U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Western Technical Operations Anchorage, Alaska

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Western Technical Operations Anchorage, Alaska"

Roderick Michael Watts
5 years ago
Views:

1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Western Technical Operations Anchorage, Alaska FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT RELOCATION OF THE AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER (ATCT) SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA November 22, Introduction. This Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) announces final agency determinations and approval for those Federal actions by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that are necessary to support the relocation of the existing Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) at San Francisco International Airport (SFO) requested by the City and County of San Francisco (CCSF). This FONSI provides the FAA s final determinations and approvals based on analysis described in detail in the Environmental Assessment for the Relocation of the Airport Traffic Control Tower, San Francisco International Airport dated September It has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended; implementing regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR Parts ); and FAA Order E CHG 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, effective March 20, The agency decision is based on information contained in the Environmental Assessment (EA), incorporated by reference, and all other applicable documents available to the agency. 2. Proposed Federal Action. The CCSF is proposing to relocate the ATCT functions from existing ATCT facilities integrated with Terminal 2 at SFO to a new ATCT that would be constructed at a site in Courtyard 2 between the existing Terminal 1 and Terminal 2. The relocated ATCT would be approximately 228 feet high and include approximately 39,600 square feet of office space for FAA ATCT personnel. For seismic safety and line-of-site reasons, the CCSF would demolish the existing ATCT facilities and the Airport administrative office space located on Levels 4 through 11 of Terminal 2 when the relocated ATCT is operational. The Federal actions necessary to carry out the proposed improvements include: Determination under NEPA that the Proposed Action would not result in significant environmental impacts. San Francisco International Airport 1

2 Unconditional approval 1 of that portion of the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) for SFO depicting the proposed site for relocation of the ATCT facilities pursuant to Title 49 U.S.C. Sections 40103(b), 44718, and 47107(a)(16); Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace; and Title 14 CFR Part 157, Notice of Construction, Alternation, Activation, and Deactivation of Airports. Determination under Title 49 U.S.C. Section 44502(b) that the Proposed Action is reasonably necessary for use in air commerce or in the interest of national defense. Continued close coordination with the CCSF and appropriate FAA program offices, as required, for safety during construction pursuant to Title 14 CFR Part 139 Certification of Airports under Title 49 U.S.C. Section Purpose and Need of the Proposed Project. The purposes of relocating the existing ATCT are to meet local seismic, building and fire code standards; meet FAA siting criteria and visibility requirements; accommodate future air traffic control equipment installations; and support the modernization of ATCT equipment. The need for the relocation of the ATCT is based on deficiencies with respect to seismic resistance of the current ATCT; in the event of a major earthquake, the existing ATCT facilities may be rendered inoperable. In addition, the FAA has a need to modernize existing air traffic control equipment and install future equipment, which cannot be accomplished within the current ATCT facilities. Any modifications to the existing ATCT facilities or relocation of the ATCT facilities must meet FAA siting criteria and visibility performance requirements, as defined in FAA Order A. 4. Alternatives. Two main categories of alternatives upgrading the existing ATCT facilities and relocating the ATCT facilities were identified as the range of alternatives potentially able to meet the purpose and need defined for the Proposed Action. Two other alternatives, the provision of ATCT services from the Northern California TRACON facility (FAA s backup procedure for the provision of ATCT services in the event that the ATCT is out of commission) and the No Action alternative, were also evaluated. The viability of strengthening the existing ATCT facilities to meet seismic design standards was evaluated. Seismic strengthening of the existing ATCT would require the addition of steel bracing in the Tower cab, which would obstruct air traffic controller views of the surrounding area, causing the ATCT to fail FAA s visibility performance requirements. Although renovation could include upgrades to the facilities to meet local building and fire code standards, the existing ATCT would not be able to accommodate future FAA equipment installations or support the modernization of ATCT equipment. Therefore, this alternative would not meet the purpose and need for the Proposed Action and was not retained. The provision of ATCT services at SFO from the Northern California TRACON facility in Mather, California, was also evaluated. FAA visibility performance requirements include the need for controllers to have an unobstructed view of aircraft on the ground within the movement areas at SFO. While the TRACON controllers could manage operations of 1 Unconditional approval means that FAA has determined that the proposed ATCT is safe and efficient for airport operations and airport use and that it is ripe for Federal decision, the environmental review process has been completed, and the Airport sponsor is authorized to begin building the approved project. San Francisco International Airport 2

3 airborne aircraft in the immediate vicinity of SFO as a backup if the ATCT equipment at SFO is not functional, controllers located in Mather, over 115 miles from SFO, would not be able to manage aircraft movements on the ground without visual contact. Therefore, this alternative would not meet the purpose and need for the Proposed Action and was not retained. Relocation of the existing ATCT facilities was examined through an ATCT Siting Study conducted by the FAA Los Angeles Terminal Engineering Center. The ATCT Siting Study examined 21 potential sites for a new ATCT and evaluated each site based on visual obstructions, operational issues, and constructability issues. Sixteen of the 21 potential sites were eliminated from further consideration based on results of the initial evaluation. The remaining five potential sites were further evaluated based on visibility performance requirements, and Federal laws, regulations, orders, and standards pertaining to the siting of an ATCT. Two of these five sites were eliminated due to additional constructability issues identified by CCSF staff. All of the three remaining alternative sites (Site 6B, Site 13, and Site 13A as shown on Exhibit 1) would introduce low to medium risk hazards to safe air traffic operations. All three remaining sites are located within the already developed terminal complex and would not present differing environmental impacts. Site 6B would introduce the least amount of risk to safe air traffic operations; however, this site failed several object discrimination tests, involved the tallest of the three alternative towers, and would thus be the most expensive to construct. FAA determined that the risk hazards associated with Sites 13 and 13A could be mitigated to low. In terms of constructability, Site 13 would interfere with access to the existing San Francisco Police Department Airport Division facility at Terminal 1, while Site 13A was the closest of all three sites to existing electrical utility infrastructure. The FAA concluded in the ATCT Site Survey that Site 13A was operationally suitable, presented no unacceptable risks to the National Airspace System, had the lowest construction costs, presented few constructability challenges, and would not affect aircraft operations following instrument flight rules (i.e., navigation by instrument reference rather than visual reference). FAA guidance states that, If there are no unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources, the range of alternatives may be limited to the no action and proposed action alternatives. 2 All of the actions would occur on developed Airport property and no unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources were identified. Although the No Action alternative would not meet the stated purpose and need for the Proposed Action, it was retained for analysis to fulfill Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA and to comply with FAA Order E. Thus, based on the evaluation of alternatives, two alternatives were retained for detailed evaluation in the EA: No Action alternative; and 2 Federal Aviation Administration, Order E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Change 1, paragraph 405d, effective March 20, San Francisco International Airport 3

San Francisco International Airport s airport blvd South San Francisco Terminal Complex Inset Site 8 Site 1 Site 12 Site 3A Site 3 Existing ATCT Site 11 Site 2 Site 5 Site 14 Site 4A Site 13A Site 15

millbrae ave Bayshore Hwy 101 Notes: ATCT = Airport Traffic Control Tower So

4 San Francisco International Airport s airport blvd South San Francisco Terminal Complex Inset Site 8 Site 1 Site 12 Site 3A Site 3 Existing ATCT Site 11 Site 2 Site 5 Site 14 Site 4A Site 13A Site 15 Site 4 Site 10 Site 10A Existing ATCT SAN FRANCISCO BAY Site 6 Site 6B Site 6A Site 13 See Terminal Complex Inset Site 9 Site 7 magnolia ave e. millbrae ave Bayshore Hwy 101 Notes: ATCT = Airport Traffic Control Tower Sources: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Los Angeles Terminal Engineering Center, San Francisco International Airport, San Francisco, California, Airport Traffic Control Tower Site Study, FINAL Report, October Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., February Exhibit 1 Not to Scale north Potential Sites for Relocating the ATCT Facilities

5 Proposed Action alternative relocation of ATCT to Site 13A in Courtyard 2 between Terminals 1 and 2 Of these two alternatives, only the alternative to relocate the ATCT to Site 13A meets the purpose and need for the proposed project and was identified as the preferred alternative. 5. Environmental Impacts of the Preferred Alternative. The potential environmental impacts and possible adverse effects of the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives were identified and evaluated in the attached EA. The environmental categories evaluated in the EA included noise; compatible land use; socioeconomic impacts, environmental justice, and children s health and safety risks; secondary (induced) impacts; air quality; water quality; wetlands; floodplains; coastal resources; fish, wildlife, and plants; Department of Transportation Act, Section 4(f) lands; historical, archaeological, architectural, and cultural resources; light emissions and visual impacts; natural resources and energy supply; hazardous materials, pollution prevention, and solid waste; construction impacts; and cumulative impacts. Farmlands and wild and scenic rivers are not present within the Study Area, and therefore would not be affected by the No Action or Proposed Action alternatives. The potential effects to the environment outlined in the attached EA document, though not considered significant, include temporary construction impacts related to construction noise, air quality, water quality, solid and hazardous waste, and construction traffic. Compliance with required permits and the implementation of best management practices would be used to reduce the impacts due to the construction work. Section 4.1 of the EA states that no change to existing air traffic patterns, aircraft movement areas, or the number and type of aircraft operations would occur under the Proposed Action when compared to the No Action alternative during the same time periods. Thus, no aircraft noise or compatible land use effects would occur. The Airport Director has provided the FAA with the required Land Use Assurance Letter dated March 1, As stated above, air quality effects due to construction would be temporary in nature, and are not anticipated to significantly affect air quality in the area (see Section 4.5 of the EA). Section 4.6 of the EA documents that the Proposed Action would not affect any known aquifers, surface waters, tributaries, or ditches. Sections 4.7, 4.8, and 4.9 of the EA document that no wetlands, floodplains, or coastal resources would be affected by the Proposed Action. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) were notified of the proposed undertaking in December 2010 (see Appendix E of the EA). No information or feedback relating to threatened and endangered species (T&E) was received in response from the USFWS or CDFG and no known local, regional, or State recognized candidate, sensitive, or special status species (special status species) occur at the proposed ATCT site or within the APE. Habitat for the federally threatened California redlegged frog and the federally endangered San Francisco garter snake exists on Airport property west of U.S. Highway 101, and known occurrences of the California clapper rail San Francisco International Airport 5

6 exists along the shore of San Francisco Bay. However, no habitat for these species exists within the APE, nor is it likely that these species would use the APE for migration to other habitat areas. No effect on T&E species is anticipated from implementation of the Proposed Action alternative. Section 4.12 of the EA documents that FAA has determined that no historic properties are present within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) established for this project. The FAA provided detailed information about the APE and the proposed undertaking via U.S. mail to the tribal contacts provided by the California Native American Heritage Commission. None of the Native American individuals or organizations responded to the information transmitted to them. Further, none of the tribal representatives have indicated any interest in the proposed undertaking at San Francisco International Airport. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), in a letter dated September 14, 2011 concurred that the finding of No Historic Properties Affected is appropriate. However, because there is a low potential for buried archaeological resources in the substrate immediately above bedrock, the SHPO has requested that an archaeological monitor be present when any work would be conducted in fill predating the 1970 s. The SHPO requires that if unanticipated discovery of archaeological materials occurs during construction or excavation, construction activities are to be halted and their offices be notified in accordance with provisions of 36 CFR The SHPO also requires a plan for the treatment of human remains, in the event any are uncovered during construction. 6. Public Participation. The interagency review process began on December 22, 2010 when project introduction letters were sent to 44 individuals representing Federal, State, and local agencies with jurisdiction over resources either known to be in the vicinity of SFO or for resources that could potentially be present in the area. Letters were also sent to surrounding communities. A list of the agencies and individuals the letters were submitted to is included in the attached EA. Comments were received from the following three agencies: SFO/Community Roundtable, City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Comments received were addressed in the subsequent Draft EA, which was transmitted on April 13, 2011 to the same individuals and agencies for review. The Draft EA was also placed in local libraries, posted on a project website, and publicly advertised as available to the general public for review and comment for a period of 30 days from April 13, 2011 through May 12, One comment letter was received on the Draft EA, from the County of San Mateo Planning & Building Department. The County of San Mateo Planning & Building Department requested that construction activities associated with the Proposed Action be conducted in an environmentally sensitive manner to ensure that all construction and demolition activities would not have an impact on San Francisco Bay or on non-airport land uses in surrounding areas. A copy of the letter is provided in the attached EA. 7. Mitigation Measures. This finding is contingent upon the airport sponsor s implementation of the following measures: 1. The airport sponsor shall obtain all permits required by Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. San Francisco International Airport 6

7 2. The CCSF shall implement the Bay Area Air Quality Management District s (BAAQMD) Basic Construction Mitigation Measures (that are recommended for all projects whether or not construction-related emissions exceed applicable thresholds of significance) to reduce pollutant emissions during construction activities: All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by certified mechanics and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 3. Measures would be in place for handling potentially contaminated soil and groundwater and for the protection of workers, the public, and the environment, including: Sampling and analysis of the excavated soil and encountered groundwater; Complying with San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Final Order , which specifies measures to protect workers and the public from exposure to hazards, and provides for site cleanup in accordance with appropriate regulatory guidance; Preparing a Health and Safety Plan and following Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) safety measures; Complying with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan; and Use of Best Management Practices, such as covering soil during rainy days and avoiding concrete wash release into storm drains. 4. An archaeological monitor must be present when any work would be conducted in fill predating the 1970 s. San Francisco International Airport 7

8 5. Any cultural resources discovered would be recorded and treated in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (48 FR ). Pursuant to 36 CFR (b)(3), if an inadvertent discovery is made during implementation of the proposed undertaking, the FAA and the SFO will require the construction activities in the vicinity of the discovery to stop, and take all reasonable measures to avoid or minimize harm to the property until the FAA and SFO conclude consultation with the SHPO. 6. If human remains are found during construction, ground-disturbing activities in the area of discovery would immediately be halted by the FAA and the SFO while a temporary construction exclusion zone surrounding the site was established to allow further examination and treatment of the find. The FAA and SFO would comply with State laws relating to prohibitions on disinterring, disturbing, or removing human remains from any location other than a dedicated cemetery (California Health and Safety Code Section ). If human remains of Native American origin are discovered during project construction, it is necessary to comply with State laws relating to the disposition of Native American burials, which fall within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission (California Public Resources Code Section ). 8. Agency Findings. In accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and requirements, the FAA makes the following findings/determinations for the Proposed Action, based upon the information and data contained in the EA. Based on the Final EA, no significant environmental impacts would be incurred as a result of the Federal Action. 9. Decision and Finding of No Significant Impact. The attached EA examines each of the various environmental resources that were deemed present at the project location, or had the potential to be impacted by the Proposed Action. The proposal to relocate the ATCT facilities to a located in Courtyard 2 between Terminals 1 and 2 and demolition of the existing ATCT and office space located in Terminal 2 levels 4-11, would not involve any environmental impacts that would exceed the threshold of significance as defined by FAA Order E. Based on the information contained in the EA, the FAA has determined that the Proposed Action is the most feasible and prudent alternative. The FAA has decided to approve the implementation of the eligible components of the Proposed Action as described in Section 2 of this FONSI. San Francisco International Airport 8

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Valero Benicia Crude By Rail Project

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Valero Benicia Crude By Rail Project Introduction This document describes the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) for ensuring the effective implementation