Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout147-07 RESOLUTIONRESOLUTION NO. 147-07 A RESOLUTION APPROVING TASK ORDER #1 WITH MCCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $45,000.00 TO CONDUCT AN OBSTRUCTION SURVEY OF THE DRAKE FIELD RUNWAY APPROACHES; ACCEPTING A GRANT FROM THE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF AERONAUTICS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,250.00; AND APPROVING A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $45,000.00. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, hereby approves Task Order #1 with McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc. in the amount of $45,000.00 to conduct an Obstruction Survey of the Drake Field runway approaches. Section 2. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, hereby accepts a grant from the Arkansas Department of Aeronautics in the amount of $2,250.00. Section 3. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, hereby approves a budget adjustment in the amount of $45,000.00. PASSED and APPROVED this 7th day of August, 2007. APPROVED: By: ATTEST: By: 472dec.k SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer C% • •,kA N5..7„3 ",roN%% �/llllllillll% TASK ORDER NO. 1 APPROACH OBSTRUCTION SURVEYS RUNWAYS 16 & 34 FAYETTEVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF WASHINGTON This Task Order is written pursuant to the basic agreement entitled CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES, executed on June 6, 2006, as amended. The referenced basic agreement pertains to proposed improvements to Drake Field, Fayetteville`s Municipal Airport. This Task Order entered into and executed on the date indicated below the signature block, by and between the City of Fayetteville and McClelland Consulting Engineers (MCE) sets forth the project description, project schedule, and engineering fees related to the necessary surveys to identify any obstructions within the approaches to Runways 16 & 34 at the Fayetteville Municipal Airport. The surveys will be conducted for a Class "D" 3/ mile Non -Precision Instrument Runway Approach for a distance of 10,000 feet from each runway end, in accordance with FAA Publication No. 405 and NGS requirements. SECTION I - PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is to consist of: assistance in applying for state and federal funding for the project; establishment of Primary and Secondary Airport Control Stations (Pacs & Sacs); field surveys to determine the geodetic location of each Pacs and Sacs; field W:IDRAKE FlELD1CONTRACTS12006-20081Task Order 1.doc surveys to establish control points for the aerial photo obstruction data; field surveys to determine the location and height of any object on the airport not identified by the aerial survey; project administration; submission of the data to NGS and the FAA; meetings with the City's Airport Department and Airport Board to review various aspects of the project; and any engineering services associated with this obstruction survey project. SECTION II - PROJECT SCHEDULE From the time the City of Fayetteville issues the Notice To Proceed (NTP), MCE will endeavor to execute the project as expeditiously as possible within an estimated approximate three (3) months period. SECTION III - SCOPE OF SERVICES MCE shall, generally, provide those services listed in the basic agreement which are applicable to this specific Task Order. Specifically, this project is likely to include: A. Establish Pacs & Sacs with control. B. Field Control Surveys. C. Aerial Obstruction Mapping. D. Project Administration W:IDRAKE FIELDICONTRACTS12006-20081Task Order 1.doc 2 SECTION IV - FEES AND PAYMENTS The following fees are to be paid to MCE as compensation for his services: A. Establish Pacs & Sacs: estimated to be $ 15,500. B. Control Surveys: estimated to be $ 5,000. C. Aerial Obstruction Mapping: estimated to be $ 22,000. D. Project Administration: estimated to be $ 2,500. The engineering cost for this project will not -exceed a total fee of $ 45,000.00. Appendices A, & B presents hourly rates for personnel anticipated to be assigned to this project and the unit prices as well as the basis of payments to be made to the MCE. SECTON V - BASIC AGREEMENT IN EFFECT: Except as amended specifically herein, the basic AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES shall remain in full force as originally approved and executed. W:IDRAKE FIELDICONTRACTS12006-20081Task Order 1.doc 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this AGREEMENT to be duly executed as of the date and year first herein written. FOR THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE: By: Attest: Date: 91)L1I0-1 May ......... rrrllryl ;a: •fo •,= :FAYETTEVILLE: FOR McCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.: By: 1 '%ticraN �,,••. ���lll111111iiti��1 Pre ident Attest: Vice Pre W:IDRAKE FIELDICONTRACTS12006-20081Task Order 1.doc 4 W:IDRAKE FIELDICONTRACT512006-20081fee sheets\TO 1 Fee.wb3 o 0 Co a r z m (GRAND TOTAL, ENGINEERING SERVICES PROJECT ADMINISTRATION AERIAL OBSTRUCTION MAPPING !CONTROL SURVEYS 'ESTABLISH PACS & SACS WITH CONTROL TASK DESCRIPTION CLAS!IPoCA70N> HOURLY RATE> W 0) - °' PROJECT DIRECTOR $147.00 0 PROJECT MGR.IENGR. $125.00 cd V 0 CO ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN $78.00 0 om °a o73 a o N 0 A 35 LICENSED SURVEYOR $90.00 Off! 0 0 40 0 0 Cr CO M C i2* rn CO CO CLERK TYPIST MILEAGE $48.00 $0.42 N J 0 126 CO 0 40 IV PO 0 "' o 0 CO C CO m m n m y 40 N ao N N at DIRECT Il EXPENSE M 4. al O o N cr.N p O N N p O M Ui I 8 r NN 8 EXTENDED TOTAL APPENDIX B Hourly Rates for Personnel Drake Field, Fayetteville Municipal Airport CATEGORY BILLABLE HOURLY RATE RANGE Principal Engineer Sr. Project Manager Project Manager Project Engineer II Project Engineer I Design Engineer Landscape Architect Engineering Technician III Engineering Technician II Engineering Technician I Construction Observer III Construction Observer II Construction Observer I Chief Draftsman Draftsman II Draftsman I Computer Technician Survey Technician Registered Land Surveyor 2 -Man or Robotic Survey Party Chief Soils Lab Supervisor Soils Lab Technician II Soils Lab Technician I $ 147.00 $ 137.00 $ 126.00 $ 105.00 $ 84.00 $ 86.00 $ 79.00 $ 63.00 $ 48.00 $ 79.00 $ 58.00 $ 42.00 $ 68.00 $ 53.00 $ 48.00 $ 74.00 $ 74.00 $ 90.00 $ 137.00 $ 63.00 $ 55.00 $ 42.00 $ 37.00 ClerklTypist $ 48.00 Mileage $ 0.42 * Subject to Annual Adjustment Mid -Year. W:IDRAKE FIELDICONTRACTS12006-2008\APPENDIX B TO 1.DOC City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Budget Adjustment Form Budget Year 2007 Department: General Government Division: Aviation & Economic Development Program: Airport Capital Expenditures Date Requested 8/7/2007 Adjustment Number Project or Item Added/Increased: $45,000 in the Professional Services account Project or Item Deleted/Reduced: $ 2,250 in the State Grants on Federal Projects account $42,750 in the Federal Cost Share account Justification of this Increase: Will provide for a Runway Approach Obstruction Location Survey. Justification of this Decrease: The funding will offset 100% of the expenses for the project. Increase Expense Budget (Decrease Revenue Budget) Account Name Account Number Amount Project Number Professional services 5550 3960 5314 00 45,000 07024 1 Account Name Decrease Expense Budget (Increase Revenue Budget) Account Number Amount Project Number State grants on Fed proj 5550 0955 6803 00 Federal Cost Share 2,250 07024 1 y3o`f 5550 0955 MP 0P 42,750 07024 1 Approval Signatures Reques Department ri irector Finance & Intern rvices D. tor Mayor eploi Date D to 7(0/07 Date Date Da e Budget Office Use Only Type: A B C Posted to General Ledger Posted to Project Accounting Entered in Category Log E Initial Date Initial Date Initial Date Ray M. Boudreaux Submitted By ka 1 ef5 City of Fayetteville r113� 1City Council Agenda Items ` j 1419 ��'6� Staff Review Form _ _ ;15 I'� crdJr 1 or Contracts 8/7/2007 City Council Meeting Date Aviation & Economic Development General Government Division Action Required: Department Action Required: Approve Task Order #1 with McClelland Consulting Engineers, Enc. Contact: Wayne Jones, P.E., PO Box 1229, Fayetteville AR 72702-1229, 479-443-2377, Fax 479-443-9241, in the amount of $45,000 to conduct an Obstruction Survey of the Drake Field Runway approaches. Approve the acceptance of a grant from the Arkansas Dept of Aeronautics for $2,250 / $42,750 (FAA pass-through funding). Approve a Budget Adjustment. 45,000.00 Cost of this request 5550.3960.5314.00 $ Account Number 07024 1 Project Number Budgeted Item Department 'rector City Attorne Budget Obstruction Survey Program Category / Project Name AviIED Imp Funds Used to Date Program / Project Category Name Airport Remaining Balance Fund Name Budget Adjustment Attached Q. )i,,,` 7- 11-o7 Finance ar)d Internal Service Director Date Ma r / F ate X Previous Ordinance or Resolution # Original Contract Date: Original Contract Number: Comments: The project is 100% funded by grants. City Council Meeting of: August 7, 2007 Agenda Item Number: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO/STAFF CONTRACT REVIEW MEMO TO: Mayor and members of the City Council THRU: Staff/Contract Review Committee FROM: Ray M. Boudreaux, Director, Aviation and Economic a pment DATE: July 18, 2007 SUBJECT: Approval of Task Order #1 July 18, 2007 with McClell : nd Consulting Engineers for Runway Obstruction Surveys and a Budget Adjustment recognizing $45,000.00 in Grant revenues. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Task Order #1 July 18, 2007 with McClelland Consulting Engineers for runway obstruction surveys of both approaches to the runway at Drake Field and a Budget adjustment recognizing the grant revenue of 45,000.00 through the State of Arkansas Department of Aeronautics FAA System Planning Grant #3-05-0000-006-2007 and a 5% match from the State Aeronautics Commission. BACKGROUND: The first step in implementing the Fayetteville Municipal Airport five year improvement plan to improve the Runway Safety Area on the north end of the airport is to conduct a Runway Obstruction Survey. This project will provide updated survey information for both ends of the runway and will be conducted TAW guidance provided by the FAA. The survey is necessary to insure that the project we have proposed will adequately remove the obstructions currently affecting approaches from the north. Members of the Airport Board and staff presented the project to improve the Runway 16 RSA and received assurance of funding over the next few years. This project is the first of several and is the necessary first step. DISCUSSION: Airport staff presented application for this project to the State Aeronautics Commission July 11, 2007 in Searcy, Arkansas. The project was approved and a grant letter is part of this package. The State grant is for the 5% match to the Federal AIP funding which is being provided by the FAA to the State as part of the FAA System Planning Grant #3-05-0000-006-2007 "to develop Obstruction Surveys for proposed instrument approaches at multiple General Aviation Airports as specified by the State of Arkansas Department of Aeronautics." Fayetteville Municipal Airport, Drake Field is one of the airports included in the FAA grant. BUDGET IMPACT: This project is 100% funded by the FAA State System Planning Grant to the State of Arkansas ($42,750) and the State of Arkansas Aeronautics Commission ($2,250). Attachments: Task Order #1 Grant Letter from Department of Aeronautics Staff Review Form Budget Adjustment Aviation and Economic Development Department Fayetteville Municipal Airport, Drake Field 4500 South School Avenue, Suite F Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Ray M. Boudreaux, Director RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING TASK ORDER #1 WITH MCCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $45,000.00 TO CONDUCT AN OBSTRUCTION SURVEY OF THE DRAKE FIELD RUNWAY APPROACHES; ACCEPTING A GRANT FROM THE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF AERONAUTICS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,250.00; AND APPROVING A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $45,000.00. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, hereby approves Task Order #1 with McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc. in the amount of $45,000.00 to conduct an Obstruction Survey of the Drake Field runway approaches. Section 2. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, hereby accepts a grant from the Arkansas Department of Aeronautics in the amount of $2,250.00. Section 3. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, hereby approves a budget adjustment in the amount of $45,000.00. PASSED and APPROVED this 17th day of August, 2007. APPROVED: ATTEST: By: By: DAN COODY, Mayor SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer MIKE BEEBE GOVERNOR Commissioners Marion Burton Little Rock Dr. Gene lines Little Rock Charles Simmons Rogers Don Ruggles Texarkana Lindley Smith Jonesboro Ken Johnson Pine Bluff Dr. William Morgan Paragould STATE OF ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF AERONAUTICS Little Rock National Airport • One Airport Drive • 3rd Floor Little Rock, Arkansas 72202-4402 Telepho (501) 376-6781 • Fax: (501) 378-0820 July 11, 2007 Mr. Ray M. i udreaux, Director Aviation & * nomic Development Fayettevi e Municipal Airport 4500 South School Avenue, Suite F Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Dear Mr. Boudreaux: RE An 13 ZUUI F � JOHN K. KNIGHT DIRECTOR The Arkansas Aeronautics Commission in their meeting of July 11, 2007 approved a State Airport Aid Grant in the amount of $2,250.00 for obstruction survey at the Fayetteville Municipal Airport. (A1P-5%) Your grant has been assigned a number for identification purposes. Please use 2481-07 as your grant number when corresponding with our office concerning your project. You should advise the Director of this office if you find you will not be able to complete the project for the amount approved. An amendment request for the project may then be acted on at the next Commission meeting. The Commission will not be responsible for any additional project costs unless the sponsor has received notification in advance. The Commission has asked that we call your attention to Page Three (3) of your application for State Airport Aid. You agreed, when the application was submitted to start the project within three months after approval or the grant would be null and void. The next to the last paragraph requires that the project be completed within one year unless it is partially funded by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Please advise if circumstances beyond your control prevent the completion within the allotted time, otherwise, the grant may be canceled. Payment of this grant may be made on completion of the project. Please request payment of this grant in writing and include your documentation for the project at that time. Sincerely, John K. Knight Director JKJcb i McCLEL ND CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. I DESIGNED TO SERVE 1 P.O. Box 7229 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72702-1229 479-443-2377 FAX 479-443-9241 July 18, 2007 Mr. Ray Boudreaux Airport Manager, Fayetteville Municipal Airport 4500 S. School Suite F Fayetteville, AR 72701 Re: Task Order No 1 Approach Surveys Fayetteville Municipal Airport Dear Mr. Boudreaux: RECEIVED JUL 1 8 2001 AIRPORT In response to your request, please find three (3) copies of Task Order No 1 for the obstruction surveys for runways 16 & 34. Please advise if you need further information regarding this Task Order. Sincerely, McCLELLAND' a NSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. l/ -t___-• Way e J% -s, P.E. Vice P•-sident Enclosure: Task Order No 1 (3 copies) W:IDRAKE FIELDICONTRACTS12006-20081BOUDREAUX-0718-TO 1.DOC: (7/25/2007) Paul Becker - Fwd: Notice to Proceed/Aeronautics/FAA From: Ray Boudreaux To: Becker, Paul Date: 7/25/2007 3:43 PM Subject: Fwd: Notice to Proceed/Aeronautics/FAA Hi Paul, Here is the information you requested. Cheers, Ray Ray M. Boudreaux, Col. USAF (ret) Director, Aviation & Economic Development 4500 S. School Ave., Suite F Fayetteville, AR 72701 ph. 479.718.7642 fax. 479.718.7646 email: rboudreaux@ci.fayetteville.ar.us »> <FearlessMl@o aol.com> 7/25/2007 3:10 PM »> Mr. Boudreaux: Please be advised that a "Notice to Proceed" is approved for the obstruction survey project at the Fayetteville Municipal Airport. FAA Airport Improvement Program Grant #3-05-0000-006-2007 in the amount of $42,750.00 will provide 95% funding for the study. A 5% state airport aid grant in the amount of $2,250.00 was approved by the Arkansas Aeronautics Commission on July 11,2007. Total project cost not to exceed $45,000.00. Please call our office at (501) 376-6781 if you have questions concerning this matter. Sincerely, John K. Knight Director JK/cb ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom3Otour 8,14.07 Clarice Pearman - Res. 147-07 From: Clarice Pearman To: Boudreaux, Ray Date: 8.14.07 5:14 PM Subject: Res. 147-07 Attachments: Res147-07 McClelland Consulting Engineers Inc TO1.doc CC: Audit; Fell, Barbara Ray: Attached is a copy of the above resolution passed by Council, August 7, 2007 approving the McClelland Task Order #1 for the obstruction study. I will forward to you via interoffice mail two of the three original agreements and forward the budget adjustment to Budget & Research. Please let me know if there is anything else needed for this item. Have a good day. Thanks. Clarice Clarice Buffalohead-Pearman, C.A.M.C., C.M.C. City Clerk/Treasurer Division 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 479-575-8309 coearmaneci.favetteville.ar.us whL11-0/ U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Region FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Runway Safety Area Improvements Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Fayetteville, AR April 17, 2009 I. INTRODUCTION P ECE VED waN APR 2 9 2009 FaVsl AIRrURT 0. bipt The purpose of this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is to briefly present the reasons why the Federal action(s) supporting development of the proposed improvements to the Runway Safety Area (RSA) at Drake Field will not have a significant effect on the human environment. This airport is located in Washington County, Fayetteville, AR, and serves the citizens in the Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers area. It has a single grooved - asphalt runway, Runway 16/34, that is 6,006 feet in length and 100 feet in width. The City of Fayetteville, the owner of the airport, requested Federal actions, including: A. Approval of acquisition of approximately 11.5 acres of additional property. B. Relocation of approximately 2,500 linear feet of US Highway 71 to the west. C. Relocation of Earnest Lancaster Drive to the north. D. Approval of realignment of approximately 400 feet of a channel of Airport Branch. E. Construction of drainage and earthwork to meet FAA dimensional standards. F. Approval of the Airport Layout Plan for the improved airport. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead agency for the proposed project; the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is a cooperating agency. All environmental issues have been reviewed by both federal agencies, as well as by the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD), acting on behalf of FHWA. Attached to this FONSI is the environmental assessment (EA) on which this finding is made. II. SUMMARY In 2006, the City of Fayetteville completed a Master Plan Update for Drake Field which contained a recommendation to correct the deficiencies of the RSA for Runway 16. This runway end does not comply with FAA standards due to its proximity to US Highway 71 on the north end of the Airport. This EA offers a hard look at the environmental consequences of bringing the Runway 16 RSA into compliance with federal standards. Appropriate Federal, state, and local agencies provided input on the draft EA. Local citizens were also encouraged to provide comments on the document. It has been coordinated with FHWA and AHTD, and has been made available to the public for review. For the draft EA, a notice of public hearing was published in the local newspaper, The Arkansas Democrat Gazette, on February 27 and March 1, 2009. In addition, a copy of the draft EA was provided to the United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians as they have a historical interest in northwest Arkansas. The public comment period was open from February 27 through April 13, 2009, and a public hearing was held on March 30, 2009, at Drake Field. Approximately 26 people, including an official from the FAA and the City of Fayetteville, attended the hearing where both oral and written comments were submitted. The final EA was prepared pursuant to the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 C.F.R. Parts 1500-1508). Additionally, the final EA meets the guidelines identified in FAA Orders 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures and 5050.4B, NEPA Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions. No thresholds of significance were found to be exceeded in the final EA. After review of. the final EA and letters received during the intergovernmental coordination process, the public review process, and other supporting documentation, the FAA has determined that a FONSI is justified for the design and development of the proposed RSA improvement project at Drake Field. M. PURPOSE AND NEED The need for the proposed action is described in Chapter A of the EA, page A2. An RSA is a defined area surrounding the runway that enhances the safety of aircraft should one undershoot, overshoot, or veer off the runway, and provides greater accessibility for firefighting and rescue equipment. The area is required to be cleared of most objects and graded with no potentially hazardous surface variations. The area must be capable of supporting snow removal equipment, rescue and firefighting equipment, and allow for the passage of aircraft without risk of structural damage. The purpose of FAA's Runway Safety Area Program (see Order 4200.08) is to ensure all federally -obligated and certificated airports conform to the RSA standards published in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13, Airport Design, to the extent practicable. The appropriate dimensions for the Runway 16 RSA are a width of 500 feet and a length of 1,000 feet. Because US Highway 71 and Earnest Lancaster Drive converge with the extended runway centerline north of the Airport, the Runway 16 RSA does not meet this 2 standard. The RSA of Runway 16 is only 902 feet in length and tapers to a width of only 325 feet. Past grading and drainage improvements have maximized the RSA as much as possible within the current constraints. The City of Fayetteville desires to comply with FAA standards for RSAs and to be able to accommodate the requirements of the aviation community by providing a safe operating environment for all aircraft, including business and executive aircraft. The City desires to safely accommodate current demand and expected growth in aviation activity in the area, and to allow for a more flexible fleet of aircraft. IV. ALTERNATIVES The FAA explored and objectively evaluated reasonable alternatives that were considered practical and feasible in meeting the purpose and need. Chapter B of the initial EA describes the alternatives considered and the evaluation of each. FAA Order 5200.08, Runway Safety Area Program, provides guidelines for evaluating various alternatives to rectify non-standard RSAs. In accordance with this and other guidance, several alternatives were considered. However, most of these alternatives were considered impractical and unreasonable and thus were removed from further consideration. Two alternatives, including the "no action" alternative required by NEPA, were considered in detail. The alternatives evaluated but eliminated from detailed study in the EA include: Construct New Airport: rejected primarily because the cost of building a new airport, including land acquisition and design, is not justified given the financial investment in the existing airport. • Construct New Runway: rejected primarily because Drake Field does not have the aviation demand to justify the expense of an additional runway. • Relocate Existing Runway: rejected primarily due to the cost of acquiring additional property and because of limitations of the existing terrain within the approaches to the Airport. • Reducing Runway Length: rejected because the existing runway length does not exceed that required by existing and projected design aircraft. Any reduction of runway length would adversely affect the functional utility of the Airport. • Shift Runway 800 Feet South: This alternative was evaluated in detail in the 2006 Master Plan Update. While it would eliminate the non-standard RSA for Runway 16 and preserve most of the runway's functional length, it would entail extensive earthwork and paving and require the relocation of navigational aids and runway lights. This alternative was rejected primarily due to the cost associated with it. • Declared Distances: This would involve displacing the Runway 16 threshold to the south by 800 feet resulting in an unacceptable reduction in Landing Distance Available (LDA) for Runway 34 and so was rejected on functional utility grounds. • Runway Extension and Declared Distances: This alternative was also considered in detail in the 2006 Master Plan Update. It involved extending the runway 1000 3 feet to the south, displacing the Runway 16 threshold 800 feet to the south and using declared distances to eliminate the Runway 16 non-standard RSA. However, this alternative results in the loss of 800 feet of functional pavement for the Runway 24 LDA, extensive earthwork and paving, relocation of lights and navigational aides, and is cost -prohibitive. • Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS): A standard EMAS provides an equivalent level of safety to an RSA by providing high -energy -absorbing material that will reliably stop an overrunning aircraft by exerting deceleration forces on its landing gear. However, in order to implement an EMAS in compliance with FAA AC 150/5220-22A, Engineered Materials Arresting Systems for Aircraft Overruns, the Runway 16 threshold would still need to be displaced by 400 feet to the south resulting in an unacceptable reduction in functional utility of the runway. • Runway Extension and EMAS: This alternative was evaluated in the 2006 Master Plan Update and requires a minimum runway extension of 400 feet, extensive earthwork and paving, relocation of navigational aides and runway lights, and is cost -prohibitive. It was rejected on these grounds. The two alternatives evaluated in detail in the EA include: • Alternative One — No Action Alternative: In this approach, the airfield would remain essentially configured as it is today subject to routine maintenance. This alternative is the least expensive to implement but does not meet the purpose of bringing the Runway 16 RSA into compliance with FAA standards. • Alternative Two — Relocate Highway 71 and Earnest Lancaster Road: This approach involves relocated approximately 2500 linear feet of US Highway 71 to the west and Earnest Lancaster Drive to the north of the approach end of Runway 16. After acquisition of approximately 11.5 acres of additional land, this would provide the necessary land area to accommodate a compliant Runway 16 RSA. In addition, approximately 400 feet of Airport Branch creek must be realigned to remove the channel from the Runway 16 RSA. The realigned portion of the highway will replace the existing configuration of fieve 10 -foot wide lanes with four 12 -foot wide lanes and one 11 -foot wide center turn lane. The alternatives were evaluated based on environmental impacts and cost considerations. After a complete consideration of all alternatives studied in the EA, Alternative Two, Relocate Highway, was selected as the preferred alternative by the City of Fayetteville, and FAA concurred in this recommendation. Therefore, the FAA in this FONSI has determined that Alternative Two, relocating Relocate US Highway 71 and Earnest Lancaster Road, is the FAA's preferred and selected alternative. In arriving at this decision, the FAA considered all pertinent factors, including the environmental impacts as well as the FAA statutory charter in the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, to encourage and foster the development of civil aeronautics (49 U.S.C. § 40101). 4 V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES A. Potential Impact Resource Categories Implementation of the Proposed Action has the potential to impact the following resource categories: Air Quality Fayetteville is currently in attainment of all National Ambient Air Quality Standards; the State of Arkansas has adopted the federal air quality standards. While minimal impact to air quality may occur as a result of the relocation of US Highway 71 and Earnest Lancaster Road and any necessary grading and earthwork in the RSA, no long-term adverse effects are anticipated and no mitigation, other than the use of best construction practices and compliance with FAA AC 15015370-10C, Standards for Specifying Construction ofAirports, is required. Compatible Land Use The Airport is within the city limits of Fayetteville and adjacent to the City of Greenland. Airport property is currently zoned for light industrial use. Residential zoning exists to the northeast, northwest and west of the Airport and commercial zoning is found north of the Airport. Areas to the east and southeast of the Airport are under the jurisdiction of Washington County and have not been zoned. Zoning and land use maps are located in Chapter C of the EA. Land use compatibility is usually evaluated with respect to noise impacts, but also may include land acquisition, relocations of businesses or residences, community disruption, etc. The proposed project will require the acquisition of approximately 11.5 acres of land, most of which is currently vacant. A closed business exists on 0.3 acres of needed land, and an existing business, Standard Register, sits on 3.2 acres of needed land. The proposed project will result in the loss of employee parking area for Standard Register, but access to the business and the highway will remain unaffected. The proposed project will result in an increase in highway noise, due to the relocation of US Highway 71, at one residence. This impact is discussed in the "Noise" section below. All property acquisitions will be in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (URARPAPA) and Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations at 49 CFR Part 24. Construction Impacts Potential impacts from construction of the proposed project include noise, air pollution from construction equipment, dust, creation of borrow pits, air pollution from burning of debris, and water pollution from erosion and stormwater runoff. However, these will be short-term and confined to the construction site. In addition, all parties associated with construction shall employ best management practices and abide by specific standards in FAA's AC 150/5370-10, Standards for Specifying Construction ofAirports. The sponsor shall acquire, and all construction activity shall abide by, all required permits including a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Following the permit requirements, the requirements of AC 150/5370-10 and using best management practices will minimize any potential impact from these short-term construction activities. Farmland Development of the airport is expected to impact approximately ten acres of prime farmland, although most of the land is not currently in agricultural production. According to the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form completed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, located in the Appendix of the EA, the total acres expected to be lost as farmland is relatively small. This project is not expected to directly or indirectly affect more than 0.004% of the Prime Farmland in Washington County. This is viewed as an insignificant impact and no mitigation is required. Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Coordination was undertaken with the agencies charged with oversight of the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The proposed action will displace some vegetation, although the entire area has been previously disturbed by human activity. The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) were contacted regarding threatened and endangered species and/or critical habitat in the project area. While no threatened, endangered or candidate species are known to occur on the proposed project site, several such species can be found in Washington County. Many of the threatened and endangered species are cave dwellers and there are no known cave resources in the project area. However, should a cave be found during construction of the proposed project, all work in the vicinity will immediately cease and the USFWS will be notified and a species survey will be conducted. Floodplains The 100 -year floodplain of the West Fork White River covers much of the south and east portions of Airport property. Floodplains in the project area are associated with the 6 Airport Branch and its tributary. As part of the proposed project, approximately 400 feet of Airport Branch must be realigned to remove it from the RSA. During the final design stage of the project, project plans and data will be submitted to AHTD for appropriate permitting per local floodplain ordinances. The project will be designed to avoid overtopping of the 100 -year flood. Floodwater retention functionality of the floodplain will not be significantly affected by the project. Potential mitigation measures include: • Appropriate sizing of culverts and drainage structures to prevent backwater effects • Channel alterations will be minimized as much as practicable • Adequate erosion control measures will be employed. Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste There are no identified waste sites or landfills in the project area, and all waste materials produced by the airport or generated during construction of the proposed project will be disposed of in accordance with applicable state and local regulations. An Environmental Due Diligence Audit (EDDA) will be required prior to appraisal and acquisition of any property for this project. . Compliance with standards in Executive Order 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards, will be followed and Best Management Practices will be utilized to prevent, control and abate hazardous materials and waste products. In the unlikely discover of buried hazardous wastes during construction, the City of Fayetteville will evaluate the type and extent of environmental contamination and will develop a remediation plan, if necessary, in compliance with federal regulations. Historical, Architectural, Archeological and Cultural Resources Consultation was initiated with state agencies charged with protecting the historical and cultural resources of Arkansas. The State Historic Preservation Office stated that five historic or archeological sites are in or near the proposed project area. Four of these sites are physical structures, including a hangar and three historic aircraft. The other is a prehistoric site consisting of a single flake. The hangar and aircraft will not be affected by this project and the prehistoric site is not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. There will be no significant impact to any cultural resource and no mitigation is required. However, in the unlikely event of discovery of any cultural or archeological artifacts, all work in the project area will immediately cease and the Department of Arkansas Heritage will be contacted for evaluation of the discovery. Noise The potential for the production of adverse noise levels exists at any airport, and the FAA has several tools available to assess the potential noise impact of airport operations. The FAA's criterion for evaluating the impact of "noise energy exposure" is expressed in terms of yearly day/night average sound level (DNL). The threshold of significance for purposes of determining whether a proposed action will cause significant noise impact is set forth in FAA Order 1050.1E. A significant noise impact is defined as a 1.5 decibel (or greater) increase within the 65 DNL contour over any noise sensitive area when compared to the "no action" alternative. Future year aircraft noise contours were generated and the 65 DNL contour extends off airport property to the north and south. To the south, two residences are contained within the 65 DNL; however, this impact is the result of expected aviation growth and not the result of the proposed project. In addition, neither residence will experience a 1.5 dB increase in noise levels as a result of this project. No mitigation is required. Because the proposed project involves relocation of US Highway 71, a highway traffic noise analysis was also conducted. The complete analysis can be found in the Appendix of the EA. For this analysis, FHWA-approved models and metrics were used and the effects of the highway relocation were assessed at six residences in proximity to the relocated roadway. FHWA guidance defines a significant noise impact as noise levels approaching or exceeding 67 Leq (equivalent noise level), or an increase of at least 10 Leq, due to project implementation. When traffic noise for the relocated highway was modeled, there were no residences or other noise receptors within contours approaching 67 Leq. However, one residence identified in the EA as Receptor 5, will experience a greater than 10 Leq increase in noise from the highway relocation. Although this meets FHWA definition of a significant noise increase, the residence does not meet FHWA's criteria for noise abatement. However, as a result of this NEPA analysis the residence is eligible for Airport Improvement Program (AlP) funding for noise mitigation through either sound attenuation or fee simple purchase on a voluntary basis. In the event the homeowner is relocated, all provisions of URARPAPA and DOT regulations at 49 CFR Part 24 will be followed. Social and Socioeconomic Impacts The proposed action will not divide or disrupt established communities, will not disrupt orderly, planned development and will not cause a negative change in employment. However, implementation of the project will require the relocation of Earnest Lancaster Road and US Highway 71, the removal of some employee parking associated with a nearby business (Standard Register), and may result in the relocation of one homeowner. The relocation of this road and highway may temporarily inconvenience citizens but is not expected to have a permanent adverse effect. Standard Register indicates that it has excess employee parking and the relocation of the roadways will not restrict access or otherwise impact the business. All property acquisitions will be in accordance with URARPAPA and US DOT regulations at 49 CFR Part 24. Wetlands and Waters of the United States The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) completed a site visit to the Airport in 2007 and determined that components of Ward's Slough were jurisdictional wetlands. The proposed project will result in the need for three crossing of two tributaries of the West Fork White River to the north of the Airport and realignment of approximately 400 feet of Airport Branch. These activities will require a Stormwater Construction General Permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). Other required permits required by the Clean Water Act are a Section 401 Water Quality Certification, Section 402 NPDES permit and a Section 404 Dredged or Fill Material permit. The impacts of the stream crossing and channel realignment will be addressed in the USACE Section 404 permitting process. The FAA and the City of Fayetteville will comply with any mitigation measures required by the USACE. Mitigation measures to minimize harm to waters of the United States will include: • Timely installation of culverts to protect the channel from crossings of construction machinery • Avoidance of creek channels beyond the culvert area • Protection of channels outside the construction area • Minimize vegetation removal during construction and rapid re -vegetation of disturbed areas following completion of construction • Adherence to all Best Management Practices in the NPDES permit • Installation of silt fences and other erosion barriers during construction. No wetland impact is expected from implementation of this project and no known springs or sole source aquifers will be impacted by the project. B. Resource Impact Categories Unaffected by the Proposed Action DOT Section 4(f) Section 4(f), recodified at 49 USC Section 303, provides that no public park wildlife refuge or historic sites will be affected by federal -aid projects or federal undertakings. While there are 12 parks that have received federal monies in the project vicinity, none will be affected by the proposed RSA project or road realignments. Light Emissions and Visual Impacts The proposed project will not involve installation or relocation of Airport approach lighting systems and no light impacts will be experienced by surrounding residences. There are no identified scenic areas or visually sensitive resources in the project area. Water Quality The project area is within the Ozark Highlands Ecoregion and the watershed of the West Fork White River. Prior to commencing construction of the airport, primary erosion control devices, such as berms, and storm water drainage control will be installed in areas prone to scouring to prevent mud and silt from flowing onto adjacent properties and to protect water bodies from siltation and fill. These devices will be maintained and their performance monitored for the duration of the project. Correspondence with the ADEQ indicated that the state had no objections to the project as long as it was operated to comply with all .applicable water standards for the area. The project is not expected to significantly increase water pollution in the Fayetteville area or the state of Arkansas. Wild and Scenic Rivers No designated Wild and Scenic Rivers or rivers with the potential for such designation have been identified within the study area for the proposed action. Therefore, coordination under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 is not required. VI. CONDITIONS As prescribed by 40 CFR § 1505.3, the FAA shall take steps as appropriate to the action, such as through special conditions in grant agreements, property conveyance deeds, releases, airport layout plan approvals, and contract plans and specifications and shall monitor these as necessary to assure that representations made in the EA and FONSI will be carried out. Specifically, conditions of approval associated with this project are listed below. A. Solid and hazardous wastes must be collected and disposed of at an approved facility as mandated by the county, state and Federal requirements. B. All practicable measures to minimize harm to all wetlands and waters (jurisdictional or otherwise) will be included in implementation of the proposed project, and the design and construction of any new wastewater components must be in accordance with state design guidelines and standards. 10 C. Measures will be taken to comply with all applicable local, state or Federal regulations regarding short-term adverse affects related to construction, including noise from construction equipment on the site, dust from delivery of materials or ground -breaking activities, water pollution from erosion, etc. The provisions of Advisory Circular 150/5370-10, Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports, will be followed. D. Although discovery of significant historic or cultural remains is not expected, project personnel will be instructed to be aware of buried cultural resources, such as chipped stone, pottery, bone, glass, brick, metal, etc. might be exposed by construction. In that event, work shall cease in the immediate vicinity and the sponsor shall contact the FAA Arkansas/Oklahoma Airports Development Office and the State Historic Preservation Office. E. Migratory bird species are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act from harm or take during the nesting season. Many such bird species migrate through the area and may establish nests within the project area during the nesting season from March through August. To prevent construction activity impact on nesting migratory birds, all construction activities associated with airport development will occur outside the general migratory bird nesting season of March through August, or areas proposed for construction during the nesting season will be surveyed, and when occupied, avoided until nesting is complete. F. A Phase I Environmental Due Diligence Audit (EDDA) must be prepared prior to land acquisition for the proposed new airport. In the event previously unknown contaminants are discovered during construction, or a spill occurs during construction, work should cease until the National Response Center (NRC) is notified. VII. DECISION CONSIDERATIONS AND ADDITIONAL FINDINGS Throughout the development of this project, the FAA has made every effort to adhere to the policies and purposes of NEPA, as stated in CEQ Regulations for Implementing NEPA, 40 CFR § 1500-1508. The FAA has concentrated on the truly significant issues related to the action in question. In its determination whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or process the EA as a FONSI, the FAA weighed its decision based on an examination of the EA, comments from Federal, state, and local agencies, public comments, as well as all other evidence available to the FAA. The FAA has determined the available record demonstrated that no thresholds indicating the potential for significant impact were exceeded and an EIS is not required. In addition, the FAA determined that existing evidence available to the agency clearly points to the proposed project as beneficial in fulfilling the FAA's statutory mission of promoting a safe and efficient nationwide airport system, and further study of the issues in an EIS will result only in "amassing needless detail." As the nation's aviation agency, the FAA has the ultimate technical expertise to develop, evaluate, and select actions and alternatives that would result in safe and efficient use of U.S airspace as prescribed in 49 U.S.C. §40103(a). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. Section 44502(b), the FAA has determined that the proposed action is reasonable and necessary for use in air commerce. The final EA has adequately provided the agency with the information it needs: (a) to make an informed, objective decision on the environmental effects, as well as other effects, of the proposed project; and (b) to take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment. The FAA weighed both the potential positive and negative consequences that this proposed action may have on the quality of the human environment. Further processing of this proposed action in an EIS would needlessly generate additional paperwork and a rehashing of issues, while simultaneously impeding the FAA from carrying out its mission and blocking a primary goal of NEPA -- that of fostering excellent action. In summary, the FAA opts to use a finding of no significant impact based on its conclusions that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the human environment. RECOMMENDED c FOR APPROVAL: Peggy D. Wade Date Environmental Specialist APPROVED: . APR 1? LU0 Edward N. Agnew Manager Arkansas/Oklahoma Development Office Date 12 Environmental Assessment For Runway Safety Area Improvements Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Fayetteville, Arkansas Prepared for: City of Fayetteville Prepared by: BARNARD DUNKELBERG & COMPANY Cherry Street Building 1616 East 15th Street Tulsa, OK 74120 918/585-8844 and I rICCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 1810 North College Avenue Fayetteville, AR 72702 479/443-2377 Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) April 2009 'Phis envirmmrnental assessment beco es a Federal Document when evaluated and signed by the responsible Fi \ Official. APR 1 7 2009 Responsible I'\A Official Date Contents Contents Tables Illustrations Summary Purpose and Need of Project Introduction Background Project Need Project Purpose Federal Action Requested Alternatives Introduction Alternatives Alternatives Evaluated in Detail Affected Environment Project Setting Land Use, Zoning, and Comprehensive Planning Natural Environment Man Made Environment Socioeconomic Environment Other Planned Activities Environmental Consequences Introduction Cumulative Impacts Air Quality Coastal Resources Compatible Land Use Construction Impacts Department of Transportation Act Section 4(f) ill V vi Vi', A.1 A.1 A.2 £3 A.3 B.1 B.1 B.4 C.1 C.4 C.9 C.14 C.20 C.24 D.1 D.1 D.4 D.5 D.5 D.6 D.8 Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment II! I, I .1 E Farmlands D.8 Fish, Wildlife, and Plants D.9 Floodplains D.10 Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste D.11 Historical, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources D.12 • Light Emissions and Visual Impacts D.13 INatural Resources and Energy Supply D.14 Noise D.15 Secondary (Induced) Impacts D.19 1. Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental Justice, and Children's Environmental Health and Safety Risks D.20 Water Quality D.21 Wetlands and Waters of the United States D.22 Wild and Scenic Rivers D.24 Mitigation E.1 List of Preparers F.1 Appendix Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment iv 1• Tables Table Cl Existing (2005 and 2007) Aircraft Operations C.17 Table C2 Modeled Existing Noise Levels (dBA) C.20 Table C3 Summary of Historic and Projected Population Estimates C21 Table C4 Household and Housing Characteristics, 2006 C.22 Table C5 Income and Employment Characteristics, 2006 C.22 Table Di Comparative Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts D.2 Table D2 Future (2025) Aircraft Operations D.15 Table D3 Future No Action Highway Noise Levels DIG Table D4 Future Proposed Project Highway Noise Levels D.18 r Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment 1 Illustrations Figure B1 Proposed Projects B.5 Figure CI Airport Location Map C.2 Figure C2 Airport Vicinity Map C.3 Figure C3 Existing Airport Layout C.5 C4 Generalized Existing Zoning C.7 IFigure - Figure C5 Generalized Existing Land Use C.8 Figure Co Generalized Future Land Use C.10 Figure C7 Wetlands and Waterways C.12 Figure C8 Floodplain Map C.13 Figure C9 Existing (2005) Aircraft Generated Noise Contours Generalized Existing Land Use C.18 IWith FigureClo Potential Highway Noise Receptors C.19 •, Figure Dl Potential Cumulative Impact Projects D.3 IFigure D2 Future (2025) Aircraft Generated Noise Contours ' With Generalized Existing Land Use D.17 I, •t Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment vi 1 I 1 Summary This assessment identifies the effects of improving the Runway Safety Area (RSA) on the north end of Runway 16/34 at Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field. The improvements involve acquiring approximately 11.5 acres of additional property, relocating approximately 2,500 linear feet of U.S. Highway 71 to the west, relocating Ernest Lancaster Drive to the north, and realigning an approximate 400 -foot channel of Airport Branch. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead agency for the proposed projects and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is a cooperating agency. All environmental issues have been jointly reviewed by both federal agencies, as well as by the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD). FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts. Policies and Procedures, and FAA Order 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing InstrwctionsforAirportActions, were adhered to in the preparation of this document. The document is submitted in accordance with 42 u.s.c. 4332(2). Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment pit I I. l Purpose and Need of Project I,, E. Introduction Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field is a Part 139 Class IV general aviation airport located in the southern part of Fayetteville, Arkansas. The Airport served as the only commercial service airport in northwest Arkansas until late 1998, when Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport opened and now serves the commercial service needs of the region. However, the Airport maintains a Part 139 Class IV Certification in order to serve charter flights by large air carrier type aircraft associated with the University of Arkansas athletic events. The Airport also bases several business jets and regularly accommodates operations by business jets serving the corporations and industry of the southern half of the Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). The Airport has one runway, Runway 16/34, which is 6,006 feet in length and 100 feet in width. It is equipped with Medium Intensity Runway Lights (MIRL), Omnidirectional Approach Lights (ORALS) and Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) lights at both runway ends. The taxiway system serving the runway consists of a parallel taxiway, Taxiway B, on the west side of the runway, and a partial parallel taxiway, Taxiway A, to the east of the runway, along with many exit and connector taxiways. A terminal building, several hangars, aprons, an Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT), an Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (.ARFF) facility, and a fuel storage facility are situated at various locations on the Airport. Background Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field recently completed an Airport Master Plan Update in December 2006. One of the primary recommendations resulting from this study was to correct the deficient Runway 16 Runway Safety Area (RSA). According to FAA design criteria contained in Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300 13, Airport Design, an RSA is a defined area surrounding a runway that enhances the safety of aircraft r undershooting, overshooting, or veering off the runway, and provides greater accessibility for firefighting and rescue equipment during such incidents. The 'I Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment . 1.t appropriate RSA dimensions for Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field are a width of 500 feet and a length beyond the runway end of 1,000 feet. Design standards within the dimensions require: a cleared and graded area having no potentially hazardous surface variations; drained to prevent water accumulation; capable, under dry conditions, of supporting snow removal equipment, aircraft rescue and firefighting equipment, and the occasional passage of aircraft without causing structural damage to the aircraft; and free of objects, except for objects that are required to be located within the RSA because of their function (i.e., runway lights) provided they are mounted on frangible supports. The RSA at the approach end of Runway 16 does not comply with FAA dimensional standards because U.S. Highway 71 converges with the extended runway centerline north of the Airport. The RSA length is only 902 feet on the runway centerline and 325 feet wide on the north end where it narrows due to the convergence of U.S. Highway 71 and Earnest Lancaster Drive, the airport service road. Project Need FAA Order 5200.8, Runway Safety Area Program, established the FAA RSA Program and the procedures for implementation. The objective of the RSA Program is to ensure that all federally obligated airports and airports certified under Part 139 conform to the RSA standards contained in FAA AC 150/5300-13, to the extent practicable. The Program further requires a determination of each RSA for meeting appropriate design standards, and mandates updating as additional information becomes available. The Airport and FAA have made past efforts to rectify the non-standard RSA in the past through grading and drainage improvements that maximized the RSA size. However, these actions did not bring the RSA into full compliance with design standards. A 1999 Runway Safety Area Determination, issued by the FAA, indicated that the non-standard Runway 16 RSA was acceptable since no extension of the runway had occurred since the December 31, 1987 date listed in 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 139, which required RSA standards to be maintained. The determination also found that there were "no plans to extend Runway 16/34 at Drake Field as the current runway length was sufficient to accommodate existing and future aircraft fleet mixes." However, the 2006 Airport Master Plan Update found that aircraft fleet mixes were changing sufficiently to warrant an examination of runway extensions. It was determined that a number of larger business jets utilizing Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field require a longer runway to reach their destinations without stopping for fuel. Thus, the Airport Master Plan Update indicated that a runway extension of 1,000 feet to the south be planned and protected for future implementation. This recommendation changed the information used as a basis for the 1999 Runway Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment A.2 •i I Safety Area Determination, and indicated a renewed analysis was necessary for achieving RSA standards. Subsequent to the 2006 Airport Master Plan Update, which contained an evaluation of five alternatives that would alleviate the non-standard RSA, the FAA issued a revised Runway Safety Area Determination for Runway 16 at Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field (see Revised Runway Safety Area Determination in Appendix Six). In this determination, the realignment of U.S. Highway 71 and Earnest Lancaster Road was chosen as the preferred action for bringing the RSA into full regulatory compliance. Project Purpose It is the policy of the City of Fayetteville and Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field to accommodate the current and future aircraft fleet in a safe, efficient, and reliable manner without payload restrictions, and to comply with the 2006 revised Runway Safety Area Determination for Runway 16. The City and Airport do not want to impede the ability to receive future funding for major runway improvements or a runway extension. In order to accomplish these goals, a Runway 16 RSA meeting all FAA dimensional standards is required. Additionally, the imposition of any departure or arrival performance penalties is unacceptable for operational purposes at the Airport. Federal Action Requested FAA approval and financial assistance has been requested to purchase approximately 11.5 acres of additional property, realign U.S. Highway 71 and Earnest Lancaster Drive, construct drainage structures, and earthwork that meets RSA standards. Federal Highway Administration (FH\VA) approval of the realignment of U.S. Highway 71 is required. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is anticipated from the FAA. 1 1 Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment A.3 Alternatives Introduction The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) states that federal agencies performing an environmental review shall rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives that are eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated. The document should also devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail including the Proposed Project, reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency, and include the No -Action Alternative. Alternatives In an effort to meet the goals of the community, to serve the needs of the aircraft operating at the airport, and improve the safety of the airfield environment, alternatives were considered as to the feasibility and reasonability of each. The following discussion presents those alternatives eliminated from further discussion and analysis, and the reasons for elimination. These alternatives were determined to be impractical primarily due to the costs involved when compared to the benefits derived. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated FAA Order 5200.8, Runway Safety Area Program, provides guidance for evaluating various alternatives that rectify non-standard RSA conditions. The first alternative considered should always be the provision of the traditional graded area meeting all dimensional standards surrounding the runway. If this is not practical, then providing as much of the standard area as possible should be pursued through the examinations of the following alternatives. • Relocating, shifting, or realigning the runway. • Reducing runway length if the existing length exceeds the design aircraft needs. Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment B.1 • A combination of runway relocation, shifting, grading, realignment, or reduction. • Declared distances. • Engineered Materials Arresting Systems (EMAS). Relocating or Realigning the Runway. Relocating or realigning the runway are not considered practical solutions based on the cost of acquiring additional airport property and the surrounding terrain limitations within the approaches to the Airport. Reducing Runway Length. Reduction of the overall runway length is likewise not considered viable because the existing length does not exceed the existing or projected design aircraft performance needs and would cause the Airport to lose functional utility of the runway. Shift Entire Runway by 800 Feet. This alternative, evaluated in the 2006 Airport Master Plan Update, proposed shifting the entire runway 800 feet to the south. It would eliminate the non-standard Runway 16 RSA conditions and maintain the current effective runway length for all but the landing distance available for aircraft landing to Runway 34. While achieving the Runway 16 RSA standards compliance, the 800 -foot extension to the south would require extensive earthwork and paving, relocation of the localizer antenna south of Runway 34, relocation of both sets of the Omnidirectional Approach Lighting System (ODALS), adjustment of runway lights, and the loss of 800 feet in functional utility of the Landing Distance Available (LDA) for Runway 34. The estimated order -of - magnitude cost for this alternative is $16,800,000. Declared Distances. Declared distances, also evaluated in the 2006 Airport Master Plan Update, is an effort to preserve usable runway length in a cost effective manner while adhering to RSA design standards. This alternative displaced the Runway 16 threshold to the south by 800 feet and declared different runway lengths available for satisfying different functions in calculating aircraft performance requirements. This alternative resulted in an unacceptable reduction in LDA to both runway ends and the Accelerate - Stop Distance Available (ASDA) for Runway 34 of 800 feet. An order -of -magnitude cost estimate for this alternative is $800,000. Runway Extension and Declared Distances. This alternative was also considered and evaluated in the 2006 Airport Master Plan Update. It involved extending the runway by 1,000 feet to the south, displacing the Runway 16 threshold by 800 feet to the south, and using declared distances to eliminate the Runway 16 RSA non-standard condition. This alternative increased Takeoff Run Available (TORA) and Takeoff Distance Available (TODA) by 1,000 feet for both runway ends, increased the ASDA for Runway 16 by 1,000 feet and for Runway 34 by 200 feet, improved the LDA for Runway 16 by 200 feet, but reduced the LDA for Runway 34 by 800 feet. The primary reasons for eliminating this alternative were the loss of 800 feet in functional utility of the Runway 34 LDA, extensive Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment B.2 earthwork and paving, lighting adjustments, ODALS relocation, and localizer relocation. The order -of -magnitude cost estimate for this alternative is $20,000,000. EMAS. This alternative used Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) to resolve the non-standard Runway 16 RSA. A standard EMAS provides a level of safety that is• generally equivalent to a standard RSA by means of high energy absorbing materials of selected strength that will reliably and predictably fail under the weight of an aircraft. Or more simply stated the EMAS is designed to stop an overrunning aircraft by exerting predictable deceleration forces on its landing gear as the material crushes. The EMAS would require installation beginning at approximately 200 feet north of the existing Runway 16 threshold and extending north by approximately 430 feet. Guidelines from AC 150/5220-22A, Engineered Materials Arresting Systems (EMAS) for Aircraft Overruns, indicate that a minimum of 600 feet in length of the standard width RSA must be provided prior to a landing threshold providing adequate protection for aircraft touching down prior to the runway threshold (i.e., an undershoot). This means that the Runway 16 landing threshold would still require a displacement of 400 feet to the south for the provision of the minimum 600 feet in length of the standard width RSA. While achieving compliance with RSA standards, it would result in an unacceptable reduction in functional utility of the Runway 16 LDA of 400 feet. An estimated order -of -magnitude cost is $7,300,000. Runway Extension and EMAS.. In order to compensate for the unacceptable reduction in the Runway 16 LDA, the use of a runway extension and EMAS was evaluated in the 2006 Airport Master Plan Update. While the alternative in the Airport Master Plan Update evaluated an extension of 1,000 feet, a minimum extension of 400 feet is necessary. This combination of runway extension and EMAS achieved compliance with RSA standards and maintained the minimum 6,006 feet in runway length. However, it would require a 400 -foot extension, and thus extensive earthwork and paving, lighting adjustments, ODALS relocation, and localizes relocation. The order -of -magnitude cost estimate for this alternative is $15,300,000. Other Alternatives Eliminated Construct a New Airport. The construction of a new airport was rejected primarily because the existing investment in airport facilities does not justify the benefit achieved. The time and costs of selecting a new airport site, preparing engineering studies, completing the environmental process, acquiring land, and constructing the replacement facilities would not be justified, since the existing airport accommodates the aviation demand with comparatively little additional investment. Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment B.3 Construct a New Runway. A new runway, either parallel with Runway 16/34 or oriented in a different direction, would only provide benefit to the Airport if adequate wind coverage was not provided by the existing airfield arrangement, or if additional capacity was required to resolve aircraft delay deficiencies. This alternative was eliminated from further consideration because adequate wind coverage is provided and the Airport is not experiencing significant aircraft delays, nor are any expected to materialize in the future. Alternatives Evaluated in Detail Alternative One -- No Action Alternative. This is the no action alternative, in which the Airport would not provide the proposed Runway 16 RSA improvements and the airfield configuration would generally remain as it is today. Routine maintenance would be required of the airfield to remain a viable aviation facility. This alternative offers the advantage of being the least expensive to implement. Alternative Two —Relocate U.S. Highway 71. This alternative relocates approximately 2,500 linear feet of U.S. Highway 71 to the west and Ernest Lancaster Drive to the north near the approach end of Runway 16, which will provide the necessary land area required for a standard RSA. The Airport currently owns approximately 17 acres of land west of U.S. Highway 71 and would need to acquire about four additional acres to accommodate the rerouted highway. Approximately 7.5 acres of additional property is required directly north of the existing airport property to accommodate the relocated Earnest Lancaster Drive. The realigned portion of the highway will replace the existing configuration of five 10 - foot wide lanes (i.e., two northbound, two southbound, and a center turn lane) with four 12 -foot wide lanes (two northbound and two southbound), with an 11 -foot wide center turn lane. Current and future vehicular traffic will not be affected either positively or negatively as a result of the proposed projects. An approximate 400 -foot segment of Airport Branch must be realigned to locate the channel outside the Runway Safety Area. This alternative, illustrated on the following figure entitled PROPOSED PROJECTS, has an estimated order -of -magnitude cost of $4,000,000. Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment B.4 Barnard Dunkelberg Company Team ;' Land Acquisition Figure B1 Proposed Projects xecut>I.ve : rpoxt/Drake Field Aa RUNWAYSAFETYAREA E VIRONMENTAI ASSESSMENT k.,.,,,." ,... ;. B.5 Affected Environment Project Setting Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field is owned and operated by the City of Fayetteville, and which is the ultimate decision -making body of the Airport. The Airport Director is a member of the Mayor's key staff. The City has established the Airport Advisory Board to assist the City Council in matters pertaining to the operation, improvement, extension, and maintenance of the Airport. As illustrated in Figure C1, entitled AIRPORT LOCATIONIvL4P, the Airport is located in northwest Arkansas, in Washington County, approximately 35 miles south of Missouri and 20 miles east of Oklahoma. As shown in Figure C2, entitled AIRPORT VICINITY MAP, the Airport is located in southern Fayetteville, roughly three miles south of the City's central business district. The Airport is located primarily in Sections 4 and 9, Township 15 North, Range 30 West and has an elevation of 1,251 feet above mean sea level. Airport property consists of about 631 acres. The Airport consists of one runway, Runway 16/34, a parallel taxiway, a partial parallel taxiway, a terminal building, an Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT), aircraft storage hangars, aprons, and support facilities. Runway 16/34 is 6,006 feet in length, 100 feet in width, and is constructed of grooved asphalt. The runway has a gross weight bearing capacity of 90,000 pounds single wheel, 150,000 pounds dual wheel, and 175,000 pounds dual tandem wheel main landing gear configuration. It is equipped with Medium Intensity Runway Lights (MIIRL), threshold lights, and four -light Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) lights on the left hand side of both runway ends, and an Omnidirectional Approach Lighting System (ORALS) serving both runway ends. Two localizer antennas are located on the Airport, one is south of the approach end of Runway 34, and the other is east of the runway on the south side of Taxiway D. Taxiway B, a full-length parallel taxiway located on the west side of the runway, provides access to both ends of the runway from the terminal apron. Taxiways C, D, E, and F are Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment C.1 yraL'a BarnardDunkelbergCompanyTeam I. o x MISSOURI R R 5 f R R RJR — . Bella Vista st c d a Pea Ridge 62 Bentonville BENTON Rogers CaveSprings ■ Elm prings......................... Siloam Springs S nn dale 71 r IRAWF0RD Source: Microsoft Street & Trips 2005 & 2008 i rr b��iu lNli' Ei �rvk�i fir[r I )r Vrz E4 w Jr � lirsf- � P i rr3'• r Yet v ` v II CARR0LI Eureka Springs 52 Beiisn,In fI. d rt4 71alve \1 CI.. Airpo t/Dr.k r Fidd MAD i SON FRANKLIN JOHNSON Approximate Scale 1"= 10 Miles Figure Cl Airport Location Map �� w r ecurie ort/Drake Field :.:.DDSD attt RUNWAY SAFETYAREA NVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTS I[4111NtNVNNa4F lillltlDDNVD\xRttJ t Y s ...:'z C.2 BarnardDunkelhergCompanyTeam 15„ N Figure C2 Airport Vicinity Map e � 4 xecut�ve'Aurpc�xt/Duke Field F:'„ R RUNWAYSAFETYAREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT C.3 exit taxiways providing access from the runway to Taxiway B. Taxiways C and D also provide access from the runway to Taxiway A, the partial parallel taxiway located east of the runway. Taxiway D also provides access to the east side general aviation hangars. Taxiway G provides access to the USDA Forest Service staging area facilities between Taxiways D and E. Figure C3, entitled EXISTING AIRPORT LAYOUT, illustrates the existing airport facilities. The climate of northwest Arkansas is represented by relatively warm summers and mild winters. Frequently, warm, humid, maritime air from the Gulf of Mexico covers the area. The average annual temperature is 57.5° F and annual average relative humidity is 55%. Average maximum temperature 67.9° F and the average minimum temperature is 46.9° F. Annual precipitation averages 46.0 inches that is fairly well distributed throughout the year, which includes an approximate average of eight to nine inches of snowfall. Land Use, Zoning, and Comprehensive Planning The Airport is situated entirely within the Fayetteville City Limits. The City of Greenland is located directly adjacent to the western boundary of the Airport. The majority of the area south and east of the Airport is outside of any city limits in rural Washington County. Zoning According to the Fayetteville Title XV Unified Development Code and the most current zoning map, airport property is currently zoned light industrial. This is a zoning district created to group together a wide range of industrial uses that do not produce objectionable environmental influences. This zoning classification also applies to the area directly north of the Airport adjacent to U.S. Highway 71. To the northeast and northwest of the Airport, residential zoning classification is prevalent. Commercial zoning is applied to properties north of the Airport, north of the industrial zoning, and adjacent to U.S. Highway 71. The lands to the east and southeast of the Airport are outside the city limits of Fayetteville and Greenland, and are under Washington County jurisdiction, which has not enacted land use zoning control. Although the City of Greenland is in the process of updating their zoning map, the most recent City of Greenland Zoning Map indicates agricultural and industrial zoning categories apply to properties within the Greenland City Limits. West of U.S. Highway 71 is commercial zoning. Residential is the predominant zoning category within the City of Greenland directly west of the Airport. A strip of commercial zoning is applied to the Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment C.4 az.,t,s ; FROM BarnardDunkeIberg Company Team Approximate Scale 1"-1,500' Figure C3 Existing Airport Layout pTflPyTT1e .eeut'.Airport/Drake Field a 0 R[INWAYSAFETYAREAVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT C5 properties between the highway and the Arkansas -Missouri Railroad, and a larger area is applied near the north end of the Airport, immediately adjacent to the railroad and the highway. The existing zoning districts as applied in the airport vicinity are illustrated on the following figure entitled GENERALIZED EXISTING ZONING. Existing Land Use Existing land uses within the vicinity of Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field generally follow the zoning patterns established by the municipalities. The predominant land use for the areas surrounding the Airport is residential. In addition to Airport property, industrial development occurs to the north, north of Earnest Lancaster Drive and west of U_S. Highway 71. Pockets of commercial land uses are located north of the Airport, both east and west of U.S. Highway 71. Land uses south and east of the Airport consist mainly of scattered rural residential development and agricultural or undeveloped properties. West of the Airport within the Greenland City Limits is dominated by residential land uses. Commercial development occurs south of the Airport and east of U.S. Highway 71, west of the Airport between the highway and the railroad, and directly west of, and adjacent to, the Airport. The Greenland Public Schools are located directly west of Runway 34, and a park is located west of U.S. Highway 71. The existing land uses are illustrated on Figure C5 entitled GENERALIZED EXISTING LAND USE. Future Land Use The City Plan 2025 is Fayetteville's adopted future land use plan that seeks to balance tremendous growth within a livable, sustainable community, providing a comprehensive approach to planned and managed growth. The City Plan 2025 extends beyond the Fayetteville City Limits to unincorporated areas that have, or will have, an impact on the City. Generally, the City Plan 2025 reflects the existing land use and zoning patterns. The Airport is designated as non -municipal government, which are areas that do not fall within the city's jurisdiction and are not subject to zoning or development regulations. Properties directly north of the Airport, located to the east and west of U.S. Highway 71, are designated industrial. This category is applied to those areas with buildings that, by their function, disposition, or configuration, cannot conform to one of the other designated areas and/or its production process requires the area to be separated from other uses. Farther north, residential neighborhood designation is dominant. This category is applied to areas that are almost exclusively residential in nature, with naturalistic planting and conventional setbacks. It may have large blocks and irregular roads to Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment C.6 Barnard IDunkelberg Company Team R, Fayetteville WW1/oU9h61'Rd rn J i 7J r Base Map Source: Microsoft Street & Trips 2005 & 2008 xecuti�e ort/Drake Field l"std 8 RUN WAYSAFETYAREAENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT Residential Commercial Industrial aarna Agriculture Approximate Scale 1"= 2,660' Figure C4 Generalized Existing Zoning C.7 Barnard Ilunkelberg Company Team,' • Base Map Source: MicrosoftStreet &Trips 2005 & 2008 esidential ommercial idustrial griculture/Open ublic i"= 2,6OO Figure C5 Generalized Existing Land Use s e Iil eecutl e Arpdrt/Drake Field Ri1NWAYSAFETYAREAENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT C.8 accommodate natural conditions. Civic and private open space/parks designation is applied to the Fayetteville Country Club. This land use designation applies to sites that are permanently dedicated to open space or parkland. To the northwest, east, and southeast of the Airport, natural areas and rural areas are the two dominant designations. Natural areas consist of lands approximating or reverting to a wilderness condition, including lands with limited development potential due to topography, hydrology, vegetation, or its value as an environmental resource. Rural areas consist of lands in an open or cultivated state or sparsely settled. They include woodland, agricultural lands, or grasslands with an infrastructure system and public services that support low -density zoning of one home per 15 acres or more. The City of Greenland does not have a future land use plan, but is in the process of preparing one. Therefore, there are no future land use designations for properties within the Greenland City Limits. Future land use designations within the Airport vicinity are presented on the following illustration entitled GENERALIZED FUTURE LAND USE. Natural Environment Fayetteville and Washington County are located on the western edge of the Eastern Deciduous Forest of northwest Arkansas. This is an area of rolling hills, rivers, creeks, springs, oak -hickory and pine forests, with interspersed prairie. The terrain is classified as karst topography and has an unknown number of subterranean cavities. Air Quality The Federal Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, requires states to have a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to achieve established air quality goals. These air quality goals were established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970 and are called the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NA AQS). The Clean Air Act requires that all areas achieve the standards for these pollutants. The State of Arkansas has adopted ambient air quality standards identical to the federal standards. These standards have been established for the following pollutants: Carbon Monoxide (CO), Particulate Matter (Pv4,o and Ptii2.;), Ozone (O3), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Lead (Pb), and Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). Areas that exceed these standards are considered non -attainment areas and a plan must be developed to bring the area into compliance. On November 6, 1991, the EPA released an updated list that identifies non -attainment areas. With the exception of West Memphis, the updated list indicates that all of the Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment C.9 State of Arkansas is classified as being an attainment area for all pollutants listed in the NAAQS. Farmlands The project area is located primarily on two soil series, as identified in the Washington County Soil Survey, which are the Taloka silt loams and the Samba silt loam. Taloka silt loams are considered prime farmland if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season. Samba silt loams are classified as prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season. Both soil types are also considered hydric soils. Water Resources The dominant water resources in the vicinity of the Airport are the West Fork White River and Wards Slough. Both water bodies are located at the south end of airport property and flow from southwest to northeast. The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality list the West Fork White River as an impaired water body due to siltation/sediment on the 303d list of the State's waters (see letter from the ADEQ Water Division in Appendix Three). Two drainage ditches are located in the project area near where U.S. Highway 71 and Earnest Lancaster Drive intersect, and flow eastward to a confluence with the West Fork White River. The United States Corps of Engineers completed a site visit to the Airport in late 2007 for the purposes of determining the presence of jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the United States. Components of Ward's Slough were identified as jurisdictional wetlands. The figure entitled WETLANDS AND WATERWAYS provides a depiction of jurisdictional wetlands and stream channels within the vicinity of the project area. Floodplains are those areas subject to a 1% or greater chance of flooding in any given year (i.e., an area that would be inundated by a 100 -year flood). Floodways, which are designated by federal, state, or local ordinance, are defined as floodplain areas that are reserved in a manner (i.e., unconfined or unobstructed either horizontally or vertically) to provide for the discharge of the base flood so that the cumulative increase in water surface elevation does not exceed a designated height. Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), are used to delineate the floodplains and floodways. According to Map Numbers 05143CO220F and 05143cO360F, dated May 16, 2008, and illustrated on Figure C8 entitled FLOODPLAIN MAP, the 100 -year floodplain associated with the West Fork White River covers the majority of the south and east portions of the Airport. It also follows the unnamed tributary along the north boundary of the Airport where it crosses U.S. Highway 71 Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment C.11 BarnardBunicelberg Company Team Approximate Scale 1"=1,500' Source: U.S.Aany Corps of Engineers, Action No.11391-1, Fayetteville Municipal Airport Jurisdi[tionalWetlands Airport Expansion. Sections 4 & 9, T.15 N., R.30 W.; February 29, 2008, Sheet 3 of 4, ® Stream Channels -a� Figure C7 Wetlands and Waterways I,xecu>�tve :Airport/Drake Field 1r Ain RUNWAY SAFETYAREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT C.12 ti BarnardDunkelherg Company Team = vxecu:tive Airport/Drake Field ilil4'' j4Hli RUNWAYSAFETYAREA E VIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT oodplain oodplain i'= 2,600' Figure C8 Floodplain Map C.13 within the project area. Additionally, there are designated floodways within the floodplains of the river and the tributary, which are also illustrated on the figure. There are no EPA designated Sole Source Aquifers within Arkansas. Vegetation and Wildlife The proposed project area is located on lands impacted by past human activity such as the Airport, highway and streets, and past residential development. Vegetation associated with the area west of U.S. Highway 71 and the north end of Airport property primarily consists of Bermuda and fescue grasses that are mowed frequently during the growing season. There are a few species of non-native deciduous trees located within the project area as well. The kind and abundance of wildlife that populate an area are dependent largely on the amount and distribution of food, cover, and water. It is generally possible to associate various wildlife with the prevailing plant communities, although wildlife are not confined to one singular area. Typical mammals that might be found within the project area would include coyote, deer, raccoon, rabbit, and fox. Familiar bird species include wrens, woodpeckers, robins, doves, cardinals, and hawks. Human influence has sharply curtailed the historic ranges of native wildlife species. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, endangered species known to occur in Washington County include the Gray bat (Myotisgrisescens), Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalist), Ozark Big -eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii ingens), Benton Cave Crayfish (Cambarus aculabrum), and the Missouri Bladderpod (Lesquerella fil formis). Additionally, the Arkansas darter (Etbeostoma cragini) and Neosho Mucket (Lampsilis refznesqueana) are candidate species that are known to occur in Washington County (see letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife in Appendix Three). Man Made Environment Section 4(f) Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (recodified at 49 Usc, Subtitle I, Section 303) provides that no publicly owned park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or land of a historic site that is of national, state, or local significance will be used, acquired, or affected by programs or projects requiring federal assistance for implementation. The Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism has been contacted and indicates there are 12 parks that have received grant monies in Fayetteville and Greenland (see letter from the Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism in Appendix Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment C.14 Three). Of the parks listed, only one appears to be within the vicinity of Drake Field/Fayetteville Executive Airport, which is the City of Greenland's Taylor Park. The location of this park, at the intersection of Caldwell and Pearson Streets, is within one- half mile southwest of Runway 34. Historic, Archaeological, Architectural, and Cultural Resources The Arkansas Historic Preservation Program indicates there are five sites located within, or close to, the project area. Four of the sites are historic structures, one of which is a hangar that is not currently eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and three are aircraft inside the hangar that are eligible for inclusion (see letter from the Arkansas State Historic Preservation Program in Appendix Three). The other is an archaeological site that is located within the proposed relocated highway and will be affected by the proposed project. However, this site consists only of a single prehistoric flake and is not considered significant. Though the Arkansas State Historic Preservation Program indicated in their letter that the eligibility of this site for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places has not been assessed, additional phone conversations with this agency indicated this site is not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (see phone log with Arkansas State Historic Preservation Program in Appendix Three). Hazardous Materials and Wastes A hazardous material is any chemical or substance that can cause harm to people, plants, or animals when released into the environment. The presence of any known hazardous materials within the project area was assessed by visual reconnaissance and a search of government databases. According to the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) database of hazardous waste generators, there are five sites in the vicinity of the project area, including the Airport. The other sites are: the Arkansas Army National Guard facility located east of U.S. Highway 71 near the north end of the proposed highway realignment; Kearney - National Inc., located just north of the Airport and east of the highway; Standard Register, located west of the highway at the north end of the highway realignment; and Culver Used Truck Sales located south of the airport terminal building and east of the highway. There are four sites within the project area with Regulated Storage Tanks (RST), according to the ADEQ database. The now -closed Super Stop convenience store has six underground storage tanks, Standard Register has one aboveground storage tank, the Airport has four aboveground storage tanks, and the Arkansas National Guard facility has one underground storage tank. Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment C.15 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Priority List (NFL) of Superfund sites has no record of any sites in Washington County, Arkansas. Noise Noise has been defined as unwanted sound. Sound is technically described in terms of loudness (amplitude) and frequency (pitch). The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). Decibels are based on the logarithmic scale, which compresses the wide range in sound pressure levels to a more usable range of numbers. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency -dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A -weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. The description, analysis, and reporting of community noise levels around communities is made difficult by the complexity of human response to noise and the myriad noise metrics that have been developed for describing noise impacts. Each of these metrics attempts to quantify noise levels, with respect to community response. Most of the metrics use the A -weighted noise level to quantify noise impacts on humans and can be divided into two categories: single event and cumulative. Single event metrics describe the noise levels from an individual event. Cumulative metrics average the total noise events over a specific time period, which is typically 1 or 24 hours. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has determined that the day -night sound level (DNL) metric is the appropriate measurement for community response to noise. It is a 24 -hour, time -weighted energy average noise level based on the A -weighted decibel. The FAA defines the 65 DNL as the threshold level for noise impacts. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that the Equivalent Noise Level (Leq) metric is the appropriate measure for determining highway noise impacts. It is a one - hour energy average noise level based on the peak hour noise. The FHWA has established the Leq Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) level of 67 dBA as the impact level for noise receptors associated with highway projects. Any sound approaching or exceeding this level is considered a noise impact. Additionally, if a noise receptor is projected to increase by 10 dBA or more as a result of the highway project, then it is considered impacted by traffic noise. As such, this Environmental Assessment will use DNL to evaluate potential aircraft generated noise impacts and the Leq to evaluate potential vehicle generated noise impacts. The Integrated Noise Model (INM) Version 7.Oa is used to generate the DNL noise contours associated with the aircraft operations. INM requires the input of the physical and operation characteristics of the Airport and aircraft. The aircraft operations at Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field for 2005 and 2007 are presented in Table C1, Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment C.16 BarnardDunkelbergCompanyTeam Base Map Source: Microsoft Street &Trips 2005 & 2008 !sidential immercial dustrial �ricultureIOpen iblic 1"= 2,600 Figure C9 Existing (2005) Aircraft Generated Noise Contours With Generalized Existing Land Use 6 i xe : tive Airport/Drake Field RUNWAYSAFETYAREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT C.18 BarnardDunkelberg, CompanyTeam .. Approximate kale 1"= 500' ® Potential Noise Receptor Site = Land Acquisition Figure C10 Potential Highway Noise Receptors sa 'xeeutxve :Aiport/Drake Field ?%a RUNWAY SAFETY AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTC.19 human use of the nearest residences to the project area where the AHTD and FHWA NAG are applicable. Existing traffic noise levels at the six receptors are presented in the following table, entitled MODELED EXISTING NOISE LEVELS (dBA). As can be seen in the table, the existing traffic generated noise levels are well below the 67 dBA Leq NAG at the noise sensitive receptors within the project area. Table C2 MODELED EXISTING NOISE LEVELS (dBA) Reepta... ExsngTeq 1 49 3 41 5 49 Source: Mestre Greve Associates, 2008. Socioeconomic Environment Population Characteristics Fayetteville Executive Airport is within the Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers Metropolitan Statistical Area' (1 fSA), a fast-growing area of northwest Arkansas. From 1990 to 2000, the population of the MSA increased from 113,409 to 347,045, and by 2006, had an estimated increase to 420,876. Fayetteville increased from 42,099 in 1990 to 58,047 in 2000, and to 68,726 by 2006. Washington County experienced an increase from 113,409 in 1990 to 157,715 in 2000, and 186,521 by 2006. Population projections indicate that Fayetteville is expected to increase to 89,943 by 2020, 97,917 in 2025, and 105,891 by 2030. Likewise, the Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers MSA is expected to increase to 621,405 by 2020 and to 722,327 by 2025. Washington County is expected to have a population of 246,327 by 2020, 268,480 by 2025, and 290,633 by 2030. The following table, entitled SUMMARY OF HISTORICAND PROJECTED POPULATION ESTIMATES, provides a summary of the population data. 1 The Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers Metropolitan Statistical Area includes Benton, Washington, and Madison Counties, Arkansas, and McDonald County, Missouri. Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment C.20 Table C3 SUMMARY OF HISTORIC AND PROJECTED POPULATION ESTIMATES 1990 42,0991 113,4091 11 2006 68.7261 420.8761 186.521' 2025 97,9171 722,327 Z 268,4801 '.Census State Data Center, institute for Economic Advancement, University of Arkansas at Little Rock. 2 Center for Economic and Business Research, University of Arkansas, June 6, 2003. Households and Housing The number of households in Fayetteville and Washington County is 27,343 and 73,257, respectively, according to the 2006 American Community Survey prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau. Family households comprise 49.0% of all households in Fayetteville and 63.9% in Washington County. The average household site in Fayetteville is 2.16 and 2.47 in Washington County. The 2006 American Community Survey reported 30,745 housing units in Fayetteville and 79,917 housing units in Washington County. The median owner -occupied housing value is $164,600 in Fayetteville and $149,000 in Washington County. Median monthly rent for Fayetteville is $639 and within Washington County is $642. The number of vacant housing units within Fayetteville is 3,402, representing an 11.1% vacancy rate. There are 6,660 vacant housing units within Washington County, representing an 8.3% vacancy rate. Household and housing data are presented in the following table entitled HOUSEHOLD AND HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS, 2006. Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment C.21 ht?:I! FactFmder.cec?sus. o %homeisaFf/main.htanl? lan,z=en. Visited February 26, 2008. Table C4 HOUSEHOLD AND HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS, 2006 30,745 43 $164,600 15,920 $639 3,402 27,343 Income and Employment Activity 79,917 44 tO7 > $149,000 32,07c $642 6,660 8.3% 73,257: The 2006 per capita personal income for Fayetteville is $23,250 and the median household income is $41,230, according to the 2006 American Community Survey. For Washington County, the data indicates a lower per capita income of $20,787, but a slightly higher median household income of $41,471. The total employed civilian labor force in Fayetteville is 34,960 with an unemployment rate of 2.7%. The Washington County total employed civilian labor force equals 92,621 • and has an unemployment rate of 4.8%. Table C5, entitled INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT • CHARACTERISTICS, 2006, presents the income and employment data for Fayetteville and Washington County. Table C5 INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS, 2006 Per „Capita Income._.._. ...................... $23,250 $20,787 Median Household income $41,230 $41,471: Employed Civilian Labor Forcc 34,960 92.621 Unem `lo. e zt Rate`.... : 2.7% 4 �`f Source. 2006 American Commflu ry Suney, U.S. Census Bureau website, ht:ilFcttxncle.ecnsus.y iIT, !saf/m in.fttnal% Lv __n. Visited February 20, 2008. Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment C.22 Education The Fayetteville Public School District has 16 schools, including 9 elementary schools, 2 middle schools, 2 junior high schools, and 1 high school. There are approximately 8,589 students enrolled in the Fayetteville Public School District. The Greenland Public School District consists of one elementary, one middle school, and one high school, and has approximately 893 enrolled students. Additional educational opportunities include the Northwest Arkansas Community College Regional Technology Center and an adult and community education center. The University of Arkansas provides post -high school education opportunity in Fayetteville. With approximately 13,989 undergraduates and 3,648 graduate students, the university had 17,637 enrolled students in the spring of 2008. The university has approximately 858 faculty positions. Health Care and Public Safety There are three hospitals providing comprehensive health care within Fayetteville. Washington Regional Medical Center is a fully integrated health care system providing 233 beds and over 300 physicians. Veterans Medical Center is 51 -bed medical center providing acute medical, surgical, and psychiatric care, and both primary and secondary levels of outpatient services for veterans. Willow Creek Women's Hospital is a 30 -bed full -service women's health provider offering a comprehensive list of services. The Fayetteville Police Department, with over 150 sworn and civilian members, is primarily responsible for law enforcement within the vicinity of Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field. The Greenland Police Department has four full time officers providing law enforcement within the Greenland City Limits. The Washington County Sheriff's Office provides law enforcement outside the city limits of Fayetteville and Greenland and administers the county detention center. Fire suppression and emergency medical response within the airport boundary is provided by the Fayetteville Fire Department. This department has six fire stations, six engine companies, and two ladder companies. Services provided include emergency medical, fire suppression, rescue, hazardous materials response, fire prevention, public education, and disaster preparedness activities. Fire response service provided in Washington County outside the Fayetteville City Limits, but in the vicinity of the Airport, is normally provided by either the Greenland Volunteer Fire Department, the Westfork Volunteer Fire Department, or through mutual aid agreement with the Fayetteville Fire Department. Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment C.23 Other Planned Activities Future development plans for the Airport included the construction of a 1,000 -foot runway extension to the south of Runway 16/34, implementation of an improved instrument approach to Runway 16, taxiway construction, additional hangar and apron construction, and airfield pavement rehabilitation. A proposed railroad spur connecting Scurlock Industries, a manufacturer of pre -cast concrete products located just north o€ the Airport and east of U.S. Highway 71, with the Arkansas Missouri Railroad, located west of U.S. Highway 71, has the potential for cumulative impacts caused by the construction of the two projects if not closely coordinated. There are no other known reasonably foreseeable actions within the project area that would affect the proposed project, or that the proposed project would affect. Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment C.24 Environmental Consequences Introduction f i 1 The purpose of this chapter is to present the analysis of the potential environmental consequences, identify sources of potential impacts, and outline any required mitigation measures. An examination of each of the specific impact categories defined in FAA Orders 1050.1 E, Policies and Procedrrros for Considering Environmental Impacts, and 5050.4B, 1\rational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions forflirport AL/ions are documented in the narrative of this chapter. The following table, entitled COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL E1\NVIRON 1Ei\TAL IMPACTS, presents a summary of the potential environmental impacts for each impact category. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impact of the proposed project when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or entity undertakes such other actions. Recent airport development projects have focused on providing additional apron and hangar areas to the north and south of the terminal building, and making improvements to the terminal building. Future airport expansion and development plans include a 1,000 -foot runway extension to the south of Runway 16/34, implementation of an improved instrument approach to Runway 16, additional hangar and apron space, taxiway construction, and airfield pavement rehabilitation. A non -airport related project within the vicinity of the Airport that has the potential for cumulative impacts includes the planned construction of a railroad spur to Scurlock lndustries, a manufacturer of pre -cast concrete products located just north of the Airport and adjacent to McCollum Avenue. The railroad spur could be extended to access additional industrial properties farther to the east. This construction will cross U.S. Highway 71 approximately 1,300 feet north of the Runway 16 end and will connect the Arkansas Missouri Railroad west of the highway to the manufacturing plant east of the highway. Options for connecting to the railroad include a north or south alternative. Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D. I The proposed construction timeframe for the railroad spur is currently unknown at this time. The following figure, entitled POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE IMPACT PROJECIS, presents the projects having potential cumulative impacts and the proposed projects. The cumulative impacts analysis for each resource category follows the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Project analyses below. Table Dl COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS t 1 t 1 1 Impact Category No Action Alternative Proposed Project Air Quality; No Impact "- Insignificant Coastal Resources No Impact No Impact patible Land Use No Impact Compatible with project Construction Impacts No Impact Insignificant OT Act Sec tion 4(f) No Impact No Impact Farmlands No Impact Insignificant iFish, Wildlife, and Plant No Impact.:,: Instgnificannt Floodplains No Impact Insignificant Hazardous Materials, Pollution No Impact No Impact Trevention,_and. Solid Waste . _� Historical, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural No Impact Insignificant Impacts Natural Resources and Energy No Impact No Impact 'One Noise No Impact noise sensitive receptor experiences a 13 dB increase Seeondary_(Induced) Impacts No Impact No Impact ,Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental Justice, and No. Impact No Impact Children's Environmental .. Health and Safety Risks Water Quality No Impact No Impact Wetlands and Waters of the No Impact Section 404 Permit required for realignment of Airport United States Branch channel Wild and Scenic Rivers No Impact No Impact Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D.2 IBarnardUunkelherg 1 Hort1iei Allgum tt RailroadS etoScudodthtdudda / Mlwted lnatrhOtamtel Sautl m S� m jg Rairrww Sputa 3QttIfM hfdtatlies • Bs:f r; C me ` Wooded Lanatt Orke Relocat dV.tHlglvwayli I1 I Id i.trrD:• Shurt'•lr�•�'f �� Draoit ;;r�•p, � " 1 * ll L 1 1 i 1A W t __ I .1 I 44 I Potential Cumulative• Impact Projects �',Yl'Clitlye Airport /Drake I'ic d RUNWAY SAFETY AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 1 1 1 1 I Air Quality The Clean Air Act (CAA), as Amended, established national Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), particulate matter (PMi„ and PM 5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and lead (Pb): The CAA requires each state to adopt a plan to achieve the NAAQS for'each pollutant within specific timeframes. The air quality plans, known as State Implementation Plans (SIPS), are subject to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval. Washington County, Arkansas is an attainment area for all EPA regulated criteria pollutants. Attainment areas are defined as regions where air pollution levels have not persistently exceeded the NAAQS. Therefore, the conformity procedures of the CAA do not apply. Short-term air quality construction impacts result from heavy equipment pollutant emissions, fugitive dust during earthwork, any open burnings, and the operation of concrete batch plants. No Action Alternative. No short-term air quality impacts will occur as a result of this alternative. Proposed Project. Potential short-term air quality impacts could result from the implementation of the proposed project. However, contractors will be required to comply with all local, state, and federal air quality statutes and regulations, especially the procedures contained in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5370-10C, Standards for Speci ing Constr/Iction ofAirporis. This AC is the FAA's guidance to airport sponsors concerning protection of the environment during construction projects. The Air Division of ADEQ has no comments regarding the proposed project (see email in Appendix Three). Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts to air quality as a result of the proposed project and the proposed new development projects relate to emissions of CAA criteria pollutants from construction equipment operation and dust during earthwork. However, the construction phases are temporary, will not occur at the same time, and equipment emissions would be relatively small. Increases in vehicle and aircraft traffic will occur over time, and will subsequently increase emissions, but these increases are not directly related to the proposed project or any future development projects. However, as mentioned previously, the Airport is within an attainment area and it is unlikely that the incremental increase in emissions will produce a significant negative cumulative impact on air quality. Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D.4 1 Coastal Resources Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field is located in northwest Arkansas and the proposed project will not directly, indirectly, or cumulatively affect any coastal resources as defined by the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982, the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, and Executive Order 13089. Compatible Land Use Land use compatibility with proposed airport actions is usually associated with the extent of the noise impacts. However, it is also related to other considerations such as land acquisition, disruption of established communities, relocations, induced socioeconomic impacts, and the implication of wildlife hazards. No Action Alternative. Since no action will result from this alternative, there will be no impact to land uses surrounding Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field. . Proposed Project. The proposed project will require purchase of approximately 11.5 acres of additional property. Approximately five acres will be transferred to Al-ITD for relocated highway right-of-way and an equal amount of existing highway right-of-way will be transferred to the Airport. Preliminary plans indicate that the majority of property identified for purchase west of U.S. Highway 71 is currently vacant, with the I exception of approximately 0.3 acres of the closed Superstop convenience store at the south end of the project area, and 3.2 acres of Standard Register property at the north end of the project area. The Standard Register property is mainly vacant, with a small amount dedicated to entrance roads or employee parking. Entrances onto U.S. Highway 71 will be maintained and the company has an excess amount of parking currently, so no replacement parking will be required. The approximate 7.5 acres of property needed to • relocate Earnest Lancaster Drive north of the Airport is currently vacant. The proposed project will result in an increase in highway noise for one noise sensitive receptor located west of U.S. Highway 71, east of the Arkansas -Missouri Railroad tracks, and south of Bailey Drive. Based on the . HTD's "Policy of Reasonableness and } Feasibility for Type 1 — Noise Abatement Measures," noise abatement barrier walls and/or berms are not warranted for this project. This is due to only one noise sensitive receptor projected to be impacted and the prohibitive cost to provide for a single • receptor. However, the residence is eligible for Airport Improvement Program (.SIP) funding for noise mitigation through either sound attenuation or fee simple purchase on ia voluntary basis. 1 i Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment O.5 I This alternative will not create a wildlife hazard as defined in FAA AC 150/5200-33B nor will it affect any existing wildlife hazard areas because it will not directly or indirectly result in the development of wildlife attractants. FAA Order 5200.5A, Waste Disposal Sites On ort\TearAirports, states, "Sanitary landfills will be considered as an incompatible use if located within or planned to be within... 10,000 feet of all runways planned to be used by turbojet aircraft." The nearest landfill is the Waste Management Tontitown Landfill, located south of Tontitown, Arkansas, which is over nine miles north of the Airport. Therefore, it is not considered an incompatible land use. Cumulative Impacts. The proposed project and the planned new development projects are in conformance with local government planning and policy. Current local government land use policies at and surrounding the Airport prevent land uses that are incompatible with the Airport and its safe and efficient operation. Therefore, there is not expected to be a significant negative cumulative impact on compatible land use. Construction Impacts Construction impacts are short-term environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project construction process. They usually come in three, forms: noise, air, and water pollution. Best Management Practices (BmPs), which can be defined as the proper application of corrective actions or control techniques, will be employed throughout the construction operations. No Action Alternative. Since no construction is proposed with this alternative, no construction related impacts will occur. Proposed Project. Short-term noise impacts result from the use of heavy construction machinery on the site. The surrounding properties are, for the most part, compatible with highway noise. The noise analysis conducted for this Environmental Assessment, entitled Truk Noise Analysis For. Highway 71B (School Avenue) Relocation, and prepared by Mestre Greve Associates, indicated that the six noise sensitive receptors located near the project area may be exposed to construction noise levels that could interfere with outdoor speech communication. Construction noise impacts generally can be mitigated by restricting construction activities within 1,000 feet of residential land uses to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and at no time on Sundays or National Holidays. Construction activities can have a short-term affect on the local air quality, primarily during periods of site preparation. Emissions of particulates will occur in association with excavation and earth moving; cement, asphalt, and aggregate handling; heavy equipment operations; use of haul roads; and wind erosion on exposed earth and Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D.6 Imaterial storage piles. The effects of construction activity will vary in scale depending on weather conditions, level of construction activity, and the nature of the operation. Effective air quality control measures include: minimization of exposed earth to the extent possible; stabilization of exposed earth with grass, mulch, pavement, or other cover as soon as possible; periodic sweeping or application of water or stabilizing agents to the working and hauling areas; covering, shielding, or stabilizing stockpiled material as necessary; and using covered haul trucks. Compliance with all federal, state, and local air quality regulations will be required of the contractor. Impacts to water resources primarily result from erosion and associated sedimentation when the ground surface is bared from earthmoving operations. As with air quality impacts, construction activities affecting water quality are usually temporary and will vary in scale based on weather conditions, the level of construction activity, and the nature of the operations. Measures to control impacts to water resources during construction may include: phased construction practices; rock filter dams and siltation fences; temporary grassing, sodding, and mulching; sediment basins and checks; and floating or staked turbidity barriers. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit will be required from ADEQ for the construction site. The preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is necessary for the NPDES permit. The SWPPP will include all specifications and BDIPs needed for control of erosion and sedimentation. Final plans and specifications will not be available until a later stage in the project process. However, FAA policy requires in all cases that the specifications comply with AC 150/5370C and AHTD's Standard Specij ialionr far HigGway Construction. The final plans and specifications for the proposed project will incorporate the provision contained in the regulations to ensure minimal impact due to erosion, air pollution, sanitary waste, and the use of chemicals. The FA will accept the final construction documents with the Airport Sponsor's certification that they conform to all relevant standards. . Cumulative Impacts. The proposed projects and future development projects will have cumulative construction impacts to varying degrees including temporary minor increases I in dust, construction equipment exhaust emissions, traffic restrictions, construction noise, erosion, and sedimentation. These construction projects will be temporary and will not all occur at the same time. The impacts will be relatively small and will be mitigated by the use of BMPs and scheduling, and are therefore not considered significant. I { Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D.7 ' Department of Transportation Act Section 4(f) I Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (recodified as 49 U.S.C., Subtitle I, Section 303) provides that no publicly owned park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or land of a historic site that is of national, state, or local significance will be used, ,I acquired, or affected by programs or projects requiring federal assistance for implementation, unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land. Proposed projects or programs affecting such lands must include all possible • planning to minimize harm resulting from the use. No Action Alternative. This alternative will have no impact on Section 4(f) properties. Proposed Project. There are 12 parks identified by the Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism that have received grant monies in Fayetteville and Greenland, but none will be impacted by the proposed project (see letter from the Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism in Appendix Three). Additionally, there are no historic sites eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places that will be affected by the proposed project. Cumulative Impacts. Because there are no DOT Act Section 4(f) properties located in or near the project area, there will be no cumulative impact to these resources from the proposed project when combined with any past or reasonably foreseeable actions. Farmlands The Farmland Protection Policy Act regulates federal actions with the potential to convert farmland to non-agricultural uses. Farmlands are defined as soils best suited for food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops and, as such, are of major importance in • meeting the nation's short- and long-range needs for food and fiber. No Action Alternative. No impact to prime farmland will occur with this alternative since no construction activity will disturb the soils within the project area. Proposed Project. According to the Washington County Soil Survey, this alternative converts approximately eight acres of Samba silt loams, and two acres of Taloka silt loams to future highway and road right-of-way. Samba silt loams are considered prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season. Taloka silt loams are considered prime farmland if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season. The Natural Resources Conservation Service confirms that the impacted area does contain prime farmland (see letter from the Natural Resources Conservation Service in Appendix Three). 1 Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field 1 Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment 0.8 I• The land that will be converted to right-of-way is currently not used for farm production, as the majority of it was previously used in residential development, but has been vacant for many years. Completion of Form NRCS-CPA-106, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type Projects, and Form AD -1006, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating (also contained in Appendix Three), indicates the impacts to prime farmland will not surpass the threshold requirements. Therefore, no additional evaluation is necessary. Cumulative Impacts. Because airport property and surrounding lands have not been used for farming in a number of years, there will be no cumulative impacts to farmlands as a result of the proposed project and the future development projects. Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended, requires federal agencies to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or implemented by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species. As presented in the previous chapter, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF\VS) indicates there are five endangered species and two candidate species known to occur in Washington County (see letter in Appendix Three). The endangered species are the Gray bat (Myotis grisescens), Indiana Bat (Myotis soda/is.'), Ozark Big -eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii ingens), Benton Cave Crayfish (Cambanis aculabrum), and the Missouri Bladderpod (Lesgrrerella frliformis). The Arkansas darter {Etheostoma era gint) and Neosho Mucket (Lanrpsilis rrfinesqueana) are the candidate species. No Action Alternative. No impacts to fish, wildlife, and plants are anticipated. 1 r Proposed Project. There are potential impacts to biotic communities with any highway and road improvement project. The conversion of land to right-of-way has the potential for invasion of non-native plant species. Terrestrial fauna species will experience some mortality in the smaller, less mobile species during construction. No known aquatic species are anticipated to be impacted. As stated earlier, the proposed project converts approximately ten acres of land to highway and road right-of-way. However, the land has been impacted by past human activity through residential, commercial, or industrial development. The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission does not anticipate significant adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources as a result of the proposed project (see letter in Appendix Three). Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D.9 The USF\vS indicates that many of the threatened and endangered species known to occur in Washington County are cave dwellers, and should a cave resource be discovered within the project area during construction, then work must stop and the USF\VS notified and stormwater control measures may be implemented (see letter from the USF\VVS in Appendix. Three). There are no known cave resources within the proposed project area. Cumulative Impacts. Planned development projects in the vicinity of the proposed project area will include a number of construction projects that pose the same risks to the threatened and endangered cave -dwelling species. Should a cave resource be discovered during the construction of any subsequent projects, then the USF\Y'S will be notified and stormwater control measures may be implemented. Because there are no known cave resources within or near the airport vicinity, no cumulative impacts are anticipated. • Floodplains Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, directs federal agencies to "take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains..." The established Department of Transportation (DOT) policy is to avoid taking an action within a 100 -year floodplain where practicable. Every effort must be • made to minimize the potential risks to human safety and property damage and the 1 adverse impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values. No Action Alternative. There would be no impact to floodplains and floodways since no construction would occur with this alternative. Proposed Project. Floodplains in the project area that will be affected by the proposed project are associated with Airport Branch and its tributary. An approximate 400 -foot segment of Airport Branch must be realigned to locate the channel outside of the Runway Safety Area and there will be a total of three channel crossings with new concrete box culverts. One existing 70 -foot long box culvert under U.S. Highway 71 will be removed. During final design, hydraulic data and construction plans will be submitted to the AHTD and city officials for review, approval, and permitting as specified by local floodplain ordinances. The proposed project will be designed to avoid overtopping by the 100 -year flood, thus minimizing the potential for interruptions or termination due to flooding. Additionally, no significant reduction of floodwater storage or retention function will be caused by the construction of the proposed project. p. Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D.10 Other potential measures to reduce floodplain impacts include: 1 I • Sufficient sizing of culverts to minimize adverse effects from backwater • Drainage structures will be sized sufficiently to minimize impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values. • Minimizing channel alterations at culverts. • Designed to minimize adverse impacts to streams, and to correct any project -related impacts that may destroy, diminish, or impair the character and function of the streams. • Adequate and timely erosion control to minimize erosion and sedimentation. Cumulative Impacts. The proposed 1,000 -foot runway extension to the south would be constructed entirely within the 100 -year floodplain, and the railroad spur construction to Scurlock Industries would impact both the 100 -year floodplain and floodway that is impacted by the highway realignment project. These projects, and other future projects proposed within the floodplain and floodway, will have many requirements regarding development within floodplains, including but not necessarily limited to: compliance with local floodplain design criteria and ordinances; have no impact on the natural and beneficial floodplain values; constructed above the base flood elevation; minimize fill within the floodplain and floodway; and, ensure that the flood carrying capacity of an altered or relocated portion of a watercourse is not diminished. Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste A hazardous waste inventory was conducted and presented in the previous chapter. There are five hazardous waste generator sites identified in the general vicinity of the Airport by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) database. No Superfund sites are known to occur in Washington County according the EPA National Priority List (NPL). Two sites are known to have underground storage tanks within the project area. No Action Alternative. No hazardous waste sites will be affected, no hazardous waste will be generated, and no impact on the collection, control, or disposal of solid waste will occur with this alternative. Proposed Project. As a result of the proposed project, no hazardous substances and/or wastes will be generated on a continual basis. However, construction activities can generate short-term hazardous wastes, and some construction materials constitute hazardous substances. As stated earlier, the final plans and specifications will incorporate the provisions contained in FAA AC 150/5370C and AHTD's Standard Speciji ations for [ fighrvay Construction to ensure minimal impact during construction Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D.11 1 ' activities. Compliance with standards contained in Executive Order 12088, .Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards, will be followed, and the best available ' techniques and methods will be employed, to prevent, control, and abate environmental pollution. ' An Environmental Due Diligence Audit (EDDA) will be required prior to the purchase of the additional property necessary to implement the proposed projects. However, it is known that the dosed Superstop convenience store property contains six underground storage tanks that were used for the storage of vehicular fuels. Preliminary plans indicate that a minimum of 0.3 acres of this property will be required for the relocation of the highway. However, the highway realignment will not require the removal of any of the tanks. The solid wastes impacts associated with the proposed project are connected with construction, and no adverse affects to the solid waste collection, control, or disposal system of Fayetteville are anticipated. The type and amount of solid waste generated, or method of collection or disposal, will not be different than would be the case without • the proposed project. If hazardous materials or wastes are identified, observed, or uncovered during construction, then it will be the Airport's responsibility to identify the type, size, and extent of contamination. The Airport would then be responsible for developing a remediation plan and coordinating the disposal methods employed for the particular contaminant. Remediation work would be conducted in conformance with regulations established by EPA, ADEQ, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSF-FA). Cumulative Impacts. Implementation of the reasonably foreseeable future projects will likely result in additional petroleum products and hazardous materials handled and further potential for releases of these materials. However, based on the scope of the projects and use of BM[Ps, there will likely be no significant cumulative impacts resulting from the future development actions when added to the proposed project. Historical, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Archeological and Historic preservation Act of 1974, and Section 4(f) of the DOT Act of 1966 provide guidelines for evaluating the potential impacts to cultural resources. No Action Alternative. No cultural resources will be affected by this alternative. 1 f Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field IRunway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D. 12 Proposed Project. The Arkansas Historic Preservation Program indicates that there is one archeological site that is located within the proposed U.S. Highway 71 realignment and will be affected (see letter from the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program in Appendix Three). Their letter indicated that the eligibility of the site for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places has not been assessed, as it consists only of a single prehistoric flake. However, additional phone conversations with this agency indicated that, the site is not considered significant and is not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (see phone log with Arkansas State Historic Preservation Program in Appendix Three). Therefore, no impact to cultural resources will occur as a result of the proposed projects. The FAA has consulted with the United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma regarding the impact of the proposed project on significant tribal resources. The proposed action is not likely to have a significant impact to any cultural resources. However, if a resource is encountered that appears to possess historical or archeological significance, or if human remains or artifacts such as Native American pottery, stone tools, etc are discovered during this project, work in the area will stop immediately and the Department of Arkansas Heritage will be contacted for evaluation of the site. Cumulative Impacts. There are other known archeological sites within the vicinity of the Airport, according to the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program. However, because of public disclosure concerns, most of the site's locations are not currently known at this time. Therefore, prior to implementation of any future development t projects, consultation with the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program will be conducted and any culturally significant resources will be protected. It is unlikely that significant cumulative impacts will occur to cultural resources due to the future development projects when added to the proposed project. Light Emissions and Visual Impacts Light emissions that might create an annoyance among people in the vicinity or interfere • with normal activities are usually associated with airport air navigation facilities or ' approach lighting systems. Visual, or aesthetic, impacts are inherently more difficult to • define because of the subjectivity involved. Aesthetic impacts deal more broadly with the extent that the development contrasts with the existing environment and whether the contrast is objectionable, based on public input. No Action Alternative. No impacts by fight emissions will occur with this alternative, nor with the visual environment be affected. Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D.13 I' 1 Proposed Project. The proposed project will not involve an approach lighting system or any other air navigation facility lighting, so no impacts from light emissions will be experienced by surrounding property owners. The existing highway is a major component of the existing visual landscape, so a relocation of the highway will not have an adverse impact to the visual environment. There are no officially designated scenic areas or visually sensitive resources in the vicinity of the project area. Cumulative Impacts. Corresponding with the growth of the Airport and the surrounding area, light sources have increased with time. Proposed new developments and expansion of the Airport and the surrounding area will increase the area being visually impacted and introduce even more light sources to the area. However, the proposed development projects are not likely to have a negative impact on residences or other sensitive public areas. Natural Resources and Energy Supply Executive Order 13123, Greening the Government Throu, h Efficient Energy Management, encourages each federal agency to expand the use of renewable energy within its facilities and in its activities. It also requires each federal agency to reduce petroleum use, total energy use, associated air emissions, and water consumption. No Action Alternative. This alternative will have no effect on energy consumption or natural resources. Proposed Project. The Proposed Project will not increase fuel consumption of vehicles traveling on the road network or aircraft operating at the Airport. Construction materials used in building the highway and road will consist mainly of concrete, sand, gravel, steel, and asphalt. These materials are not unusual or in short supply and all are locally available. The Arkansas Geological Survey indicates that within Section 9, Township 15N, Range 30w, there is sand and gravel production from the West Fork While River (see letter from the Arkansas Geological Survey in Appendix Three). However, this facility is located about two miles south of the project area. Therefore, no known energy reserves or mineral resources will be affected by the proposed project. Cumulative Impacts. The planned expansion and development at the Airport and surrounding areas will increase energy consumption at the Airport, but compared to the energy consumption of the City of Fayetteville and surrounding area, the increases and the effect on natural resources and energy supply will likely be insignificant. Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D.14 1 4'' Noise As discussed in the previous chapter, the aircraft noise assessment was conducted using the Integrated Noise Model (INM) Version 7.0a, which is a computer program developed by the FAA specifically for modeling the noise environment at airports. The future aircraft operations used to generate the future noise contours are presented in the following table, entitled FUTURE (2025) AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS. The same operational data will be used for both alternatives, as the aircraft demand placed on the Airport is not dependent on implementing the proposed projects. Table D2 FUTURE (2025) AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS Operation_`_s bYtTYPe. 'c. + s 2025 _. General Aviation 83,100 ;:Seigle Engine:.��39,894 Multi -Engine 11,430 •F Turboprops :z _, a__ 13;700`' Business Jet 16,830 H eli opter ;1°250 Military 1,500 � el�cpter Turboprop 600 a 300' Air Carrier 60 l o te vase -"` 90 TOTAL 84,750 Source: Egyelleiille /tIe nic al Airpor!/Drake Fiekl Alaaer Plan pible, 2006. A highway noise assessment has been conducted utilizing the FH\VA's TN,%& procedures, the proposed highway alignment, and the traffic projections for the year 2027. The 2027 ADT for U.S. Highway 71 within the study area is projected to be 13,489 'PD. The same vehicle assumptions were used for future traffic conditions as were used for the existing conditions, which are: Peak hour traffic volumes are estimated at 12% of the ADT, 1% of the ADT is estimated to be truck traffic, and 80% of the truck traffic is medium trucks with 20% being heavy trucks. The highway noise assessment is based on the design year Leq NAC level of 67 dBA. Any noise receptor experiencing a noise level approaching or exceeding 67 dBA is considered a noise impact according to the FI-wrk's established impact level for noise receptors associated with highway projects. The term "approach" is defined as one dBA less than the NAC. Additionally, even if the predicted noise levels do not approach or exceed the I Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D.15 NAC, noise impacts can occur when the traffic noise levels substantially exceed the existing level (i.e. a 10-dBA increase). No Action Alternative. Future traffic noise levels without the development of the project were modeled at the noise sensitive receptors illustrated in the preceding chapter, in Figure C10 entitled POTEE\TTIAL HIGFIIVAYNOISE RECEPTORS. As indicated in Table D3, entitled FUTURE NO ACTION HIGHIVAY NOISE LEVELS, it was found that no noise receptors will experience a substantial noise increase or experience noise levels that approach or exceed the applicable NAC. Table D3 FUTURE NO ACTION HIGHWAY NOISE LEVELS Ir 1, i Receptor_ 1 Existing Leq- 49 Future No Project Leq 51 Leq dBA Increase 2 46 48 2 ___ 3 41 43 2 46 5 49 51 2 40 41 2 Source: Mcstre Greve Associates, 2IN18 Future aircraft generated noise impacts are illustrated on the following figure entitled FUTURE (2025) AIRCRAFT GENERATED NOISE CONTOURS IVITN GENERALIZED LAND USE. As. illustrated, the noise contours extend beyond Airport property to both the north and south. To the north, no noise sensitive land uses are contained within the 65 or greater DNL noise contour. To the south, there are two residences contained within the 65 DNL noise contour. Proposed Project. As presented in Table O4, entitled FUTURE PROPOSED PROJECT HIGHIVAYNOISE LEVELS, it was determined that no noise sensitive receptors will experience traffic noise levels that approach or exceed the applicable NAC with the implementation of the proposed projects. However, one noise sensitive receptor (e.g., receptor 5, the residence located closest to the realigned highway, east of the railroad and south of Bailey Drive) is predicted to experience a substantial noise increase of 13 dB. Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D.16 BarnardDunkelherp I • I 1!Pi IT : 1 Ow I / 1' 4 7 .. DNL f Ij l' 70DNL 65 NIL 1 ,, ! � T'� 444 • If 1 -L !' Residential I �. E -__ Commercial it Industrial I — .. ^ _ . ,..^ AgricuiturelOpen i;I I Public `y r' '••;-.---- I L..J li.r .'vL3p>S<uri r: .M3cirn:rlt Sui t8Irsn2Ct; Figuir fit Future: i2025i Aircraft Generated Noise Contours With Generalized Existing Land Use Executive Airprt/Drake Fidd RUNWAY SAFETY AREA S VlRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT I1.' 1 Table D4 FUTURE PROPOSED PROJECT HIGHWAY NOISE LEVELS Future With Project Approach or Leq dBA Substantial Receptor Existing Leq Leq Exceed NAC? increase Increase? 49 51 No 2 No Ii ' 2 46 49 No 3 No 3 41 46 No 5 No 4 44 52 No 8 No 1 5 49 62 No 13 Yes G 40 45 No 5 No I Source: Mestre Greg Associates, 2IN18. Based upon AHTD's "Policy of Reasonableness and Feasibility for Type 1 — Noise Abatement Measures," which is included in Appendix Five, noise abatement barrier walls and/or berms are not warranted for this project. This is due to the fact that only / one noise sensitive receptor is projected to be impacted by the proposed projects and the cost to provide abatement for a single receptor would exceed $45,000. This cost is considered "unreasonable" according to AHTD policy. However, the residence is eligible for Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding for noise mitigation through either sound attenuation or fee simple purchase on a voluntary basis. If the homeowner does not desire to be mitigated, then no other measures will be implemented (i.e., no condemnation or other police powers will be employed to force the homeowner to sell or otherwise accept the mitigation). In the event the homeowner is relocated, all provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (as amended) and Department of Transportation regulations at 49 CFR Part 24 will be followed. j_ The structure is the lone remaining residential property in the area following an Airport buy-out program in the early 1990s (i.e., 1990-1992). At that time, the Airport purchased several acres of residences that were located within the vicinity of the approach area to Runway 16. However, the owners of this particular residence did not want to sell, and since it was located outside of the evaluation surfaces that define potential obstructions or the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ), it was not purchased. Additionally, the City of 1 Greenland zoning indicates that the property is zoned commercial, so the residential land use is incompatible with current zoning classification. To avoid noise levels in excess of design levels, any future receptors developed along the project location should be located a minimum of 90 feet from the proposed centerline of the relocated U.S. Highway 71. This distance should be used as a general guide and not as a specific rule, since the noise will vary depending upon specific conditions. Ii Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D.18 As stated previously, the same aircraft operational data was used for both the No Action Alternative and the proposed project. Therefore, the same future aircraft generated noise contours are used for both alternatives. There are no noise sensitive land uses within the 65 DNL or greater noise contour to the north, ,but to the south, there pare two residences located within the 65 DNL noise contour. The future aircraft noise impacts experienced by the two residences are not the result of the proposed projects (i.e., the highway and road relocations), they are the result of normal aircraft operational; growth. The residences will not experience an increase of 1.5 dB as a result of the proposed project. Based on this analysis, there are no impacts to noise sensitive land uses: by aircraft generated noise resulting from implementing the proposed projects. Cumulative Impacts. The increases in vehicle traffic on U.S. Highway 71 and aircraft traffic at the Airport expected to occur over time are not related to any proposed new development projects and expansion of the Airport. Therefore, no significant cumulative noise impacts are anticipated from the future planned development projects when added to the proposed project. Secondary (Induced) Impacts Indirect, long-term secondary impacts, both beneficial and detrimental, are typically associated with a secondary event or action that develops from implementing a,primary action. Induced impacts, especially socioeconomic impacts, are difficult to identify with any degree of accuracy. No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative would have no negative or positive secondary impacts. Proposed Project. This alternative will not divide or disrupt established communities, disrupt planned development, or create an appreciable change in employment. It will not result in a shift in patterns of population movement or growth, strain public service demands, or change business and economic activity. Preliminary plans indicate the need to purchase a minimum of 0.3 acre of the closed Superstop convenience store property. However, the acquisition would require the removal of the existing sign in front of the property and the portion of the canopy covering the fuel pumps that extends into the future highway right-of-way. Access into the property can be maintained and the property would remain economically viable, so no existing businesses will be displaced. Potential positive impacts result from improving the safety of the aircraft operating environment at the Airport. Cumulative Impacts. The proposed railroad spur development has the potential to affect access to businesses and industrial facilities by causing temporary traffic Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D.19 restrictions during construction. Close coordination with the highway relocation should occur to minimize, to the extent possible, traffic restrictions during construction of the two'projects. Long-term traffic restrictions could affect the businesses and industries when trains are accessing the manufacturing plant east of the highway from the main line railroad tracks west of the highway. However, it is not expected to occur with enough regularity (i.e., approximately once per day) to have a significant negative impact;, No dislocation of non -airport related commercial or industrial facilities or residential properties are expected from the other proposed new development. Therefore, no significant cumulative secondary or induced impacts are expected. Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental Justice, and Children's Environmental Health and Safety Risks The proposed project area consists of business, industrial, and residential properties. Socioeconomic impacts consist of relocations, changes in the economic structure, and economic opportunities. Environmental Justice analysis is governed by guidelines contained in Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Entnronmental Justice in ltifinoridy Populations and Lou' -Income Populations, as well as the Title Vt of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Executive Order 12898 states, "No minority, age, or income group should be disproportionately affected by a federal action." Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin. Further laws, based on Title VI, extended civil rights legislation to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, disability, and age. Guidance in Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, provides that each federal agency shall identify, assess, and address the environmental health and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. No Action Alternative. The no action alternative will not have any socioeconomic impacts, have no residential or business relocations, change the economic structure, or affect economic opportunities. No minority, age, income, race, color, or national origin group is disproportionately affected with the no action alternative. The health and safety of children is not affected by this alternative. I Proposed Project. A review of the U.S. Census Bureau data indicates that the minority population of the two census block groups within the project areas account of approximately 6.5% of the total population. Additionally, the results of the public involvement meeting and field observations were used to determine that minorities, low- income, elderly, or disabled populations will not have any adverse or disproportionate impact as a result of the proposed project. The public involvement process did not exclude any individuals based on race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, or disability. The proposed projects will not create a situation or produce a substance that Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D20 children will likely come in contact with or ingest, such as air, food, drinking water, recreational waters, soil, or products they might use or be exposed to on a frequent basis. .1 The regulations contained in the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601) will be followed for acquiring the necessary property to implement the proposed projects. No residential properties are required for the future realigned highway right-of-way. Since only about 0.3 acres of the currently closed Superstop convenience store is required, and the property can remain economically viable through vehicular access to the highway, no substantial loss to the community tax base will result from this action, nor would a severe economic hardship be created for the community. Cumulative Impacts. The cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project and the future new development projects are not expected to have negative socioeconomic impacts, environmental justice impacts, or children's environmental health and safety / risk impacts. � : I Water Quality I The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977, provides the authority to establish water quality standards, control discharges into surface and subsurface waters, develop waste treatment management plans and practices, prevent or minimize the loss of wetlands, issue permits for discharges and for dredged or I�! filled material, and regulate other issues concerning water quality. The project area lies within the Ozark Highlands Ecoregion where the primary turbidity standard, as established by ADEQ, is 10 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTUs) for streams and 25 NTUs for lakes and reservoirs (Regulation 2). As stated in the previous I'. chapter, the dominant water resources in the vicinity of the Airport are the West Fork Willie River and Ward's Slough, located east and south of the Airport. No Action Alternative. Since no construction activities will occur with this alternative, no impacts to water quality will occur. Proposed Project. The implementation of the proposed project will result in the crossing of two drainage ditches north of the Airport, which are tributaries of the [Vest Fork White River. The ADEQ Water Division is not aware of any potential environmental issues in the project area other than those encountered with normal construction activities, which will require a Stormwater Construction General Permit (ARR 150000). No known springs will be impacted by the proposed construction. No Sole Source Aquifers will be affected by the proposed project. Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D.21 F' The Arkansas Department of Health reports that the project area is not located within any designated wellhead protection areas, is not located in a designated source water assessment area, but is located within the Beaver Lake Watershed, a public water supply watershed. However, the Department of Health indicates that the closest public water supply intake is located over 40 miles downstream from the project area and is located near the watershed boundary in an area characterized by intermittent streams. Therefore, the Department of Health does not anticipate any adverse impacts to the public water supply as a result of the proposed project (see email from the Arkansas Department of Health in Appendix Three). Compliance with all regulations contained in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977, will be required for construction of the project. This includes Section 401, Water Quality Certification; Section 402, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit; and Section 404, Permits for Dredged or Fill Material. The NPDES permit requires the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP will include all specifications and BMPs needed for control of erosion and sedimentation. It will be prepared when the roadway design has been completed in order to best integrate the B\[Ps with project design. Contractors will be required to follow the procedures outlined in FAA AC 150/5370-10C and AHTD's Standard Specifications for Highway Construction. The final plans and specifications for the projects will incorporate the provisions of the design guidelines to ensure minimal impact due to erosion, sanitary waste, and the use of chemicals. The FAA will accept the final construction documents and plans with the certification from the Airport Sponsor that they conform to all relevant standards. 1 'I Cumulative Impacts. The proposed railroad spur will likely require the construction of four culverts to provide proper drainage west of the highway. The proposed runway extension to the south will require alteration of lVard's Slough through the construction of a drainage structure. However, BMPs implemented during construction and stream alteration activities will likely prevent any significant cumulative impacts to water resources. It is not expected that any springs or Sole Source Aquifers will experience cumulative impacts from the proposed project when added to any future development projects. Wetlands and Waters of the United States Executive Order 11990, Protection of We/lands, Order DOT 5660.1 A, Preservation of the Na/ions Wetlands, Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, and the Clean Water Act regulate Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D.22 activities within wetlands and waters of the United States. Executive Order 11990 defines wetlands as those areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a ,J frequency sufficient to support and under normal circumstances does or would support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act defines "waters of the United States" as a water body having a defined ordinary high water mark and includes adjacent wetlands. No Action Alternative. This alternative will have no impact to wetlands or waters of the United States. Proposed Project. Figure C7 illustrated the location of wetlands and waterways on the Airport, as determined by a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers site visit and wetlands determination in late 2007 (see letter and wetlands determination from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Appendix Three). The Corps has determined that, even though the realigned U.S. Highway 71 and Earnest Lancaster Drive will cross Airport Branch and its tributary three times (requiring new concrete box culverts), no wetland areas or other waters of the United States will be impacted. However, an approximate 400 -foot segment of Airport Branch will need to be realigned in order for the channel to be located outside the Runway Safety Area. This channel realignment will require a Section 404 Department of the Army Permit, which has been confirmed through phone calls with the Corps (see phone log with the Corps of Engineers in Appendix Three). The impacts of the channel realignment and box culvert construction will be addressed in the Section 404 permitting process. The Airport and FAA will comply with any mitigation measures required by the Corps. The hydric soils removed from the new culvert areas will be used to reform the open channel bottom and slopes at the removed culvert locations. The material removed to form the realigned segment of Airport Branch will be used in the filling of the existing channel. Measures to minimize adverse harm to the creek channels include: • Culverts will be installed as quickly as possible so construction activities can utilize the culverts to cross the channels. • Creek channels will be avoided beyond the end of the culverts and required channel widening for the wing walls. • The creek channels outside the construction limits will be protected. • Minimize the removal of vegetation during construction and re -vegetate disturbed areas as quickly as possible to reduce soil erosion. • An NPDES permit will be required from the ADEQ for the construction site. The S\' PP plan will include the specifications and best management practices (BMP's) needed to control erosion and sedimentation. Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D.23 • Silt fences, drainage erosion barriers, and other erosion control devices will be installed during the construction to minimize erosion. Cumulative Impacts. The proposed 1000 -foot runway extension to the south might affect wetland areas associated with lVurd's Sough and West Fork V/bite River, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wetlands maps. However, since there are no wetlands impacted by the proposed project analyzed for this EA, no negative cumulative impacts to wetlands are anticipated. Using BMiPs during construction of other future development projects will likely prevent cumulative wetland impacts. Wild and Scenic Rivers The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended, describes those river segments designated or eligible to be included in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service maintains a Nationwide Rivers Inventory of river segments that meet the criteria for wild and scenic, as well as those river segments that appear to qualify for inclusion. No Action Alternative. The no action alternative will have no impact to wild and scenic rivers as there are no rivers classified as wild and scenic by the National Park Service within the vicinity of the project area. Proposed Project. There are no rivers classified as wild and scenic by the National Park Service within the vicinity of the project area. Therefore, no impacts to wild and scenic river segments will occur as a result of the proposed projects. Cumulative Impacts. Because there are no designated or eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers located within or near the project area, there will be no cumulative impacts to these resources from the proposed project and future development projects. Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D.24 Mitigation This section contains a summary of the required mitigation measures that will minimize potential impacts associated with the proposed projects. Air Quality. Construction BN[Ps will be implemented to minimize the impact to air quality. Construction Impacts. Construction BMIPs will be implemented to minimize the impact to air quality, noise, water quality, and hazardous materials. These measures may include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: ii Fl • Restricting construction activities within 1,000 feet of residential land uses to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and at no time on Sundays or National Holidays. • Minimizing exposed earth to the extent possible. • Stabilizing exposed earth with grass, mulch, pavement, or other cover as soon as possible. • Periodic sweeping or application of water or stabilizing agents to the working and hauling areas. • Covering, shielding, or stabilizing any stockpiled material as necessary. • Using covered haul trucks. • Phased construction practices. • Rock filter dams and siltation fences. • Temporary grassing, sodding, and mulching. • Sediment basins and checks. • Floating or staked turbidity barriers. • Obtaining a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from ADEQ for the construction site. • Implementing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (S\WrPP) for the construction site. Floodplains. During final design, hydraulic data and construction plans will be submitted to the AHTD and city officials for review, approval, and permitting as specified Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment P.1 by local floodplain ordinances. The proposed project will be designed to avoid overtopping by the 100 -year flood, thus minimizing the potential for interruptions or termination due to flooding. Other potential measures to reduce floodplain impacts include: • Sufficient sizing of culverts to minimize adverse effects from backwater. • Drainage structures will be sized sufficiently to minimize impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values. • Minimizing channel alterations at culverts. • Designed to minimize adverse impacts to streams, and to correct any project -related impacts that may destroy, diminish, or impair the character and function of the streams. • Adequate and timely erosion control to minimize erosion and sedimentation. Fish, Wildlife, and Plants. Should a cave resource be discovered within the project area during construction, then work must stop and the USF'%NIS notified and stormwater control measures may be implemented. Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste. Construction BMPs will be implemented to minimize the impact of hazardous materials, petroleum product storage and fueling, and the generation and disposal of solid wastes. The final plans and specifications will incorporate the provisions contained in FAA AC 150/5370-1OC and AHTD's Standard Specifications for Hi lrwgy Construction to ensure minimal impact during construction activities. Compliance with standards contained in Executive Order 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards, will be followed, and the best available techniques and methods will be employed, to prevent, control, and abate environmental pollution. An Environmental Due Diligence Audit (EDDA) will be required prior to the purchase of the additional property necessary to implement the proposed project. However, it is known that the closed Superstop convenience store property contains six underground storage tanks that were used for the storage of vehicular fuels. Preliminary plans indicate that a minimum of 0.3 acres of this property will be required for the relocation of the highway. However, the highway realignment will not require the removal of any of the tanks. If hazardous materials or wastes are identified, observed, or uncovered during construction, then it will be the Airport's responsibility to identify the type, size, and extent of contamination. The Airport would then be responsible for developing a remediation plan and coordinating the disposal methods employed for the particular Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment E.2 contaminant. Remediation work would be conducted in conformance with regulations established by EPA, ADEQ, and OSHA. Noise. One noise sensitive receptor (e.g., receptor 5, the residence located closest to the realigned highway, east of the railroad and south of Bailey Drive) is predicted to experience a substantial noise increase of 13 dB. The residence is eligible for Airport Improvements Program (AIP) funding for voluntary noise mitigation through either sound attenuation or fee simple purchase. Any voluntary relocation of the homeowner will be in accordance with all provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (as amended) and Department of Transportation regulations at 49 CFR Part 24. To avoid noise levels in excess of design levels, any future receptors developed along the project location should be located a minimum of 90 feet from the proposed centerline of the relocated U.S. Highway 71. This distance should be used as a general guide and not as a specific rule, since the noise will vary depending upon specific conditions. Water Quality. Construction BMPs will be implemented to minimize the impact to water resources. Compliance with all regulations contained in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as mended by the Clean Water Act of 1977, will be required for construction of the project. This includes Section 401, Water Quality Certification; Section 402, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit (NPDES); and Section 404, Permits for Dredged or Fill Material. A Stormwater Construction General Permit (ARR- 150000) from ADEQ will be required prior to construction, as will a NPDES permit and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SvTPP). The SWPPP will include all specifications and BA[Ps needed for control of erosion and sedimentation, prepared when the roadway design has been completed in order to best integrate the B1ttPs with project design. Contractors will be required to follow the procedures outlined in FAA AC 150/5370-10C and AHTD's Standard Specifications flu r Hig{iway Constrssction. The final plans and specifications for the projects will incorporate the provisions of the design guidelines to ensure minimal impact due to erosion, sanitary waste, and the use of chemicals. The FAA will accept the final construction documents and plans with the certification from the Airport Sponsor that they conform to all relevant standards. Wetlands and Waters of the United States. A Section 404 Department of the Army Permit will required for the approximate 400 -foot segment of Airport Branch that will need to be realigned in order for the channel to be located outside the Runway Safety Area. The impacts of the channel realignment and box culvert construction will be addressed in the permitting process and any mitigation required by the Corps will be implemented. Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment E.3 r r IThe hydric soils removed from the new culvert areas will be used to reform the open channel bottom and slopes at the removed culvert locations. The material removed to form the realigned segment of Airport Branch will be used in the filling of the existing channel. Measures to minimize adverse harm to the creek channels include: • Culverts will be installed as quickly as possible so construction activities can utilize the culverts to cross the channels. • Creek channels will be avoided beyond the end of the culverts and required channel widening for the wing walls. • The creek channels outside the construction limits will be protected. • Minimize the removal of vegetation during construction and re -vegetate disturbed areas as quickly as possible to reduce soil erosion. • An NPDES permit will be required from the ADEQ for the construction site. The SWPP plan will include the specifications and best management practices B?[P's need to control erosion and sedimentation. • Silt fences, drainage erosion barriers, and other erosion control devices will be installed during the construction to minimize erosion. e Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment E.4 List of Preparers The following persons were primarily responsible for the preparation of this Environmental Assessment. Ryk Dunkelberg BARNARD DUNKELBERG & COMPANY BS Oklahoma State University, Forest Ecology CIS Colorado State University, Natural Resources Planning JD University of Tulsa, Law Kelly Maddoux BARNARD DUNKELBERG & COMPANY BS University of Oklahoma, Environmental Design Wayne Jones MCCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. BS University of Arkansas, Civil Engineering Matthew Jones MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES BS University of California -San Diego, Engineering Physics I� L Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment F. 1 �1 Appendix I Appendix One — References Appendix Two — Coordination Appendix Three — Agency Correspondence Appendix Four — Public Involvement Appendix Five — AHTD Policy of Reasonableness and Feasibility for Type I — Noise Abatement Measures Appendix Six -- Revised Runway Safety Area Determination Appendix One - References City of Fayetteville, City Plan 2025, July 17, 2006. City of Fayetteville Code of Ordinances, Title XV Unified Development Code, June 3, 2008. City of Greenland Zoning Map, August 2007. Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines, 40 CFR S 1500-1508 (2005). Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, May 24, 1977. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, May 24, 1977. Executive Order 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards, October 13, 1978. Executive Order 12898, FederalActions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Lain -Income Populations, February 11, 1994. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, April 21, 1997. Executive Order 13123, Greening the Government Through Efficient Energy Management, June 3, 1999. Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular 150/5020-1,1'7oise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports, August 5, 1983. Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design, November 1, 2008. Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular 150/5370-10C, Standards for.Speci�ing Construction ofAirports, September 29, 2007. Appendix One.1 Federal Aviation Administration Order 1050.1 E, Enuironmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, March 20, 2006. Federal Aviation Administration Order 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions forAirportActions, April 28, 2006. Federal Aviation Administration Order 5100.38C, Airport Improvement Program Handbook Change l,June une 28, 2005. Federal Aviation Administration Order 5200.5A, Waste Disposal Sites On orATearAirports, January 31, 1990. U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Soil Sun'ey of Washington County, Arkanias, March 1969. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Description of the Ecoregions of the United States. 2d ed. rev, and expanded (1S` ed. 1980). Misc. pub]. No. 1391 (rev.), March 1995. Appendix One.2 Appendix Two - Coordination The following federal, state, and local agencies and governmental units were contacted, as well as listed individuals and private companies, during the Environmental Assessment process. Agencies Contacted Arkansas Historic Preservation Program Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism Natural Resources Conservation Service Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Arkansas Department of Health Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department Elected Officials Contacted City of Fayetteville: Mayor Dan Coody Alderman Adella Gray Alderman Bobby Ferrell Alderman Lioneld Jordan Alderman Robert Rhoades City of Greenland: Mayor John Gray Alderman Brad Tomlinson Alderman Danny Dutton Alderman Lisa Thornton U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arkansas Geological Commission U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Arkansas Game and Fish Commission United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma Federal Highway Administration Alderman Brenda Thiel Alderman Nancy Allen Alderman Shirley Lucas Alderman Kyle Cook Alderman Sugar Huddelston Alderman Carroll Hancock Alderman Patsy Cox Alderman Greg White Appendix Two.1 I f I I I . Alderman Mark Myeers Washington County: Judge Jerry Hunton Justice of the Peace Micah Neal Justice of the Peace H. L. Goodwin, Jr Justice of the Peace Bonnie Swayze Justice of the Peace Steve Zega Justice of the Peace Jack Norton Justice of the Peace Ann Harbison Individuals Contacted Tommy & Phyllis Fennell Robert L. & Christine G. Rea Mary Anna Whittington Wayne A. & Leann P. Box Kenneth M. & Geraldine Dennis Jose DeJesus & Anani Mariscal Carroll & Sharon Hancock Darrian Preston J. Frank & Virginia Lee Spencer Edward E. & Frankie L. Smith Jeri Carson Dr. Dow & Joanne Pursley Manuel & Donna Bradshaw Bernice Mathias Alice Marie Wagner Janice Jean Terry Bruce and Mary Bond Stephanie G. Sawyer Janice Yoes or Theodor Morrill Kevin King Peggy Gomez Floyd Jr. & Kathy J. Mabry Buddy & Helen Stockton Businesses Contacted Kearney National, Inc. State Military Department Justice of the Peace Tom Lundstrom Justice of the Peace David Daniel Justice of the Peace Jessie Bryant Justice of the Peace Ken Keiklak Justice of the Peace Butch Pond Justice of the Peace Mary Ann Spears Justice of the Peace Joe Patterson Arthur T. Miller Gloria J. McIntosh Frankie L. Bixby John \Vayne & Wilma James Patrick Bruce Hanby Sweetser Family Limited Partnership Helen McCarty Martin L. & Phyllis Ann Ashworth Willard Johnson Floyd Mabry Gordon and Ruby Jane Bradshaw Mohammad H. Assem & Khalili Parvin Norman Moulden Phil & Dana Rozell Richard Ledbetter Ronald Brawner Estelle Seablom Sean C. & Amy M. Shell Russell D. & Barbara Karnes Deborah Moore Claude R. Center, Jr. .Elzie & Thelma Carlton Scurlock Industries of Fayetteville Globe CEO, LLC Appendix Two.2 P ��q Q"s'• �_ Bekki White Director State Geologist t{tlEsrr+ ARKANSAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY VARDELLE PARHAM GEOLOGY CENTER 3815 WEST ROOSEVELT ROAD LTI7LE ROCK, AR 72204-6369 Mike Beebe Governor January 23, 2008 Mr. Kelly Maddoux Barnard and Dunkelberg & Company Cherry Street Building 1616 East Fifteenth Street Tulsa, Oklahoma 74120 Dear Mr. Maddoux: J'iq 2z 200 8 o®mard Oun o This letter is a response to your request for information on possible mineral resources in the area of the Fayetteville Municipal Airport. Your letter was dated January 17, 2008. The following comments pertain to reported minerals in the same sections as the airport and to the general area within a few miles of the airport. 1 There is within section 9, T. 15 N., R. 30 W. report sand and gravel production from a local stream deposit the report latitude was 35.98244 degrees and longitude -94.17542 degrees. Also in the general area of West Fork 3-4 miles to the south was reported natural gas production. Finally there is the possibility of crushed stone production from the surrounding hills as occurs in sections 29 and 30, T. 15 N., k. 30 W. Washington County, Arkansas. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Sincere y, William Lee Prior Geologist Supervisor PHONE: (501)296-1877; FAX:(501663-7360 • EMAIL: agccarkansas.gov WEBSITE: wvw.state.ar.usragclagc.him -6i equal opporhrnity emplover Scott Henderson � r David Goad Director Keeping the Nalural State ta1uT . Deputy Director Mike Gibson Deputy Director Arkansas Game and Fish Commission Loren Hitchcock Deputy Director January 25, 2008 Kelly J. Maddoux Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Cherry Street Building 1616 East Fifteenth Street Tulsa, Oklahoma 74120 Dear Mr. Maddoux: ECE'v( JAt1;s o 2008 Barnard !-- e 1 Your letter requesting comments on the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed runway safety area improvements which are located at Fayetteville Municipal Airport/Drake Field in Washington County, Arkansas has been referred to me for reply. Biologists from our agency have reviewed the proposed project and we anticipate insignificant adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources associated with these proposed activities. We recommend that you contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for an endangered species review, since our agency adheres to the federal listing and you will need to get clearance from them. Their address is 110 South Amity Rd., Suite 300, Conway, Arkansas 72032. We appreciate the opportunity to review this project proposal. If our agency can be of further assistance with the proposed project, don't hesitate to call us. Sincerely, Robert K. Leonard, Biologist River Basins Division Cc: Doyle Shook Mike Armstrong USFWS, Conway Office 2 Natural Resources Drive • Little Rock, AR 72205 • www.agfc.com Phone (800) 364-4263 • (501) 223-6300 • Fax (501) 223-6448 The mission of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission is to wisely manage all the fish and wildlife resources of Arkansas while providing maximum enjoyment for the people. 1 1 t United States Department of the Interior [N REPLY REFER TO; Kelly J. Maddoux Barnard, Dunkelberg, & Company Cherry Street Building 1616 East - Fifteenth Street Tulsa, OK 74120 Dear Mr. Maddoux: FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 110 South Amity, Suite 300 Conway, Arkansas 72032 Tel.: 501/513-4470 Fax: 5011513-4480 January 24, 2008 RECEIVED FEB t 2008 Barnard Dunkelberg The Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the information supplied in your letter dated January 17, 2008, regarding the proposed update plan for the Fayetteville Municipal Airport/Drake Field located in Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas. Our comments are submitted in accordance with the Endangered Species Act (87 Stat_ 884, as amended 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The following endangered species are known to occur in Washington County: Gray bat (A' ,tis grisescens); Indiana Bat {Myotis sodalist), Ozark Big -eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii ingens), Benton Cave Crayfish (Cambarus aculabrum) and the Missouri Bladderpod (Lesquerella filiformis). In addition, the Arkansas darter (Etheostoma cragini) and Neosho Mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana) are candidate species that occur in Washington County. Since many of the above species are cave -dwellers, if a cave is found within the project's boundaries, all work must cease and this office must be notified so that a survey can be conducted to determine if the cave is inhabited by any fisted species. Several of the species are also sensitive to water contamination so runoff from extensive ground disturbance or new paved surfaces in certain watersheds may create the need for stormwater control measures. Additionally, if there are any wetlands or waters of the U.S. in the construction areas, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will need to be contacted for additional permitting information. Because the extent and location of individual activities has not been provided for us at this time, it is impossible to make specific comments on the potential impacts of this plan. We will be happy to provide more information when the details of specific actions become available. We appreciate your interest in the conservation of endangered species. If you have any questions, please call Patrick Reynolds at (501)513-4487. Sincerely, Margaret Harney Acting Field Supervisor 1 ADEQ ARKANSAS Department of Environmental Quality February 8, 2008 Kelly J. Maddoux Barnard Durikelberg & Company Cherry Street Building 1616 East Fifteenth Street Tulsa, Oklahoma 74120 RECEIVED FEB 11 2008 Barnard Dunkelbetg RE: Proposed Fayetteville Municipal Airport/Drake Field Improvements Dear Mr. Maddoux: ADEQ has completed the review of your January 17, 2008 letter regarding proposed referenced activity in the Fayetteville area. ADEQ is not aware of any potential environmental issues in this area other than those typically encountered with construction projects, including the need for effective erosion controls and containment of sediment in storm water runoff. As you may be aware, any activity in, or adjacent to waters of the US, must be coordinated with the Little Rock District Corps of Engineers and ADEQ. Any construction activity in the wetted area of streams that has the potential to violate Regulation # 2 water quality standards will require a short term activity authorization as identified in Reg.2.305. While the topographic map included with your letter did not depict any identifiable stream channels in the proposed area of improvement, the slope of the terrain will transport storm water to the West Fork of the White River, which is currently listed as an impaired water body due to siltation/sediment on ADEQ's 303d list of the States' waters. Best Management Practices for erosion and storm water control must be implemented, as well as compliance with the provisions of ADEQ's storm water pollution prevention plan. Information regarding this SWPPP can be obtained by calling Kim Fuller at 501-682-0621. Please contact me at (501) 682-0645 or e-mail at singleton@adeq.state.ar.us if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Bob Singleton Program Support Manager, Water Division ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 5301 NORTHSHORE DRIVE / NORTH LITTLE ROCK / ARKANSAS 72118-5317 / TELEPHONE 501-682-0744 / FAX 501-682.0880 www.odeq.state.or.us The Department of February 13, 2008 Arkansas y Mr. Kell ]. Maddaux Barnard Dunkelberg & Company RECEIVED Heritage Cherry Street Building 1616 East fifteenth Street FEB 1.5 2008 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74120-6027 RE: Washington County - Fayetteville Barnard Dunke#ber Mike v Beebe Section 106 Review - FAA Goovernor Master Plan Update for Fayetteville Municipal Airport Cathie Matthews AHPP Tracking No: 60853 Director Dear Mr. Maddoux: This letter is written in response to your inquiry regarding properties of architectural, Arkansas Arts Council historical, or archeological significance in the area of the referenced project. My staff has reviewed the documentation regarding the above -referenced undertaking. Our records show I Arkansas Natural Heritage that one archeological site (3WA998) is located in the vicinity of the proposed Highway 71 Commission relocation project and will be affected by the proposed construction. Although the eligibility of this site for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) has not been assessed, it consists only of a single prehistoric flake. Delta Cultural Center Four historic structures (WA0792 - White Hangar, WA0969, WA0970 and WA097 1) are present near, but south of, the proposed project area. WA0792 might be eligible for inclusion I Historic Arkansas Museum • in the NRHP if some restoration work were undertaken, but is not eligible in its current condition. WA0969, WA0970 and WA0971, three airplanes housed in White Hangar, are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. None of these structures will be affected by the proposed Mosaic Templars project. Cultural Center 1 We recommend that photographs of any structures that may be purchased or the subject of mitigation be submitted to us for review. Advisory Council Regulations (36 CFR Part 800) Old State House Museum require that the Section 106 process be completed prior to the issuance of any federal funding, licenses, permits, or approvals. Thus, we cannot issue a formal finding of effect until all 1 aspects of this project have been reviewed. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this undertaking. If you have any questions, please contact Steve Imhoff of my staff at (501) 324-9880. Arkansas Historic Sincerely, j Preservation Program Ji&J 1500 Tower Building Frances McSwain 323 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer (501) 324-9880 � cc: Dr. Richard Alien, Cherokee Nation Mr. Robert Cast, Caddo Nation fax: (501) 324-9184 Dr. Ann M. Early, Arkansas Archeological Survey tdd: (501) 324-9811 Dr. Andrea A. Hunter, Osage Nation e-mail: Ms. Lisa Larue-Stopp, United Keetoowah Band of Cherokees I infot arkansasureservation.org Mr. Tim Tandy, Federal Aviation Administration website: Ms. Carrie V. Wilson, Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma www.arkansasnreservation.com An Equal Opportunity Employer 1 1 1 1 The Department of April 4, 2008 Arkansas RECEIVED Mr. Kelly J. Maddoux Heritage Barnard Dunkelberg & Company APR - 8 2008 Cherry Street Building 1616 -East Fifteenth Street Barnard Dune Tulsa, Oklahoma 74120-6027 Mike Beebe Governor - RE: Washington County - Fayetteville FAA Section 106 Review -FAA Cathie Matthews Director Master Plan Update for Fayetteville Municipal Airport AHPP Tracking No: 60853 Arkansas Arts Council Dear Mr. Maddoux: Arkansas Natural Heritage Thank you for the additional information regarding the above -referenced Commission undertaking. My staff has reviewed the photographs of the house to be • purchased and they report that it is not eligible for inclusion in the National Delta Cultural Center Register of Historic Places. Therefore, we find that the updated master plan will have no adverse effect on historic properties in its present form. Historic Arkansas Museum Mosaic Templar Cultural Center Old State House Museum Arkansas Historic Preservation Program 1500 Tower Building 323 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 324-9880 fax: (501) 324-9184 tdd: (501) 324-981 I c -mail: infbQarkansasareservation.or¢ websitc: www. an tip .com However, because our survey files are incomplete, it is possible that undiscovered resources exist in the area. If a resource is encountered that appears to possess historical or architectural significance; or if human remains or artifacts, such as Native American pottery, stone tools, old bottles or china are discovered during this project, work in the area of discovery" should stop and this office should be contacted inunediately. We will evaluate any such finds as expeditiously as possible. In addition, if changes are made to the master plan, we should be afforded the opportunity to comment. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this undertaking. If you have any questions, please contact Steve Imhoff of my staff at (501) 324-9880. Sincerely, Frances McSwain Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer cc: Dr. Richard Allen, Cherokee Nation Mr. Robert Cast, Caddo Nation Dr. Ann M. Early, Arkansas Archeological Survey Dr. Andrea A. Hunter, Osage Nation Ms. Lisa Larue-Stopp, United Keetoowah Band of Cherokees Mr. Tim Tandy, Federal Aviation Administration An Equal Opportunity Employer 1 Telephone Conversation Log Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Airport and Environmental Consultants 1616 East 15th Street Tulsa, Oklahoma 74120 Phone: 918-585-8844 FAX: 918-585-8857 Commission/Subject: Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Environmental Assessment Contact: Mr. Steve Imhoff Arkansas Historic Preservation Program 1500 Tower Building 323 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 501.324.9880 I spoke with Steve Imhoff of the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program regarding archeological site 3WA998 that is located in the vicinity of the proposed realigned segment of Highway 71 near Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field. Mr. Imhoff explained that since the site consists of only a single prehistoric flake, it is not considered significant and is not eligible for inclusion in the Natural Register of Historic Places. BARNARD DUNKELBERG & COMPANY Kelly J. Maddoux Regulatory Office DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LITTLE ROCK DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS POST OFFICE BOX 867 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72203-0867 FILE NO. 11391-1 Mr. Kelly Maddoux Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Cherry Street Building 1616 East Fifteenth Street Tulsa, Oklahoma 74120 Dear Mr. Maddoux: BAR 04 2008 RECENED MAR -6 2008 Barnard Dunkelberg Please refer to your request dated January 27, 2008, on behalf of the Fayetteville Municipal Airport, concerning Department of the Army permit requirements pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. You propose to expand the airport. The project is Located in sections 4 and 9, T. 15 N., R. 30 W., Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas. Corps of Engineers personnel have evaluated the site and found no wetland areas or other waters of the United States within the proposed areas of expansion and improvements. Therefore, the proposed work at the subject location does not require a Section 404 Department of the Army permit. This determination does not relieve you of complying with other applicable local, state, and Federal laws. Your cooperation in the Corps of Engineers regulatory program is appreciated. If you have any questions, please contact me at (501) 324-5295. Sincerely, Christopher G. Davies Project Manager Enclosure Icy T for _ rrs! '- UI �`'�q4\ 3 i L • � �", � _w►Wcsea; { '} � Vii'✓ 23 �� 1�f� .f� �1rt3 = r _ 1 (! F •.,.. ,• oa. I� ji�l.a _ ' � J I 0 r 1 1• r � 1;00 � { � ,'{ ' • I , • � v • ^y f: • � 7—.. � r.t ,c%o _, © °rlwr ti rj;''• �~ .J. :� !�_ �_ -��r<r�' �F sf � �v;�' � ± � �' I,,�' ��'"� f/ - i�'t•• •f F`.:c+ J •,� _G y Tii�•,•' �f�I.'I ) M►~ -o. •tp w �1"n aAw s: I r � • 'f �.� rf li l / �,� 0' Q": ° roar 0n•.... ! f i awrr. s.rl.■ 1� j t s ' �!"•w w I r-' "' r �'�� �r IP�I 1 1 � iM • ° 4 ipw,a u �•L i r I e�• J('+8idJE ,.:r` ••�' •� 0�..414crr;ala.°c:P t1a110GT. bc /T h� JJ L 7 r� ITZ r q ~ I/ .� =;t ti r/' �1 I .}� .. .` `t �` 1 rjc l� 7 I ._IY.r--'' ''±�. ,`c�r1,�1?� �9! ^a• � r, � ' I ib,1 '1 �ti _ •�,-t'.�31�� ���: "�'1�� �'1���� +: { �r � i`�,�1 F• r � f' �'^.-_-' ; r yl Ir` l yi"j4 I 'i.� :� '�. fit.' r _ r, ✓— -+�J. ! I ? r � V�h`..,-' _4 .\ Vim..;. ) # r _ �. S� ��• �� ��, •._•° ✓�..-. -; .-.� + �`� � .. � �rf .- '� ���- �� l'���/,�%a-=—. •'{ '11j1 + Project Location 1 ~ `•__ .r= Z . ' -4J, �� ✓w��. . SyiLf -t- 11 y 1 .' • =,.r -'-'- \(J}�'i) s ` ,' •mil ; s a %'/•' I ti ` ms •L j` %• ,, \ f `` •1. 1 `' i e r i� j r �P4r'i •% ,, .� }, i ii t: SORAItE HELD i•b�. ��,., E5(\ \! f , I� .112 ����% j s\_� f/ •`,�I "` 4 .rr ?l�S�`/ \. �t� i1 I-{ f! �{ _ - •' ; ��� 1 r + ;�` F �,r k -S / C, :� l�/���� 11��` el I I ItF J�/ }.� p•u+n`�; � �I �,1 ,1 1'/A• !F� t� ,�, �� �/},. "'�^•� >i/� ��a��\��� rJ �"I� .fir ll • 1 O,Sr. F..•'" I' 3 r s ire° :�'Iirec s�-• '-� ....� L. - __�.p�• i -. '_�+�_- f: x 1 ` o.i� �.'c �•i 1•,; ) t • r., f ,.00 .--..fii•.. -•. r •• 1 s I / f .r:;: .11 e %d ti. -may, : �'.� �es.,�✓ .. • ,.#��•-ytr>. �i, £�j Dl tt lr I ' s 1 '�,:�'Q •�y ' 'i � ;1 f: �,T;....+� r+ F. 1 - ' r �: I s�.l li �i'-�J •il,'��`7, ` .ir , ( `;\1 �,l\, ;API � r �, r��� -. •-I. '�-�i,. }i -� ^, -' .lsl 1. rt�i <' n r f/1�. d�ti'•'�15..TTCC/-C1 .-,o. r '+. . —` •� I 1. r.lY�• r. _ _ •r.; •.Iti i ' �..% . , . , • . _ r te_ ..,°+... .. .-. : ' - •, r f �• r+ r •' � ,��• , r.. 5, ir:,+Ff1 'i. `� +. .,• 'c! I.. �Fi[ I:'r' • , . - ACTION NO. 11391-1 ' ' Fayetteville Municipal Airport w �.;; • F �r . _:: 1 , Fayettevi e p ,!•• �.'.' Airport Expansion _ . a 3 r• Sec4&9, T• 15 N•,R.30W. .._ - . _. _. _....---' I+� ---- :�' - • - February 29. 2 008 SHEET 1 OF 4 e •day �� r q L. �. w b y• a 7 • o • ' •� PIL• BOUNDARY OF 11REA ---- — �� ya �T INSPECTED 1 Il 1 � i 128 ♦1 r• /24 Z� a ` ►.Icy � � • •' as K ��'. III 1%r �s�t ° DRAKE FIELD 4 s eau : 4 21 7\I '- ( )/) �"' Ol+ NETDS Q // U1J '' 1229x Y , edn and . •: '=} DRA E FIELD • r , ]1PPROXXMATE . utE7l i E t • OF WETLANDS I o s 1 �� 80 DAFIEFS ARE APPROXIMATE ' J .� � t242 . �.•►1..>�X1Ii _Ix �� �-, _ '�� ¢�=ate'+ 'll• �•. SCAT E 1 INCH EQUALS o L APPROXIMATELY 1000 FEET I ACTION NO. 11391-1 Fayetteville Municipal Airport Airport Expansion Sec4&9,T.15N.,R30W. FPhni ry 79 7f1f1R CHF.F.T 7 f1F 4 ^r '� •126"3 _ o • I� YY\ 1 f am! I OJT T 1 d ' �\\ _L_ '- ! r � 1\ � • ' � � + � •�- by ; i - � Lai ' Bi1 253 ' C �I ■�1 �• 1 J� • IF tl + � I LT O I J 0� I i • N �' 1 _[ 11..x' .�•.. �fi� -J J; � !� l , 125 � '-}� ?24 •.•i • - x "� U f �' 1 6 111 ltl I; rj a, � 1 •I"�,-� i _ '•I .•7 IJ lD KE FIELD e I erri 1 • I • / • eWer e4-2 .. I ' try ORA E FIELD �.1 Ir '' , ,. '_ _...ms's. ,_ I .'�•,_'_:.-��_ 1 • ...1 M _ - .s .mot'• • . •� Gre and �' G: ''' '- ;' j/ l�ir^��ti�` w .• ...�{B i��6 I. J5 .'.1 i 1 i:s J ../ r•-'� _ I�r ; ti ti < !� �� :•'.��;�� 3• •' ` r I'' �-� 4 ` \ti ` o';551= I5 r -'a ai�rb ..: ``'f- lir �� •a•� 3 ; ��. .Siit �f� r ,� �.;t �� :S .I •' • -.-L_1__.,.:I I' k• • ` �� OQ11f Ifl ' 1 , f•' •t �I ii a •s[ O rr _` ;, e`r• r ,•�{ I �'•,'1� :j'�M.•�~}}�rI j.: •� J. ��.=�. t/J 'tf ! ./�c^:r �f ifr QCs/ : yr 7 '`r -`. i ' --I -• `. li{ 10 F•'i ,�`' :; '. JO,.�. �d YF,.:r=,� +r `•.'•.^=i } � i I �, `tr. ;'fii\�i Viral jl,. r���Fd ��v ��•I13<I 1F r� ��i.t`{ •�%' i1 ;;:7. ' r_ .•� •. ,; r !. �.•r �fl .�1 'I . '� it *o::l //c'/ r� PP m im locations s real s �; }.i a .___ •�� r j ' r.. U J[[4 , 1 `�� �sa . Ch f li g. •1 ?8> Stlo �! f ACTION NO. 11391-1 r C I,.t r t' Fayetteville Municipal Airport F;1 f f :i: a :"Q< Airport Expansion �•�` `-'( �: Sec4&9, T. 15 N.,R.30W. February 29. 200R SHFFT (W 4 O 1810 N. College Avenue McCLELLAND P.O. Box 1229 I' MCECONSULTING Fayetteville, Arkansas 72 703172 702:1229 PHONE. 479-443-2377 .lD,E D1-6�5 F Ri V,FwENGINEERS, INC. FAX: 479-443-9247 MEMO RE: Fayetteville Executive Airport, Drake Field, Runway 16 Safety Area Improvements- Preliminary conversations with the Beaver District of the US Army Corps of Engineers February 3, 2009 IR Mike Morgan of MCE called and spoke with USACE Little Rock office (Mr. Johnny McLane). Johnny is currently acting as the point contact for three agencies (AHTD; FHWA; and USACE). The three offices formed the position of a single point contact within the USACE to enable the 404 process to be 5, streamlined. Johnny indicated that since the project is not funded by any state or federal money he would most likely not be the person processing the application. The application would be processed by Deb Woodward (who assumed Kyle Clark's role in the Beaver District Offices). Johnny is sending via email a copy of the 404 application which we will need to fill out and return to the Little Rock office (even though Deb works in the Beaver District, the application will need to be routed through Little Rock). February 4, 2009 Mike Morgan and Julia Foreman of MCE called Deb Woodward to further discuss the permitting process. She indicated that stream earth moving disturbances of less than 1/2 acre qualify for general permit coverage. Anything larger than that will require individual permit coverage, which will also require a significant longer timeline to complete. February 18, 2009 Julia Foreman of MCE called Deb Woodward to give more detail about the project and get Ms. Woodward's advice on the best way to approach the 404 permitting of the project. Splitting the project into separate pieces was discussed and Ms. Woodward indicated that it may be possible to do that if the project sections are some distance apart. The possibility of applying for a Nationwide 14 permit for the stream realignment was also discussed. 1 Aikansas. THE NATURAL STATE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS & TOURISM t Capitol Mail Little Rock, AR 72201 501-882-7777 Arkonsos,com History Commission ' 501-682-6900 (V/TI) Ark-Ivos.00m Keep Arkansas Beautiful Division 501-682.3507 Personnel Section 1-682-7742 (V/TT) State Parks Division 1-682-1191 (V/TT) Tourism Division -682-7777 (WTI) Mike Beebe GOVERNOR I E Richard W. Davies ECUTIVE DIRECTOR STATE PAR. & TRAVEL COMMISSION Joy Bunyard CHAIRMAN Sieve Arrlson VICE-CHAIRMAN Bill Barnes Danny Ford Jim Gaston Darin Gray Debra Hook Bob Knight Billy Lindsey Montine McNulty Mike Mills Ness Sechrest Jim Shamburger wade Williams IVISION DIRECTORS Larry Carg"a ADMINISTRATION Greg Butts STATE PARKS Joe Dcvtd Rice TOURISM Nancy Clark GREAT RIVER ROAD Dr. Wendy Richter STORY COMMISSION Robert Phelps KEEP ARKANSAS BEAUTIFUL AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY! RMATIVE ACTION/ AMERICANS WITH i I DISABILITIES ACT EMPLOYER April 7, 2008 Mr. Kelly J. Maddoux Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Cherry Street Building 1616 East Fifteenth Street Tulsa, Oklahoma 74120 RECEIVED APR 10 2008 Barnard Dunkelberg RE: Fayetteville Municipal Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements ORGP 8-50 Dear Mr. Maddoux: Thank you for this opportunity to comment regarding the proposed Runway Safety Area extension for the Fayetteville Municipal Airport/Drake Field. I concur with your analysis that parks in Fayetteville and Greenland will not be adversely impacted by this project. Based on the information you have provided, our records do not indicate a conflict with the proposed runway safety area improvements. If you have any questions or require additional assistance, please feel free to contact me at 501-682-6946. Sincerely, c$wtc4 Anita Chouinard, Environmental Planner Outdoor Recreation Grants Program Wage I of 1 Kelly Maddoux From: Porta, Mike ]PORTA@adeq.state.ar.us] Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 11:08 AM To: Kelly Maddoux Subject: FW: Fayetteville Airport Environmental Assesssment The Air Division of the ADEQ has no comments on the proposed Runway Safety Area improvements. -----Original Message ----- From: Kelly Maddoux [mailto:Kelly@bd-c.com] Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 10:40 AM To: Bates, Mike Subject: Fayetteville Airport Environmental Assesssment Dear Mr. Bates: Barnard Dunkelberg & Company sent to you a letter of invitation for a public information meeting held on February 4, 2.008 (attached). The public information meeting was in regard to an Environmental Assessment for proposed Runway Safety Area improvements at Fayetteville Municipal Airport/Drake Field. Since we have not had a response from your agency at this time, we wish to provide to you the opportunity to respond via email before we move forward with the completion of the EA. Do you have any comments or concerns regarding the proposed Runway Safety Area improvements at the Airport? f U 1 For your convenience, I am also attaching an illustration of the proposed improvements, which includes the approximate 2,500 linear feet of Highway 71 relocation, the relocation of Lancaster Drive, and the acquisition of 11.5 acres of additional property. Thank you for your response. Sincerely, Kelly Maddoux Barnard Dunkelberg & Company 1616 East 15th Street Tulsa, OK 74120 Office: 918/585-8844 Direct:918/586-7284 Fax:918/585-8857 11/5/2008 I UWted States Department of Agriculture r r s O NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service Room 3416, Federal Building 700 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3225 Kelly Maddoux Barnard Dunkelberg & Company 1616 East 15th Street Tulsa, Oklahoma 74120 Dear Mr. Maddox: RECEIVED SEP 2 9 2006 Barnard Dunkelberg This letter is in response to your request for comments regarding proposed improvements for the Fayetteville Airport located in the cities of Fayetteville and Greenland Arkansas. The area does contain Prime Farmland. The area is within the City Limits of Greenland and Fayetteville. Enclosed are forms AD 1006 and CPA106 and a map for your use Should you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at (501) 301-3172. Sincerely, EDG P. MERSIOVSKY Assistant State Soil Scientist Enclosures Helping People Help the Land M Equal Oppwtun ty Provider and EmoloyW r-, s 1 i I U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Natural Resources Conservation Service FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS NRCS-CPA-106 (Rio. 1-911 PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) 3. bitifLand Evaluation Request 9%21!08 ' sheet 1 of 1. Name of Project Fayetteville Airport 5. Federal Agency involved A 2. Type of Project Road Improvements 3. County and State Washington County, Arkansas PART 11 (To be completed by NRCS) 1. Date Request Received by NRCS 9125!08 - I 2. Person Completing Form Edgar Merslovsky 3. Does the corridor contain prime, unique statewide or local Important farmland? 0 O YES "0 (If no, the FPPA does not apply - Do not complete additional parts of this form). . Acres mga 1175 acres Average arm e .131 acres 5. Major Crop(s) Tall Fescue Is. Formable Land in Government Jurisdiction Acs: 271,191 % 7. Amount of armland As Defined in FPPA Acres: 203,783 % 8. Name Of Land Evaluation System Used SCS-LESA 9. Name of Local Site Assessment System 10. Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS 9125108 PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Corridor For Segment Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor D A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 6 B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly, Or To Receive Services C. Total Acres In Corridor 6 0 0 PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland 6 B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value PART V (To be cornp.Wad by NRCS) La>Id Evaini ion hrbfpmamkin C*vkn Rdath r value of Farmland to Be Se Weed or Converted of 0.100 Points �� PART VI (To be completed by FederalAgency) Corridor Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(c)) Maximum Points 1. Area in Nonurban Use 1$ 2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use 10 Z 3. Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed 20 4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 20 5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 10 6. Creation Of Nontarrnable Farmland 26 7. Availablility Of Farm Support Services 5 8. On -Farm Investments 20 (} 9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 25 10. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 10 TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 y 44 0 0 0 PART Vii (To be completed by Federal Agency) Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100 S Total Corridor Assessment (From Part VI above or a local site assessment) 160 L tf 0 0 0 TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260 0 `t $ 0 0 0 1. Corridor Selected: 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to be Converted by Project: 3. Date Of Selection: 4. Was A Local Site Assessment Used? YES NO O 5. Keason tor Selection: Signature of erson Completing this Pait DATE NOTE: Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternate Corridor Farmland Classification of Soils in the Area of the Fayetteville Airport ____ 'I!� I . I' iitl', it lye 'r l ' { r1 r a_ c •� � � yy11���� P - I 11 IT!' :'i J + I ____x L I.Y. r }a f + wMand ClassMk:tbn NAN, t} 4.;Ndl Pn— firm4nd f - All areas Sr. pnme hm■and Pnrne hrn and rf Dmwc d from hooding or not haquaney Ibnded dump Ne growing seawn � _ Pnma hrmiand rf drelnad and *Mw pmtem■d from a,odmg or not n'aqumdy flooded dunng uw gro—ng sea■on �, -. Famtland Of slatewda ?nporunu 025 0.125 0 525 0-5 075i ,—i r 1 Mlles 1%O./NRCS I ' Appendix Four - Public Involvement initial Coordination Meetings Two coordination meetings were held on February 4, 2008 to aid in identifying significant issues and concerns that should be addressed during the environmental process, and to identify preliminary feasible alternatives. The meetings were advertised in the NorthwestArkansas Times on January 30 and February 3, 2008 (see proof of publication for the public scoping meeting on the following pages). Federal, state, and local agencies and elected officials were invited to attend the first meeting held at 2:00 pm in the Fayetteville Municipal Airport/Drake Field conference room. Approximately seven persons were in attendance (see Agency Coordination Meeting Sign -In sheet on the following pages). Four attendees provided written comments (see Comment Sheets that follow). During the Agency Coordination Meeting, several questions were asked and comments received, and are summarized below. Question: What is the estimated schedule for projects? Answer: Complete the Environmental Assessment this year. Final design will occur next year, with bidding of the site work and drainage to begin next year also. Question: Corps of Engineers blocked drainage for Ward Slough, what will you do with it when rerouted around runway? Answer: Ward Slough will require rerouting only when runway extended to the south. The runway extension is not a part of the proposed projects for this Environmental Assessment. Question: Are five lanes justified by traffic volumes now? ` Appendix Four.1 I 4 1 I Answer: Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department will require five lanes. Comment: City of Greenland sees the Airport as an asset and will do a master street plan, update codes, and other city plans for the attraction of business. Comment: Projects can enhance south part of Washington County and Fayetteville. The public was invited to attend the second meeting, which was conducted at 6:00 pm and also held in the Airport conference room. Approximately 12 persons from the public attended the meeting (see Public Coordination Meeting Sign -1n sheet on the following pages). Two written comments were received (see Comment Sheets following). Several questions were asked during the Public Coordination Meeting, and are summarized below. Question: Has there been a timeline established for the projects? Answer: Yes, Environmental Assessment will take approximately 8-9 months. Bidding for early part of construction will be next March or April 2009. Question: Will the Airport have to be closed during construction of the projects? Answer: No. Question: Any commercial service anticipated at the Airport? Answer: Not anytime soon, but the Airport continues to talk to the airlines. Question: How will the utilities on the west side of the highway be affected, since they are all the City of Greenland's utilities? Answer: Those utilities that need to be moved because of the highway realignment will move; those that do not need to be moved will not move. No disruption of service is anticipated. Question: Why not shift runway to the south? Appendix Four.2 fI 1 1 Answer: The highway and roadway realignments are the cheapest alternative for ! providing the standard Runway Safety Area beyond Runway 16. Additionally, I reducing the runway length is not a viable option since the existing runway length does not exceed the existing or projected aircraft performance needs and would lose functional utility of the runway. Question: What about the noise for people living nearby? Answer: A noise analysis, consisting of both aircraft and highway generated noise, will be conducted and presented in the Environmental Assessment. Question: How do the junked cars south of the Airport affect the environment? Answer: They do not affect the projects being evaluated in this Environmental Assessment. Question: How will the service station be affected? Answer: It is at the south end of the realignment. Some property will need to acquired for the highway realignment (approximately 0.3 acres), but it is not known at this time the full extent of the impact. Question: Does the City of Fayetteville currently own most of the property where the highway will be realigned? Answer: Yes. Question: Will the projects have any impact on the Kearney National or Standard Register buildings? Answer: Kearney National will not be affected in any way. The highway realignment will require the acquisition and use of a portion of the Standard Register property. The property is currently either vacant or consists of driveways and parking lots. Will not affect the building itself. Question: Does the height of the Kearney National building present a problem for the Airport and will any height restrictions be imposed? Answer: Easements purchased in the early 1990s currently impose height restriction to this property and others. l.. ' Appendix Four.3 Question: Are the projects illustrated in the master plan on hold, such as the proposed hotel? Answer: No projects listed in the master plan are on hold; all are still considered viable including golf course, industrial development, and residential development. The goal is for the Airport to be as self-sustaining as possible, and all those projects will help enable the realization of that goal. Two concerns were included in the written documentation received after the Public Coordination Meeting, and are summarized below. Scurlock Concerns: Scurlock Industries have concerns regarding additional land for expansion and negative impacts to the business. Response: The Airport is confident that agreements can be reached that allow Scurlock Industries the ability to improve vehicular access to U.S. Highway 71 through the use of the relocated Lancaster Drive, as well as the long-term lease of property providing additional storage capabilities. Paschal Concerns: The Paschal's are concerned about their safety when the highway is relocated closer to their home. Response: It is the policy of AHTD to provide a "Clear Zone" as described in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Roadside Design Guide. The appropriate Clear Zone for U.S. Highway 71 can be accommodated within the proposed right-of-way for the relocated highway section. Public Hearing A notice of Public Hearing was advertised in the Northwest Arkansas Times, a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Fayetteville and Washington County, on Friday, February 27, 2009, and Sunday, March 1, 2009 (see proof of publication in the following pages). The notice preceded the Public Hearing by at least 30 days. During the 30 days, the Draft Environmental Assessment and the Airport Layout Plan were available for public review in the Airport Manager's office at Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field, the Fayetteville and Greenland Public Libraries, and in the office of the Fayetteville City Clerk. The Public Hearing was conducted on Monday, March 30, 2009 in the conference room of the Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field terminal building. Approximately 26 people attended the hearing (see sign in sheets that follow). A transcript of the hearing Appendix Fuur.4 proceedings was recorded and is also included in the following pages. A copy of the slideshow presentation is included after the hearing transcript. During the hearing, there were several comments and questions raised, which are summarized below. Question: Mr. Bill Armstrong of Standard Register Company asked what is the timeline of the "high level" projects? 1 Answer: After the environmental process is complete, next steps include the process of acquiring the needed properties to implement the projects. Acquisition of the properties must follow the federal regulations contained in the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (as amended) and Department of Transportation regulations at 49 CFR Part 24. The negotiation for mitigating the noise -impacted residence will be initiated. The engineering design for the project is expected to be completed within a couple of weeks and the required approval from the AHTD will be requested. The right-of-way plans will be completed as the property is acquired, which is expected into June or early July. The engineering design will include details of driveway realignment, fence realignment, and the modification of the road connections with the existing highway. It is expected that construction bids will be received by May 1, 2009 to meet the FAA funding cycle and the project will be phased over a two-year period. Question: Mr. Rick McKinney asked about the plans for the creek under the highway and Lancaster Drive and does the Corps have any problem with the realignment? Answer: An approximate 400 -foot segment will be relocated outside the Runway Safety Area just north of the existing airport property. This will require new box culverts for proper drainage and erosion controls will be implemented during construction. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been contacted and the realignment of the creek channel will require a Section 404 permit. The permit application has been submitted to the Corps and we are awaiting their reply. We do not anticipate any problems with permit approval. Comment: Mr. Lioneld Jordan, Mayor of Fayetteville, commented that he has concerns with the creek channel realignment, but will wait and see. He also Appendix Four.5 commented that if no City funds are required to implement the project, then he is in favor of it. Response: Local, state, and federal codes/regulations will be followed for channel realignment. Appropriate slope design will be implemented to meet the Runway Safety Area requirements as well as to accommodate proper drainage. Question: Ms. Gloria McIntosh asked will the realigned creek channel be located north of the Airport where additional property is to be acquired? Answer: Yes, that is one reason for purchasing that parcel. Question: Ms. Betty Paschal asked if the Airport will be in touch with them? Answer: Yes, the Airport will do what is right for you and your family. For two weeks following the Public Hearing, written comments were accepted. However, no written comments were submitted. Appendix Four.6 Arkansas Democrat OOazeite Northwest Arkansas Times Benton County Daily Record P. 0. BOX 1607 FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72702 PHONE: 479-57 1 -641 5 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION RF-CE VEp FEB 062008 A1RPU1. I, Karen Caler, do solemnly swear that I am the Legal Clerk of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette newspaper. Printed and published in Benton County Arkansas, (Lowell) and of bona fide circulation, that from my own personal knowledge and reference to the files of said publication, the advertisement of FAYETTEVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT: Notice of Public Meeting: North Runway Safety Area Was inserted in the Regular Editions on: January 30 and February 3, 2008 Publication Charge: $ 205.53 Subscribed and sworn to before me This 4- day of t`�• , 2008. Notary PublicL0,W—a ,.e,� •.,; CATHY J.VVILES 91""' iti Benton County MyCOruary2D, �)Q4 My Commission Expires: 7'Z0 t'+ : __ �,""C'� F3brupry 20, 2014 **NOTE- Please do not pay from Affidavit. Invoice will be sent. Fayetteville Municipal Airport/Drake Field mm Runway Safety Area Improvements I fl/L Environmental Assessment Agency Coordination Meeting/February 4, 2008 Name Address Telephone Number Thank You 1j Barnard Dunkelberg & Company McClelland Consulting Engineers Fayetteville Municipal Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements , Environmental Assessment Coordination Meeting/February 4, 2008 Thank You 1P Barnard Dunkelberg & Company McClelland Consulting Engineers a Fayetteville Municipal Airport/Drake Field 4 Runway Safety Area Improvements] Environmental Assessment A Coordination Meeting/February 4, 2008 Thank You ' Barnard Dunkelberg & Company McClelland Consulting Engineers 2 Fayetteville Municipal Airport/Drake Field - . �~�.+,-+•�~~�, �. f~'� �:;, :� Runwa Safet Area Im rovements i. ' `�;` Environmental Assessment I U J '41LJ J Coordination Meeting/February 4, 2008 Thank You Barnard Dunkelberg & Company McClelland Consulting Engineers P Fayetteville Municipal Airport/Drake Field t --ter--. r —"" Runway Safety Area Improvements ' Environmental Assessment � ��.J_+bi .J Coordination Meetina/February 4. 2008 Thank You 1' Barnard Dunkelberg & Company McClelland Consulting Engineers Fayetteville Municipal Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment Public Coordination Meeting/February 4, 2008 C Name Address Wish to Speak l ! r.' ' �llY/ :'; r. I� I r♦ -• - T h.a n k You IV Barnard Dunkelberg & Company McClelland Consulting Engineers Fayetteville Municipal Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements °• Environmental Assessment Coordination Meeting/February 4, 2008 Scvr lock -T 4 i� O4 TG f Pvi e P.O. 8•x IQ 2 Fave f{,: is 4 R 72 70 Z • '179- SZ 1- ose1 On-behalfaf Scurlock-Indus^tries-of Fayettville-Brad Jot�insori a id -Matthew S4w lock attended [he coordination meeting discussing the runway safety area —Improvmeuts at ayettevilk Municipal Aiipurt on-Fcbiuiiy"42008. --fterattendin-the-pub1ie-hearing-we-wanted-to-offr-a-kw comments about the — situation —to-remedy needfor-additional-land-for-several-years-now-rDue-to•several-unfortunate..— —circumstances-we-have , but we would like -to but we 4Arn,,Id.4ike-to-r-eiterate4hat-the need now is greater-than-it_lrsies•ef Fa3ry i1ways-tried-to-be-acomrr,iinity pirtner, and are more thanwiuing is workwith-azyoneto _accomplish.aurm„maLgoals_...On_the.otherhand, _we_do_not;see how re_can-continue_to__ operate_withany--obstructions_o1uur_current_property_rithout.the-op Y-tn e-- additions! ad' c leases would also he acceptahleif autright.sale is not). We are confident that compromises can be reached, we are willing to consider any options that may be presented to us, but wanted to comment that we are not willing to allow our business to be negatively impacted. As long as we can maintain uninterrupted access to a continuous piece of property at least as large as the current loot, we will be willing to work with the City, and any other potential organizations that would like access to or through our land, but without tfiis at a minimum, we may be forced to consider other options. -4-_____ 2TRECEIVED FEB -7 2000 Please Maim Kelly Maddoux Comments To: Barnard Dunkelberg a Company 1616 East 15th Street Barnard DunkelbKg Tulsa, OK 74120 Thank You Barnard Dunkelberg IN Company McClelland Consulting Engineers 11 I 1 Fayetteville Municipal Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment w Coordination Meeting/February 4, 2008 Name: .l� �� ♦ �_ Address: f II r yf., Daytime Phone: Comments: f . / V �� r .' : - / - . . : : - - - l /1 . of ! .v / �• re/ I- I / � �f _ � ►� ! rrf f !I1 i Thank You Barnard Dunkelberg & Company McClelland Consulting Engineers 1 1 1 1 Northwest Arkansas Times Benton County Daily Record MAR 092009 P. O. BOX 1607 AIRPORT FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72702 PHONE: 479-571-6421 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION I, Cathy Wiles, do solemnly swear that I am Legal Clerk of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette newspaper. Printed and published in Benton County (Lowell) and Pulaski County, Arkansas and that from my own personal knowledge and reference to the files of said publication, the advertisement of: City of Fayetteville- Notice of Public Hearing - Airport Was inserted in the Statewide Editions on February 27 & March 1, 2009 Publication Charge: $ 205.20 Signed: Subscribed and sworn to before me This 3 day of -Ma4ck . , 2009. Notary Public -&. _ q. 0 'TAR y. Wr'`4C�t My Commission Expires: ���� •• RECEWE[) MAR 0 9 2009 AIRPORT 1 ..Th. C11et Fayetrer:!ie 199 p;.- L ec:-.9 `ecsril s.: ai .. !. r ldceril'r''9I:' :ee : 1- :rer^rs Io !rA &'!.:y kea a: =[•y3::G7. 9 EFe:L:..e k•pail7r9,ece:. r-1 r: r• a F x.ice :re c E'9- cq: •ea D c—ra:elr 1:S 'e atel :t 5 1 a3xar "t :e . • Re CC1:9 L :C:' -el •:' Ear -1&s: _'•iCe91e'! ..e •, S r••�9.C:a:e J?.aFar:a.. :? a• SC Le:r o isle +':a:I SlL Cr :•ercyn: I i.A •4. (IC:—_c"r ad l ti.:b;S x.• CC.'crr. l^ =.;;. Ad sa•; C r;r•a' rgGncic ALprn, a' :3• •alp: r1e:5r.'Er 5 `:a'CiC 1, ,c; {F1r'9 tar'- CX Y CarSC'Qr. Sb'oae ::x'e:erce•3 : eFa tr:eti:,o.=.aec..r-e+.roc Drareir,�e+ S?eee1 A C'an A. 3L•owe?:C's:e"; a -o-i• .-a Ir:r:Ye'•'e': ac e::3 a^.3 !no:, a :1 c.e: a :c.1'rL:.IY• y:dS arc :,e: e9. T5.: ?• ci reer.~ a 'be •receaec erCrier :e a"a ! c:rre;e-te raa 1. w'-ero gLls-k-15 CO- be -a 99C F..8 Er• :.�erec;rcrccc -ia^ r93at. ::ry'iA:�'".3 C: •:ryB 7a^•rcal E •Ce. tM5.,ier: aid kIDC!...'CL • Flcn re or. a s: a-1':- p6,'c e:pec`x.. car rg .c•-ar:ce'M ry •a.:3 at •19 c w- - _ A: r 3'- cc. 7; FE.o:Ia4 'e Pe.s c L.a acr E.'erarce 3jse 4.*o!- cLr.:a F S"re•: Ft:e:levii a •4R'27ur'3 lrLilr..id brary: RVarsr.ce Do:+. o Ems: �:sE S:'ee: /'.3t51S :er.ia'y 275 M,:71 •a. r T L FAYETEVILLE EXECUTIVE AIRPORT Drake Field ATTENDANCE FORM MEETING TOPIC: PUBLIC MEETING - RUNWAY SAFETY AREA IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT DATE: 3/30/09 CONDUCTED BY: RAY BOUDREAUX, AIRPORT DIRECTOR KELLY MADDOUX, BARNARD DUNKLEBERG & COMPANY HANDOUTS: PRINTED NAME' ' _GOMPANY:NAME 'PHO.NE: 1 E-MAIL: PUL s7O--6'Y'% f'a cq 9s 7- -'J3 ¼d,;J me (\tQtk1tS�[ cdo vu 7;2 ___________ W71! J 7 -3- Z377 fiNl os `s 4h.i3s r �n nwav,L'l-r �Jo% heIo. 74. 1A,'�Y 'V\b Y 42' '7 i/rn Q21 Do�1Aw Rf2}S Sc�cn�w ��- FA,4 RE&lox) t 17.22-7. $631 jO�t1, f+/i2+P' f4 150kJ 1 J JIr1 r►f 5��+ �� ` / 1 Pe ,Rti $' \ 0 r`Lr.tW± ±ocR 5 - o o MS L"- / r, h 4 4 i tUTIv E'AIRP4T =� ;FAiYETTEEXEC VI�L-LE�.� V ' Drake Field ATTENDANCE FORM MEETING TOPIC: PUBLIC MEETING - RUNWAY SAFETY AREA IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT DATE: 3/30/09 CONDUCTED BY: RAY BOUDREAUX, AIRPORT DIRECTOR KELLY MADDOUX, BARNARD DUNKLEBERG & COMPANY HANDOUTS: PRINTEDNAME "COMPANY NAIWE' {' PHONE /or#zz. &L4.5 7f'57- j sarc 1 MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING MEETING Tuesday, March 30, 2009, 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. Fayetteville Executive Airport Runway Safety Area Environmental Assessment City of Fayetteville Officials: Mayor Lioneld Jordan; Alderman Brenda Thiel Airport Staff: Ray Boudreaux, Aviation Director; James Nicholson, Airport Financial Coordinator Engineers and Consultants for Airport: Daniel Barnes and Wayne Jones -McClelland Consulting Engineers; Kelly Maddoux — Barnard Dunkelberg Company Others Attending: (see attached pages) Ray Boudreaux. Good evening ladies and gentlemen and welcome to our Public Hearing for our Runway 16 Safety Area Improvement Project. Thank you all very much for, coming. I would like to introduce our special guests: Mayor Jordan; Alderman Thiel, right here; Butch Pond, JP for this area; from the FAA Don Harris, our Program Manager for the Airport and takes care of all the programs out here at Fayetteville Drake Field; and Joe Shipman-AHDT Arkansas Highway and Transportation District Engineer, takes care of all reviews of all highway projects in Northwest Arkansas; and of course we have the project people, Wayne Jones,' who is the major designer, works for Dan right here, they are from McClelland Consulting Engineers; and today our briefing will be conducted by Kelly Maddoux of Barnard Dunkelburg. They are the ones doing the Environmental Assessment and tonight we are here to discuss the Environmental Impacts of the project on our region, so that is what Kelly is going to do and tell you all great stuff. Take it away Kelly. Kelly Maddoux. As .Ray mentioned, I am Kelly Maddoux with Barnard Dunkelburg Company. We are an airport consulting firm out of Tulsa, Oklahoma, and we are do, are responsible, for conducting the Environmental Assessment for this project. This is a quick agenda of what I'm going to cover tonight. We are going to look at the Environmental Assessment Process: Project Purpose and Need; the Environmental Consequences that are considered of the proposed projects; What are the Environmental Impacts; What are the Next Steps; and then the primary purpose of tonight's Public Hearing is to receive Public Input. So that we'll dedicate most of the time to that, tonight, is to receive Public Input into the Environmental Process. So that's the main thing for the meeting tonight. Okay, James. The Environmental Process consists of the following key components: Purpose and Need; the Alternatives that Affect the Environment; Environmental Consequences; and Mitigation Measures; and Public Involvement. The process begins where the sponsor, either the Airport, or the City, proposes the project to the federal government to spend federal monies to address the Need they have indentified. That starts the process. Then they need to spell out what is the Purpose, and the Need, for, the project. Basically, need to answer the question why this project, and why the Need to do it now. That's the Purpose and Need of the project. Then after the Purpose and Need are indentified, we evaluate all different kinds of Alternatives that will address the Need and meet the Purpose of the project. Then we look at the affected environment. That's the surrounding area that will be potentially be affected by the project. We establish existing conditions, the baseline conditions, for the existing area, for all the different environmental categories. Ei1 l�r Then we evaluate what are the environmental consequences, or what are the environmental impacts if we conduct, or follow through with the projects. What happens to the environment and document those, and they are both positive and negative impacts. You can have positive impacts, as well as negative. Everyone thinks its just negative impact, but there can be positive impacts as well. Then we identify what mitigation measures maybe necessary, if there are impacts identified that will bring the project, mitigate the impacts, that will bring it to a low threshold level that federal agencies, to agree the impacts are considered harmful. And, then, Public Involvement is always involved in any kind of federal process, where the environmental process is conducted. Public Involvement began about a year ago in February of 2008, we had the initial public meeting for this process where we started the process, and we had the meeting, and we identified what we anticipated to do, and then invited Public Input at that time. So, that Public Involvement process, or stage of the process, has been on -going for little over a year. We are at the very end now, and we are conducting a Public Hearing. It's important to remember the Environmental Process of the Environment Documental that will result from the process is a Disclosure Document, in other words, it doesn't argue in favor, one way or the other, of impacting, or not, impacting, it simply discloses what the impacts will be and what the mitigation measures are that will mitigate the impacts. So, it is simply a Disclosure Document. Go ahead, James, next slide. Project Purpose and Need, that we have identified is to improve the safety at Fayetteville Executive Airport Drake Field by providing a Runway Safety Area, north of the approach end of Runway 16 that adequately meets FAA criteria. That's the purpose of the meeting, and we will do that by relocating approximately 2,500 ft. of the highway to the west, • relocating Lancaster drive to the north, that's the Airport access road to the east side of the Airport, acquiring, approximately eleven to eleven -and -a -half acres of property and relocating approximately 400 ft. of the airport drainage, or Airport Branch Channel of the drainage ditch, just to the north of the Airport. That's the purpose of tonight's meeting, or that purpose of the i meeting on the projects we are addressing for tonight's meeting. It's not about any runway extension, or any other airport improvements, except to improve the Runway Safety Area at the north end of the runway. +: Okay, James. This slide illustrates the projects we are proposing to meet the Purpose of Need to 1 improve the safety. This is the end of Runway 16 to the north end of the Airport and there is an area that surrounds the runway that's called the Runway Safety Area, and that is that red area right here, and by FAA design, or by FAA criteria, the Runway Safety Area needs to be 500 ft. in width, 250 ft. on either side of the centerline of the runway, and 1,000 ft. in length beyond the end of the runway. Actually, it's both ends of the runway, but they meet the criteria at the south, so we're looking at the north end. There is also a secondary area called the Object Free Area which, as the name implies, it's an area that needs to be free and clear of most objects, specifically things like cars, and other items. But, it is 800 (ft.) in width and 400 ft. on either side of the centerline of the runway and 1,000 ft. beyond the end of the runway. And, you can see that the highway, that is the existing highway right here, impedes upon the Safety Area and the Object Free Area, the standard area of both design criteria, as well, as Lancaster Drive, and the drainage channel in this area. Now, Runway Safety Area, is an area that surrounds the Airport, as I said earlier, but, also (an) area that is very smooth, level, there are no objects in there that would cause harm to aircraft in case the aircraft diverts from runway for any reason. Typically, that occurs, if it occurs, it would occur on landing, if they land short, so if an aircraft is headed south on Runway 16 and for 2 whatever reason landed short, would need to be in this area and this would need to be free and clear of all objects and smoothly graded, or can also typically happen on take off, so if an aircraft was taking off from the south to the north and something happened on take off and went beyond that end of the runway and the Safety Area provides a level of safety to that aircraft and to the passengers on board, and the surrounding people. Because if you have traffic on the highway, obviously and you have something occur in the area, then • not only do you have the potential impacts to passengers of the aircraft, but obviously people traveling along the road. So, Safety Area, as indicated, is an area identified by the FAA that needs to improve safety of -the runway system. And, we are designing the projects in such a way that they meet the Object Free Area • criteria to be free of the area objects. That's why Lancaster Road is to be re-routed up in this area, and the highway further to the west in just what is needed for the Safety Area, not only safety Area Improvements, but, also, making Object Fee Area Improvements. I would say, that the Alternatives we've evaluated will include, not only the project, but the No Action, what happens to (the) environment, what happens to the impacts if we do nothing, so we don't make the improvements. We also considered, but eliminated, some other alternatives that would address the situation, but it was determined this was the most reasonable and most feasible alternative, so we have a No Action and proposed projects that were contained in the document. Ah, we're arguing the Environmental Process because it is required by Federal Law, 1969 National Environmental Policy Act, was passed by Congress that said (if) you spend federal money on projects that you have to evaluate and analyze what are the impacts of that project to the environment. So, based on NEPA, National Environmental Policy Act, FAA has implemented an order that directs the FAA how to implement the National Law, and that's called FAA Order 1050.1E, and details we evaluate these categories of potential impacts, and its everything from air quality, noise, impact of fish wildlife and plants to wetlands and water in space, and (a) whole list, evaluated them equally, have to evaluate them for not only when you do have those proposed projects, but if you do nothing, No Action Alternative. (For) this project, the Environmental Impacts, are listed, and for No Action Alternative, there is basically no impact because you are not impacting the environment very much. For the proposed Project, there are two main areas of concern that we have identified: One, is noise, and I'll get to that in the next slide; and the other one is we have identified that be relocating the Airport Branch Drainage Channel. That will be, a what is called, a Section 404 Permit, that will be required from the Corp. of Engineers. (It's a) pretty standard permit that the 1 engineers will complete and fill out (to) satisfy the Corp. of Engineers' requirements through that permit. Next slide. The Noise Impact, are the ones we have analyzed and identified that being the most potential for impact. There was a Noise Study conducted by Mestre Greve Associates, out of California, they are acoustical engineers, that was included as part of this project and they did Noise Modeling at six different Noise Receptors sites. See them shown here. They are primarily residential structures, and they (were) evaluated based on highway traffic, that by relocating the project, by relocating the highway excuse me, that, what is professionally referred as Receptor Number Five, or actually the Paschal property, will experience what is considered by the Federal Highway Administration, a substantial increase. What that means is that with the project ' implemented, there would be (a) 13 decibels increase in noise, as opposed to existing' conditions, or not, implementing the project. That is by Federal Highway Administration standards that (it) is evaluated. I forgot to mention this earlier, but this is a fairly unique process, in that because it 3 @E is an FAA project and FAA funded, FAA is in charge, (and) that since it involves the relocation ��. of a highway, the FHWA and AHTB are involved, as well, and they are cooperating agencies with the Highway Administration as with the FAA to implement this project. So, it's fairly unique in its scope, but, because it's a highway, we follow the highway noise standards and was identified, that piece of property will experience a substantial noise increase of 13 decibels with the project. James Nicholson: Is there a minimum threshold level? Kelly Maddoux. An increase of 10 decibels is what they would consider substantial, therefore, would be considered an impact. The next steps: We are essentially at the end, or towards the very end, of the process. We will take oral comments tonight, if you would like to speak and have your comments made a part of th official record, the official document we send to the FAA. We would ask that you raise your hand, or somehow indicate, James has a digital recorder, that we can record your question, or your comment, and that will be transcribed and in the appendix of the document. Any comments will be included. We will accept written comments up to two weeks, through April 13`h. There are Comment Sheets out on the Sign-up table, so you can take those sheets and after the written comments you can submit them to Ray, and they will also become part of the official document that will be 'submitted to the FAA. We will then, as a consultant respond to both the oral and written comments. If any response is needed to be made, we will respond to them in the official document, we'll produce the final document and submit it to the FAA for their review and approval and what we hope to achieve at that time, (is) what's a Finding of No , Significant J. Impact, or the acronym, as affectionately called a FONSI. And someone earlier said, I don't remember who it was, does that mean they give you the thumbs up. I guess essentially it does, FONSI, thumbs up. So that's the next steps we'll take after tonight's meeting. So comments or questions, its time to open it up for that, but here you see Mr. Boudreaux's address (on the screen), again until April 13`, of course if something comes in on the 14`h we'll still include it, or the 15th, its not a hard and fast rule, but would like to put some kind of time line on it. Ah, and with that, Thank you and it is time for Public Comment. Oh, one more thing, we are really not here to debate the merits of the project, we'll answer questions for clarification, but this isn't a time to necessarily debate whether this is a good or bad project, it's just to receive comments and answer questions for clarification. Ray Boudreaux. So now you've heard a little bit about the project tonight. We really want you to make comments, if you have comments to make. If you'd like to have a copy of the written Comment Sheet, you can take that with you, or if you want to cone back, if you think of something tonight and didn't take a Comment Sheet, my office is right here, you're welcome to come out and see me and we will be happy to help you fill it out and every comment will be included in the document. The purpose of this meeting is to take your comments. The project deals, almost, well, exclusively with the north end of the runway on the north side, and see the picture, put that back up there James. Put the, back up there where they can see it. The routing of the road goes west of the current highway and goes, and will pull out the pavement from the old highway and that will all be grass. So the idea is to make that graded, suitable for a Runway Safety Area. So, who will be first? Bill Armstrong. I'm Bill Arnold. I'm the plant manager at Standard Register, here in Fayetteville. My question, I guess is more so of a High Level Project Plan, we see the next steps, is there a High Level Project Time Line, that says, look we get the Environmental Assessment, 1 I�r there are no FONSI's and that will be done by June, and breaking ground by 2010. What is that High Level Project Time? Ray Boudreaux. Wayne would you like to tell them about that. Wayne Jones. The next step now will be looking at the acquisition of the properties involved. This yellow square is from Kearney Division of Cooper Power Source. This transition yellow area is from Standard Register. So we're looking at the acquisition of those two parcels and the small parcel at this location. The City already owns all of this area, through which the road will be relocated. So, ah, the next step, the Airport will start contacting property owners and, ah, for as the Acquisition Process. The Acquisition Process, is then, is a process in its self. It will take a little while. It has to follow the Uniform Relocation and Real Estate Act. There is a manual Iabout one-half inch thick we have to follow, the sponsor has to follow, which involves appraisals . for the property and things going on there, negotiations, offers and acceptance, negotiations and so forth, that go with that. So those will be the issues forthcoming that will affect your company as well as, Kearney and the old Super Stop property. And, ah, then depends on what environmental mitigation needs to happen in regards to noise receptor number 5. Ah, whether mitigation to the noise impact is taken for that residential structure or other acquisition for that. That is a negotiation that would need to happen with the property owner on that, that process will start in the very near future. Ah, we are trying to get this project ready to have bids in hand by May lsso we can meet the FAA's deadlines, having grants issued so that they get their brownie points from their supervisors in Washington. We're trying to move forward from there it's a process, of one, getting the design completed, two, we got to go through several reviews with the Highway Department, been through one, and ready to start another one. Ah, then we will �11 ultimately have to prepare the Right -of -Way plans for the City and the Highway Department. They will work out how that process is going to work, so hopefully, sometime late June or July 1 we can get started with some of the work in here, prior to, if the acquisition hasn't been competed on some of these other issues. Ray Boudreaux. Does that help you sir? Bill Armstrong. Yes. Ray Boudreaux. We do want to try and turn dirt in June and July, of course that all depends on getting all these other steps completed, and you know we may not have closed a deal or even negotiated a deal, but we have plenty of Right -of -Way to work on. Wayne Jones. In with this there will be a couple of driveways we'll have to re -align and possibly some slight fence alignment. Bailey Drive will have some work to keep traffic going on Bailey Drive, and also, some on Short Street, if that process takes place. The final process will be that we will build up to the west edge of the highway initially, and then we will route two lanes of traffic down the east side (of) the existing (Highway) 71 and make the connections on the west at both ends. Ah, when that is complete, we will route the traffic to the west side of the new facility, and then do the east side connections, and them upon that, then probably at that point do the final lift of asphalt all the way through and re -stripe. It will be five lanes, twelve foot lanes, with some tapers at each end, back to ten foot lanes and then an eleven foot center turn lane. In that, mean time, we've got to coordinate all the Ernest Lancaster Drive re-route and the traffic into that, so the traffic control plan (is) fairly extensive. Ray Boudreaux. Who will be next? Rick? 5 Rick McKinney. I'm Rick McKinney, and I'm a tenant on the east side and you,'ve kind of addressed, Wayne, the issue of Ernest Lancaster, what about the creek that runs under the highway and next to Ernie Lancaster (Drive), what's going to happen to it? Wayne Jones. It's called Airport Branch, this creek line at this location. There will be a new box culvert under the highway, at this location. The current box culvert under the highway will be removed, and there will be about 450 ft. of channel re -alignment and erosion control measures, and so forth, of bends in the channel in order to re=route the channel away from the Safety Area. And, that we have already sent in the 404 Permit for that, for the three box culverts and channel -work and so, that process has started. Rick McKinney. The Corp. doesn't have any issues with that to date? Wayne Jones. No, we have talked with them. There are no wetlands, in the channel, just waters of the U.S. We should have, by the end of April, maybe by the middle of April, we should have the permit. That thing was about a quarter of an inch thick that went out to them. Ray Boudreaux. Who will be next? If there are no further Public Comment through this media, we will stillencourage you to fill out and make comments, if you have comments, and we will get them in the book. Please, anyone else have comments, Mayor? Mayor Lioneld Jordan. It looks pretty cost effective, if it doesn't cost the City anything. I agree with Rick, though. I did have a little bit of concern about the creeke, it was a little bit of an issue. We'll wait and-,ee how that all plays out. Wayne Jones. We will have to do a lot of dirt work from back in this area down to there, to make sure ,we have the smooth three percent cross slope transitions that the aircraft can maneuver, and safely maneuver, if they were to get into the Safety Area. We hope nothing ever happens, but then. Ray Boudreaux. Of course the Environmental Standards that are required by our Code and the State Code, and by the Federal Code will be used to protect the water, the run off, and all those things during that process, so. Mayor Lioneld Jordan. That was one of the concerns. Wayne Jones. The project will have spill prevention plan, home order plans, soil erosion plans, yes, it will have all types of erosion protection within the channel, and all these areas going back in these areas with erosion matting, and so forth, to prevent the erosion while the grass is coming up. Make every attempt to mitigate those, now in case of flood situations, they have sometimes have a little issue. Ray Boudreaux. We had two fifty year floods, so we aren't going to have anymore. Any more questions? Wayne Jones. Any more questions? Can you state your name, mam, please. 6 Gloria McIntosh. My name is Gloria McIntosh, and I live right across the highway. Ah, right there, is a question I don't quite see, the channel you're going to reroute out, you are rerouting it out of the Safety Area? So, is it going to the north? Wayne Jones. Yes. Gloria McIntosh. That's why you are acquiring that land? Wayne Jones. The property line is right there on the south side of the creek, or maybe part of the property line follows the creek, so there's a distance that we will move it into that area. Betty Paschal. I'm Betty Paschal and I own that little house, and will you be getting in touch with me on that? Ray Boudreaux. Yes, mam. As they both briefed, there are mitigation alternative and essentially the ball is in your court. You are the driving force behind that, so we will come talk (to) you, and you just tell us how you would like us to proceed. What we want to do is what is right for you all. Are there any other questions out there? So, let's officially close the Public Hearing at 6:29 p.m. -- ---— r--- w r i m m r— am McClelland Cansuhing Engineers, Inc. BarnardOunkelberg Cniii any Executive Airport RUNWAY SAFETY AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT i i i i A i i i Agenda Introduction and Agenda Review Environmental Assessment Process Project Purpose and Need Proposed Projects Environmental Consequences Considered Environmental Impacts Next Steps Comments and Questions McClelland Consufling Engineers. Inc. Barnarddunkeiherg Company Executive Airport RUNWA Y SAFETY A REA ENVIRONME NuAL ASSESSMENI Environmental Assessment Process The EA Consists of the Following Key Components: flhIfl I1 C. ILL. IC Jc11 Ci E_'r: lit=; f Nr'(_:.-'f'. ()IV( fr1E`• C McClelland onsulting Engineers, inc. Barnard Co lherg Company Executive Airport RUNWAY SA FE TEARER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT mo w - - - - - - W - - - r — — — — N - Project Purpose and Need To improve the safety of Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field by providing a Runway Safety Area north of the approach end of Runway 16 that adequately meets FAA criteria. This will be accomplished by relocating approximately 7,500 linear feet of U.S. Highway 71 to the west, purchasing approximately 11.5 acres of additional property, relocating Lancaster Road to the north, and relocating an approximate 400 -linear foot segment of the Airport Branch channel. McClelland ConsuRing Egineers, Inc. Barnard Dunkelberg Cro eery, Executive Airport R LON WAY SA FETY AREA EN V19ONMEN TA L A55f SSMFNT Proposed Projects Rebated U.S. ReIotated Airport r thane Relocated Lancaster Dritre land Acquisition Approximately 7.5 Acres! r� I - -r App y3.2Acres ; ! �rar�e F, rf $ CC 1 Land Aoqukltion Apprcndnrately 03 Acres Sw Sloccl t r 7i\ ^ q t V McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc. I BarnardOunkelherg Cnmi}any !�I A0NLY9,O19`AWt A9RVIR rMFN A�-A SASWW Environmental Consequences Considered Categories Investigated, per FAA Order 1050.1 E • .. '.. ,Ilia Ln'r y • ii)It l•;'i l (fl 1...:I ) I. I:i,,. illrli JLI :iIC t }llil 1. .. ' :. , i f r r'I I l( r L- 1 C `. 1. [ r)irynt! i'•IL i` .1. I.,. , .II,,.. i I II 1111.1 II 1iil III II� McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc. Barnarddunkelderg Company Executive Airport RUNWAY SAFETY AREA ENVORONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Environmental Impacts No Action Impact Category Alternative prppayed project Air Quality No Impact InSignificow Coastal Resources No Impact No Impact Compatible Land Use No Impact Compatible with projr ct Construction Impacts No Impart Insrgn16rant DOT Act Section 41f1 No hnpdLu No Impart Farmlands No impact InsrrjniFicant Fish, Wildlife, and Plants No In pacr Inuc}nilic grit Fioodplains No Impart Insignilicant Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste No Impact No Irnp,u i Historical, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources No Impact InsignifiCJn[ Light Emissions and Visual impacts No Impact No Impact Natural Resources and Energy Supply No Impact No Impac I Noise No Impart Grrc noise sensitive receptor experienres a 13 dB increase Secondary {Induced} Impacts No Irnpa[I No Impac I Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental Justice, and Children's Environmental Health and Safety Risks No Impart No Impact Water Quality No Impacr No impact a Wetlands and Waters of the United States No Impact Section 404 Permit required tot realignment of IlirporrBrancll channel Wild and Scenic Rivers No Impact No Impact McClelland Consuling Engineers. Inc. Barnardnunkelberg Company Executive Airport RUNWAY SAFETY AREA ENVIRONMENTAL A55ESSMENr - - - so " - - r - - mo m - - - - - M Noise Impacts '1 Relocated US. Highway 71 ; I 1 Relmled Lancaster Ddve f l f Ming Future with Approach or Leq d13A Sabstamial 1 i \\\\ f f it I R.cepto* Leq Project Leq Exceed HAC? Increase Increase? 1 1 30 51 No 2 No f 7 •16 49 No 3 No l! •1 t-1 51 No 8 No •1� 61 No 13 Yes 6 •7[1 h i No S No ' McClelland Consulting Engineers, Barnardllunkeiherg Inc. Company 4: RUNWAYSAFETY,d1iEA fW P4NiS EN'!`A�1I33F3WtWT — - r ■r s~ - r am M M ■r r ar am sir r r m Next Steps Oral Comments Tonight Written Comments Accepted Until April 13th Respond to Oral and Written Comments Final Document Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) McClelland ConsuRing Engineers, Inc. 3arnar DunkeTherg Company Executive Airport RUNWAY SAFE ry AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Comments/Questions Please send written comments by April 13th to: i I:;�'rl l IX McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc. Barnar iiunkelherg Cnmpany Executive Airport RUNWAY SAFETY AREA f1W RONMENTAL ASSESSMEN I r — — — — = — — — — an — — — m m — m r McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc. BarnardDunkelberg Company Executive Airport RUNWAY SAFETY AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Appendix Five - AHTD Policy of Reasonableness and Feasibility for Type I - Noise Abatement Measures ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS POLICY OF REASONABLENESS AND FEASIBILITY FOR TYPE I - NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES INTRODUCTION: The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) is committed to incorporate all reasonable and feasible mitigation measures into projects to minimize noise impacts and enhance the surrounding noise environment. This commitment to minimize noise impacts and enhance the noise environment must be fulfilled through I prudent application of Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) noise regulations; 23 CFR Part 772. These FHWA regulations require that before adoption of a final environmental impact statement or finding of no significant impact, the AHTD shall identify noise abatement measures which are reasonable and feasible and which are likely to be incorporated into the project when noise impacts are identified. Also, AHTD will identify noise impacts for which no apparent solution is available. The basis for any noise abatement decisions will be provided to local officials for future planning. The purpose of this policy statement is to establish criteria that identify what is feasible and reasonable in the decision to construct or provide noise abatement measures adjacent to proposed transportation facilities. FEASIBILITY: Feasibility involves engineering considerations; that is, "Can a substantial noise reduction be achieved given the conditions of a specific location." Is the ability to achieve noise reduction limited by: 1. Topography 2. Access requirements for driveways, ramps, etc. 3. Presence of local streets 4. Other noise sources in the area All these considerations affect the ability of noise abatement measures to achieve an actual noise reduction. It is the policy of the AHTD that construction of a noise abatement measure is not feasible if substantial noise reduction of at least 10 dBA Leq (h) cannot be achieved for at least one residence. REASONABLENESS Reasonableness is a more subjective criterion than feasibility. It implies that common sense and good judgment have been applied in arriving at a decision. Reasonableness is based on a number of factors with regard to all of the individual, specific circumstances of a particular project. It is the policy of the AHTD that the final determination of reasonableness will be made only after a careful and thorough consideration of a wide range of criteria. However, no 9125!2007 AHTD Noise Policy Page 2 of 4 noise abatement measures (such as a noise barrier or berm) will be provided if most of the impacted residents do not want them. CRITERIA FOR REASONABLENESS: The following criteria will normally be used to determine the reasonableness of a noise abatement measure. (NOTE: Yes means construction of a noise abatement measure is reasonable; No means construction of a noise abatement measure is not reasonable; High and Low indicate differences in relative importance.) 1. The cost of the noise abatement measure is no more than $27,000/residence benefited.* Less than $27,000/Residence = High Yes $27,000 - $36,000/Residence = Low Yes $36,001 — $45,000/Residence = Low No Greater than $45,000/Residence = High No * Benefited is defined as a minimum decrease in noise levels of 5 dBAILeq (h). 2. "Most" impacted residents benefited want a noise abatement measure. Greater than 80 Percent = High Yes 50 to 80 Percent = Low Yes 40 to 49 Percent = Low No Less than 40 Percent = High No 3. The housing development predated initial highway construction — "most" impacted homes benefited were built before initial construction of the highway. Greater than 80 Percent = High Yes 50 to 80 Percent = Low Yes 30 to 49 Percent = Low No Less than 30 Percent = High No 4. The housing and/or sensitive development has been in place for at least ten years — "most" impacted homes/development benefited have existed for at least ten years. Greater than 80 Percent = High Yes 50 to 80 Percent = Low Yes 30 to 49 Percent = Low No Less than 30 Percent = High No 5. The future build noise levels would approach* or exceed 67 dBA Leq (h) established as FHWA's Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) for Activity Category "B" (includes picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motel, hotel, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals). 9/25/2007 AHTD Noise Policy Page 3 of 4 Greater than 72dBA Leq (h) = High Yes 66 to 72 dBA Leq (h) = Low Yes 62 to 65 dBA Leq (h) = Low No Less than 62 dBA Leq (h) = High No 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 .1 The future build noise levels would approach* or exceed 57 dBA Leq (h) established as FHWA's Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) for Activity Category "A" (includes lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose.) Greater than 62dBA Leq (h) = High Yes 56 to 62 dBA Leq (h) = Low Yes 52 to 55 dBA Leq (h) = Low No Less than 52 dBA Leq (h) = High No The future build noise levels would approach* or exceed 72 dBA Leq (h) established as FHWA's Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) for Activity Category "C" (includes developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories "A" or "B.") Greater than 78 dBA Leq (h) = High Yes 71 to 78 dBA Leq (h) = Low Yes 68 to 70 dBA Leq (h) = Low No Less than 68 dBA Leq (h) = High No * "Approach" is defined as 1 dBA Leq (h) less than the FHWA's Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC). 6. The future build noise levels are at least 10 dBA Leq (h) greater (substantially exceed) than the existing noise levels. Greater than 15 dBA Leq (h) = High Yes 10 to 15 dBA Leq (h) = Low Yes 5 to 9 dBA Leq (h) = Low No Less than 5 dBA Leq (h) = High No 7. The future build noise levels are at least 7 dBA Leq (h) greater than the future no - build noise levels. 9/25/2007 Greater than 10 dBA Leq (h) = High Yes 7 to 10 dBA Leq (h) = Low Yes 4 to 6 dBA Leq (h) = Low No Less than 4 dBA Leq (h) = High No AHTD Noise Policy Page 4 of 4 Now that criteria for reasonableness and feasibility have been established, the following checklist can be used: Cost/Residence Resident's Desires Development vs. Highway Timing Development Existence Build Level 57 dBA Leq (h) for NAC Category "A" Build Level 67 dBA Leq (h) for NAC Category "B" Build Level 72 dBA Leq (h) for NAC Category "C" Build Level 10 dBA Leq (h) Greater Than Existing Build Level 7 dBA Leq (h) Greater Than No -Build Additional Considerations DECISION Yes No Are noise abatement measures feasible? Are noise abatement measures reasonable? Will a noise barrier be constructed at this site? REASONS FOR DECISION: 9/25/2007 { IL U.S. Department Federal Aviation Administration Fort Worth, Texas -76193-0630 { of Transportation Southwest Region, Airports Division Federal Avlafon Arkansas/Oklahorna Airports Development Office Administration July 23, 2007 Mr. Ray Boudre , Director Aviation and onomic Develo meet p ' 4500 South hool Road, Suite F Fayettevil " , AR 72701 Dear Mr. Boudreaux: { Subject: Runway Safety Area Determination Enclosed is a signed copy of the recently approved Runway Safety Area Determination for Fayetteville Municipal Airport (Drake Field). Your "assistance in providing suppor ng detailed documentation, is greatly appreciated. It is recommended that this document be filed with the recently completed Airport Master Plan Update. Sincerely, Donald C. Harris Sr. Program Manager Arkansas/Oklahoma Airports Development Office Enclosure RECEIVED AUG is snm Barnard Dunk O 4 `! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 JUL 27 200/ RUNWAY SAFETY Runway AREA � DETERMINATION ��U'ORT Fayetteville Municipal Airport, Drake Field Fayetteville, Arkansas BACKGROUND: Fayetteville Municipal Airport (Drake Field) is a Part 139 Class IV general aviation airport located on the south side of Fayetteville, Arkansas. Until 1999 the facility served the Northwest Arkansas region as the only commercial service airport The Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport opened 25 NM north of Fayetteville and now serves the commercial service needs of the region. Drake Field Airport Reference Code is C-li requiring standard Runway Safety Area dimensions of 500 feet wide by 1000 feet long. Fayetteville maintains Its Part 139 Certification in order to serve frequent aircraft charter flights. Runway 16134 Is the only runway at the airport and Is 6006 feet long and 100 feet wide. Declared distances as published in the Airport Facilities Directory are: TORA TODA ASDA LDA RWY 16 6006' 6006' 6006' 6006' RWY 34 6006' 6006' 6006' 6006' Runway 34: The RSA at the Runway 34 approach end complies with ARC C -II standards. Runway 16: Runway 16 approach end RSA does not comply with ARC C -II standards. US Highway 71 converges with the extended runway centerline at the north end impacting the RSA on the west. Runway 16 safety area length Is 902 feet on the runway centerline and 325 feet wide at the north end where it narrows due to the convergence of HWY 71 and Earnest Lancaster Rd., the airport service road. The Federal- Aviation Administration's (FAA)1999 Runway Safety Area Determination indicated that the non-standard RWY 16 RSA was acceptable since no extension of the runway had occurred since the December 31, 1987 date listed in Part 139, which required'RSA standards to be maintained. The 1999 determination also found that there were no plans to extend Runway 16/34 at Drake Field as the current runway length was sufficient to accommodate existing and future aircraft fleet mixes." Aircraft operations forecasts and fleet mixes have changed since the 1999 determination which warranted an update to the Airport Master Plan. The FAA accepted the Master Plan in December 2006. Basis of Determination: The Master Plan Update evaluated five alternatives to achieve a standard RSA for the Runway 16 approach end: Alternative No. 1: Displace the Runway 16 threshold south 800 feet. The estimated cost to implement this alternative is $ 800,000, but would Impose an unacceptable reduction in landing distance available (LDA) to both runways and the Available Stop Distance (ASD) to Runway 34. Alternative No. 2: Relocation of the entire runway 800 feet to the south would eliminate the non-standard RSA and would maintain the current effective runway length for all but the Landing Distance Available (LDA) to Runway 34. While this would achieve Runway 16 RSA standards compliance, the estimated cost is $16,800,000. Alternative No. 3: Extend the runway 1000 feet to the south, displace the Runway 16 threshold south 800 feet, and use declared distance to eliminate the Runway 16 RSA non-standard condition. This alternative would improve TODA and TORA by 1000 feet In both directions, increase ASDA for Runway 16 by 1000 feet and for Runway 34 by 200 feet, Improve LDA for Runway 16 by 200 feet, but reduce LDA for Runway 34 by 800 feet. Runway 16 RSA is In full compliance. The estimated cost would be $20,000,000.00. JUL 2 72001 kPORT 2' Alternative #4: Install EMAS in the Runway 16 RSA and extend the runway south 1000�feet. This option resolves the non-standard condition of the Runway 16 RSA, but requires that the Runway 16 threshold be displaced south 400 feet as required by AC 150/5220-22A to achieve the 600 feet of standard width RSA to provide for adequate undershoot protection prior to the landing threshold. There is currently only 200 feet of standard width RSA for Runway 16. This option improves TORA, TODA, and ASDA for both runways by 1000 feet and LDA by 600 feet for Runway 16. LDA for Runway 34 remains unchanged. Runway 16 RSA would be. in full compliance. The estimated cost would be $27,300,000.00. 1' Alternative #5: , Relocate Highway 71 to the west and enable the Runway 16 RSA to be, in full compliance. This option eliminates deficiencies associated with previous alternatives. The estimated cost would be $3,700,000.00. Alternatives Analysis: Any alternative that imposes departure or arrival performance penalties must carefully weighed. Thus alternatives #1, #2 and #3 are unacceptable for operational purposes. Both alternatives #4 and #5 will, provide a Runway 16 RSA that compiles with design criteria. When considering only the RSA improvement, independent of long-term overall development objectives, the cost of either Alternative #4 or #5 is similar, but favors the Highway 71 realignment option. EMAS would cost approximately $4.5 million dollars, but additional runway length (400 feet at approximately $.4.0 million) must be added to the south end concurrently in order to maintain the existing runway length and to avoid departure and landing penalties. If additional runway length were added to the South end to keep current runway length, EMAS would still be.required as the RW34 safety area would then be 400 feet short of standard, Increasing cost by another $5.8M. Alternative #5 would cost approximately $3.7 million and will improve the Runway 16 RSA and retain current runway length without incurring departure or arrival penalties. Determination: This determination is made based upon the criteria set forth In FAA. Order 5200.8, "Runway Safety Area Program", paragraph 8.b.2.; Based on the preceding analysis, I have determined that Improving the Runway 16 RSA is reasonable and consistent with safety to' alleviate the current RSA deficiency. 1 have further determined that Alternative #5 is the preferred action by realigning Highway 71 and airport access road to bring the RSA into full regulatory compliance. This action reflects the updated Airport Master Plan. This determination is subject to revision upon receipt of relevant supplemental information. /J i9 O7 Edward N. Agnew Date {! Manager, Arkansas/Oklahoma Airports Development Office 7/212/07 elvin Solco Date Manager, Airports Division References: Fayetteville Municipal Airport Master Plan Update, December 2006 DR R@0 T 1aye1tev?iie r Executive Airport RUNWAY SAFETY AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT r r r r •r I rBarnardDunkelbergi Company McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc. r Environmental Assessment Draft Report For Runway Safety Area Improvements Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Fayetteville, Arkansas Prepared for: City of Fayetteville Prepared by: BARNARD DUNKELBERG & COMPANY Cherry Street Building 1616 East 15`x' Street Tulsa, OK 74120 918/585-8844 and 11CCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 1810 North College Avenue Fayetteville, AR 72702 479/443-2377 Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) February 2009 Phis environmental assessment becomes a Federal Document when evaluated and signed by the responsible FAA Official. Responsible IAA Official Date Responsible FIFIWA Official Date 1 I 1 1 Contents 1 Contents iii Tables v Illustrations ui Summary IPurpose and Need of Project Introduction X1.1 • Background A.1 Project Need A.2 Project Purpose A.3 I Federal Action Requested A.3 Alternatives Introduction B.1 '• Alternatives B.1 Alternatives Evaluated in Detail B.4 Affected Environment Project Setting C.1 I Land Use, Zoning, and Comprehensive Planning Natural Environment C.4 C.9 Man Made Environment C.14 ' Socioeconomic Environment Other Planned Activities C.20 C.24 Environmental Consequences Introduction D.1 Cumulative Impacts Di Air Quality D.4 I Coastal Resources D.5 Compatible Land Use D.5 Construction Impacts D.6 Department of Transportation Act Section 4(f) D.8 I Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment iii Farmlands D.8 Fish, Wildlife, and Plants D.9 Floodplains D.10 Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste D.11 Historical, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources D.12 Light Emissions and Visual Impacts D.13 Natural Resources and Energy Supply D.14 Noise D.15 Secondary (Induced) Impacts D.19 Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental Justice, and Children's Environmental Health and Safety Risks D.20 Water Quality D.21 Wetlands and Waters of the United States D.22 Wild and Scenic Rivers D.24 Mitigation E.1 List of Preparers F.1 Appendix Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment it, I I I I Tables 1 Table C1 Existing (2005 and 2007) Aircraft Operations C.17 Table C2 Modeled Existing Noise Levels (dBA) C.20 Table C3 Summary of Historic and Projected Population Estimates C.21 Table C4 Household and Housing Characteristics, 2006 C.22 Table C5 Income and Employment Characteristics, 2006 C.22 Table D1 Comparative Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts D.2 Table D2 Future (2025) Aircraft Operations D.15 I Table D3 Future No Action Highway Noise Levels D.16 Table D4 Future Proposed Project Highway Noise Levels DA8 1 J L I l I I Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment u r 1 1 1 Illustrations 1 Figure B1 Proposed Projects B.5 Figure C 1 Airport Location Map C.2 Figure C2 Airport Vicinity Map C.3 Figure C3 Existing Airport Layout C.5 U Figure C4 Generalized Existing Zoning C.7 Figure C5 Generalized Existing Land Use C.8 Figure C6 Generalized Future Land Use C.10 Figure C7 Wetlands and Waterways C.12 Figure C8 Floodplain Map C.13 Figure C9 Existing (2005) Aircraft Generated Noise Contours With Generalized Existing Land Use C.18 FigureClO Potential Highway Noise Receptors CA9 Figure D1 Potential Cumulative Impact Projects D.3 I Figure D2 Future (2025) Aircraft Generated Noise Contours With Generalized Existing Land Use D.17 I 1 1 I 1 1 Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment vi Fi� F I I LI I I 1 I I I I I I I I LI I I I I Summary I This assessment identifies the effects of improving the Runway Safety Area (RSA) on the north end of Runway 16/34 at Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field. The improvements involve acquiring approximately 11.5 acres of additional property, relocating approximately 2,500 linear feet of U.S. Highway 71 to the west, relocating I Ernest Lancaster Drive to the north, and realigning an approximate 400 -foot channel of Airport .Branch. ' The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead agency for the proposed projects and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is a cooperating agency. All environmental issues have been jointly reviewed by both federal agencies, as well as by • the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD). FAA Order 1050.1 E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, and FAA Order 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions forAirport Actions, were adhered to I in the preparation of this document. The document is submitted in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 4332(2). I Li L I I I LI Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment air I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I Purpose and Need of Project Introduction Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field is a Part 139 Class IV general aviation airport located in the southern part of Fayetteville, Arkansas. The Airport served as the only commercial service airport in northwest Arkansas until late 1998, when Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport opened and now serves the commercial service needs of the region. However, the Airport maintains a Part 139 Class IV Certification in order to serve charter flights by large air carrier type aircraft associated with the University of Arkansas athletic events. The Airport also bases several business jets and regularly accommodates operations by business jets serving the corporations and industry of the southern half of the Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers Metropolitan Statistical Area (MISA). The Airport has one runway, Runway 16/34, which is 6,006 feet in length and 100 feet in width. It is equipped with Medium Intensity Runway Lights (RIIRL), Omnidirectional Approach Lights (ODALS) and Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) lights at both runway ends. The taxiway system serving the runway consists of a parallel taxiway, Taxiway B, on the west side of the runway, and a partial parallel taxiway, Taxiway A, to the east of the runway, along with many exit and connector taxiways. A terminal building, several hangars, aprons, an Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT), an Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) facility, and a fuel storage facility are situated at various locations on the Airport. Background Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field recently completed an Airport Master Plan Update in December 2006. One of the primary recommendations resulting from this study was to correct the deficient Runway 16 Runway Safety Area (RSA). According to FAA design Criteria contained in Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13, Airport Design, an RSA is a defined area surrounding a runway that enhances the safety of aircraft undershooting, overshooting, or veering off the runway, and provides greater accessibility for firefighting and rescue equipment during such incidents. The Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment A.1 I I Iappropriate RSA dimensions for Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field are a width of 500 feet and a length beyond the runway end of 1,000 feet. Design standards within the dimensions require: a cleared and graded area having no potentially hazardous surface variations; drained to prevent water accumulation; capable, under dry conditions, of supporting snow removal equipment, aircraft rescue and firefighting equipment, and the occasional passage of aircraft without causing structural damage to the aircraft; and free of objects, except for objects that are required to be located within the RSA because of their function (i.e., runway lights) provided they are mounted on frangible supports. IThe RSA at the approach end of Runway 16 does not comply with FAA dimensional standards because U.S. Highway 71 converges with the extended runway centerline north of the Airport. The RSA length is only 902 feet on the runway centerline and 325 feet wide on the north end where it narrows due to the convergence of U.S. Highway 71 and Earnest Lancaster Drive, the airport service road. I Project Need FAA Order 5200.8, Runway Safety Area Program, established the FAA RSA Program and the procedures for implementation. The objective of the RSA Program is to ensure that all • federally obligated airports and airports certified under Part 139 conform to the RSA standards contained in FAA AC 150/5300-13, to the extent practicable. The Program further requires a determination of each RSA for meeting appropriate design standards, and mandates updating as additional information becomes available. The Airport and FAA have made past efforts to rectify the non-standard RSA in the past through grading and drainage improvements that maximized the RSA size. However, these actions did not bring the RSA into full compliance with design standards. A 1999 Runway Safety Area Determination, issued by the FAA, indicated that the non-standard • Runway 16 RSA was acceptable since no extension of the runway had occurred since the • December 31, 1987 date listed in 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 139, which required RSA standards to be maintained. The determination also found that there were '• "no plans to extend Runway 16/34 at Drake Field as the current runway length was sufficient to accommodate existing and future aircraft fleet mixes." However, the 2006 Airport Master Plan Update found that aircraft fleet mixes were changing sufficiently to warrant an examination of runway extensions. It was determined that a number of larger business jets utilizing Fayetteville Executive I Airport/Drake Field require a longer runway to reach their destinations without stopping for fuel. Thus, the Airport Master Plan Update indicated that a runway extension of 1,000 feet to the south be planned and protected for future implementation. This recommendation changed the information used as a basis for the 1999 Runway I Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment A.2 I I I I I I I Li I i L. I I I fl LEI I I Safety Area Determination, and indicated a renewed analysis was necessary for achieving RSA standards. Subsequent to the 2006 Airport Master Plan Update, which contained an evaluation of five alternatives that would alleviate the non-standard RSA, the FAA issued a revised Runway Safety Area Determination for Runway 16 at Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field (see Revised Runway Safety Area Determination in Appendix Six). In this determination, the realignment of U.S. Highway 71 and Earnest Lancaster Road was chosen as the preferred action for bringing the RSA into full regulatory compliance. Project Purpose It is the policy of the City of Fayetteville and Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field to accommodate the current and future aircraft fleet in a safe, efficient, and reliable manner without payload restrictions, and to comply with the 2006 revised Runway Safety Area Determination for Runway 16. The City and Airport do not want to impede the ability to receive future funding for major runway improvements or a runway extension. In order to accomplish these goals, a Runway 16 RSA meeting all FAA dimensional standards is required. Additionally, the imposition of any departure or arrival performance penalties is unacceptable for operational purposes at the Airport. Federal Action Requested FAA approval and financial assistance has been requested to purchase approximately 11.5 acres of additional property, realign U.S. Highway 71 and Earnest Lancaster Drive, construct drainage structures, and earthwork that meets RSA standards. Federal Highway Administration (FH\VA) approval of the realignment of U.S. Highway 71 is required. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is anticipated from the FAA. Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment A.3 I [1 I 1 1 I I I LI I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I fl Li u I I I LI I I I [I 1 I Alternatives Introduction The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) states that federal agencies performing an environmental review shall rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives that are eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated. The document should also devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail including the Proposed Project, reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency, and include the No -Action Alternative. Alternatives In an effort to meet the goals of the community, to serve the needs of the aircraft operating at the airport, and improve the safety of the airfield environment, alternatives were considered as to the feasibility and reasonability of each. The following discussion presents those alternatives eliminated from further discussion and analysis, and the reasons for elimination. These alternatives were determined to be impractical primarily due to the costs involved when compared to the benefits derived. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated FAA Order 5200.8, Runway Safe/y Area Program, provides guidance for evaluating various alternatives that rectify non-standard RSA conditions. The first alternative considered should always be the provision of the traditional graded area meeting all dimensional standards surrounding the runway. If this is not practical, then providing as much of the standard area as possible should be pursued through the examinations of the following alternatives. • Relocating, shifting, or realigning the runway. • Reducing runway length if the existing length exceeds the design aircraft needs. Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment B.1 I I • A combination of runway relocation, shifting, grading, realignment, or reduction. • Declared distances. • Engineered Materials Arresting Systems (EM AS). Relocating or Realigning the Runway. Relocating or realigning the runway are not considered practical solutions based on the cost of acquiring additional airport property and the surrounding terrain limitations within the approaches to the Airport. Reducing Runway Length. Reduction of the overall runway length is likewise not considered viable because the existing length does not exceed the existing or projected design aircraft performance needs and would cause the Airport to lose functional utility of the runway. Shift Entire Runway by 800 Feet. This alternative, evaluated in the 2006 Airport Master Plan Update, proposed shifting the entire runway 800 feet to the south. It would ' eliminate the non-standard Runway 16 RSA conditions and maintain the current effective runway length for all but the landing distance available for aircraft landing to Runway 34. While achieving the Runway 16 RSA standards compliance, the 800 -foot extension to the • south would require extensive earthwork and paving, relocation of the localizer antenna south of Runway 34, relocation of both sets of the Omnidirectional Approach Lighting System (ODALS), adjustment of runway lights, and the loss of 800 feet in functional • utility of the Landing Distance Available (LDA) for Runway 34. The estimated order -of - magnitude cost for this alternative is $16,800,000. Declared Distances. Declared distances, also evaluated in the 2006 Airport Master Plan Update, is an effort to preserve usable runway length in a cost effective manner while adhering to RSA design standards. This alternative displaced the Runway 16 threshold to • the south by 800 feet and declared different runway lengths available for satisfying different functions in calculating aircraft performance requirements. This alternative resulted in an unacceptable reduction in LDA to both runway ends and the Accelerate - Stop Distance Available (ASDN) for Runway 34 of 800 feet. An order -of -magnitude cost estimate for this alternative is $800,000. Runway Extension and Declared Distances. This alternative was also considered and evaluated in the 2006 Airport Master Plan Update. It involved extending the runway by 1,000 feet to the south, displacing the Runway 16 threshold by 800 feet to the south, and using declared distances to eliminate the Runway 16 RSA non-standard condition. This alternative increased Takeoff Run Available (TORA) and Takeoff Distance Available (TODA) by 1,000 feet for both runway ends, increased the .USDA for Runway 16 by 1,000 feet and for Runway 34 by 200 feet, improved the LDA for Runway 16 by 200 feet, but reduced the LDA for Runway 34 by 800 feet. The primary reasons for eliminating this alternative were the loss of 800 feet in functional utility of the Runway 34 LDA, extensive I Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment B.2 I iEtlkii i earthwork and paving, lighting adjustments, ODALS relocation, and localizer relocation. The order -of -magnitude cost estimate for this alternative is $20,000,000. EMAS. This alternative used Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) to resolve the non-standard Runway 16 RSA. A standard Eit1AS provides a level of safety that is generally equivalent to a standard RSA by means of high energy absorbing materials of selected strength that will reliably and predictably fail under the weight of an aircraft. Or more simply stated the EMAS is designed to stop an overrunning aircraft by exerting predictable deceleration forces on its landing gear as the material crushes. The EMAS • would require installation beginning at approximately 200 feet north of the existing Runway 16 threshold and extending north by approximately 430 feet. IGuidelines from AC 150/5220-22A, Engineered MaterialsArrecting Systems (EMAS) for Aircraft Overruns, indicate that a minimum of 600 feet in length of the standard width RSA must be provided prior to a landing threshold providing adequate protection for aircraft touching down prior to the runway threshold (i.e., an undershoot). This means that the Runway 16 landing threshold would still require a displacement of 400 feet to the south for the provision of the minimum 600 feet in length of the standard width RSA. While achieving compliance with RSA standards, it would result in an unacceptable reduction in functional utility of the Runway 16 LDA of 400 feet. An estimated order -of -magnitude • cost is $7,300,000. Runway Extension and EMAS. In order to compensate for the unacceptable reduction in the Runway 16 LDA, the use of a runway extension and EMAS was evaluated in the 2006 Airport Master Plan Update. While the alternative in the Airport Master Plan Update evaluated an extension of 1,000 feet, a minimum extension of 400 feet is necessary. This combination of runway extension and EMAS achieved compliance with RSA standards and maintained the minimum 6,006 feet in runway length. However, it would require a 400 -foot extension, and thus extensive earthwork and paving, lighting adjustments, ODALS relocation, and localizer relocation. The order -of -magnitude cost estimate for this alternative is $15,300,000. r- L.. I I LI I Other Alternatives Eliminated Construct a New Airport. The construction of a new airport was rejected primarily because the existing investment in airport facilities does not justify the benefit achieved. The time and costs of selecting a new airport site, preparing engineering studies, completing the environmental process, acquiring land, and constructing the replacement facilities would not be justified, since the existing airport accommodates the aviation demand with comparatively little additional investment. Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment B.3 I I I I I I Li I I I I I I Li fl I Li u I I Construct a New Runway. A new runway, either parallel with Runway 16/34 or oriented in a different direction, would only provide benefit to the Airport if adequate • wind coverage was not provided by the existing airfield arrangement, or if additional capacity was required to resolve aircraft delay deficiencies. This alternative was eliminated from further consideration because adequate wind coverage is provided and the Airport is not experiencing significant aircraft delays, nor are any expected to materialize in the future. IAlternatives Evaluated in Detail Alternative One — No Action Alternative. This is the no action alternative, in which the Airport would not provide the proposed Runway 16 RSA improvements and the airfield configuration would generally remain as it is today. Routine maintenance would be • required of the airfield to remain a viable aviation facility. This alternative offers the advantage of being the least expensive to implement. Alternative Two —Relocate U.S. Highway 71. This alternative relocates approximately 2,500 linear feet of U.S. Highway 71 to the west and Ernest Lancaster Drive to the north near the approach end of Runway 16, which will provide the necessary land area • required for a standard RSA. The Airport currently owns approximately 17 acres of land west of U.S. Highway 71 and would need to acquire about four additional acres to accommodate the rerouted highway. Approximately 7.5 acres of additional property is required directly north of the existing airport property to accommodate the relocated Earnest Lancaster Drive. The realigned portion of the highway will replace the existing configuration of five 10 - foot wide lanes (i.e., two northbound, two southbound, and a center turn lane) with four 12 -foot wide lanes (two northbound and two southbound), with an 11 -foot wide center turn lane. Current and future vehicular traffic will not be affected either positively or negatively as a result of the proposed projects. An approximate 400 -foot segment of Airfiort Branch must be realigned to locate the channel outside the Runway Safety Area. This alternative, illustrated on the following figure entitled PROPOSED PROJECTS, has an estimated order -of -magnitude cost of $4,000,000. 1 I I I Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment B.4 I 1 I I I I I I I I I [' I I I LI I I Barnard aunkelbergD>Company Team E1 I [1 I I I I I I I I I I I I Relocated U.S. Highway 71 Land Acquisition Approximately 3.2 Acres Bailey Dri+"e 1 Land Acquisition Approximately 0.3 Acres Short Street i Relocated Airport Branch Channel / Relocated Lancaster Drive 7 f Land Acquisition • ( - a , 1f -,L1 Approximately 7.5 Acres ••i/i'/+ \ • \ \ \1• ii (I ' +` 'I 4 , \\\\r. ." : +ro ro : c- : + + , + + + " i + LIJ, Approximate Scale 1"= 5W Land Acquisition -�� Figure B1 Proposed Projects ecuttve ort/Drake Field 7a7yj��xq WAYSAFETYAREA VWRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT _ _ - _ - B.5 I I [1 I I Li I Li I r,� I I I I I I I n I I I I I I I Li I EEl LI I I I I I I 1 Affected Environment Project Setting Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field is owned and operated by the City of Fayetteville, and which is the ultimate decision -making body of the Airport. The Airport Director is a member of the Mayor's key staff. The City has established the Airport Advisory Board to assist the City Council in matters pertaining to the operation, improvement, extension, and maintenance of the Airport. As illustrated in Figure C1, entitled AIRPORT LOCATION MAP, the Airport is located in northwest Arkansas, in Washington County, approximately 35 miles south of Missouri and 20 miles east of Oklahoma. As shown in Figure C2, entitled AIRPORT VICINITY ,VIAP, the Airport is located in southern Fayetteville, roughly three miles south of the City's central business district. The Airport is located primarily in Sections 4 and 9, Township 15 North, Range 30 West and has an elevation of 1,251 feet above mean sea level. Airport property consists of about 631 acres. The Airport consists of one runway, Runway 16/34, a parallel taxiway, a partial parallel taxiway, a terminal building, an Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT), aircraft storage hangars, aprons, and support facilities. Runway 16/34 is 6,006 feet in length, 100 feet in width, and is constructed of grooved asphalt. The runway has a gross weight bearing capacity of 90,000 pounds single wheel, 150,000 pounds dual wheel, and 175,000 pounds dual tandem wheel main landing gear configuration. It is equipped with Medium Intensity Runway Lights (MIRL), threshold lights, and four -light Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) lights on the left hand side of both runway ends, and an Omnidirectional Approach Lighting System (ODALS) serving both runway ends. Two localizer antennas are located on the Airport, one is south of the approach end of Runway 34, and the other is east of the runway on the south side of Taxiway D. Taxiway B, a full-length parallel taxiway located on the west side of the runway, provides access to both ends of the runway from the terminal apron. Taxiways C, D, E, and F are Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment C. 1 I - Barnard Dunkelberg Corn panyTeam EI I I 1 I I 1 I I r'- �i 0 = MISS 0 U R I W Ii-. UUI r. II-IUCI f • 1rr Bella Vista •■ o ■ Pea Ridge 62' Bentonville BEN10N Rogers :_............. Nrsmr'1 ak,' (ace Springs Elm Springs ` i ;.......................................... SlloamSprings Springdale 412 Ozark NationalForest Fayetteville Prairie Grove 62 WASHINGTON - Otark National Forest I CRAWF0RO Source: Microsoft Street & Trip 2005 & 2008 I f -I -C■ Greenland MADISON ~ 71 ......__- FRANKLIN AP CARR0LI. Eureka Springs � b2 i• z..... 4171 ----� NEWTON II JOHNSON Approximate kale 1=10 Miles I-�� Figure Cl Airport Location Map O ecutive Aort/Drake Field 7=YDIRUNWAY SAFETY AREA VIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT C.2 I I I I I I I I 1 I II u I I 1 I u I I I Barnard Dunkelberg�o CompanyTeam = I El I I I I I I I I I I I I L 112 W Deane St 16 Greenland Source: M crosof Street &Trips 2005 & 2008 and Yahoo Maps 2008 71 I— Wma Die St University Of Arkansas W6thSt l L ® L.. L1 ETownshipSt 1 7J r-� Fayetteville j 2 16 �9 Approximate Scale 1"=15 Miles Figure C2 Airport Vicinity Map r r Xecutive A ort/Drake Field YSRUNIWAYSAFMAREA VIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - -. C.3 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a I I I I I I I I I exit taxiways providing access from the runway to Taxiway B. Taxiways C and D also provide access from the runway to Taxiway A, the partial parallel taxiway located east of the runway. Taxiway D also provides access to the east side general aviation hangars. Taxiway G provides access to the USDA Forest Service staging area facilities between Taxiways D and E. Figure C3, entitled EXISTING AIRPORT LAYO UT, illustrates the existing airport facilities. The climate of northwest Arkansas is represented by relatively warm summers and mild winters. Frequently, warm, humid, maritime air from the Gulf of Mexico covers the area. The average annual temperature is 57.5° F and annual average relative humidity is 55%. Average maximum temperature 67.9° F and the average minimum temperature is 46.9° F. Annual precipitation averages 46.0 inches that is fairly well distributed throughout the year, which includes an approximate average of eight to nine inches of snowfall. Land Use, Zoning, and Comprehensive Planning The Airport is situated entirely within the Fayetteville City Limits. The City of Greenland is located directly adjacent to the western boundary of the Airport. The majority of the area south and east of the Airport is outside of any city limits in rural Washington County. Zoning According to the Fayetteville Title XV Unified Development Code and the most current zoning map, airport property is currently zoned light industrial. This is a zoning district created to group together a wide range of industrial uses that do not produce objectionable environmental influences. This zoning classification also applies to the area directly north of the Airport adjacent to U.S. Highway 71. To the northeast and northwest of the Airport, residential zoning classification is prevalent. Commercial zoning is applied to properties north of the Airport, north of the industrial zoning, and adjacent to U.S. Highway 71. The lands to the east and southeast of the Airport are outside the city limits of Fayetteville and Greenland, and are under Washington County jurisdiction, which has not enacted land use zoning control. Although the City of Greenland is in the process of updating their zoning map, the most recent City of Greenland Zoning Map indicates agricultural and industrial zoning categories apply to properties within the Greenland City Limits. West of U.S. Highway 71 is commercial zoning. Residential is the predominant zoning category within the City of Greenland directly west of the Airport. A strip of commercial zoning is applied to the Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment C.4 I I I I I I A I f� I p I 1 I I I I , BarnardDunkelberg CompanyTeamE D� .1 Bailey Drive M1 o Air Traffic Control Tower • Ernest iancasiert?ri•-_ ASOS shortSeree } T -Hangars IDA Array oxonsiret'\ et \.\ � tiliii } Run -Up Area 1 t 1 Arkansas Air Museum j n } O ARff OlatkMiHtar Museum I ti ye Q USDA ,fs service Facilities Feel Stora a Area L Irr..—..,�, Terminal Budding I, -1 iI I I- I - I t1 uiIi I ihLliJ IF� Approximate Scale 1"=1,500' I 1 ..� Figure C3 Existing Airport Layout xecutrve Aalx ort/Drake Field 0 RUNWAY SAFETY AREA VIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT' - C.5 1 I I I I I Li J I I I I I I I I 1 Li I I. properties between the highway and the Arkansas -Missouri Railroad, and a larger area is applied near the north end of the Airport, immediately adjacent to the railroad and the • highway. The existing zoning districts as applied in the airport vicinity are illustrated on • the following figure entitled GENERALIZED EXISTING ZONING. Existing Land Use Existing land uses within the vicinity of Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field generally follow the zoning patterns established by the municipalities. The predominant land use for the areas surrounding the Airport is residential. In addition to Airport property, industrial development occurs to the north, north of Earnest Lancaster Drive • and west of U.S. Highway 71. Pockets of commercial land uses are located north of the Airport, both east and west of U.S. Highway 71. Land uses south and east of the Airport consist mainly of scattered rural residential development and agricultural or undeveloped properties. West of the Airport within the Greenland City Limits is dominated by residential land uses. Commercial development occurs south of the Airport and east of U.S. Highway 71, west of the Airport between the highway and the railroad, and directly west of, and adjacent to, the Airport. The Greenland Public Schools are located directly west of Runway 34, and a park is located west of U.S. Highway 71. The existing land uses are illustrated on Figure C5 entitled GENERALIZED EXISTING LAND USE. Future Land Use The City Plan 2025 is Fayetteville's adopted future land use plan that seeks to balance tremendous growth within a livable, sustainable community, providing a comprehensive approach to planned and managed growth. The City Plan 2025 extends beyond the Fayetteville City Limits to unincorporated areas that have, or will have, an impact on the City. Generally, the City Plan 2025 reflects the existing land use and zoning patterns. The Airport is designated as non -municipal government, which are areas that do not fall within the city's jurisdiction and are not subject to zoning or development regulations. Properties directly north of the Airport, located to the east and west of U.S. Highway 71, are designated industrial. This category is applied to those areas with buildings that, by their function, disposition, or configuration, cannot conform to one of the other designated areas and/or its production process requires the area to be separated from other uses. Farther north, residential neighborhood designation is dominant. This category is applied to areas that are almost exclusively residential in nature, with naturalistic planting and conventional setbacks. It may have large blocks and irregular roads to I Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment C.6 I I I I L I LI 1 r- 1 El I I I 1 I I I = Barnard Dunkelberg Company Team ■ Fayetteville �• 0 71 I � a r —--..�.. .__`AYEFTEYILLEOT+iIMlf5 j 1 /1, GREENIARD OTY LIMITS II .II _ I ii I Iii 1> ave vi e Eicec�rtm D-kM Fidd s.l P - ji y ■, i _ r Greenland � .. wilwn 51 7a CR-b3 J ■ ■ Ls Cond�Aa `for O Residential ' Commercial Industrial .'—••�-'—• Agriculture 1 1 /11 A& ApproAmateSdel'=2,600' Base Map Source: Microsoft Street & Trips 2005 & 2008 -.! Figure C4 Generalized Existing Zoning l •Y P xecuMe AYt ort/Drake Field ■ RUN WAYSAFETYAREA RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - C.7 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I Barnard Dunkelbergp Com pany Team E Base Map Source: MicrosoftStreet &Trips 2005 & 2008 esidential ommerclal dustrial griculture/Open ublic ?r=2600' -�� Figure C5 Generalized Existing Land Use O xecutrve ort/Drake Field 77 £RUNWAYSAFETYAREA VIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - CS I I t LI I I I I I Ti I I I I Li Ll 1 I `. accommodate natural conditions. Civic and private open space/parks designation is applied to the Fayetteville Country Club. This land use designation applies to sites that are permanently dedicated to open space or parkland. To the northwest, east, and southeast of the Airport, natural areas and rural areas are the two dominant designations. Natural areas consist of lands approximating or reverting to a wilderness condition, including lands with limited development potential due to topography, hydrology, vegetation, or its value as an environmental resource. Rural areas consist of lands in an open or cultivated state or sparsely settled. They include woodland, agricultural lands, or grasslands with an infrastructure system and public services that support low -density zoning of one home per 15 acres or more. The City of Greenland does not have a future land use plan, but is in the process of preparing one. Therefore, there are no future land use designations for properties within the Greenland City Limits. Future land use designations within the Airport vicinity are presented on the following illustration entitled GENERALIZED FUTURE LAND USE. INatural Environment Fayetteville and Washington County are located on the western edge of the Eastern Deciduous Forest of northwest Arkansas. This is an area of rolling hills, rivers, creeks, springs, oak -hickory and pine forests, with interspersed prairie. The terrain is classified as karst topography and has an unknown number of subterranean cavities. Air Quality The Federal Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, requires states to have a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to achieve established air quality goals. These air quality goals were established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970 and are called the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Clean Air Act requires that all areas achieve the standards for these pollutants. The State of Arkansas has adopted ambient air quality standards identical to the federal standards. These standards have been established for the following pollutants: Carbon Monoxide (CO), Particulate Matter (PMIi„ and PM2.5), Ozone (0.3), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Lead (Pb), and Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). Areas that exceed these standards are considered non -attainment areas and a plan must be developed to bring the area into compliance. On November 6, 1991, the EPA released an updated list that identifies non -attainment • areas. With the exception of West Memphis, the updated list indicates that all of the I 1 Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment C.9 I Li Li I 1 I Ll t 1 I I it I I CJ 1 I I I =_= BarnardDunkelberg�.Company Team E n I, I I I I I I I I I esidential eighborhood Ity Neighborhood idustrial on -Municipal overnment atural Area Ural Area Ivic and Private pen Space/Parks r 2,600' Source: Base Map - Microsoft Street &Trips 2005 & 2008. Future Land Use - City Plan 2025. -�� Figure C6 Generalized Future Land Use xecuttve Atrort/Drake Field -- L7 RUNWAY SAFETY AREAENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT _ . - C.10 I 1 n 1 I I I I I I El I I I LI I I I r State of Arkansas is classified as being an attainment area for all pollutants listed in the NA QS. IFarmlands I The project area is located primarily on two soil series, as identified in the Washington County Soil Survey, which are the Taloka silt foams and the Samba silt loam. Taloka silt foams are considered prime farmland if protected from flooding or not frequently • flooded during the growing season. Samba silt foams are classified as prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season. Both soil types are also considered hydric soils. IWater Resources The dominant water resources in the vicinity of the Airport are the Vest Fork White River I and Ward Slough. Both water bodies are located at the south end of airport property and flow from southwest to northeast. The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality list the West .Fork White River as an impaired water body due to siltation/sediment on the 303d list of the State's waters (see letter from the ADEQ Water Division in Appendix Three). Two drainage ditches are located in the project area near where U.S. Highway 71 and Earnest Lancaster Drive intersect, and flow eastward to a confluence with the VVest Fork White River. The United States Corps of Engineers completed a site visit to the Airport in late 2007 for the purposes of determining the presence of jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the United States. Components of Ward's Slough were identified as jurisdictional wetlands. The figure entitled II'ETLAi\TDSAND WATERWAYS provides a depiction of jurisdictional wetlands and stream channels within the vicinity of the project area. I F000dplains are those areas subject to a 1% or greater chance of flooding in any given year @.e., an area that would be inundated by a 100 -year flood). Floodways, which are designated by federal, state, or local ordinance, are defined as floodplain areas that are I reserved in a manner (i.e., unconfined or unobstructed either horizontally or vertically) to provide for the discharge of the base flood so that the cumulative increase in water surface elevation does not exceed a designated height. Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), are used to delineate the floodplains and floodways. According to Map Numbers 05143CO220F and 05143C0360F, dated May 16, 2008, and illustrated on Figure C8 entitled FLO0DPLAIN • MAP, the 100 -year floodplain associated with the IVest Fork White River covers the majority of the south and cast portions of the Airport. It also follows the unnamed tributary along the north boundary of the Airport where it crosses U.S. Highway 71 I t Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment C.11 I I I 1 I I r - I I I 1 I I i7 I Li I ii BarnardDunkelberg*CompanyTeam K I 1 I I I A& Approximate Scale 1"= 1,500' Source: US. Arnvy Corpsef Engineers, Action No.1 1391 -1, Fayetteville Municipal Airport = JurisditdonalWedands Airport Expansion. Sections 4 & 9, T.15 N., R.30 W.; February 29, 2008, Sheet 3 of 4. Stream Channels IFigure Cl Wetlands and Waterways xec t>ive ort/Drake Field yM l RUNWAYSAFETYAREA RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT C.12 I I I I I 1 d I El I I 1 Ti U I I I I Li] I 'Barnard flunkelbergCorn panyTeam c I1' v f is 1oodplain loodplain e1'=2,&' ICJ ^! Figure C8 Floodplain Map Q 1�xecAir ort/Drake Field 7aylxeCutrve WAYSAFETYAREA V1RONMENTALASSESSMENT C.13 I IThree). Of the parks listed, only one appears to be within the vicinity of Drake Field/Fayetteville Executive Airport, which is the City of Greenland's Taylor Park. The I, location of this park, at the intersection of Caldwell and Pearson Streets, is within one- half mile southwest of Runway 34. Historic, Archaeological, Architectural, and Cultural Resources The Arkansas Historic Preservation Program indicates there are five sites located within, or close to, the project area. Four of the sites are historic structures, one of which is a hangar that is not currently eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and three are aircraft inside the hangar that are eligible for inclusion (see letter from the Arkansas State Historic Preservation Program in Appendix Three). The other is an archaeological site that is located within the proposed relocated highway and will be affected by the proposed project. However, this site consists only of a single prehistoric flake and is not considered significant. Though the Arkansas State Historic Preservation Program indicated in their letter that the eligibility of this site for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places has not been assessed, additional phone • conversations with this agency indicated this site is not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (see phone log with Arkansas State Historic Preservation Program in Appendix Three). I. Hazardous Materials and Wastes A hazardous material is any chemical or substance that can cause harm to people, plants, or animals when released into the environment. The presence of any known hazardous materials within the project area was assessed by visual reconnaissance and a search of government databases. According to the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) database of hazardous waste generators, there ate five sites in the vicinity of the project area, including the Airport. The other sites are: the Arkansas Army National Guard facility located cast of U.S. Highway 71 near the north end of the proposed highway realignment; Kearney - National Inc., located just north of the Airport and east of the highway; Standard Register, located west of the highway at the north end of the highway realignment; and Culver Used Truck Sales located south of the airport terminal building and east of the highway. There are four sites within the project area with Regulated Storage Tanks (RST), according to the ADEQ database. The now -closed Super Stop convenience store has six Ir underground storage tanks, Standard Register has one aboveground storage tank, the Airport has four aboveground storage tanks, and the Arkansas National Guard facility • has one underground storage tank. I I Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment C. 15 n 1 I C I 1 1 I I Fl El LI I I I I I I; The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Priority List (NPL) of Superfund sites has no record of any sites in Washington County, Arkansas. Noise Noise has been defined as unwanted sound. Sound is technically described in terms of loudness (amplitude) and frequency (pitch). The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). Decibels are based on the logarithmic scale, which compresses the wide range in sound pressure levels to a more usable range of numbers. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency -dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A -weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. The description, analysis, and reporting of community noise levels around communities U1 is made difficult by the complexity of human response to noise and the myriad noise metrics that have been developed for describing noise impacts. Each of these metrics attempts to quantify noise levels with respect to community response. Most of the metrics use the A -weighted noise level to quantify noise impacts on humans and can be divided into two categories: single event and cumulative. Single event metrics describe the noise levels from an individual event. Cumulative metrics average the total noise events over a specific time period, which is typically 1 or 24 hours. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has determined that the day -night sound level (DNL) metric is the appropriate measurement for community response to noise. It is a 24 -hour, time -weighted energy average noise level based on the A -weighted decibel. The FAA defines the 65 DNL as the threshold level for noise impacts. The Federal Highway Administration (FFAVA) has determined that the Equivalent Noise Level (Leq) metric is the appropriate measure for determining highway noise impacts. It is a one - hour energy average noise level based on the peak hour noise. The FI-I\VA has established the Leq Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) level of 67 dBA as the impact level for noise receptors associated with highway projects. Any sound approaching or exceeding this level is considered a noise impact. Additionally, if a noise receptor is projected to increase by 10 dBA or more as a result of the highway project, then it is considered impacted by traffic noise. As such, this Environmental Assessment will use • DNL to evaluate potential aircraft generated noise impacts and the Leq to evaluate potential vehicle generated noise impacts. The Integrated Noise Model (INM) Version 7.0a is used to generate the DNL noise contours associated with the aircraft operations. INM requires the input of the physical and operation characteristics of the Airport and aircraft. The aircraft operations at Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field for 2005 and 2007 are presented in Table Cl, I Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment C.16 I, I entitled EXISTING (2005 AND 2007) AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS. The 2005 aircraft operations were used to produce the noise contours contained in the Master Plan Update. As can •t be seen, the total operations recorded in 2007 are approximately 21% less than the 2005 operations, which would indicate the overall noise energy would be less in 2007 than in 2005. Additionally, airport personnel indicate that the aircraft fleet mix has not changed substantially since the Master Plan Update was produced using 2005 base year data. Therefore, this EA will use the noise contours generated from the 2005 operations data contained in the Master Plan Update. The existing aircraft generated noise contours and their associated impact on the surrounding land uses are presented on the following illustration entitled EXISTING (2005) AIRCRAFT GENERATED NOISE CONTOURS WITH GENERALIZED EXISTING LAND USE. Table Cl EXISTING (2005 AND 2007) AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS Operations by Type. ..;.. 2005 2007 General Atiation 45,991 36,445 Single Engine 22,995 18,222 Multi -Engine 6,899 5,467 Turboprop ' 6,899 5,467 Business Jet 8,508 6,742 Helicopter 690. 547 Military 726 301 Helicopter 580:. 240 Turboprop 146 61 Air Carrier 55 56 TOTAL 46,772 36,802 Source: Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Airport Traffic Control "Power records, 2005. Mestre Greve Associates, in the stand-alone document entitled TrafcNoise Analysis For. Highway 71B (School Avenue) Relocation, conducted the highway portion of this noise assessment. This study uses the FHWA's Traffic Noise Model® (TNM®) procedures, roadway information, and traffic data. The 2007 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for U.S. Highway 71 within the study area is 9,400 vehicles per day (\TD) with 1 % truck traffic. Peak hour traffic volumes are estimated to be approximately 12% of the ADT. Of the total truck traffic on the highway, it is estimated that 80% are medium trucks (i.e., two axles with more than four wheels) and 20% are heavy trucks (i.e., three or more axles). Determination of the existing noise levels at potentially impacted receptor sites is important because it is used in the assessment of impacts with substantial increase criteria. Figure C10, entitled POTENTIAL HIGHWAY NOISE ANALYSIS RECEPTORS, illustrates the location of six receptors that represent the outdoor living areas of frequent I Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment C.17 I n I J I I 1 I I I I M I I I I I I BarnardDunkelbergD CompanyTeamE • Fayetteville ii c a IYN 1 / 1 /�� r+ nu9h6yRd 1 r• •� 65 DNL 74 DNL �•�•. ..�.. _ET1 Enr�uMlr 75 ONE I �GREEHCAIF5UTY uMITS u (75DNL I rare avi Field U , 75 DNL 70 DNL 65 DNL I Witson St • CR-63 , 11 oprdnRd � 4 D Residential •Commercial Industrial D AgriculturelOpen —..—..—. Public 1 •` 'A p • o I AppmxdmateSale1"=2,600' Base Map Source: Microsoft Street & Trips 2005 & 2008 ! Figure C9 Existing (2005) Aircraft Generated Noise Contours a With Generalized Existing Land Use xecutiire ort/Drake Field IIJ£D RUNWAYSAFETYAREA WRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT C.1 B I Barnard Dunkelberg D� Company Team E I' I C l 1 I r 1' t r I' r � Relocated U.S. Highway 71 Relocated i_ancaster Drive r \1' Bailey Drive {1 } Short Street *\r5 5 �`dsr �2F 4 f \k \\ ! \ %\Ij F 2 * I :_difli j d 1 f c1TI Potential Noise Receptor Site ' D Land Acquisition Figure C10 Potential Highway Noise Receptors xecutxve . 1U. Ort/Drake Field RUNWAY SAFETY AREA vVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT i C.19 I I human use of the nearest residences to the project area where the AHTD and FHWA NAC are applicable. Existing traffic noise levels at the six receptors are presented in the following table, entitled MODELED EXISTING NOISE LEVELS (dBA). As can be seen in the table, the existing traffic generated noise levels are well below the 67 dBA Leq NAC at the noise sensitive receptors within the project area. Table C2 MODELED EXISTING NOISE LEVELS (dBA) Receptor Existing Leq 1 49 2 46 3 41 4 44 t6 5 49 40 Source: Mestre Greve Associates, 2(105. Socioeconomic Environment Population Characteristics Fayetteville Executive Airport is within the Fayetteville-Springdale-RogersMetropolitan Statistical Area' (MSA), a fast-growing area of northwest Arkansas. From 1990 to 2000, • the population of the MSA increased from 113,409 to 347,045, and by 2006, had an estimated increase to 420,876. Fayetteville increased from 42,099 in 1990 to 58,047 in 1 2000, and to 68,726 by 2006. Washington County experienced an increase from 113,409 in 1990 to 157,715 in 2000, and 186,521 by 2006. Population projections indicate that Fayetteville is expected to increase to 89,943 by 2020, 97,917 in 2025, and 105,891 by 2030. Likewise, the Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers MSA is expected to increase to 621,405 by 2020 and to 722,327 by 2025. Washington County is expected to have a population of 246,327 by 2020, 268,480 by 2025, and 290,633 by 2030. The following table, entitled SUMMARY OF HIS T0RICAND PROJECTED POPULATION ESTIMATES, provides a summary of the population data. ' ' he Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers Metropolitan Statistical Area includes Benton, Washington, and Madison Counties, Arkansas, and McDonald County, Missouri. I J Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment C.20 I � r I I I I I I C I I I 1 I n I I I 1 Table C3 SUMMARY OF HISTORIC AND PROJECTED POPULATION ESTIMATES City of Fayetteville Springdale- Washington, Year Fayetteville Rogers'MSA .. County 1990 42,099' 113,409' 113,4091 2000 58,047-: 347045!_ . 157,7151 2006 68,726' 420,876' 186,521 1 2020 89,9431 6214052 246,327.1 2025 203O 97,917' 105,8911 722,3272 == 268,4801 290,633' Sources: '.Census State Data Center, Institute for Economic Advancement, University of Arkansas at Little Rock. '- Center for Economic and Business Research, University of Arkansas, June G, 21X13. I I C I I I J Ll I J Ili I I Households and Housing The number of households in Fayetteville and Washington County is 27,343 and 73,257, respectively, according to the 2006 American Community Survey prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau. Family households comprise 49.0% of all households in Fayetteville and 63.9% in Washington County. The average household size in Fayetteville is 2.16 and 2.47 in Washington County. The 2006 American Community Survey reported 30,745 housing units in Fayetteville and 79,917 housing units in Washington County. The median owner -occupied housing value is $164,600 in Fayetteville and $149,000 in Washington County. Median monthly rent for Fayetteville is $639 and within Washington County is $642. The number of vacant housing units within Fayetteville is 3,402, representing an 11.1% vacancy rate. There are 6,660 vacant housing units within Washington County, representing an 8.3% vacancy rate. Household and housing data are presented in the following table entitled HOUSEHOLD AND HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS, 2006. Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment C.21 I I Table C4 HOUSEHOLD AND HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS, 2006 I I I I F- L t - L I I LJ I I City of Washington Characteristic Fayetteville County Total Housing Units 30,745 79,917 Owner -Occupied 11,423 41,187 Median Value $164,600 $149,000 Renter -Occupied 15,920 32,070 Median Rent $639 $642 Vacant Units 3,402 6,660 Percent Vacant 11.1% 8.3% Households 27,343 73,257 Family Households 49.0% 63.9% Average Size 2.16 2.47 Source: ',2I)16 American Community Survey, U,S, Census Bureau website, littn://sacttindcr.census. v/home/saff/main.html? lanft=en. Visited February 2G, 211118. Income and Employment Activity The 2006 per capita personal income for Fayetteville is $23,250 and the median household income is $41,230, according to the 2006 American Community Survey. For Washington County, the data indicates a lower per capita income of $20,787, but a slightly higher median household income of $41,471. The total employed civilian labor force in Fayetteville is 34,960 with an unemployment rate of 2.7%. The Washington County total employed civilian labor force equals 92,621 and has an unemployment rate of 4.8%. Table C5, entitled INCOME AND EMPLOYMEi T CHARACTERISTICS, 2006, presents the income and employment data for Fayetteville and Washington County. Table C5 INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS, 2006 City of Washington Characteristic Fayetteville County Per Capita Income $23,250 $20,787 Median Household Income $41,230 $41,471 Employed Civilian Labor Force 34,960 92,621 Unemployment Rate 2.7% 4.8% Source: 1.21NW, American Community Sunry, U.S. Census Bureau website, htm://IsctlioJcr.censuc.yuv/home/soli/rnainhtml? lanl;=en. Visited February 2G, 21)18. Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment C.22 I 1 I I I I r I I C L 1 1 I I I I IEducation • ' The Fayetteville Public School District has 16 schools, including 9 elementary schools, 2 middle schools, 2 junior high schools, and 1 high school. There are approximately 8,589 students enrolled in the Fayetteville Public School District. The Greenland Public ' School District consists of one elementary, one middle school, and one high school, and has approximately 893 enrolled students. Additional educational opportunities include the Northwest Arkansas Community College Regional Technology Center and an adult and community education center. The University of Arkansas provides post -high school education opportunity in I Fayetteville. With approximately 13,989 undergraduates and 3,648 graduate students, the university had 17,637 enrolled students in the spring of 2008. The university has approximately 858 faculty positions. IHealth Care and Public Safety • There are three hospitals providing comprehensive health care within Fayetteville. Washington Regional Medical Center is a fully integrated health care system providing 233 beds and over 300 physicians. Veterans Medical Center is 51 -bed medical center providing acute medical, surgical, and psychiatric care, and both primary and secondary levels of outpatient services for veterans. Willow Creek Women's Hospital is a 30 -bed full -service women's health provider offering a comprehensive list of services. IThe Fayetteville Police Department, with over 150 sworn and civilian members, is primarily responsible for law enforcement within the vicinity of Fayetteville Executive ' Airport/Drake Field. The Greenland Police Department has four full time officers providing law enforcement within the Greenland City Limits. The Washington County Sheriff's Office provides law enforcement outside the city limits of Fayetteville and I Greenland and administers the county detention center. Fire suppression and emergency medical response within the airport boundary is I provided by the Fayetteville Fire Department. This department has six fire stations, six engine companies, and two ladder companies. Services provided include emergency medical, fire suppression, rescue, hazardous materials response, fire prevention, public education, and disaster preparedness activities. Fire response service provided in Washington County outside the Fayetteville City Limits, but in the vicinity of the Airport, is normally provided by either the Greenland Volunteer Fire Department, the Westfork Volunteer Fire Department, or through mutual aid agreement with the Fayetteville Fire Department. I Ll Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment C.23 I I IOther Planned Activities Future development plans for the Airport included the construction of a 1,000 -foot runway extension to the south of Runway 16/34, implementation of an improved instrument approach to Runway 16, taxiway construction, additional hangar and apron I construction, and airfield pavement rehabilitation. A proposed railroad spur connecting Scurlock Industries, a manufacturer of pre -cast concrete products located just north of the Airport and east of U.S. Highway 71, with the Arkansas Missouri Railroad, located west of U.S. Highway 71, has the potential for cumulative impacts caused by the construction of the two projects if not closely coordinated. There are no other known reasonably foreseeable actions within the project area that would affect the proposed project, or that the proposed project would affect. I I I I I I I r-, L r-, Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment C.24 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 Environmental Consequences Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to present the analysis of the potential environmental consequences, identify sources of potential impacts, and outline any required mitigation measures. An examination of each of the specific impact categories defined in FAA Orders 1050.1 E, Policies and Procedures for Considering Ernrirorrmerrta/Impacts, and 5050.4B, National Em'irnnmental Po/ig Atl (NEPA) Implementing Instructions /orAirportActions are documented in the narrative of this chapter. The following table, entitled COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL L IPACTS, presents a summary of the potential environmental impacts for each impact category. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impact of the proposed project when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or entity undertakes such other actions. Recent airport development projects have focused on providing additional apron and hangar areas to the north and south of the terminal building, and making improvements to the terminal building. Future airport expansion and development plans include a 1,000 -foot runway extension to the south of Runway 16/34, implementation of an improved instrument approach to Runway 16, additional hangar and apron space, taxiway construction, and airfield pavement rehabilitation. A non -airport related project within the vicinity of the Airport that has the potential for cumulative impacts includes the planned construction of a railroad spur to Scurlock Industries, a manufacturer of pre -cast concrete products located just north of the Airport and adjacent to McCollum Avenue. The railroad spur could be extended to access additional industrial properties farther to the east. This construction will cross U.S. Highway 71 approximately 1,300 feet north of the Runway 16 end and will connect the Arkansas Missouri Railroad west of the highway to the manufacturing plant east of the highway. Options for connecting to the railroad include a north or south alternative. Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D.l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L�� I The proposed construction timeframe for the railroad spur is currently unknown at this time. The following figure, entitled POTENTIAL CLIAIULATIVE IMPACT PROJECTS, presents the projects having potential cumulative impacts and the proposed projects. The cumulative impacts analysis for each resource category follows the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Project analyses below. Table D1 COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Impact Category No Action Alternative Proposed Project Air Quality No Impact Insignificant Coastal Resources No Impact No Impact Compatible Land Use No Impact Compatible with project Construction Impacts No Impact Insignificant DOT Act Section 4(f) No Impact No. Impact Farmlands No Impact Insignificant Fish, Wildlife, and Plant No Impact Insignificant Floodplains No Impact Insignificant Hazardous Materials, Pollution No Impact No Impact Prevention, and Solid Waste Historical, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural No Impact Insignificant Resources Light Emissions and Visual: No Impact No Impact Impacts Natural Resources and Energy No Impact No Impact Supply Noise No Impact One noise sensitive receptor experiences a 13 dB increase Secondary (Induced) Impacts No Impact No Impact Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental Justice, and No Impact No Impact Children's Environmental Health and Safety Risks Water Quality No Impact No Impact Wetlands and Waters of the Section 404 Permit required United States No Impact for realignment of Airport Branch channel Wild and Scenic Rivers No Impact No Impact Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D.2 n L, I I I I 7 L] 1 I fl n I I I I I C I - Barnard0unRelberqp Company Team C I I I I 1 I I I I Northfm Alignment , Railroad Spur to Scurlock Industries �+'• ,,.•••.......... RelocatedAfryartBranchChannel •.oil Southern Alignment �,� Scurlock indusWe Railroad Spur to Scurlock Industries 1. Bailey Drive Reloated lanaster Drive Relacuted U:S. NigNa hway 7l t In ErnotLancasterDrlve Short Street a y } 6ixon Sircet (y } ' l4 1 4i Q t` L. _ a { 1,000 Runwayllaxl►iray Extenstoa r L.._.._..1 Approximate Scale 1"= 1,500' Figure D1 Potential Cumulative Impact Projects O • t><ve Ort/Drake Field 7ay1lic WAYSAFETYAREA VIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT' - -- D.3 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Air Quality The Clean Air Act (CAA), as Amended, established national Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), particulate matter (PSI,,, and PM.;), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and lead (Pb). The CAA requires each state to adopt a plan to achieve the NAAQS for each pollutant within specific timeframes. The air quality plans, known as State Implementation Plans (SIPS), are subject to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval. Washington County, Arkansas is an attainment area for all EPA regulated criteria pollutants. Attainment areas are defined as regions where air pollution levels have not persistently exceeded the NAAQS. Therefore, the conformity procedures of the CAA do not apply. Short-term air quality construction impacts result from heavy equipment pollutant emissions, fugitive dust during earthwork, any open burnings, and the operation of concrete batch plants. No Action Alternative. No short-term air quality impacts will occur as a result of this alternative. Proposed Project. Potential short-term air quality impacts could result from the implementation of the proposed project. However, contractors will be required to comply with all local, state, and federal air quality statutes and regulations, especially the procedures contained in FAA Advisory.Circular (AC) 150/5370 -IOC, StandardsforSpenfying Constniction ofAirports. This AC is the FA's guidance to airport sponsors concerning protection of the environment during construction projects. The Air Division of ADEQ has no comments regarding the proposed project (see email in Appendix Three). Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts to air quality as a result of the proposed project and the proposed new development projects relate to emissions of CAA criteria pollutants from construction equipment operation and dust during earthwork. However, the construction phases are temporary, will not occur at the same time, and equipment emissions would be relatively small. Increases in vehicle and aircraft traffic will occur over time, and will subsequently increase emissions, but these increases are not directly related to the proposed project or any future development projects. However, as mentioned previously, the Airport is within an attainment area and it is unlikely that the incremental increase in emissions will produce a significant negative cumulative impact on air quality. Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D.4 L I I I r LJ LI n LI LI I I I I I I 1 I I ICoastal Resources • Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field is located in northwest Arkansas and the proposed project will not directly, indirectly, or cumulatively affect any coastal resources as defined by the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982, the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, and Executive Order 13089. 1 Compatible Land Use Land use compatibility with proposed airport actions is usually associated with the extent of the noise impacts. However, it is also related to other considerations such as land acquisition, disruption of established communities, relocations, induced socioeconomic impacts, and the implication of wildlife hazards. No Action Alternative. Since no action will result from this alternative, there will be no impact to land uses surrounding Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field. I I E I I I I I I L] I Proposed Project. The proposed project will require purchase of approximately 11.5 acres of additional property. Approximately five acres will be transferred to AHTD for relocated highway right-of-way and an equal amount of existing highway right-of-way will be transferred to the Airport. Preliminary plans indicate that the majority of property identified for purchase west of U.S. Highway 71 is currently vacant, with the exception of approximately 0.3 acres of the closed Superstop convenience store at the south end of the project area, and 3.2 acres of Standard Register property at the north end of the project area. The Standard Register property is mainly vacant, with a small amount dedicated to entrance roads or employee parking. Entrances onto U.S. Highway 71 will be maintained and the company has an excess amount of parking currently, so no replacement parking will be required. The approximate 7.5 acres of property needed to relocate Earnest Lancaster Drive north of the Airport is currently vacant. The proposed project will result in an increase in highway noise for one noise sensitive receptor located west of U.S. Highway 71, east of the Arkansas -Missouri Railroad tracks, and south of Bailey Drive. Based on the AHTD's "Policy of Reasonableness and Feasibility for Type 1 — Noise Abatement Measures," noise abatement barrier walls and/or berms are not warranted for this project. This is due to only one noise sensitive receptor projected to be impacted and the prohibitive cost to provide for a single receptor. However, the residence is eligible for Airport Improvement Program (mP) funding for noise mitigation through either sound attenuation or fee simple purchase on a voluntary basis. Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D.5 I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I I Li 1 1 I I I I I I I I I LII I I This alternative will not create a wildlife hazard as defined in FAA AC 150/5200-33B nor will it affect any existing wildlife hazard areas because it will not directly or indirectly result in the development of wildlife attractants. FAA Order 5200.5A, Waste Disposal Sites On orNearAirports, states, "Sanitary landfills will be considered as an incompatible use if located within or planned to be within... 10,000 feet of all runways planned to be used by turbojet aircraft." The nearest landfill is the Waste Management Tontitown Landfill, located south of Tontitown, Arkansas, which is over nine miles north of the Airport. Therefore, it is not considered an incompatible land use. Cumulative Impacts. The proposed project and the planned new development projects are in conformance with local government planning and policy. Current local government land use policies at and surrounding the Airport prevent land uses that are incompatible with the Airport and its safe and efficient operation. Therefore, there is not expected to be a significant negative cumulative impact on compatible land use. Construction Impacts Construction impacts are short-term environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project construction process. They usually come in three forms: noise, air, and water pollution. Best Management Practices (B\[Ps), which can be defined as the proper application of corrective actions or control techniques, will be employed throughout the construction operations. No Action Alternative. Since no construction is proposed with this alternative, no construction related impacts will occur. Proposed Project. Short-term noise impacts result from the use of heavy construction machinery on the site. The surrounding properties are, for the most part, compatible with highway noise. The noise analysis conducted for this Environmental Assessment, entitled Traffic Noise Analysis For. Higbway 7/B (Sc/ool Arevue) Relocation, and prepared by Mestre Greve Associates, indicated that the six noise sensitive receptors located near the project area may be exposed to construction noise levels that could interfere with outdoor speech communication. Construction noise impacts generally can be mitigated by restricting construction activities within 1,000 feet of residential land uses to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and at no time on Sundays or National Holidays. Construction activities can have a short-term affect on the local air quality, primarily during periods of site preparation. Emissions of particulates will occur in association with excavation and earth moving; cement, asphalt, and aggregate handling; heavy equipment operations; use of haul roads; and wind erosion on exposed earth and Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D.6 I I I 1 LI I I I d it I 1 1 I 1 I I I f1 I Li I Li I I I I I 1 I I I rj I I I material storage piles. The effects of construction activity will vary in scale depending on weather conditions, level of construction activity, and the nature of the operation. Effective air quality control measures include: minimization of exposed earth to the extent possible; stabilization of exposed earth with grass, mulch, pavement, or other cover as soon as possible; periodic sweeping or application of water or stabilizing agents to the working and hauling areas; covering, shielding, or stabilizing stockpiled material as necessary; and using covered haul trucks. Compliance with all federal, state, and local air quality regulations will be requited of the contractor. Impacts to water resources primarily result from erosion and associated sedimentation when the ground surface is bared from earthmoving operations. As with air quality impacts, construction activities affecting water quality are usually temporary and will vary in scale based on weather conditions, the level of construction activity, and the nature of the operations. Measures to control impacts to water resources during construction may include: phased construction practices; rock filter dams and siltation fences; temporary grassing, sodding, and mulching; sediment basins and checks; and floating or staked turbidity barriers. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit will be required from ADEQ for the construction site. The preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (S\XPPP) is necessary for the NPDES permit. The S%VPPP will include all specifications and BNtPs needed for control of erosion and sedimentation. Final plans and specifications will not be available until a later stage in the project process. However, FAA policy requires in all cases that the specifications comply with AC 150/5370C and AHTD's Standard Speeifications/or Highway Construction. The final plans and specifications for the proposed project will incorporate the provision contained in the regulations to ensure minimal impact due to erosion, air pollution, sanitary waste, and the use of chemicals. The FAA will accept the final construction documents with the Airport Sponsor's certification that they conform to all relevant standards. Cumulative Impacts. The proposed projects and future development projects will have cumulative construction impacts to varying degrees including temporary minor increases in dust, construction equipment exhaust emissions, traffic restrictions, construction noise, erosion, and sedimentation. These construction projects will be temporary and will not all occur at the same time. The impacts will be relatively small and will be mitigated by the use of B.\IPs and scheduling, and are therefore not considered significant. Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D.7 1 I IDepartment of Transportation Act Section 4(f) I Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (recodified as 49 U.S.C., Subtitle I, Section 303) provides that no publicly owned park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or land of a historic site that is of national, state, or local significance will be used, acquired, or affected by programs or projects requiring federal assistance for implementation, unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land. Proposed projects or programs affecting such lands must include all possible I planning to minimize harm resulting from the use. No Action Alternative. This alternative will have no impact on Section 4(1) properties. I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I Proposed Project. There are 12 parks identified by the Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism that have received grant monies in Fayetteville and Greenland, but none will be impacted by the proposed project (see letter from the Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism in Appendix Three). Additionally, there are no historic sites eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places that will be affected by the proposed project. Cumulative Impacts. Because there are no DOT Act Section 4(1) properties located in or near the project area, there will be no cumulative impact to these resources from the proposed project when combined with any past or reasonably foreseeable actions. Farmlands The Farmland Protection Policy Act regulates federal actions with the potential to convert farmland to non-agricultural uses. Farmlands are defined as soils best suited for food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops and, as such, are of major importance in meeting the nation's short- and long-range needs for food and fiber. No Action Alternative. No impact to prime farmland will occur with this alternative since no construction activity will disturb the soils within the project area. Proposed Project. According to the Washington County Soil Survey, this alternative converts approximately eight acres of Samba silt loams, and two acres of Taloka silt loarns to future highway and road right-of-way. Samba silt loarns are considered prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season. Taloka silt loams are considered prime farmland if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season. The Natural Resources Conservation Service confirms that the impacted area does contain prime farmland (see letter from the Natural Resources Conservation Service in Appendix Three). Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D.8 1 I I The land that will be converted to right-of-way is currently not used for farm production, as the majority of it was previously used in residential development, but has been vacant for many years. Completion of Form NRCS-CPA-106, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type Projects, and Form AD -1006, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating (also contained in Appendix Three), indicates the impacts to prime farmland will not surpass the threshold requirements. Therefore, no additional evaluation is necessary. Cumulative Impacts. Because airport property and surrounding lands have not been used for farming in a number of years, there will be no cumulative impacts to farmlands as a result of the proposed project and the future development projects. Li I I I I I I I I I I I Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended, requires federal agencies to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or implemented by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species. As presented in the previous chapter, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USEWS) indicates there are five endangered species and two candidate species known to occur in Washington County (see letter in Appendix Three). The endangered species are the Gray bat (Ayotis grisescens), Indiana Bat (Myotis soda/in), Ozark Big -eared Bat (Co ynorbinus townsendii ingens), Benton Cave Crayfish (Camtanrs aculabrum), and the Missouri Bladderpod (Lesquere!/a filifornris). The Arkansas darter (Etheosfoma era ,ginz) and Neosho Mucket (Lampsilis refinesqueana) are the candidate species. No Action Alternative. No impacts to fish, wildlife, and plants are anticipated. Proposed Project. There are potential impacts to biotic communities with any highway and road improvement project. The conversion of land to right-of-way has the potential for invasion of non-native plant species. Terrestrial fauna species will experience some mortality in the smaller, less mobile species during construction. No known aquatic species are anticipated to be impacted. As stated earlier, the proposed project converts approximately ten acres of land to highway and road right-of-way. However, the land has been impacted by past human activity through residential, commercial, or industrial development. The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission does not anticipate significant adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources as a result of the proposed project (see letter in Appendix Three). Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment O.9 I I IThe USF\VS indicates that many of the threatened and endangered species known to occur in Washington County are cave dwellers, and should a cave resource be discovered • within the project area during construction, then work must stop and the USEWS notified and stormwater control measures may be implemented (see letter from the USF\VS in Appendix Three). There are no known cave resources within the proposed project area. 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 Cumulative Impacts. Planned development projects in the vicinity of the proposed project area will include a number of construction projects that pose the same risks to the threatened and endangered cave -dwelling species. Should a cave resource be discovered during the construction of any subsequent projects, then the USFVS will be notified and stormwater control measures may be implemented. Because there are no known cave resources within or near the airport vicinity, no cumulative impacts are anticipated. Floodplains Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Managemenl, directs federal agencies to "take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains..." The established Department of Transportation (DOT) policy is to avoid taking an action within a 100 -year floodplain where practicable. Every effort must be made to minimize the potential risks to human safety and property damage and the adverse impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values. No Action Alternative. There would be no impact to floodplains and floodways since no construction would occur with this alternative. Proposed Project. Floodplains in the project area that will be affected by the proposed project are associated with Airport Branch and its tributary. An approximate 400 -foot segment of Airport Branch must be realigned to locate the channel outside of the Runway Safety Area and there will be a total of three channel crossings with new concrete box culverts. One existing 70 -foot long box culvert under U.S. Highway 71 will be removed. During final design, hydraulic data and construction plans will be submitted to the AHTD and city officials for review, approval, and permitting as specified by local floodplain ordinances. The proposed project will be designed to avoid overtopping by the 100 -year flood, thus minimizing the potential for interruptions or termination due to flooding. Additionally, no significant reduction of floodwater storage or retention function will be caused by the construction of the proposed project. Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D.10 1 I 1 Other potential measures to reduce floodplain impacts include: I. Sufficient sizing of culverts to minimize adverse effects from backwater • Drainage structures will be sized sufficiently to minimize impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values. . Minimizing channel alterations at culverts. • Designed to minimize adverse impacts to streams, and to correct any project -related impacts that may destroy, diminish, or impair the character and function of the streams. • Adequate and timely erosion control to minimize erosion and sedimentation. Cumulative Impacts. The proposed 1,000 -foot runway extension to the south would be constructed entirely within the 100 -year floodplain, and the railroad spur construction to Scurlock Industries would impact both the 100 -year floodplain and floodway that is impacted by the highway realignment project. These projects, and other future projects proposed within the floodplain and floodway, will have many requirements regarding development within floodplains, including but not necessarily limited to: compliance with local floodplain design criteria and ordinances; have no impact on the natural and beneficial floodplain values; constructed above the base flood elevation; minimize fill within the floodplain and floodway; and, ensure that the flood carrying capacity of an altered or relocated portion of a watercourse is not diminished. Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste A hazardous waste inventory was conducted and presented in the previous chapter. There are five hazardous waste generator sites identified in the general vicinity of the ' Airport by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (.iDEQ) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) database. No Superfund sites are known to occur in Washington County according the EPA National Priority List (NPL). Two sites are known to have underground storage tanks within the project area. No Action Alternative. No hazardous waste sites will be affected, no hazardous waste will be generated, and no impact on the collection, control, or disposal of solid waste will occur with this alternative. Proposed Project. As a result of the proposed project, no hazardous substances and/or wastes will be generated on a continual basis. However, construction activities can generate short-term hazardous wastes, and some construction materials constitute hazardous substances. As stated earlier, the final plans and specifications will incorporate the provisions contained in FAA AC 150/5370C and Al -fm's Standard Spet#ications /or Highway Construction to ensure minimal impact during construction 1 Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D.1 1 [7 Lr I 1 LI I I I I I I I I I I I I I activities. Compliance with standards contained in Executive Order 12088, .Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards, will be followed, and the best available techniques and methods will be employed, to prevent, control, and abate environmental pollution. An Environmental Due Diligence Audit (EDDA) will be required prior to the purchase of the additional property necessary to implement the proposed projects. However, it is known that the closed Superstop convenience store property contains six underground storage tanks that were used for the storage of vehicular fuels. Preliminary plans indicate that a minimum of 0.3 acres of this property will be required for the relocation of the highway. However, the highway realignment will not require the removal of any of the tanks. The solid wastes impacts associated with the proposed project are connected with construction, and no adverse affects to the solid waste collection, control, or disposal system of Fayetteville are anticipated. The type and amount of solid waste generated, or method of collection or disposal, will not be different than would be the case without the proposed project. If hazardous materials or wastes are identified, observed, or uncovered during construction, then it will be the Airport's responsibility to identify the type, size, and extent of contamination. The Airport would then be responsible for developing a remediation plan and coordinating the disposal methods employed for the particular contaminant. Remediation work would be conducted in conformance with regulations established by EPA, ADEQ, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OS HA). Cumulative Impacts. Implementation of the reasonably foreseeable future projects will likely result in additional petroleum products and hazardous materials handled and further potential for releases of these materials. However, based on the scope of the projects and use of BMPs, there will likely be no significant cumulative impacts resulting from the future development actions when added to the proposed project. Historical, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Archeological and Historic preservation Act of 1974, and Section 4(f) of the DOT Act of 1966 provide guidelines for evaluating the potential impacts to cultural resources. No Action Alternative. No cultural resources will be affected by this alternative. Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D.12 t I I I. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I rj Proposed Project. The Arkansas Historic Preservation Program indicates that there is one archeological site that is located within the proposed U.S. Highway 71 realignment and will be affected (see letter from the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program in Appendix Three). Their letter indicated that the eligibility of the site for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places has not been assessed, as it consists only of a single prehistoric flake. However, additional phone conversations with this agency indicated that the site is not considered significant and is not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (see phone log with Arkansas State Historic Preservation Program in Appendix Three). Therefore, no impact to cultural resources will occur as a result of the proposed projects. The FAA has consulted with the United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma regarding the impact of the proposed project on significant tribal resources. The proposed action is not likely to have a significant impact to any cultural resources. However, if a resource is encountered that appears to possess historical or archeological significance, or if human remains or artifacts such as Native American pottery, stone tools, etc are discovered during this project, work in the area will stop immediately and the Department of Arkansas Heritage will be contacted for evaluation of the site. Cumulative Impacts. There are other known archeological sites within the vicinity of the Airport, according to the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program. However, because of public disclosure concerns, most of the site's locations are not currently known at this time. Therefore, prior to implementation of any future development projects, consultation with the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program will be conducted and any culturally significant resources will be protected. It is unlikely that significant cumulative impacts will occur to cultural resources due to the future development projects when added to the proposed project. Light Emissions and Visual Impacts Light emissions that might create an annoyance among people in the vicinity or interfere with normal activities are usually associated with airport air navigation facilities or approach lighting systems. Visual, or aesthetic, impacts are inherently more difficult to define because of the subjectivity involved. Aesthetic impacts deal more broadly with the extent that the development contrasts with the existing environment and whether the contrast is objectionable, based on public input. No Action Alternative. No impacts by light emissions will occur with this alternative, nor with the visual environment be affected. Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D.13 1 I I LI I I I t Li I I I I I I I i 1 Proposed Project. The proposed project will not involve an approach lighting system or any other air navigation facility lighting, so no impacts from light emissions will be experienced by surrounding property owners. The existing highway is a major component of the existing visual landscape, so a relocation of the highway will not have an adverse impact to the visual environment. There are no officially designated scenic areas or visually sensitive resources in the vicinity of the project area. Cumulative Impacts. Corresponding with the growth of the Airport and the surrounding area, light sources have increased with time. Proposed new developments and expansion of the Airport and the surrounding area will increase the area being visually impacted and introduce even more light sources to the area. However, the proposed development projects are not likely to have a negative impact on residences or other sensitive public areas. Natural Resources and Energy Supply Executive Order 13123, Greening the Government Through Efficient Energy Management, encourages each federal agency to expand the use of renewable energy within its facilities and in its activities. It also requires each federal agency to reduce petroleum use, total energy use, associated air emissions, and water consumption. No Action Alternative. This alternative will have no effect on energy consumption or natural resources. Proposed Project. The Proposed Project will not increase fuel consumption of vehicles traveling on the road network or aircraft operating at the Airport. Construction materials used in building the highway and road will consist mainly of concrete, sand, gravel, steel, and asphalt. These materials are not unusual or in short supply and all are locally available. The Arkansas Geological Survey indicates that within Section 9, Township 15N, Range 30w, there is sand and gravel production from the [Vest Fork U7hite River (see letter from the Arkansas Geological Survey in Appendix Three). However, this facility is located about two miles south of the project area. Therefore, no known energy reserves or mineral resources will be affected by the proposed project. Cumulative Impacts. The planned expansion and development at the Airport and surrounding areas will increase energy consumption at the Airport, but compared to the energy consumption of the City of Fayetteville and surrounding area, the increases and the effect on natural resources and energy supply will likely be insignificant. Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D.14 1 I I I I I I I I I I I r] I Li I I Noise As discussed in the previous chapter, the aircraft noise assessment was conducted using the Integrated Noise Model (INMI) Version 7.0a, which is a computer program developed by the FAA specifically for modeling the noise environment at airports. The future aircraft operations used to generate the future noise contours are presented in the following table, entitled FUTURE (2025) AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS. The same operational data will be used for both alternatives, as the aircraft demand placed on the Airport is not dependent on implementing the proposed projects. Table D2 FUTURE (2025) AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS Operations by Type 2025 General Aviation 83,100 Single Engine 39,890 Multi -Engine 11,430 Turboprop 13,700 Business Jet 16,830 Helicopter 1,250 ll,lilday 1,500 Helicopter 600 Turboprop 600 Jet 300 Air Carrier 60 Fo,,.st Service 90 TOTAL 84,750 Source: f u�e1[erlk Aiurrhl flirt r/Drake Fill Master Plea Update, ?UU6. A highway noise assessment has been conducted utilizing the FH\VA's TNM® procedures, the proposed highway alignment, and the traffic projections for the year 2027. The 2027 ADT for U.S. Highway 71 within the study area is projected to be 13,489 \'PD. The same vehicle assumptions were used for future traffic conditions as were used for the existing conditions, which are: Peak hour traffic volumes are estimated at 12% of the ADT, 1% of the ADT is estimated to be truck traffic, and 80% of the truck traffic is medium trucks with 20% being heavy trucks. The highway noise assessment is based on the design year Leq NAC level of 67 dBA. Any noise receptor experiencing a noise level approaching or exceeding 67 dBA is considered a noise impact according to the FI-I\VA's established impact level for noise receptors associated with highway projects. The term "approach" is defined as one dBA less than the NAC. Additionally, even if the predicted noise levels do not approach or exceed the Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D.15 I I I I I I El I I I I Li El L I I NAC, noise impacts can occur when the traffic noise levels substantially exceed the existing level (i.e. a 10-dBA increase). No Action Alternative. Future traffic noise levels without the development of the project were modeled at the noise sensitive receptors illustrated in the preceding chapter, in Figure CIO entitled POTENTIAL HIGHIVAYNOISE RECEPTORS. As indicated in Table D3, entitled FUTURE NO ACTION HIGHIVAYNOISE LEVELS, it was found that no noise receptors will experience a substantial noise increase or experience noise levels that approach or exceed the applicable NAC. Table D3 FUTURE NO ACTION HIGHWAY NOISE LEVELS Future No Project Leq dBA Receptor Existing Leq Leq Increase 1 49 51 2 2 46 48 2 3 41 43 2 4- 44 46 2 5 49 51 2 6 40 41 2 Source. Nlestre Grcv Associates, 2008 Future aircraft generated noise impacts are illustrated on the following figure entitled FUTURE (2025) AIRCRAFT GENERATED NOISE COitVFOURS IFTTH GENERALIZED LA1\tD USE. As illustrated, the noise contours extend beyond Airport property to both the north and south. To the north, no noise sensitive land uses are contained within the 65 or greater DNL noise contour. To the south, there are two residences contained within the 65 DNL noise contour. Proposed Project. As presented in Table D4, entitled FUTURE PROPOSED PROJECT HIGHIPAYNOISE LEVELS, it was determined that no noise sensitive receptors will experience traffic noise levels that approach or exceed the applicable NAC with the implementation of the proposed projects. However, one noise sensitive receptor (e.g., receptor 5, the residence located closest to the realigned highway, east of the railroad and south of Bailey Drive) is predicted to experience a substantial noise increase of 13 dB. Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D. 16 1 — —__IiI Barnard0unkelhergD>CompanyTeam El Ii I I I I] I I I 1 I Base Map Source: Microsoft Street &Trips 2005 & 2008 esldential ommerclal idustrial grkulture/Open ublic 1"= 2,60o Figure O2 Future (2025) Aircraft Generated Noise Contours With Generalized Existing Land Use xecutive ort/Drake Field 1 L7 RUNWAY SAFETYAREA VIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT T1 - D.17 I I I I I Pi I I I LI I I I I I LI 1 Table 04 FUTURE PROPOSED PROJECT HIGHWAY NOISE LEVELS Future With Project Approach or Leq dBA Substantial Receptor Existing Leq Leq Exceed NAC? Increase Increase? 1 49 51 No 2 No 2 46 49 No 3 No 3 41 46 No 5 No 4 44 52 No 8 No 5 49 62 No 13 Yes 6 40 45 No 5 No Source: Mestre Greve Associates, 20118 Based upon AHTD's "Policy of Reasonableness and Feasibility for Type 1 — Noise Abatement Measures," which is included in Appendix Five, noise abatement bather walls and/or berms ate not warranted for this project. This is due to the fact that only one noise sensitive receptor is projected to be impacted by the proposed projects and the cost to provide abatement for a single receptor would exceed $45,000. This cost is considered "unreasonable" according to AHTD policy. However, the residence is eligible for Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding for noise mitigation through either sound attenuation or fee simple purchase on a voluntary basis. If the homeowner does not desire to be mitigated, then no other measures will be implemented (i.e., no condemnation or other police powers will be employed to force the homeowner to sell or otherwise accept the mitigation). In the event the homeowner is relocated, all provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (as amended) and Department of Transportation regulations at 49 CFR Part 24 will be followed. The structure is the lone remaining residential property in the area following an Airport buy-out program in the early 1990s (i.e., 1990-1992). At that time, the Airport purchased several acres of residences that were located within the vicinity of the approach area to Runway 16. However, the owners of this particular residence did not want to sell, and since it was located outside of the evaluation surfaces that define potential obstructions or the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ), it was not purchased. Additionally, the City of Greenland zoning indicates that the property is zoned commercial, so the residential land use is incompatible with current zoning classification. To avoid noise levels in excess of design levels, any future receptors developed along the project location should be located a minimum of 90 feet from the proposed centerline of the relocated U.S. Highway 71. This distance should be used as a general guide and not as a specific rule, since the noise will vary depending upon specific conditions. Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D.18 I Li As stated previously, the same aircraft operational data was used for both the No Action Alternative and the proposed project. Therefore, the same future aircraft generated noise contours are used for both alternatives. There are no noise sensitive land uses within the 65 DNL or greater noise contour to the north, but to the south, there are two residences located within the 65 DNL noise contour. The future aircraft noise impacts experienced by the two residences are not the result of the proposed projects (i.e., the highway and road relocations), they are the result of normal aircraft operational growth. The residences will not experience an increase of 1.5 dB as a result of the proposed project. Based on this analysis, there are no impacts to noise sensitive land uses by aircraft generated noise resulting from implementing the proposed projects. Cumulative Impacts. The increases in vehicle traffic on U.S. Highway 71 and aircraft traffic at the Airport expected to occur over time are not related to any proposed new development projects and expansion of the Airport. Therefore, no significant cumulative noise impacts are anticipated from the future planned development projects when added to the proposed project. ISecondary (Induced) Impacts Indirect, long-term secondary impacts, both beneficial and detrimental, are typically associated with a secondary event or action that develops from implementing a primary action. Induced impacts, especially socioeconomic impacts, are difficult to identify with any degree of accuracy. No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative would have no negative or positive secondary impacts. Proposed Project. This alternative will not divide or disrupt established communities, I disrupt planned development, or create an appreciable change in employment. It will not result in a shift in patterns of population movement or growth, strain public service demands, or change business and economic activity. Preliminary plans indicate the need to purchase a minimum of 0.3 acre of the closed Superstop convenience store property. However, the acquisition would require the removal of the existing sign in front of the property and the portion of the canopy covering the fuel pumps that extends into the future highway right-of-way. Access into the property can be maintained and the property would remain economically viable, so no existing businesses will be displaced. • Potential positive impacts result from improving the safety of the aircraft operating environment at the Airport. Cumulative Impacts. The proposed railroad spur development has the potential to affect access to businesses and industrial facilities by causing temporary traffic I I Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D.19 Li I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I restrictions during construction. Close coordination with the highway relocation should occur to minimize, to the extent possible, traffic restrictions during construction of the two projects. Long-term traffic restrictions could affect the businesses and industries when trains are accessing the manufacturing plant east of the highway from the main line railroad tracks west of the highway. However, it is not expected to occur with enough regularity (i.e., approximately once per day) to have a significant negative impact. No dislocation of non -airport related commercial or industrial facilities or residential properties are expected from the other proposed new development. Therefore, no significant cumulative secondary or induced impacts are expected. Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental Justice, and Children's Environmental Health and Safety Risks The proposed project area consists of business, industrial, and residential properties. Socioeconomic impacts consist of relocations, changes in the economic structure, and economic opportunities. Environmental Justice analysis is governed by guidelines contained in Executive Order 12898, Federal.Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low -Income Populations, as well as the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Executive Order 12898 states, "No minority, age, or income group should be disproportionately affected by a federal action." Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin. Further laws, based on Title Vi, extended civil rights legislation to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, disability, and age. Guidance in Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, provides that each federal agency shall identify, assess, and address the environmental health and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. No Action Alternative. The no action alternative will not have any socioeconomic impacts, have no residential or business relocations, change the economic structure, or affect economic opportunities. No minority, age, income, race, color, or national origin group is disproportionately affected with the no action alternative. The health and safety of children is not affected by this alternative. Proposed Project. A review of the U.S. Census Bureau data indicates that the minority population of the two census block groups within the project areas account of approximately 6.5% of the total population. Additionally, the results of the public involvement meeting and field observations were used to determine that minorities, low- income, elderly, or disabled populations will not have any adverse or disproportionate impact as a result of the proposed project. The public involvement process did not exclude any individuals based on race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, or disability. The proposed projects will not create a situation or produce a substance that Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D.20 I I children will likely come in contact with or ingest, such as air, food, drinking water, recreational waters, soil, or products they might use or be exposed to on a frequent basis. The regulations contained in the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601) will be followed for acquiring the • necessary property to implement the proposed projects. No residential properties are required for the future realigned highway right-of-way. Since only about 0.3 acres of the currently closed Superstop convenience store is required, and the property can remain economically viable through vehicular access to the highway, no substantial loss to the community tax base will result from this action, nor would a severe economic hardship be created for the community. Cumulative Impacts. The cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project and the future new development projects are not expected to have negative socioeconomic • impacts, environmental justice impacts, or children's environmental health and safety risk impacts. IWater Quality The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977, provides the authority to establish water quality standards, control discharges into surface and subsurface waters, develop waste treatment management plans and practices, prevent or minimize the loss of wetlands, issue permits for discharges and for dredged or filled material, and regulate other issues concerning water quality. The project area lies within the Ozark Highlands Ecoregion where the primary turbidity standard, as established by ADEQ, is 10 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTUs) for streams and 25 NTUs for lakes and reservoirs (Regulation 2). As stated in the previous chapter, the dominant water resources in the vicinity of the Airport are the lV/est .Fork l 7ite River and il'/ard s Slough, located east and south of the Airport. No Action Alternative. Since no construction activities will occur with this alternative, no impacts to water quality will occur. Proposed Project. The implementation of the proposed project will result in the crossing of two drainage ditches north of the Airport, which are tributaries of the West Fork LY/hite River. The ADEQ Water Division is not aware of any potential environmental issues in the project area other than those encountered with normal construction activities, which will require a Stormwater Construction General Permit (ARR 150000). No known springs will be impacted by the proposed construction. No Sole Source Aquifers will be affected by the proposed project. I Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D.21 I I f 1 I 1r] I I I Li I I I f 1 I I The Arkansas Department of Health reports that the project area is not located within any designated wellhead protection areas, is not located in a designated source water assessment area, but is located within the Beaver Lake Watershed, a public water supply watershed. However, the Department of Health indicates that the closest public water supply intake is located over 40 miles downstream from the project area and is located near the watershed boundary in an area characterized by intermittent streams. Therefore, the Department of Health does not anticipate any adverse impacts to the public water supply as a result of the proposed project (see email from the Arkansas Department of Health in Appendix Three). Compliance with all regulations contained in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977, will be required for construction of the project. This includes Section 401, Water Quality Certification; Section 402, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit; and Section 404, Permits for Dredged or Fill Material. The NPDES permit requires the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWWrPPP). The SWPPP will include all specifications and BMMPs needed for control of erosion and sedimentation. It will be prepared when the roadway design has been completed in order to best integrate the Bi\[Ps with project design. Contractors will be required to follow the procedures outlined in FAA AC 150/5370 -IOC and AHT D's Standard Specifications for Highway Construction. The final plans and specifications for the projects will incorporate the provisions of the design guidelines to ensure minimal impact due to erosion, sanitary waste, and the use of chemicals. The FAA will accept the final construction documents and plans with the certification from the Airport Sponsor that they conform to all relevant standards. Cumulative Impacts. The proposed railroad spur will likely require the construction of four culverts to provide proper drainage west of the highway. The proposed runway extension to the south will require alteration of ll'/arrl s Slough through the construction of a drainage structure. However, BMiPs implemented during construction and stream alteration activities will likely prevent any significant cumulative impacts to water resources. It is not expected that any springs or Sole Source Aquifers will experience cumulative impacts from the proposed project when added to any future development projects. Wetlands and Waters of the United States Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, Order DOT 5660.1A, Preservation of /he Nations Wetlands, Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, and the Clean Water Act regulate Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D.22 1 I I I I I Li I I I I r I I I activities within wetlands and waters of the United States. Executive Order 11990 defines wetlands as those areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient to support and under normal circumstances does or would support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act defines "waters of the United States" as a water body having a defined ordinary high water mark and includes adjacent wetlands. No Action Alternative. This alternative will have no impact to wetlands or waters of the United States. Proposed Project. Figure C7 illustrated the location of wetlands and waterways on the Airport, as determined by a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers site visit and wetlands determination in late 2007 (see letter and wetlands determination from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Appendix Three). The Corps has determined that, even though the realigned U.S. Highway 71 and Earnest Lancaster Drive will cross Airport Branch and its tributary three times (requiring new concrete box culverts), no wetland areas or other waters of the United States will be impacted. However, an approximate 400 -foot segment of Airport Branch will need to be realigned in order for the channel to be located outside the Runway Safety Area. This channel realignment will require a Section 404 Department of the Army Permit, which has been confirmed through phone calls with the Corps (see phone log with the Corps of Engineers in Appendix Three). The impacts of the channel realignment and box culvert construction will be addressed in the Section 404 permitting process. The Airport and FAA will comply with any mitigation measures required by the Corps. The hydric soils removed from the new culvert areas will be used to reform the open channel bottom and slopes at the removed culvert locations. The material removed to form the realigned segment of Airport Branch will be used in the filling of the existing channel. Measures to minimize adverse harm to the creek channels include: • Culverts will be installed as quickly as possible so construction activities can utilize the culverts to cross the channels. • Creek channels will be avoided beyond the end of the culverts and required channel widening for the wing walls. • The creek channels outside the construction limits will be protected. • Minimize the removal of vegetation during construction and re -vegetate disturbed areas as quickly as possible to reduce soil erosion. • An NPDES permit will be required from the ADEQ for the construction site. The S%vPP plan will include the specifications and best management practices (B\Ws) needed to control erosion and sedimentation. Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment D.23 I $1 I I I I I, I I i I I I 1 Mitigation This section contains a summary of the required mitigation measures that will minimize potential impacts associated with the proposed projects. Air Quality. Construction BMMPs will be implemented to minimize the impact to air quality. Construction Impacts. Construction B\Ps will be implemented to minimize the impact to air quality, noise, water quality, and hazardous materials. These measures may include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: • Restricting construction activities within 1,000 feet of residential land uses to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and at no time on Sundays or National Holidays. • Minimizing exposed earth to the extent possible. • Stabilizing exposed earth with grass, mulch, pavement, or other cover as soon as possible. • Periodic sweeping or application of water or stabilizing agents to the working and hauling areas. • Covering, shielding, or stabilizing any stockpiled material as necessary. • Using covered haul trucks. • Phased construction practices. • Rock filter dams and siltation fences. • Temporary grassing, sodding, and mulching. • Sediment basins and checks. • Floating or staked turbidity barriers. • Obtaining a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from ADEQ for the construction site. • Implementing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPP) for the construction site. Floodplains. During final design, hydraulic data and construction plans will be submitted to the AHTD and cite officials for review, approval, and permitting as specified Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment E..I I by local floodplain ordinances. The proposed project will be designed to avoid overtopping by the I 00 -year flood, thus minimizing the potential for interruptions or termination due to flooding. Other potential measures to reduce floodplain impacts include: • Sufficient sizing of culverts to minimize adverse effects from backwater. • Drainage structures will be sized sufficiently to minimize impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values. • Minimizing channel alterations at culverts. • Designed to minimize adverse impacts to streams, and to correct any project -related impacts that may destroy, diminish, or impair the character and function of the streams. • Adequate and timely erosion control to minimize erosion and sedimentation. 1. Fish, Wildlife, and Plants. Should a cave resource be discovered within the project area during construction, then work must stop and the USFWS notified and stormwater control measures may be implemented. Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste. Construction BMPs will be • implemented to minimize the impact of hazardous materials, petroleum product storage and fueling, and the generation and disposal of solid wastes. The final plans and • specifications will incorporate the provisions contained in FAA AC 150/5370-10C and AHTD's Standard Specifications/or Highway Construction to ensure minimal impact during construction activities. Compliance with standards contained in Executive Order 12088, Federal Compliance unth Pollution Control Standards, will be followed, and the best available techniques and methods will be employed, to prevent, control, and abate environmental pollution. An Environmental Due Diligence Audit (EDD.A) will be required prior to the purchase of the additional property necessary to implement the proposed project. However, it is known that the closed Superstop convenience store property contains six underground storage tanks that were used for the storage of vehicular fuels. Preliminary plans indicate that a minimum of 0.3 acres of this property will be required for the relocation of the highway. However, the highway realignment will not require the removal of any of the tanks. If hazardous materials or wastes are identified, observed, or uncovered during • construction, then it will be the Airport's responsibility to identify the type, size, and extent of contamination. The Airport would then be responsible for developing a remediation plan and coordinating the disposal methods employed for the particular I I Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment E.2 I I I r I I I I i I I I I I I contaminant. Remediation work would be conducted in conformance with regulations established by EPA, ADEQ, and OSHA. Noise. One noise sensitive receptor (e.g., receptor 5, the residence located closest to the realigned highway, east of the railroad and south of Bailey Drive) is predicted to experience a substantial noise increase of 13 dB. The residence is eligible for Airport Improvements Program (AIP) funding for voluntary noise mitigation through either sound attenuation or fee simple purchase. Any voluntary relocation of the homeowner will be in accordance with all provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (as amended) and Department of Transportation regulations at 49 CFR Part 24. To avoid noise levels in excess of design levels, any future receptors developed along the project location should be located a minimum of 90 feet from the proposed centerline of the relocated U.S. Highway 71. This distance should be used as a general guide and not as a specific rule, since the noise will vary depending upon specific conditions. Water Quality. Construction BDIPs will be implemented to minimize the impact to water resources. Compliance with all regulations contained in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as mended by the Clean Water Act of 1977, will be required for construction of the project. This includes Section 401, Water Quality Certification; Section 402, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit (NPDES); and Section 404, Permits for Dredged or Fill 1aterial. A Stormwater Construction General Permit (.ERR 150000) from ADEQ will be required prior to construction, as will a NPDES permit and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP will include all specifications and BMCPs needed for control of erosion and sedimentation, prepared when the roadway design has been completed in order to best integrate the Berns with project design. Contractors will be required to follow the procedures outlined in FAA AC 150/5370-1 0C and AHTD's Standard Specrficutions for Highway Construction. The final plans and specifications for the projects will incorporate the provisions of the design guidelines to ensure minimal impact due to erosion, sanitary waste, and the use of chemicals. The FAA will accept the final construction documents and plans with the certification from the Airport Sponsor that they conform to all relevant standards. Wetlands and Waters of the United States. A Section 404 Department of the Army Permit will required for the approximate 400 -foot segment of Airport Branch that will need to be realigned in order for the channel to be located outside the Runway Safety Area. The impacts of the channel realignment and box culvert construction will be addressed in the permitting process and any mitigation required by the Corps will be implemented. Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment E.3 I r The hydric soils removed from the new culvert areas will be used to reform the open channel bottom and slopes at the removed culvert locations. The material removed to form the realigned segment of Airport Branch will be used in the filling of the existing channel. Measures to minimize adverse harm to the creek channels include: • Culverts will be installed as quickly as possible so construction activities can utilize the culverts to cross the channels. • Creek channels will be avoided beyond the end of the culverts and required channel widening for the wing walls. I. The creek channels outside the construction limits will be protected. • Minimize the removal of vegetation during construction and re -vegetate disturbed areas as quickly as possible to reduce soil erosion. I. An NPDES permit will be required from the ADEQ for the construction site. The �, SWWrPP plan will include the specifications and best management practices BMP's need to control erosion and sedimentation. I. Silt fences, drainage erosion barriers, and other erosion control devices will be installed during the construction to minimize erosion. I I i I I Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment E.4 I r e I IList of Preparers 1 The following persons were primarily responsible for the preparation of this Environmental Assessment. Ryk Dunkelberg BARNARD DUNKELBERG & COMPANY BS Oklahoma State University, Forest Ecology MS Colorado State University, Natural Resources Planning JD University of Tulsa, Law Kelly Maddoux BARNARD DUNKELBERG & COMPANY BS University of Oklahoma, Environmental Design Wayne Jones ' I MICCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. BS University of Arkansas, Civil Engineering Marthew Jones N ESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES BS University of California -San Diego, Engineering Physics I :i I' I Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment C.1 I I f Li IAppendix 1 Appendix One — References Appendix Two — Coordination Appendix Three — Agency Correspondence Appendix Four — Public involvement Appendix Five — AHTD Policy of Reasonableness and Feasibility for Type I — Noise Abatement Measures Appendix Six — Revised Runway Safety Area Determination I I I I I I I I 1 I I TI TI I I II I I n I 1 Appendix One - References City of Fayetteville, City Plan 2025, July 17, 2006. City of Fayetteville Code of Ordinances, Title XV Unified Development Code, June 3, 2008. City of Greenland Zoning Map, August 2007. Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines, 40 CFR S 1500-1508 (2005). Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, May 24, 1977. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, May 24, 1977. Executive Order 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards, October 13, 1978. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low -Income Populations, February 11, 1994. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Entironmental Health Risks and ,Safety Risks, April 21, 1997. Executive Order 13123, Greening the Government Through Efficient Enemy Management, June 3, 1999. Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular 150/5020-1, Noise Control and Compatihi#i , Planning forAirports, August 5, 1983. Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design, November 1, 2008. Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular 150/5370-10C, Standards for .Specii ing Construction ofAirports, September 29, 2007. J Appendix One.1 i I Federal Aviation Administration Order 1050.1 E, EnvironmentalImpacts: Policies and Procedures, March 20, 2006. Federal Aviation Administration Order 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for AirportActions, April 28, 2006. Federal Aviation Administration Order 5100.38C, Airport Improvement Program Handbook Change 1, June 28, 2005. Federal Aviation Administration Order 5200.5A, Waste Disposal Sites On or NearAirports, • January 31, 1990. U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Soil Surrey of Washington County, Arkansas, March 1969. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Description of the Ecoregions of the United States. 2 ed. rev, and expanded (1" ed. 1980). Misc. Publ. No. 1391 (rev.), March 1995. I I I I I 1 Appendix One.2 1 I I I I Appendix Two - Coordination Li I The following federal, state, and local agencies and governmental units were contacted, as well as listed individuals and private companies, during the Environmental Assessment process. IAgencies Contacted I I I I I I I I n Li I I Arkansas Historic Preservation Program Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism Natural Resources Conservation Service Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Arkansas Department of Health Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department Elected Officials Contacted City of Fayetteville: Mayor Dan Coody Alderman Adella Gray Alderman Bobby Ferrell Alderman Lioneld Jordan Alderman Robert Rhoades City of Greenland: Mayor John Gray Alderman Brad Tomlinson Alderman Danny Dutton Alderman Lisa Thornton U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arkansas Geological Commission U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Arkansas Game and Fish Commission United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma Federal Highway Administration Alderman Brenda Thiel Alderman Nancy Allen Alderman Shirley Lucas Alderman Kyle Cook Alderman Sugar Huddelston Alderman Carroll Hancock Alderman Patsy Cox Alderman Greg White I Appendix Two.1 I I IAlderman Mark Myeers I Washington County: Judge Jerry Hunton Justice of the Peace Tom Lundstrom Justice of the Peace Micah Neal Justice of the Peace David Daniel I Justice of the Peace H. L. Goodwin, Jr. Justice of the Peace Jessie Bryant Justice of the Peace Bonnie Swayze Justice of the Peace Ken Keiklak • Justice of the Peace Steve Zega Justice of the Peace Butch Pond Justice of the Peace Jack Norton Justice of the Peace Mary Ann Spears Justice of the Peace Ann Harbison Justice of the Peace Joe Patterson Individuals Contacted Tommy & Phyllis Fennell Arthur T. Miller Robert L. & Christine G. Rea Gloria J. McIntosh Mary Anna Whittington Frankie L. Bixby A. & Leann P. Box John Wayne & Wilma James 'Wayne Kenneth M. & Geraldine Dennis Patrick Bruce Hanby Jose Dejesus & Anani Mariscal Sweetser Family Limited Partnership Carroll & Sharon Hancock Helen McCarty I Darrian Preston Martin L. & Phyllis Ann Ashworth J. Frank & Virginia Lee Spencer Willard Johnson I Edward E. & Frankie L. Smith Jeri Carson Floyd Mabry Gordon and Ruby Jane Bradshaw Dr. Dow & Joanne Pursley Mohammad H. Assem & Khalili Parvin I Manuel & Donna Bradshaw Bernice Mathias Norman Moulden Phil & Dana Rozell Alice Marie Wagner Richard Ledbetter Janice Jean Terry Ronald Brawner Bruce and Mary Bond Estelle Seablom Stephanie G. Sawyer Sean C. & Amy M. Shell • Janice Yoes or Theodor Morrill Russell D. & Barbara Karnes • Kevin King Deborah Moore Peggy Gomez Claude R. Center, Jr. Floyd Jr. & Kathy J. Mabry Elzie & Thelma Carlton Buddy & Helen Stockton Businesses Contacted Kearney National, Inc. Scurlock Industries of Fayetteville State ? li1itary Department Globe CEO, LLC I IAppendix Two.2 1 SM45r�1 ARKANSAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY VARDELLE PARHAM GEOLOGY CENTER 3815 WEST ROOSEVELT ROAD LITTLE ROCK, AR 7220-6369 Be kl White Nrike Beebe Director Governor State Geologist January 23, 2008 Mr. Kelly Maddoux RECEVVEE IBarnard and Dunkelberg & Company Cherry Street Building . r' i i 2 Z) 2008 1616 East Fifteenth Street I GaMWd Dull P Tulsa, Oklahoma 74120 1 Dear Mr. Maddoux: This letter is a response to your request for information on possible mineral resources in the area of the Fayetteville Municipal Airport. Your letter was dated January 17, 2008. The following comments pertain to reported minerals in the same sections as the airport I and to the general area within a few miles of the airport. There is within section 9, T. 15 N., R. 30 W. report sand and gravel production from a I local stream deposit the report latitude was 35.98244 degrees and longitude -94.17542 degrees. Also in the general area of West Fork 3-4 miles to the south was reported natural gas production. Finally there is the possibility of crushed stone production from the surrounding hills as occurs in sections 29 and 30, T. 15 N., R. 30 W. Washington County, Arkansas. IIf you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Sincere y, William Lee Prior Geologist Supervisor I PHONE: (501) 296-1877: FAX: (501) 663-7360 I EMAIL: agc t arkansas.gov wEBSrrE: www.state.ar.us/agclagc.htm An equal opportunity emplover 1 1 Scott Henderson David Goad ' Director Keeping the Natural gee natural. Deputy Director Mike Gibson Loren Hitchcock Deputy Director Arkansas Game and Fish Commission Deputy Director January 25, 2008 Kelly J. Maddoux Barnard Dunkelberg & Company JAN i 0 2008 ' Cherry Street Building 1616 East Fifteenth Street B rnarrI Tulsa, Oklahoma 74120 IDear Mr. Maddoux: Your letter requesting comments on the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed runway safety area improvements which are located at Fayetteville Municipal Airport/Drake Field in Washington County, Arkansas has been referred to me for reply. Biologists from our agency have reviewed the proposed project and we anticipate insignificant adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources associated with these proposed activities. IWe recommend that you contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for an endangered species review, since our agency adheres to the federal listing and you will need to get clearance from them. Their address is 110 South Amity Rd., Suite 300, Conway, Arkansas 72032. We appreciate the opportunity to review this project proposal. If our agency can be of further I assistance with the proposed project, don't hesitate to call us. Sincerely, Robert K. Leonard, Biologist River Basins Division Cc: Doyle Shook Mike Armstrong USFWS, Conway Office I 2 Natural Resources Drive • Little Rock, AR 72205 • www.agfc.com Phone (800) 364-4263 • (501) 223-6300 • Fax (501) 223-6448 The mission of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission is to wisely manage all the fish and wildlife resources of Arkansas while providing maximum enjoyment for the people. U 1 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I United States Department of the Interior Kelly J. Maddoux Barnard, Dunkelberg, & Company Cherry Street Building 1616 East Fifteenth Street Tulsa, OK 74120 Dear Mr. Maddoux: FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 110 South Amity, Suite 300 Conway, Arkansas 72032 Tel.: 501/513-4470 Fax: 501/513-4480 January 24, 2008 RECEIVED FEB 12008 Barnard Dunketb g The Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the information supplied in your letter dated January 17, 2008, regarding the proposed update plan for the Fayetteville Municipal Airport/Drake Field located in Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas. Our comments are submitted in accordance with the Endangered Species Act (87 Stat. 884, as amended 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The following endangered species are known to occur in Washington County: Gray bat (Myotis grisescens); Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalist), Ozark Big -eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii ingens), Benton Cave Crayfish (Cambarus aculabrum) and the Missouri Bladderpod (Lesquerella filiformis). In addition, the Arkansas darter (Etheostoma cragini) and Neosho Mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana) are candidate species that occur in Washington County_ Since many of the above species are cave -dwellers, if a cave is found within the project's boundaries, all work must cease and this office must be notified so that a survey can be conducted to determine if the cave is inhabited by any listed species. Several of the species are also sensitive to water contamination so runoff from extensive ground disturbance or new paved surfaces in certain watersheds may create the need for stormwater control measures. Additionally, if there are any wetlands or waters of the U.S. in the construction areas, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will need to be contacted for additional permitting information. 1 I. Because the extent and location of individual activities has not been provided for us at this time, it is impossible to make specific comments on the potential impacts of this plan. We will be happy to provide more information when the details of specific actions become available. We appreciate your interest in the conservation of endangered species. If you have any questions, please call Patrick Reynolds at (501)513-4487. Sincerely, Y I Margaret Harney Acting Field Supervisor 1 I I I I I I I I I I I ADEQ ARKANSAS Department of Environmental Quality I February 8, 2008 I RECEIVED Kelly J. Maddoux Barnard Dunkelberg & Company FEB 11 2008 Cherry Street Building 1616 East Fifteenth Street Barnard Dunkelbetg I Tulsa, Oklahoma 74120 ' RE: Proposed Fayetteville Municipal Airport/Drake Field Improvements LII it 71 11 I I rl I I I I I I Dear Mr. Maddoux: ADEQ has completed the review of your January 17, 2008 letter regarding proposed referenced activity in the Fayetteville area. ADEQ is not aware of any potential environmental issues in this area other than those typically encountered with construction projects, including the need for effective erosion controls and containment of sediment in storm water runoff. As you may be aware, any activity in, or adjacent to waters of the US, must be coordinated with the Little Rock District Corps of Engineers and ADEQ. Any construction activity in the wetted area of streams that has the potential to violate Regulation # 2 water quality standards will require a short term activity authorization as identified in Reg.2.305. While the topographic map included with your letter did not depict any identifiable stream channels in the proposed area of improvement, the slope of the terrain will transport storm water to the West Fork of the White River, which is currently listed as an impaired water body due to siltation/sediment on ADEQ's 303d list of the States' waters. Best Management Practices for erosion and storm water control must be implemented, as well as compliance with the provisions of ADEQ's storm water pollution prevention plan. Information regarding this SWPPP can be obtained by calling Kim Fuller at 501-682-0621. Please contact me at (501) 682-0645 or e-mail at singleton@adeq.state.ar.us if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Bob Singleton Program Support Manager, Water Division ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 5301 NORTHSHORE DRIVE / NORTH LITTLE ROCK / ARKANSAS 721 18.5317 / TELEPHONE 501.682.0744/ FAX 501-682-0880 www.adeq.sfote.cr.us C I I I The Department of Arkansas Heritage Mike Beebe Governor Cathie Matthews Director Arkansas Arts Council Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission Li I I I I I I I I I Delta Cultural Center February 13, 2008 Mr. Kelly J. Maddoux Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Cherry Street Building 1616 East fifteenth Street Tulsa, Oklahoma 74120-6027 RECEIVED FEB 15 2008 RE: Washington County - Fayetteville Sa mllt'+d Dunk&beva Section 106 Review - FAA Master Plan Update for Fayetteville Municipal Airport AHPP Tracking No: 60853 Dear Mr. Maddoux: This letter is written in response to your inquiry regarding properties of architectural, historical, or archeological significance in the area of the referenced project. My staff has reviewed the documentation regarding the above -referenced undertaking. Our records show that one archeological site (3WA998) is located in the vicinity of the proposed Highway 71 relocation project and will be affected by the proposed construction. Although the eligibility of this site for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) has not been assessed, it consists only of a single prehistoric flake. Four historic structures (WA0792 - White Hangar, WA0969, WA0970 and WA0971) are present near, but south of, the proposed project area. WA0792 might be eligible for inclusion Historic Arkansas Museum in the NRHP if some restoration work were undertaken, but is not eligible in its current • condition. WA0969, WA0970 and WA0971, three airplanes housed in White Hangar, are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. None of these structures will be affected by the proposed Mosaic Templars project. Cultural Center We recommend that photographs of any structures that may be purchased or the subject of mitigation be submitted to us for review. Advisory Council Regulations (36 CFR Part 800) Old State House Museum require that the Section 106 process be completed prior to the issuance of any federal funding, licenses, permits, or approvals. Thus, we cannot issue a formal finding of effect until all aspects of this project have been reviewed. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this undertaking. If you have any questions, please contact Steve Imhoff of my staff at (501) 324-9880. Arkansas Historic Sincerely, Preservation Program /JZK 1500 Tower Building Frances McSwain 323 Center Street Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 324-9880 cc: Dr. Richard Allen, Cherokee Nation Mr. Robert Cast, Caddo Nation fax: (501) 3249184 Dr. Ann M. Early, Arkansas Archeological Survey tdd: (501) 324-9811 Dr. Andrea A. Hunter, Osage Nation e-mail: Ms. Lisa Larue-Stopp, United Keetoowah Band of Cherokees infbQarkansasnreservation.org Mr. Tim Tandy, Federal Aviation Administration websitc. Ms. Carrie V. Wilson, Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma www.arkansaspreservation.com An Equal Opportunity Employer I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I i I The Department of April 4, 2008 Arkansas RECEIVED Mr. Kelly J. Maddoux Heritage Barnard Dunkelberg & Company APR -8 2006 Cherry Street Building 1616 East Fifteenth Street Bard Dun berg Tulsa, Oklahoma 74120-6027 Mike Beebe Governor RE: Washington County - Fayetteville Cathie Matthews Section 106 Review - FAA Director Master Plan Update for Fayetteville Municipal Airport AHPP Tracking No: 60853 Arkansas Arts Council Dear Mr. Maddoux: Arkansas Natural Heritage Thank you for the additional information regarding the above -referenced Commission undertaking. My staff has reviewed the photographs of the house to be • purchased and they report that it is not eligible for inclusion in the National Delta Cultural Center Register of Historic Places. Therefore, we find that the updated master plan will have no adverse effect on historic properties in its present form. Historic Arkansas Museum However, because our survey files are incomplete, it is possible that • undiscovered resources exist in the area. If a resource is encountered that Mosaic Templars appears to possess historical or architectural significance; or if human remains Cultural Center or artifacts, such as Native American pottery, stone tools, old bottles or china • are discovered during this project, work in the area of discovery should stop Old State House Museum and this office should be contacted immediately. We will evaluate any such finds as expeditiously as possible. In addition, if changes are made to the master plan, we should be afforded the opportunity to comment. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this undertaking. If you have any questions, please contact Steve Imhoff of my staff at (501) 324-9880. Arkansas Historic Sincerely, Preservation Program 1500 Tower Building I Q 4 323 Center Sweet Frances McSwain Little Rock, AR 72201 Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer (501) 324-9880 fax: (501) 324-9184 cc: Dr. Richard Allen, Cherokee Nation tdd: (501) 324-9811 Mr. Robert Cast, Caddo Nation c -mail: Dr. Ann M. Early, Arkansas Archeological Survey innf arkanL _reservation.org Dr. Andrea A. Hunter, Osage Nation website: Ms. Lisa Larue-Stopp, United Keetoowah Band of Cherokees www.arkansaspreservation.com Mr. Tim Tandy, Federal Aviation Administration An Equal Opportunity Employer I r Telephone Conversation Log Barnard Dunkelberg & Company IAirport and Environmental Consultants 1616 East 15th Street Tulsa, Oklahoma 74120 Phone: 918-585-8844 FAX: 918-585-8857 r Commission/Subject: Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field Environmental Assessment Contact: Mr. Steve Imhoff Arkansas Historic Preservation Program 1500 Tower Building 323 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72201 rPhone: 501.324.9880 r I spoke with Steve Imhoff of the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program regarding archeological site 3WA998 that is located in the vicinity of the proposed realigned segment of Highway 71 near Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field. Mr. Imhoff explained that since the site consists of only a single prehistoric flake, it is not considered significant and is not eligible for inclusion in the Natural Register of Historic Places. r I I I 1 BARNARD DUNKELBERG & COMPANY Kelly J. Maddoux LI I I I 1 I I Regulatory Office DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LITRE ROCK DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS POST OFFICE BOX 867 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72203-0867 FILE NO. 11391-1 Mr. Kelly Maddoux Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Cherry Street Building 1616 East Fifteenth Street Tulsa, Oklahoma 74120 Dear Mr. Maddoux: MAR 0 4 2008 RECEIVED MAR -6 2008 Barnard Dunkelberg Please refer to your request dated January 27, 2008, on behalf of the Fayetteville Municipal Airport, concerning Department of the Army permit requirements pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. You propose to expand the airport. The project is located in sections 4 and 9, T. 15 N., R. 30 W., Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas. Corps of Engineers personnel have evaluated the site and found no wetland areas or other waters of the United States within the proposed areas of expansion and improvements. Therefore, the proposed work at the subject location does not require a Section 404 Department of the Army permit. This determination does not relieve you of complying with other applicable local, state, and Federal laws. Your cooperation in the Corps of Engineers regulatory program is appreciated. If you have any questions, please contact me at (501) 324-5295. I I 1 Enclosure I I I I Sincerely, Christopher G. Davies Project Manager j —_— .r -� ` �r i11 _ S r i ' � } • E, � LI MU►MKyr.: ^ � -f � •r •• J 1i� t l_� f4• _-✓' `y • o Wwwr K+--- o s1Y. e' I �;. k;• _� � 1J�k� ,1 .� �� . 'L_ � ? =.. a ,•,r _.... __ a, '_-.._ ..._ �• � iti:\yV� : .< +pbr'rtgkrPrrl �'i .�- °lq,p: '' /•- Q Eart"Ti'h r -M lv! � s:; /' •- r'�b;o ",- 'e' r'r• t d r,., !e/ i : 1�T'a' ':'•! �I.,,,.•y V!»hinplon ��, i � "` '1 �f "' }�rPer= S, (IJ 'per , ' .ot°Mr °r.eMrn \�{ r -� '� ''�! !r {' • rfti� ��a• • I•: .:'; O�"L lt>~Jv" ! : ' • i ,` `•. j _ .• I i • a //�11 ^..1 ry ' r !'- ! � J - / r' I � �� ,� j �Jal�t � •i Y 4�., 'i ! ,is�' � 'f`''' ;_ b LsRM• I 1 q i .� : k �� _/ r t ' I - `. f{ _•\ ., C�C6s�Wefe,s..te:0I07l0Qt. - a i eo....• S �.\ �' ' I-�� ar•fir � i � .. f�� /�. � �^ a `,�•,�,>;-,� t i . _� o`�� R .a•1 • 1• • 1�� � �� ms ' t J` � r�'l �����rf � � i- r`•- -�-_•� . `. �_�__` ��tl ;�4s' ' � ; '��F � y .rte ; ! i iI� � I�ye J + II r ik �'� �'.j L � !` ! .}fit' �r '�l� '• �'�. � �o � �YS� f t � 1i: l r:i`� �; i ,r ._ 4'I �7� ` r�•. �• � •r ���� � � r� 11 �: } 1 : {� � /` r�// _ r ti's ' /�r,�r`�lr/ � r� �.w � �% �, � ! � Ir J� �' ...1 •� rJ/ r r1 _� I r� �} ;,4 �r�.�f �l I/r�r':,` i 5 � •f1 `'.1 � �•. � L L��� 3_•_. %�1�,-J ��-i����\�\ i _ �'�_ r _ -� i • rirr. r �; • '\l `V /Jf _ \ \ I+ Ji✓•�+ l . I I21 e + Project Location a :�' r L.� yl �•.J;^''�'— _ �_ l�_.__._-__?w��• r �' l .l :"� S• i , - y. t�` `, 1} :'.%�` ��„�•Y •1-. .r Off• - 5. .�. i ,l5 •. O } y ,r I t 41 , C (4. r. I;V's"' : ='� `7tev � ', rte•, ', r �..:�/(�� � i ;�►i•�1 .,tf rr-" � f �1,�'i .t � �' ! ; ��:: ��'`!' �/. � .��" -'! _�� � 5\rf`�.-rte k f ..•i ' i 'ti � /' .- J j�`����,_lt� �j✓ _!�: �!' '\LJ �\� k • ,�;..`� ..� �,.• � •• i ��Jt a. '/.•`I r Sr' '� ms � , ' f!f �Jf/�J/ .x`.71/ I { f� r L.�`} }/j }_ C• {�f`ii~S�GFIEIi/ ;.� /"�. _`rui f !"--�/y�I`•�I f.l r % ' _.,/ r \ ! si � i tt '� it Cepis+ �1.r/�� lf`"i ♦ lam\ th..l ~� ' \..��:. • r : 1 1 t\ � i / �r 7i} J ; 1 yry r�l �,:� � r' �' w f ���\. i � r� �i !. 4 i7r.M1 �•1 � I '�}. ' � r•' ! /F o ! k rte- � -t`t': 1 2f6� •i �i.:e tt�. •� 1 - �� %s¢P �� Jr�.., f l� �i�;� 4}f-{`�`I ��I {�!� `` A• 51 F.. ' ! J 1Lr: II r)_ _�--•�;' 4 T G r � . •' - ry' � � �`L\>` l N 1 �• d ,1, ti •f'—)1 / o air O �• • .k• e I r , • r 1 i �: ' �.- •1'. o 'J• \rj1 Q -7r '11 r' 1d1• f OI r� ' v• Ii1: T .am, `+`R!. r,.•f p !' p�'.• \}.Y `. � l �.r `'" '.. •-_._ usr"`iii .i• I 0' ,� i ! :3, s !.-� .r 1, �' ir.. �./ r1 !� C��r'•7 is �5 Iks�i'{i: '•, n rr •. ! .,�. ! I�`!.%,'i.=, ',. ;` --�\\ $ �3 �,,. y�lr ,���=.1 ,- ( I•\�Ss .rvr � , O- � �!f •, � S1V '�_d„=c ] vi, II i: i \ sr, r...: s iyy� ! l' s /! s!r C.. Orwr ( 1 ,,1 ' c.. r1 r- a I -� - � i' k L._ . Ir � '` _ � II/ G. t] � • •CO t{�.� .�r:.. _�h 1. ``t A �•�... j •Stn � :1 / i� � ti e r T� � i P, r 'i' i4 1P!•i'•� d .ii..j •li'I},•FI-¢- '• ! `�J:` ! _ r` x ACTION NO. 11391-1 4 T r''�, �'�8 r • j �, - Fayetteville Municipal Airport 1 I _.: ; Airport Expansion I f) J I b ; i - -�"� Sec 4 & 9, T. 15 N., R. 30 W. Fehniary 29. 2008 SHEET 1 OF 4 I � r t • fi I 1 � • csK I ____ 1w sMr 253 /� �• '• � I2S / j r • � w I 1f� •3�0 Y .�: r� na as APPR63 r ar OF. WX BOUNDARY OF ARFA INSPECTED RAKE FIELD 4 RS 0 _ .=aa�l DRA FIELD •'�.: j �i r./"- • iI t:st=:::,1.•.rJ;;4 i( j)I"./i1; I(1L ' • - / APP±LOXIMATg : r • of w 7 AND f I i •- c i it 0UNDARIES AlPP it • . y AAOXtMAt� jIj .� 1242 ��•1111 I1 Yj •`-- %''+III a V• . 1� � � �1. �T \� � �i . mow: •�� ¢ `� sCXLE I INCH £4vAi.s r APPROXIK TELY 1000 PEST o '� ACTION NO. 11391-1 Fayetteville Municipal Airport • Airport Expansion Sec4&9, T. 15N.,R.30W. FP.hrllary 79 7AAR SHF.RT ? OF 4 f 3{ �• 1 � � � I i 1 "� — f �7�$I.. ` Jj) Lks Thi . 1� �'O 3 R 1•v..7 ° h 1 yII 4) nn f I li 11� 1\ ��_// , 1 � � � .I `�0�-�1Pi'LL_—_—__- BUYI !°rZJj •i 4 l Fi� f�l �C1 i E #2' i /224 ! IL o _ = a � a I 0 KE FIELD I of ; (r i ) ')1i t �` � Q01 11• O `l'O I 1 rrCe y ee�Tand u • i ' - S1 e / ORA E FIELO rl '! ,.-&. fl r f:� r �J' • • w..- ; .l� '10 1246 1 , . : f` it` �� fl� I. •11I .-. -', •�i},.4/n," ____hf I I: f -1r-)--- 0} i r + \11 ! s % _mss:' ' . 0•, i' .�' 4 � I`y � 1 �� r' Ian I j�} ,j r'"_ _r.l •! < ;j• / •�P?Pas �Jf" =1+:� -• ` `i _, \ -; _. i:'':' •� •.•• • •7 /, r' '•1411 j' :`I' �`�: 'ti. +,•�.r o I PP focation� srea�i ���1 I!,'ffLLI" / ` 1'fry8r 5t:tio ;Y ce ACTION NO. 11391-1 a o ,: '• ; '`' ' • I f , 1 l _ Fayetteville Municipal Airport •+'` •IfT ,'te,;, !-' �-_. 0 'iQ�. - Airport Expansion - '� - `�� N Sec 4 & 9, T. 15 N., R• 30 W. February 29.2008 SHFFT 1 OF 4 a 'n'.•c 0. J }, -_ ,ry J �ri R f srl , a N Z t a J}.. ash s`x it • 'c f 1 : r . o i1 E• C Y3� y%� �i ,2 i 'I. "(.r"y' ,'. a} LL E ; F, I'a'rr• SS'. . - .- ..f `vy i-.. ���n �((yn��b,t-�`,�°�i - p 7.�"� `�`�o.ui-�� ray '3 4 ¢ �4 9 `• t yY Ft � f W 1 0 LI i I I I I I I Li Li I LI McCLELLAND 1810 N. College Avenue P.O. Box 1229 MCECONSULTING Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703 / 72702-1229 PHONE: 479-443-2377 ID f5 r� E moo s ,A v ENGINEERS, INC. FAX: 479-443.9241 MEMO RE: Fayetteville Executive Airport, Drake Field, Runway 16 Safety Area Improvements- Preliminary conversations with the Beaver District of the US Army Corps of Engineers February 3, 2009 Mike Morgan of MCE called and spoke with USACE Little Rock office (Mr. Johnny McLane). Johnny is currently acting as the point contact for three agencies (AHTD; FHWA; and USACE). The three offices formed the position of a single point contact within the USACE to enable the 404 process to be streamlined. Johnny indicated that since the project is not funded by any state or federal money he would most likely not be the person processing the application. The application would be processed by Deb Woodward (who assumed Kyle Clark's role in the Beaver District Offices). Johnny is sending via email a copy of the 404 application which we will need to fill out and return to the Little Rock office (even though Deb works in the Beaver District, the application will need to be routed through Little Rock). February 4, 2009 Mike Morgan and Julia Foreman of MCE called Deb Woodward to further discuss the permitting process. She indicated that stream earth moving disturbances of less than V2 acre qualify for general permit coverage. Anything larger than that will require individual permit coverage, which will also require a significant longer timeline to complete. February 18, 2009 Julia Foreman of MCE called Deb Woodward to give more detail about the project and get Ms. Woodward's advice on the best way to approach the 404 permitting of the project. Splitting the project into separate pieces was discussed and Ms. Woodward indicated that it may be possible to do that if the project sections are some distance apart. The possibility of applying for a Nationwide 14 permit for the stream realignment was also discussed. LI Aransas. THE NATURAL STATE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS & TOURISM 1 Capitol Moll Little Rack, AR 7220) I 501-682-7777 Arkansas.com History Commission 501-682-6900 (V[M Ark-lves.com Keep Arkansas Beautiful Division 501-682-3507 corn Personnel Section l -682-7742 (V/TT) State Parks Division 1.682.1191 (V/TT) ArkansosStateParks.corn Tourism Division 01-682-7777 (V/TT) I Mike Beebe GOVERNOR Richard W. Davies EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR STATE PARKS, RECREATION A TRAVEL COMMISSION Jay Bunyard CHAIRMAN Steve Artisan VICE-CHAIRMAN Bill Barnes Danny Ford Jim Gaston Dorm Gray Debra Honk Bob Knight Billy Lindsay Montine McNulty Mike Mills U Ness Sechrest Jim Shamburger Wade Williams IIVISION DIRECTORS Larry Cargile ADMINISTRATION Greg Butts STATE PARKS Joe David Rice TOURISM Nancy Clark GREAT RIVER ROAD Dr. Wendy Richter ISTORY COMMISSION Robert Phelps KEEP ARKANSAS BEAUTIFUL AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/ FIRMATIVE ACTION! AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT EMPLOYER April 7, 2008 Mr. Kelly J. Maddoux Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Cherry Street Building 1616 East Fifteenth Street Tulsa, Oklahoma 74120 RECEIVED APR 10 2008 Barnard Dunkelberg RE: Fayetteville Municipal Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements ORGP 8-50 Dear Mr. Maddoux: Thank you for this opportunity to comment regarding the proposed Runway Safety Area extension for the Fayetteville Municipal Airport/Drake Field. I concur with your analysis that parks in Fayetteville and Greenland will not be adversely impacted by this project. Based on the information you have provided, our records do not indicate a conflict with the proposed runway safety area improvements. If you have any questions or require additional assistance, please feel free to contact me at 501-682-6946. Sincerely, (p4J ecc Anita Chouinard, Environmental Planner Outdoor Recreation Grants Program Page I of I I 1 Kelly Maddoux From: Porta, Mike [PORTA@adeq.state.ar.us] Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 11:08 AM To: Kelly Maddoux Subject: FW: Fayetteville Airport Environmental Assesssment The Air Division of the ADEQ has no comments on the proposed Runway Safety Area improvements. 1 w -----Original Message ----- From: Kelly Maddoux [ma ilto:Kelly@bd-c.com] Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 10:40 AM To: Bates, Mike Subject: Fayetteville Airport Environmental Assesssment Dear Mr. Bates: Barnard Dunkelberg & Company sent to you a letter of invitation for a public information meeting held on February 4, 2008 (attached). The public information meeting was in regard to an Environmental Assessment for proposed Runway Safety Area improvements at Fayetteville Municipal Airport/Drake Field. Since we have not had a response from your agency at this time, we wish to provide to you the opportunity to respond via email before we move forward with the completion of the EA. Do you have any comments or concerns regarding the proposed Runway Safety Area improvements at the Airport? For your convenience, I am also attaching an illustration of the proposed improvements, which includes the approximate 2,500 linear feet of Highway 71 relocation, the relocation of Lancaster Drive, and the acquisition of 11.5 acres of additional property. Thank you for your response. Sincerely, Kelly Maddoux Barnard Dunkelberg & Company 1616 East 15th Street Tulsa, OK 74120 Office: 918/585-8844 Direct:918/586-7284 Fax:918/585-8857 Li I United States oepartjment of Agriculture 1 . N RCS Natural Resources Conservation Senrioe Room 3416, Federal Building 700 West Capitol Avenue tittle Rock, Aricansas 72201-3225 RECEIVED SEP 29 2008 Kelly Maddoux Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Barnard Dunkelberg 1 1616 East 15' Street Tulsa, Oklahoma 74120 Dear Mr. Maddox: IThis letter is in response to your request for comments regarding proposed improvements for the • Fayetteville Airport located in the cities of Fayetteville and Greenland Arkansas. The area does contain Prime Farmland. The area is within the City Limits of Greenland and Fayetteville. Enclosed are forms AD1006 and CPA106 and a map for your use Should you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at (501) 301-3172. Sincerely, l` EDG P. MERSIOVSKY Assistant State Soil Scientist Enclosures I I LI Helping People Help the Land An Equ.F Opportunity Provider and Employe I U.S. Department of Agriculture * FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING ART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request 9121/08 Name Of Project Fayetteville Airport Federal Agency Invoked Proposed Land Use Land Acquisition County And State Washington County, Arkansas PART II (To be completed by NRCS) Date Request Received By NRCS 9/25/08 Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No • (If no, the FPPA does not apply — do not complete additional parts of this form). m ❑ Acres Irrigated 1,175 Average Farm Size 131 acres Major Crop(s) Tall Fescue Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction Acres: 271,191 % Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA Acres: 203,783 Name Of Land Evaluation System Used SCS-LESA Name Of Local Site Assessment System Date Land Evaluation Returned By NRCS 9125/08 WART Ill (To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Site Rati Site A Site B Site C Site D A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 10.0 B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly C. Total Acres In Site 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland 10.0 • B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland O C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted O.001 D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value 37o ART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points) 56 0 0 0 ART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 858.5(b) Maximum Points 1. Area In Nonurban Use s 2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use 4 O 3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed 2-o 4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 2.o 5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area IS `i 6. Distance To Urban Support Services L S 7, Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average l b 8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland I, b o 9. Availability Of Farm Support Services $ 10. On -Farm Investments Zv 11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services [v 12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use O TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 0 4} v 0 0 0 ART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency) Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100 56 0 0 0 Total Site Assessment (From Part V1 above or a local site assessment) 160 0 D 0 0 0 TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260 58' q (, 0 0 0 ite Selected: Date Of Selection Was A Local Site Assessment Used? Yes 13 No fl "'Reason For Selection: I I e lnswucffons on reverse side) form was Nedmnically produced by National Production Services St& Form AD -1006 (10-83) U.B. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NRCS-CPA-106 Natural Resource,, Conservation Service (Rev. 1.91) 1 FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS I_____________________________________ _______________ 5. Reason For Selection: I Signature of erson Completing this Part DATE NOTE: Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternate Corridor PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) 3. Date of Land Evaluation Request 9121108 Sheet t of 1. Name of Project Fayetteville Airport 5. Federal Agency Involved 2. Type of Project Road Improvements 8. County and State Washington County, Arkansas PART II (To be completed by NRCS) 1. Date Request Received by NRCS 9125108 2. Person Completing Form Ed ar Merslovs 3. Does the corridor contain prime, unique statewide or local Important farmland? ❑ (If no. the FPPA does not apply - Do not complete additional parts of this form). YES NO 4. Acres irrigated Average Farm Size 1175 acres 131 acres 5. Major Crop(s) 18, Tall Fescue Farmable Land in Government Jurisdiction : 271,191 x 7. Amount of armland As Defined in FPPA Acres: 203,783 x 8. Name Of Land Evaluation System Used SCS-LESA 9. Name of Local Site Assessment System 10. Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS 9125108 PART Ill (To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Corridor For Segment Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor D A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 6 B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly, Or To Receive Services C. Total Acres In Corridor 6 0 0 PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland 6 B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land lumen lydbrrralkin ()ildariarr Relate value of Famrland to Be Serviced or Converted(Scale of 0.100 Points PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Corridor Assessment Criteria (These criteria am explained in 7 CFR 6585(c)) Maximum Points 1. Area in Nonurban Use 15 2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use 10 z 3. Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed 20 4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 20 5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 10 6. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 25 7. Availablility Of Farm Support Services 5 8. On -Farm investments 20 9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 25 10. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 10 TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 !}L 0 0 0 PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency) Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100 Total Corridor Assessment (From Part VI above or a local site assessment) 160 L 0 0 0 TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260 0 0 0 0 1. Corridor Selected: 2. Total Acres of armlands to be Converted by Project 3. Date Of Selection: 4. Was A Local Site Assessment Used? YES O NO ❑ 1 1 I. 1 1 1 1 A 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 Farmland Classification of Soils in the Area of the Fayetteville Airport - t V -Y •?' pr F It a. •. - t SC.. • I a • •1 IWibi\ _ _ f ... - 2s� Greenland : 1 1 , - 1 land Classification IIII7 Nat PO farmland AA amu arsP WO hmdand f ` Pms famdand if pn� s sd tom /oadar nM [nquemy loaded dump dts pit np esamn t l Plus fvmlsnd if *mined and ether prolawd tam lfoodng or not tuqu my loaded dump Vs pnMes1p wagon { } Famidend of ua 0wide inpartana _ _ ..� O25 0.125 0 0.25 0.5 075 1 IAifas 4=j MRCS + I I I IAppendix Four - Public Involvement I. Initial Coordination Meetings 1 Two coordination meetings were held on February 4, 2008 to aid in identifying significant issues and concerns that should be addressed during the environmental process, and to identify preliminary feasible alternatives. The meetings were advertised in the NorthwestArkansas Times on January 30 and February 3, 2008 (see proof of publication for the public scoping meeting on the following pages). Federal, state, and local agencies and elected officials were invited to attend the first meeting held at 2:00 1 pm in the Fayetteville Municipal Airport/Drake Field conference room. Approximately seven persons were in attendance (see Agency Coordination Meeting Sign -In sheet on I the following pages). Four attendees provided written comments (see Comment Sheets that follow). During the Agency Coordination Meeting, several questions were asked and comments received, and are summarized below. Question: What is the estimated schedule for projects? Answer: Complete the Environmental Assessment this year. Final design will occur next year, with bidding of the site work and drainage to begin next year also. Question: Corps of Engineers blocked drainage for Ward Slough, what will you do with it when rerouted around runway? • Answer: Ward Slough will require rerouting only when runway extended to the south. The runway extension is not a part of the proposed projects for this Environmental Assessment. Question: Are five lanes justified by traffic volumes now? I I Appendix Four.1 I I I Answer: Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department will require five lanes. Comment: City of Greenland sees the Airport as an asset and will do a master street plan, update codes, and other city plans for the attraction of business. Comment: Projects can enhance south part of Washington County and Fayetteville. 1 The public was invited to attend the second meeting, which was conducted at 6:00 pm and also held in the Airport conference room. Approximately 12 persons from the • public attended the meeting (see Public Coordination Meeting Sign -In sheet on the following pages). Two written comments were received (see Comment Sheets following). Several questions were asked during the Public Coordination Meeting, and are summarized below. Question: Has there been a timeline established for the projects? Answer: Yes, Environmental Assessment will take approximately 8-9 months. Bidding for be March April 2009. early part of construction will next or I Question: Will the Airport have to be closed during construction of the projects? Answer: No. Question: Any commercial service anticipated at the Airport? IAnswer: Not anytime soon, but the Airport continues to talk to the airlines. 'Question: How will the utilities on the west side of the highway be affected, since they are all the City of Greenland's utilities? Answer: Those utilities that need to be moved because of the highway realignment will move; those that do not need to be moved will not move. No disruption of service is anticipated. Question: Why not shift runway to the south? i I IAppendix Four.2 I u I I I 1 I I I I I I I Answer: The highway and roadway realignments are the cheapest alternative for providing the standard Runway Safety Area beyond Runway 16. Additionally, reducing the runway length is not a viable option since the existing runway length does not exceed the existing or projected aircraft performance needs and would lose functional utility of the runway. Question: What about the noise for people living nearby? Answer: A noise analysis, consisting of both aircraft and highway generated noise, will be conducted and presented in the Environmental Assessment. Question: How do the junked cars south of the Airport affect the environment? Answer: They do not affect the projects being evaluated in this Environmental Assessment. Question: How will the service station be affected? Answer: It is at the south end of the realignment. Some property will need to acquired for the highway realignment (approximately 0.3 acres), but it is not known at this time the full extent of the impact. Question: Does the City of Fayetteville currently own most of the property where the highway will be realigned? Answer: Yes. Question: Will the projects have any impact on the Kearney National or Standard Register buildings? Answer: Kearney National will not be affected in any way. The highway realignment will require the acquisition and use of a portion of the Standard Register property. The property is currently either vacant or consists of driveways and parking lots. Will not affect the building itself. Question: Does the height of the Kearney National building present a problem for the Airport and will any height restrictions be imposed? Answer: Easements purchased in the early 1990s currently impose height restriction to this property and others. 7 Appendix Four.3 L A I I L I I, I I J I I l I I I Question: Are the projects illustrated in the master plan on hold, such as the proposed hotel? Answer: No projects listed in the master plan are on hold; all are still considered viable including golf course, industrial development, and residential development. The goal is for the Airport to be as self-sustaining as possible, and all those projects will help enable the realization of that goal. Two concerns were included in the written documentation received after the Public Coordination Meeting, and are summarized below. Scurlock Concerns: Scurlock Industries have concerns regarding additional land for expansion and negative impacts to the business. Response: The Airport is confident that agreements can be reached that allow Scurlock Industries the ability to improve vehicular access to U.S. Highway 71 through the use of the relocated Lancaster Drive, as well as the long-term lease of property providing additional storage capabilities. Paschal Concerns: The Paschal's are concerned about their safety when the highway is relocated closer to their home. Response: It is the policy of AHTD to provide a "Clear Zone" as described in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Roadside Design Guide. The appropriate Clear Zone for U.S. Highway 71 can be accommodated within the proposed right-of-way for the relocated highway section. Public Hearing A notice of Public Hearing has been advertised in the I\TortblvestArkansas Times, a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Fayetteville and Washington County. The notice preceded the Public Hearing by at least 30 days. A proof of publication and hearing transcript, recorded by a court reporter, will be included in the final Environmental Assessment when the Public Hearing is conducted. The Draft Environmental Assessment and the Airport Layout Plan are available for public review in the Airport Manager's office at Fayetteville Executive Airport/Drake Field and the Fayetteville and Greenland Public Libraries. I Appendix Four.4 I I I I L L H I I Li I I Arkansas Democrat [OazetUe Northwest Arkansas Times Benton County Daily Record P. O. BOX 1607 FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72702 PHONE: 479-571-6415 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION RECEIVED FEB 062008 I, Karen Caler, do solemnly swear that I am the Legal Clerk of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette newspaper. Printed and published in Benton County Arkansas, (Lowell) and of bona fide circulation, that from my own personal knowledge and reference to the files of said publication, the advertisement of FAYETTEVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Notice of Public Meeting: North Runway Safety Area Was inserted in the Regular Editions on: January 30 and February 3, 2008 Publication Charge: $ 205.53 Subscribed and sworn to before me This A- day of (,j, , 2008. Notary Public W gam^::, CATHY J. WILES My Commission Expires: Z-{it1'4 r _ ^ �. • _ '��'`' ,•'9�K�h9?y� Benton County yCommissriy�onE�ires F111111 ty 21, 12014 **N0TE** Please do not pay from Affidavit. Invoice will be sent. H I '4 Fayetteville Municipal Airport/Drake Field .fl: Runway Safety Area Improvements Environmental Assessment Agency Coordination Meeting/February 4, 2008 ., , SZ/_ l __._- d in rv-1O '• ' -�Rox OJ3 /wo 917.�z . 5634 a Z J( __ II- __________________ _________ I____________________ _______________________ __________ I - I___________________ ___ - I____________ ___ I____________________ I____________________ _______________________ _________ ______________________ __________ Thank You Barnard Dunkelberg & Company McClelland Consulting Engineers Fayetteville Municipal Airport/Drake field Runway Safety Area Improvements 1 y Environmental Assessment Coordination Meeting/February 4, 2008 I_?1th1ht_ _________________________________________________________________ 1 C�tLLI`4 • 1 1- I I 1 Please Mail Kelly Maddoux Comments To: Barnard Dunkelberg & Company 1616 East 15th Street Tulsa, OK 74120 1 Thank You Barnard Dunkelberg & Company 1 McClelland Consulting Engineers Fayetteville Municipal Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements c' C f f I Environmental Assessment 1 h Coordination Meeting/February 4, 2008 Thank You Barnard Dunkelberg & Company McClelland Consulting Engineers Li I I I I I Li I I I I n I Li I I Fayetteville Municipal Airport/Drake Field rte, Runwa Safe Area Im rovements� i y Envi onmental Assessment `, ���� Coordination Meeting/February 4, 2008 Please Mail Kelly Maddaux Comments To: Barnard Dunkelberg & Company 1616 East 15th Street Tulsa, OK 74120 Thank You I' Barnard Dunkelberg & Company McClelland Consulting Engineers Fayetteville Municipal Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements r �,�_ Environmental Assessmenk ���� J '� /, Coordination Meeting/February 4, 2008 J Ir dl 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Please Mail Kelly Maddoux Comments To: Barnard Dunkelberg & Company 1616 East 15th Street Tulsa, OK 74120 Thank You l' Barnard Dunkelberg & Company McClelland Consulting Engineers I I I I I I Ll Li I I I I I 1 1 I I Fayetteville Municipal Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area Improvements ,'1 U ("' Environmental Assessment l � � Li Public Coordination Meeting/February 4, 2008 Thank You I, Barnard Dunkelberg & Company McClelland Consulting Engineers h1 Fayetteville Municipal Airport/Drake Fleld i--^�-, Runwa Safet Area Im rovements i Y Environmental Assessment ` �+� :;4 Coordination Meeting/February 4, 2008 Scvr lack Jpj q o4 c•a f e .. P.G. 8.x ►Q zce f4ti14 R 72 7o Z H74- S2 I- osa wf+t! _Li* -4j ® s`e'nd=gyps, Un-lsettalf of Scurtaek7Iiidust ies-of'FityetTev lli~; t rams ]blinsori and-1Vlatiliew` —� Scuilouk attended the coordination meeting discussing the ruiiway safety area —improvemtuts at the -Fayetteville -Municipal ebruary-4 2 . zer-attending-tlie-publi Although happy location-we-have-idcntitied situation. we arc with our prcscnt and tried --to•remedy-a-need for addit anal -land -for -several -years -now. -Due-to•several-tinfortumte ------ci ve-beennsussg , like -to -reiterate -that -the _need now is is-greater-than-itit has been in the past. Scurlock-Indusof-Fayettev4llas lays tn-be a than-wiUig to work with anyone to --accomplish.aur muiiml goals_ Qn-the-other hand we.do.not_seehow_wc.ca.acontinue-to- — _._- _opete withany obstmctions_on our_currentproperty.. thout.the-opportilnit to acquire_ additional adjacent real estate (long term leases would also b is not). We are confident that compromises can be reached, we arc willing to consider any options that may be presented to us, but wanted to comment that we are not willing to allow our business to be negatively impacted. As long as we can maintain uninterrupted access to a continuous piece of property at least as large as the currentplot,_ be willing to work with the City, and any ther potential organizations thwould like a like access to or througji our land, but without this at a minimum, we may be forced to consider other opttiions. 2TT RECEIVED FEB -7 20 Please Mail Kelly Maddoux Comments TO: Barnard Dunkelberg & Company 1616 East 15th Street Sarnal"d Dunkelberg Tulsa, OK 74120 Thank You Barnard Dunkelberg & Company McClelland Consulting Engineers Fayetteville Municipal Airport/Drake Field 1 flr� Runway Safety Area Improvements i �R_ Environmental Assessment ��--� Coordination Meeting/February 4, 2008 I 1 . ` fit^_._. I 1 " wh iZ i -__ .. . —,c,r _______ d h'4I d/i:' . pii- I - 1 I I RECEIVED FEB 13 2008 Please Mail Kelly Maddoux Comments To: Barnard Dunkelberg & Company 1616 East 15th Street B�lrnatd Dunksfiblx�p Tulsa, OK 74120 1 Thank You Barnard Dunkelberg & Company 1 McClelland Consulting Engineers ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS POLICY OF REASONABLENESS AND FEASIBILITY FOR TYPE I - NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES INTRODUCTION: The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) is committed to I incorporate all reasonable and feasible mitigation measures into projects to minimize noise impacts and enhance the surrounding noise environment. This commitment to minimize noise impacts and enhance the noise environment must be fulfilled through prudent application of Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) noise regulations; 23 CFR Part 772. These FHWA regulations require that before adoption of a final environmental impact statement or finding of no significant impact, the AHTD shall 1 identify noise abatement measures which are reasonable and feasible and which are likely to be incorporated into the project when noise impacts are identified. Also, AHTD will identify noise impacts for which no apparent solution is available. The basis for any I noise abatement decisions will be provided to local officials for future planning. The purpose of this policy statement is to establish criteria that identify what is feasible and reasonable in the decision to construct or provide noise abatement measures adjacent to proposed transportation facilities. FEASIBILITY: Feasibility involves engineering considerations; that is, "Can a substantial noise 9 9 reduction be achieved given the conditions of a specific location." Is the ability to achieve noise reduction limited by: ' 1. Topography 2. Access requirements for driveways, ramps, etc. 3. Presence of local streets 4. Other noise sources in the area All these considerations affect the ability of noise abatement measures to achieve an actual noise reduction. It is the policy of the AHTD that construction of a noise abatement measure is not feasible if substantial noise reduction of at least 10 dBA Leq (h) cannot be achieved for at least one residence. I REASONABLENESS Reasonableness is a more subjective criterion than feasibility. It implies that common sense and good judgment have been applied in arriving at a decision. Reasonableness is based on a number of factors with regard to all of the individual, specific circumstances of a particular project. IIt is the policy of the AHTD that the final determination of reasonableness will be made only after a careful and thorough consideration of a wide range of criteria. However, no 9/25/2007 1 I I I I I AHTD Noise Policy Page 2 of 4 noise abatement measures (such as a noise barrier or berm) will be provided if most of the impacted residents do not want them. CRITERIA FOR REASONABLENESS: The following criteria will normally be used to determine the reasonableness of a noise abatement measure. (NOTE: Yes means construction of a noise abatement measure is reasonable; No means construction of a noise abatement measure is not reasonable; High and Low indicate differences in relative importance.) 1. The cost of the noise abatement measure is no more than $27,000/residence benefited.* Less than $27,000/Residence _ High Yes $27,000 - $36,000/Residence Low Yes $36,001 — $45,000/Residence = Low No Greater than $45,000/Residence = High No Benefited is defined as a minimum decrease in noise levels of 5 dBA Leq (h). 1 2. "Most" impacted residents benefited want a noise abatement measure. Greater than 80 Percent = High Yes 50 to 80 Percent _ Low Yes I 40 to 49 Percent Low No Less than 40 Percent = High No "most" 3. The housing development predated initial highway construction — impacted homes benefited were built before initial construction of the highway. Greater than 80 Percent = High Yes 50 to 80 Percent = Low Yes 30 to 49 Percent Low No '• Less than 30 Percent _ High No I 4. The housing and/or sensitive development has been in place for at least ten years — "most" impacted homes/development benefited have existed for at least ten years. Greater than 80 Percent = High Yes 50 to 80 Percent = Low Yes 1 30 to 49 Percent Low No Less than 30 Percent _ High No 1 5. The future build noise levels would approach* or exceed 67 dBA Leq (h) established as FHWA's Noise Abatement Criteria (NAG) for Activity Category "B" (includes picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motel, hotel, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals). 1 9/25/2007 1 fl I I I I I I I t I I I I I 1 I AHTD Noise Policy Page 3 of 4 Greater than 72dBA Leq (h) = High Yes 66 to 72 dBA Leq (h) = Low Yes 62 to 65 dBA Leq (h) = Low No Less than 62 dBA Leq (h) = High No The future build noise levels would approach* or exceed 57 dBA Leq (h) established as FHWA's Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) for Activity Category "A" (includes lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose.) Greater than 62dBA Leq (h) - High Yes 56 to 62 dBA Leq (h) = Low Yes 52 to 55 dBA Leq (h) = Low No Less than 52 dBA Leq (h) = High No The future build noise levels would approach* or exceed 72 dBA Leq (h) established as FHWA's Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) for Activity Category "C" (includes developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories "A" or "B.") Greater than 78 dBA Leq (h) = High Yes 71 to 78 dBA Leq (h) = Low Yes 68 to 70 dBA Leq (h) = Low No Less than 68 dBA Leq (h) = High No * "Approach" is defined as 1 dBA Leq (h) less than the FHWA's Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC). 6. The future build noise levels are at least 10 dBA Leq (h) greater (substantially exceed) than the existing noise levels. Greater than 15 dBA Leq (h) = High Yes 10 to15dBALeq(h) = Low Yes 5 to 9 dBA Leq (h) = Low No Less than 5 dBA Leq (h) - High No 7. The future build noise levels are at least 7 dBA Leq (h) greater than the future no - build noise levels. Greater than 10 dBA Leq (h) = High Yes 7 to 10 dBA Leq (h) = Low Yes 4 to 6 dBA Leq (h) = Low No Less than 4 dBA Leq (h) = High No I 9/25/2007 ' AHTD Noise Policy Page 4 of 4 Now that criteria for reasonableness and feasibility have been established, the following 9 1 checklist can be used: 1 I I ____________________________ ___ ___ ___ ___ I_______________________________ ___ ___ ___ ___ I_______________________________ ___ ___ ___ ___ _______________________________ ___ ___ ___ ___ I_______________________________ ___ ___ ___ ___ I_____________________________ ___ ___ ___ ___ I_____________________________ ______ ______ I_______________________________ _______ _______ 1 REASONS FOR DECISION: __________ 1 I I 1 9/25/2007 NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURE WORKSHEET FEASIBILITY Yes No Can a 10 dBA Leq (h) noise reduction be achieved? REASONABLENESS Reasonableness Factors Yes No High Low Low High Cost/Residence Resident's Desires Development vs. Highway Timing Development Existence Build Level 57 dBA Leq (h) for NAC Category "A" Build Level 67 dBA Leq (h) for NAG Category "B" Build Level 72 dBA Leq (h) for NAC Category "C" Build Level 10 dBA Leq (h) Greater Than Existing Build Level 7 dBA Leq (h) Greater Than No -Build Additional Considerations DECISION Yes No Are noise abatement measures feasible? Are noise abatement measures reasonable? Will a noise barrier be constructed at this site? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I, 1 1 1 1 1 I. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration July 23, 2007 Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Region, Airports Division Aricansas/Oldahoma Airports Development Office Mr. Ray Boudre ; Director Aviation and �.6onomic Development 4500 South 6hool Road, Suite F Fayettevil , AR 72701 Dear Mr. Boudreaux: Subject: Runway Safety Area Determination Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0630 Enclosed is a signed copy of the recently approved Runway Safety Area Determination for Fayetteville Municipal Airport (Drake Field). Your assistance in providing supporting detailed documentation is greatly appreciated. It is recommended that this document be filed with the recently completed Airport Master Plan Update. Sincerely, Donald C. Harris Sr. Program Manager Arkansas/Oklahoma Airports Development Office Enclosure RECEIVED AUG 1.) 2007 Barnard ®unkei'g JUL 27200/ RUNWAY SAFETY AREA DETERMINATION .��� Runway 16134 Fayetteville Municipal Airport, Drake Field Fayetteville, Arkansas I BACKGROUND: Fayetteville Municipal Airport (Drake Field) is a Part 139 Class IV general aviation airport located on the south side of Fayetteville, Arkansas. Until 1999 the facility served the Northwest Arkansas region as the only commercial service airport. The Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport opened 25 NM north of Fayetteville and now serves the commercial service needs of the region. Drake Field Airport Reference Code is C -II requiring standard Runway Safety Area dimensions of 500 feet wide by 1000 feet long. Fayetteville maintains its Part 139 Certification In order to serve frequent aircraft charter flights. Runway 16134 ₹s the only runway at the airport and is 6006 feet long and 100 feet wide. Declared distances as published in the Airport Facilities Directory are: TORA TODA ASDA LDA RWY 16 6006' 6006' 6006' 6006' RWY 34 6006' 6006' 6006' 6006' Runway 34: The RSA at the Runway 34 approach end complies with ARC C-ll standards, Runway 16: Runway 16 approach end RSA does not comply with ARC C -I1 standards. US Highway 71 converges with the extended runway centerline at the north end impacting the RSA on the west. Runway 16 safety area length is 902 feet on the runway centerline and 325 feet wide at the north end where it narrows due to the convergence of HWY 71 and Earnest Lancaster Rd., the I, airport service road. The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) 1999 Runway Safety Area Determination indicated that the non-standard RWY 16 RSA was acceptable since no extension of the runway had occurred since the December 31, 1987 date listed in Part 139, which required RSA standards to be maintained. The 1999 determination also found that there were no plans to extend Runway 16/34 at Drake Field as the current runway length was sufficient to accommodate existing and future aircraft fleet mixes' Aircraft operations forecasts and fleet mixes have changed since the 1999 determination which warranted an update to the Airport Master Plan. The FAA accepted the Master Plan in December 2006. Basis of Determination: The Master Plan Update evaluated five alternatives to achieve a standard RSA for the Runway 16 approach end: Alternative No. 1: Displace the Runway 16 threshold south 800 feet. The estimated cost to implement this alternative Is $ 800,000, but would Impose an unacceptable reduction in landing distance available (LDA) to both runways and the Available Stop Distance (ASD) to Runway 34. Alternative No. 2: Relocation of the entire runway 800 feet to the south would eliminate the non-standard RSA and would maintain the current effective runway length for all but the Landing I Distance Available (LDA) to Runway 34. While this would achieve Runway 16 RSA standards compliance, the estimated cost is $16,800,000. Alternative No. 3: Extend the runway 1000 feet to the south, displace the Runway 16 threshold south 800 feet, and use declared distance to eliminate the Runway 16 RSA non-standard condition. This alternative would improve TODA and TORA by 1000 feet in both directions, increase ASDA for Runway 16 by 1000 feet and for Runway 34 by 200 feet, Improve LDA for Runway 16 by 200 feet, ' but reduce LDA for Runway 34 by 800 feet. Runway 16 RSA is In full compliance. The estimated cost would be $20,000,000.00. 1 I. JUL 2 7 2007 2. Alternative #4: Install EMAS in the Runway 16 RSA and extend the runway south 1000 feet. This option resolves the non-standard condition of the Runway 16 RSA, but requires that the Runway 16 threshold be displaced south 400 feet as required by AC 15015220-22A to achieve the 600 feet of . I standard width RSA to provide for adequate undershoot protection prior to the landing threshold. There is currently only 200 feet of standard width RSA for Runway 16. This option improves TORA, TODA, and ASDA for both runways by 1000 feet and LDA by 600 feet for Runway 16. LDA for Runway 34 remains unchanged. Runway 16 RSA would be in full compliance. The estimated cost I would be $27,300,000.00. Alternative #5: Relocate Highway 71 to the west and enable the Runway 16 RSA to be in full I compliance. This option eliminates deficiencies associated with previous alternatives. The estimated cost would be $3,700,000.00. Alternatives Analysis: Any alternative that imposes departure or arrival performance penalties must carefully weighed. Thus alternatives #1, #2 and #3 are unacceptable for operational purposes. Both alternatives #4 and #5 will provide a Runway 16 RSA that complies with design criteria. When considering only the I RSA improvement, independent of long-term overall development objectives, the cost of either Alternative #4 or #5 is similar, but favors the Highway 71 realignment option. EMAS would cost approximately $4.5 million dollars, but additional runway length (400 feet at approximately $.4.0 length I million) must be added to the south end concurrently in order to maintain the existing runway and to avoid departure and landing penalties. If additional runway length were added to the South end to keep current runway length, EMAS would still be required as the RW34 safety area would then be 400 feet short of standard, increasing cost by another $5.8M. Alternative #5 would cost I, approximately $3.7 million and will improve the Runway 16 RSA and retain current runway length without Incurring departure or arrival penalties. IDetermination: This determination Is made based upon the criteria set forth In FAA Order 5200.8, "Runway Safety Area Program", paragraph 8.b.2. Based on the preceding analysis, 1 have determined that improving the Runway 16 RSA is reasonable and consistent with safety to alleviate the current RSA deficiency. I have further determined that Alternative #5 is the preferred action by realigning Highway 71 and . airport access road to bring the RSA into full regulatory compliance. This action reflects the updated fAirport Master Plan. This determination is subject to revision upon receipt of relevant supplemental information. /9O7 Edward N. Agnew Date Manager, Arkansas/Oklahoma Airports Development Office //elvin Solco Date Manager, Airports Division References: 1 Fayetteville Municipal Airport Master Plan Update, December 2006 I I Traffic Noise Analysis For: HIGHWAY 71B I (SCHOOL AVENUE) RELOCATION City of Fayetteville I I Prepared For: BARNARD DUNKELBERG & COMPANY 1616 East Fifteenth Street Tulsa, OK 74120 Submitted By: MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Fred Greve, P.E. Matthew B. Jones, P.E. 27812 El Lazo Road I Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 949.349.0671 Fax 949.349.0679 I October 27, 2008 Report#08- 160 I I ri 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I Mestre Greve Associates Highway 71 B Relocation Page i Executive Summary This report examines the potential noise impacts associated with the proposed relocation of Highway 71 B (School Avenue) from approximately Short Street to approximately 600 feet south of West Willoughby Road. Approximately 1,800 linear feat of the highway will be relocated to the west of the existing alignment as a bend in the road. The purpose of the project is to move the road outside the Fayetteville Municipal Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area. The lands uses directly adjacent to the existing alignment of Highway 71B are primarily commercial. The only outdoor uses associated with these commercial uses are parking lots and similar uses that are not considered outdoor areas of frequent human use or noise sensitive. Residential uses in the vicinity of the project include the homes along North Lola Lane, homes along Short Street west of the railroad tracks, and homes along West Bailey Drive. The majority of the homes along West Bailey Drive are west of the railroad tracks. However, there is one home located just to the east of the railroad tracks south of West Bailey Drive. This home will be the closest residence to the realigned road. Currently this residence is located approximately 430 feet from Highway 71 B. The relocated road will be located approximately 50 feet from the residence. Existing and Future noise levels were modeled at the receptors using the FHWA Traffic Noise Model® (TNM®). Receptors are impacted if the traffic noise levels with the project approach or exceed the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) as defined by FHWA and the AHTD or are projected to experience a substantial noise increase of 10 dB or greater with the project over existing conditions. It was found that no receptor would experience noise levels that approach or exceed the applicable NAC. The term "approach" is considered to be one dBA less than the NAC. It was found that one receptor, the home that will be closest to the realigned road, will experience a substantial noise increase. Traffic noise levels are projected to increase by 13 dB at this receptor. Any noise abatement efforts using barrier walls or berms are not warranted for this project. Based upon AHTD's "Policy of Reasonableness and Feasibility for Type 1 -Noise Abatement Measures," noise abatement barrier walls and/or berms are not warranted due to the fact that only one sensitive receptor is projected to be impacted and the prohibitive cost to provide abatement for a single receptor. To avoid noise levels in excess of design levels, any future receptors along the project location should be located a minimum of 90 feet from the proposed centerline of Highway 71B. This distance should be used as a general guide and not as a specific rule, since the noise will vary depending upon specific conditions. Any excessive noise due to construction operations should be of short duration and will have a minimum adverse effect on land uses or activities in the project area. Noise generating construction activities within 1,000 feet of residential uses should be restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and at no time on Sundays or National Holidays. 7 H II: I I I I I I I J I I 7 1 I I I Mestre Greve Associates Highway 71 B Relocation Page ii Table of Contents Executive Su mmary.................................................................................... Tableof Contents....................................................................................... Listof Tables............................................................................................. List of Exhibits.......................................................................................... iii 1.0 ! Existing Setting...................................................................................1 ! 1.1 !Project Description.......................................................................................... 1 ! 1.2!Existing Land Uses.........................................................................................1 ! 1.3 !Background Information on Noise................................................................... 1 ! 1.3.1 ! Noise Criteria Background.......................................................................... 1 ! 1.3.2 ! Noise Assessment Metrics.......................................................................... 5 ! 1.3.3 ! FHWA/AHTD Noise Criteria........................................................................ 7 ! 1.4 !Existing Noise Environment............................................................................ 8 ! 2.0 !Potential Noise Impacts...................................................................... 9 ! 2.1 !Short -Term Construction Noise.......................................................................9! 2.2 !Long- Term Traffic Noise Impacts.................................................................. 11 ! 2.2.1 ! Future No Project Scenario....................................................................... 12 ! 2.2.2 ! Future With Project Scenario.................................................................... 13 3.0 !Noise Abatement Measures.............................................................16 ! 3.1! Short- Term Impacts...................................................................................... 16! 3.2 !Long —Term Traffic Noise Impacts.................................................................16 ! APPENDIX.................................................................................................18 ! References.......................................................................................................... 19 ! Traffic Data Used For Noise Modeling................................................................20! FHWA Traffic Noise Model Input and Output Tables .......................................... 21 ! 1 Mestre Greve Associates E L F I I I List of Tables Highway 71 B Relocation Page ill Table 1! FHWA/AHTD Noise Abatement Criteria...........................................................8 Table 2! Modeled Existing Noise Levels (dBA)...............................................................8 ! Table 3! Peak Construction Noise Levels.......................................................................9 ! Table 4! Future No Project Noise Levels......................................................................12 ! Table 5! Distance To Future (2028) Peak Hour Leq (H) dBA Noise Contours..............13 ! Table 6! Noise Modeling Results..................................................................................15 ! Table A-1 Traffic Data Used for Noise Modeling............................................................20! 1 List of Exhibits Exhibit 1! Project Area and Analysis Receptors 2! Exhibit 2! Typical A -Weighted Sound Levels 3! Exhibit 3! Typical Outdoor Noise Levels 6! Exhibit 4! Construction Equipment Noise Levels 10! Exhibit 5! Future (2028) Peak Hour Noise Contours 14! Ti I LJ� I I Li I Mestre Greve Associates Highway 71 B Relocation M Page 1 1.0 Existing Setting 1 1.1 Project Description This report examines the potential noise impacts associated with the proposed relocation of Highway 71 B (School Avenue) from approximately Short Street to approximately 600 feet south of West Willoughby Road. An aerial photo of the project area with the relocation shown is presented in Exhibit 1. Approximately 1,800 linear feat of the highway will be relocated to the west of the existing alignment as a bend in the road. The purpose of the project is to move the road outside the Fayetteville Municipal Airport/Drake Field Runway Safety Area. I1.2 Existing Land Uses I 17 L I I i I Li I 7 I I The lands uses directly adjacent to the existing alignment of Highway 71B are primarily commercial. The only outdoor uses associated with these commercial uses are parking lots and similar uses that are not considered outdoor areas of frequent human use or noise sensitive. Residential uses in the vicinity of the project include the homes along North Lola Lane, homes along Short Street west of the railroad tracks, and homes along West Bailey Drive. The majority of the homes along West Bailey Drive are west of the railroad tracks. However, there is one home located just to the east of the railroad tracks south of West Bailey Drive. This home will be the closest residence to the realigned road. Currently this residence is located approximately 430 feet from Highway 71 B. The relocated road will be located approximately 50 feet from the residence. Exhibit 1 shows the location of six receptors that represent the nearest outdoor living area of frequent human use for the nearest residences to the project where the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) and FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria are applicable. 1.3 Background Information on Noise 1.3.1 Noise Criteria Background Sound is technically described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) of the sound and frequency (pitch) of the sound. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the Decibel (dB). Decibels are based on the logarithmic scale. The logarithmic scale compresses the wide range in sound pressure levels to a more usable range of numbers in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquakes. In terms of human response to noise, a sound 10 dB higher than another is judged to be twice as loud; and 20 dB higher four times as loud; and so forth. Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dB (very quiet) to 100 dB (very loud). Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency - dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A -weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Community noise levels are measured in terms of the "A -weighted decibel," abbreviated dBA. Exhibit 2 provides examples of various noises and their typical A -weighted noise level. J I A 1 I I 1 SOUND LEVELS AND LOUDNESS OF ILLUSTRATIVE NOISES IN INDOOR AND OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTS Numbers in Parentheses are the A -Scale Weighted Sound levelst for that Noise Event 1 1 It sound lure Lewd Rtfeence 0.0002 Mk cbes -Aircraft tdaeof noise measured 6.500 molars from begium ng of takeoff roll I SOURCES: League for the Hord of Hewing, www. B1h.wg Handbook of Noise Confroli Edited by Cyril Harris, 1979 Noise And Vibration Control, Leo L Beranek, 1971 Aircraft Levels From FAA Advisory Circular AC -36-3G Measurements by Mestre Greve Assodales Exhibiji12Mestre Greve Associates Typical A -Weighted Noise Lev LOUDNESS d t �� OV R -ALL LEVEL COMMUNITY HOME OR INDUSTRY Human.ludgemerd of CHARACTERIZATION Oiito ont sound Levels 1 0 Military Jet waft Take -Off With After Oxygen lords 1121) 120 d13W Tinter Tas Loud Burner From Almon carrier @50 Ft. (130) 120 UNCOMFORTABLY Ambulance Siren (120) Riveting Machine (110) LOUD Concord Takeoff 0)3►• Baby Crying on Shoulder (110) 110 dB(A) 16 Ames as Loud 110 Leaf Blower (110) Rodo-N-Roll Band (108-1141 too Boeing 747-200 Takeoff (1D1)• 100 d8W 8 Times as Loud Power Mower (96) 90 VERY LOUD DC -10-30 TaloeoR (96)' Press � Newspaper PI 90 dBW 4 Tines as Loud 51nDurted Conversation 1901 Motorcycle 025 Ft. (90) car wash @ 20 Ft. (89) Food 81e:,dw (88) $0 Booing 727 w/ Hushldt Takeoff (96)- Mite g Machine (65) 80 dB(A)2 limos as Loud Diesel Truk 40 MPH 50 Ft. 184) Garbage Disposal (80) Diesel Train, 45 MPH 0100 Ft. (83) MODEIIATELy Passenger Car, 65 MPH 0 25 Ft. (77) L(ving Room Music or TV (70-75) 70 LOUD Freeway ® 50 Ff. From Edge (70-82) 70 d111A) Boeing 757 Takeoff (76)' Vacuum Cleaner f65 851 Propeller Airplane Takeoff (671• Sewing Machine (60) 60 Air Conditioning Unit 0100 Ft. (60) Dishwasher (55-70) 60 dB(A) 1/2 as Loud Normal Conversation (60-651 50 QUIET Large Transformers @ 100 Ft. (50) Rafridgarara (50) 50 d61n11/4 as Loud Gird Calls (44) 40 Quiet Residential Area (40) 40 d8{AI 1/8 as Loud 30 JUST AUDIBLE Desert at fag a15 fear (20) 20 Rustlof Leaves (20) 10 THRESHOLD OF HEARING I I LI I LI Mestre Greve Associates Highway 71 B Relocation Page 4 Sound levels decrease as a function of distance from the source as a result of wave divergence, atmospheric absorption, and ground attenuation. As the sound wave form travels away from the source, the sound energy is dispersed over a greater area, thereby dispersing the sound power of the wave. Atmospheric absorption also influences the levels that are received by the observer. The greater the distance traveled, the greater the influence and the resultant fluctuations. The degree of absorption is a function of the frequency of the sound as well as the humidity and temperature of the air. Turbulence and gradients of wind, temperature and humidity also play a significant role in determining the degree of attenuation. Intervening topography can also have a substantial effect on the effective perceived noise levels. Noise has been defined as unwanted sound and it is known to have several adverse effects on people. From these known effects of noise, criteria have been established to help protect the public health and safety and prevent disruption of certain human activities. This criteria is based Ion such known impacts of noise on people as hearing loss, speech interference, sleep interference, physiological responses and annoyance. Each of these potential noise impacts on people are briefly discussed in the following narratives: 1 I L I I I I I HEARING LOSS is not a concern in community noise situations of this type. The potential for noise induced hearing loss is more commonly associated with occupational noise exposures in heavy industry or very noisy work environments. Noise levels in neighborhoods, even in very noisy airport environs, are not sufficiently loud to cause hearing loss. SPEECH INTERFERENCE is one of the primary concerns in environmental noise problems. Normal conversational speech is in the range of 60 to 65 dBA and any noise in this range or louder may interfere with speech. There are specific methods of describing speech interference as a function of distance between speaker and listener and voice level. SLEEP INTERFERENCE is a major noise concern for traffic noise. Sleep disturbance studies have identified interior noise levels that have the potential to cause sleep disturbance. Note that sleep disturbance does not necessarily mean awakening from sleep, but can refer to altering the pattern and stages of sleep. PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES are those measurable effects of noise on people that are realized as changes in pulse rate, blood pressure, etc. While such effects can be induced and observed, the extent is not known to which these physiological responses cause harm or are sign of harm. ANNOYANCE is the most difficult of all noise responses to describe. Annoyance is a very individual characteristic and can vary widely from person to person. What one person considers tolerable can be quite unbearable to another of equal hearing capability. I I LI I I I I I I I I 1 L I I I I I I Mestre Greve Associates Highway 718 Relocation Page 5 1.3.2 Noise Assessment Metrics The description, analysis and reporting of community noise levels around communities is made difficult by the complexity of human response to noise and the myriad of noise metrics that have been developed for describing noise impacts. Each of these metrics attempts to quantify noise levels with respect to community response. Most of the metrics use the A -Weighted noise level to quantify noise impacts on humans. A -Weighting is a frequency weighting that accounts for human sensitivity to different frequencies. Noise metrics can be divided into two categories: single event and cumulative. Single -event metrics describe the noise levels from an individual event such as an aircraft fly over or perhaps a heavy equipment pass -by. Cumulative metrics average the total noise over a specific time period, which is typically I or 24 -hours for community noise problems. For this type of analysis, cumulative noise metrics will be used. Several rating scales have been developed for measurement of community noise. These account for: (1) the parameters of noise that have been shown to contribute to the effects of noise on man, (2) the variety of noises found in the environment, (3) the variations in noise levels that occur as a person moves through the environment, and (4) the variations associated with the time of day. They are designed to account for the known health effects of noise on people described previously. Based on these effects, the observation has been made that the potential for a noise to impact people is dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise. A number of noise scales have been developed to account for this observation. Two of the predominate noise scales are the: Equivalent Noise Level (LEQ) and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). These scales are described in the following paragraphs. LEQ is the sound level corresponding to a steady-state sound level containing the same total energy as a time -varying signal over a given sample period. LEQ is the "energy" average noise level during the time period of the sample. LEQ can be measured for any time period, but is typically measured for 1 hour. This 1 -hour noise level can also be referred to as the Hourly Noise Level (HNL). It is the energy sum of all the events and background noise levels that occur during that time period. CNEL, Community Noise Equivalent Level, is the predominant rating scale now in use in California for land use compatibility assessment. The CNEL scale represents a time weighted 24 -hour average noise level based on the A -weighted decibel. Time weighted refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occurring at these times. The evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) penalizes noises by 5 dBA, while nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) noises are penalized by 10 dBA. These time periods and penalties were selected to reflect people's increased sensitivity to noise during these time periods. A CNEL noise level may be reported as a "CNEL of 60 dBA," "60 dBA CNEL," or simply "60 CNEL." Typical noise levels in terms of the CNEL scale for different types of communities are presented in Exhibit 3. 1 I I I I I I I I I I Lii I I I I I Li CNEL Outdoor Location -90— Apartment Next to Freeway 3/4 Mile From Touchdown at Major Airport —80 Downtown With Some Construction Activity Urban High Density Apartment —70— Urban Row Housing on Major Avenue —60— Old Urban Residential Area _S0_ Wooded Residential Agricultural Crop Land —40 Rural Residential Wilderness Ambient —30- 115. En*onmental Protection Agency, impact Charadedzafan of Noise Induding lmplicadons of Ideolfylns and AdrievIn Levels of Cumulolive Noise Exre,EPA Report MID 73.4,1973. Exhibit 3 1 Mestre Grove Associates Typical Outdoor Noise Levels IMestre Greve Associates I I I I it I I I I I I I Highway 71 B Relocation Page 7 Ldn, the day -night scale is similar to the CNEL scale except that evening noises are not penalized. It is a measure of the overall noise experienced during an entire day. The time - weighted refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occurring at these times. In the Ldn scale, those noise levels that occur during the night (10 pm to 7 am) are penalized by 10 dB. This penalty was selected to attempt to account for increased human sensitivity to noise during the quieter period of a day, where home and sleep is the most probable activity. L(%) is a statistical method of describing noise which accounts for variance in noise levels throughout a given measurement period. L(%) is a way of expressing the noise level exceeded for a percentage of time in a given measurement period. For example since 5 minutes is 25% of 20 minutes, L(25) is the noise level that is equal to or exceeded for five minutes in a twenty -minute measurement period. It is L(%) that is used for most noise ordinance standards. For example most daytime city, state and county noise ordinances use an ordinance standard of 55 dBA for 30 minutes per hour or an L(50) level of 55 dBA. In other words, the noise ordinance states that no noise level should exceed 55 dBA for more that fifty percent of a given period. 1.3.3 FHWA/AHTD Noise Criteria The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has adopted and published noise abatement criteria for highway construction projects. The requirement of the use of the FHWA TNM became effective on May 2, 2005. The standards are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations 23 CFR 772.17(a). 23 CFR, Part 772.17(a) states that any analysis required by this Traffic Noise Prediction must use the FHWA Traffic Noise Model (FHWA TNM), and is described in "FHWA Traffic Noise Model" Report No. FHWA-PD-9b-010. "NOISE STANDARDS. The highway traffic noise prediction requirements, noise analyses, noise abatement criteria, and requirements for informing local officials in this directive constitute the noise standards mandated by 23 U.S.C. 109(i). All highway projects which are developed in conformance with this directive shall be deemed to be in conformance with this directive shall be deemed to be in conformance with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) noise standards" The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) have adopted the noise 1 abatement criteria specified by the FHWA. The Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) is presented here in Table 1. Noise abatement criteria apply to various land uses as indicated in the table. For interior areas, the criteria assume that typical wood frame homes provide 10 dBA noise reduction (outdoor to indoor) with windows open and 20 dBA reduction with windows closed. Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted future project noise levels approach or exceed the NAC. Approaching the NAC is considered as a noise level within I dB of the NAC. Even if the predicted noise level does not approach or exceed the NAC, traffic noise impacts can occur when the noise levels substantially exceed the existing noise levels. A substantial increase is considered to be a 10 dBA increase in the peak hour Leq noise level. Noise abatement measures must be considered when traffic noise impacts have been identified. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r L I I Mestre Greve Associates Highway 71 B Relocation Page 8 Table 1 FHWA/AHTD Noise Abatement Criteria NAC, Hourly Activity A -Weighted Description of Activities Category Noise Level, dBA Leg(h) Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the A 57 Exterior preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue _ to serve its intended purpose. Picnic Areas, recreation areas, playgrounds active sports areas, B 67 Exterior parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals C 72 Exterior Developed lands, properties or activities not included in Categories A or B above. D -- Undeveloped lands iResidences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, E 52 Interior churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums. Source: Code of Federal Regulation. Title 23 Part 722. Revised August 1982. All of the noise sensitive uses in the vicinity of this project are residential and are considered Activity Category B. These uses will be considered impacted by traffic noise if the future with project noise level exceeds 66 dBA Leq(H) or if the future with project noise level is projected to increase by 10 dBA or more. 1.4 Existing Noise Environment Determination of the existing noise levels at potentially impacted receptors is important because it is used in the assessment of impacts with the substantial increase criteria. Existing traffic noise levels from Highway 71B were modeled using the FHWA Traffic Noise Model® (TNM®) at the six receptors shown in Exhibit 1. The traffic data used in the modeling is presented in the appendix. The results of the modeling are presented in Table 2. Table 2 Modeled Existing Noise Levels (dBA) Existing Receptor Leq(h) 1 49 2 46 3 41 4 44 5 49 6 40 Table 2 shows that existing noise levels are well below the 67 dBA Leq(H) Activity Category C Noise Abatement Criteria at the noise sensitive receptors in the project area. I I I I 1 2.1 Short -Term Construction Noise Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable generators can reach high levels. For the proposed project, the highest noise generating activities ' will include clearing and grading of the roadway. Worst -case examples of construction noise at 50 feet are presented in Exhibit 4. The peak noise level for most of the equipment that will be used during the construction is 70 to 95 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. At 150 feet, the peak construction noise levels range from 61 to 86 dBA. Note that these noise levels are based upon worst -case conditions. Measurements of construction equipment performed by Mestre Greve Associates show that peak noise levels rarely exceed the middle of the range indicated in Exhibit 4. Mestre Greve Associates 2.0 Potential Noise Impacts Highway 71B Relocation Page 9 Potential noise impacts are commonly divided into two groups; temporary and long term. Temporary impacts are usually associated with noise generated by construction activities. Long- term impacts are the noise increases and ultimate noise levels generated by the traffic on the roadway at the sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project. Exhibit 1 presented previously displays the location of the sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project. These receptors represent the residences in the vicinity of the project. I 1 El I I I I I I Table 3 presents the range of peak construction noise levels at the receptors. This is the range of the highest noise levels from equipment operating at the edge of the proposed roadway shoulder nearest to the receptor. As the equipment travels away from the receptor, the noise levels will drop off quickly. Table 3 Peak Construction Noise Levels Receptor Noise Level 1 52 dBA to 78 dBA 2 49 dBA to 75 dBA 3 46 dBA to 72 dBA 4 52 dBA to 77 dBA 5 61 dBA to 89 dBA 6 46 dBA to 72 dBA I I A -Weighted Sound Level (dBA) At 50 Feet Equipment 60 70 80 90 100 110 I I ____ I________________ ___ ___ __ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ I ________________ ___ ___ ___ ___ _______ ___ ___ ___ ___ ______________ ___ ___ ___ __ _____ ___ __ ___ ___ I_______________ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ I_______________ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 1 60 70 80 90 100 110 I LEGEND Noise Level i Range` _______ _______ Sources : "Handbook of Noise Control," by Cyril Hams, 1979 "Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment" by Federal Transit Administration, 1995 N al Exhibit 4 MostreGreveAssociates Construction Equipment Noise levels Compactor [ Roller :1: . Front Loader [ [ [ [ Backhoe Tractor Grader Scraper Paver Truck [ [ [ :[ [ [ :I"" [ [ [ [ Concrete Mixer Concrete Pump Crane (Movable) Crane (Derrick) Pump Generator Compressor Pneumatic Wrench [ Jackhammer Rock Drill Pile Drivers (Peak Levels) vibrator Saw J I 1 I I I I n U rl I I [1 I I I I Mestre Greve Associates Highway 71 B Relocation Page 11 Noise levels in excess of 70 dBA can interfere with outdoor speech communication and noise levels in excess of 82 dBA can interfere with indoor speech communication. Table 3 shows that all six receptors may be exposed to construction noise levels that could interfere outdoor speech communication. However, these high noise levels would only be experienced for short periods as large and loud pieces of equipment are operated in the area near each individual receptor. Most of the time construction noise levels would be expected to be less than 70 dBA at all of the receptors. Receptor 5, being located closest to the relocated road would be exposed to the greatest construction noise levels. Construction noise represents a short-term noise impact. It is not possible at this time to determine the exact length of time that grading will occur in any one area. The most effective way of mitigating construction related noise is through the limitation of the hours of construction. Limiting construction to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and prohibiting construction on Sundays or National Holidays will eliminate noise impacts from construction. 2.2 Long -Term Traffic Noise Impacts 23 CFR 772 requires this noise assessment to predict traffic noise levels using traffic characteristics that will yield the worst hourly traffic noise impact on a regular basis for the design year." If the roadway does not exceed Level of Service (LOS) "C," than the worst case hourly noise impact occurs during the peak traffic hour. If the peak hour traffic volume exceeds LOS C, then congestion will result in slowing. This slowing will result in lower noise levels during the peak traffic hour. The peak noise hour occurs when traffic volumes are very high on the roadway, but not so high that travel speeds fall to a point where noise levels drop. This condition occurs when there are 1,800 vehicles per lane per hour traveling at a speed of 55 miles per hour. This condition is what traffic engineers refer to as LOS "C". The LOS C traffic conditions result the peak noise hour condition. Traffic volumes greater than 1,800 vehicles per lane per hour would reduce travel speeds, which result in a reduction of noise levels. Similarly, fewer vehicles result in higher speeds, but the increase in speed is not sufficiently high to offset the reduction in traffic. In this case the roadway does not exceed LOS C and the peak hour traffic will result in the peak noise hour. Traffic noise levels were modeled using Traffic Noise Model® (FHWA TNM®). FHWA TNM® was developed by the using Federal Highway Administration with assistance from the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. 23 CFR, Part 772.17(a) states that any analysis required by this subpart must use the FHWA Traffic Noise Model (FHWA TNM), which is described in "FHWA Traffic Noise Model" Report No. FHWA-PD-96-010. Selected input and output tables from TNM® are presented in the appendix of the report. A CD containing all of the modeling files has been provided with this report. Peak hour traffic volumes have not been projected for Highway 71 B. Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes have been projected by the traffic engineer for the project, McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc. The traffic engineer indicated that peak hour volumes are approximately 12% of ADT and estimated that 1% of the vehicles were trucks, with 80% of the trucks being medium trucks (two axel), and 20% of the trucks being heavy trucks (three or more axel). The posted speed limit on Highway 71B is 45 miles per hour. Implementation of the LI Mestre Greve Associates Highway 71 B Relocation Page 12 project is not expected to substantially change the traffic patterns on Highway 71. Therefore, the I traffic volume is projected to be the same with or without the project. The specific traffic data used to model future noise levels is presented in the appendix. I 2.2.1 Future No Project Scenario Future traffic noise levels without the development of the project were modeled at the receptors shown in Exhibit 1. Table 4 presents the existing noise levels as determined in Section 1.4 and the modeled future no project traffic noise levels. The future no project noise level that will be used for the analysis is presented in second to the last column of Table 4, "Future No Project Leq(H)." The final column shows the projected noise level increase in the future without the I project over existing conditions. Table 4 1 Future No Project Noise Levels Future No Leq(H) Existing Project dBA I Receptor Leq(h) Leq(H) Increase 1 49 51 2 _ 2 3 46 - 41 48 43 2 2 4 44 46 2 5 49 51 2 6 40 41 2 Table 4 shows that traffic noise levels are projected to increase by 2 dB in the future solely due to increases in traffic volumes. In a community noise situation, this change in noise level is • typically considered imperceptible by humans. Future traffic noise level are projected to remain • well below the 67 dBA Leq(H) Activity Category C Noise Abatement Criteria at the noise sensitive receptors in the project area. I I I 1 I I I I r-- 1 1 I LI I I I I I I I I I I I Mestre Greve Associates Highway 71 B Relocation Page 13 2.2.2 Future With Project Scenario This section presents the analysis of noise impacts with the proposed project. First, generalized noise contours are presented. These contours show how the noise levels drop off away from the roadway. These contours are presented in a table and graphically. Next, projected noise levels at each of the analysis receptors are presented. Impacted receptors are determined through the application of the FHWA/AHTD Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) and the substantial increase criteria. Table 5 presents the distances to the future (2028) peak hour 71, 66, and 56 dBA Leq(H) noise contours with the project. These contours correspond to approaching or exceeding the NAC for categories A, B, and C presented in Table 1. The contours are presented graphically in Exhibit 5. Note that the contours presented in Table 5 and Exhibit 5 do not include any effects of topography or noise barriers that may lower noise levels. Noise levels will be reduced at where topographic features, buildings or other solid objects break the line -of -sight from the roadway to a receiver. Table 5 Distance To Future (2028) Peak Hour Leg (H) dBA Noise Contours Distance to Peak Hour Leq (H) dBA Contour t Roadway 71 dBA Leq(H) 66 dBA Leq(H) 56 dBA Leq(H) Highway 71B 41 90 260 t feet from centerline of road The right of way for Highway 71B is approximately 80 feet. Table 5 and Exhibit 5 show that the 71 dBA Leq(H) will extend just beyond the right-of-way. The 66 dBA Leq(H) contour will extend approximately 81 feet from the edge of the right-of-way and the 56 dBA contour will extend approximately 320 feet from the edge of the right-of-way. Noise levels generated by traffic on the realigned Highway 71B were modeled using TNM® at the sensitive receptors presented previously in Exhibit 1. The results of the modeling are presented in Table 6. The first column of Table 6 lists the receptors. The second column presents the existing noise level at each receptor determined as described in Section 1.4. The third column presents the future noise level without the project at each receptor determined as described in Section 2.2.1. The fourth column of Table 6 presents the future noise level with the project determined by the FHWA TNM® modeling. The fifth column indicates if the future noise level with the project approaches or exceeds the applicable NAC. The sixth column shows the increase in the noise level with the project over existing conditions. If this increase is considered substantial, the seventh column will indicate if the increase is 10 dBA or greater. Receptors exposed to noise levels in excess of the NAC or subject to a substantial increase are considered impacted. Noise abatement must be considered for these receptors. This is done in Section 3.2. Mestre Greve Associates Highway 71 B Relocation 9 Y Page 15 I Table 6 Noise Modeling Results '• Future No Future w/ Approach or Existing Project Project Exceed Leq(H) dBA Substantial Receptor Leg(h) Leg(H) Leg(H) NAC? Increase Increase? I 1 49 51 51 No 2 No 2 46 ........... 48 ....................... 49 No 3 No 3 41 ........ 4 44 43 _._ ...................... ........ 46 46 52 No No 5 8 ...._..I ...... . ................. No No 5 49 51 62 No 13 Yes 6 40 41 45 No 5 No I Table 6 shows that future noise levels with the project are not projected to approach or exceed the NAC at any of the analysis receptors. The table shows that one receptor, Receptor 5, is projected to experience a substantial noise increase with the project. Peak hour traffic noise I levels are projected to increase by 13 dB over existing conditions in the future with the project at Receptor 5. Because of this noise abatement must be considered for Receptor 5. Potential noise abatement measures along with their reasonableness and feasibility are discussed in Section 3.2. I I 1 I Li I II II II II II Mestre Greve Associates Highway 71 B Relocation 9 Y Page 16 3.0 Noise Abatement Measures ' 3.1 Short -Term Impacts The most effective way of mitigating construction related noise is through the limitation of the I hours of construction. Noise generating construction activities within 1,000 feet of residential uses should be restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and at no time on Sundays or National Holidays. 3.2 Long —Term Traffic Noise Impacts I Noise abatement must be considered to reduce the noise levels at Receptor 5, which is projected to experience a substantial noise increase due to the project. In order to be implemented, the abatement must be found feasible and reasonable. Noise abatement is feasible if it can provide I substantial noise reduction given the conditions of a specific location. AHTD has defined a substantial noise reduction as being a reduction of 10 dB for at least one residence. The determination of reasonableness is a more subjective criterion than feasibility. It considers the I specific circumstances of the particular project. The cost of the abatement, desire for the abatement by the benefited residences, date of the construction of the residences relative to the construction of the highway, how long the residences have been in place, the absolute noise levels with the project and the increases in the noise levels with the project compared to existing and future no project conditions are all considered in the determination of reasonableness. Various methods of noise abatement are available to minimize the potential noise impact of the project. Reduction of speed limits could be used to reduce noise generated by the roadway. However, this is seldom practical due to the resulting reduction of the roadways operational 1 efficiency. Prohibiting or restricting truck traffic would reduce the noise generated by the roadway. However, trucks represent only a small portion of the traffic on Highway 71 B and their elimination would not substantially change traffic noise levels.. Altering the horizontal or vertical alignment of the road can also be used to limit the noise impacts. Altering the vertical alignment is typically not practical because of the amount of I material that would have to be moved to alter the vertical alignment substantially. In this case, the horizontal alignment is defined by the runway clear area requirements and minimum turn radii for the road and it would not be possible to change the alignment and meet these Irequirements. Acquisition of property to create buffer zones is another measure that can reduce noise impacts. However, this is typically cost prohibitive and would typically cost more than constructing a noise barrier. In most cases, the only practical way to mitigate highway noise is through the construction of noise barriers. Noise barriers reduce noise levels when they break the line of sight between a receiver and a noise source. The amount of noise reduction provided by the barrier is dependent on how much the noise has to bend around the barrier or, equivalently, by how much the barrier breaks the line of sight. The more the sound has to bend or the more the barrier breaks the line of sight the greater the noise reduction. Earthen berms can be used to decrease the required Mestre Greve Associates Highway 71B Relocation g Y Page 17 height of the wall or even eliminate a wall. An earthen berm with the same height as a wall will 1 reduce noise levels more than the wall. Walls constructed on top of berms with the same top of wall elevation as a wall not on a berm provide the same amount of noise reduction with a lower wall height. IAny noise abatement efforts using barrier walls or berms are not warranted for this project. Based upon AHTD's "Policy of Reasonableness and Feasibility for Type 1 -Noise Abatement I Measures," noise abatement barrier walls and/or berms are not warranted due to the fact that only one sensitive receptor is projected to be impacted and the prohibitive cost to provide abatement for a single receptor. P II I I I I I I I I Li r,JJ r-, J C' I LI I I I I El I I I I I I I I [1 I I Mestre Greve Associates Highway 71 B Relocation Page 19 References Outdoor Noise in the Metropolitan Environment, Beland, R. Dale and Branch, Melville C. published by the City of Los Angeles, 1970. Impact Characterization of Noise Including Implications of [dentifying and Achieving Levels of Cumulative Noise Exposure, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Report NTID 73.4, 1973. Federal Aid Highway Program Manual of Federal Highway Administration, Federal Highway Administration, September 18, 1982 Part 204 of Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Noise Control Program Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations. Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, United States Environmental Protection Agency, December 31, 1971 Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Springdale Northern Bypass. Highway 412, Benton and Washington Counties. Federal Highway Administration, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, Springdale Northern Bypass AHTD Job Number 001966 F.A.P.NH-9399(5), May 2004, FHWA Traffic Noise Model User's Guide. Report No. FHWA-PD-96-0091. Federal Highway Administration, April 2004 FHWA Traffic Noise Model Technical Manual, Report No. FHWA-PD-96-0101, Federal Highway Administration, April 2004 I ' Mestre Greve Associates El I I I I I I I I I I I LII I I I III Traffic Data Used For Noise Modeling Table A-1 Traffic Data Used for Noise Modelin Highway 71B Relocation Page 20 Peak Hour by Vehicle Class Medium Heavy Scenario ADT Peak Hour Auto Trucks Trucks Existing 9,400 1,117 10 3 1,117 Future (2028) 13,759 1,636 14 4 1,636 Assumptions: Peak Hour = 12% of ADT Total Trucks = 1% of Peak Hour Medium Trucks = 80% of Total Trucks Heavy Trucks = 20% of Total Trucks I 1 I 1 co U'. t� U O N N I ii m __ ` 1 1 1 1 1 1 I— x •W N J L'L ~ z z V ou ya _ C) O) C) O) CO) CO) C) 0) C) C) C) rn C) C) C) C) E w w m a) m aD o w o m l m a) a) a) 0 m a) a y � d H Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q lip SO � L A m GC> a .+ c 2cnO E D r V O W Q m O li U G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N r CD N O co O O r r 0 0 co O N co r N U) CO U) U) U) U) CD CO CD CD U) U) U) U) CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N L 7�7 V E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LL O L L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a vo E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U) a L L m > 7 LP) O U) Lo U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) L a- u E N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N dL v 6. J I > > U) LC) U) U) O U) U) U) U) LL) Lo to Lo Lo to to fL L() U) Ln U) Ln Ln U) U) LO U) Ln LO L() Lt) Ln LC) 3 L > > U) U) to in Lo U) U) U) U) U] In U) Ln U) U) U) L a C OS O O t7) O) O) d) O) t7) Q) C) C ) C) O CJ) C ) 4) U) Lo Lti Lo Ln U) Ln Lt) U) Ln U) Ln U) U) U) LC) E 0 ` L U) Ln Ln Ln Lo LI) Ln Ln Lo Ln Ln U) Ln Ln Ln Lo ina> > C) V U) ID ti CO C ) O r O C ) CO I-- CO Ln C•) N U) r r N r r r r r r r r O O z C U C G W d z O r N M vt +n LD ti O rn O r` CD Ln C7 N r CC)) E c > I? U O c3 z LLL O ~ C LU I a It D 0 LEo Z z a w z CC 0 O O N 6. r C) 0 N. N r y LU C) iL I- N W -j LL 2 z I _______ __________ U N _ L w 0 O I� m I ____ 1 I ____ I_______ d IL m Y 1 T O W LL Z ci J � a Z a) Q � U 0 0 0 0 0 0 l Z C9 a r 0 0 0 0 0 0 U F r T T T R w c(D CO (0 (0 co� w tOD r J C — � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O Cl)C 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 O O N F 2 e0 C7 � 000000 C) u,0000 O O O O CD tOfJ IN l(0f) N T N T N r N r N r N r N a= Lt) C) CD M I- - � C 1� ti O 00 OD O O r r r r T r O cD ap ap N O U) of CO O 11) N. ti CD (D Cl 00 C C . (0 (OA (OD cD cQ (0 0 0 O O O O O ox H � r r r r T r C � V o U.0) r N C7 CD I� 00 � Y N 'x o T T T 0 W z H U W >z W O 00 U � m m m a OZ E E L Z a x, x Z T N ch v u) cD I_______ ___ I r 1 1 ____ r co I0 N 1 ____ 1U. Y N r r _ r_____________________ - _____ I I_________________________________ r r1i 0 rW Q J rn LL z 7 a rZ U __________________ E o h O y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q Oc 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C a 0 0 m c a � m Em 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 `= 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 C) d G G d o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a o 0 Ln(fl5 Er 000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 fi tri ILi ICi N N 1fJ )f) l(J N n I[) N U7 Y) [) (j n fI Y7 11 li n C z a m 0 0 0 0 0000000000000000000C]O OONOON0000 LD�Dmm P00000000000000000 mccwIDcD cDc$LN NN NN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N CD� N CD m O) O) M r t• O N N ID CO CL) ID V V V V V V N N 0 IA O 0 E N- ri N N N N ri N. N N. N. h h N. ti N. N. ti N- N 0 0 0 0 p r r N N N N coW CD CD ID coCD 1D 1D CD CD CD ID CD CD CD CD CD (D (D CD CD CD (D CDCD 2>..q M u?Q'f O M 6) v1 4 In r O r N mD M N m U) Oy q N lD 0 CM) c+Of M 01 CD m O CMD CD 001 N CD CD N CD t CD CD CD e� CO CL) CC) ID C CD CD m <D m m m m CD co to CD CD CD ID t0 CD COD co m +D CD CD ID m m cD aD m cD m m cD cD m ID cD cD cD ID (D m m (D (D O g � x � N C'") V IL) O N m 0) O N C) V C) ID N m 0) O N C") V N CV N N N z CI� a I Z •- N [•] v � N c+) v � N M v � N M� r N [•] v r N r) � L p a a O O O m a O O O O O Iti ac m� Q M 7 J b9 a CD O N v 0 i3 N O f im a c p � T T 601 601rtr q K 61 (601 61 0 6) 0 [T O q Cl1 CA 0 D1 (A 0 C Z O w H I - ~ w z U Q N c") V IIp)f <D W I C0 2' 2'2 C 2' m m 9! f!i, 3 J 7 '� i ? a a 'w z m co m m m m I • ■ k O k I N I______ I Z Iw G N & v 2 @ C o 2 § I- N C) 2 1 O J x = o. z 0 0)4.. c I 2 C m a a C) 2 LM ■ _ I w I kn n uJ co Cl) Z % 0 0 C z § a ■ Z \ � ■ U ■ K E .C U. B O z 7° § v z a.w z ix m z I I C C C N I- 1 O O 0 i 1 LL Iw LI C 0 N O0 'r a 3 02 Nch H i' C O d C .a C 'd O O 1 U LA 0 X C N 0 r O O I O W a z A W N V Z Z U f E LL 1 Z Z Z H U + c W W W U W C J ri Z Za�..r,z O Z L.E v v 1 - 22 - U 00 a O ; 0 ti N 00 O O N I- 0 0 L? V N 02 NI- p O a U X H C OO a z _C 41 LL N C p O 00 N O w H W Z 00 N D H z z q V 0 U 1N W 0 z � � 3 z w DI O M:lo U, 'U x W d U- 0 R N W J_ LL 2 z s 1 ao 0 N 1 0 d V O 1 N I .1 ! LL .aC a I 0 O IN N a a+ N C I O o C, 1 lC C_ a 0 0 C a a 0 a 0 z 0 a V C ax LD > 2 w Q 4 r A In W N r E a ti z z w a) CI O N Z ` � CI N a W W U W I F U C In LU l.W H z d ', m > m O Z a► E E v I z 2 2 z a ix P z U I I I I I d LL Iw I I II I d I I II II II II O C.) LL a-0 O Q Z V LL O0 O N C 0 E N 40 U, a d +" N O N a) E E H N I z 4) Cl) N C O O v 3 -� o •v : 0 •E E itc w z dam, La alu z U) oc O I- C.) LL I - W Cl) A A 7 p A a. 4O 4) z '0 wO OO R V a H w 0z W V E E t m m Z d 0C z V V 40 O O N O O F- N 1 CD 0 Q N rb. O N ' O N o, E i yz C) Y I O 0 C m ' O 2 E N H CO z K C b r. O Z 'c Y to E E O W U) Z W � Q w m I U V Z b O J ' - t N a O z E 1 I U I co ' Iv k I • _ j k k o U, § U. U, t § I 0 0 0 0 0 0 @ @ @ ® § p d k $ § . m m m m § � ` o m U. u g o R g g g $ O 2 o o o O O O 2 � § k 2 § ( z u _ o _ $ $ 3 $ » 2 S. ® E - - _ E In C,_ ] E td < o § a e - © I- o C, 0 0 0 0 0 0 o ■ � � { � ■ U J $ NO o# o 2 g o § � ■ G �U § (O o c m= m 0 0 0 = c c(O(= 0 0 3 § ■ 0 0 0 R R q R $ t $$ m 0 0 0 Cl 2 . = a C � � k _ - < a ■ k § . z J q I 2 g q§ R g q g R q 0 0 0 0 0 0■ 0 0 0 DI CO O < I I q z s _ = O O Il.II _ C k k © le _ n e N- CD } -J w § I- .a 2 2 � R ■ k § k a e . e B § ��� [k < <1< C n n c } 4 C 4 C 2 C' - C.) 0u yya J 3 m C m N a CB N a) O 4) CV a) II) D 0 a) a) a) mx m oov)O)O)O)O)O) OOOOOOOO) LL 2 2 T T 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 J N 'I- C) E CL N N 0 0 4) 0) 0 CD a) 0 O 4) N N 0 O m O 41 y y� > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > O G OL r O N u W N L J N U) t d Q Q C a) 3 I - E D C (a s m z c 2nO 0 E Q CD L 'E D .C p D)a) 0 a > N . 20a) a0 a C O LL Q 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l0 O O o O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O CD o a o O O r- CO N O W a O r r O 0 CA a N O r N (D C(j Cn C (N CCU (D O O O N IT C Cn Cn CD N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N co_ - - - - - O (A a0 N N pO (D (I) CD aD pD It q O It IT N (D N N r it) u) 1• ti (D N. O N N O N CO O It) CO r CD CD co c) C°) a) a f- CA It) r CO o)(1 N C4 E C1) 1— 00 co (0 O) O O r r O O O) co co a0 N- CI) CJ 0 r r r r r N N N N N N r r r r O �. > CD (D (D CD to CD CD (D CD CD CD CD (D (D to CD CD CD 10 D) ti ti r V) C") 11"r O (0 a r C) O O aD C)) m l.f) O a0 C7 1� 1, 1� Ch r a0 h r (D N L O_ ro a0 (I) W r U) r CD C) CI) N a0 N (O C/) N I to (D CD C+ f- LD CD U C1O W f - N. O O CD C) C) O O) C) C) C) o W W O) W W o C) C) C) CJ) CD CO (D CD CD CO CO CD CD CD CO CO CO CD (D CD (D CO p O CO CD CD CO CO (D CD CD CO CD CO (D CD CO (D CD CO O U) OX C C') v CD (D N. (0 O) O r O C)) aC) N. CD CT) M N O r N r z O C) CD CD E d d z O r (N CO) CC) to N- CO O) CD 1- (D (I) Cr) N r O O z N N Y W a=+ DLL. I U N D Q Q U -a) v C V R O O 0 m ix es O R 0 �� ?ate Wcz z co a) 0 N CD .0 O V 0 N- ('1 a z LL CD LL Y W W -j LL 2 H 0 r r 1 r r r N y O NZ H r C N o E C U? Q > O r *' a O z O r6. as d o Z LL a a « Y 0 E a° z 'U ci,a E IE O > > s � 0- a I m 0 LL rLL0 V � Z Lt_ U LL w 3 l a z O z a E O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O d d d d O O N L a N E V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r O L > > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a N E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N m > > LO 0 O O U) O U) O LO L!) O Lo LC) 4') tD LC L A uE N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N v 3 t 6. L _ > > tP) U[) U) lA 0 0 0 0 Lf) LO 4) to U) U) UL) U) It rt C C V IT v qT Tr RT V L Q wE ti [• ti - l� + o 7 � Q El co CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO Co CO Co CO CO T r T r T T r r r r r w T T r T co CO CO CO O CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO Milt I"'I`DI"I°°I°'l,ITINI(m CO r I °ILITITi¶ CDI—INIV)I--IU Ito It-ICOIC)Icolt-IkOiIOI *Ic"IN1— -o k I a C 3 0 o I z 1w co O O N 6. C, O O N. r a z U- U - a L 0 N W -j U - E z I` Aa I I I I I I LL Y U) Ix W W U W Q: I D I1 z m a =_U O O O O O O z C7 O -a 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 U � r T r r T r U) -mo c0 (D cD c0 cD cD (0 (0 cD cD c0 cD U C1 r L T Q °i a M < g 3 QCCCOC L 0 0 0 0 0 0 U) C T 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N W J O O O O O O L Nt C 1n lt1 to Lfj lf7 Lt7 O� 0 NI— = cp U' O O O L O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 cO cO (D (D (O cD cD 0 N to cD to N N T N T N r N T c+1 .— N CO O O cD r It OO cn cD c7 CD CD N co O) Il- t It U) Oi (O d) C) N I,- rl 00 CO 00 O) O r cD r co T cD T (D T cD r cD i' O O cD 00 O N O) C d R O U) c7 f— T cD p) N N ap O C T O (O C) N U '� O co O (D O cD 00 cD O) cO 00 c0 Co cD cD CD (0 cO y p O ox y r r r T T O r N C7 cD d r 1 r L. 3 G LL O z N Q ≥ z WO 00 W U d m -5-) oz d v � a_ ? a z N (*) v Lr) (O 0 O N I- C) O (.3 O h N T (L Z LL a) LL Y G W W J IL 2 z u 1 _______ ____ I ___ I ____ O N ' O 0 N. I _ 1 r I I_________________________________ I a z 1 i. W 9 m a Cj C I O N 0 0 0 4 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 m G O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o C 0 n a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IE ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O V@ G O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 c c E 0 0 0 0 0 o oa00000000000a0000000000O U) U) )I) U) U) U) U) (C) )I) )f) u) M1 ui u) U) LI) C T�0�010 r r O 2 N 0 50600000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O O O O O O O O O p O o O N O O N O O O 4 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 QO V c0 r OG cD O n 0) U) 0 O N r O O n 0 01 c�pp V) II) 0) O l0 f0 (O N U) co CO N. N CO M )A 4'1 M O N m O QI M 4 E n n n N. ti ti N. 1+ N- N- N- N- F- A A A N. A O O 0 O ZNNNN )D 10 10 �O O [0 )0 c0 �p t0 [D [O cO �O c0 cD tb tD 4O l0 l0 t0 p , ap 0 N 7 CO O N. M U) O U) U) M Ol f0 CD N O M [D O (O 01 0) th N 7 CD M W c0 N U) /D ID tG U) f0 M f0 CD u7 C U) W t0 0 cO 0) c0 0) [O m t0 Oi c0 Oi �D Oi �O m [O 0, cO 01 [O Of �D 0) �O 01 l0 O) �O 01 �O 0) �D m1 t0 0 10 0) 1D 0) 1D 0) �D 0) 10 0) 1R 0) 10 co m c0 cc m ca co m m Va m +a �o co co +n ce co n ao �a �a ca �o S U X N rr 7 m )G n m rn o r N M a )n tp n m rn o N M v d r N N N N N z 4r m G O O O 0 O t y O O O O O O �cD Q N 7 J 3 � U) --- 0 0 D Ifl O O 0 C O 0 0) Q 0 ) 0i 0 0) 0) IW U I x CC 0i o) vi ci I O) t I 0) 0) 0) m m rn O O IC O O Q a O O O O O o O G O O 9 G 10 I IQ m c m LL z 2 i Y j - 0 of W z H r N coM O U) U W m C coO) C O) C O) C O) C O) C z a m z m m m m m m 1 cm O 0 N L 0 C) 0 N 1 - I LL I 5 o0 N o N d Q N G O 2 3 0 N H C N d !Y9 C I 0 0 U x = N _ C o m z° C 0 co C V _ O d 36. m a o a I �, o z aM a� t I 6. Ou I 1 AU. N Cl)N 4- a o E d z z 6. 00 ; N J m m U U O i m H LLI LL > > z z 0. Ix m Z v v I z _ t ao O O N I - U, 0 O O I- N '0 G1 LL T - 0 O N d 45un u N O ti z N F U) W z J z W r a z U) C 'a _ 'O OL U w u w 4p C C a a 0 z° U,0 U)QX 3 O LL 00 CL z U)" W H z U J q¢ Z p. o U tu H w z a A A 0. E 0 U, a to N I- V v a z LL U) U Y 0 W J LL 2 z u, m 0 0 N I- C) O v 0 I- N a N LL W z 0 N G z 0 OC C7 a Z -a-, V1 G, R C O O 0x N C In oO aZ 0 v �+ o V ? a+ N 7+ r a a o M Z C, L 0. LL H N 0w F Z U N Zz VO IOO Z- a 10 z T m z LL N U. A a Cl) 'U J U- 2 z ao 0 N d 1 0 S. O I I- N r I� U. l`9 G a0 0 O N N L ai I O 2 3 O N H N a! N C � O C E O O O V X I V V C a, o a°z a: O z 4) a,aI (VS. I- a = 1 a A z U. a. N w v E U. z z a, I N (V N O j ar O W N W W V Lu F N J ' F- � V C o � I- 0 t z -,-, a f w E E z m I� v 1 z a zQ. V I r I I LJI 4) I I I I II II II 'TI II 0 I.) U. m a-0 o O z U. ao 0 4. a, H6 o = E d l._ E N z C, O C R C) u I m I.. 'a 3 .OQ. O d E 01 O z E z Y 6.0 O O UL z U) 0 C) a U. I - z w a 40 E CI W F. z Vi a1 to 00 0 w X C) I- - w I- a, -)—, 0z ao 0 0 d 4. N N r k q .0 0 k t1 L 0 z U, (5 .■ 0 z (5 » 2 c..17 ■ k @ 0 k k 2 § § t 22 0 Q z w a e 2 e # C E ■ in 2 z ' 2 A q 2 E w O ■ 5 _ m 2 2 2 _ w CL w \ ■ z v a z U. 0 0 A w —J U. 2 z = I r r 1 co a QL r 0 u 0 n N 1 1� lL 1° r r 1 1 1 r ' Z J W `a ID Z g N W J J $ W ~ Q Q Q Q O Q i Y3 CO cc cc o0 Cl? cc Ip I 7 to C? 3 R C V E 0 n lb C LL U O o O O O O C) C�.. a a — N p a 7 V Z 3 4 N tll R H O <6 Z U V T O Q CD ti a0 � L C r ' Q f'— CV t!] Q r to v v v u� v 1a a a m r In a ova 4- o _(5 �a .. , N a 0 r 0 r 0 r 0 r 0 r 0 r a ti y i+ cp CA c0 1� ap V N O f- CV tf) O y � t9 � u m � U a m co ca ca cc co O O O c° co co c0 co cc o 0 0 R � OOO C v o O O CI y O T C m G v z° a ¢ � a m a _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 4- 2 a o O O w g a Z= U.z w H ( C)Q I z ao OIL— cc p c' c co f- F a0 O Z N J LII J � � � Z � N U a « Ia c j� E w Z fY U)OZ u E D k �� aaoCm ¢ mlz r,Nc)cncD I I¢¢¢ 1 ____ 1 _____ ' O O N m O U 0 ti I Iv ii m •D 1 ___ • I ___ 1 1 I___________________________________________ Ia. LL N I ii Q L U. z a U ' o- C-. O N U)(n4 Q �./ E-. m N �' O E Q N m Q) Q) Q) m 4) N d Q) d Q) Q) CU m Q) Q) v Q) Q) Q) W d 00 ro m - v) a m U mI H a . 7 Q II oc ou,,U E m r m 0 C)wt U o m >' , 20w m Q (a a u.OO O O o 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 o o O Q 0 o O O O O O O 0 O O O N r O 0 o CS) C7D CO t• Cf") r M T 0 CD � N O o (D � N o N 0 0 0 0 O) W C7) CD 0) 0) to N N - - - r- C) 0 0 0 Q) U) co CO CO CD CD (C) (C) U) U) U) U) U) 1f) CC) CC) 0 U) CC) U) U) U) U) U) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N_ N_ N (N (N Or Y r r r r r^ T T r T T T T r N O CO N a0 CA N M O W CO r f� U) et CD ti CO CO ti [D NI. m i+ C U) CD . C- ' r N r N- C) O) O (D M O N- CO (C) (N Ci) CD o m (P) CZ') N C. C+ C) f1 (N o (() CD C+ 03 0 C") to U) Q1 CO 01 0 O (X Cf) N O (- O O r N r (U) CO C) N M N CD N CO N r M U9 r r r E N. - ti ti ti ti ti 05 0) 0) 0)a) a) of a) Di 0) a) a) m o O m r T (D � CD T (D r (D T CD T CO T CD T CD r CD T (D T (D r r (D T CD r CD r (D r (D r CD (D CD CD U) CD CD CD CD N CA N. t• N r N t7 N. CO (D O r N. N- O CO O N M M R CC) O O N C') M N O N- — C) d CD '- Q) - — CO N. CD CD CO O C) C ' CO tC) N o N (O N cD N cD N cD N CD CD r CO C) CO 1 C) (D CO CO M C. M C. M N. M CO M CD M CD (') CD (') CD c') ti Ch ti C+) ti M C') CA Q) CJ) O) C)) C) m O) O) C)) ! C) O) C)) O) 0) C) C) CA CA (A 6) 0) 0) 6i CD co CO (O CD CD CD CD co CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CO CD CD (D CD CD co CD 0 CD CD CD co CD CD CO co co CD CD CD CD to CD CD CD CO Cp CD CD CD Cp CD CD O OX M (C) CD t• CO W O r r N M In (D t• fn QI O N M (!7 CD r N N N N N N N N N M M M M co C') V 0 - U) m O N _ N. O C- 't O A 0 r Co CC) Cr) O N- d' r CC CC) N 0 C 0 O 0+ O O + Cr) + CD + CO + T + Q + (D + + N + o + CD + O + C) CD C) T 1 t~ Q) N U) CO d I+ + + ++ + + + + + + O+ O CD U) U) CC) CD CD CD CD N. N- M C. CO (0 CO CO Q) O) W D) O O O a z 4 r r r N N N N N N (N N N (N C) C) M LL O m t N Y � Iw+ rna a0C � U I 0Z (SE m m °z z I ____ 1 0 0 a) I 0 U 0 N-- N I I� I' a) 1 ____ I N 1 1 1 1 1 LL C) NQ 1 L6 Y Y � O J 0 1 LL z •z v iJT I ! I l I C) 000000W a) N N rn rn a) 0 0); a3 a7 W a) a)! w o) C) o) a) a) 117 II a) a)a) C) o) m a) a) a) d a) ) o) m o) m o) )0C) a) rn C7 o) C) a) C) a) G) o) C) a) w N 0)0 )0) d a) WWW o) a) 0)� D o) N a) N a) N a) d a) ea m ��m m iolm,m m Calm ealc� m CC C 0 0 N m I m 010 m to 0) 0) 0 m.� m N N 0 4) N G) G) C) C) a) N ICU WOW OW CV a) a) a) a) N a) a) a) a) a) ! N N a) a) N CU 0 6) Q) A) Q 'Q IQ Q Q'Q Q IQ ¢ Q Q !a ! ¢ Q > Q QQ > Q Q Q > Q¢ IQ Q Q Q a Q Q QQ iQ Q QQ QQ t I I I i I � 1 � II a 5 5-1-555 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 55 0 0 55 55 OOIO 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 N- eD i Ch r CJ) N- U7 C') U) ti ti to ' CO O N U) - CO N U) Q) N CO O (C) Q U) LC)I C) ) O r O C ) U) O U) O CD c7 0) CD N CA C) D) D) O) CO CO CO Cp ti CD 0) 00 U) U) T U) CC) r U) N U) N U) N U) C) U) C) U) 1 CO CL) CC) CD COO) CO CO l(] (C) to C'7 U) ! C') (C) N U) N U') N U) T U) N N N N N CU N, N N N N N N N_ N N N N N N N N N N CNN N N N! N N N N N I N N N N N r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r N R O O n r N O N I O r O O cD Ito O C'7 O O r tip C'7 SR N O O N N ch CS) cD )A CO C O C') C) I CD N Cti C') COIN CD ` CO CO N N- CO i- C'7 O) U7 N- CA CO CD N N CA CV N N- T CD r CO r I- N (D 0) (N . C— C) N 'U) CD CO C- CO O 0) ' CO W C`) CO C) Cs) C') (N C— 0 U) 0) CO (D C) C") CD IC) r C- Cn N O C• U) N 0 C) C) C) C') C)• C) C) co I O) C) O) O) 0 r O N O N O N O N 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 `O C') C) CO O N- I O U) 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 M 0 M 0 M 0 (Cl r D r co r' r r r CD CD CD ICD CD !CD I CD U) N CD N CD N CD N CD N CD N CD N CD N CD N CD N CD N CD N CD N CD Cl (0 N �O4 CD CD N N CO CO N CD N CD N CD N CD N CD N CD N CD N CD N CD N CD N CD C') r 0 C� C') h r C) 0) U•) O O C) N- (N N C) CD O CD C') N r 1- O CO CO C`) CO 00 N r N CD .— C') CO II CV r 0 r' N CD ti r r N N r 0 CO tC) r (0 r h 0 CC 0 CO U7 U) N O) CD N C- r ' ti CO C') C'')) f '� U) O N- N- CO 0) U) 00 O ONO O) CO CO CD CO CO CA CO CC) CD CO CO N- ti ti CO CO n ♦\ O) 0) O) CA C) CA CA O O Q) 0) 0) Q) CA CA O) 0) CA CA 0) 0) O) C) CA D) as Ci CA O O CA Q) O O Q) CT O Q7 O CD CD CO CD 'CD CD CD CD CD CD CO CD CD CD CD CD O CD CO co CO CD CD CD CO CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CO CD CO CD CD CD CD CD CO CO CO CD CO CD CO CD Cfl Cfl CD CD CD CO CO CD ICC CD I CD (0 CD CD CD CD CD CO CD CO CD CD CD CD CD Cfl CD CO CD CD 1� C>D I CA O r N M lC) CD ti O CA O r N � Ci"f I I I � I U7 V7 U) CC') CD O CD CD O T O T O r O T O r O r O r CJ) CA O CA CA N- N- CO Cf) N ' CJ) CD 0 CA O CO N IC) C1O U) I Co ' U) N CD CA N N Ir- CO I N N ' U) N- N-' N CD o U) o CO C') O CD , CO '- CD 0) O 1 CO 0 I C') CO O) N CA N U) 1'- 0 C') CD �C (C) N G) C ) N C() CD I C') 0 CO U) C') O #C- U) - C'7 r r -r IN N C'7 C') C') (') C') CV N C') C') U) C') 0) (') 1010 10 C 0 T rIr C r N C V C) R CV C' C') ) (C) !N- tY CD CD U)'_t n , U) C') iC') C') N iN fN CV +r 1 1 ! . I r 1 I I I I i I + { I 1 I F I m W a) a) C) a) C)0)0) m m m m w a) m m w w m m 0) 0) m a) m a) a) a) m m m m a) 0) m a) C) C) C) O) rn C)1 0 O O a) o) co O C) rn O C) m p) O) m rn a) C7) O) O CT CA O CO) C) N7) O) C) 0) NO) NT 0) 0) O) 0) CJ) m m (o ' m c� cu m iR cu m to m m m m m m ca m m m io m c� m ca m ca is m c>, m 0) 0)0)0)4)0)0)0)4)0)0)4)0)4)0)0)0)0)4)0)0)0)0)4)0)4)0) a) m a) 0) 0)) a) a) a) 0)) a) d ) a) a) ) a) d 0)) m 0)) 0)) ) m Cb 0)) Cl) m a) m a) a) n) m m m C) Cl) O O O O O 00 O O 00 O O 00 00 O 00 O O 00 O 00 O O 00 O O O O O O O CD Cr) C}) O n {� t!') N d CD CD O M to ti 6f r d CD 00 O M 11) ti� _O d [D n Op CD O O O r N O T T 010 CO CD N- co CO CO CO 0) 0) 0) 0) O) O O O O - T N N CO CT 0) 0) 0) 0) d) O O O O U) CD C!) d d d d d d d d d d d d Cn C!) Cn C!) It) C[) Cfl C!) Cn U) U) Cr) C!) C!) Cn U) C!) C!) CD CD CD CO CD N N N N N !- N r N r N r N_ N r N r N r N r N r N r N r N r N r N r N r N r N r N r N N N N N N N N N N - N - N !- N T N r (N r N r CD - N - O O N- N IC) 0) CA N M C!) N- O Cn N CD CO 0) M Cn d I, CD co 0 N N+ N N- N CD - CO O U) 0) d CO N- N U) (N M (N O N N- O C) N - E N CO C') C) r U) CO O N- M M N M 0) N co N C') N O (N C!) r r N r C) 0 CD 0 d 0 r O C!) C!) O O N- CA Cn C) N O) 0 0) N- CO Cn CO (N CD Ci) N- N- N- CD N O O O O O O O CJ) O CT 6) CA CA 4) O O 0) CJ) CJ) CA W 0) O) Q) m) 0) 0) CD 00 N- N1 N- F- N- N- N- N- ti 1+ N N N N N r r r T T T T T T T - T r - - r r r r r r - - - - r r r r r CD CD CD co CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CO CD CD CD CD CD CO co CD CO CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD (D CD CD CO CD CID C]) CA a O 6) OI O CO CO D) T CO N CD C() M r r N C'7 CD O O C) O Cr) O) C) U) N- CO CD N CC) C!) C!) N- V N M N- N N- CD CO M CC) d a -C) M CO M N- M CD M (O Cl) C+) M M M M M M M M M M M M C')C') M CA M N+ U) N- U) N- Cn CD U) CO I!) pppp Cn CO C!) CO C!) CO C!) CO C!) �d} CA O) 0) CA CT O) CJ) 0) 0) Q) O) 0) 0) Q) 0) 0) 0) 0) C) 0) 6) 6) 0) 0) 0) C) 0) O) 0) 0) O) C)) a) 0) 0) D) D) D) O) 0) CD CD CD CD CO (D CD (D (D (D (D CD CD CO CO (O CD (D CD CO CD CD CD (D CO CO CO CD CD CD CD CO CO CD CD CD CD CD CD (D O O CD (D CD CO CO CO CD CD CD CO CD CO CO CD CO CD CO CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD (D CD CD CO CO CO CD CD M N r O 0) co N- CD l!) d M (N — O 0) CO N1 CD U) tr M N 0 O CO N- CD U) N M d CC) N+ CIO O) O 0) 0) Q) CD CD CD CO CD CD CD CO CO CO N- ^ N. N- I'- N- N. I'- N- N- CD CD (D CD CD COr r T r r �(o r r r CO (N CD r :O 0) 0 0) 0 N d CC) N- 0) r N U) CD N+ C) r (N d ( co I CD C] ) r U) N- N N- O Cfl 0) CO M N+ O N O N- in; O co O 0 CO IC) N 0) CD C') CO N C) CD d _ co U) N O N- O M _ CO CO M O O) U) M O O r r O O' O) 14) d M N N N r T - T O 0 0 C3) 0) 0) 0) co 1 O co N— N- M C- N- CD CD CD CO CL) CL) CL) Cfl O d d d IM co M M M M M co M M M M M M N N N N N N N N IN N r T T r r r r r r r r 1 I 1 co 0 N IL. d O V O • CC) O 1` 1 1 I r Ia. IN m m a o o too 14w W F z 0 ? U ' I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o ol0 0 o O o �1 �E O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O .c > 0 0 0 0'O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 L a N E 00000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) r N L LD U] Lf) Lf) Lf) Lf) LO Lf) U) U) LO LO Ln LO LO LL) Lf) L() In lf) Ii) LL) L() d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d OL N E H N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N u L J � L � > LA lf) LA lf) 0 Lo o 0 Ln Lo LC) US Lf) 0 Lf) Lf) In Lf) U1 U) U) iL) Lf} d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d [1 to E O L1 N- L~ n h n n N- L- N- N- N- N- ti ti N- I+ N- I• N- I+ N - N 0 N c. J L_ O d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d N H U) r,, Q r- CO co co co co O 0O Co co cc CO W CO CO CO CO CO cc Ca CO CO CD O O L9 C r co r co r CO r CD r CD r co r CO r co 1- co r co r CO r CO r CO r co r co r 0O r co r O r co r CO r co r co CD O N Q > V M d LO (D I` CD O 0 r r N M d Liz CD L~ CO O O r N M d V r r N N N N N N N N N C�) C) C.) M M C) o z a C) O I� d r N- O O I+ LIj CO U7 M O N - d O LA Q) ay. CE O O O C') CD co r CD O) N V O CO O ('i CD CI) r T I- 0) N Y J 0+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + L� +' c tp + 0 LO U) Ln U) co CO CO CO N- I• c') ti CD co CO co C) d) d) O) 0 E a z O r r r r r r r T T r r N N N N N N N N N N M U) 8) 3 O C. o� U Z U.. O Q U 0.� H W O OZ Leo E 22 ?aw W°z z 0 0 0 N I- C, 1 0 N T - a IL C) Y 0 N W 1 LL 2 z O H f i Li I I I Li I L] 1 I I I I I 0000000000000000000000000000 0000000 O O O o 0 a lC O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a C) CD O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 o O O 0000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 a o o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 in U) Ln 1n U) Ln Ln LO Ln U) 1f] Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln L() Ln 1n Ln Ln L17 L17 11) U) Ln Ln In to to Ln Ln Ln Cn V V V V v v v V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V v N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Ln Ln Ln Ln [f) Ln Ln Ln Ln LO Ln Ln U) U) Ln 0 U) 0 Ln U) Ln 0 117 Ln Ln Ln N Ln U) LO U) 0 Ln Ln Cn V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V N- ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti n ti ti ti n ti ti ti ti ti ti N- ti ti ti ti N- ti e• N I• N- N- N- Ln LO Ln Lo 0 Ln Ln 0 0 Ln Ln Ln Ln Cn Ln 0 Ln 0 Lo Ll7 lf) lfj In 117 lC) 117 In In In 117 In 11') In In L[) V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V CO O CO C0 Cp CO CO CO CD CO CO CO CO O CD O Cp O C0 CO O O CO Co O CA O C0 CO CO CD CO CO C0 CO r CO s" co T co T co r co r co r Co r CO r CO r Co r CO r CO r co r (0 T co T Co r Co r Co r CD r Co r O) r CO r r CO j Co 1 r CO r CO r CO r Co r CO r Co r CO r O) r 0) r O) r CO Ln CD M N- M Co C) O r N V M V V V C1) V Co V ti V 0) V C) O U r 1n N Ln M 0 Lo Ln CO Ln I-- co Ln I 0) Ln O N C) Co U) V M N r C co C') C") V V IV U) U) CO CO Co CD o o a r a r a r a r a r N O I+ V N- Co O N CA CD 0 O O Co N 0 CO 0 r Co L[) N CO u7 iN N- N- Co N N 0 N- N- N CD O U) CO C M CD Co r V CD O) O CO O M CO CA r V N- O) N Ln N- O l M CO 0 N CA a) N Ln CO C`) co C0 ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + . + + + + ++ + + + + + + CC r r r r N N N N V U 0) 0 O O r r r r N N N 0)0') M to N- CD CD I- Ln C') co C) N C) M M M M M M M M M M M co V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V Ln Ln V V I V V V V I I E I � C O � I 7 Co CD I - .D 0 V O N- N N 0 r r0 0 N 4 IC, 0 u 0 1 r r rp w r2 7 O a J � d O m v c LL N H Z U ' 000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000 U) U) 47 1() U) LC) U) LC) to U) LC) U) 11) 11) U) 11) I!) in U) LC) In 1n U) l.C) U) 117 U) L1) 1C) lC) 117 10 U) LU L() 11) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 1010 1t") LO LU 1C) Ln CD 111 1C) 11) LC) 111 U ) 11) lt') U) Ln 11) 10 10 11) LU Ln 111 111 lit L1) 117 117 LC) U) U) 117 111 L17 ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti N- ti ti 1+ C- N- N- N- N- N- N- U) 117 tin LC) LC) L() lf) 11) LC) LC) tf) 11) L!') 11) U) 11) 11) LC) U) L1) tf) LC) In LC) U) IL) LC) U) 11) L1) 111 U) U) U) CC) 111 a0 O C>d CO oD aD 00 (D iD O W CO oD C70 aD In O CD CXj CO CO CO O CO CO CO CO 00 CO - Y [ � T T T T T 1 T T T T T T T T T T T T Y r Y Y _0 T T - .- T T T T T r T T CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO C70 CO C70 C70 CO CO CO CO CO CXi CD CO C7) 0) N- CD U) C) N O CP CO N- CO U) C) N T 0 0) O N- CO LC) - C") N - 0 Q) C3) N- CD U) ':1- 0) C)7 CS) 0) Q) D) CJ) Q) 0) Cn C]) Cb 0) CO CO CO CO CD CO 0) CO 1+ 1+ 1- N- N- C+ N- N- 1` C` CO CD co CO CD 1 I ao 0 N 6. O U O IC" I I I .� ILL x 16 6. a I I I I I VI 3 t CL J 4) O 4) V 0 LL LL fA LL J F- Li z ' Z U O'O D• O O O O C O 00000000 00000000 00000000 .. v v v v v v N N N N N N N N ICJ U) LC) L1) U LC) U ) c0 OD CO 00 W OD OD ap r r r r r r r N M - tD 00 O O T T — ._ _ r r 1— (N O LC) O) 00 M N- O CO c0 lC) )C')000 P) O O O c0 c0 c0 ( (0 U) (0 0 + T T r T T T T T O � 1 ____________ _______ 1 N 6. .0 1 4- O U O ti N r i9 m r0c` 1 _____ 1 _____ 1 r 1 ____ r r 1 r a r 1) I�uJ ii cv O U W ' LL z a z Q c U 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 16 Z C7 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. U � T T T T T ,- UJ b .. � U O O CD CD c0 tD CO fD <D tD CO fD L < 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 rn 0 0 0 0 0 0 o aNW 000000 o 0 0 0 Q o uN t ui �i iti +c i u� L O z N 00000 cD �D CD CD � (D CO �) N U) CD u7 N N N N N N N 00 0 o cD T v, In U) CO [r/ 47 CO N C'7 W h t y C 3 � r cD r cD r CD r cD r (O r CD O CSi CO CO o0 o y C O .2 ea ' CD O C') ti r fD C) N N o0 U C O CO O? N Ifl V COD (OD COD (OD COO COD 0 (0 (0(0(0(0(0 CO cD CO CD ox y 0 r r r r r r = it � m ti S I N c7 t0 h a0 Y � Ifjl T T T 0L& 2 I- N U W >2 00 W ..w OZ > E m m a ? a z T N C7 u0 CD I ___ __ 1 ___ 1 I ____ O I _ N I _ O1 LL Y A 1 1 1 1 I________________________________ 1 LL 1 LL 0 W N I Q J r LL 2 a z F a. rCp m NN � O � 2 O N O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O p 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 O m a � I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 u m OOO OOO OOO OOO OOO boa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00.0000000000000000000000 i N V) N N h N N N of u) N N N 117 N N N N N N N N O C O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O o 0 O O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O O O O O O p O O O O p O O p O N O O N C O O O N N N N N N N N (ON N N N N N N N N N N N W N N N N N W N N N W (N N N N N W N W Cl! N N elf N N N N N N W O N O) N OJ N N r O O A O C) O U) U) U) U) r CI) (+) a O O O (P N (O M (P o0 O) V C) N m O 0 N 0) m O) (O Q a (P N O) (O E ap n ap ti C? r-. rn I".r-. ti N n r+ (O r-. r -.N (r'7 a n a n V r+ V )- V N r+ r-. N I- F- C'-. t0 0 1O 0 0 0 i0 ip a). tp (D cp tp (O tp ID (O l0 tD (D (O 10 LO (~0 (O (O c0 (NO (NO (NO (NO U N O) M 7 T M N M O O r~ N M M N V CO N O O7 (O O A C9 M 0O m U) m — O) (O OO N t'] (O O co O 0) T '0 (') 0O (O m (O (O i U) C) CD N N (p N O N N (O U) O 1 1 a L IN O O I I.. - N I______ LL Iw tY`a o N N a O 2 z O N F- 1 H C_ r O 1 O O VI Cl) C O.E. I a° z° C O V 040. o CC 0 3 m 0 o $ U _a U. 1 Y 3 I O LL Q = a I U,.. Q d U �E IT) d • CD Z I- o o G O O _m J J V W m = J LL � d F- Z a O z E v z 22 Zao=C mz v i.i 1 1 0 d IN fl C.% O 1 N 1 l� 1° a I ____ 0 IN 0 N at N Q Q O 'G O = C C O N 0 E } ,j- N I 6i 0 C a a d 0 r ` o� L a° z° 1 a I n w z z v a 5 d z 1 1 J z g M N U) Q z N c W m I LU H V J N LL W Oz� G v 'm F z 1 ' aD 0 N I- 0 O V 0 I ti 1 1 � 61 LL Iw UNtlf O m C v N I O C 0 N H ox I C COO O C_ a O z a C -' U I O } :n 70 L d a` LL _ ILL I al LL H 1 a 3 N N a' Oz 0 N U { m �c IN zz z Z oO 0 V C N LU 1 C7 U NO —j LL .a 3 d z a.H� z z a 0C O z O r r 0 N L .a r 0 4- U I N r U. Y r15 A 1 - ___ ____ 1 0 0 0 N 6. C N r 0 � 3 O NZ H M > I N C N O w6. C_ O U 0 X 1 U d a� U. LA.. I a,0 6. LL Q = r I 4. r A w w a d I 0z O NZ y a) N m W W W U R W J I I..~ U 4 W W E s ~ a m m a O z m v z ' Z Z H O Z v 1 O O N L d 4- 0 ti I 11 IL I° a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1' 0 IV z w a U I U) 'a, I to to 7 a w V w Iw 2 z a ' z v I- 0 l6 U. Q � a O n CD U. a0 C o m O N 4- I- a, � O � a N 05 N H H N Z O CD C O • U v m t9 a o � iii xz 3 0 au. U) 0 U U. I- x w NA a E a, W �!+ ?z a, w O W ` ' d L I- 0z m m V r r o° 0 I- 0 I O I ti I -iTi Z rC m EC r yz r� O 1 1 r co o 3 a o � N 0 I- C) 1 V N C a d O on E N H c N Z 0 r 0 CI C Z [.1. r a w O Iii N Z r U, wa. I mA A m I iu U E ii I as V N U `- Z O d 0 V R W s � U H In J I H @ d H z O Z E V Z 22 Zai,mz - V V I I U I © k I- ' O R , \ Ia I U ■ 2 0 Iw \ z o w z 2 Ix IUi 6 R 0 0 9 g 0 I.9 9 9 9 ���$ _ � § C) LI. L o g o o g R 2 ] x 2 = , o . E o 2 2 u .