GNOSS FIELD AIRPORT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FINAL CHAPTER ONE BACKGROUND
This document is the Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), prepared in support of the Federal actions related to the proposed runway and parallel taxiway extension at Gnoss Field Airport (DVO or Airport). This Final SEIS updates the previous National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) analyses to address changes in the forecasted aviation activity and the critical aircraft at DVO and adds an additional alternative for environmental impact evaluation. The SEIS has been prepared pursuant to the NEPA and its implementing regulations found at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §§ 1500-1508.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published a Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in June 2014 in support of the Federal actions related to the proposed runway and parallel taxiway extension at DVO. During the preparation of the response to comments on the June 2014 Final EIS, the FAA informally reviewed aviation operations activity from the FAA Traffic Flow Management System Counts (TMFSC) database associated with aviation activity at DVO. After that evaluation, the FAA concluded that existing conditions regarding the aviation activity at DVO may have changed from those described in the June 2014 Final EIS.1 Therefore, a formal analysis was required to verify the current aviation activity level and critical aircraft for DVO.
That formal analysis was contained in an April 2016 Purpose and Need Working Paper, which was circulated for public review and comment. The April 2016 Purpose and Need Working Paper identified that the critical aircraft classification and associated runway length requirement at DVO had changed from what was described in the June 2014 Final EIS. This new information needed to be added in a supplement to the June 2014 Final EIS, and therefore, the FAA did not issue a Record of Decision (ROD) on the June 2014 Final EIS.
However, many commenters on the April 2016 Purpose and Need Working Paper stated that they believed that the number of operations identified for jet aircraft in that document, specifically for the critical aircraft identified in the June 2014 Final EIS (the Cessna 525), did not account for all of operations for that aircraft at DVO. In order to resolve whether the number of aircraft operations, particularly of the most demanding critical aircraft, had been undercounted, the FAA gathered additional data. An Updated Purpose and Need Working Paper with an increased focus on the operating levels of the Cessna 525 aircraft was subsequently prepared. That evaluation was needed before the FAA prepared a Supplement to the June 2014 Final EIS. Therefore, the FAA subsequently issued an Updated Purpose and Need Working Paper in February 2018 and accepted public comments on that document.
The evaluations in the February 2018 Updated Purpose and Need Working Paper identified additional operations of jet aircraft compared to the April 2016 Purpose and
1 FAA San Francisco Airports District Office January 9, 2015 letter to Mr. Craig Tackabery, Marin County Department of Public Works.
Landrum & Brown Chapter One – Background January 2020 Page 1-1 GNOSS FIELD AIRPORT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FINAL
Need Working Paper. However, the February 2018 Updated Purpose and Need Working Paper was consistent with the conclusion of the April 2016 Purpose and Need Working Paper that the critical aircraft classification for DVO had changed from the critical aircraft identified in the June 2014 Final EIS, the Cessna 525 business jet, to the family grouping of B-II turboprop aircraft. This determination is discussed in detail in Chapter 2, Purpose and Need, and Appendix C-1, Aviation Activity Forecast.
The February 2018 Updated Purpose and Need Working Paper evaluated the necessary runway length for the new critical aircraft to meet the purpose and need for the project to allow existing aircraft, as represented by the family grouping of critical aircraft at DVO, to operate without operational weight restrictions under hot weather conditions. This purpose and need statement is slightly different from the purpose and need statement contained in the June 2014 Final EIS. The purpose and need statement was revised to be fully consistent with allowable runway length determination factors identified in the FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5325-4B Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design.
The Updated Purpose and Need Working Paper concluded that a 300-foot runway extension would meet the purpose and need for the proposed project for the current critical aircraft at DVO. Therefore, the FAA has prepared this SEIS to provide an environmental impact evaluation of an additional alternative, a 300-foot runway length alternative, not included in the prior June 2014 Final EIS.
In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures Paragraph 9-3 (a), no additional public scoping was required prior to preparation and issuance of this Final SEIS for public comment. The range of potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives was previously identified during public scoping prior to preparation of the Draft EIS, and in comment letters received on the December 2011 Draft EIS and June 2014 Final EIS.
A runway extension would require changes to the Airport Layout Plan, which must be approved by the FAA. That approval constitutes a FAA Federal action requiring NEPA review (see Chapter Two, Purpose and Need, Section 2.3 for a full list of Federal actions). In addition, construction of any runway extension would require a Clean Water Act (CWA), Section 404, permit authorization2 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) to fill waters within CWA jurisdiction. The USACOE determination regarding whether to issue a CWA, Section 404, permit is a USACOE Federal action requiring NEPA review. The USACOE is a NEPA cooperating agency for this SEIS.
The purpose of preparing an EIS is to investigate, analyze, and disclose the potential impacts of a proposed action and its reasonable alternatives on the environment.
2 In order to make this EIS easier for the reader to understand, the EIS text has used the term “Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction” to represent all USACOE jurisdiction, which also includes areas within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction and is sometimes referred to collectively as “waters of the United States.” Similarly, the term “CWA, Section 404, permit,” is used to represent the broader term sometimes used by the USACOE of “Department of the Army (DA) permit,” to represent a permit that addresses a permit authorization for waters within CWA and RHA jurisdiction.
Landrum & Brown Chapter One – Background January 2020 Page 1-2 GNOSS FIELD AIRPORT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FINAL
This SEIS includes an additional alternative not considered in the June 2014 Final EIS that evaluates the potential impacts associated with shifting Runway 13/31 106 feet to the north and extending Runway 13/31 and its associated parallel taxiway, to the northwest by 300 feet, thereby increasing the total runway length from 3,300 feet to a total length of 3,600 feet while maintaining the 75-foot width of the runway. Additionally, in order for the extended runway to become operational, the FAA would need to develop air traffic control and airspace management procedures regarding the safe and efficient movement of air traffic to and from the runway. Such actions could include, but not be limited to, the establishment or modification of flight procedures and the installation and/or relocation of navigational aids.
This SEIS assesses the foreseeable environmental conditions that would be expected in 2024, for each of the alternatives evaluated in detail. These are discussed in Chapter Five, Environmental Consequences, of this document. This timeframe corresponds to the anticipated opening of extended Runway 13/31. In addition, specific Airport activity levels and their associated air quality and noise impacts are evaluated for a condition five years beyond the opening year (2029).3
The information contained in this SEIS will be taken into consideration by the FAA and the USACOE as the agencies consider their respective Federal actions associated with the runway extension project. The FAA will issue a Record of Decision (ROD) on the SEIS. The FAA ROD will not be issued until at least 30 days after the distribution of this SEIS to the public. The USACOE will review the CWA permit application for the project and issue a separate memorandum for record and/or ROD regarding the permit application.
This chapter contains the background, history, and description of DVO. Descriptions of the Airport layout, facilities, and services, as well as aviation activity, both actual and forecasted, are also presented so that the reader may understand the operations of the Airport and the context in which the proposed development actions and its alternatives are set.
1.1 OWNERSHIP AND LOCATION
DVO is a general aviation airport owned and operated by Marin County, California. The Airport is located in unincorporated Marin County north of the City of Novato, California and serves as an essential regional transportation resource by providing general aviation facilities in the northern portion of the San Francisco Bay area. Public access to the Airport is available from the Atherton Road exit of Highway 101. Exhibit 1-1, Airport Location Map, shows the location of the Airport.
1.2 AIRPORT HISTORY
Use of what became Gnoss Field Airport dates to 1939. In that year, William Wright, who owned the property, built a private grass-landing strip. After trying to sell his airport to Marin County for $1,000 an acre in 1945-1946, Wright leased the field to
3 FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Appendix B, Section B-1.5 and B-1.6
Landrum & Brown Chapter One – Background January 2020 Page 1-3 GNOSS FIELD AIRPORT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FINAL
Woody Binford. In 1947, teamed with Jack Lewis, Mr. Binford built a 3,000-foot dirt runway, two hangars, an office, and opened a flying school. It operated until 1949, when a change in flight school training regulations ended its existence. In 1950, operation of the private field passed to Harry Tollefson, who ran the facilities until the late 1960s. During the late 1950s and early 1960s, the Marin County Board of Supervisors considered several sites for a County airport before finally deciding upon the present-day Gnoss Field Airport site. In 1965, the County, aided by Federal funding, bought the field, along with additional surrounding land, and named it after William Gnoss, the highly popular North Marin Supervisor who had worked for many years to expand aviation in Marin County. In 1968, a 3,300-foot by 60-foot, asphalt- paved runway and a facilities complex were built at the south end of the field.
The 1989 Marin County Airport (Gnoss Field) Airport Master Plan and Update Chapter 6.0 – Airport Development Program Update 1997 – Marin County Airport Master Plans adopted by the Marin County Board of Supervisors address the development of DVO. Due to concerns with the periodic presence of crosswind conditions (winds that blow across the runway rather than towards the ends of the runway) both the widening of Runway 13/31 and development of a crosswind runway were considered for DVO. Between 1997 and 2001, Runway 13/31 at DVO was widened to 75 feet, to address these periodic crosswind conditions, while the runway length remained unchanged.
Previous runways, which no longer exist at DVO, were oriented north-south (Runway 01/19) and northeast-southwest (Runway 06/24). The oldest buildings on- site were built in 1968 and 1969. The majority of the hangars were installed from the late 1970’s through the early 1980’s.4,5 A system of levees has been constructed to protect the runway and Airport environment from flooding.
1.3 AIRPORT FACILITIES
The existing Airport facilities are shown in Exhibit 1-2, Existing Airport Layout. As stated in the previous section, the airfield system consists of one 3,300-foot long runway (designated 13/31) that is oriented in northwest to southeast direction. The runway is 75 feet wide. A parallel taxiway located 75 feet to the west of the runway provides access for aircraft to the runway ends. A helicopter landing pad, measuring 60-foot x 60-foot, is located at the southeast corner of the Airport property.
4 Tremaine and Associates, Cultural Resources, Existing Conditions and Survey Methodology Report for the EIS and EIR to Evaluate the Proposed Extension of Runway 13/31 at Gnoss Field Airport, 2009. See Appendix H, Cultural Resources. 5 Information obtained from Ken Robbins, Airport Manager, Gnoss Field Airport, 2009.
Landrum & Brown Chapter One – Background January 2020 Page 1-4 Unincorporated Unincorporated
Marin County Sonoma County OREGON
IDAHO ¤£101
NWP Railroad NEVADA
Area Redwood of Map q DVO Landfill San Francisco CALIFORNIA
PACIFIC OCEAN ive a R r m u l a t e P
Unincorporated Lakeville Hwy Marin County 13
Airport Rd Gnoss Field Novato Airport
31
Dustman Rd Binford Rd
¤£101 Unincorporated Unincorporated Marin County Sonoma County
Twin House Ranch Rd
Redwood Blvd
Atherton Ave Novato Bahia Dr
Olive Ave School Rd Legend Novato MARIN COUNTY SONOMA COUNTY Airport Property Boundary
City of Novato Boundary
Unincorporated County Areas !(37 County Boundary 0 3,000 ' ±
Supplement to the Final EXHIBIT: Environmental Impact Statement Airport Location Map Gnoss Field Airport 1-1
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
¤£101
NWP Railroad
13
Aircraft Hangars
Airport Rd
Aircraft
Binford Rd Existing Runway 13/31 3,300' Tie Downs Aircraft Automobile Hangars Parking Gnoss Field Airport Airport Management Office Black John Slough
31
Aircraft Hangars Legend Helicopter Pad Existing Runway Existing Buildings
Airport Property Boundary 0 500' ±
Supplement to the Final EXHIBIT: Environmental Impact Statement Existing Airport Layout Gnoss Field Airport 1-2
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
GNOSS FIELD AIRPORT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FINAL
Gnoss Field Airport is currently designed to accommodate aircraft with a wingspan of 49 feet or less, and an approach speed of 91 to 121 knots (FAA Airport Reference Code B-I). Examples of different sizes of aircraft by Airport Reference Code that operate at DVO are shown in Table 1-1. Runway end 13 is equipped with precision approach guidance through a published Global Positioning System (GPS) approach procedure. Both runway ends are equipped with a Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI). The aircraft parking apron includes approximately 92 tie-downs, 147 T-hangars, and 37 conventional hangars, for a total parking capacity of approximately 276 aircraft.8 Aviation fuel (100 Low Lead (LL) and Jet-A) is available for purchase from DT Group, LLC, the Fixed Base Operator located at DVO.9
Table 1-1 AIRPORT REFERENCE CODES FOR AIRCRAFT TYPICALLY OPERATING AT GNOSS FIELD AIRPORT Gnoss Field Airport AIRPORT REFERENCE AIRCRAFT CHARACTERISTICS EXAMPLE AIRCRAFT TYPE CODE1 Cessna 172
Approach Speed: Less than 91 knots A-I Wingspan: Less than 49 feet
Cessna 525
Approach Speed: 91 knots or greater, but less than 121 knots B-I Wingspan: Less than 49 feet
Beechcraft Super King Air 200 (family grouping of critical aircraft)
Approach Speed: 91 knots or greater, but less than 121 knots B-II Wingspan: 49 feet or greater, but less than 79 feet
1 Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A “Airport Design”
8 County of Marin, Gnoss Field Airport Visioning Workshop, July 2014. On-line at: https://www.marincounty.org/-/media/files/departments/pw/airport/visioning-workshop- presentation.pdf Retrieved June 2018. 9 Marin County Airport at Gnoss Field, Marin County Public Works. On-line at: http://www.marincounty.org/depts/pw/divisions/airport Retrieved June, 2018.
Landrum & Brown Chapter One – Background January 2020 Page 1-9 GNOSS FIELD AIRPORT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FINAL
1.4 AVIATION ACTIVITY
In accordance with FAA Order 5010.4, Airport Safety Data Program, public use airports are required to submit to the FAA Form 5010-1, which states the previous year’s count of operations10 broken down by category, as well as the based aircraft for the airport. The FAA Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) uses the 5010-1 forms as a basis for defining historical and forecast traffic.11 Operational counts for airports such as Gnoss Field Airport that do not have an Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) are often overestimated and are carried over year-after-year. A review of the 5010-1 form for DVO indicated that this is the case for Gnoss Field Airport.
As a result, the operational counts on FAA Form 5010-1 and the FAA TAF for DVO were found to be overestimated. Therefore, operational numbers and based aircraft counts are based upon a revised estimate provided by DVO Airport Management.12
The updated aviation forecast for DVO approved by the FAA in February 2018 (Appendix C-1, Aviation Activity Forecast) found that the number of aircraft based at DVO is forecast to decrease by 0.2 percent annually, from 226 in 2016 to 217 in 2035. The number of single-engine piston based aircraft and multi-engine piston aircraft are expected to decrease at average annual rates of 0.3 percent and 0.4 percent, respectively. These trends result from the fact that most of these aircraft become expensive to operate and maintain due to their old age. Turbine aircraft, which includes turboprop and turbofan (jet) aircraft are expected to be the fastest growing General Aviation (GA) segment, are projected to grow at an average annual rate of 1.9 percent. At DVO, this growth is anticipated to occur in the number of turboprop aircraft, with the number of jet aircraft remaining constant. Table 1-2 provides a summary of forecasted operating levels at DVO.
National annual growth rates from the FAA Aerospace Forecast – Fiscal Years 2017-2037, Table 32 Total Combined Aircraft Operations at Airports with FAA and Contract Control Service, were applied to the base year GA annual operations numbers to determine the forecast of annual GA operations as shown in Table 1-2. This analysis shows that although the number of based aircraft at DVO is forecasted to decrease slightly, the number of annual operations at DVO is forecasted to increase slightly. This is due to forecasted increases in the number of operations per the remaining based aircraft and an increase in the number of itinerant operations. See Appendix C-1 for additional information.
10 One operation is defined as a takeoff or landing. 11 Background data on DVO traffic was gathered from the FAA Form 5010-1, FAA Terminal Area Forecasts, DVO Airport Management, and the Marin County Airport Proposed Runway Extension Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA), April 26, 2004. See Appendix C-1, Aviation Activity Forecast for detailed information. 12 Based aircraft counts and operational numbers were provided by the Airport Manager, Dan Jensen, via e-mail dated June 15, 2015.
Landrum & Brown Chapter One – Background January 2020 Page 1-10 GNOSS FIELD AIRPORT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FINAL
Table 1-2 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS FORECAST Gnoss Field Airport
Total Year GA Itinerant GA Local Air Taxi Military Operations Estimated 2017 24,063 55,366 3,300 0 82,730 Forecast 2020 24,480 55,640 3,300 0 83,420 2025 25,200 56,090 3,360 0 84,650 2030 25,950 56,540 3,500 0 85,990 2035 26,880 57,120 3,690 0 87,690
Average Annual Growth Rates 2017-2020 0.6% 0.2% 0.0% n.a. 0.3% 2017-2035 0.6% 0.2% 0.6% n.a. 0.3%
Sources: County Airport-Gnoss Field Airport Management, FAA Aerospace Forecast, Landrum & Brown Analysis. AAGR is Average Annual Growth Rate
DVO has been defined by the FAA as a Non-Primary Regional Airport. A Regional airport supports regional economies with interstate and some long distance flying and have high levels of activity, including some jets and multiengine propeller aircraft.13
DVO is also a reliever airport. Reliever airports provide pilots with attractive alternatives to using congested hub airports. DVO and other general aviation airports in the San Francisco Bay area designated as reliever airports serve to reduce congestion at San Francisco International Airport, Oakland International Airport, and San Jose International Airport.
13 2017-2021 National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS)
Landrum & Brown Chapter One – Background January 2020 Page 1-11 GNOSS FIELD AIRPORT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FINAL
1.5 COMMENT PERIOD AND PUBLIC HEARING
The Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on December 9, 2011 and in the Marin Independent Journal newspaper. The public comment period was open from December 9, 2011 to February 6, 2012. As a requirement of FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1 and FAA Order 5050.4B, a Public Hearing was held on January 10, 2012 to offer the public the opportunity to provide comments on the information contained in the December 2011 Draft EIS. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Marin County circulated a separate environmental document, its Final EIR, for public review on November 8, 2013 and certified the Final EIR on February 11, 2014. Comments received on the December 2011 Draft EIS and responses to those comments are included in Appendix P, Comments Received on Draft EIS/Draft EIR, and Appendix Q, FAA Response to Comments.
In general, agency comments during the comment period for the Draft EIS focused on ten specific areas. Table 1-3 provides a summary list of the topics commented on. All of these comments are addressed in Appendix Q, as well the location within the document noted in the table.
In general, public comments received during the comment period for the Draft EIS focused on nine areas. Table 1-4 provides a summary list of the topics commented on. All of these comments are addressed in Appendix Q, as well as the location within the document noted in the table.
Landrum & Brown Chapter One – Background January 2020 Page 1-12 GNOSS FIELD AIRPORT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FINAL
Table 1-3 AGENCY COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING COMMENT PERIOD (DECEMBER 2011 DRAFT EIS) Gnoss Field Airport
GENERAL COMMENT AGENCY EIS SECTION U.S. Environmental Purpose and need is narrowly Protection Agency Chapter Two, Purpose and Need defined (USEPA) Chapter One, Background, Concerns about the aviation Chapter Two, Purpose and Need USEPA forecast and Appendix C, Aviation Activity Forecast All practicable alternatives USEPA Chapter Three, Alternatives were not considered Concerns about potential bird- Chapter Five, Section 5.9.6, aircraft strikes and impacts to USEPA Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on pilot safety or Near Public Use Airports Chapter One, Background, Runway extension will result Chapter Two, Purpose and Need in an increase in operations, USEPA and Appendix C, Aviation Activity larger aircraft, and more Forecast, Chapter Five, Section noise 5.1, Noise Chapter Five, Section 5.9, Fish, Potential impacts to California Wildlife, and Plants, Appendix I Department of Fish and CDFW and Appendix I-1, Biological Wildlife (CDFW) wildlife area Resources Chapter Five, Section 5.10, Wetland mitigation CDFW, USEPA Wetlands and Streams and Appendix J, Wetlands Federal Emergency Chapter Four, Section 4.5.3, Floodplain impacts Management Agency Floodplains, and Chapter Five, (FEMA), USEPA Section 5.11, Floodplains Chapter Five, Section 5.5, Air Climate change effects USEPA Quality and Chapter Five, Section 5.11, Floodplains Provided specific comments Chapter Five, Section 5.9.6, related to the Redwood 5.9.6, Hazardous Wildlife Landfill, in particular Marin County Attractants on or Near Public Use clarifications related to the Airports existing permit
Landrum & Brown Chapter One – Background January 2020 Page 1-13 GNOSS FIELD AIRPORT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FINAL
Table 1-4 PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING COMMENT PERIOD AND PUBLIC HEARING (DECEMBER 2011 DRAFT EIS) Gnoss Field Airport
GENERAL COMMENT EIS SECTION Concerns about the aviation Chapter One, Background, Chapter Two, Purpose and forecast Need and Appendix C, Aviation Activity Forecast Concerns about runway Appendix D, Runway Length Analysis length analysis Concerns about aircraft noise Chapter Five, Section 5.1, Noise and Appendix E, Noise and overflights Concerns about induced off- Chapter Five, Section 5.2, Land Use and Appendix O, airport growth Land Use Assurance Letter Concerns about climate Chapter Five, Section 5.5, Air Quality and Chapter Five, change Section 5.11, Floodplains Concerns about impacts to Chapter Five, Section 5.10, Wetlands and Streams and wetlands Appendix J, Wetlands Concerns about impacts to Chapter Five, Section 5.6, Water Quality and Appendix G, water quality Water Quality Purpose and need is narrowly Chapter Two, Purpose and Need defined All practicable alternatives Chapter Three, Alternatives were not considered
Landrum & Brown Chapter One – Background January 2020 Page 1-14 GNOSS FIELD AIRPORT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FINAL
1.6 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE JUNE 2014 FINAL EIS
The Notice of Availability of the Final EIS was published in the Federal Register and in the Marin Independent Journal newspaper on July 3, 2014. Coordination efforts since publication of the June 2014 Final EIS are described in the Background section at the beginning of this chapter. Agency comments received on the Final EIS and responses to those comments are included in Appendix B-1, Public Involvement. In general, the agency comments received after the publication of the Final EIS focused on seven areas. Table 1-5 provides a summary list of the topics commented on. All of these comments are addressed in Appendix B-1, Public Involvement.
Table 1-5 AGENCY COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE JUNE 2014 FINAL EIS Gnoss Field Airport
GENERAL COMMENT AGENCY EIS SECTION Chapter One, Background, Chapter Two, Purpose Concerns about the USEPA and Need, Appendix C, Aviation Activity aviation forecast Forecast, Appendix Concerns about noise Chapter Five, Section 5.1, Noise and Appendix E, USEPA impacts Noise Chapter One, Background, Chapter Two, Purpose Concerns about the USEPA and Need, Appendix C, Aviation Activity defined need Forecast, Appendix Concerns about impacts to Chapter Four, Section 4.5.3, Floodplains, and USEPA floodplains Chapter Five, Section 5.11, Floodplains Concerns about impacts Chapter Five, Section 5.10, Wetlands and USEPA and mitigation of wetlands Streams and Appendix J, Wetlands Concerns about land use Chapter Five, Section 5.2, Land Use and USEPA compatibility Appendix O, Land Use Assurance Letter All practicable alternatives USEPA Chapter Three, Alternatives were not considered
Public comments received on the June 2014 Final EIS and responses to those comments are included in Appendix B-1, Public Involvement. In general, the public comments received after the publication of the Final EIS focused on two areas. Table 1-6 provides a summary list of the topics commented on. All of these comments are addressed in Appendix B-1, Public Involvement.
Table 1-6 PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE JUNE 2014 FINAL EIS Gnoss Field Airport
GENERAL COMMENT EIS SECTION Don’t agree with FAA Chapter One, Background, Chapter Two, Purpose and Need, finding Appendix C, Aviation Activity Forecast Concerns about land use Chapter Five, Section 5.10, Wetlands and Streams and compatibility Appendix J, Wetlands
Landrum & Brown Chapter One – Background January 2020 Page 1-15 GNOSS FIELD AIRPORT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FINAL
1.7 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE APRIL 2016 AND FEBRUARY 2018 WORKING PAPERS
The April 2016 Purpose and Need Working Paper was circulated for agency and public review between May 2, 2016 and June 17, 2016, and a public meeting to accept comments on the document was held on June 2, 2016. All comments received on the April 2016 Purpose and Need Working Paper and responses to those comments are included in Appendix B-1, Public Involvement. In general, the comments received after the publication of the April 2016 Purpose and Need Working Paper focused on eight areas. Table 1-7 provides a summary list of the topics commented on. A more detailed list of these comments are provided and addressed in Appendix B-1.
Table 1-7 COMMENT TOPICS RECEIVED ON THE APRIL 2016 PURPOSE AND NEED WORKING PAPER Gnoss Field Airport
COMMENT TOPIC GENERAL COMMENT 1 Don’t agree with FAA finding 2 Support of Reduction in Length of the Runway Extension 3 Noise 4 Need 5 General 6 Floodplains 7 Wetlands 8 Land Use
As a result of comments on the April 2016 Purpose and Need Working Paper, the FAA collected additional information on aviation activity at DVO. This additional aviation activity information was provided in the February 2018 Updated Purpose and Need Working Paper. The February 2018 Updated Purpose and Need Working Paper was circulated for agency and public review between February 20, 2018 and April 6, 2018, and a public meeting was held to accept comments on the document on March 20, 2018.
All comments received on the February 2018 Updated Purpose and Need Working Paper and responses to those comments are included in Appendix B-1, Public Involvement. In general, the comments received after the publication of the February 2018 Updated Purpose and Need Working Paper focused on seven areas. Table 1-8 provides a summary list of the topics commented on. A more detailed list of these comments are provided and addressed in Appendix B-1, Public Involvement.
Landrum & Brown Chapter One – Background January 2020 Page 1-16 GNOSS FIELD AIRPORT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FINAL
Table 1-8 COMMENT TOPICS RECEIVED ON THE FEBRUARY 2018 UPDATED PURPOSE AND NEED WORKING PAPER Gnoss Field Airport
COMMENT TOPIC GENERAL COMMENT 1 Don’t agree with FAA finding 2 Support of Reduction in Length of the Runway Extension 3 Need 4 General 5 Floodplains 6 Wetlands 7 Land Use
1.8 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT SEIS
The Notice of Availability of the Draft SEIS was published in the Federal Register and in the Marin Independent Journal newspaper on July 19, 2019 . The public comment period was open from July 19, 2019 to September 6, 2019. A public hearing was held on August 22, 2019. There were 10 written comment letters received during the public comment period. There were also six commenters at the public hearing, including two that also submitted comment letters. Some of the comment letters were from agencies, organizations, or signed by multiple individuals, so they represented the comments of more than one person.
Agency comments received on the July 2019 Draft SEIS and responses to those comments are included in Appendix P-1, Comments Received on the Draft Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement, and Appendix Q-1, FAA Response to Comments on the Draft Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement. In general, the agency comments received after the publication of the July 2019 Draft SEIS focused on seven areas. Table 1-9 provides a summary list of the topics commented on. All of these comments are addressed in Appendix Q-1, FAA Response to Comments on the Draft SEIS.
Landrum & Brown Chapter One – Background January 2020 Page 1-17 GNOSS FIELD AIRPORT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FINAL
Table 1-9 AGENCY COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE JULY 2019 DRAFT SEIS Gnoss Field Airport
GENERAL COMMENT AGENCY SEIS SECTION Concerns about impacts Chapter Four, Section 4.5.3, Floodplains, and USEPA to floodplains Chapter 5.11, Floodplains Concerns about impacts Chapter Five, Section 5.10, Wetlands and and mitigation of USEPA Streams and Appendix J, Wetlands wetlands Concerns about Chapter Five, Section 5.17, Hazardous hazardous material USEPA Materials and Appendix L-1, Hazardous mitigation measures Materials during construction Question about the air Chapter Five, Section 5.5, Air Quality and USEPA emissions estimates Streams and Appendix F-1, Air Quality Specific comments regarding construction FEMA Chapter Five, Section 5.11, Floodplains within a floodplain
Public comments received on the July 2019 Draft SEIS and responses to those comments are included in Appendix P-1, Comments Received on the Draft SEIS and Appendix Q-1, FAA Response to Comments on the Draft Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement. In general, the public comments received after the publication of the July 2019 Draft SEIS focused on five areas. Table 1-10 provides a summary list of the topics commented on. All of these comments are addressed in Appendix Q-1, FAA Response to Comments on the Draft Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Table 1-10 PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE JULY 2019 DRAFT SEIS Gnoss Field Airport
GENERAL COMMENT SEIS SECTION Chapter One, Background, Chapter Two, Purpose and Don’t agree with FAA finding Need, Appendix C, Aviation Activity Forecast Question about the Runway Safety Areas proposed and Chapter Three, Alternatives. Appendix Q-1 Responses to evaluated for the proposed Comments alternatives Concerns about impacts to Chapter Five, Section 5.10, Wetlands and Streams and wetlands Appendix J, Wetlands Concerns about impacts to Chapter Five, Section 5.6, Water Quality and Appendix G, water quality Water Quality Concerns about the enforcement of noise Chapter Five, Section 5.1, Noise abatement procedures
Landrum & Brown Chapter One – Background January 2020 Page 1-18