilovolt 

kilovolt amperes 
abbreviation of DNL 
equivalent sound level 
A'weighted maximum sound level 
level of service 

Michigan Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Million British Thermal Units 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources 

Michigan Department of Transportation 

Michigan Environmental Response Act 

micrograms per cubic meter 

million gallons 

million gallons per day 

Michigan Consolidated Gas Company 

Military Operations Area 

motor vehicle gasoline 

miles per hour 

Metropolitan Statistical Area 

mean sea level 

Material Safety Data Sheet 

military training route 

megawatt-hours 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


A-11 





NAAQS 

NCO 

NCP 

NEPA 

NESHAP 

NFADD 

NHPA 

NLR 

NO, 

NOI 

NOISEMAP 

NO, 

NPOES 

NPL 

NRHP 

O, 

OL 

OSHA 

PA 

PA/SI 

PCBs 

pCi/l 

P. L. 

PM,o 

ppb 

POL 

ppm 

PSD 

RA 

RAPCON 

RCRA 

RD 

RD/RA 

Rl 

RI/FS 

ROD 

ROG 

ROI 

RPZ 

SAC 

SARA 

SCS 

SEL 


National Ambiant Air Quality Starnlards 

non-commiaaionad officar 

National Contingancy Plan 

National Environmantal Policy Act of 1969 

National Emiaaions Standarda for Hazardoua Air Pollutanta 

No Furthar Action Daciaion Oocumant 

National Hiatoric Praaarvation Act 

noiaa laval reduction 

nitrogen dioxide 

Notice of Intent 

Noiaa Expoaure Modal 

nitrogen oxidaa 

Natiorwl Pollutant Diacharge Elimination Syatem 

National Prioritiaa Liat 

National Ragiater of Hiatoric Placea 

ozone 

Operating Location 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

Preliminary Assessment 

Preliminary Assessment/Site inspection 

polychlorinated biphenyls 

picocuries per liter 

Public Law 

particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter 

parts per billion 

petroleum, oils, and lubricants 

parts per million 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
Remedial Action 
Radar Approach Control 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
Remedial Design 

Remedial Design/Remedial Action 

Remedial Investigation 

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study 

Record of Decision 

reactive organic gases 

Region of Influence 

runway protection zone 

Strategic Air Command 

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act 
Soil Conservation Service 
sound exposure level 


A-12 


Wurts/nith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 






SHPO 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

SI 

Site Inspection 

SIP 

State Implementation Ran 

SO, 

sulfur dioxide 

TCE 

trichloroethylene 

TRACON 

terminal radar approach control 

TSCA 

Toxic Substances Control Act 

TSP 

total suspended particulates 

U.S.C. 

U.S. Code 

USFWS 

U.S. Hsh and Wildlife Service 

uses 

U.S. Geological Survey 

UST 

underground storage tank 

VFR 

visual flight rules 

voc 

volatile organic compounds 

VOR 

very high frequency omnidirectional range 

VTEs 

vehicle trip ends 

WAEAC 

Wurtsmith Area Economic Adjustment Commission 

WBCA 

Wurtsmith Base Conversion Authority 

WSA 

Weapons Storage Area 

WWTP 

wastewater treatment plant 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 


A-13 






THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 


A-14 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 












APPENDIX B 

NOTICE OF INTENT 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 






The following notice of intent wes circulated and published by the Air Force in the October 9, 1991 
Federal Register in order to provide public notice of the Air Force's intent to prepare an 
Environmental Impact Statement of disposal and reuse of Wurtsmith Air Force Base. This Notice of 
Intent has been retyped for clarity and legibility. 

Please Note: The point of contact for information on the disposal and reuse environmental impact 
statements has been changed. The new point of contact is: 

Lt. Colonel Gary P. Baumgartel 

AFCEE/ESE 

8106 Chennault Road 

Brooks AFB, Texas 78235-5318 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 


B-1 






NOTICE OF INTENT 


TO PREPARE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS 
FOR DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF THIRTEEN AIR FORCE BASES 


The United States Air Force will prepare thirteen environmental impact statements (EISs) to assess 
the potential environmental impacts of disposal and reuse of the following Air Force bases recently 
directed to be closed under the provisions of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 
1990 (Public Law 101-510. Title XXIX): 

Closing. Basg 

Bergstrom AFB, Austin, Texas 

Carswell AFB, Fort Worth, Texas 

Castle AFB, Merced. California 

Eaker AFB, Blytheville. Arkansas 

England AFB, Alexandria, Louisiana 

Grissom AFB, Peru, Indiana 

Loring AFB, Limestone, Maine 

Lowry AFB, Denver, Colorado 

Myrtle Beach AFB, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 

Richards Gebaur ARS, Kansas City, Missouri 

Rickenbacker AGB, Columbus, Ohio 

Williams AFB. Chandler, Arizona 

Wurtsmith AFB, Oscoda, Michigan 

Each EIS will address the disposal of the property to public or private entities and the potential 
impacts of reuse alternatives. All available property will be disposed of in accordance with 
provisions of Public Law 101-510 and applicable federal property disposal regulations. 

The Air Force plans to conduct a scoping and screening meeting within the local area for each base 
during October and November 1991. Notice of the time and place of each meeting will be made 
available to public officials and local news media outlets once it has been finalized. The purpose of 
each meeting is to determine the environmental issues and concerns to be analyzed for the base 
disposal and reuse in that area, to solicit comments on the proposed action and to solicit proposed 
disposal and reuse alternatives that should be addressed in the EIS for that base. In soliciting 
disposal and reuse inputs, the Air Force intends to consider all reasonable alternatives offered by 
any federal, state, or local government agency and any federally-sponsored or private entity or 


B-2 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 




individual with an interest in acquiring available property at one of the listed closing bases. The 
resulting environmental impacts will be considered in making disposal decisions to be documented 
in the Air Force's final disposal plan for each base. 

To ensure the Air Force will have sufficient time to consider public inpuu 3n issues to be included 
in the ElSs. and disposal alternatives to be included in the final disposal plans, comments and reuse 
proposals should be forwarded to the address listed below by December 1, 1991. However, the 
Air Force will accept comments at the address below at any time during the environmental impact 
analysis process. 

For further information concerning the study of these base disposal and reuse EIS activities, 
contact: 

Lt. Colonel Tom Bartol 
AFCEE/ESE 

Norton AFB, California 92409*6448 


Note: Comment date was extended from December 1, 1991 to January 2, 1992 after 

processing and publication of this Notice of Intent. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


B-3 





THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 


B-4 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 











APPENDIX C 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MAILING LIST 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 
MAIUNG UST 


This list of recipients includes interested federal, state, and local agencies and individuals who have 
expressed an interest in receiving the docurnent. This list also includes the governor of Michigan, 
as well as United States senators and representatives and state legislators. 

ELECTED OFFICIALS 

Federal Officials 

U.S. Senate 

The Honorable Carl Levin 
The Honorable Donald Riegle 

U.S. House of Representatives 

The Honorable James Barcia 
The Honorable Joseph Knollenberg 

State of Michigan Officials 

Governor 

The Honorable John Engler 

State Legislature 

The Honorable Tom Alley 
The Honorable Connie Binsfield 
The Honorable John Pridnia 

Regional/Local Officials 

The Honorable Robert Bolen 
Mayor of East Tawas 

The Honorable Edward Gall 
Mayor of Harrisville 

The Honorable James Lansky 
Mayor of Tawas City 

The Honorable Loren Wicoff 
Mayor of Omer 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


C-1 





GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 


F«d«ral AgcnciM 

Administrative Services and Property Management 
Office of the Secretary of Transportation 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Bureau of Mines 

Bureau of Prisons 

Chief, Facilities Development and Operations 

Center for Environmental Health and Injury Control 
Special Programs Group (F29) 

Council of Economic Advisors 

Department of Agriculture 
Forest Service 

Department of Commerce 

Director, Economic Adjustment Division 

Department of Commerce 

Director, Office of Intergovernmental Affairs 

Department of Education 

Assistant to the Deputy Under Secretary for 

Intergovernmental and Interagency Affairs 

Department of Energy 

Division of Intergovernmental Affairs (CP-23) 

Department of Health and Human Services 
Office of Human Development Services 

Department of Housing and Urban Development 
Director, Community Management Division (CPD) 

Department of the Interior 
Fish and Wildlife Service 

Department of the Interior 
National Parks Service 

Department of the Interior 

Director, Office of Environmental Affairs 

Department of Labor 
Intergovernmental Affairs 


C-2 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 




Federal Agenciec (Continued) 


Department of Veterans Affairs 

Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters 
Director, Office of Federal Activities 

Farmers Home Administration 

Deputy Administrator for Program Operations 

Federal Aviation Administration 
Director, Office of Environmental and Energy 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

General Services Administration 

Assistant Commissioner for Real Estate Policy and Sales 

Small Business Administration 
Director, Office of Procurement 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Department of Defense 

Department of Defense 

Director, Office of Economic Adjustment 

Regional Offices of Federal Agencies 

Department of Agriculture 

Huron National Forest 

Forest Supervisor, Planning Group 

Department of Housing and Urban Development 
Chicago 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region V 
Chief, Planning and Environmental Review Branch 

Federal Aviation Administration 
Airports District Office 
Belleville, Michigan 

Federal Aviation Administration 
Des Plains, Illinois 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 
Region V 

General Services Administration 
Office of Real Estate Sales 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 


C-3 







State of Michigan Aganciaa 

Agriculturai Oapartmant 
Director 

Bureau of History 

State Historic Preservation Office 

Corrections Department 
Director 

Department of Natural Resources 

Department of Public Health 
Director 

Education Board 
Director 

Employment Security Commission 
Director 

Labor Department 
Director 

Office of Economic Development 
Director 

Social Services Department 
Director 

State Clearinghouse 
Director 

State Department 
Secretary of State 

State Department of Commerce 
Director 

State Housing Development Authority 
Director 

State Policy Director and Counsel to the Cabinet 

Transportation Department 
Director 

Water Resources Commission 
Director 


C-4 


Wurts/nith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 








Local Govammant Aganciaa 


Au Sabla Township 
Supervisor 

Greanbush Township 
Supervisor 

Iosco County Board of Commissioners 

Marquette County RMOO 
Mr. Jim Kippola 

Oscoda High School 
Community Education 

Oscoda Township 
Supervisor 

Libraries 

Alcona County Public Library 

Alpena County Public Library 

East Tawas Public Library 

Oscoda Public Library 

Saginaw Public Library 

Saginaw Valley State University Library 


OTHERS 

Other Organizations/individuals 

Air Force Association 
Huron Chapter 

Alpena Chamber of Commerce 

American Legion Post 274 
Commander 

American Operations Corporation 
Ms. Kristi Reid 

Board of Realtors 
Northeastern Area 

Mr. John Burt 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 


C-5 





OtlMT Organizstiont/lndivklualt (Continutd) 

Citizen's Advisory Committee on Wurtsmith AFB Contamination, Inc. 
Mr. Paul R. Bruce 

Mr. Edward Davison, Jr. 

The Environmental Company, Inc. 

Ms. Anne Tate 

Environmental Defense Fund 
Executive Director 

Environmental Policy Center/Institute 
Mr. Gilson Foster 
Friends of the Earth 

Great Lakes Mid-Atlantic Hazardous Sustance Research Center 
Dr. Walter J. Weber, Jr., Center Director 

Great Lakes United, Region II 
Mr. John Witzke 
Regional Director 

Greenbush-Oscoda-Au Sable Lodging Association 
Mr. John Mahler, President 

Hale Area Chamber of Commerce 

Huron Shores Business and Professional Women 

Huron Shores Chamber of Commerce 

Kiwanis Club, Oscoda 

Knights of Columbus #5083 

Lions Club, Oscoda 

Masonic Lodge #243 
Au Sable Lodge F&M 

Ms. Margie Matts 

Michigan Air Force Association 
Mr. William Stone, President 

Michigan United Conservation Clubs, Inc. 


C-6 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 






Olhar Organitationt/individuals (Continu«d) 

Military Affairs Committea 
Mr. Bruce Myles 

National Audubon Society 

National Audubon Society 
Great Lakes Region 

National Wildlife Federation 

National Wildlife Federation, Region 7 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

The Nature Conservancy 

The Nature Conservancy 
East Lansing 

Oscoda-Au Sable Chamber of Commerce 

The Pathfinders 

Ms. Ardeth Platte, O.D. 

Rotary Club 
R.T.I. 

Saginaw Chamber of Commerce 

Mr. Ronald E. Shorkey 

Sierra Club 

Sierra Club 
Midwest Field Office 

Standish Chamber of Commerce 

Tawas City Chamber of Commerce 

Tetra Tech, Inc. 

Veterans of Foreign Wars Post #3735 
Veterans of Foreign Wars Post #5678 
West Branch Chamber of Commerce 


Wurtsmith AfB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


C- 






OHmt Organlzationsyindividualt (ContimMd) 

The WiktomeM Socwty 

Th« Wildlife Society 
North Central Sectim 

World Wildlife Fund 

Wurtsmith Area Economic Adjustment Commission 
Mr. Carl Sachs 

Wurtsmith Base Conversion Authority 
Mr. James Storey 


C-8 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 




APPENDIX D 

WURTSMITH AIR FORCE BASE 
INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 







WURTSMITH AIR FORCE BASE INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory Group, 1989. The Installation Restoration 
Program Toxicology Guide. Wrioht-Patterson Air Force Base. Ohio. Volumes l-IV . July. 

ICF Kaiser Engineers, 1991a. Site Health and Safety Pl an for Sites LF-28/29, SS-03/10/17/19/20/ 
21/22. and QT-35. Wurtsmith AFB. Michigan. October. 

ICFKaiser Engineers, 1991b. Site Specific Work Plans for Sites LF-28/29. SS-03/ 10/17/19/20/21/ 
22. and OT-35. Wurtsmith AFB. Michigan. October. 

Metcalf and Eddy, 1987. Public Health Assessment and Groundwater Chemical Constituents 
Associated with the Alert Apron and Northern Landfill Plumes. Wurtsmith AFB. Michigan. 
November. 

Naber, S. and J. Verducci, 1988. Statistical Analysis of Ground Water Contamination at the Alert 
Apron and the Northern Landfill Areas of Wurtsmith AFB. Michigan. Ohio State University 
Department of Statistics, July. 

Radian Corporation, 1985. Installation Restoration Program. Phase I: Records Search. Wurtsmith 
AFB. Michigan. McLean, Virginia, April. 

Research Triangle Institute, 1985. Packed Tower Aeration Study to Remove Volatile Oroanics from 
Groundwater at Wurtsmith AFB. Michigan. March. 

U.S. Air Force, 1988. Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Contamination at the Alert Aoron and 
Northern Landfill Areas of Wurtsmith Air Force Base. Michigan. Occupational and 
Environmental Health Laboratory, July. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1981. Groundwater Contamination at Wurtsmith Air Force Base. 

Michigan. Water-Resources Division, January. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1982. Groundwater Contamination at Wurtsmith Air Force Base. 

Michigan. Water-Resources Division, April. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1983. Ground-Water Contamination at Wurtsmith Air Force Base. 

Michigan. Water-Resources Investigation Report 83-4002, prepared in cooperation with the 
U.S. Air Force. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1986. Assessment of Ground-Water Contamination at Wurtsmith Air 
Force Base. Michigan. 1982-85. Water-Resources Investigation Report 86-4188, prepared in 
cooperation with the U.S. Air Force. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


D-1 






U.S. Gaolooical Survey, 1990. A Literature Survey of Information on Well Installation and Samol 
Collectiori Procedures Used In Investigation of Grour^d Water Contamination bv Organic 
Compounds. August. 

U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, 1990. Installation Restoration Program. Phase II 
Confirmation/Quantification. Stage 2. Wurtsmith AFB. Michigan: An E nvironmental 
System. Final Report. Vol. I, II, Lansing, Michigan, August. 

U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, 1991. Installation Restoration Program. Phase II 
Confirmation/Quantification. Stage 1. Wurtsmi th. AFB. Michig an: Investigations of 
Groundwate r and Soil C ontamination at Selected Sites. Final Reports . Vols. I-III, Lansing. 
Michigan, September. 


1-2 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 






APPENDIX E 

METHODS OF ANALYSIS 


Wurtsmith AFB Dispose and Reuse FE/S 







METHODS OF ANALYSIS 


1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This section describes the methods used in preparing this environmental 
impact statement (EIS). These methods were designed and implemented to 
evaluate the potential environmental impacts of disposal and reuse of 
Wurtsmith Air Force Base (AFB). Since future reuse of the site is uncertain 
in its scope, activities, and timing, the analysis considered several 
alternative reuse scenarios and evaluated their associated environmental 
impacts. The reuse scenarios analyzed in this EIS were defined for this 
study to span the anticipated range of reuse activities that are reasonably 
likely to occur due to disposal of the base. They were developed based on 
proposals put forth by affected local communities, interested individuals, 
and the Air Force, and considered general land use planning objectives. 

The various analysis methods used to develop this EIS are summarized here 
by resource. In some instances, more detail is included in another appendix. 
These instances are noted for each resource in its respective subsection 
below. 

2.0 LOCAL COMMUNITY 

2.1 COMMUNITY SETTING 

The section on community setting was developed to provide the context 
within which other biophysical impacts could be assessed. Community 
setting impacts were based on projected land use, direct and secondary 
employment, and resulting population changes related to reuse of Wurtsmith 
AFB. Demand on transportation systems was determined by using 
population, employment, and land use projections. Land use also influenced 
impacts on community service, air quality, and noise. A complete 
assessment of socioeconomic effects was conducted through a separate 
Socioeconomic impact Anatysis Study (S/AS) for the Disposal and Reuse of 
Wurtsmith AFB, which is the source for baseline and projected population 
and employment statistics used in this EIS. 

The SIAS used information from sources including the U.S. Bureau of 
Economic Analysis, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Michigan Employment 
Security Commission, Michigan Department of Management and Budget, the 
Northeastern Michigan Council of Governments, and the townships of Au 
Sable, Greenbush, and Oscoda. The analysis used the Regional Interindustry 
Multiplier System (RIMS II) model to generate demographic and economic 
projections associated with the Proposed Action and alternatives. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


E-1 





2.2 LAND USE AND AESTHETICS 


Potential land use impacts were projected based on compatibility of land 
uses associated with the Proposed Action and alternatives with adjacent 
land uses and zoning, consistency with general plans and other land use 
plans and regulations, and effects of aircraft noise and safety restrictions on 
land uses. 

The region of influence (ROD for tiie majority of direct land use impacts for 
this study consisted of Wurtsmith AFB, the townships of Oscoda 
(surrounding the base) and Au Sable within Iosco County, and portions of 
Alcona County. Noise-related land use impacts were determined by the 
extent of noise contours created by reuse activities. 

Maps and windshield surveys were used to characterize on- and off-base 
land uses. Applicable policies, regulations, and land use restrictions were 
identified from the available land use plans and ordinances of the township 
of Oscoda. The proposed and alternative reuse plans were compared to 
existing land use and zoning, as well as to local subdivision regulations, to 
identify areas of conflict. The other land use concepts were also examined 
for compatibility with adjacent land uses and with the Proposed Action and 
alternatives using the same process. 

The Proposed Action was examined for consistency with Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) regulations and recommended land uses in the vicinity 
of airfields. Impacts of airfield- generated noise were assessed by 
comparing the extent of noise-affected areas and receptors under different 
reuse alternatives against preclosure baseline conditions. 

For aesthetics analysis, the affected environment was described based upon 
the visual sensitivity of areas within and visible from the base. Modified to 
reflect the perceived high aesthetic values evoked by the area's visual 
resources, these areas were categorized as of high, medium, or low 
sensitivity. The Proposed Action and alternatives were then evaluated to 
identify land uses to be developed, visual modifications that would occur, 
and new areas of visual sensitivity and to determine whether modification of 
unique or otherwise irreplaceable visual resources could occur and detract 
from the visual qualities or setting. Consistency with applicable plans that 
protect visual resources was also examined. 

2.3 TRANSPORTATION 

Potential impacts to transportation due to the Proposed Action and 
alternative reuse plans for Wurtsmith AFB focus on key roads, local airport 
use, and passenger rail service in the area, including those segments of the 
transportation networks in the region that serve as direct or indirect linkages 
to the base. The need for improvements to on-base roads, off-base 


E-2 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 





accesses, and regional arterials was considered. The analysis was 
developed using information from state and local government agencies, 
including the Michigan Department of Transportation and the Iosco County 
Road Commission, local airport authorities, and railroad companies. Other 
data sources used for the roadway analysis include planning guides prepared 
by the institute of Transportation Engineers. The ROI for the transportation 
analysis includes the townships of Au Sable and Oscoda, with emphasis on 
the area surrounding Wurtsmith AFB. 

The number of vehicle trips expected as a result of specific land uses on the 
site was estimated for the years 1993, 1998, 2003, and 2013 on the basis 
of direct on-site jobs and other attributes of on-site land uses (such as the 
number of dwelling units, commercial and industrial development, and other 
factors). Trip Ge^-eration Data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers 
was used to determine vehicle trips. Vehicle trips were then allocated to 
the local road network using prior patterns and expected destinations and 
sources of trips. Changes in work and associated travel patterns were 
derived by assigning or removing traffic to or from the most direct 
commuting routes. Changes in traffic volumes arising from reuse 
alternatives at Wurtsmith AFB were estimated and resulting volume changes 
on key local roadways were then determined. 

The transportation network in the ROI was then examined to identify 
potential impacts to levels of service (LOS) arising from future baseline 
conditions (No-Action Alternative) and effects of reuse alternatives. 

Planning computations from the Highway Capacity Manual were used to 
determine the LOS. The planning application provided estimates of traffic 
and anticipated LOS where the amount of detail and accuracy of information 
was limited. The planning procedures used in this analysis were based on 
forecasts of average daily traffic and on assumed traffic, roadway, 
intersection, and control conditions. The results provided a basic 
assessment of whether or not capacity was likely to be exceeded for a 
given volume, as well as an estimate of the changes in LOS expected as a 
result of traffic volume changes on key local roadways. 

Airspace use in the vicinity of an airport is driven primarily by such factors 
as runway alignment, surrounding obstacles and terrain, air traffic control 
and navigational aid capabilities, proximity of other airports/airspace uses in 
the area, and noise considerations. These same factors normally apply 
regardless of whether the airport is used for military or civil aircraft 
operations. For this reason, a preclosure reference was used in 
characterizing these factors related to airspace use at Wurtsmith AF8. 

Historic data on military aircraft operations used to characterize airspace use 
at and around Wurtsmith AFB were obtained from the base. The Michigan 
Department of Transportation and airport owners/operators were contacted 
to obtain information on civil airport use. Aviation forecasts were derived 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 


E-3 





from the Michigan Department of Transportation studies and, where 
necessary, assumptions were made based on other similar airport 
operational environments. 

The ROI for the airspace analysis is an area extending from the surface up 
to 12,000 feet mean sea level and covering the 30-nautical mile radius of 
Wurtsmith AFB. This airspace represents the area delineated to Wurtsmith 
by the FAA Terminal Radar Approach Controls (TRACONs) at Minneapolis 
and Cleveland. 

The types and levels of aircraft operations projected for the Proposed Action 
were evaluated and compared to the way airspace was configured and used 
under the preclosure reference. The capacity of the airport to accommodate 
the projected aircraft fleet and operations was assessed by calculating the 
airport service volume, using the criteria in the FAA Advisory Circular 
150/5060-5. Potential effects on airspace use were assessed, based on the 
extent to which projected operations could (1) require modifications to the 
airspace structure or air traffic control systems and/or facilities; (2) restrict, 
limit, or otherwise delay other air traffic in the region; or (3) encroach on 
other airspace areas and uses. It was recognized throughout the analysis 
process that a more in-depth study would be conducted by the FAA, once a 
reuse plan is selected, to identify any impacts of the reuse activities and 
what actions would be required to support the projected aircraft operations. 
Therefore, this analysis was used only to consider the level of operations 
that likely could be accommodated under the existing airspace structure, 
and to identify potential impacts if operational capacities were exceeded. 

Data addressing private, passenger, and cargo air service in the region were 
acquired directly from air transportation studies of the area. The effect of 
base closure on local airports was derived by subtracting current base- 
related enplanements from current total enplanements. 

Information regarding existing rail transportation was obtained from 
AMTRAK and the Detroit and Mackinac rail system. Projected effects of 
reuse alternatives on railroad transportation were based on projected 
populations, using current passenger to population ratios. Population figures 
were used since none of the alternatives assumes direct use of local 
railroads. 

2.4 UTILITIES 

Utility usage was determined based on land uses and projected area 
population increases. The utility systems addressed in this analysis include 
the facilities and infrastructure used for potable water (pumping, treatment, 
storage, and distribution), wastewater (collection and treatment), solid 
waste (collection and disposal), and energy generation and distribution 
(electricity and natural gas). Historic consumption data, service curtailment 


E-4 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEtS 








data, peak demand characteristics, storage and distribution capacities, and 
related information for base utilities (including projections of future utility 
demand for each utility provider's particular service area) were extracted 
from various engineering reports and the Wurtsmith AFB Comprehensive 
Plan. Information was also obtained from public and private utility providers 
and related county and city agencies. 

The ROI for this analysis comprised the communities of Oscoda, Au Sable, 
Tawas City, and East Tawas, and part of Baldwin Township. It was 
assumed that the local providers of potable water, wastewater treatment, 
and energy that serve Wurtsmith AFB and the surrounding area would 
continue services within the area of the existing base after closure. 

Potential impacts were evaluated based on long-term projections of demand 
and population derived from data obtained from the various utility providers 
within the region for each of their respective service areas. These 
projections were then adjusted to reflect the decrease in demand associated 
with closure of Wurtsmith AFB and its subsequent operation under caretaker 
status. These adjusted forecasts were then considered the future baseline 
for comparison with potential reuse alternatives. 

The potential effects of reuse alternatives were evaluated by estimating and 
comparing the additional direct and indirect demand associated with each 
alternative to the existing and projected operating capabilities of each utility 
system. Estimates of direct utility demands on site were used to identify 
the effects of the reuse activities on site-related utility systems. All changes 
to the utility purveyors' long-term forecasts were based on estimated 
project-related population changes in the region and the future rates of per- 
capita demand explicitly indicated by each purveyor's projections or derived 
from those projections. It was assumed that the regional per-capita demand 
rates were representative of the reuse activities, based on assumed 
similarities between proposed land uses and existing or projected uses in the 
region. Projections in the utilities analysis include direct demand associated 
with activities planned on base property, as well as resulting changes in 
domestic demand associated with population changes in the region. 

3.0 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT 

Two categories of hazardous materials and hazardous waste management 
issues were addressed for this analysis: (1) impacts of hazardous materials 
utilized and hazardous wastes generated by each reuse proposal and 
(2) residual impacts associated with past Air Force practices including 
delays due to Installation Restoration Program (IRP) site remediation. IRP 
sites were identified as part of the affected environment (Chapter 3), while 
remediation impacts associated with thes ites were addressed as 
environmental consequences (Chapter 4). Impacts of wastes generated by 
each reuse proposal were also addressed in Chapter 4. Primary sources of 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


E-5 





data were existing published reports such as IRP documents, management 
plans for various toxic or hazardous substances (e.g., spill response, 
hazardous waste, asbestos), and survey results (e.g., radon). Pertinent 
federal, state, and local regulations and standards were reviewed for 
applicability to the Proposed Action and alternatives. Hazardous materials 
and waste management plans and inventories were obtained from 
Wurtsmith AFB. Interviews with personnel associated with these on-base 
agencies provided the information necessary to fill any data gaps. City and 
county agencies were also contacted regarding regulations which would 
apply to both current and post-closure activities for Wurtsmith AFB. 

The ROI encompasses the current base property, including the off-site 
former World War II Bombing Range, as well as all geographical areas that 
have been affected by an on-base release of a hazardous substance. All 
IRP sites are currently within the base boundary except the Three Pipes 
Outfall, which is located south of the base on the Au Sable River. The ROI 
also includes groundwater contamination plumes that have migrated off 
base. Three plumes flow into Van Etten Lake, to the east and northeast of 
the base, and the Fire Training Area Plume flows into a wetland area located 
southwest of the base. 

4.0 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 

4.1 SOILS AND GEOLOGY 

Evaluation of soils impacts addressed erosion potential, construction-related 
dust generation and other soils problems (low soil strength, expansive soils, 
etc.), and disturbance of unique soil types. Information was obtained from 
several federal, state, and local agencies. Assessment of potential impacts 
to geology from the reuse alternatives included evaluation of resource 
potential (especially aggregates), geologic hazards (particularly potential for 
seismicity, liquefaction, and subsidence), and flooding potential. 

The soils analysis was based on a review of Soil Conservation Service (SCS) 
documents for soil properties. The soils in the ROI were then evaluated to 
determine erosion potential, permeability, evidence of hardpans, expansive 
soil characteristics, etc., as these relate to construction problems and 
erosion potential during construction. Mitigations were evaluated based on 
county ordinances and SCS recommendations. Common engineering 
practices were reviewed to identify poor soil characteristics and 
recommended mitigation measures. 

The ROI for the geologic analysis included the region surrounding Wurtsmith 
AFB relative to seismic activity, aggregate resources, and flooding potential. 
The ROI for the soils analysis was limited to the base and specific areas 
designated for construction or renovation. 


E-6 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 





The geologic analysis was based on a review of existing literature for 
construction problems associated with geologic hazards, availability of 
construction aggregate, and whether reuse would impact the availability of 
known mineral resources. 

4.2 WATER RESOURCES 

Analysis of impacts of the reuse alternatives on water resources considered 
groundwater quality and quantity, surface water quality (effects from 
erosion or sedimentation and contamination), surface water drainage 
diversion, and non-point source surface runoff to the Au Sable River and 
Van Etten Creek. Impacts to water quality resources resulting from IRP 
activities were addressed under Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste 
Management. Information was obtained from several federal, state, and 
local agencies. The ROI for water resources included the groundwater basin 
underlying the base, the surface drainage directly affected by runoff from 
the base, and the 100-year floodplain in the vicinity of the base. 

Existing surface water conditions were evaluated for flood potential, 
non-point source discharge or transportation of contaminants, and surface 
water quality. Groundwater resources were evaluated as they pertained to 
adequate water supplies for each of the reuse alternatives. Groundwater 
quality and its potential as a potable water source for each reuse alternative 
were documented. The existing storm water drainage system was 
evaluated based on available literature, and the impacts to this system from 
each of the reuse alternatives were determined. 

4.3 AIR QUAUTY 

The air quality resource is defined as the condition of the atmosphere, 
expressed in terms of the concentrations of air pollutants occurring in an 
area as the result of emissions from natural and/or man-made sources. 

Reuse alternatives have the potential to affect air quality depending on net 
changes in the release of both gaseous and particulate matter emissions. 

The impact of these emission changes was determined by comparing the 
resulting atmospheric concentrations to state and federal ambient air quality 
standards. The analysis drew from baseline emission inventory information, 
construction scheduling information, project-related source information, and 
transportation data. Principal sources of these data were the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, the Michigan Department of Natural 
Resources, the Iosco County Chamber of Commerce, the Engineering 
Services Center of the FAA, the Wurtsmith AFB environmental coordinators, 
and the base engineer. 

The ROI was determined by emissions from sources associated with 
construction and operation of the reuse alternatives. For pollutant emissions 
other than ozone precursors, the measurable ROI is limited to a few miles 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


E-7 




downwind of the source (i.e.. the immediate area of Wurtsmith AFB). The 
ROI for ozone impacts from project emissions included Iosco County. 

Emissions predicted to result from the proposed reuse alternatives (see 
Appendix K for the projected emissions inventory and methods of 
calculation) were compared to existing baseline emissions to determine the 
potential for adverse air quality impact. Impacts were also assessed by 
modeling using the Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) or 
the EPA SCREEN model, as appropriate. Emissions from aircraft and motor 
vehicle activities in the Proposed Action and motor vehicle operations in the 
Fire Training and Recreation alternatives were evaluated to determine 
potential impacts using temporal data and peak-hour activities as input to 
the EDMS model. Peak-hour emission rates for a dirty evolution fire and a 
forest fire burning simultaneously were calculated and modeled using the 
EPA SCREEN model, as described in Appendix K. For the Fire Training 
Alternative, EDMS modeling results for motor vehicle activity were 
combined with SCREEN modeling results for fire training activities to 
evaluate total impacts. In addition to the normal array of receptor sites, 
receptors were placed at the base hospital and within the residential area 
where the potential of exposure of sensitive individuals and/or long-term 
exposure exists. Estimated impacts from all alternatives were added to 
background pollutant levels and compared to state and federal air quality 
standards and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) allowable 
increments. 

4.4 NOISE 

The noise analysis addressed potential noise impacts from reuse-generated 
aircraft operations, surface traffic, and other identified noise sources on 
communities surrounding Wurtsmith AFB. Most of the data were obtained 
from the aircraft operations and traffic data prepared for the reuse 
alternatives. Day-night levels (DNL) were used to determine noise impacts. 
A single-event noise analysis using sound exposure levels (SEL) was also 
performed. Scientific literature on noise effects was also referenced. 

The ROI for noise was defined as the area within DNL 65 decibels (dB) 
contours based on land use compatibility guidelines developed from FAA 
regulations (FAA, 1989b). The ROI for surface traffic noise impacts 
incorporated key road segments identified in the transportation analysis. 

Noise levels from aircraft operations were estimated using the FAA- 
developed Integrated Noise Model (INM) version 3.10. Noise contours for 
DNL 65 dB and above were depicted. Noise levels due to surface traffic 
were estimated using the Federal Highway Administration's Highway Noise 
Model (1978). Potential noise impacts were identified by overlaying the 
noise contours with land use and population information to determine the 
number of residents who would be exposed to DNL of 65 dB or greater. 








SELs related to reuse alternatives were provided for representative noise- 
sensitive receptors exposed to aircraft noise from the Wurtsmith airfield. 

The SELs presented were outdoor levels and took into account the location 
of the receptors relative to the various flight tracks and aircraft profiles 
used. Noise reduction effects for common construction were included in the 
sleep interference analysis; however, evaluation of sensitive receptors 
relative to noise reduction levels of specific structures was not performed. 

Methods used to analyze noise impacts under each reuse scenario are 
presented in detail in Appendix J of this EIS. 

4.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Biological resources addressed in the closure and reuse of Wurtsmith AFB 
included vegetation, wildlife, threatened and endangered species, and 
sensitive habitats. Primary sources of data included published literature and 
reports, the Michigan Natural Features Inventory, field reconnaissance of the 
base (April 1992), and contacts with agencies such as the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 
Vegetation and sensitive resources were mapped using aerial photographs 
and field visits. The ROI for the biological resources assessment comprised 
Wurtsmith AFB and other areas that could be directly or indirectly affected 
by the reuse alternatives. Wetlands on the base were delineated using the 
methods set forth in the Wetlands Delineation Manual (U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, 1987 ). The vegetation and wetlands maps were entered into 
the computerized geographical information system (GIS). 

Acreages of each habitat type that could be disturbed by the proposed reuse 
alternatives were determined by overlaying project maps with vegetation 
and sensitive habitat maps. The total acreages of disturbance for each land 
use type were assumed to occur anywhere within the polygons listed for 
that land use, unless more specific locational information was available on 
land use related activities. Other impacts were qualitatively assessed based 
on literature data and scientific judgment on the responses of plants and 
animals to project-related disturbances such as noise, landscaping, and 
vegetation maintenance. Reasonable assumptions were made as to 
potential impacts of land use types based on project descriptions given in 
Chapter 2. Feasible mitigation measures were suggested to decrease 
impacts. 

4.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Cultural resources generally include three main categories: prehistoric 
resources, historic structures and resources, and traditional resources. For 
the purposes of this EIS, cultural resources were defined to also include 
paleontological resources: the fossil evidence of past plant and animal life. 
Prehistoric resources are i;/'aces where human activity has measurably 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


E-9 





altered the earth or left deposits of physical remains. Historic structures and 
resources include standing structures and other physical remains of historic 
significance. Traditional resources are topographical areas, features, 
habitats, plants, animals, minerals, or archaeological sites that contemporary 
Native Americans or other groups value presently, or did so in the past, and 
consider essential for the persistence of their traditional culture. Cultural 
resources of particular concern include properties listed on the National 
Register of Historic Places (NRHP), properties potentially eligible for the 
NRHP, and sacred Native American sites and areas. 

Data used to compile information on these resources were obtained from 
existing environmental documents; material on file at Wurtsmith APB; recent 
cultural resource reports pertaining to the base; and interviews with 
individuals familiar with the history, archaeology, or paleontology of the 
area. The ROI for cultural resources includes all areas within the boundaries 
of Wurtsmith APB. 

According to NRHP criteria (36 Code of Pederal Regulations ICPRl 60.4), the 
quality of significance is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and 
objects that: 

(a) Are associated with events that have made a significant 
contribution to the broad patterns of history 

(b) Are associated with the lives of persons significant in the past 

(c) 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 

(d) 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 NRHP a cultural 
resource must meet at least one of the above criteria and must also possess 
integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, 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 it possessed in the past, it has the 
capacity to convey information about a culture or people, historical patterns, 
or architectural or engineering design and technology. 

Compliance with requirements of cultural resource laws and regulations 
ideally involves four basic steps: (1) identification of significant cultural 
resources that could be affected by the Proposed Action or its alternatives, 
(2) assessment of the impacts or effects of these actions, (3) determination 


E-10 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 





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 archaeological, 
historic, and Native American resources. In compliance with the NHPA, the 
Air Force has initiated cortsultation with the State Historic Preservation 
Officer, as required under Sections 106 and 111 of the NHPA. 

Adverse effects that may occur as a result of base reuse are those that have 
a negative impact on characteristics that make a resource eligible for listing 
on the NRHP. Actions that can diminish the integrity, research potential, or 
other important characteristics of a historic property include the following 
(36 CFR 800.9): 

• Physical destruction, damage, or alteration of all or part of the 
property 

• Isolating the property from its setting or altering the character of 
the property's setting when that character contributes to the 
property's qualification for the NRHP 

• Introduction of visual or auditory elements that are out of 
character with the property or that alter its setting 

• Conveyance of a federally owned property without adequate 
conditions or restrictions regarding its preservation, 
maintenance, or use 

• Neglect of a property. :c *ulting in its deterioration or 
destruction. 

Regulations for implementing Section 106 of the NHPA indicate that the 
transfer, conveyance, lease, or sale of a historic property are procedurally 
considered to be adverse effects, thereby ensuring full regulatory 
consideration in federal project planning and execution. However, effects of 
a project that would otherwise be found to be adverse may not be 
considered adverse if one of the following conditions exists: 

• When the historic property is of value only for its potential 
contribution to archaeological, historical, or architectural 
research, and when such value can be substantially preserved 
through the conduct of appropriate research, and such research 
is conducted in accordance with applicable professional 
standards and guidelines 

• When the undertaking is limited to the rehabilitation of buildings 
and structures and is conducted in a manner that preserves the 
historical and architectural value of the affected historic property 
through conformance with the Secretary's Standards for 


Wurtsmith AFP Disposal and Reuse FEiS 


E-11 





Rehabilitation and Guidelinea for Rehabilitation of Historic 
Buildings 

• When the undertaking is limited to the transfer, conveyance, 
lease, or sale of a historic property, and adequate restrictions or 
conditions are included to ensure preservation of the property's 
significant historic features. 

The treatment of paleontological resources is governed by Public Law 
74-292 (the National Natural Landmarks Program, implemented by 
36 CFR 62). Only paleontological remains determined to be significant are 
subject to consideration and protection by a federal agency. Among the 
criteria used for National Natural Landmark designation are illustrative 
character, present condition, diversity, rarity, and value for science and 
education. 


E-12 


Wuftsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 








APPENDIX F 

ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS HELD BY WURTSMITH AIR FORCE BASE 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposti and Reuse FEIS 






ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS HELD BY WURTSMITH AIR FORCE BASE 


Permit No. 

Permitted Facility/Equipment 

Original Date Issued 

Date of Expiration 

Sewer Diecherge 

MS0000640 

Sewage treatment 

October 28, 1983 

October 31, 1988<*' 

MI0042285 

NPOES groundwater treatment 
aystems (storm drain dischargal 

April 20. 1989 

October 31, 1993** 

RCRA 

Interim Part A 

Hazardous waste storage 

July 6, 1982 

September 30, 1993 

Afar Emissione 

27-861 

Hospital pathological incinerator 

July 2, 1987 

Indefinite 

96-86 

Mission St. air strippers 

June 18, 1988 

Indefinite 

141-88 

California St. air strippers 

June 6, 1988 

Indefinite 

439-84 

Arrow St. air strippers 

December 7, 1984 

Indefinite 

622-87 

Central heat plant 

November 16, 1987 

Indefinite 

107-92 

Transportation paint booth 

September 3, 1992 

Indefinite 

272-92 

Soil Remediation Operation 

June 30. 1992 

Indefinite 

239-92 

Jet engine test ceil 

MDNR processing 
application 

Pending approval 


NotM: (a) Wurtamith Air Forca Baaa haa appUad for ranawai. 

(b) AppNeation filad with MONR Watar Quaiity Oiviaion on April 1, 1993. 
MONR m Michigan Dopartmant of Natural Roaouroaa. 

NPOES a National Pollutant Oiacharga OimitMtion Syatam. 

RCRA a Raaourea Conaarvation and Racovory Act. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Beusa FBIS 


F-1 







THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 




APPENDIX G 

STORAGE TANKS AND PESTICIDE STORAGE 
AT WURTSMITH AIR FORCE BASE 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse F£/S 






Table G*1. Inventory of Active Underground Storage Tanks 

Page 1 of 2 


Facility 

Number 

Capacity'*' 

(gallons) 

Contents 

installation 

Date 

Construction 

Material 

42 

1,000 

Waste oils 

1988 

Steel 

141 

2,000 

Waste pesticides 

1990 

Steel 

361 

2,000 

Reclaimed JP-4 

1959 

Steel 

460 

550 

Waste oils 

1962 

Steel 

460 

1,000 

Fuel oil #2 

1963 

Steel 

460 

10,000 

Unleaded gasoline 

1980 

Steel 

460 

20,000 

Unleaded gasoline 

1962 

Steel 

460 

20,000 

Unleaded gasoline 

1984 

Steel 

1842 

12,000 

Diesel fuel 

1963 

Fiberglass 

3000 

2,000 

Fuel oil M2 

1983 

Steel 

3002 

275 

Fuel oil M2 

1973 

Steel 

3010 

550 

Fuel oil M2 

1957 

Steel 

5006 

Unknown 

Fuel/ vater 

1984 

Steel 

5009 

550 

Waste oil 

1984 

Steel 

5011 

10,000 

JP-4 

1981 

Steel 

5013 

70 

Motor vehicle gasoline 

Unknown 

Steel 

5031 

1,000 

Waste JP-4 

1981 

Steel 

5045 

1,500 

Fuel oil M2 

1964 

Steel 

5052 

275 

Diesel fuel 

1957 

Steel 

5063 

1,000 

Waste oil 

1992 

Steel 

5072 

500 

Waste hydraulic fluid 

1980 

Steel 

5073 

2,000 

JP-4 

1960 

Steel 

5073 

50,000 (4) 

JP-4 

1960 

Steel 

5075 

2,000 

JP-4 

1960 

Steel 

5075 

50,000 (4) 

JP-4 

1960 

Steel 

5081 

50,000 

Leaded gasoline 

1953 

Steel 

5081 

12,000 

JP-4 

1953 

Steel 

5081 

50,000 

Diesel fuel 

1953 

Steel 

5092 

6,000 

Waste oil 

1987 

Steel 

5092 

10,000 (2) 

Aqueas Film Forming Foam 

1987 

Steel 

5096 

550 

Fuel oil M2 

1971 

Steel 

5109 

6,000 

Fuel oil M2 

1974 

Steel 

5306 

6,000 

Fuel oil M2 

1982 

Steel 


Notas: (a) Numbers in parentheses represent number of tanks when there ere more than one at each location. 

Capacity is per tank. 

(b) Unregulated tanks. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


G-1 








Table G-1. 

Inventory of Active Underground Storage Tanks 
Page 2 of 2 


FaciKty 

Number 

Capacity*** 

(gallons) 


Contents 

Installation 

Date 

Construction 

Material 

5328 

550 


Fuel oil #2 

1971 

Steel 

5334 

1,000 

M 

Fuel oil #2 

1961 

Steel 

5335 

550 

M 

Fuel oil #2 

1970 

Steel 

5336 

1,500 

M 

Fuel oil #2 

1961 

Steel 

5337 

2,000 

M 

Diesel fuel 

1971 

Steel 

5338 

550 

M 

Fuel oil #2 

1971 

Steel 

5339 

15,000 


Unleaded gasoline 

1972 

Steel 

5340 

1,000 

M 

Fuel oil #2 

1973 

Steel 

5346 

550 

M 

Fuel oil #2 

1971 

Steel 

5354 

2,000 


Diesel fuel 

1971 

Steel 

5600 

1,000 

M 

Fuel oil #2 

1960 

Steel 

5608 

1,000 

W 

Fuel oil #2 

1983 

Steel 

7020 

1,000 


Wastewater 

1990 

Steel 


NotM: (•) NumtMra in pwwithMM rapraMnt numbnr of tanka whan thara ara mora than ona at aaoh location. Capacity 
ia par tank. 

(b) Unrafluiatad tanka. 


G-2 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 








Tabia G*2. Invantory of Activa Abovaground Storaga Tanks 

Paga 1 of 3 _ _ 


Facility 

Numbar 

Capacity 

(gallons) 

Contents 

Installation 

Date 

Construction 

Material 

13 

275 

Oiesel fuel 



25 

275 

Fuel oil #2 

1952 

Steel 

43 

500 

Waste oil 

1959 

Steel 

45 

275 

Diesel fuel 

TBD 

Steel 

45 

275 

Fuel oil #2 

1942 

Steel 

58 

2,000 

Diesel fuel 

1992 

Steel 

140 

1,000 

Waste oil 

1958 

Steel 

140 

275 

Diesel fuel 

1990 

Steel 

190 

70 

Motor vehicle 
gasoline 

1977 

Steel 

220 

275 

Diesel fuel 

1959 

Steel 

290 

25 

Motor vehicle 
gasoline 

1984 

Steel 

304 

70 

Motor vehicle 
gasoline 

1960 

Steel 

305 

275 (2) 

Diesel fuel 

1985 

Steel 

305 

1,000 

Liquid propane 

1987 

Steel 

336 

500 

Liquid propane 

1982 

Steel 

347 

275 

Fuel oil 112 

1986 

Steel 

357 

220 

Fuel oil *2 

TBD 

Steel 

357 

440 

Fuel oil 112 

TBD 

Steel 

359 

275 

Diesel fuel 

1958 

Steel 

387 

2,000 

Diesel fuel 

1989 

Steel 

388 

500 

Waste oil 

1964 

Steel 

388 

500 

Liquid propane 

1986 

Steel 

401 

5 

Diesel fuel 

1990 

Steel 

1107 

1,000 (2) 

Unleaded gas 

1991 

Steel 

1119 

275 

Fuel oil *2 

1987 

Steel 

1145 

500 

Liquid propane 

1984 

Steel 

1842 

2,000 

Liquid propane 

Unknown 

Steel 

3000 

275 

Diesel fuel 

1992 

Steel 

3020 

275 

Fuel oil #2 

1953 

Steel 

3029 

21 

Diesel fuel 

1961 

Steel 

5002 

275 

Diesel fuel 

1987 

Steel 

5002 

275 12) 

Fuel oil 112 

1988 

Steel 

5003 

275 (2) 

Fuel oil #2 

1951 

Steel 

5006 

275 12) 

Diesel fuel 

1960 

Steel 

5009 

275 (2) 

Waste oil 

1963 

Steel 

5031 

1,000 

Liquid propane 

Unknown 

Steel 

5042 

275 

Motor vehicle 
gasoline 

1979 

Steel 

5043 

275 

Waste oil 

1983 

Steel 

5043 

6,000 

Fuel oil #2 

1983 

Steel 

Note: Numbar* in paranthaaa* rapraaant numbar of tanka whan thar* ia mor* than ona at aach location. Capacity ia 

par tank. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


G-3 







Tabl« Q’2. bivantory of Activo Abovtgrouiul Storago Tanks 
_ Paga 2 of 3_ 


Facility 

Number 

Capacity 

(gallons) 

Contents 

Installation 

Date 

Construction 

Material 

5046 

275 (2) 

Diesel fuel 

1961 

Steel 

5048 

275 

Diesel fuel 

1985 

Steel 

5050 

275 

Diesel fuel 

TBD 

Steel 

5054 

275 

Diesel fuel 

1959 

Steel 

5055 

275 

Diesel fuel 

1979 

Steel 

5056 

275 

Motor vehicle 
gasoline 

1959 

Steel 

5067 

1.600 

Waste oil 

1980 

Steel 

5067 

275 (2) 

Waste oil 

1959 

Steel 

5072 

500 

Waste oil 

1982 

Steel 

5074 

2.000 

Diesel fuel 

1988 

Steel 

5076 

275 

Motor vehicle 
gasoline 

1960 

Steel 

5079 

2.000 

Diesel fuel 

1984 

Steel 

5084 

275 

Diesel fuel 

1991 

Steel 

5084 

500 

Diesel fuel 

1991 

Steel 

5089 

275 

Diesel fuel 

1987 

Steel 

5090 

275 

Diesel fuel 

1989 

Steel 

5091 

275 

Diesel fuel 

1990 

Steel 

5095 

550 

Diesel fuel 

1960 

Steel 

5098 

1.000 

JP-4 

1973 

Steel 

5110 

400 

Liquir' oxygen 

1963 

Steel 

5110 

5.000 

Liquid oxygen 

TBD 

Steel 

5110 

2.000 

Liquid nitrogen 

TBD . 

Steel 

5131 

275 

Diesel fuel 

TBD 

Steel 

5133 

275 (3) 

Diesel fuel 

1982 

Steel 

5305 

550 

Carbon dioxide 

1982 

Steel 

5350 

1.000 

Fuel oil #2 

1992 

Steel 

5355 

275 

Fuel oil #2 

1989 

Steel 

5363 

275 

Fuel oil #2 

1986 

Steel 

5606 

275 

Fuel oil #2 

1960 

Steel 

5608 

275 

Diesel fuel 

Unknovyn 

Steel 

5608 

500 

Diesel fuel 

Unknown 

Steel 

7000 

1.260,000 

JP-4 

1960 

Steel 

7001 

568,000 

JP-4 

1960 

Steel 

7002 

25,000 

Deicing fluid 

1953 

Steel 

7003 

25,000 

Motor vehicle 
gasoline 

1953 

Steel 

7004 

25,000 

Fuel oil #2 

1953 

Steel 

7007 

1,500 

Waste oil 

1987 

Steel 

7032 

5,000 

Diesel fuel 

1952 

Steel 

Not*: Numbar* in paranthasaa raprasant numbar of tanka whan thara it mora than ona at aach location. Capacity ia 

par tank. 


G*4 Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 








Table Q*2. Inventory of Active Aboveground Storage Tanka 

Page 3 of 3 


Facility 

Capacity 


Installation 

Construction 

Number 

(gallona) 

Contenta 

Date 

Material 

7039 

210,000 

Fuel oil #2 

1972 

Steel 

7040 

315,000 

Fuel oil #2 

1972 

Steel 

7297 

2,000 (2) 

Dieael fuel 

1991 

Steel 

7297 

2,000 (2) 

Motor vehicle 
gaaoline 

1991 

Steel 

7297 

60 

Dieael fuel 

1986 

Steel 

8116 

275 

Fuel oil #2 

1960 

Steel 

8123 

70 

Motor vehicle 
gasoline 

1960 

Steel 

9012 

40 

Motor vehicle 
gasoline 

1983 

Steel 


Note: Numbere in parentheeee represent number of tanks when there it more then one at each location. Capacity is per 

tattk. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


G-5 







Tabto 6*3. Inventory of biactivo Storago Tanks 
(as of Novambar 1991) 


Facility 

Capacity 

Number of 


Number 

(gallons) 

Tanks 

Contents 

20 " 

12,000 

1 

Unknown 

1842 " 

1,500 

2 

Riled with 

sand 

5001 " 

2,500 

1 

Unknown 

5012 “ 

275 

1 

Riled with 
inert material 

5046 " 

2,500 

1 

Riled with 
inert material 

5056 “ 

275 

1 

Riled with 
inert material 

5079 " 

2,500 

1 

Riled with 
inert nnaterial 

5350 “ 

20,000 

1 

Fuel oil #2 

5608 “ 

1,000 

1 

Fuel oil #2 

8407 

275 

1 

Fuel oil #2 

8511 

275 

3 

Fuel oil #2 

8711 

275 

6 

Fuel oil #2 

8714 

275 

2 

Fuel oil #2 

8805 

275 

1 

Fuel oil #2 

8908 

275 

7 

Fuel oil #2 

9201 

275 

1 

Fuel oil #2 

9305 

275 

1 

Fuel oil #2 

9417 

275 

1 

Fuel oil #2 

9807 

275 

2 

Fuel oil #2 

Not*: (•) Underground otorago tank. 


G-6 Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 










Tabte 6-4. PMticid* Inventory (Buldings 140 and 141) (as of Apr11992) 

Paga 1 of 2 


Nama 

Quantity 

Dursban 4E 

10 gallons 

CartMiyl (Savin SL) 

2(X> gallons 

Malathion 57% 

340 gallons 

Maiathion 95% 

4 drums 

Phillips 66 R-55 Rapallant 

40 gallons 

Baygon 1.5 

32 gallons 

B*Gona 

30 gallons 

Baygon Bait 

20 pounds 

Diazinon 

15 gallons 

Diazinon 4E 

2 gallons 

Ream W 

10 pounds 

Permadust PT 240 

840 pounds 

Spectracide 60(X) 

600 pounds 

Pyrethrin 

5 gallons 

Wasp Freaza 

500 12-ounce cans 

Eatons Bait Block 

130 pounds 

Rodanticida 4972 

31 pounds 

Rodenticida 4973 

35 pounds 

Avitrol 

3 cans 

Phostoxin 55% 

(for stored produce pests) 

30 cans 

Calcium Cyanide 

2 pounds 

Zinc Phosphide 

10 fluid ounces 

Creosote Oil 

4 gallons 

Dursban L.O. 

1.2 quarts 

Lindane 1 % 

6 ounces 

Ortho-Klor 44 (Chiordane 44%) 

1 gallon 

Rodent Cake 

KX) pounds 

Growth Retardant 

165 gallons 

ACME Vegetation Killer 

5 gallons 

Hydro Wet 

5 gallons 

Vegemec 

10 gallons 

Drift Proof 

10 gallons 

Tru Green 

40 gallons 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


G-: 







Tabla 6-4. PMticida Storage (Paat Managamant) 
Paga 2 of 2 


Name 

Quantity 

GraanzH (Graan Labal) 

25 gallons 

Graanzh (Blua Labal) 

25 gallons 

Embark 2-S 

20 quarts 

Maliac Hydrazida 

165 gallons 

Actidion Thiram Fungicida 

11 pounds 

Actidion Farratad Fungicida 
(with farroua sulfida activator) 

8 pounds 

Dymac 50 Fungicida 

65 pounds 

Topmac 70W Fungicida 

15 pounds 

Formac 80 Fungicida 

100 pounds 

Claarys Tank Claanar 

100 quarts 

Trimac 

75 gallons 

Promaton 5% 

100 pounds 

Roundup 

250 gallons 

Pramitol 2SE 

2(X) gallons 

Waad Killar 

30 gallons 

Broadlaaf Harbicida 

120 gallons 

Mac Amina-0 

2(X) gallons 



G-8 Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 









Tabto 6-5. Ol/Wa^ Separators 

Facility 


Capacity 

Number 

FaciKty Description 

(gaNorw) 

42 

Jet Engirte Test Call 

1,000 

43 

Jet engine meintefMnce 

60 

140 

Pavamant/grounds shop 

1,170 

388 

Arts and craft centar/auto hobby shop 

880 

393 

Refueling vehicle maintenance 

4,365 

394 

Vehicle maintenance 

4,365 

394 

Special purpose sump 

780 

394 

General purpose sump 

2,160 

396 

Vehicle operations heated parking 

4,365 

460 

Base Exchange Service Station 

675 

5001 

Jet Engine Test Ceil 

1,350 

5009 

Aerospace ground equipment maintenance 

135 

5031 

Fire training facility 

10,080 

5043 

Aerospace ground equipment trailer maintenance 

5,100 

5060 

Aircraft maintenance * nose dock 2 

11,670 

5061 

Aircraft maintenance - nose dock 4 

11,670 

5063 

Aircraft maintenance • nose dock 7 

1,980 

5066 

Aircraft corrosion control • nose dock 5 

11,670 

5067 

Aircraft maintenance * nose dock 3 

11,670 

5068 

Aircraft maintenance - nose dock 1 

11,670 

5092 

Vehicle heated storage 

12,030 

5134 

Weapons storage area - fire protection water storage 

2,970 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 


G-9 








THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 


G-10 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






APPENDIX H 


AIR FORCE POUCY, MANAGEMENT OF ASBESTOS AT CLOSING BASES 
AND RESULTS OF ASBESTOS SURVEY AT 
WURTSMITH AIR FORCE BASE 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 




AIR FORCE POUCY 

MANAGEMENT OF ASBESTOS AT CLOSING BASES 


Asbestos in building facilities is managed because of potential adverse human health effects. 
Asbestos must be removed or controlled if it is in a location and condition that constitutes a health 
hazard or a potential health hazard, or it is otherwise required by law (e.g., schools). The hazard 
determination must be made by a health professional (in the case of the Air Force, a 
Bioenvironmental Engineer) trained to make such determinations. While removal is a remedy, in 
many cases management alternatives (such as encapsulation within the building) are acceptable 
and cost effective methods of dealing with asbestos. The keys to dealing with asbestos are 
knowing its location and condition and having a management plan to prevent asbestos containing 
materials that continue to serve their intended purpose from becoming a health hazard. There is no 
altemative to such management, because society does not have the resources to remove and 
dispose of all asbestos in all buildings in the United States. Most asbestos is not now nor will it 
become a health hazard if it is properly managed. 

There are no laws applicable to closure bases that specifically mandate the removal or management 
of asbestos in buildings other than the law addressing asbestos in schoois (P.L. 99-519). Statutory 
or regulatory requirements that result in removal or management of asbestos are based on human 
exposure or the potential for human exposure (i.e.. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAP) » no visible emissions, OSHA » number of airborne fibers per cc). There are 
no statutory or other mandatory standards, criteria or procedures for deciding what to do with 
asbestos. Thus, health professional judgement based on exposure levels or potential exposure 
levels must be the primary determinant of what should be done with asbestos. Apart from this 
professional and scientific approach, closing bases present the additional problem of obtaining an 
economic return to the Government for its property. Asbestos in closing base properties must also 
be analyzed to determine the most prudent course in terms of removal or remediation cost and the 
price that can be obtained as a result. 

The following specific policies will apply to bases closed or realigned (so that there are excess 
facilities to be sold) under the base closure laws, P.L. 1(X)-526 and P.L. 101-510. 

1. Asbestos will be removed if: 

(a) The protection of human health as determined by the Bioenvironmental Engineer 
requires removal (e.g., exposed friable asbestos within a building) in accordance 
with applicable health laws, regulations and standards 

(b) A building is unsalable without removal, or removal prior to sale is cost-effective; 
that is, the removal cost is low enough compared to value that would be received 
for a ”ciean” building that removal is a good investment for the Government. Prior 
to the decision to remove asbestos solely for economic reasons, an economic 
analysis will be conducted to determine if demolition, removal of some types of 
asbestos but not others, or asbestos removal and sale would be in the best interests 
of the Government. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


H-1 





(c) A building is, or is intsnded to bs, used ss s school or child care facility. 

2. Whan asbestos is present but none of the above applies, the asbestos will be managed 
using commonly accepted standards, criteria and procedures to assure sufficient protection 
of human health and the envirorunent, in accordance with applicable and developing health 
standards. 

3. A thorough survey for asbestos (including re^w of facility recorda, visual inspection, and 
where appropriate as determined by the Bioenvironmental Engineer and the Base CivU 
Engineer, intrusive inspection) will be conducted by the air Force prior to sale. 

4. Appraisal instructions, advertisements for sale, and deeds will contain accurate descriptions 
of the types, quantities, locations, arul condition of asbestos in any real property to be sold 
or otherwise transferred outside the Federal Government. Appraisals will indicate what 
discount the market would apply if the building were to be sold with the asbestos in place. 

5. Encapsulated asbestos in a building structure, friable or rwt, is not regarded as hazardous 
waste by the Air Force, nor does encapsulation within the structure of a building constitute 
"storing" or "disposing of" hazardous waste. Asbestos incorporated into a building as part 
of the structure has not been "stored" or "disposed of." 

6. Friable asbestos, or asbestos that will probably become friable, that has been stored or 
disposed of underground or elsewhere on the property to be sold will be property disposed 
of, unless the location is a landfill or other disposal facility property permitted for friable 
asbestos disposal. 

7. The final Air Force determination regarding the disposition of asbestos will be dependent on 
the plan for disposal and any reuse of the building. Decisions will take into account the 
proposed community reuse plan and the economic analysis of alternatives (see para 4). 

The course of action to be followed with respect to asbestos at each closing installation will 
be analyzed in the Disposal and fieuse Environmental Impact Statement, and will be 
included in the record of decision (ROD). Any buildings or facilities where the proposed 
asbestos plan is controversial will be addressed in the ROD, whether individually or as a 
class of closely related facilities. 

8. Since other considerations must be taken in to account at bases that are continuing to 
operate, this policy does not apply to them, nor is it necessarily a precedent for asbestos 
removal policy on them. 


Thi« Air Poroc PoNoy on tho Monogomont of Aabootoo ot Clofine Boons dotod 1 Moy 1992 hoo boon rotypod for tho 
purpoooo of olority ond logibiiity. 


H-2 


Wurtsmith AFB Dispose! and Reuse FEfS 





Table H'1. FacSitias Surveyed for Asbestos. Wurtsmith Air Force Base. 1992 

Page 1 of 10 


Location 
(Facility No.) 

Facility Description 

Asbestos-Containing 

Material Present 

5 

Pavement and Grounds Facility 

Roofing material 

6 

Maintenance Dock 

Floor tile, roofing material, flexible 
duct/duct joint insulation, pipe 
fitting insulation 

8 

Radar Tower 

No ACM identified 

14 

Base Operations 

Tank and fitting insulation, flexible 
duct/duct Joint insulation, ceiling 
plaster, ceiling tile, floor tile, 
wallboard, roofing material 

16 

Rre Station 

Wallboard, ceiling tile 

20 

Rre Station 

Pipe, fitting, and tank insulation, 
ceiling tile, floor tile, wallboard, 
roofing material 

25 

Maintenance Shop 

Wallboard, ceiling tile, floor tile, 
roofing material 

43 

Jet Engine Maintenance Shop 

Pipe, fitting, and tank insulation, 
wallboard, floor tile, roofing 
material 

45 

Rre Station 

Ceiling tile, wallboard, roofing 
material 

47 

Maintenance Shop 

Roofing material 

50 

Recreation Facility 

Pipe fitting insulation, floor tile, 
roofing material 

55 

Base Personnel Office 

Pipe and fitting insulation, ceiling 
tile, wallboard, floor tile, roofing 
material 

57 

Laboratory 

Ceiling tile, floor tile, roofing 
material 

58 

Data Processing 

Pipe fitting insulation, ceiling tile, 
wallboard, floor tile, roofing 
material 

60 

Supply and Equipment Warehouse 

Pipe, fitting, and tank insulation, 
wallboard, wall and ceiling transite, 
ceiling tile, floor tile 


Notes: The asbestos survey included representative samples taken from family housing structures with ACM 
being identified in wallboard, floor tile, and roofing materials. 

ACM - Asbestos-containing material. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 


H-3 










Table H>1. FaclKiea Surveyed for Asbestoa, Wurtsmhh Air Force Base. 1992 

Page 2 of 10 


Location 
(FacHity No.) 

Facflity Description 

Asbestos-Containing 

Material Present 

70 

Housing Supply and Storage 
Facility 

Pipe, fitting, and equipment 
insulation, wallboard, textured wall 
surfacing, ceiling tile 

120 

Security Police Operations 

Pipe and fitting insulation, 
wallboard, ceiling tile, floor tile, 
roofing material 

140 

Pavement and Grounds Tacility 

Pipe, fitting and tank insulation, 
floor tils, ceiling tile, wallboard, 
roofing material 

190 

Security Police Operations 

Pipe, fitting, tank, and equipment 
insulation, wail tile, floor tile, ceiling 
tile, roofing material 

201 

Maintenance Shop 

Pipe and fitting insulation, floor tile, 
ceiling tile, wallboard, roofing 
material 

220 

Communications Facility 

Pipe and fitting insulation, flexible 
duct/duct joint insulation, wail tile, 
ceiling tile, floor tile, roofing 
material 

225 

Youth Center 

Pipe, fitting, and tank insulation, 
wallboard, ceiling tile, floor tile, 
acoustic tile, roofing material 

228 

Education Center 

Wallboard, ceiling tile, floor tile, 
roofing material 

245 

Readiness Crew 

Pipe fitting, and equipment 
insulation, roofing material, 
wallboard, ceiling tile 

287 

Wash Rack 

Roofing material 

288 

Storage Facility 

Wallboard, ceiling tile, floor tile 

290 

Engineering Administration 

Pipe fitting insulation, ceiling tile, 
wallboard, floor tile, roofing 
material 

291 

Engineering Administration 

Roor tile, wallboard, ceiling tile, 
roofing material 


NotM: Th* «abMto« aurvay ineludad rapfasantativa aamplaa takan from family houaiitg atructuraa with ACM 
baine kfantifiad in wailboanf, floor tila. and roofing matariala. 


H-4 


Wuftsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 












Tabl« H'l. FacHitiM Survayad for Aabastoa. Wurtsmith Air Forca Base, 1992 

Paaa 3 of 10 


Location 


Asbestos-Containing 

(Faclity No.) 

Faclity Daacription 

Material Present 

300 

Gymnaaium 

Ceiling tile, waiiboard, flexible 
duct/duct joint insulation, tank 
insulation, roofing material, floor tile 

302 

Water Supply Building 

Ceiling tile, floor tile, waiiboard, 
roofing material 

303 

Water Supply Building 

Pipe and fitting insulation, roofing 
material 

304 

Water Supply Building 

Roofing material 

305 

Heating Facility 

Pipe, fitting, tank, and equipment 
insulation, ceiling tile, floor tile, 
waiiboard, roofing material 

306 

Unknown 

Waiiboard, ceiling tile, floor tile, 
roofing material 

307 

Waste Treatment Building 

Roofing material 

334 

Recreation Building 

Pipe, fitting, and tank insulation, 
waiiboard, floor tile, roofing 
material 

340 

Base Personnel Office 

Attic insulation, pipe and fitting 
insulation, wall transits, waiiboard, 
ceiling tile, floor tile, roofing 
material 

351 

Liquid Fuel Pump Station 

Roofing material 

355 

Liquid Fuel Pump Station 

Roofing material 

361 

Liquid Fuel Pump Station 

Floor tile, roofing material 

383 

Traffic Management Facility 

Pipe, fitting, and tank insulation, 
waiiboard, miscellaneous wrap, 
ceiling tile, floor tile, roofing 
material, flexible duct/duct joint 
insulation 

384 

Hazardous Storage 

Roofing material 

385 

Maintenance Shop 

Pipe and fitting insulation, ceiling 
tile, floor tile, waiiboard 

388 

Arts and Craft Center 

Pipe fitting insulation, ceiling tile, 
waiiboard, floor tile 


NotM: Th* MbMtM aurvey inchidad raprcMnUtiva Mmplm takan from family houaing atruoturaa with ACM 
baing Wantifiad in wallboaid, floor tila, and roofing matariala. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 


H-5 











Table H-1. Faciiitias Surveyed for Asbestos, Wurtsmith Air Force Base, 1992 

Page 4 of 10 


Location 
(Facility No.) 

FacBity Description 

Asbestos-Contafaiing 

Material Present 

393 

Refueling Vehicle Shop 

Pipe and fitting insulation, floor tile, 
roofing material, miscellaneous 
materials 

394 

Vehicle Maintenance Shop 

Pipe, fitting, and tank insulation, 
wallboard, ceiling tile, floor tile, 
roofing material 

395 

Vehicle Operations Administration 

Pipe and fitting insulation, ceiling 
tile, floor tile, wallboard, roofing 
material 

396 

Vehicle Operation/Heating Parking 

Pipe, fitting, and equipment 
insulation wallboard, ceiling tile, 
floor tile, roofing material 

400 

Base Exchange 

Wallboard, ceiling tile, pipe fitting 
insulation, floor tile, roofing 
material 

404 

Commissary 

No ACM identified 

405 

Exchange Service Outlet 

Pipe and fitting insulation, roofing 
material, floor tile, ceiling tile, 
wallboard 

410 

Package Store 

Pipe, fitting, and equipment 
insulation, floor tile, ceiling tile, 
wallboard, flexible duct/duct joint 
insulation, roofing material 

420 

Bowling Center 

Pipe and equipment insulation, floor 
tile, ceiling tile, wallboard, ceiling 
transite 

440 

Theater 

Pipe and fitting insulation, roofing 
material, floor tile, wall transite, 
ceiling plaster 

445 

Chapel Center 

Pipe, fitting, and equipment 
insulation, wall and ceiling plaster, 
ceiling tile, floor tile, wallboard, 
roofing material 

455 

Recreation Center 

Pipe, fitting, and tank insulation, 
flexible duct/duct joint insulation, 
roofing material, floor tile, 
wallboard 


Not**: Th« Mbaatos aurvay includad rapraaantativa aamplaa takan from family houaing atructuraa with ACM 
baing idantifiod in wallboard, floor tila. and roofing ntataiiala. 

ACM m Aabaatoa-containing material. 


H-6 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 









Table H-1. Facilities Surveyed for Asbestos, Wurtsmith Air Force Base, 1992 

Page S of 10 


Location 
(Facflity No.) 

FacOity Description 

Asbestos-Containing 

Material Present 

460 

Exchange Service Station 

Wallboard, ceiling tile, floor tile, 
roofing material 

500 

Dormitory 

Pipe, fitting, and tank insulation, 
roofing material, floor sheeting, 
floor tile, wallboard 

502 

Dormitory 

Roor tile, wallboard 

504 

Dormitory 

Flexible duct/duct joint insulation, 
roofing material, floor tile 

506 

Dormitory 

Wallboard, roofing material 

508 

Dormitory 

Tank insulation, roofing material, 
wallboard, floor tile 

510 

Dormitory 

Pipe and fitting insulation, roofing 
material, wallboard, floor tile 

512 

Dining Hall 

Wallboard, floor tile 

514 

Dormitory 

PioP: fitting, tank, and equipment 
ins; jtion, wallboard, roofing 
material, floor tile 

1108 

Storage and Supply 

No ACM identified 

1135 

Swimmers Bath House 

Roofing material 

1600 

Dormitory 

Pipe, fitting, and tank insulation, 
wallboard, ceiling tile, roofing 
material, floor tile 

1602 

VOQ 

Pipe, fitting, tank, and equipment 
insulation, roofing material, 
wallboard, floor tile 

1608 

Open Mess 

Pipe, fitting, and tank insulation, 
wall plaster, ceiling plaster, floor 
tile, wallboard, ceiling tile, flexible 
duct/duct joint insulation, roofing 
material 

1612 

Officers Quarters 

Wallboard, floor tile, roofing 
material 

1700 

Headquarters Group 

Pipe and fitting insulation, floor 
material, wallboard, floor tile, 
roofing material 


NotM: The asbestos survey included representative samples taken from family housing structures with ACM 
being identified in wallboard, floor tile, and roofing materials. 

ACM s Asbestos-containing nnatarial. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 


H-7 










Tabic H>1. Faclitias Surveyed for Asbestos. Wurtsmith Air Force Base. 1992 

Page 6 of 10 


Location 
(Facility No.) 

FacHity Description 

Asbestos-Containing 

Material Present 

1702 

Headquarters Wing 

Pipe and fitting insulation, wall 
transite, floor tile, wallboard, 
roofing material 

1810 

Headquarters Group 

Fitting, tank, and equipment 
insulation, ceiling tile, wallboard, 
floor tile, roofing material 

1842 

Composite Medicai 

Pipe, fitting, and tank insulation, 
duct insulation, floor ?rial, floor 

tile, wallboard, ceilir roofing 

material 

1843 

Material Services 

No ACM identified 

1950 

Open Mess 

Pipe, fitting, tank, and equipment 
insulation, ceiling plaster, ceiling 
tile, floor tile, wallboard, roofing 
material 

3000 

Waste Treatment Building 

No ACM identified 

3001 

Waste Treatment Building 

Ceiling tile, roofing material 

3002 

Waste Treatment Building 

Floor tile, flexible duct/duct joint 
insulation, ceiling tile, roofing 
material 

3010 

Animal Clinic 

Ceiling tile, floor tile, wallboard, 
roofing material 

3020 

Locomotive Shelter 

Wallboard, roofing material 

3025 

Hazardous Storage 

Roofing material 

3027 

Cold Storage 

Pipe fitting, insulation, floor tile, 
roofing material, ceiling coating 

3029 

Warehouse Supply and Equipment 

Pipe, fitting, and equipment 
insulation, floor tile, ceiling tile, 
wallboard, roofing material 

4004 

Headquarters Wing 

Wall transite, wallboard, floor tile 

5001 

Hazardous Storage 

Roofing material 

5002 

Communication Transmitter 

Flexible duct/duct Joint insulation, 
wallboard, floor tile, roofing 
material 


NoIm: Th« asbMtoa survay includad rapreaentativ* aamplaa takan from family houaing atructuraa with ACM 
baing idantifiad in wallboard, floor tila, and roofing matariala. 

ACM » Aabaatoa-containing matarial. 


H-8 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 








Tabl« H«1. FacilitiM Survayad for Asbestos. Wurtsmhh Air Force Base. 1992 

Page 7 of 10 


Location 
(Facaity No.) 

Facility Description 

Asbestos-Containing 

Material Present 

5003 

RAPCON Center 

Rexible duct/duct joint insulation, 
wall transits, ceiling transits, floor 
tile, ceiling tile, wallboard. roofing 
material 

5006 

Headquarters Wing 

Duct insulation, flexible duct/duct 
joint insulation, pipe and fitting 
insulation, floor tile, ceiling tile, 
wallboard, ceiling plaster, roofing 
material 

5008 

Aircraft Shop 

Pipe and fitting insulation, flexible 
duct/duct joint insulation, floor tile, 
wallboard, ceiling tile, duct 
insulation, roofing material 

5009 

Storage Facility 

Fitting and equipment storage, 
wallboard, floor tile, ceiling tile 

5036 

ILS Glide Slope 

Floor tile 

5037 

ILS Glide Slope 

No ACM identified 

5038 

ILS Localizer 

Roor tile 

5040 

ILS Marker Beacon 

Wallboard 

5041 

ILS Marker Beacon 

Wallboard 

5045 

Weapons and Release Systems 
Shop 

Fitting insulation, ceiling tile, floor 
tile 

5046 

RAPCON Center 

Pipe, fitting, and equipment 
insulation, duct insulation, floor tile, 
ceiling tile, wallboard, roofing 
material 

5052 

VORTAC 

No ACM identified 

5054 

Electric Generator Station 

Wallboard, roofing material 

5060 

Maintenance Dock 

Pipe and fitting insulation, flexible 
duct/duct joint insulation, ceiling 
tile, floor tile, wallboard 

5061 

Maintenance Dock 

Pipe, fitting, and equipment 
insulation, floor tile, ceiling tile, 
wallboard 


Note*: The asbeetoe eurvey included representative samples taken from family housing structures with ACM 
beirtg identified in wallboard, floor tile, and roofing materials. 

ACM « Asbestos-containing metsrial. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 


H-9 










Tabto H>1. FacIMts Su(v«y«d lor Asbostos, WurtsmHh Air Forco Bom. 1992 

Pago 8 of 10 


Location 


Asbestos*Containing 

(FacIHv No.) 

Faclity Description 

Material Present 

5062 

Maintananca Dock 

Pipe, fitting, and equipment 
insulation, duct insulation, flexible 
duct/duct Joint insulation, floor tile, 
ceiling tile 

5065 

Squadron Oparationa 

Duct insulation, pipe and fltting 
insulation, flexible duct/duct joint 
insulation, waUboard, ceiling tile, 
floor tile, roofing material 

5066 

Aircraft Corrosion Control 

Rexible duct/duct Joint insulation, 
fitting and equipment insulation, 
floor tile 

5067 

Maintenance Dock 

Pipe and fitting insulation, flexible 
duct/duct Joint insulation, ceiling tile 
floor tile, wallboard 

5068 

Maintenance Dock 

Pipe and fitting insulation, flexible 
duct/duct Joint insulation, 
wallboard, floor tile, ceiling tile 

5070 

Squadron Oparationa 

Rtting insulation, wallboard, ceiling 
tile, floor tile roofing material 

5071 

Squadron Operations 

Wallboard, floor tile, ceiling tile, 
roofing material 

5073 

Fuel Hydrant Building 

Roor tile, roofing material, flexible 
duct/duct Joint insulation 

5075 

Fuel Hydrant Building 

Roor tile, roofing material, flexible 
duct/duct Joint insulation 

5076 

Water Pump Station 

Roofing material 

5079 

Utility Vault 

Roofing material 

5081 

Vehicle Fueling Station 

Roor tile, roofing material 

5083 

Utility Vault 

Roofing material 

5090 

Vehicle Operations Parking 

Pipe, fitting, tank, and equipment 
insulation, wail transits, ceiling tile, 
floor tile, wallboard 

5091 

Rre Station 

Pipe, fitting, and equipment 
insulation, floor tile, ceiling tile, 
roofing material 


NotM: The MbMtoa survay inoludad raprcMnUrtiv* samplM taken from family houaing atiucturaa with ACM 
being idandfiad in wallboard, floor tila, and roofing matariala. 


H-10 


Wurtsmith AFB Dispose and Reuse PE/S 







Tabi* H-1. FacBitias Surveyed for Asbestos. WurtsmHh Air Force Base. 1992 


Page 9 of 10 


Location 
(FacBitv No.) 

FacBity Description 

Asbestos-Containing 

Material Present 

5095 

Control Tower 

Roor tile, pipe fitting insulation, 
wall plaster, ceiling plaster 

5096 

Petroleum Operation Building 

Ceiling tile, floor tile, wallboard, 
pipe fitting insulation 

5098 

High-bay Technical Training 

Wallboard, floor tile 

5100 

Storage Igloo 

No ACM identified 

5102 

Storage Igloo 

No ACM identified 

5104 

Storage Igloo 

No ACM identified 

5106 

Storage Igloo 

No ACM identified 

5107 

Storage Igloo 

No ACM identified 

5108 

Storage Igloo 

No ACM identified 

5109 

Survival Inspection Shop 

Ceiling tile, floor tile, wallboard, 
roofing material 

5110 

Liquid Oxygen Storage 

No ACM identified 

5111 

Liquid Oxygen Storage 

Ceiling tile, wallboard 

5328 

Spare Inert Storage 

Pipe fitting insulation, floor tile, 
ceiling tile 

5330 

Munition Cubicle 

Roofing material 

5332 

Munition Cubicle 

Roofing material 

5333 

Segmented Magazine 

No ACM identified 

5334 

Munitions Maintenance 
Administration 

Pipe fitting and tank insulation, 
duct, insulation, floor tile, ceiling 
tile, wallboard, roofing material 

5335 

Conventional Munitions Shop 

Pipe fitting insulation, wallboard, 
ceiling tile, floor tile, roofing 
material 

5336 

Security Police Entry Control 

Pipe, fitting, and tank insulation, 
duct insulation, flexible duct/duct 
joint insulation, wallboard, ceiling 
tile, floor tile, roofing material 

5340 

Readiness Crew 

Ceiling tile, wallboard, roofing 
material 


NotM: The atbMtos survey included representetivs samples taken from famHy housing structures with ACM 
being identified in wallboard. floor tile, and roofing materials. 

ACM - Asbestos-containing material. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


H-11 








TatM« H'l. FaclitiM Surveyed for Asbestos. WurtsmHh Air Force Base. 1992 

Pege 10 of 10 


Location 
(FacHity No.) 

Facflity Description 

Asbestos-Containing 

Material Present 

5350 

Readiness Crew 

Roor tile, ceiling tile, roofing 
material 

5356 

Security Police Entry Control 

Roor tile, roofing material 

5600 

Warehouse Supply and Equipment 

Wallboard, equipment gasket 

5602 

Warehouse Supply and Equipment 

No ACM identified 

5606 

Administration Office 

Pipe fitting insulation, wallboard, 
floor tile 

5608 

Warehouse Supply and Equipment 

No ACM identified 

5610 

Warehouse Supply and Equipment 

No ACM identified 

5613 

Canine Kennel 

Floor tile, ceiling tile, wallboard 

7295 

Squadron Operations 

Roofing material, ceiling tile 

8252 

Youth Center 

Pipe fitting insulation, ceiling tile, 
floor tile, roofing material 

8254 

Child Care Center 

Roor tile, ceiling tile, flexible 
duct/duct joint insulation, 
wallboard, roofing material 

8260 

Family Housing Management 

Ceiling tile, wallboard, floor tile, 
roofing material 

8950 

Security Police Central Control 

Roor tile, wallboard, roofing 
material 

9421 

Maintenance Shop 

Wallboard, floor tile, roofing 
material 

9422 

Maintenance Shop 

Roofing material 

9423 

Youth Center 

Roor tile, wallboard, roofing 
material 


NotM: Th* aabMtos survey included representative samples taken from family housing structures with ACM 
being identified in wallboatd, floor tile, arrd roofing materials. 

ACM > Asbastos-containirtg nnatarial. 


H-12 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







APPENDIX I 

PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES OCCURRING ON OR NEAR 
WURTSMITH AIR FORCE BASE 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






Tabic 1-1. Vegetation and Wfldlife Speciea Occurring on or near 
WurtamHh Air Force Base 
Page 1 of 4 


Common Name 

Scientific Name 

Vegetation 


Treea 


Silver maple 

Acer saccharinum 

Alder 

Alnus serrulata 

Serviceberry 

Amalanchier sp. 

Paper birch 

Betu/a papyrifera 

Silky dogwood 

Cornus obUqua 

Tamarack 

Larix taricina 

Black spruce 

Picea mariana 

Jack pine 

Pinus banksiana 

Northern or red pine 

Pinus resinosa 

Bigtooth aspen 

Popu/us grandidentata 

Northern red oak 

Quercus rubra 

Willow 

Salix sp. 

Northern white cedar 

Thuja occidentalis 

Herbs and shrubs 


Spreading dogbane 

Apocynum androsaemifolium 

Lady fern 

Athyrium fUix-femina 

Pitcher's thistle 

Q'rsium pitcheri 

Sweet fern 

Comptonia peregrina 

Bunchberry 

Cornus canadensis 

Orchard grass 

Dactyiis glomerate 

Bush honeysuckle 

Diervilla lonicere 

Meadow fescue 

Festuca elatior 

Labrador tea 

Ledum groenlandicum 

Sensitive fern 

Onoclea sensibilis 

Flowering or royal fern 

Osmunda regalis 

Bracken fern 

Pteridium aquilinum 

Staghorn sumac 

Rhus typhina 



Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 1-1 








Tabla I*!. Vegetation end WOdUfe Speciee Occurring on or near 
Wurtsmith Air Forca Baae 
Page 2 of 4 


Common Name Scientific Name 


Vegetation (continued) 

Herba and Shruba 

Swamp dewberry 

Moss 

Skunk cabbage 

Starflower 

Cattail 

Late low blueberry 
Barren strawberry 
Wild rice 

Wildlife 

Mammals 

Coyote 

Beaver 

Virginia opossum 
Northern flying squirrel 
Snowshoe hare 
Woodchuck 
Striped skunk 
Meadow vole 
House mouse 
Long-tailed weasel 
Mink 

Little brown bat 
White-tailed deer 
Muskrat 
Deer mouse 
White-footed mouse 
American woodcock 
Raccoon 


/7t/bus hispidus 
Sphagnum sp. 

Symp/ocarpus foatidus 
Trianta/is borea/is 
Typha sp. 

Vaccinium angustifo/fum 
Wa/dsteinia fragarioidas 
Zizania aquatica var. aquatica 

Canis iatrans 
Castor canadensis 
Didaiphis virginiana 
G/aucomys sabrinus 
Lepus americanus 
Marmota monax 
Mephitis mephitis 
Microtus pennsyivanicus 
Mus muscuius 
Musteia frenata 
Mustela vison 
Myotis fucifugus 
OdocoUeus virginianus 
Ondatra zibethica 
Peromyscus maniculatus 
Peromyscus leucopus 
Philophela minor 
Procyon lotor 


1-2 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse PEIS 







Table 1-1. Vegetation and WBdlife Spaciaa Occurring on or near 
WurtsmHh Air Force Base 
Pago 3 of 4 


Common Name 

Scientific Name 

Wildlife (continued) 

Mammaia 

Gray squirrel 

Sdurus carolinensis 

Fox squirrel 

Sciurus niger 

Masked shrew 

Sorex cinereus 

Thirteen-lined ground squirrel 

Sparmophilus tridecem/ineatus 

Eastern cottontail 

SyMIagus f/oridanus 

Eastern chipmunk 

Tamias striatus 

Badger 

Taxidea taxus 

Gray fox 

Urocyon cinereoargenteus 

Birds 

Sharp-shinned hawk 

Accipiter striatus 

Cooper's hawk 

Accipiter cooperii 

Northern saw-whet owl 

Aegoiius acadicus 

Wood duck 

Aix sponsa 

Green-winged teal 

Anas crecca 

Mallard 

Anas piatyrhynchos 

Canvasback 

Aythya vaiisineria 

Ruffed grouse 

Bonasa umbeUus 

Canada goose 

Branta canadensis 

Great homed owl 

Bubo virginianus 

Bufflehead 

Bucephala aibeoia 

Red-tailed hawk 

Buteo Jamaicensis 

House finch 

Carpodacus mexicanus 

American crow 

Corvus brachyrhynchos 

Palm warbler 

Dendroica palmarum 

Chestnut-sided warbler 

Dendroica pensylvanica 

Pileated woodpecker 

Dryocopus pileatus 

American kestrel 

Faico sparverius 

American coot 

Fuiica americana 




Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


1-3 






Tabic 1*1. Veiiatation and Wildlifa Spacias Occurring on or near 
Wurtsmhh Air Force Base 
Page 4 of 4 


Common Narrta 

Scientific Name 

WBdIifa (continued) 


Birda 


Bald eagle 

Haiiaeetus leucocephalus 

Ring-billed gull 

Larus deiawarensis 

Belted kingfisher 

Megaceryie aicyon 

Wild turkey 

Meleagris gaUopavo 

Lincoln's sparrow 

Maiospiza lincoinii 

Song sparrow 

Maiospiza meiodia 

Tufted titmouse 

Parus bicolor 

Black-capped chickadee 

Parus atricapillus 

House sparrow 

Passer domesticus 

American woodcock 

Phiiohela minor 

Scarlet tanager 

Piranga oiivacea 

Eastern bluebird 

Sialia sialis 

Red-breasted nuthatch 

Sitta canadensis 

American tree sparrow 

Spizella arborea 

Reid sparrow 

Spizella pusiHa 

Barred owl 

Strix varia 

European starling 

Sturnus vulgaris 

American robin 

Turdus migratorius 



i-4 Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 










r 


Tabla i-2. Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Speciea Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of 

Wurtsmith Air Force Base 
Page 1 of 2 


Name 

Status'" 

Federal 

State 

Habitat and Distribution 

Plants 

Dragon's mouth 

(Arethusa buibosaj 

- 

SC 

Occurs in bogs and swampy meadows. May 
occur on Wurtsmith AFB. 

Hill's thistle 
(Grsium hiilii) 

C2 

SC 

inhabits prairies and other open places, unlikely 
to occur on base. 

Lake cress 

(Armoracia aguatica) 

C2 

T 

Inhabits quiet lakes and streams. Unlikely to 
occur on base but may occur slightly off base at 
Van Etten Lake or Au Sable River. 

Least pinweed 
(Lechea minor) 

- 

SC 

Occurs in sandy woods and around the edges of 
dry ponds. May occur at Wurtsmith AFB. 

Pitcher's thistle 
(Cirsium pitcher!) 

T 

T 

inhabits dunes of Great Lakes. Unlikely to occur 
on base. 

Ram's head 

C3 

SC 

Occurs in moist usually sandy soils. May occur 
at Wurtsmith AFB. 

Wild rice 

(Zizania aguatica var. 
aguatica) 


T 

Occurs in shallow waters and the edges of 
streams. May occur in wetlands on base. 

Insects 

Lake Huron locust 
(Trimerotropis 
huroniana) 

C2 

PT 

Occurs only on high quality, sparsely vegetated, 
coastal sand dunes. Not likely to occur at 
Wurtsmith AFB. 

Secretive locust 

(Appalachia arcana) 

C2 

SC 

inhabits shrubby areas exposed to full sunlight at 
least part of the day. One recorded sighting in 
the large forested wetland in the northwest 
portion of Wurtsmith AFB. 

Reptaes 

Massasaga (rattlesnake) 
(Sistrurus catenatus) 

C2 

SC 

Inhabits swamps, bogs, and marshes. Occurs 
along the Au Sable River floodplain on base. 

Wood turtle 

(Clemmys insculpta) 


SC 

Inhabits marshy meadows and cool streams in 
deciduous woodlands. Likely to occur in the 
forested wetland in the northwest portion of 
Wurtsmith AFB. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 


1-5 







Tabla 1-2. ThrMtanad. Endangarad. and Candidata Spaciaa Potantiady Occurring in tha Vicinity of 

Wurtsmith Air Forca Baaa 
Paga 2 of 2 


Statua*** 


Name 

Federal 

State 

Habitat and Distribution 

Birds 

Bald Eagle 
(Hatiaaetus 
ieucucaphaiusJ 

T 

T 

Hests along rivers and lakeshores around 
Wurtsmith AFB. Unlikely to occur on base due to 
lack of suitable habitat. 

Kirdand's warbler 

(Dendroica kirtlandiil 

E 

E 

Nests in fairly dense stands of young jack pines. 

A Kirdand's warbler recovery area is located 1 
mile south of the base. Potentially occurs at 
Wurtsmith AFB in the jack pine stand west of 

Rea Road. 

Fish 

Channel darter 

(Percina copelandij 


T 

Occurs in lake Huron. Spawns in weakly flowing 
water over a gravel-bottom area. Recorded in 

1986 from the Au Sable River below Foote Dam 
approximately 3 miles west of Wurtsmith AFB. 

Lake Sturgeon 

(Acipenser fulvescensJ 

C2 

T 

Recorded in the Au Sable River south of 
Wurtsmith AFB. Possibly spawns in 1 - to 5- 
meter deep fast-flowing water in the Au Sable 
River. 

River darter 

(Percina shumardi} 

- 

T/PE 

One 1925 locality record from the Au Sable River 
prior to the construction of Foote Dam. Possibly 


still occurs in tha Au Sable River. 


Not**: (•) Fadcriri aMtus datarminad by USFWS: 

E Endangarad; in dangar of axtinction throughout aH or a aignificant portion of ita ranga. 

T Thraatanad; likaiy to baconrw an andangarad apactaa within tha foraaaaabla futura throughout all or a 
aignificant portion of ita ranga. 

Cl Subatantial orr-fila information on biological vulnerability and threat indicataa that propoaing to liat 
thaaa apaciaa aa endangarad or thraatarwd ia appropriate. 

C2 Information indicataa that propoaing to liat thaaa apaciaa ia poeeibly appropriate, though more data 
on vulnerability and threat ia nacaaaary. 

C3 Information irrdioatea that thaaa apaciaa have proven to be more aburrdant than pravioualy baliavad 
and are not aubjact to any idantifiablo threat. 

Not liatad. 

State Statue: 

E Liatad aa endangarad by tha atata of MieWgan. 

T Liatad aa thraatanad by tha atata of Michigan. 

PE Propoaad for Hating aa andangarad by tha atata of Michigan. 

PT Propoaad for Hating aa thraatanad by tha atata of Michigan. 

SC Michigan Natural Faaturaa Inventory ’Spaciaa of Special Concern’ ia defined aa rare and may 
become endangered or thraatarrad in tha future. 


1-6 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 










APPENDIX J 
NOISE 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 







NOISE 


K 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 

1.1 PRECLOSURE 

Typical noise sources on and around airfields usually include aircraft, surface 
traffic, and other human activities. 

Military aircraft operations are the primary source of noise in the vicinity of 
Wurtsmith Air Force Base (AFB). The air operations and noise contours for 
preclosure are taken from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement- 
Proposed Closure of Baker AFB, Arkansas (with Wurtsmith Option! (U.S. Air 
Force. 1990a). The contours for preclosure operations are shown in 
Figure 3.4-3 in the Affected Environment Chapter of this EiS. In airport 
analyses, areas with a Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) above 65 A- 
weighted decibels (dB) are considered in land use compatibility planning and 
impact assessment; therefore, the distances to areas with DNLs greater than 
65 dB were of particular interest. 

The baseline surface traffic noise levels in the vicinity of the base were 
established in terms of DNL by modeling the arterial roadways near the 
base using current traffic and speed characteristics. Peak month average 
daily traffic (ADT) data, traffic mix and day/night split were developed in the 
traffic engineering study presented in Section 3.2.3, Transportation, and 
were used to estimate preclosure noise levels. The traffic data used in the 
analysis are presented in Table J-1. The traffic mix was assumed to be 
4 percent medium trucks and 2 percent heavy trucks. Eleven percent of the 
traffic was assumed to be nighttime traffic. The noise levels generated by 
surface traffic were predicted using the model published by the Federal 
Highway Administration (1978). The noise levels are estimated as a 
function of distance from the centerline of the nearest road. 

1.2 CLOSURE BASEUNE 

At closure, it is assumed that there would be no aircraft activity. The noise 
levels projected for the closure baseline for surface traffic were calculated 
using the traffic projections at base closure. The ADTs used for the analysis 
are presented in Table J-1. 

1.3 PROPOSED ACTION 

The Proposed Action for the reuse of Wurtsmith AFB is a comprehensive 
reuse plan centered around a general aviation facility. Primary components 
of this plan include general aviation and maintenance/refurbishing 
operations. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


J-1 









TabI* J*1. Surfaca Traffic Oparationa for Total Traffic Voiumaa 
(Project and Non-Projact) 


Roadway 

AOT 

Spead Aaaumed 
(mph) 

Road Width Aaaumed 
No. of Lanea 

1 Prodoture | 

U.S. 23 iJohnaon Rd to River Rd) 

22.440 

25 

2 

U.S. 23 (River Rd to Cedar Lake Rd) 

32,370 

25 

4 

U.S. 23 (Cedar Lake Rd to F-41) 

44.890 

50 

4 

U.S. 23 (F-41 to Roadaide Park) 

18.780 

so 

2 

U.S. 23 (Roadaida Park to County Una) 

10,690 

SO 

2 

F-41 (U.S. 23 to Skee) Ave) 

22.S35 

2S 

4 

F-41 (Skoal Ave to Rea Rd) 

4.740 

SO 

2 

F-41 (Rea Rd to N. County Urw) 

2,790 

SO 

2 

Cedar Lake Rd (F-41 to Loud Rd) 

8,530 

25 

2 

Loud Rd (Cedar Lake Rd to Loud Islaitd) 

2.360 

25 

2 

River Rd (O&M Railroad to Grata Lake Rd) 

6,250 

25 

2 

Rea Rd (River Rd to F-41) 

1.430 

40 

2 

Biaaonatte Rd (Rea Rd to Alvin Rd) 

1,300 

40 

2 

_1 

U.S. 23 (JohiMon Rd to River Rd) 

17,863 

25 

2 

U.S. 23 (River Rd to Cedar Lake Rd) 

22,137 

25 

4 

U.S. 23 (Cadar Lake Rd to F-41) 

26.107 

50 

4 

U.S. 23 (F-41 to Roadaide Park) 

15,267 

50 

2 

U.S. 23 (Roadaida Park to County Urte) 

9.466 

SO 

2 

F-41 (U.S. 23 to Skeel Ave) 

7,328 

25 

4 

F-41 (Cedar Lake Rd to Skeel Aval 

3,817 

25 

4 

F-41 (Skeel Ave to Rea Rd) 

3.206 

50 

2 

F-41 (Rea Rd to N. County Unel 

1.985 

50 

2 

Cedar Lake Rd (F-41 to Loud Rd) 

2.519 

25 

2 

Loud Rd (Cadar Lake Rd to Loud Island) 

773 

25 

2 

River Rd (D&M Railroad to Grata Lake Rd) 

2.137 

25 

2 

Rea Rd (River Rd to F-41) 

1.466 

40 

2 

Biaaonette Rd (Rea Rd to Alvin Rd) 

1,344 

40 

2 


D&M • Detroit attd Mackinac 


1-2 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 








































































































Thtt fiMt mix and annual aircraft operations for each of tha modalad yaara ara containad in 
Tabla J-2. Tha DNL contours for tha proposad flight oparationa and tha proposad flight 
tracks modalad ara prasanted in Section 4.4.4, Noiaa. Tha day-night split for all aircraft 
operations is shown in Tabla J-3. Stage lengths for aircraft operations ara given in Tabla 
J-4. 


Engine runup operations were assumed to occur at an existing maintenance apron directly 
to tha south of the eastern and of tha runway, approximately 3,000 feat from the runway 
centerline. The number of runup operations is presented in Table J-5. During typical runup 
operations, the engines would run for 15 minutes at 75 percent power. It was assumed 
that no noise suppression facilities would be available. The aircraft were assumed to have 
a heading of 60 degrees. 

General aviation operations were divided into four types: 

• Single-engine (COMSEP) - A composite single-engine propeller plane was 
modeled. 

• Multi-engine - Beech Baron 58P was assumed to be a typical multi-engine 
propeller plane. 

• Turboprop - Cessna Conquest II was assumed to be a typical turboprop. 

« Turbojet - Learjet 35 was assumed to be a typical turbojet. 

The touch-and-go patterns and the initial departure and final approach flight tracks used in 
the modeling are shown in Rgure J-1. The departure and arrival flight tracks used are 
simple straight-in/straight-out tracks. The flight tracks are primarily toward the northeast 
and southwest, following the headings of the runways. The touch-and-go flight tracks 
were based on those in common usage at similar sized airports. Touch-and-go operations 
were assumed to consist of 35 percent of all piston-engined general aviation operations and 
were split on four tracks (two for runway 06 and two for runway 24). The operations were 
then dispersed 25 percent on runway 06 and 75 percent on runway 24. Daily operations 
assigned to each flight track and time period for the Proposed Action are provided in Table 
J-6 for each of the study years. 

A standard 3-degree glide slope and the takeoff profiles provided by the Federal Aviation 
Administration's (FAA) integrated Noise Model (INM) Database 3.10 were assumed for all 
aircraft. 

Surface traffic data used in the modeling were developed from the project traffic study 
presented in Section, 4.2.3, Transportation, and are shown in Table J-7. Surface traffic 
sound levels are presented in Tables J-8 through J-11. These levels are presented in terms 
of DNL as a function of distance from the centerline of the roadways analyzed. 


Wurtsmith AFB Dispose! and Reuse FEIS 


1-3 





TABLE J-2a 

SCENARIO: Proposed Action 

MODELED YEAR: 1998 


Type of Aircraft 

Number of 
Operations 

MaiHJfKturing^Refijrtishina 

B-727-100 

48 

B-727-200 

288 

B-747-200 

144 

DC-9-30 

72 

DC-8-50 

192 

MU-2 

72 

Learjet 35 

240 

Beech King Air 

288 

General Aviation 

COMSEP (composite singie-engine 
piston) 

13.770 

Beech Baron 58P (twin engine piston) 

1.070 

Cessna Conquest II (turboprop) 

150 

Learjet 35 (corporate jet) 

310 


Category 
Total for Psreant 
Category of Total 


1.344 


15.300 


total 


16.644 100 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 























































TABLE J-2b 

SCENARIO: Proposed Action 

MODELED YEAR: 2003 


Type of Aircraft 


Manufscturing/Refurbishirig 


B-727-100 (re-engined) 


B-727-2(X} (re-engined) 


B-747-400 


MO-81 


DC-8-70 


MU-2 


Learjet 35 


Beech King Air 


General Aviation 


Number of Percent of Total for 
Operations Category Category 


Category 
Percent 
of Total 


COMSEP (composite single engine 
piston) 

15,660 

Beech Baron 58P (twin engine piston) 

1,220 

Cessna Conquest II (turboprop) 

170 

Learjet 35 (corporate jet) 

350 

TOTAL 



18,792 100 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


5 












































TABLE J-2c 

SCENARIO: Proposad Action 

MODELED YEAR: 2013 



1 


6 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






















































Tabl« J-3. Day-Night Split of Aircraft Operations for Proposed Action 


Aircraft Type 

Percent Daytime 

Percent Nighttime 

Maintenanca/Refurbishing 

90 

10 

General Aviation 

90 

10 


Table J-4. Stage Lengths’** 

Assumed for Aircraft Operations for Proposed Action 

Group 

1998 

2003 

2013 

Maintenance/Refurbishing 

1 

1 

1 

General Aviation 

1 

1 

1 

Nota; (a) Staga langth may affaet oparational paramaters such aa takaoff or landing profilaa, angina thruat aattinga, and 
aircraft apaad of aoma aircraft: thaaa paramatera may, in turn, affaet aircraft noiaa axpoaura. Staga langtha 
eorraaportd to tha diatanca flown in incrannanta of SOO milaa (a.g., ataga langth 1 corraaponda to flighta 
batwaan 1 and SOO nalaa; 2 corraaponda to flighta batwaan 500 and 1.000 milaa, etc.) Tha maximum ataga 
langth uaad in nwdalirtg ia 7 04,500 ntilaa). 

Table J-5. Number of Daily Engine Runup Operations for the Proposed Action 


1998 

2003 

2013 

B-727-100 

.066 

- 

- 

B-727-200 

.395 

- 

- 

B-747-200 

.197 

- 


DC-9-30 

.099 

- 

- 

DC-8-30 

.263 

- 

- 

Mitsubishi MU-2 

.099 

.132 

.263 

Learjet 35 

.329 

.329 

.329 

3eech King Air 

.395 

.460 

.526 

B-727-200 (re-engined) 

- 

.395 

.263 

B-747-400 

- 

.296 

.460 

MD-81 

- 

.099 

- 

DC-8-70 

- 

.197 

.132 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 



















EXPLANATION 

Arriving Right Track 
Oaparting Flight Track 
Touch and Qo Right Track 


Lak» Huron 


Primary Flight 
Tracks - 

Proposed Action 


an 

0 6000 12000 24000 Faat 



ngure J-1 


J-8 


WurtsmiOt AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 














Table J-Sa. Assignment of Operations for the Proposed Action 
Modeled Year: 1998 



J-9 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 
































Table J-6b. Assignment of Operations for the Proposed Action 
Modeled Year: 2003 



J-10 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 
























Table J-6c. Assignment of Operations for the Proposed Action 
Modeled Year: 2013 



J-11 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 
















Table J'7. Surface Traffic Operations for Totai Traffic Volumas (Project and Non-ProJactJ 

_ 19M _ 1998 _ 2003 _ 2013 _ Rowl WWth 

Spaed Spaed Speed Speed Aaaumed (no. of 

we_APT_Imphl_APT_(moM_APT_(moh)_APT_Imohl_(enee) 



Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 






























































































































































































































































Table J-7. Surface Traffic Operations for Total Traffic Volumas (Project and Non-Projact) 

19 93 _ 1998 _ 2003 _ 2013 _ Row! Width 

I SpMd Sp«ad Sp««d Spaed Aaaumad (no. 

(mphl APT Inrwhl APT (wohl APT (iwh)_!«<—i 


'S 




J*13 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 


















































































































































































































































Tabte J-8. Distance to DNL from Roadway Centerline for the Proposed Action 

Page 1 of 2 




Distance 

Number 

Distance 

Number 

Distance 

Number 



IftI 

of 

(ft) 

of 

(ft) 

of 

Roadway 

From/To 

DNL 65dB 

Residents 

DNL 70dB 

Residents 

DNL 7SdB 

Residents 

1993 

U.S. 23 

Johnson Rd. to River Rd. 

70 

9 

40 

0 

20 

0 

U.S. 23 

River Rd. to Cedar Lake Rd. 

90 

0 

40 

0 

30 

0 

U.S. 23 

Cedar Lake Rd. to F-41 

180 

122 

90 

23 

40 

0 

U.S. 23 

F-41 to Roadside Park 

130 

378 

60 

16 

30 

0 

U.S. 23 

Roadside Park to County Line 

90 

134 

40 

0 

20 

0 

F-41 

U.S. 23 to Skeel Ave. 

40 

0 

30 

0 

(al 

0 

F-41 

Skeel Ave. to Rea Rd. 

50 

0 

20 

0 

la) 

0 

F-41 

Rea Rd. to N County Line 

SO 

0 

20 

0 

(a) 

0 

Cedar Lake Rd. 

F-41 to Loud Rd. 

20 

0 

la) 

0 

(a) 

0 

Loud Rd. 

Cedar Lake Rd. to Loud 

Island 

M 

0 

It) 

0 

la) 

0 

River Rd. 

Detroit and Mackinac 

Railroad to Grass Lake Rd. 

20 

0 

It) 

0 

(a) 

0 

Rea Rd. 

River Rd. to F-41 

20 

0 

la) 

0 

(a) 

0 

Bissonette Rd. 

Rea Rd. to Alvin Rd. 

20 

0 

It) 

0 

(a) 

0 

1998 

U.S. 23 

Johnson Rd. to River Rd. 

80 

15 

40 

0 

20 

0 

U.S. 23 

River Rd. to Cedar Lake Rd. 

100 

0 

50 

0 

30 

0 

U.S. 23 

Cedar Lake Rd. to F-41 

210 

155 

100 

34 

50 

0 

U.S. 23 

F-41 to Roadside Park 

150 

482 

70 

67 

30 

0 

U.S. 23 

Roadside Park to County Line 

110 

214 

50 

0 

20 

0 

F-A^ 

U.S. 23 to Skeel Ave. 

70 

1 

40 

0 

30 

0 

F-41 

Skeel Ave. to Rea Rd. 

100 

0 

50 

0 

20 

0 

F-41 

Rea Rd. to N County Line 

70 

9 

30 

0 

20 

0 

Cedar Lake Rd. 

F-41 to Loud Rd. 

40 

0 

20 

0 

(a) 

0 

Loud Rd. 

Cedar Lake Rd. to Loud 

Island 

20 

0 

It) 

0 

(al 

0 

River Rd. 

Detroit and Mackinac 

Railroad to Grass Lake Rd. 

30 

0 

20 

0 

U) 

0 

Rea Rd. 

River Rd. to F-41 

30 

0 

20 

0 

(al 

0 

Bissonette Rd. 

Rea Rd. to Alvin Rd. 

30 

0 

It) 

0 

(a) 

0 

Not*: (a) Containad within roadway. 


J-14 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 








Tabic J*8. Distanca to DNL from Roadway Centerline for the Proposed Action 

Page 2 of 2 


Roadway 

From/To 

Distance 

Ift) 

DNL 65dB 

Number 

of 

Residents 

Distance 

IftJ 

DNL 70dB 

Number 

of 

Residents 

Distance 

Ift) 

DNL 75dB 

Number 

of 

Residents 

2003 

U.S. 23 

Johftson Rd. to River Rd. 

90 

22 

40 

0 

20 

0 

U.S. 23 

River Rd. to Cedar Lake Rd. 

110 

0 

60 

0 

30 

0 

U.S. 23 

Cedar Lake Rd. to F-41 

230 

177 

110 

45 

60 

0 

U.S. 23 

F-41 to Roadside Park 

160 

534 

70 

67 

40 

0 

U.S. 23 

Roadside Park to County Line 

120 

255 

60 

12 

30 

0 

F-41 

U.S. 23 to Skeei Ave. 

80 

13 

40 

0 

30 

0 

F-41 

Skeel Ave. to Rea Rd. 

120 

1 

60 

0 

30 

0 

F-41 

Rea Rd. to N County Line 

80 

15 

40 

0 

20 

0 

Cedar Lake Rd. 

F-41 to Loud Rd. 

50 

0 

20 

0 


0 

Loud Rd. 

Cedar Lake Rd. to Loud 

Island 

30 

0 

20 

0 

Ul 

0 

River Rd. 

Detroit and Mackinac 

Railroad to Grass Lake Rd. 

30 

0 

20 

0 

(«) 

0 

Rea Rd. 

River Rd. to F-41 

30 

0 

20 

0 

<•1 

0 

Bissonette Rd. 

Rea Rd. to Alvin Rd. 

30 

0 

20 

0 

(a) 

0 

2013 

U.S. 23 

Johnson Rd. to River Rd. 

100 

28 

50 

0 

20 

0 

U.S. 23 

River Rd. to Cedar Lake Rd. 

120 

0 

60 

0 

30 

0 

U.S. 23 

Cedar Lake Rd. to F-41 

260 

210 

120 

56 

60 

0 

U.S. 23 

F-41 to Roadside Park 

180 

637 

80 

119 

40 

0 

U.S. 23 

Roadside Park to County Line 

130 

295 

60 

12 

30 

0 

F-41 

U.S. 23 to Skeel Ave. 

90 

25 

50 

0 

30 

0 

F-41 

Skeel Ave. to Rea Rd. 

130 

0 

60 

0 

30 

0 

F-41 

Rea Rd. to N County Line 

90 

22 

40 

0 

20 

0 

Cedar Lake Rd. 

F-41 to Loud Rd. 

50 

0 

30 

0 

(a) 

0 

Loud Rd. 

Cedar Lake Rd. to Loud 

Island 

30 

0 

20 

0 

(a) 

0 

River Rd. 

Detroit and Mackinac 

Railroad to Grass Lake Rd. 

40 

0 

20 

0 

(a) 

0 

Rea Rd. 

River Rd. to F-41 

30 

0 

20 

0 

(a) 

0 

Bissonette Rd. 

Rea Rd. to Alvin Rd. 

30 

0 

20 

0 

(a) 

0 


Nou: (a) Contalnad within roadway. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 


J-15 








Table J-9. Distanca to DNL from Roadway Centerline for the Rre Training Alternative 

Page 1 of 2 




Distance 

Number 

Distance 

Number 

Distance 

Number 



(ft) 

of 

Ift) 

of 

(ft) 

of 

Roadway 

Frotn/To 

DNL 6SdB 

Residents 

DNL 70dB 

Residents 

DNL 75dB 

Residents 

1993 

U.S. 23 

Johnson Rd. to River Rd. 

70 

9 

40 

0 

20 

0 

U.S. 23 

River Rd. to Cedar Lake Rd. 

90 

0 

40 

0 

30 

0 

U.S. 23 

Cedar Lake Rd. to F-41 

180 

122 

90 

23 

40 

0 

U.S. 23 

F-41 to Roadside Park 

130 

378 

60 

16 

30 

0 

U.S. 23 

Roadside Park to County Line 

90 

134 

40 

0 

20 

0 

F-41 

U.S. 23 to Skeel Ave. 

30 

0 

(» 

0 

(•I 

0 

F-41 

Skeel Ave. to Rea Rd. 

50 

0 

20 

0 

(•) 

0 

F-41 

Rea Rd. to N County Line 

50 

0 

20 

0 

lal 

0 

Cedar Lake Rd. 

F-41 to Loud Rd. 

20 

0 

la) 

0 

(«) 

0 

Loud Rd. 

Cedar Lake Rd. to Loud 

Island 

M 

0 

la) 

0 

(•1 

0 

River Rd. 

Detroit and Mackinac 

Railroad to Grass Lake Rd. 

20 

0 

la) 

0 

la) 

0 

Rea Rd. 

River Rd. to F-41 

20 

0 

la) 

0 

(a) 

0 

Bissonette Rd. 

Rea Rd. to Alvin Rd. 

20 

0 

la) 

0 

la) 

0 

1998 

U.S. 23 

Johnson Rd. to River Rd. 

80 

15 

40 

0 

20 

0 

U.S. 23 

River Rd. to Cedar Lake Rd. 

100 

0 

50 

0 

30 

0 

U.S. 23 

Cedar Lake Rd. to F-41 

210 

155 

100 

34 

50 

0 

U.S. 23 

F-41 to Roadside Park 

150 

482 

70 

67 

30 

0 

U.S. 23 

Roadside Park to County Line 

110 

214 

50 

0 

20 

0 

F-41 

U.S. 23 to Skeel Ave. 

70 

1 

40 

0 

30 

0 

F-41 

Skeel Ave. to Rea Rd. 

100 

0 

50 

0 

20 

0 

F-41 

Rea Rd. to N County Line 

70 

9 

30 

0 

20 

0 

Cedar Lake Rd. 

F-41 to Loud Rd. 

40 

0 

20 

0 

la) 

0 

Loud Rd. 

Cedar Lake Rd. to Loud 

Island 

20 

0 

la) 

0 

la) 

0 

River Rd. 

Detroit and Mackinac 

Railroad to Grass Lake Rd. 

30 

0 

20 

0 

(al 

0 

Rea Rd. 

River Rd. to F-41 

30 

0 

zO 

0 

la) 

0 

Bissonette Rd. 

Rea Rd. to Alvin Rd. 

30 

0 

la) 

0 

la) 

0 

Not*: (al Containad within roadway. 


J-16 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 









Tabia J*9. Diatanca to ONL from Roadway Centeriine for the Fire Training Alternative 

Page 2 of 2 


Roadway 

From/To 

Distance 

IftI 

DNL 65dB 

Number 

of 

Residents 

Distance 

(ft) 

DNL 70dB 

Number 

of 

Residents 

Distance 

(ft) 

DNL 75dB 

Number 

of 

Residents 

2003 

U.S. 23 

Johnson Rd. to River Rd. 

90 

22 

40 

0 

20 

0 

U.S. 23 

River Rd. to Cedar Lake Rd. 

110 

0 

50 

0 

30 

0 

U.S. 23 

Cedar Lake Rd. to F-41 

230 

177 

110 

45 

50 

0 

U.S. 23 

F-41 to Roadside Park 

160 

534 

70 

67 

40 

0 

U.S. 23 

Roadside Park to County Line 

120 

255 

50 

0 

30 

0 

F-41 

U.S. 23 to Skeel Ave. 

80 

13 

40 

0 

30 

0 

F-41 

Skeel Ave. to Rea Rd. 

110 

0 

50 

0 

30 

0 

F-41 

Rea Rd. to N County Line 

80 

15 

40 

0 

20 

0 

Cedar Lake Rd. 

F-41 to Loud Rd. 

40 

0 

20 

0 

(«} 

0 

Loud Rd. 

Cedar Lake Rd. to Loud 

Island 

30 

0 

20 

0 

(•1 

0 

River Rd. 

Detroit and Mackinac 

Railroad to Grass Lake Rd. 

30 

0 

20 

0 

(■1 

0 

Rea Rd. 

River Rd. to F-41 

30 

0 

20 

0 

(a) 

0 

Bissonette Rd. 

Rea Rd. to Alvin Rd. 

30 

0 

20 

0 

Ul 

0 

2013 

U.S. 23 

Johnson Rd. to River Rd. 

100 

28 

50 

0 

20 

0 

U.S. 23 

River Rd. to Cedar Lake Rd. 

120 

0 

60 

0 

30 

0 

U.S. 23 

Cedar Lake Rd. to F-41 

250 

199 

120 

56 

60 

0 

U.S. 23 

F-41 to Roadside Park 

180 

637 

80 

119 

40 

0 

U.S. 23 

Roadside Park to County Line 

130 

295 

60 

12 

30 

0 

F-41 

U.S. 23 to Skeel Ave. 

90 

25 

40 

0 

30 

0 

F-41 

Skeel Ave. to Rea Rd. 

120 

0 

60 

0 

30 

0 

F-41 

Rea Rd. to N County Line 

80 

15 

40 

0 

20 

0 

Cedar Lake Rd. 

F-41 to Loud Rd. 

50 

0 

20 

0 

fa) 

0 

Loud Rd. 

Cedar Lake Rd. to Loud 

Island 

30 

0 

20 

0 

fa) 

0 

River Rd. 

Detroit and Mackinac 

Railroad to Grass Lake Rd. 

40 

0 

20 

0 

(al 

0 

Rea Rd. 

River Rd. to F-41 

30 

0 

20 

0 

fa) 

0 

Bissonette Rd. 

Rea Rd. to Alvin Rd. 

30 

0 

20 

0 

(a) 

0 


Note: (a) Containad within roadway. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


J-17 













Table J>10. Oistanca to ONL from Roadway Centerline for the Recreation Alternative 

Page 1 of 2 


Roadway 

From/To 

Distance 

(ft) 

DNL 65dB 

Number 

of 

Residents 

Distance 

(ft) 

DNL 70dB 

Number 

of 

Residents 

Distance 

(ft) 

DNL 7SdB 

Number 

of 

Residents 

1993 

U.S. 23 

Johnson Rd. to River Rd. 

70 

9 

40 

0 

20 

0 

U.S. 23 

River Rd. to Cedar Lake Rd. 

90 

0 

40 

0 

30 

0 

U.S. 23 

Cedar Lake Rd. to F-41 

180 

122 

90 

23 

40 

0 

U.S. 23 

F-41 to Roadside Park 

130 

378 

60 

16 

30 

0 

U.S. 23 

Roadside Park to County Line 

90 

134 

40 

0 

20 

0 

F-41 

U.S. 23 to Skeel Ave. 

30 

0 

(a) 

0 

lal 

0 

F-41 

Skeei Ave. to Rea Rd. 

50 

0 

20 

0 

(at 

0 

F-41 

Rea Rd. to N County Line 

50 

0 

20 

0 

(a) 

0 

Cedar Lake Rd. 

F-41 to Loud Rd. 

20 

0 


0 

(at 

0 

Loud Rd. 

Cedar Lake Rd. to Loud 

Islarxl 

(•1 

0 

lal 

0 

(at 

0 

River Rd. 

Detroit artd Mackinac 

Railroad to Grass Lake Rd. 

20 

0 


0 

(at 

0 

Rea Rd. 

River Rd. to F-41 

20 

0 


0 

(at 

0 

Bissonette Rd. 

Rea Rd. to Alvin Rd. 

20 

0 

lal 

0 

(at 

0 

1998 

U.S. 23 

Johnson Rd. to River Rd. 

80 

15 

40 

0 

20 

0 

U.S. 23 

River Rd. to Cedar Lake Rd. 

100 

0 

50 

0 

30 

0 

U.S. 23 

Cedar Lake Rd. to F-41 

210 

155 

100 

34 

50 

0 

U.S. 23 

F-41 to Roadside Park 

140 

430 

70 

67 

30 

0 

U.S. 23 

Roadside Park to County Line 

110 

214 

30 

0 

20 

0 

F-41 

U.S. 23 to Skeel Ave. 

60 

0 

30 

0 

30 

0 

F-41 

Skeel Ave. to Rea Rd. 

90 

0 

30 

0 

20 

0 

F-41 

Rea Rd. to N County Line 

60 

2 

30 

0 

20 

0 

Cedar Lake Rd. 

F-41 to Loud Rd. 

40 

0 

20 

0 

(at 

0 

Loud Rd. 

Cedar Lake Rd. to Loud 

Island 

20 

0 

lal 

0 

(at 

0 

River Rd. 

Detroit and Mackinac 

Railroad to Grass Lake Rd. 

30 

0 

20 

0 

la) 

0 

Rea Rd. 

River Rd. to F-41 

30 

0 

20 

0 

(at 

0 

Bissonette Rd. 

Rea Rd. to Alvin Rd. 

30 

0 

(«l 

0 

(a) 

0 


Not*: (a) Containad within roadway. 


J-18 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 










Tabic J-10. Distance to ONL from Roadway Centerline for the Recreation Altamativa 

Page 2 of 2 


Roadway 

From/To 

Distance 

(ft) 

DNL 65dB 

Number 

of 

Residents 

Distance 

(ft) 

DNL 70dB 

Number 

of 

Residents 

Distarx:e 

(ft) 

DNL 75dB 

Number 

of 

Residents 

2003 

U.S. 23 

Johnson Rd. to River Rd. 

90 

22 

40 

0 

20 

0 

U.S. 23 

River Rd. to Cedar Lake Rd. 

110 

0 

50 

0 

30 

0 

U.S. 23 

Cedar Lake Rd. to F-41 

220 

166 

110 

45 

50 

0 

U.S. 23 

F-41 to Roadside Park 

160 

534 

70 

67 

40 

0 

U.S. 23 

Roadside Park to County Line 

120 

255 

50 

0 

30 

0 

F-41 

U.S. 23 to Skeel Ave. 

70 

13 

40 

0 

30 

0 

F-41 

Skeel Ave. to Rea Rd. 

110 

0 

50 

0 

30 

0 

F-41 

Rea Rd. to N County Line 

60 

15 

40 

0 

20 

0 

Cedar Lake Rd. 

F-41 to Loud Rd. 

40 

0 

20 

0 

(a) 

0 

Loud Rd. 

Cedar Lake Rd. to Loud 

Island 

20 

0 

20 

0 

(al 

0 

River Rd. 

Detroit and Mackinac 

Railroad to Grass Lake Rd. 

30 

0 

20 

0 

(al 

0 

Rea Rd. 

River Rd. to F-41 

30 

0 

20 

0 

(a) 

0 

Bissonette Rd. 

Rea Rd. to Alvin Rd. 

30 

0 

20 

0 

(al 

0 

2013 

U.S. 23 

Johnson Rd. to River Rd. 

100 

28 

50 

0 

20 

0 

U.S. 23 

River Rd. to Cedar Lake Rd. 

120 

0 

60 

0 

30 

0 

U.S. 23 

Cedar Lake Rd. to F-41 

250 

199 

120 

56 

60 

0 

U.S. 23 

F-41 to Roadside Park 

170 

586 

80 

119 

40 

0 

U.S. 23 

Roadside Park to County Line 

130 

295 

60 

12 

30 

0 

F-41 

U.S. 23 to Skeel Ave. 

80 

13 

40 

0 

30 

0 

F-41 

Skeel Ave. to Rea Rd. 

110 

0 

60 

0 

30 

0 

F-41 

Rea Rd. to N County Line 

70 

9 

40 

0 

20 

0 

Cedar Lake Rd. 

F-41 to Loud Rd. 

50 

0 

20 

0 

fal 

0 

Loud Rd. 

Cedar Lake Rd. to Loud 

Island 

30 

0 

20 

0 

(al 

0 

River Rd. 

Detroit and Mackinac 

Railroad to Grass Lake Rd. 

30 

0 

20 

0 

(a) 

0 

Rea Rd. 

River Rd. to F-41 

30 

0 

20 

0 

(al 

0 

Bissonette Rd. 

Rea Rd. to Alvin Rd. 

30 

0 

20 

0 

(al 

0 


Nota: (•) Containad vntMn loadway. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


J-19 












Tabit J*11. Oistanca to DNL from Roadway Canteriine for the No-Action Altemativa 

Page 1 of 2 


Roadway 

From/To 

Distance 

Ift» 

DNL 65dB 

Number 

of 

Residents 

Distance 

(ft! 

DNL 70dB 

Number 

of 

Residents 

Distance 

Ift) 

DNL 75dB 

Number 

of 

Residents 

1993 

U.S. 23 

Johrtson Rd. to River Rd. 

70 

9 

40 

0 

20 

0 

U.S. 23 

River Rd. to Cedar Lake Rd. 

90 

0 

40 

0 

30 

0 

U.S. 23 

Cedar Lake Rd. to F-41 

180 

122 

90 

23 

40 

0 

U.S. 23 

F-41 to Roadside Park 

130 

378 

60 

16 

30 

0 

U.S. 23 

Roadside Park to County Line 

90 

134 

40 

0 

20 

0 

F-41 

U.S. 23 to Skeel Ave. 

30 

0 

(•1 

0 

<al 

0 

F-41 

Skeel Ave. to Rea Rd. 

50 

0 

20 

0 

lal 

0 

F-41 

Rea Rd. to N County Line 

50 

0 

20 

0 

(al 

0 

Cedar Lake Rd. 

F-41 to Loud Rd. 

20 

0 

| 9 » 

0 

(al 

0 

Loud Rd. 

Cedar Lake Rd. to Loud 

Islartd 

(•1 

0 


0 

(a) 

0 

River Rd. 

Detroit and Mackinac 

Railroad to Grass Lake Rd. 

20 

0 


0 

(a) 

0 

Rea Rd. 

River Rd. to F-41 

20 

0 

(•f 

0 

(al 

0 

Bissonette Rd. 

Rea Rd. to Alvin Rd. 

20 

0 

(al 

0 

(af 

0 

1998 

U.S. 23 

Johnson Rd. to River Rd. 

80 

15 

40 

0 

20 

0 

U.S. 23 

River Rd. to Cedar Lake Rd. 

90 

0 

50 

0 

30 

0 

U.S. 23 

Cedar Lake Rd. to F-41 

190 

133 

90 

23 

50 

0 

U.S. 23 

F-41 to Roadside Park 

140 

430 

60 

16 

30 

0 

U.S. 23 

Roadside Park to County Line 

110 

174 

50 

0 

20 

0 

F-41 

U.S. 23 to Skeel Ave. 

30 

0 

(91 

0 

(al 

0 

F-41 

Skeel Ave. to Rea Rd. 

50 

0 

20 

0 

(al 

0 

F-41 

Rea Rd. to N County Line 

50 

0 

20 

0 

la) 

0 

Cedar Lake Rd. 

F-41 to Loud Rd. 

20 

0 

(•1 

0 

(al 

0 

Loud Rd. 

Cedar Lake Rd. to Loud 

Island 


0 


0 

(a) 

0 

River Rd. 

Detroit and Mackinac 

Railroad to Grass Lake Rd. 

20 

0 

(•1 

0 

(al 

0 

Rea Rd. 

River Rd. to F-41 

20 

0 

(al 

0 

(a) 

0 

Bissonette Rd. 

Rea Rd. to Alvin Rd. 

20 

0 

(a) 

0 

(a) 

0 


Not*; (a) Containad within roadway. 


J-20 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 









Tabi« J-11. Distanc* to DNL from Roadway Centerline for the No-Action Alternative 

Page 2 of 2 




Distance 

Number 

Distance 

Number 

Distance 

Number 



(ft) 

of 

(ft) 

of 

(ft) 

of 

Roadway 

From/To 

DNL 65dB 

Residents 

DNL 70dB 

Residents 

DNL 75dB 

Residents 

2003 

U.S. 23 

Johnson Rd. to River Rd. 

90 

22 

40 

0 

20 

0 

U.S. 23 

River Rd. to Cedar Lake Rd. 

100 

0 

50 

0 

30 

0 

U.S. 23 

Cedar Lake Rd. to F-41 

200 

144 

100 

34 

50 

0 

U.S. 23 

F-41 to Roadside Park 

150 

482 

70 

67 

30 

0 

U.S. 23 

Roadside Park to County Line 

110 

214 

70 

0 

30 

0 

F-41 

U.S. 23 to Skeel Ave. 

40 

13 

30 

0 

(al 

0 

F-41 

Skeel Ave. to Rea Rd. 

50 

0 

20 

0 

(•1 

0 

F-41 

Rea Rd. to N County Line 

50 

15 

20 

0 

(•f 

0 

Cedar Lake Rd. 

F-41 to Loud Rd. 

2 

0 

lai 

0 

(«» 

0 

Loud Rd. 

Cedar Lake Rd. to Loud 

Island 

(•1 

0 

tai 

0 

(si 

0 

River Rd. 

Detroit and Mackinac 

Railroad to Grass Lake Rd. 

20 

0 

(•> 

0 

(si 

0 

Rea Rd. 

River Rd. to F-41 

20 

0 

(•) 

0 

(al 

0 

Bissonette Rd. 

Rea Rd. to Alvin Rd. 

20 

0 

(a) 

0 

(si 

0 

2013 

U.S. 23 

Johnson Rd. to River Rd. 

100 

28 

50 

0 

20 

0 

U.S. 23 

River Rd. to Cedar Lake Rd. 

110 

0 

50 

0 

30 

0 

U.S. 23 

Cedar Lake Rd. to F-41 

220 

166 

110 

45 

50 

0 

U.S. 23 

F-41 to Roadside Park 

170 

586 

80 

119 

40 

0 

U.S. 23 

Roadside Park to County Line 

130 

295 

80 

12 

40 

0 

F-41 

U.S. 23 to Skeel Ave. 

40 

0 

30 

0 

(Si 

0 

F-41 

Skeel Ave. to Rea Rd. 

50 

0 

30 

0 

(al 

0 

F-41 

Rea Rd. to N County Line 

50 

0 

30 

0 

(si 

0 

Cedar Lake Rd. 

F-41 to Loud Rd. 

20 

0 

(at 

0 

(al 

0 

Loud Rd. 

Cedar Lake Rd. to Loud 

Island 

!•) 

0 

lal 

0 

(al 

0 

River Rd. 

Detroit and Mackinac 

Railroad to Grass Lake Rd. 

20 

0 

(•) 

0 

(al 

0 

Rea Rd. 

River Rd. to F-41 

20 

0 

tat 

0 

(sf 

0 

Bissonette Rd. 

Rea Rd. to Alvin Rd. 

20 

0 

(al 

0 

(si 

0 

Not*; (a) Containad within roadway. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


J-21 









1.4 RRE TRAINING ALTERNATIVE 

This alternative includes only non-aviation land uses. Over half of the base 
would be used as a regional fire training facility. Other land uses include 
light industrial and warehousing, commercial office and retail, institutional 
education, existing residential, and public facilities/recreation. 

Surface traffic data used in the modeling were developed from the project 
traffic study and are shown in Table J-7. 

1.5 RECREATION ALTERNATIVE 

This alternative includes only non-aviation land uses. The majority of the 
base would be restored to natural open space and conserved for potential 
multiuse recreation development. Other land uses include industrial, 
commercial, and institutional. Surface traffic data used in the modeling 
were developed from the project traffic study and are presented in 
Table J-7. 

1.6 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

Under the No-Action Alternative, the base property would not be put to 
further use. There would be no military activities/missions performed on the 
property. Surface traffic data used in the modeling were developed from 
the project traffic study and are presented in Table J-7. 


2.0 NOISE METRICS 


Noise, as used in this context, refers to sound pressure variations audible to 
the ear. The audibility of a sound depends on the amplitude and frequency 
of the sound and the individual's capability to hear the sound. Whether the 
sound is judged as noise depends largely on the listener's current activity 
and attitude toward the sound source, as well as the amplitude and 
frequency of the sound. The range in sound pressures which the human ear 
can comfortably detect encompasses a wide range of amplitudes, typically a 
factor larger than a million. To obtain convenient measurements and 
sensitivities at extremely low and high sound pressures, sound is measured 
in dB units. The dB is a dimensionless unit related to the logarithm of the 
ratio of the measured level to a reference level. 

Because of the logarithmic nature of the dB unit, sound levels cannot be 
added or subtracted directly. However, the following shortcut method can 
be used to combine sound levels: 


Difference between 
two dB values 
Oto 1 
2 to 3 
4 to 9 
10 or more 


Add the following 
to the higher level 
3 
2 
1 
0 


J-22 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 







The ear is not equally sensitive at all frequencies of sound. At low 
frequencies, characterized as a rumble or roar, the ear is not very sensitive 
whereas at higher frequencies, characterized as a screech or a whine, the 
ear is most sensitive. The A-weighted level was developed to measure and 
report sound levels in a way which would more closely approach how 
people perceive the sound. All sound levels reported herein are in terms of 
A'weighted sound levels. 

Environmental sound levels typically vary with time. This is especially true 
for areas near airports where noise levels will increase substantially as the 
aircraft passes overhead and afterwards diminish to typical community 
levels. Both the Department of Defense and the FAA have specified the 
following three noise metrics to describe aviation noise. 

ONL is the 24-hour energy average A-weighted sound level with a 10 dB 
weighting added to those levels occurring between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. the 
following morning. The 10 dB weighting is a penalty representing the added 
intrusiveness of noise during normal sleeping hours. DNL is used to 
determine land use compatibility with noise from aircraft and surface traffic. 
The expression is often used in equations to designate DNL. 

Maximum Sound Level is the highest instantaneous sound level observed 
during a single noise event no matter how long the sound may persist 
(Figure J-2). 

Sound Exposure Level (SEL) value represents the A-weighted sound level 
integrated over the entire duration of the event and referenced to a duration 
of 1 second. Hence, it normalizes the event to a 1-second event. Typically, 
most events (aircraft flyover) last longer than 1 second, and the SEL value 
will be higher than the maximum sound level of the event. Figure J-2 
illustrates the relationship between the maximum sound level and SEL. 


3.0 NOISE MODELS 

3.1 AIR TRAFFIC 

The FAA-developed INM, Version 3.10, (Federal Aviation Administration, 

1992) was used to predict aircraft flight noise levels. The INM computer 
program is a comprehensive set of computer routines for calculating noise 
contours from aircraft flight operations, using aircraft unique noise data for 
fixed-wing aircraft. The program requires specific input data, consisting of 
runway layout, aircraft types, number of operations, flight tracks, and noise 
performance data, to compute a grid of DNL values at irregular intervals. 
The grid is then processed by a contouring program which draws the 
contours at selected intervals. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


J-23 





A-W«iahtMi Sound Uvol 
(Logarithmic Scale) 



Sound Exposure Level 
(SEL) and Comparison 
to Aircraft Noise Time 
History 


Hgura J-2 


J-24 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 











The FAA-approved Noise Exposure Model (NOISEMAP). Version 6.0 
(Moulton, 1990), was used to predict aircraft ground runup noise levels. 
Since the early 1970s, the Department of Defense has been actively 
developing and refining the NOISEMAP program and its associated data 
base. The NOISEMAP computer program is a comprehensive set of 
computer routines for calculating noise contours from aircraft flight and 
ground runup operations, using aircraft unique noise data for both fixed- and 
rotary-wing aircraft. The program requires specific input data, consisting of 
runway and runup pad layout, aircraft types, number of operations, flight 
tracks, and noise performance data, to compute a grid of DNL values at 
uniform intervals. The grid is then processed by a contouring program 
which draws the contours at selected intervals. 

The output results from INM and NOISEMAP were logarithmically added and 
composite contours developed. 

3.2 SURFACE TRAFFIC 

The Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Noise 
Model was used to predict surface traffic noise. The model uses traffic 
volumes, vehicular mix, traffic speed, traffic distribution, and roadway 
length to estimate traffic noise levels. 

4.0 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 

Criteria for assessing the effects of noise include annoyance, speech 
interference, sleep disturbance, noise-induced hearing loss, possible 
nonauditory health effects, reaction by animals, and land use compatibility. 
These criteria are often developed using statistical methods. The validity of 
generalizing statistics devised from large populations is suspect when 
applied to small sample sizes as we have in the affected areas near 
Wurtsmith AFB. Caution should be employed when interpreting the results 
of the impact analysis. 

4.1 ANNOYANCE DUE TO SUBSONIC AIRCRAFT NOISE 

Noise-induced annoyance is an attitude or mental process with both 
acoustic and nonacoustic determinants (Fidell et al., 1988). Noise-induced 
annoyance is perhaps most often defined as a generalized adverse attitude 
toward noise exposure. Noise annoyance is affected by many factors 
including sleep and speech interference and task interruption. The level of 
annoyance may also be affected by many nonacoustic factors. 

In communities in which the prevalence of annoyance is affected primarily 
by noise, reductions in exposure can be expected to lead to reductions in 
prevalence of annoyance. In communities in which the prevalence of 
annoyance is controlled by nonacoustic factors, such as odor, traffic 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


J-25 






congestion, etc., there may be little or no reduction in annoyance associated 
with reductions in exposure. The intensity of community response to noise 
exposure may even, in some cases, be essentially independent of physical 
exposure. In the case of community response to actions, such as airport 
siting or scheduling of supersonic transport aircraft, vigorous reaction has 
been encountered at the mere threat of exposure, or minor increases in 
exposure. 

The standard method for determining the prevalence of annoyance in noise- 
exposed communities is by attitudinal survey. Surveys generally solicit self- 
reports of annoyance through one or more questions of the form ”How 
bothered or annoyed have you been by the noise of (noise source) over the 
last (time period)?” Respondents are typically constrained in structured 
interviews to select one of a number of response alternatives, often named 
categories such as "Not at All Annoyed,” "Slightly Annoyed,” "Moderately 
Annoyed,” "Very Annoyed,” or "Extremely Annoyed.” Other means are 
sometimes used to infer the prevalence of annoyance from survey data (for 
example, by interpretation of responses to activity interference questions or 
by construction of elaborate composite indices), with varying degrees of 
face validity and success. 

Predictions of the prevalence of annoyance in a community can be made by 
extrapolation from an empirical dosage-effect relationship. Based on the 
results of a number of sound surveys, Schultz (1978) developed a 
relationship between percent highly annoyed and ONL: 

% Highly Annoyed = 0.8553 DNL - 0.0401 DNL^ + 0.00047 DNL^ 

Note that this relationship should not be evaluated outside the range of 
DNL - 45 to 90 dB. Figure J-3 presents this equation graphically. Less 
than 15 to 20 percent of the population would be predicted to be annoyed 
by ONL values less than 65 dB, whereas over 37 percent of the population 
would be predicted to be annoyed from DNL values greater than 75 dB. The 
relationship developed by Schultz was presented in the Guidelines for 
Preparing Environmental impact Statements on Noise (National Academy of 
Sciences, 1977). 

These results were recently reviewed (Fidell et al., 1989) and the original 
findings updated with results of more recent social surveys, bringing the 
number of data points used in defining the relationship to over 400. The 
findings of the new study differ only slightly from those of the original 
study. 


J-26 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse PEIS 








Community Noise 
Annoyance Curves 


Figure J-3 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


J-27 


















4.2 SPEECH INTERFERENCE AND RELATED EFFECTS DUE TO AIRCRAFT FLYOVER 
NOISE 


On« of the ways that noise affects daily life is by preventing or impairing 
speech communication. In a noisy environment, understanding of speech is 
diminished by masking of speech signals by intruding noises. Speakers 
generally raise their voices or move closer to listeners to compensate for 
masking noise in face-to-face communications, thereby increasing the level 
of speech at the listener's ear. As intruding noise levels rise higher and 
higher, speakers may cease talking altogether until conversation can be 
resumed at comfortable levels of vocal effort after noise intrusions end. 

If the speech source is a radio or television, the listener may increase the 
volume during a noise intrusion. If noise intrusions occur repeatedly, the 
listener may choose to set the volume at a high level so that the program 
material can be heard even during noise intrusions. 

In addition to losing information contained in the masked speech material, 
the listener may lose concentration because of the interruptions and thus 
become annoyed. If the speech message is some type of warning, the 
consequences could be serious. 

Current practice in quantification of the magnitude of speech interference 
and predicting speech intelligibility ranges from metrics based on A-weighted 
sound pressure levels of the intruding noise alone to more complex metrics 
requiring detailed spectral information about both speech and noise 
intrusions. There are other effects of the reduced intelligibility of speech 
caused by noise intrusions. For example, if the understanding of speech is 
interrupted, performance may be reduced, annoyance may increase, and 
learning may be impaired. 

As the noise level of an environment increases, people automatically raise 
their voices. The effect does not take place, however, if the noise event 
rises to a high level very suddenly. 

4.2.1 Speech Interference Effects from Time-Varying Noise 

Most research on speech interference due to noise has included the study of 
steady state noise. As a result, reviews and summaries of noise effects on 
speech communications concentrate on continuous or at least long-duration 
noises (Miller, 1974). However, noise intrusions are not always continuous 
or of long duration, but are frequently transient in nature. Transportation 
noise generates many such noise intrusions, consisting primarily of individual 
vehicle pass-bys, such as aircraft flyovers. Noise emitted by other vehicles 
(motorboats, snowmobiles, and off-highway vehicles) is also transient in 
nature. 


J-28 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 









It has been shown, at least for aircraft flyover noise that accuracy of 
predictors of speech intelligibility are ranked in a similar fashion for both 
steady state and time-varying or transient sounds (Williams et al.. 1971; 
Kryter and Williams, 1966). Of course, if one measures the noise of a 
flyover by the maximum A-level then intelligibility associated with this level 
would be higher than for a steady noise of the same value, simply because 
the level is less than the maximum for much of the duration of the flyover. 

4.2.2 Other Effects of Noise Which Relate to Speech Intelligibility 

Aside from the direct effects of reduction in speech intelligibility, related 
effects may occur that tend to compound the loss of speech intelligibility 
itself. 

Learning. One of the environments in which speech intelligibility plays a 
critical role is the classroom. In classrooms of schools exposed to aircraft 
flyover noise, speech becomes masked or the teacher stops talking 
altogether during an aircraft flyover (Crook and Langdon, 1974). Pauses 
begin to occur when instantaneous flyover levels exceed 60 dB (A- 
weighted). Masking of the speech of teachers who do not pause starts at 
about the same level. 

At levels of 75 dB some masking occurs for 15 percent of the flyovers and 
increases to nearly 100 percent at 82 dB. Pauses occur for about 
80 percent of the flyovers at this noise level. Since a marked increase in 
pauses and masking occurs when levels exceed 75 dB, this level is 
sometimes considered as one above which teaching is impaired due to 
disruption of speech communication. The effect that this may have on 
learning is unclear at this time. However, one study (Arnoult et al., 1986) 
could find no effect of noise on cognitive tasks from jet or helicopter noise 
over a range from 60 to 80 dB (A-level), even though intelligibility scores 
indicated a continuous decline starting at the 60 dB level. In a Japanese 
study (Ando et al., 1975) researchers failed to find differences in mental 
task performance among children from communities with different aircraft 
noise exposure. 

Although there seems to be no proof that noise from aircraft flyovers affects 
learning, it is reported by Mills (1975) that children are not as able to 
understand speech in the presence of noise as are adults. It is hypothesized 
that part of the reason is due to the increased vocabulary on which the adult 
can draw as compared to the more limited vocabulary available to the young 
student. Also, when one is learning a language, it is more critical that all 
words be heard rather than only enough to attain 95 percent sentence 
intelligibility, which may be sufficient for general conversations. It was 
mentioned above that when the maximum A-level for aircraft flyovers heard 
in a classroom exceeds 75 dB, masking of speech increases rapidly. 
However, it was also noted that pausing during flyovers and masking of 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


J-29 





spMch for thoM teachers who continue to lecture during a flyover start at 
levels around 60 dB (Pearsons and Bennett, 1974). 

Annoyence. Klatt. Stevens, and Williams (1969) studied the annoyance of 
speech interference by asking people to judge the annoyance of aircraft 
noiae in the preaence and absence of speech material. The speech material 
was composed of passages from newspaper and magazine articles. In 
addition to rating aircraft noise on an acceptability scale (unacceptable, 
barely acceptable, acceptable, and of no concern), the subjects were 
required to answer questions about the speech material. The voice level 
was considered to represent a raised voice level (assumed to be 68 dB). In 
general, for the raised voice talker, the rating of barely acceptable was given 
to flyover noise levels of 73 to 76 dB. However, if the speech level was 
reduced, the rating of the aircraft tended more toward unacceptable. The 
results suggested that if the speech level were such that 95 percent or 
better sentence intelligibility was maintained, then a barely acceptable rating 
or better acceptability rating could be expected. This result is in general 
agreement with the finding in schools that teachers pause or have their 
speech masked at levels above 75 dB (Crook and Langdon, 1974). 

Hail, Taylor, and Bimie (1985) recently tried to relate various types of 
activity interference in the home, related to speech and sleeping, to 
annoyance. The study found that there is a 50 percent chance that 
people's speech would be interfered with at a level of 58 dB. This result is 
in agreement with the other results, considering that the speech levels in the 
school environment of the Cook study are higher than the levels typically 
used in the home. Also, in a classroom situation the teacher raises his or 
her voice as the flyover noise increases in intensity. 

4.2.3 Predicting Speech intelligibility and Reiated Effects Due to Aircraft 
Ryover Noise 

It appears, from the above discussions that, when aircraft flyover noises 
exceed approximately 60 dB, speech communication may be interfered with 
either by masking or by pausing on the part of the talker. Increasing the 
level of the flyover noise to 80 dB would reduce the intelligibility to zero 
even if a loud voice is used by those attempting to communicate. 

The levels mentioned above refer to noise levels measured indoors. The 
same noises measured outdoors would be 15 to 25 dB higher than these 
indoor levels during summer (windows open) and winter months (windows 
closed), respectively. These estimates are taken from U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency reviews of available data (U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 1974). 

Levels of the aircraft noise measured inside dwellings and schools near the 
ends of runways at airports may exceed 60 dB inside (75 dB outside). 


J-30 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






During flyovers, speech intelligibility would be degraded. However, sirtce 
the total duration is short, no more than a few seconds during each flyover, 
only a few syllables may be lost. People may be annoyed, but the 
annoyance may not be due to loss in speech communication, but rather due 
to startle or sleep disturbance as discussed below. 

4.3 SLEEP DISTURBANCE DUE TO NOISE 

The effects of noise on sleep have long been a concern of parties interested 
in assuring suitable residential noise environments. Early studies noted 
background levels in people's bedrooms in which sleep was apparently 
undisturbed by noise. Various levels between 25 and 50 dB (A-weighted) 
were observed to be associated with an absence of sleep disturbance. The 
bulk of the research on noise effects on which the current relationship is 
based was conducted in the 1970s. The tests were conducted in a 
laboratory environment in which awakening was measured either by a verbal 
response or by a button push, or by brain wave recordings indicating stages 
of sleep (and awakening). Various types of noise were presented to the 
sleeping subjects throughout the night. These noises consisted primarily of 
transportation noises including those produced by aircraft, trucks, cars, and 
trains. The aircraft noises included both flyover noises as well as sonic 
booms. Synthetic noises, including laboratory-generated sounds consisting 
of shaped noises and tones, were also studied. 

Lukas (1975) and Goldstein and Lukas (1980) both reviewed data available 
in the 19708 on sleep-stage changes and waking effects of different levels 
of noise. Since no known health effects were associated with either waking 
or sleep-stage changes, either measure was potentially useful as a metric of 
sleep disturbance. However, since waking, unlike sleep-stage changes, is 
simple to quantify, it is often selected as the metric for estimating the 
effects of noise on sleep. These two reviews showed great variability in the 
percentage of people awakened by exposure to noise. The variability is not 
merely random error, but reflects individual differences in adaptation or 
habituation, and also interpretation of the meaning of the sounds. Such 
factors cannot be estimated from the purely acoustic measures in noise 
exposure. 

Another major review, by Griefahn and Muzet (1978), provided similar 
information for effects of noise on waking. However, Griefahn and Muzet's 
results suggested less waking for a given level of noise than predicted by 
Lukas. 

A recent review (Pearsons et al., 1989) of the literature related to sleep 
disturbance demonstrated that the relationship, based exclusively on 
laboratory studies, predicts greater sleep disturbance than that likely to 
occur in a real-life situation in which some adaptation has occurred. The 
prediction relationships developed in this review should not be considered to 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 


J-31 








yield pradM MtimatM of sloop disturbonco bo c a uso of tho groat variability 
in tho data sots from wvhich thoy woro dovoiopod. Tho relationships indudo 
only tho duration and level compononta of "noise exposure." Increasing the 
precision of prediction would depend on quantification of some of the 
nonacoustic factors. Further, a recent review of field, as well as laboratory 
studies, suggests that habituation may reduce the effect of noise on sleep 
(Pearsons et al.. 19891. 

Noise must pertetrate the home to disturb sleep. Interior noise levels are 
lower than exterior levels due to the attenuation of the sound energy by the 
structure. The amount of attenuation provided by the building is dependent 
on the type of construction and whether the windows are open or closed. 
The approximate national average atteruiation factors are 15 dB (decibels! 
for open windows and 25 dB for closed windows (U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1974). 

Incorporating these attenuation tectors. the percent awakened relationships 
previously discussed under summer conditions are presented in Figure J-4. 

In conclusion, the scientific literature does not provide a consensus on sleep 
disturbance. There is no recognized criteria or standard which provides 
guidance to assess sleep disturbance due to noise. 

4.4 NOISE-INOUCEO HEARING LOSS 

Hearing loss is measured in dB and refers to the permanent auditory 
threshold shift of an individual's hearing in an ear. Auditory threshold refers 
to the minimum acoustic signal that evokes an auditory sensation, i.e., the 
quietest sound a person can hear. When a threshold shift occurs a person's 
hearing is not as sensitive as before and the minimum sound that a person 
can hear must be louder. The threshold shift which naturally occurs with 
age is called presbycusis. Exposure to high levels of sound can cause 
temporary and permanent threshold shifts usually referred to as noise- 
induced hearing loss. Permanent hearing loss is generally associated with 
destruction of the hair ceils of the inner ear. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1974) and the Committee on 
Hearing, Bioacoustics, and Biomecitanics (National Academy of Sciences, 
1977) have addressed the risk of outdoor liearing loss. They have 
concluded that hearing loss would not be expected for people living outside 
the noise contour of 75 DNL. Several studies of populations near existing 
airports in the United States and the United Kingdom have shown that the 
possibility for permanent hearing loss in communities near intense 
commercial takeoff and landing patterns is remote. An FAA-funded study 
compared the hearing of the population near the Los Angeles International 
Airport to that of the population in a quiet area away from aircraft noise 
(Pamel et al., 1972). A similar study was performed in the vicinity of 
London Heathrow Airport (Ward, Cushing and Bums, 1972). Both studies 


J-32 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reusa FE/S 







P*re«ntag« AwalcMMd 



Extarlor Sound Exposure Lsvsl (SEL) 
Sourcs: Psoraont «t at, 1989 


Sleep Dismption 
(Awakening) 


Hgure J-4 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


J-33 











concluded that there was no sionificant difference between the hearing toss 
of the two pept '^tions. and no correlation between the hearing level with 
the length of bm« people lived in the airport neighborhood. 


4.5 NONAUDITORY HEALTH EFFECTS OF NOISE 

The current scientific consensus is that "evidence from available research 
reports is suggestive, but it does not provide definitive answers to the 
question of health effects, other than to the auditory system, of long-term 
exposure to noise" (National Academy of Sciences. 1981). Based on 
summaries of previous research in the field (Thompson. 1981: Thompson 
and Fkfell. 1989). predictions of nonauditory health effects of aircraft noise 
cannot be made. A valid predictive procedure requires: (1) evidence for 
causality between aircraft noise exposure and adverse nonauditory health 
consequences: and (2) knowledge of a quantitative relationship between 
amounts of noise exposure (dose) and specific health effects. Because 
results of studies of aircraft noise on health are equivocal, there is no sound 
scientific basis for making adequate risk assessments. 

Alleged nonauditory health consequences of aircraft noise exposure that 
have been studied include birth defects, low birth weight, psychological 
illness, cancer, stroke, hypertension, sudden cardiac death, myocardial 
infarction, and cardiac arrhythmias. Of these, hypertension is the most 
biologically plausible effect of noise exposure. Noise appears to cause many 
of the same biochemical and physiological reactions, including temporary 
elevation of blood pressure, as do many other environmental stressors. 

These temporary increases in blood pressure are believed to lead to a 
gradual resetting of the body's blood pressure control system. Over a 
period of years, permanent hypertension may develop (Peterson et al.. 

1984). 

Studies of residential aircraft noise have produced contradictory results. 

Early investigations indicated tfiat hypertension was from two to four times 
higher in areas near airports than in areas located away from airports 
(Karagodina et al.. 1969). Although Meecham and Shaw (1988) continue to 
report excessive cardiovascular mortality among individuals 75 years or 
older living near the Los Angeles International Airport, their findings cannot 
be replicated (Frerichs et al.. 1980). In fact, noise exposure increased over 
the years while there was a decline in ail cause, age-adjusted death rates 
and inconsistent changes in age-adjusted cardiovascular, hypertension, and 
cerebrovascular disease rates. 

Studies which have controlled for multiple factors have shown no, or a very 
weak, association between noise exposure and nonauditory health effects. 
This observation holds for studies of occupational and traffic noise as well 
as for aircraft noise exposure. In contrast to the early reports of two- to six¬ 
fold increases in hypertension due to high industrial noise (Thompson and 


J-34 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 






Fidell. 1989), the more rigorously controlled studies of Talbott et al. (1985) 
and van Dijk et al. (1987) show no association between hypertension and 
prolonged exposure to high levels of occupational noise. 

In the aggregate, studies indicate no association exists between street 
traffic noise and blood pressure or other cardiovascular changes. Two large 
prospective collaborative studies of heart disease are of particular interest. 

To date, cross-sectional data from these cohorts offer contradictory results. 
Data from one cohort show a slight increase in mean systolic blood pressure 
(2.4 millimeters of mercury) in the noisiest compared to the quietest area; 
while data from the second cohort show the lowest mean systolic blood 
pressure and highest high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (lipoprotein 
protective of heart disease) for men in the noisiest area (Babisch and 
Gallacher, 1990). These effects of traffic noise on blood pressure and blood 
lipids were more pronounced in men who were also exposed to high levels 
of noise at work. 

It is clear from the foregoing that the current state of technical knowledge 
cannot support inference of a causal or consistent relationship, nor a 
quantitative dose-response, between residential aircraft noise exposure and 
health consequences. Thus, no technical means are available for predicting 
extra-auditory health effects of noise exposure. This conclusion cannot be 
construed as evidence of no effect of residential aircraft noise exposure on 
nonauditory health. Current findings, taken in sum, indicate only that 
further rigorous studies are needed. 

4.6 DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE 

A recent study was published on the effects of aircraft noise on domestic 
animals which provided a review of the literature and a review of 209 claims 
pertinent to aircraft noise over a period spanning 32 years (Bowles et al., 
1990). Studies since the late 1950s were motivated both by public 
concerns about what was at that time a relatively novel technology, 
supersonic flight, and by claims leveled against the U. S. Air Force for 
damage done to farm animals by very low-level subsonic overflights. Since 
that time over 40 studies of aircraft noise and sonic booms, both in the 
United States and overseas, have addressed acute effects, including effects 
of startle responses (sheep, horses, cattle, fowl), and effects on 
reproduction and growth (sheep, cattle, fowl, swine), parental behaviors 
(fowl, mink), milk letdown (dairy cattle, dairy goats, swine), and egg 
production. 

There is little literature on the effects of noise on domestic animals, and 
most of the studies have focused on the relation between dosages of 
continuous noise and effects. Chronic noises are not a good model for 
aircraft noise, which lasts only a few seconds, but which is often very 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


J-35 






startling. The review of claims suggests that a major source of loss was 
panic induced in naive animals. 

Aircraft noise may have effects because it might trigger a startle response, a 
sequence of physiological and behavioral events that once helped animals 
avoid predators. There are good dose-response relations describing the 
tendency to startle to various levels of noise, and the effect of habituation 
on the startle response. 

The link between startles and serious effects, i.e., effects on productivity, is 
less certain. Here, we will define an effect as any change in a domestic 
animal that alters its economic value, including changes in body weight or 
weight gain, numbers of young produced, weight of young produced, 
fertility, milk production, general health, longevity, or tractability. At this 
point, changes in productivity are usually considered an adequate indirect 
measure of changes in well being, at least until objective legal guidelines are 
provided. 

Recent focus on the effects on production runs counter to a trend in the 
literature toward measuring the relation between noise and physiological 
effects, such as changes in corticosteroid levels, and in measures of 
immune system function. As a result, it is difficult to determine the relation 
between dosages of noise and serious effects using only physiological 
measures. The experimental literature is inadequate to document long-term 
or subtle effects resulting from exposure to aircraft noise. 

4.7 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES 

Widespread concern about the noise impacts of aircraft noise essentially 
began in the 1950s which saw the major introduction of high power jet 
aircraft into military service. The concern about noise impacts in the 
communities around airbases, and also within the airbases themselves, led 
the Air Force to conduct major investigations into the noise properties of 
jets, methods of noise control for test operations, and the effects of noise 
from aircraft operations in communities surrounding airbases. These studies 
established an operational framework of investigation and identified the 
basic parameters affecting community response to noise. These studies 
also resulted in the first detailed procedures for estimating community 
response to aircraft noise (Stevens and Pietrasanta, 1957). 

Although most attention was given to establishing methods of estimating 
residential community response to noise (and establishing the conditions of 
noise "acceptability” for residential use), community development involves a 
variety of land uses with varying sensitivity to noise. Thus, land planning 
with respect to noise requires the establishment of noise criteria for different 
land uses. This need was met with the initial development of aircraft noise 


J-36 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 





compatibility guidelines for varied land uses in the mid-1960s (Bishop, 
1964). 


in residential areas, noise intrusions generate feelings of annoyance on the 
part of individuals, increasing degrees of annoyance lead to the increasing 
potential for complaints arul community actions (most typically, threats of 
legal actions, drafting of noise ordinances, etc.). Annoyance is based 
largely upon noise interference with speech communication, listening to 
radio and television, and sleep. Annoyance in the home may also be based 
upon dislike of 'outside* intrusions of noise even though no specific task is 
interrupted. 

Residential land use guidelines have developed from consideration of two 
related factors: 

(a) Accumulated case history experience of noise complaints and 
community actions near civil and military airports 

(b) Relationships between environmental noise levels and degrees 
of annoyance (largely derived from social surveys in a number of 
communities). 

In the establishment of land use guidelines for other land uses, the prime 
consideration is task interference. For many land uses, this translates into 
the degree of speech interference, after taking into consideration the 
importance of speech communication and the presence of non-aircraft noise 
sources related directly to the specific land use considered. For some noise- 
sensitive land uses where any detectable noise signals, which rise above the 
ambient noise are unwanted (such as music halls), detectability may be the 
criterion rather than speech interference. 

A final factor to be considered in all land uses involving indoor activities is 
the degree of noise insulation provided by the building structures. The land 
use guideline limits for unrestricted development within a specific land use 
assume noise insulation properties provided by typical commercial building 
construction. The detailed land use guidelines may also define a range of 
higher noise exposure where construction or development can be 
undertaken, provided a specified amount of noise insulation is included in 
the buildings. Special noise studies, undertaken by architectural or 
engineering specialists, may be needed to define the special noise insulation 
requirements for construction in these guideline ranges. 

Estimates of total noise exposure resulting from aircraft operations, as 
expressed in ONL values, can be interpreted in terms of the probable effect 
on land uses. Suggested compatibility guidelines for evaluating land uses in 
aircraft noise exposure areas were originally developed by the FAA as 
presented in Section 3.4.4, Noise. Part 150 of the FAA regulations 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


J-37 







prescribes the procedures, standards, and methodology governing the 
development, submission, and review of airport noise exposure maps and 
airport noise compatibility programs. It prescribes the use of yearly ONL in 
the evaluation of airport noise environments. It also identifies those land 
use types which are normally compatible with various levels of noise 
exposure. Compatible or incompatible land use is determined by comparing 
the predicted or measured ONL level at a site with the values given in the 
table. The guidelines reflect the statistical variability of the responses of 
large groups of people to noise. Therefore, any particular level might not 
accurately assess an individual's perception of an actual noise environment. 

While the FAA guidelines specifically apply to aircraft noise, it should be 
noted that ONL is also used to describe the noise environment due to other 
community noise sources, including motor vehicles and railroads. The use 
of ONL is endorsed by the scientific community to assess land use 
compatibility as it pertains to noise (American National Standards Institute, 
1990). Hence, the land use guidelines presented by the FAA can also be 
used to assess the noise impact from community noise sources other than 
aircraft. 


J-38 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






REFERENCES 


American National Standards Institute, 1990. Sound Level Descriptors for Determination of 
Compatible Land Use. ANSI SI 2.40-1990. 

Ando, Y., Y. Nakane, and J. Egawa, 1975. Effects of Aircraft Noise on the Mental Work of Pupils, 
Journal of S ound and Vibration. 43(4): 683-691. 

Amoult, M. D., L. G. Gillfillan, and J. W. Voorhees, 1986. Annoyingness of Aircraft Noise in 
Relation to Cognitive Activity, Perceptual and Motor Skills. 63: 599-616. 

Babisch, W., and J. Gallacher, 1990. Traffic Noise, Blood Pressure and Other Risk Factors - The 

Caerphilly and Speedwell Collaborative Heart Disease Studies, Noise *88: New Advances in 
Noise Research, pp. 315-326, Council for Building Research Stockholm, Sweden, Swedish. 

Bennett, R.L., and K.S. Pearsons, 1981. Handbook of Aircraft Noise Metrics, Report No. NASA 
OR-3406), National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC. 

Bishop, D. E., 1964. Development of Aircraft Noise Compatibility for Varied Land Uses. FAA SRDS 
Report RD-64-148, II. 

Bowles, A. E., P. K. Yochem, and F. T. Awbrey 1990. The Effects of Aircraft Overfliohts and 
Sonic Booms on Domestic Animals. NSBIT Technical Operating Report No. 13, BBN 
Laboratories Inc. 

Crook, M. A., and F. J. Langdon, 1974. The Effects of Aircraft Noise on Schools around London 
Airport, Journal of Sound and Vibration. 34(2): 221-232. 

Federal Aviation Administration, 1992. Integrated Noise Model Version 3.10 User's Guide . Report 
No. DOT/FAA/EE-92/02. 

Federal Highway Administration, 1978. Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. Report No. 
FHWA-RD-77-108. 

Fidell, S., D. Barber, and T. Schultz, 1989. Updating a Dosage-Effect Relationship for the 

Prevalence of Annoyance Due to General Transportation Noise, in Noise and Sonic Boom 
Impact Technology. Human Systems Division (Report HSD-TR-89-009), Air Force Systems 
Command, Brooks Air Force Base, Texas. 

Fidell, S., T. J. Schultz, and D. M. Green, 1988. A Theoretical Interpretation of the Prevalence 
Rate of Noise-Induced Annoyance in Residential Populations, Journal of the Acoustical 
Society of America. 84(6). 

Frerichs, R. R., B. L. Beeman, and A. H. Coulson, 1980. Los Angeles Airport Noise and Mortality - 
Faulty Analysis and Public Policy, American Journal of Public Health. 70: 357-362. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


J-39 




Goldstein, J., and J. Lukas, 1980. Noise and Sleep: Information Needs for Noise Control, 

Proceedings of the Third International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem. ASHA 
Report No. 10, pp. 442*448. 

Griefahn, B., and A. Muzet, 1978. Noise-Induced Sleep Disturbances and Their Effect or Health, 
Journal of So und and Vibration. 59(1): 99-106. 

Hall, F., S. Taylor, and S. Birnie, 1985. Activity Interference and Noise Annoyance, Journal of 
Sound and Vibration. 103(2). 

Karagodina, 1. L., S. A. Soldatkina, I. L. Vinokur, and A. A. Klimukhin, 1969. Effect of Aircraft 
Noise on the Population Near Airports, Hygiene and Sanitation. 34: 182-187. 

Klatt, M., K. Stevens, and C. Williams, 1969. Judgments of the Acceptability of Aircraft Noise in 
the Presence of Speech, Journal of Sound and Vibration. 9(2): 263-275. 

Kryter, K. 0., and C. E. Williams, 1966. Masking of Speech by Aircraft Noise, Journal of the 
Acoustical Society of America. 39. pp. 138-150. 

Lukas, J.. 1975. Noise and Sleep: A Literature Review and a Proposed Criterion for Assessing 
Effect, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 58(6). 

Meecham, W. C., and N. A. Shaw, 1988. Increase in Disease Mortality Rates Due to Aircraft 
Noise, Proceedings of the International Congr ess of Noise as a Public Health Problem. 
Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm, Sweden, 21-25 August. 

Miller, J. D., 1974. Effects of Noise on People. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 
56(3): 729-764. 

Mills, J. H., 1975. Noise and Children: a Review of Literature, Journal of the Acoustical Society 
of America. 58(4): 767-779. 

Moulton, Carey L., 1990. Air Force Procedure for Predicting Aircraft Noise Around Airbases: Noise 
Exposure Model (NOISEMAP) User's Manual. Report AAMRL-TR-90-011, Human Systems 
Division/Air Force Systems Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, February. 

National Academy of Sciences, 1977. Guidelines for Preparing Environmental Impact Statements 
on Noise. Report of Working Group on the Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and 
Biomechanics, National Research Council, Washington, DC. 

National Academy of Sciences, 1981. The Effects on Human Health from Long-Term Exposure to 
Noise. Report of Working Group 81, Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and 
Biomechanics, The National Research Council, Washington, DC. 

Parnel, Nagel, and Cohen, 1972. Evaluation of Hearing Levels of Residents Living Near a Major 
Airport. Report FAA-RD-72-72. 


J-40 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 









Pearsons. K., D. Barber, and B. Tabachnick. 1989. Analyses of the Predictability of Noise-Induced 
Sleep Disturbance. Report No. HSO-TR-89-029. BBN Systems and Technologies 
Corporation. Canoga Park. California. 

Peterson. E. A.. J. S. Augenstein. and C. L. Hazelton. 1984. Some Cardioyascular Effects of 
Noise. Journal of Auditory Research. 24. 35*62. 

Schultz. T. J.. 1978. Synthesis of Social Suryeys on Noise Annoyance. Journal of the Acoustical 
Society of America. 64(2): 377-405. 

Stevens. K. N.. and A. C. Pietrasanta. 1957. Procedures for Estimating Noise Exposure and 

Resulting Community Reactions from Air Base Operations. WADC TN-57-10. Wright Air 
Development Center. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. 

Talbott. E.. J. Heimkamp. K. Matthews. L. Kuller. E. Cottington, and G. Redmond. 1985. 

Occupational Noise Exposure. Noise-Induced Hearing Loss, and the Epidemiology of High 
Blood Pressure, American Journal of Eoidemioloov. 121: 501-515. 

Thompson, S. J., 1981. Eoidemioloov Feasibility Study: Effects of Noise on the Cardiovascular 
System. Report No. EPA 550/9-81-103. 

Thompson, S., and S. Fidell. 1989. Feasibility of Eoidemiolooic Research on Nonauditorv Health 
Effects of Residential Aircraft Noise Exposure. BBN Report No. 6738, BBN Systems and 
Technologies, Canoga Park, California. 

U.S. Air Force. 1990. Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Proposed Closure of Eaker Air Force 
Base. Arkansas . 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise 
Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. 
Publication No. 550/9-74-004, Washington, DC, March. 

van Dijk, F. J. H., A. M. Souman, and F. F. de Fries, 1987. Nonauditory Effects of Noise in 

Industry, Vol. I: A Rnal Reid Study in Industry, International Archives of Occupational and 
Environmental Health. 59: 133-145. 

Ward, Cushing, and Burns, 1972. TTS from Neighborhood Aircraft Noise, Journal of the Acoustical 
Society of America. 55(1). 


Williams, C. E., K. S. Pearsons, and M. H. L. Hecker, 1971. Speech Intelligibility in the Presence of 
Time-Varying Aircraft Noise, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 56(3). 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FBIS 


J-41 











APPENDIX K 

AIR EMISSIONS INVENTORY 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse F£IS 










AIR EMISSIONS INVENTORY 


INTRODUCTION 


Th« following tabiM contain tha daily pollutant amiaaiona aaaociatad with 
tha Propoaad Action and Fira Training artd Racraation altamativaa. Daily 
amiaaiona wara aaaumad to ba conatant. and wara calculatad baaad on tha 
aatimatad annual amiaaiona. Emiaaiona ara providad for tha following: 

• Aircraft oparationa 

• Aircraft rafuaiing 

• Conatruction 

• Fira training 

• Poraat fira training 

• Othar activitiaa. 

Thaaa projactad amisaion aatimataa ara included in Tables K-1 through K>5, 
by pollutant and by alternative. 

AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AND REFUEUN6 

Emiaaiona from aircraft activities, including touch and go, airplane queuing, 
and takeoff and landings, were calculated based on fleet mix and frequency 
information predicted for tha Proposed Action for the years 1998 and 2003. 
Evaporative emissions from refueling of aircraft are based on predicted 
annual usage of aviation gasoline and a vapor recovery of 85 percent. 

These amissions ware predicted using the Emissions and Dispersion 
Modeling System (EDMS) model (Segal, 1991), which contains a built-in 
data base of U.S. Envirorunental Protection Agency's (EPA's) AP-42 
emission factors for various types of aircraft and refueling activities. 

MOTOR VEHICLE ACTIVITIES 

Emissions from motor vehicle exhaust on roadways associated with the base 
and automobile parking were estimated from project traffic patterns for the 
three phases of analysis for each alternative. 

The EDMS was used to predict and model annual emissions based on the 
number of vehicles traveling on roadways and entering or leaving parking 
lots. The EDMS uses emission factors from EPA AP-42 to predict emissions 
from moving vehicles and cold starting of automobiles in parking areas. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reusa FEIS 


K-1 









Tabic K*1. Emissions Inventory for Particulats Matter (tons/day) 


Source 

Proposed Action 

Fire Training 
Alternative 

Recreation 

Alternative 

1998 

2003 

1998 

2003 

1998 

2003 

Aircraft Operatiorts 

0.003 

0.006 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Aircraft Refueiing 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Construction 

0.09 

0.02 

0.05 

0.02 

0.10 

0.004 

Fire Training 

- 

- 

0.001 

0.001 

- 

- 

Forest Fire Training 

- 

- 

0.34 

0.34 

- 

- 

Other Activities 

0.59 

0.74 

0.26 

0.39 

0.12 

0.21 

Total 

0.68 

0.77 

0.65 

0.75 

0.22 

0.21 


Table K-2. 

Emissions Inventory for Carbon Monoxide (tons/day) 


Source 

Proposed Action 

Fire Trainir>g 
Alternative 

Recreation 

Alternative 

1998 

2003 

1998 

2003 

1998 

2003 

Aircraft Operations 

0.32 

1.05 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Aircraft Refueling 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Fire Training 

• 

- 

0.007 

0.013 

- 

- 

Forest Fire Trainirtg 

- 

- 

3.5 

3.5 

- 

- 

Other Activities 

2.98 

3.70 

1.29 

1.96 

0.58 

1.04 

Total 

3.30 

4.75 

4.79 

5.47 

0.58 

1.04 


Table K'3. Emissions Inventory for Sulfur Dioxide (tons/day) 



Proposed Action 

Fire Training 
Alternative 

Recreation 

Alternative 

Source 

1998 

2003 

1998 

2003 

1998 

2003 

Aircraft Operations 

0.003 

0.004 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Aircraft Refueling 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Fire Training 

- 

- 

0.0001 

0.0002 

- 

- 

Forest Fire Training 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Other Activities 

0.05 

0.06 

0.02 

0.03 

0.01 

0.02 

Total 

0.053 

0.064 

0.02 

0.03 

0.01 

0.02 


K-2 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 















Tabto K*4. EmiMiOfW Inventory tor OxkiM of NHrogon (tons/doy) 


Source 

Proposed Action 

Fire Trainu^ 
Alternative 

Recreation 

Alternative 

1998 

2003 

1998 

2003 

1998 

2003 

Aircraft Operations 

0.029 

0.036 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Aircraft Refueling 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Fire Training 

- 

- 

0.005 

0.01 

- 

- 

Forest Fira Training 

- 

- 

0.04 

0.04 

- 

- 

Other Activities 

0.36 

0.44 

0.15 

0.23 

0.07 

0.12 

Total 

0.38 

0.48 

0.20 

0.28 

0.07 

0.12 


Tablo K>5. Emliolono Inventory for Reeetive Orgenic Compounds (tons/dsy) 


Source 

Proposed Action 

Fire Training 
Alternative 

Recreation 

Alternative 

1998 

2003 

1998 

2003 

1998 

2003 

Aircraft Operations 

0.07 

0.099 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Aircraft Refueling 

0.00001 

0.00001 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Fire Training 

- 

- 

0.0008 

0.0016 

- 

- 

Forest Fire Training 

- 

- 

0.07 

0.07 

- 

- 

Other Activities 

1.01 

1.25 

0.44 

0.66 

0.20 

0.35 

Total 

1.08 

1.35 

0.51 

0.73 

0.20 

0.35 


Detailed information about traffic patterns on residential streets was not 
available. It was, therefore, assumed that relatively little arterial traffic 
occurs in the residential areas and that vehicle emissions would resemble 
those from parking lots, which include a certain number of cold starts. For 
the purposes of using EDMS, cold starts were assumed to be 20 percent on 
the roadways and 80 percent from the parking lots. 

Emissions from increased motor vehicle traffic on highways and roads 
outside the base property boundaries (i.e., within Iosco County) were 
estimated assuming that tiie ratio of reuse alternative emissions to reuse 
alternative population is proportional to the ratio of the 1987 Iosco County 
emission levels to the total predicted population of Iosco County over the 
20-year study period as described under "Other Activities". These predicted 
emissions were not included in the EDMS dispersion modeling analysis. 

CONSTRUCTION 

Fugitive dust would be generated during construction activities associated 
with aviation support, industrial, institutional, commercial, resident, and 


Wurtsmith sposat and Reuse FEIS K-3 














public/racrMtion land uaaa. Thasa amisaiona would ba graataat during sita 
daaring and grading activitiaa. UncontroUad fugftiva dust (particulato 
mattar) amissions from ground-disturbing activitiaa ara astimatad to ba 
amittad at a rata of 110 pounds par acra par day (EPA. 1985). Tha PM,o 
fraction of tha total fugitiva dust amissions is assumad to ba 50 parcant, or 
55 pounds par acra par workirtg day. 

For tha Proposed Action, it is astimatad that construction on basa would 
disturb a total of approximataly 517 acres over tha 10-yaar period of 
analysis. Approximataly 430 acres would ba disturbed during tha time 
period 1993-1998. and approximately 87 acres would ba disturbed during 
tha period from 1998-2003. Tha area of disturbance in any one year was 
calculated by dividing tha number of years of each period of disturbartca into 
tha corresponding acreage disturbed. Tharafora, tha area of disturbance in 
any one year during tha time period of 1993-1998 would ba 86 acres and 
during 1998-2003 tha annual area of disturbance would ba 17.4 acres. Tha 
analysis assumes that on average there ara 200 working days par year 
(excluding weekends, bad weather, and holidays), and that half of these 
days (100) would ba used for site preparation. It further assumes 4 acre- 
days of disturbance par acra, which represents tha area and duration of 
disturbing activities for each acra. Thus, for the Proposed Action years 
1998-2003, tha amount of PM,o emissions are calculated as follows: 



Therefore, the amount of PM,o that would be released is estimated to be 
189.2 pounds per day (0.09 ton per day) for 1993-1998. Similarly, 

38.3 pounds per day (0.02 ton per day) would be released in 1998-2003. 
The impact of these PM,o amissions would cause elevated short-term 
concentrations, would be temporary, and would fall off rapidly with distance 
from the source. 

Similar calculations for fugitive dust emissions were performed for 
construction emissions for the Rre Training and Recreation Alternatives. 
These results are included in the emissions inventory tables. 

HRE TRAINING 

Annual emissions were calculated for each of three proposed fire activities in 
the Fire Training Aitemative: dirty evolutions, clean evolutions, and forest 
fire training. Fires created in the dirty evolution use a mixture of 80 percent 
gasoline and 20 percent No. 2 fuel oil as fuel. Clean evolutions use bales of 
straw, loose straw, or propane to fuel training fires. The forest fire training 


K-4 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 









scenario proposed the actual burning of standing forest within the base 
perimeter. 


The projected frequencies and quantities of fuel for each type of fire were 
obtained from the Great Lakes Rre Training Academy and the Michigan 
Department of Natural Resources and used in conjunction with emission 
factors from EPA AP-42 to determine emissions for each of the types of 
fires. Emission factors from the source category "open burning-municipal 
refuse" were used to estimate emissions from the burning of straw. 

Emission factors for the combustion of propane in industrial boilers were 
used to calculate emissions from propane fires and emission factors for the 
combustion of fuel oil in residential furnaces were used to approximate 
emissions from the gasoline/oil mixture because emission factors for open 
burning of gasoline and fuel oil were not available.. These emission factors 
are believed to most closely approximate emissions resulting from these 
activities. Emission factors for fuel oil were used because the emission 
factors in AP-42 relating to gasoline combustion are from the source 
category "internal combustion engines" which would not represent 
conditions found in the open burning of gasoline. Further, fuel oil, as a rule, 
burns dirtier (creates more pollutants) than gasoline. Emission factors for 
the forest fire training scenario are taken from the AP-42 source category 
"forest wildfires." An average tree loading of 10 tons/acre for conifer 
forests in the north-central United States is also taken from AP-42. 

The EPA model SCREEN Version 1.11 was selected to model missions from 
fire training activities. Fires were modeled as area sources using stability 
Class 5, which was assumed to represent the worst case daytime 
meteorologic conditions. Worst case emissions from the dirty or clean 
evolutions were used to predict the impact on the ambient air from daily fire 
training activities. Emissions from the burning of straw represented the 
worst case for carbon monoxide and PM,o while emissions from the 
combustion of fuel oil were used to represent worst case for NOx and SOx- 
A source elevation of 6 feet was used to approximate thermal plume rise 
since the model ignores the possibility that an area source may be 
combustive in nature. The 6-foot elevation is assumed to be a conservative 
estimate of actual flame height and should represent worst case conditions 
even if no plume rise due to thermal convection occurs. 

The impacts of the daily fire training activities were combined with the 
impacts predicted by EDMS from motor vehicle activity. 

The SCREEN model was also used to model emissions from forest fire 
training activities. A stability class of 5 was again used with an area source 
elevation of 15 feet. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEJS 


K-5 











Sine* th« fortst fir* trainino activitiM ara axpactad to ba schaduiad only 
about on* day par yaar, th* impact of emiaaiona ovar an annual avaraging 
pariod ia not appropriata. Th* impacts resulting from this activity will b* 
short term ortly. Thus, th* modaiad results for th* forest fir* activitias as 
presantad in Tabla 4.4-8 do not induda aruuial equivalents. 


OTHER ACnVITIES 


The amissions from other activitias (i.a., rasidantiai fuel combustion, motor 
vahidas waste burning, industrial procassas, and miscallanaous processes) 
ware davalopad assuming that the ratio of rouse altamativa amissions to 
reuse ahamativa population is proportional to the ratio of the 1987 Iosco 
County amission lavais to the total predicted population of Iosco County 
ovar the 10-yaar study pariod. 

The basic aquation used to develop the reuse altamativa emission inventory 
data is: Reuse Emissions «• (Iosco County Emissions/Iosco County 
Population) x Incremental Reuse Population Increase. 


K-6 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reusa FEIS 






APPENDIX L 

AGENCY LETTERS AND CERTIFICATIONS 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 










MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

—— 1 1 rr I —r i nr 

RICHARD H. AUSTIN • SECRETARY Of STATE 

Bureau of History, State Historic Preservatioii OfBce 
Michigan Library and Historical Center 
717 West Allegan Street 
I ansing, Michigan 48918*1800 



f,(f. 


LANSING 

MICHIGAN 489IB 


June 1,1993 

Mr. Russel Farringer 
AFCEE/ESER 
Building 1161 

Brooks Air Force Base, Texas 7823S-S000 


RE: ER-880158 Qosure, Wurtsmith Air Force Base, Iosco County (USAF) 

Dear Mr. Faningen 

In a letter dated August 20, 1992, we stated the opinion that this project would affect no 
historic properties and that the project was cleared under federal regulation 36 CFR 800 
for the 'l^otection of Historic Properties.” It has come to our attention that this 
clearance letter was issued prematurely. There are concerns about archaeological 
resources on Wurtsmith Air Force base that were not resolved before the clearance 
letter was issued. 


The draft Environmental Impact Statement regarding the disposal and reuse of 
Wurtsmith Air Force base contains a reference (p3*92) to an archaeological survey 
report prepared by Mark Branstner in 1991. This survey was performed under the 
conditions of a prime contract between Tetra Tech, Inc. of San Bemadino, California 
and the U.S. Air Force (contract No. IW607-90-C0010). The report on the results of the 
survey is entided "Cultural Resources Surv^, Wurtsmith Air Force Base, Michigan.” 

The Michigan State Historic Preservation Offiwr did not receive a copy of this report 
when the work was completed. As a result, we had no record of the work that was done 
or of the results of the survey. After becoming aware that this survey had been done, we 
recently obtained a copy of the report It was immediately apparent that the report is a 
crucial document in the process of assessing the archaeologit^ sensitivity of the base. In 
particular, the report makes a number of important recommendations about further work 
that needs to be done in order to ensure that those parts of the base that hold potential 
for archaeological sites are thoroughly examined. One primary concern stated in the 
report is the fact that contractual specifications did not provide for subsurface testing 
during the 1990 survey. Since some form of subsurface testing is a standard 
archaeological technique necessary for reliable survey results, especially under field 
conditions where groimd surface exposure is lackii^ the report recommends that 
subsurface testing be performed in certain areas on the base. 


We feel it is important that the archaeological work recommended in the Great Lakes 
Research report be completed in order that a thorough assessment of the archaeological 






L 


MS-W (8/92) 


Safety Bells and Slower Speeds Save Lives 






Bureau of History 

State Historic Preservation OfBce 


Page 2 


sensitivity of the base can be made. We know that this creates an untimely interruption 
in the process of closing the base. We are also, however, dismayed that we did not 
receive a copy of the archaeological survey report and therefore were not kept abreast of 
the status of the evaluation of archaeological resources on the base. 

This letter supersedes our previous letter of August 20, 1992 in which we stated the 
opinion that this project would affect no historic properties and that the project was 
cleared under federsd regulation 36 CFR 800 for the "Protection of Historic Properties." 
Given the new information provided in the survey report, it is our opinion that ^e 
section 106 review process has not been a>mpieted. We request that the archaeological 
work described in the "Recommendations" section (pp26-28) of the Great Lakes 
Research report be completed. After the work has l^n conq)leted and a report 
prepared, a copy of the report should be forwarded to the Michigan SHPO so that the 
information can be taken into account in our review of the project 

If you have ai^ questions, please contact the Environmental Review Coordinator at 
(517) 335-2721. Thank you for this opportunity to review and comment 



KBE:DLA:em 

cc: Valerie DeCarlo, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 










MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ST ATE 
RICHARD H. AUSTIN • SECRETARY OF STATE 

Bureau of History, State Historic Preservation Office 

Michigan Library and Historical Center 

717 West Allegan Street 

Lansing, Michigan 48918-1800 

August 20, 1992 



LANSING 
MICHIGAN 48918 


Mr. Russel Farringer 
AFCEE/ESER 
Building 1161 

Brooks Air Force Base, Texas 78235-5000 


RE: ER-880158 Closure, Wurtsmith Air Force Base, Iosco County (USAF) 

Dear Mr. Farringer: 

Under the authority of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 
we have reviewed the above-cited project at the location noted above. It is the 
opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) that the project will 
affect no historic properties (no known sites eligible for listing in the National 
Register of Historic Places) and that the project is cleared under federal 
regulation 36 CFR 800 for the "Protection of Historic Properties." 

Please maintain a copy of this letter with your environmental review record for 
this project. If the scope of work changes in any way, or if artifacts or bones are 
discovered, please contact this office immediately. This letter evidences your 
compliance with 36 CFR 800.4, "Identifying Historic Properties," and the fulfillment 
of your responsibility to notify this office under 36 CFR 800.4(d), "When no 
historic properties found." 

If you have any questions, please contact the Environmental Review Coordinator at 
(517) 335-2720 or 335-2721. Thank you for this opportunity to review and 
comment. 


Sincerely, 




Kathryn B. Eckert 
State Hisl^ric Preservation Officer 


KBE:R0C:SBM:p8 

cc Anne Weinheimer, ACHP 


Ms-M(2ne) 


"Safaty Balts and SIO¥nr S p B 9( is SavmUym‘ 


L-3 








STATE OF MICHIGAN 


CommiMion of AgrieuMur* 
Donald W. Nugant 
Oava Crumbaugn 
Jordan B. Tattar 
Rita M. Raid 
John A. Sparo 


May 21, 1992 

Russel Farrlnger 
Department of the Air Force 
AFCEE/ESER. 

Brooks AFB. TX 78235 

Dear Mr. Farrlnger 

Wurtsffllth AFB contains no prime or unique farmland as determined 
by the Soli Conservation Service and County offlcals.] 

If you need any further Information please call me at (616) 362- 
7474 or write. 


County Soil Survey 




JOHN ENGLER. Governor 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

P.O. BOX 30017. LANSING. MICHIGAN 48909 
BILL SCHUETTE. Oiractor 






U.6. UepartmenioT Agriculture 


FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING 


PART I \ To be completed by Federal Agency) 


Name Qf Project 

_Wurtsmlth 


Proposed Land Use 

Complete Closure o 




Date Of Land Evatuacion Request 




PART II ITo be completed by SCS) ® 


Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No irrigated Avarsga Farm Size 

(If no. the FPPA does not apply — do not complete additional parts of this form). □ % 


Major Cropfa,! FarrtMble Land In Govt. Jurisdiction Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA 

Acres: % Acres: % 


Name Of Land Evaluation System Used Name Of Local Site Assessment System i Date Land Evaluation Returned By SCS 


PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) 


A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 


B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly 


C. Total Acres In Site 


PART IV (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information 


A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland 


B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland 


C. Percentage Of Tarmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted 


D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value 


PART V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion 

Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale ofOto 100Points) 


I 

PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) I Maximum 

Site Assessment Criteria IThfise criteria are explained in 7 CFR SSS.SIbl Points 


1. Area In Nonurban Use 


2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use 


3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed_ 


4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 


5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area 


6. Distance To Urban Support Services 


7 Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 


8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 


9. Availability Of Farm Support Services_ 


10. On-Farm Investments 


11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 


12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use_ 


TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 


PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency) 


Site A 


5.221 


Alternative Site Rjtin 


Site B Site C 


Relative Value Of Farmland (From Par‘ V) 


Total Site Assessment (From Part VI o 
site assessment) 


TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 


Site Selected; 


/e or a local 



Date Of Selection 


Was A Local Site Assessment Useo? 

Yes □ No □ 



{See Instructions on reverse side) 


Form AO-1006 110-83) 

L-5 

















































United States Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

East Lansinf Flcid Office (E9 
1405 South Hairieon Road, Room 302 
East Lansiag, Mkhifaa 40823 

In R^ly Refer tos Juiie 18, 1992 

Russel Farringer 
AKCEE/ESER 

Brooks Air Force Base, TX 78235 

Re: Notice of Intent for Disposal and Reuse of Wurtsmith Air Force Base, Iosco 

County, Michigan. 

Dear Mr. Farringer: 

This is in response to your request of May 13, 1991, for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(Service) comments on potential impacts to Federally-listed endangered, threatened, 
proposed or candidate species within the area of the proposed project. 

These comments have been prepared under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife 
C'Dordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et. seq.) and are 
consistent with the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 92- 
190; 83 Stat. 852-856). These comments do not represent the views of the U.S. 
Department of the Interior on any forthcoming environmental statement. 

E ndangered Species Act Comments 

The Service has determined that there are presently no Federally-listed endangered, 
threatened or proposed species in the project area. This precludes the need for 
further action on this project as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended. However, if the project is modified or new information about the project 
becomes available that indicates listed or proposed species may be present and/or 
affected, consultation with this Service office should be reintiated. ' 

Tlie Service further advises that should any species occurring in the project area 
become Federally listed or proposed, the F^eral action agency for the work would also 
be- required to reevaluate its responsibilities under the Act. Since threatened and 
endangered species data is continually updated, the Service suggests you annually 
request an updated Federal list of the species occurring in the project area. 

Wf? confirm that the dale of our last letter ivas December 12, 1991, and not December 
12, 1990, this was a typographical error and we apologize for any inconvenience 
caused by this oversight. 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and look forward to 
continued coordination with your agency. We request the opportunity to receive the 
draft ETS for this project and provide comments if appropriate. Any questions can be 
di)'ected to Susan Walker at this office at (517) 337-6650. 




Sincerely yours, 

.UD. CooftJ 



■4rChwles M. Wooley 
Field Supervisor 


LI 


L-6 










cc: 



Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division, Lansing, MI 
(Attn: Tom Weise) 


L-7 











THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 


L-8 


Wurtsmitfi AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 








APPENDIX M 

INFLUENCING FACTORS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF WURTSMITH 
AIR FORCE BASE REUSE BY LAND USE CATEGORY 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







INFLUENCING FACTORS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF WURTSMITH AIR FORCE BASE 

REUSE BY LAND USE CATEGORY 


INTRODUCTION 


The purpose of this appendix is to quantify the environmental impacts of 
each land use category identified for the three alternatives, including the 
Proposed Action, evaluated in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 
The data in Tables M-1 through M-16 present the impacts of individual land 
use activities, such as industrial, commercial, or institutional, on their 
respective Regions of Influence and allow comparison of the impacts of the 
Proposed Action and alternatives for three benchmark years, 1998, 2003, 
and 2013, where applicable. Rgures M-1 through M-3 display the parcels in 
the various land use categories for each alternative. 

Tables M-1 through M-4 present data on the influencing factors (factors that 
drive environmental impacts); Tables M-5 through M-16 list the impacts on 
individual environmental resources evaluated in the EIS. These resources 
include transportation, utilities, hazardous materials and hazardous waste 
management, soils and geology, water resources, air quality, noise, 
biological resources, and cultural resources. This appendix includes at least 
one table for each resource area, except water resources and cultural 
resources. Data on water demand are presented as part of the utilities 
analysis; the effects on surface and groundwater resources in and around 
the base have not been quantified in the EIS and have not been 
disaggregated in this appendix. There would be no cultural resources 
impacts, because there are no historic properties on the base. 

No quantification is provided in Table M-11 because the quantities of 
hazardous materials used and hazardous wastes generated will depend on 
the type and intensity of industrial and commercial activities developed on 
the site. Table M-11 presents a generalized description of the hazardous 
materials used under individual land use categories. Table M-12 summarizes 
the number of Installation Restoration Program (IRP) sites identified on the 
base as of 1992, but does not give the likely status of these sites in 1998, 
2003, and 2013. 

Factors and assumptions used in disaggregating the total impacts of an 
alternative into individual land use categories are presented as footnotes on 
the relevant tables. 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEJS 


M-1 






Table M-1. Direct Employment by Land Use Category, Wurttmith AFB Reuse 


cMOOorv coomm 
S ^ Q r>. 
a <n *- « ^ 


MOOfl>0 Qoaio 

. ^ 00 

« 0 r 4 m — 

< cm' 


»- O O CM CM 

S O 

n 

< 


< ’ O « CM 0 
0 0 0 
O. W CM *- 


<M O O r» 0 
0 0 

JK 0 

< 


^ 000 ^ 
0 0 
0 - 


^ O n “> •“ 
< 0 0 
00 ^ 


0000 


0000 
0 00 


s ® ° s 


0 0^0 
0 0 0 
0 0 


0000 
0 0 0 
0 0 


0 o o •- 
0 0 

o ^ 

% « 

^ 0 


— O O 0 


0 0 <«■ 

sis 


O «- 0 
0 0 
0 


< *0000 0000 

^00^ 0 

Q. 0 0 0^ 0 


000^0 0000 

0 0 0 00 

U 0 *- 0 ^ 

< 


•-OO 00 0000 

»- »- o 00 

*£ ry y- CO 0 

< ' 


§ 00 0000 

0 0 »- »- 0 

»- 0 0 0 


_ O O 0 0 
^ 0 0 
4 J 0 0 


^0000 
< 0 0 »- 

a. 000 

0 »“ 


00000 
0 0 

±j 0 

< 


<-0000 
0 0 
a ^ — 

< 


0000 
000 
0 t- •- 


0 o *- 0 

o 00 

^ 0 


0000 

O Q 

0 0 

0 


0 0 0 0 
0 0 
yt 0 


0000 
0 00 

^ 0 


0 0 O «- 
0 <- 0 
^ 0 


I I § 

• S _ 3 

O 3 « -O 

= 2 I I 1 S 

■ 0 .S s S .e 0 

I I ^ I 11 

I 2 < < £ £S 


c u 

C S ^ 

O eg M 

a o « 

a _ 3 _ 0 

2 S 'S -S -s s 

c ^ .S 7 ^ S ^ 

^ o*w#«^S S S*** 

€ 11I ^ 2 3 

I 5 1 IS3 5 £ 5i 


e £ • 

I •< 

^ 

8.*” ® 

^ S I 

£ ir “ 

I • * 
^ 

a: < < 


M-2 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 








1-3 






















Table M-5. Transportation Impacts* by Land Use Category, Wurtsmith AFB Reuse (average daly tripsi 



Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEfS 













Table M-7. Wastewater Generation* by Land Use Category, WurtsmHh AFB Reuse IgaUons per day) 



& 

I 

S 

3 

K 

a 

Ik 
< 

I 

M * 

c 

a 

$ 

2? 

o 

Ol 

S 

a 

O 

• 

m 

3 

"o 

3 


cs 

o 

o 

00 

s 

o 

r** 

r*. 

o 

in 

€0 

£ 

< 



6 

d 


d 


CM 


o 

o 


lO 

00 


o 





m 

c*> 

(0 

r- 

lO 

s 

as. 

< 



6 


oi 

CM 

d 

r*^ 

< 

o 

o 

N 

(O 

S 

lO 

e> 

o 

lO 

CO 

CM 

ik 


r<i 

6 

d 

C>i 

id 

d 


<N 

o 

o 

n 

o 

CO 

a> 

o 

CM 





lO 

• 

o 


O 

as 

< 



6 

d 


d 


CM 


o 

o 


(O 

CM 

o 

o 

CM 




cn 

00 

»— 

CM 

lO 

O 

< 



6 

d 

cm' 


d 

id 


o 

oo 




r>* 

o 

rv 

< 


lO 


00 

CM 

cp 

lO 

CM 

al 



6 

d 

CM 


d 

d 


< 

(k 


o 

o 

§ 

o 

« 

M 

■o 

c 


CM 

6 

0 

0 

CO 

o 

CO 


o 

CO 

CO 

o 

a: 

< 

d 

d 

d 

d 


o oo 
o 


5 


o 

r«» 

CM 


r- 

o 




lO 


lA 

lO 

»“ 


d 

d 


d 

d 

CO 

lO 

o 

CM 

r«» 

lO 

lO 


o 

CM 


cp 

r«» 

CM 

o 


d 

d 


CM 

d 

cd 


c 

o 

V 

^ ra 

2 w 

c u 

C S ^ 

O (0 M 

Q. U O 

a _ 3 _ V 

a (0 *5 <0 •= is 

« _ c ^ '5 .2 5 


c .2 .9 ^ !s ?! « 





O 

9 

o 

< 

•8 

« 

o 

I 

& 

I 

< 

oI 


I* 

^ is 

i»< 

I o 

I- g 

• o 

iZ OC 


£ 

< < 


M* 


5 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 





















^■<N| 

I 

s 

I 

I 

« 

ei 

I 


9 


JO 

m 


ex 


gs 


CM 

±; 

< 


<N 

iS 

< 


00 *i 
01 < 
OJ ^ 


< 

OL 


o 

a 

« 

<0 

U 

• 

w 

3 


J3 


o o 


CO 

6 


o o 


o o 


o ^ ^ 
o 
00 


o o 


o o 


O 00 


c 

a 

a 

3 


1 -i 


r* 

(X 

o 

o> 

0) 

r«» 


1 

o 

o 

o> 

r* 

IV 

o 


r>» 

cn 

O) 

•• 

o 

0) 






00 

cx 

rv 


cx 

'Of 

O) 

d 


cx 

d 







cx 

00 


3 

o 






oo 










V 

If) 

cx 

rs 

00 

0) 





o 

o 

o 

00 

00 

oo 

00 

cx 

O) 

00 

O 


00 

5 



. 



fv 

O) 

00 

cx 

0) 

rv 

6 

d 


00 


0) 


cn 

as 

< 





q 


r» 

q 

CX 





If) 


o 



cx 

•- 




If) 




















































00 

ex 

0) 

CO 

00 

0) 



< 

o 

CO 

0) 

If) 

0) 

O) 


3 






o 

t 



00 

c» 


0) 

0) 


rv 

If) 


cn 


cx 

d 

0. 



If) 

00 

q 

CD 

00 

3 




cx 


If) 

1 







3 


d 

00 

o 


<0 

0) 

If) 

• 

ox 

o 

o 


O) 

0) 

o 

3 

0) 


o 

cx 

If) 

0) 

If) 

CD 





3 

CO 


00 

to 

d 

o> 

d 


cx 

0) 

1 


a 

< 




•• 

CD 


3 

00 






ox 

Cm 

oa 









00 








Ik 
















< 











U) 


CO 

CO 

0) 

o 

€ 



o 

o 

o 

oo 

oo 

oo 


o 

0) 


cx 

r» 

00 







r>* 

00 

r*» 


0) 

0) 

d 

If) 

00 

d 


|V 

a 

00 

g 

< 




q 



ID 

q 

fX 






c 



cx 


•- 



3 







1 

cx 
















* 












ox 

o 

O) 

00 

00 

o 


< 

o 

If) 

cx 

If) 

oo 

3 

rs. 

3 

00 


00 

0) 


00 

OI 




Q 

IV 

oo 

O) 


oo 

00 


00 

IV 

cx 

0) 

V 

IQ 

a. 



3 

OO 

o 

% 

O) 

00 

q 







a 







00 


rv 







• 
















M 
















3 










00 

ox 

00 

00 

0) 

If) 

3 

c 

cx 

o 

o 


cx 

q 

o 

3 

o 


If) 



0) 

o 

8 




<0 

>0 

5 


00 

ex 

r>^ 

d 

00 

d 

cx 

d 






00 

00 


3 

q 






cx 

> 

< 








cx 






3 















« 
















3 

C 











r* 

o 

00 

p>» 

0) 


8 

g 



o 

o 

If) 

If) 

lO 

ID 

00 

oo 


00 

0) 


00 


• 

00 

0] 

0) 




oo 

o 

ex 


0) 


d 

00 

d 

oi 


|V 

cx 

Q 

« 

< 



q 

O) 

rv 



0) 

cx 







8 

















(9 

















2 




























o 


O) 

00 

O) 

If) 

B 


• 

o 

00 

oo 


0) 

0) 

0) 

3 

o> 

ox 

00 

If) 

o 

o 

CD 




0) 

00 

3 

>0 

ID 

to 


cx 

d 

d 


d 

z 

oI 


r». 



If) 

OO 








ox 








cx 









o 
































2 
















• 














c 

o 


2 

• 








c 

o 






*3 

ID 


»- 








ID 



15 



« 







« 



a 



c 



U 







c 



o 



o 

"-ff 






o 

CD 


c 


o 

3 



■i 



CO 



« 



d> 


o 


ID 



« 



o 



.S 





a 


U 



.s 



.. 3 



3 



CD 


a 


_ 3 






(0 *0 

ID 


ss 



o 


3 


ID 3 

ID 




75 

c ^ 
o ~ 

a 

ID 

‘Si 

o 

ID 



S 


w 

Is 

C 3 

o ^ 

a 

s 

‘5 

ID 


‘5 

M 

3 

•o 

C 

*2 CD 

3 .a 

.« -o 

CD e 
C 3 

o 

E 

E 

o 

C 

O 

*5 

*w 

o 

oc 

O 

2 

3 

0. 

Total 


3 

3 

c 

J3 

Airfield 

b 

O 

3 

ID 

■> 

< 

3 

M 

3 

3 

C 

*<s ^ 

3 .a 
•S'g 

si 

o 

E 

E 

o 

c 

« 

•o 

o 

s 

•e 

o 

3 

if 

Total 


1 

I s 

■O p IT 


II 

s 8 
£ £ 
< s 

9 < 

I O 
'9 'S 


I • 

C K 

I I 

•- CM 

#« £ 
< < 


M-6 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 





Land Use C?tegorv Proposed Action _ Fire Training Alternative _ Recreation Altemative 

Airfield Aviation fuels, propylene glycol, ethylene NA NA 

glycol, heating oils 


C 

8 js 1 

J o a 

5 rf ^ S 

*11 S s 

III! 


sf , 

S o_* _ 

P O £ .S O a 

^ * ‘S.-5-§ E •§ 
Slg's^g < 
s | 8 E I 
. S .2 5 - 2 8 

i2 S SS ? •- « g. 

3 a a *• ” ’5 s 

^ s s s a s » 


S 'S s 
‘•SS 

« M « 


VN 

E 

<8 

111.1 

0 o 

E 

(8 

E 

<8 

E 

0 

(/) 

m « 






0 

s a 


. 


0 0 


« 1 

^ s 


0 

o 


9 ^ 

^ *5 

% 

9 

SB 0 

o g 

:M «rS 

«» 

5 a 

k. 

a 


AS ^ 

S 

*w 

o 

fS 

2l«' 

> E 8 

'S 5 

^ ? 
o 

u 

•3 0 

S 0 
® u 


& ^ 
.9 c 
. ■£ 
-j 0 

U 

if 

g a 

f > o 

8 S 

7 0 

a 0 

a E 


O 0 

0. u 

o 

c O 

O « M 

a. £ ^ 

s s a« 
•i -i ^-S 

ID C0 W -S 

O 

<L ^ 

. 9 

• 3 

3 T. «* 
S 0 a 

0 >. 

€ > 
s S 

E^ 

® 

•C 0 

U 9 


0' S' 
0 a 

0 0 
O 0 

fc 2 
o o 

9 

9 

2-2 
0 a 

^ 9 

3 

^ c 

9 ^ 
9 #« 

A O !s C 

^ i- e ID 

|'§|5 

> a 5 
*3 0 w o 

>8i 

^ O 3 
> C 0 
0 0 0 
0 0a 
•c . . 
.00 

0' 2 

• § 

.2 0 

1 " 

0 u 
o •£. 


10 o 
1 

9 c0 
> rs 
O O 

N u 

C 0 

at 

0 a 
® a 

N ^ 

^ i 
a s 

. c 
0 

0 $ 

* S 5 » 

M e *'P a 

Jz w sT 2 

«, «i< 0 

e 0 *0 
0 « 

if 

£ o 


0 o 

« C 
0 a 

si 

U 9 
'2 9 

a 

!a a 


(O u .9 


O'm O 
Q. ao. 


I ^ 
i 1 


Sg ® 

Sis 

1^1 

*» S 2 

5 « * 



Wurtsmith AFB Dispose and Reuse FE/S 













CS < < o (N 00 
• z z ^ 

Si ^ ^ 

< 


rMOOa»ooo<D<-« 
N cn ^ ^ 
£ 10(0 


M p>4»“<<o><or^ 

£ 2 ^ z z ^ t'* 

< 2 < 


:^ll 


'•-oom^ifl(oco 

^o^rxintols 
Si CM CO |5 


^ m ^ 00 o ifl 


l^lo a> <- o «- CM 00 <- 

^liACMOo ^r«>'i*«io 


"“I 


10 

,u 

c ■§ c 

op .2 

Cl 3 ^ 

a _ w 

3 « « - ® 

® — o '5 2 o 

c CO O c ^ a> 

o ’O 2 £ -i: 

•2 .2 ^ 3 c « ^ 

.2 S 2 .*£ g 3 s 

t -5 -B S £ « -o 

.S > s S O <D 3 

< < 3 3 U K a 


Co c 

op o 

a 3 Si 

ft — « ^ 

3 CO (P ~ S 

c 2 .1 S I 8 

2 I s •§ S i 


8 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 










Table M-14. Air Quality Impacts by Land Use Cateflory, Wurtsmith AFB Reuse (total emissions* in tons/day) 

_ 1998 _ _ 2003 _ 

Land Use Category P.A. Alt. 1 Alt. 2 P.A. Alt. 1 i 

Airfield 046 0 0 Tis 0 

Aviation support 0.76 0 0 0.91 0 















Table M-16. Biological Ratourca Impacts by Land Uaa Category. WurtamHh AFB Rauaa 

(Acraa of Wetland Habitat OiaturbadI'*' 



Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 









EXPLANATION 

—— Bas« Boundary 

Air Forca Fee-Owned 
A Airfield-1.025 ac. 


AS 

■NO 


Aviation Support - 275 ac. 
Industrial - 489 ac. 


ru^ A 

0 750 1500 3000 Feet 


INT(M) InstKutfonaf (Medical) -12 ac. 
INT(E) Institutional (Education) * 

C Commercial - 216 ac. 

R Residential - 354 ac. 

PR Public/Racreation - 2.255 ac. 

* Not Applicable 


Land Use Parcels- 
Proposed Action 


Figure M-1 


Wurtsmilh AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


M-11 































EXPLANATION 

mmmm^ BaM Boundtuy 

Air Force Fee-Owned 

A Airfield * 

AS Aviation Support * 

■NO Industrial - 234 ac. 


ru^ 

0 750 1500 3000 Feet 


M-12 


INT(M) institutional (Medcal)-12 ac. 
INT(E) Institutional (Education) - 3,115 ac. 


Land Use Parcels- 
Fire Training 
Aitemative 


Commorciai -130 ac. 


Residential - 250 ac. 


PR PubNc/Racreation • 805 ac. 




* Not Applicable 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


RgureM-2 














EXPLANATION 



Bass Boundary 

INT(M) 

Institutional (Madical) -12 ac. 


Air Forca Faa-Ownad 

IMT(E) 

Institutional (Education) • 48 

A 

Airllald * 

C 

Commarclal - 62 ac. 

AS 

Aviation Support * 

R 

Rosidantiai - 92 ac. 

mo 

Industrial -193 ac. 

PR 

PubNc/Racraation - 4.219 ac. 


Land Use Parcels- 
Recreation Alternative 


rLTi 

0 750 1500 3000 FMt 


* Not AppKcablo 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


Rgure M-3 


M-13 
























THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 


M-14 


Wurtsmith AFB Disposal and Reusa FEIS