Truax ANG to weaponize base ahead of F-35 deployment

Public engagement tokenized, environmental justice ignored

According to an April 2019 Draft Environmental Assessment (EA), Truax Air National Guard is planning major demolition, construction, and renovation projects from 2020-2027 at its highly contaminated base adjacent to the low income Truax neighborhood and Starkweather Creek.

The project will include 27 “infrastructure improvement projects” in order “to meet the demands of the continuously evolving mission of the 115 Fighter Wing.” These “improvements” include two new 10,500 square feet indoor small arms ranges, two “munitions storage area” igloos, one 1000 square foot small arms storage building, and five 1000 square feet “concrete segregated storage munitions buildings” to “provide adequate space needed to fulfill mission requirements.”

A range of other new facilities will also be constructed, including fuel storage tanks and aircraft “arm/dearm” pads with adjacent metal-sided “earthen berms” to “provide protection from aircraft artillery.” Some decrepit buildings on the base—including some that stored munitions, and that contain asbestos, PCBs, and other hazardous substances– will be demolished to make space for new facilities.

Construction will result in up to 1,094,330 square feet (25.1 acres) of new construction footprint and up to 50,600 square feet (1.2 acres) of new impervious surfaces. The total cost of construction, demolition, and renovation is estimated to be between 40 and 60 million dollars.

Though not stated in the report, this construction is likely in preparation for the “proposed” F-35s at the base. According to a table at the end of the EA (only included because EPA requested it), another 211,283 square feet of new ground disturbance and 12,200 square feet of new imperious surface will be required for further construction specifically for the F-35s.

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the F-35s has not yet been released for public comment, though the release was originally slotted for February/March. Perhaps the National Guard Bureau wants to get these substantial (and controversial) construction projects through this token, rushed EA process first—to keep them from being considered in the more comprehensive EIS process? Just a thought…

Federal public engagement requirements? Who cares…

The Environmental Assessment states, correctly, that federal environmental laws “require public review of the EA before approval of the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and implementation of the Proposed Action.”  Once a FONSI is approved, no Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required. A full EIS requires much more comprehensive environmental, cultural, socio-economic, and environmental justice analyses.

A notice announcing the opening of the Draft EA for public comment was reportedly first published in the Wisconsin State Journal on April 7, but we could not locate it. We first saw the WSJ notice on April 21, 2019; according to the notice, the public comment period closes on May 7, 2019.

The “draft” EA—which doesn’t even mention the May 7 deadline, as far as we can tell—has apparently already incorporated public comment. “Comments received from agencies and the public,” the draft EA states, “have been addressed and incorporated, as appropriate, into the Final EA.” Based on letters included at the end of the document, many government officials and agencies—including DNR, Dane County, and City of Madison—were informed of the Truax projects in February and March.

Did city, county, and state public officials already submit their comments for the EA? Did they inform the public about this project? It wasn’t in alder newsletters, it wasn’t in the news. Did other Madison residents know about it and comment, while we were in the dark? Unlikely.

But not to worry! There will be “no significant impact on the quality of the human or natural environment”

Most troublingly, the document has already reported a “Finding of No Significant Impact” (FONSI) even though the formal public comment period hasn’t ended yet.

A statement at the end of the document summary says: “Based on my review of the facts and analysis in this EA, I conclude that the Proposed Action will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human or natural environment or generate significant controversy either by itself or considering cumulative impacts. Accordingly, the requirements of NEPA, the CEQ, and 32 CFR 989 et seq. have been fulfilled, and an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary and will not be prepared.”

The military official named after this (the “I” in this statement) is Marc V. Hewett, P.E., GS-15, Department of the Air Force, Chief, Asset Management Division. Mr. Hewett did not sign or date this statement yet, but clearly that’s the plan.

Why open up a draft environmental assessment for public comment if the conclusion that there will be “no significant impacts” has already been made? Clearly, asking for public comment is a completely token exercise at this point. Why should we and other citizens even bother submitting comments?

No stormwater impacts? No impacts to water quality? Yeah, right… 

Many parts of the Truax base, including several areas where construction will occur, are contaminated with toxic chemicals.

From 1988-2012, numerous “Installation Restoration Program” (IRP) investigations at the Truax Air National Guard base documented extensive soil and groundwater contamination that would have entered Starkweather Creek via stormwater runoff, storm drains/ditches, and leaching of shallow groundwater into the creek, including: tetrachloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), petroleum compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), metals, and more. However, the DNR did not ask for Department of Defense investigations to assess these contaminants in creek water or sediments and approved “no further action” for the site in 2012.

Many of the above contaminants were never fully investigated or cleaned up in soils and groundwater at the base–so they are still there. Further, a March 2018 report documents extremely high levels of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances currently in shallow groundwater and soils on the base.

The March 18, 2019 EPA letter reviewing the draft Environmental Assessment outlines a number of things the EA should address, including “describing how the proposed action may affect water bodies listed as impaired by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act” and “how the proposed action may affect, either positively or detrimentally, the impairment.”

Under “Legacy Pollution,” the EPA letter says “[p]olyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are known to be present in groundwater at Truax Field” and “existing structures that may be demolished or renovated are likely to contain lead paint, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) material, and asbestos.” It recommends testing for all of these substances and appropriate remediation and disposal. Also, the EA “should document the presence of these contaminants in the project areas and describe what actions are planned to address them, consistent with federal and state regulatory requirements” and “describe any known contamination, any future sampling and analysis planned…”

Addressing EPA’s comments about impacts to water quality, the EA notes that the west branch of Starkweather Creek drains the area around the base, and some “toxic substances” from historical discharges “remain in the sediment of the creek and continue to pose problems for fish and aquatic life.” Starkweather Creek and Lake Monona, it notes, are currently listed on the 2018 303(d) Wisconsin Impaired Waters List for multiple pollutants.[1]

As for any current stormwater runoff of highly toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and the plethora of other toxic chemicals documented in soils and groundwater at the base, the EA vaguely recognizes some contamination remaining in a few areas, but assures that “no impacts are expected” because “if any contaminated media (e.g., soil, groundwater) are encountered during the course of site preparation (e.g., clearing, grading) or site development (e.g., excavation for installation of building footers) for any of the projects”… “samples will be collected to determine whether the media are contaminated, and contaminated media will be segregated for off-site disposal or for on-site reuse as appropriate.”

Hmm, shouldn’t contaminant testing be done before these areas are graded, excavated, etc? How will contractors doing the work know if they encounter contaminated soils, sediments and/or groundwater?  Most if not all of the toxic contaminants all over the base the base are invisible.

EA claims construction will actually improve Starkweather Creek, because of the stormwater permit!

Even if contaminated soils are hauled offsite, when base soils and sediments are disrupted and/or excavated for new buildings, toxic chemicals will also be disrupted—and carried in sediments via stormwater into Starkweather Creek when it rains.

Even the vague EA can’t completely evade this issue. “Water not absorbed by the soil” the EA states, “flows to stormwater inlets and drainage basins which are connected by underground pipes” and “all stormwater drainage” from the base “enters Starkweather Creek from this system and eventually discharges to Lake Monona to the south.”

The EA admits that the 25.1 acre footprint of new construction and up to 1.2 acres of new impervious surfaces “could result in localized increases in surface runoff and total suspended particulates to nearby surface waters” but states that the base’s WPDES stormwater discharge permit and required Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will not only prevent this, but will “improve the quality of stormwater runoff and thereby improve the quality of receiving waters.” Further, the EA predicts “minimal impacts to groundwater or floodplains.” (italics added)

Wow. According to MEJO’s recent report about Starkweather Creek and toxic stormwater runoff, the Dane County Regional Airport/Truax ANG WPDES permit (they are co-permittees) and required SWPPPs don’t even mention PFAS or most of the toxic contaminants known to be in soils and/or groundwater at the airport and Truax base—forget about requiring contaminant monitoring for these toxic chemicals in stormwater runoff into the creek. Therefore, there is little/no evidence that the permit and SWPPP are preventing toxic chemicals from discharging from stormwater into the creek. In fact, there is abundant recent evidence that the section of the creek just downstream from the airport and Truax base is very toxic.

Also, the most recent DCRA SWPPP (2016) is out of date, and doesn’t include all the recent findings of contamination on the airport and Truax land—which is itself a permit violation.

Given this, stating that the permit and SWPPP will prevent toxic runoff during this extensive disruption and construction on highly contaminated land is not reassuring. They have clearly not done so to date.

Environmental Justice? Not an issue.

The EA recognizes that Environmental Assessments are required by EPA to address potential environmental justice issues, citing from EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations (1994).

EO 12898, the EA states, “addresses potential disproportionate human health and environmental impacts that a project may have on minority or low-income communities” and states that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or policies.”

The March 18 EPA letter (linked above) points to EO 12898 and states explicitly that “Communities with environmental justice (EJ) concerns are located near Truax Field” (emphasis added). It recommends “tools available to assist the project team in their EJ analysis for the EA,” including “Promising Practices for EJ Methodologies in NEPA Reviews” and EJSCREEN, a publicly available mapping tool that screens for “potential impacts to communities…vulnerable to EJ concerns.”

The letter lists “EJ recommendations” for the EA drafters—such as identifying communities that could be affected, describing potential impacts to them, developing a strategy to gain their input, and providing “specific measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate any anticipated adverse impacts to communities.”

EPA also recommends that the EA “compare percentages of low income and/or minority residents in the project area to an appropriate reference community to determine whether the project could have disproportionately high and adverse effects” and “include clear maps and summary tables.”

EA concludes–no environmental justice communities near Truax!

To address the EPA’s EJ recommendations, the EA quoted some race/ethnicity statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau on Dane County as a whole (16.0 percent minority) and compared that to the state of Wisconsin (14.1 percent). To address potential EJ impacts to children, they compared the percentage of children under 18 in the city of Madison (16.7 percent) to the rate for Dane County (21.0 percent) and Wisconsin (22.5 percent) and noted that there are 161 schools in Dane County with a total of 76,330 students.

Their conclusion? “Analysis of each resource has concluded that populations, including minority populations and low-income populations outside the boundaries of the installation and airport, will not be significantly impacted by implementation of the Proposed Action. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action will not disproportionately impact minority or low-income populations. Implementation of the Proposed Action will not result in environmental health risks or safety risks to children as there are no such facilities located at the 115 FW installation or airport.”

The EA simply ignored the EPA letter’s clear statement that there are EJ communities near the Truax base, and didn’t use EJSCREEN to assess this either. If they had used EJSCREEN, as recommended, and used an appropriate scale of analysis, they would have seen that there is an indisputable environmental justice community, scoring very high on many EJ Indices—the Truax apartments, about 1/8-1/4 mile south of the base.

Further, if they had talked to the Director of the East Madison Community Center that serves the low-income Truax apartment area, he would have told them that about 90% of the people living there are minorities (primarily African American and Southeast Asian (mostly Hmong). Most are low income and many are below the poverty level. A large number of children live in these apartments.

There is also a trailer park where many low income people live about ¼ mile to the west of the base. This area also scores high on the EJSCREEN indices.

However, with its conclusion that there are no environmental justice communities near the Traux base—using irrelevant statistics for all of Madison and/or Dane County— the EA rendered moot EPA’s recommendation to consider impacts to these communities or to outreach to them.

Did city, county, and state government officials who commented on this EA (if they did so) even mention potential impacts to these vulnerable communities? In spring 2018, for consideration in the F35 draft EIS, several alders sent a list of questions and concerns about potential impacts of locating F-35 at Truax, and included EJSCREEN statistics pointing out these vulnerable neighborhoods.

Have Madison alders even been informed of this EA? We don’t know.

 [1] The EA was drafted by consultants from other cities/states,  employed by military contractors Cardno and BB&E.