No Action Alternative - Defense Logistics Agency

savagecowcreekMécanique

22 févr. 2014 (il y a 3 années et 8 mois)

87 vue(s)







ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT




ADDRESSING THE DEMOL
ITION OF
BUILDINGS 10, 11
,

AND

67

AT DEFENSE SUPPLY CE
NTER RICHMOND,
VIRGINIA

DEFENSE
SUPPLY CENTER RICHMO
ND, VIRGINIA



ACRONYMS

AND ABBREVIATIONS


ACM

asbestos
-
containing material

AST

aboveground storage tank

AQCR

Air
Quality Control Region

CEQ

Council on Environmental Quality

CFR

Code of Federal Regulations

CO

carbon monoxide

CO
2

carbon dioxide

CZMA

Coastal Zone Management Act

dBA

A
-
weighted decibel

DLA

Defense Logistics Agency

DLAR

Defense Logistics Agency
Regulation

DOD

Department of Defense

EA

Environmental Assessment

EIS

Environmental Impact Statement

FONSI

Finding of No Significant Impact

ft
2

square foot

GHG

greenhouse gas

LBP

lead
-
based paint

msl

mean sea level

NEPA

National Environmental
Policy Act

NHPA

National Historic Preservation Act

NO
2

nitrogen dioxide

NO
x

nitrogen oxides

NRHP

Natural Register of Historic Places

O
3

ozone

PCB

polychlorinated biphenyl

PM
2.5

particulate matter equal to or less than
2.5 microns in diameter

PM
10

particulate matter equal to or less than
10 microns in diameter

SCI

State Capital Intrastate

SHPO

State Historic Preservation Officer

SO
2

sulfur dioxide

tpy

tons per year

USEPA

U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency

VOC

volatile organic compound




ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESS
MENT
ADDRESSING THE DEMOL
ITION OF BUILDINGS 1
0, 11
,

AND

67
AT DEFENSE SUPP
LY CENTER RICHMOND,
VIRGINIA

Responsible Agency
:

Defense Logistics Agency (DLA).

Affected Location:

Defense
Supply Center Richmond, Virgi
nia.

Report Designation:

Environmental Assessment (EA).

Abstract:

Under the Proposed Action, t
he DLA
would

demolish

two warehouses (Buildings 10 and 11)
and one former heat plant (Building 67)

at
Defense Supply Center
Richmond, Virginia
.

Demolition
would entail complete removal of the structures to grade, capping of utilities below grade, removal of
surrounding pavements, and establishment of natural (grass) cover and landscaping.

The purpose of the
P
roposed
A
ction i
s to implement the goals
for modernizing the installation as
laid out
in the Master Plan
.


A key component of the Master Plan is mission evolution, which emphasizes
administrative, logistical, and operational services over warehousing.

The
P
roposed
A
ction

is needed to
reduce excess warehouse capacity, reduce building operation and maintenance costs, reduce utility costs,
reduce fire protection costs,
and
increase permeable surface area while allowing
t
he installation

to fulfill
its mission and properly pos
ition itself for future growth
.

Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed demolitions would not occur. The warehouses and former
heat plant would remain intact and would continue to accrue operational and maintenance costs for the
duration
of the pe
riod that
they are in existence. Because the No Action Alternative would maintain the
buildings in their current conditions, no change to existing environmental conditions would
be expected.
The No Action Alternative would not meet the purpose of and nee
d for the action
.

No significant effects on environmental resources would be expected from the Proposed Action.
Insignificant, adverse effects on noise, air quality,
geological resources, water resources, and solid waste

would be expected.
Insignificant,

beneficial effects on air quality and water resources also would be
expected.

No effects on cultural resources would be expected following consultation and mitigation.




This page intentionally left blank


i


DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTE
R RICHMOND, VA | ENV
IRONMENTAL ASSESSMEN
T

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS
AND ABBREVIATIONS

................................
...................

INSIDE FRONT COVER

ABSTRACT

1.

PROPOSED

ACTION PURPOSE AND N
EED

................................
................................

1

1.1

Introduction

................................
................................
................................
..........

1

1.2

Purpose of and Need for Proposed
Action

................................
...........................

1

1.3

Summary of Key Environmental Compliance Requirements

................................

1

1.3.1

National Environmental Policy Act

................................
............................

1

1.3.2

Applicable Envir
onmental and Regulatory Compliance

.............................

3

1.4

Agency Coordination and Public Involvement

................................
......................

3

2.0

PROPOSED ACTION AND
ALTERNATIVES DESCRIP
TION

................................
........

5

2.1

Proposed Action

................................
................................
................................
..

5

2.2

No Action Alternative

................................
................................
...........................

5

2.3

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Analysis

..........................

5

3.0

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

AND ENVIRONMENTAL CO
NSEQUENCES

...................

9

3.1

Noise

................................
................................
................................
...................

9

3.1.1

Existing Conditions

................................
................................
...................

9

3.1.2

Environmental Consequences

................................
................................

10

3.2

Air Quality

................................
................................
................................
..........

10

3.2.1

Existing Conditions

................................
................................
.................

10

3.2.2

Environmental Consequences

................................
................................

11

3.3

Geological Resources

................................
................................
........................

12

3.3.
1

Existing Conditions

................................
................................
.................

12

3.3.2

Environmental Consequences

................................
................................

13

3.4

Water Resources

................................
................................
...............................

13

3.4.1

Existing Conditions

................................
................................
.................

13

3.
4.2

Environmental Consequences

................................
................................

13

3.5

Biological Resources

................................
................................
.........................

15

3.5.1

Existing Conditions

................................
................................
.................

15

3.5.2

Environmental Consequences

................................
................................

15

3.6

Cultural Resources

................................
................................
............................

15

3.6.1

Existing Conditions

................................
................................
.................

15

3.6.2

Environmental Consequences

................................
................................

16

3.7

Hazardous Materials and Wastes

................................
................................
......

17

3.7.1

Existing Conditions

................................
................................
.................

17

3.7.2

Environmental Consequences

................................
................................

18


ii


DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTE
R RICHMOND, VA | ENV
IRONMENTAL ASSESSMEN
T

3.8

Solid Waste

................................
................................
................................
........

19

3.8.1

Existing Conditions

................................
................................
.................

19

3.
8.2

Environmental Consequences

................................
................................

19

4.0

CUMULATIVE AND OTHER

EFFECTS

................................
................................
........

21

4.1

Cumulative Effects

................................
................................
.............................

21

4.2

Unavoidable Adverse Effects

................................
................................
.............

23

4.3

Compatibility of the Proposed Action and Alternatives with the Objectives of
Federal, Regional, State, and Local Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls

.....

23

4.4

Relationship Between Short
-
term Uses of Man’s Environment and Maintenance
and Enhancement of Long
-
term Productivity

................................
......................

23

4.5

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

................................
....

23

4.6

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential

................................
.............

23

4.7

Natural or Depletable Resource Requirement
s and Conservation Potential

.......

24

5.0

CONCLUSIONS

................................
................................
................................
............

25

6.0

REFERENCES

................................
................................
................................
..............

27

7.0

LIST OF PR
EPARERS

................................
................................
................................
.

29


FIGURES

Figure

1.1

Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia, and Vicinity

................................
.....

2

Figure

2.1

Buildings to be Demolished at Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia

..........

6

Figure 2.2

Photograph of Building 10

................................
................................
....................

7

Figure 2
.3

Photograph of Building 11

................................
................................
....................

7

Figure 2.4

Photograph of Building 67

................................
................................
....................

8

Figure 3.1

Environmental Constraints at Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia

.........

14


TABLES

Table 3.1

Predicted Noise Levels from Demolition Activities

................................
..............

10

Table 3.2

Current Estimated Air Emissions at the Installation

................................
............

11

Table 3.3

Estimated Air Emissions Resulting from the Proposed Action

............................

12

Table 3.4

Estimated CO
2
Emissions from the Proposed Action

................................
..........

12

Table 4.1

Projects Identified for Potential Cumulative Effects

................................
............

21

Table 4.2

Estimate of Debris Generated from Planned Demolition Projects

.......................

22

Table 5.1

Potential Impacts of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative

............

25


1


DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTE
R RICHMOND
, VA

| ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE
SSMENT

1.

PROPOSED

ACTION PURPOSE AND N
EED

1.1

Introduction

Defense Supply Center Richmond
, Virginia,

(hereafter “installation”)

is a 61
1
-
acre
Defense Logistics
Agency (DLA) facility
i
n Chesterfield County, Virginia, just south of the City of Richmond

(
see

Figure

1.1
)
.

The installation

serves as the primary source of aviation supply items for the
DLA

and
is home to several different DLA tenant organizations. The installation and its tenant organizations
employ 2,400 civilian employees, 400 contract workers, and 45 military service members (DOD 2013).


This Environmental Assessment (EA) describes the

DLA’s
proposed demolition
of
two vacant
warehouses (Buildings 10 and 11) and one former warehouse support structure (a former oil
-
fired heat
plant, B
uilding 67)

at
the
installation
.
This EA also describes alternatives to the Proposed Action,
including th
e No Action Alternative.

This EA also analyzes the potential for significant environmental impacts associated with the Proposed
Action and alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. T
his EA
has been prepared

in compliance
with the National Environ
mental Policy Act (NEPA); Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
regulations implementing NEPA (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulatio
ns [CFR] Parts 1500

1508);
U.S.

Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 6050.1, Environmental Considerations in DOD Actions;
DLA

Regulation (DLAR) 1000.22, Environmental Considerations in Defense Logistics Agency Actions;
and
other
applicable

DLA issuances.

1.2

Purpose of and Need for Proposed Action

The purpose of the
P
roposed
A
ction is to implement the goals for modernizing the
insta
llation

as laid out
in the Master Plan (
DSCR

2010
b
)
.
A key component of the Master Plan is mission evolution
,

which
emphasizes administrative, logistical, and operational services over warehousing
.
To

support
the

installation
’s mission, excess warehouse assets need to be
repurposed

or
demolished
.

The Proposed Action is needed to reduce excess warehouse capacity, reduce building operation and
maintenance costs, reduce utility costs, reduce fire protection costs, and increase
permeable surface area
while allowing the installation to fulfill its mission and properly position itself for future growth
.

Maintaining
B
uildings
10, 11, and 67
with minor renovations over a 15
-
year period
i
s projected to
cost
$4,745,220 (
DSCR

2009b)
.
Furthermore, the ages, sizes, and structural characteristics of these buildings
do not lend themselves to viable repurposing options. Therefore, the DLA determined these buildings are
not necessary to fulfil
l future mission requirements.

1.3

Summary of Key En
vironmental Compliance Requirements

1.3.1

National Environmental Policy Act

The process for implemen
ting NEPA is outlined in 40 CFR

Parts 1500

1508. The CEQ was established
under NEPA to implement and oversee Federal policy in this process. The CEQ regulations

specify that
an EA be prepared to provide evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). As part of the EA process,
DLA will determine whether the Proposed A
ction would have the potential to result in

significant
impacts. If such impacts are predicted, then DLA would decide whether to
mitigate

impacts below the
level of significance, undertake the preparation of an EIS, or select the
No

Action Alternative
.
The
DLA’s implementing regulation for NEPA is DLAR
1000.22, Environmental Considerations in Defense
Logistics Agency Actions
.


2


DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTE
R RICHMOND
, VA

| ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE
SSMENT


Figure

1
.
1

Defense Supply Center Richmond
, Virginia,

and Vicinity



3


DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTE
R RICHMOND
, VA

| ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE
SSMENT

1.3.2

Applicable Environmental and Regulatory Compliance

The NEPA process does not replace procedural or substantive requirements of other environmental
statutes and regulations. It addresses them collectively in the form of an EA or EIS, which enables the
decisionmaker to have a comprehensive view of major env
ironmental issues and requirements associated
with the Proposed Action.

1.4

A
gency Coordination and Public Involvement

DLAR 1000.22 requires DLA to facilitate coordination with Federal, state, and local officials and
organizations that could be affected by a

proposed action.
T
he
P
roposed
A
ction
addressed by this EA
would

occur
within the Bellwood
-
Richmond Quartermaster Depot Historic District
, which
is eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places

(NRHP)
.
Buildings 10 and 11 are contributing
resources to the
Bellwood
-
Richmond Quartermaster Depot Historic District
, but Building 67 is a non
-
contributing building.
Pursuant to the
National Historic Preservation Act (
NHPA
)
, the State Historic
Preservation Offic
er
(SHPO)
was contacted and
Section 106 consultation
has

been
initiated for Building
10
.

DLA Installation Support at Richmond has not initiated the Section 106 process for the demolition of
Building 11 and did not include the demolition of Building 11 in
the proposed modernization of Defense
Supply Center Richmond project. DLA Installation Support at Richmond anticipates initiating Section
106

consultation

when funding for the demolition of Building 11 is proposed.

Refer to
Section 3.6

for
additional det
ails.

Virginia
’s

Coastal Zone Management Program incorporates statutes that protect and enhance Virginia’s
coastal
conservation, recreational, ecological, and aesthetic values

in accordance with the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA)

(VADEQ 20
13
).
Because

the installation is within the coastal zone
of

Virginia, a coastal zone consistency review is required under the CZMA to
ensure that
Federal

actions
that
could
affect coastal resources
would be

in compliance with
Virginia’s Coastal Zone Management
Program
.
DLA

has prepared a consistency
review and has determined that

the Proposed Action
would be
consistent with the policies of
Virginia’s Coastal Zone Management Program
.

DLA invites
all agencies and the public with an interest in the Proposed Action
and al
ternatives
to
participate in this NEPA process
, which provide
s

DLA with the opportunity to coordinate with and
consider the views of other agencies and individuals
.

A premise of NEPA is that the quality of Federal
decisions will be enhanced if proponents
provide information to the public and involve the public in the
planning process.


4


DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTE
R RICHMOND
, VA

| ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE
SSMENT

This page intentionally lef
t blank


5


DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTE
R RICHMOND
, VA

| ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE
SSMENT

2.0

PROPOSED

ACTION

AND

ALTERNATIVES

DESCRIPTION

2.1

Proposed Action

DLA proposes to demolish

two warehouses (
B
uildings 10 and 11) and one
former heat plant

(Building
67)

at Defense Supply Center Richmond, V
irginia
.
Demolition would entail complete removal of
the
structure
s

to grade, capping
of

utilities below grade, removal of surrounding pavement
s
, and
the
establishment of natural (grass) cover and landscaping.

Location
s

of the buildings
proposed for
demolition
(i.e., project area
s
)
are
shown in
Fi
gure 2.
1
.

Buildings 10 a
nd 11
were constructed in 1942 and

are
each 237,600 square feet (ft
2
)
(
DSCR

2009b)
.
The

warehouse
s have

brick end walls
, side walls, and firewalls; concrete columns;

concrete foundations and
floors; wood and steel trusses;

and wood roof decking

(see
Figur
es 2
.
2

and
2
.
3
)
.
Interior firewalls
subdivide the warehouses into bays
;
each
bay
contain
s

a large opening through which trucks and loading
equipment move materiel
.
A loading platform

extends
along
the
side

of each warehouse
.
The
loading
platforms once provided access to a railroad track.
Large doors and loading docks are situated on the
opposite side of each warehouse
.
Clerestory windows punctuate the entire length of each warehouse just
below the roof
.

Constructed in 1971,
Building 6
7 is a former heat plant
that
provided steam to
an
adjacent
building
(B
uilding 61
)

that
was demolished in 201
1

(
DSCR

2009b)
.
Building 67 is 330 ft
2

and

constructed

on a
concrete slab with cinder block
walls
and a built
-
up roof

(see
Figure 2
.
4
)
.

2.2

No
Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed
building
demolitions would not occur. The warehouses
and
former
heat plant would remain intact and
would
continue to
accrue
operational and maintenance
costs for the duration
of the period t
hat
they are in existence.
Because

the No Action Alternative would
maintain the buildings
in their current conditions
, no change to existing environmental conditions would
be expected.
The No Action Alternative would not meet the purpose of and need for
the action, as
described in
Section

1.2
.

2.3

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Analysis

DLA determined that there are no viable repurposing options for these buildings and that these buildings
are not necessary to fulfill future mission requ
irements
.
Therefore,
no other
alternatives were considered.



6


DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTE
R RICHMOND
, VA

| ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE
SSMENT


Figure

2.1

Buildings
to b
e Demolished

at Defense Supply Center Richmond, V
irginia



7


DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTE
R RICHMOND
, VA

| ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE
SSMENT


Figure 2.
2


Photograph of
Building 10


Figure 2.
3


Photograph of
Building 11


8


DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTE
R RICHMOND
, VA

| ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE
SSMENT


Figure 2
.
4


Photograph of
Building 67


9


DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTE
R RICHMOND
, VA

| ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE
SSMENT

3.0

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSEQUENCES

All environmental resource areas were initially evaluated for potential consequences. As a result of this
initial screening, the following environmental resource areas are
analyzed in detail
:
noise, air quality,
geological resources, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, hazardous materials and
wastes, and solid waste
.

The

environmental resource

area
s
not analyzed in detail

because the
y would not
be imp
acted or would have clearl
y
insignificant impacts
are as follows.

Airspace.

The Proposed Action
would neither occur

within d
esignated airspace, nor involve

activities
that would impact designated airspace or flight operations.

Recreation.

The Proposed
Action would not occur on or adjacent to recreational
areas; therefore, no
impacts on recreational activities or access to recreational areas would be expected.

Utilities
.

No impacts on
utilities

would occur. Water
, storm water, and sanitary sewer pipes,

and
electrical and communications lines are located in the vicinity of the
project area
. The Proposed Action
includes the

capping of
all

utilities

associated with the buildings proposed for demolition
. Because
the
utilities would be capped at the site o
f demolition, the Proposed Action would not affect utility services at
other buildings on the installation.

Land Use.

The Proposed Action would not result in changes to existing land use. Land use designation
at the
project areas

would remain Open and
Covered Storage.

Visual/Aesthetic Resources.

The Proposed Action would not be expected to result in long
-
term changes
to the aesthetic qualities of the area or landscape. The
project areas are

not visible to the general public
and
are

directly adjacent to
areas

where other warehouses have been demolished.

Socioeconomics.

No staff would be added to the installation under the Proposed Action. Workers
required for demolition activities would be readily supplied by the local labor force
. Because the
workforce would be local, no changes in population, housing, or the demand for public services from
construction workers and their dependents would be expected.

Environmental Justice.

T
he Proposed Action would occur entirely on the installa
tion in area
s

that
are

not adjacent or in
close
proximity to any low
-
income or minority popula
tions;

therefore
,

no changes to or
effects on these populations would be expected.


Health and Safety.

The Proposed Action would involve routine demolition; the
refore, no special health
and safety concerns have been identified. All construction contractors
are
responsible for consistently
following ground safety and Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations and
are

required
to conduct constructio
n activities in a manner that would not pose any undue risk to workers or the public.

Transportation.

The Proposed Action would involve negligible increases in traffic on local roads.
Heavy demolition vehicles would be driven to and kept on site for the duration of the Proposed Action,
thereby limiting the amount of demolition vehicle traffic. Addition
ally, demolition vehicles would enter
and exit the installation via the North Gate; a gate specifically designed and designated for trucks and
other large vehicles.

3.1

Noise

3.1.1

Existing Conditions

The
areas

of the Proposed Action are in an area of
the installa
tion

that is industrial in n
ature.
These

area
s

are

currently undergoing demolition of facilities unrelated to the
P
roposed
A
ction. Sources of noise in
these

area
s

primarily
include

heavy
-
duty
vehicles (
e.g.,
trucks, forklifts, and various construction and

10


DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTE
R RICHMOND
, VA

| ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE
SSMENT

demolition equipment).

T
he
three buildings
of the Proposed Action
are
200
and

800 feet from an active
CSX
railroad
that
borders the western side of the installation.
Therefore, trains using this railroad
ar
e

a
lso
a

common
source of noise on the installation.


Typical daytime ambient noise levels in industrial areas are
approximately 67 A
-
weighted decibels (dBA) (Engineering Toolbox 2013).

3.1.2

Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

Noise from
demolition

activ
ities would vary depending on the type of equipment being used, the area that
the action would occur in, and the distance from the noise source.
D
emolition
usually involves several
pieces of equipment that can be used simultaneously. The cumulative noise

from the
demolition

equipment during the busiest day was estimated to determine the total impact of noise from
demolition

activities at
various

distance
s
. Examples of expected
demolition

noise, during daytime hours, at specified
distances are shown in
Table 3.1
.

Table

3.1

Predicted Noise Levels from
Demolition

Activities

Distance from Noise Source

Predicted Noise Level

100 feet

89 dBA

200 feet

83 dBA

400 feet

77 dBA

800 feet

71 dBA

1,000 feet

65 dBA

1,200 feet

61 dBA


Short
-
term, minor, adverse effects on the noise environment would be expected; however, the effects
would not be significant. The noise from
demolition

equipment would be short
-
term, localized, and
intermittent.

The
Proposed Action

would result in noise
levels comparable to those in
Table 3.1
.

Construction workers could be exposed to noise levels above 90
dBA, which

is above the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration permissible noise exposure level. These
noise
levels would be reduced
to permis
sible levels through adminis
trative or engineering controls

or best management practices such as
hearing protection equipment.

Private residences approximately 1,000

feet east of Building 11 would be
exposed to demolition noise on the order of 65 dBA
;

a l
evel
that

is equivalent to normal conversation at
3

feet
.
Noise generation would last only for the duration of demolition activities and would be
controlled so
that noise would only occur during

normal working hours (i.e., between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.).

No Action Alternative

Existing
noise
conditions would remain the same as described in
Section 3.
1
.1
.

3.2

Air Quality

3.2.1

Existing Conditions

The National Ambient Air Quality Standards have been
established for the following list of criteria
pollutants: ozone (
O
3
), which is measured as nitrogen oxides (NO
x
) and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs); carbon monoxide (CO); nitrogen dioxide (NO
2
); sulfur dioxide (SO
2
); particulate matter equal to
or less

than 2.5 microns
in diameter
(PM
2.5
); particulate matter or equal to or less than 10 microns in
diameter [PM
10
]; and lead.
The installation is

in Chesterfield County, Virginia,
which
is

within
the State

11


DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTE
R RICHMOND
, VA

| ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE
SSMENT

Capital Intrastate (SC
I) Air Qualit
y Control Region

(AQCR).
The SCI AQCR (including Chesterfield
County) has been designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as
unclassified/attainment for all criteria pollutants except 8
-
hour O
3
(1997 standard).


The 8
-
hour O
3
(1997
standard) is
designated as maintenance for the area (USEPA 2013).


According to 40 CFR Part 81, no
Class I areas are within 10 kilometers of the installation.

The installation

maintains a Stationary Source Permit to Operate (Registration No. 50127). Air emissions
from

the installation are primarily produced from the burning of fuel oil
No.
2 and natural gas for heat and
hot water, and diesel fuel for emergency generators.
The installation

is not listed in the Virginia State
Implementation Plan as having a specific
air

conformity budget. Current actual emissions
for the
installation

are listed in
Table 3.2
.

Table

3.2

Current
Estimated Air Emissions
at
the Installation

NO
x

tpy

VOC

tpy

CO

tpy

SO
2

tpy

PM
10

tpy

PM
2.5

tpy

20.40

1.21

5.50

0.22

0.89

0.83

Source: DSCR
2013

Key
: tpy
-

tons per year

3.2.2

Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

Short
-
term,
minor
,

adverse
effects

on air quality would be expected; however, the effects would not be
significant. The demolition activities would generate ai
r pollutant emissions
during
site
-
disturbing
activities and operation of construction equipment.
Ground
-
disturbing activities, combustion of fuel by
construction equipment, and generation of fugitive dust during d
emolition activities would
temporarily
increase p
articulate emis
sions
.

The quantity of uncontrolled fugitive dust emissions from a construction
site
would be expected to be
proportional to the area of land being worked and the level of activity.
Emissions from demolition activities would be produced only
during

demoli
tion activities
. F
or the
purposes of this air quality analysis,
the total duration of emissions generation is
conservatively assumed
to be 240 workdays or 12 calendar months.


Demolition activities would incorporate
best management practices
to minimize
fugitive particulate
matter emissions. Additionally, the work vehicles are assumed to be well
-
maintained and could use
diesel particle filters to reduce emissions. Construction workers commuting daily to and from the job site
in their personal vehicles w
ould also
generate emissions of regulated

air
pollutant
s
.

Long
-
term, minor
,

beneficial effects on air quality would be expected from the removal of the
fuel oil
No.

2
boiler
in Building 11.

An air emissions analysis containing detailed calculations and as
sumptions was conducted for the
Proposed Action (HDR 2013).
Projected
air

emissions from demolition activities under the Proposed
Action
and applicable significance criteria
are summarized in
Table

3.3
.
In summary, the air emissions
from the Proposed
Action would be below all applicable significance criteria.


As stated in
Section 3.2.1
, the installation is located in an area that has been designated as
unclassified/attainment for all criteria pollutants except for 8
-
hour O
3
. However, since 2007, this

area has
been designated as an air quality maintenance area. Therefore, the General Conformity Rule
requirements are potentially applicable for O
3
.
Table 3.3

compares the estimated annual air emissions
from the Proposed Action to the
de minimis

threshol
d limits for Chesterfield County. Because the
projected air emissions from the Proposed Action would be well below
de

minimis

threshold limits, a
General Conformity determination would not be required.


12


DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTE
R RICHMOND
, VA

| ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE
SSMENT

Table

3
.
3

Estimated Air Emissions Resulting from the
Proposed Action

Activity

NO
x

tpy

VOC

tpy

CO

tpy

SO
2

tpy

PM
10

tpy

PM
2.5

tpy

CO
2

tpy

Combustion

9.042

0.536

3.575

0.735

0.547

0.530

1,052.918

Fugitive Dust

-

-

-

-

12.811

1.281

-

Haul Truck On
-
Road

0.747

0.070

0.399

0.002

0.024

0.023

193.682

Commuter

0.035

0.038

0.357

0.001

0.001

0.005

59.539

Total Demolition
Emissions

9.824

0.644

4.331

0.738

13.38
3

1.83
9

1,306.139

General Conformity

de
minimus
thresholds

100

50

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Source:
HDR 2013

Notes: All activities generate emissions from mobile sources unless indicated as stationary sources.

Key:
NA


Not

Applicable

T
he Proposed Action would contribute directly to emissions of
greenhouse gases (
GHGs
)
.
Because

CO
2

emissions account for appro
ximately 92 percent of all GHG emissions in the United States,
they

are used
for analysis of

GHG emissions
for
this assessment. The 2009 gross CO
2

emissions in Virginia and the
United States were 109.8 and 5,631.3 million metric tons, respectively (
USDOE
2011
).
Table 3.4

summarizes the anticipated amount of CO
2

emissions from the Proposed Action. These emissions would
represent a negligible contribution towards the statewide
and national GHG inventories
.

Table

3.4

Estimated
CO
2
Emissions from the Propos
ed Action

CO
2

emissions
(metric tpy)

Percent of Virginia’s
CO
2

Emissions

Percent of U.S. CO
2

Emissions

1,184.668

0.00108%

0.000022%

Source:
USDOE 2011

No Action Alternative

Existing
air quality
conditions would remain the same as described in
Section 3.
2
.1
. No new effects on
regional or local air quality would
be expected
.

3.3

Geological Resources

3.3.1

Existing

Conditions

The installation is located on the western edge of the eastward
-
thickening wedge of unconsolidated
sediments of the Virginia part of the Atla
ntic Coastal Plain physiographic province, about 2 miles east of
the Fall Line
.
The moderate topographic relief is the result of shallow excavations and filling for the
construction of the installation (USGS 1990).

Within the boundaries of the installati
on, the terrain contains slopes of less than 10 percent. Elevations at
the installation range from approximately
70

feet above mean sea level (msl) to approximately
1
3
0

feet
above msl.
Generally
, the developed portions of the installation
are
graded
flat
.

The s
oils
within the project areas

are
classified
as Made Land
,
which are areas where
the
soil material has
been removed or worked by machinery

(USDA

2013)
. The
se

soils
are not

prime farmland, unique
farmland, or
farm
land of statewide or local
importance
; therefore, they are

not subject to the Farmland
Protection Policy Act.


13


DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTE
R RICHMOND
, VA

| ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE
SSMENT

3.3.2

Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

Short
-
term,
negligible,
adverse effects on
geological resources

would be expected; however, the effects
would not be significant.


T
he soils
at the
project
areas
already
have
been disturbed and altered

by man
.
Additionally,

soil erosion
-

and sediment
-
control measures would be incorporated into site plans to
minimize long
-
term erosion and sediment production and transport.

No Actio
n Alternative

Existing
geological
conditions would remain as described in
Section 3.
3
.1
.
Therefore, n
o effects on
geological resources would be expected.

3.4

Water Resources

3.4.1

Existing Conditions

Groundwater
.

Two aquifers underlay the installation: the
Yorktown and Eastover Formations (upper
aquifer) and the Potomac Formation (lower aquifer). The Yorktown and Eastover Formations range from
the surface to approximately 25 feet below the ground surface. The Potomac Formation ranges from 40
to 60 feet bel
ow the ground surface. The aquifers are separated by the Calvert and Aquia Formations,
which act as a confining unit (USGS 1990).

Groundwater is not used for potable
water
or other uses at
the installation.

Surface Water
.

There are no surface water fe
atures within or adjacent to the project areas
.

The
installation lies entirely within the Lower James River watershed. Surface water is not used for potable
water
or other uses at the installation.

Floodplains
.

The
project areas are

outside of the 100
-
year floodplain

(see
Figure 3.1
)
.

3.4.2

Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action
.

Short
-
term,
negligible,
adverse
and long
-
term, negligible, beneficial
effects on
water resources

would
occur
; however, the effects would not be significant.

D
emolition
activities would not excavate deeply
enough to impact groundwater

and would not occur near surface waters or floodplains
. Therefore, the
Proposed Action would not exacerbate downstream flooding or modify floodplain characteristics.

Because the Proposed A
ction would result in ground disturbance greater than 2,500 square feet in a
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area, DLA and its authorized agents (demolition contractor) would prepare
and implement an er
osion and sediment control

plan. DLA
would

also register
for coverage under the
General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater from Construction Activities and develop a project specific
storm

water pollution prevention plan
, which

would

be prepared prior to submission of the registration
statement for co
verage und
er the General Permit.

T
he Proposed Action would result in an increase in permeable surface at the installation; a benefit for
storm water control and water quality. This increase would allow more precipitation to infiltrate the soil,
thereby decreasing
surface runoff and runoff
-
associated pollution.

No Action Alternative

Existing conditions would remain the same as described in
Section 3.4.1
. Therefore, no effects on water

resources would be expected.


14


DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTE
R RICHMOND
, VA

| ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE
SSMENT


Figure
3.1

Environmental Constraints

at
Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia


15


DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTE
R RICHMOND
, VA

| ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE
SSMENT

3.5

Biological

Resources

3.5.1

Existing Conditions

Vegetation
.

V
egetation
within and adjacent to the project areas consists of
mowed grassy areas situated
between buildings and roads.

Fish and Wildlife
.

T
he

installation
’s

Natural Resources Evalu
ation and Recommendations

list
s

the
wildlife

species

found within
the

installation

(
DSCR

2009a)
.

Wildlife potentially present

at the
project
areas

include

birds (e.g., warblers, thrush, heron, kinglet,
and
cuckoo), reptiles and amp
hibians (e.g.,
frogs, snakes, toads, and turtles), and mammals (e.g., mice, shrew, vole). Although not found during
a

2007 biological survey, it is probable that chipmunks, rabbits, and squirrels are also present.
Additionally
,
the

installation

supports a cat population that is either feral or stray.
Nuisance species birds
such as European starlings (
Sturnus vulgaris
) and house sparrows (
Passer domesticus
) m
ight

nest in or
around the vacant warehouses. These species are not included in the Mig
ratory Bird Treaty Act and
therefore have no protected status. Similarly
,

nuisance rodents such as mice and rats m
ight

occupy the
buildings.

Protected

Species
.

No

Federal
-

or state
-
listed threatened or endangered
wildlife
species

are known to
occur on

th
e

installation
. Further, no

critical habitats for
Federal
-

or state
-
listed threatened or endangered
wildlife
species

have

been designated on the installation
.
S
wamp pink (
Helonias bullata
), a federally
threatened plant, m
ight

occur on the installation (
USFWS

2013).

However
,

swamp pink

is found only in
freshwater wetlands, usually along streams and seepage areas (USFWS 1991).
Therefore, swamp pink
would not be found in or adjacent to the project areas.

Wetlands.

There are no wetlands
within

or adjacent

to the
project areas

(see
Figure 3.1
).
A wetland
survey conducted at the installation in 1997 confirmed

that the only wetland

located in the vicinity of the
Proposed Action
is

Parker Pond
, which is
approximately 1,000 feet from the
project areas

(
DSCR

20
09a).

3.5.2

Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

The
P
roposed
A
ction
would not be expected to

impact vegetation. The
project
area
s

are

already
developed
.
Upon completion of all demolition activities,
the
project areas

would
be graded and seeded
with a grass cover.

The Proposed Action
would not be expected to

impact fish and wildlife or their habitats.
There
is no
suitable habitat for wildlife at the
project areas
.

No special status wildlife species occur on the installat
ion; therefore, the Proposed Action would not be
expected to affect special status wildlife species. Swamp pink does not occur within the vicinity of the
project areas; therefore, no effects on this plant species would be expected.


No Action Alternative

Existing conditions would remain the same as described in
Section 3.5.1
.
Therefore, n
o
impacts

on
biological resources would be expected.

3.6

Cultural Resources

3.6.1

Existing Conditions

Several archaeological surveys have been conducted at
the installation

to identify and evaluate cultural
resources
.
All land within the installation has either been surveyed for archaeological sites or is

16


DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTE
R RICHMOND
, VA

| ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE
SSMENT

considered too disturbed to contain intact archaeological resources
.
All archaeological resources
discovered during surveys have been evaluated for eligibility for listing in the
NRHP
. T
hree
arch
a
eological sites have been determined eligib
le for listing: 44CF568, 44CF616
, and 44CF648
, none of
which are within or near the p
roject areas
.
Two cemeteries have also been recorded, including a relocated
African American cemetery and a cemetery associated with the Bellwood house and Gregory family
;
neither of which is within or near the project areas
.


A
n

historic resources invent
ory and evaluation of
the installation

was completed in 2004
.
The survey
included all buildings, objects, facilities, infrastructure, landscape elements, and open spaces
.
As a result,
the Bellwood
-
Richmond Quartermaster Depot Historic District was determ
ined eligible for listing in the
NRHP
.
The boundaries of the Bellwood
-
Richmond Quartermaster Depot Historic District are
coterminous with the installation boundaries; therefore, the project areas are within the NRHP
-
eligible
Bellwood
-
Richmond Quartermaster

Depot Historic District.


The Bellwood house, and its associated 2
3
acre
s
, was listed in the NRHP in 1977

(see cultural restricted area shown on
Figure 3.1
)
. A
revised
nomination for
the
Bellwood
house
was approved by the Virginia Department of Historic
Resources in
September 2011 and forwarded to the Keeper of the NRHP
.
No historic landscapes on
the installation

have been assessed for eligibility for listing in the NRHP (
DLA 2011
).

Building 67, a non
-
contributing structure within the NRHP
-
eligible Bellw
ood
-
Richmond Quartermaster
Depot Historic District, was constructed in 1971 as an auxiliary structure for Building 61, a large
warehous
e that was demolished in 2011.
Buildings 10 and 11, large warehouses constructed in 1942, are
contributing resources to
the NRHP
-
eligible Bellwood
-
Richmond Quartermaster Depot Historic District.

3.6.2

Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

Building 67, a non
-
contributing building within the Bellwood
-
Richmond Quartermaster Depot Historic
District, is located on the west side of the installation, approximately 325 feet from the nearest structure,
which is
Building 60
.
Building 67 is more than

4,000 feet from the nearest recorded archaeological site in
a disturbed area of the installation determined unlikely to have intact archaeological resources
.
The
building, more than 5,000 feet from the Bellwood house, is not visible from any part of the
23
-
acre parcel
included in the Bellwood nomination
.
Consequently, the demolition of Building 67 would have no effect
on any resources listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP, nor would the proposed demolition impact

cultural resources
.

Building 10,
a contributing resource to the Bellwood
-
Richmond Quartermaster Depot Historic District, is
located in a row of nearly identical warehouses on the west side of the installation
.
Building 10 is
approximately 1,500 feet from the nearest recorded archaeologic
al site and is in an area of the installation
determined unlikely to have intact archaeological resources due to previous ground disturbances
.
The
proposed demolition of Building 10
would not be expected to
have
an

effect under Section 106 of the
NHPA

on
any archaeological sites listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP
.
Building 10 is more than
3,500 feet from the Bellwood house and is not visible from any part of the 23
-
acre parcel included in the
Bellwood nomination
.
The proposed demolition of Bui
lding 10
would not be expected to
have
an

effect
under Section 106 of the NHPA on the NRHP
-
listed Bellwood

house
.

The Section 106
consultation
process for the demolition of Building 10 and
22

other contributing
buildings within the Bellwood
-
Richmond Quart
ermaster Depot Historic District was initiated in
September 2009, with the submission of Documentation on Alternatives to the Proposed Modernization
of the Defense Supply Center Richmond to the Virginia SHPO
.
The proposed demolition of Building 10
and oth
er contributing structures was determined to have an adverse effect on the Bellwood
-
Richmond
Quartermaster Depot Historic District under Section 106 of the NHPA
.
The consultation process resulted
in the
Programmatic Agreement Regarding the Modernization o
f the Defense Supply Center Richmond
among the Defense Logistics Agency Enterprise Support Richmond; the Advisory Council on Historic

17


DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTE
R RICHMOND
, VA

| ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE
SSMENT

Preservation; and the Virginia
State Historic Preservation Officer
,
which was
executed in November
2009
.
The programmatic

agreement allows for the demolition of the NRHP
-
listed resources once
mitigation measures have been completed
.
Mitigation for the demolition of these historic properties
includes documentation of the buildings proposed for demolition, design review of pr
oposed new
construction, annual cultural resources training for DLA personnel, an update of the
Installation Cultural
Resources Management Plan,
an update of the Bellwood nomination, the development of a multimedia
presentation, and Phase II archaeological

surveys
.
All mitigation is underway and most has been
completed
.
C
ompletion of mitigation measures
associated with the demolition of Building 10
fulfills the
requirements for review of the project under Section 106
.
Therefore, no
impacts on

cultural resources
would be expected
under NEPA.

Building 11, a contributing resource to the Bellwood
-
Richmond Quartermaster Depot Historic District, is
located in a row of nearly identical warehouses on the west side of the installation
.
Building 11 is
approximately 1,500 feet from the nearest recorded archaeological site and is in an area of the installation
determined unlikely to have intact archaeological resources due to previous ground disturbance
.
Therefore, the proposed demolition of Building 11
would not be expected to
have
an

effect under Section
106 of the NHPA on any archaeological sites listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP
.
Building 11,
more than 3,300 feet from the Bellwood house, is not visible from any part of the 23
-
acre parcel
included
in the Bellwood nomination
.
Therefore, the proposed demolition of Building 11 would have no effect
under Sect
ion 106 of the NHPA on the NRHP
-
listed Bellwood

house.


The proposed demolition of Building 11
m
ight

have an adverse effect under Section

106 of the NHPA on
the Bellwood
-
Richmond Quartermaster Depot Historic District, a historic property determined eligible for
listing in the NRHP
.
DLA Installation Support at Richmond has not initiated the Section 106 process for
the demolition of Building

11 and did not include the demolition of Building 11 in the proposed
modernization of Defense Supply Center Richmond project
.
DLA Installation Support at Richmond
anticipates initiating Section 106

consultations

when funding for the demolition of Buildin
g 11 is
proposed
.
Section 106 consultation
s

are

expected to include the development of a memorandum of
agreement and completion of mitigation measures
.
The demolition of Building 11
would not be expected
to
have
an

impact on cultural resources under NEPA

once
the
consultation
s

under Section 106 of the
NHPA
and mitigations are
completed.

No Action Alternative

Existing conditions would remain the same as described in
Section
3
.
6
.1
.
Therefore, adverse effects on
cultural resources would neither be expected

under Section 106 of the NHPA nor under NEPA.

3.7

Hazardous Materials and Wastes

3.7.1

Existing Conditions

Polychlorinated Biphenyls
.

There are no known polychlorinated biphenyl
-

(P
CB) containing equipment
or PCB
-
contaminated areas within the
project
areas.

Asb
estos
-
Containing Material
.


Building
s

constructed prior to 1980 are assumed to contain asbestos
-
containing materials

(ACMs)
. Therefore, d
ue to the age of the buildings,
ACMs

m
ight

be present.

Lead
-
Based Paint
.
The
Federal

government

banned the use of most lead
-
based paint (LBP) in 1978;
therefore, all buildings constructed prior to 1978 are assumed to contain LBP. Buildings
10
,
11
, and
67

were all built
before

1978; therefore, LBP is
assumed

to be present in these structures
.


Pest
icides
.

Pesticides are handled and applied at
the installation

by licensed pesticide application
contractors
.
Although

no pesticide waste is generated at
the installation

by these contractors, excess
stock
s of

pesticides are sent to DLA Disposition for r
eutilization, transfer, donation, sales
,

or disposal


18


DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTE
R RICHMOND
, VA

| ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE
SSMENT

(
DSCR

2011
a
)
.
Pesticides are not stored
and have not been spilled
at the
project areas
.

Pesticides have
been applied to the
project areas

in accordance with the installation’s Integrated Pest Management Plan.

Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Wastes, and Petroleum Products
.


There are currently no hazardous
materials or hazardous wastes stored, used, or generated within the
project
areas
, ex
cept m
inor quantities
of boiler water conditioning chemicals
that might

be present at Building 11.
A 4,000
-
gallon aboveground
storage tank (AST) is located at Building 11. This storage tank supplies
F
uel
O
il
No. 2
for the building’s
heating system.

Merc
ury
-
containing items such as thermostats, light ballasts, and smoke detectors m
ight

be present in the buildings.

H
azardous waste
s

generated at
the installation
are

managed in accordance with the
Hazardous Waste

Management Plan.
H
azardous waste
s

are

manage
d through the
Hazardous Materials Program at either
the 90
-
day site or
the
D
isposition Services

area
on
the installation.

Contaminated Sites
.
A

total of 32
Environmental

Restoration sites
are found

on the installation.

Ac
tive
Environmental Restoration
s
ites, known as Operable Units
,

are shown in
Figure 3
-
1
.
Constituents on
these sites include
chlorinated

VOCs
, petroleum hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,
pesticides
,

and metals.
Affected m
edia on the installation
include
groundwater, soil
,

and sediment. There
are no

active

Environmental Restoration sites at the
project areas
.

3.7.2

Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

No
impacts

from

PCBs would be expected. PCBs would not be expected to be encountered during the
proposed
demolition

due to the lack of known PCB
-
containing equipment and PCB contamination within
the areas of the Proposed Action.

No impacts from ACMs would be expected. A
ll appropriate remedial action would take place and any
ACMs encountered would be handled in accorda
nce with established
Federal
, state, and installation
-
specific regulations and would be disposed of at an asbestos
-
permitted landfill.

No
impacts

from LBP materials would be expected.
All
debris suspected of bearing
LBP

would be
toxicity
tested and
m
anaged accordingly
based on the result.
If test
s

results indicate

toxicity
, then

the
debris would be managed and disposed of as a hazardous waste in accordance with all
Federal
, state, and
local regulations.



No
impacts

from

pesticides would be expected.

The Proposed Action would not require changes in the
quantities of pesticides used or alter pesticide application areas.

The Proposed Action would not
be expected to
result in i
mpacts from hazardous materials
or
hazardous
wastes
.

These materials are n
ot present at the
project areas

and there are no records of any spills. Any
mercury
-
containing items would be removed before demolition and

would

be disposed of or recycled in
accordance with all
Federal
, state
,

and local regulations
.

The 4,000
-
gallon AST and all of its
appurtenances would be drained of any remaining product and removed prior to demolition.
Boiler water
conditioning chemicals, if present, would be
removed and used

in a boiler elsewhere on the installation or
disposed or recycled

in accordance with all Federal, state
,

and local regulations.

No
impacts

on the

installation

s Environmental Restoration sites would be expected

because t
he Proposed
Action
would
not occur at any
Environmental Restoration sites
.

No Action Alternative

Ex
isting conditions would remain the same as described in
Section 3.
7
.1
.
Therefore, n
o effects
from
hazardous materials and waste would be expected
.


19


DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTE
R RICHMOND
, VA

| ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE
SSMENT

3.8

Solid

Waste


3.8.1

Existing Conditions

The installation

maintains an Integrated
Solid Waste Management Plan

to comply with certain standards
with respect to non
-
hazardous solid waste generation, source reduction, diversion, and disposal.

Demolition
debris is transported off the
installation

by
a

contractor.
Additionally
, the contractor
is
required to recycle
as much debris as possible in an effort to
reduce the amount of
debris entering local
landfills.

Reports on p
revious demolitions of similar structures
indicated that approximately

50

percent

of
the debris
was
landfilled and the remaining debris recycled (
DSCR

2010
a
).

3.8.2

Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

Short
-
term, minor, adverse
effects

would be expected; however, the e
ffects

would not be significant.

The
Proposed Action would not
be expected to
impact the installation’s solid waste management

program
.
The
P
roposed
A
ction
would generate
demolition
waste that would need to be transported off
-
site

for
proper disposal.
The Proposed Action would gener
ate approximately 37,543 tons of

debris.
Demolition
debris

would be recycled, where practical.
Materials that cannot be recycled would be transported off

site
to a landfill designed to accept
demolition debris
.

At
2012
disposal rates,

(i.e., 2,121,978.3 tons per year),

Virginia
’s
c
onstruction and
d
emolition
d
ebris landfill capacity

is approximately

16.7 years
, which would
be adequate to handle the Proposed Action

(VADEQ 2012)
.

No Action Alternative

Existing conditions would remain the same as described in
Section 3.
8
.1
.
Therefore, n
o effects
from
solid waste would be expected.


20


DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTE
R RICHMOND
, VA

| ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE
SSMENT

This page
intentionally left blank


21


DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTE
R RICHMOND
, VA

| ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE
SSMENT

4.0

CUMULATIVE AND OTHER

EFFECTS

4.1

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects

are the
incremental
effects

of
a proposed

action when added to
the aggregate effects of
other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions
.

For this analysis, the temporal
span of the
Proposed Action is 2

years (fiscal year
s

201
3

and

201
4
)

and the spatial area of consideration is

the
installation,
al
though a larger area, encompassing the installation and surrounding region, is considered
for s
ome resources
.

For
most

resource areas, the
present
effects of past actions are now part of t
he existing environment
described in
Chapter 3
.

Identification of projects occurring at the installation during
the same time as the
Proposed Action

would ensure that all
present and reasonably foreseeable future activities that have the
potential to result in cumulative effects are taken into account.

Resource

areas

that have the potential to be cumulatively affected by the Proposed Action, when
co
mbined with other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future projects at the installation
,

include
noise, air quality, geological resources, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources,
hazardous materials and wastes, and solid waste
.
Table 4.1

lists projects expected to occur during the
same timeframe as the Proposed Action

and likely to result in effects on
these resources
.

Table 4.1

Projects Identified for Potential Cumulative Effects

Location

Project Description

Size (ft
2
)

Building 6

Demolish Building 6

237,600

Building 7

Demolish Building 7

237,600

Building 17

Demolish Building 17

7,650

Building 91

Demolish Building 91

2,190

Total Square Footage of Demolition

485,040


Noise.

The Proposed Action, when combined with
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
projects, would not result in cumulatively significant

effects on noise.

A short
-
term increase in noise
from demolition activities would be expected; however, no significant, cumulative effects would be
exp
ected and buildings would be demolished in succession, not simultaneously. Because the demolitions
are anticipated to occur over brief time periods, and away from any sensitive noise receptors such as
homes and schools, no long
-
term noise effects on the e
nvironment would be expected.

Air Quality.

The Proposed Action, when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
projects, would not result in cumulatively significant

effects on air quality.

Short
-
term increases from
demolition vehicl
e emissions and long
-
term decreases in emissions of some pollutants from the
deactivation of fuel oil boilers and burners would be expected; however, no significant, cumulative effects
would be expected.

Geological Resources
.

The Proposed Action, when com
bined with past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects, would not result in cumulatively significant

effects on geological resources.
Ground disturbance
associated with the proposed projects
has

the potential for
minor
, adverse,

cumulative
e
ffects on soils. During demolition activities, a short
-
term increase in erosion and sedimentation would
be expected from minor grading and filling.
Because

the soils at all the
proposed project areas

are Made
Land, no
long
-
term

cumulative effects on geological resources

would be expected
.




22


DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTE
R RICHMOND
, VA

| ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE
SSMENT

Water Resources
.

The Proposed Action, when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future projects, would not result in cumulatively significant

effects on water resources.

Short
-
term,
negligible
,

adverse
, cumulative

impacts
on surface water could occur from temporarily increased soil
erosion from ground disturbances during demolition activities. The Proposed Action would
decrease

the
amount of impervious surface at the ins
tallation. The other planned demolition projects identified in
Table 4.1

also
would result in a net
decrease
of impervious surface area. This
could

result in
long
-
term,
minor
,

beneficial
, cumulative effects
via reduction of
storm water runoff volume and
velocity.


Biological Resources
.

The Proposed Action, when combined with past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects, would not result in cumulatively significant

effects on biological resources.
Based on the lack of suitable habitat, mini
mal native vegetation, and absence of documented sightings of
protected species at the areas of the Proposed Action and other planned demolition projects, no significant

short
-

or long
-
term

effects

on biological resources
would be expected.

Cultural Resour
ces
.

The Proposed Action, when combined with past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects, would not result in cumulatively significant

effects on cultural resources.
Buildings 6, 7,
and
17 are all included in the
Programmatic Agreement Rega
rding the Modernization of
the Defense Supply Center Richmond among the Defense Logistics Agency Enterprise Support Richmond;
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; and the Virginia
State Historic Preservation Officer
,
which was
executed in Novembe
r 2009. Building 91 was built in 1972 and
is
therefore
in
eligible for
inclusion in the NRHP.

Hazardous Materials and Wastes
.

The Proposed Action, when combined with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in
cumulatively significant

effects from
hazardous materials and wastes.
Demolition activities associated with the Proposed Action and other
planned projects would result in a temporary increase in the generation of hazardous wastes
, which
would
be

removed a
nd properly disposed of in
accordance
with
Federal
, state
,

and local regulations.


Solid Wast
e
.

The Proposed Action, when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
projects, would not result in cumulatively significant

effects from s
olid waste.
Approximately
7
5
,
860

tons of debris would be generated from
the Proposed Acti
o
n and
other planned projects at the installation
(see
Table 4.2
).
At current disposal rates

(
i.e.,
2,121,978.3 tons per year)
, Virginia h
as approximately
16.7 years

of construction and demolition d
ebris landfill capacity (VADEQ 2012). Therefore
,

no
cumulative
effects
from the generation and disposal of solid waste would be expected
.

Table

4.2

Estimate of Debris Generated from Planned Demolition Projects

Project

Total Square
Footage

Multiplier
(pounds/ft²)

Debris Generated

(tons)

Demolish Building 6

237,600

158

18,770

Demolish Building 7

237,600

158

18,770

Demolish Building 10

237,600

158

18,770

Demolish Building 11

237,600

158

18,770

Demolish Building 17

7,650

158

604

Demolish Building 67

330

158

3

Demolish Building 91

2,190

158

173

Total Demolition Debris

75,860

Source: USEPA 2009


23


DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTE
R RICHMOND
, VA

| ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE
SSMENT

4.2

Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Based on the analysis conducted for this EA, unavoidable adverse effects
c
ould occur if the Proposed
Action were implemented. Adverse effects that potentially could not be avoided include noise from
demolition, solid and hazardous waste generation, fuel combustion and fugitive dust emissions, and
removal of buildings listed
as
contributing resources to a
n

historic district
on the NRHP. Each of these
effects is discussed in detail in
Sections 3.1

through
3.8
. None of these effects
would be significant.

4.3

Compatibility of the Proposed Action and Alternatives with the Objectives of

Federal
, Regional, State, and Local Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls

The Proposed Action would be consistent with existing and
reasonably
foreseeable future
land
uses.
The
Proposed Action would be consistent with the installation’s 2010 Master Plan

(DSCR 2011b).
Demolition

activities would not be in conflict with installation land use policies or objectives. The
Proposed Action would not conflict with any off
-
installation land use ordinances.

4.4

Relationship Between Short
-
term Uses of Man’s Environme
nt and
Maintenance and Enhancement of Long
-
term Productivity

The

potential
short
-
term,
adverse effects
of the Proposed Action
include
noise generation, air emissions,
solid waste generation, soil erosion,
and
storm water runoff into surface waters
.

L
ong
-
term

effects
include the resulting

increase
in
the installation’s permeable surface area
s;

reduce
d

energy consumption
(
i.e.,
electricity and fuel oil)
;

and elimination of costs for
safety inspections, fire protection, maintenance,
and other related service
s

associated with the buildings
.
The Proposed Action would result in an increase
of open space at the installation.

4.5

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

The Proposed Action would involve the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of

e
nergy resources
and human resources. The effects on these resources would be permanent but not significant.

Fuel and energy
resources used
to carry out

the Proposed Action would be irretrievably lost. These would
consist of

petroleum
-
based products (e.g.
, gasoline, diesel,
and
lubricants). During
demolition
, gasoline,
diesel, and lubricants would be used for the operation of
demolition

vehicles. Consumption of these
resources would not place a significant demand on their availability in the region. The
refore, no
significant effects would be expected.

Additionally,

energy use

at the installation would decrease
upon

completion of the Proposed Action because the electricity and fuel
oil
needed to light and heat the
buildings would no longer be required.

The use of human resources is considered an irretrievable loss only in that it would preclude such
personnel from engaging in other work activities. However, the use of
temporary workers

for the
Proposed Action would represent
employment opportunities, an
d would be

beneficial

but not significant
.

4.6

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential

The Proposed Action would involve the consumption of diesel and gasoline for
various demolition

vehicles. The greatest effect the Proposed Action would have on fuel
use would be
expected
during
demolition.
Installation
electricity
and
f
uel
oil
use would
be expected to
decrease
up
on completion of the
Proposed Action
because
the electricity and fuel oil used to provide light
ing

and heat
for the buildings
would no longe
r be

needed.




24


DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTE
R RICHMOND
, VA

| ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE
SSMENT

Energy conservation associated with the Proposed Action would include the recycling of
demolition

debris to the extent practicable. Recycling of materials can reduce energy consumption by eliminating the
need to mine, harvest, or create an
d transport raw materials.

4.7

Natural or Depletable Resource Requirements and Conservation Potential

Other than fuels

used in the demolition vehicles

and equipment, the
demolition of the three buildings
would not
be expected to
result in

significant use of na
tural or depletable resources.


25


DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTE
R RICHMOND
, VA

| ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE
SSMENT

5.0

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction to
Section 3

provides information on which resource areas where selected to be
analyzed in detail in the EA and the rational behind each decision.

Table 5.1

summarizes the potential
impacts of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative on the environmental resource areas
analyzed in detail. Implementation of t
he Proposed Action
or No Action Alternative
would not result in
any
individually or cumulativ
ely
si
gnificant environmental impacts. Therefore, preparation of an EIS is
not
warranted

and issuance of a FONSI would be appropriate.

Table 5.1

Potential Impacts of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative

Resource Area

Proposed Action

No Action

Alternative

Noise

Short
-
term, minor, adverse

No impact

Air Quality

Short
-
term, minor, adverse
;

long
-
term, minor, beneficial

No impact

Geological Resources

Short
-
term, negligible, adverse

No impact

Water Resources

Short
-
term, negligible, adverse
;

long
-
term, negligible, beneficial

No impact

Biological Resources

No impact

No impact

Cultural Resources

No impact, after
consultation and
mitigation

No impact

Hazardous Materials
and Wastes

No impact

No impact

Solid Waste

Short
-
term, minor, adverse

No
impact



26


DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTE
R RICHMOND
, VA

| ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE
SSMENT

This page intentionally left blank


27


DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTE
R RICHMOND
, VA

| ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE
SSMENT

6.0

REFERENCES

DSCR

2009a

Defense Supply Center Richmond

(DSCR)
. 2009. Final Natural Resources
Evaluation and Recommendations. April 2009.

DSCR

2009b

DSCR
.
2009.

Documentation on the Proposed
Modernization of the
Defense Supply Center Richmond
.
September 2009.

DSCR

2010a

DSCR
.
2010.


Installation Solid Waste Management Plan
.
16 July 2010.

DSCR

2010b

DSCR
.
2010.

2010 Master Plan, Defense Supply Center Richmond
.
November 2010.

DSCR

2011
a

DSCR
.
2011.


Hazardous Waste Management Plan
.
August 2011 Revised
April 2012.

DSCR 2011
b

DSCR. 2011.
2010 Master Plan: Defense Supply Center Richmond
. April
2011.

DSCR 2013

DSCR.

2013.

Defense Supply Center Richmond Annual Air Emissions CY
2012.

DLA 2011

Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). 2011. Integrated Cultural Resources
Management Plan Revision For Defense Supply Center Richmond, Fiscal
Years 2011

2015. December 2011.

DOD 2013

Depa
rtment of Defense (DOD). 2013. Defense Supply Center Richmond
Installation Overview. Available online:
http://www.militaryinstallations.dod.mil/MOS/f?p=MI:CONTENT:0::::P4_I
NST_ID,P4_CONTENT_TITLE,P4_CONTENT_EKMT_ID,P4_CONTEN
T_DIRECTORY:4845,Installation

Overview,30.90.30.30.30.0.0.0.0,1.
Accessed 1 July 2013.

Engineering Toolbox
2013

Engineering Toolbox.

2013.


Outdoor Ambient Sound Levels. Available
online: <
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/outdoor
-
noise
-
d_62.html
>
Accessed 18 September 2013.

HDR

2013

HDR, Inc. (HDR). 2013. Estimated
Air
Emissions for the
Demolition of
Three Buildings
at D
efense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia
. October
2013.

USDA 2013

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2013. Custom Soil
Resource Report for Ch
esterfield County, Virginia. 18 June 2013.

USDOE 2011

U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE). 2011. Energy Information
Administration Table 1. State Emissions by Year (Million Metric Tons of
Carbon Dioxide). Available online

<http://www.eia.gov/environment
/emissions/state/state_emissions.cfm>.
Data Released October 2011. Data accessed 25 July 2013.

USEPA 2009

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009. Estimating 2003
Building
-
Related Construction and Demolition Materials Amounts. March
2009.

Available online:
<http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/imr/cdm/pubs/cd
-
meas.pdf>. Accessed
2 August 2013.


28


DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTE
R RICHMOND
, VA

| ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE
SSMENT

USEPA 2013

USEPA
. 2013.
Green Book: Nonattainment Status for Each County by
Year for Virginia Including Previous 1
-
Hour Ozone Counties. Available
online: <
http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/anayo_va.html
>. Data
accessed 28 August 2013.

USFWS 1991

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1991.

Swamp Pink (
Helonias
bullata
) Recovery Plan. 30 September 1991.

USFWS 2013

USFWS. 2013.

Custom Natu
ral Resources of Concern. 1 March 2013

USGS 1990

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1990. Assessment of Ground
-
Water Contamination from a Leaking Underground Storage Tank at a
Defense Supply Center Near Richmond, Virginia. 1990.

VADEQ 2012

Virgin
ia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ). 2012.

Solid
Waste Managed in Virginia During Calendar Year 2011. June 2012.

VADEQ 2013

VADEQ. 2013. Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program. Available
online: http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Coas
talZoneManagement.

aspx. Accessed 6 August 2013.


29


DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTE
R RICHMOND
, VA

| ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE
SSMENT

7.0

LIST OF PREPARERS

This EA has been prepared
by HDR
under the direction of the Environmental Health and Safety Office at
Defense Supply Center Richmond. The staff members of HDR that contributed to the preparation of
this
document are listed
here
.

Louise Baxter

B.S. Political Science

M.P.A. Publ
ic Administration

Years of Experience: 20

Editing

Becky Hartless

B.S. Civil/Environmental Engineering

Years of Experience: 13

Air Quality

SunTemple Helgren, CEP

B.S. G
eography

Years of Experience: 17

Project Management

Chris Holdridge

M.S. Environmental
Assessment

B.S. Environmental Science/Chemistry

Years of Experien
ce: 17

Project Management

Cheryl Myers

A.A.S. Nursing

Years of Experience:
21

Formatting

Vincent Passaro, QEP

M.S. Environmental Science

B.S. Fisheries and Wildlife

Years of Experience: 10

Noise, Geological Resources, Water Resources,
Biological Resources, Hazardous
Materials/Wastes, Solid Waste

Deborah Peer

M.S. Environmental Science

B.S. Zoology

B.S. Wildlife Science

Years of Experience: 13

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Steven G.
Peluso, CHMM, CPEA

B.S. Chemical Engineering

Years of Experience: 26

Air Quality


Jeffrey Weiler

M.S. Resource Economics/Environmental
Management

B.A. Political Science

Years of Experience:
38

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Melissa Wieden
feld, Ph.D
.

Ph.D. History

M.A. History

B.A. History

Years of E
xperience: 25

Cultural Resources

30


DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTE
R RICHMOND
, VA

| ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE
SSMENT

This page intentionally left blank