DOCSLIB.ORG

Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 2020 U. S. AIR FORCE INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN Alaska Sites Managed by the Pacific Air Forces Regional Support Center (PRSC)/ 611th Civil Engineer Squadron (611 CES) DRAFT EDITION 1 2020 UPDATE (See INRMP signature pages for plan approval date) Prepared for: PRSC, 611 CES Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, AK Prepared by: ManTech International Corporation Solana Beach, CA February 2020 Contract No. N62742-14-D-1863, Delivery Order N6274219F0130 USAF ACES Project # VNMHOS170313 [This page intentionally left blank.] PRSC, 611 CES INRMP Update Draft Edition 1 February 2020 1 ABOUT THIS PLAN 2 This installation-specific Environmental Management Plan is based on the U.S. Air Force’s (USAF) 3 standardized Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) template. This INRMP has been 4 developed in cooperation with applicable stakeholders, which may include Sikes Act cooperating agencies 5 and/or local equivalents, to document how natural resources will be managed. Where applicable, external 6 resources, including Air Force Instructions; USAF Playbooks; federal, state, and local regulations; U.S. 7 Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinions; and permit requirements are referenced. 8 Certain sections of this INRMP begin with standardized, USAF-wide “common text” language that address 9 USAF and Department of Defense (DoD) policy and federal requirements. This common text language is 10 restricted from editing to ensure that it remains standard throughout all plans. Immediately following the 11 USAF-wide common text sections is a general overview of the PRSC installations. Given the number of 12 PRSC installations addressed in this INRMP, a separate appendix (Appendix H) has been prepared that 13 provides installation-specific content. The general and installation-specific sections are unrestricted and are 14 maintained and updated by USAF environmental Installation Support Teams and/or installation personnel. 15 Only species common names are used throughout this INRMP. Scientific names for all flora and fauna 16 species mentioned in the text can be found in Appendix H. 17 NOTE: The terms Natural Resources Manager (NRM) and ‘NRM/Point of Contact (POC) are used 18 throughout this document to refer to the installation person responsible for the natural resources program, 19 regardless of whether this person meets the qualifications within the definition of a natural resources 20 management professional in DoD Instruction 4715.03, Natural Resources Conservation Program (August 21 31, 2018). PRSC, 611 CES INRMP Update Draft Edition 1 February 2020 [This page intentionally left blank.] PRSC, 611 CES INRMP Update Draft Edition 1 February 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. ES-1 1. OVERVIEW AND SCOPE .............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Purpose ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1.2 Scope ......................................................................................................................................... 2 1.1.3 Function ..................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Management Philosophy .................................................................................................................. 4 1.2.1 Interdisciplinary INRMP Development .................................................................................... 5 1.2.1.1 Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) ................................................................ 6 1.2.1.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) ......................................................................... 6 1.2.1.3 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) ..................................................................... 7 1.2.1.4 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) ............................................................................... 7 1.2.2 Ecosystem Management Principles ........................................................................................... 7 1.3 Authority .......................................................................................................................................... 8 1.3.1 Sikes Act ................................................................................................................................... 8 1.3.2 DoD Authorities ........................................................................................................................ 9 1.3.3 U.S. Air Force Authorities ...................................................................................................... 10 1.3.3.1 AFI 32-7064, Integrated Natural Resources Management (November 22, 2016) .......... 10 1.3.3.2 Other Air Force Policy .................................................................................................... 10 1.3.4 Other Related Authorities ........................................................................................................ 10 1.3.4.1 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) (16 USC §1451 et seq.) ................................. 10 1.3.4.2 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) ....................................... 10 1.3.4.3 State of Alaska ................................................................................................................ 11 1.4 Integration with Other Plans and Environmental Functions .......................................................... 11 1.4.1 BASH Plan .............................................................................................................................. 11 1.4.2 Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPMP) .............................................................................. 11 1.4.3 ICRMP .................................................................................................................................... 12 1.4.4 Master Plan .............................................................................................................................. 12 2. INSTALLATION PROFILE ......................................................................................................... 12 2.1 Installation Overview ..................................................................................................................... 12 2.1.1 Location and Area ................................................................................................................... 12 2.1.2 Installation History .................................................................................................................. 14 2.1.2.1 Air Stations ..................................................................................................................... 14 2.1.2.2 General Radar Sites ......................................................................................................... 14 2.1.2.3 Inactive Sites ................................................................................................................... 15 2.1.3 Military Missions .................................................................................................................... 16 2.1.4 Surrounding Communities ...................................................................................................... 16 2.1.5 Local and Regional Natural Areas .......................................................................................... 16 2.2 Physical Environment .................................................................................................................... 16 2.2.1 Climate .................................................................................................................................... 16 2.2.1.1 Climate Change ............................................................................................................... 17 2.2.2 Topography ............................................................................................................................. 21 2.2.3 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................... 21 2.2.4 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................ 22 i PRSC, 611 CES INRMP Update Draft Edition 1 February 2020 2.3 Biotic Environment ........................................................................................................................ 22 2.3.1 Ecoregion Classification .......................................................................................................... 22 2.3.1.1 Ahklun Mountains........................................................................................................... 23 2.3.1.2 Alaska Peninsula ............................................................................................................. 23 2.3.1.3 Aleutian Islands............................................................................................................... 25 2.3.1.4 Beaufort Coastal Plain ...................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Elmendorf Air Force Base (Afb)
    ELMENDORF AIR FORCE BASE (AFB) Contract Details Contract Type: Energy Efficiency; Energy Savings Performance Contract; Guaranteed Energy Savings; Natural Gas Facility Size: Nearly 800 buildings; Over 9.3 million sq. feet Energy Project Size: Elmendorf Air Force Base, located in Anchorage, Alaska, comprises nearly 800 facilities and spans 9.3 million square feet of multi-use space. Ameresco $48.8 million implemented an ESPC, which included supplying the base with natural gas and decentralizing the heating system. Energy Savings: Customer Benefits (CHPP) with a modern and high-efficiency system. Over 1 million MMBtu The Elmendorf Air Force Base entered a partnership Ameresco’s insightful and thorough review of the with Ameresco to design and implement an energy project concept indicated the infrastructure to support savings performance contract (ESPC). The project the CHPP was failing and too expensive to repair. After Capacity: utilized locally available natural gas as an energy additional discussions concerning security and 5.6 MW component. Ameresco took into consideration the Elmendorf’s future growth projections, converting the setting and brief construction time frame for on-time CHPP to a decentralized heating system with the project completion. Elmendorf achieved its sustain- capability to receive their full electricity requirements ability goals and reduced energy use without redundantly from the local utility became the project’s compromising its mission. This project alone made new direction. Elmendorf’s energy reduction goals and has had a Summary major impact on the Air Force’s goals with annual Thorough consideration to provide the Ameresco developed the new project scope, managed a energy savings of over 1 million MMBtu.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Land Use Study
    Fairbanks North Star Borough Joint Land Use Study United States Army, Fort Wainwright United States Air Force, Eielson Air Force Base Fairbanks North Star Borough, Planning Department July 2006 Produced by ASCG Incorporated of Alaska Fairbanks North Star Borough Joint Land Use Study Fairbanks Joint Land Use Study This study was prepared under contract with Fairbanks North Star Borough with financial support from the Office of Economic Adjustment, Department of Defense. The content reflects the views of Fairbanks North Star Borough and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Economic Adjustment. Historical Hangar, Fort Wainwright Army Base Eielson Air Force Base i Fairbanks North Star Borough Joint Land Use Study Table of Contents 1.0 Study Purpose and Process................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................1 1.2 Study Objectives ............................................................................................................ 2 1.3 Planning Area................................................................................................................. 2 1.4 Participating Stakeholders.............................................................................................. 4 1.5 Public Participation........................................................................................................ 5 1.6 Issue Identification........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Public Law 161 CHAPTER 368 Be It Enacted Hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the ^^"'^'/Or^ C ^ United States Of
    324 PUBLIC LAW 161-JULY 15, 1955 [69 STAT. Public Law 161 CHAPTER 368 July 15.1955 AN ACT THa R 68291 *• * To authorize certain construction at inilitai-y, naval, and Air F<n"ce installations, and for otlier purposes. Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the an^^"'^'/ord Air Forc^e conc^> United States of America in Congress assembled^ struction TITLE I ^'"^" SEC. 101. The Secretary of the Army is authorized to establish or develop military installations and facilities by the acquisition, con­ struction, conversion, rehabilitation, or installation of permanent or temporary public works in respect of the following projects, which include site preparation, appurtenances, and related utilities and equipment: CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES TECHNICAL SERVICES FACILITIES (Ordnance Corps) Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: Troop housing, community facilities, utilities, and family housing, $1,736,000. Black Hills Ordnance Depot, South Dakota: Family housing, $1,428,000. Blue Grass Ordnance Depot, Kentucky: Operational and mainte­ nance facilities, $509,000. Erie Ordnance Depot, Ohio: Operational and maintenance facilities and utilities, $1,933,000. Frankford Arsenal, Pennsylvania: Utilities, $855,000. LOrdstown Ordnance Depot, Ohio: Operational and maintenance facilities, $875,000. Pueblo Ordnance Depot, (^olorado: Operational and maintenance facilities, $1,843,000. Ked River Arsenal, Texas: Operational and maintenance facilities, $140,000. Redstone Arsenal, Alabama: Research and development facilities and community facilities, $2,865,000. E(.>ck Island Arsenal, Illinois: Operational and maintenance facil­ ities, $347,000. Rossford Ordnance Depot, Ohio: Utilities, $400,000. Savanna Ordnance Depot, Illinois: Operational and maintenance facilities, $342,000. Seneca Ordnance Depot, New York: Community facilities, $129,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations
    Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations Revised Report and Documentation Prepared for: Department of Defense U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Submitted by: January 2004 Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations: Revised Report and Documentation CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary..........................................................................................iii 2.0 Introduction – Project Description................................................................. 1 3.0 Methods ................................................................................................................ 3 3.1 NatureServe Data................................................................................................ 3 3.2 DOD Installations............................................................................................... 5 3.3 Species at Risk .................................................................................................... 6 4.0 Results................................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Nationwide Assessment of Species at Risk on DOD Installations..................... 8 4.2 Assessment of Species at Risk by Military Service.......................................... 13 4.3 Assessment of Species at Risk on Installations ................................................ 15 5.0 Conclusion and Management Recommendations.................................... 22 6.0 Future Directions.............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • LEGISLATIVE BUDGET and AUDIT COMMITTEE Division of Legislative Audit
    LEGISLATIVE BUDGET AND AUDIT COMMITTEE Division of Legislative Audit P.O. Box 113300 Juneau, AK 99811-3300 (907) 465-3830 FAX (907) 465-2347 [email protected] SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Spill Prevention and Response, Oil and Hazardous Substance Release Prevention and Response Fund, March 18, 2008. PURPOSE OF THE REPORT In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted a performance audit of the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Division of Spill Prevention and Response (Division). Specifically, we were asked to review the expenditures and cost recovery revenues from the Oil and Hazardous Substance Release Prevention and Response Fund (Fund). REPORT CONCLUSIONS The conclusions are as follows: all expenditures are not recorded according to activities compliance with statutory cost recovery requirements is unclear Division is not efficiently and effectively recovering costs most expenditures were appropriate legal costs need an improved budgeting process certain contractual oversight practices are weak detailed information on the Fund’s financial activities is incomplete During the audit we reviewed a $9 million reimbursable services agreement between the Division and the Department of Law for legal services related to two transit pipeline spills on the North Slope. The contract was funded by the Response Account without specific legislative appropriation. It would have been more prudent to follow the established legislative budget process, especially for long-term legal activities. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Division Director should improve the accountability for the Division’s activities and reporting of Fund expenditures.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 59/Monday, March 29, 1999/Rules
    14972 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 59 / Monday, March 29, 1999 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Airspace Management, Federal Aviation comments on the proposal to the FAA. Administration, 800 Independence The FAA received 11 written comments Federal Aviation Administration Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; in response to the proposal to modify telephone (202) 267±8783. the Anchorage, Alaska, Terminal Area 14 CFR Part 93 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (Notice 97±14). These commenters [Docket No. 29029; Amendment No. 93±77] included the following parties: the Air Background Transport Association; Anchorage RIN 2120±AG45 On December 17, 1991, the FAA International Airport; Alaskan Aviation published, in the Federal Register, the Anchorage, Alaska, Terminal Area Safety Foundation; Alaska Airmen's Airspace Reclassification Final Rule (56 Association, Inc.; Department of the AGENCY: Federal Aviation FR 65638). This rule reclassified various Army; State of Alaska Department of Administration (FAA), DOT. airspace designations and deleted the Transportation and Public Facilities; ACTION: Final rule. term ``Airport Traffic Area.'' These and other concerned citizens. All changes were designed to apply to all comments received were considered SUMMARY: This action amends similarly designated airspace areas. before making a determination on this regulations regarding aircraft operations However, Title 14 of the Code of Federal final rule. The following is an analysis in the Anchorage, Alaska, Terminal Regulations (14 CFR) part 93, subpart D of the substantive comments received Area. Specifically, this action revises was not amended to reflect the airspace and the Agency's responses. the description of the Anchorage, reclassification effort. Alaska, Terminal Area and the In this action, the FAA amends the Analysis of Comments Communications requirements for regulations set forth at part 93, subpart Lake Hood Segment operating in the area; adds a new D, to reflect airspace designations in the segment, with communication and vicinity of Anchorage, Alaska.
    [Show full text]
  • Ntsb/Aar-73/01
    - I’ N A T I. 0 N . .\I __. A .’ ‘~, ~Pan:,~~~~~~.~AirwayS, Ltd, L :. .~ b&ha -3lOC, N1812H ;:. T .,.” I R Missing Between . A Anchorage and Juneau, Alaska N S P 0 R T A T I 0 N S A F E .T Y .dOC 3 N 1st~ 3 AAH 73/01 4 c.2 c.2 3 3 _ L. r 8 File No. 3-0604 AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT REPO~RT I Pan Alaska Airways, Ltd. Cessna 31OC, N1812H Missing Between Anchorage and Juneau, Alaska October 16, 1972 ADOPTED: January 31, 1973 / NATIONAL TRANSPORTAjlON SAFETY BOARD Washington, D. C. 20591 Report Number: NTSB-AAR-73-1 I TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE I. Report No. 2.Government Accession No. 3.Recipient's Catalog No. NTSB-AAR-73-1 +. Title and Subtitle 5.Report Date Pan Alaska Airways, Ltd., Cessna 31OC, N3812H Janu r-v 31. 1973 Missing between Anchorage and Juneau, Alaska 6.Perfaorming Organization 1972 Code 8.Performing Organization Report No. 3. Performing Organization Name and Address lO.Work Unit No. National Transportation Safety Board Bureau of Aviation ‘Safety ll.Contract or Grant No. Washington, D. C. 20591 13.Type of Report and Period Covered 12.Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Aircraft .\ccident Report October 16, 1972 NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD Washington, D. C. 20591 14.Sponsoring Agency Code 15.Supplementary Notes 16.Abstract Sl812H, a Cessna 3lDC operated by the chief pilot of Pan .Alaska .liWa!s, Ltd., disappeared on a flight from Anchorage to Juneau, .Alaska, on October 16, 1972. In addition to the pilot, three passengers, including two 11.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Army National Guard Bryant Army Airfield BASH Final EA
    Alaska Army National Guard Bryant Army Airfield BASH Final EA APPENDIX H. AKARNG OPERATIONAL NOISE MANAGEMENT PLAN H-1 ALASKA ARMY NATIONAL GUARD OPERATIONAL NOISE MANAGEMENT PLAN July 2005 ALASKA ARMY NATIONAL GUARD OPERATIONAL NOISE MANAGEMENT PLAN July 2005 Prepared By: Operational Noise Program Directorate of Environmental Health Engineering U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine 5158 Blackhawk Road Aberdeen Proving Ground Maryland, 21010-5403 AK ARNG Operational Noise Management Plan July 2005 CONTENTS Paragraphs Page 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 General ..................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.1 History of Noise Controversy ....................................................................... 1-1 1.1.2 The Risk to Military Installations ................................................................. 1-2 1.1.3 Contending with the Risk ............................................................................. 1-4 1.1.4 The Army's Operational Noise Management Plan ....................................... 1-4 1.2 Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 1-4 1.3 Objectives ................................................................................................................. 1-4 1.4 Content ..................................................................................................................... 1-5 2 NOISE MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Decision Analysis Methodology to Evaluate Integrated Solid Waste Management Alternatives for a Remote Alaskan Air Station
    Air Force Institute of Technology AFIT Scholar Theses and Dissertations Student Graduate Works 3-2001 Decision Analysis Methodology to Evaluate Integrated Solid Waste Management Alternatives for a Remote Alaskan Air Station Mark J. Shoviak Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.afit.edu/etd Part of the Environmental Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Shoviak, Mark J., "Decision Analysis Methodology to Evaluate Integrated Solid Waste Management Alternatives for a Remote Alaskan Air Station" (2001). Theses and Dissertations. 4696. https://scholar.afit.edu/etd/4696 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Graduate Works at AFIT Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of AFIT Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DECISION ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY TO EVALUATE INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR A REMOTE ALASKAN AIR STATION THESIS Mark J. Shoviak, Captain, USAF AFIT/GEE/ENV/01M-20 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR UNIVERSITY AIR FORCE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED. The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the U. S. Government. AFIT/GEE/ENV/01M-20 DECISION ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY TO EVALUATE INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR A REMOTE ALASKAN AIR STATION THESIS Presented to the Faculty Department of Systems and Engineering Management Graduate School of Engineering and Management Air Force Institute of Technology Air University Air Education and Training Command In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Engineering and Environmental Management Mark J.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 2013
    INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN 2013 611th Air Support Group Alaska Installations U.S. AIR FORCE, 611th AIR SUPPORT GROUP, ALASKA 611th CIVIL ENGINEER SQUADRON, ASSESSMENT MANAGEMENT INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN 2013 611th Air Support Group, Alaska Installations This revised Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) meets requirements of the Sikes Act (16 USC 670a et seq.) as amended and as approved in previous plans in 2007, 2008, and 2009 by the 611th Air Support Group Commander, the Alaska Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game commissioner. Use and mission of the installations have not significantly changed since approval of the previous plans. The Short and Long Range Radar Sites and Eareckson Air Station INRMPs were approved for use in 2007; the King Salmon Airport INRMP was approved for use in 2008; and the Inactive Sites INRMP was approved for use in 2009. They will remain in use until replaced by the final version of this plan. The primary change in this revised INRMP is that of format to follow guidance provided in Air Force Instruction 32-7064. This INRMP also groups installations from the four previous plans into one document. Data specific to each installation and management goals, objectives, and projects have also been updated and included in this revision. Sikes Act Cooperating Agencies* ROBYN M. BURK, Colonel, USAF Commander 611th Air Support Group GEOFFREY HASKETT Regional Director, Region 7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service *Above signatures are digital copies of originals, which are on file at the 611th Air Support Group.
    [Show full text]
  • Black History in the Last Frontier
    Black History in the Last History Black Frontier Black History Black History in the Last Frontier provides a chronologically written narrative to encompass the history of African Americans in in the Last Frontier Alaska. Following an evocative foreword from activist and community organizer, Ed Wesley, the book begins with a discussion of black involvement in the Paciÿc whaling industry during the middle and late-nineteenth century. It then discusses how the Gold Rush and the World Wars shaped Alaska and brought thousands of black migrants to the territory. °e ÿnal chapters analyze black history in Alaska in our contemporary era. It also presents a series of biographical sketches of notable black men and women who passed through or settled in Alaska and contributed to its politics, culture, and social life. °is book highlights the achievements and contributions of Alaska’s black community, while demonstrating how these women and men have endured racism, fought injustice, and made a life and home for themselves in the forty-ninth state. Indeed, what one then ÿnds in this book is a history not well known, a history of African Americans in the last frontier. Ian C. Hartman / Ed Wesley C. Hartman Ian National Park Service by Ian C. Hartman University of Alaska Anchorage With a Foreword by Ed Wesley Black History in the Last Frontier by Ian C. Hartman With a Foreword by Ed Wesley National Park Service University of Alaska Anchorage 1 Hartman, Ian C. Black History in the Last Frontier ISBN 9780996583787 National Park Service University of Alaska Anchorage HIS056000 History / African American Printed in the United States of America Edited by Kaylene Johnson Design by David Freeman, Anchorage, Alaska.
    [Show full text]
  • Elmendorf Air Force Base, Operable Unit 3
    PB97-964606 EPA/541/R-97/050 November 1997 EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Elmendorf Air Force Base, Operable Unit 3, Greater Anchorage Borough, AK 12/5/1996 - < UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ELMENDORF AIR FORCE BASE, ALASKA - ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROGRAM OPERABLE UNIT 3 RECORD OF DECISION FINAL JANUARY 1997 DCN 97-269-109-12 RCN F33615-90-D-4013 DO 0009 UNITED STATES.AIR FORCE ELMENDORF AIR FORCE BASE, ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROGRAM OPERABLE UNIT 3 RECORD OF DECISION FINAL JANUARY 1997 [This page intentionally left blank.] TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PART I. DECLARATION . I-i PART II. DECISION SUMMARY ................................................ II-i 1.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION .................................. 1-1 1.1 Physical Description ................................................... 1-1 1.2 Land Use ............................................................ 1-4 1.3 Hydrogeology and Groundwater Use ...................................... 1-4 2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES .............................. 2-l 2.1 Identification of Activities Leading to Current Contamination at OU 3 ............ 2-1 2.2 Regulatory and Enforcement History ...................................... 2-2 2.3 Role of Response Action ................................................ 2-3 2.4 Community Participation ................................................ 2-3 3.0 SITE CONTAMINATION, RISKS, AND AREAS REQUIRING RESPONSE ACTIONS .................................................................. 3-1 3 .I Nature and Extent
    [Show full text]