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

height of Alternative #2 is 125 feet AGL and it is located within the wetland and wooded area, south of Alternative #1 and north of the Proposed Project (see attached Final Focused EA Exhibit A-5). Alternative #2 would likely be seen by residences located approximately 0.5-mile to the southwest. Existing Airport structures along the northwest Airport boundary would make the Alternative #2 less visible than the Alternative #1. Similar to Alternative #1, the undisturbed vegetation would provide a visual buffer between Alternative #2 and residences approximately 0.25-mile to the northeast. Alternative #2 would also be lighted with red FAA L-810 obstruction lighting. As with Alternative #1, this lighting would be low emitting and the appearance of the VFR ATCT would coincide with existing Airport structures. Therefore, Alternative #2 would not have a significant visual effect on surrounding residents. Wetlands - Alternative #2 would impact approximately 1.70 acres of wetland (0.70-acre greater than the Proposed Project). The area required for the VFR ATCT facility and parking lot is approximately the same when compared to the Proposed Project. Alternative #2 would have the same acreage of wetland impacts as Alternative #1, but more wetland impacts than the Proposed Project. General Cost - When compared to the Proposed Project, the height of the VFR ATCT and length of the access road (approximately 5,650 feet) would increase the time, material, and labor required for construction. This would increase the cost of the facility compared to the Proposed Project. The general cost of Alternative #2, approximately $4.8 million , would be greater than the Proposed Project (approximately $3.4 million), and less than Alternative #1 (approximately $5 million), due to the length of the Alternative #2 access road. Alternative #2 would impact more wetlands and have greater potential mitigation costs than the Proposed Project (approximately 1 acre) and the same wetland impacts and potential mitigation costs as Alternative #1 (approximately 1.7 acres), Overall, due to the location, height, and potential mitigation, Alternative Ee osetia Ss acraniast ease csbal ee eho Dastin Airport Development of Contrast Air Traffic Controt Tower Page & FAA ORLANDO ADO | FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND RECORD OF DECISION #2 would cost approximately $1.4 million more than the Proposed Project and approximately $200,000 less than Alternative #1. Summary - Alternative #2 meets the Purpose and Need of the Proposed Project. When compared to the environmental effects and costs of the Proposed Project, greater unavoidable wetland effects and the costs of construction and potential wetland mitigation result in Alternative #2 being an impractical alternative. Therefore, Alternative #2 was not evaluated further in Section 8 of the Final Focused EA. Alternatives Conclusion - Following consideration and evaluation of the above discussed alternatives, it was determined that two alternatives ~ the No-Action Alternative and the Proposed Project Alternative would be retained for detailed evaluation in the latter sections of the Final Focused EA. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The Final Focused EA describes only those environmental resources the Proposed Project and its reasonable alternatives, if any, are likely to affect (FAA Order 1050.1E, paragraph AQ5e). The amount of information on a potentially affected resource is based on the extent of the expected impact and is commensurate with the impact's importance. Section 7 of the Final Focused EA provides an overview of the resources found within the Proposed Project Study Area. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The environmental consequences section of an EA provides analysis of environmental resources and categories that have the potential to be impacted by the Proposed Project and other reasonable alternatives that were retained after the alternatives evaluation process. The following is a summary of the environmental consequences analysis for each of the affected environment categories applicable to the Proposed Project. Further explanation of the environmental impact analysis is provided in Section 8 of the Final Focused EA. Air Quality - The No Action Alternative would not result in air quality impacts. The Proposed Project is located in an area that is designated as attainment for all of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Proposed Project’s operational levels are below those requiring an air quality analysis. According to FAA and EPA guidance in the Air Quality Procedures for Civilian Airports and Air Force Bases, a National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) assessment is only required when general aviation operations and air taxi activity levels exceed 180,000 operations, or there are more than 1.3 million enplanements per year. In 2012, the Airport totaled 63,940 operations and 0 enplanements. Since the number of annual aircraft operations at Destin Airport are forecast to be substantially below the threshold requiring an alr quality analysis, a detailed air quality analysis and emissions inventory was not required for the Focused EA. The purpose of the proposed VFR ATCT is to improve the efficiency of approach and departure procedures and the safety of the aviation environment in the Destin area. Implementation of Eienunrseastanegesininnin nthe Te PORN Smee ae eae en eee nee Destin Airport ” Davalopment of Contract Air Traffic Control Tower Page 4 __ FAA ORLANDO. ADO [FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND RECORD OF | DECISION the Proposed Project would not Increase operations or enplanements at the Airport. Implementation of the Proposed Project would increase operational efficiency and reduce operational delay. Therefore, the Proposed Project would benefit local air quality conditions by reducing emissions associated with delayed and/or idling aircraft. The proposed new VER ATCT would initially accommodate two controllers, with the potential for a total of four positions. The emissions from the controllers traveling to and from the VFR ATCT would not significantly increase the amount of vehicle emissions in the area. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not indirectly Increase emissions. Construction equipment used to clear and prepare the land for the Proposed Project would cause a temporary increase in emissions. The projected, 8-month perlod when the equipment would operate on approximately 6.5 acres of land would not significantly affect-air quality, See Section 8(4){b) of the Final Focused EA for further detalls on temporary construction-related emissions. Coastal Barriers - The No Action Alternative would not result in coastal barrier impacts. The Proposed Project would not impact any area or zone protected by the Coastal Barrier Resource Act. Coastal Zone Management - The No Action Alternative would not result in coastal zone management impacts. The entire State of Florida is located within a coastal zone. Destin is located in the Florida Panhandle and the Airport is located approximately 0.25-mile north of the Gulf of Mexico. The Proposed Project would be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP). The Proposed Project would not affect coastal resources, create plans to direct future agency actions, propose rulemaking that alters uses of a coastal zone that are inconsistent with the Program, or involve Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leases. Early coordination with the FDEP indicated that, “Based on the information contained in the notice and comments provided by our reviewing agencies at this stage of the project, the state has no objections to the proposed federal activities. To ensure the project's consistency with the FCMP, the concerns identified by the state will be addressed prior to project implementation.” Compatible Land Use — The No Action Alternative would not result In compatible land use impacts. The Proposed Project would occur entirely on Airport property. The communities surrounding the Airport would not be disrupted, nor would any residences or businesses need to be relocated. The Proposed Project would have no effect on fleet mix or change in the number of operations at the Airport therefore it would not result in changes to noise contours and effects to off-airoort compatible or non-compatible land uses. The uplands area within the Proposed Project area is characterized by a mixture of ruderal grasses and forbs. Portions of the Proposed Project study area are located in a forested wetland system. These wetlands are considered to be wildlife attractants according to FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5200-33B. The Proposed Project would not enhance the wetland’s attraction to hazardous wildlife. While the 1 acre of wetland that would be removed | is not significant compared easton ewenenontonneremeeaerninnten tit ne ie Se 18 Destin Air port Development of Contract Air Traffic Control Tower Page HI FAA ORLANDO ADO | FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND RECORD OF DECISION to the overall area of wetlands in the vicinity, the Proposed Project area would become less attractive to wildlife with the removal of a small portion of the existing wetlands. Construction - The No Action Alternative would not result in construction-related impacts. Increases in ambient noise levels due to the construction to the Proposed Project are expected to be minor and temporary. Noise generated by construction equipment would vary depending on the equipment type, model, operational mode, duration of operation, and the specific type of work in progress. However, impacts resulting from construction noise would be localized and temporary. Areas immediately around the Airport currently do not support nolse sensitive land uses, The nearest nolse sensitive land uses (e.g., rural residential) are located approximately 4 mile to the north of the project study area. Daytime construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would be relatively minor and localized to the project study area. The construction of the Proposed Project would need to be compliant with the City of Jacksonville Environmental Protection Board, Rule 4, Noise Pollution Control (see Final Focused EA Attachment C), As a result, the Proposed Project would not result in a significant construction noise impact to noise sensitive land uses. Construction activities have the potential to cause short-term effects on ambient air quality. The emissions would occur due to disturbing land (particulate dust emissions), motor vehicles accessing the construction site and traversing disturbed grounds, and from direct emissions from construction equipment. Short-term emissions associated with the combustion of hydrocarbons, such as diese! fuel would be minor and would not cause significant air quality impacts in surrounding areas. Fugitive dust emissions would be temporary, and limited to a relatively small area on-Airport, The use of BMPs during construction activities would minimize air quality effects resulting from fugitive dust emissions. As a result, dust emissions, would not affect adjoining properties. Construction of the Proposed Project has the potential to cause temporary water quality impacts. Rain events could result in stormwater runoff that could contain pollutants associated with construction activities. These pollutants include sediments due to clearing and grubbing activities and fuels, lubricants, and solvents associated with the maintenance and operation of construction equipment. The use of BMPs, permitting requirements, and sustainable measures isee Final Focused EA Section &{12){b)) during construction activities would minimize temporary, construction-related water quality effects. Construction-related traffic would cause minor and temporary and would not permanently degrade Levels of Service (LOS) on roadways in the vicinity of the Proposed Project.