Okaloosa County BOCC — February 4, 2014 — Pre-application for Design, Construct and Equip Air Traffic Control Tower at DTS — reading text

time. In summary, the location of the ERCF and the air traffic along the heavily traversed shoreline area and Gulf of Mexico impede aircraft recognition, visual separation, and aircraft identification by air traffic controllers at ERCF. Oestin Airport Devatopmoant of Contract Air Traffic Cantral Tower Page FAA ORLANDO ADO | FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND RECORD OF DECISION Operational Delay — In 2009, the Airport Delay Study for the Air Traffic Control Tower Program was developed to quantify annual operational delays, the duration of delays, why the delays occurred, and the cost of the delays. The 2009 Study showed: ° 54,250 total operations; * the total duration of the delays was 3,517.2 hours, . average delay per operation was 3.89 minutes; a many delays lasted between 20 and 30 minutes; . total cost of annual operational delays was $1.44 million. This information supported the input from many airport users. They noted Airport delays resulted from the wide variety of aircraft operating in the airspace, pilots not following standard Airport procedures, and the safety procedures needed to manage the congested airspace. The 2009 Study estimated the total average cost to operate an aircraft at the Airport was $410.03 per hour (excluding crew). Based on this cost and the total number of hours of annual delay (3,517.2 hours), delays cost Airport users about $1.44 million annually (excluding crew costs). Operational delay costs to Airport users were estimated for the Focused EA using year 2012 operational data. As shown in the Final Focused EA Table 2, in 2012, 63,940 operations experienced a total annual delay of approximately 4,145 hours. Based on 2009 average operational costs per hour, the average cost of delay was approximately $1.7 million (see Final Focused EA Table 3). ALTERNATIVES In addition to the No-Action Alternative and the Proposed Project, two (2) other project alternatives — designated as Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 were identified for consideration in the Focused EA. These Alternatives are depicted in the attached Final Focused EA Figure 4-5. The following provides a brief summary of the alternatives analysis for each of these alternatives. Further explanation of the alternatives analysis is provided in Section 6 of the Final Focused EA. No-Action Alternative - The No-Action Alternative does not meet the stated Purpose and Need for the Proposed Project. As discussed in the Purpose and Need section of this Focused EA, ERCF's continued control of the Airport’s air traffic would not reduce congestion and inefficient use of local and regional airspace. In addition, the inability of ERCF controliers to meet FAA's visual and aircraft recognition thresholds requires procedures that further reduce the efficient use of that airspace. However, to satisfy the intent of NEPA, FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures; FAA Order 5050.48, NEPA [tmplementing instructions for Airport Actions; and other special purpose environmental laws, this focused EA retained the No-Action Alternative for analysis and comparative purposes. YEARS SLAP NASIR a UC any ne ecard HRNOUARS ISERIES Fs RNA ES aS TERR TORE ESAS Destin Airport Development of Contract Air Traffic Control Tower - Page 5 Sources: Bing, 2012; RS&H, 2012 Proposed Project aa Alternative #1 | ] Destin Airport Boundary Alternative #2 “< EEN’ / | IMPROVING YOUR WORLD fount 0 250 500 1,000 N eee ect Exhibit A-5 Reasonable Alternatives FAA ORLANDO ADO | FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND RECORD OF DECISION This Alternative would avoid any potential environmental and social impacts associated with the implementation of the Proposed Project. However, the No-Action Alternative would not alleviate the current economic impacts associated with delays at the Airport (see Section 5, Tables Zand 3 of the Final Focused EA). As described in the above paragraph, the No-Action Alternative would not meet the Airport's need to improve the efficiency of approach and departure procedures and the safety of the aviation environment in the Destin area. Although the No-Action Alternative does not meet the Purpose and Need, this EA addresses its environmental consequences in Section 8 for baseline comparative purposes and to fulfill FAA's obligations under NEPA. Airport Sponsor’s Proposed Project - The Proposed Project consists of the projects discussed previously in this FONSI/ROD under the heading “Proposed Project”. Part 77 - The Proposed Project would penetrate the 7:1 transitional surface of Runway 14-32 by approximately 6 feet. According to the FAA's Final Decision letter (included in Final Focused EA Altachment 8-2), the FAA does not object to the penetration of the transitional surface given that the VFR ATCT would be lighted with red FAA L-810 obstruction lighting and be in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-1K. Visual Impacts - The control cab for the Proposed Project would have an eye height of 59.5-feet above ground level (AGL), while the overall height of the VFR ATCT, including antennas and lightning rods, would be 84 feet AGL. This is less than both Alternatives 1 and 2 (125 feet) and given its location on Airport property, the VFR ATCT would be less visible to residents located around the Airport, particularly those located approximately 0.8-milé to the northwest. The undisturbed vegetation (primarily cypress trees) would provide a visual buffer between the Proposed Project and residential areas to the northeast. The red FAA L-810 obstruction lighting emitted from the top of the ATCT would be low emitting and the appearance of the VFR ATCT would coincide with existing Airport structures and the existing, operating airport. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have a significant visual effect on surrounding residents. Wetlands - The Proposed Project would impact approximately 1.00 acre of wetlands (approximately 0.70-acre less than Alternatives 1 and 2). The area required for the VFR ATCT facility and parking area is approximately the same when compared to Alternatives { and 2. The location of the Proposed Project is not as deep within the existing wetland area as Alternatives 1 and 2. Therefore, the area required for clearing and construction of the access road would be shorter and would affect less wetlands than Alternatives 7 and 2. General Cost - The Proposed Project would cost approximately $3.4 million to construct. When compared to Alternatives 1 and 2 the lower height of the VFR ATCT and shorter length of the access road would decrease the time, material, and labor required for construction. Alternative 1 would cost approximately $5 million, and Alternative #2 approximately $4.8 million, Alternatives 1 and 2 also have the potential to impact more wetlands when compared to the Proposed Project (1.70 acres vs, 0.70 acre). The potential increase of wetland impacts associated with Alternatives pe RN tn NT PRN Fa EARNS Destin Airpart Development of Contract Air Traffic Control Tower Rage fs FAA ORLANDO ADO | FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND RECORD OF DECISICN 1 and 2 would raise potential mitigation costs to Okaloosa County. Overall, due to the height of the VFR ATCT, length of the access road, and potential wetland mitigation, Alternative 1 would cost $1.6 million more than the Proposed Project and $200,000 more than Alternative 2. Summary — The Proposed Project meets the Purpose and Need of the Proposed Project. When compared to the environmental impacts and costs of Alternatives 1 and 2, the Proposed Project has less unavoidable wetland impacts. The lower costs of construction and minimized wetland impacts resulting from the Proposed Project makes it a practical and reasonable alternative. Therefore, the proposed project was further evaluated in the Environmental Consequences (Section 8) of the Final Focused EA. Project Alternative 1; Develop ATCT 1,478 feet from the Existing Approach End of Runway 14 — Alternative #1 is offset 1,056 feet east of the Runway 14-32 centerline and 1,478 feet from the existing approach end of Runway 14. Alternative #1 would have a clear line of sight of the entire airfield with a cab eye height of 100 feet AGL (see attached Final Focused EA Exhibit A- 5}. Part 77 - Alternative #1 would penetrate the 7:1 transitional surface of Runway 14-32 by approximately 6 feet. According to the FAA's Final Decision letter {included in Attachment B-2), the FAA does not object ta the penetration of the transitional surface given that the VFR ATCT would be lighted with red FAA L-810 obstruction lighting and be in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-1K. Visual Impacts - Given the overall height of Alternative #1 (125 feet) and its location on Airport property, the VFR ATCT would be more visible to residents located around the Airport, particularly those located approximately 0.5-mile to the northwest. The undisturbed vegetation (primarily cypress trees) would provide a visual buffer between Alternative #1 and residences approximately 0.3-mile to the northeast. The red FAA L-810 obstruction lighting emitted from Alternative #1 would be low emitting and the appearance of the VFR ATCT would coincide with existing Airport structures and the existing, operating airport. Therefore, Alternative #1 would not have a significant visual effect on surrounding residents. Wetlands - Alternative #1 would impact approximately 1.70 acres of wetland (approximately 0.70- acre greater than the Proposed Project). The area required for the VFR ATCT facility and parking area is approximately the same when compared to the Proposed Project. However, the location of Alternative #1 is further within the existing wetland area. Therefore, the area required for clearing - and construction of the 6,300-foot-long access road would be longer and would affect 0.70-acre more wetland than the Proposed Project (1 acre). General Cost - When compared to the Proposed Project, the height of the VFR ATCT and length of the access road would Increase the time, material, and labor required for construction. These factors increase the cost of the facility to approximately $5 million , compared to the Proposed Project ($3.4 million) and Alternative #2 ($4.8 million), Alternative #1 also has the potential to impact more wetlands when compared to the Proposed Project (Proposed Project = approximately 1.00 acre), The potential increase of wetland impacts would raise potential mitigation costs to Fea ks ac lel bes a asi eanenee sata Destin Alrport Page 7 Development of Contract Air Traffic Control Tower FAA ORLANDO ADO | FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND RECORD OF DECISION Okaloosa County. Overall, due to the height of the VFR ATCT, length of the access road, and potential wetland mitigation, Alternative #1 would cost $1.6 million more than the Proposed Project and $200,000 more than Alternative #2. Summary - Alternative #1 meets the Purpose and Need of the Proposed Project. When compared to the environmental effects and costs of the Proposed Project, Alternative #1 has greater unavoidable wetland impacts. The general costs of construction and potential wetland mitigation result in Alternative #1 being an impractical alternative. Therefore, Alternative #1 was not evaluated further in Section 8 of the Focused EA. Project Alternative 2: Develop ATCT 2,128 feet from the Existing Approach End of Runway 14 — Alternative #2 is offset 1,056 feet east of the Runway 14-32 centerline and is 2,128 feet from the existing approach end of Runway 14. Similar to Alternative #1, Alternative #2 would have a clear line of sight of the entire airfield with a cab eye height of 100 feet AGL. Part_77_- Alternative #2 would penetrate the 7:1 transitional surface of Runway 14-32 by approximately 6 feet and would be lighted with red FAA L-810 obstruction lighting (see Alternative #1, Part 77 discussion previously). Visual Impacts - The overall