The URL can be used to link to this page

Item Q1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 8/21/2013 Division: County Administrator Bulk Item: Yes— No X Department: Airports Staff Contact Person/Phone#: Peter Horton, 809-5200 AGENDA IT WORDING: Approval to accept the"No Action" alternative proposed in the DRAFT Environmental Assessment(EA) for Proposed Runway 7/25 Relocation at the Florida Keys Marathon Airport. ITEM BACKGROUND: After reviewing the DRAFT EA and Comments from the Director of Airports the FAA has given us a choice of alternatives as per the attached letter. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: URS Professional Service Order(PSO) approved at the 9-16- 2009 BOCC Regular meeting, Item C-3. CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval. ..................................................... TOTAL COST: $00 INDIRECT COST: NA BUDGETED: Yes DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE: NA COST TO COUNTY: None SOURCE OF FUNDS: COST TO AIRPORT: $ COST TO PFC: None REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No X AMOUNT PER YEAR: NA APPROVED BY: County Attorney N/A OMB/Purchasing N/A Risk Management N/A DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not Required DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM# Ow US, Deparlment Airpons Districl OFfice of Transportaflon 59M 1 W.,eltine Nafionat Drive-Suite 400 Federal Aviation Orlando,Florida 32822 Administration 407-812-633 1 August 6, 2013 Mr. Peter Horton Director of Airports, Monroe County FL Key West International Airport 3491 S. Roosevelt Boulevard Key West FL 33040-5295 Dear Mr. Horton: RE- The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) and Proposed Project Per our telephone conversation with you on July 26, 2013, we understand that Monroe County, would like to re-consider the Proposed Project identified in the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for Proposed Runway 7/25 Relocation., The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would prefer the Proposed Project', however, in accordance with FAA regulations, the airport sponsor (not the FAA) decides whether to carry out the preferred alternative for airport development, Monroe County may make one of the following choices: (1) Concur in and implement FAA's preferred alternative i.e. the Proposed Project (2) Reject FAA's preferred alternative, (3) Proposed an alternative not previously presented. (4) Take no action to address the purpose and need. If Monroe County decides to take no action to address the purpose and need, Monroe County must commit to submitting and pursuing approval from the FAA of a modification to design standards (MS} that controls the use of Taxiway "A" during take-offs and landings on Runway 7/25. The MOS should address the non-standard runway-taxiway separation and aircraft taxiing within the runway's obstacle free zone (OFZ). Once the MS is approved, Monroe County will be required to publish the MOS procedures in FAA's Airport/Facilities Directory (AFD) including Prior Permission Required (PP'R) instructions for larger aircraft. Furthermore, Monroe County must commit to the FAA that if operational issues due to inadequate runway-taxiway separation distance and OFZ penetrations begin to affect the capacity of the airport, this issue will be re-opened. Regarding the grant for the EA, if the County chooses, the no action, FAA will accept the Draft Environmental Assessment for purposes of grant closure. We will not require the County to circulate the EA for public review or hold a public meeting. The EA process would conclude with our concurrence with the County's choice of no action with the County's above referenced commitments. Sincerely, Bart Vernace, P.E. Manager cc Don DeGraw, The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Peter Green, URS _ _ _ t E� \ - ,t � \ _: �#�3£��}{i"jy+}S14i;,t1)t\3\\�}i')llrr>}' t)ltllt\il't _ - C � 1 '� �. - t�, �� 1��\1�11 qlf{`�)�S1�,i�t\��yt �1�,, \)I�i` )s) )� � �� itt)�t'�stt}{ri?rt!(�)��) tiiy)t\+tl\s(, , _ J� �- t ) � ,� �tt {1� lt�f �i �tl�\�t�t}3t��SJ��y?u,}�l�'rlt . - �f � � E � ,i, l ��,ilr it.,,t`, s,sur o rr r � ��) r,� i, t rt i,, ,t, ,t I, \ ,1 ,,.,11t, t �1, a,tt\ , . , -- `" �-. � - + - _1s {{ ..�4 yS ��,,1,„lira .a„)ti,1`}„), - - - - - _ rS 5it1 S ,:.{ 4s ��\4it, r�}��t t 3�t�� ts,-,,,,l,,r\lJ,��,�. - - _ _-_- �_ `:_ a �� E_._ - �.. ..i � .1 -, �117 \), .4 r tr....r\ �1 \��l i ?,.,, t�c„S, - --_ _'- `=_`-� �'- _`� -` `--.' __. __---- - r.-,- _.- --_-. -- ..d � �� .$ ,. �.:. r ,.f a,,,1 t, t ,alj.t r Iid ,Ur -_ `- - - �_-.- -= - �_ - -.. "-_: -_ - _-�- _ -.' _- - _, .._ t ...� \ (fSI�� )r _:_) .� ,.�. {,,�� %,1\�t}11)��ti',,tjt��4\,ktl;�l�,fi(tt` +,$). t ) t t - , �-- � a s ' � .�� t'.�- - ' � a �1 „.,, �� `�-,3� e ! - - --_ - - _- ® � - -_ e ®a � � � � e - - - - �: �.. e o � -_--_'=_ � � � � 'y � '3 � �' � v ^��' I t _-_ - -- - � _- � - � _ �. P l i� �„1t�llil )S��ttt)J�41)(t;`4 S11S1�It�1{�"��i�\}s r{,: �. � `; + � tr +1 .� �`t�l )li}iq',,; `\t+ist)}y4�t ?s� ) r e ), t, :a� ie tl t,. � 'i�1i ,y� tt 1 l,_ i tk �, .1 , I r +ir ,). (. ) It� `` 1 ,1 � � }: i f )t - 1 it 1 � 1 fr � � � ? .,? - � t ? � # �?}t�� _ ,i 1 , l\ � - r t t , �, ,`,, � jj �, t t � - s .f� 1\ ') aid � o \\ It �{{ ,t)��)ai�f,S\Ali+t,4t?t:,�t,!}, `� - t }`' �. \ tv,€ � tlS �)p,t„t is��1�tj .,s �,n�,r'{ - �° it `� �. � ), c t t_, ! #t t tr 1 - � �f. ��; �� v} ,fit){{, 1,),i�,1j1�s�; S { !J._ �:�l tt�;,llll}{ ttttt_` ?, -- - �-" -- � ,y , �t�ti` e,�' :t c. .;;`t. �t 1 Jr�., . . � �� ci�ss'�,�,)�)k\t t+lth�;�"� 1'tr't Draft ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT for Proposed Shift of Runway 7/25 at the Florida Keys Marathon Airport Marathon, Florida Prepared for the FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINSITRATION 5950 Hazeltine National Drive Orlando, Florida 32822 Prepared by: MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS The Florida Keys Marathon Airport 9400 Overseas Highway Marathon, Florida 33050 and URS Corporation Southern Tampa / Miami, Florida July 15, 2013 This Environmental Assessment becomes a Federal document when evaluated, signed, and dated by the responsible FAA Official. Responsible FAA Official Date TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Airport Description and Background ................................................................................1-1 1.1.1 Airport Ownership and Operation .......................................................................1-2 1.1.2 Airport Location...................................................................................................1-2 1.1.3 Existing Airport Facilities.....................................................................................1-2 1.1.4 Aviation Activity at MTH......................................................................................1-9 1.2 2009 Airport Layout Plan Update...................................................................................1-10 1.3 Proposed Project............................................................................................................1-11 1.4 Requested Federal Actions............................................................................................1-11 1.5 Environmental Assessment Process .............................................................................1-12 2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED.................................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Problem Statement..........................................................................................................2-1 2.1.1 Runway Design Code and Critical Aircraft..........................................................2-1 2.1.2 Runway to Parallel Taxiway Separation Standards............................................2-3 2.2 Need for the Proposed Project.........................................................................................2-3 2.3 Purpose of the Proposed Project.....................................................................................2-4 3.0 ALTERNATIVES ...........................................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Alternatives Analysis and NEPA......................................................................................3-1 3.3 Alternatives Screening Process.......................................................................................3-1 3.3.1 Level 1 Analysis: Purpose and Need..................................................................3-2 3.3.2 Level 2 Analysis: Operational and Cost Considerations.....................................3-2 3.3.3 Level 3 Analysis: Environmental Impacts ...........................................................3-2 3.4 Alternatives Considered...................................................................................................3-2 3.4.1 Off-Site/Operational Alternatives ........................................................................3-3 3.4.2 On-Site "Build"Alternatives.................................................................................3-3 3.5 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration ........................................................3-4 3.5.1 Alternative 1 — Use of Other Airports..................................................................3-4 3.5.2 Alternative 3— Relocate Runway 7/25 Centerline and Taxiway"A" Centerline..........................................................................................................3-11 3.6 Alternatives Retained for Detailed Analysis...................................................................3-13 3.6.1 Alternative 2— Relocate Taxiway"A"................................................................3-13 3.6.2 Proposed Project (Relocate Runway 7/25 Centerline).....................................3-15 3.6.3 No-Action Alternative ........................................................................................3-18 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................4-1 4.1 Environmental Assessment Study Areas.........................................................................4-1 4.2 Air Quality.........................................................................................................................4-1 4.2.1 Regional Climate.................................................................................................4-1 4.2.2 Air Quality Conditions .........................................................................................4-1 4.3 Coastal Resources...........................................................................................................4-5 4.4 Land Use..........................................................................................................................4-5 4.4.1 Land Use in the Vicinity of MTH..........................................................................4-5 4.4.2 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy ...............................................................4-6 4.5 Department of Transportation Section 4(f) Resources..................................................4-11 4.5.1 Potential Section 4(f) Resources within the GSA.............................................4-11 4.6 Fish, Wildlife, and Plants................................................................................................4-12 4.6.1 Methodology......................................................................................................4-12 4.6.2 Land Use and Vegetative Cover.......................................................................4-13 4.6.3 Wildlife...............................................................................................................4-19 4.6.4 State- and Federally-Listed Species.................................................................4-20 i Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Section Page 4.6.5 Designated Critical Habitat ...............................................................................4-30 4.6.6 Essential Fish Habitat.......................................................................................4-31 4.7 Floodplains.....................................................................................................................4-32 4.7.1 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................4-32 4.7.2 Floodplain Map Review.....................................................................................4-32 4.8 Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste .......................................4-32 4.8.1 Municipal Solid Waste Collection and Disposal................................................4-35 4.8.2 Hazardous Materials.........................................................................................4-35 4.9 Historic, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources..........................................................4-37 4.9.1 Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act...........4-37 4.9.2 Historic and Cultural Resources in the GSA.....................................................4-38 4.9.3 Archaeological Resources................................................................................4-39 4.10 Aircraft Noise and Land Use Compatibility....................................................................4-39 4.10.1 Aircraft Noise Descriptors and Effects..............................................................4-39 4.10.2 Land Use Compatibility.....................................................................................4-40 4.10.3 Noise and Compatible Land Use Prediction Methods......................................4-40 4.10.4 Existing Noise Environment and Land Use Compatibility.................................4-41 4.11 Social and Economic Characteristics.............................................................................4-49 4.11.1 Population .........................................................................................................4-49 4.12 Water Resources ...........................................................................................................4-51 4.12.1 Regulatory Agency Requirements....................................................................4-51 4.12.2 Surface Water...................................................................................................4-52 4.12.3 Groundwater .....................................................................................................4-53 4.12.4 Water Supply.....................................................................................................4-53 4.12.5 Sanitary Wastewater and Treatment................................................................4-54 4.13 Wetlands........................................................................................................................4-54 4.13.1 Applicable Regulation .......................................................................................4-54 4.13.2 Methodology......................................................................................................4-54 4.13.3 Baseline Conditions ..........................................................................................4-55 4.14 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions........................................4-56 4.14.1 Airport Development Actions ............................................................................4-56 4.14.2 Other(Off-Airport) Development Actions..........................................................4-56 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .......................................................................................5-1 5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................5-1 5.2 Resource Categories Not Affected ..................................................................................5-1 5.3 Air Quality.........................................................................................................................5-2 5.3.1 Overview of Impacts ...........................................................................................5-2 5.3.2 Methodology........................................................................................................5-2 5.3.3 Impacts................................................................................................................5-2 5.3.4 Cumulative Effects..............................................................................................5-3 5.3.5 Potential Mitigation Measures.............................................................................5-4 5.3.6 Comparison to Significant Impact Thresholds ....................................................5-4 5.4 Coastal Resources...........................................................................................................5-4 5.4.1 Overview of Impacts ...........................................................................................5-4 5.4.2 Methodology........................................................................................................5-4 5.4.3 Impacts................................................................................................................5-5 5.4.4 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................5-10 5.4.5 Comparison to Significant Impact Thresholds..................................................5-11 5.5 Compatible Land Use.....................................................................................................5-11 5.5.1 Overview of Impacts .........................................................................................5-11 5.5.2 Methodology......................................................................................................5-11 ii Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Section Page 5.5.3 Impacts..............................................................................................................5-12 5.5.4 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................5-15 5.5.5 Comparison to Significant Impact Thresholds ..................................................5-16 5.6 Construction Impacts .....................................................................................................5-16 5.6.1 Overview of Impacts .........................................................................................5-16 5.6.2 Methodology......................................................................................................5-16 5.6.3 Impacts..............................................................................................................5-16 5.6.4 Comparison to Significant Impact Thresholds ..................................................5-18 5.7 Department of Transportation Section 4(f) Resources..................................................5-18 5.7.1 Overview of Impacts .........................................................................................5-18 5.7.2 Methodology......................................................................................................5-18 5.7.3 Impacts..............................................................................................................5-19 5.7.4 Mitigation...........................................................................................................5-20 5.7.5 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................5-20 5.7.6 Comparison of Significant Impact Thresholds ..................................................5-23 5.8 Fish, Wildlife, and Plants................................................................................................5-23 5.8.1 Overview of Impacts .........................................................................................5-23 5.8.2 Methodology......................................................................................................5-23 5.8.3 Biotic Communities Impacts..............................................................................5-24 5.8.4 Essential Fish Habitat.......................................................................................5-28 5.8.5 Protected Species.............................................................................................5-30 5.8.6 Impact Summary...............................................................................................5-34 5.8.7 Mitigation...........................................................................................................5-35 5.8.8 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................5-35 5.8.9 Comparison to Significant Impact Thresholds ..................................................5-36 5.9 Floodplains.....................................................................................................................5-37 5.9.1 Overview of Impacts .........................................................................................5-37 5.9.2 Methodology......................................................................................................5-37 5.9.3 Impacts..............................................................................................................5-37 5.9.4 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................5-39 5.9.5 Mitigation...........................................................................................................5-39 5.9.6 Comparison to Significant Impact Thresholds..................................................5-39 5.10 Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste .......................................5-39 5.10.1 Overview of Impacts .........................................................................................5-39 5.10.2 Methodology......................................................................................................5-40 5.10.3 Impacts..............................................................................................................5-40 5.10.4 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................5-42 5.10.5 Mitigation...........................................................................................................5-43 5.10.6 Comparison to Significant Impact Thresholds ..................................................5-43 5.11 Historic, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources..........................................................5-43 5.11.1 Overview of Impacts .........................................................................................5-43 5.11.2 Methodology......................................................................................................5-43 5.11.3 Area of Potential Effect.....................................................................................5-44 5.11.4 Historic Resources within the Area of Potential Effect......................................5-47 5.11.5 Impacts..............................................................................................................5-47 5.11.6 Mitigation...........................................................................................................5-48 5.11.7 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................5-49 5.11.8 Comparison to Significant Impact Thresholds ..................................................5-49 5.12 Light Emissions and Visual Effects................................................................................5-49 5.12.1 Overview of Impacts .........................................................................................5-49 5.12.2 Methodology......................................................................................................5-49 iii Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Section Page 5.12.3 Impacts..............................................................................................................5-50 5.12.4 Mitigation...........................................................................................................5-51 5.12.5 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................5-51 5.12.6 Comparison to Significant Impact Thresholds ..................................................5-51 5.13 Noise..............................................................................................................................5-51 5.13.1 Overview of Impacts .........................................................................................5-51 5.13.2 Methodology......................................................................................................5-52 5.13.3 Impacts..............................................................................................................5-52 5.13.4 Mitigation...........................................................................................................5-69 5.13.5 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................5-69 5.13.6 Comparison to Significant Impact Threshold....................................................5-70 5.14 Secondary (Induced) Impacts........................................................................................5-70 5.14.1 Overview of Impacts .........................................................................................5-70 5.14.2 Methodology......................................................................................................5-70 5.14.3 Impacts..............................................................................................................5-70 5.14.4 Mitigation...........................................................................................................5-71 5.14.5 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................5-71 5.14.6 Comparison to Significant Impact Thresholds ..................................................5-71 5.15 Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental Justice, and Children's Environmental Health andSafety Risks............................................................................................................5-71 5.15.1 Overview of Impacts .........................................................................................5-71 5.15.2 Methodology......................................................................................................5-71 5.15.3 Impacts..............................................................................................................5-72 5.15.4 Mitigation...........................................................................................................5-74 5.15.5 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................5-75 5.15.6 Comparison to Significant Impact Thresholds ..................................................5-75 5.16 Water Resources ...........................................................................................................5-75 5.16.1 Overview of Impacts .........................................................................................5-75 5.16.2 Methodology......................................................................................................5-76 5.16.3 Impacts..............................................................................................................5-76 5.16.4 Permits.............................................................................................................5-82 5.16.5 Mitigation...........................................................................................................5-82 5.16.6 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................5-83 5.16.7 Significant Impact Thresholds...........................................................................5-83 5.17 Wetlands........................................................................................................................5-84 5.17.1 Overview of Impacts .........................................................................................5-84 5.17.2 Methodology......................................................................................................5-84 5.17.3 Impacts..............................................................................................................5-85 5.17.4 Potential Mitigation Measures...........................................................................5-85 5.17.5 Cumulative Impacts ..........................................................................................5-85 5.17.6 Comparison to Significant Impact Thresholds ..................................................5-86 6.0 MITIGATION .................................................................................................................................6-1 6.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................6-1 6.2 Mitigation Measures for Tropical Hardwood Hammock Impacts .....................................6-1 6.3 Mitigation Measures for unavoidable Wetland impacts ...................................................6-1 6.4 Mitigation Measures for Protected Species Impacts........................................................6-2 6.5 Mitigation Measures for Essential Fish Habitat impacts..................................................6-7 6.6 Mitigation Measures Related to Runway Closure during Construction ...........................6-7 7.0 COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................7-1 7.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................7-1 iv Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Section Page 7.2 Early Agency Coordination ..............................................................................................7-1 7.3 Public Information Meeting ..............................................................................................7-1 7.4 Draft EA Availability for Review .......................................................................................7-2 7.5 List of Agencies Receiving the Draft EA..........................................................................7-2 7.5 Public Hearing..................................................................................................................7-5 7.6 Final EA Availability for Review .......................................................................................7-6 8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS .................................................................................................................8-1 8.1 List of Preparers...............................................................................................................8-1 9.0 REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................9-1 10.0 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND GLOSSARY...................................................10-1 10.1 List of Acronyms.............................................................................................................10-1 10.2 Glossary of Terms..........................................................................................................10-3 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Airport Layout Plan (ALP) Drawing Appendix B Aircraft Noise, Noise Metrics, and the Integrated Noise Model (INM) Appendix C Hazardous Materials Appendix D City and County Land Use Planning Appendix E Wetlands, Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Appendix F Agency Consultation Appendix G Public Involvement Appendix H Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Federal Agency Consistency Determination Appendix I Historic Resources/Section 106 Coordination v Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1.1-1 Aircraft Operations— Historical and Forecasted........................................................................1-9 1.1-2 Annual Passenger Enplanements ...........................................................................................1-10 2.1-1 ARC Components Applicable to Most General Aviation Airports..............................................2-2 3.5-1 Three-Level Alternatives Screening Evaluation Summary........................................................3-9 4.2-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)....................................................................4-2 4.6-1 Upland Land Uses/Vegetative Cover within the BSA..............................................................4-13 4.6-2 Wetlands and Other Surface Water Community Types Present within the BSA ....................4-19 4.6-3 State-and Federally-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species with the Potential to Occurwithin the BSA...............................................................................................................4-22 4.8-1 Summary of Registered Tanks within the DSA .......................................................................4-36 4.8-2 RCRA Sites within the DSA.....................................................................................................4-37 4.10-1 2012 Baseline Condition Noise Exposure Estimates ..............................................................4-42 4.11-1 Historical Population Estimates (Permanent Residents)—Monroe County and the City of Marathon..................................................................................................................................4-49 4.11-2 Population Projections for Monroe County, Florida.................................................................4-50 4.11-3 Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Population Estimates ..................................................................4-50 4.11-4 Population Estimates by Race.................................................................................................4-50 4.11-5 Economic and Income Data for Monroe County and the City of Marathon.............................4-51 4.13-1 Wetlands and Other Surface Water Community Types Present within the BSA ....................4-55 5.7-1 Section 4(f) Noise Grid Point Analysis— Proposed Project.....................................................5-21 5.7-2 Section 4(f) Noise Grid Point Analysis—Alternative 2.............................................................5-22 5.8-1 Acres of Impacts to Land Use/Vegetative Cover Resulting from the Proposed Project..........5-24 5.8-2 Estimated Impact to State-Listed Plant Species......................................................................5-33 5.8-3 Habitat Impact Summary— Proposed Project .........................................................................5-34 5.10-1 Evaluation of Project Involvement with Hazardous Materials Environmental Contamination .5-41 5.13-1 Study Year 2016 No-Action Alternative Noise Exposure Estimates........................................5-55 5.13-2 Noise Exposure Estimates for Noise-Sensitive Sites— Proposed Project ..............................5-57 5.13-3 Study Year 2016 Proposed Project Noise Exposure Estimates..............................................5-61 5.13-4 Study Year 2021 No-Action Alternative Noise Exposure Estimates........................................5-65 5.13-5 Study Year 2021 Proposed Project Noise Exposure Estimates..............................................5-66 5.17-1 Wetland and Other Surface Water Impacts.............................................................................5-85 vi Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1.1-1 The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Location Map.....................................................................1-3 1.1-2 Vicinity Map................................................................................................................................1-5 1.1-3 Existing Airport Layout...............................................................................................................1-7 1.3-1 Proposed Project (Shift Runway 40 feet to the Northwest).....................................................1-13 2.1-1 Examples of Aircraft Meeting ARC B-II Criteria.........................................................................2-2 3.4-1 Alternatives 2 and 3...................................................................................................................3-5 3.4-2 No-Action Alternative and Proposed Project.............................................................................3-7 4.1-1 Study Areas ...............................................................................................................................4-3 4.4-1 Land Use in the Vicinity of MTH ................................................................................................4-7 4.4-2 Noise-Sensitive Sites.................................................................................................................4-9 4.6-1 Habitats within the General Study Area...................................................................................4-15 4.6-2 Habitats within the Biological Study Area................................................................................4-17 4.7-1 Floodplains...............................................................................................................................4-33 4.10-1 Existing Condition East Flow Flight Tracks .............................................................................4-43 4.10-2 Existing Condition West Flow Flight Tracks ............................................................................4-45 4.10-3 Existing Condition 2012 Average Annual Day Noise Contours...............................................4-47 5.8-1 Habitats within the Proposed Project Impact Area..................................................................5-25 5.11-1 Area of Potential Effect (APE) .................................................................................................5-45 5.13-1 No-Action Alternative 2016 Noise Contours............................................................................5-53 5.13-2 Proposed Project 2016 Noise Contours ..................................................................................5-59 5.13-3 No-Action Alternative 2021 Noise Contours............................................................................5-63 5.13-4 Proposed Project 2021 Noise Contours ..................................................................................5-67 6.3-1 Potential Mitigation Site Location...............................................................................................6-3 6.3-2 Potential Mitigation Site .............................................................................................................6-5 vii Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 CHAPTER 1.0 2 INTRODUCTION 3 The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), also referred to as the "Airport Sponsor," 4 has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA)to consider the environmental impacts associated with 5 proposed improvements to the airfield at the Florida Keys Marathon Airport (MTH). The purpose of the 6 proposed improvement is to meet Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airport design standards. 7 Specifically, the proposed improvements would address runway-to-taxiway separation standards. The 8 distance between the centerlines of Runway 7/25 and Taxiway "A" is 200 feet; however, the required 9 distance is 240 feet. The proposed airfield improvements (Proposed Project) would shift Runway 7/25 to 10 the northwest by 40 feet to provide the required 240 feet of runway-to-taxiway separation. 11 The proposed airfield improvements require unconditional Airport Layout Plan (ALP) approval and 12 financial assistance from the FAA necessary to implement the airfield improvements. The federal actions 13 associated with the requested ALP approval and processing a grant request require that the FAA 14 consider potential environmental impacts in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 15 1969 (NEPA) and FAA guidance contained in NEPA Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions (FAA 16 Order 5050.4B)and Environmental Impacts:Policies and Procedures (FAA Order 1050.1 E). 17 In accordance with the procedural provisions of NEPA [40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §1500- 18 1508] and FAA environmental requirements, the County has prepared this Environmental Assessment 19 (EA) to assess and document potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed airfield 20 improvements. This EA provides background information, describes the Purpose and Need for the 21 proposed improvements, evaluates reasonable alternatives, describes existing environmental conditions, 22 discloses potential environmental impacts, and describes proposed mitigation measures. 23 This chapter provides a description of the airport, background information on the FAA's request to 24 address the nonstandard runway-to-taxiway separation distance, a description of the Proposed Project, 25 and an overview of the EA process. 26 1.1 AIRPORT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND 27 MTH was originally constructed by the United States (U.S.) Navy in the early 1940s as an auxiliary 28 airfield. At the end of World War II, the airfield was deactivated and transferred to the State of Florida, 29 and later Monroe County, for civilian use. Over time, the airport was developed for public use and 30 currently provides airfield, terminal, and support facilities for air charter/taxi operations, air cargo 31 operations, and general aviation operations. Since the 1960s, intermittent scheduled commercial 32 passenger service has been provided at MTH by several airlines, most recently by Delta Airlines in 2007 33 and Continental Airlines in 2009 (through a codeshare with Cape Air). Despite the intermittent scheduled 34 passenger service, MTH remains an important component of the transportation network serving south 35 Monroe County, the City of Marathon, and surrounding communities. 1-1 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 1.1.1 Airport Ownership and Operation 2 MTH is owned by Monroe County and operated by the Monroe County BOCC. The County also owns the 3 Key West International Airport (KWIA), a commercial service airport located approximately 36 nautical 4 miles (NM) east/southeast of Marathon. 5 1.1.2 Airport Location 6 The City of Marathon is located on Vaca Key in the middle portion of the Florida Keys. MTH is located on 7 U.S. Highway (US) 1, approximately 2 miles east of the City's Central Business District. The location of 8 the City of Marathon and MTH is shown on Figures 1.1-1 and 1.1-2. 9 1.1.3 Existing Airport Facilities 10 Existing facilities at MTH include a runway, taxiways, aircraft parking aprons, approach and navigational 11 aids (NAVAIDS), terminal buildings, aircraft maintenance and storage hangars, fuel storage tanks, and 12 industrial facilities. Other major components include access roadways, vehicle parking lots, stormwater 13 detention ponds, and equipment storage buildings. Existing facilities at MTH are depicted on 14 Figure 1.1-3. Airfield facilities related to the proposed improvements considered in this EA are described 15 below. 16 Runway 7/25 is 5,008 feet in length and 100 feet wide. The runway is constructed of an asphalt overlay 17 on an asphalt concrete pavement. There is a 50-foot-wide paved shoulder on the south side of the 18 runway. 19 Taxiway "A" is a full-length parallel taxiway on the south side of Runway 7/25. The asphalt taxiway is 20 50 feet wide. Multiple connecting and stub taxiways also provide access from Taxiway "A" to the aircraft 21 parking aprons, terminal facilities, and hangars located on the south side of Taxiway "A." The centerline 22 separation distance between the Runway 7/25 centerline and the centerline of Taxiway"A" is 200 feet. 23 MTH has three primary apron areas — one apron serving the terminal area and two general aviation 24 aircraft parking aprons. The terminal apron provides aircraft parking positions at the terminal buildings 25 and cargo building. The paved apron area is approximately 13,600 square yards in size. Due to aircraft 26 parking limitations imposed by the Taxiway"A" Object Free Area (TOFA), the usable area for this apron is 27 approximately 6,645 square yards. The two general aviation aprons provide access to the airport's Fixed 28 Base Operators (FBOs) and provide parking for based and transient aircraft. The total amount of general 29 aviation aircraft parking apron is approximately 52,325 square yards. 30 The passenger terminal building, which was completed and opened in May 1995, replaced the original 31 passenger terminal building. Because commercial passenger service is not currently provided at MTH, 32 the passenger terminal building is being prepared for U.S. Customs screening'. 33 Monroe County is presently preparing plans and specifications to adapt portions of the terminal building for U.S. Customs screening services. 1-2 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport m C4 y r. x d z w^ o o 0 �h �n c� Qr a `AINKI! ur to i a � Y w h \\ Pill, ow- r Z klll, w � 5 O E� Fti 2 i--i O M a ] W f � w Y FIGURE 0 �e o T � a z c4 o z o a w Q p�q p w Y m un GC � � a � w cn a � � cn cn cn a x e v a w o a a � a w I w Y LO 0 0 I y c N 0 �I Y Ip— FIGURE - � 11-2 IuauIssassV Ieluauzuo.neu:l ® ® a M uoi;eaoiag SZ/G n�nlung ,LIIO� vIl JLHOCI IIV OXI,LSIXI aod.q uo eau sfa u po a � � uI Ili �I P. I3 u.L o< � ET , I r I - N IYL_ pa © w z zw 1 J p < ' 4 ao 1 I i < W I w 1 I � a ❑� g El o O a £s 0 0 a 0 .e El II � ❑''a Qoy �'❑ o „�� 0000`s s q oO�C 0��❑ �t s O G �� s tc _ f C 30 I 3 Iz 1 cga s /11 t4i cgi c�r a n `r U&?,� 0 a o 43 z2�zoze H Iu I � 1ZO� ;II o 1 4 ++ ❑ + 4 4 4n � NiSp .os 00 0�© z « da� >rv❑.po❑ t � � I , 0o s e J I a b�9� ��❑z�9��so 6Mp��—�� ❑��s�,ydo,��d❑ �oy,o,ow�� 1 There are a number of aircraft storage and maintenance hangars at MTH, including eight conventional 2 hangars, four T-hangar buildings, and three shade hangar structures. 3 1.1.4 Aviation Activity at MTH 4 The number of annual aircraft operations (take-offs and landings) and annual passenger enplanements 5 for recent years and select forecast years, as published in the FAA's Terminal Area Forecast (TAF), are 6 presented in Table 1.1-1. The FAA's TAF projects in increase in the number of annual aircraft operations 7 at MTH over time (FAA, 2012a). Based on the 66,859 annual aircraft operations that occurred at MTH in 8 2011, peak month activity 2011 was estimated to be approximately 7,243 aircraft operations 9 (approximately 239 daily operations). 10 TABLE 1.1-1 11 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS—HISTORICAL AND FORECASTED 12 Year Annual Aircraft Operations Historical 2000 62,145 2005 62,403 2010 65,944 2011 66,859 Forecasted 2015 70,654 2020 75,701 2025 81,111 2030 86,914 13 Note: 2011 data estimated in the 2012 TAF. Actual data for 2011 not 14 available for the January 2012 TAF publication date. 15 Source: FAA's TAF, 2012. 16 The number of annual passenger enplanements shown in Table 1.1-2 reflects the intermittent and 17 varying levels of commercial service provided at MTH since 2000. Several airlines have provided service 18 to MTH since 2000. For example, Delta Airlines briefly operated at the airport in 2007 and Continental 19 Airlines (through a codeshare with Cape Air) offered a daily flight in 2009. Currently, MTH management 20 reports that the County does not anticipate scheduled commercial service being offered again at the 21 airport in the foreseeable future. The FAA's TAF projects a negligible number of enplaned passengers 22 between 2015 and 2030. 23 Although commercial service is not anticipated to be provided at MTH in the foreseeable future, the 24 airport will continue to support on-call air taxi service. 25 A wide variety of general aviation aircraft operate at MTH on a regular basis. Aircraft using MTH range 26 from small single-engine aircraft (i.e., Cessna 152) up to large turboprop aircraft and turbine aircraft. The 27 turbine aircraft using MTH range from small very light jets to large executive class jets. Typical turbine 1-9 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 aircraft using MTH include, but are not limited to Cessna Citations, Sabreliners, Learjets, Bombardier 2 Challengers, Hawkers, and Dassault Falcons. 3 TABLE 1.1-2 4 ANNUAL PASSENGER ENPLANEMENTS 5 Year Annual Commercial Passenger Enplanements Historical 2000 13,442 2001 184 2002 55 2003 187 2004 1,096 2005 404 2006 71 2007 4,956 2008 41 2009 1,183 2010 8 2011 4 Forecasted 2015 4 2020 4 2025 4 2030 4 6 Note: 2011 data estimated in the 2012 TAF. Actual data for 2011 not available for the 7 January 2012 TAF publication date. 8 Source: FAA's TAF, 2012. 9 1.2 2009 AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN UPDATE 10 An interim update of the ALP drawing set was completed in 2009. The updated ALP, which depicts 11 airfield improvements that would meet FAA design standards, was conditionally approved by the FAA. 12 The 2009 ALP depicts the Proposed Project evaluated in this Draft EA. A copy of the ALP is provided in 13 Appendix A of this Draft EA. 14 After conditionally approving the ALP, the FAA requested that the BOCC prepare an EA to examine in 15 detail the environmental impact associated with shifting Runway 7/25 40 feet and, through the EA 16 process, obtain public and regulatory agency input on the Proposed Project. Through this process, the 17 FAA will fully consider and evaluate the practicability, including cost and environmental impacts, 18 associated with meeting FAA runway-to-taxiway design standards at the airport. 2 Conditional ALP approval indicates the following: 1)the ALP depicts features that are safe and efficient for airport operations and airport use, 2)the FAA has not yet completed its review of environmental impacts, or 3)the FAA has not authorized the Airport Sponsor to begin building the facilities shown on the conditionally approved ALP. 1-10 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 1.3 PROPOSED PROJECT 2 The Proposed Project, depicted in Figure 1.3-1, consists of the following actions: 3 Shift Runway 7/25 40 feet to the northwest to provide a runway-to-taxiway centerline 4 separation distance of 240 feet. This would be accomplished by constructing 40 feet 5 of new pavement along the northwest side of the existing runway and re-paving and 6 re-marking the runway to shift the runway centerline to its new position. 7 Relocate and/or install new runway edge lights and threshold lights. 8 Modify markings, lighting, and signage on connecting Taxiways "B," "C," "D," and "E." 9 Construct 40 feet of new paved overrun along the northwest side of existing paved 10 overruns at each end of the relocated runway. 11 Grade the Runway Safety Area (RSA). 12 Clear a 40-foot strip of vegetation on the north side of the shifted runway within the 13 Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) (no fill or excavation in the area to be cleared). 14 Remove approximately 40 feet of pavement along the southern edge of the paved 15 runway shoulder and paved overruns to result in no net gain in impervious surface. 16 Modify existing airport drainage swales adjacent to the runway. 17 Conduct mitigation for unavoidable impacts. 18 Revise Air Traffic Control procedures for aircraft below 3,000 feet for the new runway 19 location.3 20 The Proposed Project, if approved, is expected to be constructed using a combination of FAA, Florida 21 Department of Transportation (FDOT), and local funds. The BOCC would request federal funding 22 through the FAA's Airport Improvement Program (AIP)for the Proposed Project. 23 If the Proposed Project receives approval, the implementation schedule for the airfield improvements 24 would depend on several factors, including acquiring permits, modifying local Comprehensive Plans, 25 implementing any required mitigation, and funding availability. For the purposes of disclosing 26 environmental impacts in this EA, it is assumed that the Proposed Project would be implemented and 27 operational by 2015. 28 1.4 REQUESTED FEDERAL ACTIONS 29 The specific federal actions being considered by the FAA in this EA are: 30 Unconditional approval of those portions of the MTH ALP that depict the Proposed 31 Project and its connected actions. 3 Revisions to air traffic control procedures are anticipated to include an update of existing RNAV GPS instrument approach procedures for MTH to reflect the 40-foot lateral shift of the runway. 1-11 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 The federal environmental approval necessary to proceed with processing of an 2 application for federal funding for those development items qualifying under the 3 former Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended, and recodified at 4 49 U.S. Code (U.S.C.)47101, et seq. 5 Although future projects other than the proposed shift of the runway are depicted on the ALP (i.e., 6 700-foot extension of Runway 7/25 and T-hangar construction), the FAA is only considering federal 7 environmental approval for the Proposed Project evaluated in this EA. The FAA will review this EA to 8 assure that NEPA and other environmental considerations are taken into account and that a thorough 9 review of all relevant environmental issues is conducted. Federal environmental approval of an EA does 10 not constitute an FAA decision of approval of federal actions. The Proposed Project has independent 11 utility from other future projects on the ALP. As defined in FAA Order 5050.413, a project has independent 12 utility when it has logical starting and end points and would have a useful purpose without relying on other 13 transportation improvements. The Proposed Project meets these criteria because it does not rely on any 14 other proposed project(s) at the airport. Other proposed projects depicted on the ALP will require 15 additional environmental analysis when determined to be reasonably foreseeable. 16 1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS 17 An EA is prepared for proposed actions with expected limited impacts or uncertain environmental impact 18 potential. Preparation of an EA requires analysis and documentation similar to that of an Environmental 19 Impact Statement (EIS), but with less detail and coordination. 20 An EA also provides information on special purpose laws and Executive Orders that apply to the 21 Proposed Project, such as the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), the National Historic Preservation 22 Act of 1966 (NHPA), Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, and Executive Order 11988, 23 Floodplain Management. The preparation of this Draft EA incorporated many of the coordination, 24 documentation, and notification requirements associated with these, and other, special purpose laws and 25 Executive Orders. 26 This EA will be made available for a minimum of 30 days to government agencies, interested 27 organizations, and the public for review and to obtain comments regarding the potential environmental, 28 social, and economic effects of the proposed actions. A Public Hearing will be advertised and held in 29 accordance with FAA policy and procedures contained in FAA Order 1050.1 E. See Chapter 7.0 of this 30 EA for more information on the public participation process. 31 The FAA will review all comments made on the Draft EA during consideration and preparation of a Final 32 EA. The FAA will review the Final EA and render a decision to either prepare an EIS or issue a Finding of 33 No Significant Impact (FONSI). 34 1-12 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport ;uaulssassv;u;uouiuo.neu:l ® ® (,LSAr11m'HoN am of w uoi;uaolag SZ/L nuelung '` 'IA 0f AVMNf12I IAIHS) � M ;aoda.V uogje ieW s ax uppo13 aq1 133ro2Id QlSOdond �z LL ct,RRUP Y xl G 1 K Q Q z N u 2 d Z 3 Y m Y I a 5 a F o x w ww m r 2 ¢ o H � z w ,o � z w Q w 3 3 3 w, ;z U ? I rs I a < w w w ' O w �� w �I � W < o 0 0 0 o a<No l a m a .�Noo coo o = = aa � � w � W $ � G $ S3� 3w � � I J a w a w w a a �a w� 3 > a a Li I✓ �❑El l I ,o El +b El �a I � I +gffk� 0 o i ++�tl <s y I ( + El El❑I �., � �D�D�isyss I o I lw El <I I Qs 00 ❑ I�I � I YYI� 000�es I Z Io1 1 3 1 1 e HSs I N I w l ; I=I I �� z o 1 w Di g I m - ❑� ' I ' �� >6 F. - N>o� ❑ I I z>2 6 3 �ls ogre NdS �LsIx3 " I w aaz 4 0O a U W3m Iw U I I wo J N ZO Iw a r�I;{ I oNzs W l a a w I I Q r'43 Od021d a i � i u sINL Ix a 3 1 1 oaI I p l 1 NZW N 3 III Off Iz wz I s;a Fa o 1 I aia yz LL � bo a, ob I j z + 2 + + ' _ irk I � I yi .04 i O - 4�Q obFB I. }0 � .asz I I Z I \ a oaC I 3 oaC El�0� oNzg Q .00z Z Q .avz �W as-n O5-1 I c m <'. W ❑moo i I Od «<a o q� Y p� o � CiW 3 WW w 0 a x i eMl OU �' uN�e ��I1J z m. �J z Q ifOBCdN �Y 3w W M M tl w Y - W_t�YY LU WZ dZ � .00sIJ �H� o� z�:9L 2roz,9r,so 6MP r_�I 1 CHAPTER 2.0 2 PURPOSE AND NEED 3 This chapter describes the need for, and purpose of, the proposed airfield improvements at the Florida 4 Keys Marathon Airport (MTH). First, the specific airfield configuration shortcoming, or problem at MTH, is 5 identified and explained. Then the need for the proposed airfield improvements is discussed. Finally, this 6 chapter states the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) objective, or "purpose," for the proposed 7 airfield improvements (Proposed Project). 8 2.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT 9 The Runway Design Code (RDC)' applicable to Runway 7/25 at MTH is B-II. FAA airport design 10 standards for RDC B-II (with not lower than 3/ mile approach visibility minimums) require a minimum 11 runway to parallel taxiway centerline separation distance of 240 feet (FAA, 2012b). The existing runway- 12 to-taxiway centerline separation at MTH is 200 feet, which is 40 feet less than the required distance. The 13 existing runway-to-taxiway separation distance at MTH does not meet FAA's airport design standards. 14 2.1.1 Runway Design Code and Critical Aircraft 15 For the purposes of airfield planning, the FAA has established a coding system called an Airport 16 Reference Code (ARC). The ARC is a designation for an airport that signifies the airport's highest RDC. 17 In this case the ARC and RDC for MTH is B-II. In general, airports serving larger and faster aircraft, such 18 as jets, have different design standards than an airport that predominantly serves small propeller-driven 19 aircraft. The ARC consists of three components related to the operational demands of aircraft that use 20 the airport. The first component is the Aircraft Approach Category (AAC), which is a grouping of aircraft 21 having similar landing approach speeds. The second component is the Airplane Design Group (ADG) 22 that groups aircraft by wingspan and tail height. The third component factors in published (or anticipated) 23 approach visibility minimums for the runway. Table 2.1-1 provides a listing of the AACs and ADGs 24 commonly associated with general aviation airports. 25 The 2009 MTH Airport Layout Plan (ALP) identifies the airport as an ARC B-II airport. This designation is 26 based on the operational and physical characteristics of the aircraft intended to use the airport. The ALP 27 identifies the Cessna Citation family of aircraft as the most demanding aircraft using the airport on a 28 regular basis2. Larger aircraft, which meet ARC C-I and C-II criteria, do occasionally land at and depart 29 from MTH. These larger aircraft, which in the past have included air carrier aircraft, are not prohibited 30 from using MTH. However, the County and the FAA, through the development and approval of the ALP, 31 have determined that the ARC B-II designation is appropriate for the airport and that the runway should 32 meet applicable ARC B-II design standards. 33 34 The RDC signifies the FAA design standards to which the runway will be built. 2 FAA Advisory Circular(AC)150/5325-413, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design,considers a'regular basis"to be at least 500 annual operations(250 departures). 2-1 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 TABLE 2.1-1 2 ARC COMPONENTS APPLICABLE TO MOST GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORTS 3 AACs Category Approach Speed (knots) A Less the 91 B 91 to 120.9 C 121 to 140.9 D 141 to 165.9 ADGs Group; Wingspan (feet) Tail Height(feet) I Up to48.9 Up to 19.9 11 49 to 78.9 20 to 29.9 111 79 to 117.9 30 to 44.9 IV j 118 to 170.9 j 45 to 59.9 4 Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13,Airport Design. Adapted by URS Corporation,2012. 5 As shown in Table 2.1-1, aircraft meeting ARC B-11 criteria have operational and design characteristics 6 that include approach speeds of 91 knots or more, but less than 121 knots and wingspans of 49 feet up 7 to, but not including, 79 feet (or a tail height from 20 feet up to, but not including, 30 feet). Examples of 8 common B-11 aircraft include, but are not limited to, the Beech King Air C-901, Beech Super King Air 9 B200, Cessna Citation 11, Cessna Citation V, Cessna Citation Excel, Dassault Falcon 50, and Hawker 900 10 XP. Photographs of several of these aircraft are provided in Figure 2.1-1. 11 FIGURE 2.1-1 12 EXAMPLES OF AIRCRAFT MEETING ARC B-II CRITERIA 13 14 u 15 16 N 17 18 Ft r#{\skti«cS #kj?}tll�{�i1uti 19 i�}tt {a, t�tt��r tr�l }i�ISi�U�1�ti'1��iY}{)��ir�'('��{�tt��{ � �fl)�j s 20 21 22 2-2 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 2.1.2 Runway to Parallel Taxiway Separation Standards 2 Runway centerline to parallel taxiway centerline separation standards define the minimum distance 3 between runways and taxiways for each RDC classification. The purpose of the separation standard is to 4 reduce the possibility of aircraft accidents and satisfy the requirement that no part of an aircraft (i.e., wing 5 tip)on a taxiway or taxilane centerline is within the Runway Safety Area (RSA) or penetrates the Runway 6 Object Free Zone (ROFZ). For RDC B-II runways with visual approaches or approach visibility minimums 7 not lower than 3/ mile, FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, specifies the minimum runway-to-taxiway 8 separation distance as 240 feet. MTH is designated on the ALP as a B-II airport and does not have 9 instrument approach procedures with approach visibility minimums lower than 3/ mile. Therefore, the 10 minimum 240-foot separation distance applies to MTH. 11 2.2 NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT 12 Airfield improvements are needed at MTH to correct a non-standard runway-to-taxiway separation. The 13 existing Runway 7/25 centerline to parallel Taxiway "A" centerline separation distance of 200 feet does 14 not meet FAA's airport design standards for a RDC B-II runway. FAA's airport design standards for RDC 15 B-II require 240 feet between the runway and a parallel taxiway. 16 The FAA recommends the guidelines and standards in AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, for use in the 17 design of civil airports. The use of the AC is mandatory for all projects funded with federal grant monies 18 through the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) and with revenue from the Passenger Facility Charges 19 (PFC) Program3. The County is obligated to use the AC because of past acceptance of AIP funds for 20 various airport planning and development projects at MTH, including runway and taxiway improvements. 21 When unique local conditions prevent meeting FAA standards, an Airport Sponsor must get approval from 22 the FAA. The FAA is responsible for evaluating the proposed non-standard alternative and determining if 23 it provides acceptable safety and adequate quality compared with the published standards. 24 The airport has operated with its current airfield condition for many years. In the early 1980s, the runway- 25 to-taxiway separation distance was increased from 175 feet to its present distance of 200 feet. The FAA 26 approved the shift from 175 feet to 200 feet on May 18, 1985, but accompanied the approval with a 27 Deviation to Standards that cited unique local conditions. The runway shift improved safety, but did not 28 meet the then-current required separation distance of 300 feet4. The County began the process to update 29 the MTH Airport Master Plan and ALP in the mid-2000s. During the FAA's review of the Draft ALP, the 30 FAA recognized that MTH continues to not meet runway-to-taxiway separation standards and stated in a 31 letter to Monroe County that it was "appropriate to reflect a future shift of the runway 40 feet to the north, 32 thereby correcting the non-standard runway-taxiway separation." As a result, the updated MTH ALP, 33 which was conditionally approved by the FAA in 2009, reflects a proposed runway-to-taxiway separation 34 distance that meets FAA's airport design standards. The ALP also depicts improvements to meet other 35 airport design standards, including trimming vegetation on the north side of the runway within the Runway 36 Object Free Area (ROFA) for the proposed shifted runway. The FAA also recommended an 3 AIP Grant Assurance No. 34, "Policies, Standards, and Specifications" and PFC Assurance No. 9, "Standard and Specifications." 4 Since 1985,the FAA's classification of airports and airport design standards have been amended,updated,and revised. 2-3 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 Environmental Assessment (EA) be prepared for the Proposed Project, including the proposed 40-foot 2 runway shift and vegetation removal. 3 2.3 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 4 The existing separation distance of 200 feet between the centerline of Runway 7/25 and the Taxiway "A" 5 centerline does not meet FAA's airport design standards, which require a separation distance of 240 feet. 6 Therefore, the purpose of the proposed airfield improvements is to meet FAA's airport design standards 7 related to runway-to-taxiway separation distance and the ROFA. 2-4 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 CHAPTER 3.0 2 ALTERNATIVES 3 3.1 INTRODUCTION 4 This chapter describes the alternatives evaluation and screening process, evaluates reasonable 5 alternatives to the Proposed Project, provides reasoning as to why some alternatives were eliminated 6 from detailed study, identifies the alternatives retained for detailed evaluation in the EA, and presents a 7 comparative analysis of the reasonable alternatives retained for detailed environmental impact evaluation. 8 3.2 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND NEPA 9 The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy 10 Act of 1969 (NEPA) stipulate that alternatives are the heart of the environmental impact evaluation 11 process. Those regulations require that the federal decision-maker perform the following tasks: 12 0 Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and, for 13 alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for 14 their having been eliminated. 15 0 Devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail, including the 16 Proposed Action, so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits. 17 0 Include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency. 18 0 Include the alternative of no-action. 19 The purpose of the Proposed Project is to meet the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) airport 20 design standards related to runway-to-taxiway separation distance. Reasonable alternatives to the 21 Proposed Project, including the No-Action Alternative, will be identified and evaluated in this 22 Environmental Assessment (EA)to satisfy NEPA requirements. 23 3.3 ALTERNATIVES SCREENING PROCESS 24 The alternatives screening process for the Proposed Project used a three-level evaluation process. The 25 first level of screening identified those alternatives that would meet the Purpose and Need for the 26 proposed airport improvements. The second screening level considered impacts on the airport 27 operations and the projected cost of the alternatives. The third level of screening considered 28 environmental impacts and identified alternatives that would have substantial environmental impacts on 29 protected resources and/or would have difficulty obtaining permit authority. 30 3-1 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 3.3.1 Level 1 Analysis: Purpose and Need 2 The first level of analysis evaluated whether an alternative addressed the safety issue identified at Florida 3 Keys Marathon Airport (MTH). The criterion for this Level 1 analysis considered whether or not an 4 alternative would meet FAA's airport design standards related to runway-to-taxiway separation distance. 5 Those alternatives that did not satisfy the Purpose and Need for the proposed airport improvements were 6 eliminated from further consideration. 7 3.3.2 Level 2 Analysis: Operational and Cost Considerations 8 This level of the alternatives screening analysis was designed to determine which alternatives were 9 considered to be feasible and prudent in light of airfield operational impacts and construction cost. 10 Alternatives that had substantially higher operational impacts and/or construction cost were eliminated 11 from further study. Level 2 evaluation criteria included: 12 0 Physical and functional use impact of each alternative on existing buildings, hangars, 13 aircraft parking aprons, and facilities. 14 0 Operational and business impact on the existing Fixed Base Operators (FBOs) at 15 MTH, including elimination of aircraft storage and parking positions. 16 0 Impact of each alternative on the ability to use the existing passenger terminal apron 17 area at MTH for B-II aircraft and occasionally to use the apron for larger C-II aircraft. 18 0 Projected development cost of each alternative, including construction and any 19 necessary mitigation for unavoidable environmental impacts. 20 3.3.3 Level 3 Analysis: Environmental Impacts 21 The Level 3 analysis focused on key environmental resources protected by special-purpose laws and 22 resources of local concern. The Level 3 analysis considered wetlands, habitat, floodplains, historic and 23 archaeological resources, Department of Transportation (DOT) Act Section 4(f) resources, and 24 threatened or endangered species. In addition, the analysis considered potential impacts to mangroves 25 and tropical hardwood hammock habitats. Overall, alternatives having lesser impacts were considered 26 more prudent and feasible than those generating greater impacts. If substantial impacts would occur, the 27 evaluation process considered, whether or not mitigation measures would be reasonably available to 28 off-set the impacts, meet permit requirements, and/or reduce impacts below a threshold indicating a 29 significant impact. At the conclusion of the Level 3 analysis, alternatives considered feasible and prudent 30 were retained for subsequent detailed analysis in this EA. 31 3.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 32 The following sections describe the preliminary action alternatives considered for evaluation in the 33 screening analysis. The alternatives considered are listed and described in the following subsections. 3-2 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 3.4.1 Off-Site/Operational Alternatives 2 Off-site alternatives consist of those alternative actions that examine shifts in technologies, facilities, 3 practices, and/or activity. For this analysis, the following alternative was identified: 4 Alternative 1 - Use of Other Airports — This alternative consists of the use of other area airports to 5 reduce the required runway-to-taxiway separation distance to a point that modification of the existing 6 airfield is not necessary. Under this alternative, only "small" airplanes' would use MTH and all other 7 aircraft operators would shift their operations to the Key West International Airport (KWIA). This 8 alternative would reduce the runway-to-taxiway separation distance to 150 feet. 9 3.4.2 On-Site "Build" Alternatives 10 Potential on-site alternatives identified for this analysis included "build" alternatives that satisfy FAA's 11 design standards. The "build" alternatives generally include shifting Runway 7/25 and/or Taxiway "A" to 12 meet the FAA's runway-to-taxiway separation distance standards. For this analysis, the following three 13 alternatives were identified: 14 Alternative 2 - Relocate Taxiway "A" — Alternative 2 would provide the required 240-foot runway-to- 15 taxiway centerline separation by relocating the parallel Taxiway"A" 40 feet to the southeast. The existing 16 50-foot-wide taxiway would be reduced in width 35 feet to conform to Airport Reference Code (ARC) B-II 17 taxiway design standards. Alternative 2 is depicted in Figure 3.4-1. This alternative would construct new 18 taxiway pavement along the southern edge of Taxiway "A." This alternative would remove 40 feet of 19 pavement along the north side of the relocated taxiway. The taxiway would be re-paved and re-marked 20 to shift the centerline to its new position. The project would also include the relocation of existing taxiway 21 edge lights and relocation of airfield directional signs. The associated Taxiway Safety Area (TSA) and 22 Taxiway Object Free (TOFA), conforming to ARC B-II standards, would be established along the 23 relocated parallel taxiway. 24 Alternative 3 - Relocate Runway 7/25 Centerline and Taxiway "A" Centerline — Alternative 3 would 25 provide the required 240-foot runway-to-taxiway centerline separation by relocating the Runway 7/25 26 centerline to the northeast 15 feet and relocate the parallel Taxiway "A" centerline 25 feet to the 27 southeast. Alternative 3 is also depicted in Figure 3.4-1. 28 This alternative would construct 15 feet of new runway pavement along the north edge of Runway 7/25 29 and remove 15 feet of pavement on the south side of the paved runway shoulder 2. This alternative would 30 remove 25 feet of new taxiway pavement would be constructed along the southern edge of Taxiway "A" 31 and 25 feet of pavement along the north side of the taxiway. The runway and taxiway would be re-paved 32 and re-marked to shift their centerlines to their new position. The project would also include the The United States (U.S.) Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (Title 14 CFR part 1) defines a "small aircraft'as an aircraft of 12,500 pounds or less maximum certificated take-off weight. In general, small airplanes are generally considered fixed wing aircraft that are not transport category airplanes. Representative aircraft include small piston-engine aircraft(i.e., Cessna 182 and Piper Navajo)and small turboprop aircraft(i.e., Beech Baron). 2 The purpose of the proposed pavement removal on both the runway and taxiway components of Alternative 3 is to keep the amount of impervious surface at MTH approximately the same as existing conditions. This will minimize the potential for increased stormwater collection and treatment requirements at the airport. 3-3 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 relocation of existing runway and taxiway edge lights, relocation of existing runway threshold lights, 2 relocation of Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPIs) lights, and relocation of airfield directional signs. 3 The Runway Safety Area (RSA) and Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) of Runway 7/25 would be 4 established along the relocated runway. A 15-foot strip of vegetation on the north side of the runway 5 would be located within the ROFA and would require clearing to meet applicable FAA design standards. 6 The existing 50-foot wide Taxiway "A" would be reduced in width to 35 feet to conform to ARC B-II 7 taxiway design standards. Accordingly, the associated TSA and TOFA, conforming to ARC B-II 8 standards, would be established along the relocated parallel taxiway. 9 Proposed Project (Relocate Runway 7/25 Centerline) — The Proposed Project provides the required 10 240-foot runway-to-taxiway centerline separation by shifting the Runway 7/25 centerline 40 feet to the 11 northwest. The Taxiway "A" centerline would remain at its present location. The Proposed Project is 12 depicted in Figure 3.4-2. A detailed description of the Proposed Project is provided in Section 1.3 of this 13 EA. 14 The Proposed Project would be accomplished by constructing 40 feet of new pavement along the 15 northwest side of the existing runway; removing 40 feet of runway pavement (and paved shoulder) on the 16 southeast side of the runway; and re-paving and re-marking the runway to shift the runway centerline to 17 its new position. The RSA and ROFA of Runway 7/25 would be established along the relocated runway. 18 A 40-foot strip of vegetation on the north side of the runway would be located within the ROFA and would 19 require clearing to meet applicable FAA design standards. 20 3.5 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION 21 Using the multi-level screening process, a range of alternatives for the Proposed Project were carefully 22 considered and evaluated. Alternatives that were considered, but eliminated from further detailed 23 analysis in this EA are listed below and relevant summary information is provided in Table 3.5-1. 24 3.5.1 Alternative 1 —Use of Other Airports 25 3.5.1.1 Level 1 Evaluation 26 With respect to the use of other airports, the FAA and Monroe County have no authority to specify which 27 airports pilots must use or what type aircraft use an airport. There is no legal means of forcing aircraft 28 operators to use KWIA, or another alternate airport, instead of MTH. 29 If, in theory, the FAA and Monroe County could shift large aircraft operations from MTH to KWIA, this 30 alternative would impose substantial inconvenience and inefficiencies on air travel in the Florida Keys. 31 Use of KWIA would require a substantial number of pilots and passengers traveling to Marathon and its 32 surrounding communities to instead drive approximately 55 miles (approximately 1 hour and 15 minutes 33 driving time) between KWIA and Marathon. Because this alternative would exclude larger aircraft from 34 MTH, it would also limit the number of people per flight at MTH and limit the range of destinations that 35 could effectively be reached from the airport. 3-4 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport IuauzssassV lu;uauzuo.neu:l uol;uaolag SZ/L nuelung £ Ql��' Z S�AI L�l�i2I�L'I� 4 pod nV uogje ieW s fax uppolg aqlFq Ro a --EL7 81 r� I a m y a ao w 3 00 rc �I I f a w r ' Z ' Z I w c r w I �� 1 op � U El UXa I I ] 3' III 0 i� ,� M „ I ( o c5 o c� I[[ f :I(3 M/+ O : JL EF ❑ +++ 0 7 ++++ ++ ❑ ( ++++++ El ++ El +++ I �� I + @ ++ ++++ t+ z El ElIII ° w r I -SL j a f M rc I 5 I I El II.z o W s � 3 a ( / I� � � 3 3 I Its `"� 0 ❑� � FI o l I a W � I I W L� �+ + z �I + r W ❑ I ; I � + r r 3 + + \ © i F wz wz w w 3o ap K a 3 ? sz I O ['I z 3 I .on.+ + �I'0 � O 3 I 0 w Z El az U4U II N � I � I I I W i i I I �4 IE b0 f [[� I � Q 'o z ❑ III) L I z 0 Q ❑ t!S Y p p z / M ( �_ z a p w 3z� 3w I ws mm > z T r z w / � n .. Q w a ¢ 5 33 33 3 A\ 1 V + 4 W a o o a o w w p0 F Z 03 03 O ,osl I 1 1 w ,009 1 1 1 0 J a w x 1. o z w z w f o z z w .00s I 0 I. a� a� a Zo �I I I o z I I o� w 1 o �� o> � �❑0 � I 3w I I� x� �w 9Z:8 2LOZ/LO/90 5^p L—b'Y OIL\s�i.yd o�j\tl3 uoy}o�oW/:� IuauzssassV Ieluauzuo.neu:l ® ® w ,, ,L3dfoHd Q�SOdoHd (INN � N uol;eaolag SZ/L ncelung M podald uoq;e ie W s ax a ppolg aq1 :IAI,LVNMa L'IV NOLL3V-ONI N a, a a w 00 ywz w � wz a > I a w M I z I, M O � z (� 3M/1 3M/i o0 [ � N aw (! I g �aII� El 0 � I I O � o El +++t+I 0 o azEl El 4 El 4 \ El z El 4 + 0 El '< El 1�1 El Cl + +++tl 0 0 "++++. 0 Q 0 0 , a 0 � ❑ I I 3 _ � I a v O x o O p ( I Uec I e v w III �e O al X Ka - a + ww o w oz © I + 0 0 oe 0 I o< 1. 3 wwz O 44 V 4 Ii t p�tt p O \o z o I o M .as( ' o I: I as �h 0 >� r r Ofl ❑ �I �fl zw mz. 3waW. xo � < w III O � � 3 > II asz I Itvz II I \ I I I U I d I I I o z I� O \ I Iz t o Q z 5 z I z a o a ww a - o 0 ww " r tt rc�� I - i -� z z > a J i w + , �I ! + + I I%\ •.e W z N z z o o ,k I •,k I � o o o 0 I o9L I �� I I �� W m w m w w 9 .00s I woos �� J w a w w a a I 0 3z 0 I � l o All WZ I 3s I _ o�:9L 2LoZ/9L/So 5^pP -b'2 olj\-i!4 jo\v] u-Hp,m\!r 7 M>- Z C T O Lq Ww y 0 'y `o t6 V1 0 0 o o V1 � M> 'p Vi C C Q Vi 0 0 0 � ° a) F rG N ° gymo 000 .� o_a) JQ� In d N N o N c O C T tN/1 a) C N 0 O R a) a) Q N a)N UI m z 7 y G D a) W 0 0 0 D O O E.� a) O M m W CON O O N.0. IT Q�U) 10, W > o >, `° 3 M- 0.N z co V N Y o V c z z > F z Q W G o O-NNEfl� �� o .'� o m JO w E Q F d O O.CM a) } r oZ -1 yg G N � rii cin W Q pY G � 0 C N�+% � N J> j R N2) wC > LL, a m...: : a m c N U W 0 W'a .c:- -o E c o T a M z o :>.A._:..w T,o O Cp .o.N -o E ME "LL Lu maQa•KMAa:V:Nr+:.UVwR a�i' wCpCwU6 SC NOO_~cNooN -�Oa) HoV�)0N�EoCflOO U O o E O oCO EJ ' o 0C�o o oo Z Z > 0 U) o 0 o U a O Ix, y Q r�- o-o o C O O 5 p)� O O U R J_ O R a) O O O R J 16 al�tm= O 0 O a. U a) 0 N O 6 Q O 0 0 0 ` O N 0 0 Q m R 3 C T m 0 0 M M N N C C C N N3 } �� V NOQ�� Q` �_6 m�O N N�00 - 00 O w N U R E c - C o c Z Z Z •C~ O p U a) U 0 Q E O-R a) W 16 O X } ^ Q o U� I-O E { r Q O O O Q •A W Z z Z U) Q Q 0 D jO O > O) R •.f0 O.?�tOi1 M C O ` O w I Q Z W O H OI p O O O O m W O O O Q 0 VTN c�i Z Z Z Z Z Z Q x c c.c O C C Q 'c O O W o 0. 'a+ C - w T C C 7 7 N a1 6 E U W W > N O O N M R c >L O_ _ R m O >i m > > a E_ J c J m .O 0 0 O O `o w N w c a N Ag > c m U" R w U -20 m$ o R U U > " M c-6 O Q.6 R O) U N R .� j ;c 0 E" a) O C Y n U U -- - :`)� �.& O � O � LL LL U.N. O- � U C R -6:�' C R Z O U O Q U) tOi1 a) ."' O .N c .. Z O R O a) a E 0 O)O o N C ."' N a) ` > U � a) N E I > .� o 0 - O_a) O O a) U -6 a) U O a) C t4 O c R U U O Q R C C U) R E Q� R m `ma�i a > .-Nai p Ro � LL - m m a a � H .2.2 `uoc_E n5 O O r t4 O U t c � N a a o tm m C �Z W J J N J R c Lli a) VI J O J'o U J O 6 O` O > u a O a L 10 0 O Z U) NM V NCO I-W O)O NM V 1 Alternative 1 would not directly address runway-to-taxiway design standards and improve safety for 2 arriving and departing passengers at MTH and would force large aircraft that currently use MTH to land at 3 KWIA or other airports. This alternative would also result in an underutilized transportation facility with 4 substantially reduced utility and benefit to the citizens of Monroe County. 5 For the reasons stated above, Alternative 1 was not considered reasonable and would not satisfy the 6 Level 1 Purpose and Need alternatives screening criteria. Therefore, this alternative was not retained for 7 further consideration in the Level 2 analysis. 8 3.5.2 Alternative 3 —Relocate Runway 7/25 Centerline and Taxiway"A" Centerline 9 3.5.2.1 Level 1 Analysis 10 Because Alternative 3 would provide the required runway-to-taxiway separation distance, the alternative 11 met the Level 1 Purpose and Need criteria and was retained for Level 2 evaluation. 12 3.5.2.2 Level 2 Analysis 13 Alternative 3 would result in a Toss of approximately 5,300 square f{ t�i�i tt4�} �»( �si FYi f 3 14 yards of public aircraft parking apron at MTH. This equals an 15 approximate 7.8 percent reduction in total apron (inclusive of 16 taxilanes and circulation areas) and a 16.9 percent reduction in ,t r 17 apron available for public aircraft parking. Alternative 3 would 18 eliminate 16 tie-down positions on the north ramp (see Figure 19 3.4-1). This would reduce the available amount of aircraft apron 20 tie-down parking positions at MTH by 24.6 percent. This Toss of { t�t 21 aircraft parking apron is substantial and would increase the t r r t 22 complexity of ramp operations for one of the two FBOs at MTH. r. 23 The increased complexity results from having to park, move, and 24 fuel a variety of small, mid-size, and large aircraft (both based 25 and itinerant) within a reduce ramp area. This would have Photograph 3-2—Typical view ofaircraft ' 26 potential to reduce the level of service provided by the FBO and parking apron at MTH. These aircraft areparked in the tie-downs that would be 27 expected by the airport's customers. In addition to decreased L,,elkpinatqd under Alternatives 2'and 3. 28 aircraft parking capacity and increased operational complexity, the affected FBO would experience 29 reduced revenue from the loss of aircraft tie-down fees. 30 The replacement of the lost aircraft parking positions and aircraft hangars would be difficult. A review of 31 the MTH Airport Layout Plan shows that the general aviation area between the runway and US 1 is 32 essentially built-out and the potential for new facility development in this area is limited. However, several 33 small areas with development potential are depicted on the ALP for future aircraft storage hangar and 34 aviation-related development. There appears to be some ability to construct replacement aircraft parking 35 apron and aircraft parking positions. 36 3-11 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 The new Taxiway Object Free Area (TOFA) reduces the depth of usable aircraft parking apron at the 2 former passenger terminal to approximately 70 feet in front of the former passenger terminal building, 84 3 feet immediately west of the former passenger terminal building, and 65 feet in front of the cargo building. 4 Therefore, Alternative 3 would restrict the use of the existing apron at the former passenger terminal 5 building in some cases involving aircraft with wingspans or lengths of 70 feet or more. Alternative 3 6 would impact U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) operations. Aircraft with wingspans or lengths 7 greater than 70 feet could park in front of the terminal if temporary operational procedures were 8 implemented or the aircraft could park on the apron immediately west of the terminal building. 9 Operational procedures may include, but not be limited to, advising pilots to exercise caution when taxiing 10 on the relocated parallel when a large aircraft is parked in front of the terminal building for CBP 11 inspection. Parking aircraft for inspection on the apron west of the terminal building may require the use 12 of cameras and/or other operational procedures by the CBP to maintain visual observation of aircraft and 13 passengers undergoing inspection. 14 Alternative 3 would require closure of the airport's only runway for an extended period of time during 15 construction. This would inconvenience travelers who would have to temporarily use KWIA as an 16 alternate airport or use other modes of transportation. Depending on the phasing and scheduling of 17 construction activities, the runway could be closed for a period of 4 to 6 months. MTH supports two 18 FBOs, one aircraft repair facility, and several other aviation-related businesses. These businesses 19 employ approximately 110 people. Airport management reports that the approximate gross annual 20 revenue generated by these businesses is $6,924,000. Closure of the airport's only runway for a four to 21 six month period during construction of Alternative 3 would have a substantial economic impact on these 22 businesses and airport revenue. The closure of the runway would result in approximately $2,308,000 to 23 $3,462,000 of lost revenue by the businesses operating at the airport. In addition, the runway closure 24 would have a substantial impact on the aircraft owners that use MTH and the owners that base their 25 aircraft at MTH. The nearest alternate airport is the Key West International Airport (KWIA). Aircraft 26 owners could use KWIA during the MTH runway closure. However, aircraft parking and storage space at 27 KWIA is limited and all displaced aircraft owners at MTH may not be accommodated at KWIA. 28 Sections of the parallel taxiway would also be closed { F) 29 during the taxiway relocation phase of the project. 30 This would require that aircraft periodically back-taxi - 31 on the runway during taxiway construction, 32 depending on which taxiway sections are closed and 33 which direction aircraft are arriving and departing, 34 depending on wind conditions. 35 For the purpose of defining overall project cost for the 36 Level 2 analysis, a review of potential impacts to 37 wetlands and upland hardwood hammock habitat 38 was conducted. Alternative 3 requires that a 15-foot 39 strip of vegetation be cleared along the edge of a wooded area on the northeast side of the airfield. 40 Clearing the 15-foot strip would impact approximately 0.40 acre of impacts to tidally-connected and 3-12 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 isolated mangrove swamps. The wetlands would be cleared of vegetation and no fill or excavation would 2 take place in the affected wetland area. The wetlands are jurisdictional and would likely require permit 3 authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (Section 404 wetland permit) and the 4 South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) [Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) 5 modification]. These permits are expected to require mitigation. 6 Construction cost for runway and taxiway relocations was estimated to be $5,046,400 and the cost for 7 mitigation of 0.40 acres of jurisdictional wetland and two acres of tropical hardwood hammock was 8 estimated at$1,104,200. The total development cost for Alternative 3 was estimated to be $6,150,600. 9 Alternative 3 would have substantial operational impacts associated with the relocation of both the 10 runway and taxiway. This alternative did not eliminate wetland and habitat impacts. Further, the 11 reduction in wetland and habitat impacts, when compared to the Proposed Project, was not substantial. 12 Therefore, Alternative 3 was not subject to Level 3 environmental review and was eliminated from further 13 consideration in this EA. 14 3.6 ALTERNATIVES RETAINED FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS 15 3.6.1 Alternative 2 —Relocate Taxiway "A" 16 3.6.1.1 Level 1 Evaluation 17 Because Alternative 2 would provide the required runway-to-taxiway separation distance, the alternative 18 met the Level 1 Purpose and Need criteria and was retained for Level 2 evaluation. 19 3.6.1.2 Level 2 Evaluation 20 Alternative 2 would require the modification of four, 8-unit T-hangar buildings near the west end of the 21 runway because the existing buildings would penetrate the relocated TOFA (see Figure 3.4-1). The 22 modification would consist of removing one T-hangar unit in each building. This would require extensive 23 modification to the roof, metal structure, and exterior walls. This alternative would eliminate four of the 32 24 T-hangar aircraft storage units on the airport. 25 Alternative 2 would result in a loss of 7,097 square yards of public aircraft parking apron at MTH. This 26 equals an approximate 10.5 percent reduction in total apron (inclusive of taxilanes and circulation areas) 27 and a 22.5 percent reduction in apron available for public aircraft parking. There are approximately 65 28 aircraft tie-down positions at MTH 3. This alternative would eliminate 16 tie-down positions on the north 29 ramp. This would reduce the available number of aircraft apron tie-down positions at MTH by 24.6 30 percent. This loss of aircraft parking apron is substantial and would increase the complexity of ramp 31 operations for one of the two FBOs at MTH. The increased complexity results from having to park, move, 32 and fuel a variety of small, mid-size, and large aircraft (both based and itinerant) within a reduce ramp 3 Other aircraft parking positions exist at the airport and include, but are not limited to,those on the commercial ramp located in front of the passenger terminal building, adjacent to maintenance hangars and private hangars, near fueling areas, and in grassed areas. These positions are considered to be temporary and, in some cases, are on leased parcels not available to the public. Therefore, these other aircraft parking positions were not included in the count of long-term tie-down positions commonly available for rent to the public. 3-13 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 area. This would have potential to reduce the level of service provided by the FBO and expected by the 2 airport's customers. In addition to decreased aircraft parking capacity and increased operational 3 complexity, the affected FBO would experience reduced revenue from the loss of aircraft tie-down fees. 4 The replacement of the lost aircraft parking positions would be difficult. A review of the MTH Airport 5 Layout Plan (ALP) shows that the general aviation area between the runway and U.S. Highway (US) 1 is 6 essentially built-out and the potential for new facility development in this area is limited. However, several 7 small areas with development potential are depicted on the ALP for future aircraft storage hangar and 8 aviation-related FBO development. There appears to be some ability to construct replacement aircraft 9 parking apron and aircraft parking positions. 10 The new TOFA reduces the depth of usable aircraft parking apron at the former passenger terminal to 11 approximately 55 feet in front of the former passenger terminal building, 69 feet immediately west of the 12 former passenger building, and 50 feet in front of the cargo building. Alternative 2 would substantially 13 restrict the use of the existing apron at the former passenger terminal building and cargo building. The 14 CBP, which provides customs inspection services at MTH, currently occupies a portion of the former 15 passenger terminal building. Because aircraft with large wingspans (Airplane Design Group II and larger) 16 would not be able to park directly in front of, and in full view of, the terminal building, Alternative 2 would 17 impact CBP operations. Alternative 2 would require the expansion of the aircraft parking apron to provide 18 aircraft parking positions for CBP inspection. To provide these aircraft parking positions outside the 19 TOFA, the apron would be expanded into the automobile parking lot located west of the terminal building. 20 This may require the use of cameras and/or development of operational procedures by the CBP to 21 maintain visual observation of aircraft and passengers undergoing inspection. 22 The relocated taxiway would also impact the aircraft parking positions in front of the cargo building. The 23 aircraft parking apron could be expanding in this area to provide a parking position adjacent to the cargo 24 building. 25 Alternative 2 would not require closure of the airport's only runway during construction. However, 26 phasing and scheduling of construction activities, sections of the parallel taxiway would be closed during 27 construction. This would require that aircraft back-taxi on the runway during some phases of taxiway 28 construction, depending on which taxiway sections are closed and which direction aircraft are arriving and 29 departing, depending on wind conditions. 30 Construction cost for this alternative is estimated to be $4,012,300. This alternative would not affect any 31 jurisdictional wetland or tropical hardwood hammock areas and no costs associated with environmental 32 impact mitigation would be involved. 33 Operational issues are associated with Alternative 2. However, the loss of aircraft parking positions and 34 storage hangars could be mitigated through the development of new hangars and additional aircraft 35 parking apron, as depicted on the approved ALP. Therefore, this alternative was retained for Level 3 36 evaluation. 3-14 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 3.6.1.3 Level 3 Evaluation 2 Wetlands and Habitat 3 Alternative 2 would not require clearing within the wooded area on the northeast side of the airfield. There 4 would be no impacts to wetlands or tropical hardwood hammock habitat. Alternative 2 would affect areas 5 of the airfield maintained as grassed field. Alternative 2 would not affect Essential Fish Habitat. 6 Floodplains 7 The Marathon-Florida Keys Airport is located entirely within a 100-year floodplain. No aboveground 8 structures would be constructed if Alternative 2 was implemented. There would be no increase in flood 9 elevations, as the flood elevations are based on tides and coastal storm surges. Potential impacts are 10 not expected to result in notable adverse impact on natural and beneficial floodplain values. 11 Historic Resources 12 No historic resources listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) 13 would be directly affected by Alternative 2. No historic resources listed in or eligible for listing in the 14 NRHP are located within any portion of the Area of Potential Affect identified for Alternative 2. Areas 15 subject to direct, physical disturbance have previously been disturbed by clearing, grading, and 16 construction of the airport. It is highly unlikely that Alternative 2 would impact archaeological sites eligible 17 for listing in the NRHP. 18 DOT Section 4(f) Resources 19 Because Alternative 2 is located entirely on airport property, the project would not have any direct impact 20 or use of resources protected under Section 4(f)of the Department of Transportation Act. 21 Threatened and Endangered Species 22 Alternative 2 would not impact federally-listed species or their critical habitat. 23 Because Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts to the environmental criteria used in the 24 alternatives screening process, it satisfied the Level 3 evaluation. Because Alternative 2 satisfied Level 25 1, Level 2, and Level 3 evaluation criteria, the alternative was retained for detailed evaluation in the EA. 26 3.6.2 Proposed Project(Relocate Runway 7/25 Centerline) 27 3.6.2.1 Level 1 Analysis 28 Because the Proposed Project would provide the required runway-to-taxiway separation distance, the 29 alternative met the Level 1 Purpose and Need criteria and was retained for Level 2 evaluation. 3-15 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 3.6.2.2 Level 2 Analysis 2 The Proposed Project would not affect the aircraft parking aprons and tie-down positions on the south 3 side of Taxiway "A." There would be no effect on FBO ramp operations or revenue from aircraft parking 4 fees. The Proposed Project would not affect the existing apron at the former passenger terminal building. 5 The Proposed Project would require closure of the airport's only runway for an extended period of time 6 during construction. Depending on the phasing and scheduling of construction activities, the runway 7 could be closed for a period of 4 to 6 months. This would inconvenience travelers who would have to 8 temporarily use KWIA as an alternate airport or use other modes of transportation. MTH supports two 9 FBOs, one aircraft repair facility, and several other aviation-related businesses. These businesses 10 employ approximately 110 people. Airport management reports that the approximate gross annual 11 revenue generated by these businesses is $6,924,000. Closure of the airport's only runway for a four to 12 six month period during construction of Alternative 3 would have a substantial economic impact on these 13 businesses and airport revenue. The closure of the runway would result in approximately $2,308,000 to 14 $3,462,000 of lost revenue by the businesses operating at the airport. In addition, the runway closure 15 would have a substantial impact on the aircraft owners that use MTH and the owners that base their 16 aircraft at MTH. The nearest alternate airport is the Key West International Airport (KWIA). Aircraft 17 owners could use KWIA during the MTH runway closure. However, aircraft parking and storage space at 18 KWIA is limited and all displaced aircraft owners at MTH may not be accommodated at KWIA. 19 The total development cost for the Proposed Project was estimated to be $6,290,000. Construction cost 20 for runway and taxiway relocations was estimated to be $4,834,500 and the cost for mitigation of 0.66 21 acres of jurisdictional wetland and 4.10 acres of tropical hardwood hammock was estimated at 22 $1,455,500. 23 Other than the temporary closure of Runway 7/25 during construction, the Proposed Project did not have 24 any operational impacts (loss of aircraft tie-down spaces) and the estimated construction cost was 25 determined to be reasonable. Therefore, the Proposed Project was retained for Level 3 evaluation. 26 3.6.2.3 Level 3 Analysis 27 Wetlands and Habitat 28 The Proposed Project requires that a 40-foot strip of vegetation be cleared along the edge of a wooded 29 area on the northeast side of the airfield. Clearing the 40-foot strip would impact approximately 0.14 acre 30 of tidally-connected and 0.52 acre of isolated mangrove swamp for a total of 0.66 acre of impacts to 31 tidally-connected and isolated mangrove swamps. The wetlands would be cleared of vegetation and no 32 fill or excavation would take place in the affected wetland area. The wetlands are jurisdictional and will 33 require permit authorization from the USACE (Section 404 wetland permit) and the SFWMD (ERP 34 modification). These permits may require mitigation. 35 The Proposed Project would result in the clearing of approximately 4.1 acres of native tropical hardwood 36 hammock habitat located on the airport. Disturbance to tropical hardwood hammock is regulated by 37 Monroe County and would require authorization and mitigation. Based on discussions with the Monroe 3-16 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 County Growth Management Department, clearing the 40 feet of the tropical hardwood hammock "buffer" 2 would require an amendment to the County's Comprehensive Plan. 3 Potential mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts would likely be provided through the removal of fill 4 material and restoration of mangrove wetlands on County-owned property in the vicinity of MTH. 5 Mitigation for loss of trees within the tropical hardwood hammock would be provided through an 6 established program operated by the County, which requires payment into a habitat restoration fund. 7 Mitigation costs for clearing vegetation within wetland areas and the tropical hardwood hammock were 8 estimated to be $1,455,500. 9 Floodplains 10 MTH is located entirely within a 100-year floodplain. No aboveground structures would be constructed as 11 part of the Proposed Project. There would be no increase in flood elevations, as the flood elevations are 12 based on tides and coastal storm surges. Potential impacts are not expected to result in notable adverse 13 impact on natural and beneficial floodplain values. 14 Historic Resources 15 No historic resources listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) 16 would be directly affected by the Proposed Project. No historic resources listed in or eligible for listing in 17 the NRHP are located within any portion of the Area of Potential Effect (APE) identified for the Proposed 18 Project and its alternatives. 19 Examination of aerial photographs and soils maps suggests that the areas subject to direct, physical 20 disturbance have previously been disturbed by clearing, grading, and construction of the airport. It is 21 highly unlikely that the Proposed Project would impact archaeological sites eligible for listing in the NRHP. 22 DOT Section 4(f) Resources 23 Because the Proposed Project is located entirely on airport property, the project would not have any 24 direct impact or use of resources protected under Section 4(f)of the DOT Act. 25 Threatened and Endangered Species 26 The Proposed Project would impact 4.7 acres of habitat (wetland and tropical hardwood hammock) 27 associated with eight federally-listed species. The federally-listed species include the American crocodile 28 (Crocodylus acutus), eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couped), Key rice rat (Oryzomys argentatus), 29 smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata), Garber's spurge (Chamaesyce garbed), Stock Island tree snail 30 (Orthalicus reses), and the Key tree cactus (Pilosocereus robinii). In addition, habitat associated with 31 three candidate species [Blodgett's wild mercury (Argythamnia blodgettii), Cape Sable thoroughwort 32 (Chromolaena frustrata), and the Florida semaphore cactus (Consolea corallicola)] would be affected. 33 Based on a preliminary evaluation the listed and candidate species "may be affected, but not likely to be 34 adversely affected" by the Proposed Project. The Stock Island tree snail "may be affected." On-site 35 surveys for the Stock Island tree snail would determine if it is located within the project impact area and 36 what level of impact would result from the Proposed Project. No significant impact is expected. 3-17 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 Because the Proposed Project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to the environmental 2 criteria used in the alternatives screening process, it satisfied the Level 3 evaluation. Because the 3 Proposed Project satisfied Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 evaluation criteria, it was retained for detailed 4 evaluation in the EA. 5 3.6.3 No-Action Alternative 6 In accordance with the requirements of Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and NEPA, the No- 7 Action Alternative was evaluated for a basis of comparison with other alternatives. The No-Action 8 Alternative (depicted in Figure 3.4-2) would not involve any runway development, taxiway, land clearing, 9 or other construction activities associated with the Proposed Project or its alternatives. The runway-to- 10 taxiway separation distance at MTH would remain unchanged. 11 3.6.3.1 Level 1 Analysis 12 The No-Action Alternative would not provide the required runway-to-taxiway separation distance and 13 would not satisfy the Level 1 evaluation criteria. However, the No-Action Alternative was retained for 14 further consideration in Level 2 of the alternatives screening process. 15 3.6.3.2 Level 2 Analysis 16 No changes to existing airfield operation practices, aircraft parking, or use of the passenger terminal 17 apron would occur. As in the past, operations by airline aircraft required the closure of Taxiway"A"during 18 air carrier arrivals and departures. The closures lasted 5 to 10 minutes in duration. This procedure may 19 again be required if similar airline operations once again occur at the airport. 20 The No-Action Alternative was retained for further consideration in Level 3 of the alternatives screening 21 process. 22 3.6.3.3 Level 3 Analysis 23 The No-Action Alternative would not involve any construction and would have no impact on wetlands, 24 habitat, floodplains, historic and archaeological resources, DOT Act Section 4(f) resources, or threatened 25 or endangered species. 26 Although the No-Action Alternative did not satisfy Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 evaluation criteria, the 27 alternative was retained for detailed evaluation in the EA to meet the NEPA requirements and CEQ 28 regulations. 3-18 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 CHAPTER 4.0 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3 This chapter provides a description of the relevant baseline human, physical, and natural environment 4 that may be affected by the Proposed Project and its alternatives. The amount of information on each 5 resource is based on the extent of potential impact and is commensurate with the impact's relevance to 6 the Proposed Project. The environmental impacts of the alternatives retained for detailed evaluation are 7 discussed in Chapter 5.0 of this Environmental Assessment (EA). 8 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY AREAS 9 For the purposes of describing the baseline conditions, several study areas were developed. Issues and 10 anticipated environmental potential impacts that are broad and/or indirect are evaluated using a General 11 Study Area (GSA). The GSA extends from the northeast end of Vaca Key from Vaca Key Bight to Crawl 12 Key (see Figure 4.1-1). A Detailed Study Area (DSA), also depicted on Figure 4.1-1, was established for 13 environmental considerations that deal with specific and direct construction-related issues such as land 14 clearing, wetlands, floodplains, archaeological resources, and/or hazardous materials. Specifically, the 15 DSA is defined as the property boundary of Florida Keys Marathon Airport (MTH), which includes areas 16 having potential for physical disturbance during clearing and construction activities. 17 4.2 AIR QUALITY 18 This section describes the existing air quality conditions in the vicinity of the MTH, including a summary of 19 relevant air quality topics and airport-related emissions. 20 4.2.1 Regional Climate 21 The City of Marathon is located approximately 100 miles south of Miami, near the middle of the 120-mile- 22 long Florida Keys island chain linked to mainland Florida by U.S. Highway(US) 1, the Overseas Highway. 23 The Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean are the dominant influence on local weather. Prevailing breezes 24 off the water provide a humid, but generally mild, climate and winds are frequently strong and gusty year- 25 round. 26 As reported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Climatic Data 27 Center, the warmest month of the year in Marathon is August, with a mean maximum temperature of 90.3 28 degrees Fahrenheit (° F). The coldest month of the year is January, with a mean minimum temperature 29 of 55.90 F. The annual average precipitation in Marathon is 47.46 inches. The wettest month of the year 30 is August, with an average rainfall of 7.43 inches, mainly from afternoon thunderstorms. 31 4.2.2 Air Quality Conditions 32 Applicable Air Quality Standards - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Florida 33 Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) share regulatory authority over air quality in Monroe 34 County. The EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public 4-1 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 health, the environment, and the quality of life from the detrimental effects of air pollution. The standards 2 have been set for the following criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen oxide 3 (NO,), ozone (03), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). The NAAQS for the 4 criteria air pollutants and their precursors are summarized in Table 4.2-1. 5 TABLE 4.2-1 6 NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (NAAQS) 7 Averaging NAAQS' Pollutant Time Primary Secondary Ozone (03) 8-Hour 0.075 ppm 0.075 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1-Hour 35 ppm — 8-Hour 9 ppm — Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1-Hour 100 ppb — Annual 0.053 ppm 0.053 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 1-Hour 75 ppb — 3-Hour — 0.5 ppm Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 24-Hour 150 pg/m 150 pg/m Fine Particulate Matter(PM2.5) Annual 12 pg/m 15 pg/m 24-Hour 35 pg/m 35 pg/m Lead (Pb) 3-Month 0.15 pg/m 0.15 pg/m 8 ' Primary standards provide public health protection, including protecting the health of"sensitive" populations such 9 as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards provide public welfare protection, including 10 protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. 11 ppm= parts per million; ppb= parts per billion; pg/m = micrograms per cubic meter 12 Source: EPA, 2013. 13 Notably, regional air quality conditions can prompt states to promulgate and enforce air quality standards 14 that are more stringent than the federal NAAQS. At this time, the State of Florida has elected to retain 15 the federal NAAQS and has not issued any state level air quality standards. 16 Attainment/Nonattainment Status - In accordance with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA), 17 all areas within the State of Florida are designated with respect to the NAAQS as attainment, 18 nonattainment, or attainment/maintenance. An area with air quality better than the NAAQS is designated 19 as attainment, an area with air quality worse than the NAAQS is designated as nonattainment, and an 20 area that is in transition back to attainment is designated as attain ment/maintenance. According to the 21 EPA, Monroe County meets all the pertinent NAAQS standards and is classified as an attainment area for 22 all criteria pollutants (EPA, 2013). 23 State Implementation Plan (SIP) Status — As discussed, Monroe County has been designated as an 24 attainment area for all EPA criteria air pollutants. Therefore, Monroe County is not subject to the 25 requirements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) controls for air quality. 26 4-2 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1,� _SSttS➢ 1n}ate" `z ws5� r �i s4 s � r a�'€ a ks, N11 t�i F _ a ? � ➢ t,�, {��¢}+Ti�sr�iSi ri r t� yti '?1� 1�S}is}} � �S� - .nil � ,nil r � }, �SP ttb �;.�zi - z � I 1��1rr r�� $ _ ��\S 1 1tf ,1�ji•Urr?iir�l} Ah _ - � -_ � �,y - 5��` - - s - '+ - - 1 _.r �" � I If �((Gr��trs�4t�I{ ,-`•U�t ,� - \ Wr,r� r�y' s� -- v - Y�rtt ,r$s e s zip1Ay� S r jr�si 4 .0 - - 1 W� b's„ f � ''}}�� $ �))� � r � \� ��ks��' -Ft A,., - $ -, , �.\ S•� dr�Y � � iksf�l� it �'� --�{� {v!- f�$3 �� 2 � a$� � � � � i � 1 4�y $ jxt�• UY ro �� ' "�_a w Q � � � s •"� FIGURE 4.1-1 a 1 Air Monitoring — According to the FDEP and EPA, air quality in the area has not been problematic in 2 Monroe County. Thus, there are no ambient air quality monitoring stations in Monroe County. The 3 closest monitors are in urbanized areas of Miami-Dade County, which is more than 65 miles to the 4 northeast. Data from these monitors would not be representative of air quality levels in Marathon. 5 4.3 COASTAL RESOURCES 6 In 1972, the U.S. Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act(CZMA) to address the challenge 7 of continued growth in the nation's coastal zone. The legislation encouraged nation's coastal states, 8 including those bordering the Great Lakes, to develop and implement federally-approved coastal 9 management programs. The Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP)was approved in 1981. The 10 FCMP consists of a network of agencies implementing 24 state statutes that protect and enhance 11 Florida's natural, cultural, and economic coastal resources. FDEP is responsible for directing the 12 implementation of the state-wide coastal management program. All 67 counties within the state are 13 subject to the FCMP'. 14 4.4 LAND USE 15 This section documents existing land use and describes future land use trends in the vicinity of MTH. It 16 also addresses the City of Marathon's and Monroe County's land use controls. The airport, which is 17 owned by Monroe County, is located within the corporate limits of the City of Marathon. The data 18 described and illustrated in this section are based on land use data provided by the City of Marathon, 19 prior studies conducted at MTH, and the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. 20 4.4.1 Land Use in the Vicinity of MTH 21 The existing land use in the vicinity of MTH is illustrated in Figure 4.4-1. The northern property line of the 22 airport is bounded by Aviation Boulevard. North of Aviation Boulevard, the land use is predominantly 23 single-family residential with several large tracts of conservation lands. A small amount of multi-family 24 residential and commercial land uses make up the balance of this area. 25 Immediately east of the airport, land use is predominantly a mix of institutional/local government (e.g., 26 Monroe County Mosquito Control), light industrial, and commercial. Further east, land use transitions to 27 primarily single-family residential with some multi-family residential. Commercial parcels front US 1 28 (Overseas Highway)corridor. 29 The airport is bounded to the south by US 1. The predominant land use south of US 1 is single-family 30 residential. Some multi-family residential and commercial land uses, with smaller areas of recreation and 31 institutional land use are also found south of the airport. Land uses west of the airport are a mix of single- 32 and multi-family residential, transient residential, commercial, institutional, recreational, and conservation 33 lands. The exceptions are lands the federal government owns, leases, holds in trust, or whose use is otherwise by law subject to the sole discretion of the federal government, its officers or agents. Lands held by the Seminole and Miccosukee Indian Tribes are also exempted(FDEP,2012). 4-5 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 In addition to identifying land uses in the vicinity of MTH, specific noise-sensitive sites (e.g., schools, 2 churches, hospitals, parks, recreation areas) were identified within the GSA. The locations of the sites 3 are depicted in Figure 4.4-2. 4 4.4.2 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy 5 City of Marathon Comprehensive Plan 6 The City of Marathon's Comprehensive Plan includes goals, objectives, and policies that are designed to 7 protect the character of the City, its viability, and the environment (Marathon, 2005). The City's 8 Comprehensive Plan, adopted on March 8, 2005, contains a Transportation Element that addresses 9 goals and objectives related to MTH. Goal 7-3 of the Comprehensive Plan states that the City "shall 10 provide aviation facilities to all existing and future residents and guests in a manner that maximizes 11 safety, convenience, economic benefit, environmental compatibility, and consistency with other elements 12 of the Plan." Objectives related to MTH include consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, protection of 13 the environment, regulation of development adjacent to the airport, coordination of airport and traffic 14 circulation, coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and coordination of airport 15 facilities and surface transportation. Appendix D-1 includes copies of the pertinent sections of the City of 16 Marathon Comprehensive Plan. 17 Two policies in the Comprehensive Plan are directed specifically at airport development. Policy 7-3.1.2, 18 Protect Environmentally Sensitive Lands, states that development activities to construct or expand airport 19 or airstrip facilities shall not take place in environmentally sensitive areas unless a viable alternative is not 20 available. Mitigation and restoration shall occur when there is no other alternative than to disturb 21 environmentally sensitive areas. Policy 7-3.1.3, Protect the Airport Hammock Buffer, states that the City 22 shall coordinate with Monroe County to "ensure that the existing hammock along Aviation Boulevard is 23 maintained and remains as a buffer between the Marathon Airport and the residences to the north." 24 City of Marathon Zoning 25 The City of Marathon has adopted land development regulations that include zoning districts (Marathon, 26 2009). The City also maintains official Zoning Maps, which identify MTH as zoned for Airport District. 27 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan 28 Monroe County initiated a major update to its Comprehensive Plan. The plan update is still in progress 29 and is expected to be completed in 2014. 30 The existing Comprehensive Plan policy document contains elements that promote compatible land use 31 around the County's airports and preserves existing airports, airstrips, and related activities. The 32 following policies, contained in the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan - Policy Document 33 (Monroe County, 2010), are directed specifically at habitat protection and airport development: 34 4-6 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport a C o � � 1 1 � m w W i t a o. e a x o v A gags so T � o � o U -o p ❑❑ 4 c5 d a rx m o Y 0 o v on m z�rn a .o, 18 t Yip F d U U , e v o € � FIGURE 4.4-1 u ._.... �'��t�g��, 5 � �3�i 3}j{'� ��y� i r,l fit,'{�i2 i ��Gi1i�� s�� .r�' � � ❑ { -- i�'� - - � I � p� 4 i� E `°,�� v, {� �� 'r?4 F d J � t t i3),��(,_}rtt{fU i i\f!}�✓„ l i �,i , ,,�.. i W, t E f wT IT, o Z P s FIGURE 4.4-2 1 Policy 101.4.22 — All development shall be subject to clearing limits defined by habitat and the 2 location of the property in the Land Use District (zoning) Overlay Tier Maps and the wetland 3 requirements in Policy 102.1.1. The clearing limits of upland native vegetation areas for 4 properties in the Ocean Reef planned development shall be limited to 40 percent of the existing 5 upland native vegetation. Except as defined in Policy 101.12.4, clearing of upland native 6 vegetative areas in the Tiers I, 11, and III shall be limited for the portion of the property containing 7 upland native vegetation in the following percentages: 8 Tier Permitted Clearing* 9 1 20% 10 11 40% (Big Pine Key and No Name Key) 11 111 40% or 3,000 square feet, whichever is greater; however, the maximum amount 12 of clearing shall be no more than 7,500 square feet, regardless of the amount of 13 upland native vegetative area. 14 * Palm or cactus hammock is limited to only 10 percent. 15 Policy 501.2.3 — Development activities to construct or expand airport or airstrip facilities shall 16 not take place in environmentally sensitive areas unless a viable alternative is not available. 17 Mitigation and restoration shall occur when there is no other alternative than to disturb 18 environmentally sensitive areas. 19 Policy 501.3.1 — Monroe County shall maintain the existing hammock along Aviation Boulevard 20 as a buffer between the Marathon Airport and the residences to the north. 21 Appendices D-2 and D-3 include copies of the sections of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and 22 ordinances pertinent to airport development and tropical hardwood hammock habitat protection, 23 respectively. 24 4.5 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECTION 4(f) RESOURCES 25 Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966 [re-codified and renumbered as 26 Section 303(c) of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.)] provides protection for publicly-owned parks; 27 recreational areas, wildlife, and waterfowl refuges; and significant historic sites (properties listed on or 28 eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP or NR). The term "Section 4(f) 29 resource" refers to any specific site or property meeting DOT Act criteria. Potential Section 4(f) 30 resources2 within the GSA are described below. 31 4.5.1 Potential Section 4(f) Resources within the GSA 32 Rotary Children's Park — This public park is located at 7575 Overseas Highway (corner of US 1 and 33 75th Street Ocean) south of the airport and on the south side of Overseas Highway. The 3-acre park 34 includes a variety of playground equipment, a picnic pavilion, picnic tables, and restroom facilities. 2 The FAA is identifying these resources to assist in characterizing conditions in the existing environment, but FAA has not made a determination relative to the Section 4(f)status of each resource. 4-11 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 Marathon's Dog Park — An area at the Rotary Children's Park designated as a public dog park. Dogs 2 are allowed supervised off-leash play. 3 Events Field —This public park is located between 98th Street and 99th Street behind the Marathon City 4 Hall. The park is dog friendly and has a large open area (field). The field borders on the Atlantic Ocean 5 and offers facilities to picnic, fish, and launch kayaks. 6 Adderley House —The George Adderley House (also known as the Bahamian House) is a historic home 7 in the City of Marathon. The house is located at 5550 Overseas Highway. The house was included on 8 the NRHP on September 10, 1992. The NHRP area of significance for this resource is 9 exploration/settlement (1900-1924) and architecture. Located at the Crane Point Museum and Nature 10 Center, visitors may walk through the house as part of the admission fee to the non-profit nature center. 11 Florida Keys Wildlife and Environmental Area — The Florida Keys Wildlife and Environmental Area is 12 an archipelago of small sites stretching 80 miles from Key Largo almost to Key West. These lands are 13 managed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) to protect and restore native 14 tropical plant and animal communities (FWC, 2004). Secondary uses are to protect cultural resources, 15 and to provide natural-resource-based education and recreation, under the guidance of the Acquisition 16 and Restoration Council and the Florida Forever Program. There are seven parcels of land comprising 17 three sites within the GSA that are managed as part of the Florida Keys Wildlife and Environmental Area. 18 Two of the sites are immediately north of the airport and the third is approximately 1,500 feet east of the 19 airport. 20 Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary —Vaca Key is located within the Florida Keys National Marine 21 Sanctuary (FKNMS). The FKNMS was designated in 1990 to protect and conserve the diverse marine 22 environment in the Florida Keys. Important resources in the FKNMS include coral reefs, sea grass 23 communities, hardbottom habitats, mangroves, and marine life associated with these areas. The FKNMS 24 consists of all submerged lands and waters from the mean high water mark to its outer boundary, with the 25 exception of areas within the Dry Tortugas National Park. NOAA manages the FKNMS in consultation 26 with appropriate federal, state, and local governments. 27 4.6 FISH,WILDLIFE, AND PLANTS 28 This section describes biotic communities, including potential wildlife and their habitats, within the GSA 29 and the detailed Biological Study Area (BSA)defined for this EA. 30 4.6.1 Methodology 31 Prior to field visits, a wide variety of information and documents related to habitat and wildlife in the 32 Florida Keys were reviewed. Land use and vegetative cover within the BSA were assessed during site 33 visits in November 2009. All areas within the BSA were assigned a Florida Land Use, Cover, and Forms 4-12 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 Classification System (FLUCFCS) code reflecting their land use or vegetative cover3. Wetlands and open 2 water habitats are described using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) "Cowardin System" of 3 wetland classification 4. The location and acreage of land use and vegetative cover polygons within the 4 BSA were determined by: 1) marking field-observed wetland and FLUCFCS boundaries on an aerial 5 photograph, 2) digitizing the field maps into a geographic information system (GIS) database, and 3) 6 overlaying the BSA boundaries on the digitized wetland and FLUCFCS map. The resulting information 7 was used to describe existing land use, vegetative cover, and land forms in the BSA. 8 In November 2009, environmental scientists with knowledge of Florida plants, wildlife, and listed species 9 also performed a field review of the BSA. Nineteen pedestrian transects were established to collect 10 information on habitats, tropical hardwood hammock, and wetlands. On each transect, plant species 11 were noted and all native trees with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of greater than 4 inches were 12 measured and recorded. Additionally, any animal species that were observed were also recorded. 13 4.6.2 Land Use and Vegetative Cover 14 Several generalized upland land use/vegetative cover types occur within the GSA. These land 15 use/vegetative cover types include airport facilities, which are centrally located within the GSA, single- 16 and multi-family residential housing which dominates much of the uplands surrounding the airport, 17 commercial uses which are predominantly located along US 1, an institutional land use located on the 18 eastern boundary of the GSA, upland shrub and open land located to the northeast and southwest of the 19 airport, tropical hardwood hammocks located north and south of the US 1 corridor, and an area of 20 Australian pine located directly south of the airport. The distribution of existing land use types and upland 21 habitats within the GSA is illustrated in Figure 4.6-1. 22 4.6.2.1 Upland Land Uses and Vegetative Cover within the BSA 23 A review of the project area found two upland habitats within the BSA: developed airfield and tropical 24 hardwood hammock. These upland communities are listed in Table 4.6-1 and described below. The 25 upland communities are also depicting in Figure 4.6-2. 26 TABLE 4.6-1 27 UPLAND LAND USESIVEGETATIVE COVER WITHIN THE BSA 28 Upland Habitats FLUCFCS Code Description Acres within BSA 426 Tropical Hardwoods 28.7 811 Airports 164.0 Total Acres of Upland Habitats 192.7 29 Source: URS Corporation, 2010. 3 In Florida, land use and vegetative cover types are commonly classified using the FLUCFCS. FLUCFCS is a uniform land classification system developed by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and is widely used by local, state, and federal agencies within Florida(FDOT, 1999) 4 The Cowardin system is a hierarchical classification based on hydrologic regime and vegetative community and to a lesser extent on water chemistry and soil types(Cowardin, et al., 1979). 4-13 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 Tropical Hardwoods (FLUCFCS 426) 2 The Florida Keys are a group of low lying islands comprised mostly of Pleistocene limestone. Formation 3 of thin layers of nutrient poor soils and marls has allowed colonization of these islands by tropical and 4 sub-tropical vegetation. Prior to human occupation, the Keys were dominated by three habitat types: 5 mangroves, pine rocklands, and tropical hardwood hammocks. In general, the small narrow islands of 6 the upper Keys supported hardwood hammocks while the larger broader islands of the lower Keys 7 supported a pine-palmetto habitat type (USGS, 2010). Over the last century, the majority of natural 8 habitats have been cleared for agriculture and development. 9 Tropical hardwood hammocks are found throughout south Florida and the Keys. These hammocks are 10 becoming exceedingly rare in the Keys as development pressure has led to the conversion of the majority 11 of the Key's hammocks to commercial or residential uses. The remaining areas contain a diverse 12 assemblage of plants that are mostly of West Indian origin. Tropical hardwood hammocks found in the 13 Keys are generally a closed canopy system with an open shrub layer, and a sparse herbaceous layer on 14 organic soils that have developed directly on a mineral substrate. There are over 150 species of trees and 15 shrubs growing in south Florida tropical hardwood hammocks (Snyder, et al., 1990)with many species of 16 West Indian origin reaching their northernmost range in the Keys and south Florida. There are an 17 estimated 400 acres of remaining tropical hardwood hammock within the middle Keys. 18 With the exception of some bird and bat species, most vertebrates found in tropical hardwood hammocks 19 are temperate in origin (Snyder, et al., 1990). These hammocks are important habitat for West Indian 20 land birds including the mangrove cuckoo (Cocczyus minor) and the white-crowned pigeon (Columba 21 leucocephala). Tropical hammocks are also important to migratory bird species that use these areas for 22 resting and feeding during their migrations to the Caribbean and South America. Tropical hardwood 23 hammocks of the Keys are also home to several species of mammals, invertebrates, and reptiles that are 24 found only in the Florida Keys. 25 A field review of the 28.7-acre existing tropical hardwood hammock located within the BSA found 26 approximately 73 different plant species occurring within the hammock (see Section 4.6.3 for a list of 27 species). The hammock consists mostly of a closed canopy forest with a moderately dense shrub layer 28 consisting of small to medium sized shrubs and young trees. The herbaceous layer is sparse; however, 29 areas where there are openings in the canopy support a dense assemblage of herbaceous species. The 30 main body of herbaceous species is found growing at the interface of the hammock and maintained 31 airfield. The most common plants found within the hammock include poisonwood (Metopium toxiferum), 32 Jamaica-dogwood (Piscidia piscipula), buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus), Florida thatch palm (Thrinax 33 radiata), Florida Keys blackbead (Pithecellobium keyense), white stopper (Eugenia axillaris), and 34 Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius). Several of these species are listed as threatened or 35 endangered by the State of Florida and will be discussed further in Section 5.8.3. The existing hammock 36 was part of a larger original hammock system that connected to the north and east of the airport. 37 Remnant pieces of the larger hammock system are still present to the north and northeast of the airport 38 hammock and are under state ownership and protection. Direct connection of the airport hammock to 39 these remnant hammocks have been severed by road and residential construction. 40 4-14 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 0 S _ F A l 11y� W � W yra i MV Iwo Iwo ' ^N 0-0 f� 7 0 h N � 4 v - �. A rllti ' w Z w 2 Q vTt `I 4 w a _ _ Y t FIGURE 4.6-I all, � � 4 JU3MSSaSS'V leauau►uo.zinug �� V:IHV AQ11,LS'IVD190 IOIg ` N u01030PN SUL�fPmtunM pod.uV uogje.]LA, S,Om uplaolA aql IH,I NIH,IIM S,IV,IIUVH .. w Ro - �;d„ ,�,� ,. � e -"�+"��.:�� "�>f•-� �1�1r,��(�rF\li(�(!rrt 3f ,.S,�,a 21,i 5 A�`.� � 5 i.it z,i� ,fi`\ss7 jS�1��6� .�y' '`�� - e4 � h�o'r, t•11'�,"��,� ;a a: ,k -- �1�1 1,�(�\�,��i,itlltt�s�i?#)drN,,A t� ,t it t i 1i ors 1; { ?� S �. g',;, iy'RF�rytil�Ci^4..Y �»a� s., ��lri,�li(p�\{�Oh(4,t5 t1S ��r,17� ,�f 1 ,, (; r, rt t� � sr �)_��St 4,4£s<'•;. A.: �y Y t #R� 00 1 `t❑ ,t ��{\5,_�r �V c �.-.� �', � sYry�,._�'*� � r5"�... � ��5)�i}{£��fS I _i i sv �' �ir(s�r „.: ;�� `� £, ,� 1?, l fit'$S r•. 1 i S ri s r $,� t i � y 4 z � o u §1 o m a 32 E o o 3-1 y mxa�•„��ir ^��:�: r art� �.� �a � v t �`� Y r��f �3 rC{ ' r e Kh t#��r �� _ y 1" n �❑q p� � 7 1 � � y) 'r 1 Airports (FLUCFCS 426) 2 The developed airfield consists of buildings, aircraft parking ramps, taxiways, a runway, and water 3 treatment areas associated with the operation of the airport facility. These areas are actively used and 4 maintained as part of normal airport operations. Open grass areas in the airport infield and adjacent to 5 the runway are regularly mowed and are maintained as open space for aircraft safety purposes. 6 4.6.2.2 Wetlands and Other Surface Waters 7 Based on data collected by in-house reviews and field reviews, mangrove swamp is the only wetland type 8 located within the BSA. This wetland type covers a total of 7.7 acres (4 percent) of the BSA. The total 9 acres of all surface waters, including wetlands, within the BSA are provided in Table 4.6-2 below and are 10 shown previously on Figure 4.6-2. 11 TABLE 4.6-2 12 WETLANDS AND OTHER SURFACE WATER COMMUNITY TYPES PRESENT WITHIN THE BSA 13 Acres FLUCFCS Code and Description' FWS Classification within BSA Wetland Communities 612—Mangrove swamp E2FO3N —Estuarine, Intertidal, Forested, 7.7 Broad-Leaved, Evergreen, Regularly Flooded Total Wetland and Other Surface Waters within BSA 7.7 14 FDOT, 1999. 15 2 Cowardin et al., 1979 16 Source: URS Corporation, 2009. 17 Mangrove Swamps (FLUCFCS 612; FWS Classification: Estuarine, Intertidal, Forested, Broad- 18 Leaved, Evergreen, Regularly Flooded) — Three distinct mangrove wetlands are found within the BSA. 19 One is tidally connected and two are not tidally connected. Section 5.13, Wetlands, contains a detailed 20 description of the wetlands. A total of 7.7 acres of this habitat type were identified within the BSA. 21 4.6.3 Wildlife 22 The forested and herbaceous upland and wetland areas within the GSA provide suitable habitat for 23 various species of snakes, wading birds, birds of prey, song birds, and mammals (e.g., mice and 24 raccoons). The existing hardwood hammocks and mangrove wetlands located within the GSA provide 25 moderate quality habitat for wildlife species; however, connections to adjoining habitat is fragmented and 26 disrupted by roads and urban development. 27 In 2010, the FWS issued a Biological Opinion that determined free-roaming cats in the Florida Keys harm 28 wildlife and may result in the extinction of the endangered Key Largo Woodrat, Key Largo Cotton Mouse, 29 and the Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit. In addition, they may further reduce the population of the threatened 30 Silver Rice Rat. The City of Marathon distributes brochures to educate local residents and protect local 31 wildlife. 4-19 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 4.6.4 State-and Federally-Listed Species 2 The following discussion provides additional information and status of state- and federally-listed species 3 that have the potential to occur within the BSA. 4 4.6.4.1 Applicable Regulations 5 The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (87 Stat. 884; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 6 requires that all federal agencies undertake programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened 7 species and prohibits federal agencies from authorizing, funding, or carrying out any action that would 8 jeopardize a listed species or destroy or modify its critical habitat as designated in 50 Code of Federal 9 Regulations (CFR) 17 and 226. Projects that would otherwise jeopardize a federally-listed species or 10 impact its critical habitat must contain conservation measures or habitat mitigation that removes the 11 jeopardy. State-listed species are those animal and plant species protected by the State of Florida 12 pursuant to Chapter 68A-27 Florida Administration Code (F.A.C.) and Chapter 513-40, F.A.C., 13 respectively. 14 Animal species may be classified as "endangered" when it is in danger of extinction within the 15 foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A "threatened" classification is 16 provided to those species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 17 significant part of their ranges. The State of Florida also maintains a state list of endangered and 18 threatened species and "species of special concern." A species of special concern is a species that, 19 although possibly relatively abundant and widespread in the state, is especially vulnerable to certain 20 types of exploitation or environmental changes and have experienced long-term population declines. 21 Plant species are listed by the Florida Department of Agriculture (FDA) and Consumer Services as 22 endangered, threatened, and commercially exploited. As defined by Chapter 581.185(2), Florida Statutes 23 (F.S.), "endangered plants" refer to species of plants native to the state that are in imminent danger of 24 extinction within the state, and the survival of which is unlikely if the causes of a decline in the number of 25 plants continue. "Threatened plants" refer to species native to the state that are in rapid decline in the 26 number of plants within the state, but which have not so decreased in such number as to cause them to 27 be endangered. "Commercially exploited plants" refer to species native to the state which are subject to 28 being removed in significant numbers from native habitats in the state and sold or transported for sale. 29 4.6.4.2 Methodology 30 The potential presence and use of the BSA by state- and federally-listed species was assessed by review 31 of the following: 32 0 Species accounts; 33 0 Agency listings of species known to occur or potentially occurring in Monroe County; 34 0 Online sources from the FWS, FWC, and Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI); 35 0 FWC on-line bald eagle nest locator database; 36 0 FNAI Data Element Occurrence Report and Agency response to the Early 37 Notification process (contained in Appendix F-1); and 4-20 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 0 Field observations of habitats and wildlife species. 2 The potential for listed species occurring within the BSA was assessed based on existing habitats, field 3 observations, a review of species accounts, and agency listings. The assessment of potential impacts to 4 state- and federally-listed species was accomplished by identifying listed species potentially occurring 5 within the BSA, assessing the presence and use of various habitats within the BSA by listed species (e.g., 6 foraging, nesting, etc.), and assessing the loss of habitat potentially used by listed species. 7 4.6.4.3 Agency Coordination and Field Reviews 8 As part of the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 (NEPA) process, an Advance Notification of 9 the Proposed Project was sent to state and federal entities, including the FDEP, the FWC, the FWS, and 10 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) requesting information on reported occurrences of listed 11 species within 2 miles of the MTH. Correspondence received from these entities is provided in 12 Appendix F-1. 13 The NMFS responded to the Advance Notification in a letter dated August 26, 2010 (see Appendix F-1). 14 NMFS states that mangroves located on-site and adjacent seagrass beds are essential fish habitat (EFH) 15 that may be adversely impacted by the Proposed Project. Additionally, NMFS believes that the Proposed 16 Project may affect the smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata) and green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas). The 17 agency recommend a Biological Assessment (BA) be prepared if ESA-listed species or critical habitat is 18 found within the project area. 19 In a letter dated September 2, 2010, the FWC provided a list of state-protected species that may be 20 impacted by the Proposed Project. These species are addressed in the following discussion. The FWC 21 also recommended ensuring that impacts to tropical hardwood hammocks are minimized and any impact 22 to this habitat type is mitigated (see Appendix F-1). 23 Professional biologists assessed the potential presence of state- and federally-listed species within the 24 BSA. Qualitative surveys of each habitat type present within the BSA were made by visual inspection 25 during field reviews in November 2009. 26 In April 2013, the FAA prepared a BA (URS, 2013) that was submitted to the NMFS and the FWS for 27 review. 28 4.6.4.4 Existing Conditions 29 For a species to potentially occur within the limits of the BSA, the BSA must be within the species' range, 30 there must be appropriate habitat for the species, and there must be enough habitat area for the 31 individual species to carry out reproduction, nesting, foraging, or resting activities. 32 Mammals were not encountered during the field reviews of the proposed impact area; however, it is very 33 likely that the hammock is utilized by raccoons and rodents. Several state wildlife listed species were 34 observed utilizing the hammock area including the Florida tree snail (Liguus fasciatus), white-crowned 35 pigeon (Patagioenas leucocephala), and osprey(Pandion haliaetus). 4-21 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 The BSA was evaluated for the occurrence of federally-listed species critical habitat designated in 2 17 CFR 35.1532 and critical habitat proposed by the FWS. No designated or proposed critical habitat for 3 any federally-listed species occurs within the BSA. 4 Based on the habitats present within the BSA and a review of the habitat requirements of listed animal 5 and plant species, 26 listed plant species and 16 listed animal species have the potential to occur within 6 the BSA. Listed species with the potential to occur within the BSA are shown in Table 4.6-3 and 7 discussed in greater detail following the table. 8 TABLE 4.6-3 9 STATE-AND FEDERALLY-LISTED THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES WITH THE 10 POTENTIAL TO OCCUR WITHIN THE BSA 11 Federal State Species Common Name Status'°z Status"a Habitae e Plants Acacia choriophylla Cinnecord NL E Margins of rockland hammocks. Acanthocereus Barbed-wire cactus NL T Maritime hammocks. enta onus Argythamnia blodgettii Blodgett's wild mercury C E Pine barrens,wet margins of hammocks. Bourreria radula Rough strongback NL E Pinelands, tropical hardwood hammocks Bourreria succulenta Bahama strongback NL E Tropical hardwood hammocks. Chamaesyce garberi Garber's spurge T E Pine rocklands, coastal berm, coastal grasslands. Chamaesyce Porter's broad-leaved NL E Coastal grasslands, coastal strand. orteriana spurge Crossopetalum Christmas berry NL T Pine rocklands, hammocks. ilicifolium Crossopetalum Maidenberry NL T Pine rocklands, hammocks. rhacoma Drypetes diversifolia Milkbark NL E Tropical hammocks. Gossypium hirsutum Wild cotton NL E Coastal hammocks, coastal berms. Guaiacum sanctum Lignum-vitae NL E Rockland hammocks. Gyminda latifolia False boxwood NL E Tropical hammocks. Jacquinia keyensis Joewood NL T Coastal grasslands, maritime hammocks. Linum arenicola Sand flax C E Pine rockland, marl prairie,disturbed areas. Manikara jaimiqui Wild dilly NL T Tropical hammocks. Opuntia corallicola Florida semaphore C E Rocky hammocks, coastal barrens. cactus Opuntia stricta Erect prickly pear NL T Shell mounds, coastal areas. Opuntia triacantha Three-spined prickly NL E Coastal rock barrens, openings in rockland ear hammocks. Pilosocereus robinii Tree cactus E E Openings in tropical hardwood hammocks. Pithecellobium keyense Florida Keys blackbead NL T Hammocks, pinelands, sand dunes adjacent to beaches. Roystonea elata Florida royal palm NL E Rockland hammocks, shell middens, strand swam Senna mexicana var. Bahama senna NL T Pinelands, hammocks, coastal dunes. cha manii Smilax havanensis Everglades smilax NL T Pinelands, hammocks. 4-22 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport TABLE 4.6-3 (CONTINUED) STATE-AND FEDERALLY-LISTED THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES WITH THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR WITHIN THE BSA Federal State Species Common Name Status"' Status"' Habitae e Swietenia mahagoni West Indies mahogany NL T Maritime and rockland hammocks. Thnnax radiata Florida thatch palm NL E Hammocks, coastal strands, and shores. Animals Reptiles Drymarchon corals Eastern indigo snake T T Scrub, sandhill,wet prairie, mangrove cou eri swamp. Eumeces egregius Florida Keys mole skink NL SSC Variety of habitats that have stones, egregius debris, and driftwood. Tantilla oolitica Rim rock crowned snake NL T Tropical hardwood hammock, pine rocklands Birds Ajaia ajaja Roseate spoonbill NL SSC Mangrove wetlands, freshwater wetlands. Athene cunicularia Florida burrowing owl NL SSC Sparsely vegetated sandy soils, ball fields, floridana airports, pastures, vacant properties. Columba leucocephala White-crowned pigeon NL T Mangrove islands, tropical hardwood hammocks. Egretta caerulea Little blue heron NL SSC Shallow, freshwater, brackish, and saltwater habitats, and black man roves. Egretta rufescens Reddish egret NL SSC Broad open tidal shorelines and flats. Mangrove islands. Egretta thula Snowy egret NL SSC Inland and coastal wetlands, mangroves. Egretta tricolor Tricolored heron NL SSC Mangrove swamps, tidal creeks, tidal ditches, edges of ponds and lakes. SSC— Pandion haliaetus Osprey NL Monroe Large rivers, lakes, and coastal areas. County Only Pelecanus occidentalis Brown Pelican NL SSC Mangrove islands, shallow estuarine waters, coastal habitats. Fish Pristis pectinata Smalltooth sawfish E NL Shallow estuarine waters, rivers, mangroves. Menidia conchorum Key silverside NL T Shallow pools surrounded by mangroves. Rivulus marmoratus Mangrove rivulus NL SSC Mangroves, shallow pools, crab burrows. Invertebrates Liguus fasciatus Florida tree snail I NL I SSC Tropical hardwood hammocks Orthalicus reses Stock Island tree snail I T I E Tropical hardwood hammocks 1 Notes: 2 NL= not listed; C =candidate species; SSC=species of special concern (state only); T =threatened; E =endangered; SAT = 3 treated as threatened due to similarity of appearance to a federally-listed species such that enforcement personnel have difficulty 4 differentiating between the listed and unlisted species. 5 2 As listed in 50 CFR 17. 6 3 As listed in Rule 5B-40.0055, F.A.C.,68A-27.003 F.A.C.,68A-27.004 F.A.C.,and 68A-27.005 F.A.C. 7 4 Plant habitat sources: Coile, Nancy C. and M.A. Garland. 2003. Notes on Florida's Endangered and Threatened Plants. 8 Contribution No. 38, 41h edition. FDA and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, Bureau of Entomology, Nematology, 9 and Plant Pathology—Botany Section. Gainesville, Florida. 10 5 Various published and on-line sources used for animal habitat descriptions. 4-23 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 Flora 2 Cinnecord (Acacia choriophylla) — The cinnecord is a bush or small tree found on moist soils in 3 disturbed sites, open hammocks, and pine barrens that occur on limestone outcroppings. A native of 4 south Florida, the Bahamas, and Cuba, it has bipinnate leaves 1 to 2 centimeters long and a round yellow 5 flower. This species is listed as endangered by the State of Florida. The cinnecord was found growing 6 within portions of the hardwood hammock that would be impacted by the Proposed Project. 7 Barbed-wire cactus (Acanthocereus pentagonus) —The barbed-wire cactus is listed as threatened by 8 the State of Florida. Stems of this cactus are generally reclining and can grow from 2 to 3 meters in 9 length. It has a white floral tube with slender spines and a bright red fruit. In Florida, it is found in 10 maritime hammocks and beach areas. Individual clumps of barbed-wire cactus were found in several 11 locations that would be impacted by clearing as a result of the Proposed Project. 12 Blodgett's wild mercury (Argythamnia blodgettii) — This plant is listed as a candidate species by the 13 FWS and endangered by the State of Florida. Blodgett's wild mercury is an erect perennial standing up 14 to 2 feet tall with a woody base and evergreen leaves that are metallic-blue-green in color with three veins 15 branching from the base. This species is generally found in sunny gaps and edges of pine rocklands and 16 hardwood hammocks. No individuals of Blodgett's wild mercury were found within the BSA during 17 inspections and none have been reported within 1 mile of the airport by FNAI. 18 Rough strongback (Bourreria radula) — Rough strongback is a shrub or small tree growing to 15 feet 19 tall. It has thin scaly, reddish-brown bark with dark green leaves that are rough-hairy on the upper 20 surface. This species is found in rockland hammocks in Dade County, the Keys, and throughout the 21 West Indies. Rough strongback is listed as endangered by the State of Florida. No individuals of this 22 species were observed during inspections of the BSA and none have been reported within 1 mile of the 23 airport by FNAI. 24 Bahama strongback (Bourreria succulenta)—The Bahama strongback occurs as a shrub or small tree 25 and is differentiated from rough strongback by its longer leaves that have a smooth upper surface and 26 reddish-orange fruits. This state of Florida endangered species is found in rockland hammocks in the 27 Keys and Dade County. Bahama strongback was observed growing within the area that would be 28 impacted by the proposed clearing. 29 Garber's spurge (Chamaesyce garber�) — This species is a robust perennial herb that is hairy 30 throughout. It has small oval leaves with thick, wiry stems that can grow to 12 inches long. Garber's 31 spurge is generally found growing in sandy soils with a limestone substrate including pine rocklands and 32 hammock edges. This species is listed as threatened by the FWS and endangered by the State of 33 Florida. Individuals of this species were not observed during inspections of the BSA nor has this species 34 been documented within 1 mile of the airport by FNAI. 35 Porter's broad-leaved spurge (Chamaesyce porteriana) — Porter's broad-leaved spurge is a smooth 36 and hairless perennial herb with erect waxy stems radiating from a taproot. Leaves are small, oval, and 37 are thick with a waxy coating. This species is listed as endangered by the State of Florida and is endemic 38 to pine rocklands, marl prairies, rockland hammocks in Dade County and the Florida Keys. Individuals of 4-24 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 this species were not observed during inspections of the project area and this species has not been 2 documented within 1 mile of the airport by FNAI. 3 Christmas berry(Crossopetalum ilicifolium)—This species is a small shrub with hairy stems, opposite, 4 spiny toothed leaves, and a prominent red berry. It is listed as threatened by the State of Florida and is 5 commonly found in pine rocklands and rockland hammocks of Monroe County and the Florida Keys. No 6 Christmas berry was observed during inspections of the BSA nor has this species been documented 7 within 1 mile from the airport by FNAI. 8 Maidenberry (Crossopetalum rhacoma) — Maidenberry is a bush to small tree measuring 1 to 3 meters 9 in height. It is supported by a large taproot and sturdy lateral roots with yellow bark. It has opposite 10 leaves with entire to crenate edges, greenish-red flowers, and produces a red egg-shaped drupe. It is 11 generally found in rocky, well drained sites including pine rocklands and rockland hammocks. The 12 maidenberry is listed as threatened by the State of Florida. Individuals of this species were observed 13 growing within the area that would be impacted by the proposed clearing. 14 Milkbark (Drypetes diversifolia)— Milkbark is a shrub to small tree with rough, white bark, alternate dark 15 green leaves that are spiny when juvenile. This species produces male and female flowers on separate 16 trees and bears a small white oval fruit. The milkbark is listed as endangered by the State of Florida and 17 is found only in tropical hammocks on keys in Dade County and throughout the Florida Keys. Milkbark 18 was observed growing within the area that would be impacted by the proposed clearing. 19 Wild Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) —This species grows as an herb or shrub occasionally to 5 meters 20 in height. The bark is smooth and gray in color with mature leaves light green in color with three and 21 sometimes five lobes. The flowers are large with pale yellow petals, sometimes with a red spot at the 22 base of the petal. Wild cotton is found throughout tropical Florida and grows in coastal hammocks, shell 23 mounds, and coastal berms. This species is listed as endangered by the State of Florida. No individuals 24 of wild cotton were observed within the BSA; however, several individuals of this species have been 25 documented by FNAI as growing in an adjacent hardwood hammock. 26 Lignum-vitae (Guaiacum sanctum) — The Iignum-vitae is a short tree with white bark. The leaves are 27 pinnate with three to four pairs of leaflets with each leaf tipped with a small tooth. The small flowers have 28 blue petals while the fruit is orange, four to five lobed, with red seeds that turn black when ripe. This tree 29 is found in tropical hardwood hammocks in Dade County and the Keys. The State of Florida lists this 30 species as endangered. No Iignum-vitae were observed during inspections of the BSA nor has this 31 species been documented within 1 mile of the airport by FNAI. 32 False boxwood (Gyminda latifolia)— False boxwood is a state-listed endangered species that grows as 33 a shrub or small tree and is found in tropical hardwood hammocks of the middle Keys. It has gray to 34 reddish-brown flaky bark, square twigs, and evergreen, opposite leaves with a thickened translucent rim. 35 The fruit is a round or oval black drupe. No false boxwood was observed within the BSA during 36 inspections nor has this species been documented within 1 mile of the airport by FNAI. 4-25 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 Joewood (Jacquinia keyensis) — Joewood is a tropical shrub or tree that is listed as threatened by the 2 State of Florida. It has smooth gray bark and dark green leathery leaves that are often folded downward 3 from the leaf midrib. The flowers are white and fragrant, while the fruit is an orange-red berry. In Florida, 4 joewood is found in coastal grasslands, pine rocklands, and maritime hammocks. Joewood was 5 observed growing within the area that would be impacted by the proposed clearing. 6 Sand flax (Linum arenicola) —This species is a perennial herb with wiry, angled stems that are leafless 7 by flowering time. Leaves are small, narrow, with a pair of small red glands at the base. Flowers are 8 small with five yellow petals, and the fruit is a round capsule with a small pointed beak. Sand flax is listed 9 as a candidate species by the FWS and as endangered by the State of Florida. This species is found 10 growing in pine rocklands, marl prairie, and adjacent disturbed areas. No sand flax was observed within 11 the BSA during inspections and this species has not been documented by FNAI within 1 mile of the 12 airport. 13 Wild dilly (Manikara jaimiqui) —Wild dilly is a large bush to a small tree that grows up to 10 meters in 14 height. The bark is gray to reddish-brown and has deep fissures that break into small plates. Leaves are 15 alternate but clustered at branch tips and have brownish hairs on the underside. The flowers are pale 16 yellow, while the edible fruits are berries with a brown scruffy skin. The wild dilly is found in tropical 17 hardwood hammocks of the everglades and Keys. This species is listed at threatened by the State of 18 Florida. Several mature wild dilly trees were found within the area to be impacted by the Proposed 19 Project. 20 Florida semaphore cactus (Opuntia corallicola) —The semaphore is an erect cactus growing from 3 to 21 15 feet tall. Older branches are green, flattened, oblong, and generally two to four times as long as wide. 22 Spines are 1 to 4 inches long and grow in clusters of two to four per areole. The flower is orange to red 23 and the fruit is flattened, yellow, and has spines. This species is listed as a candidate species by the 24 FWS and as endangered by the State of Florida. This species is endemic to the Florida Keys and is 25 found in buttonwood areas between hardwood hammock and coastal swamp. No Florida semaphore 26 cacti were observed during inspections of the BSA and this species has not been documented within 1 27 mile of the airport by FNAI. 28 Erect prickly pear(Opuntia stricta)—This species is a tropical cactus this is listed as threatened by the 29 State of Florida. The erect prickly pear is much branched and grows to 2 meters tall. The branches are 30 dull green to gray-green, conical, and have up to 11 spines per areole. The flower is bright yellow. This 31 species is found in shell mounds and coastal area throughout central and south Florida. This species 32 was observed growing within the area that would be impacted by the proposed clearing. 33 Three-spined prickly pear (Opuntia triacantha) — The three-spined prickly pear is named for the 34 number of spines, one to three, per areole. It has flattened branches with joints that are loosely attached 35 and a pale yellow flower. Fruits are red, fleshy, and spineless. This species, found in coastal rock 36 barrens and openings in tropical hammocks, is listed as endangered by the State of Florida. This species 37 was not observed within the BSA during inspections and has not been documented within 1 mile of the 38 airport by FNAI. 4-26 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 Tree cactus (Pilosocereus robinil) — This species is a tree-like cactus that has cylindrical stems that 2 can grow to 30 feet tall. The spines are less than 1 inch long and grow in clusters of 15 to 30. The 3 flowers have green outer petals, white inner petals, and smell of garlic. The tree cactus is found in 4 openings in hardwood hammocks and cactus hammocks and is limited to the Florida Keys. This species 5 is listed as endangered by both the FWS and the State of Florida. This species was not observed during 6 inspections of the BSA and has not been documented by FNAI within 1 mile of the airport. 7 Florida Keys blackbead (Pithecellobium keyense) — The Florida Keys blackbead grows as a shrub or 8 small tree and has compound leaves with leaflets in pairs of two with leaflet stalks longer than the petiole. 9 It can be recognized by its distinctive inflorescence that is rounded with multiple whitish or reddish 10 stamens. It also has a distinctive legume this is commonly twisted, curved, or coiled that can grow to 15 11 centimeters long. This species is found in hammocks, pine rocklands, and dunes adjacent to beaches. It 12 is listed as threatened by the State of Florida. Several thousand square feet of Florida Keys blackbead 13 were found growing within the area to be impacted by the Proposed Project. 14 Florida royal palm (Roystonea elata) — This south Florida native palm grows up to 120 feet tall and 15 contains a bright green sheath at the top of the tree that protects leaf bases. The leaves are pinnately 16 compound, up to 12 feet long and recurved. The flowers gown in dense hanging clusters, and are light 17 green-yellow and fragrant. This species occurs in rockland hammocks, shell middens, and strand 18 swamps and is listed as endangered by the State of Florida. No Florida royal palms were observed 19 during inspections of the BSA and the species has not been documented within 1 mile of the airport by 20 FNAI. 21 Bahama senna (Senna mexicana var. chapmanii)—The Bahama senna is an erect shrub that grows to 22 3 meters tall with compound leaves that are elliptic and arranged in four to five pairs of leaflets. This 23 species has golden yellow flowers with five unequally sized and shaped petals. Additionally, this species 24 has a flat, papery legume that grows up to 10 centimeters long. The Bahama senna is listed as 25 threatened by the State of Florida and is most commonly found in tropical hammocks, pinelands, and 26 coastal dunes. No Bahama senna was observed during inspections of the BSA and the species has not 27 been documented within 1 mile of the airport by FNAI. 28 Everglades smilax (Smilax havanensis) — This woody vine is listed as threatened by the State of 29 Florida. It has variable shaped leathery leaves with three to five main veins, with prickles on leaf margins 30 and underside midrib. The fruit is a small black berry. Everglades smilax is found in pinelands and 31 hammocks in Collier and Dade counties and the Florida Keys. This species was found growing in the 32 area proposed for clearing. 33 West Indies mahogany (Swietenia mahagoni) — West Indies mahogany is a semi-evergreen tropical 34 tree that grows to 80 feet tall in Florida. It has compound leaves that contain four to eight broad leaflets, 35 and has a distinctive fruit that is a large brown woody capsule. This tree is listed as threatened by the 36 State of Florida. It is commonly found in maritime and rockland hammocks in Dade County and the upper 37 Florida Keys. This species was observed growing within the area that would be impacted by the 38 proposed clearing. 4-27 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 Florida thatch palm (Thrinax radiata) — The Florida thatch palm is a slender, slow growing palm that 2 rarely exceeds 30 feet in height. This species produces 12 to 20 palmate fronds that are green above 3 with a yellow rib and light green or yellow green underneath. They can be identified from other palms by 4 a distinct pointed hastula protruding from the frond's center. This palm can also be identified by its 5 inflorescence, which is 3 feet long or more and bears numerous white drupes. This species is listed as 6 endangered by the State of Florida and is often found in tropical hammocks and coastal strands. This 7 species was found growing within the area that would be impacted by the proposed clearing. 8 Fauna 9 Reptiles 10 Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couper�) —The Eastern indigo snake is listed as threatened 11 by the FWS and the FWC. The Eastern indigo snake is found in a variety of habitats including swamps, 12 wet prairies, and pinelands. It may use gopher tortoise burrows for shelter to escape hot or cold ambient 13 temperatures within its range. Although suitable habitat does occur within the BSA, no individuals were 14 observed within the BSA during field surveys and no documented occurrences have been reported within 15 1 mile of the BSA by FNAI. 16 Florida Keys mole skink (Eumeces egregius egregius) — The Florida Keys mole skink is listed as a 17 species of special concern by FWC. This brown lizard has a brownish-red tail and is found only in the 18 Florida Keys. Its preferred habitat is loose sand with stones, debris, or driftwood that is used as hiding 19 cover. No Florida Keys mole skinks were observed during field reviews of the BSA; however, this species 20 has been documented by FNAI within 1 mile of the project site. 21 Rim rock crowned snake (Tantilla oolitica) — This species is a small snake (maximum length 10 22 inches) with a light brown body and dark brown or black head. The rim rock crowned snake is listed as 23 threatened by the FWC, and is found in tropical hammocks, pine rocklands, and disturbed habitats in 24 Dade County and the Florida Keys. This species was not observed during field reviews of the BSA nor 25 has this species been documented within 1 mile of the project site by FNAI. 26 Birds 27 Roseate spoonbill (Ajaia ajaja) —This species is identified by a bright pink body and flat, spoon-like bill. 28 It is listed as a species of special concern by the FWC and is protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty 29 Act(MBTA) (Title 50, CFR, part 21). Spoonbills primarily nest in coastal mangroves or in Brazilian pepper 30 and forage in shallow fresh, salt, and brackish waters. This species was not observed during site reviews 31 of the BSA and has not been documented within 1 mile of the project area by FNAI. 32 Florida burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia floridana) — The Florida burrowing owl is listed as a 33 species of special concern by the FWC and inhabits sparsely vegetated sandy soils; however, it makes 34 use of ruderal sites such as pastures, parks, school grounds, airports, and vacant parcels in residential 35 neighborhoods. Additionally, Florida burrowing owls and their nests are protected under the MBTA. This 36 species is unique in that it creates burrows in the ground to lay eggs and raise young. Suitable habitat 37 does occur within the open grass areas of the BSA. No Florida burrowing owls were observed during site 38 inspections of the BSA and the species has not been documented within 1 mile of the project site by 39 FNAI. 4-28 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 White-crowned pigeon (Columba leucocephala)—This species is listed as threatened by the FWC and 2 is protected under the MBTA. This bird is distinguished from the more familiar rock dove by its dark gray 3 body and white-crowned head. The white-crowned pigeon nests in mangrove habitats and forages in 4 tropical hardwood hammocks on fruits of native trees. A white-crowned pigeon was observed within the 5 BSA and the species has been documented by FNAI in adjacent tropical hardwood hammocks. 6 Little blue heron (Egretta caerulea) — The little blue heron is a medium-sized wading bird with a slate 7 blue body and a purple to maroon colored head. This state-listed species of special concern feeds in 8 shallow brackish and freshwater habitats. This species is known to nest in woody vegetation types 9 including cypress, willow, cabbage palm, and black mangroves. No little blue herons were observed 10 within the BSA and the species has not been documented by FNAI within 1 mile of the project site. 11 Reddish egret(Egretta rufescens) —This long-legged wading bird has a grey body, a dull reddish head, 12 and during breeding season, turquoise blue legs. The reddish egret is listed by the FWC as a species of 13 special concern. This bird is found commonly in coastal areas where it forages in marine tidal flats and 14 shorelines. No reddish egrets were observed during site inspections of the BSA and the species has not 15 been documented within 1 mile of the project site by FNAI. 16 Snowy egret (Egretta thula) — This medium-sized wading bird is listed as a species of special concern 17 by the FWC. The snowy egret is identified by a white body, black bill with yellow base, black legs, and 18 bright yellow feet. The snowy egret nests in woody material in both freshwater and coastal wetlands and 19 prefers willow and mangroves as nesting sites. This species forages in a variety of shallow water 20 wetlands, lakes, streams, and ditches. No snowy egrets were observed during site inspections of the 21 BSA and the species has not been documented within 1 mile of the project area by FNAI. 22 Tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor) — The tricolored heron has a two-toned body color with a slate 23 coloration on the head, neck, and body with a white underside. The neck also has a reddish-brown and 24 white streak. This species is listed as a species of special concern by the FWC. This wader prefers 25 coastal environments and often nests in mangroves. The tricolored heron forages in tidal creeks, ditches, 26 swamps, and the edges of ponds and lakes. No tricolored herons were observed during site inspections 27 of the BSA and none were documented within 1 mile of the project area by FNAI. 28 Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) — The osprey is a large raptor with a dark brown back and head and 29 undersides that are mostly white. This bird is listed as a species of special concern for populations 30 occurring in Monroe County by the FWC and is protected by the MBTA. Ospreys are found in coastal 31 areas and in places with large bodies of water. Nesting is generally on large living or dead trees but also 32 occurs on man-made structures, or in coastal areas in mangrove swamps. An osprey was observed 33 foraging within the BSA during site inspections, however, no osprey nest was located within the BSA. 34 Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) — The brown pelican is listed as a species of special concern 35 by the FWC and is protected by the MBTA. This is a large, heavy waterbird with a large bill and huge 36 throat pouch. The brown pelican is found in all coastal areas in Florida and makes extensive use of sand 37 bars and sand spits for loafing and nocturnal roosting. This species nests on small islands in bays and 38 estuaries, with mangrove islands being preferred nesting habitat in central and south Florida. No brown 4-29 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 pelicans were observed during site inspections of the BSA; however, the species has been documented 2 in mangrove areas within 1 mile of the project area by FNAI. 3 Fish 4 Smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata) — The smalltooth sawfish gets its name from its snout, which is 5 long and flat and lined with pairs of teeth that are used to capture and kill prey. This fish is often found in 6 shallow water over sandy or muddy bottoms. Juveniles utilize mangrove dominated areas as hiding 7 cover from predators. This fish is listed as endangered and is managed by the NMFS. No smalltooth 8 sawfish were observed during the field inspections of the BSA and no smalltooth sawfish have been 9 documented within 1 mile of the project area by FNAI. 10 Key silverside (Menidia conchorum) —This species is a small fish (less than 2 inches in length) with a 11 dark line along the mid-side and a distinctly large eye. The Key silverside is listed as threatened by the 12 FWC. It inhabits shallow pools surrounded by mangroves and can be found the length of the Keys. No 13 Key silversides were documented during site inspections of the BSA and the species has not been 14 documented within 1 mile of the project area by FNAI. 15 Mangrove rivulus (Rivulus marmoratus) —The mangrove rivulus is a small fish ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 16 inches in length with a maroon or dark brown coloring and spots and speckling prominent on its sides. 17 This fish is listed as a species of special concern by the FWC and prefers stagnant seasonal ponds in 18 mangrove areas or standing water in high marsh areas. In times when standing water is not available, 19 this species utilizes the water filled burrows of land crabs or other crab species. No mangrove rivulus 20 were observed during site reviews of the BSA and this species has not been documented within 1 mile of 21 the project area by FNAI. 22 Invertebrates 23 Florida tree snail (Liguus fasciatus) — This snail is listed as a species of special concern by the FWC. 24 It is found primarily in tropical hardwood hammocks where it has a preference for smooth barked trees. It 25 can be identified by a large shell with a white or cream background and streaks or bands of variable color. 26 Several Florida tree snails were observed within the area proposed to be impacted by the Proposed 27 Project. 28 Stock Island tree snail (Orthalicus reses) — This snail is listed as threatened by the FWS and 29 endangered by the FWC. It is found primarily in tropical hardwood hammocks where it has a preference 30 for smooth barked trees. It can be identified by a large, conical shell that is generally white with non- 31 distinct spiral bands and axial strips. No Stock Island tree snails have been documents near the GSA or 32 previously observed within the BSA proposed to be impacted by the Proposed Project. 33 4.6.5 Designated Critical Habitat 34 The BSA was evaluated for the occurrence of federally-designated or proposed critical habitat. No 35 designated or proposed critical habitat for any federally-listed species occurs within the BSA. 4-30 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 4.6.6 Essential Fish Habitat 2 The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act specifies that each federal agency 3 shall consult with the Secretary of Commerce with respect to any action authorized, funded, or 4 undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken, by such agency that may adversely 5 affect any EFH identified under the Act. EFH is defined by the Act as "...those waters and substrate 6 necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity." The NMFS reviews potential 7 impacts to EFH. 8 The site of the Proposed Project includes or is adjacent to mangroves and seagrass habitat, which are 9 identified by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) and Gulf of Mexico Fishery 10 Management Council (GMFMC) as EFH for several species and Habitat Area of Particular Concern 11 (HAPC). HAPC is a subset of EFH that is either rare, particularly susceptible to human-induced 12 degradation, especially important ecologically, or located in an environmentally-stressed area. 13 A review of EFH was conducted during the November 2009 site review. Environmental scientists with 14 knowledge of EFH requirements examined habitats within the BSA. After field verification of on-site 15 habitat types, the fisheries management plan from the GMFMC was reviewed to determine if any on-site 16 wetlands were considered EFH. 17 Pursuant to the GMFMC, mangrove dominated wetlands are considered EFH for several managed 18 species including adult white grunt (Haemulon plumied), juvenile and adult gray snapper (Lutjanus 19 griseus), and juvenile mutton snapper (Lutjanus analis). Mangroves play an important role as habitat to 20 juvenile fish species as mangrove roots and the shallow water of mangrove wetlands provide a refuge 21 from predators. 22 Three mangrove wetlands are located within the BSA. Two small mangrove wetlands totaling 1.5 acres 23 are embedded within the hardwood hammock adjacent to the airfield. These mangrove areas contain 24 large red mangroves (Rhizophora mangle)with a buttonwood fringe. Because of the dense canopy of red 25 mangroves and adjacent hammock trees, there is no understory species growing in these areas with the 26 exception of scattered Brazilian pepper. These two mangrove areas are isolated systems without a direct 27 tidal connection; therefore, they do not support life-cycles of NOAA-managed species and are not 28 considered EFH. 29 A large mangrove wetland located on the northwest corner of the airport property is tidally connected and 30 qualifies as EFH (see Figure 4.6-2). This 6.2-acre wetland is dominated by black mangrove (Avicennia 31 germinans) and red mangrove, with a small inclusion of buttonwood. This wetland is connected to Florida 32 Bay through a 24-inch pipe that runs under Aviation Boulevard. There is a small open water component in 33 the middle of this wetland; however, because tidal inundation is limited by the connecting pipe, water 34 depths in this area do not normally exceed 1 foot. Herbaceous species growing on the edges of the 35 wetlands include saltwort (Batis maritima), sea oxeye daisy (Borrichia arborenscens), and salt grass 36 (Distichlis spicata). 4-31 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 4.7 FLOODPLAINS 2 4.7.1 Regulatory Setting 3 For regulatory purposes, floodplains are defined as the "lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland 4 and coastal waters, including flood prone areas of offshore islands, including, at a minimum, those that 5 are subject to a 1 percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year" (i.e., area inundated by a 100- 6 year flood). Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, directs federal agencies to take action to 7 reduce the risk of flood loss; minimize the impacts of floods on human safety, health, and welfare; and 8 restore and preserve the natural beneficial values of floodplains. 9 The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) manages the National Flood Insurance Program 10 (NFIP) based on maps showing floodplains and related hazard areas. The 100-year flood (1 percent 11 annual chance) has been adopted by FEMA as the base flood for floodplain management purposes. As 12 part of the agreement for making flood insurance available in Monroe County, local jurisdictions (including 13 Monroe County and the City of Key West) adopt floodplain management ordinances containing certain 14 minimum requirements intended to reduce future flood losses. The local jurisdictions are also responsible 15 for submitting data to FEMA reflecting revised flood hazard information so that the NFIP maps can be 16 revised as appropriate. 17 DOT Order 5650.2, Floodplain Management and Protection, and FAA Orders 1050.1 E and 5050.413 18 contain policies and procedures for implementing the Executive Order and evaluating potential floodplain 19 impacts. These orders require the FAA to review potential floodplain impacts, and where encroachment 20 would occur, take steps to minimize potential harm to or within the base floodplain. In case of significant 21 encroachment, a finding is required to confirm there is no practical alternative and all measures to 22 minimize harm are included in the project. 23 4.7.2 Floodplain Map Review 24 A review of FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) (FEMA, 2005) shows that MTH is located entirely 25 within a Special Flood Hazard Area Subject to Inundation by the one percent Annual Chance of Flood. 26 The one percent annual chance flood (commonly referred to as a 100-year flood or base flood) is the 27 flood that has a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The Special Flood 28 Hazard Area is the area subject to flooding by a 100-year flood. Areas of Special Flood Hazard include 29 different zones. MTH is located entirely within Zone AE (areas for which base flood elevations have been 30 determined). Figure 4.7-1 shows the limits of the Special Flood Hazard Area on and in the vicinity of the 31 airport. 32 4.8 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, POLLUTION PREVENTION, AND SOLID WASTE 33 This section provides an overview of Monroe County's solid waste collection and disposal programs and 34 any known hazardous materials and/or wastes within the DSA. 35 4-32 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 7 o r m tr,,,i 1 Ill�}jS7 ) 1 Sr +S\r17 1 +>`lsict} tir`r(�- V c �, v } }+r � i t i�ih S!}fit i?1l� ��i(}� �.� ��14tt�}}7A 7 `t� \�++fail tJ -.. � �•. r � ! 7i}tt s7 - S;kr ;i �;}�Ul ��! r7 �• + � ,7n r 7f; £� iu s sti'+r}77t� �� _ � ❑ t ft�t+ ilt +rirt t} /7 tl rr t illS+�i;7v �} t TIC - +�'�r{rltl( { rs++it�l�j�£r�,G, --♦ � r ,,� ttfii � IfrSt 7�}�t}t' � t y 3 rr r+ ,: r7 it tt l G - t pt v r� A � rt s1�}7A7 i}lydt�l S,' s� li - ?s 1� I �� I k tP1v +I £l !+ w - '� t 1 rr ) 7 «v 5 r f \S r)} v t�}un !rr i +>•� � _- {I i tI -- st -- - a m LL , o £ ��... \ tyy�.,_ } � t:� — It�+\�ill��ll�t?7ri�or,\ I !i`.� a'+., y;�'j`��i4's� t y }' ��`•�_�r r Imo) - ��f - a - lo lo 1O � ty. � N N Y � I � FIGURE 7z, 7r 1 4.8.1 Municipal Solid Waste Collection and Disposal 2 City of Marathon oversees local solid waste collection, disposal, and recycling programs. The City 3 provides solid waste collection services through a private contractor. Solid waste disposal is currently 4 handled at area transfer stations, where waste is prepared for transportation and disposal at an out-of- 5 county location. There are currently six active transfer stations and no Class III (municipal solid waste) 6 landfills in Monroe County (FEDP, 2013a). There are no active waste disposal facilities in the vicinity of 7 MTH. 8 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)generated at MTH is comprised of typical office materials generated by two 9 Fixed Base Operators (FBOs) and tenants. Typical wastes include paper, glass, aluminum cans, food 10 waste, plastic bottles, light bulbs, and cardboard. Periodic construction projects generate varying 11 amounts of construction and demolition wastes. 12 4.8.2 Hazardous Materials 13 4.8.2.1 Regulatory Setting 14 Hazardous materials are regulated by a number of federal laws and regulations, most of which are 15 promulgated by the EPA. These include, but are not limited to, the Resource Conservation and Recovery 16 Act (RCRA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA), the 17 Clean Air Act(CAA), Clean Water Act(CWA), the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Hazardous Materials 18 Transportation Act (HMTA). These regulations govern the storage, use, and transportation of hazardous 19 materials from their time of origin, to their ultimate disposal. The recovery, clean up, and mitigation of 20 environmental contamination resulting from these materials and substances are also dictated by these 21 regulations. 22 On the state level, the FDEP is also involved in the administration and enforcement of the federal 23 hazardous materials regulations. In addition, FDEP administers the Early Detection Incentive (EDI), 24 Abandoned Storage Tank Restoration Program (ASTRP) and Leaking Underground Storage Tank 25 (LUST) program. These regulations are designed to help mitigate the environmental impacts of fuel spills 26 and other discharges of hazardous materials. 27 4.8.2.2 Hazardous Materials Assessment Methodology 28 Because the disruption of sites and facilities containing hazardous materials (e.g., hazardous wastes and 29 substances, environmental contamination, and other regulated substances such as fuel, and waste oil) 30 can potentially impact soils, surface/groundwater, and air quality. This section provides an overview of 31 what is known about these areas located within the DSA. This information is presented to help determine 32 what effect, if any, the Proposed Project will have on these sites and vice versa. 33 4-35 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 For the purpose of this analysis, the identification of sites known, suspected, or with the potential, to 2 contain hazardous materials and/or environmental contamination was conducted by accomplishing the 3 following: visual, in-the-field, surveys of existing conditions; consultation and discussions with airport staff; 4 review of current aerial photos and the ALP; and an electronic database search of available regulatory 5 agency records. The sampling and testing of environmental media (e.g., soils, surface/ groundwater, 6 building materials, etc.)was not conducted. 7 This overview does not constitute a formal Environmental Site conforming to the standards contained in 8 American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E1527-05 (ASTM, 2005) or other similar due 9 diligence guidance documents. For this reason, the information should not be solely relied upon to 10 evaluate the absence, presence, or extent of hazardous materials and environmental contamination in the 11 study area, should they exist. 12 4.8.2.3 Hazardous Materials Assessment Findings 13 Fuel Storage 14 The predominant types and overall largest quantities of materials at MTH, which are potentially 15 classifiable and regulated as hazardous, include various forms of fuel and lubricants. Two FBOs provide 16 fuel to aircraft at MTH from five aboveground storage tanks. Public aircraft fuel is dispensed via fuel 17 trucks and self-serve fuel pumps operated by the FBOs. Other tanks on the airport contain aviation fuel 18 and motor vehicle fuels, such as gasoline and diesel. Table 4.8-1 summarizes the number of registered 19 storage tanks within the DSA (FDEP, 2013b). A review of FDEP site discharge database listings (FDEP, 20 2013c)show no reported petroleum product discharges for tanks within the DSA. 21 TABLE 4.8-1 22 SUMMARY OF REGISTERED TANKS WITHIN THE DSA 23 Tank Size Owner (gallons),' Substance Tank Type Monroe County Public Works 10,000 Unleaded Gas Under Ground Monroe County Public Works 8,000 Unleaded Gas Above Ground Monroe County Public Works 2,000 Diesel Above Ground Marathon Jet Center 12,000 Jet-A Above Ground Marathon Jet Center 10,000 AvGas Above Ground Marathon City Fire Rescue 3,000 Unleaded Gas Above Ground Monroe County Sheriff's Department 12,000 Jet-A Above Ground Marathon General Aviation 12,000 Jet-A Above Ground Marathon General Aviation 12,000 AvGas Above Ground Marathon General Aviation 7,500 Jet-A Above Ground 24 Source: FDEP, 2013b. 4-36 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 Maintenance and Repair Activities 2 The maintenance and repair of aircraft and equipment occurs at MTH. Regular maintenance and repair is 3 also performed on airfield facilities (e.g., lighting systems), buildings, hangars, and support facilities; utility 4 systems; and access roads. Therefore, Monroe County staff and airport tenants routinely store and utilize 5 various forms and quantities of new and waste oil; hydraulic and transmission fluids; new and used 6 antifreeze; paint and paint-related products; degreasers and other cleaners; and herbicides, insecticides, 7 and fertilizers. These are used on a routine basis in support of aircraft motor vehicle maintenance 8 activities and for a range of other functions to keep the airport operational. 9 National Priorities List(NPL) 10 NPL sites (also referred to as Superfund sites) are considered by EPA to have the most significant public 11 health and environmental risks to neighboring areas. A review of EPA on-line databases did not reveal 12 any sites or facilities within the DSA or in the vicinity of MTH that are included on the NPL. 13 Resource Recovery and Conservation Act(RCRA) Sites 14 The RCRA on-line database reviewed lists facilities that store, generate, transport, treat, and dispose of 15 hazardous wastes. This database records facilities that generate large or small quantities of hazardous 16 wastes or are conditionally exempt generators. It should be noted that sites included in this database do 17 not necessarily involve contamination. One site was found within the DSA (see Table 4.8-2). The RCRA 18 site was listed as a Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG). 19 TABLE 4.8-2 20 RCRA SITES WITHIN THE DSA 21 Compliance/ Enforcement' Handler ID Name/Address Generator List Issues ' FLR000034967 Monroe County Public Works Mar Svcs CESQG None 10600 Aviation Blvd (Active) 22 Compliance and enforcement information available in the EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History Online(ECHO)report only 23 available for previous 5-year period. 24 Source: EPA, 2012. 25 4.9 HISTORIC, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 26 NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the potential effect of their actions on "the human 27 environment," which includes cultural as well as natural aspects of the environment. Cultural resources 28 include historic and archaeological resources (including prehistoric or historic sites, districts, buildings, 29 structures, or objects), which have been listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the NRHP. 30 4.9.1 Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 31 NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1502.25) encourage integration of the NEPA review process with other 32 environmental laws, such as the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). This EA has been 4-37 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 conducted in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 2 800, as amended). Section 106 requires federal agencies, or those they fund or permit, to consider the 3 effects of their actions on the properties that may be eligible for listing or are listed in the NRHP. The 4 Section 106 process generally requires four steps: 1) initiating the process through early coordination with 5 the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and other interested parties, 2) identification of cultural 6 resources that are listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP, 3) assessment of the effects the project will 7 have on eligible or listed properties, and 4) resolution of adverse effects in consultation with the SHPO. 8 Coordination with the SHPO regarding the presence of eligible or listed historic and archaeological 9 resources is summarized in this section and serves to identify significant resources for the purpose of 10 NEPA. 11 In response to notification that the Airport Sponsor was initiating preparation of this EA, the Deputy SHPO 12 responded in a letter dated August 5, 2010 that several previously recorded archaeological sites are 13 found in close proximity to MTH. 14 In a letter dated August 17, 2010, the Seminole Tribe of Florida's Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 15 (THPO)stated that the Tribe had no objection to the proposed project at this time. 16 4.9.2 Historic and Cultural Resources in the GSA 17 One resource listed on the NRHP, the George Adderley House, is located within the GSA. This NR-listed 18 property is located approximately 4,000 feet west-southwest of the airport. 19 Photographs taken from the 1940s through the 1990s 20 and published histories of Marathon indicate that there 21 are no historic resources more than 50 years old or of 22 exceptional importance located within the Area of 23 Potential Effect (APE). The residential neighborhoods in �� f � 24 the vicinity of MTH are modern. A review of the Monroe ' 25 County Property Appraiser's on-line GIS database ', { 26 shows that most residential construction in the hotogri p'ki4? -Typical t 27 neighborhoods occurred from the 1960's through the a newer" (goo neia 9 north of fi .......... F 28 early 1980s (Monroe County, 2013). Each neighborhood 29 is interspersed with newer houses that were constructed within the last few years. Some of the newer 30 home construction appears to have redeveloped 1960s and 1970s era home sites with larger and more 31 modern residential structures. Overall, house types, construction styles, and age vary within each 32 neighborhood and commonly within each block. Photograph 4.1 illustrates the variety of construction in 33 a residential neighborhood north of MTH. Based on a reconnaissance of the neighborhoods and a review 34 of available information, no resources within the APE were considered to be eligible for listing in the 35 NRHP. See Section 5.11 and Appendix I of this EA for a discussion of the APE and the resources 36 located within the APE. 4-38 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 4.9.3 Archaeological Resources 2 In a letter dated August 5, 2010, the SHPO noted several previously recorded archaeological sites within 3 the general vicinity of MTH. None of the sites are located on airport property. A brief description of the 4 recorded archaeological sites is provided below. 5 Site 81VIO9 is mapped approximately 600 feet north of MTH. First reported in the 6 1940s and mapped based on verbal descriptions, the site is described as an area of 7 low stone walls associated with fresh water"pothole wells." 8 Site 81VIO10 is mapped approximately 1,200 feet south of the west end of MTH, off of 9 74th Street. Recorded in 1951, the site was described as a prehistoric black dirt 10 midden that produced a variety of Glades II and III pottery, and it is believed to have 11 been largely bulldozed for a trailer park in 1958. 12 Site 81VIO117 is mapped on a small island located approximately 2,600 feet north of 13 MTH. First recorded in 1966, it produced historic artifacts such as olive jar shards, 14 majolica, and glass ware and was interpreted as a possible Spanish campsite from 15 the 17th or 18th centuries. 16 Site 8MO3433 is an Archaeological Resource Group that consists of multiple 17 segments of Old State Road 4A/Old US 1, the 20th-century roadway. A portion of the 18 old road bed runs alongside current US 1 along the southwest side of the airport 19 property. 20 4.10 AIRCRAFT NOISE AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY 21 The compatibility of land uses around an airport is predominantly associated with the extent of aircraft 22 noise. This section describes the baseline noise environment and compatible land use in the vicinity of 23 MTH. 24 4.10.1 Aircraft Noise Descriptors and Effects 25 FAA Order 1050.1 E, FAA Order 5050.413, and Title 14 CFR, part 150 (Part 150), specify the 26 methodologies required for evaluation of the airport noise environment. For aviation noise analysis, the 27 FAA has determined that the cumulative noise energy exposure of individuals to noise resulting from 28 aviation activities must be established in terms of day/night average sound level (DNL) as the FAA's 29 primary metric. DNL is a 24-hour time-weighted average noise metric expressed in A-weighted decibels 30 [dB(A)], which accounts for the noise levels of all individual aircraft events, the number of times those 31 events occur, and the time of day which they occur. DNL has two time periods: daytime (7:00 a.m. to 32 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). In order to represent the added intrusiveness of 33 sounds occurring during nighttime hours, DNL penalizes or weights events occurring during the evening 34 and nighttime periods by 10 dB(A). A discussion of aircraft noise, its measurement, and effect on people 35 is contained in Appendix B. 4-39 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 4.10.2 Land Use Compatibility 2 The FAA has adopted guidelines regarding the compatibility of land uses with various noise levels using 3 the DNL metric. These guidelines are provided in Appendix B. The development of these guidelines was 4 intended to establish a consistent process for estimating noise compatibility and for considering federal 5 funding for Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) implementations. These guidelines also aid local 6 jurisdictions that have not established land use guidelines with respect to airports and surrounding lands. 7 For the purpose of this noise analysis, whether a land use may be considered compatible or non- 8 compatible can be determined by comparing the predicted or measured DNL values at a site to the 9 values listed in the land use compatibility guidelines table in Appendix B-5. However, the responsibility 10 for determining the acceptable and permissible land uses remains with local authorities. 11 4.10.3 Noise and Compatible Land Use Prediction Methods 12 In accordance with FAA guidelines, the Integrated Noise Model (INM), Version 7.0c, was used to describe 13 the aircraft noise environment at MTH. The INM calculates DNL noise exposure and generates contours 14 of equal DNL (e.g., DNL 65, 70, and 75) that can be superimposed onto land use maps. The INM can 15 calculate sound levels at any specified point so that noise exposure at representative locations around an 16 airport can be obtained. 17 The INM incorporates airport-specific inputs that include: the number of annual average daily daytime and 18 nighttime flight and run-up operations, flight paths, run-up locations, and flight profiles of the aircraft. 19 Other variables include temperature, wind gradients, humidity effects, ground absorption, individual 20 aircraft directivity patterns, and sound diffraction caused by water, buildings, barriers, etc. 21 Data from multiple sources was obtained and used for the noise analysis. The data sources included 22 FAA's Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) (FAA, 2012a), discussions with the Airport Sponsor and FBO 23 regarding operational practices at the airport, published Terminal Procedures for the airport, and climate 24 and weather data. 25 4.10.3.1 Modeled Aircraft Operations 26 This section summarizes INM input data for the existing (2012) baseline conditions. More information can 27 be found in Appendix B-4 of this EA. 28 Airport Layout - Runway 7/25 is the only runway at MTH. The runway is 5,008 feet long and is located 29 200 feet from the centerline of the parallel taxiway. Field elevation at MTH is approximately 5 feet above 30 sea level (ASL). 31 5 The Part 150 land use compatibility guidelines do not constitute a federal determination that a specific land use is acceptable or unacceptable under federal, state, or local laws. The responsibility for planning and defining acceptable land uses for a community rests with the local authorities through their zoning laws and ordinances. 4-40 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 Weather and Climate - The average temperature at Key West International Airport, the closest 2 monitoring station, is 78.1° F. The INM default airport pressure, 29.92 inches of mercury, was used as it 3 is the average atmospheric pressure at sea level. The INM default settings for humidity (70 percent) and 4 average headwind (8 knots)were also determined to be representative. 5 Flight Operations —There were approximately 67,788 annual aircraft operations at MTH in 2012. This 6 equates to approximately 185 daily aircraft operations. Jet operations accounted for approximately 5.9 7 percent of the total operations. Nighttime operations account for approximately 4.6 percent of the total 8 operations. 9 Runway Use - Runway utilization is approximately 80/20 percent on Runway 7/25, respectively. 10 Flight Tracks and Utilization - Flight tracks are the aircraft's actual path through the air projected onto 11 the ground. Figures 4.10-1 and 4.10-2 depict the modeled flight tracks. East flow tracks represent 12 aircraft using Runway 7 for arrivals. West flow tracks represent aircraft using Runway 25 for arrivals. 13 Land Surrounding MTH - INM includes the capability to turn off lateral attenuation for helicopters and 14 propeller aircraft, in order to simulate propagation over acoustically hard surfaces, such as water or rocks. 15 This capability was utilized to take into account the effect of the water surrounding the airport. 16 4.10.4 Existing Noise Environment and Land Use Compatibility 17 Noise exposure contours associated with MTH aircraft operations in 2012 are depicted on Figure 4.10-3. 18 The figure shows the DNL 65, 70, and 75 dB(A) aircraft noise exposure contours superimposed over a 19 land use map. Table 4.10-1 provides an analysis of the amount and type of land uses within each 20 contour. 21 FAA defines DNL 65 as the threshold of noise compatibility for residential land uses. There are a total of 22 401 housing units (974 people) within the DNL 65+ noise exposure contours. Of the total, 349 housing 23 units (848 people) are within the DNL 65 to 70 contour and 52 housing units (126 people) are within the 24 DNL 70 to 75 contour. There are no housing units within the DNL 75+contour. 25 As depicted in Figure 4.10-3, the existing condition 2012 Noise Contours include three noise-sensitive 26 locations (other than private residences) to noise levels above DNL 65 (see Table 5.13-2 in Chapter 5.0 27 of this EA). Noise levels at these noise-sensitive sites range from a low of 65.8 at Events Field to DNL 28 67.9 at the Children's Rotary Park/Marathon Dog Park. 29 A review of the land use compatibility guidelines table in Appendix B-5 indicates that the residential land 30 uses within the DNL 65 and higher noise exposure contours are not compatible with aircraft noise 31 generated at MTH. 32 6 An aircraft operation is a landing or a take-off. 4-41 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 TABLE 4.10-1 2 2012 BASELINE CONDITION NOISE EXPOSURE ESTIMATES 3 Noise Exposure by Land Use Type(acres) Noise Exposure Contour Land Use ' DNL 65-70 DNL 70-75 DNL''75+ Total Airport 54.5 53.2 50.5 158.2 Commercial 10.9 2.1 0.0 13.0 Community Facility 2.3 0.4 0.0 2.7 Conservation 10.3 0.0 0.0 10.3 Government 2.6 0.0 0.0 2.6 Industrial 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 Mobile Home 5.2 0.0 0.0 5.2 Multi-Family Residential 6.9 0.6 0.0 7.5 Recreation 2.4 0.1 0.0 2.5 Single-Family Residential 40.7 8.3 0.0 49.0 Transient Residential 2.3 0.5 0.0 2.8 Utility/Right-of-Way 37.1 10.2 0.0 47.3 Vacant Land 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 Vacant Residential 10.5 1.9 0.0 12.4 Water 13.0 2.3 0.0 15.3 Total 199.5 79.7 50.5 329.7 Population Within the DNL 65 and Higher Contours Noise Exposure Contour Population DNL 65-70 DNL 70-75 DNL''75+ Total Mobile Home 136 2 0 138 Multi-Family Residential 138 12 0 150 Single-Family Residential 537 94 0 631 Transient Residential 36 17 0 53 Vacant Residential 0 0 0 0 Total Population 848 126 0 974 Housing Units Within the DNL 65 and Higher Contours Noise Exposure Contour Housing Type DNL 65-70 DNL 70-75 DNL`75+ Total Mobile Home 56 1 0 57 Multi-Family Residential 57 5 0 62 Single-Family Residential 221 39 0 260 Transient Residential 15 7 0 22 Total Units 349 52 0 401 4 Sources: URS Corporation, 2013; Monroe County, 2013; and Census,2010. 5 4-42 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport e " �5,��1}�s9 , ss t � � a� C7 a� � � o rx �� ,� F1,.� r❑1 r M 66 Elo EO Al '• I -�s t� .• -�4h�1�4p�``i�^f"nt r °� s11�{4� _ s sf�li�k`f Y e.- _ ` -- - z } — (�( �� s._ �� '!. �� i ��£ TAU- _ __ _- •'"1 F _ t r M"EO ti11}y! Tt FIGURE 4.10-1 - t r - k 1�� s � �� i s `•-� � &+s{`sis'y _ � y171}�; lv�t ssl i(�11� � �I � i s s t 1 tt i vfi! £1s�4.. � ��` — � - _ ,C Tt fo y � - � - _ - ,_ }rF�ffFlj w � o W �IPi1 ryry��- 'O � ttiU1 H o FIGURE 4.10-2 t t � ttr i � SIB 1A'�j1�llrtst�\}OlrVi � w � 48 s `5 �r 1iN CJ d U U U 4 8 t, `J\tU, tSS 1 r�S z, s sg11?) A 8r s ..t tAt tii�ARo s f>,�r3tiir,. t ,�"''�� } .• i{�. t11 S�'`;}ilr)�S{ It i.�' i G { r t a y N j w F a N `i w - t i _ rrttyrk�� atJ+t 2\4 YiR �� r f FIGURE ` 4.10-3 im jz 1 4.11 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS 2 This section includes a discussion of social and socioeconomic characteristics of the GSA, City of 3 Marathon, and/or Monroe County. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic and 4 Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida were used to describe relevant population, race 5 and ethnicity, and income characteristics. 6 4.11.1 Population 7 Data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Monroe County, and the City of Marathon were reviewed to compile 8 historic and projected population estimates. Table 4.11-1 shows the historical population estimate data 9 for Monroe County and the City of Marathon. Table 4.11-1 shows the historical population levels for 10 Monroe County and the City of Marathon. From 1970 through 2010, Monroe County's permanent 11 resident population increased 46.2 percent. Between 2000 and 2010, the County's population decreased 12 3.4 percent. Available population information for the City of Marathon shows a 17.6 percent decrease in 13 permanent population over the same time period. 14 TABLE 4.11-1 15 HISTORICAL POPULATION ESTIMATES (PERMANENT RESIDENTS)— 16 MONROE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF MARATHON 17 Year Monroe County City of Marathon 1970 52,586 4,397 1980 63,188 7,568 1990 78,024 8,857 2000 79,589 10,067 2010 76,887 8,297 18 Sources: Census, 1990 and 2010; City of Marathon, 2005. 19 Table 4.11-2 provides permanent, seasonal, and functional population projections' for Monroe County. 20 The estimates, developed for the 2010 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update, indicates a that the 21 loss in permanent residents with likely continue over time (Keith and Schnars, 2011). However, the 22 number of seasonal residents will continue to grow over time, contributing to an overall increase in 23 functional population. 24 The estimated Hispanic and Non-Hispanic populations of Monroe County, the City of Marathon, and the 25 GSA are shown in Table 4.11-3. The estimated populations by race for Monroe County, the City of 26 Marathon, and the GSA are provided in Table 4.11-4. 27 Functional population includes permanent residents and the peak number of seasonal residents and visitors. The functional population estimates show the number of people in Monroe County can double during peak tourist season. 4-49 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 TABLE 4.11-2 2 POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA 3 Year Permanent Seasonal Functional 2015 77,600 79,800 157,400 2020 76,900 82,151 159,051 2025 76,200 84,503 160,703 2030 75,500 86,855 162,355 4 Note: Year 2015 population estimates indicate an increase in county permanent residents when 5 compared to U.S. Census data presented in Table 4.11-1. This difference can be 6 attributed to the fact that the populations estimates were prepared by different parties, at 7 different times, using different assumptions. 8 Source: Keith and Schnars,2011. 9 TABLE 4.11-3 10 HISPANIC AND NON-HISPANIC POPULATION ESTIMATES 11 Monroe County City of Marathon General Study Area Percentage Percentage Percentage Origin Population of Total Population of Total Population of Total Hispanic 15,071 20.6% 2,224 26.8% 224 20.9% Non-Hispanic 58,019 73.2% 6,073 73.2% 849 79.1% Total 73,090 100% 8,297 100% 1,073 1 100% 12 Numbers may not add due to rounding. 13 Sources: Census, 2012. 14 TABLE 4.11-4 15 POPULATION ESTIMATES BY RACE 16 Monroe ounty City of Marathon General Study Area Percentage Percentage Percentage Race Population of Total Population of Total Population of Total White Alone 65,409 89.5% 7,505 90.5% 1,000 93.1% Black or African 4,194 5.7% 395 4.8% 34 3.2% American American Indian and 296 0.4% 26 0.3% 3 0.3% Alaskan Native Asian 809 1.1% 90 1.1% 14 1.3% Native Hawaiian and 70 0.1% 2 0.0% 0 0 Other Pacific Islander Some Other Race 1,011 1.4 129 1.6 6 0.5 Two or more races 1,301 1.8% 150 1.8% 17 1.6% Total 73,090 100% 1 8,297 100% 1,073 100% 17 Numbers may not add due to rounding. 18 Sources: Census, 2010. 19 4-50 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 The estimated per capita income, median household income, and number of persons below the poverty 2 threshold for the populations of Monroe County and the City of Marathon are indicated in Table 4.11-5. 3 According to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2007-2011 ACS, the percentage of persons living below the 4 poverty level in Monroe County was estimated at 11.6 percent while in the City of Marathon 17.0 percent 5 are reported as living below the poverty level. For 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau defined the poverty 6 level as $22,113 for a family of two adults with two children under the age of 18. 7 TABLE 4.11-5 8 ECONOMIC AND INCOME DATA FOR 9 MONROE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF MARATHON 10 Monroe County City of Marathon Median Household Income (2010) $53,889 $49,633 Per Capita Income $35,074 $31,314 Persons Below Poverty Level (Percent) 11.6 17.0 11 Source: Census, 2012. 12 4.12 WATER RESOURCES 13 4.12.1 Regulatory Agency Requirements 14 The waters surrounding the Florida Keys have been designated as a "Special Waters" Outstanding 15 Florida Waters (OFW) by the State of Florida (FDEP, 2011). By regulation, proposed activities must not 16 lower existing ambient water quality within the OFW. Proposed activities or discharges in an OFW must 17 meet a more stringent public interest test that requires that the discharge or activity must be "clearly in the 18 public interest." The State of Florida surface water quality standards are contained in Chapter 62-302 of 19 the F.A.C. 20 The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) regulates stormwater runoff and wetlands 21 through its Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) program. MTH has a permit for its existing stormwater 22 system. 23 The FDEP also regulates storm water discharges through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 24 System (NPDES), as delegated by the EPA. An NPDES is issued for industrial sites and separately for 25 construction sites. NPDES regulations require any point or non-point discharge source to obtain a permit 26 for construction activities that affect an area one acre or greater. Currently, MTH has an NPDES multi- 27 sector permit (FLR05A955) and associated Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The NPDES 28 Permit and SWPPP include a number of best management practices (BMPs) to minimize potential for 29 surface water pollution resulting from airport tenant activities. 4-51 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 4.12.2 Surface Water 2 4.12.2.1 Drainage Systems at MTH 3 The existing stormwater airport drainage system has been in place since the airport was built in 1944. 4 The current airport drainage system consists of a network of swales, ditches, closed conduits, injection 5 wells, and stormwater treatment systems. Drainage occurs through three identifiable routes. The north 6 side of the airport drains through a pond in the southwest corner of the airport to the Drake Lake tidal 7 outfall. The southeast portion of the airfield drains through a storm water detention/retention area into 8 injection wells. The southwest portion of the airport drains through a stormwater detention/retention area 9 and conduit to the tidal outfall. The City of Marathon Utilities Department maintains stormwater structures 10 and lines in the vicinity of MTH. 11 A retention/detention area of approximately 1.7 acres located in the southeastern corner of the airport 12 adjacent to the Mosquito Control hangar collects stormwater from the airport and US 1, which then drains 13 through an injection well. A second retention/detention area of approximately 5.2 acres, located in the 14 southwestern corner of the airport adjacent to the Disabled American Veterans facility, collects 15 stormwater from the airport and US 1, which then drains through a 60-inch reinforced concrete pipe to the 16 Gulf of Mexico. There is also an injection well in the southwestern retention/detention area. 17 4.12.2.2 Surface Water Quality 18 The quality of surface waters in the estuarine and marine environments around Vaca Key (Marathon) is 19 affected by a wide variety of human activities and natural processes. Issues of concern include 20 discharges, leaching, and pollution from the following human activity sources: 21 0 Stormwater runoff; 22 0 Waste water discharges and leakage (including cesspits and septic tanks systems); 23 0 Boating and boat discharges; 24 0 Litter and debris; 25 0 Marinas; 26 0 Dredging; and 27 0 Application of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. 28 These sources can introduce oils, heavy metals, chemicals, sediments, and nutrients into local waters 29 and adversely affect the estuarine and marine ecosystem. The results can generate a human health risk 30 (i.e., fecal coliform) or change the structure and processes of the estuarine and marine ecosystems. 31 Elevated levels of fecal coliform, or other pathogens, affects the recreation use of beaches and near 32 shore waters. Enrichment of nutrients in a water body can lead to eutrophication, which includes 33 excessive algal growth, turbidity, increased metabolism, and changes in community structure (Day, et al., 34 1989). In general, the marine ecosystem in the Florida Keys relies on clear, low-nutrient water. 4-52 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 4.12.2.3 Runoff Characteristics from Airfield Pavements 2 In 2005, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) with assistance from FDEP and three Water 3 Management Districts complete a comprehensive study that evaluated water quality on airports, 4 especially stormwater runoff from runway, taxiway, and aircraft parking apron pavements (FDOT, 2005). 5 The study evaluated and quantified the chemical concentrations and loading characteristics of the 6 stormwater runoff at different types of airports and airside usage areas. The study presented the 7 following conclusions: 8 Airport airside pavements introduce only a minimal number of elements in 9 concentrations that could be considered pollutants into surface water runoff. Chief 10 among these are the metals copper, lead, cadmium, and zinc in declining order of 11 frequency detected. 12 Nutrients are generally very low in airside stormwater runoff, approaching values of 13 natural systems. 14 Petroleum hydrocarbons are typically present at low concentrations in airside 15 stormwater runoff. 16 Overland flow is an effective method of concentration and load reduction for metals. 17 4.12.3 Groundwater 18 Hydrogeologically, the GSA and DSA are located over Miami Oolite limestone. The Miami Oolite 19 limestone layer is highly variable in thickness and is approximately 15 to 20 meters thick in the Lower 20 Keys. Key Largo Limestone lies beneath the Miami Oolite, and is approximately 60 meters thick. The 21 Miami Oolite limestone is hydrologically conductive with the Key Largo Limestone, with both limestones 22 having high permeability, although the Key Largo limestone has slightly higher permeability than the 23 Miami Oolite. From the water table to approximately 15 meters below land surface is considered a mixing 24 zone for the fresh water deposited by precipitation, below which is sea water. This mixing zone is 25 influenced by tidal action and actually promotes diffusion and flushing of the aquifer. 26 Thin freshwater to slightly brackish water lenses occur on the largest islands of the Florida Keys 27 (Mackenzie, 1990). The transition zone, which thickens inland, is large relative to the freshwater column. 28 The salinity profile within the groundwater column is affected by tidal action. 29 4.12.4 Water Supply 30 In general, freshwater sources in the Florida Keys are insufficient, in quantity and quality, for use as a 31 public drinking water supply. Freshwater lenses, where available on large keys, may at times have 32 acceptable total dissolved solids ratings based on chlorides, but often fail several other criteria for FDEP 33 drinking water standards and are not considered reliable drinking water sources (Mackenzie, 1990). 34 More than 95 percent of water for domestic use in the Keys pumped to the Florida Keys. The freshwater 35 Biscayne aquifer is the primary water supply for the Florida Keys. The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority 36 (FKAA) well field is located within an environmentally-protected pine rockland forest west of Florida City 4-53 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 on the mainland, near Everglades National Park. The wells produce potable water meeting all regulatory 2 standards prior to treatment (FKAA, 2011). 3 The Biscayne aquifer is designated as a sole source aquifer by the EPA. A sole source aquifer is the sole 4 or principal drinking water source for an area and which, if contaminated, would create a significant 5 hazard to public health. The Biscayne aquifer is highly permeable and lies at shallow depths, it is readily 6 susceptible to contamination and saltwater intrusion. The Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program 7 (authorized by Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974) states that "...no commitment for 8 federal financial assistance (through a grant, contract, loan guarantee, or otherwise) may be entered into 9 for any project which the Administrator determines may contaminate such aquifer through a recharge 10 zone so as to create a significant hazard to public health, but a commitment for federal assistance may, if 11 authorized under another provision of law, be entered into to plan or design the project to assure that it 12 will not so contaminate the aquifer." 13 4.12.5 Sanitary Wastewater and Treatment 14 The City of Marathon Utilities Department operates several sewage treatment facilities. The Department 15 also maintains equipment and force main and vacuum collection lines, reclaimed water systems, biosolids 16 and sludge management systems, and well monitoring and injection systems. 17 4.13 WETLANDS 18 4.13.1 Applicable Regulation 19 This section describes the state and federal jurisdictional wetlands and other waters present within the 20 BSA. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has authority to regulate activities in waters of the 21 U.S., including certain wetlands, under the CWA. The USACE defines wetlands as: 22 "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency 23 and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a 24 prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands 25 generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas." (33 CFR 328.3(b)) 26 The USACE uses three characteristics of wetlands when making wetland determinations: vegetation, soil, 27 and hydrology. Unless an area has been altered or is a rare natural situation, wetland indicators of all 28 three characteristics must be present during some portion of the growing season for an area to be a 29 wetland. 30 4.13.2 Methodology 31 The BSA was assessed for the presence of state and federal jurisdictional surface waters and wetlands. 32 Wetland and other surface water habitats were classified in accordance with the FLUCFCS (FDOT, 1999) 33 and the FWS' Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al., 34 1979). The location and extent of wetlands and surface waters was field mapped by qualified wetland 4-54 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 scientists. During the field reviews, each wetland within the BSA was also visually inspected and 2 attention given to identifying dominant plant species and animal species utilizing the wetland areas. The 3 presence of nuisance/exotic vegetation and other disturbances were also noted. 4 4.13.3 Baseline Conditions 5 Mangrove wetlands were the only wetland type identified within the BSA. Mangrove wetlands are found 6 throughout the Keys and peninsular Florida and serve several important ecological functions. Mangrove 7 communities are an important part of the marine food chain, provide nursery habitat for many important 8 fish species, and help stabilize shorelines. 9 Approximately 7.7 acres of mangrove wetlands are located within the BSA. The total acres of all surface 10 waters, including wetlands, within the BSA are provided in Table 4.13-1 and are shown previously on 11 Figure 4.6-2. 12 TABLE 4.13-1 13 WETLANDS AND OTHER SURFACE WATER COMMUNITY TYPES PRESENT WITHIN THE BSA 14 FLUCFCS Code and Description FWS Classification Acres Wetland Communities 612—Mangrove swamp E2FO3N —Estuarine, Intertidal, Forested, 7.7 Broad-Leaved, Evergreen, Regularly Flooded Total Wetland and Other Surface Waters within BSA 7.7 15 Source: URS Corporation, 2009. 16 Mangrove Swamps (FLUCFCS 612; FWS Classification: Estuarine, Intertidal, Forested, Broad- 17 Leaved, Evergreen, Regularly Flooded) — Three distinct mangrove wetlands are located within the 18 BSA. The largest mangrove wetland is located on the northwest corner of the airport property. This 6.2- 19 acre wetland is predominantly vegetated with red mangrove and black mangrove trees. The edges of this 20 mangrove wetland system contain buttonwood, saltwort, sea oxeye daisy (Borrichia arborenscens), white 21 mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa), baycedar (Suriana maritima), and salt grass. This wetland also has 22 several areas of shallow open water. This wetland is tidally connected to Florida Bay through a 24-inch 23 culvert located under Aviation Boulevard. 24 Two small isolated mangrove wetlands are located on the airfield, on the edge of the tropical hardwood 25 hammock. These two small mangrove wetlands are dominated by red mangroves trees. Buttonwood is 26 found growing in the transition between the mangrove wetland and tropical hardwood hammock. The two 27 mangrove wetlands do not have a tidal connection and are isolated from other waters. The two wetlands 28 appear to be either relic systems or exist because they intercept saline groundwater. Due to the dense 29 cover of red mangroves, little herbaceous cover is found within these wetlands. However, scattered 30 clumps of Brazilian pepper are established on the wetland fringes. 4-55 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 4.14 PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE ACTIONS 2 4.14.1 Airport Development Actions 3 This section identifies other recent, concurrent, or future projects on or in the vicinity of the airport that are 4 considered in the assessment of potential cumulative impacts. 5 4.14.1.1 Past Airport Actions 6 Prior significant projects at or adjacent to MTH have included the following: 7 0 Runway overlay and marking, 8 0 Development of the commercial service terminal and adjacent apron in 1995, 9 0 Development of a community fire station in 2007 that provides supports fire 10 protection for both the City of Marathon and MTH, 11 0 Redevelopment of the Monroe County Mosquito Control facility in 2008, and 12 0 Aircraft storage hangar construction north of Runway 7/25. 13 4.14.1.2 Future Airport Actions 14 Reasonably foreseeable future projects that appear on the ALP include: 15 Extension of Taxiway A to the northeast as a "end-around"taxiway to serve hangars 16 in the northeast quadrant, 17 Removal of shade hangars situated parallel to and northwest of the extended runway 18 centerline, and 19 Construction of additional T-Hangars. 20 4.14.2 Other(Off-Airport) Development Actions 21 4.14.2.1 Private and Commercial Development 22 Although the area surrounding MTH is essentially built-out and stable, a review of historic aerial 23 photographs from 1995 to 2010 shows some new residential and commercial development in the vicinity 24 of MTH, mostly before 2007. Redevelopment of existing residential homes and commercial properties 25 was also noted during this timeframe. Over time, it is expected that some development of new housing 26 and condominiums will take place in the vicinity of MTH; however, new development will be limited by lack 27 of buildable land and subject to the growth management policies adopted by the County and City of 28 Marathon. It is expected that redevelopment of existing properties in the vicinity of MTH will outpace new 29 development. 4-56 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 4.14.2.2 Utilities and Infrastructure 2 The City of Marathon has implemented a program to improve regional waste water collection, treatment, 3 and disposal. This includes the recent construction of new treatment facilities, lift stations, sewer lines, 4 injection wells, and related infrastructure. These improvements will reduce nutrient and bacteria loading 5 and improve the quality of local surface waters 6 The City of Marathon will continue to maintain local streets and the FDOT will continue to maintain US 1 7 in the vicinity of the airport. This includes, but is not limited to re-paving and re-striping roads, bridge 8 rehabilitation, road/shoulder widening, improving drainage structures, adding bicycle lanes, and improving 9 intersections. 10 4-57 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 CHAPTER 5.0 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3 5.1 INTRODUCTION 4 The potential environmental impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the Proposed 5 Project, Alternative 2, and the No-Action Alternative are presented in this section. The following study 6 years and alternative scenarios are examined: Study Study Year Year Alternative Description 2016 2021 No-Action The No-Action Alternative assumes the proposed runway shift Alternative would not be implemented and the existing separation of the X X centerlines of Runway 7/25 and Taxiway A would remain 200 feet. The Proposed Project assumes that Runway 7/25 would be shifted Proposed laterally 40 feet to the northwest to provide a runway-to-taxiway Project centerline separation distance of 240 feet and that the other X X connected action listed in Section 1.3 of this Environmental Assessment (EA)would be implemented. Alternative 2 assumes that parallel Taxiway "A" would be shifted laterally 40 feet to the southeast to provide a runway-to-taxiway Alternative 2 centerline separation distance of 240 feet and that the other X X connected actions described in Section 3.6.1 of this EA would be implemented. 7 8 Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with the Proposed Project, Alternative 2, and the No- 9 Action Alternative, as well as the applicable impact thresholds described in Federal Aviation 10 Administration (FAA) Orders 1050.1E and 5050.413, are identified and discussed in the following 11 environmental impact categories. Specific mitigation measures are presented in Chapter 6.0 of this EA. 12 5.2 RESOURCE CATEGORIES NOT AFFECTED 13 The following environmental resource categories were considered for purposes of potential environmental 14 impacts; however, it was determined that further detailed analysis in this EA would not be required. 15 Farmland - The project site is located on an island almost entirely developed for urban use and 16 would not convert farmland to airport use. In addition, airport property was acquired prior to 17 August 6, 1984 for aviation use and the provisions of the Farmland Protection Policy Act(FPPA) 18 do not apply. 19 Natural Resources and Energy — Research conducted for this EA did not identify any natural 20 resources within the study area that would be considered unusual in nature, in short supply, or 21 energy-related. The proposed 40-foot increase in runway-to-taxiway separation distance would 22 have a negligible effect on aviation fuel consumption at MTH and would not increase airport 23 facility energy demands. 5-1 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 Traffic Impacts - Because the Proposed Project, Alternative 2, and the No-Action Alternative 2 would not induce or alter aviation activity at MTH, there would be no potential for traffic impacts or 3 changes in Level of Service (LOS) for any roads adjacent to the Florida Keys Marathon Airport 4 (MTH). 5 Wild and Scenic Rivers — No Wild and Scenic Rivers or stream segments listed in the 6 Nationwide Rivers Inventory are located near MTH. 7 5.3 AIR QUALITY 8 5.3.1 Overview of Impacts 9 Changes in air quality emissions resulting from aircraft and/or vehicle emissions are not anticipated 10 because the Proposed Project and Alternative 2 are not expected to induce activity or increase the 11 number of aircraft operations at MTH when compared to the No-Action Alternative. Construction and 12 earth-moving activities associated with the Proposed Project and Alternative 2 can result in short-term 13 impacts on ambient air quality. These impacts would be temporary, and would affect only the immediate 14 vicinity of the construction site and its access routes. 15 5.3.2 Methodology 16 FAA Orders 1050.1E and 5050.413 outline the process for determining air quality impacts under the 17 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the necessary content and degree of analysis. 18 Since Monroe County is an area designated as "attainment" for all United States (U.S.) Environmental 19 Protection Agency (EPA) criteria air pollutants, projects undertaken at MTH are not subject to the 20 requirements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP). Accordingly, a detailed analysis and Conformity 21 Determination are not required in regard to Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. However, potential 22 impacts to air quality were considered and are disclosed below. 23 5.3.3 Impacts 24 The following discussions describe potential air quality impacts in regard to operational emissions and 25 emissions generated during construction. 26 5.3.3.1 Operational Emissions 27 Changes in air quality resulting from aircraft and/or vehicle emissions are not anticipated in Study Years 28 2016 and 2021 because the Proposed Project and Alternative 2 are not expected to induce activity or 29 increase the number of aircraft operations at MTH. As far as potential changes in aircraft operational 30 emissions, the proposed 40-foot runway, or taxiway, centerline shift would have little or no effect on 31 aircraft flight profiles, the airport's fleet mix, approach/departure procedures, or taxi times when compared 32 to the No-Action Alternative. As such, preparation of a detailed operational air emission inventory for 33 MTH was not conducted because the results would be the essentially same for all cases. The lack of 34 difference in activity between the Proposed Project and the No-Action Alternative indicates no operational 5-2 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 air quality impacts would result if the Proposed Project was implemented. Likewise, the lack of difference 2 in activity between Alternative 2 and the No-Action Alternative indicates no operational air quality impacts 3 would result if Alternative 2 were implemented. 4 In addition, aircraft activity levels at MTH are not projected to exceed 180,000 annual aircraft operations 5 during the EA study timeframe. Therefore, quantification of air emissions related to airport operation, 6 including emissions inventories or dispersion analysis is not required (FAA et. al., 1997). 7 5.3.3.2 Construction Emissions 8 The Proposed Project and Alternative 2 involve similar construction methods, durations, and materials. 9 Construction and earth-moving activities associated with the Proposed Project and Alternative 2 can 10 result in short-term impacts on ambient air quality. These potential impacts can include fugitive dust 11 emissions, increased emissions from motor vehicles on the streets due to traffic disruption, and direct 12 emissions from construction equipment. These impacts would be temporary, and would affect only the 13 immediate vicinity of the construction site and its access routes. 14 Based on FAA guidelines, preparation of construction-related air emission inventories for MTH were not 15 necessary for future-year conditions because significant air quality impacts are not expected. During 16 periods of construction, temporary adverse air pollutant emissions (primarily dust)would be minimized by 17 the use of procedures which comply with FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5370-10F, Standards for 18 Specifying Construction of Airports. These procedures minimize the emission of dust (particulate matter) 19 and provide a series of measures that can be taken to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne. 20 Temporary emissions of air pollutants are also generated by construction equipment and vehicles (i.e., 21 exhaust). Construction activities will comply with all applicable federal, state, and local air quality 22 requirements. No substantial impact related to construction activity is expected. 23 5.3.4 Cumulative Effects 24 Other proposed airport development actions at MTH and other non-airport projects in the Marathon area 25 may produce increases in air emissions. The timing of each airport project identified is dependent on 26 several factors, including airport customer demands and availability of funding. The timing of the non- 27 airport projects is dependent on private and public investment decisions and, in some cases, availability 28 of public funding. The uncertainty related to implementation schedule precludes meaningful quantification 29 of potential cumulative impacts. 30 Over time, airport development projects, transportation projects, and other area development projects 31 would generate temporary impacts to air quality during construction. These temporary impacts could be 32 minimized through the use of environmental controls [i.e., best management practices (BMPs)]that would 33 minimize emissions according to federal, state, and local construction air quality guidelines. 34 Based on the types of cumulative projects identified, and the fact that Monroe County is an attainment 35 area for all primary air pollutants, it was concluded that the implementation of the Proposed Project or 36 Alternative 2, and the cumulative development projects, would not result in significant air quality impacts. 5-3 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 5.3.5 Potential Mitigation Measures 2 The Proposed Project and Alternative 2 would not increase in aircraft activity levels, motor vehicle traffic 3 volumes, or emissions from other sources. Therefore, no adverse air quality impacts are expected and 4 no operational mitigation measures are required. Because the proposed construction activities will be 5 performed in compliance with FAA AC 150/5370-10F, no adverse air quality impacts are anticipated and 6 no additional mitigation measures for construction are necessary. 7 5.3.6 Comparison to Significant Impact Thresholds 8 Because the Proposed Project would not have operational or substantial construction-related emissions 9 and the Proposed Project is not expected to exceed any of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 10 (NAAQS), the Proposed Project would not exceed significant impact thresholds identified in FAA Order 11 1050 1 E. Similarly, Alternative 2 would not have operational or substantial construction-related 12 emissions, exceed NAAQS, and would not exceed significant impact thresholds identified in FAA Order 13 1050 1 E. 14 5.4 COASTAL RESOURCES 15 5.4.1 Overview of Impacts 16 The Proposed Project would impact certain coastal resources under purview of the Florida Coastal 17 Management Program (FCMP). Affected resources include wetlands, water quality, and Essential Fish 18 Habitat (EFH). Unavoidable impacts to wetlands and EFH is proposed to be mitigated. Water quality 19 impacts, which would occur during construction, would be minimized through erosion control and pollution 20 control techniques. Early coordination with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) 21 indicated that the Proposed Project is consistent with the FCMP. 22 Alternative 2 would be constructed on an aircraft parking and circulation apron and land maintained as 23 grassed airfield. Alternative 2 would not impact any natural areas (i.e., mangroves). Water quality 24 impacts, which would occur during construction, would be minimized through erosion control and pollution 25 control techniques. Therefore, Alternative 2 is not anticipated to result in impacts to coastal resources. 26 This EA will be coordinated with FDEP to determine the Proposed Project's continued consistency with 27 the FCMP and Alternative 2's consistency with the FCMP. 28 5.4.2 Methodology 29 Two regulatory requirements were reviewed to consider potential impacts to coastal resources. First, the 30 FCMP coordinates federal, state, and local programs for the management of Florida's coastal resources. 31 Under provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), any federal activity that has the 32 potential to impact Florida's coastal resources must be consistent with the goals and policies of the 33 FCMP. In addition, the Coastal Barrier Resource Act (CBRA) designates certain undeveloped coastal 34 areas for inclusion into the Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS), which precludes federal subsidies 35 for development in sensitive coastal areas. 5-4 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 5.4.3 Impacts 2 The Proposed Project and Alternative 2 would occur in an area subject to the FCMP. The following 3 describes potential impacts of the No-Action Alternative, Alternative 2, and the Proposed Project on 4 coastal resources. 5 5.4.3.1 No-Action Alternative 6 Impacts to coastal resources would not occur under the No-Action Alternative because the proposed 7 airfield improvements would not be implemented. The No-Action Alternative does not involve funding for 8 development in areas designated as coastal barrier resources. 9 5.4.3.2 Proposed Project 10 Direct and Indirect Impacts 11 Construction of the Proposed Project would impact certain resources under the purview of the FCMP. 12 These include wetlands, water quality, and EFH. Direct project impacts include construction of a 40-foot 13 strip of runway pavement on land adjacent to the existing runway. The Proposed Project would also 14 require that a 40-foot strip of vegetation be cleared along the edge of a wooded area on the northeast 15 side of the airfield. Clearing the 40-foot strip would impact approximately 0.14 acre of tidally-connected 16 and 0.52 acre of isolated mangrove wetlands for a total wetland impact of 0.66 acre. Approximately 4.1 17 acres of tropical hardwood hammock and wetlands would be cleared. No grading, fill, or excavation 18 would take place in the cleared areas. 19 Operationally, the Proposed Project would not induce activity, alter airport operations, or increase the 20 number of passengers and/or aircraft operations at MTH when compared to the No-Action Alternative. In 21 this regard, the Proposed Project would not be expected to increase pollution, increase coastal 22 population, or generate erosion on coastal resources in Study Years 2016 and 2021. 23 Unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed to be mitigated on Monroe County-owned land in the vicinity 24 of Vaca Key. Proposed mitigation measures include restoration of wetland and upland habitat and the 25 creation of mangrove wetland habitat through removal of fill material. Chapter 6.0 of this EA provides a 26 detailed discussion of proposed mitigation measures. Construction impacts would be minimized through 27 the use of pollution prevention plans and BMPs that would minimize erosion, sedimentation and the 28 potential for release of pollutants. 29 Federal Consistency with FCMP 30 Early coordination of the Proposed Project was conducted with the FDEP Florida State Clearinghouse 31 and reviewing agencies. The result of the early coordination effort indicated that the Proposed Project is 32 consistent with the FCMP (see Appendix F1 - FDEP letter dated September 24, 2010). The FDEP letter 33 notes that environmental documents prepared for the project should be coordinated with the FDEP to 34 determine the Proposed Project's continued consistency with the FCMP. This Draft EA will be submitted 35 to the FDEP Florida State Clearinghouse for continued coordination and to obtain a statement regarding 36 continued consistency with the FCMP. 5-5 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 Federal Consistency Determination — In accordance with FCMP requirements, federal agencies 2 responsible for proposed actions prepare a consistency determination for state review to determine if 3 "direct and significant" impacts to coastal resources would occur. The Federal Consistency Determination 4 is attached to this EA in Appendix H. A summary of the Federal Consistency Determination is provided 5 below. 6 Beach and Shore Preservation—Construction of the runway improvements would take place on 7 existing MTH property. The Proposed Project would not be constructed in an area seaward of a 8 Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL)or Mean High Water Line (MHWL). 9 Growth Policy: County and Municipal Planning; Land Development Regulation — Monroe 10 County's Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan identifies goals to provide aviation services for 11 residents and guests (Monroe County, 2010). The Comprehensive Plan policy document 12 contains elements that promote compatible land use around the County's airports and preserves 13 existing airports, airstrips, and related activities. 14 The City of Marathon's Comprehensive Plan states that the City"shall provide aviation facilities to 15 all existing and future residents and guests in a manner that maximizes safety, convenience, 16 economic benefit, environmental compatibility, and consistency with other elements of the Plan" 17 (Marathon, 2005) Two policies in the Comprehensive Plan are directed specifically at airport 18 development. Policy 7-3.1.2, Protect Environmentally Sensitive Lands, states that development 19 activities to construct or expand airport or airstrip facilities shall not take place in environmentally 20 sensitive areas unless a viable alternative is not available. Mitigation and restoration shall occur 21 when there is no other alternative than to disturb environmentally sensitive areas. Policy 7-3.1.3, 22 Protect the Airport Hammock Buffer, states that the City shall coordinate with Monroe County to 23 "ensure that the existing hammock along Aviation Boulevard is maintained and remains as a 24 buffer between the Marathon Airport and the residences to the north." Similar policy statements 25 exist in the in the Monroe County's Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan - Policy Document (see 26 Policy 501.2.3 and Policy 501.3.1). 27 Because the Comprehensive Plans of both the County and City prohibit altering the tropical 28 hardwood hammock, the Proposed Project would require local approval and amendments to the 29 Comprehensive Plans. These amendments may be locally controversial and subject to litigation. 30 State and Regional Planning— The Proposed Project has been coordinated with federal, state, 31 and local governments and agencies. 32 Emergency Management — The Proposed Project would enhance safety for passengers and 33 aircraft at MTH. The Proposed Project would not affect emergency response or evacuation 34 plans. The Proposed Project would be constructed within a 100-year floodplain. The Proposed 35 Project would meet local floodplain management and building requirements. 36 State Lands—The Proposed Project would not involve use of state lands. 5-6 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 State Parks and Preserves and Recreation — The Proposed Project would not impact state 2 parks, recreational areas, or preserves. 3 Historical Resources — The Proposed Project is located adjacent to an existing runway at MTH 4 and would not have direct or indirect impacts on historic or archaeological resources. This project 5 is being coordinated with the Florida State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). 6 Commercial Development and Capital Improvements — The Proposed Project enhances 7 safety at an aviation facility that supports personal, business, and tourism travel in Marathon and 8 the Florida Keys. The Proposed Project would not inhibit or adversely impact economic 9 development efforts, commercial development, or planned capital improvements. 10 Transportation — The Proposed Project improves transportation safety. The project would not 11 affect adjacent highways, induce traffic demand, or alter surface transportation patterns. 12 Saltwater Fisheries — The Proposed Project would affect mangrove habitat classified as EFH. 13 Construction of the Proposed Project and implementation of proposed mitigation measures 14 should result in no net adverse effect on any managed species. 15 Wildlife — The Proposed Project would result in the removal of vegetation within mangrove 16 wetlands (0.66 acre) and tropical hardwood hammock (4.1 acres). This action would have minor 17 impact on terrestrial, wetland, and aquatic habitats affecting fish, wildlife, and plants common to 18 the Middle Keys. Potential impacts to wildlife would occur in conjunction with the removal of 19 vegetation from these two natural habitats that provide cover, food, and habitat for wildlife. 20 Mitigation proposed would provide replacement habitat and result in no long-term adverse 21 impacts. 22 Water Resources — Implementation of project-specific erosion control and pollution prevention 23 measures would minimize the potential for exceeding applicable water quality standards during 24 construction. Because the Proposed Project also includes pavement removal, the net change in 25 the amount of impervious surface at MTH would be minimal when compared to existing 26 conditions. The Proposed Project would not introduce activities having potential to generate new 27 or higher levels of pollutants to surface waters. 28 Pollutant Discharge Prevention and Removal— Project-specific Spill Prevention, Control, and 29 Countermeasures Plan (SPCC) would be implemented during construction to minimize pollution 30 impacts. Project-specific BMPs would be implemented in accordance with stormwater discharge 31 permit conditions. 32 Energy Resources—Although a minor and temporary increase in fuel consumption would occur 33 during construction, the Proposed Project would not increase energy demand at MTH or impact 34 energy resources. 35 Land and Water Management— The Proposed Project would be consistent with local land and 36 water management plans. No increase in water consumption would occur from the Proposed 5-7 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 Project. Coordination with and authorization by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and 2 the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) for land clearing within wetlands will be 3 required. 4 Public Health — The Proposed Project would not impact public policy or management in regard 5 to sanitation, communicable diseases, or public health. 6 Mosquito Control — The Proposed Project would not affect local mosquito control efforts or 7 contribute to increased propagation of mosquitoes. 8 Environmental Control — The construction and operations of the Proposed Project would 9 include project-specific BMPs and pollution prevention measures. No change in the nature and 10 type of operational air emissions are expected. No potential issues regarding construction 11 wastes, municipal solid wastes, or hazardous wastes have been identified. 12 Soil and Water Conservation—The Proposed Project would not affect soils or increase erosion. 13 Consistent with FAA guidance, this EA was prepared to consider the potential environmental effects of 14 the Proposed Project. In regard to the FCMP, the findings of this EA indicate that no "direct and 15 significant" impacts to coastal natural resources would occur as the result of implementation of the 16 Proposed Project. 17 Coastal Barrier Resources — According to information provided in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 18 (FWS), the Proposed Project is not located within the CBRS and would not impact any areas designated 19 as Coastal Barrier resource units. 20 5.4.3.3 Alternative 2 21 Direct and Indirect Impacts 22 Alternative 2 would be constructed on paved aircraft parking apron and areas maintained as grassed 23 airfield. Alternative 2 would not impact any natural areas, including wetlands, mangroves, saltmarsh, 24 tropical hardwood hammock, and Essential Fish Habitat. 25 Similar to the Proposed Project discussed above, Alternative 2 would not induce activity, alter airport 26 operations, or increase the number of passengers and/or aircraft operations at MTH when compared to 27 the No-Action Alternative. As a result, Alternative 2 would not be expected to increase pollution, increase 28 coastal population, or generate erosion on coastal resources. 29 Federal Consistency with FCMP 30 Alternative 2 was not identified as an alternative to the Proposed Project during the early agency 31 coordination process conducted for this EA. Because, the Proposed Project, with its relatively higher 32 impact on coastal resources is consistent with the FCMP (see Appendix F1 - FDEP letter dated 33 September 24, 2010), it was concluded at this time that Alternative 2 would also be consistent with the 34 FCMP. This EA will be submitted to the FDEP Florida State Clearinghouse for continued coordination 35 and to obtain a statement regarding the consistency of Alternative 2 with the FCMP. 5-8 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 Federal Consistency Determination 2 Beach and Shore Preservation — Construction of the taxiway improvements would take place 3 on existing MTH property. Alternative 2 would not be constructed in an area seaward of a Coastal 4 Construction Control Line (CCCL)or Mean High Water Line (MHWL). 5 Growth Policy: County and Municipal Planning; Land Development Regulation — 6 Implementation of Alternative 2 would be consistent with both Monroe County's Comprehensive 7 Plan and the City of Marathon's Comprehensive Plan. 8 State and Regional Planning—This EA, which discusses Alternative 2, will be coordinated with 9 federal, state, and local governments and agencies. Conflicts with state and regional plans are 10 not anticipated. 11 Emergency Management— Alternative 2 would enhance safety for passengers and aircraft at 12 MTH. Alternative 2 would not affect emergency response or evacuation plans. Alternative 2 13 would be constructed within a 100-year floodplain and meet local floodplain management and 14 building requirements. 15 State Lands—Alternative 2 would not involve use of state lands. 16 State Parks and Preserves and Recreation — Alternative 2 would not impact state parks, 17 recreational areas, or preserves. 18 Historical Resources — Alternative 2 would be constructed on previously disturbed lands, and 19 would not impact historic or archaeological resources. 20 Commercial Development and Capital Improvements — Alternative 2 enhances safety at an 21 aviation facility that supports personal, business, and tourism travel in Marathon and the Florida 22 Keys. Alternative 2 would not inhibit or adversely impact economic development efforts, 23 commercial development, or planned capital improvements. 24 Transportation—Alternative 2 enhances safety. The project would not affect adjacent highways, 25 induce traffic demand, or alter surface transportation patterns. 26 Saltwater Fisheries — Alternative 2 would not affect marine resources or habitats classified as 27 Essential Fish Habitat. 28 Wildlife —Alternative 2 would not result in impacts to terrestrial, wetland, or aquatic habitats that 29 would affect wildlife species. 30 Water Resources — Implementation of project-specific erosion control and pollution prevention 31 measures would minimize the potential for exceeding applicable water quality standards during 32 construction. Because Alternative 2 also includes pavement removal, the net change in the 33 amount of impervious surface at MTH would be minimal when compared to existing conditions. 34 Alternative 2 would not introduce activities having potential to generate new or higher levels of 35 pollutants to surface waters. 5-9 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 Pollutant Discharge Prevention and Removal— Project-specific Spill Prevention, Control, and 2 Countermeasures Plan (SPCC) would be implemented during construction to minimize pollution 3 impacts. Project-specific BMPs would be implemented in accordance with stormwater discharge 4 permit conditions. 5 Energy Resources—Although a minor and temporary increase in fuel consumption would occur 6 during construction, Alternative 2 would not increase energy demand at MTH or impact energy 7 resources. 8 Land and Water Management — Alternative 2 would be consistent with local land and water 9 management plans. No increase in water consumption would occur if Alternative 2 was 10 implemented. 11 Public Health — Alternative 2 would not impact public policy or management in regard to 12 sanitation, communicable diseases, or public health. 13 Mosquito Control— Alternative 2 would not affect local mosquito control efforts or contribute to 14 increased propagation of mosquitoes. 15 Environmental Control—The construction and operations of Alternative 2 would include project- 16 specific BMPs and pollution prevention measures. No change in the nature and type of 17 operational air emissions are expected. No potential issues regarding construction wastes, 18 municipal solid wastes, or hazardous wastes have been identified. 19 Soil and Water Conservation—Alternative 2 would not affect soils or increase erosion. 20 In regard to the FCMP, the findings of this EA indicate that no "direct and significant" impacts to coastal 21 natural resources would occur as the result of implementation of Alternative 2. 22 Coastal Barrier Resources — Alternative 2 is not located within the CBRS and would not impact any 23 Coastal Barrier resource units. 24 5.4.4 Cumulative Effects 25 Because Vaca Key is largely built-out, the number of major new developments having potential for 26 substantial coastal zone impacts is expected to be low. The review of past, present, and foreseeable 27 projects did not identify any with substantial coastal resource impacts. Other federal actions within the 28 coastal zone would also require consistency determinations in accordance with the FCMP and it is 29 assumed those projects would avoid coastal resources to the greatest extent practicable, obtain 30 necessary permits, and provide mitigation as required to demonstrate consistency. Additionally, existing 31 local, state, and federal efforts to improve water quality and manage coastal and marine resources are 32 expected to continue to be implemented. As such, the Proposed Project and Alternative 2, when 33 considered in conjunction with other airport and area development projects, are not expected to lead to 34 substantial cumulative impacts. 5-10 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 5.4.5 Comparison to Significant Impact Thresholds 2 No specific thresholds regarding impact significance have been established in FAA Order 1050.1 E. 3 However, the CBRA prohibits federal support for development on undeveloped coastal barrier resources 4 within the CBRS and the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) promotes consistency of federal 5 actions with the FCMP. Substantial direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts are not anticipated and the 6 potential to generate "direct and significant" impacts indicating inconsistency with the FCMP is not 7 expected. 8 5.5 COMPATIBLE LAND USE 9 5.5.1 Overview of Impacts 10 The Proposed Project and Alternative 2 would not directly impact existing or planned land uses because 11 the proposed airfield improvements would be constructed on existing airport property. No land acquisition 12 would be required to implement either project. Significant indirect impacts are not expected because the 13 Proposed Project and Alternative 2 each would not induce activity, alter airport operations, or increase the 14 number of passengers and/or aircraft operations at MTH. No zoning changes are necessary for either 15 project. The Proposed Project would require amendments to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan 16 and City of Marathon Comprehensive Plan to allow modification of the protected vegetated "buffer" 17 located on the north side of the airfield. 18 5.5.2 Methodology 19 The land use analysis considered existing and future land use plans of the City of Marathon along with 20 various environmental analyses conducted for this EA (i.e., noise impacts). Potential changes in land use 21 resulting from land acquisition and compatibility with potential changes in aircraft noise levels were 22 evaluated. Details regarding the environmental analyses for these and other environmental resource 23 categories are provided in the applicable sections of this chapter. 24 To determine if projected noise levels would be incompatible with land uses in the vicinity of MTH, land 25 uses were identified and mapped within a Geographic Information System (GIS) database. The noise 26 exposure analyses conducted for this EA (see Section 5.13) included identifying and determining noise 27 impacts for noise-sensitive areas that would be exposed to noise levels of yearly day/night average sound 28 level (DNL) 65 decibels (dB) or higher. Noise-sensitive land uses typically include residential, 29 educational, health, religious, certain parks and recreational, and cultural (including historical). Areas 30 within the DNL 65 or higher noise exposure contours were evaluated to determine their compatibility with 31 such levels of noise. The impacts to those sites are discussed in this section of the EA, with cross 32 references to Section 5.13, as appropriate. 33 In regard to aircraft-related noise and land use compatibility, the FAA's land use compatibility guidelines 34 contained in Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 150 were used to evaluate noise 35 compatibility. However, the FAA guidelines do not constitute a Federal determination that a specific land 36 use is acceptable or unacceptable under federal, state, or local laws. The responsibility for planning and 5-11 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 defining acceptable land uses for a community rests with local authorities through their zoning laws and 2 ordinances. 3 5.5.3 Impacts 4 5.5.3.1 No-Action Alternative 5 The No-Action Alternative would not generate direct or indirect land use impacts because the proposed 6 airfield improvements would not occur. 7 Aircraft Noise — Projected aircraft noise levels in Study Year 2016 for the No-Action Alternative would 8 include 427 housing units (with approximately 1,038 people) and three non-residential noise-sensitive 9 sites (e.g., parks, churches) within the DNL 65 or higher noise exposure contours. When compared to 10 the 2012 baseline noise conditions described previously in Section 4.10, the projected Study Year 2016 11 noise levels would occur in response to projected growth in activity at MTH and would not be attributable 12 to a specific action, such as the Proposed Project. 13 Projected aircraft noise levels in Study Year 2021 for the No-Action Alternative would include 474 housing 14 units (with approximately 1,152 people) and four non-residential noise-sensitive sites (e.g., parks, 15 churches)within the DNL 65 or higher noise exposure contours. 16 5.5.3.2 Proposed Project 17 Land Acquisition — The Proposed Project would not directly impact existing or planned off-airport land 18 uses because the runway improvements would be developed entirely on existing airport property. The 19 Proposed Project would not require the acquisition of land and would not displace any residences, 20 businesses, or non-profit organizations. The Proposed Project would not disrupt local communities or 21 planned developments. 22 Aircraft Noise (Study Year 2016)—A comparison of the Proposed Project to the No-Action Alternative in 23 Study Year 2016 was made to determine if there would be an increase non-compatible land uses. 24 Aircraft noise levels projected for Study Year 2016 would include 440 housing units (with approximately 25 1,069 people)within the DNL 65 or higher noise exposure contours. The 440 housing units represent an 26 increase of 13 housing units (32 people) when compared to those within the 65 DNL or higher noise 27 contour associated with the No-Action Alternative. Noise-sensitive land use areas exposed to aircraft 28 noise levels above DNL 65 would total 67.4 acres if the Proposed Project was implemented, as compared 29 to 66.9 acres under the No-Action Alternative. This represents an increase of 0.5 acre of noise-sensitive 30 residential land use exposed to noise levels above DNL 65. Single-family residential land use would 31 increase by 1.2 acres, multi-family residential would not change, and mobile home residential would 32 decrease by 0.7 acre. Changes in noise exposure over noise-sensitive land uses in Study Year 2016 are 33 shown later in this chapter in Table 5.13.3-2. 34 A comparison of the Proposed Project to the No-Action Alternative in Study Year 2016 was made to 35 determine if there would be a significant increase in noise exposure levels attributable to the Proposed 36 Project. Differences in the areas exposed to noise greater than DNL 65 that would also experience an 5-12 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 increase of DNL 1.5 or higher were evaluated. The results of this comparison indicate that no noise- 2 sensitive land uses would be exposed to a 1.5 dB or higher increase in aircraft noise levels above DNL 3 65, due to the Proposed Project in Study Year 2016. This indicates that the change in aircraft noise 4 exposure in the vicinity of MTH would not be significant. Therefore, mitigation for noise impacts is not 5 warranted. 6 A detailed discussion of aircraft noise levels associated with the No-Action Alternative and the Proposed 7 Project in Study Years 2016 and 2021 and tables tabulating the different land uses exposed to aircraft 8 noise above DNL 65 are included in Section 5.13 of this EA. 9 Aircraft Noise (Study Year 2021) — Aircraft noise levels projected for Study Year 2021 would include 10 485 housing units (with approximately 1179 people)within the DNL 65 or higher noise exposure contours. 11 The 485 housing units represent an increase of 11 housing units (27 people) when compared to those 12 within the 65 DNL or higher noise contour associated with the No-Action Alternative. Noise-sensitive 13 residential land use areas exposed to aircraft noise levels above DNL 65 total 74.0 acres, as compared to 14 72.9 acres under the No-Action Alternative. This represents an increase of 1.1 acres of noise-sensitive 15 residential land use exposed to noise levels above DNL 65. Single-family residential land use would 16 increase by 1.3 acres, multi-family residential would increase by 0.1 acre, and mobile home residential 17 would decrease by 0.3 acre. Other noise-sensitive land uses are identified later in this chapter in 18 Table 5.13.3-2. 19 A comparison of the Proposed Project to the No-Action Alternative in Study Year 2021 was made to 20 determine if there would be a significant increase in noise levels attributable to the Proposed Project or if 21 any new non-compatible land uses were newly included in the DNL 65 or higher noise contour. 22 Differences in the areas exposed to noise greater than DNL 65 that would experience an increase of DNL 23 1.5 or higher were evaluated. The results of this comparison indicate that no noise-sensitive land uses 24 would be exposed to a 1.5 dB or higher increase in aircraft noise levels above DNL 65, due to the 25 Proposed Project in Study Year 2016. This indicates that the change in aircraft noise exposure in the 26 vicinity of MTH would not be significant. Therefore, mitigation is not warranted. 27 Local Comprehensive Plans — The Proposed Project is consistent with County's airport development 28 objectives as identified on the Airport Layout Plan (ALP). Although the Proposed Project is not 29 specifically addressed in local government land use plans, Policy 501.3.4 in the Monroe County Year 30 2010 Comprehensive Plan -Policy Document directs that "facilities at public airports shall be built to meet 31 or exceed federal, state, and local safety regulations as applicable." However, the airport's plans are 32 reasonably consistent with local planning guidelines and the intent of local planners to ensure the 33 development of compatible land uses. It does not appear that the Proposed Project would conflict with 34 the objectives of federal, regional, state, and Tribal land use plans, policies, or controls. 35 The Proposed Project conflicts with local policies that specifically protect environmentally-sensitive areas 36 at MTH and ensure the existing hammock at MTH is maintained and remains as a "buffer". Applicable 37 policy statements contained in the Comprehensive Plans of Monroe County and the City of Marathon are 38 provided in Appendix D of this EA and are summarized below. 5-13 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 Monroe County's Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan identifies goals to provide aviation services for 2 residents and guests. The Comprehensive Plan policy document contains elements that promote 3 compatible land use around the County's airports and preserves existing airports, airstrips, and related 4 activities. 5 The Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan - Policy Document contains two policies directly 6 related to the Proposed Project. Policy 501.2.3 states that "development activities to construct or expand 7 airport or airstrip facilities shall not take place in environmentally sensitive areas unless a viable 8 alternative is not available. Mitigation and restoration shall occur when there is no other alternative than to 9 disturb environmentally sensitive areas." Policy 501.3.1 states that Monroe County "shall maintain the 10 existing hammock along Aviation Boulevard as a buffer between the Marathon Airport and the residences 11 to the north." In addition to these governing policies, Monroe County Ordinance 024-2005 limits the 12 clearing of upland habitat, by type and location of the property. The Proposed Project is subject to these 13 upland clearing limitations and mitigation requirements. 14 The City of Marathon's Comprehensive Plan states that the City "shall provide aviation facilities to all 15 existing and future residents and guests in a manner that maximizes safety, convenience, economic 16 benefit, environmental compatibility, and consistency with other elements of the Plan." Two policies in the 17 City's Comprehensive Plan are directed specifically at airport development. Policy 7-3.1.2, Protect 18 Environmentally Sensitive Lands, states that development activities to construct or expand airport or 19 airstrip facilities shall not take place in environmentally-sensitive areas unless a viable alternative is not 20 available. Mitigation and restoration shall occur when there is no other alternative than to disturb 21 environmentally-sensitive areas. Policy 7-3.1.3, Protect the Airport Hammock Buffer, states that the City 22 shall coordinate with Monroe County to "ensure that the existing hammock along Aviation Boulevard is 23 maintained and remains as a buffer between the Marathon Airport and the residences to the north." 24 Similar policy statements exist in the in the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan - Policy 25 Document(see Policy 501.2.3 and Policy 501.3.1). 26 The Proposed Project would require local approval and amendments to policies contained in the County's 27 and City's Comprehensive Plans that protect environmentally sensitive areas at MTH, protect the "buffer' 28 at MTH, and regulate clearing of tropical hardwood hammock habitat. Because the Proposed Project 29 would remove 40 feet of the existing 200-foot wide buffer (a 20 percent reduction in width), the Proposed 30 Project would reduce, to some degree, the utility and effectiveness of the vegetated area as a visual 31 buffer and noise buffer to adjoining residential areas. The Proposed Project and the accompanying 32 Comprehensive Plan amendments and ordinance variance are anticipated to be locally significant 33 actions, controversial, and subject to legal challenge. Therefore, it is not possible at this time to 34 determine if the required amendments and variances necessary for the Proposed Project to be 35 implemented would be approved or upheld. 36 Land Use and Zoning —The Proposed Project would not alter existing or planned zoning in the vicinity of 37 MTH. No land use or zoning conflicts would be generated by the Proposed Project as it would not require 38 land acquisition, generate substantial off-airport impacts, or otherwise influence land use patterns or 39 development in the vicinity of the airport. 5-14 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 5.5.3.3 Alternative 2 2 Land Acquisition —Alternative 2 would be constructed entirely on existing airport property. Alternative 2 3 would not disrupt local communities or planned developments. 4 Aircraft Noise (Study Year 2016) — If Alternative 2 was implemented, the existing runway location would 5 not change and there would be no changes in aircraft operations or flight profiles when compared to the 6 No-Action Alternative. Therefore, noise exposure contours for Alternative 2 in Study Year 2016 would be 7 the same as the No-Action Alternative. Therefore, the types and amount of noise sensitive land uses, 8 and number of housing units, located within the DNL 65 or higher noise exposure contours would be the 9 same as the No-Action Alternative. No mitigation for noise impacts is required. 10 Aircraft Noise (Study Year 2021) — For the same reasons discussed above for Study Year 2016, noise 11 exposure contours for Alternative 2 would be the same as the No-Action Alternative in 2021. Therefore, 12 the types and amount of noise sensitive land uses, and number of housing units, located within the DNL 13 65 or higher noise exposure contours would be the same as the No-Action Alternative. No mitigation for 14 noise impacts is required. 15 Local Comprehensive Plans —Although Alternative 2 is not specifically addressed in local government 16 land use plans, Policy 501.3.4 in the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan - Policy Document 17 directs that "facilities at public airports shall be built to meet or exceed federal, state, and local safety 18 regulations as applicable." Alternative 2 is reasonably consistent with local planning guidelines and the 19 intent of local planners to ensure the development of compatible land uses. It does not appear that 20 Alternative 2 would conflict with the objectives of federal, regional, state, local and Tribal land use plans, 21 policies, or controls. Alternative 2 would not conflict with local policies that specifically protect 22 environmentally-sensitive areas at MTH, including the specifically-protected tropical hardwood hammock 23 buffer located on the north side of the MTH airfield. 24 Land Use and Zoning — Alternative 2 would not alter existing or planned zoning in the vicinity of MTH. 25 No land use or zoning conflicts would be generated by Alternative 2 as it would not require land 26 acquisition, generate substantial off-airport impacts, or otherwise influence land use patterns or 27 development in the vicinity of the airport. 28 5.5.4 Cumulative Effects 29 The other airport development actions identified in Section 4.14 of this EA would also be located entirely 30 on airport property. An analysis based on preliminary planning information available at this point 31 indicates they would not be expected to generate direct or indirect land use impacts resulting in the 32 disruption of communities or substantial residence or business relocations. Impacts resulting from other 33 area projects are anticipated, but would not be expected to be substantial as Vaca Key and the City of 34 Marathon are mostly developed and major projects would be implemented in light of land use and zoning 35 plans established for the area. In summary, the negligible land use impacts of the Proposed Project and 36 Alternative 2, when considered in addition to land use impacts of other on- or off-airport projects are not 37 expected to lead to additional substantial land use impacts. The Proposed Project would contribute to the 38 historic loss of tropical hardwood hammock habitat in the Florida Keys. However, proposed mitigation 5-15 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 would minimize cumulative impacts below a threshold indicating a significant impact. See Section 5.8.7 2 and Chapter 6.0 of this EA for more information on tropical hardwood hammock impacts and mitigation. 3 5.5.5 Comparison to Significant Impact Thresholds 4 Neither the Proposed Project nor Alternative 2 would require the acquisition of land. Neither project 5 would generate significant noise impacts (also see Section 5.13). This indicates that the Proposed 6 Project and Alternative 2 would not exceed thresholds established by the FAA indicating a significant 7 impact. However, the requirement of the Proposed Project to process amendments to local 8 Comprehensive Plans and seek an ordinance variance has potential to cause local controversy and legal 9 challenges. This indicates that local compatible land use issues would result in substantial impact. 10 5.6 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 11 5.6.1 Overview of Impacts 12 Construction of the Proposed Project or Alternative 2 would generate temporary and unavoidable impacts 13 related to noise, air quality, water quality, and solid waste. Measures specified in FAA AC 150/5370-10F, 14 Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports, and project-specific design criteria to minimize erosion 15 and sedimentation will be implemented to minimize potential construction-related impacts. Mitigation 16 measures will be implemented for unavoidable construction impacts in wetland and open water habitats. 17 Substantial, long-term impacts construction impacts are not anticipated. 18 5.6.2 Methodology 19 Construction activities were considered to determine construction-related impacts associated with the 20 implementation of the Proposed Project and Alternative 2. Specific areas of impact that were evaluated 21 included noise, air emissions, water quality impacts, solid wastes, and traffic inconveniences. Specific 22 potential long-term impacts associated with the alternatives are discussed in the appropriate 23 environmental impact category in this section of the EA. 24 5.6.3 Impacts 25 5.6.3.1 No-Action Alternative 26 Because the Proposed Project and Alternative 2 would not be constructed under the No-Action 27 Alternative, no construction-related impacts would occur. 28 5.6.3.2 Proposed Project and Alternative 2 29 The Proposed Project consists of runway improvements that include construction of runway pavement 30 (see Section 1.3 for a more detailed description of the Proposed Project). Alternative 2 includes 31 construction of a shifted parallel taxiway on existing aircraft parking/circulation apron (see Section 3.6.1 32 for more information). Construction activities associated with each project are expected to include, but 33 may not be limited to: land clearing, grading, and excavation; pavement construction; pavement 5-16 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 demolition and removal; pavement marking; relocation of airfield lights; and establishment of a temporary 2 construction staging site on the airfield. These activities would involve the use of vehicles, construction 3 equipment, and machinery; fuels and lubricants; and storage and use of construction materials. Impacts 4 resulting from construction of the Proposed Project and Alternative 2 would include temporary and short- 5 term noise impacts and increased turbidity in, and adjacent to, the construction area. It is expected that 6 the proposed construction activities would include common techniques, equipment, and materials and 7 would occur mostly during normal daylight hours. 8 Noise Impacts 9 Construction noise would temporarily increase ambient acoustic levels in the immediate vicinity of the 10 construction and land clearing activities. Grading and scraping operations are the noisiest, with such 11 equipment generating noise levels as high as 70 to 95 A-weighted decibels [dB(A)] within 50 feet of their 12 operation. For the Proposed Project, the nearest residential homes would be approximately 450 feet from 13 the proposed runway construction area and 250 feet from the area to be cleared for the Runway Object 14 Free Area (ROFA). For Alternative 2, the nearest residential homes would be approximately 500 feet 15 from the proposed taxiway construction area. Distance rapidly attenuates noise levels, so area residents 16 would likely experienced a modest increase in ambient noise conditions during construction hours. The 17 potential noise impact associated with the operation of machinery on-site would be temporary and can be 18 reduced by construction timing and staging. To minimize noise impacts, construction equipment should 19 be maintained to meet manufacturers' operating specifications. Impacts related to the delivery of 20 materials may be minimized by requiring that the contractor use designated haul routes directly to avoid 21 residential and other noise-sensitive receptors. Overall, construction noise is expected to have a minor 22 and temporary impact. 23 Air Emissions 24 Temporary emissions of air pollutants would be generated from a variety of sources, such as material 25 stockpiles and exhaust from construction equipment and delivery trucks. Common measures can be 26 implemented to control fugitive dust from the construction site during grading and site preparation phases. 27 Construction equipment should also be maintained to meet manufacturers' operating specifications to 28 minimize air emissions. Construction-related air emission impacts are also discussed in Section 5.3 of 29 this EA. No substantial construction-related air quality impacts are anticipated. 30 Water Quality Impacts 31 Short-term and temporary water quality impacts may result from construction activities. The Proposed 32 Project and Alternative 2 have potential to exceed applicable water quality standards during construction. 33 The potential impacts may include increases in sedimentation and turbidity in local water bodies. Project- 34 specific BMPs; the implementation of measures specified in FAA AC 150/5370-10F, Standards for 35 Specifying Construction of Airports; and the implementation of project-specific design criteria to minimize 36 erosion and sedimentation could prevent or minimize potential water quality impacts and minimize the 37 potential for exceeding applicable water quality standards. Substantial and long-term water quality 38 impacts resulting from construction activities are not anticipated. 5-17 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 Solid Waste 2 Construction wastes associated with the Proposed Project and Alternative 2 are expected to be 3 comprised of waste materials normally generated by land clearing, earthwork, and paving projects. 4 Typical wastes may include, but not be limited to concrete debris and waste, debris from clearing trees 5 and vegetation, and wastes generated by construction workers. Monroe County implements waste 6 minimization programs that include waste stream diversion, composting, and recycling. Construction 7 waste not diverted or recycled would be handled in accordance with applicable state and local 8 requirements and disposed of in local permitted facilities. Solid waste impacts are further considered in 9 Section 5.10 of this EA. No substantial construction impacts are anticipated. 10 Traffic Impacts 11 Haul routes for vehicles and trucks would be limited to U.S. Highway (US) 1 (Overseas Highway), the 12 major thoroughfare in Marathon. No road work or lane closures are required by the Proposed Project or 13 Alternative 2. Plans for haul routes would be developed to minimize traffic near residential areas and 14 minimize traffic inconveniences. No substantial traffic impacts are anticipated from the construction 15 activities associated with the Proposed Project or Alternative 2. 16 5.6.4 Comparison to Significant Impact Thresholds 17 Measures specified in FAA AC 150/5370-10FB and project-specific criteria to be developed during the 18 design phase would be implemented to minimize construction-related impacts. Mitigation measures will 19 be implemented as necessary for unavoidable construction impacts in wetlands (clearing of vegetation). 20 Potential impacts associated with noise; air quality; water quality; fish, plants, and wildlife; and other 21 relevant impact categories are not expected to exceed thresholds indicating significant impact. 22 Therefore, direct and indirect construction impacts associated with the Proposed Project or Alternative 2 23 would not be expected to exceed thresholds indicating a significant impact. 24 5.7 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECTION 4(F) RESOURCES 25 5.7.1 Overview of Impacts 26 Implementation of the Proposed Project or Alternative 2 would not require the acquisition or taking of a 27 Section 4(f) resource. In addition, the Proposed Project and Alternative 2 would not result in significant 28 noise, air, or other indirect impacts on Section 4(f) resources; therefore, the Proposed Project and 29 Alternative 2 would not result in a constructive use of Section 4(f) resources. Because neither direct nor 30 indirect impacts to Section 4(f) resources would occur, a separate Section 4(f) analysis is not warranted 31 and mitigation measures have not been developed. 32 5.7.2 Methodology 33 A review was conducted to determine if any public parks and recreation resources would have the 34 potential to be directly or indirectly impacted by the Proposed Project, Alternative 2, or the No-Action 35 Alternative with regard to the protective provisions of Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation 5-18 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 (DOT) Act (recently re-codified as Section 303(c))' or provisions in Section 6(f) of the Land and Water 2 Conservation Fund Act (LWCF). Section 4(f) of the DOT Act provides that the Secretary of 3 Transportation will not approve any program or project that requires the use of publicly-owned land of a 4 public park, recreation area; or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance; or 5 land of an historic site of national, state, or local significance as determined by the officials having 6 jurisdiction thereof, unless: 7 1. There is no feasible and prudent alternative to use of such land and such program 8 and 9 2. The program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park, 10 recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use. 11 Land that meets the criteria for Section 4(f) protection includes publicly-owned parks, recreational areas, 12 wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and significant historic sites [properties listed on or eligible for listing on the 13 National Register of Historic Places (NRHP or NR)]. The term "Section 4(f) resource" in this evaluation 14 refers to any specific site or property meeting DOT Act criteria. Use of Section 4(f) land occurs when: 15 Land is acquired from a Section 4(f) resource for a transportation project, 16 There is a temporary occupancy of Section 4(f) land that is adverse, or 17 The project's proximity impacts are so severe that the Section 4(f) property is 18 substantially impaired (referred to as "constructive use"). 19 5.7.3 Impacts 20 5.7.3.1 No-Action Alternative 21 The No-Action Alternative assumes that the proposed airfield improvements would not be constructed. 22 Therefore, there would be no direct or indirect impacts to Section 4(f) resources. 23 5.7.3.2 Proposed Project(Study Years 2016 and 2021) 24 Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in a need to acquire or use any Section 4(f) 25 resource. 26 As shown later in this chapter in Figures 5.13-1 through 5.13-4, one public park (Children's Rotary 27 Park/Marathon Dog Park)would be located within the DNL 65 noise exposure contour and one recreation 28 area (Events Field) would be located partially within the DNL 65 contour projected for the No-Action 29 Alternative in Study Years 2016 and 2021. For the Proposed Project, the results of a grid point analysis 30 relative to aircraft noise exposure at Section 4(f) resources are provided in Table 5.7-1. Because of the 31 proposed 40-foot shift of Runway 7/25 to the north, aircraft noise exposure levels at the Children's Rotary 32 Park/Marathon Dog Park and the portion of Events Field within the DNL 65 contour, when compared to 33 the No-Action Alternative, would decrease by DNL-0.2 and DNL-0.4, respectively, in both study years. The FAA is identifying these resources to assist in evaluating potential impacts, but the FAA has not made a determination relative to the Section 4(f)status of each resource. 5-19 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 Noise exposure values at all Section 4(f) resources in the study area, including the Children's Rotary 2 Park/Marathon Dog Park and Events Field, would be below DNL 70 in both study years. A review of the 3 FAA's Part 150 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines (see Appendix B-5 of this EA) shows that the noise 4 levels at all Section 4(f) resources would be compatible with each resource and would not constitute a 5 constructive use. The Proposed Project would also not result in substantial air quality impacts or other 6 indirect impacts to Section 4(f) resources. Based on the foregoing, there would be no material effect on 7 Section 4(f) resources and additional analysis or preparation of a formal Section 4(f) Statement is not 8 required. 9 5.7.3.3 Alternative 2 (Study Years 2016 and 2021) 10 Implementation of the Alternative 2 would not require the acquisition or use of any Section 4(f) resources. 11 Alternative 2 would not modify or move Runway 7/25 from its present location, alter activity at the airport, 12 or change flight profiles. Therefore, no change in noise exposure would occur when compared to the No- 13 Action Alternative. The Children's Rotary Park/Marathon Dog Park would be located within the DNL 65 14 noise exposure contour and Events Field would be located partially within the DNL 65 contour projected 15 for Alternative 2 in both future study years. Because the noise contours for Alternative 2 would be the 16 same as the No-Action Alternative, no change in noise exposure at these two 4(f) resources would occur 17 if Alternative 2 was implemented. 18 Table 5.7-2 provides the results of a grid point analysis relative to the change in noise exposure at 19 Section 4(f) resources if Alternative 2 was implemented. Noise exposure values at all Section 4(f) 20 resources in the study area would be the same as the No-Action Alternative and all of the Section 4(f) 21 resources would be compatible with the predicted levels of aircraft noise. Based on this information, 22 Alternative 2 would not create a constructive use at any Section 4(f) resource. Alternative 2 would also 23 not result in substantial air quality impacts or other indirect impacts to Section 4(f) resources. Based on 24 the foregoing, Alternative 2 would have no effect on Section 4(f) resources. 25 5.7.4 Mitigation 26 The Proposed Project and Alternative 2 would not result in significant direct or indirect impacts on Section 27 4(f) resources. Therefore, no mitigation is required or proposed. 28 5.7.5 Cumulative Effects 29 Cumulative projects would occur on airport property and would not result in direct or indirect impacts to 30 Section 4(f) or Section 6(f) resources. In addition, the cumulative projects, when considered in 31 conjunction with the Proposed Project or Alternative 2 would not result in a significant increase in noise 32 and/or air quality impacts; therefore, cumulative impacts to Section 4(f) resources would not occur. 5-20 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport � R� / 9 9 & 9 9 9 § $ ? w<m \ 6 9 9 9 0 0 9 04 0 7 9 J :©� : & - 9 & g 9 e 9 \ \ 2 2 2 7 7 g / f ^ � e m & g & g m & 2 k rL } \ \ CO 2 2 7 7 g ® e \\0 y Q :wz 2 w /\ % O / : \ 6 9 9 9 k CL <«U e 0 R 0 R » e 9 R / \ / 0 / % 7 7 7 5 I ( @ : >4«<? _ co v / o (A w2 : 9 g — m — m g \ z \ \ / 2 % 7 7 d \ LU % = a & e «»2� § 2 G 2 \ \ = e ® 0 g c R 9 » 9 ® ; CL o \ d (o / % % 2 7 \ .q. . E _ \ § 0 ® c c / / / § � / \ ¥ 2 @ % % % a 0 ® Co \ \ ± ± ± u $ _ o I o 0 0 = c z \ W � + � � / / / / f z G \ 0 ) ; ƒ L d = 0 ( � co /( k o ® \ ® 7 7 7 co c m \ \dE \ \ c \ c \ c \ / % 1 # e 5 e # e § % 3 2 < a = R5R5R5 ° '®co 0 } \ � ssm « m « m « \ # k ® � ƒ ƒ f 2 f 2 f 2 ( / k \ 5 \ § 3 3 f § f § f § ƒ 2 / 7 « / 7 0 § § _ \ _ \ _ \ E 3 0 o s o > > 2 = 2 = 2 c ƒ « f QOOQ222E2E2E2 LL 04 ~ m # n a } } C14 C14 I I I a \ k / � Am #nc w c - � R� \ ( g g g g g g g g k .. (L) § § A2d Oct 4. t � = 2 % C4 n m # c # c m # » © © \ / / / % % % d \ f .. y o e Cl? & g & g Cl) & 2 k rL \ \ 2 2 2 7 7 g \z / q > g g g g g g g g ® k z / w R Cq 9 g m — m g / °q \ \ / 2 % 7 7 d 5 co \\ co «<0 2 / k ( l 9 g m m g \ : \ \ / 2 % 7 7 d e . . + A mk 7d / ? 2 \ ( g 9 R 9 » 9 \ z w A w w n o \ J yq Im. n n c c c 7 c 7 $ / w � E 0 \ o 7 co / / / / / \ 2 % g 3 % % \ \ > 75 — 5 § \ w e e o 0 0 D o m m m = » 2 § o o c c c = q « + / / / ) E G \ w � » co ƒ 0 ( � /k \ ® \ ® 7 7 7 \ ) c m \ / \ \ c \ c \ c \ / \J� % � # e 5 e # e § % 3 2 = ® ® � ® a § £ R5R5R5 ° '- g \ 0 ssm « m « m « � \ # 2 f 2 f 2 Cl) k \ 5 \ § 3 3 f ƒ§ f § f § � / 7 « / 7 0 § § _ \ _ \ _ > E 3 \ 0 a) s o > > 2 = 2 = 2 c ƒ « � Q0000ww0wE2E2 LL /\ ~ m # n a y } } I I I a \ k / � Am #nc w 1 5.7.6 Comparison of Significant Impact Thresholds 2 As described in FAA Order 1050.1 E, a significant impact would occur pursuant to NEPA when a 3 proposed action either involves more than a minimal physical use of a Section 4(f) property or is deemed 4 a constructive use substantially impairing the Section 4(f) property and mitigation measures would not 5 eliminate or reduce the effects of the use below the threshold of significance. The Proposed Project and 6 Alternative 2 would not involve the physical use of Section 4(f) resources or have indirect impacts 7 generating a constructive use of Section 4(f) resources. Therefore, the Proposed Project and Alternative 8 2 would not exceed the threshold indicating a significant impact. 9 5.8 FISH,WILDLIFE, AND PLANTS 10 5.8.1 Overview of Impacts 11 The Proposed Project requires that a 40-foot strip of vegetation be cleared along the edge of a wooded 12 area on the northeast side of the airfield. Clearing the 40-foot strip would impact approximately 0.14 acre 13 of tidally-connected and 0.52 acre of isolated mangrove wetlands for a total 0.66-acre wetland impact. 14 Approximately 4.1 acres of tropical hardwood hammock would be affected by the Proposed Project. The 15 tropical hardwood hammock and wetland areas would be cleared of vegetation. No grading, fill, or 16 excavation would take place in the cleared areas. The cleared wetland areas would be re-vegetated with 17 native wetland herbaceous species, but maintained in a periodically mowed condition. Both of these 18 types of biotic communities affected are important ecologically in the Florida Keys. Mitigation for the loss 19 of habitat values associated with the affected tropical hardwood hammock and mangrove wetlands will be 20 required. 21 Alternative 2 would be constructed on existing paved areas and areas maintained as grassed airfield. 22 This alternative does not involve modification of any natural habitat and would not impact wetlands, 23 mangroves, or tropical hardwood hammock. 24 Existing biotic communities provide habitat several listed species of flora and fauna. No site-specific 25 occurrence of federally-listed species was documented during field observations conducted for this EA. 26 Based on the research and field observations conducted, the Proposed Project "may affect, but not 27 adversely affect" several listed species. Alternative 2 would not affect any federally-listed or state-listed 28 species. 29 5.8.2 Methodology 30 The assessment of potential impact included a review of the areas that would be directly affected by 31 construction, paving, grading and clearing activities. The resulting information was transferred into a GIS 32 database, which was subsequently used to assess the potential project related impacts on the biotic 33 communities within the Biological Study Area (BSA). Potential impacts to biotic communities as a result 34 of each alternative were assessed by overlaying a plan view of each alternative on the land 35 use/vegetative cover map. Impacts were then calculated on an acreage basis using GIS. 36 Species data was also assessed relative to each alternative. Potential habitat loss was evaluated using 37 GIS mapping of the BSA. The assessment of potential impacts to state- and federally-listed species was 38 accomplished by identifying listed species potentially occurring within the BSA, assessing the use of 5-23 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 various habitats within the BSA by listed species (e.g., foraging, nesting, etc.), and assessing the loss of 2 habitat potentially used by listed species. The potential for listed species occurring within the BSA was 3 assessed based on existing habitats, field observations, a review of species accounts, and agency 4 listings. 5 5.8.3 Biotic Communities Impacts 6 5.8.3.1 No-Action Alternative 7 The No-Action Alternative assumes that the proposed airfield improvements would not be constructed. 8 Consequently, there would be no impacts to existing land/use vegetative cover and wildlife within the 9 BSA. 10 5.8.3.2 Proposed Project 11 Tropical Hardwood Hammock 12 Under the Proposed Project, approximately 4.1 acres (14.3 percent) of the existing 28.7-acre tropical 13 hardwood hammock habitat located on MTH property would be cleared and converted to grassed airfield 14 use (see Table 5.8-1 and Figure 5.8-1). It is estimated that the clearing the 40-foot strip of tropical 15 hardwood hammock would result in the removal of approximately 1,012 trees. Of the trees to be cleared, 16 approximately 491 would be state-listed endangered Florida thatch palms (Thrinax radiate) and 53 would 17 be other state-listed tree species. Additionally, approximately 0.66 acre of the tropical hardwood 18 hammock clearing area contains state-listed shrub, vine, and cactus species, including the threatened 19 Florida Keys blackbead (Pithecellobium keyense), Everglades greenbrier (Smilax havanensis) and erect 20 prickly pear (Opuntia stricta). Approximately 24.6 acres of tropical hardwood hammock would remain on- 21 site if the Proposed Project was implemented. The proposed clearing could increase the amount of 22 hammock exposed to invasion of nuisance/exotic species as the newly established hammock edge will be 23 susceptible to recruitment of nuisance species. 24 TABLE 5.8-1 25 ACRES OF IMPACTS TO LAND USE/VEGETATIVE COVER 26 RESULTING FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT 27 Vegetative Community/ Acres of in Land Use FLUCFCS Proposed Description Code FWS Classification Project Uplands Tropical Hardwood 426 Not Applicable 4.1 Hammock Subtotal Uplands 4.1 Wetlands and Other Surface Waters Mangrove Swamp 612 E2FO3N - Estuarine, Intertidal, Forested, 0.14 (Tidal) Broad-leaved Evergreen, Regularly Flooded Mangrove Swamp 612 E2FP3P - Estuarine, Intertidal, Forested, 0.52 (Isolated) Broad-leaved Evergreen, Irregularly Flooded Subtotal Surface Waters 0.66 Total 4.76 28 Source: URS Corporation, 2010. 5-24 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport JU3MSSaSS'V leauau►uo.zinug VIHVlDvdwlIDAfoHd(I:ISOdoHd u01030PN SUL�fPmtunM pod.gV uou)ua,y, s,OM uplaolA aql AHI NIHIIAX S.LV.LISVH .. w . ./ a �� ..�al»1 «1� ��, .�>�rs t �` v � \� �•,��T/(t�i�tlwt��r.t��l�i�t't{��t�fl�k{r��`kt' (£t�`}i�t�; 1 g �.r., w � G„ �e,Pr'•t,,'�t" `t�"t'-�� ... i Ao—`: - ��) �i �4�li it„{Y41}l4\S9__l+ „}�it£��tl��Y��', t � t �ti � '13 �(llirf }t�t� £t£1 1r d 1 y; f 1 1 } o o o f r \ N o F o Its o ao vtt 9�A J3 zo n r Zx `t t 0 O %,Y P l E w ' io�toz o�'a PPk P::w-1 1wi P—doid 1 11 1 ma d, w w P.i�t a dtx 1 Clearing of the 4.1 acres of tropical hardwood hammock would result in a permanent loss of habitat for 2 wildlife species. At MTH, this may include mammals (rabbits, rodents, and raccoon), a wide variety of 3 birds, reptiles (snakes and turtles), and invertebrates (i.e., tree snails). However, MTH has a chain-link 4 airfield perimeter security fence that limits the availability of the tropical hardwood hammock habitat from 5 use by larger species of wildlife and feral species2. 6 Section 118-9 of the Monroe County Land Development Code states that "It is the purpose of this section 7 to provide for open space as a part of a development plan in order to ensure the continued existence of 8 natural wildlife habitat and to provide open green areas for the movement, aesthetics, and safety of the 9 human population utilizing the development. Native plant communities within required open space areas 10 shall not be cleared or otherwise disturbed, including ground cover, understory, midstory, and canopy 11 vegetation. All such areas shall be maintained in their natural condition." Based on this rule, the County 12 has developed land clearing restrictions for certain types of habitats including hardwood hammocks and 13 palm hammocks. Palm hammocks are defined as, "if a low hammock has an abundance and density of 14 thatch palms such that 20 percent of the dominant canopy plants or any portion thereof are palms, the 15 hammock shall be considered a palm hammock." By County rule, clearing in a hardwood hammock is 16 limited to 20 percent of the total hammock area while clearing in a palm hammock is limited to 10 percent 17 of the existing habitat. 18 Vegetation transect data indicates that 84 percent of the area to be impacted (16 of 19 transects) has a 19 dominance of thatch palms that exceed 20 percent of total tree species. Of these areas, the average 20 dominance of thatch palms was 50 percent of the total number of tree species. This data indicates that 21 the majority of the existing hammock is considered a palm hammock under the County's definition. 22 Additionally, the data would suggest that the proposed clearing would exceed the 10 percent clearing 23 limitation for palm hammocks allowed under the Monroe County Land Development Code. 24 Mangrove Wetlands 25 Approximately 0.14 acre of tidally influenced mangrove wetland and 0.52 acre of isolated mangrove 26 wetland would be affected by the Proposed Project. The wetland impact is limited to the removal of the 27 woody, mangrove species within landward portion of the wetlands near their buttonwood fringes. The 28 Proposed Project does not require fill or excavation within these wetlands and the wetland areas would 29 be re-vegetated with native wetland herbaceous species. Although the affected portions of the wetlands 30 would effectively be converted from a mangrove swamp to a saltwater marsh, the wetlands would be 31 subject to periodic maintenance and mowing. Overall, the Proposed Project would change the nature 32 and habitat value of the wetland habitat. 33 Overall, the Proposed Project would result in a permanent alteration of 4.76 acres of existing terrestrial 34 and wetland habitats affecting fish, wildlife, and plants common to the Lower Keys. Potential impacts to 35 wildlife would occur in conjunction with the removal of vegetation. These habitats provide cover, food, 36 and habitat for resident and migratory species of wildlife. No federally-designated critical habitat for 37 threatened or endangered species would be affected by the Proposed Project. The area's inventory of 38 habitat and land cover types is expected to provide suitable temporary or permanent habitat for common 2 In accordance with the airport's Part 139 operating certificate, County staff inspects the MTH airport perimeter fence on a regular basis. 5-27 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 species of displaced wildlife. The mitigation proposed would provide replacement habitat in the vicinity of 2 MTH. Thus, the Proposed Project should have no long-term adverse impacts on fish, wildlife, or plants. 3 The Proposed Project is safety-based and would not induce activity or otherwise affect capacity of the 4 airfield. The number of aircraft operations, number of passengers, types of aircraft, and airfield activities 5 would be the same with or without the proposed airfield improvements. Therefore, the Proposed Project 6 would not induce secondary development that would result in increased impacts to wildlife or protected 7 species. 8 5.8.3.3 Alternative 2 9 Alternative 2 would not impact any natural habitats, including wetlands, mangrove swamp or upland 10 forest. Alternative 2 would not require the clearing of any trees within the tropical hardwood hammock 11 located on the north side of the airfield. Similar to the Proposed Project, Alternative 2 would not induce 12 secondary development that would result in increased impacts to wildlife or protected species. 13 5.8.4 Essential Fish Habitat 14 This section discusses the potential for impact to EFH that is regulated by the National Marine Fisheries 15 Service (NMFS)through the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council (GMFMC). 16 5.8.4.1 No Action Alternative 17 Under the No-Action Alternative, the proposed airfield improvements would not be implemented and there 18 would be no impacts to EFH. 19 5.8.4.2 Proposed Project 20 Construction of the Proposed Project would impact 0.66 acre of mangrove swamp wetland. This habitat 21 was identified by the NMFS as EFH (see NMFS letter dated August 26, 2010 in Appendix F of this EA). 22 Three distinct mangrove wetlands would be affected by the Proposed Project. The original hydrology of 23 the three wetlands has been altered by the construction of the airfield and other improvements at MTH, 24 Aviation Boulevard, and residential development. 25 The large mangrove wetland at the northwest corner of the airfield is tidally influenced. The wetland is 26 connected to Florida Bay via a 24-inch pipe under Aviation Boulevard. There is a small open water 27 component in the middle of this wetland; however, tidal inundation is limited by the connecting pipe and 28 water depths in this wetland do not normally exceed 1 foot. This wetland is dominated by black 29 mangrove (Avicennia germinans) and red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle) with a small inclusion of 30 buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus). Herbaceous species growing on the edges of the wetlands include 31 saltwort (Batis maritima), seaside oxeye (Borrichia frutescens), and salt grass (Distichlis spicata). 32 The two small, isolated mangrove wetlands do not have a direct surface connection to tidal waters. 33 These mangrove wetlands, located in depressions within an upland topical hardwood hammock, provide 34 minimal support for marine species. The two isolated mangrove wetlands contain large red mangroves 5-28 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 with a buttonwood fringe. Because of the dense canopy of red mangroves and adjacent hammock trees, 2 there are no understory species growing in these wetlands, with the exception of scattered Brazilian 3 pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius). 4 Due to the limited tidal influence and access to one mangrove wetland and the isolated nature of the two 5 small mangrove wetlands, the Proposed Project would have no adverse effect on marine mammals, 6 marine turtles, marine and anadromous fish, marine invertebrates, and marine plants. 7 The Proposed Project is safety-based and would not affect capacity of the airfield. It has been 8 determined that the Proposed Project would not induce aviation activity at MTH. The number of aircraft 9 operations, number of passengers, types of aircraft, and airfield activities would be the same with or 10 without the runway relocation. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not induce secondary development 11 that would result in increased impacts to wetlands or species under the NMFS jurisdiction. 12 Loss of mangrove habitat resulting from the Proposed Project would be mitigated. The proposed 13 mitigation plan for wetland impacts takes an approach of replacing the impacted wetlands in-kind and in 14 as close proximity to the impact as possible. To achieve this, the proposed mitigation area would provide 15 approximately 0.5 acre of mangrove swamp [Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System 16 (FLUCFCS) 612] (FDOT, 1999). With the proposed mitigation, the limited impacts resulting from the 17 Proposed Project, when considered in addition to other area developments, are not expected to lead to 18 substantial cumulative impacts to wetlands or species under the NMFS jurisdiction. 19 Past development in the vicinity of MTH includes residential and commercial development. Residential 20 subdivisions are the most common development that has occurred along the north and south sides of the 21 airport. Commercial development is generally limited to bordering along US 1 on the south side of the 22 airport. Future area developments in the vicinity of the MTH are expected to be extremely limited. Most 23 of the available property has been historically developed and the remaining undeveloped parcels are 24 generally held in public ownership for habitat conservation. MTH has identified reasonably foreseeable 25 actions such as drainage improvements, building renovations or replacement, and aircraft hangar 26 development. None of these are expected to affect EFH. Although most habitat clearing in the vicinity of 27 MTH has occurred for residential and commercial development, additional clearing of privately-owned, 28 undeveloped parcels in the vicinity of the airport could continue. Those activities associated with federal 29 projects would be required to evaluate impacts to federally-listed species or their habitats and would be 30 required to provide mitigation to offset any significant impacts. In addition, those activities that would 31 affect tidally influenced marine waters would be required to evaluate impacts to the habitat and listed 32 species and would be required to provide mitigation to offset any significant impacts. Collectively, these 33 projects could probably result in reduced habitat availability for listed species, but should be replaced by 34 habitat of higher quality and functionality. 35 5.8.4.3 Alternative 2 36 The construction of Alternative 2 would not impact any natural areas classified as EFH. 5-29 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 5.8.5 Protected Species 2 5.8.5.1 No Action Alternative 3 The No-Action Alternative assumes that the Proposed Project would not be implemented; consequently, 4 there would be no impacts to state-or federally-listed species. 5 5.8.5.2 Proposed Project 6 The Proposed Project would result in adverse impacts to habitats utilized by eight federally-listed species. 7 The potential effect on each species is discussed in the sections below. 8 Federally-Listed Species Impacts 9 Reptiles 10 The federally-listed American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) could inhabit the tidally influenced mangrove 11 swamp within the northwestern quadrant of the BSA, but these crocodilians are more common in 12 southern peninsular Florida and are rarely found in the Lower Keys. No individuals were observed during 13 field reviews and no documented occurrences have been reported by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory 14 (FNAI)within 1 mile of the MTH. In addition, the proposed mangrove wetland habitat mitigation measures 15 should be sufficient to offset the on-site habitat impacts that would result from the Proposed Project. 16 Therefore, it was determined that the project "may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect" the 17 American crocodile. 18 The federally-listed Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corals couperi) could inhabit the upland tropical 19 hardwood hammock or mangrove wetlands at MTH. To minimize any potential adverse impacts to this 20 species, implementation of the Proposed Project, if approved, would utilize the most current version of the 21 FWS-approved Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake (see Appendix D) during 22 construction phase. With this commitment, it was determined that the project "may affect, but is not likely 23 to adversely affect"the Eastern indigo snake. 24 Mammals 25 The federally-listed Key rice rat (Oryzomys argentatus) could be found within the transitional habitats 26 between the tropical hardwood hammock and mangrove swamps at MTH. However, this species prefers 27 habitats with moderate to high herbaceous cover. The canopy and sub-canopy densities within forested 28 habitats in the project impact area prohibit a significant herbaceous groundcover preferred by the Key rice 29 rat. Although suitable habitat for this species is present, no individuals were observed during field 30 reviews and no documented occurrences have been reported by FNAI within 1 mile of the MTH. 31 Mitigation for impacts to the tropical hardwood hammocks and the mangrove wetlands will be sufficient to 32 offset the habitat impacts that would result from the Proposed Project. Therefore, it was determined that 33 the project"may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect"the Key rice rat. 34 Fish 35 The federally-listed juvenile smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata) could be found within the tidally 36 influenced mangrove area in the northwest quadrant of the airport. However, it is unlikely that the 37 smalltooth sawfish would inhabit this area because of limited access. The mangrove swamp is tidally 5-30 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 connected to the Atlantic Ocean through a 24-inch culvert and has an average water depth of less than 2 12 inches. In addition, this species is generally rare outside of southern peninsular Florida. No 3 individuals were observed during field reviews and no documented occurrences have been reported by 4 FNAI within 1 mile of MTH. 5 To ensure the Proposed Project would not adversely affect the smalltooth sawfish, the following 6 Construction Conditions, as developed by NMFS, will be utilized during construction of the project to 7 minimize any potential involvement with the smalltooth sawfish: 8 MTH shall instruct all personnel associated with the project of the potential presence 9 of these species and the need to avoid collisions with smalltooth sawfish. All 10 construction personnel are responsible for observing water-related activities for the 11 presence of this species. 12 MTH shall advise all construction personnel that there are civil and criminal penalties 13 for harming, harassing, or killing smalltooth sawfish, which are protected under the 14 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). 15 Siltation barriers shall be made of material in which a smalltooth sawfish cannot 16 become entangled, be properly secured, and be regularly monitored to avoid 17 protected species entrapment. Barriers may not block smalltooth sawfish entry to or 18 exit from designated critical habitat without prior agreement from the NMFS' 19 Protected Resources Division, St. Petersburg, Florida. 20 All vessels associated with the construction project shall operate at"no wake/idle" 21 speeds at all times while in the construction area and while in water depths where the 22 draft of the vessel provides less than a 4-foot clearance from the bottom. All vessels 23 will preferentially follow deep-water routes (e.g., marked channels)whenever 24 possible. 25 If a smalltooth sawfish is observed within 100 yards of the active daily 26 construction/dredging operation or vessel movement, all appropriate precautions 27 shall be implemented to ensure its protection. These precautions shall include 28 cessation of operation of any moving equipment closer than 50 feet of a smalltooth 29 sawfish. Operation of any mechanical construction equipment shall cease 30 immediately if a smalltooth sawfish is seen within a 50-foot radius of the equipment. 31 Activities may not resume until the protected species has departed the project area of 32 its own volition. 33 Any collision with and/or injury to a smalltooth sawfish shall be reported immediately 34 to the NMFS' Protected Resources Division (727-824-5312). 35 In addition, mitigation for the 0.66 acre of proposed mangrove impacts would be sufficient to offset the 36 habitat impacts that would result from the Proposed Project. Based on the information above, it was 37 determined that the project"may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect"the smalltooth sawfish. 38 Plants 39 The federally-listed Blodgett's wild mercury (Argythamnia blodgettii), Garber's spurge (Chamaesyce 40 garbed), and Cape Sable throughwort [Eupatorium (Chromolaeana) frustratum] could be found in the 41 gaps and edges of the tropical hardwood hammock at MTH. However, no individuals of these species 42 were observed within the BSA during field inspections and none have been reported within 1 mile of MTH 5-31 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 by FNAI. These plant species are unlikely to be found within the project impact area because the edges 2 of the tropical hardwood hammock are regularly maintained by mowing activities. Mitigation for impacts 3 to the tropical hardwood hammock would be sufficient to offset the habitat impacts that would result from 4 the Proposed Project. In addition, the Airport Sponsor would survey the project impact area for these 5 species prior to construction. If any of these species are found within the project impact area, the Airport 6 Sponsor will relocate the plants and seeds to appropriate habitat that will not be disturbed by the 7 Proposed Project. Therefore, it was determined that the project "may affect, but is not likely to adversely 8 affect"the Blodgett's wild mercury, Garber's spurge, or the Cape Sable thoroughwort. 9 The federally-listed semaphore cactus (Opuntia corallicola) could be found in the buttonwood areas 10 between the tropical hardwood hammock and the mangrove wetland. However, no semaphore cacti 11 were observed during field inspections of the project impact area and this species has not been 12 documented within 1 mile of MTH by FNAI. Mitigation for impacts to the tropical hardwood hammock 13 would be sufficient to offset the habitat impacts that would result from the Proposed Project. In addition, 14 the Airport Sponsor would survey the project impact area for the semaphore cactus prior to construction. 15 If this species is found within the project impact area, the Airport Sponsor will relocate the semaphore 16 cactus plants to appropriate habitat that will not be disturbed by the Proposed Project. Therefore, it was 17 determined that the project"may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect"the semaphore cactus. 18 The federally-listed tree cactus (Pilosocereus robinii) could be found in openings in the tropical hardwood 19 hammock at MTH. However, this species was not observed during inspections of the project impact area 20 and has not been documented by FNAI within 1 mile of the MTH. Mitigation for impacts to the tropical 21 hardwood hammock would be sufficient to offset the habitat impacts that would result from the Proposed 22 Project. In addition, the Airport Sponsor would survey the project impact area for the tree cactus prior to 23 construction. If any of this species is found within the project impact area, the Airport Sponsor will 24 relocate the tree cactus plants to appropriate habitat that will not be disturbed by the Proposed Project. 25 Therefore, it was determined that the project "may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect" the tree 26 cactus. 27 Invertebrates 28 The project footprint is located within the geographic range of the threatened Stock Island tree snail 29 (Orthalicus reses). This species could inhabit the upland tropical hardwood hammock at MTH. To 30 determine the status of the Stock Island tree snail, Monroe County will conduct a survey prior to 31 construction for the Stock Island tree snail within the section of tropical hardwood hammock affected by 32 the Proposed Project. The survey shall follow the FWS' survey guidance for the Stock Island tree snail 33 and additional Section 7 consultation will be required to determine and obtain FWS concurrence on the 34 potential impact to the tree snail. If the Stock Island tree snail is found to be present in the project impact 35 area, a "taking permit" shall be applied for and a program undertaken to relocate the tree snails to 36 adjoining habitat. Although a definitive effects determination cannot be made at this time, the FAA has 37 made the preliminary determination that the project"may affect"the Stock Island tree snail. 38 Designated Critical Habitat 39 The project impact area was evaluated for the occurrence of federally-listed species Critical Habitat 40 designated in 17 CFR 35.1532 and Critical Habitat proposed by the FWS. No designated or proposed 5-32 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 critical habitat for any federally-listed species is located on airport property and would not be affected by 2 the Proposed Project. 3 State-Listed Protected Species 4 The Proposed Project would affect four endangered plant species that are listed by the State of Florida: 5 cnnecord (Acacia choriophylla), Bahama strongback (Bourreria succulenta), millbark (Drypetes 6 diversifolia), and Florida thatch palm. The Proposed Project would also affect eight state-listed 7 threatened plant species: barbed-wire cactus (Acanthocereus pentagonus), maidenberry (Crossopetalum 8 rhacoma), Joewood wild dilly (Jacquinia keyensis), erect prickly pear (Opuntia stricta), Florida Keys 9 blackbead, Everglades smilax (Smilax havanensis), and West Indies mahogany (Swietenia mahagoni). 10 These species can be found within the project impact area. Table 5.8-2 provides an estimate of impacts 11 to state-listed plant species. 12 TABLE 5.8-2 13 ESTIMATED IMPACT TO STATE-LISTED PLANT SPECIES 14 Species State Status Approximate Impact Cinnecord (Acacia choriophylla) Endangered 4 Individual Trees Barbed-wire cactus (Acanthocereus pentagonus) Threatened 1,000 square feet Bahama strongback (Bourreria succulenta) Endangered 10 Individual Trees Maidenberry(Crossopetalum rhacoma) Threatened 17 Individual Trees Milkbark (Drypetes diversifolia) Endangered 8 Individual Trees Joewood (Jacquinia keyensis) Threatened 3 Individual Trees Wild dilly (Manikara jaimiqui) Threatened 7 Individual Trees Erect prickly pear (Opuntia stricta) Threatened 1,000 square feet Florida Keys blackbead (Pithecellobium keyense) Threatened 0.5 acre Everglades smilax(Smilax havanensis) Threatened 5,000 square feet West Indies mahogany (Swietenia mahagoni) Threatened 4 Individual Trees Florida thatch palm (Thrinax radiata) Endangered 491 Individual Trees 15 Source: URS Corporation, 2010. 16 The Proposed Project would also affect habitat for three threatened state-listed animal species, the white- 17 crowned pigeon (Columba leucocephala), key silverside (Menidia conchorum), and rim rock crowned 18 snake (Tantilla oolitica). The Proposed Project would also affect habitat for six state-listed Species of 19 Special Concern: the roseate spoonbill (Ajaia ajaja), Florida burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia floridana), 20 Florida Keys mole skink (Eumeces egregius), Florida tree snail (Liguus fasciatus), osprey (Pandion 21 haliaetus), brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), and mangrove rivulus (Rivulus marmoratus). The 22 Proposed Project may affect habitat used by the Florida tree snail. 23 5.8.5.3 Alternative 2 24 Alternative 2 would not impact any natural habitat areas. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not affect any 25 federally-listed or state-listed species or their critical habitat. 5-33 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 5.8.6 Impact Summary 2 As shown in Table 5.8-3, there is approximately 36.4 acres of natural habitat on MTH property. This 3 natural habitat is comprised of approximately 28.7 acres of tropical hardwood hammock and 7.7 acres of 4 mangrove wetlands. The Proposed Project would remove approximately 4.76 acres (12.9 percent) of 5 natural habitat at MTH through the clearing of a 40-foot strip of vegetation along the edge of the airfield. 6 No fill or excavation within the cleared area would take place. Approximately 31.6 acres of natural habitat 7 would remain on the airfield. Table 5.8-3 also summarizes impact information for the individual affected 8 habitat types. 9 TABLE 5.8-3 10 HABITAT IMPACT SUMMARY— PROPOSED PROJECT 11 Existing Proposed Habitat Percent Habitat Project Remaining Reduction within BSA Clearing to within BSA in Habitat (acres) ROFA(acres) (acres) within BSA Tropical Hardwood Hammock 28.7 4.1 24.6 -14.3% Isolated Mangrove Wetland 1.6 0.52 1.08 -32.5% Tidally-Influenced Mangrove 6.1 0.14 5.96 -2.3% Wetland Total 36.4 4.76 31.64 -13.1% 12 Source: URS Corporation, 2013. 13 Overall, the existing 200-foot-wide strip of vegetation located along the northern edge of the airfield would 14 still provide suitable habitat for wildlife and protected species if the Proposed Project was implemented. 15 The remaining habitat area would be approximately 160 feet wide along its length. However, there is the 16 possibility that the newly created edge may be colonized by some opportunistic nuisance plant species, 17 the effect of which can be minimized through routine maintenance and removal of nuisance species. 18 Several large tracts of private and publicly-owned habitat (open water, mangrove wetland, and tropical 19 hardwood habitat) are located adjacent to, or a short distance from, the north side of MTH. For example, 20 two Florida Keys Wildlife and Environmental Area tracts are located immediately north of and adjacent to 21 MTH and a third tract is located within 1,500 feet of the airport. The conservation areas are managed by 22 the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) to protect and restore native tropical plant 23 and animal communities. The public and private tracts of land would provide suitable habitat for 24 displaced species of wildlife. 25 The Proposed Project would impact approximately 0.66 acre of EFH. However, due to limited tidal 26 influence and access to one mangrove wetland and the isolated nature of the two small mangrove 27 wetlands, the Proposed Project would have no adverse effect on marine mammals, marine turtles, marine 28 and anadromous fish, marine invertebrates, and marine plants. However, it was determined that the 29 project may affect EFH that could be used by the smalltooth sawfish. In total, the proposed Project would 30 affect, but not adversely affect eight federally listed species. The Proposed Project would also affect 31 several state-listed species of flora and fauna. 5-34 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 5.8.7 Mitigation 2 5.8.7.1 Tropical Hardwood Hammock 3 Impacts associated with clearing 4.1 acres of tropical hardwood hammock for the Proposed Project would 4 be mitigated in accordance with Chapter 118-8(a) of the Monroe County Land Development Code, which 5 requires payment to Monroe County's Environmental Land Management and Restoration Fund in an 6 amount sufficient to replace each removed plant or tree on a 2:1 basis. It is estimated that the Proposed 7 Project, if implemented, would require payment to the fund based on the cost of replanting 2,024 trees. 8 See Sections 4.4.2 and 5.5.3.2 for discussions of the County's Land Development Code requirements 9 and tropical hardwood hammock protections also afforded by local Comprehensive Plans. 10 5.8.7.2 Mangrove Wetlands 11 Although wetlands would not be filled or excavated, the loss of mangrove wetland habitat associated with 12 the implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to require mitigation. The Proposed Project 13 would require clearing 0.66 acre of tidal and isolated mangrove wetland. The off-site restoration of 14 mangrove wetlands, through modern fill removal and replanting native wetland species, is proposed to 15 offset the impacts of the Proposed Project. A potential mitigation measure is the removal of 16 approximately 0.5 acre of fill material on County-owned property. The proposed mitigation site is located 17 on a 13-acre parcel of vacant land owned by Monroe County on Crawl Key, east of MTH. See Section 18 5.17 and Chapter 6.0 for a more detailed discussion of proposed wetland mitigation measures. 19 5.8.7.3 Plants,Wildlife, and Protected Species 20 Prior to construction, the Airport Sponsor would survey the Proposed Project's impact area to determine 21 the presence of any affected species of wildlife, and if needed, coordinate the relocation of any present 22 species (i.e., Stock Island tree snail) with appropriate state and/or federal agencies. The construction of 23 the Proposed Project, especially the land clearing phase, would require use of the Standard Protection 24 Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake and Construction Conditions for the smalltooth sawfish. 25 Prior to construction, the Airport Sponsor can also make select trees and plants within the tropical 26 hardwood hammock impact area available to public and private organizations for relocation to local and 27 regional habitat restoration sites. 28 5.8.8 Cumulative Effects 29 Past development in the vicinity of MTH includes intensive residential and commercial development. 30 Residential subdivisions are the most common development that has occurred north and south of the 31 airport. Commercial development is generally found along the US 1 corridor, located on the south side of 32 MTH. Because of the lack of developable land, future urban development in the vicinity of MTH is 33 expected to be very limited. Most of the available property has been developed and the remaining 34 undeveloped parcels are generally held in public ownership for habitat conservation. 3 Monroe County's Environmental Land Management and Restoration Fund is used by the County to enhance, protect, or restore native vegetation and provide additional habitat for the region's protected species. 5-35 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 Although most habitat clearing in the vicinity of MTH has occurred for residential and commercial 2 development, some additional clearing of habitat in the vicinity of the airport could take place. 3 Development projects involving state and/or federal assistance or approvals would be required to 4 evaluate impacts to federally-listed species or their habitats and would be required to provide mitigation to 5 offset impacts. Collectively, these projects will probably result in some future reduction of habitat 6 availability for protected species. These future impacts may be offset, to some degree, by the 7 implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. 8 Of broader concern is the substantial historic loss and fragmentation of upland habitat and wetland 9 habitat in the Florida Keys. Habitat loss resulting from past and present human development and 10 activities is an important factor in the decline of many wildlife species populations in the Florida Keys and 11 continues to be a significant and obvious threat to many species. According to a 2010 FWS Biological 12 Opinion, development that occurred from the 1960s through the 1980s substantially reduced the extent of 13 available habitat and degraded the condition of remaining habitat in the Florida Keys; however, since the 14 1990s, habitat loss and degradation has diminished with the establishment of growth management 15 regulations in the County and land purchases for conservation by state and federal entities (FWS, 2010). 16 The FWS also noted potential sea level rise as a future threat to habitat and wildlife on the low-lying 17 islands in the Keys. 18 Past cumulative and other development projects on Vaca Key (and the Florida Keys in general) have 19 resulted in a substantial modification to the existing landscape and caused impacts to wildlife and 20 protected species. Because land in the vicinity of MTH is mostly built-out, the reasonably foreseeable 21 cumulative projects are not expected to generate substantial additional changes in natural habitats or 22 impact wildlife or protected species to an appreciable degree. The Proposed Project would have a 23 moderate impact on natural habitats, wildlife, and protected species of plants and animals on Vaca Key. 24 However, with the proposed mitigation measures, the impact is not expected to be significant. Therefore, 25 the direct and indirect impacts resulting from Proposed Project, when considered in addition to other 26 cumulative projects, are not expected to lead to substantial cumulative impacts to natural habitats, 27 wildlife, and protected species of plants and animals. Alternative 2 would not contribute to the loss of 28 natural habitat in the Florida Keys and would not lead to cumulative impacts. 29 5.8.9 Comparison to Significant Impact Thresholds 30 Thresholds indicating significant impact include actions that would jeopardize the continued existence of 31 threatened or endangered species, result in the destruction or adverse modification of federally- 32 designated critical habitat, or have substantial impacts to non-listed species. The Proposed Project would 33 not jeopardize any federally-listed species, would not convert designated critical habitat, or have 34 substantial impacts to non-listed species. Therefore, it does not appear that the Proposed Project would 35 exceed a threshold indicating a significant impact. Because Alternative 2 would not affect natural habitat 36 or any listed species, the impact on fish, wildlife and plants would be negligible and not exceed a 37 threshold indicating a significant impact. 5-36 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 5.9 FLOODPLAINS 2 5.9.1 Overview of Impacts 3 The Proposed Project and Alternative 2 would each involve construction of airfield pavement within a 4 100-year floodplain. No substantial aboveground structures would be constructed as part of the 5 Proposed Project or Alternative 2. There should be no increase in flood elevations as the flood elevations 6 are based on tides and coastal storm surges. Potential impacts are not expected to result in notable 7 adverse impact on natural and beneficial floodplain values. 8 5.9.2 Methodology 9 Potential floodplain encroachments associated with the Proposed Project and Alternative 2 were 10 determined from a comparison of conceptual project drawings and Federal Emergency Management 11 Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). Both the Proposed Project and Alternative 2 are 12 located entirely within a 100-year floodplain (with areas subject to velocity hazard). 13 DOT Order 5650.2, Floodplain Management and Protection, and FAA Orders 1050.1 E and 5050.413 14 contain policies and procedures for implementing the Executive Order No. 11988, Floodplain 15 Management, and evaluating potential floodplain impacts. These orders require the FAA to review 16 potential floodplain impacts, and where encroachment would occur, take steps to minimize potential harm 17 to or within the base floodplain. In case of significant encroachment, a finding is required to confirm there 18 is no practical alternative and all measures to minimize harm are included in the project. 19 FAA Order 1050.1 E states that if a project is not within the limits of a base floodplain, no further analysis 20 is required. However, if the only practicable alternative results in a floodplain encroachment, further 21 analysis is needed. The analysis would consider ways to minimize potential harm and determine if the 22 encroachment is significant or not. A significant encroachment would involve: 1) high probability of loss of 23 life; 2) substantial cost or damage, including interruption of aircraft service or loss of a vital transportation 24 facility; and/or 3) cause adverse impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values. If the potential 25 impact is considered significant, a finding would be required to confirm there is no practicable alternative 26 to placing the project in a floodplain and that all measures to minimize harm would be included in the 27 project 28 5.9.3 Impacts 29 5.9.3.1 No-Action Alternative 30 The proposed airfield improvements would not occur under the No-Action Alternative; therefore, this 31 alternative would not result in impacts to floodplains. 32 5.9.3.2 Proposed Project and Alternative 2 33 MTH is located entirely within a 100-year floodplain. The Proposed Project includes the construction of 34 runway and taxiway pavement, the relocation of existing airfield lights and signs, pavement removal, and 35 clearing vegetation within the relocated ROFA. The new sections of airfield pavement would be 5-37 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 constructed at the existing runway elevation. No substantial fill or excavation activities would occur and 2 no structures would be built or modified as part of the Proposed Project. 3 Similarly, Alternative 2 includes the construction of taxiway pavement, the relocation of existing taxiway 4 edge lights and signs, and pavement removal. The new sections of taxiway pavement would be 5 constructed at the existing airfield elevation. No substantial fill or excavation activities would occur and no 6 structures would be built or modified as part of Alternative 2. 7 For both the Proposed Project and Alternative 2, there should be no increase in flood elevations as the 8 flood elevations are based on tides and coastal storm surges. Compared to the No-Action Alternative, 9 the Proposed Project and Alternative 2 would generate no change in flood elevations. Adverse indirect 10 impacts to beneficial floodplain values, cultural features, or wildlife habitat is not expected. 11 Alternatives Considered to Minimize Harm — The development of alternatives to the Proposed Project 12 included a study of a range of reasonable alternatives, including shifting the existing parallel taxiway 13 instead of the runway. Alternative 2, which includes shifting the parallel taxiway 40 feet to the southeast, 14 was retained for further evaluation of floodplain impacts. 15 Methods to Minimize Adverse Effect — Because the airfield improvement project would not include 16 above-grade construction, the Proposed Project and Alternative 2 are not expected to impede floodwater 17 flows during major storm events. Each project's design would comply with local floodplain management 18 policies and regulations, which promote designs to minimize flood impacts. 19 Potential Significance of Impact — Based on FEMA and NEPA guidance, floodplain impacts are 20 considered significant if the Proposed Project, or Alternative 2, would result in: 1) a high probability of loss 21 of human life, 2) substantial encroachment-related costs or damage or cause interruption of aircraft 22 service or loss of a vital transportation facility, and 3) a notable adverse impacts on natural and beneficial 23 floodplain values. The analysis of potential floodplain impacts indicates that both the Proposed Project 24 and Alternative 2 would encroach upon a 100-year floodplain. However, these unavoidable 25 encroachments are not considered to exceed any one of the criteria listed above and a federal finding is 26 not required based on the following conclusions: 27 1. The Proposed Project and Alternative 2 would not have a high probability of loss 28 of human life. The Proposed Project and Alternative 2 would not encourage 29 development in a floodplain, increase flood potential, or have a high probability of loss of 30 human life. Implementation of either Proposed Project or Alternative 2 would enhance 31 safety at MTH. 32 2. The Proposed Project and Alternative 2 would not have substantial encroachment- 33 related costs or damage and would not cause interruption of aircraft service or 34 loss of a vital transportation facility. Substantial encroachment-related costs or 35 damage are not expected. The Proposed Project and Alternative 2 each would not 36 increase the likelihood of interruption of aircraft service or loss of a vital transportation 37 facility. 38 3. The Proposed Project and Alternative 2 would not have an adverse impact on 39 natural and beneficial floodplain values. The floodplain provides limited value for 40 flood volume storage and infiltration due to its relation to tides and coastal storm surges. 5-38 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 Therefore, the Proposed Project and Alternative 2 would not have an adverse effect on 2 natural and beneficial floodplain values. 3 5.9.4 Cumulative Effects 4 Given the physical setting of Marathon and Vaca Key, other proposed airport and area development 5 actions also have the potential to involve 100-year floodplains. Because Marathon is largely developed 6 and subject to growth management and floodplain management regulation, the number of new 7 encroachments is expected to be low. Development project sponsors would be required to comply with 8 local floodplain management regulations. As such, no substantial cumulative impacts to base flood 9 elevations from the Proposed Project or Alternative 2, when considered in conjunction with other 10 development actions, are anticipated. 11 5.9.5 Mitigation 12 As indicated, the potential impact of the Proposed Project and Alternative 2 are not expected to be 13 substantial and would not be considered a significant encroachment. Therefore, specific mitigation 14 measures for the floodplain are not identified in this EA. 15 5.9.6 Comparison to Significant Impact Thresholds 16 According to FAA Order 1050.1 E, floodplain impacts are considered significant, pursuant to NEPA, if they 17 result in notable adverse impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values. Both the Proposed Project 18 and Alternative 2 include unavoidable construction within a 100-year floodplain; however, the 19 encroachment would be minor considering the type of project proposed and the coastal nature of the 20 floodplain. Potential impacts are not expected to result in notable adverse impact on natural and 21 beneficial floodplain values. 22 In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1 E, the FAA shall provide the public with an opportunity to review the 23 proposed floodplain encroachment. To meet this requirement, this Draft EA will be made available for 24 public and agency review and the proposed floodplain encroachment will be identified in materials 25 presented at the Public Hearing. 26 5.10 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, POLLUTION PREVENTION, AND SOLID WASTE 27 5.10.1 Overview of Impacts 28 Based on the information reviewed, the Proposed Project and Alternative 2 do not appear to have the 29 potential to impact sites involving hazardous materials or environmental contamination. Pollution 30 prevention measures will be implemented during construction of either the Proposed Project or 31 Alternative 2 to minimize the potential for release of hazardous materials or contaminants into the 32 environment. The Proposed Project and Alternative 2 each would not generate additional municipal solid 33 wastes or affect its collection, transportation, or disposal. Substantial impacts associated with the 34 collection, recycling, and/or disposal of construction wastes are not anticipated. 5-39 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 5.10.2 Methodology 2 Information presented in Section 4.8 of this Draft EA summarizes what is known about facilities and sites 3 reported (or have the potential) to contain hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes and 4 hazardous substances), other regulated substances (i.e., fuel), and environmental contamination within 5 the Detailed Study Area (DSA)4. For the purpose of this analysis, the information on existing conditions 6 was further evaluated based on the areas of the airport that would be disturbed by construction, 7 demolition, and land clearing activities associated with the Proposed Project or Alternative 2. 8 Relevant safeguards, or precautions, undertaken to help avoid or minimize the potential environmental 9 impacts associated with hazardous materials and/or environmental contamination during both the 10 construction and operational phases of the project were also evaluated. Finally, the project's overall 11 consistency with current FAA criteria for evaluating the effects of hazardous materials under the NEPA 12 process was addressed. 13 5.10.3 Impacts 14 5.10.3.1 No-Action Alternative 15 Because the No-Action Alternative does not involve construction or land clearing associated with the 16 Proposed Project or Alternative 2, there are no anticipated impacts to sites, facilities, or activities involving 17 hazardous and other regulated materials or environmental contamination. Similarly, the No-Action 18 Alternative would not generate solid waste impacts or result in an increase the amount of waste 19 generated. 20 5.10.3.4 Proposed Project 21 Hazardous Materials and Wastes — Issues pertaining to hazardous materials and environmental 22 contamination are addressed in this section. For clarity, the issues are summarized in Table 5.10-1, with 23 explanations of how they are addressed in connection with the Proposed Project at MTH. 24 Federal and state regulatory agency records did not reveal any sites or facilities in the vicinity of the 25 Proposed Project that are included on the EPA's National Priority List (NPL). NPL sites are considered to 26 have the most significant public health and environmental risks to neighboring areas. Similarly, there 27 were no reported solid waste landfills, large-scale industrial/chemical facilities, or Resource Conservation 28 and Recovery Act (RCRA) large quantity hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) 29 facilities at the airport. Based on the information collected and developed for this EA, there did not 30 appear to be any likelihood of substantial impacts to existing sites, facilities, or operations involving 31 hazardous materials or environmental contamination associated with the construction of the Proposed 32 Project or Alternative 2. 33 4 This overview is not meant to serve as, or replace, a formal Environmental Site Assessment or environmental compliance audit. For this reason, the information should not be solely relied upon to evaluate the absence, presence, or extent of hazardous materials and environmental contamination in the study area,should they exist. 5-40 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 TABLE 5.10-1 2 EVALUATION OF PROJECT INVOLVEMENT WITH 3 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION 4 No. Criteria/Requirement Response During the construction period, the servicing and refueling of heavy equipment would involve petroleum-based fuels, lubricants, and other similar products. Sealants and other Will the project(s) involve substances required for the construction of the Proposed 1. hazardous materials or Project or Alternative 2 would also be used. During the generate hazardous waste? operational phase, both the Proposed Project and Alternative 2 would not increase use of various types and quantities of potentially hazardous materials and/or other regulated substances when compared to the No-Action Alternative. Monroe County requires all of its support services, contractors, and tenants adhere to applicable federal and state regulations The project(s) must be in associated with the use, storage, and disposal of hazardous 2. compliance with federal, materials. This includes precautionary and incident response state, and local regulations. actions that help to ensure hazardous materials and other regulated substances at the airport are handled, stored, and disposed of properly. During the construction period, the contractor would be Ensure that responsible responsible for reporting any discharges of hazardous parties would report any materials or other similar substances (in amounts above their 3. discharges of hazardous reportable quantities). During the operational phase, MTH staff materials or other similar and airport tenants are responsible for reporting any substances. discharges of hazardous materials or other similar substances (in amounts above their reportable quantities). Any sites in the study area 4 listed on the NPL must be There are no sites on the NPL located on or adjacent to MTH. identified and impacts discussed. All hazardous material sites Sites and facilities in proximity to MTH that reported, or have that are not listed on NPL the potential, to contain hazardous materials, environmental 5. sites in the study area must contamination, and/or other regulated substances have been be identified and located. identified in this EA. No sites were identified with the potential to impact the Proposed Project or Alternative 2. Consultation with federal, A search of published federal and state databases was 6. state, and/or local agencies conducted and documented for this EA. must be documented. Demonstrate that the project(s)would not interfere It is not expected that the construction and operation of the 7. with ongoing or planned Proposed Project or Alternative 2 would interfere with any on- remediation programs or going or planned remediation programs. further spread contamination. 5 Source: URS Corporation, 2013. 6 In the event previously unknown contaminants are discovered during construction, or a spill occurs during 7 construction, construction contract provisions should specify that work would stop until the National 8 Response Center(NRC) is notified. 9 Pollution Prevention — The storage, use, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials and other 10 regulated substances is governed by a wide network of federal, state, and local regulations. Combined 5-41 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 with existing technologies and work practices developed to properly manage these substances, the risks 2 of causing environmental contamination from the construction and operation of the Proposed Project or 3 Alternative 2 would be substantially reduced. For example, at MTH, the contractor would be required to 4 prepare a SPCC Plan documenting the measures that will be taken to prevent accidental release to the 5 environment and, should they occur, the corrective actions that will be in place to minimize the 6 environmental impacts. MTH's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) further requires that all 7 potential pollutant sources on the airport be identified and appropriate BMPs implemented to ensure that 8 all unpermitted discharges are reported and cleaned up immediately. 9 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) — Because the proposed airfield improvements would not induce activity, 10 the generation of MSW attributable to the either the Proposed Project or Alternative 2 would not be 11 expected to change when compared to the No-Action Alternative. As such, the Proposed Project and 12 Alternative 2 would not have an appreciable impact on the City of Marathon's collection, transportation, or 13 disposal of MSW. 14 According to FAA AC 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports, waste disposal 15 sites that have the potential to attract birds are considered incompatible if located within 10,000 feet 16 (1.9 miles) of an airport's Air Operations Area (AOA), if the airport serves turbine-powered aircraft 17 (FAA, 2007). There is no active waste disposal facility within 10,000 feet of each runway end at MTH. 18 Thus, the Proposed Project and Alternative 2 would not create incompatible land uses with regard to 19 waste disposal facilities. 20 Construction Waste —Construction of the Proposed Project or Alternative 2 would likely generate typical 21 construction wastes and demolition debris associated with land clearing, the construction of new runway 22 pavement, and the removal of existing runway pavement. The City of Marathon and Monroe County 23 implement waste diversion and recycling programs. Construction waste would be removed by private 24 contractors and transported to a local transfer station for sorting and recycling. The remaining wastes 25 would be disposed at a permitted landfill facility. No substantial impacts from construction and demolition 26 wastes are expected. 27 In the event soil contamination is discovered during construction, the Airport Sponsor would collect and 28 analyze soil samples. Depending on the parameters of the soil contamination, the soil could be reused 29 on-site. If the soil could not be used on-site, the soil would be manifested and transported off-site to an 30 authorized disposal facility. Facilities are available in the south Florida region to accept contaminated 31 soils. 32 5.10.4 Cumulative Effects 33 Other area development projects may involve sites with soil/groundwater water contamination and sites 34 where potentially hazardous materials are used or stored. The sponsors of those projects would have to 35 comply with federal, state, and local regulations governing hazardous materials and wastes. 36 Development projects in the vicinity of MTH also have the potential to generate MSW and construction 37 wastes. Implementation of the other projects, particularly residential and commercial development 38 projects, would result in increased demand for solid waste collection and disposal. There are no capacity 5-42 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 issues at the private solid waste facility used by the County indicating that cumulative solid waste disposal 2 would be of concern. 3 In summary, the limited hazardous material, pollution, and solid waste impacts of the Proposed Project 4 and Alternative 2, when considered in addition to similar impacts of other on-or off-airport projects are not 5 expected to lead to substantial cumulative impacts. 6 5.10.5 Mitigation 7 Because there would be no significant impacts associated with hazardous materials or wastes, no 8 mitigation measures are proposed. 9 5.10.6 Comparison to Significant Impact Thresholds 10 The need for additional information or analysis is required only if problems are anticipated with respect to 11 meeting applicable local, state, Tribal, or federal laws and regulations on hazardous or solid waste 12 management. Actions involving properties listed (or potentially listed) on the NPL are considered 13 significant by definition. For the Proposed Project, or Alternative 2, there are no NPL sites affected and 14 no anticipated problems regarding the ability to meet applicable laws and regulations. 15 5.11 HISTORIC, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 16 5.11.1 Overview of Impacts 17 There are no NR-listed properties, or eligible historic resources, within the Area of Potential Effect (APE). 18 Indirect impacts to historic resources are not anticipated as the Proposed Project and Alternative 2 would 19 not induce or alter aviation activity at MTH would not cause significant noise impacts. 20 5.11.2 Methodology 21 The method for determining potential environmental impacts on historic and/or archaeological resources 22 included the identification of any NRHP resource, whether listed or eligible for listing, having potential for 23 direct or indirect impacts. According to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 24 (NHPA), a proposed action has an effect on an historic property when the action may alter characteristics 25 of the property that may qualify it for inclusion in the NRHP [36 CFR, Part 800.9(a)]. An effect would be 26 considered adverse when it diminishes the integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials, 27 workmanship, feeling, or association. Adverse effects include the physical destruction of all or part of the 28 property, changes to aspects of the property's setting, or alteration of character-defining features [36 29 CFR, Part 800.9(b)]. 30 Historic Resources 31 Historic architectural research was conducted during the week of November 9, 2009 in Tallahassee at the 32 Florida Division of Historical Resources (FDHR), which contains the offices of the Florida SHPO, in 33 Marathon at the Marathon Public Library and the administrative offices of the MTH, and in Coral Gables in 5-43 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 the Special Collections department of the University of Miami's Otto G. Richter Library. Research was 2 also conducted on-line in the Florida Photograph Collection of the Florida State Library and Archives' 3 Florida Memory site (www.floridamemory.com/). The most notable resources consulted were the many 4 newspaper articles found in the Betty Vail notebook of newspaper clippings and photographs at the 5 Airport, at the Florida Memory site, and in the volumes of local history at the Marathon Library. 6 All of the accessible roads within the Generalized Study Area (GSA)were driven to identify any historic or 7 potentially historic properties, also during the week of November 9, 2009. Subsequent reviews of on-line 8 imagery, including street-level photographs, were conducted and it was determined that conditions were 9 relatively unchanged since November 2009. Only one previously identified historic property is located 10 within the GSA, the NR-listed George Adderley House. 11 Archaeological Resources 12 Background research using the FDHR site files was conducted to obtain information on previously 13 recorded archaeological sites in the vicinity of the project area. In addition, aerial photographs and 14 existing environmental documents were examined to obtain information on current and past land use. 15 5.11.3 Area of Potential Effect 16 Section 106 requires that an APE for an undertaking be established. Within that APE, it requires that the 17 effect of the undertaking on historic resources that are listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP be taken 18 into account. An APE for historic architectural resources is defined as the area or areas within which an 19 undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of any existing NR-listed or 20 -eligible historic properties. Such changes may include: a) the destruction of all or part of a resource; b) 21 the isolation of the resource or changes in its setting; c) the introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric 22 elements that affect those characteristics that make the resource eligible for listing in the NRHP; and d) 23 the transfer, lease, or sale of the historic resource. Based on these factors, the APE for historic 24 architectural resources for this EA includes the limits of physical disturbance associated with the 25 Proposed Project and Alternative 2 and those locations that would newly fall within the DNL 65 dB(A) 26 noise contours. Because the potential change in aircraft noise exposure would result from a minor (40- 27 foot) shift of the Runway 7/25 centerline, the APE for historic resources encompasses a long, narrow strip 28 of land to the north of MTH and two short, narrow strips of land at the west end of MTH that would newly 29 be included within the DNL 65 contour. The APE is depicted in Figure 5.11-1. The APE for 30 archaeological resources is contained within the limits of direct physical disturbance associated with the 31 undertaking's proposed airfield improvements.. 32 5 The FAA established the boundaries of the APE based upon the scale and nature of the undertaking, as required by Section 106, and upon the area where the Proposed Project may cause changes in the character or use of historic properties (FAA Order 1050.1 E). In this case, the change in aircraft noise exposure caused by the proposed runway centerline shift was determined to be the dominant factor that determined the APE. The use of the DNL 65 noise contour to define an APE for historic architectural resources is based on FAA's Part 150 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines. 5-44 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport JU3MSSaSS'V JUaU3WU0.11AUA "01030PN SUL�fPmtunM Udv)iLD:144:1 IVIJLN:IJLOJ Jo VJHV pod.uV uoqje.]LA, S,Om uppolA aqj VJ - -1-wm11I. ... Mg .4 JIM �IA A d,� Willay" t IMMI, Ar ie" T-71-—rt TI"c"Tcm 'N J,fj j r "IN,) t-A it, I-V lbm� c .... . ..... kda w4l oo j. "o j o 1 5.11.4 Historic Resources within the Area of Potential Effect 2 Research conducted at the FDHR identified no historic or cultural resources within the APE previously 3 listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the NRHP. Additionally, no previously recorded 4 archaeological resources were identified within the APE. 5 Aerial and other photographs taken from the 1940s through the 1990s indicated that there were no 6 historic resources more than 50 years old or of exceptional importance located within the APE. 7 Secondary sources covering the history of Marathon suggested the same. Fieldwork confirmed that there 8 are no historic resources located within the APE for historic resources. The residential neighborhoods 9 through which the APE passes to the north of MTH are modern, with their earliest houses erected in the 10 late 1960s or early 1970s. As noted in Section 4.9.2 of this Draft EA, the residential neighborhoods north 11 of MTH are interspersed with newer houses that were constructed within the last few years. Some of the 12 newer home construction appears to have redeveloped 1960s and 1970s era home sites with larger and 13 more modern residential structures. Overall, house types, construction styles, and age vary within each 14 neighborhood. Four modern commercial and light-industrial buildings are located within the APE east of 15 MTH. Near the southwest corner of MTH, the APE passes between two commercial properties, but does 16 not include any structures. Photographs of the residential, commercial, and light industrial structures 17 located within the APE are provided in Appendix I. Based on the research conducted for this EA, the FAA 18 determined that there are no historic resources within the APE that are listed in or eligible for listing in the 19 NRHP. 20 Examination of aerial photographs and soils maps suggests that the portions of the APE for 21 archaeological resources located on the MTH airfield and immediately adjacent to Runway 7/25 have 22 been extensively disturbed by previous grading and excavation for airfield development (e.g., runway, 23 taxiway, and apron construction). Based on site conditions, the 40-foot-wide strip of vegetation to be 24 cleared on the north side of the airfield is considered to not have potential for significant archaeological 25 resources. Therefore, the FAA concluded that it is unlikely that the portions of the APE subject to direct 26 physical disturbance contain any archaeological sites eligible for listing in the NRHP. 27 5.11.5 Impacts 28 5.11.5.1 No-Action Alternative 29 The No-Action Alternative would have no direct or indirect effect on existing or potential historic and 30 archaeological resources. 31 5.11.5.2 Proposed Project 32 The Proposed Project would not directly impact or physically disturb any NR-listed or -eligible, historic, 33 cultural, or archaeological resources. 34 No NR-listed or -eligible historic or cultural resource resources are located within the APE. In terms of 35 aircraft noise levels, a detailed grid analysis reveals that aircraft noise exposure levels within the APE 5-47 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 would be approximately DNL +0.2 in Study Years 2016 and 2021 as a result of the Proposed Project. 2 The results of the noise analysis conducted for this EA demonstrate that there would be no significant 3 increase in aircraft noise levels if the Proposed Project was implemented. 4 Although it is not within the APE, noise exposure information is provided for the George Adderley House, 5 a NR-listed resource located approximately 4,000 feet west/southwest of MTH. This information is 6 provided for informational and disclosure purposes only. The results of the grid analysis show that noise 7 levels at the George Adderley House would be DNL 53.0 under the No-Action Alternative and DNL 53.1 8 under the Proposed Project in Study Year 2016. For Study Year 2021, noise levels would be DNL 53.3 9 under the No-Action Alternative and DNL 53.4 under the Proposed Project. The difference in noise 10 levels in both study years would be DNL +0.1, which would be imperceptible. In regard to visual impacts, 11 aircraft would be at the same altitude over the George Adderley House and using the same arrival and 12 departure procedures as the No-Action Alternative. However, the flight path would be shifted 40 feet to 13 the north/northwest. This change in the flight path would be generally unnoticeable to most visitors at the 14 George Adderley House. 15 Based on research conducted for this EA, site conditions, and a review of the project impact area, there is 16 low potential for the Proposed Project to disturb unrecorded archaeological resources that would result in 17 significant impacts. 18 5.11.5.3 Alternative 2 19 Alternative 2 would not directly impact or physically disturb any NR-listed or -eligible, historic, cultural, or 20 archaeological resources. In terms of aircraft noise levels, a detailed grid analysis reveals that aircraft 21 noise exposure levels within the APE would be the same as the No-Action Alternative as a result of 22 Alternative 2. There would be no change or increase in aircraft noise levels if Alternative 2 was 23 implemented. There would be no visual impacts to historic resources if Alternative 2 was implemented 24 because there would be no change to aircraft flight paths. 25 5.11.5.4 SHPO Coordination 26 In a letter to the SHPO, dated May 24, 2013, the FAA submitted the agency's APE and information 27 supporting a finding that the Proposed Project would have no effect on historic, cultural, and 28 archaeological resources. The FAA subsequently determined that Alternative 2 would have no effect on 29 historic, cultural, and archaeological resources. Section 106 coordination between the FAA and SHPO is 30 ongoing at this time and will be concluded and documented in the Final EA. 31 5.11.6 Mitigation 32 Based on the analyses conducted for this EA, neither the Proposed Project nor Alternative 2 would affect 33 NR-listed or -eligible historic or historic architectural resources. The Proposed Project and Alternative 2 34 are also not expected to result in impacts to archaeological resources; therefore, no mitigation is 35 warranted. However, if prehistoric or historic artifacts are encountered at any time during construction of 36 either project, all activities involving subsurface disturbance in the immediate vicinity of such discoveries 37 would cease and the SHPO will be notified. 5-48 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 5.11.7 Cumulative Effects 2 It is possible that other area development actions could have direct or indirect impacts upon NR-listed 3 or-eligible historic resources. Federal and state funded projects with such potential impacts upon historic 4 properties would require coordination with the SHPO, documentation, and mitigation measures, if 5 warranted. The Proposed Project and Alternative 2 are not expected to generate impacts to historic 6 resources. Therefore, when considered in addition to potential impacts of other on-or off-airport projects, 7 the Proposed Project and Alternative 2 are not expected to lead to additional substantial impacts upon 8 historic resources. 9 5.11.8 Comparison to Significant Impact Thresholds 10 A threshold indicating a significant impact is not clearly defined in FAA's guidance; however, it generally 11 involves a review of specific situations and advice from the SHPO and Advisory Council on Historic 12 Preservation (ACHP). In cases where there are no historic properties affected, the FAA can determine 13 that there would be no significant impact. The Proposed Project and Alternative 2 would not affect any 14 historic resources listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP. Therefore, at this time, the Proposed Project 15 and Alternative 2 are not expected to exceed any threshold indicating a significant impact. Section 106 16 coordination between the FAA and SHPO is ongoing and will be concluded and documented in the Final 17 EA. 18 5.12 LIGHT EMISSIONS AND VISUAL EFFECTS 19 5.12.1 Overview of Impacts 20 The Proposed Project would result in a 40-foot lateral shift of existing runway lights. Alternative 2 would 21 result in a 40-foot lateral shift of taxiway lights. Since the lighting changes associated with each project 22 would be minimal, no light emission impacts are expected. The potential effect on the visual landscape 23 would be minimal with the implementation of either the Proposed Project or Alternative 2 because the 24 proposed improvements would be "at-grade" or near grade and not include buildings or structures. 25 However, the Proposed Project would remove 40 feet (on the airfield side) of the existing 200-foot-wide 26 forested buffer on the north side of the airfield. This action would reduce the utility and effectiveness, to 27 some degree, of the vegetated area as a visual buffer to adjoining residential areas. 28 5.12.2 Methodology 29 Light emission impacts associated with the No-Action Alternative, the Proposed Project, and Alternative 2 30 were determined by evaluating the extent to which airfield lighting associated each alternative would 31 change and the potential for the change to create an annoyance among people in the vicinity of the 32 airport. Evaluation of visual impacts considered the potential changes in landscape and views in the 33 vicinity of the airport. 5-49 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 5.12.3 Impacts 2 5.12.3.1 No-Action Alternative 3 Since the No-Action Alternative does not involve construction associated with the Proposed Project or 4 Alternative 2, there are no anticipated light emissions or visual impacts. 5 5.12.3.2 Proposed Project 6 The Proposed Project would involve the 40-foot lateral relocation of runway edge lights, runway threshold 7 lights, Runway End identifier Lights (REIL), and Precision Approach Path Indicator Lights (PAPI). All of 8 these lights currently exist and, with the exception of the PAPIs, are located at ground level. Additional 9 taxiway edge lights would be installed on the extended taxiways connectors. The relocated and 10 additional lighting would be located approximately 400 feet from the closest residence. The residences 11 located nearest to the relocated airfield lights would continue to be shielded visually from the airfield by 12 the remaining 160-foot-wide vegetated buffer located on the north side of the airfield. The relocated 13 lighting is not expected to alter the view of the airport from US 1 or create an annoyance to drivers. 14 Therefore, the relocated and additional lighting would not result in any substantial change in ambient light 15 levels in residential areas. 16 Construction of the Proposed Project would include clearing a 40-foot strip of the existing 200-foot-deep 17 stand of dense vegetation located along the north side of the airfield. Because the Proposed Project 18 would remove 40 feet (on the airfield side) of the existing 200-foot-wide buffer, the Proposed Project 19 would reduce the utility and effectiveness of the vegetated area as a visual buffer to adjoining residential 20 areas. Although the impact would be visually noticeable, the remaining vegetation (80 percent of the 21 existing width) would still provide a visual buffer between MTH and the residential areas on the north side 22 of the airport. 23 The vegetated buffer, which is comprised of tropical hardwood hammock, is protected under the Monroe 24 County Comprehensive Plan and the City of Marathon's Comprehensive Plan (see Section 4.4 and 25 Section 5.5 of this EA for more information). Amending Comprehensive Plans and clearing of a 40-foot 26 strip of the vegetated buffer each have the potential to be locally controversial. 27 5.12.3.2 Alternative 2 28 Alternative 2 would relocate taxiway edge lights and some airfield directional signs approximately 40 feet 29 to the southeast of the existing taxiway. The relocated lights and signs would be placed in an area 30 presently paved and used for aircraft parking and circulation. The relocated taxiway lights would be 31 farther away from the residences on the north side of the airfield. In regard to residences south of MTH, 32 the relocation of the taxiway lights would not be visually noticeable due to the distance from the nearest 33 residence (approximately 500 feet) and the large number of light sources found along the U.S. Highway 1 34 commercial corridor located between the airport and residential areas south of the airport. Alternative 2 35 would not require any clearing in the vegetated buffer on the north side of the airfield. 5-50 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 5.12.4 Mitigation 2 Thresholds to determine the significance of lighting and visual impacts have not been established by the 3 FAA due to the subjective nature of these impacts. However, a possible threshold indicating the need for 4 further study may include cases with substantial light annoyance, substantial interference with activities, 5 and/or substantial public concern regarding views. The Proposed Project and Alternative 2 would not 6 have substantial light emission impacts. The Proposed Project would have a visual impact that would 7 cause local public concern. However, the Proposed Project is not expected to exceed a threshold 8 indicating a significant impact requiring mitigation. 9 5.12.5 Cumulative Effects 10 No other airport projects that would result in light emissions and visual impact are planned at this time. 11 Other, non-airport area developments may occur, and result in increased ambient nighttime light 12 emissions and visual impacts. Given the urban and built-up land uses around MTH, it is unlikely that 13 further development actions would result in a substantial cumulative lighting or visual impact. When 14 considered in conjunction with the other area developments, substantial cumulative impacts are not 15 expected. 16 5.12.6 Comparison to Significant Impact Thresholds 17 Thresholds to determine the significance of lighting and visual impacts have not been established by the 18 FAA due to the subjective nature of these impacts. However, a possible threshold indicating the need for 19 further study may include cases with substantial light annoyance, substantial interference with activities, 20 and/or substantial public concern regarding views. The airfield lighting modifications associated with the 21 Proposed Project and Alternative 2 would not cause changes in light emissions resulting in substantial 22 annoyance or causing interference with normal activities. The need to clear 40 feet of the 200-foot wide 23 vegetated buffer for the Proposed Project is expected to generate substantial concern by some members 24 of the public residing on the north side of the airport. Although the impact would be visually noticeable, 25 the remaining vegetation (80 percent of the existing buffer width) would still provide a visual buffer 26 between MTH and the residential areas on the north side of the airport. Therefore, it has been 27 determined that although the visual impact associated with the Proposed Project would be noticeable, the 28 impact is not considered significant. Alternative 2 would not impact the vegetated buffer. 29 5.13 NOISE 30 5.13.1 Overview of Impacts 31 Potential change in aircraft noise exposure around the airport was evaluated using the FAA's Integrated 32 Noise Model (INM). The noise contour analysis shows that a change in DNL would occur with the 33 implementation of the Proposed Project (when compared to the No-Action Alternative). Alternative 2 34 would not cause a change in aircraft noise exposure. Federal guidance concerning compatible land use 35 in regard to noise levels indicates noise exposure impacts are significant if there is a 1.5 dB(A) increase 36 in DNL in noise-sensitive areas exposed to DNL of 65 dB(A) or greater. Although 13 additional units and 5-51 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 32 additional people would be exposed to noise exposure levels of DNL 65 or greater noise under the 2 Proposed Project, none of these noise sensitive receptors would experience a change of 1.5 dB or higher 3 in the DNL 65 dB(A) or 3.0 dB or higher in the DNL 60 dB(A). Therefore, the Proposed Project would not 4 result in significant aircraft-generated noise impacts, and mitigation measures are not warranted. 5 5.13.2 Methodology 6 Noise levels at the airport were computed using the FAA's INM and are presented using the DNL metric. 7 Outputs from the INM include noise exposure contours and a grid point analyses. Noise exposure 8 contours are a graphical representation of how the noise from aircraft operations is distributed over an 9 area. Noise exposure contours for MTH are depicted at DNL 65, 70, and 75 dB(A) intervals. The FAA 10 defines DNL 65 dB(A) as the threshold of noise compatibility with residential and certain other noise 11 sensitive land uses. Thus, the DNL 65 dB(A) contour is important for population impact assessment. 12 Noise contours resulting from the Proposed Project were compared to those resulting from the No-Action 13 Alternative. The DNL 65 dB(A) contours for the No-Action and Proposed Project Alternatives were 14 reviewed to determine if any noise-sensitive sites and/or land uses are located within the noise exposure 15 contours. A grid point analysis was also analyzed to determine if there would be an increase of DNL 1.5 16 dB(A)or higher over noise-sensitive land uses. 17 Noise contours resulting from Alternative 2 were compared to those resulting from the No-Action 18 Alternative. For both future study years, the DNL 65 dB(A) contours for the No-Action Alternative and 19 Alternative 2 would be the same because Alternative 2 would not shift the runway, alter airport activity, or 20 modify flight profiles. Therefore, a grid point analysis was not necessary to determine if Alternative 2 21 would result in an increase of DNL 1.5 dB(A)or higher over noise-sensitive land uses. 22 5.13.3 Impacts 23 5.13.3.1 No-Action Alternative (Study Year 2016) 24 Figure 5.13-1 shows modeled noise exposure resulting from projected aircraft operations under the 25 No-Action Alternative scenario. The estimated land area within each DNL contour interval is provided in 26 Table 5.13-1. Of the 345.4 acres of land exposed to DNL 65 or greater, 159.9 acres (approximately 27 46 percent) would be airport property. Non-airport land within the DNL 65 or higher contour would total 28 approximately 185.5 acres, all of which would be exposed to DNLs between 65 and 75. Table 5.13-1 29 shows that there would be 427 housing units and 1,038 people residing in the DNL 65 or higher contour 30 under the No-Action Alternative. These 427 housing units would be considered incompatible land uses 31 under the No-Action Alternative. 32 5-52 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport i t' ",`, a - . ---.� jtt si 4 �, v � 4t�ti itit ri ttl � a� s ou m w 4t �� ar "r r'f ° {iti`tj14 }'c jl%u t Ay'a\ ° I I Gjr{\s t�ll+t q --ep '-v{ 413 9 1)`•. m o;:g 1 t�i ft t S{ 'i i i (4� tiS\,��t{ �iY ,1��1�ra'y •��° ��"'� j{5 it 1 ---tl�kh } �t ''T �'; sJ t} t`t \t�}�1' ��t,'S ,ni,.ew� �jq, t ., " S. S't stz 7Sr tr Ya.' e•: i m . z r v t Aftl!';jd1s. 'i�rjl$ri Ins 1 rr �lYl��N�ssi�tytl W �l t�I,rlt�t{fiaS}o i li �q'}s� a 4x a t V� i w 4rN 's a- u t r EO r x ' n s FIGURE a J' 5.13-1 o ` 1 TABLE 5.13-1 2 STUDY YEAR 2016 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE NOISE EXPOSURE ESTIMATES 3 Noise Exposure by Land Use Type(acres) Land Use Noise Exposure Contour DNL'65-70 DNL 70-75 DNL''75+ Total Airport 53.3 53.7 52.9 159.9 Commercial 12.6 2.2 0.0 14.8 Community Facility 2.4 0.5 0.0 2.9 Conservation 11.7 0.0 0.0 11.7 Government 3.1 0.0 0.0 3.1 Industrial 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.9 Mobile Home 5.8 0.1 0.0 5.9 Multi-Family Residential 7.3 0.7 0.0 8.0 Recreation 2.3 0.2 0.0 2.5 Single-Family Residential 43.5 9.5 0.0 53.0 Transient Residential 2.4 0.5 0.0 2.9 Utility/Right-of-Way 38.8 10.7 0.2 49.7 Vacant Land 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.3 Vacant Residential 11.1 2.2 0.0 13.3 Water 14.0 2.5 0.0 16.5 Total 209.4 82.9 53.1 345.4 Population Within the DNL 65 and Higher Contours Population Noise Exposure Contour DNL'65-70 DNL 70-75 DNL''75+ Total Mobile Home 143 7 0 151 Multi-Family Residential 143 12 0 156 Single-Family Residential 581 97 0 678 Transient Residential 36 17 0 53 Vacant Residential 0 0 0 0 Total Population ' 904 134 0 1038 Housing Units Within the DNL 65 and Higher Contours Housing Type Noise Exposure Contour DNL 65-70 DNL 70-75 DNL`75+ Total Mobile Home 59 3 0 62 Multi-Family Residential 59 5 0 64 Single-Family Residential 239 40 0 279 Transient Residential 15 7 0 22 Total Units 372 55 0 427 4 Sources: URS Corporation, 2013; Monroe County Property Appraiser; and U.S. Census Bureau. 5 5-55 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 The grid point locations for noise-sensitive land uses (i.e., churches and schools) in the vicinity of MTH 2 are depicted in Figure 5.13-1. The computed Study Year 2016 noise levels for these locations under the 3 No-Action Alternative are listed in Table 5.13-2. As shown in the table, the No-Action Alternative would 4 expose four noise-sensitive locations (other than private residences) to noise levels greater than DNL 65. 5 Noise levels at these noise-sensitive sites range from a low of DNL 65.1 at Kirk of the Keys Church to a 6 high of DNL 68.1 at the Children's Rotary Park/Marathon Dog Park. 7 5.13.3.2 Proposed Project(Study Year 2016) 8 Figure 5.13-2 depicts modeled noise exposure resulting from the Proposed Project aircraft operations. 9 The estimated land area within each DNL contour interval is shown in Table 5.13-3. Of the 344.7 acres 10 of land exposed to DNL 65 or greater, 160.3 acres (approximately 47 percent) is airport property. Non- 11 airport land within the DNL 65 or higher contour would total approximately 184.4 acres, all of which would 12 be exposed to DNLs between 65 and 75. 13 The computed Study Year 2016 noise levels for noise-sensitive land uses under the Proposed Project are 14 listed in Table 5.13-2. As shown in the table, the Proposed Project would expose three noise-sensitive 15 locations (other than private residences) to noise levels greater than DNL 65. Noise levels at these 16 noise-sensitive sites range from a low of 67.3 at Calvary Baptist Church to a high of DNL 67.9 at the 17 Children's Rotary Park/Marathon Dog Park. 18 5.13.3.3 Comparison of the No-Action Alternative and Proposed Project(Study Year 2016) 19 Changes in aircraft noise exposure in the vicinity of MTH would result from the 40-foot lateral shift in the 20 runway, which slightly affects approach and departure flight tracks. The Proposed Project is not 21 anticipated to increase activity at MTH, introduce larger or noisier aircraft, or alter aircraft approach 22 profiles. Therefore, noise impacts are related solely to the physical change in runway location. 23 When compared with the No-Action Alternative, non-airport land exposed to noise levels of DNL 65 or 24 higher would decrease by 1.1 acres as a result of the Proposed Project in Study Year 2016. With respect 25 to housing units, there would be 13 additional units and 32 additional people exposed to DNL 65 or 26 greater noise exposure under the Proposed Project versus the No-Action Alternative. 27 To identify significant impacts that would occur if the Proposed Project was implemented, the areas 28 exposed to a change of DNL 1.5 at or above DNL 65 were identified. Figure 5.13-2 depicts the 29 "difference contour" or the noise contour showing the areas that would be exposed to DNL 65 or greater 30 under the Proposed Project and where the change in exposure from the No-Action Alternative would be 31 DNL 1.5 or greater. The difference contour is contained entirely on airport property; therefore, no 32 incompatible land uses would be exposed to a change of DNL 1.5 at or above DNL 65. 33 Based on the preceding analysis, if the Proposed Project was implemented, there would not be any 34 significant noise impacts based on FAA guidelines. Therefore, mitigation measures are not necessary for 35 implementation of the Proposed Project in Study Year 2016. 36 5-56 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport � t G Cl) N M N p CV N N N �h Rf O O O O O O O O p p O p O O O O O Q U y p w Q AS 1 d «, (4 V.Q d 00 N (O O r- O I- 00 00 Cf• Cf• O O N Cf• O 4.. Cf• LC) I- co LC) Cf• Lo Lo (O LC) I- M LC) O 00 M O N. O `. (O (O (O (O LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO (O (O (O �. Ncc (ts d d O Y } o oa (� � •++ 7 O � O � N OR OR (O LC? M O N V (O V W O LU LO LO I- Ch LO 'IT LO (D LO I- Cl) (D (D 00 (M (D O z, 0 a d) r M. N CM N p CV W cc O O O O O O O O p p O p O OCO O O O O U' a0 V d' Z C. 0).d L Co. � 'IT. � 00 'IT. LO. LO. (o r— 0) � a to O •^ 'IT 'IT r— CV LO Cl) V' LO (D LO r- Ch L6 L6 I� Ch 6 I w Q. Q (O (O (O (O LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO (Q (Q (Q cn w N a CO } o' LU ' ao 7 co ao co ao 0? Lc? Lr> M N O � rn M Q 'IT I- CV LO CO V' LO (O LO I- CO LO LO 00 Ch (O cm cm cm cm «O LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO cm co cm N cocn z T- W ui cn N —i Lo rn co co co LO r— Cl) Cy O O 00 LO co 0) 00 LU LU 0ZCCI C14 L) CL) L) I L) L) I Ln J CO 0 (O (O (O (C1 LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO (O (O (O LO NZ 4) (A N O v v O LO N I- O 00 r- r- O 'a 00 r- (O N O N N (O O �t O LC) LO 7Lo Cf' M (A N 00 O Cf' (A 00 M O (D Cf' M 'It 0 +' Cl) O 00 0) (O O O O O O N O LO 'IT N N — N N p p N N p CO O v v v v v v v v v v v v 00 00 LU Ji N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 'It (D LO LO 'It I- 'It 'IT 'ITCh 0) O 0D � «7 �. G) 00 N Cf• LO CM LO O :i' 00 r- 0) 00 M O (O b LO N - O O LC') LO � 00 O O r- 0) O r- O LO LO CO a+ LC) LC) O O N O 0 r- r- r- r M LO Cf• C14 LU O O O O O O O O O O O O O LU J 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 N N 00 00 CV CO N dO CO d v v U ° W U U U U U U U) U U U U W � 0 U CD co = O Z o > U) 0 °vi U m O 0 Y U Y> m C N _ CO (n E w a ° O(n ON > w 2E N -0 O_ C) �) N m U = 0 a) m N � U ` cOi Li c°i Z ) U N m Q i 0 o U CD ° O (0 Cn NO N m ON c 0 ioi - � cn i i E � O p J U CO U z> O O m Y 0 'O m C CO � NO s s M > O > O0 CO - � Y Y U ZCD U O CnU IL U U m CDS U U W Of I W O N co O 00 (A It CV Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z � N M � R 9 9 9 cc 0 0 9 § ® \ \ \ ® S \ 2 % o d @ e j ■ Q Q = E l a \ 2 cc . (ts 0 � f m « o 15 Q Q d % \/z Q CO cc / / \w R CO . .. / $ E e 9 9 :�» k l Q Q Q E 04 \ o CO w /( w m j y; e g / 2 /\ Q Q d y<z E § \ \ vLL w @ ƒ co6 7 7 Q = Q G LO ®CO \ Cl) \ LU p p p } % % % / CO/ \ % p / a V: _ « = c � \ / Cl) > � \ \ \ - O 0 z 5 § § § \ \ \ M } } } { } / / / ] / J J J $ \ \ k \ k \ k \ 0 k k k \ 0 0 0 } f \ f \ f > 3 dc = c = c = 7 = ± 77 ± 77 ± � _ \ \ \ ƒ \ \ ƒ \ \ �� § 7 i Jill tw -. A", v a ° �st� "r rs S', Yfi�l rl i}ti} Yit ;�� .+�2 E C4 � � 7 � � � tyi � cANN IAN Mll F Y» i s�z��, )YilF�li�l't; -'` ��?� �}. •f� �,�,. �,t S sr�� ,,, �. ,; �' -��i} ��tit is��S�t1I�}�)i� �r)r s E I� }�.}?�fr�j `S �1 , � r)} } } it x r i cc w ra)�Irt <. tiOlt w i o F � e r r f s { Y E1' FIGURE J' a 5.13-2 1 rig o i 1 TABLE 5.13-3 2 STUDY YEAR 2016 PROPOSED PROJECT NOISE EXPOSURE ESTIMATES 3 Noise Exposure by Land Use Type(acres) Noise Exposure Contour Land Use ' DNL 65-70 DNL 70-75 DNL''75+ Total Airport 53.3 53.7 52.9 159.9 Commercial 12.6 2.2 0.0 14.8 Community Facility 2.4 0.5 0.0 2.9 Conservation 11.7 0.0 0.0 11.7 Government 3.1 0.0 0.0 3.1 Industrial 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.9 Mobile Home 5.8 0.1 0.0 5.9 Multi-Family Residential 7.3 0.7 0.0 8.0 Recreation 2.3 0.2 0.0 2.5 Single-Family Residential 43.5 9.5 0.0 53.0 Transient Residential 2.4 0.5 0.0 2.9 Utility/Right-of-Way 38.8 10.7 0.2 49.7 Vacant Land 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.3 Vacant Residential 11.1 2.2 0.0 13.3 Water 14.0 2.5 0.0 16.5 Total 209.4 82.9 53.1 345.4 Population Within the DNL 65 and Higher Contours Noise Exposure Contour Population DNL 65-70 DNL 70-75 DNL''75+ Total Mobile Home 141 2 0 143 Multi-Family Residential 148 12 0 160 Single-Family Residential 590 112 10 712 Transient Residential 36 17 0 53 Vacant Residential 0 0 0 0 Total Population 916 143 10 1069 Housing Units Within the DNL 65 and Higher Contours Noise Exposure Contour Housing Type DNL 65-70 DNL 70-75 DNL`75+ Total Mobile Home 59 3 0 62 Multi-Family Residential 59 5 0 64 Single-Family Residential 239 40 0 279 Transient Residential 15 7 0 22 Total Units 372 55 0 427 4 Sources: URS Corporation, 2013; Monroe County Property Appraiser; and U.S. Census Bureau. 5 5-61 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 5.13.3.3 Alternative 2 (Study Year 2016) 2 Alternative 2 would not result in a change in the noise environment or aircraft noise exposure contours, 3 when compared to the No-Action Alternative. Alternative 2 would result in the same amount of land, 4 number of housing units, and population exposed to DNL 65 or higher as the No-Action Alternative. See 5 Section 5.13.3.1 and Table 5.13-1 for information regarding the 2016 noise impacts associated with the 6 No-Action Alternative. 7 5.13.3.4 No-Action Alternative (Study Year 2021) 8 Figure 5.13-3 shows modeled noise exposure resulting from projected aircraft operations under the No- 9 Action Alternative scenario in Study Year 2021. The estimated land area within each DNL contour 10 interval is provided in Table 5.13-4. Of the 366.5 acres of land exposed to DNL 65 or greater, 162.4 11 acres (approximately 44 percent)would be airport property. Non-airport land within the DNL 65 or higher 12 contour would total approximately 204.1 acres, all of which would be exposed to DNLs between 65 and 13 75. Table 5.13-3 shows that there would be 474 housing units and 1152 people residing in the DNL 65 or 14 higher contour under the No-Action Alternative. These 474 housing units would be considered 15 incompatible land uses under the No-Action Alternative. 16 The grid point locations for noise-sensitive land uses these locations under the No-Action Alternative are 17 depicted in Figure 5.13-3 and listed in Table 5.13-2. As shown in the table, the No-Action Alternative 18 would expose five noise-sensitive locations (other than private residences) to noise levels greater than 19 DNL 65. Noise levels at these noise-sensitive sites range from a low of 65.1 at Jehovah's Witnesses 20 Kingdom Church to a high of DNL 68.4 at the Children's Rotary Park/Marathon Dog Park. 21 5.13.3.5 Proposed Project(Study Year 2021) 22 Figure 5.13-4 depicts modeled noise exposure resulting from the Proposed Project aircraft operations in 23 Study Year 2021. The estimated land area within each DNL contour interval is shown in Table 5.13-5. 24 Of the 366 acres of land exposed to DNL 65 or greater, 162.6 acres (approximately 44 percent) is airport 25 property. Non-airport land within the DNL 65 or higher contour would total approximately 203.4 acres, all 26 of which would be exposed to DNLs between 65 and 75. 27 The computed Study Year 2021 noise levels for noise-sensitive land uses under the Proposed Project are 28 listed in Table 5.13-2. As shown in the table, the Proposed Project would expose four noise-sensitive 29 locations (other than private residences) to noise levels greater than DNL 65. Noise levels at these 30 noise-sensitive sites range from a low of 65.2 at Kirk of the Keys Church to a high of DNL 68.2 at 31 Children's Rotary Park/Marathon Dog Park. 32 5-62 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport s a� }k�"`iy*' jV? `�`;�st- f 9' rt t\�sii�li(Y(tt�V�i ^ �, .o aqi ,you ro w �4< J••� o Vl 04 s � � o 0 0 4 14 m t �,S' f�t='s+�{ },�;{ a V Ii �...... 1 �slr i k i V i« �v 1s i} { + tx V, t ICI N )w ftSm { { n ;y FIGURE s J' 5.13-3 o { 1 TABLE 5.13-4 2 STUDY YEAR 2021 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE NOISE EXPOSURE ESTIMATES 3 Noise Exposure by Land Use Type(acres) Noise Exposure Contour Land Use ' DNL 65-70 DNL 70-75 DNL''75+ Total Airport 52.2 54.3 55.9 162.4 Commercial 14.4 2.5 0.0 16.9 Community Facility 2.8 0.7 0.0 3.5 Conservation 13.7 0.0 0.0 13.7 Government 3.8 0.0 0.0 3.8 Industrial 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.3 Mobile Home 6.2 0.2 0.0 6.4 Multi-Family Residential 7.4 0.8 0.0 8.2 Recreation 2.2 0.3 0.0 2.5 Single-Family Residential 47.8 10.5 0.0 58.3 Transient Residential 2.4 0.6 0.0 3.0 Utility/Right-of-Way 40.7 11.8 0.5 53.0 Vacant Land 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.4 Vacant Residential 12.5 2.4 0.0 14.9 Water 15.4 2.8 0.0 18.2 Total 223.1 87.0 56.4 366.5 Population Within the DNL 65 and Higher Contours Noise Exposure Contour Population DNL 65-70 DNL 70-75 DNL''75+ Total Mobile Home 160 7 0 168 Multi-Family Residential 160 12 0 173 Single-Family Residential 654 104 0 758 Transient Residential 36 17 0 53 Vacant Residential 0 0 0 0 Total Population loll 141 0 1152 Housing Units Within the DNL 65 and Higher Contours Noise Exposure Contour Housing Type DNL 65-70 DNL 70-75 DNL`75+ Total Mobile Home 66 3 0 69 Multi-Family Residential 66 5 0 71 Single-Family Residential 269 43 0 312 Transient Residential 15 7 0 22 Total Units 416 58 0 474 4 Sources: URS Corporation, 2013; Monroe County Property Appraiser; and U.S. Census Bureau. 5 6 5-65 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 TABLE 5.13-5 2 STUDY YEAR 2021 PROPOSED PROJECT NOISE EXPOSURE ESTIMATES 3 Noise Exposure by Land Use Type(acres) Noise Exposure Contour Land Use ' DNL 65-70 DNL 70-75 DNL''75+ Total Airport 53.4 54.1 55.1 162.6 Commercial 13.3 2.2 0.0 15.5 Community Facility 2.6 0.4 0.0 3.0 Conservation 15.3 0.0 0.0 15.3 Government 3.2 0.0 0.0 3.2 Industrial 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.7 Mobile Home 6.0 0.1 0.0 6.1 Multi-Family Residential 7.5 0.8 0.0 8.3 Recreation 2.3 0.2 0.0 2.5 Single-Family Residential 48.3 11.2 0.1 59.6 Transient Residential 2.4 0.5 0.0 2.9 Utility/Right-of-Way 39.3 11.5 1.0 51.8 Vacant Land 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.3 Vacant Residential 12.0 2.7 0.0 14.7 Water 15.2 3.3 0.0 18.5 Total 222.7 87.1 56.2 366.0 Population Within the DNL 65 and Higher Contours Noise Exposure Contour Population DNL 65-70 DNL 70-75 DNL''75+ Total Mobile Home 148 5 0 153 Multi-Family Residential 148 22 0 170 Single-Family Residential 651 122 12 785 Transient Residential 53 17 0 70 Vacant Residential 0 0 0 0 Total Population 1001 165 12 1179 Housing Units Within the DNL 65 and Higher Contours Noise Exposure Contour Housing Type DNL 65-70 DNL 70-75 DNL`75+ Total Mobile Home 61 2 0 63 Multi-Family Residential 61 9 0 70 Single-Family Residential 268 50 5 323 Transient Residential 22 7 0 29 Total Units 412 68 5 485 4 Sources: URS Corporation,2013; Monroe County Property Appraiser; and U.S. Census Bureau. 5 5-66 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport - ,,.!,3 v;- Y f sirs {in�t st, � , �r SiI i` -o woo - Y> 8d C7 '7 E ----------------- n,! }je, s rS+�f4 kX��{}S girl s d� •• d - � 0 0 0 0 �' fx � 6 -.. � � ��} � ��:�''•' I �..{\f s,'t^ ��, n�Y,= � ��i�i1�1{{Stfli�i-�ir r; S,5(7s}1\S�{}��1{ ,>•s,.,w. t - `� z ii l r t a t � �wua ma �� ° lil1,f - � x y it\� Y� J„ is r i u�%�swl. 1• ��rr �r�Y < � �,r i �t4ll trey Z sue. y t t \�+ s - �. s• S �)y �7}SS��! o At f{kvtst4t!4 �`} vtf,;e°?2 Y t `f `� igluv\14}lil' \t, � r w WIMP!,t t FIGURE a J' 5.13-4 SAM rY ✓` o r 1 5.13.3.6 Comparison of the No-Action Alternative and Proposed Project(Study Year 2021) 2 Changes in aircraft noise exposure in the vicinity of MTH would result from the 40-foot lateral shift in the 3 runway, which slightly affects approach and departure flight tracks. The Proposed Project is not 4 anticipated to increase activity at MTH, introduce larger or noisier aircraft, or alter aircraft approach 5 profiles. Therefore, noise impacts are related solely to the physical change in runway location. 6 When compared with the No-Action Alternative, non-airport land exposed to noise levels of DNL 65 or 7 higher would decrease by 0.5 acre as a result of the Proposed Project in Study Year 2021. With respect 8 to housing units, there would be 11 additional units and 27 additional people exposed to DNL 65 or 9 greater noise exposure under the Proposed Project versus the No-Action Alternative. 10 Figure 5.13-4 depicts the areas that would be exposed to DNL 65 or greater under the Proposed Project 11 and where the change in exposure from the No-Action Alternative would be DNL 1.5 or greater. The 12 difference contour is contained entirely on airport property; therefore, no incompatible land uses would be 13 exposed to a change of DNL 1.5 at or above DNL 65. 14 Based on the preceding analysis, if the Proposed Project was implemented, there would not be any 15 significant noise impacts based on FAA guidelines. Therefore, mitigation measures are not necessary for 16 implementation of the Proposed Project in Study Year 2021. 17 5.13.3.7 Alternative 2 (Study Year 2021) 18 Alternative 2 would not result in a change in the noise environment or aircraft noise exposure contours, 19 when compared to the No-Action Alternative. In 2021, Alternative 2 would result in the same amount of 20 land, number of housing units, and population exposed to DNL 65 or higher as the No-Action Alternative. 21 See Section 5.13.3.4 and Table 5.13-4 for information regarding the 2021 noise impacts associated with 22 the No-Action Alternative. 23 5.13.4 Mitigation 24 Because neither the Proposed Project nor Alternative would result in significant noise impacts in Study 25 Years 2016 or 2021, no mitigation is required or proposed. 26 5.13.5 Cumulative Effects 27 There would be a change in the noise environment in the vicinity of MTH if the Proposed Project was 28 implemented, but the increase is not expected to be significant. Alternative would not change the noise 29 environment in the vicinity of MTH. Other development projects at the airport would primarily consist of 30 new aircraft storage hangars. It is anticipated the area surrounding the airport would remain in its present 31 built-out state and no other major off-airport developments were identified. The Proposed Project would 32 not generate substantial aircraft noise impacts and short term construction noise increases associated 33 with the Proposed Project and Alternative 2 are not expected to be severe. Therefore, the noise impacts 34 of the Proposed Project and Alternative 2, when considered in addition to noise impacts of other on- or 35 off-airport projects are not expected to lead to additional substantial cumulative noise impact. 5-69 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 5.13.6 Comparison to Significant Impact Threshold 2 A discussion of when aircraft noise is considered a significant impact is contained in FAA Order 1050.1 E. 3 The Order states that a significant noise impact would occur if analysis shows that the proposed action 4 will cause noise-sensitive areas to experience an increase in noise of DNL 1.5 dB or more at or above 5 DNL 65 dB(A) noise exposure, when compared to the No-Action Alternative for the same timeframe. 6 Alternative 2 would have no effect on aircraft noise levels in the vicinity of MTH. The Proposed Project 7 would not cause an increase of DNL 1.5 dB over any residences and would not exceed thresholds 8 indicating significant noise impact. 9 5.14 SECONDARY(INDUCED) IMPACTS 10 5.14.1 Overview of Impacts 11 The Proposed Project and Alternative 2 would not result in secondary (induced) impacts in terms of 12 unanticipated shifts in population movement, population growth, or changes in public service demands. A 13 temporary increase in local employment, output, and income is expected during and due to construction. 14 5.14.2 Methodology 15 The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines for implementing NEPA define secondary 16 impacts as, "impacts caused by an action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still 17 reasonably foreseeable" (40 CFR 1508.8). An analysis was undertaken to determine whether the 18 Proposed Project and Alternative 2 would contribute to shifts in patterns of population movement or 19 growth, public service demands, or changes in business and economic activity. 20 5.14.3 Impacts 21 5.14.3.1 No-Action Alternative 22 The No-Action Alternative assumes that the Proposed Project or Alternative 2 would not be implemented. 23 Other on-going or planned actions at MTH that are needed for maintenance, security, or safety reasons, 24 as described in Section 4.4.2, would be undertaken as planned or as necessary. The No-Action 25 Alternative, in both Study Years 2016 and 2021, would not result any unanticipated shifts in population 26 movement, population growth, or changes in public service demands. 27 5.14.3.2 Proposed Project and Alternative 2 28 Because both the Proposed Project and Alternative 2 are safety-based and would not induce aviation 29 activity (e.g., aircraft operations and passengers) at MTH, they would not result in unanticipated shifts in 30 population movement, population growth, or changes in public service demands. Construction of the 31 Proposed Project or Alternative 2 would result in a temporary increase in local construction employment 32 and economic activity within the City of Marathon and Monroe County. 5-70 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 5.14.4 Mitigation 2 Although there would be a short-term positive economic effect during construction, the Proposed Project 3 and Alternative 2 would not result in long-term adverse secondary (induced) impacts. Therefore, no 4 mitigation was proposed. 5 5.14.5 Cumulative Effects 6 While past development projects in the City of Marathon and on Vaca Key have resulted in growth and 7 development, present and reasonably foreseeable projects are not expected to generate substantial 8 secondary (induced) impacts (i.e., changes in population movement and growth or changes in public 9 service demands). The potential to substantially affect population movement and increase public service 10 demands is considered to be low under existing land use and growth management policies. The limited 11 secondary (induced) impacts of the Proposed Project and Alternative 2, when considered in addition to 12 other area developments, are not expected to lead to substantial cumulative secondary (induced) 13 impacts. 14 5.14.6 Comparison to Significant Impact Thresholds 15 No specific thresholds have been established in FAA Order 1050.1E for secondary (induced) impacts. 16 However, the Proposed Project and Alternative 2 each would not include substantial shifts in patterns of 17 population movement or growth, public service demands, or changes in business and economic activity. 18 Because the Proposed Project and Alternative 2 would not involve substantial induced or secondary 19 impacts on surrounding communities, as described above, a significant impact threshold would not be 20 exceeded. 21 5.15 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND CHILDREN'S 22 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS 23 5.15.1 Overview of Impacts 24 Because the Proposed Project and Alternative 2 each would be constructed on airport property and 25 would not result in significant increases in noise, affect air quality, or generate land use impacts, no 26 substantial social impacts are expected. Neither the Proposed Project nor Alternative 2 would involve 27 acquisition of land, disruption of established communities or planned developments, or alter 28 transportation patterns. Disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects on minority and low- 29 income populations are not anticipated in either scenario. 30 5.15.2 Methodology 31 Potential socioeconomic and social impacts were evaluated in light of the following factors: 32 Extensive relocation of residents and availability of replacement housing, 33 Extensive relocation of businesses that would create economic hardship, 5-71 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 Disruption of local traffic patterns that would reduce level of service (LOS)on roads in 2 the community, and 3 Division or disruption of established communities. 4 Social impacts were determined through the evaluation of the areas affected by each alternative. 5 Potentially affected land, buildings, and transportation facilities were identified using information from GIS 6 databases and on-site surveys. 7 Environmental justice impacts were evaluated through quantification of populations and households 8 affected by land acquisition and potential noise impacts for each alternative to determine if there would be 9 a disproportionately high adverse impact on minority and low-income populations and households. 10 Census data was used to determine the demographic characteristics and households affected by each 11 alternative. 12 5.15.3 Impacts 13 5.15.3.1 No-Action Alternative 14 The No-Action Alternative assumes that the proposed airfield improvements associated with the proposed 15 Project or Alternative 2 would not occur. However, other on-going or planned actions at MTH that are 16 needed for maintenance, security, or safety reasons would be implemented. The No-Action Alternative 17 would not result in any associated socioeconomic impacts, environmental justice impacts, or risk to 18 children's health and safety in Study Years 2016 or 2021. 19 5.15.3.2 Proposed Project 20 Socioeconomic Impacts 21 Residential and Business Acquisitions and Relocations — The Proposed Project would be 22 constructed entirely on existing airport property and would not involve the need to relocate any 23 residences or off-airport businesses. The Proposed Project would not require the relocation or 24 modification to any on-airport businesses. 25 Impact on Local Businesses and Airport Users — The Proposed Project would require closure of the 26 airport's only runway for an extended period of time during construction. This would inconvenience 27 airport users and travelers who would have to use the Key West International Airport (KWIA) as an 28 alternate airport or use other modes of transportation when traveling to and from the lower Keys. The 29 affected travelers would have to drive approximately 55 miles between KWIA and Marathon. The next 30 nearest public-use airport, Homestead General Aviation Airport, is located in south Miami-Dade County, 31 approximately 50 nautical miles (NM) northeast of MTH 32 Depending on the phasing and scheduling of construction activities, the runway could be closed for a 33 period of 4 to 6 months. MTH supports two Fixed Base Operators, one aircraft repair facility, and several 34 other aviation-related businesses. These businesses employ approximately 110 people. Airport 35 management reports that the approximate gross annual revenue generated by these businesses is 5-72 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 $6,924,000. Closure of the airport's only runway for a four to six month period during construction of the 2 Proposed Project would have a substantial economic impact on these businesses, their employees, and 3 airport revenue. The closure of the runway would result in approximately $2,308,000 to $3,462,000 of 4 lost revenue by the businesses operating at the airport. 5 In addition, the runway closure would have a substantial impact on the aircraft owners that use MTH and 6 owners that base their aircraft at MTH. Driving times from the nearest public-use alternate airports to 7 Marathon are: 1 hour, 20 minutes from KWIA and 1 hour, 50 minutes from the Homestead General 8 Aviation Airport. Aircraft owners could temporarily base their aircraft at KWIA during the MTH runway 9 closure. However, aircraft parking and storage space at KWIA is limited and all displaced MTH aircraft 10 owners may not be accommodated at KWIA. 11 Disruption of Established Communities and Planned Developments — The construction activities 12 associated with the Proposed Project would occur entirely within the existing airport property. No 13 disruption of established communities or orderly planned developments would result from the Proposed 14 Project, nor would the Proposed Project affect or disrupt essential community services. There would be 15 no adverse impacts to local tax bases associated with the Proposed Project. 16 Disruption of Local Transportation Patterns — The Proposed Project is located entirely within the 17 existing airport property, and would not result in any long-term disruption of local transportation patterns. 18 No roadways would be modified if the Proposed Project was implemented. The Proposed Project would 19 not induce activity at MTH and, with the exception of a minor and temporary increase in traffic during 20 construction, would not increase traffic or reduce the LOS on any area roads. 21 Environmental Justice Considerations 22 The Proposed Project would be constructed entirely on existing airport property. Secondary impacts 23 related to noise and air quality would not be significant in Study Years 2016 or 2021. The residential 24 areas that would be affected by changes in noise contours associated with the Proposed Project reflect 25 the ethnic and economic distribution found throughout the County, as described in Section 4.11.1 of this 26 EA. Therefore, the Proposed Project is not expected to result in a disproportionately high and adverse 27 direct impact to minorities, ethnic groups, Tribal nations, or low-income households. 28 Children's Environmental Health and Safety Risk 29 The Proposed Project would not result in the acquisition or relocation of any residences, schools, child 30 care centers, or other similar facilities. No schools or child care facilities are located in areas that would 31 be affected by significant changes in noise levels associated with the Proposed Project in Study Years 32 2016 and 2021. The Proposed Project is not anticipated to increase environmental health and safety 33 risks or exposures to children in the surrounding community. There would be no disproportionate health 34 and safety risk to children resulting from the Proposed Project. 5-73 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 5.15.3.3 Alternative 2 2 Socioeconomic Impacts 3 Residential and Business Acquisitions and Relocations —Alternative 2 would be constructed entirely 4 on existing airport property and would not involve the need to relocate any residences or businesses. 5 Impact on Local Businesses and Airport Users — Alternative 2 would not require closure of the 6 airport's runway. Airport businesses would have reduced revenue resulting from the loss of four T-hangar 7 units and 16 apron tie-down positions. However, there is potential to replace these facilities on airport 8 property. 9 Disruption of Established Communities and Planned Developments — Alternative 2 would be 10 constructed on existing airport property. No disruption of established communities or orderly planned 11 developments would result from Alternative 2. This alternative would not affect or disrupt essential 12 community services. There would be no adverse impacts to local tax bases. 13 Disruption of Local Transportation Patterns — Alternative 2 would not disrupt local transportation 14 patterns and would not modify local roadways. Alternative 2 would not induce activity at MTH and, with 15 the exception of a minor and temporary increase in traffic during construction, would not increase traffic or 16 reduce the LOS on any area roads. 17 Environmental Justice Considerations 18 Alternative 2 would be constructed entirely on existing airport property. Secondary impacts related to air 19 quality and noise would be minimal and temporary during construction. Alternative 2 would not increase 20 or alter aircraft noise exposure in the vicinity of MTH. Therefore, Alternative 2 is not expected to result in 21 a disproportionately high and adverse direct impact to minorities, ethnic groups, Tribal nations, or low- 22 income households. 23 Children's Environmental Health and Safety Risk 24 Alternative 2 would not result in the acquisition or relocation of any residences, schools, child care 25 centers, or other similar facilities. No schools or child care facilities are located in areas that would be 26 affected by Alternative 2. Alternative 2 is not anticipated to increase environmental health and safety 27 risks or exposures to children in the surrounding community. 28 5.15.4 Mitigation 29 Impacts for most socioeconomic considerations associated with the Proposed Project and Alternative 2 30 would not be significant; therefore, mitigation measures for residence and business relocations, 31 community disruption, traffic, Environmental Justice, and childrens health impacts are not required. 32 Significant operational and economic impacts would occur at MTH during construction of the Proposed 33 Project. To reduce the impact of the closure of Runway 7/25 during construction of the Proposed Project, 34 mitigation measures may be identified during the Proposed Project's design phase to minimize the 5-74 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 duration of the runway closure. Other mitigation measures may include, but not be limited to, advance 2 coordination with airport businesses, aircraft owners, and airport users regarding the timing and duration 3 of the runway closure. 4 5.15.5 Cumulative Effects 5 Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development projects in the City of Marathon and on 6 Vaca Key have little potential to generate extensive residential and business relocations, alter or degrade 7 local transportation patterns, or disrupt established or planned communities. This is due to the nature of 8 the development projects, the City being largely built-out, and development policies and controls of 9 Monroe County and the City of Marathon. The limited socioeconomic, environmental justice, and 10 children's health impacts of either the Proposed Project or Alternative 2, when considered in addition to 11 those associated with other development projects, are not expected to lead to substantial cumulative 12 impacts. 13 5.15.6 Comparison to Significant Impact Thresholds 14 According to FAA Order 1050.1 E, significant impacts would occur if there were disproportionately high 15 and adverse impacts on low-income and minority populations, disproportionate health and safety risks to 16 children, extensive relocation of residents without sufficient relocation housing available, relocation of 17 businesses that would create severe economic hardship, disruption of traffic patterns affecting the LOS 18 on area roads, and a substantial loss in community tax base. The analysis presented above does not 19 indicate that these specific thresholds indicating a significant impact would be exceeded. 20 However, the operational and economic impacts on airport businesses, aircraft owners, and airport users 21 during the Proposed Project's construction phase would be locally significant. Mitigation measures would 22 be implemented to minimize the Proposed Project's construction phase operational and economic 23 impacts. 24 5.16 WATER RESOURCES 25 5.16.1 Overview of Impacts 26 Overall, stormwater discharges associated with the Proposed Project or Alternative 2 will be no greater 27 than existing conditions as the net amount of impervious surface on the MTH airfield is not expected to 28 change under either alternative. It is likely that the removal of remnant sections of airfield pavement 29 could result in an overall decrease in impervious surface at the airport. 30 The Proposed Project and Alternative 2 each have the potential to exceed applicable state water quality 31 standards during construction. The impacts could be caused by erosion, increased turbidity, 32 sedimentation, and potential release of fuels and lubricants; however, measures to minimize erosion and 33 sedimentation and maintain water quality throughout the construction phase are available and would be 34 implemented for the Proposed Project and Alternative 2. These include project-specific design measures, 5-75 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 BMPs, and pollution control plans designed to prevent a project from exceeding applicable water quality 2 standards. 3 Operational impacts are considered to be negligible since the Proposed Project and Alternative 2 would 4 not induce or alter activity at MTH. Because the Proposed Project and Alternative 2 would not induce 5 activity, the demand for potable water or wastewater treatment under each project would not differ from 6 the No-Action Alternative. 7 Significant water quality impacts would not occur if the Proposed Project or Alternative 2 was 8 implemented. Mitigation measures are not warranted. 9 5.16.2 Methodology 10 Federal and state statutes regulating water resources were reviewed for the analysis of potential water 11 quality impacts. The applicable statutes establish water quality standards, control discharges and 12 pollution sources, protect drinking water systems, prevent/minimize the loss of wetlands, and protect 13 aquifers and other sensitive ecological areas. 14 The potential impacts to water quality were assessed based on the location, preliminary layout plans, and 15 intended function of the Proposed Project. For comparative purposes, the effects of the No-Action 16 Alternative were also evaluated. 17 The proposed disturbed areas and new impervious areas were analyzed to evaluate the short-term 18 construction and long-term operational impacts to surface waters. Possible impacts to groundwater 19 recharge/discharge areas were investigated using published information for groundwater resources in 20 Monroe County. Potential soil contamination hazards, which were used to determine groundwater 21 impacts, were evaluated in light of information contained in federal and state environmental databases 22 regarding contaminated sites in the vicinity of the Proposed Project and its alternatives and potential 23 changes in aircraft and/or operational activities at MTH. 24 Increases to potable water consumption and domestic wastewater treatment were also considered in 25 regard to potential direct impacts or changes in operational activities. 26 5.16.3 Impacts 27 5.16.3.1 No-Action Alternative 28 Because the No-Action Alternative would not involve construction of the proposed airfield improvements, 29 there would be no impacts (direct or indirect) to water resources, including surface water, groundwater, 30 wastewater, and potable water. Specifically, there would be no new areas of soil disturbance, no 31 changes to existing surface water drainage systems, and no increase in impervious areas on the airfield. 5-76 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 5.16.3.2 Proposed Project 2 Surface Water Quality 3 Potential surface water quality concerns associated with the Proposed Project consist of sediment 4 transport and potential release of pollutants during the construction phase and increased stormwater 5 runoff volumes following project completion. Operational impacts are considered to be negligible. 6 Surface water quality impacts are discussed below. 7 Stormwater Treatment and Discharge — The Proposed Project would result in the construction of 8 25,780 square yards of new impervious airfield pavement. The Proposed Project would, at a minimum, 9 remove an equal amount of existing runway pavement on the south side of the runway, resulting in a no 10 net gain of impervious surface. As deemed appropriate during the project planning and design process, 11 additional areas of remnant runway pavement (not currently in use) may also be removed to achieve a 12 net reduction in impervious surface at the airport. 13 It is anticipated that run-off from the 40-foot lateral shift of the runway would be treated adequately via 14 overland flow and in relocated swales that can easily be incorporated into the existing stormwater 15 collection and treatment system. As a result, no major drainage modifications at MTH would be required 16 if the Proposed Project was implemented. The new graded RSA surfaces surrounding the runway would 17 be grassed and maintained in mowable condition, which would assist in stormwater overland flow 18 detention and aid in pollutant filtering and uptake processes6. 19 Operational-Related Water Quality Impacts — From an operational standpoint, the Proposed Project 20 would not introduce or alter any activity with potential to generate new or higher levels of pollutants to 21 surface waters when compared to the No-Action Alternative. The Proposed Project would not increase 22 the number of aircraft operations at MTH and would not alter the use of runways and taxiways on the 23 airfield. Further, the Proposed Project would not introduce new activities with potential environmental 24 concerns, such as aircraft maintenance, to new areas on the airfield. As such, the characteristics of 25 stormwater discharges are not expected to be materially different when compared to the No-Action 26 Alternative. No substantial impacts to water quality resulting from operational activities are anticipated. 27 Construction-Related Water Quality Impacts — Construction activities are expected to include grading, 28 site preparation, excavation, minor drainage modifications, and paving. Approximately 33 acres of land 29 would be disturbed by the construction of the proposed airfield pavements, runway safety areas, and land 30 clearing activities. These construction activities can cause erosion, increased turbidity in water bodies, 31 and sedimentation. Since these activities would also involve the use of vehicles and equipment, fuels 32 and lubricants, and the storage of construction materials, there is a risk of release or spills of 33 construction-related hazardous materials or petroleum substances. 34 In this regard, the Proposed Project has the potential to exceed applicable state water quality standards 35 promulgated in Chapter 62-302 of the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). This potential exists as areas 36 of disturbed land would be exposed to rainfall which could result in stormwater discharges with 6 A 2005 state-wide analysis of stormwater runoff from airfield pavements conducted by the FDOT found that few pollutants and nutrients are introduced by airside runoff and that overland flow is an effective stormwater treatment method(FDOT,2005). 5-77 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 suspended solids and sediment transport in excess of applicable water quality standards. Turbidity and 2 sedimentation have the potential to adversely affect water quality, aquatic organisms, and benthic 3 habitats. The project is also expected to involve the use of fuels, lubricants, solvents, paints, and other 4 materials during construction. A release, spill, or improper storage would have the potential to introduce 5 these materials and substances into surface waters in excess of state water quality standards. 6 The waters surrounding the Florida Keys have been declared Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) by the 7 State of Florida (FDEP, 2011). By regulation, input of materials that could be considered pollutants to 8 open surface waters cannot exceed the concentration of those materials that naturally occur in water. 9 Proposed activities in an OFW are required to meet standards in reference to direct and indirect 10 discharges and be clearly in the public interest. Key requirements include: 1) new direct pollutant 11 discharges must not lower existent ambient water quality and 2) new indirect pollutant discharges must 12 not significantly degrade nearby OFW. 13 Measures to minimize erosion and sedimentation and maintain water quality throughout the construction 14 phase are available and would be implemented for the Proposed Project. These include project-specific 15 design measures and BMPs designed to prevent a project from exceeding applicable water quality 16 standards. BMPs generally fall into two categories, structural and non-structural. Structural BMPs are 17 devices or features that minimize the introduction of pollutants (i.e., suspended solids) and help remove 18 pollutants from stormwater runoff before being discharged from the project site. Non-structural BMPs are 19 measures that reduce the generation or accumulation of pollutants and are sometimes referred to as 20 "source controls." BMPs and construction-related control measures would be specifically designed to 21 minimize water quality impacts during construction of the Proposed Project and would help ensure 22 stormwater discharges that are in compliance with applicable water quality standards. The Proposed 23 Project would require and implement project-specific BMPs. The development of BMPs for the Proposed 24 Project would incorporate regionally-accepted methods and practices for stormwater discharges 25 associated with airport construction activity (FDOT, 2005). Land development and construction guidance 26 provided in FAA AC 150/5370.10F, Standards for Specifying the Construction of Airports, would also be 27 incorporated into the project plans and specifications to reduce potential for erosion and minimize 28 construction-related impacts (FAA, 2011). Specific measures and practices that may be implemented are 29 discussed below. 30 Design Measures — The final design for the Proposed Project would consider, and include design 31 measures as appropriate, to minimize erosion potential and sediment transport. Measures may include, 32 but not be limited to, maintaining slopes that promote sheet flow and minimizing the limits of construction 33 to reduce exposed land. 34 Construction Sequencing and Erosion Control Measures — Construction sequencing and phasing 35 would be specified in the Proposed Project's final design plan. Construction sequencing is an effective 36 method to minimize erosion by reducing the amount of exposed land at any one time. In addition to 37 construction sequencing, erosion control measures further reduce the potential to exceed water quality 38 standards. These measures consist of reducing erosive effects of rain on exposed soils through the use 39 of temporary and permanent soil stabilization measures, stabilizing slopes, and re-establishing vegetation 40 to stabilize disturbed areas and reduce stormwater flow velocities. Common erosion control measures 5-78 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 that may be used during construction of the Proposed Project include mulching, sodding, and/or seeding 2 to stabilize exposed soils and establish ground cover. The Proposed Project would incorporate 3 construction sequencing and erosion control measures, as appropriate, to minimize exposed land and 4 erosion. 5 Structural Controls to Minimize Sediment Transport — The use of structural controls during 6 construction to minimize erosion and sediment transport would be further detailed in the Proposed 7 Project's final design plan. Structural controls are available and would be implemented as necessary to 8 maintain water quality. Potential water quality impacts may be minimized through the use of structural 9 controls that reduce stormwater velocities and allow settling of solids. Structural controls may include, but 10 not necessarily be limited to, staked hay bales, silt fences, and floating baffles in adjacent water bodies. 11 The reduction in velocity and/or detention of stormwater provided by these measures would allow 12 suspended solids, particularly sediment, to settle out of the runoff, and/or be limited to open waters 13 immediately adjacent to the construction area. The Proposed Project would include the use of structural 14 controls, as appropriate, to minimize erosion and sediment transport. 15 Pollution Prevention and Control — Project-specific pollution prevention and waste management plans 16 would also be developed and implemented to provide an effective means to address the storage, 17 handling, and disposal of fuels, lubricants, and other materials used in the construction of the Proposed 18 Project. The Proposed Project would include a requirement that the contractor prepare and implement a 19 project-specific SWPPP, a solid waste management plan, and a SPCC Plan documenting measures to 20 prevent accidental release to the environment, and should they occur, the response procedures and 21 corrective actions in place to minimize environmental impact. In addition, the contractor would be 22 required to comply with federal, state, and local hazardous materials/waste management regulations to 23 assure proper management of hazardous and other special waste streams for the Proposed Project. 24 Collectively, these erosion control measures, BMPs, and pollution prevention plans would be expected to 25 preclude substantial construction-related water quality impacts and substantially reduce the potential of 26 the Proposed Project to exceed applicable water quality standards. 27 Groundwater—The Proposed Project is not expected to alter or introduce new operational activities (i.e., 28 aircraft operations or aircraft maintenance) when compared to the No-Action Alternative. As such, the 29 potential for operational impacts to groundwater resources is considered to be negligible. There is a 30 possibility of the release of contaminants to groundwater during construction. However, project-specific 31 BMPs and SPCC Plans to be designed for the Proposed Project would prevent or minimize the potential 32 release of contaminants into groundwater. The BMPs and SPCC Plans would require measures to 33 prevent spills, provide swift response to accidental spills, and define acceptable on-site storage of fuel 34 and lubricants. Given the availability of regionally-accepted BMPs and the design of project-specific 35 plans, the Proposed Project is not expected to have a substantial impact on groundwater resources. 36 Potable Water— Because the Proposed Project is not expected to induce activity or increase the number 37 of passengers at MTH, the consumption of potable water associated with the Proposed Project is not 38 expected to be materially different from the No-Action Alternative. Given that no increase in the use of 5-79 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 potable water is attributed to the Proposed Project, no substantial impacts to supply or treatment systems 2 are expected. 3 There are no wellhead protection areas within the boundaries or in the immediate vicinity of MTH. Since 4 potable water is supplied to Florida Keys via a pipeline from the mainland, no impacts to wellhead 5 protection areas or drinking water wells is anticipated. Proposed Project would not require the relocation 6 or disturbance of public drinking water supply pipelines or local distribution systems. 7 Given the hydro-geological setting of MTH and the distance to the Biscayne aquifer recharge areas, the 8 construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not introduce contaminates to the Biscayne 9 aquifer recharge zones or pose a hazard to public health. Thus, no impacts to the sole source aquifer are 10 expected. 11 Wastewater— Because the Proposed Project is not expected to induce activity or increase the number of 12 passengers at MTH, the generation of wastewater is not expected to be different from the No-Action 13 Alternative. No impacts to local wastewater collection or treatments systems are expected. 14 5.16.3.3 Alternative 2 15 Surface Water Quality 16 Potential surface water quality concerns associated with Alternative 2 consist of sediment transport and 17 potential release of pollutants during the construction phase and increased stormwater runoff volumes 18 following project completion. Operational impacts are considered to be negligible. Surface water quality 19 impacts are discussed below. 20 Stormwater Treatment and Discharge —Alternative 2 would result in the construction of 13,100 square 21 yards of new impervious airfield pavement. Alternative 2 would, at a minimum, remove an equal amount 22 of existing taxiway pavement, resulting in a no net gain of impervious surface. 23 It is anticipated that run-off from the relocated taxiway would be treated adequately via overland flow and 24 in relocated swales that can easily be incorporated into the existing stormwater collection and treatment 25 system. As a result, no major drainage modifications at MTH would be required if the Alternative 2 was 26 implemented.. 27 Operational-Related Water Quality Impacts — From an operational standpoint, Alternative 2 would not 28 introduce or alter any activity with potential to generate new or higher levels of pollutants to surface 29 waters when compared to the No-Action Alternative. The alternative would not increase the number of 30 aircraft operations at MTH and would not alter the use of runways and taxiways on the airfield. Further, 31 Alternative 2 would not introduce new activities with potential environmental concerns. As such, the 32 characteristics of stormwater discharges are not expected to be materially different when compared to the 33 No-Action Alternative. No substantial impacts to water quality resulting from operational activities are 34 anticipated. 5-80 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 Construction-Related Water Quality Impacts — Construction activities are expected to include grading, 2 site preparation, excavation, minor drainage modifications, and paving. Approximately 12 acres of land 3 and existing paved surfaces would be disturbed by the construction of the shifted taxiway and is 4 associated taxiway safety area. These construction activities can cause erosion, increased turbidity and 5 sedimentation in water bodies. Since these activities would also involve the use of vehicles and 6 equipment, fuels and lubricants, and the storage of construction materials, there is a risk of release or 7 spills of construction-related hazardous materials or petroleum substances. In this regard, Alternative 2 8 has the potential to exceed applicable state water quality standards. Similar to the Proposed Project 9 discussed in Section 5.16.3.2, measures to minimize erosion and sedimentation and maintain water 10 quality throughout the construction phase are available and would be implemented for Alternative 2. 11 Design Measures — The final design for Alternative 2 would consider, and include design measures as 12 appropriate, to minimize erosion potential and sediment transport. Measures may include, but not be 13 limited to, maintaining slopes that promote sheet flow and minimizing the limits of construction to reduce 14 exposedland. 15 Construction Sequencing and Erosion Control Measures —Similar to the Proposed Project discussed 16 in Section 5.16.3.2, construction sequencing, construction phasing, and erosion control measures would 17 be specified in the final design plan as a method to minimize erosion. 18 Structural Controls to Minimize Sediment Transport—Alternative 2 would include the use of structural 19 controls, as appropriate, to minimize erosion and sediment transport. 20 Pollution Prevention and Control — Project-specific pollution prevention and waste management plans 21 would also be developed and implemented to provide an effective means to address the storage, 22 handling, and disposal of fuels, lubricants, and other materials used in the construction of Alternative 2. 23 In addition, the contractor would be required to comply with federal, state, and local hazardous 24 materials/waste management regulations to assure proper management of hazardous and other special 25 waste streams. 26 Collectively, these erosion control measures, BMPs, and pollution prevention plans would be expected to 27 preclude substantial construction-related water quality impacts and substantially reduce the potential of 28 Alternative 2 to exceed applicable water quality standards. 29 Groundwater — Alternative 2 is not expected to alter or introduce new operational activities (i.e., aircraft 30 operations or aircraft maintenance) when compared to the No-Action Alternative. As such, the potential 31 for operational impacts to groundwater resources is considered to be negligible. There is a possibility of 32 the release of contaminants to groundwater during construction. However, project-specific BMPs and 33 SPCC Plans to be designed for Alternative 2 would prevent or minimize the potential release of 34 contaminants into groundwater. Given the availability of regionally-accepted BMPs and the design of 35 project-specific plans, Alternative 2 is not expected to have a substantial impact on groundwater 36 resources. 5-81 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 Potable Water — Because Alternative 2 is not expected to induce activity or increase the number of 2 passengers at MTH, the consumption of potable water is not expected to be materially different from the 3 No-Action Alternative. No impacts to water supply or treatment systems are expected. 4 No impacts to wellhead protection areas or drinking water wells are anticipated. Alternative 2 would not 5 require the relocation or disturbance of public drinking water supply pipelines or local distribution systems. 6 Wastewater — Because Alternative 2 is not expected to induce activity or increase the number of 7 passengers at MTH, the generation of wastewater is not expected to be different from the No-Action 8 Alternative. No impacts to local wastewater collection or treatments systems are expected. 9 5.16.4 Permits 10 The following permits or certifications may apply to the Proposed Project: 11 0 The construction project requires authorization under a National Pollutant Discharge 12 Elimination System (NPDES) permit for non-point discharges associated with land 13 clearing and grading. 14 0 The Proposed Project will require a modification to the existing MTH storm water 15 permit. 16 0 The SFWMD will require an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP)to obtain 17 authority to impact mangrove wetlands. 18 0 Proposed modifications to jurisdictional wetlands and Waters of the United States 19 may require authorization from the USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 20 (CWA). 21 0 Local building and construction permits are required. 22 The following permits or certifications may apply to Alternative 2: 23 The construction project requires authorization under a National Pollutant Discharge 24 Elimination System (NPDES) permit for non-point discharges associated with land 25 clearing and grading. 26 Alternative 2 will require a modification to the existing MTH storm water permit. 27 Local building and construction permits are required. 28 5.16.5 Mitigation 29 No significant water quality impacts are expected. BMPs to control erosion, sedimentation, and pollution 30 would reduce the potential to exceed application water quality standards during construction. No formal 31 mitigation is required. 5-82 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 5.16.6 Cumulative Effects 2 Past and present development projects in Marathon have contributed to water quality impacts on and 3 adjacent to Vaca Key. Other reasonably foreseeable development projects could also result in temporary 4 and permanent impacts to water quality and potentially exceed applicable water quality standards. 5 Temporary impacts may result from land clearing, site disturbance, and grading associated with 6 construction activities. Temporary construction impacts could be minimized through use of project- 7 specific BMPs and applicable federal, state, and local construction mitigation guidelines. Permanent 8 water quality impacts could result from stormwater runoff from newly constructed impervious surfaces 9 associated with commercial and residential developments. Each development project would be expected 10 to comply with applicable state regulations that require on-site attenuation and treatment of stormwater. 11 Because land in the vicinity of MTH is largely built-out, the potential of the development project to 12 substantially increase stormwater discharges and generate considerable impacts is considered low. 13 Permanent impacts could also occur from those projects that attract new residents and/or visitors to 14 Marathon. Potential water quality impacts may result from increased activities on open waters (i.e., 15 boating and jet skiing), increased water consumption, and increased commercial and residential 16 wastewater treatment volumes. Programs are in place to minimize discharges from vessels in the open 17 waters adjoining Key West. Additionally, the City of Marathon and Monroe County have recently 18 completed upgrades and improvements to their wastewater collection infrastructure and treatment 19 facilities. 20 In summary, the cumulative development projects have potential to generate water quality impacts. 21 However, it is expected that existing programs, policies, and regulatory requirements would prevent 22 and/or minimize the potential water quality impacts to a level below a substantial impact. The limited 23 water quality impacts and minor change in impervious surface of the Proposed Project and Alternative 2, 24 when compared to potential impacts of other development projects, are not expected to lead to 25 substantial cumulative water quality impacts. 26 5.16.7 Significant Impact Thresholds 27 FAA Order 1050.1E states that if the EA and early consultation show that there is a potential for 28 exceeding water quality standards, identify water quality problems that cannot be avoided or satisfactorily 29 mitigated, or indicate difficulties in obtaining required permits, an EIS may be required. This statement 30 provides a threshold that can be used to determine if the potential impacts associated with the Proposed 31 Project or the Proposed Project would be considered significant or not. 32 As described previously, implementation of project-specific erosion control and pollution prevention 33 measures (i.e., structural BMPs, non-structural BMPs, and SPCC Plan) would minimize the potential for 34 substantial water quality impacts during construction. The amount of impervious surface at MTH would 35 be equal to or less than current conditions and would not increase run-off volumes at the airport. Further, 36 the neither the Proposed Project nor Alternative 2 would introduce any activity with potential to generate 37 new or higher levels of pollutants to surface waters. Given the nature of the proposed airfield 38 improvements considered in this EA, and use of project-specific erosion control and pollution prevention 39 measures, it is expected that water quality standards would not be exceeded. As discussed previously, 5-83 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 substantial cumulative water quality impacts are not expected. Since no substantial water quality impacts 2 are anticipated, no mitigation measures are proposed. 3 Early coordination of the Proposed Project with federal, state, and local regulatory agencies was 4 conducted at the outset of this EA. The early coordination effort did not identify any specific water quality 5 concerns, which could not be avoided or mitigated or indicate issues regarding the County's ability to 6 obtain necessary permits. 7 In consideration of the above information, the Proposed Project and Alternative 2 are not expected to 8 exceed thresholds indicating a significant impact. 9 5.17 WETLANDS 10 5.17.1 Overview of Impacts 11 The Proposed Project will require clearing of vegetation within approximately 0.66 acre of tidally 12 influenced and non-tidally influenced mangrove swamp. No fill or excavation would take place within the 13 wetlands. Although the impacts are not considered significant, mitigation is proposed to offset secondary 14 impacts associated with the loss of mangroves and the alteration of 0.66 acre of wetland habitat. 15 Alternative 2 will not impact wetlands. 16 5.17.2 Methodology 17 The presence of wetlands within the project impact area was assessed and potential impacts to wetlands 18 quantified using the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM), as described in Chapter 62-345, 19 F.A.C. UMAM provides a standardized procedure to be used by federal, state, and local regulatory 20 agencies for assessing the functions provided by wetlands and other surface waters, the amount that 21 those functions are reduced by a proposed impact, and the amount of mitigation necessary to offset that 22 loss. The wetland function indicators measured by UMAM include the following: 23 Location and Landscape Support (L&LS) 24 Water Environment (WE) 25 Community Structure: Vegetation and/or Benthic Community (CS) 26 Both the No-Action and Proposed Project were assessed using UMAM. The difference between the two 27 UMAM scores indicates the wetland impacts and net change in wetland functions. This, in turn, provides 28 guidance on determining potential mitigation requirements'. Actual mitigation requirements would only be determined after a joint permit application is submitted to the USACE and the SFWMD. However, use of the UMAM for this EA provides a reasonably close estimate of the anticipated mitigation required if the Proposed Project was implemented. 5-84 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 5.17.3 Impacts 2 5.17.3.1 No-Action Alternative 3 The No-Action Alternative assumes that no new facilities associated with the Proposed Project would be 4 constructed; consequently, there would be no impacts to wetlands or surface waters. 5 5.17.3.2 Proposed Project 6 Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in impacts to 0.14 acre of tidally-connected and 7 0.52 acre of isolated mangrove swamp for a total of 0.66 acre of impact (see Table 5.17-1). The impact 8 would result from clearing a 40-foot-wide strip of vegetation within the relocated ROFA. No grading, fill, or 9 excavation would take place in the cleared areas. The clearing of mangroves, will not result in a loss of 10 wetlands since only the woody vegetation will be removed from these areas. It is anticipated that the 11 wetlands will be converted from forested mangrove swamps to herbaceous saltwater marsh. 12 TABLE 5.17-1 13 WETLAND AND OTHER SURFACE WATER IMPACTS 14 FLUCFCS Description Code FWS Classification Acres of Impact Mangrove Swamp 612 E2FO3N - Estuarine, Intertidal, Forested, 0.14 (Tidal) Broad-leaved Evergreen, Regularly Flooded Mangrove Swamp 612 E2FP3P - Estuarine, Intertidal, Forested, 0.52 (Isolated) Broad-leaved Evergreen, Irregularly Flooded Total Wetland and Surface Water Impacts 0.66 15 Source: URS Corporation, 2010 16 Alternatives were evaluated for their ability to achieve the purpose and need of the project, overall 17 environmental impacts, and constructability and operational issues. See Chapter 3.0 of this EA, for a 18 detailed discussion of alternatives considered. No practicable alternative that avoided Waters of the 19 United States was identified. The Proposed Project minimizes impacts to the greatest extent practicable. 20 5.17.3.3 Alternative 2 21 Alternative 2 will not impact wetlands. 22 5.17.4 Potential Mitigation Measures 23 For the Proposed Project, proposed mitigation consists of removing approximately 0.5 acre of fill material 24 at the water's edge on a parcel of County-owned property located on Crawl Key. The area would be 25 replanted with native mangrove species. See Chapter 6.0 of this EA for a more detailed discussion of the 26 mitigation measures proposed to offset the loss of mangrove wetland habitat. 27 5.17.5 Cumulative Impacts 28 Vaca Key and the City of Marathon have experienced significant growth and development since the 29 1960s. This resulted in substantial wetland impacts, especially in areas filled for commercial and 5-85 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 residential development and excavated for canals. While the Proposed Project will result in impacts to 2 0.66 acre of existing wetland habitat through the clearing of mangrove vegetation, there would be no 3 filling or excavation that would destroy the wetlands. The proposed mitigation would be designed to 4 offset mangrove habitat loss. 5 While past and present development projects in the vicinity of MTH have resulted in a considerable 6 modification to the existing landscape and a reduction in wetlands, reasonably foreseeable projects are 7 not expected to generate substantial changes in natural habitats or result in an appreciable further 8 reduction in wetlands. Potential additional residential, commercial, and transportation developments 9 could result in additional impacts to wetlands; however, the net effect of these projects is expected to be 10 minimal and mitigation for these impacts would be required by both state and federal agencies. Required 11 mitigation would off-set these impacts and result in minimal to no overall impact to wetlands. 12 The 0.66-acre wetland habitat impact associated with the Proposed Project, when considered with past, 13 present and reasonably foreseeable wetland impacts, is not expected to lead to substantial cumulative 14 wetland impacts. Alternative 2 would not contribute to cumulative wetland impacts. 15 5.17.6 Comparison to Significant Impact Thresholds 16 In regards to the impact thresholds identified in FAA Order 1050.1 E, the following statements can be 17 made regarding the Proposed Project: 18 0 The Proposed Project would not adversely affect the function of wetlands to protect 19 the quality or quantity of municipal water supplies, including sole source, potable 20 water aquifers. 21 0 The Proposed Project would not alter the hydrology needed to sustain the functions 22 and values of the affected wetlands or any wetlands to which they are connected. 23 0 The Proposed Project would not reduce the affected wetlands' ability to retain 24 floodwaters or storm-associated runoff. Therefore, threats to public health, safety, 25 and welfare are not expected. 26 0 The Proposed Project would not adversely affect the maintenance of natural systems 27 that support wildlife and fish habitat or economically-important timber, food, or fiber 28 resources in the affected or surrounding wetlands. 29 0 The Proposed Project would not promote development of secondary activities or 30 services that would impact Waters of the United States or wetlands. 31 0 The Proposed Project would be consistent with applicable state wetland strategies. 32 Pursuant to federal and state wetlands regulations, impacts to wetlands have been 33 avoided to the greatest extent practicable and for those impacts which could not be 34 avoided, they were minimized. 35 Therefore, wetland impacts associated with the Proposed Project would not appear to exceed significant 36 threshold impacts. Alternative 2 would not impact wetlands. 37 5-86 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 CHAPTER 6.0 2 MITIGATION 3 6.1 INTRODUCTION 4 With the exception of short-term operational and economic impacts, the Proposed Project would not 5 result in significant environmental impacts. Alternative 2 and the No-Action Alternative would not result in 6 significant impacts. The following sections describe mitigation measures anticipated to be required by 7 Monroe County, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the South Florida Water 8 Management District (SFWMD), and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) related to clearing 9 mangrove habitat within wetland areas and tropical hardwood hammock habitat at Florida Keys Marathon 10 Airport (MTH). Other voluntary mitigation measures that would serve to reduce non-significant 11 environmental impacts are discussed in the Air Quality, Construction Impacts, and Water Quality sections 12 in Chapter 5.0 of this Environmental Assessment (EA). Mitigation measures to help minimize locally 13 significant operational and economic impacts during the construction phase of the Proposed Project are 14 also discussed. 15 6.2 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR TROPICAL HARDWOOD HAMMOCK IMPACTS 16 It is estimated that 1,012 mature trees would be cleared as a result of the Proposed Project. Pursuant to 17 Chapter 118-8(a) of the Monroe County Land Development Code, "The removal of any listed threatened, 18 endangered, commercially exploited, and regionally important native plant species and all native trees 19 with a Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) of greater than 4 inches shall require payment to the county 20 environmental land management and restoration fund in an amount sufficient to replace each removed 21 plant or tree on a 2:1 basis." Therefore, as a required mitigation measure for the proposed clearing 22 impacts to the native tropical hardwood hammock, a payment must be made to the county environmental 23 land management and restoration fund based on a 2:1 replacement cost of the trees and vegetation that 24 is removed from the site. The projected cost of the required contribution to the County Environmental 25 Land Management Fund, based on an estimated number of trees and cost data provided by County staff, 26 would be approximately $390,000. The County would, in turn, select an appropriate mitigation project(s) 27 to restore and conserve tropical hardwood hammock in the Florida Keys. 28 Prior to construction, the Airport Sponsor can also make select trees and plants within the tropical 29 hardwood hammock impact area available to public and private organizations for relocation to local and 30 regional habitat restoration sites. Select trees and plants may be relocated on-site. 31 6.3 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR UNAVOIDABLE WETLAND IMPACTS 32 The Proposed Project would result in the clearing of vegetation within 0.14 acre of tidally-connected 33 mangrove wetlands and 0.52 acre of isolated mangrove swamp. No fill or excavation would take place in 34 the wetlands. While these impacts do not appear to exceed significant impact thresholds under Federal 35 Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 1050.1 E, compensatory mitigation for mangrove habitat loss is 36 anticipated to be required under state and federal permits. Final mitigation measures would be defined at 6-1 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 a later date during the joint state and federal permit application process. However, the conceptual 2 wetland mitigation measures identified in this EA are considered adequate and customary for impacts 3 associated with the Proposed Project. 4 The proposed mitigation area is located on a 13-acre parcel of vacant land owned by Monroe County on 5 Crawl Key, approximately 4.3 miles east-northeast of MTH'. The parcel is undeveloped and partly 6 covered with forested uplands. The proposed mitigation area on this parcel is cleared and contains no 7 vegetation. Currently, it appears to be a limestone-based parking area as unpaved roads and vehicle 8 trails are obvious leading to and from this site. The bank of the proposed mitigation area is linear and 9 connects to the tidal waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Mangroves are currently growing along the shoreline 10 north and west of the proposed mitigation area. The purpose of the mitigation area is to create 0.5 acre 11 of new mangrove swamp to replace the mangrove wetland habitat that would be converted to salt marsh 12 habitat if the Proposed Project was implemented. The proposed mitigation area is shown on 13 Figures 6.3-1 and 6.3-2. 14 Although the joint permit application process has not been initiated and the final mitigation requirements 15 are not known, a conceptual mitigation approach was developed for this EA. In addition to removing 16 approximately 0.5 acre of fill material, mitigation would include planting mangroves in the excavated area. 17 It is proposed that the mitigation area be graded to elevations ranging from 0.0 feet to 2.0 feet above 18 mean sea level (MSL). If appropriate sediments remain after excavation and grading, the mitigation area 19 will be planted immediately. If non-suitable sediment (i.e., hard substrate) is present at the proposed 20 elevations, the site will be over-excavated to allow placement of at least 6 inches of a suitable soil 21 mixture, including organic material and sand. Approximately 700 red mangroves are proposed to be 22 planted between elevations 0.0 feet and 0.5 feet above MSL on 5-foot centers. Approximately 700 black 23 mangroves would be planted between elevations 0.5 feet and 1.5 feet above MSL on 5-foot centers. 24 Another 587 white mangroves would be planted between elevations 1.5 feet and 2.0 feet above MSL. 25 The planted areas would be connected to Gulf of Mexico waters and subject to tidal influence. 26 6.4 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR PROTECTED SPECIES IMPACTS 27 It is assumed that the mitigation proposed for clearing approximately 4.1 acres of hardwood hammock 28 and mitigation proposed for clearing 0.66 acre of mangrove wetland would provide suitable replacement 29 habitat for affected species that are federally-and/or state-listed. 30 Prior to construction, the Airport Sponsor will be required to survey the project impact area to determine 31 the presence of the Stock Island tree snail, and if needed, coordinate the relocation of present species 32 with appropriate state and/or federal agencies. If found to be present, mitigation may include relocation of 33 individual snails to adjoining habitat or other locations, as approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 34 (FWS). The construction of the Proposed Project, especially the land clearing phase, will also require use 35 of the Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern indigo snake and the standard construction 36 conditions for the smalltooth sawfish. FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5200-33, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports, recommends that wetland mitigation projects that may attract wildlife hazardous to aircraft operations be sited at least 10,000 feet from an airport serving turbine aircraft(FAA,2007b). 6-2 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport r. t tliu � 111ts i� rs tf}rtSrsttt� 4 art it S C� r� � { v k t � F _ ) ( t t — t v ik k 2 - g m FIGURE D {, r } 4 II^^II tir r!ri i II��II r ��t co d co Sat n} k - E > Ln ��n � � (0 kaa Ra l� �� ' 1} � C{r£ � � � ; ICI ri f ICI 1 r, ! }, 00 00 00 �s g, t Per r o � r 1OPQ FIGURE a 1 6.5 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT IMPACTS 2 Mitigation for the minor impacts to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) associated with the Proposed Project 3 would be incorporated into the mitigation for mangrove wetland habitat impacts discussed in Section 6.3 4 above. Mitigation for protected species impacts would be accomplished through the implementation of 5 Construction Conditions for the smalltooth sawfish. 6 6.6 MITIGATION MEASURES RELATED TO RUNWAY CLOSURE DURING CONSTRUCTION 7 Significant operational and economic impacts would occur at MTH during construction of the Proposed 8 Project. To reduce the impact of the closure of Runway 7/25 during construction of the Proposed Project, 9 mitigation measures may be identified during the Proposed Project's design to minimize the duration of 10 the runway closure. Other mitigation measures may include, but not be limited to, advance coordination 11 with airport businesses, aircraft owners, and airport users regarding the timing and duration of the runway 12 closure. 6_7 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 CHAPTER 7.0 2 COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 3 7.1 INTRODUCTION 4 Agency coordination and a public involvement program were implemented to ensure information 5 regarding the proposed airport development and potential environmental impact is made available to the 6 general public and public agencies and that input from interested parties is received and considered. The 7 primary components of the agency and public participation program for this Environmental Assessment 8 (EA) include: 9 0 Early agency coordination during the development of the Draft EA, 10 0 Publication of the Draft EA for public and public agency review, 11 0 Conducting a Public Information Workshop and Public Hearing, and 12 0 Public notice of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) decision of whether to 13 issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)or to prepare an Environmental 14 Impact Statement (EIS). 15 The following summarizes the public involvement and review process. 16 7.2 EARLY AGENCY COORDINATION 17 Federal, state, and local agencies and local governments were contacted to inform the agencies that an 18 EA was to be prepared, provide information on the Proposed Project, and to solicit information and 19 preliminary comments. Coordination was conducted for environmental issues having greatest potential 20 for impact and with agencies having specific regulatory authority. A copy of the early coordination letter 21 and list of recipients are contained in Appendix F-1 of this EA. Copies of response letters received during 22 this early coordination phase are contained in Appendix F-2. 23 7.3 PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING 24 A Public Information Meeting (PIM) was held on August 24, 2010 to inform interested parties about the 25 Proposed Project, preparation of the EA, preliminary alternatives, and planned environmental studies. 26 Another purpose of the PIM was to solicit input, information, and comments from the public and 27 government agencies. Notification of the hearing was accomplished through press releases and 28 advertisement in the local media. The format of the workshop was structured to provide an opportunity 29 for the public to discuss aspects of the environmental studies in an informal setting and an opportunity to 30 submit written and/or oral comments during the proceedings. The PIM was sparsely attended by the 31 public. No substantive comments were received at or after the PIM. No public controversy was noted. 7-1 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 7.4 DRAFT EA AVAILABILITY FOR REVIEW 2 This Draft EA will be available for review by the general public and interested parties from , 2013 3 through , 2013. Notification of the document's availability was accomplished through legal 4 advertisements in a newspaper of local circulation. This Draft EA document was made available for 5 review at the locations listed below. The Draft EA will also be available electronically for viewing or 6 download from Monroe County's web site at 7 Airport Manager's Office 8 Florida Keys Marathon Airport 9 9400 Overseas Highway 10 Marathon, FL 33050 11 12 Monroe County Public Library 13 Marathon Branch 14 3251 Overseas Highway 15 Marathon, FL 33050 16 17 Anyone wishing to comment on the information and conclusions in this Draft EA may do so at any time 18 during the advertised public review and comment period. All comments should be submitted to Florida 19 Keys Marathon Airport (MTH) management in written form to the following address: 20 Peter Horton 21 Airport Director 22 Key West International Airport 23 3491 S. Roosevelt Boulevard 24 Key West, Florida 33040 25 26 The Draft EA comment period will begin on , 2013 and will close on 2013. All comments 27 must be postmarked by , 2013. 28 7.5 LIST OF AGENCIES RECEIVING THE DRAFT EA 29 A list of agencies receiving a copy of this Draft EA is provided below. 30 FEDERAL 31 32 Chief 45 Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected 33 Regulatory Branch 46 Species 34 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 47 National Marine Fisheries Service 35 701 San Marco Boulevard 48 263 13th Avenue South 36 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 49 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 37 50 38 Regulatory Branch 51 Habitat Conservation Division 39 Miami Field Office 52 National Marine Fisheries Service 40 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 53 400 North Congress Avenue, Suite 120 41 11420 North Kendall Drive 54 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 42 Miami, FL 33176-1039 55 43 56 44 7-2 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 30 Chief, Environmental Services Staff 2 Region IV 31 Office of Trust Responsibilities 3 61 Forsyth Street, SW 32 Bureau of Indian Affairs— US DOI 4 Atlanta, GA 30303-8960 33 Room 4560, Interior Building 5 34 18th and C Street NW 6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 35 Washington, DC 20245-0001 7 Region IV 36 8 Post Office Box 500368 37 Division Administrator 9 Marathon, Florida 33050 38 Federal Highway Administration 10 39 545 John Knox Road, Suite 200 11 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 40 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 12 Vero Beach Ecological Service Office 41 13 1339 20th Street 42 Director 14 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 43 Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 15 44 U.S. Department of the Interior 16 Regional Environmental Officer 45 Main Interior Building, MS 2340 17 Federal Emergency Management Agency 46 1849 C. Street NW 18 Region 4 47 Washington, DC 20240 19 3003 Chamblee Tucker Road 48 20 Atlanta, GA 30341 49 Regional Director 21 50 Southeast Region 22 Director 51 National Park Service 23 Flood Insurance and Mitigation Division 52 100 Alabama St. SW 24 Federal Emergency Management Agency 53 1924 Building 25 Region IV 54 Atlanta, GA 30303 26 3003 Chamblee Tucker Road 55 27 Atlanta, GA 30341 56 Seventh District, Commander 28 57 U.S. Coast Guard 29 58 Brickell Plaza Federal Building 59 909 SE First Avenue 60 Miami, FL 33131-3028 61 62 STATE 63 64 Director 86 Aviation Program Administrator 65 South Florida Water Management District 87 District VI 66 3301 Gun Club Road 88 Florida Department of Transportation 67 West Palm Beach, FL 33406 89 1000 NW 111th Avenue, Room 6105 68 90 Miami, FL 33172 69 Supervisor 91 70 Natural Resources Management Dept. 92 Manager 71 South Florida Water Management District 93 Environmental Management Office 72 3301 Gun Club Road 94 Florida Dept. of Transportation, M.S. 37 73 West Palm Beach, FL 33406 95 602 Suwannee Street 74 96 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 75 Field Supervisor 97 76 South Florida Ecological Services Office 98 Federal-Aid Programs Coordinator 77 US Fish and Wildlife Service 99 Florida Department of Transportation 78 1339 20th Street 100 605 Suwannee Street, MS 46 79 Vero Beach, FL 32960-3559 101 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 80 102 81 FDOT State Aviation Manager 103 Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection 82 605 Suwannee Street, MS 46 104 Office of Intergovernmental Programs 83 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 105 State Clearinghouse 84 106 3900 Commonwealth Blvd., MS-47 85 107 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2900 108 7-3 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 Director 19 State Historic Preservation Officer 2 Water Resources Management 20 Division of Historical Resources 3 Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection 21 R.A. Gray Building 4 Twin Towers Office Building 22 500 S. Bronough Street 5 2600 Blair Stone Road 23 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 24 7 25 Office of the Secretary 8 Regional Director 26 Florida Department of Health 9 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 27 2585 Merchants Row Boulevard 10 Commission 28 Tallahassee, FL 11 South Region 29 12 8535 Northlake Boulevard 30 Commissioner of Agriculture 13 West Palm Beach, FL 33412 31 Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer 14 32 Services 15 Director 33 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 16 Department of Community Affairs 34 17 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard 35 18 Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 36 37 38 LOCAL 39 40 Monroe County Administrator 74 Dick Ramsay, Councilmember 41 1100 Simonton Street, Room 2-205 75 City of Marathon 42 Key West, FL 33040 76 9805 Overseas Highway 43 77 Marathon, FL 33050 44 Director 78 45 Monroe County Department of Planning and 79 Ginger Snead, Councilmember 46 Environmental Resources 80 City of Marathon 47 2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 400 81 9805 Overseas Highway 48 Marathon, Florida 33050 82 Marathon, FL 33050 49 83 50 Director 84 City Manager 51 Monroe County Growth Management Division 85 City of Marathon 52 2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 410 86 9805 Overseas Highway 53 Marathon, FL 33050 87 Marathon, FL 33050 54 88 55 Honorable Mike Cinque 89 Public Works Director 56 Mayor 90 City of Marathon 57 City of Marathon 91 9805 Overseas Highway 58 9805 Overseas Highway 92 Marathon, FL 33050 59 Marathon, FL 33050 93 60 94 Planning Director 61 Richard Keating, Vice Mayor 95 City of Marathon 62 City of Marathon 96 9805 Overseas Highway 63 9805 Overseas Highway 97 Marathon, FL 33050 64 Marathon, FL 33050 98 65 99 Marathon General Aviation 66 Chris Bull, Councilmember 100 9850 Overseas Highway 67 City of Marathon 101 Marathon, FL 33050 68 9805 Overseas Highway 102 69 Marathon, FL 33050 103 Marathon Jet Center 70 104 8800 Overseas Highway 71 105 Marathon, FL 33050 72 106 73 107 7-4 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 Executive Director 10 Manager 2 South Florida Regional Planning Council 11 Florida Keys Environmental Restoration Trust 3 3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 140 12 Fund 4 Hollywood, FL 33021 13 11400 Overseas Highway, Suite 204 5 14 Marathon, Florida 33050 6 Director 15 7 Greater Marathon Chamber of Commerce 16 8 12222 Overseas Highway 17 9 Marathon, Florida 33050 18 19 20 NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES 21 22 Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 23 34725 West Boundary Road 24 Clewiston, FL 33440 25 26 27 LIBRARIES 28 29 Marathon Library 30 3251 Overseas Highway 31 Marathon, FL 33050 32 7.5 PUBLIC HEARING 33 A combined Public Information Workshop and Public Hearing will be held from p.m. to p.m. 34 on , 2013 at the to present the results of the environmental studies and to receive 35 comments from the public and government agencies. Information, maps, and diagrams explaining the 36 Proposed Project and potential impacts to the environment will be available for inspection. Airport 37 representatives and their consultant will be on hand to discuss the Proposed Project and answer 38 questions. Comment forms and a Court Reporter will be available if you wish to submit comments during 39 the combined Public Information Workshop and Public Hearing. A formal presentation will not be made 40 and people may attend at any time between p.m. and _ p.m. Written comments may also be 41 submitted after the Public Information Workshop and Public Hearing. 42 Comments on the consideration of environmental, social, and economic impacts presented in the Draft 43 EA are encouraged. Also, any specific comments regarding the compatibility of the Proposed Project 44 with regard to historic resources, floodplains, and Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP) are 45 encouraged. Written comments should be directed to: Peter Horton, Airport Director, Key West 46 International Airport, 3491 S. Roosevelt Boulevard, Key West, Florida 33040. Comments should be 47 postmarked no later than 48 7_5 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 7.6 FINAL EA AVAILABILITY FOR REVIEW 2 This Draft EA will be revised as necessary to summarize and incorporate comments received during the 3 public and agency review period. Monroe County and the FAA will consider and address all pertinent 4 comments received from the general public, agencies, and organizations in development of the Final EA. 5 Summaries of comments received, responses, and any necessary revisions to the EA will be incorporated 6 into the Final EA. The Final EA will be submitted by Monroe County to the FAA for their review and 7 determination of whether to issue a FONSI or to prepare an EIS. 8 7_6 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 CHAPTER 8.0 2 LIST OF PREPARERS 3 8.1 LIST OF PREPARERS 4 As required by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 5050.4B, the names and qualifications of the 5 principal persons contributing information to this Environmental Assessment (EA) are identified. It should 6 be noted, in accordance with Section 1502.6 of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, 7 the efforts of an interdisciplinary team, consisting of technicians and experts in various fields, were 8 required to accomplish this study. Specialists involved in this EA included those in such fields as airport 9 planning, biology, historic/archaeological, water resources, and other disciplines. 10 AIRPORT SPONSOR 11 Peter Horton — Monroe County Director of Aviation 12 James R. Paros—Airport Manager (retired), Florida Keys Marathon Airport 13 URS CORPORATION - PRIME CONSULTANT 14 Peter Green, AICP — Project Manager. B.S. Environmental Resource Management & Planning, MPA 15 Public Administration/Coastal Zone Studies, 24 years of experience in environmental assessment and 16 impact analysis. Responsibilities include project management, agency and public coordination, 17 environmental and aviation planning, environmental impact analyses, and technical writing. 18 William Fehring Ph.D. — PhD Ecology, 37 years of experience in environmental assessment and impact 19 analysis. Responsible for initial project management, administration, and coordination, environmental 20 and aviation planning, environmental impact analyses, and technical writing. 21 Russell P. Forrest, GISP— Deputy Project Manager. B.A. Zoology; M.S. Environmental Engineering. 29 22 years of experience. Responsibilities project management and coordination, public involvement, 23 environmental impact analysis, and document production. 24 Paul Behrens — Quality Assurance. MS Biology, B.S. Marine Science, 31 years of experience in 25 environmental assessment and impact analyses. Responsible for quality assurance. 26 Marvin Brown — Senior Architectural Historian and Historian. B.A. and M.A. American Civilization, J.D. 27 Law, 29 years experience. Responsible for cultural resources impact assessment. 28 Daniel Cassedy — Archaeologist. Ph.D., M.A., and B.A. in Anthropology, 31 years of experience. 29 Responsible for archaeological evaluation. 30 Daniel Botto—Senior Airport Environmental Planner. B.S. Aviation Business Administration, 16 years of 31 experience. Responsible for noise modeling, noise impact analysis, and technical writing. 8-1 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 Hans Dorries — Airport Environmental Planner. M.B.A., M.S. Aviation Airport Development and 2 Management, 15 years experience. Responsible for noise modeling. 3 Terry Cartwright — Environmental Scientist. BS, Forest Resources & Conservation. 16 years of 4 experience. Responsible for field investigations, biological assessments, mitigation strategies, and 5 technical writing. 6 Ted Murray— Environmental Scientist. M.A. Public Administration, B.S. Forest Management, 19 years of 7 experience. Responsible for field investigations and assessment of wetlands, biotic communities, and 8 endangered species. 9 Keith Stannard — B.S. Biological Sciences, 16 years experience. Assistance with wetland field 10 investigations and delineations. 11 Mike Breiner — A.S. in Fish and Wildlife, 26 years experience. Assistance with wetland delineations, 12 functional analyses, and biotic community mapping. 13 Robert Johnson, PE — Project Engineer. B.S. Environmental Engineering, 30 years of experience. 14 Responsibilities include evaluation of water quality impacts and floodplain impacts. 15 Robert Morris — Senior CAD Specialist. 21 years experience. Responsible for CAD, project drawings, 16 and analysis. 17 Dale Edgar — GIS Analyst. B.A. Geography, 10 years of experience. Responsibilities include GIS 18 mapping, database development, and data analysis. 19 Lindsay Herman — Document Specialist. 10 years of experience. Responsible for the overall document 20 production including word processing, editing, and assembly. 8_2 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 CHAPTER 9.0 2 REFERENCES 3 Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act, as amended. U.S.C. 1966. Vol. 16 §469 et. seq. 4 ASTM, 2005. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) El527-05, Standard Practice for 5 Environmental Site Assessments:Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. November 6 1, 2005. 7 Census, 1990. 1990 CHP-2-1:1990 Census of Population and Housing. 8 Census, 2010. American FactFinder Monroe County, Florida. Profile of General Population and Housing 9 Characteristics, 2010. http://factfinder.census.gov accessed March 18, 2013. 10 Census, 2013. American FactFinder Monroe County, Florida. 2007-2011 American Community Survey 11 (ACS)5-Year Estimates. http://factfinder.census.gov accessed April 30, 2013. 12 Clean Air Act, as amended. U.S.C. 1990. Vol. 42 §7401. 13 Clean Water Act, as amended. U.S.C. 1977. Vol. 33 §1251 et seq. (1992). 14 Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982, as amended. Public Law 97-348. 97th Congress, 2nd session. 15 January 25. 16 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. U.S.C. 1972. Vol. 16 §1451 et seq. (1988). 17 Cowardin et al., 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish 18 and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. (FWS/OBS 79/31) By L. Cowardin, V. Carter, F. 19 Golet, and E. LaRoe. U.S. Government Printing Office. December 1979. 20 Day, et al., 1989. Estuarine Ecology. John W. Day, Jr., Charles A. S. Hall, W. Michael Kemp, and 21 Alejandro Yanez-Arancibia. Wiley- Interscience Publications. 1989. 22 Department of Transportation Act, as amended. U.S.C. Vol. 49 § 303(c). 23 Endangered Species Act, as amended. U.S.C. Vol. 16 § 1531 et seq. (1973). 24 EPA, 2013. The Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. EPA Web Site, 25 http://epa.gov/airguality/greenbk/and http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.htmi. Accessed March 2013. 26 FAA et. al., 1997. Air Quality Procedures for Civilian Airports and Air Force Bases. Federal Aviation 27 Administration; EEA, Inc.; and CSSI, Inc. FAA-AEE-97-03. April 1997. 28 FAA, 2007. Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On and Near Airports. Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B. 29 Federal Aviation Administration. August 28, 2007. 9-1 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 FAA, 2011. Standards for Specifying the Construction of Airports. Advisory Circular 150/5370-10F, 2 Federal Aviation Administration. September 30, 2011. 3 FAA, 2012a. APO Terminal Area Forecast Detail Report—Florida Keys Marathon Airport. Federal 4 Aviation Administration. Issued January, 2012. 5 FAA, 2012b. Airport Design. Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A. Federal Aviation Administration. 6 September 28, 2012. 7 FDEP, 2011. Factsheet About Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW). Florida Department of Environmental 8 Protection, Standards and Assessment. Tallahassee, Florida. April 2011. 9 FDEP, 2012. Florida Coastal Management Program Guide. Florida Department of Environmental 10 Management. Updated February 2012. 11 FDEP, 2013a. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Solid Waste Facility Inventory Report, 12 March 21, 2013. 13 http://appprod.dep.state.fl.us/WWW WACS/Reports/SW Facility Inventory srch.asp 14 FDEP, 2013b. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tank Facility—All Locations &Owner 15 Information (by County). Accessed on March 21, 2013. 16 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick topics/database reports/pages/stcm/storagetank reports. 17 htm. 18 FDEP, 2013c. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tank Facility Discharge information (by 19 County). Accessed on March 21, 2013. 20 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick topics/database reports/pages/stcm/storagetank/stcm di. 21 htm. 22 FDOT, 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System Handbook. Florida Department 23 of Transportation, Surveying and Mapping Geographic Mapping Section. January 1999. 24 FDOT, 2005. Florida Airports Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual. Statewide Airport 25 Stormwater Study. Florida Department of Transportation. June 2005. 26 FEMA, 2005. Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Flood Insurance Program, Flood 27 Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Monroe County, Florida and Incorporated Areas. City of Marathon, 28 Panel 1381 of 1585. Map Number 10287C1381 K (revised February 18, 2005). 29 FKAA, 2011. Annual Water Quality Report—Reporting Year 2011. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority. 30 PWS ID#4134357, 5444047. 31 FWC, 2004. Conceptual Management Plan for the Florida Keys Wildlife and Environmental Area, 2004— 32 2014. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Tallahassee, Florida. January 6, 33 2004. 9-2 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 FWS, 2010. Biological Opinion (BO) for the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency 2 Management Agency's (FEMA)Administration of the National Flood Insurance Program. United 3 States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. April 30, 2010. FWS/R4/ES. 4 Keith and Schnars, 2011. Monroe County 2010-2030 Population Projections. Keith and Schnars, PA and 5 Fishkind Associates. March 15, 2011. 6 Mackenzie, 1990. Water-Resources Potential of the Freshwater Lens at Key West, Florida. D.J. 7 Mackenzie. U.S. Geological Survey. Water Resources Investigation Report, 90-4115, 24 pp. 8 Marathon, 2005. City of Marathon Comprehensive Plan. Adopted March 8, 2005. 9 Marathon, 2009. Code of Ordinances, City of Marathon, Florida. http://library.municode.com/ 10 index.aspx?clientld=13811. Accessed on March 13, 2013. 11 Marathon, 2005. City of Marathon Comprehensive Plan. Adopted March 8, 2005. 12 Monroe County, 2010. Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan -Policy Document. Revised 13 January 27, 2010. 14 Monroe County, 2013. Monroe County Property Appraiser. MCPA GIS Public Portal web site. 15 http://www.mcpafl.org/monroe. 16 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended. U.S.C. 1969. Vol. 42§4321 et seq. 17 (1988). 18 National Historic Preservation Act, as amended. U.S.C. 1966. Vol. 16§470 et seq. 19 Snyder, et al., 1990. "South Florida Rockland," Ecosystems of Florida. Snyder, J.R., A. Herndon, and 20 W.B. Robertson, Jr. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando. 1990. Pages 230-280. 21 URS, 2013. Biological Assessment for Runway 7125 Relocation, Florida Keys Marathon Airport, Monroe 22 County, Florida. Monroe County Board of County Commissioners. Prepared by URS Corporation 23 April 2013. 24 USGS, 2010. Geology and Hydrology of the Florida Keys. By Robert B. Halley, H.L. Vacher, and 25 Eugene A. Shinn. US Geological Survey. 26 http://sofia.usgs.gov/publications/papers/keys geohydro/index.html 27 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended. U.S.C. 1968. Vol. 16 §1271 et seq. (1988). 28 9-3 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 CHAPTER 10.0 2 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND GLOSSARY 10.1 LIST OF ACRONYMS 5 A 53 CWA Clean Water Act /`1 54 CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 6 55 of 1972 7 AAC Aircraft Approach Category 56 8 AC Advisory Circular 57 9 ACHP Advisory Council on Historic 10 Preservation 58 11 ACS American Community Survey 59 dB(A) Decibels (A-weighted) 12 ADG Airplane Design Group 60 DBH Diameter at Breast Height 13 AIP Airport Improvement Program 61 DNL Day/Night Average Sound Level 14 ALP Airport Layout Plan 62 DOT Department of Transportation 15 AOA Air Operations Area 63 DSA Detailed Study Area 16 APE Area of Potential Effect 64 E 17 ARC Airport Reference Code 18 ASL Above sea level 65 19 ASTM American Society for Testing 66 EA Environmental Assessment 20 and Materials 67 ECHO Enforcement and Compliance 21 ASTRP Abandoned Storage Tank 68 History Online (EPA) 22 Restoration Program 69 EDI Early Detection Incentive 23 70 EDR Environmental Data Resources 24 B 71 EFH Essential Fish Habitat 72 EIS Environmental Impact 25 73 Statement 26 BA Biological Assessment 74 EMAS Engineered Materials Arresting 27 BEBR Bureau of Economic and 75 System 28 Business Research 76 EPA U.S. Environmental Protection 29 BMP Best Management Practice 77 Agency 30 BOCC Board of County Commissioners 78 ERP Environmental Resource Permit 31 BSA Biological Study Area 79 ESA Endangered Species Act of 32 80 1973 33 C 81 34 82 F 35 CAA Clean Air Act 83 36 CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments of 84 FAA Federal Aviation Administration 37 1990 85 F.A.C. Florida Administrative Code 38 CBRA Coastal Barrier Resource Act 86 FAR Federal Aviation Regulations 39 CBRS Coastal Barrier Resource 87 FBO Fixed Based Operator 40 System 88 FCMP Florida Coastal Management 41 CCCL Coastal Construction Control 89 Program 42 Line 90 FDA Florida Department of 43 CEQ Council on Environmental 91 Agriculture 44 Quality 92 FDEP Florida Department of 45 CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental 93 Environmental Protection 46 Response, Compensation, and 94 FDHR Florida Division of Historic 47 Reauthorization Act 95 Resources 48 CESQG Conditionally Exempt Small 96 FDOT Florida Department of 49 Quantity Generator 97 Transportation 50 CFR Code of Federal Regulations 98 FEMA Federal Emergency 51 CO Carbon Monoxide 99 Management Agency 52 CS Community Structure 100 FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map 10-1 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 FKAA Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority 53 MTH Florida Keys Marathon Airport 2 FKNMS Florida Keys National Marine 54 3 Sanctuary 55 N 4 FLUCFCS Florida Land Use Cover and 5 Forms Classification System 56 6 FNAI Florida Natural Areas Inventory 57 NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 7 FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 58 Standards 8 FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act 59 NAVAIDS Navigational Aids 9 F.S. Florida Statutes 60 NCP Noise Compatibility Program 10 FWC Florida Fish and Wildlife 61 NEPA National Environmental Policy 11 Conservation Commission 62 Act of 1969 12 FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 63 NFIP National Flood Insurance 13 64 Program 65 NHPA National Historic Preservation 14 G 66 Act of 1966 15 67 NM Nautical miles 16 GIS Geographic Information System 68 NMFS National Marine Fisheries 17 GMFMC Gulf of Mexico Fishery 69 Service 18 Management Council 70 NOAA National Oceanic and 19 GSA Generalized Study Area 71 Atmospheric Administration 20 72 NOX Nitrogen Oxide 21 u 73 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge I�I 74 Elimination System 22 75 NPL National Priority List 23 76 NRC National Response Center 24 HAPC Habitat Area of Particular 77 NRCS Natural Resources 25 Concern 78 Conservation Service 26 HMTA Hazardous Materials 79 NRHP/NR National Register of Historic 27 Transportation Act 80 Places 28 81 29 82 O 30 83 31 INM Integrated Noise Model 84 03 Ozone 32 85 OFW Outstanding Florida Waters 33 K 86 34 87 P 35 KWIA Key West International Airport 88 36 89 PAPI Precision Approach Path 37 L 90 Indicator 38 91 Pb Lead 39 L&LS Location and Landscape 92 PFC Passenger Facility Charges 40 Support 93 PIM Public Information Meeting 41 LUST Leaking Underground Storage 94 PM Particulate Matter 42 Tank 95 ppb parts per billion 43 LOS Level of Service 96 ppm parts per million 44 LWCF Land and Water Conservation 97 45 Fund Act 98 R 46 gg 47 M 100 RCRA Resource Conservation and 48 101 Recovery Act 49 MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 102 RDC Runway Design Code 50 MHWL Mean High Water Line 103 REIL Runway End Identifier Lights 51 MSL Mean sea level 104 ROFA Runway Object Free Area 52 MSW Municipal Solid Waste 105 ROFZ Runway Object Free Zone 106 RSA Runway Safety Area 10-2 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 20 THPO Tribal Historic Preservation 2 S 21 Officer `7 22 TOFA Taxiway Object Free 3 23 TSA Taxiway Safety Area 4 SAFMC South Atlantic Fishery 24 TSD Treatment, storage, and 5 Management Council 25 disposal 6 SFWMD South Florida Water 26 7 Management District 8 SHPO State Historic Preservation 27 9 Officer 28 10 SIP State Implementation Plan 29 pg/m3 Micrograms per Cubic Meter 11 SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 30 UMAM Uniform Mitigation Assessment 12 SPCC Spill Prevention, Control and 31 Method 13 Countermeasure Plan 32 USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 14 SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention 33 U.S.C. United States Code 15 Plan 34 16 35 17 T 36 W 18 37 19 TAF Terminal Area Forecast 38 WE Water Environment 39 10.2 GLOSSARY OF TERMS 40 A partial glossary of terms used in this EA is provided below. The definitions are not to be taken as 41 comprehensive, but solely to aid the non-technical reader. 42 Air Carrier - An airline that provides air transport services for passengers and/or freight. The airline 43 generally operates with a recognized operating certificate or license. 44 Airport Layout Plan (ALP) - A scaled drawing of existing and proposed land and facilities necessary 45 for the operation and development of the airport. The ALP shows boundaries and proposed additions 46 to all areas owned or controlled by the airport operator for airport purposes, the location and nature of 47 existing and proposed replacement airport facilities and structures, and the location on the airport of 48 existing and proposed non-aviation areas and improvements thereon. 49 Aircraft Operation —An aircraft take-off(departure)or a landing (arrival) conducted at an airport. 50 Airport Reference Code (ARC) - A coding system used to relate airport design criteria to the 51 operational and physical characteristics of a design aircraft (typically the most demanding) intended 52 to operate at the airport. 53 Airspace - the portion of the atmosphere controlled by a particular country over its territory and 54 territorial waters. Controlled airspace exists where air traffic control is exercised over aircraft flying in 55 that airspace. Uncontrolled airspace is airspace in which air traffic control does not exert control, 56 though it may act in an advisory manner. Sections of airspace may be designated restricted and/or 57 prohibit certain aeronautical activities. 58 Approach Lighting Systems (ALS) - A series of lights that assists the pilot when aligning aircraft with 59 the extended runway centerline on final approach at night or during periods of inclement weather. 10-3 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 Avigation Easement - An easement for certain property rights related to aircraft overflights, including 2 the right to generate noise. In addition, such an agreement usually restricts the property owner from 3 obstructing airspace or an approach to a runway. 4 Base Floodplain - That area subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year 5 (i.e., the 100-year floodplain). 6 Best Management Practices (BMP) - Methods employed during construction and included in the 7 development for ensuring environmental management to the greatest possible extent. 8 Biotic Communities - A group of interdependent organisms (i.e., plants, mammals, birds, reptiles, 9 amphibians, fish, and invertebrates) inhabiting the same area or region and interacting with each 10 other, usually comprising or inhabiting distinct habitat types. 11 Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA) - An ambient air pollution control strategy based on the 12 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and a provision that individual states would develop 13 implementation plans to meet and maintain the standards. 14 Coastal Zone Management - Under the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act(CZMA), the State of 15 Florida reviews Federal actions in light provides for preservation, protection, development, and 16 restoration of the nation's coastal zones. The entire State of Florida is subject to the provisions of this 17 Act. 18 Compatible Land Use - Compatibility of existing and planned land uses in the vicinity of an airport is 19 usually related to the noise impacts associated with the operation of an airport. Evaluation consists of 20 assuring that proper zoning or other land use controls are being undertaken, to ensure compatible 21 development near the site. 22 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations - Regulations that implement the National 23 Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 24 Cultural Resources - Cultural resources include historic, historic architectural, and archaeological 25 resources (including prehistoric or historic sites, districts, buildings, structures, or objects), which have 26 been listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 27 Cumulative Impacts - Cumulative impacts are considered the incremental effect of an action when 28 added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 29 Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) - DNL is the 24-hour average sound level in decibels using 30 the A-weighted scale (dBA). This average is derived from all aircraft operations during a 24-hour 31 period representing an average annual operational day. 32 Decibel (dB) - A unit of noise level representing a relative quantity. This reference value is a sound 33 pressure of 20 micronewtons per square meter. 34 Dependent Instrument Approaches - allow aircraft to approach parallel runways, but controllers must 35 ensure a minimum separation from aircraft on the adjacent approach path (diagonal spacing) in 10-4 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 addition to maintaining standard separation behind aircraft on the same approach path (in-trail 2 spacing). Aircraft may not pass or be passed once they are established on their approaches. All 3 standards require a 1000-foot vertical separation until established on the appropriate approach path. 4 Individual controllers are not required for each runway, nor are discrete communications frequencies 5 required for each runway (Mitre Corporation, 2006). 6 Design Aircraft - The most critical aircraft type currently using, or projected to use, an airport. It can 7 either be one aircraft or a group of aircraft. 8 Department of Transportation (DOT) Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Lands - Section 4(f) provides that 9 the Secretary of Transportation will not approve any program or project that requires use of any 10 publicly-owned land from a park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or 11 local significance, or land from a historic site of national, state, or local significance, unless there is no 12 feasible and prudent alternative. The project must include all possible measures to minimize harm 13 resulting from the use. 14 Environmental Assessment (EA) -A concise document that assesses the environmental impacts of a 15 proposed federal action. It discusses the need for, and environmental impacts of, the proposed 16 federal actions and alternatives. An EA provides sufficient evidence and analysis for a Federal 17 determination whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or issue a Finding of No 18 Significant Impact (FONSI). 19 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) - A detailed, concise document that provides a discussion of 20 the significant environmental impacts which would occur as a result of a proposed Federal action, and 21 informs decision-makers and the public of alternatives which would avoid or minimize adverse 22 impacts. 23 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) - FAA is the Federal agency responsible for ensuring the safe 24 and efficient use of the nation's airspace, for developing civil aeronautics and air commerce, and for 25 supporting the requirements of national defense. 26 Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) - Series of rules and regulations administered by the FAA that 27 govern the operation, maintenance, construction, acquisition, etc. of airports, aircraft, and associated 28 aviation activities. 29 Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) -A FONSI is a document briefly explaining the reasons why 30 an action would not have a significant effect on the human environment and for which an EIS, 31 therefore, is not necessary. 32 Fixed Based Operator (FBO) - An FBO is the primary provider of services to general aviation (GA) 33 aircraft and operators at an airport. An FBO may be a private enterprise, municipality, or airport- 34 owner operated. Multiple FBOs may be located at an airport. 35 Fleet Mix-The mix or differing types of aircraft operating in a particular environment. 36 Flight Tracks - The use of established routes for arrival and departure by aircraft to and from the 37 runways at the airport. 10-5 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 General Aviation (GA) - GA includes all facets of aeronautical activity except for those carriers 2 certified by the U.S. ODT to provide commercial passenger and air cargo service. GA activities 3 includes corporate aviation, recreational and sport flying, flight training, aerial application flights (crop 4 dusting), aerial mapping, and air ambulance flights. 5 Geographic Information Systems (GIS) - An information system that is designed for storing, 6 integrating, manipulating, analyzing, and displaying data referenced by spatial or geographic 7 coordinates. 8 Hazardous Materials - For the purposes of this FEIS, hazardous materials includes regulated 9 hazardous wastes, hazardous substances, and dangerous goods; environmental contamination to 10 soil, surface waters, and groundwater; as well the range of similarly regulated substances such as 11 fuel and other petroleum-based products commonly associated with airports. 12 Independent Instrument Approaches - Simultaneous approaches to parallel or near-parallel 13 instrument runways where radar separation minima between aircraft on adjacent extended runway 14 center lines are not prescribed. 15 Instrument Approach Procedures OAP) — An instrument approach procedure is a defined method of 16 air navigation that allow a pilot to land an aircraft on a particular runway in instrument meteorological 17 conditions (IMC) (reduced visibility)or to reach visual conditions permitting a visual landing. The FAA 18 develops and publishes IAPs for airports in the U.S. Approaches are classified as either precision or 19 nonprecision, depending on the accuracy and capabilities of the navigation aids used. 20 Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) - An aviation flight category that describes weather 21 conditions that normally require pilots to fly primarily by reference to instruments and, therefore, under 22 Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), rather than by outside visual references under Visual Flight Rules 23 (VFR). 24 Land Use Compatibility - The ability of land uses surrounding the airport to co-exist with airport- 25 related activities with minimum conflict. 26 Local Operation —An aircraft flight that begins and ends at the same airport. 27 Mean Sea Level (MSL) - The average height of the surface of the sea for all stages of the tide; used 28 as a reference for elevations; also called sea level datum. 29 Mitigation Measures — Action taken to reduce or eliminate environmental impacts of a proposed 30 action. 31 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) - Standards established by the U.S. Environmental 32 Protection Agency (EPA) used for protecting and improving air quality. 33 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) - The original legislation establishing the 34 environmental review process for proposed Federal actions. 10-6 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) —This legislation requires that projects that occur 2 on Federal lands, are funded by Federal monies, or that require a Federally-issued permit, be 3 evaluated for their impacts to historic properties. 4 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) - Federal permit required by the EPA for 5 point source and non-point source stormwater discharges. 6 Navigational Aids (NAVAIDs)-Any facility used by an aircraft for navigation. 7 Operation -A take-off or landing by an aircraft. 8 Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) System - a stanchion mounted, directional, high intensity, 9 upward angled, two-color light system producing a bi-color split beam: white above and red below. 10 Record of Decision (ROD) - The ROD is a concise public record that states FAA official's decision 11 and rationale for approving or not approving a proposed action. 12 Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL) - Two synchronized flashing lights, one on each side of the 13 runway threshold, which identify the approach end of the runway. 14 Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) - An area, trapezoidal in shape and centered about the extended 15 runway centerline, designated to enhance the safety of aircraft operations. It begins 200 feet beyond 16 the end of the area usable for take-off or landing. The RPZ dimensions are functions of the aircraft, 17 type of operation, and visibility minimums. 18 Runway Safety Area (RSA) - A defined surface surrounding the runway prepared or suitable for 19 reducing the risk or damage to airplanes in the event of an undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from 20 the runway. 21 Scoping -The Scoping process is the initial step in the preparation of an EIS. As a part of the scoping 22 process, formal Scoping meetings are held to obtain input from agencies and the public as to the 23 scope of studies conducted for the EIS and to identify issues of concern. 24 Simultaneous Approaches — approaches that allow aircraft to approach runways independently of 25 adjacent parallel runways. Aircraft may pass or be passed by aircraft on the adjacent approach path, 26 but must maintain standard separation behind aircraft on the same approach path. 27 Social Impacts - Social impacts are those generally associated with property acquisition or relocation, 28 changes to surface transportation, or other community disruptions that may be caused by airport 29 development. 30 Socioeconomic Impacts - Patterns of population movement and growth, public service demands, and 31 changes in business and economic activity may be affected by airport development. 32 Visual Flight Rules (VFR) - A set of regulations which allow a pilot to operate an aircraft in weather 33 conditions generally clear enough to allow the pilot to see where the aircraft is going. Specifically, the 10-7 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport 1 weather must be better than basic VFR weather minimums, as published for an airport. If the weather 2 is worse than VFR minimums, pilots are required to use IFR. 3 Wetlands - Those areas that are influenced by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration 4 sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. 5 Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. 10-8 Draft Environmental Assessment Florida Keys Marathon Airport APPENDIX A AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN (ALP) DRAWING This appendix contains the Airport Layout Plan Drawing for the Florida Keys Marathon Airport. VGIUOI=l 'NOHIVUVW — lUOdUIV NOHIVUVW SA351 VCIIUOI=l 3HI SINviinSNOO-mm3N30 vaiuol=l 'A.LNnoo 3OHNOW SU3NOISSIWWOO — DNIA&VHa iLnoAvi 1HOdbliV A-LNnoo =io auvog IdO=l G3HVd3Hd `.�£� l �i �i F .,een C Iz 0 R X n V EA .90 H AM, U0, 4 El !, Nvh L, L. 0 oi�ll M, &9 0 CL U L Po LL 0 0 % w C, 0 2� 2 S HI, 7 EL, 7 08,�a .......... 7 > PIL TT T I ff asp M P" Q oD dL APPENDIX B AIRCRAFT NOISE, NOISE METRICS, AND THE INTEGRATED NOISE MODEL Appendix B describes the various common noise metrics and human perceptions. It also describes the Integrated Noise Model (INM), and its required inputs. APPENDIX B AIRCRAFT NOISE, NOISE METRICS, AND THE INTEGRATED NOISE MODEL B-1 AIRCRAFT NOISE Aircraft noise originates from the engines as well as the airframe or structure of aircraft. The engines are generally the most significant source of noise. While noise generated by propeller-driven aircraft can be annoying, jet aircraft are commonly the source of disturbing noise at airports. Two basic types of jet aircraft are operated today equipped with turbofan or turbojet engines. Aircraft flying faster than the speed of sound generate an intense pressure wave called a sonic boom, in addition to the propulsion and airframe noise. Turbofan engines produce thrust as reaction to the rate at which high-velocity gas is exhausted from nozzles. The engine core consists of a compressor, combustion chambers, a turbine and a front fan. The major sources of noise include the core engine fan streams, the compressor, turbine blades and exhaust nozzles. In comparison, turbojet aircraft do not have the front fan component. It has been found in several cases that the sound energy produced by a turbojet engine is greater than that of a turbofan engine with an equivalent thrust rating. The noise produced by jet aircraft flyovers is characterized by an increase in sound energy as the aircraft approaches, up to a maximum level. This sound level begins to lessen as the aircraft passes overhead and then decreases in a series of lesser peaks as the aircraft departs the area. Noise produced by propeller driven aircraft and helicopters emanates from the blades and rotors. There are two components of this noise, namely vortex and periodic. Vortex noise is generated by the formation and shedding of vortices in the airflow past the blade. Periodic noise is produced by the oscillating pressure field in the air that results from the passage of air past the blade. Blade slap is an additional source of noise in helicopters. This is high-amplitude periodic noise and highly modulated vortex noise caused by fluctuating forces as one blade cuts through the tip vortices of another. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis Page B-1 tMS B-2 AIRCRAFT NOISE TERMINOLOGY The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) uses a variety of noise metrics to assess potential airport noise impacts. Different noise metrics can be used to describe individual noise events (e.g., a single operation of an aircraft taking off overhead) or groups of events (e.g., the cumulative effect of numerous aircraft operations, the collection of which creates a general noise environment or overall exposure level). Both types of descriptors are helpful in explaining how people tend to respond to a given noise condition. Descriptions of the metrics used in this Part 150 Study are provided in the following text. Decibel, dB — Sound is a complex physical phenomenon consisting of many minute vibrations traveling through a medium, such as air. The human ear senses these vibrations as sound pressure. Because of the vast range of sound pressure or intensity detectable by the human ear, sound pressure level (SPL) is represented on a logarithmic scale known as decibels (dB). A SPL of 0 dB is approximately the threshold of human hearing and is barely audible under extremely quiet (laboratory-type) listening conditions. A person begins to feel a SPL of 120 dB inside the ear as discomfort, and pain begins at approximately 140 dB. Most environmental sounds have SPLs ranging from 30 to 100 dB. Because decibels are logarithmic, they cannot be added or subtracted directly like other (linear) numbers. For example, if two sound sources each produce 100 dB, when they are operated together they will produce 103 dB, not 200 dB. Four 100 dB sources operating together again double the sound energy, resulting in a total SPL of 106 dB, and so on. In addition, if one source is much louder than another, the two sources operating together will produce the same SPL as if the louder source were operating alone. For example, a 100 dB source plus an 80 dB source produces 100 dB when operating together. The louder source masks the quieter one. Two useful rules to remember when comparing SPLs are: (1) most people perceive a 6 to 10 dB increase in SPL between two noise events to be about a doubling of loudness, and (2) changes in SPL of less than about 3 dB between two events are not easily detected outside of a laboratory. A-Weighted Decibel, dBA — Frequency, or pitch, is a basic physical characteristic of sound and is expressed in units of cycles per second or hertz (Hz). The normal frequency range of hearing for most people extends from about 20 to 15,000 Hz. Because the human ear is more sensitive to middle and high frequencies (i.e., 1000 to 4000 Hz), a frequency weighting called "A" weighting is applied to the measurement of sound. The internationally standardized "A" filter approximates the sensitivity of the human ear and helps in assessing the perceived loudness of various sounds. For this Part 150 Study, all sound levels are A-weighted sound levels and the text typically omits the adjective "A-weighted". Figure B-2-1 charts common indoor and outdoor sound levels. A quiet rural area at nighttime may be 30 dBA or lower, while the operator of a typical gas lawn mower may experience a level of 90 dBA. Similarly, the level in a library may be 30 dBA or lower, while the listener at a rock band concert may experience levels near 110 dBA. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis Page B-2 tMS FIGURE B-2-1 COMMON OUTDOOR AND INDOOR SOUND LEVELS Outdoor Sound Levels Indoor Sound Levels Threshold of Pain 9 Threshold of Pain Military Jet Takeoff with Afterburner at 50 feet J yl a Rock Band Concert �} f t Ambulance Siren at 10 feet �'. Rile Driver at 50 feet `ft �p Fight Club with Live Music ' Gas Lawnmower at 3 feet Sports Boat at 100 feet �ts .i t Diesel Truck at 50 feet0 1 Concrete Mixer at 50 feet �' `�, s"�ri�t�� Food Blender at 3 feet '` i� Leaf Blower at 50 feet it , �,<< Noisy Restaurant Garbage Disposal at 3 feet r 3 F t Vaccuum Cleaner at 10 feet Commercial 1 Urban Area,Daytime ' Normal Conversation at 3 feet Urban Expressway at 300 feet Active Office Environment Suburban Area,Daytime It1 t' 1 Quiet Office Environment Via. � Dishwasher,Next Room h- Quiet Urban Area,Nighttime Quiet Suburban Area,Nighttime Library Quiet Rural Area,Nighttime Quiet Bedroom,Nightime Concert Hall,Background % Leaves Rustling t r�i't'r1aj� Quiet Wilderness Area,No Wind Recording Studio Threshold of Human Hearing Threshold of Human Hearing 1's Source: URS Corp.,2008. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis Page B-3 tMS Maximum A-Weighted Noise Level, L,,, x — Sound levels vary with time. For example, the sound increases as an aircraft approaches, then falls and blends into the ambient, or background, as the aircraft recedes into the distance. Because of this variation, it is often convenient to describe a particular noise "event" by its highest or maximum sound level (L,,,,x). It should be noted that L,,,,x describes only one dimension of an event; it provides no information on the cumulative noise exposure generated by a sound source. In fact, two events with identical L,,,,x levels may produce very different total noise exposures. One may be of very short duration, while the other may last much longer. Sound Exposure Level, SEL—The most common measure of noise exposure for a single aircraft flyover event is the SEL. SEL is a summation of the A-weighted sound energy at a particular location over the true duration of a noise event, normalized to a fictional duration of one second. The true noise event duration is defined as the amount of time the noise event exceeds a specified level (that is at least 10 dB below the maximum value measured during the noise event). For noise events lasting more than one second, SEL does not directly represent the sound level heard at any given time, but rather provides a measure of the net impact of the entire acoustic event. The normalization to the fictional duration of one second enables the comparison of noise events with differing true duration and/or maximum level. Because the SEL is normalized to one second, it will almost always be larger in magnitude than the L,,,,x for the event. In fact, for most aircraft events, the SEL is about 7 to 12 dB higher than the L,,,,x. Additionally, since it is a cumulative measure, a higher SEL can result from either a louder or longer event, or a combination thereof. Since SEL combines an event's overall sound level along with its duration, SEL provides a comprehensive way to describe noise events for use in modeling and comparing noise environments. Computer noise models, such as the Integrated Noise Model (INM) that the FAA used for this PART 150 STUDY, base their computations on these SELs. Figure B-2-2 shows an event's "time history", or the variation of sound level with time. For typical sound events experienced by a stationary listener, like a person experiencing an aircraft flyover, the sound level rises as the source (or aircraft) approaches the listener, peaks and then diminishes as the aircraft flies away from the listener. The area under the time history curve represents the overall sound energy of the noise event. The Lmax for the event shown in Figure B-2-2 was 93.5 dBA. Compressing the event's total sound energy into one second yields an SEL of 102.7 dBA. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis Page B-4 UM FIGURE B-2-2 COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM SOUND LEVEL(LMAx)AND SOUND EXPOSURE LEVEL(SEL) SEL=102.7dBA - 100 &tl > H IL — Lmax=93.5 dBA v 0 r o E 90 N C 'a N 2 v 80 .: ............. 70 - 0 10 20 30 Time(seconds) Source: URS Corporation,2008. Equivalent Sound Level, Le,— Equivalent sound level (Leq) is a measure of the noise exposure resulting from the accumulation of A-weighted sound levels over a particular period of interest (e.g., an hour, an 8- hour school day, nighttime, or a full 24-hour day). However, because the length of the period can be different depending on the period of interest, the applicable period should always be identified or clearly understood when discussing this metric. Such durations are often identified through a subscript. For example, for an 8 hour or 24 hour day, Leq(s)or Leq(24) is used, respectively. Conceptually, Leq may be thought of as a constant sound level over the period of interest that contains as much sound energy as the actual time-varying sound level with its normal "peaks" and "dips". In the context of noise from typical aircraft flight events, and as noted earlier for SEL, Leq does not represent the sound level heard at any particular time, but rather represents the total sound exposure for the period of interest. Also, it should be noted that the "average" sound level suggested by Leq is not an arithmetic value, but a logarithmic, or"energy-averaged," sound level. Thus, loud events tend to dominate the noise environment described by the Leq metric. Day-Night Average Sound Level, DNL — Time-average sound levels are measurements of sound averaged over a specified length of time. These levels provide a measure of the average sound energy during the measurement period. For the evaluation of community noise effects, and particularly aircraft noise effects, the Day-Night Average Sound Level (abbreviated DNL) is used. DNL logarithmically averages aircraft sound levels at a location over a complete 24-hour period, with a 10-decibel adjustment The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis Page B-5 tMS added to those noise events occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. (local time) the following morning. The FAA defines the 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. period as nighttime (or night) and the 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. period as daytime (or day). Because of the increased sensitivity to noise during normal sleeping hours and because ambient (without aircraft)sound levels during nighttime are typically about 10 dB lower than during daytime hours, the 10-decibel adjustment, or "penalty," represents the added intrusiveness of sounds occurring during nighttime hours. DNL accounts for the noise levels (in terms of SEL) of all individual aircraft events, the number of times those events occur and the period of day/night in which they occur. Values of DNL can be measured with standard monitoring equipment or predicted with computer models such as the INM. Typical DNL values for a variety of noise environments are shown in Figure B-2-3. DNL values can be approximately 85 dBA outdoors under an aircraft flight path within a mile of a major airport and 40 dBA or less outdoors in a rural residential area. Due to the DNL descriptor's close correlation with the degree of community annoyance from aircraft noise, most federal agencies have formally adopted DNL for measuring and evaluating aircraft noise for land use planning and noise impact assessment. Federal committees such as the Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise (FICUN) and the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON), which include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the FAA, Department of Defense, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Veterans Administration, found DNL to be the best metric for land use planning. They also found no new cumulative sound descriptors or metrics of sufficient scientific standing to substitute for DNL. Other cumulative metrics are used only to supplement, not replace, DNL. Furthermore, FAA Order 1050.1 E, Policies and Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, requires DNL be used in describing cumulative noise exposure and in identifying aircraft noise/land use compatibility issues (EPA, 1974; FICUN, 1980; FICON, 1992; 14 CFR part 150, 2004; FAA, 2006). The accuracy and validity of DNL calculations depend on the basic information used in the calculations. At airports, the reliability of DNL calculations is affected by a number of uncertainties: • The noise descriptions used in the DNL procedure represent the typical human response to aircraft noise. Since people vary in their response to noise and because the physical measure of noise accounts for only a portion of an individual's reaction to that noise, the DNL scale can show only an average response to aircraft noise that may be expected from a community. • Future aviation activity levels such as the forecast number of operations, the operational fleet mix, the times of operation (day versus night)and flight tracks are estimates. Achievement of forecasted levels of activity cannot be assured. • Aircraft acoustical and performance characteristics for new aircraft designs are estimates. Outdoor vs. Indoor Noise Levels — INM calculates outdoor noise levels, while some of the supplemental noise analysis effects are based on noise levels experienced indoors. In order to convert outdoor noise levels to indoor noise levels, an Outdoor-to-Indoor Noise Level Reduction (OILR) is identified. The indoor The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis Page B-6 tMS noise level is equal to the outdoor noise level minus the OILR. Based on accepted research, typical OILR values range between 15 dBA to 25 dBA, depending on the structure and whether windows are open or closed (Wyle, 1989). FIGURE B-2-3 TYPICAL RANGE OF OUTDOOR COMMUNITY DAY-NIGHT AVERAGE SOUND LEVELS 90 XX Under Flight Path at Major Airport, '/2 to 1 Mile From Runway ayi 80 s Downtown in Major Metropolis a Y t 3 Dense Urban Area with Heavy Traffic a 70 J Z N Urban Area J C 7 y 60 a� R L d a Suburban and Low Density Urban Y t z R 50 ❑ Small Town and Quiet Suburban Rural 40 Source: U.S. Department of Defense. Departments of the Air Force,the Army,and the Navy, 1978.Planning in the Noise Environment.AFM 19-10.TM 5-803-2,and NAVFAC P-970.Washington, D.C.: U.S. DoD. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis Page B-7 tMS B-3 EFFECTS OF AIRCRAFT NOISE ON PEOPLE The most common effects regarding aircraft noise are related to annoyance and activity interference (e.g., speech disruption and sleep interference). These effects have been studied extensively and relationships between various noise metrics and effects have been established. The following sections summarize these effects, and the noise metrics that are used to describe them. B-3.1 SPEECH INTERFERENCE Speech interference is the most readily quantified adverse effect of noise, and speech is the activity most often affected by environmental noise. The levels of noise that interfere with listening to a desired sound, such as speech, music, or television, can be defined in terms of the level of noise required to mask the desired sound. Such levels have been quantified for speech communications by directly measuring the interference with speech. Several studies have been conducted over the last 30 years resulting in various noise level criteria for speech interference. As an aircraft approaches and its sound level increases, speech becomes harder to hear. As the ambient level increases, the speaker must raise his/her voice, or the individuals must get closer together to continue talking. For typical communication distances of 3 or 4 feet (1 to 1.5 meters), acceptable outdoor conversations can be carried on in a normal voice as long as the ambient noise outdoors is less than about 65 dBA (FICON, 1992). If the noise exceeds this level, intelligibility would be lost unless vocal effort was increased or communication distance was decreased. Indoor speech interference can be expressed as a percentage of sentence intelligibility between two average adults with normal hearing, speaking fluently in relaxed conversation approximately one meter apart in a typical living room or bedroom (EPA, 1974). Intelligibility pertains to the percentage of speech units correctly understood out of those transmitted, and specifies the type of speech material used, i.e. sentence or word intelligibility (ANSI, 1994). As shown in Figure B-3-1, the percentage of sentence intelligibility is a non-linear function of the (steady) indoor ambient or background sound level (energy- average equivalent sound level (Leq)). For an average adult with normal hearing and fluency in the language, steady ambient indoor sound levels of up to 45 dBA Leq are expected to allow 100 percent intelligibility of sentences. The curve shows 99 percent sentence intelligibility for Leq at or below 54 dBA and less than 10 percent intelligibility for Leq greater than 73 dBA. It should be noted that the function is especially sensitive to changes in sound level between 65 dBA and 75 dBA. As an example of the sensitivity, a 1 dBA increase in background sound level from 70 dBA to 71 dBA results in a 14 percent decrease in sentence intelligibility. In contrast, a 1 dBA increase in background sound level from 60 dBA to 61 dBA results in less than 1 percent decrease in sentence intelligibility. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis Page B-8 UM The noise from aircraft events is not continuous, but consists of individual events where the noise level can greatly exceed the background level for a limited period as the aircraft flies over. Since speech interference in the presence of aircraft noise is essentially determined by the magnitude and frequency of individual aircraft flyover events, a time-averaged metric (such as Leq) alone, is not necessarily appropriate when setting standards regarding acceptable levels. In addition to the background levels described above, single event criteria, which account for those sporadic intermittent noisy events, are also essential to specifying speech interference criteria. In order for two people to communicate reasonably using normal voice levels indoors, the background noise level should not exceed 60 dBA (EPA, 1974). In other words, an indoor noise event that exceeds 60 dBA has the potential to cause speech and communication disruption (Eagan, 2007). FIGURE B-3-1 PERCENT SENTENCE INTELLIGIBILITY FOR INDOOR SPEECH 100 ��mnnn 80 w 60 w c w w 40 N c w W 20 IL 0 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Steady Indoor A-Weighted Sound Level (dB re:20 micropascals) Soiwce U.S.Ellvlloinuent81 Protection Agency,1974. B-3.2 EFFECT ON CHILDREN'S LEARNING An important application of speech interference criteria is in the classroom where the percent of words (rather than whole sentences) transmitted and received, commonly referred to as `word intelligibility,' is critical. For teachers to be clearly understood by their students, it is important that regular voice communication is clear and uninterrupted. Not only does the steady background sound level have to be low enough for the teacher to be clearly heard, but intermittent outdoor noise events also need to be unobtrusive. The steady ambient level, the level of voice communication, and the single event level (e.g., aircraft over-flights) that might interfere with speech in the classroom are measures that can be evaluated to quantify the potential for speech interference in the classroom. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis Page B-9 tMS Accounting for the typically intermittent nature of aircraft noise where speech is impaired only for the short time when the aircraft noise is close to its maximum value, different researchers and regulatory organizations have recommended maximum allowable indoor noise levels ranging between 40 and 60 dBA L,,,,,. (Lind, et. al., 1998; Sharp and Plotkin, 1984; Wesler, 1986; WHO, 1999; ASLHA, 1995; ANSI, 2002). A single event noise level of 50 dBA L,,,,, correlates to 90 percent of the words being understood by students with normal hearing and no special needs seated throughout a classroom (Lind, et. al., 1998). At-risk students may be adversely affected at lower sound levels. ANSI has developed a standard for classrooms that states that the sound level during the noisiest hour should not exceed a one-hour average Leq of 40 dBA for schools exposed to intermittent noise sources such as aircraft noise (ANSI, 2002). The standard further states that the hourly Leq should not be exceeded for more than 10 percent of the noisiest hour (i.e., Leq should not exceed Leo). FAA Order 5100.38C, Airport Improvement Program Handbook, Chapter 7, Section 2, Paragraph 812c(1) indicates that schools should have an A-weighted Leq of 45 dB, or less, during school hours, in the classroom environment. Facilities not typically disrupted by aircraft, such as gymnasiums, cafeterias, or hallways, are not usually eligible for noise insulation. However, ANSI recommends that schools have a maximum one-hour average A-weighted unsteady background noise level of Leq of 40 dB, or less, during school hours. Ancillary spaces, such as gymnasiums and cafeterias are recommended to have a maximum Leq of 45 dB. B-3.3 SLEEP DISTURBANCE The EPA identified an indoor DNL of 45 dB as necessary to protect against sleep interference (EPA, 1974). Prior to and after the EPA's 1974 guidelines, research on sleep disruption from noise has led to widely varying observations. In part, this is because: (1) sleep can be disturbed without causing awakening, (2)the deeper the sleep the more noise it takes to cause arousal, (3)the tendency to awaken increases with age, and (4) the person's previous exposure to the intruding noise and other physiological, psychological, and situational factors. The most readily measurable effect of noise on a sleeping person is the number of arousals or awakenings. A study performed in 1992 by the Civil Aviation Policy Directorate of the Department of Transportation in the United Kingdom concluded that average sleep disturbance rates (those that are unrelated to outdoor noise) are unlikely to be affected by aircraft noise at outdoor levels below an Lmax of 80 dBA (011erhead, 1992). At higher levels of 80-95 dBA Lmax the chance of the average person being awakened is about 1 in 75. The study concludes that there is no evidence to suggest that aircraft noise at these levels is likely to increase the overall rates of sleep disturbance experienced during normal sleep. However, the authors emphasize that these conclusions are based on `average' effects, and that there are more susceptible individuals and there are periods during the night when people are more sensitive to noise, especially during the lighter stages of sleep. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis Page B-10 UM In June 1997, the U.S. Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN) reviewed the sleep disturbance issue along with data from the 1992 FICON recommendations (which was primarily the result of many laboratory studies) and presented a new sleep disturbance dose-response prediction curve (FICAN, 1997) as the recommended tool for analysis of potential sleep disturbance for residential areas. The FICAN curve, shown in Figure B-3-2, was based on data from field studies of major civilian and military airports. For an indoor SEL of 60 dBA, Figure B-3-2 predicts a maximum of approximately 5 percent of the exposed residential population would be behaviorally awakened. FICAN cautions that this curve should only be applied to long-term adult residents. The focus of this research was the human response to individual SELs rather than the response to multiple events in the same night. The relationship of SEL and percent awakenings presented in the figure is for each event, not a cumulative percent awakening for all events during a sleep period. Other studies indicate that for a good night's sleep, the number of noise occurrences plays a role as important as the level of the noise. Vallet & Vernet (1991) recommend that, to avoid any adverse effects on sleep, indoor noise levels should not exceed approximately 45 dBA Lmax more than 10-15 times per night and that lower levels might be appropriate to provide protection for sensitive people. This Lmax level is equivalent to an SEL of approximately 55 dBA indoors. FIGURE B-3-2 SLEEP DISTURBANCE DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP 50 �+ FICAN 1997 40 Q Field Studies Y o Fidell et al,2000 Rr a 30 a R r %Awakenings=0.0087 x(SEL-30)1.79 c a v 20 Awakenings=0.13 x SEL-6.64 R 10 O ,O Q 00 In 20 40 60 80 100 120 Indoor Sound Exposure Level(SEL, dBA) Source: FICAN, 1997; Fidell,et.al.,2000. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis Page B-11 tMS Griefahn (1978) suggests that awakenings from aircraft overflights are dependent upon the number of events and their sound levels. Figure B-3-3 illustrates Griefahn's compilation of data indicating the number of events and noise level that constitute a threshold for sleep. The data in her research were based on levels at which the most sensitive 10 percent of the population would be disturbed, and includes a correction to these levels to represent the most sensitive sleep state and age group. The lower curve represents the indoor noise level (expressed in terms of L,,,a ) and number of noise event combinations at which fewer than 10 percent of the population will show signs of sleep interference. The upper curve indicates the level at which more than 90 percent of the population will be awakened for the given combination of noise levels and noise events. Griefahn suggests that, to avoid any long-term health effects, the upper curve should not be exceeded. The bottom curve represents a preferred, preventative goal. The curves indicate that nearly 90 percent of people will show signs of sleep interference in the presence of 10 to 30 flights per night at an approximate indoor L,,,,, of 54 dB. They also show that for the same number of flights but at an indoor L,,,,, of 48 dB, the percentage of the most sensitive population affected is much lower, at less than 10 percent, (with `no reaction' for the less sensitive population). FIGURE B-3-3 NUMBER OF AWAKENINGS AS A FUNCTION OF MAXIMUM INDOOR NOISE LEVEL 66 64 Awakening Reactions 62 y=(-.03 + .129x-.0018x2)°' + 53.16 68 _ - - - - - - - - - - - - Indoor 58 L max 56 - - - - - - - - - - - 54 52 58 No Reactions 48 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 28 38 Number of Noise Events Source:Griefahn, B. (1990)."Critical Loads for Noise Exposure During the Night,"InterNoise 90, pg. 1165. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis Page B-12 tMS B-3.4 VIBRATION FROM AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS The effects of vibration in a residence are observed in two ways; it is felt by the occupant, or it causes physical damage to the structure. Subjective detection can be one of direct perception from rattling of windows and ornaments, or dislodgement of hanging pictures and other loose objects. Structural damage may be either architectural (cosmetic or minor effects) such as plaster cracking, movement or dislodgements of wall tiles, cracked glass, etc., or major, such as cracking walls, complete collapsing of ceilings, etc., which is generally considered to impair the function or use of the dwelling. Research has shown that vibration can be felt at levels well below those considered to cause structural damage. Complaints from occupants are usually due to the belief that if vibration can be felt, then it is likely to cause damage. Residents living in proximity to airports often complain that aircraft operations cause vibration induced damage to their homes. Research has also shown however, that the slamming of doors or footfalls within a building can produce vibration levels above those produced by aircraft activities (Reverb Acoustics Noise and Vibration Consultants, 2005). Since people spend the majority of time indoors, the perceptions of aircraft noise leading to annoyance or complaint response and potentially to structural/architectural effects are directly and indirectly affected by the building structure. The acoustic loads resulting from aircraft noise can induce vibration in the structure, which can in turn, result in radiation of noise into its interior, rattling of items in contact with the structure, the perception of the occupants that the structure is vibrating, and the assumption that the vibration is causing structural/architectural effects. Consequently, the response of buildings, particularly older residential structures, to aircraft noise and the resulting effects on human and structural response has been the subject of considerable research. C-weighted metrics appear to correlate well with subjective evaluations of low frequency noise from aircraft operations (Fidell, et al, 2002; Eagan, 2006). Perceptible wall vibrations in homes are likely to occur for C-weighted levels between 75 and 80 dB (Eagan, 2006). The likelihood of rattle due to low frequency noise increases notably for C-weighted levels within the range of 75 to 80 dB (Hubbard, 1982, Fidell, et. al, 2002). Rattle always occurs above a threshold of roughly 97 dB L,,,,, (Hodgdon, 2007). In addition, C-weighting is the only weighting scale currently in the Integrated Noise Model (INM) that addresses low-frequency noise. However, it should be noted that INM predictions are based on extrapolation of A-weighted aircraft sound levels. The same data are used in C-weighted predictions by simply reverse filtering the A-weighted levels. The predictions do not extend to frequencies less than 50 Hz where much of rattle and structural response can be attributed. This is a major limitation of INM C- weighted predictions for vibration assessment. Generally, fixed-wing subsonic aircraft do not generate vibration levels of a frequency or intensity high enough to result in damage to structures. It has been found that exposure to normal weather conditions, such as thunder and wind, usually have more potential to result in significant structural vibration than aircraft (FAA, 1985). Two studies involving the measurement of vibration levels resulting from aircraft operations upon sensitive historic structures concluded that aircraft operations did not result in significant structural vibration. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis Page B-13 tMS B-4 FAA METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING AIRCRAFT NOISE B-4.1 IMPACT ANALYSIS CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS The evaluation of the Florida Keys Marathon Airport (MTH) airport noise environment was completed using the methodologies and standards specified in title 14 CFR part 150 (Part 150, 2004). The following paragraphs summarize the pertinent requirements of these documents applicable to conducting a noise analysis and how they were applied in this analysis. The regulations and guidance documents require that the cumulative noise energy exposure of individuals to noise resulting from aviation activities be established in terms of yearly day/night average sound level (DNL) as the FAA's primary metric. All detailed noise analyses must be performed using the most current version of the FAA's Integrated Noise Model (INM). For this analysis, INM, Version 7.0c, was used to model aircraft noise exposure. The noise analysis was conducted to reflect current conditions (2012) and forecast conditions (2016 and 2021). This analysis includes maps and other means to depict land uses within the noise impact area. The addition of flight tracks is helpful in illustrating where aircraft normally fly. The following information was disclosed for the current conditions (2012) and forecast conditions (2016 and 2021). 1. The number of people living or residences within each noise contour above DNL 65 for both the Existing and Future Conditions. 2. The location of noise sensitive uses (e.g., schools, churches, hospitals, parks, recreation areas) exposed to DNL 65 or greater for both the Existing and Future Conditions. B-4.2 THE INTEGRATED NOISE MODEL Noise contours generated by the FAA's INM do not depict a strict demarcation of where the noise levels end or begin. Their purpose is to describe the generally expected noise exposure. It must be recognized that although the INM is the current state-of-the-art aircraft noise modeling software, input variables to the INM require several simplifying assumptions to be made, such as: aircraft types flown, flight track utilization, day/night operational patterns, and arrival/departures profiles flown. Further, the noise contours represent average annual conditions rather than single event occurrences. Noise exposure on any one day may be greater or less than the average day. The noise model is useful for comparison of noise impacts between scenarios and provides a consistent and reasonable method to conduct airport noise compatibility planning. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis Page B-14 tMS The INM has been the FAA's standard tool since 1978 for determining the predicted noise impact near airports. The FAA developed the INM computer model and it is the required method to predict airport noise contours. The FAA continually enhances the INM to take advantage of increased computer speed, to incorporate new aircraft types into the aircraft noise database, and to improve its noise computation algorithms. INM Version 7.Oc was used to produce the noise contours and to analyze noise levels at sensitive sites. INM includes the capability to turn off lateral attenuation for helicopters and propeller aircraft, in order to simulate propagation over acoustically hard surfaces such as water or rocks. This capability was utilized to take into account the effect of the water surrounding the airport. The model produces noise exposure contours that are used for land use compatibility maps. Its program includes built in tools for comparing contours and utilities that facilitate easy export to Geographic Information Systems (GIS). The model can also calculate predicted noise at specific sites such as hospitals, schools, or other sensitive locations. For these grid points, the model reports detailed information for the analyst to determine which events contribute most significantly to the noise at that location. The INM is a computer model that, during an average 24-hour period, accounts for each aircraft flight along flight tracks leading to or from the airport, or overflying the area of interest. Flight track definitions are coupled with information in the program database relating to noise levels at varying distances and flight performance data for each distinct type of aircraft selected. In general, the model computes noise levels at regular grid locations at ground level around the airport and within the area of interest. The distance to each aircraft in flight is computed, and the associated noise exposure of each aircraft flying along each flight track within the vicinity of the grid location is determined. The logarithmic acoustical energy levels for each individual aircraft are then summed for each grid location. The model can create contours of specific noise levels based on the acoustical energy summed at each of the grid points. The cumulative values of noise exposure at each grid location are used to interpolate contours of equal noise exposure. The model can also compute noise levels at user-defined points on the ground. The noise analyses must be performed using the INM standard and default data, unless there is sufficient justification for modification. Modification to standard or default data requires written approval from the FAA's Office of Environment and Energy (AEE). Standard INM modeling of departure operations begins at the start of takeoff roll and ends when aircraft reach an altitude of 10,000 feet above field elevation (AFE). Standard modeling of arrival operations begins when the aircraft is at an altitude of 6,000 feet and ends when the aircraft land and completes the application of reverse thrust. All computer model input data should reasonably reflect current and forecasted conditions. User-supplied information required to run the model includes: • A physical description of the airport layout, including location, length and orientation of all runways, and airport elevation, • The aircraft fleet mix for the average day, The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis Page B-15 tMS • The number of daytime flight and run-up operations (7 a.m. to 9:59 p.m.), • The number of nighttime flight and run-up operations (10 p.m. to 6:59 a.m.), • Runway utilization rates, • Primary departure and arrival flight tracks, and • Flight track utilization rates. B-4.2.1 Aircraft Operations and Fleet Mix Fleet mix defines the various types of aircraft and allows development of very specific input data, such as engine type, title 14 CFR part 36 Noise Stage Certification, gross weight, and departure stage length. The INM aircraft database contains actual noise and performance data for 298 types of aircraft. Although the INM aircraft database provides a large selection of aircraft to model, it does not contain every known aircraft. For this reason, the FAA has developed an official aircraft substitution list, containing 271 types of aircraft, which allows the modeler to substitute similar aircraft when necessary for modeling purposes. These substitutions represent a very close estimate of the noise produced by the actual aircraft. All modeled aircraft in this study are either a true representative of an aircraft type or an FAA approved substitution. Tables B-4-1 to B-4-3 detail MTH modeled annual operations for the 2012 existing condition and 2016 and 2021 future conditions. Interviews with airport management and the FBO indicated that the Proposed Project would not induce operations; therefore, the forecasted operations and fleet mix are not expected to change between the No-Action and Proposed Project Alternatives. Annual operations are divided by 365 in order to calculate average daily operations required for INM input. B-4.2.2 Time of Day The time of day that aircraft operations occur is a very important factor in the calculation of cumulative noise exposure. The DNL treats nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m.) noise differently from daytime (7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m.) noise. DNL multiplies each nighttime operation by 10. This weighting of the operations effectively adds 10 dB to the A-weighted levels of each nighttime operation. This weighting factor is applied to account for people's greater sensitivity to nighttime noise. In addition, events during the night are often more intrusive because the ambient sound levels during this time are usually lower than daytime ambient sound levels. Nighttime operations accounted for 4.6 percent of the total operations. The day/night split for each aircraft type is provided in Table B-4-4. B-4.2.3 Runway Utilization Runway use refers to the frequency with which aircraft utilize each runway during the course of a year as dictated or permitted by wind, weather, aircraft weight, and noise considerations. The more often a The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis Page B-16 tMS runway is used throughout the year, the more noise is created in areas located off each end of that runway. Runway utilization is approximately 80/20 percent on Runway 07/25, respectively. The only exception was operations conducted by Mosquito Control (B206L), of which 100 percent were on Runway 25, due to the proximity of their hangar. A hemispheric chart, shown in Figure B-4-1, was completed in order to determine the wind coverage, since actual runway utilization data was unavailable. B-4.2.4 Flight Tracks and Flight Track Utilization Flight tracks depict the actual path of aircraft over the ground for aircraft arrival, departure, closed pattern (touch-and-go), and overflight operations. In order to calculate the annual average noise exposure, it is necessary to identify the predominant arrival, departure and pattern flight tracks for each runway, and the number of aircraft that used each runway and flight track. These are significant factors in determining the extent and shape of the noise contours and noise levels at noise-sensitive receptors. The use of individual flight tracks is dependent on a variety of factors such as standard procedures, the aircraft's origin or destination, aircraft performance, and weather conditions. INM representative flight tracks at MTH were based on interviews with airport personnel. Modeled flight tracks do not represent the precise paths flown by all aircraft utilizing MTH. Instead, they represent the primary flight corridors for the aircraft using the airport. Flight track figures were provided in the main document. Fixed wing aircraft were modeled with a single arrival and departure track to each runway end. All rotary wing aircraft, with the exception of helicopter operations (B206L) by Monroe County Mosquito Control (MCMC), also have a single arrival and departure track to each runway end. MCMC typically operates from the end of extended Taxiway A, in front of the former MCMC hangar. MCMC helicopter's fly to/from the south, and turn east or west over the water. The flight track utilization is 50 percent for each MCMC arrival track and 50 percent for each MCMC departure track. B-4.2.5 Aircraft Profiles The INM default database includes profiles modeling aircraft departures up to 10,000 feet above field elevation (AFE)and arrivals from 6,000 feet AFE. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis Page B-17 tMS TABLE B-4-1 2012 EXISTING CONDITION ANNUAL OPERATIONS AT MTH Aircraft Type INM Aircraft Itinerant Local Total Name Operations Operations Operations CIT3 145 145 CL600 137 137 CL601 2 2 CNA500 525 525 CNA510 45 45 CNA750 177 177 EMB145 2 2 EMB14L 4 4 67,788Jet FAL20 59 59 GII 7 7 GIIB 11 11 GIV 159 159 GV 16 16 IA1125 161 161 LEAR25 48 48 LEAR35 1,267 1,267 MU3001 1,222 1,222 T37B 2 2 1900D 10 10 CNA441 1,582 1,582 DHC6 1,035 1,035 Turboprop EMB120 7 7 HS748A 13 13 SD330 7 7 SF340 3 3 CNA172 7,525 468 8,461 CNA206 6,001 6,001 GASEPF 8,576 8,576 GASEPV 15,499 16,260 Prop PA28 2,533 2,533 T34 21 21 BEC58P 15,499 15,499 PA30 246 246 PA31 2,191 2,191 Al09 203 203 BO105 54 54 Helicopter R22 475 475 S76 339 339 SA350D 54 54 B206L 230 230 Total 66,852 468 67,788 Sources: Flight Explorer, 2009; URS Corp., 2013. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis Page B-18 UM TABLE B-4-2 2016 FUTURE CONDITION ANNUAL OPERATIONS AT MTH Aircraft Type INM Aircraft Itinerant Local Total Name Operations Operations Operations CIT3 153 153 CL600 145 145 CL601 2 2 CNA500 554 554 CNA510 47 47 CNA750 187 187 EMB145 2 2 EMB14L 4 4 Jet FAL20 62 62 GII 8 8 GIIB 11 11 GIV 168 168 GV 17 17 IA1125 170 170 LEAR25 51 51 LEAR35 1,339 1,339 MU3001 1,292 1,292 T37B 2 2 1900D 11 11 CNA441 1,672 1,672 DHC6 1,094 1,094 Turboprop EMB120 7 7 HS748A 14 14 SD330 7 7 SF340 4 4 CNA172 8,005 468 8,941 CNA206 6,342 6,342 GASEPF 9,063 9,063 GASEPV 17,183 17,183 Prop PA28 2,677 2,677 T34 22 22 BEC58P 16,379 16,379 PA30 260 260 PA31 2,316 2,316 Al09 215 215 BO105 57 57 Helicopter R22 501 501 S76 358 358 SA350D 57 57 B206L 244 244 Total 70,701 468 71,637 Sources: Flight Explorer, 2009; URS Corp., 2013. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis Page B-19 UM TABLE B-4-3 2021 FUTURE CONDITION ANNUAL OPERATIONS AT MTH Aircraft Type INM Aircraft Itinerant Local Total Name Operations Operations Operations CIT3 164 164 CL600 156 156 CL601 2 2 CNA500 594 594 CNA510 51 51 CNA750 200 200 EMB145 2 2 EMB14L 4 4 Jet FAL20 67 67 GII 8 8 GIIB 12 12 GIV 180 180 GV 18 18 IA1125 182 182 LEAR25 55 55 LEAR35 1,434 1,434 MU3001 1,384 1,384 T37B 2 2 1900D 11 11 CNA441 1,792 1,792 DHC6 1,172 1,172 Turboprop EMB120 8 8 HS748A 15 15 SD330 8 8 SF340 4 4 CNA172 8,644 468 9,580 CNA206 6,795 6,795 GASEPF 9,711 9,711 GASEPV 18,410 18,410 Prop PA28 2,868 2,868 T34 24 24 BEC58P 17,549 17,549 PA30 279 279 PA31 2,481 2,481 Al09 230 230 BO105 61 61 Helicopter R22 537 537 S76 384 384 SA350D 61 61 B206L 261 261 Total 75,816 468 76,752 Sources: Flight Explorer, 2009; URS Corp., 2013. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis Page B-20 UM TABLE B-4-4 DAY/NIGHT UTILIZATION BY AIRCRAFT TYPE INM Aircraft Arrivals Total Departures Total Name Day Night Arrivals Day Night Departures CIT3 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% 95.1% 4.9% 100.0% CL600 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% CL601 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% CNA500 97.4% 2.6% 100.0% 96.4% 3.6% 100.0% CNA510 100.0% 100.0% 92.3% 7.7% 100.0% CNA750 100.0% 100.0% 94.1% 5.9% 100.0% EMB145 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% EMB14L 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% FAL20 100.0% 100.0% 94.1% 5.9% 100.0% GII 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% GIIB 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% GIV 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% GV 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% IA1125 91.1% 8.9% 100.0% 95.6% 4.4% 100.0% LEAR25 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% LEAR35 95.8% 4.2% 100.0% 92.9% 7.1% 100.0% MU3001 97.1% 2.9% 100.0% 95.7% 4.3% 100.0% T37B 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1900D 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% CNA441 98.8% 1.2% 100.0% 98.2% 1.8% 100.0% DHC6 98.1% 1.9% 100.0% 94.8% 5.2% 100.0% EMB120 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% HS748A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% SD330 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% SF340 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% CNA172 98.3% 1.7% 100.0% 90.6% 9.4% 100.0% CNA206 97.8% 2.2% 100.0% 93.0% 7.0% 100.0% GASEPF 98.7% 1.3% 100.0% 96.0% 4.0% 100.0% GASEPV 98.4% 1.6% 100.0% 90.2% 9.8% 100.0% PA28 98.9% 1.1% 100.0% 96.7% 3.3% 100.0% T34 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% BEC58P 96.7% 3.3% 100.0% 92.7% 7.3% 100.0% PA30 89.5% 10.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% PA31 95.4% 4.6% 100.0% 97.6% 2.4% 100.0% Al09 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% BO105 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% R22 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% S76 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% SA350D 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% B206L 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Sources: Flight Explorer, 2009; URS Corp., 2013. Arrival Profiles The INM contains one approach profile for most standard aircraft, which represents a 3-degree descent from an altitude of 6,000 feet above field elevation. Some standard general aviation aircraft also have an The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis Page B-21 tMS approach profile representing a 5-degree descent. The assumptions used in the INM are based upon "average" operational data; flight procedures etc. and standard practice is to assign standard 3-degree INM approach profiles. All arrival profiles used in this study are INM default profiles. Departure Profiles The INM relies on the trip length of a given flight to determine the departure weight and associated departure profile. Default procedural profiles are assumed. Three default procedural profiles are available, these are the "Standard," "ICAO-A," and "ICAO-B" departure profiles. The assumptions used in the INM are based upon "average" operational data; aircraft passenger load factors, fuel reserves, flight procedures etc. and standard practice is to assign INM profiles based on trip length. In some cases, the analysis of aircraft departure weight is also used. All departure profiles used in this study are INM default profiles, and stage length is based on trip length. B-4.2.6 Departure Stage Length The INM database contains several departure profiles for each fixed-wing aircraft type representing the varying performance characteristics for that aircraft at a particular takeoff weight. Use of appropriate departure profiles is an important component of calculating DNL noise exposure contours. Historically, it has been easier to obtain trip length data than average weight data, so the INM uses "departure stage length"to best represent typical aircraft takeoff weight. Departure stage length is the distance between the departure airport and the destination airport. As the departure stage length increases, the aircraft's required fuel load and takeoff weight also increase. The increase in takeoff weight equates to a decrease in aircraft takeoff and climb performance. A decrease in aircraft performance results in a longer takeoff departure roll and decreased climb rates. These performance characteristics produce increased noise exposure impacts. The aircraft's noise impacts are greater because the aircraft is producing noise closer to the ground longer. The departure stage lengths are defined in Table B-4-5. Departure stage lengths for operations occurring at MTH are shown in Table B-4-6. It should be noted that in INM most aircraft operating at MTH are modeled as stage length 1. This is because the INM always models that specific aircraft with its maximum take-off weight. The 1900D and SF340, shown in Table B-4-6, have a maximum stage length of 2. Stage length 2 for these aircraft represents their maximum take-off weight. B-4.2.7 Noise Model Outputs INM has many output capabilities. Charts, graphics, and tables can be viewed, exported, or printed. The most common outputs are the noise contours that INM produces. Additionally, there are many other outputs, such as aircraft performance characteristics, grid point analyses for several noise metrics, and input characteristics such as runways and flight tracks. A complete description of model outputs can be found in the INM Users Guide (FAA, 2007). The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis Page B-22 tMS TABLE B-4-5 INM 7.0 STAGE LENGTH DISTANCES Stage Number Distance (nm) 1 0-500 2 501-1,000 3 1,001-1,500 4 1,501-2,500 5 2,501-3,500 6 3,501-4,500 7 4,501-5,500 8 5,501-6,500 9 > 6,500 Source: FAA INM Version 7.0 User's Guide, 2007. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis Page B-23 TABLE B-4-6 MTH DEPARTURE STAGE LENGTH UTILIZATION INM Aircraft Stage Length Type 1 2 CIT3 100.0% CL600 100.0% CL601 100.00 CNA500 100.0% CNA510 100.0% CNA750 100.0% EMB145 100.0% EMB14L 100.0% FAL20 100.0% GII 100.0% GIIB 100.0% GIV 100.0% GV 100.0% IA1125 100.0% LEAR25 100.0% LEAR35 100.0% MU3001 100.0% T37B 100.0% 1900D 50.0% 50.0% CNA441 100.0% DHC6 100.0% EMB120 100.0% HS748A 100.0% SD330 100.0% SF340 100.0% CNA172 100.0% CNA206 100.0% GASEPF 100.0% GASEPV 100.0% PA28 100.0% T34 100.0% BEC58P 100.0% PA30 100.0% PA31 100.0% Al 09 100.0% BO105 100.0% R22 100.0% S76 100.0% SA350D 100.0% B206L 100.0% Sources: Flight Explorer, 2009; URS Corp., 2013. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis Page B-24 Um B-5 FAA LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES TABLE B-4-1 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY WITH YEARLY DAY-NIGHT AVERAGE SOUND LEVELS Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Level(DNL) Below 65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 Over 85 Decibels Decibels Decibels Decibels Decibels Decibels Residential Residential(Other than mobile homes& Y N' N' N N N transient lodges) Mobile Home Parks Y N N ; N N N Transient Lodging Y N' N' N' N N Public Use Schools Y N' N' N N N Hospitals, Nursing Homes Y 25 30 N N N Churches,Auditoriums, Concert Halls Y 25 30 N N N Governmental Services Y Y 25 30 N N Transportation Y Y Yz Y3 Ya Ya Parking Y Y YZ Y3 Y4 N Commercial Use Offices, Business&Professional Y Y 25 30 N N Wholesale&Retail Building Materials, Y Y Y2 Y3 Y4 N Hardware&Farm Equipment Retail Trade-General Y Y 25 30 N N Utilities Y Y YZ Y3 Y4 N Communications Y Y 25 30 N N Manufacturing&Production Manufacturing, General Y Y Y2 Y3 Y4 N Photographic and Optical Y Y 25 30 N N Agriculture(Except Livestock)& Y Y6 Y7 Y8 Y8 Y8 Forestry Livestock Farming&Breeding Y Y6 Y7 N N N Mining&Fishing, Resource Production Y Y Y Y Y Y &Extraction Recreational Outdoor Sports Arenas,Spectator Y Y5 Y5 N N N Sports Outdoor Music Shells,Amphitheaters Y N N N N i N Nature Exhibits&Zoos Y Y N N N N Amusement, Parks, Resorts, Camps Y Y Y N N N Golf Courses, Riding Stables,Water Y Y 25 30 N N Recreation The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis Page B-25 tMS NOTE: The responsibility for determining the acceptable and permissible land uses and the relationship between specific properties remains with the local authorities. FAA determinations under Part 150 are not intended to substitute Federally determined land use for those determined to be appropriate by local authorities in response to locally determined needs and values in achieving noise-compatible land uses. KEY TO TABLE: SLUCM Standard Land Use Coding Manual. Y(Yes) Land Use and related structures are compatible without restrictions. N(No) Land Use and related structures are not compatible and should be prohibited. NLR Noise Level Reduction(outdoor to indoor)are to be achieved through incorporation of noise attenuation into the design and construction of structure. 25,30,or 35 Land use and related structures are generally compatible;measures to achieve NLR of 25,30,or 35 dB must be incorporated in design and construction of structure. Where the community determines that residential or school uses must be allowed,measures to achieve outdoor to indoor NLR of at least 25 dB and 30 dB should be incorporated into building codes and be considered in individual approvals. Normal residential construction can be expected to provide a NLR of 20 dB,thus,the reduction requirements are often stated as 5,10 or 15 dB over standard construction and normally assume mechanical ventilation and closed windows year round. However,the use of NLR criteria will not eliminate outdoor noise problems 2 Measures to achieve NLR of 25 dB must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of the buildings where the public is received,office areas,noise-sensitive areas,or where the normal noise level is low. 3 Measures to achieve NLR of 30 dB must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of the buildings where the public is received,office areas,noise-sensitive areas,or where the normal noise level is low. ° Measures to achieve NLR of 35 dB must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of the buildings where the public is received,office areas,noise-sensitive areas,or where the normal noise level is low. e Land use compatible provided special sound reinforcement systems are installed. s Residential buildings require an NLR of 25 dB. Residential buildings require an NLR of 30 dB. s Residential buildings not permitted. =Noncompatible land use. Source:Title 14 CFR Part 150(Appendix A,Table 1),January 1998. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis Page B-26 tMS B-6 REFERENCES ANSI, 1994. "American National Standard, Acoustical Terminology," Standard S1.1-1994 (ASA 111- 1994). ANSI, 2002. "Acoustical Performance Criteria, Design Requirements and Guidelines for Schools," Standard S12.60-2002. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASLHA), 1995. "Guidelines for Acoustics in Educational Environments," V.37, Suppl. 14, pgs. 15-19. Eagan, Mary Ellen. 2006. "Using Supplemental Metrics to Communicate Aircraft Noise Effects," Presented at the Transportation Research Board's 86th Annual Meeting, January 21-25, 2007, Washington, D.C., November 10, 2006. EPA, 1974. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect the Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety," Report 550/9-74- 004, March 1974. FAA, 1985. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Aviation Noise Effects, FAA Report No. FAA-EE-85-2, March 1985. FAA, 2006. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Policies and Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, FAA Order 1050.1 E, Change 1, March 20, 2006. FAA, 2006a. Federal Aviation Administration, FAA Order 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions; April 28, 2006. FAA, 2007. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Integrated Noise Model (INM)Version 7.0 Users Guide, April 2007. FICAN, 1997. Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN), "Effects of Aviation Noise on Awakenings from Sleep,"June 1997, available online at http://www.fican.org/pages/sleepf01.htm1. FICON, 1992. "Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues," Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON), August 1992. Spectrum Sciences and Software Inc., Ft. Walton Beach, FL. FICUN, 1980. "Guidelines for Considering Noise in Land Use Planning and Control," Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise (FICUN), June 1980. Fidell et.al., 2000. Fidell, S., Pearsons, K, Tabachnick, B.G., Howes, R., "Effects on Sleep Disturbance of Changes in Aircraft Noise Near Three Airports," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107(5) Pt.1, pgs. 2535-2548, May 2000. The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis Page B-27 tMS Fidell et.al., 2002. Fidell, S., Pearsons, K., Silvati, L., Sneddon, M. 2002. "Relationship Between Low- Frequency Aircraft Noise and Annoyance Due to Rattle and Vibration." J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Volume 111, Number 4, April 2002, pages 1743 - 1750. Griefahn, B. 1978. Research on Noise Disturbed Sleep Since 1073, "Proceedings of Third Int. Cong. On Noise as a Public Health Problem," pg. 377-390 (as appears in NRC-CNRC NEF Validation Study: (2) "Review of Aircraft Noise and Its Effects", A-1505.1, pg. 31. Hodgdon, 2007. Hodgdon, K.K,. Atchley, A.A., Bernhard, R.J. 2007. "Low Frequency Noise Study," Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction, Report No. PARTNER-COE-2007- 001, April, 2007. Hubbard, Harvey H. 1982. "Noise Induced House Vibrations and Human Perception," Noise Control Engineering Journal, Volume 19, Number 2, p. 49-55, September 30, 1982. Lind S.J., Pearsons K., and Fidell S., 1998. "Sound Insulation Requirements for Mitigation of Aircraft Noise Impact on Highline School District Facilities Volume I. BBN Systems and Technologies," BBN Report No. 8240. 011erhead J.B., Jones C.J., Cadoux R.E., Woodley A., Atkinson B.J., Jorne J.A., et al. (1992). "Report of a Field Study of Aircraft Noise and Sleep Disturbance," Department of Transport, London, UK. Part 150, 2004. Title 14 CFR part 150. "Airport Noise Compatibility Planning,"Amendment 150-4, October 2004. Reverb Acoustics Noise and Vibration Consultants, 2005. "Noise Impact Assessment, Galston Rural Sports Facility, No.'s 18 & 20 Bayfield Road, Galston NSW," Prepared for Hornsby Shire Council, Report No. 04-772-R1, January 2005. Sharp, B.S., Plotkin, K. J., 1984. "Selection of Noise Criteria for School Classrooms," Wyle Research Technical Note TN84-2 for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, October 1986. Vallet M., Vernet I., 1991. "Night Aircraft Noise Index and Sleep Research Results," Inter-Noise, 91: 207- 210. Wesler, J.E., 1986. "Priority Selection of Schools for Soundproofing," Wyle Research Technical Note TN96-8 for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, October 1986. World Health Organization [WHO] (1999). "Guidelines for Community Noise," available online at http://www.who.int/peh/noise/guidelines2.html. Wyle Research (1989). "Guidelines for the Sound Insulation of Residences Exposed to Aircraft Operations." The Florida Keys Marathon Airport Existing and Future Conditions Noise Analysis Page B-28 tMS APPENDIX C HAZARDOUS MATERIALS This appendix contains excerpts from the 2010 EDR report for the Florida Keys Marathon Airport. (l={ The Florida Keys Marathon Airport A 9400 US 1 11 Marathon, FL 33050 Inquiry Number: 2821335.2s July 28, 2010 mf .,r t„� .•:s ,{i-: \ -ras,l uu n , I. ,I r„,., I s , t-= r !r,.? v t, ,, �, s r a ,.,,., \l s' s :,, ><, . �Z 44,'' \Afhecders F:srnn Road Dldf rl }rfirl (rEDR0 11 F i 1 i �}r,i,;i Environmental Data Resources Inc c; v�II t+ 8t r C t-ffi FORM-STU-JUR TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE Executive Summary------------------------------------------------------- ES1 Overview Map 2 Detail Map 3 Map Findings Summary---------------------------------------------------- 4 Map Findings 7 Orphan Summary--------------------------------------------------------- 104 Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking GRA GEOCHECK ADDENDUM Physical Setting Source Addendum------------------------------------------ A-1 Physical Setting Source Summary A-2 Physical Setting SSURGO Soil Map------------------------------------------- A-5 Physical Setting Source Map A-8 Physical Setting Source Map Findings---------------------------------------- A-10 Physical Setting Source Records Searched------------------------------------. A-12 Thank you for your business. Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050 with any questions or comments. Disclaimer-Copyright and Trademark Notice The EDR FieldCheck®System enables EDR's customers to make certain online modifications to the maps and text contained in EDR Radius Map Reports.As a result,the maps and text contained in this Report may have been so modified. EDR has not taken any action to verify any such modifications,and this report and the findings set forth herein must be read in light of this fact.The EDR FieldCheck System accesses user-modified records from previously submitted reports. Any user-modified record from a previous report that is plotted outside the search radius of this report may not be included in this report. This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources.NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED,IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT.ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES,INC.SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES,INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE.ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER.IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES,INC.BE LIABLE TO ANYONE,WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS,NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE,FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE,INCLUDING,WITHOUT LIMITATION,SPECIAL,INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL,OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES.ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES,INC.IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT.Purchaser accepts this Report"AS IS".Any analyses,estimates,ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only,and are not intended to provide,nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding,or prediction or forecast of,any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property.Additionally,the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice. Copyright 2010 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc.All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format,in whole or in part,of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc.,or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission. EDR and its logos(including Sanborn and Sanborn Map)are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc.or its affiliates.All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. TC2821335.2s Page 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A search of the environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). URS CORPORATION used the EDR FieldCheck System to review and/or revise the results of this search, based on independent data verification by URS CORPORATION. The report was designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA's Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), the ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527-05) or custom requirements developed for the evaluation of environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate. TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION ADDRESS 9400 US 1 MARATHON, FL 33050 COORDINATES Latitude(North): 24.726200-24'43' 34.3" Longitude(West): 81.051400-81° 3' 5.0" Universal Tranverse Mercator: Zone 17 UTM X(Meters): 494801.7 UTM Y(Meters): 2734475.2 Elevation: 4 ft. above sea level USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY Target Property Map: 24081-F1 MARATHON, FL Most Recent Revision: 1973 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY IN THIS REPORT Photo Year: 2007 Source: USDA TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR. DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES No sites were identified in following databases. STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS Federal NPL site list NPL___________________________ National Priority List Proposed NPL________________ Proposed National Priority List Sites TC2821335.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NPL LIENS-------------------- Federal Supertund Liens Federal Delisted NPL site list Delisted NPL__________________ National Priority List Deletions Federal CERCLIS list CERCLIS_____________________ Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System FEDERAL FACILITY__________ Federal Facility Site Information listing Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site List CERC-NFRAP---------------- CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list CORRACTS------------------ Corrective Action Report Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list RCRA-TSDF------------------ RCRA-Treatment, Storage and Disposal Federal RCRA generators list RCRA-LQG------------------- RCRA-Large Quantity Generators Federal institutional controls/engineering controls registries US ENG CONTROLS_________ Engineering Controls Sites List US INST CONTROL__________ Sites with Institutional Controls Federal ERNS list ERNS_________________________ Emergency Response Notification System State-and tribal-equivalent CERCLIS SHWS------------------------- Florida's State-Funded Action Sites State and tribal leaking storage tank lists INDIAN LUST_________________ Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land State and tribal registered storage tank lists INDIAN UST__________________ Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land FF TANKS____________________ Federal Facilities Listing FEMA UST____________________ Underground Storage Tank Listing State and tribal institutional control/engineering control registries ENG CONTROLS_____________ Institutional Controls Registry INST CONTROL______________ Institutional Controls Registry State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites INDIAN VCP__________________ Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing TC2821335.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VCP___________________________Voluntary Cleanup Sites State and tribal Brownfields sites BROWNFIELDS______________ Brownfield Areas ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS Local Brownfield lists US BROWNFIELDS-----------A Listing of Brownfields Sites Local Lists of Landfill/Solid Waste Disposal Sites ODI___________________________ Open Dump Inventory DEBRIS REGION 9----------- Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations SWRCY_______________________ Recycling Centers INDIAN ODI___________________ Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands Local Lists of Hazardous waste/Contaminated Sites US CDL_______________________ Clandestine Drug Labs FI Sites________________________ Sites List PRIORITYCLEANERS-------- Priority Ranking List US HIST CDL_________________ National Clandestine Laboratory Register Local Land Records LIENS 2_______________________ CERCLA Lien Information LUCIS_________________________ Land Use Control Information System Records of Emergency Release Reports HMIRS________________________ Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System SPILLS________________________ Oil and Hazardous Materials Incidents Other Ascertainable Records DOT OPS_____________________ Incident and Accident Data DOD__________________________ Department of Defense Sites FUDS_________________________ Formerly Used Defense Sites CONSENT____________________ Superfund (CERCLA)Consent Decrees ROD__________________________ Records Of Decision UMTRA_______________________ Uranium Mill Tailings Sites MINES________________________ Mines Master Index File TRIS__________________________ Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System TSCA_________________________ Toxic Substances Control Act FTTS__________________________ FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System-FIFRA(Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, &Rodenticide Act)/TSCA(Toxic Substances Control Act) HIST FTTS____________________ FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing SSTS-------------------------- Section 7 Tracking Systems ICIS___________________________ Integrated Compliance Information System PADS_________________________ PCB Activity Database System MLTS_________________________ Material Licensing Tracking System TC2821335.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RADINFO--------------------- Radiation Information Database FINDS------------------------. Facility Index System/Facility Registry System RAATS------------------------ RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System UIC---------------------------. Underground Injection Wells Database Listing DEDB------------------------- Ethylene Dibromide Database Results NPDES-----------------------.Wastewater Facility Regulation Database AIRS-------------------------- Permitted Facilities Listing FL Cattle Dip. Vats------------ Cattle Dipping Vats TIER 2------------------------ Tier 2 Facility Listing INDIAN RESERV------------- Indian Reservations SCRD DRYCLEANERS------_ State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing COAL ASH DOE-------------- Sleam-Electric Plan Operation Data FINANCIAL ASSURANCE---- Financial Assurance Information Listing COAL ASH EPA-------------- Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments List PCB TRANSFORMER------- PCB Transformer Registration Database EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS EDR Proprietary Records Manufactured Gas Plants----- EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants SURROUNDING SITES:SEARCH RESULTS Surrounding sites were identified in the following databases. Elevations have been determined from the USGS Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated on a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity should be field verified. Sites with an elevation equal to or higher than the target property have been differentiated below from sites with an elevation lower than the target property. Page numbers and map identification numbers refer to the EDR Radius Map report where detailed data on individual sites can be reviewed. Sites listed in bold italics are in multiple databases. Unmappable(orphan)sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis. STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS Federal RCRA generators list RCRA-SQG: RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA)of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments(HSWA) of 1984. The database includes selective information on sites which generate,transport,store,treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA). Small quantity generators(SQGs)generate between 100 kg and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per month. An online review and analysis by URS CORPORATION of the RCRA-SQG list, as provided by EDR,and dated 02/17/2010 has revealed that there are 4 RCRA-SQG sites within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property. TC2821335.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Equal/Higher Elevation Address Direction/Distance Map ID Page CADIZ DIESEL SERVICE INC 9699 OVERSEAS HWY 0-118(0.000 mi.) B4 11 ISLAND AUTO REPAIR INC 8259 OVERSEAS HWY 0-118(0.000 mi.) 8 18 OVERSEAS CUSTOM CABINET 10500 AVIATION BLVD NNW 0-118(0.002 mi.) C13 30 WALGREENS#3574 10870 OVERSEAS HWY E 0-118(0.102 mL) G28 71 RCRA-CESQG: RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA)of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments(HSWA) of 1984. The database includes selective information on sites which generate,transport,store,treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA). Conditionally exempt small quantity generators(CESQGs)generate less than 100 kg of hazardous waste, or less than 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month. An online review and analysis by URS CORPORATION of the RCRA-CESQG list, as provided by EDR,and dated 02/17/2010 has revealed that there are 6 RCRA-CESQG sites within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property. Equal/Higher Elevation Address Direction/Distance Map ID Page MONROE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS MAR 10600 AVIATION BLVD NNW 0-118(0.002 mi.) C11 25 ALL DESIGN MARINE FABRICATION 212 LINDAHL ST ENE 0-1/8(0.004 mi.) D14 32 FREEMAN AUTOMOTIVE 10455 OVERSEAS HWY SSE 0-118(0.008 mi.) 17 44 SHERWIN WILLIAMS STORE#2406 10499 OVERSEAS HWY SSE 0-1/8(0.009 mi.) E18 48 KEYS CLEANERS 6799 OVERSEAS HWY WSW 0-118(0.072 mi.) F26 67 CIRCLE K#2386 11100 OVERSEAS HWY E 118-114(0.226 mi.) 133 99 State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists SWF/LF: The Solid Waste Facilities/Landfill Sites records typically contain an inventory of solid waste disposal facilities or landfills in a particular state. The data come from the Department of Environmental Protection's Facility Directory(Solid Waste Facilities). An online review and analysis by URS CORPORATION of the SWF/LF list, as provided by EDR,and dated 04/26/2010 has revealed that there are 3 SWF/LF sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property. Equal/Higher Elevation Address Direction/Distance Map ID Page EVENT'S FIELD ESA 9805 OVERSEAS HWY 0-118(0.000 mi.) B7 17 DISCOUNT ROCK AND SAND 10500 AVIATION BLVD NNW 0-1/8(0.002 mi.) C10 24 DISCOUNT DUMPSTERS&DEMOLITIO 10651 7TH AVE GULF NNE 0-1/8(0.073 mi.) 27 70 State and tribal leaking storage tank lists LUST: The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incident Reports contain an inventory of reported leaking underground storage tank incidents. The data come from the Department of Environmental Protection's PCT01--Petroleum Contamination Detail Report. An online review and analysis by URS CORPORATION of the LUST list, as provided by EDR,and dated 05/07/2010 has revealed that there are 7 LUST sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property. TC2821335.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Equal/Higher Elevation Address Direction/Distance Map ID Page FL KEYS MOSQUITO CTRL DIST-MAR 506 106TH ST GULF SSE 0-118(0.008 mi.) E16 34 Discharge Cleanup Status: NREQ-CLEANUP NOT REQUIRED CIRCLE K 2702375 10525 OVERSEAS HWY SSE 0-1/8(0.011 mi.) E20 52 Discharge Cleanup Status: RA-RA ONGOING RUSS'S DISCOUNT TIRE CO 10777 OVERSEAS HWY E 0-118(0.056 mL) G25 61 Discharge Cleanup Status: ENTD-ELIGIBLE-NO TASK LEVEL DATA TEXACO STATION 10898 OVERSEAS HWY E 0-118(0.116 mL) H29 75 Discharge Cleanup Status: DNR-DISCHARGE NOTIFICATION RECEIVED Discharge Cleanup Status: SA-SA ONGOING Additional key fields are available in the Map Findings section CITGO#108 11001 OVERSEAS HWY E 118-114(0.178 mi.) 131 84 Discharge Cleanup Status: NREQ-CLEANUP NOT REQUIRED CIRCLE K#2386 11100 OVERSEAS HWY E 118-114(0.226 mi.) 132 90 Discharge Cleanup Status: DNR-DISCHARGE NOTIFICATION RECEIVED Discharge Cleanup Status: RAP-RAP ONGOING SCOTTYS LUMBER#94 11500 OVERSEAS HWY ENE 114-112(0.411 mL) 34 100 Discharge Cleanup Status: ENTD-ELIGIBLE-NO TASK LEVEL DATA State and tribal registered storage tank lists UST: The Underground Storage Tank database contains registered USTs. Shortly after the September 11 event, the DEP was instructed to remove the detail about some of the storage tank facilities in the state from their reports. Federal-owned facilities and bulk storage facilities are included in that set. An online review and analysis by URS CORPORATION of the UST list, as provided by EDR,and dated 05/07/2010 has revealed that there are 9 UST sites within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property. Equal/Higher Elevation Address Direction/Distance Map ID Page USSERY MOTORS 9200 OVERSEAS HWY 0- 1/8(0.000 mi.) 1 7 MONROE CNTY PUBLIC WORKS DIV-C 10600 AVIATION BLVD NNW 0-118(0.002 mi.) C12 28 CIRCLE K 2702375 10525 OVERSEAS HWY SSE 0-1/8(0.011 mi.) E21 54 FIRST STATE BANK OF THE KEYS 6900 OVERSEAS HWY WSW 0-1/8(0.028 mi.) F22 58 RUSS'S DISCOUNT TIRE CO 10777 OVERSEAS HWY E 0-118(0.056 mL) G25 61 TEXACO STATION 10898 OVERSEAS HWY E 0-118(0.116 mL) H29 75 CORAL KEY FISHERIES INC US HWY 1 M/M 63 ENE 1/8-1/4(0.142 mi.) H30 83 CITGO#108 11001 OVERSEAS HWY E 118-114(0.178 mi.) 131 84 CIRCLE K#2386 11100 OVERSEAS HWY E 118-114(0.226 mi.) 132 90 AST: Shortly after the Sept 11 event, the DEP was instructed to remove the detail about some of the storage tank facilities in the state from their reports. Federal-owned facilities and bulk storage facilities are included in that set. An online review and analysis by URS CORPORATION of the AST list, as provided by EDR,and dated 05/07/2010 has revealed that there are 8 AST sites within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property. TC2821335.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Equal/Higher Elevation Address Direction/Distance Map ID Page MARATHON CITY-FIRE RESCUE 8900 OVERSEAS HWY 0-118(0.000 mi.) A3 9 MONROE CNTY-SHERIFFS OFFICE AV 10100 OVERSEAS HWY 0- 1/8(0.000 mi.) 5 13 MGA 9850 OVERSEAS HWY 0- 1/8(0.000 mi.) 6 14 MARATHON JET CTR 8800 OVERSEAS HWY 0- 1/8(0.000 mi.) 9 22 MONROE CNTY PUBLIC WORKS DIV-C 10600 AVIATION BLVD NNW 0-118(0.002 mi.) C12 28 FL KEYS MOSQUITO CTRL DIST-MAR 506 106TH ST GULF SSE 0-118(0.008 mi.) E16 34 MARATHON CITY-SA5 LITTLE VENIC 10680 OVERSEAS HWY SE 0-1/8(0.010 mi.) E19 51 CEMEX-MARATHON READY MIX 1500 107TH ST ENE 0-1/8(0.028 mi.) D23 59 ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS Other Ascertainable Records RCRA-NonGen: RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA)of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments(HSWA) of 1984. The database includes selective information on sites which generate,transport,store,treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA). Non-Generators do not presently generate hazardous waste. An online review and analysis by URS CORPORATION of the RCRA-NonGen list, as provided by EDR,and dated 02/17/2010 has revealed that there are 3 RCRA-NonGen sites within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property. Equal/Higher Elevation Address Direction/Distance Map ID Page MARATHON CLEANERS 9051 OVERSEAS HWY 0-118(0.000 mi.) A2 7 MONROE COUNTY MOSQUITO CONTROL 506 106TH STREET GULF SSE 0-118(0.008 mi.) E15 33 KEY HOPPER BOATS 503 107TH STREET GULF ENE 0-118(0.044 mi.) 24 59 Florida Drycleaners list comes from the Department of Environmental Protection. An online review and analysis by URS CORPORATION of the DRYCLEANERS list, as provided by EDR,and dated 04/05/2010 has revealed that there is 1 DRYCLEANERS site within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property. Equal/Higher Elevation Address Direction/Distance Map ID Page KEYS CLEANERS 6799 OVERSEAS HWY WSW 0-118(0.072 mi.) F26 67 TC2821335.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Due to poor or inadequate address information, the following sites were not mapped: Site Name Database(s) DISCOUNT MART OF FL. KEYS UIC THE REEF AT MARATHON UIC MARATHON PLAZA UIC MARATHON PLAZA II UIC MARATHON KEY BEACH CLUB,GULFSIDE TP UIC HOLIDAY INN OF MARATHON UIC MARATHON VET.CLINIC(H) UIC HOWARD JOHNSON'S MARATHON UIC MARATHON COUNTRY CLUB CONDOMINIUM UIC PUBLIX @ MARATHON STORE#37M UIC FDOT 11 ESA MM 59 SWF/LF FKEC DEBRIS STAGING AREA SWF/LF CRAWL KEY ESA SITE 1 SWF/LF DENNISON STREET ESA SWF/LF KNIGHTS KEY GRASS MEDIAN DEBRIS STAGING AREA SWF/LF KNIGHTS KEY ESA SWF/LF ALAN WORTZEL&PAMELA GILBERT SWF/LF DISCOUNT ROCK AND SAND SWF/LF RAUL CISNEROS SWF/LF SUGARLOAF MM19 US1 DEBRIS STAGING AREA SWF/LF MONROE CNTY-NEIGHBORHOOD TRASH COL AST JORGE&LUIS TORRES AST KEYS GRADING&PAVING INC AST MARATHON JAIL AST GRASSY KEY MARINA RCRA-SQG, FINDS USCG SOMBRERO KEY LIGHT RCRA-NonGen, FINDS KEYS FISHERIES SOUTH RCRA-NonGen MAGNUM ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC RCRA-NonGen, FINDS EXCELL COATINGS SOUTH INC. RCRA-CESQG MARATHON FINDS MARATHON LUTHERAN SCHOOL FINDS CEMEX CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS FLORIDA LLC FINDS MARATHON AREA 4 WWTP FINDS REEF AT MARATHON RESORT CLUB FINDS KEYS FISHERIES SOUTH FINDS MARATHON CBP FINDS GUIDANCE CLINIC OF THE MIDDLE KEYS FINDS CITY OF MARATHON AREA 7 SECTION 1 NPDES CITY OF MARATHON AREA 4 WWTP NPDES REEF AT MARATHON RESORT CLUB NPDES MARATHON NIGHT CLUB WWTP NPDES HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS FLORIDA KEYS NPDES MARATHON JAIL FINANCIAL ASSURANCE GUIDANCE CLINIC OF THE MIDDLE KEYS INC FINANCIAL ASSURANCE AQUACULTURE CENTER OF THE FLORIDA KEYS TIER 2 SUBURBAN PROPANE-MARATHON TIER 2 GUIDANCE CLINIC OF THE MIDDLE KEYS TIER 2 CEMEX-MARATHON READY MIX TIER 2 TARMAC FLORIDA-MARATHON TIER 2 TC2821335.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8 OVERVIEW MAP - 2821335.2s r Y Target Property 0 1/4 1n 1 naves Sites at elevations higher than or equal to the target property Indian Reservations BIA FL Brownfield ♦ Sites at elevations lower than r V County Boundary the target property 1 Manufactured Gas Plants Oil&Gas pipelines National Priority List Sites 0 100-year flood zone Dept.Defense Sites 500-year flood zone National Wetland Inventory State Wetlands This report includes Interactive Map Layers to display and/or hide map information.The legend includes only those icons for the default map view. SITE NAME: The Florida Keys Marathon Airport CLIENT: URS Corporation ADDRESS: 9400 US 1 CONTACT: Bruce Desilet Marathon FL 33050 INQUIRY#: 2821335.2s LAT/LONG: 24.7262/81.0514 DATE: July 28,2010 2:13 pm Copyright�o 2010 EDR,Inc.(,)2010 Tale Atlas Re 1. 07/2009. DETAIL MAP - 2821335.2s y \ Z7 D14 y t Harr yrk"' CITY OF MARATHON FIRE RESCUE r "'0 SYMPHONY HOME CARE INC m.ur MARATHON r , CHEL )LE IS D ; / 1 to v P� o �J WOL$ZG AK MD t t\ MES W FOR TER D - _ - - RRY J AN WIT MD � mr F � ` Target Property 0 1/4 1n 1 naves Sites at elevations higher than or equal to the target property Indian Reservations BIA FL Brownfield ♦ Sites at elevations lower than ,r {, County Boundary the target property 1 Manufactured Gas Plants Oil&Gas pipelines 1 i Sensitive Receptors 00-year flood zone National Priority List Sites 500-year flood zone Dept.Defense Sites National Wetland Inventory 0 State Wetlands This report includes Interactive Map Layers to display and/or hide map information.The legend includes only those icons for the default map view. SITE NAME: The Florida Keys Marathon Airport CLIENT: URS Corporation ADDRESS: 9400 US 1 CONTACT: Bruce Desilet Marathon FL 33050 INQUIRY#: 2821335.2s LAT/LONG: 24.7262/81.0514 DATE: July 28,2010 2:14 pm Copyright ro 2010 EDR,Inc.(,)2010 Tale Atlas Rai. 07/2009. MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY Search Target Distance Total Database Property (Miles) < 1/8 1/8- 1/4 1/4-1/2 1/2- 1 > 1 Plotted STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS Federal NPL site list NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 Proposed NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 NPL LIENS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 Federal Delisted NPL site list Delisted NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 Federal CERCL/S list CERCLIS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 FEDERAL FACILITY 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 Federal CERCL/S NFRAP site List CERC-NFRAP 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list CORRACTS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list RCRA-TSDF 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 Federal RCRA generators list RCRA-LQG 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 RCRA-SQG 0.250 4 0 NR NR NR 4 RCRA-CESQG 0.250 5 1 NR NR NR 6 Federal institutional controls/ engineering controls registries US ENG CONTROLS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 US INST CONTROL 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 Federal ERNS list ERNS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 State-and tribal-equivalent CERCL/S SHWS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists SWF/LF 0.500 3 0 0 NR NR 3 State and tribal leaking storage tank lists LUST 0.500 4 2 1 NR NR 7 INDIAN LUST 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 State and tribal registered storage tank lists UST 0.250 6 3 NR NR NR 9 TC2821335.2s Page 4 MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY Search Target Distance Total Database Property (Miles) < 1/8 1/8- 1/4 1/4-1/2 1/2- 1 > 1 Plotted AST 0.250 8 0 NR NR NR 8 INDIAN UST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 FF TANKS 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 FEMA UST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 State and tribal institutional control/engineering control registries ENG CONTROLS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 INST CONTROL 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites INDIAN VCP 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 VCP 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 State and tribal Brownfields sites BROWNFIELDS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS Local Brownfield lists US BROWNFIELDS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 Local Lists of Landfill/Solid Waste Disposal Sites ODI 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 DEBRIS REGION 9 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 SWRCY 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 INDIAN ODI 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 Local Lists of Hazardous waste/ Contaminated Sites US CDL TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 FI Sites 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 PRIORITYCLEANERS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 US HIST CDL TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 Local Land Records LIENS 2 TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 LUCIS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 Records of Emergency Release Reports HMIRS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 SPILLS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 Other Ascertainable Records RCRA-NonGen 0.250 3 0 NR NR NR 3 DOT OPS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 DOD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 FUDS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 CONSENT 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 TC2821335.2s Page 5 MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY Search Target Distance Total Database Property (Miles) < 1/8 1/8- 1/4 1/4-1/2 1/2- 1 > 1 Plotted ROD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 UMTRA 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 MINES 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 TRIS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 TSCA TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 FTTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 HIST FTTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 SSTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 ICIS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 PADS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 MLTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 RADINFO TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 FINDS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 RAATS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 UIC TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 DRYCLEANERS 0.250 1 0 NR NR NR 1 DEDB 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 NPDES TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 AIRS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 FL Cattle Dip. Vats 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 TIER 2 TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 INDIAN RESERV 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 SCRD DRYCLEANERS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 COAL ASH DOE TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 COAL ASH EPA 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 PCB TRANSFORMER TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS EDR Proprietary Records Manufactured Gas Plants 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 NOTES: TP=Target Property NR= Not Requested at this Search Distance Sites may be listed in more than one database TC2821335.2s Page 6 APPENDIX D CITY AND COUNTY LAND USE PLANNING This appendix includes relevant sections from city and county comprehensive plans and ordinances pertaining to the hardwood hammock located on the north side of the MTH property. D-1 City of Marathon Comprehensive Plan Excerpt D-2 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Excerpt D-3 Monroe County Ordinance 024-2005 Excerpt APPENDIX D-1 CITY OF MARATHON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXCERPT Excerpt from the City of Marathon Comprehensive Plan (Transportation Element) that addresses the hardwood hammock located on the north side of the MTH property. City of Marathon Comprehensive Plan CHAPTER SEVEN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES PURPOSE The purpose of the Transportation Element is to plan for a multi-modal transportation system that places an emphasis on transportation systems. GOAL 7-1 PROVIDE MOTORIZED AND NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS Provide a safe, convenient, efficient, and environmentally compatible motorized and non- motorized transportation system for the movement of people and goods in the City. 9J-5.019(4)(a)and(v) 1 Objective 7-1.1 Adopt Level of Service Standards for City Roads Upon the effective date of the Plan, the City shall adopt the following level of service (LOS) standards for all roads in the City for the purpose of determining existing and future roadway needs. 9J-5.019(4)(c) Policy 7-1.1.1 Adopt Level of Service Standards for City Roads For all City roads, the City hereby adopts a minimum peak hour level of service (LOS) standard of D, based on the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) methodology for determination of LOS, as measured by peak hour traffic volume. The City shall maintain the level of service on City roads within five percent(5%) of LOS D. 9J-5.019(4)(c)l Policy 7-1.1.2 Adopt Level of Service Standards For US 1, the City hereby adopts a level of service (LOS) standard of C based on the methodology developed by the US 1 LOS Task Force for analyzing the LOS on US 1 in the City. This methodology replaces a peak hour volume standard for US 1. The level of service on US 1 shall be maintained within five percent(5%) of LOS C. 9J-5.019(4)(c)l and(c)2 Policy 7-1.1.3 Address Short Term and Long Term Strategies to Reduce Clearance Time The City shall address short term and long term strategies to reduce clearance time and coordinate permit allocations by implementing the following program in coordination with FDOT, DCA and other local governments in the Keys: Short Term a. Revise the data and analysis to identify interim transportation system management (TSM) strategies which can be implemented prior to June 1, 2005 (beginning of the 2005 hurricane season), to reduce clearance time not to exceed 24 hours or Chapter 7 Page 100 of 114 Transportation Element Adopted March 8,2005 City of Marathon Comprehensive Plan adjacent properties. Specific trip thresholds shall be addressed in the Land Development Regulations. 9J-5.019(4)(c)7 Policy 7-2.1.2 Support ADA Compliance Through development review, the City shall ensure compliance with the Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction pertaining to the establishment of accessible routes for new developments. 9J-5.019(4)(b)4 Policy 7-2.1.3 Encourage Links to Transportation Hubs The City shall encourage development of a transit system that links other hubs of transportation, such as Marathon Airport, Boot Key Harbor and designated off-site parking areas, with trip destinations in a connected, continuous manner to provide an integrated transportation system. 9J-5.019(4)(c)8 Policy 7-2.1.4 Encourage Clustering of Major Trip Generators Within one year of the effective date of the Plan, the City shall adopt Land Development Regulations that favor the clustering of major trip generators and transit oriented uses. 9J-5.019(4)(b)1 Policy 7-2.1.5 Encourage Bicycle/Pedestrian Interconnection Paths Within one year of the effective date of the Plan, the City shall adopt Land Development Regulations that encourage all developers to assist the transition to transit by such efforts as providing car pools, transit facilities, and pedestrian/bicycle paths. Resort redevelopment proposals shall be required to the maximum extent practicable to provide bicycle / pedestrian interconnection paths to surrounding areas to decrease road traffic. 9J-5.019(4)(b)1 Policy 7-2.1.6 Continue To Seek Funds for the Transportation Disadvantaged The City shall continue to seek funds for the transportation disadvantaged and other transit and paratransit operations from all applicable Federal, State, and other sources and shall continue to provide gas tax revenues to public transit and/or paratransit services. 9J-5.019(4)(b)2 Policy 7-2.1.7 Encourage Public and Private Transit and Paratransit Services The City shall encourage the operation of public and private transit and paratransit services and shall seek legislation to exempt transit facilities such as terminals and repair shops from the US 1 concurrency requirements. 9J-5.019(4)(b) 1 GOAL 7-3 AVIATION FACILITIES The City shall provide aviation facilities to all existing and future residents and guests in a manner that maximizes safety, convenience, economic benefit, environmental compatibility, and consistency with other elements of the Plan. 9J-5.019(4)(c) Objective 7-3.1 Coordination of Airport Facilities The expansion of existing or new airport and airstrip facilities shall be coordinated with the Future Land Use, and Conservation and Coastal Elements. 9J-5.019(4)(c)17 Chapter 7 Page 105 of 114 Transportation Element Adopted March 8,2005 City of Marathon Comprehensive Plan Policy 7-3.1.1 Ensure Consistency with the Plan The Marathon Airport expansion shall to be consistent with the needs identified in the updated airport master plan. 97-5.019(4)(c)17 Policy 7-3.1.2 Protect Environmentally Sensitive Lands Development activities to construct or expand airport or airstrip facilities shall not take place in environmentally sensitive areas, as identified and defined in the Conservation and Coastal Element, unless a viable alternative is not available. Mitigation and restoration shall occur when there is no other alternative than to disturb environmentally sensitive areas. 97-5.019(4)(c)19 Policy 7-3.1.3 Protect the Airport Hammock Buffer The City shall coordinate with Monroe County to ensure that the existing hammock along Aviation Boulevard is maintained and remains as a buffer between the Marathon Airport and the residences to the north. 9J-5.019(4)(c)18 and 19 Policy 7-3.1.4 Regulate Development Adjacent to the Airport Within one year of the effective date of the Plan, the City shall adopt the Land Development Regulations to regulate structure height and to require the structures to be lit during the day and night. Whenever possible, tall structures shall be located in close proximity to each other and away from populated areas so as to not pose a threat to aircraft. The City shall continue to prohibit structures and activities that interfere with the operation of aircraft at airports and airstrips, whether public or private. Such structures and activities include, but are not limited to, tall structures, smoke, tall trees or other visibility hazards, and electromagnetic radiation. The City shall adopt Land Use District or Zoning Maps depicting the control surfaces around public and private airports. Additionally, the City shall adopt Land Development Regulations to regulate new structures and the use of land within close proximity of the 65 LDN contour around public airports to reduce land uses susceptible to the adverse effects of airport noise; the specific distance from the contour shall be defined by the Land Development Regulations. 97-5.019(4)(c)18 Policy 7-3.1.5 Maintain and Update the Marathon Noise Exposure Maps The City shall maintain and update the Marathon Noise Exposure Maps and implement measures to minimize the adverse impacts of noise on the surrounding community. 97-5.019(4)(c)18 Policy 7-3.1.6 Establish Effective Coordination Strategies The City shall establish effective coordination strategies and enter into an interlocal agreement with Monroe County to ensure all development within and adjacent to the airport facility is in compliance with all applicable regulations. Objective 7-3.2 Coordinate Airport and Traffic Circulation The City shall coordinate surface transportation to existing and new public airport facilities with the traffic circulation system shown on the traffic circulation maps. 97- 5.019(4)(b)8 Policy 7-3.2.1 Coordinate Airport Expansion with the Traffic Circulation System Expansion of airport or airstrip facilities or proposed facilities shall be coordinated with the necessary expansions to the traffic circulation system by requiring the access points to highways to be built to minimize adverse impacts on traffic operations. 97- 5.019(4)(c)4 Chapter 7 Page 106 of 114 Transportation Element Adopted March 8,2005 APPENDIX D-2 MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXCERPT Excerpt from the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (Section 3.5) that addresses the hardwood hammock located on the north side of the MTH property. 18 24 ,t Ok O b Ea Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Policy Document Revised 12/17/2012 Includes Revisions 1 -19 As Adopted by the Board ofCounty Conunmonets onApn115,1993 amendedpLus=rtoDCARule 9J 14.022,January4,1996 and adopted byFACRule 28-20.100 Nat January2,1996 and Part ll,July 14,1997 Table of Contents i 3.5 Ports,Aviation and Related Facilities GOAL 501 Monroe County shall provide aviation facilities to all existing and future residents and guests in a manner that maximizes safety,convenience,economic benefit,environmental compatibility and consistency with other elements of the comprehensive plan. [9J-5.009(3)(a)] Obiective 501.1 Because of the Flofida Key's unique nature as an archipelago,Monroe County shall promote the preservation of existing airports,airstrips,and related activities. Policy 501.1.1 Monroe County shall establish aviation related land uses adjacent to the public airports and additionally prohibit intrusion into all airport zones. Within twelve months after the effective date of the Comprehensive Plan, Monroe County shall amend the Land Development Regulations to accomplish such. [9J-5.009(3)(c)5] Policy 501.1.2 Monroe County shall continue to prohibit structures and activities that interfere with the operation of aircraft at airports and airstrips whether public or private. Such structures and activities include but are not limited to tall structures, smoke, tall trees, and electromagnetic radiation. Within twelve months after the effective date of the Comprehensive Plan, Monroe County shall adopt Land Use District or Zoning Maps depicting the control surfaces around public and private airports [9J- 5.009(3)(c)5] Policy 501.13 Within twenty-four months of the effective date of the Comprehensive Plan,Monroe County shall adopt an ordinance regulating the operation of ultralights,balloons,parachutes,kites,banner towing, model airplanes and similar activities within the proximity of the public airports or private airstrips. [9J-5.009(3)(c)5] Policy 501JA Monroe County shall continue to include existing airports and airstrips in airport land use districts that only permit airport related land uses. Policy 501.1.5 Monroe County shall encourage the development of aviation facilities and activities that relieve the traffic on U.S. 1 or serve as an alternative to U.S. 1 as ameans of delivering goods and services to the community. Policy 501.1.6 Monroe County shall provide space at public airports for a wide variety of aviation activities in order to provide a wide variety of services to the community. Policy 501.1.7 Figure 6.1,"Key West International Airport,Tall Structures&Airspace Boundaries" and Figure 6.2, "Marathon Airport,Tall Structures&Airspace Boundaries" in the Technical Document of this Plan, are hereby incorporated by reference. (The remainder of this page left intentionally blank) Goals, Objectives and Policies—Ports,Aviation and Related Facilities 3.5-1 Obiective 501.2 The expansion of existing or new airport and airstrip facilities shall be coordinated with the future land use, coastal management,and conservation elements. [9J-5.009(3)(b)1] Policy 501.2.1 The development and expansion of aviation and related facilities shall be consistent with the future land use,coastal management and conservation elements. [9J-5.009(3)(c)1] Policy 501.2.2 The Marathon and Key West airports shall be expanded to be consistent with the needs identified in the updated master plan as approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Policy 501.23 Development activities to construct or expand airport or airstrip facilities shall not take place in environmentally sensitive areas unless a viable alternative is not available. Mitigation and restoration shall occur when there is no other alternative than to disturb environmentally sensitive areas. [9J- 5.009(3)(c)2&3] Policy 501.2A By January 4, 1997, Monroe County shall adopt the Land Development Regulations to regulate structures over one hundred feet and to require the structures to be lit during the day and night. Whenever possible,such structures shall be located in close proximity to each other and away from populated areas so as to not pose a threat to aircraft providing aerial spraying for mosquito control. [9J-5.009(3)(c)2] Policy 501.2.5 By 2000, Monroe County shall study the possible purchase of the land between the existing east property line of the Marathon Airport and 107th Street in order to eliminate potential airport hazards. (The remainder of this page left intentionally blank) Goals, Objectives and Policies—Ports,Aviation and Related Facilities 3.5-2 Obiective 5013 Airports and airstrips shall operate in the manner to maximize safety and least adverse impact on the community. Policy 5013.1 Monroe County shall maintain the existing hammock along Aviation Boulevard as a buffer between the Marathon Airport and the residences to the north. [9J-5.009(3)(c)2&3] Policy 5013.2 Monroe County shall maintain and update the Key West International and Marathon Noise Exposure Maps and implement measures to minimize the adverse impacts of noise on the surrounding community. [9J-5.009(3)(c)2 and 5] Policy 50133 By January 4, 1997, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Regulations to regulate new structures and the use of land within two hundred and fifty feet of the 65 LDN contour around public airports to reduce land uses susceptible to the adverse effects of airport noise. [9J-5.009(3)(c)2 and 5] Policy 5013A Facilities at public airports shall be built to meet or exceed federal,state,and local safety regulations as applicable. (The remainder of this page left intentionally blank) Goals, Objectives and Policies—Ports,Aviation and Related Facilities 3.5-3 APPENDIX D-3 MONROE COUNTY ORDINANCE 024-2005 EXCERPT Excerpt from Monroe County Ordinance 024-2005 that addresses the hardwood hammock located on the north side of the MTH property. ORDINANCE NO 2 —2005 AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE MONROE COUNTY 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO DELETE REQUIREMENTS FOR A HABITAT EVALUATION INDEX (HEI), REVISE THE OPEN SPACE, LAND ACQUISITION, MANAGEMENT AND GIS MAPPING REQUIREMENT AND IMPLEMENT GOAL 105 OF THE 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE TIER SYSTEM BY DELETING POLICIES 101.4.20, 102.4.6, 102.9.5, 1029.6, 103.2.2, 207.1.25 207.10.5, 207.12.6 AND OBJECTIVE 1201.13; REVISING POLICIES '10L4.22, 101.14.1, 102.1.1, 102.4.1, 102.4.2, 102.4.3, 102.4.4, 102.4.5, 102.7.3, 102.8.1, 102.8.5, 102.9.1, 102.9.2, 102.9.3, 102.9.4, 103.2.1, 105.2.1, 105.2.3, 105.2.6, 105.2.7, 105.2.10, 204.2.1, 205.1.1, 205.1.2, 205.1.3, 205.1.4, 205.1.5, 205.1.6, 205.2.1, 205.2.2, 205.2.6, 205.2.7, 205.2.12, 205.2.14, 205.5.1, 205.5.2„ REVISING OBJECTIVES 102.4, 102.9, 205.1, 205.2 AND 205.5; CREATING NEW POLICIES 6, 102.4.6, AND 102.4.7; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES INCONSISTENT HEREWITH; DIRECTING THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT TO TRANSMIT A COPY OF THIS ORDINANCE TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Florida Administration Commission in 1996 enacted Rule 28-20.100, which created the "Work Program" in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and mandated, among other things, the preparation of a Carrying Capacity Study for the Florida Keys; and WHEREAS, the "Work Program" mandates that the County implement the Carrying Capacity Study by the adoption of all necessary plan amendments to establish development standards to ensure that new development does not emceed the carrying capacity of the County's natural environment; and WHEREAS, the "Work Program" mandates that the County initiate and complete a collaborative process for the adoption of Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and Comprehensive Plan amendments to strengthen the protection of terrestrial habitat; and WHEREAS, the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study (FKCCS), completed in September 2002, sets out guidelines that, inter alia, would direct future development away from "native habitat," and into "areas ripe for redevelopment or already disturbed"; and WHEREAS, Florida Statute 163.3177(6)(a) requires the adoption and implementation of a future land use element which designates future general distribution, location, and extent of lands used for conservation purposes; and WHEREAS, Goal I05 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan, "Smart Growth," was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in 2001 to comply with the statutory mandate, to C:',Documents and Settings'Aezanos-mayraTocal Settings�.TemporaryInternee FilestOLKI6Flenvironmental- goal 105compord-a.doc Page I of 16 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved in concept revisions to the habitat protection elements of the proposed amendments on August 17, 2005, in response to concerns raised by the Governor and Cabinet and negotiations with the DCA staff; and WHEREAS, the DCA responded to the County transmittal on August 31, 2005, in an Objection, Recommendations, and Comment report prepared pursuant to Rule 9J-I I.O 10; and WHEREAS, during a public hearing on September 22, 2005, the Board of County Commissioners reviewed the DCA report, the staff report and response to the DCA report, and revised amendments to the 2010 Comprehensive Plan prepared by staff in response to the DCA report and the direction of the Board; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved further amendments to this ordinance primarily revising policies in Goal 105 to ensure internal plan consistency of the revised Tier system with the policies of Goal 105, further discourage and reduce clearing of upland native vegetation and to enhance habitat protection elements of the revised Tier system by designating tropical hardwood hammocks or pineland patches of one acre or greater in Tier III for special protection and acquisition by the County; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners finds said amendments are consistent with and further the goals, objectives and policies of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA,THAT: Section 1. Create a new Policy 6 that reads as follows: Policy 6 Florida's Growth Management System, including rules promulgated by the Administration Commission, has created major mandates of state requirements for Monroe County with respect to the County's designation as an area of critical state concern. These mandates, together with other federal statutes and programs, have created an interlocking partnership between the state, Monroe County and federal agencies to plan for and implement major environmental and growth management systems. This partnership entails responsibilities for the state, federal government, and County to work together in policy development and legal proceedings so that responsibility for liabilities that arise from this partnership are fairly allocated. Section 2. Delete Policy 101.4.20. Section 3. Amend Policy 101.4.22 to read as follows: Policy 101.4.22 All development shall be subject to clearing limits defined by habitat and the location of the property in the Land Use District (zoning) Overlay Tier Maps and the wetland requirements in Policy 102.1.1. The clearing limits of upland native vegetation areas for properties in the Ocean Reef planned development shall be C:'.Docurnents and Settings\1tezanos-rnayraToca1 Settings"Ternporary Intemet Files'.OLK16FIenvironmental- goal 105compord-a.doc Page 4 of 16 limited to 40 percent of the existing upland native vegetation. Except as defined in Policy 101.12.4, clearing of upland native vegetative areas in the Tiers 1, 11, and III shall be limited for the portion of the property containing upland native vegetation in the following percentages: Tier Permitted 1 20% II 40% (Big Pine Key and No Name Key) 40% or 3,000 s.f., whichever is greater; however, the maximum amount of clearing shall be no more than 7.500 square feet, regardless of the amount of upland native vegetative area. Palm or cactus hammock is limited to only 10%. Section 4. Amend Policy 101.14.1 to read as follows: Policy 101.14.1 Monroe County shall discourage developments proposed within the Coastal High Hazard Area(CHHA), [9J-5.006(3)(c)I] Section 5. Amend Policy 102.1.1 to read as follows: Policy 102.1.1 The County shall protect submerged lands and wetlands. The open space requirement shall be one hundred (100) percent of the following types of wetlands: I. submerged I ands 2. mangroves 3. salt ponds 4. freshwater wetlands 5. fresh water ponds 6. undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands only for use as transferable development rights away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt transf n ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. [9J-5.006(3) (c) I and 6] Section 6. Amend Objective 102.4 and Policies 102.4.1, 102.4,2, 102-4.3, 102.4.4, and 102.4.5 to read as follows: OWective 102.4 L Monroe County in cooperation with the state and other acquisition agencies shall prepare a Land Acquisition Master Plan by July 1, 2005 containing a strategy for securing funding, and a determination of those sources considered appropriate for acquisition and management of conservation lands, retirement of development rights and identification and purchase of sites for affordable and employee housing and recreational purposes. Acquisition priorities should be consistent with the tiered system adopted by this plan and as required by the State Work Program in Policy 101.2.13 in order to identify lands appropriate for voluntary purchase consistent with the comprehensive plan policies, [9J-5-006(3)(b)4, 16 and 9J-5.010(2)(c)3] C:'Docurnents and SettingsAczanos-mayralLocal SettingslTemporary Intemet Files'OLK 16Eenvironmental- goal I 05compord-a.doc Page 5 of 16 APPENDIX E WETLANDS, FISH,WILDLIFE, AND PLANTS This appendix includes information related to the coordination efforts with the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on Section 7 (Endangered Species), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)on Essential Fish Habitat located of the north side of MTH property. E-1 FNAI E-2 FWS Section 7 (Endangered Species) Coordination E-3 NMFS Essential Fish Habitat Coordination APPENDIX E-1 FLORIDA NATURAL AREAS INVENTORY (FNAI) URS August 8, 2012 Mr. Michael O'Brien Florida Natural Areas Inventory 1018 Thomasville Road, Suite 200-C Tallahassee, FL 32303 Re: Elemental Occurrence Information Request Florida Keys Marathon Airport City of Marathon, Vaca Key, Monroe County Section 1, Township 66 South, Range 32 East; Section 6, Township 66 South, Range 33 East Latitude 24' 4334.30" N; Longitude 81' 03'04.90" W Dear Mr. O'Brien: URS Corporation Southern has been contracted by Monroe County to conduct an environmental assessment of a proposed runway relocation and extension project. The study area includes developed airport infrastructure, grassed fields, and undeveloped upland and wetland habitats on. the airport property in the City of Marathon, Monroe County, Florida (see attached location map). In order to better assess potential impacts associated with the proposed project, we are asking for any pertinent information on wildlife habitat and state and federally listed species or candidate species that may occur within one mile of the project area shown on the attached map. In addition, please provide any information on wood stork rookeries that may occur within an 18.6-mile radius of the proposed project. We appreciate your assistance with this request. If you have any questions, need additional information, or would like to discuss this request, please call me at 813-675- 6631 or email me at terry.cartwright@urs.com, Sincerely, URS Corporation Southern Terry Cartwright Senior Environmental Scientist Enclosure cc: Peter Green, URS URS Corporation 7650 West COUrtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, FL 33607 1462 Tel:813.286.1,71.1 Fax:8.13.287,8591 � T O j y � L2 e.J III tY d n1 � n � 5 a �,. r a t 5 s S4 d c 4 r 7 i o � 4 I �I Y� YYY FIGURE G s, 1.1-2 A i Ft.ORIDA WW I rxt Areu-s INVENTORY 1018 Thomasville Road August 9, 2012 Suite 200-C Tallahassee,FL 32303 850-224-8207 Terry Cartwright fax 850-681-9364 URS Corporationg www.fnai.org 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, FL 33607 Dear Terry, Thank you for requesting information from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory(FNAI). We have compiled the following information for your project area. Project: Florida Keys Marathon Airport Date Received: 08/08/2012 Location: 24°43' 34.30" N, 81° 03' 04.90"W Monroe County Element Occurrences A search of our maps and database indicates that we currently have several element occurrences mapped in the vicinity of the study area (see enclosed map and element occurrence table). Please be advised that a lack of element occurrences in the FNAI database is not a sufficient indication of the absence of rare or endangered species on a site. Also enclosed is a map of wood stork occurrences and habitat within 18.6 miles of the project site; this map shows no wood stork occurrences in the area. The element occurrences data layer includes occurrences of rare species and natural communities. The map legend indicates that some element occurrences occur in the general vicinity of the label point. This may be due to lack of precision of the source data,or an element that occurs over an extended area(such as a wide ranging species or large natural community). For animals and plants, element occurrences generally refer to more than a casual sighting,they usually indicate a viable population of the species. Note that some element occurrences represent historically documented observations which may no longer be extant. Extirpated element occurrences will be marked with an X following the occurrence label on the enclosed map. Likely and Potential Rare Species In addition to documented occurrences, other rare species and natural communities may be identified on or near the site based on habitat models and species range models(see enclosed Biodiversity Matrix Report). These species should be taken into consideration in field surveys, land management, and impact avoidance and mitigation. FNAI habitat models indicate areas, which based on land cover type, offer suitable habitat for one or more rt rare species that is known to occur in the vicinity. Habitat models have been developed for approximately 300 of the rarest species tracked by the Inventory, including all federally listed species. Florida Resources and Environmental Analysis Center Institute of Science and Public Affairs The Florida State University 7racki>7'y `F�orida' Bioafiversi� Terry Cartwright Page 2 August 9, 2012 FNAI species range models indicate areas that are within the known or predicted range of a species, based on climate variables, soils, vegetation, andlor slope. Species range models have been developed for approximately 340 species, including all federally listed species. The FNAI Biodiversity Matrix Geodatabase compiles Documented, Likely, and Potential species and natural communities for each square mile Matrix Unit statewide. Managed Areas This site may intersect the Florida Keys Wildlife and Environmental Area, managed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. The Managed Areas data layer shows public and privately managed conservation lands throughout the state. Federal, state, local, and privately managed conservation lands are included. Land Acquisition Projects This site may intersect the Florida Keys Ecosystem Florida Forever BOT Project, which is part of the State of Florida's Conservation and Recreation Lands land acquisition program. A description of this project is enclosed. For more information on this Florida Forever Project, contact the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of State Lands. Florida Forever Board of Trustees(BOT)projects are proposed and acquired through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of State Lands. The state has no specific land management authority over these lands until they are purchased. The Inventory always recommends that professionals familiar with Florida's flora and fauna conduct a site-specific survey to determine the current presence or absence of rare,threatened, or endangered species. Please visit www.fnai.org/trackinglist.cfm for county or statewide element occurrence distributions and links to more element information. The database maintained by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory is the single most comprehensive source of information available on the locations of rare species and other significant ecological resources. However,the data are not always based on comprehensive or site-specific field surveys. Therefore this information should not be regarded as a final statement on the biological resources of the site being considered, nor should it be substituted for on-site surveys. Inventory data are designed for the purposes of conservation planning and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria for regulatory decisions. Information provided by this database may not be published without prior written notification to the Florida Natural Areas Inventory, and the Inventory must be credited as an information source in these publications. FNAI data may not be resold for profit. Thank you for your use of FNAI services. An invoice will be mailed separately. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me at(850)224-8207 or at mobrien@fnai.org. Sincerely, Michael O'Brien GIS/Data Services Encl 7rackin9 'Florida s Oodi'versi� LU C c. CJ�Q 'W� CL clq s • j - 8 W wc i Q U WW , U:�Q I... Q� i „mm•1 ri ��.�U a DO s � 1 Lu +r- �1F' you % try t ea o a 0 Ll V Lu Lu e LU Q 0 ! V5 W s _ CL to N co)� €�QQ, ZE T 1 it .. m _, CL N ti9,T" _ sd Y. f ., � M O � M k U a) Yi U S M LL � y N .1 t N a) •� C T oND q 0 a C a)4 2 w y d y 1EN �N�� y y E Z a a� 01 a �j t5 >' LYC3 c � � � ? N w ,6to 4 � m v 'o r c(D E t T 7 L. f0 p m v N p C O Z t E m c p .� `m Q w ra�° m y y x 2 m > 'a N o .0 N O L i0 .O U (n N A O .� ', O O Z 16 Z Q p 7 .p _ f0 p l0L 7N G G ^, GG ,Z C Q d U U 0 d> S U IL fn J d CD Q LL fT1 W S W CO U H rL J Q' y > a C �� W v m m Ll- m Z n ,6 v co w w * Zw w O 0� �o< cook w o �o w w LnLU a) rn rn4 a CO r� Dm z ��U)= pd W_j � > U ')Z~HQ coz o v~i��OLL) � � ZOO _ c0 v°0Q >:L) Q .D OD it<(DLLJ �Qa °j 0O�ciC9m� oa 0DLULU CO �UU� o Lu— EL ��O�D 0�0?,W NN F� O�+ = C OOD W LL1Z v ZH o.; �mODCOW0J mrnZ � QQ ;� �Q �c -LU 0) C U)00 � (n ORN- LLJ of O�� Z2C� ` ° 0- 0a mc`'� moo d LU �� Xc0ZZ�LL XWm 00— mO trn t � WcnQO co R OD W Ox a` > > OW00� �.......... d0 iAL =� QOfn� ��Z UfA� �O) L� L OU wQ'Q.ZZM �~ Op m� W W W W m0H 0 �� MOD N 0LL dm C9QQ � O w_j o� Nw �aO�(n MHO wOw o°'orn cook oO10 0 � cn)oa;zzw U VO > 70SOR zZ >w> CD t ui Hiv�DOOm dpamo o� cz wO 0 b 5:U m e m e 0) o MoowwX W cnaZn N QOO-ixu —�m U)M m )o —c_• 2 2 LoM7: EL C C L Y C C C C C C Q 0 a)Y� O 01 a) > >_ >_ _> Z >_ J f V 0 L L � � O) � � � Q 0 M O Q y C O O O O O O Q a) O a.o� (0N y y n a a a a a O 0 W Hw N O v L 0)J N aa)i N N N aa)i W W v R' )o c Cm a L m N L L v V V C v it Z o o a) p) y � l`0 1`0 l`0 f0 N (m it C Qp 16, E `� o $V c c c c c c m� Q H Og Loi =� E 0 Ev Em 0) rn rn 0 rn 0) Zg C = $ 0 o m_ 8 m_ o 0 0 0 0 o Om Z — N O U1L�L L..i Z Z Z Z Z Z Z— N OQ 10 Gs - c d co LU = yD M f0 V) N N 0) O) 0) f� Z � 0) � W T C6 W ¢ 0 co O m co C� O Q N �0 y O p � � J Z -' m m m m m m z Zs Z co to a W Y '� z v z z z z z z z LU J � y LU W W .� U) U)i Cl) m m m m m z H 0) Z io Y O z (D 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z v 3 3 3 3 3 3 C o 0 0 0 0 d w y m m m m m m m rn v v v v v m 0 0 0 `o C) U` m LL LL LL LL LL LL C c c c c c _ v a v a v v LL y �oCc C o ajNM w E U V U U V U 0 OOM C) 10 10 t 0)CmaD �0 Ae F-N mNCD .E N} �j " � S w z w E o ,--�,$� O y ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ICE ¢ ¢ ¢ m SO SO CD N 2 Cd CD cli Cl) _i — M N CD M M �V O mo o O O O O O O LL LLLLLL LLLLQ _ _ _ _ _ xg No_ cr c O � Q a Q _ o 1 " —w �zN �NN owJ W _T 7^N W Q W IL 0" (A f0(Dy 0 F--• M m W H NNZZG �N T� z NNW z a OCfA p TWX p r x 5 W oU} W WX~ � Or{p mW wY » �0c d 0ZU0W M- W )> w rn mca � c �0 Ow m �WtW N WHZ :1DF-W CD LU Q ow � N 4 L � � Q LD c JV LLWa Jw UU CS W CU) r N d 2 N D Z O U a D_z Q n Z9 cax �pwp v �zpw(n pwpUoi i �QO �D � rn >C) z0 CD a) p 2CD Q ¢} pN� ' p C—L W ?m WZ LLz Ow a > OZ c m N Iv 0 Q0 NLL Z ¢m fn II a0 ¢p F-LLLL 0 �¢ ¢ 0 2 W Yp�z0 U¢a 0¢mpO zF-- ap Y O¢o0 z co o � OQLL � �00 p¢ 0 cp oQ �wOi 'c LLWZf O gp z < 0o �p¢� nw o 0 QR 2 z WUa _ dz CL N < d m =aa CH COO 02 } p 2petl Nco 0<2 }O w Oo¢WoOaw�ODp LLI E L ZYwM ZJ 0c<L a � z . _ Cl) a LJ8 ¢UHzoUOJ ¢ � Z O U $ n = Z0gvO J fT° E O L) = O d o rn C > � rn O0cfMoo=20YZa-i � 0=� 00 oof<o 00==YZdj z 0 z -vmvw � WH2pJa0E- W-DWQ- � 0HJH- WHMOZiMO -W-DOM W Q. m 0 u5 M Or z 04 o a) M rn 0)Q a) 0 LLI rn C rn w C N O � y !n Z J LU Z J Z 0 z z z z z J LL y W y W in Cl) ai ai H _ Wm is a O m z C7 C9 V O O C m Z m L � 7 O CL O U z E m y m >C a O N a) Ol > C V ¢ U � fh N V C�0 m O M L d cn 3 C j J I--'t 0 �' U m W N N M LIDY N C N U 0 a)pp WE ° to NNaO F�N 10 N tp N} '(� W m 0 y m U U U U o �mro � LU J OY Z N 4 U U O m U O O " R CD W d m • �` Y ° a a I`0 .ca 0 J •C c Z O cYi aNiY w y �U v m� vU U c EE �'�m U $N ° Ep mV .4m� ? o [y a 10 EL E g cdQ C.'a E �DD> '� c� '.° # I ` .. O` L 0)= m >to �i� N N M Y O m 0 0 p V O O U N 0 ui N p C a U 0_0) 2 C 0 U--a M p h 0 m w ` L J 0 E GG 2 L > 2 °Y rn ., a� E -c c a m M m 2 J ui E m rna5v UU� W a ^m m Z �0 O m yy > O` V(n m O mO C 'L" ° gipp_ U mL d m C-0 C c (u J Z N J'O O E LL ?• C O m Z N m J o c _mLLLO LL cOf c 'D 3 Z c c 11J yLL N E m > ajOH NOYO)l00 N1 C C N m m N UO O Ep w T O L Q W O, O?C ww> 2 . L � w 2 N N U E Q V O U 0_"R OLL U O O•En Q a m °LL M Cl) LU LL N O O LL Lh U7 O 7 Ln W O m C O O C C OO >'c �O w0 N m�A O O �'N C�p O 0 0 O)Z w (` ^ 'C m 0 '0• U)co O O)O W CD N > O O 0 7 O p O a a N O 010 U .L... d d C N Os N'pU N NLL 2 N N N mL co W c-0 N m N > > OE m E v mc 'n ? 0O cin 10 a) c m m E 0E w x a m O O o �'v o a m m m 3 m 0 um)C`4-- O)(Y,) OQM a- C 2 �c c- � w 2 2 L O•C� UO= '� m m 0 '0.- N m n .f0 E m (� C(`1 Oo•pm+ � m>.0 a�) 2HM Om o`m m 0 UQ�r lo2 U) C U) C O O 4 • V Qm OLLU o O Om mD O c W 7 2°Om Cm LV W >J N N 55 >p Wa c > > � Y o cr, _LL W � W r . 6 c �U v 0) v . v' 0 Z a C mOZ UU� p N 0c NpU N p CC CC NE2 p,U ° °ZEOmawL O C '�wW0 0m mZJaZO E O O >. >.2 Q m O „ E ULLYOm apj•c m E ° E ES m . o0 �� 0 CD 0 ° m° o °E rn ' E l rna o� 12 Z CL o a-)j Z,-0 COO 10 N C? N C� O ° O Z N M >DFQ2 ULL ` O O M O w CDO v� N N N d LL N LLJ V a (O O O O N N d O Z Q CD c U') P.- O 0 T O � Ui 0) NC C O -LU 0) N p) W N N O p� W W W W Z Z z W CV)O ! Yr y J J J J J O CC (/' •� y J � Z y 10 y a W x "Z z z z z z z z z J � CO ®S. H _ W Y U) O C9 C7 0 0 0 C9 (D V � O G m 0 ea c 3 Z U m C m LL C9 c O O D_ m m m C O O U c 0 U O 'm .0 .0 'C m ° Cl)cli `° y a a `' Z E e N r a 0) E v m°°°)Cr) o „` c �? �? `° $ a a opp rnvr t0 ciNDo m I-N t 04 cp E N V 6 �) m Tmv m o Gom=° �O 0 O O O W LT LT 0 o c, to a< � c > � N CD LO N �► m w w w 0 J N 4 a a a w oLLI v a m U) O r r r co J J < U 0 0 o w LL � o C07 O ' m m o cn - >_ m C -0-0 U)U) J W C .�+ .°c m w ° N C Q LL y'0 C U "n v � m w_r oN^ w0, aw WWI 0) m rn RZ N ° a�°�' wmw N? C itw� � ww^((nz 0 �r RUC �°� m o 'n�jU)rnZ a co d OZ� J W C W- d N-mw W aa) a)of m 3 7 m Q�Z aamZ�... raa°v N o3 o rnc -2=U)� $) CO o F- m wZw LL LL mU)p0LL? ui NLLO a)AD; m -JZ C NON CC a0 � v� Jo 0 LW a V) Wwn o ZO Qoas W.Q O 0 r D coo coo Oni T V O p O 8 d � cm 0) om� � QRrn � rnrnc ow o ] rn-ate W N N Vl.0inCL rr m N� N 3:a. rU) Z.� } U' m OL Om 0 U C 0 Q 0 QVM z�U J m CL d2mo"= m Oz m ° ° OzOUQ�=a pUp � O-i pUaa o D Qg w-zw a mrnO� mme y _L- w 2-j _WoDOgwozbom W oN � �-jjd�LL>,(4ra2Cl) a)U) °o 0c � Y iza , z m aQ,h rn� 6 Q °� �LLm m CC = ==N N Y � z SNm0o2LL wa OalJ o 2 a lL J ..0r000 JOmLLYW o � Yuo Vyma moZUU No U � LLQ _j � Up� HwZ Z � O _ mm N o O ZOv) w Epoc02 0200� �awc ar E m Cl) 2 0 ZOm5O m o0 o ,> jommo rnF-QO200Z:0F �0J O N L 0wm -vi . -0ca .... NLa N.... r 2�JdOHUU)Jd N N N C v W V a �r O T O a 5; O O N N N s' ro o m w J J J J J V Ct O � y J Z d ` y a z z z z z J y LU Q C N co (M M 0 ®5: H y m N U) U) U) U) Z W (b is Cm o (D 0 (D 0 V Q O C as E co Z $ O E m $ $y $y y$ N 0 O O O V lL d C, N k C G G G Z O h LL J �0 Y Y Y Y N V) Ei a LO yNco F-N m N co o 01 ° �C y O > •-ci'SI-fro� H Z N r ;? '? m :' r r w Y N O O o } a0 0 0 w WN (a 16 U) o `+�7 • .m. � � LU Z Ow 7 � ZZ _j Co O J C w ` N O W Lo 0 W W �JLL lC0 aS m�� Ott c Z � m UXvi r0Z o�0)t ��U �E n e • m .5 QIL aJ� Zdao OQ y^v M >W (AMm t� prpp aammcn oaZiN �m �o NO� m?Ym o > O = ,T �w as cN o •- 3a) 2 c mp•c� w5 cpz 0rn Lu w W- c a> 4w- J O c - J to a) U O c y a) V C C aO. U) W E Y O��W�LU a" 0 w:0 c C, umi w d y �. Q ;pwLLUQ U co 0 ESL JV)QU) w E w yvM o LL 8,a OY c V o ym N U = w Oai �CV -0oN NL NLa) Ym NZ O1 mm a� Uf0E? omc� o mw o' cC p m LU o I :'�1U 0 o Z o rnrn E or- m CL 8-a No m oLu� _ _L maNFLLI maaoU) N 2=c,, co ) N O U) W m w IL v co E y 0 O O ~L d w O N mma) p�QO 8'D— Y0Z c �Y W U L o m o o U 0 m c m o w n U 0 Q E N > rn � O� �Y� LP oy u3,:?�t0)0 �V _,v o O Y m � (ngw :5003: 1:23 C 8- ca' � M acmm am QQw } Z � Laoi o O d c � c � xwgm0 0 oJ Q aw 0 - J= Z: c 0•» 'LL dn W No va LU � U H O OOOZUU N E a moZ U. L cwN 2 � U_ ` m c� � °0u0 O cDm =0 o •9v mZ Q20of E t o0WQO3 • 2 ° OO c ) O m V aLL OLE w z O N m= Q�, 220J NLLJ wYW 62, Zo U) LJ.I f0 Q1 N N N N IL WC� O O O N `1 VJ O O O O O m C Q N N N N v O (0 a1 0 � v C Lo V c V = J J J J Z oa y J o z a WY � a z z z z z m J � LL. y ® W v ix m N Cl) Cl) w w S. H N W O m 0 C9 V 0 O C d Z C C o -o :2 v C O C N M C Ir N x M tr a a U Z E E E E v m _Nch Lm v T O OODm m 0 o co .G O m to m F-N mNfO,S N} �� R lCa ICO lC0 �N c.w�O a y Q 10 < W e in �_> d r 4Z Q M m K N I� =2 O U C S2 w U) cn v> c�,: ¢�� m 2 Z O _ � ° u~iw�¢ oz � zN CD > Z:r wp��¢z ¢ W of w — O 0 ¢w 2 � GCTI ` > ? � _U� z5az=Rz uJ U) n MIII Cl) 0 LUaw C) CL 00cznu~i O � = rnmof0 Lu-Xo ZLLw __ LJJZ cn w Z >- Fn LL -LL � E jZ �0 Zmw 0zm0 LL V a > w U_M_ " 0m0 �°z m �o w W ? m cnv =vaiZa LL<<U) LL p CL w Oo �ZUR U) pm YpoC 0 < w p>-¢¢ pO lnZO gJ=Zw� m m - -W0) w 00¢ w -j U 2 ¢w MOORPMO 20bD0 za g op ILoY5Oo �z<0 LL W �a CL J F-aZ iCt) ¢U w 0WCO 2Qgp0o =ouz M- = Zj C =2NmOOQ2a }p y ¢ m20.6 2M0(7Q}�m2 Q W 0¢[ 0Q � v LU ILLU0 � w00 Z¢ Y=wo ]P� �Ja z U) � vo � uViga zo =q J ( z CM ~ ��OU �m K do� 0lZ JWO �2mC a p 2p QO,<O -J-¢ z GO -¢oR00 ==Yz _j o 02000P ¢ � Z w20 JCL0 coZfn C Z J0E-J F- W. 220 J LL D M CLU LLJ cs V a rn CD W Q y C V a C v0 � y y U) W Y d « z z z z JW Cl) W ." c ` LU N m V) U) vi (nn w io a O C7 � co V C3 it C m J T 2) 'a IL m in n 0 o 0 w w CD a) C1 -0 T C) 0 w Y o a a CL cx Co cn d . N O H O O M L L LO Z O _ fp yco � �Oto L t Ev m°?1O o `^ G o o 0 O$ 0)et.- 1 a w m m I=-N N C ,� N} �(� ICO W fp f0 ffp 0) a! 0 0I F_ f "Z i< W _ 'J">sz .0 N G1 J ¢ p w w C -w_ CL CL 20 J J g ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ O CL CL CL SVIRjr Y w . w o >a ¢cnQ}Qp0o ZZ 0 0 �rc Z E c m �, pZ2gg0Q Hy oz w E O N Oi N >i V wZH W gzz � m HJD L mom•- o L c0 amp wOW WQQrn OU mQ UJ W `L 10 C N N lOL c l0 U=i.O wp- gO=OfI?< co W � �>> y m a� to c3 U) `m CR M L) I ZdQZM:oZ (Mom �� ZIJi W car � .Nw m�.o 0 0 0 0 S H w ¢� o o N 0 _ ULL O<ncn �— �Q JO-o c - a CO m v c c c mw c z�ZLLw -U W Q JLL_J O 5 >, O� m EL,FO L� m C w00o LLZmLLI tnp W zN >,;o �U m d 7 2 ~ > � ULL F:HgcLL n0O00U wz �g�ZJ a c O� ? `m Q X >w E U` Zpp� NLL0 a0 L6 0-LL o m aov o ° m x zQaQ'OJcn Z� U) Q~Q N W Q p N fOd4= N E'�a QC V O�dmLL �Z�O U= C)U)wZ� aEi cmi d cw o aci a�p Zt 90U WOpQmLL W d0> M W wp ui TN C 05 6 E O N capes O p�Q�_ z- ¢w LLOoo >�>_ coo 0 0 o a°'i c mt o m� mo c c W LL-SUQQ— oaf Un (L �JC9 U) co N a3L ._.-. r N.kgwU Cm m z J 0 m LL O0 of V V YctOgg��p�Uo i LL O rE w pL� Ncr 200 Q0 J U 0 U c Lmo �m E0<C ' Z ( � � OJNME ET �- -i 7 gp¢OF� Q W rnU > 66w E a E a�, mcx-0 pF mm O >+oOg w UF > DQLLLLwzW ¢ UOw O ZO 0 UZ c) - 000WULL U WU y `oin2Qw0:50 �o CD p�d (L) o 0 L� SSNmUOQ ��d�O CL W QO CJ29 LL :"W2 U)J UE >`atN, c4N6N W w ' pQYW �000awUO� w ofd o�ppQY= O LL Jo o m� `oa3 CL a Z 4 zU Qmz0 SJOU=� w OU NinzZUvw cnNU N_ � w yw C�1 YOg� 00? U�OW� mZ W W c�YOgjUWZ Ot = N� m a� Q to U �ggm�C7QO�pQj zQ pU LO L)W2HW 04 �hrno N O ¢OgOOSSYzLLJ OJ zz O _z0�¢¢ LLU_0) oLt _ > >•� 4� Z Q' I mp Jd0 H0?Z)fnd z SO N 3 w :rg fn J? N.N fAw �iJ E.CL O C y QQ N N N V = w Cl) N O o O O C.� Z O co co O O N N Z. 0 d � O y., C O y J m m U) z z Z y my a g M Z z z z z cc J ;O � h ,CD 4c co Z Y N W O MU' C9 LO C9 CN7 V � O Y C � a°> cYn o, m Zo � c g C c >, E � � 0 O t o V m U_ �o G y 4 d d Sm U MO VO O cc N k v_ m E E UT =' $ E E LL y hgi" a .0 'N M LZ r , �C y c o Lp }y m N m C\l p d y UL UL co � o Of ti a a a s o U) Coo CO P •` Z W N Z Q r E2 w C Q, of g g N J w U (D OLU W U U C d a d x 0 weVAS, z� ¢`` • jL Q z.0 r v O � Zo U p ° U) � �� TrO IO Gmmo pF- co mp -QW ow W�U>O w V'wZ� .rn w Of�P. 0 v U) N r0 OWJ Cl) c o OpW pm o uD �ZLL �m d 0(j) 0LL a) MD O.JZ m 0 d OoN � (9Q cmo . mCZ) > O .•: OQ w wp m " ? ZQQwrn$ mU 0U)z2L WZ O Qu 'tw- ° Ern o ' CD r _ 12 LL v � d s LpZZ i �f0 Zm Q m Z 0 �Z QJO 7 WW 0 )� )� EL U ? N ) TU? Lr n N �WOOOENU ZJmJ TZ) O NO cW O�Q Q LL � � ON ) (> � U)U E u1 7 W w � NO ' LL I� N U :p} pp ?U)O�-0rn U)ZZo Q�QZQZ m O N y ooWN Z CD �dF- off~ OQQ(09� M cp p0E- > a� �H 0 o o �tr o2mO1 amp? oO TaNwc�m� V OmW 13 Z � 0)� �Z W O2 �M �mZZ W W O N :�cnU? NUZ N ywU W Q2 0 rnZWU0) o 'o OZoQ rnrnrnZ00 mg o ot •CZW � Maa,v c 2 ado�w0 W U)> TT Z�� .� —} >0 N adp U) — - .Q d N NU)Q > U a c w c E c g p w O vi t� UUmoa � 2Oa o ° -j mm a E >w a n Y Nc - �90 b m mN�p �O�?L�L0 ow O0Qo�fm Q Z Q=U w p Eo c -jL) 0R c JVmmca o Z ? - pJ OU)02 16 ° w0YO0 W CL LLYOYwp0H 15v ��OWQ<, 00 mZ m N ow �WaUo ° aUO � X t O w 0 L2�rn mQ m�Z o o W O � w2zQQwQO0cm N H W J�Z Z w Z 3am w20 JELL Y O �— c co N M N N O Cl ¢ 0....... N N I fS O zn C OOi OOi OOi N O C d y U) U) J J J 0 C y at ZZ y J Zy Tpy , a Y Z Z Z Z Z m �., JLU � � y ®". H W y W ai in cMn Ui U)i Z W m is v LO LO Om 0 0MU, 0 V G c y ' m E c' E l0 m d OE E m H E m m N p m m o o C) a) J m LL d Cl) U. Z •i0 N .y is U O C m m C x .-GO V)Nco m �} w E E E N C C Iz NM N(O E O� 'V .2 N * Z N LO t ti Z Q n Cl) co ooM IN Z Z o < 0 O a% 4a w LU hJ • LL O �N O C W SZ = W U)(9 . , N 10 L 0 Lh C :3 vOM ig M H U>w> ~ U IL w Q O U CA M U U O 7 H U m c° W cN E d m z NLU H< aw FN0M -aE o > v QLu �w2¢ ^o m 0 .I Ch 0)CCO-0J N O Cl) � C Z W OQQQ O W Of 02 O p dL LL N .0 O O O U)Z W W W >W 2 Q H yy C10�O c"L-' � 'L-' d •i COO OM)W u)W >� NZ C o m� �U fO � o a�i a= O¢ �mJ� �� m� G� N oa,o� o c L �LLrLL -� ZQo� CO LL D D z � .L.+ 7 �O N C � c+-'O ¢UC14 .0 .2 WLL ZZL~i� O o2-0� m omLLLw cp MWrnz wwWw0 (� a)TOw In 0)a) m2 jw LLUn" Kt0w ) n �p•- 7 0 o c c =o 225 0W LL mW U) ZWQ W LU N to-0 CD NLLF � N'OU:s Zm MC/) ZU) oodU J_ N U N � o m O LU } O ~Zm M p �¢O ZZw0 w J I pU¢ OU d QwS - -j L �O DZw O� � OQ¢mo w _ CL}O (9 U Upg Z (9mU ° � 00azQ mcLm c QU U LL 2o ¢OZ ¢ � gp9020 Z mt >° e E n O m� W �UJ5IW ` C O N-0ON = `m W m N0 LL¢ U)LLw0 O Q ¢ WO9F-} ¢ 2 2 mO a2LL ¢ ac O) � 2 oaQUO � U Q.- LLO J Q OQ< <y J ¢J Q JZ zUUmOaUU ¢¢ Z 2� L ° U olmUQwLU :5 Z O IL o� oCnm Z mO �ww U�� p mU�M of °rEEm � LU � (DQZOv H p =oao �_ -5 p O � u`4Z Z NL T a: Qm OSL ° JQ�� ° LU Zj a W n w 'T O CM W W & M w CV M n Of d Z Q O18) O CA d O W C y O N N v N 4. d � C Ozy y J J Z Z Z Z y w 2 M *0 M z z z z z co w. J ,LU y ®5:, FW- W O G 0 0 0 E E m 2 P > d d 0 � d U U ) Y Y O t M N N N E M M V U U U O p O M N f6 %a LL LL CD Lb m � M ° C`) C\j to UL am a7 10 > > 7 �N Cl) Lb O O O O N a 0 L N W N C( 4- O,� N} V C C a) =�L 0 � �C�O� 'c�$- eV CD V- w w LIL (Y Q' Of a0 H I=- > > > C 1018 Thomasville Road ��l►�I` � Suite 200-C OY"1 a aura rasa tfenor I Tallahassee,FL 32303I (850)224-8207(850)681-9364 Fax Biodiversity Matrix Report v INVENTORY Global State Federal State Scientific Name Common Name Rank Rank Status Listing Matrix Unit ID: 55427 Likely Ardea alba Great Egret G5 S4 N N Athene cunicularia floridana Florida Burrowing Owl G4T3 S3 N SSC Bird Rookery GNR SNR N N Pelecanus occidentalis Brown Pelican G4 S3 N SSC Plestiodon egregius egregius Florida Keys Mole Skink G5T2 S2 N SSC Rockland hammock G2 S2 N N Potential Ardea herodias occidentalis Great White Heron G5T2 S2 N N Argythamnia blodgettii Blodgett's Wild-mercury G2 S2 C LE Bourreria radula Rough Strongbark G2? S1 N LE Caretta caretta Loggerhead G3 S3 LT FT Chamaesyce garbed Garber's Spurge G1 S1 LT LE Charadrius melodus Piping Plover G3 S2 LT FT Chelonia mydas Green Turtle G3 S2 LE FE Crocodylus acutus American Crocodile G2 S2 LT FT Ctenogobius stigmaturus Spottail Goby G2 S2 N N Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill G3 S1 LE FE Forestiera segregata var. pinetorum Florida Pinewood Privet G4T2 S2 N N Gambusia rhizophorae Mangrove Gambusia G3 S3 N N Menidia conchorum Key Silverside G3Q S2 SC ST Opuntia corallicola Florida Semaphore Cactus G1 S1 C LE Opuntia triacantha Three-spined Prickly Pear G2G4 S1 N LE Pantherophis guttatus pop. 1 Red Rat Snake, FI Lower Keys Pop G5T2Q S2 N SSC Papilio aristodemus ponceanus Schaus' Swallowtail G3G4T1 S1 LE FE Patagioenas leucocephala White-crowned Pigeon G3 S3 N ST Phyllanthus pentaphyllus var. floridanus Florida Five-petaled Leaf-flower G4T2 S2 N N Pilosocereus robinii Tree Cactus G1 S1 LE LE Procyon lotorauspicatus Key Vaca Raccoon G5T1? S1? N N Rallus longirostris insularum Mangrove Clapper Rail G5T3 S3 N N Rivulus marmoratus Mangrove Rivulus G3 S3 SC SSC Roystonea elata Florida Royal Palm G2G3 S2 N LE Sachsia polycephala Bahama Sachsia G2 S2 N LT Setophaga discolor paludicola Florida Prairie Warbler G5T3 S3 N N Swietenia mahagoni West Indies Mahogany G3G4 S3 N LT Tantilla oolitica Rim Rock Crowned Snake G1G2 S1S2 N ST Trichechus manatus Manatee G2 S2 LE FE Matrix Unit ID: 55428 Documented Argythamnia blodgettii Blodgett's Wild-mercury G2 S2 C LE Gyminda latifolia False Boxwood G4 S2 N LE Jacquinia keyensis Joewood G4 S3 N LT Likely Ardea alba Great Egret G5 S4 N N Definitions: Documented-Rare species and natural communities documented on or near this site. Documented-Historic-Rare species and natural communities documented,but not observed/reported within the last twenty years. Likely-Rare species and natural communities likely to occur on this site based on suitable habitat and/or known occurrences in the vicinity. Potential-This site lies within the known or predicted range of the species listed. 0810912012 Page 1 of 3 1018 Thomasville RoadSuite 2 -C �T Tallahassee,FL 32303 0r7 a aura real 9nventoily 4 ($50)224-8207 Biodiversity Matrix Report ' ' (850)681-9364 Fax �. HORIDn * l$5 NWt ral Areal INVENTORY Global State Federal State Scientific Name Common Name Rank Rank Status Listing Athene cunicularia floridana Florida Burrowing Owl G4T3 S3 N SSC Bird Rookery GNR SNR N N Drypetes diversifolia Milkbark G4 S2 N LE Pelecanus occidentalis Brown Pelican G4 S3 N SSC Plestiodon egregius egregius Florida Keys Mole Skink G5T2 S2 N SSC Rockland hammock G2 S2 N N Thrinax radiata Florida Thatch Palm G4G5 S2 N LE Potential Ardea herodias occidentalis Great White Heron G5T2 S2 N N Bourreria radula Rough Strongbark G2? S1 N LE Caretta caretta Loggerhead G3 S3 LT FT Chamaesyce garberi Garber's Spurge G1 S1 LT LE Chamaesyce porteriana Porter's Broad-leaved Spurge G2 S2 N LE Chelonia mydas Green Turtle G3 S2 LE FE Crocodylus acutus American Crocodile G2 S2 LT FT Crossopetalum ilicifolium Christmas Berry G3 S3 N LT Ctenogobius stigmaturus Spottail Goby G2 S2 N N Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill G3 S1 LE FIE Euphorbia pinetorum Rockland Painted-leaf G2 S2 N LE Forestiera segregata var.pinetorum Florida Pinewood Privet G4T2 S2 N N Gambusia rhizophorae Mangrove Gambusia G3 S3 N N Guaiacum sanctum Lignum-vitae G2 S1 N LE Menidia conchorum Key Silverside G3Q S2 SC ST Opuntia corallicola Florida Semaphore Cactus G1 S1 C LE Opuntia triacantha Three-spined Prickly Pear G2G4 S1 N LE Pantherophis guttatus pop. 1 Red Rat Snake, FI Lower Keys Pop G5T2Q S2 N SSC Patagioenas leucocephala White-crowned Pigeon G3 S3 N ST Phyllanthus pentaphyllus var. floridanus Florida Five-petaled Leaf-flower G4T2 S2 N N Pilosocereus robinii Tree Cactus G1 S1 LE LE Procyon lotorauspicatus Key Vaca Raccoon G5T1? S1? N N Rallus longirostris insularum Mangrove Clapper Rail G5T3 S3 N N Rivulus marmoratus Mangrove Rivulus G3 S3 SC SSC Roystonea elata Florida Royal Palm G2G3 S2 N LE Sachsia polycephala Bahama Sachsia G2 S2 N LT Setophaga discolor paludicola Florida Prairie Warbler G5T3 S3 N N Swietenia mahagoni West Indies Mahogany G3G4 S3 N LT Trichechus manatus Manatee G2 S2 LE FIE Matrix Unit ID: 55744 Documented Chordeiles gundlachii Antillean Nighthawk G4 S2 N N Coccyzus minor Mangrove Cuckoo G5 S3 N N Drypetes diversifolia Milkbark G4 S2 N LE Gossypium hirsutum Wild Cotton G4G5 S3 N LE Gyminda latifolia False Boxwood G4 S2 N LE Jacquinia keyensis Joewood G4 S3 N LT Manilkara jaimiqui Wild Dilly G4 S3 N LT Pandion haliaetus Osprey G5 S3S4 N SSC" Definitions: Documented-Rare species and natural communities documented on or near this site. Documented-Historic-Rare species and natural communities documented,but not observed/reported within the last twenty years. Likely-Rare species and natural communities likely to occur on this site based on suitable habitat and/or known occurrences in the vicinity. Potential-This site lies within the known or predicted range of the species listed. 0810912012 Page 2 of 3 1016 Thomasville Road Suite 200-C Tallahassee, FL 32303 V-10Kda NaturalAreas nvenoT . (850)224-8207 Biodiversity Matrix Report I (850)681-9364 Fax 'N'x6rP,1 A,rea-s INVENTORY Global State Federal State Scientific Name Common Name Rank Rank Status Listing Patagioenas leucocephala White-crowned Pigeon G3 S3 N ST Rockland hammock G2 S2 N N Thrinax radiata Florida Thatch Palm G4G5 S2 N LE Vireo altiloquus Black-whiskered Vireo G5 S3 N N Likely Argythamnia blodgettii Blodgett's Wild-mercury G2 S2 C LE Athene cunicularia floridana Florida Burrowing Owl G4T3 S3 N SSC Plestiodon egregius egregius Florida Keys Mole Skink G5T2 S2 N SSC Potential Ardea herodias occidentalis Great White Heron G5T2 S2 N N Bourreria radula Rough Strongbark G2? S1 N LE Caretta caretta Loggerhead G3 S3 LT FT Chamaesyce garberi Garber's Spurge G1 S1 LT LE Chamaesyce porteriana Porter's Broad-leaved Spurge G2 S2 N LE Chelonia mydas Green Turtle G3 S2 LE FE Crocodylus acutus American Crocodile G2 S2 LT FT Crossopetalum ilicifolium Christmas Berry G3 S3 N LT Ctenogobius stigmaturus Spottail Goby G2 S2 N N Eretmochelys imbricate Hawksbill G3 S1 LE FE Euphorbia pinetorum Rockland Painted-leaf G2 S2 N LE Forestiera segregata var. pinetorum Florida Pinewood Privet G4T2 S2 N N Gambusia rhizophorae Mangrove Gambusia G3 S3 N N Guaiacum sanctum Lignum-vitae G2 S1 N LE Menidia conchorum Key Silverside G3Q S2 SC ST Opuntia corallicola Florida Semaphore Cactus G1 S1 C LE Opuntia triacantha Three-spined Prickly Pear G2G4 S1 N LE Pantherophis guttatus pop. 1 Red Rat Snake, FI Lower Keys Pop G5T2Q S2 N SSC Phyllanthus pentaphyllus var. floridanus Florida Five-petaled Leaf-flower G4T2 S2 N N Pilosocereus robinii Tree Cactus G1 S1 LE LE Procyon lotorauspicatus Key Vaca Raccoon G5T1? S1? N N Rallus longirostris insularum Mangrove Clapper Rail G5T3 S3 N N Rivulus marmoratus Mangrove Rivulus G3 S3 SC SSC Roystonea elata Florida Royal Palm G2G3 S2 N LE Sachsia polycephala Bahama Sachsia G2 S2 N LT Setophaga discolor paludicola Florida Prairie Warbler G5T3 S3 N N Swietenia mahagoni West Indies Mahogany G3G4 S3 N LT Tantilla oolitica Rim Rock Crowned Snake G1G2 S1S2 N ST Trichechus manatus Manatee G2 S2 LE FE Definitions: Documented-Rare species and natural communities documented on or near this site. Documented-Historic-Rare species and natural communities documented,but not observed/reported within the last twenty years. Likely-Rare species and natural communities likely to occur on this site based on suitable habitat and/or known occurrences in the vicinity. Potential-This site lies within the known or predicted range of the species listed. 0810912012 Page 3 of 3 9� S 0 � PJ �� ##� 'kry 1t �Ig, F S W R � �r It p yy i "ONrL a N �f f•P y �.fir° y III cis LL o w C E2 � O N� O 0 N � rNffi� }act u o w p m �ao •c a ;° �r�ksO u mw U cd � � m o r z < B •-49 O ` O 0 p,F LL � IadO V O O QNQN vpTj 5 v Ja° )� a `W Elements and ElementOccurrences An element is any exemplary or rare component of the natural environment, such as a species, natural community, bird rookery, spring, sinkhole, cave, or other ecological feature. An element occurrence (EO) is an area of land and/or water in which a species or natural community is, or was, present. An EO should have practical conservation value for the Element as evidenced by potential continued (or historical) presence and/or regular recurrence at a given location. Element Ranking and Legal Status Using a ranking system developed by NatureServe and the Natural Heritage Program Network, the Florida Natural Areas Inventory assigns two ranks for each element. The global rank is based on an element's worldwide status; the state rank is based on the status of the element in Florida. Element ranks are based on many factors, the most important ones being estimated number of Element Occurrences (EOs), estimated abundance (number of individuals for species; area for natural communities), geographic range, estimated number of adequately protected EOs, relative threat of destruction, and ecological fragility. FNAI GLOBAL ELEMENT RANK G1 = Critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences or less than 1000 individuals) or because of extreme vulnerability to extinction due to some natural or man-made factor. G2 = Imperiled globally because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences or less than 3000 individuals) or because of vulnerability to extinction due to some natural or man-made factor. G3 = Either very rare and local throughout its range (21-100 occurrences or less than 10,000 individuals) or found locally in a restricted range or vulnerable to extinction from other factors. G4 = Apparently secure globally (may be rare in parts of range). G5 = Demonstrably secure globally. GH = Of historical occurrence throughout its range, may be rediscovered (e.g., ivory-billed woodpecker). GX = Believed to be extinct throughout range. GXC = Extirpated from the wild but still known from captivity or cultivation. G#? = Tentative rank (e.g., G2?). G#G# = Range of rank; insufficient data to assign specific global rank (e.g., G2G3). G#T# = Rank of a taxonomic subgroup such as a subspecies or variety; the G portion of the rank refers to the entire species and the T portion refers to the specific subgroup; numbers have same definition as above (e.g., G3T1). G#Q = Rank of questionable species - ranked as species but questionable whether it is species or subspecies; numbers have same definition as above (e.g., G2Q). G#T#Q = Same as above, but validity as subspecies or variety is questioned. GU = Unrankable; due to a lack of information no rank or range can be assigned (e.g., GUT2). GNA = Ranking is not applicable because the element is not a suitable target for conservation (e.g. a hybrid species). GNR = Element not yet ranked (temporary). GNRTNR = Neither the element nor the taxonomic subgroup has yet been ranked. FNAI STATE ELEMENT RANK S1 = Critically imperiled in Florida because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences or less than 1000 individuals) or because of extreme vulnerability to extinction due to some natural or man-made factor. S2 = Imperiled in Florida because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences or less than 3000 individuals) or because of vulnerability to extinction due to some natural or man-made factor. S3 = Either very rare and local in Florida (21-100 occurrences or less than 10,000 individuals) or found locally in a restricted range or vulnerable to extinction from other factors. S4 = Apparently secure in Florida (may be rare in parts of range). S5 = Demonstrably secure in Florida. SH = Of historical occurrence in Florida, possibly extirpated, but may be rediscovered (e.g., ivory-billed woodpecker). SX = Believed to be extirpated throughout Florida. SU = Unrankable; due to a lack of information no rank or range can be assigned. SNA = State ranking is not applicable because the element is not a suitable target for conservation (e.g. a hybrid species). SNR = Element not yet ranked (temporary). FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS Legal status information provided by FNAI for information only. For official definitions and lists of protected species, consult the relevant federal agency. Definitions derived from U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973, Sec. 3. Note that the federal status given by FNAI refers only to Florida populations and that federal status may differ elsewhere. C = Candidate species for which federal listing agencies have sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support proposing to list the species as Endangered or Threatened. LE = Endangered: species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. LE, LT = Species currently listed endangered in a portion of its range but only listed as threatened in other areas LE, PDL = Species currently listed endangered but has been proposed for delisting. LE, PT = Species currently listed endangered but has been proposed for listing as threatened. LE, XN = Species currently listed endangered but tracked population is a non-essential experimental population. LT = Threatened: species likely to become Endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. SAT = Treated as threatened due to similarity of appearance to a species which is federally listed such that enforcement personnel have difficulty in attempting to differentiate between the listed and unlisted species. SC = Not currently listed, but considered a "species of concern"to USFWS. STATE LEGAL STATUS Provided by FNAI for information only. For official definitions and lists of protected species, consult the relevant state agency. Animals: Definitions derived from "Florida's Endangered Species and Species of Special Concern, Official Lists" published by Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 1 August 1997, and subsequent updates. FE = Listed as Endangered Species at the Federal level by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service FT = Listed as Threatened Species at the Federal level by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service F(XN) = Federal listed as an experimental population in Florida FT(S/A) = Federal Threatened due to similarity of appearance ST = State population listed as Threatened by the FFWCC. Defined as a species, subspecies, or isolated population which is acutely vulnerable to environmental alteration, declining in number at a rapid rate, or whose range or habitat is decreasing in area at a rapid rate and as a consequence is destined or very likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future. (ST* for Ursus americanus floridanus (Florida black bear) indicates that this status does not apply in Baker and Columbia counties and in the Apalachicola National Forest. ST* for Neovison vison pop.1 (Southern mink, South Florida population) indicates that this status applies to the Everglades population only.) SSC = Listed as Species of Special Concern by the FFWCC. Defined as a population which warrants special protection, recognition, or consideration because it has an inherent significant vulnerability to habitat modification, environmental alteration, human disturbance, or substantial human exploitation which, in the foreseeable future, may result in its becoming a threatened species. (SSC* indicates that a species has SSC status only in selected portions of its range in Florida. SSC*for Pandion haliaetus (Osprey) indicates that this status applies in Monroe county only.) N = Not currently listed, nor currently being considered for listing. Plants: Definitions derived from Sections 581.011 and 581.185(2), Florida Statutes, and the Preservation of Native Flora of Florida Act, 5B-40.001. FNAI does not track all state-regulated plant species; for a complete list of state- regulated plant species, call Florida Division of Plant Industry, 352-372-3505 or see: http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/pi/. LE = Endangered: species of plants native to Florida that are in imminent danger of extinction within the state, the survival of which is unlikely if the causes of a decline in the number of plants continue; includes all species determined to be endangered or threatened pursuant to the U.S. Endangered Species Act. LT = Threatened: species native to the state that are in rapid decline in the number of plants within the state, but which have not so decreased in number as to cause them to be Endangered. N = Not currently listed, nor currently being considered for listing. Element OccurrenceRanking FNAI ranks of quality of the element occurrence in terms of its viability (EORANK). Viability is estimated using a combination of factors that contribute to continued survival of the element at the location. Among these are the size of the EO, general condition of the EO at the site, and the conditions of the landscape surrounding the EO (e.g. an immediate threat to an EO by local development pressure could lower an EO rank). A = Excellent estimated viability A? = Possibly excellent estimated viability AS = Excellent or good estimated viability AC = Excellent, good, or fair estimated viability B = Good estimated viability B? = Possibly good estimated viability BC = Good or fair estimated viability BD = Good, fair, or poor estimated viability C = Fair estimated viability C? = Possibly fair estimated viability CD = Fair or poor estimated viability D = Poor estimated viability D? = Possibly poor estimated viability E = Verified extant (viability not assessed) F = Failed to find H = Historical NR = Not ranked, a placeholder when an EO is not (yet) ranked. U = Unrankable X = Extirpated *For additional detail on the above ranks see: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/eorankguide.htm FNAI also uses the following EO ranks: H? = Possibly historical F? _ Possibly failed to find X? = Possibly extirpated The following offers further explanation of the H and X ranks as they are used by FNAI: The rank of H is used when there is a lack of recent field information verifying the continued existence of an EO, such as (a) when an EO is based only on historical collections data; or(b) when an EO was ranked A, B, C, D, or E at one time and is later, without field survey work, considered to be possibly extirpated due to general habitat loss or degradation of the environment in the area. This definition of the H rank is dependent on an interpretation of what constitutes "recent" field information. Generally, if there is no known survey of an EO within the last 20 to 40 years, it should be assigned an H rank. While these time frames represent suggested maximum limits, the actual time period for historical EOs may vary according to the biology of the element and the specific landscape context of each occurrence (including anthropogenic alteration of the environment). Thus, an H rank may be assigned to an EO before the maximum time frames have lapsed. Occurrences that have not been surveyed for periods exceeding these time frames should not be ranked A, B, C, or D. The higher maximum limit for plants and communities (i.e., ranging from 20 to 40 years) is based upon the assumption that occurrences of these elements generally have the potential to persist at a given location for longer periods of time. This greater potential is a reflection of plant biology and community dynamics. However, landscape factors must also be considered. Thus, areas with more anthropogenic impacts on the environment (e.g., development) will be at the lower end of the range, and less-impacted areas will be at the higher end. The rank of X is assigned to EOs for which there is documented destruction of habitat or environment, or persuasive evidence of eradication based on adequate survey (i.e., thorough or repeated survey efforts by one or more experienced observers at times and under conditions appropriate for the Element at that location). Florida Keys Ecosystem Monroe County Climate Change Lands Purpose for State Acquisition It is important to many rare plants and animals and The unique hardwood hammocks of the Florida Keys, consists of 17 sites in the Upper and Middle Keys forests of West Indian plants that shelter several encompassing the remaining fragments of unprotected extremely rare animals, are being lost to the rapid tropical hardwood hammock greater than 12.5 acres. development of these islands. The Florida Keys The project includes habitat for migratory birds and Ecosystem project will protect all the significant virtually all remaining Lower Keys marsh rabbits, unprotected hardwood hammocks left in the Keys and Key deer, and the state-threatened white-crowned many rare plants and animals,including the Lower Keys pigeon. In all,it provides habitat for at least 34 species marsh rabbit and Key deer. It will also help protect the of rare vascular plants and 34 rare animals. Many Outstanding Florida Waters of the Keys,the recreational archaeological and historical sites are recorded from and commercial fisheries, and the reefs around the the area. All the project sites are threatened by intense islands,and also give residents and visitors more areas development in the Keys. for enjoying the natural beauty of the Keys. Public Use Managers The tracts will become botanical sites, parks, and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission wildlife and environmental areas. Some will offer (FWC)(19 sites);Florida Department of Environmental camping,swimming,hiking,and boating,while others Protection's Division of Recreation and Parks (DRP), will be suitable only for nature appreciation. (10 sites:Key Largo Narrows,Point Charles Hammock, Newport Hammock, Pennekamp North, Largo Sound Acquisition Planning Hammock,North Creek Hammock,Teatable Hammock, On 12/7/1995,the Land Acquisition Advisory Council Lower Matecumbe Hammock,North Layton Hammock (LAAC) approved combining the Hammocks of the and Grassy Key Site). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lower Keys and Tropical Flyways projects into a single (USFWS),Monroe County,City of Marathon,and City project named Florida Keys Ecosystem. The combined of Islamorada also manage some properties. project consisted of approximately 4,438 acres; 465 acres acquired for $24,324,425 and 3,973 remained General Description with a taxable value of$9,619,059. This project includes most of the remaining unprotected Hammocks of the Lower Keys: No phasing is rockland hammocks (tropical hardwood hammocks) recommended; however, some sites are extremely in the Keys from South Key Largo to Sugarloaf Key. vulnerable to immediate development: Cudjoe Key— Kephart tract; Big Torch Key—Outward Bound/ Florida Keys Ecosystem Stelmok tract (acquired); Summerland Key—the FNAI Elements area around the pond; and Little Torch Key—Torch Florida Semaphore Cactus G 1/S 1 KeyEstates Subdivision(acquired). Estimated acreage Key Deer GSTI/S 1 for each site are:Cudjoe Key,38 acres;Big Torch Key, Lower Keys Rabbit G5T1/S1 450 acres;Little Torch Kev,217 acres; Summerland Loggerhead G3/S 3 Cape Sable Thorough►,,ort Gi/S I Placed on list 1992 Garbers Spurge G1/S 1 Tree Cactus G1/S 1 Project Area (GIS Acres) 13,073 Cuban Snake-bark G2G3T1/S1 Acres Acquired (GIS) 4,502" Florida Keys Indigo G5?T1Q/S 1 at a Cost of $91,025,252 Key Ringneck Snake G5T1/S1 Lower Keys Brown Snake G5T1Q/S I Acres Remaining (GIS) 8,571 Lower Keys Ribbon Snake G5T1Q/S1 With Estimated (Tax Assessed)Value of $38,187,008 77 rare species are associated with the project Includes donations 177 Florida Keys Ecosystem Key, 20 acres; Sugarloaf Key, 2711 acres; Little (Little Torch, Saddlebunch, Ramrod, Summerland, Knockemdown Kev,300 acres;Middle Torch Key,811 Cudjoe,and Upper Sugarloaf).FWC will manage 1,758 acres;Ramrod Kev, 615 acres; and Wahoo Kev,added acres as an addition to the Florida Keys Wildlife Envi- at the LAMAC's 12/3/93 meeting,26 acres(acquired). ronmental Area (WEA) and the USFWS will manage Tropical Flyways: No phasing is recommended; all the remaining acres as an addition to the Florida Key 17sites are being acquired with the Monroe County Deer Refuge. Land Authority(MCLA)as intermediary. The 17 sites are: North Creek ( two large ownerships, remaining On 2/11/2005,the ARC approved a fee-simple,f3,695- subdivided-16 acres acquired through MCLA),Largo acre addition to the project boundary.It was sponsored Sound (one major ownership-68 acres acquired by the multiple entities, consisted of multiple owners, through MCLA), Pennekamp North (one major and a 2004 taxable value of approximately$31,847,907. ownership - acquired through MCLA),Newport(one major ownership,remainder subdivided),Point Charles On 10/13/2007, the ARC approved a fee-simple, 8.6- (one major ownership),Key Largo Narrows(one major acre addition to the Sugarloaf Key portion of the project ownership—acquired through MCLA), Dove Creek boundary. It was sponsored by the FWC, consisted (several large ownerships,remaining subdivided187 of 2-parcels, a single owner, Community Sons of the acres acquired through MCLA), Tavernier Creek(one Divine Will, and a taxable value of$6,286,220. The major ownership), Lake San Pedro (several large proposed manager,FWC,does not consider the parcels ownerships), Snake Creek (one major ownership - essential. This boundary addition was approved with acquired through MCLA), Green Turtle (one major the understanding that FWC would share in the cost of ownership), Teatable (one major ownership), Lower the acquisition. Matecumbe (one major ownership), North Layton (several large ownerships), Grassy Key (several large In June 2008,the 67-acre Camilus House exchange with ownerships),Vaca Cut(one major ownership), Stirrup University of Miami for other BOT land was completed, Key(one ownership). at no cost to Florida Forever funds.The following acres (ownerships)were purchased with DSL Florida Forever On 6/11/1998, the LAMAC approved a fee-simple, funds:0.07 acre of Dove Creek(Cameron)for$46,250; 53-acre addition(Wilson&Cotton Keys)to the project 1.3 acres (Neff) of Grassy Key for $382,000; 0.15 boundary.It was sponsored by the William Roberts,Es- acre (Marrerro) in Newport Hammocks for$235,000; tate trustee,and had a 1996 taxable value of$115,106. 42.22 acres(M&M Joint Venture,LLP)in Boca Chica Key for $566,100; and 54.75 acres (Utlity Board of On 2/11/1999, the LAMAC approved a fee-simple, the City of Key West) in Cudjoe Key for$1,938,000, 955-acre addition(Boot Key)to the project boundary. Monroe County as manager. In July, 2008, Florida It was sponsored by the FGFC,consisted of one owner, Forever funds were used to buy 0.11 acre of the Pierce Azurite Corp.LTD Florida,and a 1998 taxable value of ownership in Charles Hammocks for$46,250.Monroe $178,019. On July 29, 1999, the LAMAC approved County will manage this. In September, 2008, DSL an owner requested, 6-acre deletion(on Ramrod Key) Florida Forever funds were used to buy 3.03 acres from the project boundary. (1.01 acre plus (2.02 acres) from the Otha Cox Estate in Cudjoe Key for a total of$137,500 ($47,500 plus In 2003 The Nature Conservancy (TNC) purchased $90,000) Monroe County will manage this site. In 593.75 acres,known as Tarpon Basin,in the Newport November 2008,Florida Forever funds purchased 1.01 Hammocks site. On 12/5/2003, the ARC approved a acre of the Smith ownership for $37,000. FWC will fee-simple, 11.5-acre addition(Channel Key Island)to manage this site. the project boundary. It was sponsored by the owner, Barbara Trueman, and had a 2003 taxable value of On 2/6/2009 the Department of Transportation(FDOT) $17,268. donated a total of 14.18 acres on Sugarloaf (.86 acre inside the project boundary)for a total donated value of On 6/4/2004, the ARC approved a fee-simple, 3,063- $9,265,212. At the June 2009 meeting,ARC accepted acre addition to the project boundary.It was sponsored a request by the Retus Group LLC to remove 7 acres of by the FWC,consisted of multiple owners,and a 2003 their ownership in Marathon from the project. taxable value of$7,400,000. The 910 parcels are lo- cated on several offshore islands and six named Keys On 6/24/2010 Gary Burchfield donated 1.78 acres in 178 Florida Keys Ecosystem Sugarloaf Key(donated value of$60,000). FWC will Parks: manage. On 10/15/2010 ARC approved requests by property owners to remove 7 acres of their ownership Key Largo Narrows Grassy Key Site within the project boundary($23,832 just value). On Point Charles Hammock Teatable Hammock 12/10/2010 ARC approved an 11.25 acres in Boot Key Largo Sound Hammock Pennekamp North with a tax assessed just value of $410,544, addition North Creek Hammock Newport Hammock to the project boundary to assist with a Coastal and Lower Matecumbe Hammock N. LaytonHammock Florida Keys Ecosystem sites managed by the Estuarine Land Conservation Program(CELCP) grant Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission: application. The City of Marathon is interested in purchasing all of Boot Key as proposed in the CELCP Cudjoe Key Tavernier Creek application. Little Torch Key Lake San Pedro Middle Torch Key Snake Creek On 1/20/2011 Anne Kirkly donated 7.39 acres($3,208) Big Torch Key Green Turtle in Dove Creek Hammocks to be managed by FWC. Summerland Key Vaca Cut On 6/1/11 James D. Hanson, Jr. donated 284.54 acres Sugarloaf Key Stirrup Key (Windley Key-value of$200,000) to be managed by Little Knockemdown Key Saddlebunch Key DRP Ramrod Key Wahoo Key Dove Creek Upper Sugarloaf Key Coordination The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the National Managers A Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Audubon Society sponsored this project. TNC, the M (FWC)(19 sites);Florida Department of Environmental Monroe County Land Authority,and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service are participants and have been Protection's Division of Recreation and Parks (DRP), intermediaries in the acquisition of some of the sites (10 sites). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), within this project.CELCP grant application to National Monroe County, City of Marathon, and City of Oceanic&Atmospheric Administation NOAA). Islamorada also manage some properties. Conditions affecting intensity of management The Management Policy Statement Florida Keys Ecosystem project generally includes high- The primary goals of management of the project are: need tracts because of their small size and proximity to conserve and protect environmentally unique and to intensive residential and commercial development. irreplaceable lands that contain native, relatively They require basic natural areas land management unaltered flora and fauna representing a natural area including exotic-species removal,avoidance of actions unique to, or scarce within, a region of this state or a that further fragment the hammocks,general trash and larger geographic area; to conserve and protect lands debris removal, posting and some fencing, and the within areas of critical state concern; to conserve establishment of some basic visitor amenities at selected a sites. Special species may require specific management and protect significant habitat for native species or endangered and threatened species; and to conserve, actions.The project areas are ahigh-need management important ecosystems, area which, because of their location, size and nature, protect, manage, or restore landscapes, and forests, in order to enhance or protect will require a high level of attention to maintain and perpetuate their individual resources. significant surface water, coastal,recreational,timber, fish or wildlife resources which local or state regulatory Timetable for implementing management and programs cannot adequately protect. provisions for security and protection of infrastructure Within the first year after acquisition,the FWC will give Management Prospectus management priority to natural resource inventory and Planning.Sites will be surveyed for rare and endangered Qualifications for state designation The unique wildlife,plant,and recreational resources of the Florida species and management plans will be prepared. In future K Years,management will concentrate on implementing Keys Ecosystem sites qualify them as wildlife and environmental areas, botanical sites or preserves, and the plans with emphasis on exotic species eradication state parks. and maintenance,trash and debris removal,and posting and fencing for security. Long-range management will Florida Keys Ecosystem sites managed focus on using the sites to build public awareness and by the DEP Division of Recreation and support for natural areas protection in general,and for 179 Florida Keys Ecosystem MONROE MUMf-OAOE Galfof Mexico � o Florida Ra), • AF t l A c� N_- S ►,rniisofFlor° do 0 5 10 20 Miles FLORIDA KEYS ECOSYSTEM: OVERVIEW MONROE COUNTY Map 1 Map 4 Map 7 A. North Creek Hammocks Site A. North Layton Hammock Site A.Budd Key Site B. Largo Sound Hammock Site B.Channel Key Site B.Knockemdown Key Site C. Pennekamp North Hammock Site C.Tom's Harbor Keys Site C.Little Knockemdown Key Site D.Newport Hammocks Site D.Grassy Key Hammocks Site D.Summerland Key Site E.Point Charles Hammock Site E. Marathon/Crawl Key Site E.Cudjoe Key Site Map 2 Map 5 F.Sugarloaf Key Site A. Key Largo Narrows Hammock Site A. Marathon/Fat Deer Key Site Map a B. Rodriguez Key Site B. Marathon/Vaca Key Site A.Sugarloaf Key Site C. Dove Creek Hammocks Site C.Boot Key Site B.Cudjoe Key Site D.Tavernier Creek Hammocks Site Map 6 Map 9 E.Tavernier Key Site A. Big Torch Key Site A.Saddlebunch Keys Site F.Islamorada/Plantation Key Site B. Middle Torch Key Site B.Boca Chica Key Site Map 3 C.Little Torch Key Site Map 10 A.Windley Key Site D. Ramrod Key Site A. Great White Heron Keys Site B.Wilson Key Site E.Summerland Key Site C. Cotton Key Site F.L"ittle Knockemdown Key Site D.Islamorada/Upper Matecumbe Site JANUARY 2009 E.Lower Matecumbe Hammock Site 180 Florida Keys Ecosystem R R CROCODILE LAKE NATIONAL E WILDLIFE REFUGE 0 North Creek Hammocks Site DAGNY JOHNSON KEY LARGO HAMMOCK O Largo Sound Hammock Site ... ...... m _.. _: BOTANICAL STATE PARK NORTH KEY LARGO HAMMOCKS OPennekamp North Hammock Site FLORIDA FOREVER BOT PRO]ECi ONewport Hammocks Site ©Point Charles Hammock Site � lacwater " Sound Oi Key Largo :Sou�ar�: t ..EVERGLADES 22 � NATIONAL PARK O Newport Bull anwao 28 Sound PENNEKAMP t OORAL REEF STATE PARK 31 33 Rodk 615 Harbor FLORIDA KEYS ECOSYSTEM, MAP 1 OF 10 MONROE COUNTY MIAMI-WEE Florida Forever BOT Project Boundary Atlantic Acquired for Conservation (Fee Simple) ocean Essential Parcel(s)Remaining l•'r�r��l�a� 1 a Rorida Keys Other Florida Forever BOT Projects ' -" Ecosystem,Map 1 2 - State Owned Lands 3 Other Conservation Lands Straits of Florida 0 0.5 1 2 Miles JANUARY 2012 181 Florida Keys Ecosystem 37 8 ` B 39 6 )OHN PENNEKAMP E E E E CORAL REEF STATE PARK EVERGLADES 13 O• 4 NATIONAL PARK FLORIDA KEYS WILDLIFE 26 vd� AND ENVIRONMENTAL AREA a�4 27 TmvemRr n V f: r62S ® b3 S COWPENS SANCTUARY Straits of Florida II r Q Key Largo Narrows Hammock SRe cottanhey i Basin ORodriguez Key Site p'" 0q 0 Dove Creek Hammocks Site s OTavernier Creek Hammocks Site 13 � pcn ©Tavemier Key Gr �w Olsiamorada/Plantation Key Site FLORIDA KEYS ECOSYSTEM, MAP 2 OF 10 MONROE COUNTY MIAMI-DADS Florida Forever BOT Project Boundary .a e l a n ra c Acquired for Conservation (Fee Simple) e 1 Ocean Essential Parcel(s)Remaining Florid®Ilay Florida Keys State Owned Lands Ecosystem, Map 2 Other Conservation Lands 3 Straits of.Florida 4` 0 0.5 1 2 Miles JANUARY 2012 182 Florida Keys Ecosystem R R 36 17 E E EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK ' + r t # r REEF EF GY KEY FOSSIL dra GEOLOGICAL f STATE PARK IN`IN T raorad r a c UGNUMVITAE KEY + s r. �a�� 63 S AQUATIC PRESERVE — ht av INDIAN KEY HISTORIC STATE PARK J n UGNUMVIrAE KEY BOTANICAL STATE PARK Straits of Florida P INDIAN KEY HISTORIC STATE PARK Wndky Key Site ©' O Wilson Key Site SEA OATS BEACH 1 °Cotton Key Site ._ Islamorada/Upper Matecumbe Site SAN PEDRO UNDERWATER . ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVE STATE PARK Lower Matecumbe Hammock Site FLORIDA KEYS ECOSYSTEM, MAP 3 OF 10 MONROECOUN7Y Florida Forever BOT Project Boundary AMR MCI-DAD ® e 1 Acquired for Conservation (Fee Simple) Florida Bn% Essential Parcel(s)Remaining State Owned Lands 2 Florida Keys Other Conservation Lands 3 Ecosystem, State Aquatic Preserve 5 Straits of Florida 0 0.5 1 2 Miles JANUARY 2012 183 Florida Keys Ecosystem Rfl34 33E E E EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK Florida Bay 0 65 S Long Key LONG KEY STATE PARK J • Ca7ch Keys IL 1 2 ie O Dud Kty N° Q North Layton Hammock Site 0 Channel Key Site OTom's Harbor Keys Site Straila of Florida CURRY HAMMOCK O Grassy Key Hammocks Site STATE PARK ©Marathon/Crawl Key Site FLORIDA KEYS ECOSYSTEM, MAP 4 OF 10 MONROE COUNTY Florida Forever BOT Project Boundary on E MLWI•DADE t , 1 Acquired for Conservation(Fee Simple) Florida 8 Ronda Keys Essential Parcel(s)Remaining Ecosystem, ' Map 4 2 State Owned Lands W 3 Other Conservation Lands 4 5 Straits; of Florida 0 1 2 4 Miles JANUARY 2012 184 Florida Keys Ecosystem Rfl33 2E CURRY HAMMOCK STATE PARK T64S S 6 � < CRANE POINT <" 1 � I ,.""�'.�-. rr 5 " Fat DwrKey r_ 8 Marathon 11 12 1[ Key Colony Uam Key Beseh 9 LET 000at h Key 0 Marathon/Fat Deer Key Site O Marathon/Vaca Key Site 0 Boot Key Site FLORIDA KEYS ECOSYSTEM, MAP 5 OF 10 MONROE COUNM Florida Forever BOT Project Boundary o&,o rr�ns-csot 5� t Acquired for Conservation(Fee Simple) ri a®iiiyp Florida Keys Essential Parcel(s)Remaining Ecosystem, Map 5 State Owned Lands w S Other Conservation Lands 4 S Straits of Florida 0 0.5 1 2 Miles JANUARY 2011 185 Florida Keys Ecosystem R R 2'1 29 E E O Big Torch Key Site Q Middle Torch Key Site OOUPON BIGHT/ O Little Torch Key Site �� ' KEY DEER FLORIDA FOREVER BOT PROJECT O Ramrod Key Site _.._ Y" ©Summerland Key Site NATIONAL KEY r ......._.._.. ,.,. _.. DEI E O DEER NATIONAL KEY E G ©Little Knockemdown Key Site REFO NATIONAL KEY ti 1 DEER REFUGE Y� �© Mddk A Torch n Key s � 9 , f O TERRESTRLS PRESERVE Q O yy - 44 _ t s NATIONAL KEY � Sammerknd Key DEER REFUGE O Limb 's + Torch Key + s' t ter! bG S ` T ®trn® yrrarns. 675 Rammd Keys AQUATIC PRESERVEState Owned es Lards not labeled are part of Great White HeronNational Wildlife Refuge. * FLORIDA KEYS ECOSYSTEM, MAP 6 OF 10 MONROE COUNTY Florida Forever BOT Project Boundary Acquired for Conservation(Fee Simple) N Essential Parcel(s)Remaining Other Florida Forever BOT Projects Rorida Keys State Owned Lands w E Ecosystem, Map 6 Other Conservation Lands Srraiia of Florida State Aquatic Preserves 0 0.5 1 2 — JANUARY 2012 Miles 186 Florida Keys Ecosystem R R E E O Budd Key OKnockemdown Key Site OLittle Knockemdown Key Site OSummedand Key Site ©Cudjoe Key Site O Sugarloaf Key Site GREAT WHfrE HERON 4 ' NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE F KnaaFemdown Key w &S ® 16 NATIONAL KEY DEER REFUGE. adjbe Key NATIONAL KEY .�. DEER REFUGNN r' QP FLORIDA KEYS ECOSYSTEM, MAP 7 OF 10 MONROE COUNTY Florida Forever BOT Project Boundary Acquired for Conservation(Fee Simple) 1,0 � `_ � Essential Parcel(s)Remaining 5 State Owned Lands '& — 8 Other Conservation Lands Florida Keys Ecosystem, Map 7 Straits of Florida 0 0.5 1 2 Miles JANUARY 2012 187 Florida Keys Ecosystem R R 2B NATIONAL KEY P DEER RERIGE y nr,� .. t Q36 C'ur#ae Key 4 � Boy, 66 6 939 � f p w Sag-l—f Soma D O Sugarloaf Key 0 Sugarloaf Key Site 0 Cudjoe Key Site State Owned Lands&Other Conservation Lands not labeled are a part of Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge. FLORIDA KEYS ECOSYSTEM, MAP 8 OF 10 MONROE COUNTY Florida Forever BOT Project Boundary Acquired 00 1 Essential Parcel(s)Remaining fW�. 5 State Owned Lands ME OtherConservation Lands Florida Keys Ecosystem, Map 8 Straits of 'Florida 0 0.5 1 2 Miles JANUARY 2009 188 Florida Keys Ecosystem R 'R 26 27 E E GREAT WHITE � r { HERON NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE r I• A 4 � , 0 Similar-Sou"d r� a k ' f ,Saea�llel1UiI�`ll 941 - a Keyes Coe GREAT WATIHITE KEY WEST HERON NONAL NAVAL AIR STATION WILDLIFE REFUGE scan Key SeWdkhg Keys Boca chkaKey Straits of Florida E868 O Saddkbundi Keys Site O Boca Chica Key Site FLORIDA KEYS ECOSYSTEM, MAP 9 OF 10 MONROE COUNTY Florida Forever BOT Project Boundary �� tl Acquired " 10 Essential Parcel(s)Remaining " 5 State Owned Lands �- E� Other Conservation Lands Florida Keys Ecosystem, Map 9 Straits of Florida 0 0.5 1 2 Miles JANUARY 2009 189 Florida Keys Ecosystem R R 25 26 E E Q Great White Heron Keys Site l a C r F 1 d fd i ITV f 9 1 9 dW t r e} GREAT WHITE HERON � r NATIONAL WILDLIFE RERIGE N�rliv� 67 5 FLORIDA KEYS ECOSYSTEM, MAP 10 OF 10 MONROE COUNTY QFlorida Forever BOT Project Boundary Essential Parcel(s) Remaining ® ®e a State Owned Lands F '�� 5 Rno 'da Keys Ecosystem, Map 10 Straits of Florida 0 0.5 1 2 Im Miles JANUARY 2009 190 Florida Keys Ecosystem tropical hardwood hammock preservation in particular. by the DRP, no significant revenue is expected to be Most tracts will provide passive recreational activities generated initially. After acquisition, it will probably for the general public. Longer range goals would be several years before any significant level of public include development of a detailed management plan use facilities is developed. The amount of any future focused on perpetuation and maintenance of natural revenue generated would depend on the nature and communities. An in-depth resource inventory would be extent of public use and facilities. carried out to identify and map all sensitive areas that Cooperators in management activities The FWC warrant special consideration.Visitor amenities will be will cooperate with and seek the assistance of the planned and constructed at appropriate sites within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, other state agencies, project and public environmental-education programs local government entities and interested parties as will be developed. There will be no infrastructure appropriate. development in natural areas; unnecessary roads will be abandoned or removed.Management activities of the DRP in the first year will include site security,natural and cultural resource protection,and efforts toward the development of a plan for long-term public use and resource management. Revenue-generating potential Public use of sites managed by the FWC will be relatively low because no infrastructure will be provided. For the sites managed Updated 212912012 Management Cost Summary/FWC Management Cost Summary/DRP Category Startup Recurring Category Startup Recurring Source of Funds CARL CARL Source of Funds CARL CARL Salary $85,000 $85,000 Salary $22,167 $285,000 OPS $17,500 $9,000 OPS $24,560 $10,000 Expense $45,000 $35,000 Expense $10,000 $95,000 OCO $75,000 $15,000 OCO $61,978 $1,000 FCO $0 $0 FCO $0 $0 TOTAL $222,500 $144,000 TOTAL $118,705 $391,000 Management Cost Summary/FWC Category 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 Source of Funds CARL CARL CARL Salary $0 $10,950 $85,000 OPS $0 $0 $17,600 Expense $0 $8,010 $45,000 OCO $0 $2,838 $75,000 FCO $0 $0 $0 TOTAL $0 $21,798 $222,500 Management Cost Summary/DRP Category 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 Source of Funds SPTF/GDTF/ SPTF/LATF/ SPTF/CARL LATF/CARL GDTF/CARL Salary $424,040 $436,761 $449,684 OPS $15,491 $14,000 $14,000 Expense $262,556 $268,000 $268,000 OCO $18,829 $8,200 $8,200 INT.MGT. $1,698 $1,698 $1,698 HOSP $13,561 13,561 $13,661 FCO $1,081,952 $1,332,319 $0 TOTAL $1,818,127 $2,074,539 $755,323 191 I Atlas of Florida's Heritage Biodiversity, Landscapes, Stewardship, and Opportunities The Florida Natural Areas Inventory is pleased to announce XTL , Institute of Science the publication of the Atlas of Florida's Natural Heritage: and Public AffairsBiodiversity, Landscapes, Stewardship, and Opportunities. ' 1851 This high-quality, full-color Atlas is sure to become a standard reference for anyone involved in the conservation, management, study, or enjoyment of Florida's rich natural resources. We hope the Atlas will inspire, educate, i and raise awareness of and interest in biodiversity and conservation issues. MIGrofArepo iNVENTORY AUDIENCE: FEATURES INCLUDE: The Atlas of Florida's Natural Heritage:Biodiversity, Landscapes, Stewardship,and Opportunities was envisioned • 176 pages, 10" x 12" format, soft cover as a resource that would appeal to a wide-ranging audience. and hard cover editions Through its use of colorful maps, graphics, and photography, • Visually striking presentation with Florida's Natural Heritage and appeal is dramatically hundreds of maps, photos, illustrations, highlighted. It is intended to appeal to a wide audience. and other information-rich graphics Hopefully, it will increase awareness of the resources we take • Wide-ranging overview of natural for granted, and the challenges we face in preserving them. communities and over 400 species of plants, and animals It is for those who are informed, interested, and/or influential • Coverage of timely conservation and in environmental issues, but may lack specific information land management issues and expertise.These may include planners, policymakers, and environmental/conservation advocates from the local to state level. It is also for environmental/conservation/natural resource managers. While the atlas may not provide "new information" to this audience, it will serve as a useful reference that _I brings many of the elements of biodiversity together in one publication.The final audience are the citizens of Florida and those who may visit our state. We want the atlas to inspire, educate, and raise awareness of and the interest in biodiversity and conservation issues. Florida's biodiversity is not only important to maintain our quality of life, but it is a primary reason why so many people visit our state. e e . e • APPENDIX E-2 FWS SECTION 7 (ENDANGERED SPECIES) COORDINATION 002 4W U.S. Department ORLA AIRPORTS DISTRICT OFFICE of Transportation 5950 Hazeltine National Dr., Suite 400 Federal Aviation Orlando, Florida 32822-5024 Administration Phone: (407) 812-6331 Fax: (407) 812-6978 April 30, 2013 Mr, Larry Williams Field Supervisor South Florida Ecological Services Field Office US Fish and Wildlife Service 1339 201h Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 RE: Request for Informal Consultation Relocation of Runway 7/25 at the Florida Keys Marathon Airport Monroe County, Florida Dear Mr. Williams: The Federal Aviation Administration and the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners are evaluating the potential environmental impacts associated with the relocation of Runway 7/25 at the Florida Keys Marathon Airport, located in Marathon, Florida. The project would shift the runway laterally by 40 feet to meet FAA's runway- to-taxiway separation standards. The project is safety-based and would not increase aviation activity at the airport. The runway would not be extended and other airport facilities would not be expanded as part of the project. The project requires that a 40-foot strip of vegetation be cleared along the edge of a wooded area on the north side of the airfield. Clearing the 40-foot strip would impact approximately 0.1 acre of tidally-connected and 0.5 acre of isolated mangrove wetlands for a total wetland impact of 0.6 acre. Approximately 4.1 acres of tropical hardwood hammock would be cleared. No fill or excavation would take place in the cleared areas. The enclosed Biological Assessment (BA) describes the proposed action and environmental setting, and analyzes the possible effects of the proposed action on Federally-listed species or critical habitat located on the airport. As explained in the BA, the FAA concluded that the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect several Federally-listed species. The FAA requests informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and concurrence that the proposed action is 2 not likely to adversely affect listed species. If you have questions or comments regarding this proposed action, please contact me at (407) 813-6331 x129 or via email at Virginia.Lane@faa.gov. Sincerely, i'Oraul-nal 85 x,gned BY' Virginia Lane, A.I.C.P. Environmental Specialist Enclosure cc: Peter Green, URS Corporation Peter Horton, Key West International Airport APPENDIX E-3 NMFS ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT COORDINATION 0 �4 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE yes a� Southeast Regional Office 263 13`h Avenue South St.Petersburg, Florida 33701-5505 (727) 824-5317; FAX(727) 824-5300 http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/ August 26, 2010 F/SER4:JK/pw (Sent via electronic mail) Russell Forrest Project Coordinator Air Transportation URS Corporation 7650 W. Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, FL 33607-1462 Dear Mr. Forrest: NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)reviewed your letter dated August 4, 2010, requesting views, comments, and information regarding efforts to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) for a proposed runway shift at the Florida Keys Marathon Airport. The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners and URS are preparing the EA on behalf of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The following comments are from the Protected Resources Division(PRD) and Habitat Conservation Division(HCD) of the NMFS Southeast Regional Office. Comments and recommendations are provided pursuant to authorities of the National Environmental Policy Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act(Magnuson- Stevens Act). NMFS PRD will also separately coordinate with FAA under the Endangered Species Act. Proposed Project The proposed project would shift the centerline of the existing runway 40 feet to the northwest. Related actions include: extension of Taxiways B, C, D, and E by 40 feet to connect to the relocated southeastern edge of the runway and moving northwestward the boundaries of the Runway Safety Area, Runway Obstacle Free Zone, Runway Object Free Area, Building Restriction Line, and Runway Protection Zone. Essential Fish Habitat within the Project Area Based on review of aerial images and figures provided with the letter,the site of the proposed project includes or is adjacent to mangroves and seagrass habitat. The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) or the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council(GMFMC)indentify these habitats as essential fish habitat(EFH) for several species,including adult white grunt(Haemulon plumieri);juvenile and adult gray snapper(Luyanus griseus); and juvenile mutton snapper(Luyanus analis). SAFMC and GMFMC identify mangrove and seagrass as a Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC) for several species within the snapper/grouper complex. In addition, SAFMC and GMFMC identify the FKNMS as a Habitat Area of Particular Concern,which is a subset of EFH that is either rare, particularly susceptible to human-induced degradation, especially important ecologically, or located in an environmentally stressed area. Avoidance and minimization of impacts to these resources will be important as the project moves forward through planning, design, and construction. o ee�Ti+ttiT.�F.Gam" . Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Requirements NMFS recommends that the FAA, Monroe County Board of County Commissioners, and URS coordinate closely with NMFS HCD to ensure the EFH assessment and EA contain sufficient detail to complete the EFH consultation. The Magnuson-Stevens Act directs federal agencies (in this case FAA)to consult with NMFS when the agency's activities may have an adverse affect on EFH. Under 50 CFR 600.920 (c), a federal agency may designate a non-federal representative to conduct an EFH consultation by giving written notice of such designation to NMFS. Normally this designation is made via a letter from the federal agency to NMFS or by the federal agency preparing a letter that is included in or with the EA. In the EFH regulations, 50 CFR 600.920(e)(3) and(4)identify the components of an EFH Assessment, including four mandatory elements and five additional elements necessary for certain projects. In this case and with respect to the additional elements,NMFS recommends the EFH Assessment include results of an on-site, detailed habitat survey to evaluate the site-specific effects of the project. NMFS is available to review survey methods prior to conducting the surveys. NMFS also recommends the EFH Assessment include an alternatives analysis that includes alternatives that would avoid or minimize adverse effects on EFH. Unavoidable direct or indirect impacts to EFH will require compensatory mitigation. Based on results of the habitat surveys and alternatives analysis, other additional elements may be necessary for the EFH Assessment. NMFS is available to review preliminary results prior to completion of the draft EA. Threatened and Endangered Species within the Project Area Red mangroves (Rhizophora mangle) and euryhaline waters less than I meter deep are important developmental habitat for juvenile smalltooth sawfish(Pristis pectinata),which is an endangered species under the purview of NMFS. If the proposed action involves removing red mangroves or filling of red mangrove habitat or shallow euryhaline waters, the activity has the potential to adversely affect smalltooth sawfish. In addition to potential impacts to mangroves,NMFS believes the proposed action may affect seagrass habitats that are foraging areas for adult green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas),which also is protected under the Endangered Species Act(ESA). Endangered Species Act Consultation Requirements Section 7 of ESA requires federal agencies to consult with NMFS if their activities may affect ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat. Because the proposed activity has the potential to impact red mangroves or shallow euryhaline waters,NMFS believes the proposed activity may affect smalltooth sawfish. Green sea turtles may also be affected if seagrass impacts are proposed. If ESA-listed species or critical habitat may be present in the action area, a biological assessment(BA)is required. A BA is not the same as an EA. However,if an EA contains the information otherwise found in a BA regarding the project and potential impacts to ESA-listed species,it may be submitted in lieu of a BA. Enclosed please find NMFS' Recommendations for the Contents of Biological Assessments and Biological Evaluations. We suggest using the enclosed recommendations if you plan to submit a BA. The BA may be submitted as a stand-alone document or included as a distinct section of the EA. The enclosed recommendations should also assist the FAA in making their effect determinations (please see page 4 of the enclosed recommendations). In addition,we have enclosed a list of species under NMFS' jurisdiction that are found in the Gulf of Mexico. This list is intended to serve as a guide. It does not mean that all of the species on the list may be present in the project area;however, some of the species on the list(e.g., sea turtles and smalltooth sawfish) may be present in the project area. Closing Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. Related correspondence with our Protected Resources Division should be directed to the attention of Ms. Audra Livergood, she may be reached by telephone at(954) 356-7100, or by e-mail at Audra.Livergood@noaa.gov. Related correspondence with our Habitat Conservation Division should be directed to the attention of Ms. Jocelyn Karazsia at our West - 2 - Palm Beach office,which is co-located with the US Environmental Protection Agency at USEPA, 400 North Congress Avenue, Suite 120, West Palm Beach, Florida, 33401. She may be reached by telephone at(561) 616-8880, extension 207, or by e-mail at Jocelyn.Karazsia@noaa.gov. Sincerely, /for Miles M. Croom Assistant Regional Administrator Habitat Conservation Division Enclosures: NMFS' Recommendations for the Contents of Biological Assessments and Biological Evaluations list of species under NMFS'jurisdiction that are found in the Gulf of Mexico cc: COE, Ivan.Fannin@usace.army.mil FAA, Virgina.Lane@faa.gov FWS, Winston_Hobgood@fws.gov EPA, Miedema.Ron@epa.gov FWC, Lisa.Gregg@MyFWC.com FDEP, Celia.Hitchins@dep.state.fl.us FKNMS, Joanne.Delaney@noaa.gov SFWMD, chanes@sfwmd.gov SAFMC, Roger.Pugliese@safmc.net F/SER47, Jocelyn.Karazsiannoaa.gov - 3 - National Marine Fisheries Service Recommendations for the Contents of Biological Assessments and Biological Evaluations O:\FORMS\BA GUIDE-INITGUIDE COMBO .doc When preparing a Biological Assessment(BA) or Biological Evaluation(BE),keep in mind that the people who read or review this document may not be familiar with the project area or what is proposed by the project. Therefore your BA or BE should present a clear line of reasoning that explains the proposed project and how you determined the effects of the project on each threatened or endangered species, or critical habitat,in the project area. Try to avoid technical jargon not readily understandable to people outside your agency or area of expertise. Remember,this is a public document. Some things to consider and,if appropriate, to include in your BA or BE, follow. 1.What is the difference between a Biological Evaluation and a Biological Assessment? By regulation, a Biological Assessment is prepared for"major construction activities"— defined as "a construction project(or other undertaking having similar physical effects)which is a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment(as referred to in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) [(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)])." A BA is required if listed species or critical habitat may be present in the action area. A BA also may be recommended for other activities to ensure the agency's early involvement and increase the chances for resolution during informal consultation. Recommended contents for a BA are described in 50 CFR 402.12(f). Biological Evaluation is a generic term for all other types of analyses in support of consultations. Although agencies are not required to prepare a Biological Assessment for non-major construction activities, if a listed species or critical habitat is likely to be affected,the agency must provide the Service with an evaluation on the likely effects of the action. Often this information is referred to as a BE. The Service uses this documentation along with any other available information to decide if concurrence with the agency's determination is warranted. Recommended contents are the same as for a BA, as referenced above. The BAs and BEs should not be confused with Environmental Assessments (EA) or Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)which may be required for NEPA projects. These EAs and EISs are designed to provide an analysis of multiple possible alternative actions on a variety of environmental, cultural, and social resources, and often use different definitions or standards. However,if an EA or EIS contains the information otherwise found in a BE or BA regarding the project and the potential impacts to listed species,it may be submitted in lieu of a BE or BA. 2. What are you proposing to do? Describe the project. A project description will vary, depending on the complexity of the project. For example, describing the construction or removal of a fixed aid-to-navigation in the Intracoastal Waterway, or the abandonment/dismantling of an oil-producing-platform may be relatively simple,but describing a the extent and amplitude of potential impacts of military training exercises involving different military assets, combinations of weaponry, locations, and seasons would necessarily be more detailed and complex. Include figures and tables if they will help others understand your proposed action and its relationship with the species' habitat. How are you(or the project proponent)planning on carrying out the project? What tools or methods may 1 be used? How will the site be accessed? When will the project begin, and how long will it last? Describe the "action area" (all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate areas involved in the action [50 CFR 402.02]). Always include a map(topographic maps are particularly helpful). Provide photographs including aerials,if available. Describe the project area(i.e., topography,vegetation, condition/trend). Describe current management or activities relevant to the project area. How will your project change the area? Supporting documents are very helpful. If you have a blasting plan,best management practices document, sawfish/sea turtle/sturgeon conservation construction guidelines,research proposal,NEPA or other planning document or any other documents regarding the project, attach them to the BA or BE. 3. What threatened or endangered species, or critical habitat, may occur in the project area? A request for a species list may be submitted to the Service, or the Federal action agency or its designated representative may develop the list. If you have information to develop your own lists, the Service should be contacted periodically to ensure that changes in species' status or additions/deletions to the list are included. Sources of biological information on federally-protected sea turtles, sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon (and Gulf sturgeon critical habitat), and other listed species and candidate species can be found at the following website addresses: NMFS Southeast Regional Office, Protected Resources Division (http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/protres.htm);NMFS Office of Protected Resources (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (http://noflorida.fws.gov/SeaTurtles/seaturtle-info.htin ;http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/; http://www.sad.usace.army mil/protected%20resources/turtles.htm; http://endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.htmIgSpecies; the Ocean Conservancy(http://www.cmc- ocean.org/main.php3); the Caribbean Conservation Corporation (http://www.cccturtle.orgl); Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (http:Hfloridaconservation.org_/psm/turtles/turtle.htin http://www.turtles.org-,http://www/seaturtle.org;http://alabaina.fws.gov/gs/; http:Hobis.env.duke.edu/data/sp profiles.php;www.mote.org/—colins/Sawfish/SawfishHomePage.html; www.floridasawfish.com;http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Sharks/sawfish/srt/srt.htm, www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/InNews/sawprop.htm, also, from members of the public or academic community, and from books and various informational booklets. Due to budget constraints and staff shortages,we are only able to provide general, state-wide, or country-wide (territory-wide) species lists. Use your familiarity with the project area when you develop your species lists. Sometimes a species may occur in the larger regional area near your project,but the habitat necessary to support the species is not in the project area(including areas that may be beyond the immediate project boundaries,but within the area of influence of the project. If, for example,you know that the specific habitat type used by a species does not occur in the project area,it does not need to appear on the species list for the project. However, documentation of your reasoning is helpful for Service biologists or anyone else that may review the document. 4. Have you surveyed for species that are known to occur or have potential habitat in the proposed project area? The "not known to occur here" approach is a common flaw in many BA/BEs. The operative word here is "known." Unless adequate surveys have been conducted or adequate information sources have been 2 referenced, this statement is difficult to interpret. It begs the questions "Have you looked?" and"How have you looked?" Always reference your information sources. Include a clear description of your survey methods so the reader can have confidence in your results. Answer such questions as: How intensive was the survey? Did you look for suitable habitat or did you look for individuals? Did the survey cover the entire project area or only part of it? Include maps of areas surveyed if appropriate. Who did the surveys and when? Was the survey done during the time of year/day when the plant is growing or when the animal can be found(its active period)? Did the survey follow accepted protocols? If you are not sure how to do a good survey for the species, the Service recommends contacting species experts. Specialized training is required before you can obtain a permit to survey for some species. Remember that your evaluation of potential impacts from a project does not end if the species is/are not found in the project area. You must still evaluate what effects would be expected to the habitat, even if it is not known to be occupied, because impacts to habitat that may result indirectly in death or injury to individuals of listed species would constitute "take". 5. Provide background information on the threatened or endangered species in the project area. Describe the species in terms of overall range and population status. How many populations are known? How many occur in the project area? What part of the population will be affected by this project? Will the population's viability be affected? What is the current habitat condition and population size and status? Describe related items of past management for the species, such as stocking programs,habitat improvements, or loss of habitat or individuals caused by previous projects. 6. How will the project affect the threatened or endangered species or critical habitat that occur in the project area? If you believe the project will not affect the species, explain why. Effects analyses must include evaluating whether adverse impacts to species' habitats,whether designated or not, could indirectly harm or kill listed species. If you think the project may affect the species, explain what the effects might be. The Endangered Species Act requires you consider all effects when determining if an action funded,permitted, or carried out by a Federal agency may affect listed species. Effects you must consider include direct,indirect, and cumulative effects. Effects include those caused by interrelated and interdependent actions,not just the proposed action. Direct effects are those caused by the action and occur at the same time and place as the action. Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time but are reasonably certain to occur. Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification. Interdependent actions are those that have no significant independent utility apart from the action under consideration. Interrelated or interdependent actions can include actions under the jurisdiction of other federal agencies, state agencies, or private parties. Cumulative effects are those effects of future State or private activities,not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal actions subject to consultation. Describe measures that have or will be taken to avoid or eliminate adverse effects or enhance beneficial 3 effects to the species. Refer to conversations you had with species experts to achieve these results. Consider recovery potential if the project area contains historic range for a species. Evaluate impacts to designated critical habitat areas by reviewing any project effects to the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. 7. What is your decision? The Federal action agency must make a determination of effect. Quite frequently, effect determinations are not necessarily wrong; they simply are not justified in the assessment. The assessment should lead the reviewer through a discussion of effects to a logical,well- supported conclusion. Do not assume that the Service biologist is familiar with the project and/or its location and that there is no need to fully explain the impact the project may have on listed species. If there is little or no connection or rationale provided to lead the reader from the project description to the effect determination,we cannot assume conditions that are not presented in the assessment. Decisions must be justified biologically. The responsibility for making and supporting the determination of effect falls on the Federal action agency;however, the Service cannot merely "rubber stamp"the action agency's determination and may ask the agency to revisit its decision or provide more data if the conclusion is not adequately supported by biological information. You have three choices for each listed species or area of critical habitat: 1. "No effect"is the appropriate conclusion when a listed species will not be affected, either because the species will not be present or because the project does not have aM elements with the potential to affect the species. "No effect"does not include a small effect or an effect that is unlikely to occur: if effects are insignificant(in size) or discountable (extremely unlikely), a"may affect,but not likely to adversely affect"determination is appropriate. A "no effect"determination does not require written concurrence from the Service and ends ESA consultation requirements unless the project is subsequently modified in such manner that effects may ensue. 2. "May affect-is not likely to adversely affect" (NLAA) means that all effects are either beneficial, insignificant, or discountable. Beneficial effects have concurrent positive effects without�Lny adverse effects to the species or habitat(i.e., there cannot be "balancing,"wherein the benefits of the project would be expected to outweigh the adverse effects - see 43 below). Insignificant effects relate to the magnitude or extent of the impact(i.e., they must be small and would not rise to the level of a take of a species). Discountable effects are those extremely unlikely to occur. Based on best judgment, a person would not: (1)be able to meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate insignificant effects; or(2) expect discountable effects to occur. A "NLAA"determination by the action agency requires written concurrence from the Service. 3. "May affect-is likely to adversely affect"means that all adverse effects cannot be avoided. A combination of beneficial and adverse effects is still"likely to adversely affect," even if the net effect is neutral or positive. Adverse effects do not qualify as discountable simply because we are not certain they will occur. The probability of occurrence must be extremely small to achieve discountability. Likewise, adverse effects do not meet the definition of insignificant because they are less than major. If the adverse effect can be detected in any way or if it can be meaningfully articulated in a discussion of the results, then it is not insignificant,it is likely to adversely affect. This requires formal consultation with the Service. A fourth finding is possible for proposed species or proposed critical habitat: 4. "Is likely to jeopardize/destroy or adversely modify proposed species/critical habitat"is the 4 appropriate conclusion when the action agency identifies situations in which the proposed action is likely to jeopardize a species proposed for listing, or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat proposed for designation. If this conclusion is reached, conference is required. List the species experts you contacted when preparing the BE or BA but avoid statements that place the responsibility for the decision of"may affect"or"no effect"on the shoulders of the species experts. Remember, this decision is made by the Federal action agency. Provide supporting documentation, especially any agency reports or data that may not be available to the Service. Include a list of literature cited. Originally prepared: January 1997 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Field Office Revised: January 2006 National Marine Fisheries Service Protected Resources Division 263 13`h Avenue South St.Petersburg, FL 33701 (727) 824-5312 5 OUTLINE EXAMPLE FOR A BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OR BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION Cover Letter -VERY IMPORTANT -Include purpose of consultation,project title, and consultation number(if available). A determination needs to be made for each species and for each area of critical habitat. You have three options: 1) a"no effect"determination; 2)request concurrence with an"is not likely to adversely affect"determination; 3)make a"may affect,is likely to adversely affect" determination, and request"formal" consultation. If proposed species or critical habitat are included, state whether the project is likely to result in jeopardy to proposed species, or the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If the critical habitat is divided into units, specify which critical habitat unit(s)will be affected. Attached to Cover Letter: Biological Assessment or Biological Evaluation document,broken down as follows: Title: e.g., BA (or BE)for"Project X"; date prepared, and by whom. A. Project Description- Describe the proposed action and the action area. Be specific and quantify whenever possible. For Each Species: 1. Description of affected environment(quantify whenever possible) 2. Description of species biology 3. Describe current conditions for each species a. Range-wide b. In the project area c. Cumulative effects of State and private actions in the project area d. Other consultations of the Federal action agency in the area to date 4. Describe critical habitat(if applicable) 5. Fully describe effects of proposed action on each species and/or critical habitat, and species' response to the proposed action. a. Direct effects b. Indirect effects c. Interrelated and interdependent actions d. Potential incidental take resulting from project activities Factors to be considered/included/discussed when analyzing the effects of the proposed action on each species and/or critical habitat include: 1)Proximity of the action to the species, management units, or designated critical habitat units; 2) geographic area(s)where the disturbance/action occurs); timing (relationship to sensitive periods of a species' lifecycle; 3)duration (the effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat depend largely on the duration of its effects); 4) disturbance frequency (the mean number of events per unit of time affects a species differently depending on its recovery rate); 5) disturbance intensity (the effect of the disturbance on a population or species as a function of the population or species' state after the disturbance); 6) disturbance severity (the effect of a disturbance on a population or species or habitat as a function of recovery rate—i.e.,how long will it take to recover) 6. Conservation Measures (protective measures to avoid or minimize effects for each species) 7. Conclusions (effects determination for each species and critical habitat) 8. Literature Cited 9. Lists of Contacts Made/Preparers 10. Maps/Photographs 6 Guidance on Preparing an Initiation Package for Endangered Species Consultation This document is intended to provide general guidance on the type and detail of information that should be provided to initiate consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). This is not intended to be an exhaustive document as specific projects may require more or less information in order to initiate consultation. Also,note that this contains guidance on the information required to initiate formal consultation procedures with USFWS and/or NMFS. Additional information needs may be identified during consultation. Texts in italics below are examples. Normal text is guidance. A glossary of terms is appended. INTRODUCTION Here is an example of introductory language: The purpose of this initiation package is to review the proposed[project name] in sufficient detail to determine to what extent the proposed action may affect any of the threatened, endangered,proposed species and designated or proposed critical habitats listed below. In addition, the following information is provided to comply with statutory requirements to use the best scientific and commercial information available when assessing the risks posed to listed and/or proposed species and designated and/or proposed critical habitat by proposed federal actions. This initiation package is prepared in accordance with legal requirements set forth under regulations implementing Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act(50 CFR 402; 16 U.S.C. 1536(c)). Threatened,Endangered,Proposed Threatened or Proposed Endangered Species Example language: The following listed and proposed species may be affected by the proposed action: common name(Scientific name) T common name(Scientific name)E common name(Scientific name)PT common name(Scientific name)PE This list should include all of the species from the species lists you obtained from USFWS and NMFS. If it doesn't,include a brief explanation here and a more detailed explanation in your record to help USFWS,NMFS and future staff understand your thought process for excluding a species from consideration. Critical Habitat Example language: The action addressed within this document falls within Critical Habitat for[identify species]. CONSULTATION TO DATE "Consultation"under the ESA consists of discussions between the action agency, the applicant(if any), and USFWS and/or NMFS. It is the sharing of information about the proposed action and related actions, the species and environments affected, and means of achieving project purposes while conserving the species and their habitats. Under the ESA, consultation can be either informal or formal. Both processes are similar,but informal consultation may result in formal consultation if there is a likelihood of unavoidable take. Formal consultation has statutory timeframes and other requirements (such as the submission of the information in this package and a written biological opinion by USFWS or NMFS). 7 Summarize any consultation that has occurred thus far. Identify when consultation was requested(if not concurrent with this document). Be sure to summarize meetings, site visits and correspondence that were important to the decision-making process. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The purpose of this section is to provide a clear and concise description of the proposed activity and any interrelated or interdependent actions. The following information is necessary for the consultation process on an action: 1. The action agency proposing the action. 2. The authority(ies) the action agency will use to undertake, approve, or fund the action. 3. The applicant,if any. 4. The action to be authorized, funded, or carried out. 5. The location of the action. 5. When the action will occur, and how long it will last. 6. How the action will be carried out 7. The purpose of the action. 8. Any interrelated or interdependent actions, or that none exist to the best of your knowledge. Describe and specify: WHO is going to do the action and under what authority,include the name and office of the action agency and the name and address of the applicant;WHAT the project or action is; WHERE the project is (refer to attached maps);WHEN the action is going to take place,including time line and implementation schedules; HOW the action will be accomplished,including the various activities that comprise the whole action, the methods, and the types of equipment used;WHY the action is proposed, including its purpose and need; and WHAT OTHER interrelated and interdependent actions are known. This combination of actions are what is being consulted on for the 7(a)(2) analysis. Include a clear description of all conservation measures and project mitigation such as avoidance measures, seasonal restrictions, compensation,restoration/creation(on-site and in-kind, off-site and in- kind, on-site and out-of-kind, off-site and out-of-kind), and use of mitigation or conservation banks. Here are some examples of commonly overlooked items to include in your project description: Type of project Project location Project footprint Avoidance areas Start and end times Construction access Staging/laydown areas Construction equipment and techniques Habitat status on site Habitat between work areas and endangered species locations Permanent vs. temporary impacts 8 Surrounding land-use Hydrology and drainage patterns Duration of"temporary"impacts Prevailing winds and expected seasonal shifts Restoration areas Conservation measures Compensation and set-asides Bank ratios and amounts Mitigation: what kind and who is responsible? Dust, erosion, and sedimentation controls Whether the project is growth-inducing or facilitates growth Whether the project is part of a larger project or plan What permits will need to be obtained Action Area Describe all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action. This includes any interrelated and interdependent actions. Remember that the action area is not based simply on the Federal action and should not be limited to the location of the Federal action. The same applies to the applicant's action. The action area is defined by measurable or detectable changes in land, air and water, or to other measurable factors that may elicit a response in the species or critical habitat. To determine the action area,we recommend that you first break the action down into its components (e.g., vegetation clearing, construction of cofferdams, storage areas,borrow areas, operations, maintenance, etc.,) to assess the potential impacts resulting from each component. Determine the impacts that are expected to result from each component. For example, instream actions may mobilize sediments that travel downstream as increased turbidity and then settle out as sediments on the stream substrate. Sound levels from machinery may be detectable hundreds of feet, thousands of feet, or even miles away. Use these distances when delineating the extent of your action area. Note: don't forget to subsequently reconstruct the action to assess the combined stressors of the components. You may find that some stressors are synergistically minimized or avoided,whereas other stressors may increase. Finally, describe the action area, including features and habitat types. Include photographs and an area map as well as a vicinity map. The vicinity map for terrestrial projects should be at a 1:24,000 scale with the USGS quad name included. SPECIES ACCOUNTS AND STATUS OF THE SPECIES IN THE ACTION AREA Provide local information on affected individuals and populations, such as presence,numbers, life history, etc. Identify which threats to the species' persistence identified at the time of listing are likely to be present in the action area. Identify any additional threats that are likely to be present in the action area. If the species has a distribution that is constrained by limiting factors,identify where in the action area factors are present that could support the species and where they are absent or limiting. For example, if a species is limited to a narrow thermal range and a narrow humidity range, show where in the action area 9 the temperatures are sufficient to support the species,where the humidity is sufficient to support the species, and where those areas overlap. Include aspects of the species' biology that relate to the impact of the action, such as sensitivity to or tolerance of. noise, light,heat, cold,inundation, smoke, sediments, dust, etc. For example,if the species is sensitive to loud sounds or vibration, and your project involves loud tools or equipment,reference that aspect of their biology. Include citations for all sources of information Describe habitat use in terms of breeding, feeding, and sheltering. Describe habitat condition and habitat designations such as: critical habitat(provide unit name or number,if applicable), essential habitat, important habitat,recovery area,recovery unit(provide unit name or number,if applicable). Also discuss habitat use patterns,including seasonal use and migration (if relevant), and identify habitat needs. Identify and quantify the listed-species habitat remaining in the action area. GIS layers are useful here, as are land ownership patterns--especially local land trusts and open space designations. Identify any recovery plan implementation that is occurring in the action area, especially priority one action items from recovery plans. Include survey information. For all monitoring and survey reports,please clearly identify how it was done,when,where, and by whom. If survey protocols were followed,reference the name and date of the protocol. If survey protocols were modified,provide an explanation of how the surveying occurred and the reasoning for modifying the protocol. Keep it relevant. It is unnecessary to discuss biology that is totally unrelated to project impacts--e.g., discussion of pelage color, teat number, and number of digits fore and aft when the project is a seasonal wetland establishment. Utilize the best scientific and commercial information available. Use and cite recent publications/journal articles/agency data and technical reports. Include local information,relative to the action area,views of recognized experts,results from recent studies, and information on life history,population dynamics, trends and distribution. Reference field notes,unpublished data,research in progress, etc. Things to consider: Existing threats to species Fragmentation Urban growth area Drainage patterns Information on local sightings and populations Population trends Home range and dispersal Sensitivity of endangered species to: dust,noise,head, desiccation, etc. Trap stress/mortality Predators 10 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Provide information on past,present and future state, local,private, or tribal activities in the action area: specifically, the positive or negative impacts those activities have had on the species or habitat in the area in terms of abundance,reproduction, distribution, diversity, and habitat quality or function. Include the impacts of past and present federal actions as well. Don't forget to describe the impacts of past existence and operation of the action under consultation (for continuing actions). Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, Tribal, local or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area. Future Federal actions that are unrelated(i.e., not interrelated or interdependent) to the proposed action are not considered in this analysis because they will be subject to separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act. (Note: Cumulative effects under ESA are not the same as the definition under NEPA. Be careful not to mix them up.) Describe the impacts of these cumulative effects in terms of abundance,reproduction, distribution, diversity, and habitat quality or function. Present all known and relative effects to population, e.g., fish stocking, fishing,hunting, other recreation, illegal collecting,private wells, development, grazing, local trust programs, etc. Include impacts to the listed and proposed species in the area that you know are occurring and that are unrelated to your action-- e.g., road kills from off-road vehicle use,poaching, trespass, etc. ll EFFECTS OF THE ACTION The purpose of this section is to document your analysis of the potential impacts the proposed action will have on species and/or critical habitats. This analysis has two possible conclusions for listed species and designated critical habitat: (1) May Affect,Not Likely to Adversely Affect—the appropriate conclusion when effects on a listed species are expected to be discountable, insignificant, or completely beneficial. Beneficial effects—contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects Insignificant effects—relate to the size of the impact and should never reach the scale where take would occur. Discountable effects—those that are extremely unlikely to occur. Based on best judgment, a person would not: (1)be able to meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate insignificant effects; or(2) expect discountable effects to occur. (2) May Affect,Likely to Adversely Affect—the appropriate finding if any adverse effect may occur to listed species or critical habitat as a direct or indirect result of the proposed action or its interrelated or interdependent actions, and the effect is not discountable,insignificant, or beneficial. A finding of"may affect"is the primary trigger for initiating section 7 consultation. Further analysis leads to one of the two conclusions above. In the case of a determination that an action is "not likely to adversely affect" a species or critical habitat,you can request USFWS and/or NMFS concurrence with this determination and consultation can be concluded upon receipt of our concurrence. Determinations of "likely to adversely affect"require further consultation between the action agency and USFWS and NMFS. These consultations typically lead to the preparation of a biological opinion, although they can also lead to incorporation of additional protective measures that render the project"not likely to adversely affect" listed species or designated critical habitat. Any actions that are likely to result in the incidental take of a listed species are automatically considered"likely to adversely affect." In the case of proposed species or proposed critical habitat, the possible conclusions are: Species Likely to Jeopardize the Continued Existence Not Likely to Jeopardize the Continued Existence Critical Habitat Likely to Destroy or Adversely Modify Not Likely to Destroy or Adversely Modify The effects analysis includes assessment of- Direct and indirect effects (stressors)of Federal action Direct and indirect effects (stressors)of applicant's action Direct and indirect effects (stressors)of interrelated or interdependent actions Direct and indirect effects (stressors)of conservation and minimization measures 12 Remember: Direct and indirect effects under ESA are not the same as direct and indirect effects under NEPA. Be careful not to mix them up. Under ESA, direct effects are those that are caused by the action(s) and occur at the time of the action(s), and indirect effects are those that are caused by the action(s) and are later in time,but are still reasonably certain to occur. Based on the various components of your action that you used to determine the extent of the action area, this analysis assesses the potential stressors resulting from each component and predicts the likely responses species and critical habitat will have. Note: don't forget to subsequently reconstruct the action to assess the combined stressors of the components. You may find that some stressors are synergistically minimized or avoided,whereas other stressors may increase. Describe the stressors that are expected to result from each component. For example, instream actions may mobilize sediments that travel downstream as increased turbidity and then settle out as sediments on the stream substrate. Sound levels from machinery may be detectable hundreds of feet, thousands of feet, or even miles away. Describe these stressors in terms of their intensity, frequency, and duration. Once you have determined the expected stressors resulting from an activity, the next step is to assess the overlap between those stressors and individuals of the species or components of critical habitat. The purpose of determining this overlap is to accurately and completely assess the potential exposure of species and habitat to the stressors resulting from the action. This exposure is the necessary precursor to any possible response those species and habitat may have. Your conclusions of"not likely to adverse affect"or"likely to adversely affect"are based in large part on this response. To determine exposure,here is a basic set of questions you might answer: ■ What are the specific stressors causing the exposure ■ Where the exposure to the stressors would occur ■ When the exposure to stressors would occur ■ How long the exposure to stressors would occur ■ What is the frequency of exposure to stressor ■ What is the intensity of exposure to stressor ■ How many individuals would be exposed ■ Which populations those individuals represent ■ What life stage would be exposed For critical habitat, the questions would be similar but would focus on constituent elements of critical habitat. Remember that exposure to a stressor is not always direct. For example, in some cases individuals of a species may be directly exposed to the sediment mobilized during construction. However, in other cases, individuals of the species would be exposed indirectly when sediment mobilized during construction settles out in downstream areas,rendering those areas unusable for later spawning or foraging. Here are some examples of stressors you should address: Exposure to abiotic factors affecting land, air, or water Exposure to biotic factors affecting species behavior Spatial or temporal changes in primary constituent elements of critical habitat 13 Loss or gain of habitat--direct and indirect Fragmentation of habitat Loss or gain of forage and/or foraging potential Loss or gain of shelter/cover Loss or gain of access through adjacent habitat/loss of corridors determine the potential response or range of responses the exposed individuals or components of critical habitat will have to those levels and types of exposure. This is where the use of the best scientific and commercial information available becomes crucial. Your analysis must take this information into consideration and the resulting document must reflect the use of this information and your reasoning and inference based on that information. Bear in mind that this analysis may not be the final word on the expected responses as further consultation with USFWS or NMFS may refine this analysis. Be sure to describe the expected responses clearly and focus your analysis towards determining if any of the possible responses will result in the death or injury of individuals,reduced reproductive success or capacity, or the temporary or permanent blockage or destruction of biologically significant habitats (e.g., foraging, spawning, or lekking grounds; migratory corridors, etc.,). Any of these above responses are likely to qualify as adverse effects. If the available information indicates that no observable response is expected from the levels and types of exposure, the action may be unlikely to adversely affect a species or critical habitat. However,remember that no observable response may actually mask an invisible internal response such as increased stress hormone levels, elevated heart rate, etc. Depending on the fitness of the exposed individual and the surrounding environment(including other threats), these "invisible"responses may lead to more serious consequences. We recommend working with your NMFS or USFWS contact to determine the appropriate conclusion. Don't forget to consider: Individual responses based on the species biology and sensitivity to exposure The combined effects of existing threats and new exposure The combined effects of limiting factors and new exposure Disrupted reproduction and/or loss of reproduction Exposure and response of species and critical habitat to interrelated and interdependent actions Understanding and avoiding the common flaws in developing an effect determination will save you considerable time. These common flaws are: the "Displacement"Approach(i.e., the species will move out of the way; there are plenty of places for them to go); the "Not Known to Occur Here"Approach (i.e., looking at survey results, or lack of results,instead of the Recovery Plan for the species); the "We'll Tell You Later"Approach(i.e.,if we find any, then we'll let you know and that is when we will consult); or the "Leap of Faith"Approach (i.e., the agency wants the USFWS or NMFS to accept a determination based on trust,rather than the best scientific and commercially available information.). Sticking to flawed determinations will cost everyone time, money, and aggravation. Analysis of alternate actions This analysis is required for actions that involve preparation of an EIS. For all other actions, a summary of alternatives discussed in other environmental documents is useful. 14 OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION Provide any other relevant available information the action, the affected listed species, or critical habitat. This could include local research, studies on the species that have preliminary results, and scientific and commercial information on aspects of the project. CONCLUSION This is where you put your overall effect determination after you have analyzed the exposure and response of species and habitat to the stressors resulting from the proposed action and interrelated or interdependent actions. Effect determinations must be based on a sound reasoning from exposure to response and must be consistent with types of actions in the project description, the biology in the species accounts, the habitat status and condition, changes to the existing environment, and the best scientific and commercial information available. Again, the two potential conclusions for listed species are: Not likely to adversely affect species Likely to adversely affect species The two potential conclusions for designated critical habitat are: Not likely to adversely affect critical habitat Likely to adversely affect critical habitat The two potential conclusions for proposed species are: Not likely to jeopardize species Likely to adversely jeopardize species The potential conclusions for proposed critical habitat are,under informal and formal consultation respectively: Not likely to adversely affect species Likely to adversely affect species Not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat Likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat Include the basis for the conclusion, such as discussion of any specific measures or features of the project that support the conclusion and discussion of species expected response, status,biology, or baseline conditions that also support conclusion. If you make a"no effect" determination,it doesn't need to be in the assessment,but you might have to defend it. Keep the documentation for your administrative record. LIST OF DOCUMENTS 15 Provide a list of the documents that have bearing on the project or the consultation, this includes relevant reports, including any environmental impact statements, environmental assessment, or biological assessment prepared for the project. Include all planning documents as well as the documents prepared in conformance with state environmental laws IMPORTANT NOTE: Each of these documents must be provided with the initiation package consultation for the Services to be able to proceed with formal consultation. LITERATURE CITED We are all charged with using the best scientific and commercial information available. To demonstrate you did this, it is a good idea to keep copies of search requests in your record. If you used a personal communication as a reference, include the contact information(name, address,phone number, affiliation) in your record. LIST OF CONTACTS/CONTRIBUTORS/PREPARERS Please include contact information for contributors and preparers as well as local experts contacted for species or habitat information. 16 GLOSSARY Action Area - all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action. Beneficial Effects—contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects. Cumulative Effects—are those effects of future State or private activities,not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area of the Federal action subject to consultation. Discountable Effects—those that are extremely unlikely to occur. Based on best judgment, a person would not: (1)be able to meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate insignificant effects; or(2) expect discountable effects to occur. Effects of the Action —refers to the direct and indirect effects of an action on the species or critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated or interdependent with that action, that will be added to the environmental baseline. Environmental Baseline—includes the past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and the impact of State or private actions that are contemporaneous with the consultation in process. Indirect Effects-Indirect effects are those that are caused by the action(s) and are later in time,but are still reasonably certain to occur. Insignificant Effects—relate to the size of the impact and should never reach the scale where take would occur. Interdependent Actions -Interdependent actions are those that have no significant independent utility apart from the action that is under consideration, i.e. other actions would not occur"but for"this action. Interrelated Actions -Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification, i.e. this action would not occur"but for" a larger action. Likely to Jeopardize the Continued Existence of—to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction,numbers, or distribution of that species. May Affect,Likely to Adversely Affect—the appropriate finding if any adverse effect may occur to listed species or critical habitat as a direct or indirect result of the proposed action or its interrelated or interdependent actions, and the effect is not discountable,insignificant, or beneficial. Requires that a biological opinion be prepared by the Service. May Affect,Not Likely to Adversely Affect—the appropriate conclusion when effects on a listed species are expected to be discountable, insignificant, or completely beneficial. Requires written concurrence from the Service. No Effect—the appropriate conclusion when a listed species will not be affected, either because the species will not be present or because the project does not have aM elements with the potential to affect the species. A "no effect"determination does not require written concurrence from the Service and ends ESA consultation requirements. Action agency should document their reasoning for this conclusion in their file. 17 ' Endangered and Threatened Species and Critical Habitats under the Jurisdiction of the NOAA Fisheries Servic JOUPI e Gulf of Mexico Listed Species Scientific Name Status Date Listed Marine Mammals blue whale Balaenoptera musculus Endangered 12/02/70 finback whale Balaenoptera physalus Endangered 12/02/70 humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered 12/02/70 sei whale Balaenoptera borealis Endangered 12/02/70 sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus Endangered 12/02/70 Turtles green sea turtle Chelonia mydas Threatened' 07/28/78 hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricate Endangered 06/02/70 Kemp's ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii Endangered 12/02/70 leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea Endangered 06/02/70 loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta Threatened 07/28/78 Fish Gulf sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Threatened 09/30/91 smalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata Endangered 04/01/03 Invertebrates elkhorn coral Acropora palmata Threatened 5/9/06 staghorn coral Acropora cervicornis Threatened 5/9/06 Designated Critical Habitat Gulf Sturgeon: A final rule designating Gulf sturgeon critical habitat was published on March 19, 2003 (68 FIR 13370) and 14 geographic areas (units) among the Gulf of Mexico rivers and tributaries were identified. Maps and details regarding the final rule can be found at alabama.fws.gov/gs Elkhorn and Staghorn Corals: All waters in the depths of 98 ft (30 m) and shallower to the mean low water line surrounding the Dry Tortugas, Florida. Within these specific areas, the essential feature consists of natural consolidated hard substrate or dead coral skeleton that are free from fleshy or turf macroalgae cover and sediment cover. Maps and details regarding coral critical habitat can be found at: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/ r/esa/acropora.htm Smalltooth Sawfish: A final rule designating smalltooth sawfish critical habitat was published on September 2, 2009 (74 FIR 45353). Critical habitat consists of two coastal habitat units: the Charlotte Harbor Estuary Unit and the Ten Thousand Islands/Everglades Unit. Maps and details regarding the smalltooth sawfish critical habitat rule can be found at: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/SmalltoothSawfish.htm 'Green turtles are listed as threatened,except for breeding populations of green turtles in Florida and on the Pacific Coast of Mexico,which are listed as endangered. . Gulf of Mexico Candidate Species' Scientific Name largetooth sawfish Pristis pristis Species of Concern Scientific Name Fish Alabama shad Alosa alabamae dusky shark Carcharhinus obscurus largetooth sawfish Pristis pristis night shark Carcharinus signatus saltmarsh topminnow Fundulus jenkinsi sand tiger shark Carcharias taurus speckled hind Epinephelus drummondhayi Warsaw grouper Epinephelus nigritus Invertebrates ivory bush coral Oculina varicosa 2 The Candidate Species List has been renamed the Species of Concern List. The term"candidate species"is limited to species that are the subject of a petition to list and for which NOAA Fisheries Service has determined that listing may be warranted(69 FIR 19975). 3 Species of Concern are not protected under the Endangered Species Act, but concerns about their status indicate that they may warrant listing in the future. Federal agencies and the public are encouraged to consider these species during project planning so that future listings may be avoided. 00D 4W U.S. Department ORLANDO AIRPORTS DISTRICT OFFICE of Transportation 5950 Hazeltine National Dr., Suite 400 Federal Aviation Orlando, Florida 32822-5024 Administration Phone: (407) 812-6331 Fax: (407) 812-6978 April 30, 2013 Mr. David Bernhart Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Species National Marine Fisheries Service 26313 th Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Dear Mr. Bernhart: RE: Biological Assessment Relocation of Runway 7/25 at the Florida Keys Marathon Airport Monroe County, Florida The Federal Aviation Administration and the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners are evaluating the potential environmental impacts associated with the relocation of Runway 7/25 at the Florida Keys Marathon Airport, located in Marathon, Florida. The project would shift the runway laterally by 40 feet to meet FAA's runway- to-taxiway separation standards. The project is safety-based and would not increase aviation activity at the airport. The runway would not be extended and other airport facilities would not be expanded as part of the project. The project requires that a 40-foot strip of vegetation be cleared along the edge of a wooded area on the north side of the airfield. Clearing the 40-foot strip would impact approximately 0.1 acre of tidally-connected and 0.5 acre of isolated mangrove wetlands for a total wetland impact of 0.6 acre. Approximately 4.1 acres of tropical hardwood hammock would be cleared. No fill or excavation would take place in the cleared areas. The attached biological assessment (BA) has been prepared pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended and evaluates the potential effects of the above referenced project on species regulated by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), The purpose of the BA is to determine whether these species or their preferred habitats are likely to be adversely affected by the proposed project. 2 The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has concluded that the proposed action would have no effect on marine mammals, marine turUes, marine and anadromous fish, marine invertebrates, and marine plants. However, it was determined that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pecinata). The smalltooth sawfish could occur within a tidally influenced mangrove area within the project area, but it is unlikely it would inhabit this area due to limited access via a single 24-inch culvert and average water depths of less than twelve inches. Nonetheless, to ensure the project would not adversely the smalltooth sawfish, the project will include Construction Conditions developed by the NMFS to minimize potential involvement with the smalltooth sawfish. Off-site mitigation is proposed to offset mangrove wetland impacts. The FAA's conclusions have been reached after evaluation of the proposed project and its alternatives, field reconnaissance, analysis of baseline conditions, literature review and an assessment of the effects the proposed action may have on these species. The may affect, not likely to adversely effect determination for the smalltooth sawfish is based in part to the impeded access to the project area and the low quality of the habitat within the project area relative to its use by the sawfish. We request NMFS review of the BA and the effect determinations made by the FAA. If you have any questions regarding the BA or require additional information, please call me at (407) 812-6331 x1 29 or via email at Virginia.Lane@faa.gov. Sincerely, - sl,rgnod f pA Virginia Lane, A.I.C.P. Environmental Specialist Enclosure cc: Peter Green, LIDS Corporation Peter Horton, Key West International Airport f -1*46w 4W US. Department ORLANDO AIRPORTS DISTRICT OFFICE of Transportation 5950 Hazeltine National Dr., Suite 400 Federal Aviation Orlando, Florida 32822-5024 Administration Phone: (407) 812-6331 Fax: (407) 812-6978 April 30, 2013 Ms. Jocelyn Karazsia Habitat Conservation Division National Marine Fisheries Service 400 North Congress Avenue, Suite 120 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Dear Ms. Karazsia: RE: Essential Fish Habitat Relocation of Runway 7/25 at the Florida Keys Marathon Airport Monroe County, Florida The Federal Aviation Administration and the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners are evaluating the potential environmental impacts associated with the relocation of Runway 7/25 at the Florida Keys Marathon Airport, located in Marathon, Florida. The project would shift the runway laterally by 40 feet to meet FAA's runway- to-taxiway separation standards. The project is safety-based and would not increase aviation activity at the airport. The runway would not be extended and other airport facilities would not be expanded as part of the project. The project requires that a 40-foot strip of vegetation be cleared along the edge of a wooded area on the north side of the airfield. Clearing the 40-foot strip would impact approximately 0.1 acre of tidally-connected and 0.5 acre of isolated mangrove wetlands for a total wetland impact of 0.6 acre. Approximately 4.1 acres of tropical hardwood hammock would be cleared. No fill or excavation would take place in the cleared areas. The attached biological assessment (BA) provides an overview of the proposed project and evaluates the potential direct, secondary, and cumulative effects of the project on habitat and species regulated by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). As noted above, the project would impact mangrove wetlands and tropical hardwood habitat. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has concluded that the proposed action would have no effect on marine mammals, marine turtles, marine and anadromous fish, marine invertebrates, and marine plants. However, it was determined that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the smalltooth sawfish ( rests pecinata). 2 The smalltooth sawfish could occur within a tidally influenced mangrove area within the project area, but it is unlikely it would inhabit this area due to limited access via a single 24-inch culvert and average water depths of less than twelve inches. Nonetheless, to ensure the project would not adversely the smalltooth sawfish, the project will include Construction Conditions developed by the NMFS to minimize potential involvement with the smalltooth sawfish. Off site mitigation is proposed to offset mangrove wetland impacts. The FAA's conclusions have been reached after evaluation of the proposed project and its alternatives, field reconnaissance, analysis of baseline conditions, literature review and an assessment of the effects the proposed action may have on these species. The may affect, not likely to adversely effect determination for the smalltooth sawfish is based in part to the impeded access to the project area and the low quality of the habitat within the project area relative to its use by the sawfish. We request NMFS review of the BA and the effect determinations made by the FAA. If you have any questions regarding the BA or require additional information, please call me at (407) 812-6331 x1 29 or via email at Virginia.Lane@faa.gov.. Sincerely, snod FE Y 00 o Virginia Lane, AICP Environmental Specialist Enclosure cc: Peter Green, URS Corporation Peter Horton, Key West International Airport APPENDIX F AGENCY CONSULTATION This appendix contains various government agency correspondence related to the development of the EA. F-1 Early Agency Coordination F-2 Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment (To be provided in Final EA) APPENDIX F-1 EARLY AGENCY COORDINATION This appendix contains responses for the Early Agency Coordination effort. Agency Date State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) August 5, 2010 City of Marathon August 9, 2010 Seminole Tribe of Florida—Tribal Historic Preservation Office August 17, 2010 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) August 26, 2010 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) September 2, 2010 Florida Department of Environmental Protection September 24, 2010 of s - Fo •�COUWB K�" FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE Dawn K. Roberts Interim Secretary of State DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES Mr. Russell P. Forrest, GISP August 5, 2010 Project Coordinator URS Corporation 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, Florida 33607-1462 RE: DHR Project File Number: 2010-3612 Federal Aviation Administration—Scoping Notice—Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Runway Shift at Florida Keys Marathon Airport Marathon, Monroe County Dear Mr. Forrest: This office reviewed the referenced project for possible impact to historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places, or otherwise of historical, architectural or archaeological value. The review was conducted in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended and 36 CFR Part 800:Protection of Historic Properties and the implementing state regulations. A review of the Florida Master Site File and our records indicated that there are a number of recorded archaeological sites located in close proximity to the project area(see attached map). We note that the environmental assessment will include effects on cultural resources. We look forward to receiving the document and coordinating with the Federal Aviation Administration regarding cultural resources that may be impacted by this project. If you have any questions concerning our comments, please contact Scott Edwards, Historic Preservationist, by electronic mail sedwards@dos,state.fl.us,or at 850-245-6333 or 800-847-7278. Sincerely, A,f�� Laura A. Kammerer Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer For Review and Compliance Enclosure 500 S. Bronough Street • Tallahassee,FL 32399-0250 • http://www.flheritage.com O Director's Office O Archaeological Research Q Historic Preservation (850)245.6300•FAX:245.6436 (850)245.6444•FAX:245.6452 (850)245.6333•FAX:245.6437 Ys f A �I hJ- - f J b , z~ �� ku u w ' r , � l y , r� 09 Got Al r ry 041 z 8MO10 k } �Z ,a�s a '` .f r r JJ M,. .h NN r» t i rt J tt € .g, y�, � 4 a i't� ? �✓� : oy � k 4 -y t A� '�, tr'j."w�� All :.- �� " k, r r ' � U dw sr star F �� ;' Ord` * ;•,r`5'r fat. �, °�� ,�"°& 6 ri ^� �h,, a T ��t E � , 4Asks, . i.., 'a o m O U o d Y S. "`3 b (nrni Sqt a , o n o a f ,, - o s /O C CIO � rn (A} CA} 4'tY I; (X9 �.0 9 tA9 r A s U� va f( �t� �• � l f a. OYUs'�t`r ASK to w . f f CITY OF MARATHON, FLORIDA 9 05 Ovorweas Highway, arathon„ Florida 33050 F Ja W Phone: 4 305t 743-003 3 i~axC (305) 743-3667 August 9, 2010. Mr. Reggie Paros, Manager Florida Keys Marathon Airport. Suite 200 0400 Overseas Highway Marathon, FL 33050-3303 Dear Mr.' tieros, r The City (-),f Marathon has several questions and would like the opportunity to address our concerns regarding impacts our residents regarding the posible relocation of the Marathon Airport runway. Unfortunately, our Marathon City Council meeting is the same evening as the Marathon Airport public informational meeting scheduled on August 24'1'. To illustrate some of our questions, the City is concerned with the possible noise impacts to our residents to the North of the runway. We are equally concerned that there: are no changes to the existing tree line that protects our residents from the visual and noise impacts of the airport. At this point, the City sees no advantage in relocating the runway and subsequently we currently would prefer no further action be implemented to complete this project as previously stated by Monroe County and the City of Marathon. We sincerely appreciate your willingness to schedule an alternate time to meet, discuss and consider the City's perspective regarding this matter. Sincerely, „ roger T. Hernstadt City Manager cc:. Roman Gastesi, County Administrator Peter Horton, Airports Director SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE - I HIBAL 1 TO TRI BAL 01-1-ICERS -115 RIC N1, Ff Is t IIRFSERVAIIUN OFFICE (& CHAIRMAN SEMINULA'..' TRIBF. (.)F FLORIDA MITCHELL CYPRESS All TAH-THI-KI MUSEUM VICE C-HAIRMAN HICHARD HOWERS JH. 34725 WE V BOUNDARY ROAD SECRETARY CLEWIS I CAN, FL 33440 PRISCI L 1-A D. SAYEN PHONE: (663) 983-6549 TREASURER FAX! (863) 902-1117 '�-?NATIOA 0 MICHAEL D. TIGER Russell P. Forrest, LISP Project Coordinator URS Corporation 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, FL 33607-1462 THPO#: 006508 August 17, 2010 Subject: Proposed Runaway Shift, Florida Keys Marathon Airport, Marathon, Florida Dear Mr. Forrest, The Seminole Tribe of Florida's Tribal Historic Preservation Office (STOF-THPO) has received the Federal Aviation Administration's correspondence concerning the aforementioned project. The STOF-THPO has no objection to your proposed project at this time. However, the STOF-THPO would like to be informed if cultural resources that are potentially ancestral or historically relevant to the Seminole Tribe of Florida are inadvertently discovered during the construction process. We thank you for the opportunity to review the information that has been sent to date regarding this project, Please reference THPO-006508 for any related issues. We look forward to working with you in the future. Sincerely, Direct routine inquiries to: Willard Steele Anne Mullins Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Compliance Review Supervisor Seminole Tribe of Florida annemullins@semtribe.com JLP:am 0 �4 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE yes a� Southeast Regional Office 263 13`h Avenue South St.Petersburg, Florida 33701-5505 (727) 824-5317; FAX(727) 824-5300 http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/ August 26, 2010 F/SER4:JK/pw (Sent via electronic mail) Russell Forrest Project Coordinator Air Transportation URS Corporation 7650 W. Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, FL 33607-1462 Dear Mr. Forrest: NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)reviewed your letter dated August 4, 2010, requesting views, comments, and information regarding efforts to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) for a proposed runway shift at the Florida Keys Marathon Airport. The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners and URS are preparing the EA on behalf of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The following comments are from the Protected Resources Division(PRD) and Habitat Conservation Division(HCD) of the NMFS Southeast Regional Office. Comments and recommendations are provided pursuant to authorities of the National Environmental Policy Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act(Magnuson- Stevens Act). NMFS PRD will also separately coordinate with FAA under the Endangered Species Act. Proposed Project The proposed project would shift the centerline of the existing runway 40 feet to the northwest. Related actions include: extension of Taxiways B, C, D, and E by 40 feet to connect to the relocated southeastern edge of the runway and moving northwestward the boundaries of the Runway Safety Area, Runway Obstacle Free Zone, Runway Object Free Area, Building Restriction Line, and Runway Protection Zone. Essential Fish Habitat within the Project Area Based on review of aerial images and figures provided with the letter,the site of the proposed project includes or is adjacent to mangroves and seagrass habitat. The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) or the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council(GMFMC)indentify these habitats as essential fish habitat(EFH) for several species,including adult white grunt(Haemulon plumieri);juvenile and adult gray snapper(Luyanus griseus); and juvenile mutton snapper(Luyanus analis). SAFMC and GMFMC identify mangrove and seagrass as a Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC) for several species within the snapper/grouper complex. In addition, SAFMC and GMFMC identify the FKNMS as a Habitat Area of Particular Concern,which is a subset of EFH that is either rare, particularly susceptible to human-induced degradation, especially important ecologically, or located in an environmentally stressed area. Avoidance and minimization of impacts to these resources will be important as the project moves forward through planning, design, and construction. o ee�Ti+ttiT.�F.Gam" . Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Requirements NMFS recommends that the FAA, Monroe County Board of County Commissioners, and URS coordinate closely with NMFS HCD to ensure the EFH assessment and EA contain sufficient detail to complete the EFH consultation. The Magnuson-Stevens Act directs federal agencies (in this case FAA)to consult with NMFS when the agency's activities may have an adverse affect on EFH. Under 50 CFR 600.920 (c), a federal agency may designate a non-federal representative to conduct an EFH consultation by giving written notice of such designation to NMFS. Normally this designation is made via a letter from the federal agency to NMFS or by the federal agency preparing a letter that is included in or with the EA. In the EFH regulations, 50 CFR 600.920(e)(3) and(4)identify the components of an EFH Assessment, including four mandatory elements and five additional elements necessary for certain projects. In this case and with respect to the additional elements,NMFS recommends the EFH Assessment include results of an on-site, detailed habitat survey to evaluate the site-specific effects of the project. NMFS is available to review survey methods prior to conducting the surveys. NMFS also recommends the EFH Assessment include an alternatives analysis that includes alternatives that would avoid or minimize adverse effects on EFH. Unavoidable direct or indirect impacts to EFH will require compensatory mitigation. Based on results of the habitat surveys and alternatives analysis, other additional elements may be necessary for the EFH Assessment. NMFS is available to review preliminary results prior to completion of the draft EA. Threatened and Endangered Species within the Project Area Red mangroves (Rhizophora mangle) and euryhaline waters less than I meter deep are important developmental habitat for juvenile smalltooth sawfish(Pristis pectinata),which is an endangered species under the purview of NMFS. If the proposed action involves removing red mangroves or filling of red mangrove habitat or shallow euryhaline waters, the activity has the potential to adversely affect smalltooth sawfish. In addition to potential impacts to mangroves,NMFS believes the proposed action may affect seagrass habitats that are foraging areas for adult green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas),which also is protected under the Endangered Species Act(ESA). Endangered Species Act Consultation Requirements Section 7 of ESA requires federal agencies to consult with NMFS if their activities may affect ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat. Because the proposed activity has the potential to impact red mangroves or shallow euryhaline waters,NMFS believes the proposed activity may affect smalltooth sawfish. Green sea turtles may also be affected if seagrass impacts are proposed. If ESA-listed species or critical habitat may be present in the action area, a biological assessment(BA)is required. A BA is not the same as an EA. However,if an EA contains the information otherwise found in a BA regarding the project and potential impacts to ESA-listed species,it may be submitted in lieu of a BA. Enclosed please find NMFS' Recommendations for the Contents of Biological Assessments and Biological Evaluations. We suggest using the enclosed recommendations if you plan to submit a BA. The BA may be submitted as a stand-alone document or included as a distinct section of the EA. The enclosed recommendations should also assist the FAA in making their effect determinations (please see page 4 of the enclosed recommendations). In addition,we have enclosed a list of species under NMFS' jurisdiction that are found in the Gulf of Mexico. This list is intended to serve as a guide. It does not mean that all of the species on the list may be present in the project area;however, some of the species on the list(e.g., sea turtles and smalltooth sawfish) may be present in the project area. Closing Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. Related correspondence with our Protected Resources Division should be directed to the attention of Ms. Audra Livergood, she may be reached by telephone at(954) 356-7100, or by e-mail at Audra.Livergood@noaa.gov. Related correspondence with our Habitat Conservation Division should be directed to the attention of Ms. Jocelyn Karazsia at our West - 2 - Palm Beach office,which is co-located with the US Environmental Protection Agency at USEPA, 400 North Congress Avenue, Suite 120, West Palm Beach, Florida, 33401. She may be reached by telephone at(561) 616-8880, extension 207, or by e-mail at Jocelyn.Karazsia@noaa.gov. Sincerely, /for Miles M. Croom Assistant Regional Administrator Habitat Conservation Division Enclosures: NMFS' Recommendations for the Contents of Biological Assessments and Biological Evaluations list of species under NMFS'jurisdiction that are found in the Gulf of Mexico cc: COE, Ivan.Fannin@usace.army.mil FAA, Virgina.Lane@faa.gov FWS, Winston_Hobgood@fws.gov EPA, Miedema.Ron@epa.gov FWC, Lisa.Gregg@MyFWC.com FDEP, Celia.Hitchins@dep.state.fl.us FKNMS, Joanne.Delaney@noaa.gov SFWMD, chanes@sfwmd.gov SAFMC, Roger.Pugliese@safmc.net F/SER47, Jocelyn.Karazsiannoaa.gov - 3 - National Marine Fisheries Service Recommendations for the Contents of Biological Assessments and Biological Evaluations O:\FORMS\BA GUIDE-INITGUIDE COMBO .doc When preparing a Biological Assessment(BA) or Biological Evaluation(BE),keep in mind that the people who read or review this document may not be familiar with the project area or what is proposed by the project. Therefore your BA or BE should present a clear line of reasoning that explains the proposed project and how you determined the effects of the project on each threatened or endangered species, or critical habitat,in the project area. Try to avoid technical jargon not readily understandable to people outside your agency or area of expertise. Remember,this is a public document. Some things to consider and,if appropriate, to include in your BA or BE, follow. 1.What is the difference between a Biological Evaluation and a Biological Assessment? By regulation, a Biological Assessment is prepared for"major construction activities"— defined as "a construction project(or other undertaking having similar physical effects)which is a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment(as referred to in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) [(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)])." A BA is required if listed species or critical habitat may be present in the action area. A BA also may be recommended for other activities to ensure the agency's early involvement and increase the chances for resolution during informal consultation. Recommended contents for a BA are described in 50 CFR 402.12(f). Biological Evaluation is a generic term for all other types of analyses in support of consultations. Although agencies are not required to prepare a Biological Assessment for non-major construction activities, if a listed species or critical habitat is likely to be affected,the agency must provide the Service with an evaluation on the likely effects of the action. Often this information is referred to as a BE. The Service uses this documentation along with any other available information to decide if concurrence with the agency's determination is warranted. Recommended contents are the same as for a BA, as referenced above. The BAs and BEs should not be confused with Environmental Assessments (EA) or Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)which may be required for NEPA projects. These EAs and EISs are designed to provide an analysis of multiple possible alternative actions on a variety of environmental, cultural, and social resources, and often use different definitions or standards. However,if an EA or EIS contains the information otherwise found in a BE or BA regarding the project and the potential impacts to listed species,it may be submitted in lieu of a BE or BA. 2. What are you proposing to do? Describe the project. A project description will vary, depending on the complexity of the project. For example, describing the construction or removal of a fixed aid-to-navigation in the Intracoastal Waterway, or the abandonment/dismantling of an oil-producing-platform may be relatively simple,but describing a the extent and amplitude of potential impacts of military training exercises involving different military assets, combinations of weaponry, locations, and seasons would necessarily be more detailed and complex. Include figures and tables if they will help others understand your proposed action and its relationship with the species' habitat. How are you(or the project proponent)planning on carrying out the project? What tools or methods may 1 be used? How will the site be accessed? When will the project begin, and how long will it last? Describe the "action area" (all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate areas involved in the action [50 CFR 402.02]). Always include a map(topographic maps are particularly helpful). Provide photographs including aerials,if available. Describe the project area(i.e., topography,vegetation, condition/trend). Describe current management or activities relevant to the project area. How will your project change the area? Supporting documents are very helpful. If you have a blasting plan,best management practices document, sawfish/sea turtle/sturgeon conservation construction guidelines,research proposal,NEPA or other planning document or any other documents regarding the project, attach them to the BA or BE. 3. What threatened or endangered species, or critical habitat, may occur in the project area? A request for a species list may be submitted to the Service, or the Federal action agency or its designated representative may develop the list. If you have information to develop your own lists, the Service should be contacted periodically to ensure that changes in species' status or additions/deletions to the list are included. Sources of biological information on federally-protected sea turtles, sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon (and Gulf sturgeon critical habitat), and other listed species and candidate species can be found at the following website addresses: NMFS Southeast Regional Office, Protected Resources Division (http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/protres.htm);NMFS Office of Protected Resources (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (http://noflorida.fws.gov/SeaTurtles/seaturtle-info.htin ;http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/; http://www.sad.usace.army mil/protected%20resources/turtles.htm; http://endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.htmIgSpecies; the Ocean Conservancy(http://www.cmc- ocean.org/main.php3); the Caribbean Conservation Corporation (http://www.cccturtle.orgl); Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (http:Hfloridaconservation.org_/psm/turtles/turtle.htin http://www.turtles.org-,http://www/seaturtle.org;http://alabaina.fws.gov/gs/; http:Hobis.env.duke.edu/data/sp profiles.php;www.mote.org/—colins/Sawfish/SawfishHomePage.html; www.floridasawfish.com;http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Sharks/sawfish/srt/srt.htm, www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/InNews/sawprop.htm, also, from members of the public or academic community, and from books and various informational booklets. Due to budget constraints and staff shortages,we are only able to provide general, state-wide, or country-wide (territory-wide) species lists. Use your familiarity with the project area when you develop your species lists. Sometimes a species may occur in the larger regional area near your project,but the habitat necessary to support the species is not in the project area(including areas that may be beyond the immediate project boundaries,but within the area of influence of the project. If, for example,you know that the specific habitat type used by a species does not occur in the project area,it does not need to appear on the species list for the project. However, documentation of your reasoning is helpful for Service biologists or anyone else that may review the document. 4. Have you surveyed for species that are known to occur or have potential habitat in the proposed project area? The "not known to occur here" approach is a common flaw in many BA/BEs. The operative word here is "known." Unless adequate surveys have been conducted or adequate information sources have been 2 referenced, this statement is difficult to interpret. It begs the questions "Have you looked?" and"How have you looked?" Always reference your information sources. Include a clear description of your survey methods so the reader can have confidence in your results. Answer such questions as: How intensive was the survey? Did you look for suitable habitat or did you look for individuals? Did the survey cover the entire project area or only part of it? Include maps of areas surveyed if appropriate. Who did the surveys and when? Was the survey done during the time of year/day when the plant is growing or when the animal can be found(its active period)? Did the survey follow accepted protocols? If you are not sure how to do a good survey for the species, the Service recommends contacting species experts. Specialized training is required before you can obtain a permit to survey for some species. Remember that your evaluation of potential impacts from a project does not end if the species is/are not found in the project area. You must still evaluate what effects would be expected to the habitat, even if it is not known to be occupied, because impacts to habitat that may result indirectly in death or injury to individuals of listed species would constitute "take". 5. Provide background information on the threatened or endangered species in the project area. Describe the species in terms of overall range and population status. How many populations are known? How many occur in the project area? What part of the population will be affected by this project? Will the population's viability be affected? What is the current habitat condition and population size and status? Describe related items of past management for the species, such as stocking programs,habitat improvements, or loss of habitat or individuals caused by previous projects. 6. How will the project affect the threatened or endangered species or critical habitat that occur in the project area? If you believe the project will not affect the species, explain why. Effects analyses must include evaluating whether adverse impacts to species' habitats,whether designated or not, could indirectly harm or kill listed species. If you think the project may affect the species, explain what the effects might be. The Endangered Species Act requires you consider all effects when determining if an action funded,permitted, or carried out by a Federal agency may affect listed species. Effects you must consider include direct,indirect, and cumulative effects. Effects include those caused by interrelated and interdependent actions,not just the proposed action. Direct effects are those caused by the action and occur at the same time and place as the action. Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time but are reasonably certain to occur. Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification. Interdependent actions are those that have no significant independent utility apart from the action under consideration. Interrelated or interdependent actions can include actions under the jurisdiction of other federal agencies, state agencies, or private parties. Cumulative effects are those effects of future State or private activities,not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal actions subject to consultation. Describe measures that have or will be taken to avoid or eliminate adverse effects or enhance beneficial 3 effects to the species. Refer to conversations you had with species experts to achieve these results. Consider recovery potential if the project area contains historic range for a species. Evaluate impacts to designated critical habitat areas by reviewing any project effects to the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. 7. What is your decision? The Federal action agency must make a determination of effect. Quite frequently, effect determinations are not necessarily wrong; they simply are not justified in the assessment. The assessment should lead the reviewer through a discussion of effects to a logical,well- supported conclusion. Do not assume that the Service biologist is familiar with the project and/or its location and that there is no need to fully explain the impact the project may have on listed species. If there is little or no connection or rationale provided to lead the reader from the project description to the effect determination,we cannot assume conditions that are not presented in the assessment. Decisions must be justified biologically. The responsibility for making and supporting the determination of effect falls on the Federal action agency;however, the Service cannot merely "rubber stamp"the action agency's determination and may ask the agency to revisit its decision or provide more data if the conclusion is not adequately supported by biological information. You have three choices for each listed species or area of critical habitat: 1. "No effect"is the appropriate conclusion when a listed species will not be affected, either because the species will not be present or because the project does not have aM elements with the potential to affect the species. "No effect"does not include a small effect or an effect that is unlikely to occur: if effects are insignificant(in size) or discountable (extremely unlikely), a"may affect,but not likely to adversely affect"determination is appropriate. A "no effect"determination does not require written concurrence from the Service and ends ESA consultation requirements unless the project is subsequently modified in such manner that effects may ensue. 2. "May affect-is not likely to adversely affect" (NLAA) means that all effects are either beneficial, insignificant, or discountable. Beneficial effects have concurrent positive effects without�Lny adverse effects to the species or habitat(i.e., there cannot be "balancing,"wherein the benefits of the project would be expected to outweigh the adverse effects - see 43 below). Insignificant effects relate to the magnitude or extent of the impact(i.e., they must be small and would not rise to the level of a take of a species). Discountable effects are those extremely unlikely to occur. Based on best judgment, a person would not: (1)be able to meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate insignificant effects; or(2) expect discountable effects to occur. A "NLAA"determination by the action agency requires written concurrence from the Service. 3. "May affect-is likely to adversely affect"means that all adverse effects cannot be avoided. A combination of beneficial and adverse effects is still"likely to adversely affect," even if the net effect is neutral or positive. Adverse effects do not qualify as discountable simply because we are not certain they will occur. The probability of occurrence must be extremely small to achieve discountability. Likewise, adverse effects do not meet the definition of insignificant because they are less than major. If the adverse effect can be detected in any way or if it can be meaningfully articulated in a discussion of the results, then it is not insignificant,it is likely to adversely affect. This requires formal consultation with the Service. A fourth finding is possible for proposed species or proposed critical habitat: 4. "Is likely to jeopardize/destroy or adversely modify proposed species/critical habitat"is the 4 appropriate conclusion when the action agency identifies situations in which the proposed action is likely to jeopardize a species proposed for listing, or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat proposed for designation. If this conclusion is reached, conference is required. List the species experts you contacted when preparing the BE or BA but avoid statements that place the responsibility for the decision of"may affect"or"no effect"on the shoulders of the species experts. Remember, this decision is made by the Federal action agency. Provide supporting documentation, especially any agency reports or data that may not be available to the Service. Include a list of literature cited. Originally prepared: January 1997 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Field Office Revised: January 2006 National Marine Fisheries Service Protected Resources Division 263 13`h Avenue South St.Petersburg, FL 33701 (727) 824-5312 5 OUTLINE EXAMPLE FOR A BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OR BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION Cover Letter -VERY IMPORTANT -Include purpose of consultation,project title, and consultation number(if available). A determination needs to be made for each species and for each area of critical habitat. You have three options: 1) a"no effect"determination; 2)request concurrence with an"is not likely to adversely affect"determination; 3)make a"may affect,is likely to adversely affect" determination, and request"formal" consultation. If proposed species or critical habitat are included, state whether the project is likely to result in jeopardy to proposed species, or the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If the critical habitat is divided into units, specify which critical habitat unit(s)will be affected. Attached to Cover Letter: Biological Assessment or Biological Evaluation document,broken down as follows: Title: e.g., BA (or BE)for"Project X"; date prepared, and by whom. A. Project Description- Describe the proposed action and the action area. Be specific and quantify whenever possible. For Each Species: 1. Description of affected environment(quantify whenever possible) 2. Description of species biology 3. Describe current conditions for each species a. Range-wide b. In the project area c. Cumulative effects of State and private actions in the project area d. Other consultations of the Federal action agency in the area to date 4. Describe critical habitat(if applicable) 5. Fully describe effects of proposed action on each species and/or critical habitat, and species' response to the proposed action. a. Direct effects b. Indirect effects c. Interrelated and interdependent actions d. Potential incidental take resulting from project activities Factors to be considered/included/discussed when analyzing the effects of the proposed action on each species and/or critical habitat include: 1)Proximity of the action to the species, management units, or designated critical habitat units; 2) geographic area(s)where the disturbance/action occurs); timing (relationship to sensitive periods of a species' lifecycle; 3)duration (the effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat depend largely on the duration of its effects); 4) disturbance frequency (the mean number of events per unit of time affects a species differently depending on its recovery rate); 5) disturbance intensity (the effect of the disturbance on a population or species as a function of the population or species' state after the disturbance); 6) disturbance severity (the effect of a disturbance on a population or species or habitat as a function of recovery rate—i.e.,how long will it take to recover) 6. Conservation Measures (protective measures to avoid or minimize effects for each species) 7. Conclusions (effects determination for each species and critical habitat) 8. Literature Cited 9. Lists of Contacts Made/Preparers 10. Maps/Photographs 6 Guidance on Preparing an Initiation Package for Endangered Species Consultation This document is intended to provide general guidance on the type and detail of information that should be provided to initiate consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). This is not intended to be an exhaustive document as specific projects may require more or less information in order to initiate consultation. Also,note that this contains guidance on the information required to initiate formal consultation procedures with USFWS and/or NMFS. Additional information needs may be identified during consultation. Texts in italics below are examples. Normal text is guidance. A glossary of terms is appended. INTRODUCTION Here is an example of introductory language: The purpose of this initiation package is to review the proposed[project name] in sufficient detail to determine to what extent the proposed action may affect any of the threatened, endangered,proposed species and designated or proposed critical habitats listed below. In addition, the following information is provided to comply with statutory requirements to use the best scientific and commercial information available when assessing the risks posed to listed and/or proposed species and designated and/or proposed critical habitat by proposed federal actions. This initiation package is prepared in accordance with legal requirements set forth under regulations implementing Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act(50 CFR 402; 16 U.S.C. 1536(c)). Threatened,Endangered,Proposed Threatened or Proposed Endangered Species Example language: The following listed and proposed species may be affected by the proposed action: common name(Scientific name) T common name(Scientific name)E common name(Scientific name)PT common name(Scientific name)PE This list should include all of the species from the species lists you obtained from USFWS and NMFS. If it doesn't,include a brief explanation here and a more detailed explanation in your record to help USFWS,NMFS and future staff understand your thought process for excluding a species from consideration. Critical Habitat Example language: The action addressed within this document falls within Critical Habitat for[identify species]. CONSULTATION TO DATE "Consultation"under the ESA consists of discussions between the action agency, the applicant(if any), and USFWS and/or NMFS. It is the sharing of information about the proposed action and related actions, the species and environments affected, and means of achieving project purposes while conserving the species and their habitats. Under the ESA, consultation can be either informal or formal. Both processes are similar,but informal consultation may result in formal consultation if there is a likelihood of unavoidable take. Formal consultation has statutory timeframes and other requirements (such as the submission of the information in this package and a written biological opinion by USFWS or NMFS). 7 Summarize any consultation that has occurred thus far. Identify when consultation was requested(if not concurrent with this document). Be sure to summarize meetings, site visits and correspondence that were important to the decision-making process. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The purpose of this section is to provide a clear and concise description of the proposed activity and any interrelated or interdependent actions. The following information is necessary for the consultation process on an action: 1. The action agency proposing the action. 2. The authority(ies) the action agency will use to undertake, approve, or fund the action. 3. The applicant,if any. 4. The action to be authorized, funded, or carried out. 5. The location of the action. 5. When the action will occur, and how long it will last. 6. How the action will be carried out 7. The purpose of the action. 8. Any interrelated or interdependent actions, or that none exist to the best of your knowledge. Describe and specify: WHO is going to do the action and under what authority,include the name and office of the action agency and the name and address of the applicant;WHAT the project or action is; WHERE the project is (refer to attached maps);WHEN the action is going to take place,including time line and implementation schedules; HOW the action will be accomplished,including the various activities that comprise the whole action, the methods, and the types of equipment used;WHY the action is proposed, including its purpose and need; and WHAT OTHER interrelated and interdependent actions are known. This combination of actions are what is being consulted on for the 7(a)(2) analysis. Include a clear description of all conservation measures and project mitigation such as avoidance measures, seasonal restrictions, compensation,restoration/creation(on-site and in-kind, off-site and in- kind, on-site and out-of-kind, off-site and out-of-kind), and use of mitigation or conservation banks. Here are some examples of commonly overlooked items to include in your project description: Type of project Project location Project footprint Avoidance areas Start and end times Construction access Staging/laydown areas Construction equipment and techniques Habitat status on site Habitat between work areas and endangered species locations Permanent vs. temporary impacts 8 Surrounding land-use Hydrology and drainage patterns Duration of"temporary"impacts Prevailing winds and expected seasonal shifts Restoration areas Conservation measures Compensation and set-asides Bank ratios and amounts Mitigation: what kind and who is responsible? Dust, erosion, and sedimentation controls Whether the project is growth-inducing or facilitates growth Whether the project is part of a larger project or plan What permits will need to be obtained Action Area Describe all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action. This includes any interrelated and interdependent actions. Remember that the action area is not based simply on the Federal action and should not be limited to the location of the Federal action. The same applies to the applicant's action. The action area is defined by measurable or detectable changes in land, air and water, or to other measurable factors that may elicit a response in the species or critical habitat. To determine the action area,we recommend that you first break the action down into its components (e.g., vegetation clearing, construction of cofferdams, storage areas,borrow areas, operations, maintenance, etc.,) to assess the potential impacts resulting from each component. Determine the impacts that are expected to result from each component. For example, instream actions may mobilize sediments that travel downstream as increased turbidity and then settle out as sediments on the stream substrate. Sound levels from machinery may be detectable hundreds of feet, thousands of feet, or even miles away. Use these distances when delineating the extent of your action area. Note: don't forget to subsequently reconstruct the action to assess the combined stressors of the components. You may find that some stressors are synergistically minimized or avoided,whereas other stressors may increase. Finally, describe the action area, including features and habitat types. Include photographs and an area map as well as a vicinity map. The vicinity map for terrestrial projects should be at a 1:24,000 scale with the USGS quad name included. SPECIES ACCOUNTS AND STATUS OF THE SPECIES IN THE ACTION AREA Provide local information on affected individuals and populations, such as presence,numbers, life history, etc. Identify which threats to the species' persistence identified at the time of listing are likely to be present in the action area. Identify any additional threats that are likely to be present in the action area. If the species has a distribution that is constrained by limiting factors,identify where in the action area factors are present that could support the species and where they are absent or limiting. For example, if a species is limited to a narrow thermal range and a narrow humidity range, show where in the action area 9 the temperatures are sufficient to support the species,where the humidity is sufficient to support the species, and where those areas overlap. Include aspects of the species' biology that relate to the impact of the action, such as sensitivity to or tolerance of. noise, light,heat, cold,inundation, smoke, sediments, dust, etc. For example,if the species is sensitive to loud sounds or vibration, and your project involves loud tools or equipment,reference that aspect of their biology. Include citations for all sources of information Describe habitat use in terms of breeding, feeding, and sheltering. Describe habitat condition and habitat designations such as: critical habitat(provide unit name or number,if applicable), essential habitat, important habitat,recovery area,recovery unit(provide unit name or number,if applicable). Also discuss habitat use patterns,including seasonal use and migration (if relevant), and identify habitat needs. Identify and quantify the listed-species habitat remaining in the action area. GIS layers are useful here, as are land ownership patterns--especially local land trusts and open space designations. Identify any recovery plan implementation that is occurring in the action area, especially priority one action items from recovery plans. Include survey information. For all monitoring and survey reports,please clearly identify how it was done,when,where, and by whom. If survey protocols were followed,reference the name and date of the protocol. If survey protocols were modified,provide an explanation of how the surveying occurred and the reasoning for modifying the protocol. Keep it relevant. It is unnecessary to discuss biology that is totally unrelated to project impacts--e.g., discussion of pelage color, teat number, and number of digits fore and aft when the project is a seasonal wetland establishment. Utilize the best scientific and commercial information available. Use and cite recent publications/journal articles/agency data and technical reports. Include local information,relative to the action area,views of recognized experts,results from recent studies, and information on life history,population dynamics, trends and distribution. Reference field notes,unpublished data,research in progress, etc. Things to consider: Existing threats to species Fragmentation Urban growth area Drainage patterns Information on local sightings and populations Population trends Home range and dispersal Sensitivity of endangered species to: dust,noise,head, desiccation, etc. Trap stress/mortality Predators 10 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Provide information on past,present and future state, local,private, or tribal activities in the action area: specifically, the positive or negative impacts those activities have had on the species or habitat in the area in terms of abundance,reproduction, distribution, diversity, and habitat quality or function. Include the impacts of past and present federal actions as well. Don't forget to describe the impacts of past existence and operation of the action under consultation (for continuing actions). Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, Tribal, local or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area. Future Federal actions that are unrelated(i.e., not interrelated or interdependent) to the proposed action are not considered in this analysis because they will be subject to separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act. (Note: Cumulative effects under ESA are not the same as the definition under NEPA. Be careful not to mix them up.) Describe the impacts of these cumulative effects in terms of abundance,reproduction, distribution, diversity, and habitat quality or function. Present all known and relative effects to population, e.g., fish stocking, fishing,hunting, other recreation, illegal collecting,private wells, development, grazing, local trust programs, etc. Include impacts to the listed and proposed species in the area that you know are occurring and that are unrelated to your action-- e.g., road kills from off-road vehicle use,poaching, trespass, etc. ll EFFECTS OF THE ACTION The purpose of this section is to document your analysis of the potential impacts the proposed action will have on species and/or critical habitats. This analysis has two possible conclusions for listed species and designated critical habitat: (1) May Affect,Not Likely to Adversely Affect—the appropriate conclusion when effects on a listed species are expected to be discountable, insignificant, or completely beneficial. Beneficial effects—contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects Insignificant effects—relate to the size of the impact and should never reach the scale where take would occur. Discountable effects—those that are extremely unlikely to occur. Based on best judgment, a person would not: (1)be able to meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate insignificant effects; or(2) expect discountable effects to occur. (2) May Affect,Likely to Adversely Affect—the appropriate finding if any adverse effect may occur to listed species or critical habitat as a direct or indirect result of the proposed action or its interrelated or interdependent actions, and the effect is not discountable,insignificant, or beneficial. A finding of"may affect"is the primary trigger for initiating section 7 consultation. Further analysis leads to one of the two conclusions above. In the case of a determination that an action is "not likely to adversely affect" a species or critical habitat,you can request USFWS and/or NMFS concurrence with this determination and consultation can be concluded upon receipt of our concurrence. Determinations of "likely to adversely affect"require further consultation between the action agency and USFWS and NMFS. These consultations typically lead to the preparation of a biological opinion, although they can also lead to incorporation of additional protective measures that render the project"not likely to adversely affect" listed species or designated critical habitat. Any actions that are likely to result in the incidental take of a listed species are automatically considered"likely to adversely affect." In the case of proposed species or proposed critical habitat, the possible conclusions are: Species Likely to Jeopardize the Continued Existence Not Likely to Jeopardize the Continued Existence Critical Habitat Likely to Destroy or Adversely Modify Not Likely to Destroy or Adversely Modify The effects analysis includes assessment of- Direct and indirect effects (stressors)of Federal action Direct and indirect effects (stressors)of applicant's action Direct and indirect effects (stressors)of interrelated or interdependent actions Direct and indirect effects (stressors)of conservation and minimization measures 12 Remember: Direct and indirect effects under ESA are not the same as direct and indirect effects under NEPA. Be careful not to mix them up. Under ESA, direct effects are those that are caused by the action(s) and occur at the time of the action(s), and indirect effects are those that are caused by the action(s) and are later in time,but are still reasonably certain to occur. Based on the various components of your action that you used to determine the extent of the action area, this analysis assesses the potential stressors resulting from each component and predicts the likely responses species and critical habitat will have. Note: don't forget to subsequently reconstruct the action to assess the combined stressors of the components. You may find that some stressors are synergistically minimized or avoided,whereas other stressors may increase. Describe the stressors that are expected to result from each component. For example, instream actions may mobilize sediments that travel downstream as increased turbidity and then settle out as sediments on the stream substrate. Sound levels from machinery may be detectable hundreds of feet, thousands of feet, or even miles away. Describe these stressors in terms of their intensity, frequency, and duration. Once you have determined the expected stressors resulting from an activity, the next step is to assess the overlap between those stressors and individuals of the species or components of critical habitat. The purpose of determining this overlap is to accurately and completely assess the potential exposure of species and habitat to the stressors resulting from the action. This exposure is the necessary precursor to any possible response those species and habitat may have. Your conclusions of"not likely to adverse affect"or"likely to adversely affect"are based in large part on this response. To determine exposure,here is a basic set of questions you might answer: ■ What are the specific stressors causing the exposure ■ Where the exposure to the stressors would occur ■ When the exposure to stressors would occur ■ How long the exposure to stressors would occur ■ What is the frequency of exposure to stressor ■ What is the intensity of exposure to stressor ■ How many individuals would be exposed ■ Which populations those individuals represent ■ What life stage would be exposed For critical habitat, the questions would be similar but would focus on constituent elements of critical habitat. Remember that exposure to a stressor is not always direct. For example, in some cases individuals of a species may be directly exposed to the sediment mobilized during construction. However, in other cases, individuals of the species would be exposed indirectly when sediment mobilized during construction settles out in downstream areas,rendering those areas unusable for later spawning or foraging. Here are some examples of stressors you should address: Exposure to abiotic factors affecting land, air, or water Exposure to biotic factors affecting species behavior Spatial or temporal changes in primary constituent elements of critical habitat 13 Loss or gain of habitat--direct and indirect Fragmentation of habitat Loss or gain of forage and/or foraging potential Loss or gain of shelter/cover Loss or gain of access through adjacent habitat/loss of corridors determine the potential response or range of responses the exposed individuals or components of critical habitat will have to those levels and types of exposure. This is where the use of the best scientific and commercial information available becomes crucial. Your analysis must take this information into consideration and the resulting document must reflect the use of this information and your reasoning and inference based on that information. Bear in mind that this analysis may not be the final word on the expected responses as further consultation with USFWS or NMFS may refine this analysis. Be sure to describe the expected responses clearly and focus your analysis towards determining if any of the possible responses will result in the death or injury of individuals,reduced reproductive success or capacity, or the temporary or permanent blockage or destruction of biologically significant habitats (e.g., foraging, spawning, or lekking grounds; migratory corridors, etc.,). Any of these above responses are likely to qualify as adverse effects. If the available information indicates that no observable response is expected from the levels and types of exposure, the action may be unlikely to adversely affect a species or critical habitat. However,remember that no observable response may actually mask an invisible internal response such as increased stress hormone levels, elevated heart rate, etc. Depending on the fitness of the exposed individual and the surrounding environment(including other threats), these "invisible"responses may lead to more serious consequences. We recommend working with your NMFS or USFWS contact to determine the appropriate conclusion. Don't forget to consider: Individual responses based on the species biology and sensitivity to exposure The combined effects of existing threats and new exposure The combined effects of limiting factors and new exposure Disrupted reproduction and/or loss of reproduction Exposure and response of species and critical habitat to interrelated and interdependent actions Understanding and avoiding the common flaws in developing an effect determination will save you considerable time. These common flaws are: the "Displacement"Approach(i.e., the species will move out of the way; there are plenty of places for them to go); the "Not Known to Occur Here"Approach (i.e., looking at survey results, or lack of results,instead of the Recovery Plan for the species); the "We'll Tell You Later"Approach(i.e.,if we find any, then we'll let you know and that is when we will consult); or the "Leap of Faith"Approach (i.e., the agency wants the USFWS or NMFS to accept a determination based on trust,rather than the best scientific and commercially available information.). Sticking to flawed determinations will cost everyone time, money, and aggravation. Analysis of alternate actions This analysis is required for actions that involve preparation of an EIS. For all other actions, a summary of alternatives discussed in other environmental documents is useful. 14 OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION Provide any other relevant available information the action, the affected listed species, or critical habitat. This could include local research, studies on the species that have preliminary results, and scientific and commercial information on aspects of the project. CONCLUSION This is where you put your overall effect determination after you have analyzed the exposure and response of species and habitat to the stressors resulting from the proposed action and interrelated or interdependent actions. Effect determinations must be based on a sound reasoning from exposure to response and must be consistent with types of actions in the project description, the biology in the species accounts, the habitat status and condition, changes to the existing environment, and the best scientific and commercial information available. Again, the two potential conclusions for listed species are: Not likely to adversely affect species Likely to adversely affect species The two potential conclusions for designated critical habitat are: Not likely to adversely affect critical habitat Likely to adversely affect critical habitat The two potential conclusions for proposed species are: Not likely to jeopardize species Likely to adversely jeopardize species The potential conclusions for proposed critical habitat are,under informal and formal consultation respectively: Not likely to adversely affect species Likely to adversely affect species Not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat Likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat Include the basis for the conclusion, such as discussion of any specific measures or features of the project that support the conclusion and discussion of species expected response, status,biology, or baseline conditions that also support conclusion. If you make a"no effect" determination,it doesn't need to be in the assessment,but you might have to defend it. Keep the documentation for your administrative record. LIST OF DOCUMENTS 15 Provide a list of the documents that have bearing on the project or the consultation, this includes relevant reports, including any environmental impact statements, environmental assessment, or biological assessment prepared for the project. Include all planning documents as well as the documents prepared in conformance with state environmental laws IMPORTANT NOTE: Each of these documents must be provided with the initiation package consultation for the Services to be able to proceed with formal consultation. LITERATURE CITED We are all charged with using the best scientific and commercial information available. To demonstrate you did this, it is a good idea to keep copies of search requests in your record. If you used a personal communication as a reference, include the contact information(name, address,phone number, affiliation) in your record. LIST OF CONTACTS/CONTRIBUTORS/PREPARERS Please include contact information for contributors and preparers as well as local experts contacted for species or habitat information. 16 GLOSSARY Action Area - all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action. Beneficial Effects—contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects. Cumulative Effects—are those effects of future State or private activities,not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area of the Federal action subject to consultation. Discountable Effects—those that are extremely unlikely to occur. Based on best judgment, a person would not: (1)be able to meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate insignificant effects; or(2) expect discountable effects to occur. Effects of the Action —refers to the direct and indirect effects of an action on the species or critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated or interdependent with that action, that will be added to the environmental baseline. Environmental Baseline—includes the past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and the impact of State or private actions that are contemporaneous with the consultation in process. Indirect Effects-Indirect effects are those that are caused by the action(s) and are later in time,but are still reasonably certain to occur. Insignificant Effects—relate to the size of the impact and should never reach the scale where take would occur. Interdependent Actions -Interdependent actions are those that have no significant independent utility apart from the action that is under consideration, i.e. other actions would not occur"but for"this action. Interrelated Actions -Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification, i.e. this action would not occur"but for" a larger action. Likely to Jeopardize the Continued Existence of—to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction,numbers, or distribution of that species. May Affect,Likely to Adversely Affect—the appropriate finding if any adverse effect may occur to listed species or critical habitat as a direct or indirect result of the proposed action or its interrelated or interdependent actions, and the effect is not discountable,insignificant, or beneficial. Requires that a biological opinion be prepared by the Service. May Affect,Not Likely to Adversely Affect—the appropriate conclusion when effects on a listed species are expected to be discountable, insignificant, or completely beneficial. Requires written concurrence from the Service. No Effect—the appropriate conclusion when a listed species will not be affected, either because the species will not be present or because the project does not have aM elements with the potential to affect the species. A "no effect"determination does not require written concurrence from the Service and ends ESA consultation requirements. Action agency should document their reasoning for this conclusion in their file. 17 ' Endangered and Threatened Species and Critical Habitats under the Jurisdiction of the NOAA Fisheries Servic JOUPI e Gulf of Mexico Listed Species Scientific Name Status Date Listed Marine Mammals blue whale Balaenoptera musculus Endangered 12/02/70 finback whale Balaenoptera physalus Endangered 12/02/70 humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered 12/02/70 sei whale Balaenoptera borealis Endangered 12/02/70 sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus Endangered 12/02/70 Turtles green sea turtle Chelonia mydas Threatened' 07/28/78 hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricate Endangered 06/02/70 Kemp's ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii Endangered 12/02/70 leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea Endangered 06/02/70 loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta Threatened 07/28/78 Fish Gulf sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Threatened 09/30/91 smalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata Endangered 04/01/03 Invertebrates elkhorn coral Acropora palmata Threatened 5/9/06 staghorn coral Acropora cervicornis Threatened 5/9/06 Designated Critical Habitat Gulf Sturgeon: A final rule designating Gulf sturgeon critical habitat was published on March 19, 2003 (68 FIR 13370) and 14 geographic areas (units) among the Gulf of Mexico rivers and tributaries were identified. Maps and details regarding the final rule can be found at alabama.fws.gov/gs Elkhorn and Staghorn Corals: All waters in the depths of 98 ft (30 m) and shallower to the mean low water line surrounding the Dry Tortugas, Florida. Within these specific areas, the essential feature consists of natural consolidated hard substrate or dead coral skeleton that are free from fleshy or turf macroalgae cover and sediment cover. Maps and details regarding coral critical habitat can be found at: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/ r/esa/acropora.htm Smalltooth Sawfish: A final rule designating smalltooth sawfish critical habitat was published on September 2, 2009 (74 FIR 45353). Critical habitat consists of two coastal habitat units: the Charlotte Harbor Estuary Unit and the Ten Thousand Islands/Everglades Unit. Maps and details regarding the smalltooth sawfish critical habitat rule can be found at: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/SmalltoothSawfish.htm 'Green turtles are listed as threatened,except for breeding populations of green turtles in Florida and on the Pacific Coast of Mexico,which are listed as endangered. . Gulf of Mexico Candidate Species' Scientific Name largetooth sawfish Pristis pristis Species of Concern Scientific Name Fish Alabama shad Alosa alabamae dusky shark Carcharhinus obscurus largetooth sawfish Pristis pristis night shark Carcharinus signatus saltmarsh topminnow Fundulus jenkinsi sand tiger shark Carcharias taurus speckled hind Epinephelus drummondhayi Warsaw grouper Epinephelus nigritus Invertebrates ivory bush coral Oculina varicosa 2 The Candidate Species List has been renamed the Species of Concern List. The term"candidate species"is limited to species that are the subject of a petition to list and for which NOAA Fisheries Service has determined that listing may be warranted(69 FIR 19975). 3 Species of Concern are not protected under the Endangered Species Act, but concerns about their status indicate that they may warrant listing in the future. Federal agencies and the public are encouraged to consider these species during project planning so that future listings may be avoided. Scpte►nber 2, 2010 , • Ms. Lauren P. Milligan Florida State Clearinghouse Florid.i Fish Department of Environmental Protection direr wii(liile 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 47 Conservation Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 Con-Inlission Re: SAl #FL201007275370C, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) — Seoping Cml i„i"Joncl� Notice — Enviromnental Assessment for proposed Runway Shift at Florida Keys Rodney Barreto Marathon Airport, Monroe County Chairman Miami Richard A.Corbett Dear Ms. Milligan: Vice Chairman Tampa The Division of Habitat and Species Conservation, Habitat Conservation Scientific Kathy Barco Jacksonville Services Section, of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) has Ronald M.Bergeron coordinated our agency's review of the referenced Scoping Notice for preparation of an Fort Lauderdale Environmental Assessment (EA), and provides the following comments and Dwight Stephenson recommendations. These are being provided in accordance with the National Delray Beach Kenneth a Wright Environmental Policy Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act/Florida Coastal Winter Park Management Program. Brian S.Yablonski Tallahassee Project Description f:ao�uric Si;t1i Nick Wiley Executive Director The purpose of the project is to update the layout of the Florida Keys Marathon Airport Greg Holder (MTH) to meet current Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) criteria as provided in Assistant Executive Director FAA circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design. Monroe County is proposing to relocate the Karen Ventimiglia centerline of Runway 7/25 by 40 feet to the northwest of the existing runway centerline Deputy chief or staff to achieve a separation of 240 feet between the centerlines of Runway 7/25 and parallel Taxiway A. 0lficc i�t Piannin�and Policy i;oordi,r�tk>r Nancy Linehan Director Potentially Affected Resources (850)487-3794 (850)410-5272 FAX According to our Geographic Information S stem GIS analysis, the MTH stud area (850)410-5272 � Sy stern ( ) y: ;, y (850)922-5679 FAX contains or falls within: • Florida Natural Areas hnventory's Conservation Needs-- Under-Represented Managing fish and wildlife Natural Communities, Tropical Hammock resources for their long-term well-being and the benefit of people. Please note that our analysis identified thirteen species that are protected by state or federal law and which could occur within the study area or on site. 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida Potentially Occurring Listed Wildlife Species 32399-1600 Voice:(850)488-4676 Hearing/speech impaired: COmIIIOn Name Scientific Name Status* (800)955-8771(T) (800)955-8770(V) Florida tree snail _ _ Liguus�ascialus SSC MyFWC.com Ms. Lauren Milligan Page 2 September 2, 2010 Florida Key mole skink Eunieces egregius egreg_ius SSC Rim rock crowned snake _ Tawilla oolitica ST Eastern indigo snake Di-vinarchon corgis couperi ST, FT White-crowned pigeon Columba leucocephala ST Osprey Pandion haliaetus SSC Florida burrowing owl Athene SSC Least tern Sterna aztillar u►rr ST Roseate tern Sterna dougalli _ ST Reddish egret Egretta rufesce►►s SSC _ Snowy egret Egretta thula SSC Little blue heron _ Egretta caerulea SSC Tricolored heron .Egretta tricolor SSC * SSC - Species of Special Concern; ST - State Threatened; SE - State Endangered; FT - Federally Threatened; FE - Federally Endangered The entire project would occur on existing airport property. While the majority of the site has been previously cleared for airport operations, the proposed runway relocation would involve removal of a 40-foot strip of a tropical hardwood hammock that forms the northwestern border of the site. Very little hammock remains on Vaca Key and the airport is adjacent to two hammocks within the Florida Keys Wildlife and Environmental Area (WEA). Please note that in the case of least and roseate terns, our experts believe that these two species would only have the potential to be affected at this location if any of the airport structures have flat, gravel roofs. These threatened species have adapted to a loss of habitat in the area by nesting on these types of roofs. Recommendations Wildlife Surveys: In order to provide the best available information when developing an Environmental Assessment for the project, we recommend that wildlife surveys for listed species would be conducted. We recommend that the applicant conduct surveys for state- listed fish and wildlife species with the potential to utilize the site less than six months before starting construction to determine if state-listed fish and wildlife species are present on the site. This list is found in Chapter 68A-27, Florida Administrative Code, which is available online at httl�:!/w��w.ilrules.or��/��atc��ayiRuleNo.as1�'lU =6SA-27.003 for endangered species; at http:i/��.ilr��les.��rJ� atc�-��ay,'R�ileNo.as1�'?II) 68A-27.004 for threatened species; and at hnl� -%wvvw.flrulc°s.or��'gate��-a��RuleNo.as1�?ID 68A- 27.005 for species of special concern. Species-specific surveys should follow established survey protocols and guidelines where applicable. Survey protocols can be found in the Florida Wildlife Conservation Guide at lit 11):,,%myfwc.corn/conservation/fwc lit Ili], If there is evidence that any individuals of these species are present, then the FAA or its agent should report the findings to the FWC or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as appropriate. If impacts to these species cannot be avoided, then the FAA or its agent should contact the appropriate agency before taking any action that might result in an impact to those species. We are providing the following recommendations to assist the applicant with development of strategies to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to these wildlife resources. Ms. Lauren Milligan Page 3 September 2, 2010 'Tropical Hardwood Hammocks: Tropical hardwood hammocks represent a unique habitat type found only in southern Florida, especially in the Florida Keys. Development has caused this habitat to become extremely rare and fragmented. The Environmental Assessment should address this habitat and focus on ways to minimize impacts and/or mitigate for unavoidable impacts. Summary At this point, we do not find this project to be inconsistent with our authorities (Chapter 379, Florida Statutes) as provided for under the Florida Coastal Management Program. This finding does not relieve the applicant from following requirements of all Florida Administrative Code rules relating to surveying for and obtaining necessary permits for impacts to wildlife (especially those listed as endangered, threatened or of special concern) that might be a result of future construction. If you or your staff would like to coordinate further on the potential issues contained in this report, please contact me at 850-410-5272 or email me at I»aryann.hoolc,u Mvl`\V('.com, and I will be glad to help make the necessary arrangements. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Steve Lau by telephone at 772-778-6354 or by email at stc\,c.lawo N1vF\VC.com. Sincerely, Mary Ann Poole Commenting Program Administrator map/sl INV 1-3-2 Florida Keys Marathon niiport 2977.082610 cc: Russell P. Forrest Project Coordinator URS Corporation 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, FL 33607-1462 'R°M° Florida Department of `'' ''' � Environmental ProtectionFLOR �� i�, Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building °t ` ' i7Err i 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard - Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 `'�"`�' ` September 24, 2010 Mr. Russell P. Forrest, GISP Project Coordinator URS Corporation 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, Florida 33607-1462 RE: Federal Aviation Administration-Scoping Notice - Environmental Assessment for Proposed Runway Shift at Florida Keys Marathon Airport - Marathon, Monroe County, Florida. SAI # FL201007275370C Dear Mr. Forrest: The Florida State Clearinghouse has coordinated a review of the referenced project under the following authorities: Presidential Executive Order 12372; Section 403.061(40), Florida Statutes; the Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1451-1464, as amended; and the National Environmental Policy Act,42 U.S.C. §§4321-4347, as amended. The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has reviewed the notice and offers the following comments: 1) The proposed project will require an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) from the SFWMD, which must address surface water management, any work in or impacts to wetlands and/or other surface waters and mitigation to offset those impacts. As part of an ERP application submitted for the proposed project, the applicant must provide reasonable assurances that the project meets all applicable conditions for issuance of an ERP, such as demonstrating that the project will not result in adverse direct and/or secondary impacts to wetland functions and values, will not result in unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands, will not violate applicable water quality standards and will be clearly in the public interest. Please refer to Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), and the Basis of Review for ERP applications. 2) Direct, secondary and potential cumulative impacts to the functions of wetlands and other surface waters will need to be addressed as part of the ERP permitting process. In addition, the applicant must demonstrate that all practicable project alternatives and modifications have been investigated and implemented to r r, V. x, Pr Q, - tt Mr. Russell P. Forrest, GISP September 24, 2010 Page 2 of 3 eliminate or reduce impacts to the functions of wetlands and other surface waters before mitigation can be considered. 3) The proposed project may impact wildlife and/or wildlife habitat utilized by threatened and endangered species. If impacts occur, the applicant must provide sufficient mitigation to offset the loss of wildlife functions and habitat support provided by the wetland area proposed to be impacted. Additionally, the applicant must address potential impacts to upland habitats used by wetland dependent species for nesting or denning (i.e., white crowned pigeon, osprey). Please provide the SFWMD with the results of wildlife surveys that have been conducted on the site and any project-related comments issued by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. For further information and assistance, please contact Mr. James Golden at (561) 682-6862. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection's (DEP) South District Branch Office in Marathon also notes that the project will require an ERP from the SFWMD in accordance with Chapters 373 and 403, Florida Statutes. The proposed construction activities may require a NPDES permit under Chapter 62-621, F.A.C., from the DEP's NPDES Stormwater Program in Tallahassee. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) indicates that thirteen federal and state-listed species occur within the project study area. While the majority of the site has been cleared for airport operations, the proposed runway relocation would involve removal of a 40-ft. strip of tropical hardwood hammock along the northwestern border of the site. Please be advised that very little hammock remains on Vaca Key and the airport is adjacent to two hammocks within the Florida Keys Wildlife and Environmental Area. The EA should address this hammock habitat and focus on ways to minimize impacts and/or mitigate for unavoidable impacts. Staff also recommends that wildlife surveys for state-listed fish and wildlife species be conducted less than six months before initiating construction activities. Species-specific surveys should follow the established protocols and guidelines found in the Florida Wildlife Conservation Guide on FWC's website. For additional comments and recommendations, please refer to the enclosed FWC letter. The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) notes that, although Monroe County claims jurisdiction over development of the airport, it lies within the City of Marathon. Since 6.5 acres of potentially high quality hardwood hammock are proposed to be removed, the DCA indicates that a Habitat Evaluation must be performed. High quality hammock has a clearing limit of 20% under the County and 10% under the City's regulations. There are different approaches to clearing, including different fee schedules for mitigation. Tropical hardwood hammocks are an important component of the Florida Mr. Russell P. Forrest, GISP September 24, 2010 Page 3 of 3 Keys Area of Critical State Concern Program, as they provide habitat for a number of listed species and buffering for adjacent incompatible land uses. The DCA has, therefore, expressed concern that a large expanse of hammock would be removed and encourages the FAA to work with the County to develop an alternative that would not necessitate clearing of any hammock. Please see the enclosed DCA letter for further information. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District Six Planning and Environmental Management Office, Environment Section advises that the Florida Keys Marathon Airport is located in the vicinity of State Road 5/US 1/Overseas Highway. Based on the project description in the notice, the project does not appear to impact the State Road. If any improvements are proposed at the point of intersection with US 1, however, the project may require a right-of-way permit from FDOT District Six. Should you have any questions, please contact FDOT staff at (305) 470-5220. Based on the information contained in the scoping notice and the enclosed state agency comments, the state has no objections to allocation of federal funds for the subject project and, therefore, the funding award is consistent with the Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP). To ensure the project's continued consistency with the FCMP, the concerns identified by our reviewing agencies must be addressed prior to project implementation. The state's continued concurrence will be based on the activity's compliance with FCMP authorities, including federal and state monitoring of the activity to ensure its continued conformance, and the adequate resolution of issues identified during this and subsequent reviews. The state's final concurrence of the project's consistency with the FCMP will be determined during the environmental permitting process in accordance with Section 373.428, Florida Statutes. Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed project. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. Chris J. Stahl at (850) 245-2169. Yours sincerely, LA . Sally B. Mann, Director Office of Intergovernmental Programs SBM/cjs cc: Jim Golden,SFWMD Gus Rios,DEP,Marathon Branch Office Mary Ann Poole,FWC Johnna Mattson,DCA Martin Markovich,FDOT Florida I aTe role ion Leszs Accass- li- s �'.;S�pp��YS�� yyam,,, q. �q .. - - - .�?k�' ea nc � , Site.t°Ifi t, :��- � �� r=n. .3 k.— T =fir w' FL201007275370C a>3 0 108/2010 a,�„�.;;,asn a�aeuti �.sm r FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION SCOPINO NOTICE ,ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED RUNWAY SHIFT AT I,FLORIDA KEYS MARATHON AIRPORT- MARATHON, MONROE COUNTY, 'FLORIDA, :FAA- RUNWAY SHIFT AT FLORIDA KEYS MARATHON AIRPORT- _ n MARATHON, MONROE CO. SOUTH FI_RPC-SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL The SFRPC advises that the project should be consistent with the goals and policies of Monroe County's Comprehensive Plan ' and its corresponding land development regulations.If the application is approved,the applicant should: 1)consider the full ;impacts of the runway shift as it relates to rights-of-way issues, relocation of facilities and infrastructures and noise and light pollution concerns; 2)work closely with City of Marathon planning staff and residents to address impacts and mitigation;3) minimize impacts to natural systems to the greatest extent feasible,determine the extent of sensitive wildlife and vegetative communities and protect and/or mitigate for disturbed habitat.This will assist in reducing cumulative impacts to native plants,animals and wetlands. Please see the enclosed SFRPC letter for further details and specific goals and policies of the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Florida that should be observed during project planning. MONROE- No Comments COMMUNITY AFFAIRS-FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS The DCA notes that,although Monroe County claims jurisdiction over development of the airport, it lies within the City of Marathon. since 6.5 acres of potentially high quality hardwood hammock are proposed to be removed,the DCA indicates ,that a Habitat Evaluation must be performed. High quality hammock has a clearing limit of 20% under the County and 1011/0 under the Cty's regulations.There are different approaches to clearing, including different fee schedules for mitigation. ;Tropical hardwood hammocks are an important component of the Florida Keys Area of Critical state Concern Program,as they provide habitat for a number of fisted species and buffering for adjacent incompatible land uses.The DCA has, therefore, expressed concern that a large expanse of hammock would be removed and encourages the FAA,to work with the County to develop an alternative that would not necessitate clearing of any hammock, FISH and WILDLIFE COMMISSION-FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION The FWC notes that thirteen federal and state-listed species occur within the project study area. While the majority of the ,site has been cleared for airport operations,the proposed runway relocation would involve removal of a 40-ft.strip of tropical hardwood hammock along the northwestern border of the site. Please be advised that very little hammock remains on Vaca Key and the airport is adjacent to two hammocks within the Florida Keys Wildlife and Environmental Area.The EA should address this hammock habitat and focus on ways to minimize impacts and/or mitigate for unavoidable impacts. Staff also recommends that wildlife surveys for state listed fish and wildlife species be conducted less than six months before initiating construction activities. Species-specific surveys should follow the established protocols and guidelines found in the Florida Wildlife Conservation Guide on FWC's website. STATE-FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE A review of the Florida Master Site File and DOS' records indicated that there are a number of recorded archaeological sites :located in close proximity to the project area. DOS staff notes that the EA will include effects on cultural resources and looks forward to coordinating with the project managers on those resources. TRANSPORTATION FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION The FDOT District VI Planning and Environmental Management Office, Environment Section advises that the Florida Keys Marathon Airport is located in the vicinity of State Road 5/US 1/Overseas Highway. However, based on the project +,description in the Scoping Notice,the project does not appear to impact the State Load. If any improvements are proposed at the point of intersection with US 1,the project may require a right-of-way permit from FDOT District VI. Should you have any questions, please contact staff at(305)470-5220.. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION-FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION __.. ;The DEP South District Branch Office in Marathon notes that the project will require an ERP from the SFWMD in accordance with Chapters 373 and 403, Florida Statutes, In addition,the proposed activity may require a NPDES permit under Chapter fii2-621, F.A.C.,from the DEP"s NPDES Stormwater Program in Tallahassee. [See http://www.dep.state,ff.us/water/stormwater/npdes/construction1.htm] ........ _. SOUTH FLORIDA WMD-SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ..._.. .._., . ... — ..._..w... ._ _� — . . SFWMD staff has reviewed the notice and offers the following comments: 1)The proposed project will require an ,Environmental Resource Permit(ERP)from the SFWMD,which must address both surface water management as well as any j .work in wetlands and/or other surface waters, including any impacts to wetlands/other surface waters,and mitigation to offset those impacts.As part of an ERP application submitted for the proposed project, the applicant must demonstrate reasonable assurances that the project meets all applicable conditions for issuance of an ERP,such as demonstrating that ;the project will not result in adverse direct and/or secondary impacts to wetland functions and values,will not result in unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands, will not violate applicable water quality standards and will.be clearly in the ;public interest. Please refer to Rule 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302, F.A.C.,and the Basis of Review for ERP applications. 2)Direct, secondary,and potential cumulative Impacts to the functions of wetlands and other surface waters will need to be addressed as part of the ERP permitting process. In addition,the applicant must demonstrate that all practicable project alternatives ;and modifications have been investigated and implemented to eliminate or reduce impacts to the functions of wetlands and ;other surface waters before mitigation can be considered. 3)The proposed project may impact wildlife and/or wildlife habitat utilized by threatened and/or endangered species.If impacts occur,the applicant must provide sufficient mitigation to offset the loss of wildlife functions and habitat support provided by the wetland area proposed to be impacted. Potential impacts to upland habitats used by wetland dependent species for nesting or denning(Le.,white crowned pigeon, osprey) must also be addressed. Please provide the SFWMD with the results of any wildlife surveys conducted on-site and comments issued by the IFWC,USFWS and NMFS. For more information or to submit comments, please contact the Clearinghouse Office at: 3900 COMMONWEALTH BOULEVARD, M.S. 47 ALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-3000 TELEPHONE: (850) 245-2161 FAX: (850) 245-2190 Visit the Clearinghouse-Home-Page to query other projects. QQPYTIght Disclaimer Privacv Statement •` September 2, 2010 RECEIVED Ms. Lauren P. Milligan 0 10 Florida State Clearinghouse 1 l,.F id sv;ll Department of Environmental Protection DU Offim O and Mkdflli-#„r 3900 Commonwealth boulevard, Mail Station 47 , . ,t o 1. ,rs v E_ ,i rl Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 C)'nlfi1 S 10f,V'l Re: SAI ##FL201007275370C, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)— Scoping x _> Notice—Environmental Assessment for proposed Runway Shift at Florida Keys Rodney Barreto Marathon Airport, Monroe County Chairman Miami Richard A.Corbett Dear Ms. Milligan: Vice Chairman Tampa The Division of Habitat and Species Conservation, Habitat Conservation Scientific Kathy Barco Jacksonville Services Section, of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FViWQ has Ronald M.Bergeron coordinated our agency's review of the referenced. Seeping Notice for preparation of an Fort Lauderdale Environmental Assessment (EA), and provides the following comments and Dwight Stephenson recommendations. These are beingprovided in accordance with the National Defray Beach Defray B a Wright Environmental Policy Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act/Florida Coastal Winter Park Management Program. Brian S.Yablonski Tallahassee Project Description r u dV ° ,,; Nick Wiley Executive Director The purpose of the project is to update the layout of the Florida Keys Marathon Airport Greg Holder (MTH) to meet current Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) criteria as provided in Assistant Executive Director FAA circular 1.50/5300-13, Airport Design. Monroe County is proposing to relocate the Karen Ventimiglia centerline of Runway 7/25 by 40 feet to the northwest of the existing runway centerline Deputy Chief of stag to achieve a separation of 240 feet between the centerlines of Runway 7/25 and parallel Taxiway A. Nancy Linehan Director Potentially Affected Resources (850)487-3794 (850)410-5272 FAX According to ourGeographic Information System I ) analysis, the MTH stud area. (850)410-5�72 gy ( y � y (850)922-5679 FAX contains or falls within; Florida Natural Areas Inventory's Conservation deeds—Under-Represented Managing fish and wildlife Natural Communities, Tropical Hammock resources for their long term well-being and the benefit of people. Please note that our analysis identified thirteen species that are protected by state or federal law and which could occur within the study area or on site. 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee,Florida Potentially Occurring Listed Wildlife S 3e31 eies 32399-1600 Voice:(850)488=4676 Hearing/speech impaired: Common Name ,Glenn le Name Staters* (800)955-8771(T) (800)955-8770(V) Florida tree snail Li utis,fusciatus S C MyFWC_com Ms. Lauren Milligan Page 2 September 2, 2010 Florida.Key mole skink Eumeces egregi.us egregi.us SSC Rim rock crowned snake Tantilla oolitiect ST Eastern indigo snake D)^ymarchon corgis couperi ST; FT White-crowned pigeon Cohanba leucocephala ST Osprey Pandion haliaetus SSC Florida burrowing owl. A thene cunicularicifloridana SSC Least tem Sterna antillarum ST Roseate tern Sterna, dougalli ST Reddish egret Egretta rqfeseens SS Snowy egret -Egretta thula SSC Little blue heron Egretta caerulea SSC [-Tricolored heron E'grefla tricolor SSC SSC - Species of Special Concern; ST - State Threatened; SE - State Endangered; FT - Federally Threatened; FE - Federally Endangered The entire project would occur on existing airport property. While the majority of the site has been previously cleared for airport operations, the proposed runway relocation would involve removal of a 40-foot strip of a.tropical hardwood hammock that forms the northwestern border of the site. Very little hammock remains on Vaca Key and the airport is adjacent to two hammocks within the Florida Keys Wildlife and Environmental Area (WEA). Please note that in the case of least and roseate terns, our experts believe that these two species would only have the potential to be affected at this location if any of the airport structures have flat, gravel roofs. These threatened species have adapted to a loss of habitat in the area by nesting on these types of roofs. Recommendations ,,!Lt11d1i e!y�e s: In order to provide the best available information when developing an L Environmental Assessment for the project, we recommend that wildlife surveys for listed species would be conducted. We recommend that the applicant conduct surveys for state- listed fish and wildlife species with the potential to utilize the site less than six months before starting construction to determine if state-listed fish and wildlife species are present on the site. This list is found in Chapter 68A-27, Florida Administrative Code, which is available online at 1-atp: �N,'ww.flrL,I.les,or gallewLty""R,t.]cN(,,asp''I l 68A-2'7.()()" for endangered species; at for threatened species; and at httl--,/"WWW.fl�-L�lCy;,Oi-gl:I gitew�IV Rut eNo.,,isp',ITD=68A- 27.005 for species of special concern. Species-specific surveys should follow established survey protocols and guidelines where applicable. Survey protocols can be found in the Florida Wildlife Conservation Guide at if there is evidence that any individuals of these species are present, then the FAA or its agent should report the findings to the FWC or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ervice as appropriate. If impacts to these species cannot be avoided, then the FAA or its agent should contact the appropriate agency before taking any action that might result in an impact to those species. We are providing the following recommendations to assist the applicant with development of strategies to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to these wildlife resources. Ms. Lauren Milligan Page 3 September 2, 2010 Tropical Hardwood Hammocks: Tropical hardwood hammocks represent a unique habitat type found only in southern Florida, especially in the Florida Keys, Development has caused this habitat to become extremely rare and fragmented, The Environmental Assessment should address this habitat and focus on ways to minimize impacts and/or mitigate for unavoidable impacts. Summary At this point, we do not find this prqject to be inconsistent with our authorities (Chapter 379, Florida Statutes) as provided for under the Florida Coastal Management Program. This finding does not relieve the applicant from following requirements of all Florida Administrative Code rules relating to surveying for and obtaining necessary permits for impacts to wildlife (especially those listed as endangered, threatened or of special concern) that might be a result of future construction. If you or your staff would like to coordinate further on the potential issues contained in this report, please contact me at 850-410-5272 or email me at rna rvan n pool cO MyF WC.com., and. I will be glad to help make the necessary arrangements. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Steve Lau by telephone at 772-778-6354 or by email at wc-'CO111. Sincerely, Mary Ann Poole Commenting Program Administrator map/sI ENV 1-3-2 Florida Keys Marathon Airport_2977 082610 cc: Russell P. Forrest Project Coordinator URS Corporation 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway Tarnpa, FL 33607-1462 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS "Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home" CHARLIE CRIST THOMAS G. PELHAM Governor Secretary September 3, 2010 Ms. Lauren P. Milligan Florida Department of Environmental Protection Florida State Clearinghouse 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, M.S. 47 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Re: SA14 FL201007275370C Dear Ms.. Milligan; The Department of Con-imunity Affairs (Department), pursuant to its role as the states land planning agency, has reviewed the referenced permit application for consistency with its statutory responsibilities under the Florida Coastal Management Program, which includes Chapter 163, Dart II and Chapter 380, Florida Statutes (F.S.). The project is located in the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern; therefore, development must also be consistent with Section 380.0552, F.S., Chapter 163, fart II, F.S., and the local Comprehensive flan Elements and Land Development Regulations pertaining to Coastal Zone Management. Project Description Monroe County is proposing to relocate the centerline of Runway 7/25 at the Florida Keys Marathon Airport (MTH) by 40 feet to the northwest of the existing runway centerline. The purpose of the project is to bring the airport into compliance with current FAA regulations which require a minimum runway-to-taxiway centerline separation of 240 feet. Marathon Airport's current runway-to-taxiway separation is 200 feet. The centerline relocation will require the removal of 40 feet of hardwood hammock for the length of the runway as well as the approach and overrun areas. This represents approximately 6.5 acres of hammock clearance within approximately 38 acres of contiguous hammock. The issue is further complicated in that Monroe County claims jurisdiction over development of the airport but it lies within the City ofMarathon. The airport is not located in unincorporated Monroe County, the County has not assigned a tier designation to the property 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD a TALLAHASSEE , FL 32399 -2100 850-488-8466 (p) + 850-921 -0781 (f) ♦ Website: www.dc a statP.fl.us a COMMUNITY PLANNING 850-488-2356(p) 850-488-3309(() k FLORIDA COMMUNITIES TRUST 650-922-2207(p) 850-921-1747(f) ♦ HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 650-488-7956(p) 850-922-5623(f) Ms. Lauren P. Milligan September 3, 2010 Page 2 and therefore the Department would take the position that a Habitat Evaluation must be performed. Because the hammock contains 38 acres, it is likely considered a high duality hammock with. a clearing limit of20% under the county and 10% under the Marathon regulations. Monroe County and Marathon have two different approaches to clearing including different fee schedules for mitigation. The comprehensive plans for both local governments reflect the desire to maintain the hammock for ecological reasons. The hammock also provides noise attenuation for the adjacent subdivision. The attached Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida Keys, Section 380,0552(7), F.S.; Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Elements and Marathon Comprehensive Plan Elements apply to the development proposed: Tropical hardwood hammocks provide habitat for a number of threatened. and endangered species such as the white crowned pigeon., the tree snail and Ivey Largo woodrat and state species of special concern. The protection of tropical hardwood hammock is an important component of the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern Program. The removal of a large expanse of hammock is a concern to the Department. The Department of Community Affairs encourages the Federal Aviation Administration to develop an alternative which would not necessitate clearing of any hammock. If additional information is needed, lalease contact Rebecca Jetton, Program Administrator, Area of Critical State Concern at (850) 922-1.766. Sincerely, Charles Gauthier, AICP Director, Division of Community Planning CG/bep Applicable Statutes and Policies Section 3 0.0552(7), Florida Statutes Principle (c): Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and reaches, wildlife, and their habitat. Principle (f) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys. Principle (k): Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys. Monroe Comprehensive Plan Policies Policy 501.21 The development and expansion of aviation and related facilities shall be consistent with the future land use, coastal management and conservation elements. Policy 51.2.3 Development activities to construct or expand airport or airstrip facilities shall not take place in environmentally sensitive areas unless a viable alterative is not available. Mitigation and restoration shall occur when there is no other alternative than to disturb environmentally sensitive areas. Policy 501.3.1 Monroe County shall maintain the existing hammock along Aviation ]boulevard as a buffer between the Marathon Airport and the residences to the north. Marathon Comprehensive Plan Policies Policy -1. .1 Establish Incentives to Conserve Sensitive Habitat Within one year of the effective date of the Plan, the City shall adopt regulations providing for protection of native vegetative communities and land clearing which mandate that new development preserve, at a minimum, all undisturbed wetlands and ninety percent (90%) of high duality tropical hammocks on the parcel being developed. These regulations shall further provide for the preservation and transplantation of plant species that have been designated as endangered, threatened or of special concern by a State or Federal agency. These regulations shall also apply to the City's list of regionally important plant species. An incentive prograrn shall be provided for the conservation of upland areas containing recognized sensitive plant communities and species. Policy -1. .5 Prohibit Development Impacts on Certain Native Vegetation Develops-ient shall not disturb the following vegetation: a. champion trees; b. specimen trees (diameter at breast height that is greater than seventy-live (75) percent of the record tree of the sane species for the State of Florida); and c. plant species listed by the FS as threatened and endangered. Policy 7-3.I.2 Protect Environmentally Sensitive Lands Development activities to construct or expand airport or airstrip facilities shall not take }dace in environmentally sensitive areas, as identified aiLui uetined in the Conservation and Coastal Element, unless a viable alternative is not available. Mitigation and restoration shall occur when there is no other alternative than to disturb environmentally a sensitive areas. Policy 7- ..1..3 Protect the Airport Hammock Buffer The City shall coordinate with Monroe County to ensure that the existing hammock along. Aviation boulevard is maintained and remains as a buffer between the Marathon .Airport and.the residences to the north. RECEIVED Cgty 5iB FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE Dawn K. Roberts DEPOfficeof Interim Secretary of Slate DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES Ms, Lauren Milligan August 5, 2010 Director, Florida State Clearinghouse Florida Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 47 Tallahassee, Florida 3239-3000 RE: D R Project File Number: 2010-3700 SAI#; FL201007275370C Federal Aviation Administration—Scopinrg Notice—Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Runway Shift at Florida Keys Marathon Airport Marathon, Monroe County Dear Ms. Milligan: This office reviewed the referenced project for possible impact to historic properties listed,or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places, or otherwise of historical, architectural or archaeological value. The review was conducted in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended and 36 CFR Fart 800:Protection of Historic Properties and the implementing state regulations. A review of the Florida Master Site File and our records indicated that there are a number of recorded archaeological sites located in close proximity to the project area. We note that the environmental assessment will include effects on cultural resources. We look forward to receiving the document and coordinating with the Federal Aviation Administration regarding cultural resources that may be impacted by this project. If you have any questions concerning our comments, please contact Scott Edwards, Historic Preservationist, by electronic mail sedwards a@dos,state.fl.us,or at 850-245-6333 or 800-847-7278.. Sincerely, Laura A. Kammerer Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer For Review and Compliance 500 S.Froriough Street • Tallahassee,FL 32399-0250 o http://www.flheritage.com Director's Office ❑Archaeological Research ®'Historic Preservation (850)245.6300=:FAX:245.6436 (850)245.6444,FAX:245.6452 (850)245.6333®FAX:245.6437 oulh Rtirid Regional Planning Ct..inH RECEIVED August 26, 2010 DEPOfUOf Ms. Lauren Milligan Florida State Clearinghouse Florida Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Blvd,Mail Station 47 Tallahassee,Florida 32399-3000 RE: SFRPC#10-0735, SAl#FL201007275370C, Draft Environmental Assessment for the Proposed. R,muray Shift at Florida Tic ys Marathon Airport in Monroe County,Florida Dear Ms.Milligan: We have reviewed the above-referenced. Draft Environmental Assessment. If permitted, this application. should consider the following comments: • The project should be consistent with.. the Coals and Policies of Monroe County's Comprehensive Plan and its corresponding land development regulations. It is important for the applicants to coordinate permits with all governments of jurisdiction. • Staff recommends that, if the permit application is approved, the applicant should: 1) consider the full the impacts of the runway shift as it related to Rights-of-Way issues, relocation of facilities and infrastructures and noise and light pollution concerns as well as provide the appropriatemitigation; 2) work closely with City of Marathon planning staff and residents to address impacts and mitigation, 3) minimize the impacts to the natural systems to the greatest extent feasible. The permitting agency should also determine the extent of sensitive wildlife and vegetative communities in the vicinity of the project and require protection and or mitigation of disturbed habitat. This will. assist in reducing the cumulative impacts to native plants and animals, wetlands and deep-water habitat and fisheries that the goals and policies of the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Florida (SRPP)seek to protect. • The project is located in the Biscayne National Park. The Coals and Policies of the SRPP,in particular those ilIdica.ted below, should he observed when making decisions mgardi�.-sg this project. Goal 4 Enhance the economic and environmental sustainability of the Region by ensuring the adequacy of its public facilities and services. Policy 4.1 Public facility and service providers should give priority to the construction, maintenance, or reconstruction of public facilities needed to serve existing development most effectively and to the elimination of any infrastructure deficiencies which would impede redevelopment. Goal 8 Enhance the Region's efficiency,safety,quality of life,and economic health through improvements to road,port,and public transportation infrastructure. Policy 8.1 Maintain the Florida Intrastate Highway System, other state road, local roadways, and public transportation systems to preserve the Region's investment in infrastructure,- support daily use and needs; enhance the Regions global competiveness and economic health, increase safety; ensure emergency access and responses; and provide for evacuation purposes. 3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 140., �Ulywood, Florida 33021 Broward (954) 985-4416, State (800) 9854.416 Sun(.'om ,1 3..4416, FAX 954) 985-4417, Sun Corn FAX 473-4417 ernafl: sf�d'r in@sfrpc.cor , website: w =. tr c.corr s.Lauren Milligan August 26,2010 Page 2 Policy 8.4 Expand use of public transportation, including buses, commuter rail, waterborne transit, and alternative transportation modes that provide services for pedestrians, bikers, and the transportation disadvantaged, and increase its role as a major component in the overall regional transportation system. Policy 8.8 Ensure the safety of the transportation system by implementing measures to reduce vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle crashes and increase the safety of commercial vehicle operations. Goal 14 Preserve,protect,and restore Natural Resources of Regional Significance. Policy 14.1 Address environmental issues, including the health of our air, water,habitats, and other natural resources,that affect quality of life and sustainability of our region. Policy 14.7 restore, preserve, and protect the habitats of rare and state and federally listed species. For those rare and threatened species that have been scientifically demonstrated by past or site specific studies to be relocated successfully, without resulting in harm to the relocated or receiving populations, and where in-sitzi preservation is neither possible nor desirable from an ecological perspective,identify suitable receptor sites,guaranteed to be preserved and managed in perpetuity for the protection of the relocated species that will be utilized for the relocated of such rare or listed plants and animals made necessary by unavoidable project impacts. Consistent use of the site by endangered species, or documented endangered species habitat on-site shall be preserved on-site. Policy 14.11 Encourage local governments to require invasive exotic removal as a condition of development approvals. Goal 16 Enhance and preserve natural system values of South Florida's shorelines, estuaries, benthic communities, fisheries, and associated habitats, including, but not limited to, Florida Bay,Biscayne Bay,tropical hardwood hammocks,and the coral reef tract. Policy 16.2 Protect the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve(BBAP) through such measures as: a. discontinuing all untreated stormwater discharges to the Bay; b. requiring stormwater treatment systems to meet the required non-degradation water quality standards for this Class III,Outstanding Florida Water body, c.discouraging development that proposes to fill within the Bay or discharge contaminants to its waters;and d.connecting developments that are served by septic tanks within the watershed of the BBAP to central sanitary waste treatment facilities to treat pathogens and remove nutrients from the wastewater effluent. Policy 16.3 Enhance and preserve coastal,estuarine, and marine resources,including but not limited to,tropical hardwood hammocks,mangroves,seagrass and shellfish beds and coral habitats. Thank you for. he oppor zty to comment. if you require further information, please contact me at 954- 985-4416� Sinc ely, ` Eric Swanson Regional Planner EKS/kal APPENDIX F-2 COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This appendix contains all other project related agency correspondence. TO BE PROVIDED APPENDIX G PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT This appendix contains materials relating to the public involvement opportunities that were offered during the EA process. G-1 Public Information Meeting • Sign-in Sheet • Handout • Display Boards G-2 Combined Public Information Meeting and Public Hearing (To be provided in Final EA) • Public Notice • Meeting Materials • Public Comments on Draft EA • Response to Comments APPENDIX G-1 PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING The appendix contains materials used at the Public Information Meeting held on August 24, 2010, at the Florida Keys Marathon Airport Terminal. Materials include: • Sign-in Sheet • Handout • Display Boards e c\j ey Q y x 1 ® LO JX LL o IL cl Q c 0 cu cu U (1) Y m � cc c► O U � y O tt f y, l, for the it_ ` at M, Kcy5 :MarathonArport i' t � � � � 4 a lS�i rS f OVERVIEW OF THE FLORIDA KEYS MARATHON AIRPORT AND THE PROPOSED PROJECT AIRPORT LOCATION, ACCESS, OWNERSHIP, AND OPERATION The Florida Keys Marathon Airport (MTH) is located approximately 2 miles east of the Marathon City Center on Vaca Key in the Florida Keys. See Figures 1 and 2, for a location and vicinity map of the airport. The airport property is comprised of approximately 190 acres. MTH is owned and operated by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). EXISTING AIRPORT FACILITIES The existing facilities at MTH include one runway, taxiways, aprons, airfield lighting, navigational aids (NAVAIDS), a passenger terminal, terminal apron area, aircraft maintenance facilities, flight training facilities, hangars and aircraft storage facilities, industrial facilities, administrative facilities, fuel storage areas, utility systems and roadways. Figure 3 provides a graphic overview of the existing airside and Iandside facilities at MTH. MTH is currently designated as having Airport Reference Code (ARC) B-II airfield design geometry that typically accommodates aircraft having design characteristics that include landing approach speeds of 91 knots or more, but less than 121 knots, wingspans of 49 feet, but not including 79 feet, and tail heights from 20 feet up to, but not including, 30 feet. Examples of B-II aircraft include the Beech King Air, Cessna Citation II, and Hawker 900 XP. Runway and Taxiways The MTH airfield consists of a single, active runway. Runway 7/25 is 5,008 feet in length and 100 feet in width. Taxiway'A' is a 50-foot wide parallel taxiway extending the full length of Runway 7/25 on the southeast side of the runway. The existing distance from the runway centerline to the Taxiway A centerline is 200 feet. Taxiways B, C, D, and E connect Runway 7/25 and Taxiway A. Airport Apron Area MTH has three primary apron areas. One of the aprons is the commercial terminal apron while the other two are General Aviation (GA)aprons. All three aprons are located on the south side of Taxiway A(See Figure 3). The commercial terminal apron is available to serve both the new and former commercial terminal buildings. Marathon General Aviation operates the eastern GA apron, which is used primarily by smaller piston aircraft. Marathon Jet Center operates the western GA aircraft parking apron, which is use primarily by business jet aircraft. Terminal Facilities The 19,000 square foot commercial passenger terminal building includes a commercial aircraft apron, public and rental auto parking lots, access loop roadway, and lush tropical landscaping. The terminal was completed and opened in May 1995. Aircraft Hangars There are a number of aircraft hangars at MTH. These include eight conventional hangars, four T- hangars, and three shade hangars 1 PROPOSED PROJECT AND PROJECT PURPOSE The Proposed Project evaluated in this EA consists of shifting the existing runway centerline by 40 feet to the northwest, and is shown in Figure 4. Connected actions include the extension of Taxiways B, C, D, and E by 40 feet to connect to the relocated southeast edge of the runway. In addition, the boundaries of the Runway Safety Area (RSA), Runway Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ), Runway Object Free Area (ROFA), Building Restriction Line (BRL) northwest of the runway would be moved 40 feet to the northwest, and the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)would be shifted 40 feet northwest. FAA's Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Aircraft Design, establishes the criteria for airfield layouts that would fully satisfy FAA design standards. The Advisory Circular prescribes the FAA's Airport Reference Coding (ARC)system that is used to relate airport design criteria to the operational and physical characteristics of the airplanes intended to operate at the airport. The ARC has two components relating to the airport design aircraft. The first component, designated by a letter, is the Aircraft Approach Category and relates to aircraft approach speed (operational characteristic). The second component, designated by a Roman numeral, is the Airplane Design Group and relates to airplane wingspan (physical characteristic). Generally, runway standards are related to aircraft approach speed, airplane wingspan, and designated or planned instrument approach capabilities. MTH is currently designated as having Airport Reference Code (ARC) B-II. Current FAA airport design standards require that ARC B-II airports provide a minimum runway-to-taxiway centerline separation of 240 feet to insure that no part of an aircraft on the taxiway centerline is within the runway safety area (RSA)or penetrates the obstacle free zone (OFZ)of the runway. The existing separation between Runway 7/25 and Taxiway A at MTH is 200 feet, and is therefore does not satisfy current FAA design standards. The purpose of the Proposed Project is to bring MTH into compliance with FAA design standards. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS In accordance with the procedural provisions of NEPA and FAA environmental requirements, the Monroe County BoCC is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA)to assess and document potential environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Project. The EA will describe the purpose and need for the proposed project, evaluate reasonable alternatives for meeting the purpose of and need for the Proposed Project, describe existing environmental conditions, provide disclosure of the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Proposed Project, and describe any proposed mitigation measures. The EA will also contain relevant documentation and technical data in the appendices. The Draft EA will be made available to government agencies, interested organizations, and the public for review and to obtain comments regarding the potential environmental, social, and economic effects of the proposed project. The County will hold a public meeting on the Draft EA in accordance with FAA policy and procedures. Upon review and consideration of comments received, the County will submit a Final EA to the FAA. The FAA will then evaluate the Final EA and render a decision to either prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). 2 4.0 i ® m m R A IX a Ll- o o � 11 a � w � z -� o U CZ o v� wl o k A z o o w YI o 0 { FIGURE bow I a` x zLu LV Q.° f0 i Z V oell o C7 o_ J Q m o �oW Noo a �4 L � Q L O O � LL cep t � L v a V a e b LL a Q z � w } m LL x z_ s rt Y f wi 'moo� r L �t � m 10 oo w L p - � r � y ?'r �I FIGURE 2 a` x LIo► eaola SZ-t it,,AAttnH illfloAvi I dOdd I`d ONIISIXd M jaod_uV uogjr.wpL . s.ia;y uppoij, aq_LLL \�\ < < - I -I I r M� S s ( ra I I In L S, IIII \ IIImI I1 s ♦ \\ \I I I I I i �'� �r s I I �L—f I � IIIIIII� I I r \, \ � � � Illllllln I❑ I I I I\ c -\ I IIIIIIIIIIIIIII \ I I I\TL f I I �� ' I I I I I IIIIII [i I Im m IIIIIIITiII/ `y� s < < a \ IIIIII _IIII t i, � IImI IIIIIIIIIII�`� n I I I I I I m FI FFIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII � Q, 1 II 1 I IQ I II I I I I I I II I I 11 20 � III I I I I I I I I I I I I - - ��- - _ � � �IIIIF4'II 'I HL �1 1 � �I � I J � � `fit � 17 I m III TFF I 0 I I I I n I II I I IT w _ \� \ II1 11m l 11 @� > © 0 I r ,o�s�,�o�a ,� luautississv jl=aUat u .mu ��4 S3111110VJ I JOdd l`d � uotluaol,)H SZ-L Ai.viun-d 1.10(i.liv uotljt,.it IN SION vppoj,j )q j, 1o3 rodd 43SOdOid ' ' — �� . I I r yA 1 «<<<<<<<<<<<n m< ! \N,V ` 4 1 t A \ 1 ` 1 4 tf i C IR I I I 111\I `\� \ ,� \ •' \� �, \ - FiTI I I I I I I I I I I I I I Il d IiTh I \IIIIIII 3 4 � i,IIIII I I fl �I IT \ N �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i I ImIIII\T III 'LIII/ � �I\\IIIII\_IIIII \ � r �� IImI IIIIIII\III 5 nIIIIIIIIIImIIII \\ mIIIII�IIIIII � I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I_I I I I \ \ °: \' I I I I I I I I I I\I\I\I I I . \ � �� , In I I I II T V I I-IIIII� ,91n fY� CY cC 4 CL r w \\\�I I I I \\\ LLJ 7TL FFFF-FFFFF_ tL m CL toCL ea c was w �;\\ \ �\ J Q cC c[LLJ \ �1 otst,� P�}Px �� da dP o do �, �,ow 4 �ttsEszt,d3 3 aMa,t d-4 w 1�,a d,x COMMENT FORM PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING ` August 24, 2010 ` gar Florida Keys Marathon Airport Y Runway 7-25 Relocations Environmental Assessment 0`1 A Please state your comments regarding the Envirommnetal Assessment PLEASE PRINT Comments: Name: Organization: Address: email Address: Thank you for your participation at the Public Information Meeting. We would appreciate receiving your comments by September 24, 2010. You may submit your comments at today's meeting, mail your comments to the address on the back of this comment form or fax your comments to (813) 636-2400 (please include WTH EX in the subject line). Comments are not limited to the space on this sheet. Please feel free to add additional sheets, if necessary. Comments may also be e- mailed to diane_kline@urscorp.com. (fold here) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Place stamp here. Ms. Diane Kline URS Corporation 7650 W. Courtney Campbell Cswy., Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33607 UE N � Moe U uj C) y- i4 4Y �N`tlIAlAS e � N 15 H1LOL 15;H190L 1 t 44 15 H100 L ' ■.� t�`1rs � 4r,,`,�p4}� Jr�� a ��`1xi` i4t � i Ali S { tit 'tt t t4 i tl£ � 15 H146 It S,It 1{{1 } _t `t� {t) thl � `d`� tt'. }�'•, !'��t��F' 1 �� y' 1 V}�IIl�t1l£S S��ilft11�6. S)S£SS4$t t t��t15 fit1,i4 dr r t x, ��i�\!'its£t rtt�t<4,�t, ��$s `�{ tt,.•y`*a � t,_ � � "��art. � t � LOL L ��@ #i�i�;�'�1i11J�r�f1��{{}�,hi�' sut a , l .1 lk�}t#}7t(o�;}}�,!il I �.. - Nl O•JNtlWY ti4� - ,*4i S�y, � _ t - � - t - ir - , ) t<2�„ �'at`U t t ,MG, £ l..t ls.,s h s�t,r � 3.,'ta!f ��>�;: �,��• `r t - 1 �0,,�' �; s!,.�t,k dl4r.._ 9i1 t ,�, �t,;. t,. t{�; ➢. it -Gar i e -.,�� -t !! �� f4 4 ti f 11 } t 1 �t 'h r* - ltr,l e� z 4>, t ", S}� r!q it+s;4t 1 tr3 t r4£C i�tE tit �,t v i4s �;�'N�"� 4 Y �1 �4�,.,�g'1 g s t( f)�;�ji174 y}t{; 1'� ttt� �9 161 � 1i , 150NZ8 ,lf;yf r 4 i,•I i r aa�roiMo�a3A � Y4�. �a( � � �411 '� t `1£f�i! lyt t � � NO NIHdlOO ��i�S�� _ � 15 H16L43 �t- �3t1}1, tip!' � 4 �• i}t m tF£ 4�4, t? � � '� � 1S H14L 4 �� i��l j ameHouuinv � ,�t�itf�s y �A•, *, '" ` £ �l"�{ri'i4d { ° i� 14t 4q 4 �� Ffi'..W, Jit t t , j � ,� _ <<<mT __� y. L rr y 1 � �`J I I I C I C I I I_I I \� oa + t' t 1 N � - III\\�I IIIIII \I_II_I I � T. �-� rr� r �rrr r Y t � ` In��mnrzn Ti I_I _FD I— �. CCII _I-III-Ilia _ t IIII I t tt � I Try II �A t � IIIII I I I I I I I I I I I I \\ I I I I II I I ! �, IIIIII Cf re j Lr: \, e Cd JL i ar r tl {t4 �q4r� Jim "` �� `!`�ltr t r rti�Ij -_ k Mks` t�ir: c ` t�(4 rt 1t sj�. d+t� (r ttstlk 0 a+; r a t 4r tl T t i rti r. y tt�: u 7"ARM 3�t „a f jrt t t lA-, it S �1t 1 t4tr47, r,ti Jt D < E a 't i+ r i f r y �s ty i 1 � A k c Tom ksl, si r c Novi 4 1LS� iYfrtr•i pl�r i p t v 4s I>: t}ttr�r; t t� S}, .. — 1{ tr e 'rrk,� sy It r D){ q tiM 1 t �{r r Y � r g�i+ {�!t_. is rat C� y¥ ± ti{ t� "TooI+Wr t� �- r i t - cCs tE 9t x j l� 'lf a y r1 1'4 al Y t vws'�s - - art W � tP `� "�"r �•s 'z� ' r ',`-�-,��'t�}t,�� '`, z' t�� t�vYt�` �' 4� I `.�i t t kh: t WN 715 , pY lr v � rS ti r i� r 1 ttr>` rtli iit)ttti v f$ 4 rt N \r t u fir' tt vxn- \ qQ t'4� "'�` a r)) 11iu t14)� If � t K 4 n �t i mr �t�t"•S i rtFt'u ,PA +' .' 5y . t r� t` ttu r ), i i to °�,�`�• )�} t7{t ll ° r,, t r O �4ri Ca � s 1.0 1{3 t A-, t o 4 ) ) t 4 � f � ' �� a z . F z PC Mp�� i� 'Am ou, n r i'' r �,{ 1 @t { `�"'��y.. is�'` a at ,i'�:t a 'G 2r 'i{ti tvn�y" 1R y "'•: ,� ,d� `� it ��k.ir� 1t �!� i(41 o' 2 �+k �� S{SSis y Srr by � S4� list t" ,t v 4 S x t S'S�( tt I + r s I,. 1 S' r d 4.4 WOR WAWA `tVW10 1� a� � ( A W 41 rw UST 11 iY��1},µ+fht{ Ir�t 1i 1 i f �:_�a 1 rri �y ! tt}r,�irr '}3}µt(',Y PI r♦ Y' t �a�t 1r r�'t}� r_ 1r }�¢�,� r a�r�Ir j�t 'y �, ,„ ,r + rl ut - \ t �l z} } i�ff��l�+s�l((r+{t� q �•_ U 1 �a µa !µnt1 lot A up t t"� t} t ;i s 5�ifSr r t r �r � t i� ��ax,�+. rh�4`t��r jitrk'SS��44 + rt� r u�J)tj, wo t��t �µ, � ,• '� i r �'' +� Si ': �� v s r}'� t t t ,h`rU't�+rt t >rt � 1O}iS1�ht it 4I 'V + t I t fi t rr1 t$t„" � � + t t t t i i ' �pI 1 r i 7 ��iri��\S}�� t ' ,(1 ,�} tirt (r,�,4 r ' r t I 'MIT n a '�� t d s F St t't p�f� v r t 1 h r "All i I,�r�"� (i r �9'�ks�! fur"" i iµ� !� £ S t '�� r="rot� s �µt�.t t r �s�,{rc�µ'�1� t+"� `•' }}�} its v �t ` µoil; t s 1 t t r4 t �r All l OV,T ( t cY I tt� tph Y-tr { Nr— too, a Y 9 Yi Y" Sri e r iII h; tf e �. µ 1S s � µ liµ""�itiin�µ i . �`�•, t r.�"'� ;- _ - !t _ �., -'`` S - t t` �i ;MOM r r t, R rtN A �' fit S� s1 "., r7ig �� ryµµpµµ,� 9µ�y>> t s tap � APPENDIX G-2 COMBINED PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING TO BE PROVIDED APPENDIX H COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT(CZMA) FEDERAL AGENCY CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION This appendix provides the Federal Agency Consistency Determination prepared in accordance with the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 16 USC § 1456. May 2013 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT (CZMA) FEDERAL AGENCY CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION Federal Agency: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Owner: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners Project: Proposed Airfield Improvements at the Florida Keys Marathon Airport— Shift Runway 7/25 (Laterally)40 Feet Location: 9400 Overseas Highway Marathon, Florida 33050 Monroe County 1.0 INTRODUCTION In accordance with the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. § 1456, this Consistency Determination was prepared by Monroe County for the Federal Aviation Administration's action associated with the proposed airfield improvements at the Florida Keys Marathon (MTH). This Consistency Determination provides information regarding the proposed Federal action and requests the State of Florida's concurrence that the Federal action is consistent with the Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP). 2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT AND FEDERAL ACTIONS The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (County) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are evaluating improvements to the airfield at the MTH to meet Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airport design standards. Specifically, the proposed improvements would address runway-to-taxiway separation standards. The distance between the centerlines of Runway 7/25 and Taxiway "A", the parallel taxiway, is 200 feet. The required distance is 240 feet. The proposed airfield improvements (Proposed Project) would shift Runway 7/25 to the northwest by 40 feet to provide the required 240 feet of runway-to-taxiway separation. The Proposed Project would be undertaken by the County and implemented with a combination of local, state (e.g., Florida Department of Transportation), and FAA funding. The Proposed Project consists of the following actions: • Shift Runway 7/25 forty feet to the northwest to provide a runway-to-taxiway centerline separation distance of 240 feet. This would be accomplished by constructing 40 feet of new pavement along the northwest side of the existing runway and re-paving and re-marking the runway to shift the runway centerline to its new position. • Relocate and/or install new runway edge lights and threshold lights; • Modify markings, lighting, and signage on connecting Taxiways "B", "C", "D" and "E"; • Construct 40 feet of new paved overrun along the northwest side of existing paved overruns at each end of the relocated runway; 1 May 2013 • Grade the Runway Safety Area; • Clear a 40-foot strip of vegetation on the north side of the shifted runway within the Object Free Area; • Remove approximately 40 feet of pavement along the southern edge of the paved runway shoulder and paved overruns to result in no net gain in impervious surface. Modify existing airport drainage swales adjacent to the runway; • Conduct mitigation for unavoidable impacts; and, • Revise Air Traffic Control Procedures for aircraft below 3,000 feet for the new runway location. The Proposed Project is safety-based and would not aviation increase activity at the airport. The runway would not be extended and other airport facilities would not be expanded. The Proposed Project requires that a 40-foot strip of vegetation be cleared along the edge of a wooded area on the northeast side of the airfield. Clearing the 40-foot strip would impact approximately 0.1 acre of tidally-connected and 0.5 acre of isolated mangrove wetlands for a total wetland impact of 0.6 acre. The tropical hardwood hammock and wetlands would be cleared of vegetation. No grading, fill, or excavation would take place in the cleared areas. The cleared wetland areas would be planted with native wetland herbaceous species, but maintained in a periodically mowed condition. The proposed Federal actions associated with this project are: • Unconditional approval of those portions of the MTH Airport Layout Plan that depict the Proposed Project and its connected actions. • The Federal environmental approval necessary to proceed with processing of an application for Federal funding for those development items qualifying under the former Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended, and recodified at 49 U.S. Code (USC)47101, et seq. FAA action is necessary in connection with the airfield improvements because, pursuant to 49 USC § 47107(a)(16), the FAA Administrator (under authority delegated from the Secretary of Transportation) must approve any revision or modification to an Airport Layout Plan before the revision or modification takes effect. The Administrator's approval includes a determination that the proposed alterations to the airport, reflected in the ALP revision or modification, do not affect adversely the safety, utility, or efficiency of the airport. 3.0 FEDERAL CONSISTENCY REVIEW 3.1 EARLY COORDINATION AND CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION Early coordination of the Proposed Project was conducted with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Florida State Clearinghouse and reviewing agencies. The result of the early coordination effort indicated that the project is consistent with the FCMP (see attached letter from FDEP dated September 24, 2010). The letter notes that the concerns identified by the reviewing agencies must be addressed prior to project implementation. The 2 May 2013 state's continued concurrence will be based on the activity's compliance with the FCMP authorities, including federal and state monitoring of the activity to ensure its continued conformance and adequate resolution of the issues identified. The state's final concurrence of the project's consistency with the FCMP will be determined during the environmental permitting process. 3.2 COORDINATION OF FEDERAL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION The Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared by Monroe County for the Proposed Project evaluated potential impacts to the natural and human environment, and accordingly, to Florida's coastal zone. This Federal Consistency Determination is included with, and incorporated into, the EA. Please refer to appropriate sections of the attached EA for more information and detailed discussion of the purpose and need for the Proposed Project, alternatives considered, and potential impacts. Consistency with the FCMP involves the review and consideration of twenty-three state statutes that collectively provide the framework for the management of Florida's coastal resources. The results of the FAA's consistency review are summarized in the attached table. Project consistency information is submitted to the Florida State Clearinghouse, located within the Department of Environmental Protection, for coordination of the state's review. The state has 60 days from receipt of this document in which to complete its review and provide the federal agency/applicant with its federal consistency concurrence or objection. If the state does not provide the federal agency with its federal consistency concurrence or objection within 60 days, the federal action is presumed to be consistent with the Florida Coastal Management Program. The state's response regarding this Consistency Determination should be sent to: Ms. Virginia Lane Environmental Specialist Orlando Airports District Office Federal Aviation Administration 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400 Orlando, Florida 32822 and Mr. Peter Horton Airport Director Key West International Airport 3491 S. Roosevelt Boulevard Key West, Florida 33040 3 May 2013 The Federal Aviation Administration concurs with this Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Determination as prepared by Monroe County. Bart Vernace, PE Date Manager Orlando Airports District Office Federal Aviation Administration 4 0 o a - -o 04 c p r U O .0 C .� c0 > N (n O N N 0) O E i C 00 m N (n O c p to � 0 U c m O U OU N - C 0. O V C > � _ O N »- O (n c com m � O � O 'O m .O U ° ° N p m m 0 > (n .N E N � N 'N � in N O m N —0 0) 2 aa (n (n (n m U (n m a p c: : m O 0 E0 O m d E af U m E a m C > 'p — 2 � m c c m p inc m (o 0 Y Lz O c m X 0 E mN w m O W -0a � m -r mmN 02 � E 0 =` o � . 0 0o > o� o 0 _m 0 o Ea0. -0E -0 .N .Nd � ` U (nU0o 0) iN ��0U E 'm U 0U E O w p c �pU nm N`m N N N U o -r- -0 o o 0 c mm x Y 0 c_ ° E o � ~ O 'X (nm o � > N m " � 0 - 0 c o m o mo0 mm � � � � am � (n � mN � m c m O > in — c m ? inm is N c ° -0 o N j N mU inU a °V N -c(nF O ° .N o • N 0m .o m � m m � a) -00) o vim-,-i � N E m of wmm - � � a� � 0 0c E m i E in ._ 0 p > '0 .�° p -0 N m m .N > ° N co ° N m .o C) p .0 o O 'c � Oo in 0)� � oar > m �, mo ° > '� m p 2 E cN V N U Z N O c 0- N m p o-0 :� 0 > m E 0 -0 0 m N Q .- O m m .- 0 o N U O m m m N N = O .N N N • X . c c : m Q` do � N L o >: c :- m inL p c up -pin C U C m U .V O (n LO >, � m m = d cc-): � � ._ m N E c o � m o � O (D - � ._ m � J � m o � o gym } a > m o � � .o 0 °' E a � 0 c c > U > 2� m 0 > 0 � � J Q (D 0 0 0 m 0 0 o m m m . m '- m e E � � 0 m E ai 2: m > c °- > E a 0 .° .m N 0 0 0 0 m c O .> -O c an d c Q N o O (n �' m 0 `° o -9 a `m '� U -9 E o _ a.N m p c �� a � 0 U d a' o � a� � ' o o m N o m m m ac m m � o o � -r 0 L) m = . 0 oQ 2 ad � m H a.5 0) FL mCD 0 0 m mco o m -0 H H o m c a o E c � 0 - � E c N + -p p m in d FD Q � 00 ° � � Q0 CO � � mUJ 0 m � L) m � ai� s U � m � o .c m Ud m 0 ami � m m m FL u' 0 6 M O O U N c � vi o vi 0) in m m in into O C O N O O p- N O N � O N (0 C E p (0 -0 c N _ OU iBs E c O Y p ' p ra c O M m V OO Lm C p c a 0 co Nin :3 in N N N 'c E o � � mca a m a � m � Qo � Q Qo in c ao c m o c LO vi N (no aa)iOE NE NE NE M in z-O m m in .N o N � N c N O N N E °' aO am c O N p p ca ca > E U E U m U -o U O EL m c C) ino � a E > ° T o m N c 0 p w c0 .c U - L c in aL0) ' � mo m mM oo t� 0 U N p -O N N O 00 O m O in } -c O N (NO C Q- C c N 0) i N (A �'p a 2N in 'p N m O s o O ` vi c 0 0) U c Ems- • >N �°�oN OUo L �m c ac� O Nm ._ L N N Ow�> > > m _v c > °m (.0 a m o o y in O N O c c U 0 c in > �mmo C) o >o-ooC) `° tf � O U Vc ) o mc �6Cwoa �� Mo o p U a 0to N N ca N w p p U O O W c m O w p N O N c N N to O O c d d 0 5 d o >' O N H U N O > O O N N > N N p N Y0 0 m ca p m N p w p O �- p Mm O N N .O N m m N p c p O to O O N -a OL m N C N m E N fn C C c to d O d to p p O mp N c O N N N ca O O O N -O N a C E c O N s s s O s c aU a m O N o m m o U o m o am O N O O o O . aid a ° E m .N ° N `o o Lr) LO _C Lo c NN O N N NU (0 Sco N L) UCf) U � U :N U m :3 2)n N � E W J M 0 O O N N N is 2) 0 O cu m C N o (0 : M C (c0 is O T O m 0 p C O O E O O M N m m m O L � � N to N C m O N m o N to O 0 M C fn N M Q 0 p O fn m fn 0 U 0. (n y .0) V E m N O N a-E 0)N a) N coN ca E " N E O ca'U O E >N O O m w c o N O N c cn > � w Q 0 m oE - m e m o E NNvi (n 'u Mm cor- a`)im m 0 0 r > O o o `° N c E o f in vi 0 O E ai : 0 in o m o m w m w m O in in in _ w U CO c m •o c N Nm N m to m O C O O N � p N U N m O .� U -p 0 LL " M N 0 "0 a) o m .0 Sz-� m U U m ° S o (n m O o m m N _c c Q- o m an d p m o a c a) N w p m Y N m O _ m . 0) :3 N o -0 a) coo cl) c O � � m 0 m � o To � r- c 0 0 CON 0 W o oc N .N E .N �° N m N J L w N 'o E .O m O Q c c .O �= 0 O ai • .4+ U m r i LL >,.L d O N U C m O d m LL SZ 0 m -0 � C/1 U U N w 0 -p � a) '� L O W "O t in Cn M a N O - in m f 0) N (n U (0 (�0 o 0 p .E c .N � (n c a..— E o c- a Vim — a) E (� > m - > o o 0 c c in o m mUco � m cmi m ° O o vi d c N m m _ N m o m mt a � � a E o } a � � o W- � ° - m Nm c E .NF o o o � � � � � O m rm oWn o o mmo of m 0 = > o .o d v v N d c Y w d in p_ N d d N U O 0-m N O Q m a c' O N N a) O m > E QX O W 0 .� 0 0 x a) m � c c N p x p N c '— o ' 00—,- in a' n :: omOmoEm - vi p � - m � } o °c � � '�' o- � Qoa�i oaE > o� a�io0 - o d .Ln � � CC) d a- 0 0 0 m -a m m o d N m w m o D- No) 0--oa > a 0Eo O a mmrcflioo H m o 6) a0 H m mom . H � z v>iQ Hm � mo am m c g m m c E m U o m > N m m nn r N d N h o c '0 � O 00 O N M E M D O -r ++ (0 co O m (0 N fn N E (h -p CO U Cl) N a0+ H a) a) a) p E a) Q a) m a) LL •ia m (0 0 N (0 m m > o m .� m LL m 0O -r- :tf.tf L .V L a) SZ m U in in U U `p U 0 E U U p U (0 U = U (n tf SZ Q a) m 0 m EO J U H M O N w A N O a E O c c m E N N N ( N N � ° O N Q � c to N N p mEN Um 0 ° Q � _ NC ° N (n m (nc O O E O (n m N .2:1N O c vi w - O m 0 U j O (O 'U > .m O O U N O wmN in O m m ac ca'E' EmNa Uw c oac m o O O c >O c T'° (n O �a O � c c -° � E ° = o o N ° > ° a ° o gyo m E(n m ° (n ° O - m •- a a) OmO E (n m c oN ° a) M (n N > E Ns to 0) 0) ° O O a to O in � O o0 m as o_- o> >� a > E O O ° -o 5 mO mm > 0) t- � av ' - m m L -o E E ma Em > Um O • ++ 0o O (na) ° o> E -o c L co C) O o a) ° i a zmQ u a a) . _ O ° O 0 > m w >a) 0 a) c o V N ocN m w m - U m ° a EcmO m in E m o a) � camEn (nE - o > N N0 L'o ° ° m p -o m c� m ° �i O c i c o a U a a-a w N (n N U m d o � m c `0 CI c -° N o -a � ° - mo ' mom ° � m O ° .aO oa co o � to o mm ° ai c a O(n ( ° '°��Cc) mmY OEc E mc OE ° � (no m 70o m E � .° i - m aw in in 5'm O N o 5 'Nm � �m oE c in � o mUa ° N � o ` mc O Em 0 �n : D 0o0 )m m m O o - cm ma m a � � >o -0 Q: Q � a a °m Ho o m .N of � Ec EE E .N _r_ N m H a`o _r_ N N � CO U M � T O — O N cu N (0 E O -M cu L E CU m m m O N a) 'Z a U O)t N V 0 — c N (n — CO N a) M 0 C ° O O U m N (n (n m `o pU N (n - 0).> (nQ- cB .� O (n N (0 Q m 0 w � o = p 0) N N (n N U c ° c . (o p N p m vaim O o> m m(n 0 N mO oQ O= v m . E N O O O - cn N m E - ( m 0. m m to O � m E N O LO c p) > > E E Np .— -o 0) c 0 p O 0- m p- c > C) — O (n O mE o E 0 m c o � m mm o cm) o- NN 0- 0 NU c °c) 0 c N > EE -0o � mc0 m o � x o mc ( (mn E p mU � acn � m o romom -0 . o 00 0) 0 " o �: pi r- ((n =v m(n o ° o . � — m p .T p � m N -0 inm N o CO c L O O p O'o - O N m ) > 0-Ch O O p ° Uw - 0 (nC O ° (n p m c ° °N O) o - m v C:B o aN a) c p_ O op mm -p -p cm a Cy) L � N E ai c d (' > N a ° O O O N °) c N +� p � � N ' m � � m ao1 � � oE o N N a � m a o r c oO -oo, O (n ' : � � N o ' in ° - m C o C: m c ° mom � a m - (n - - a 0 mEac. o° o m ( Wm 0 -0w 15 m O � � � oz (n mm m o oEN amm � m es� m � o dm (n a E ' o. " o .� a, � . n2 m m U a-mO > U o m � � Q' md m a o 0 0 p > a m � act > aE C� O (n a� m ddm m E c m c 0 (n m m °) co L m m 4; cam) p CO d m `mm `ma0 aE) co U m U .(n c m m 0 d p is N c c N E t N a) 0 U O_ U � N 0 N U > ; m (0 p 0) N U m 0) L m 0 C � E m m U O 0 C 0 m C Q N m .... m O O O 0 > C) 2 o -0 �° N p V C 0) O 0 2 O_ co O 0) c O a N :3 0 w N C C0 fn ° m m N N N N O N c 0 E L Nin rz L w N m L inp N N 0 N ° N N c m -o > 0 U 'U M >O U '> O N N O 0) N a) N C .L Q o w a'o w -r- d 0 to w N m c75 N co) N c N O c U ° m O E g -0 c V) c c 0 m to o ° .- c z N O Q O L N c O U c L L uNi N vi m >1 O :� .� N (n N N NCY) c CN 0 p > i N -0 O N 0 0- in 0 m N dO a in 0 to U U N N m o 0 -0 0 M N O m c: o N } o g a0 � c L aSo a N > o m m U o o m o m o d c 0 . � d E m � U ° m -E � .°c S c m o � � N m (n U m � oc o `o0. -aoo >' � ° � `ooE �° ° m 0 Q 0 a0 0 E .- c Q vi m m m � p 0 0 m � � m 0 � inN m N 0 in N °> N N m 0 - N o > N - c O•'o 0 c O m C) i vi mNo c N O p in N - N c c v U N N a p -p N in 0 O N m a v O Q O r 0 w 0 'o O O O U N O o > 0 d 0 E O N m N N m 2 ' o N � N n vi� C 0 m - 0 O .S 0 c ° N > 0 p 0 E N .L 0 � 0 0 0 0 .0 E r- o m � � m o � - om `m a- o m oUoO � o U in N m O U s to o c p N a)c m � o „ ( E Ed Tm N 0 0 ~ m N o N .� 0 .o a m _ _ � > ° o cmrc m `° c- o; EE a0)-0 -aE a C- Nmc O r- 2 . 0 -0 0 0 o p � v� 0Q 0 o }, .m 0 m o �' 0 0- � `m m mmaam mcm '� a0 �Q din p aE o o a x � p � N N c � o � -0) v ad _ o o c o m m E _r_ H UH m Q (um V) c c 0 m V) V) 0Ei o 0 N m O c U p r- � 00m 00 � a�oc oU 4? ch m m ch N ch U `t m co ML u c U 0 U 0 U M U o U o LU M m > w m = � o U w c _ M J � d m = \ E /04 � - \ / CL \ k k 8 / / | \ .rl \ ( = o 00)o k \ D 6 12 / f ae = = o = } 220 c ¥ = 2 ' a § kc a q / n E» \ % 0 / \ / \ j2 /a0 ` _ aa = � � k / § $ / / ] \ 2 ° S r } E $ f 0 m » m k / ƒ , 2a2 : / 7E§ ƒff 2 / n Mn k \ � \ � � \ k\ \ k o m � 0 M o c o 5 2 \ \ 77o 7kc: � E 2 § 7 / ) \ 2 = 2 2 / § \ a§) = c - n} 2 ± ® /$ 0_ - =/©o =Re = e - E6 = mS ) 7 ® @E g .q -00 7 i i . o E} $ E ® = R c ® = 2 ® q? R® =c = i �\ ] « Sk ct\ ) i ) fo / § 7 §nEa 0 = § \ CO� \ k k/ co \ / 7 c 0 APPENDIX I HISTORIC RESOURCES/SECTION 106 COORDINATION This appendix contains the correspondence and information from FAA to the Florida State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the SHPO response pertaining to the evaluation of historic resources and the Section 106 coordination process in conjunction with the Environmental Assessment at the Florida Marathon Airport (KMTH). • Letter from FAA to the SHPO • Response Letter from the SHPO to FAA (TO BE PROVIDED) e-1 ah.v -:I i 1,i P s. Department ORLANDO AIRPORTS DISTRICT FFI " of Tr n portation 5950 Hazeltine National Dr., Smite C 4` . Federal Aviation Orlando,„ Florida 2 22- 14 Administration Phone: (497) 812-6331 Fax: (497) 12- 9 . ..-___,...... May 24, 291 1, Mr. Robert F. BeridLIS � Director arid State Historic Preservation Officer Florida Department of State Division of Historical ReSOUrces 500 South [ ronorrgh Street Roorn 305 { Tallahassee, FL. 32399-0250 Reference, Proposed Runway Shift at the � �_..r .. .., Floi ida Keys Marathon Airport (Monroe, GorrrIty DI-IR Project File Ni.jrnber 2010-3612 r I _r Mr, B(-_r)dL'S_1 r— - TTlie Monroe County Board of C OUnty C ornnnissioners proposes lmrarovennents to � airfield at the Florida Keys Marathon Airport fMTH) to meet Federal Adrnninistr Lion (FAA) airport design standards. Specifically. the proFo ed Improvements would address rLimirayyto t xiw yt separation standards. The dist r CE _G ; between the cente-rlines of Runway /25 and Taxiway "A" is 200 feet. The required distance is :240 feetr imhe proposed airfield jaiiprovernents (Proposed Project) t„rr i-Thd shift Runway 7125 is the norti-rwest by 49 feet to provide the regUired 240 feet f rr.ir vjay° to taxi,°,a r sF: ��ara on The attached Fi Ure 1 depicts the Proposed Project, '� ,Y � ��1 t ` try t� l �, '�r° r`� C" �s �j i,� wL P 9 W L The federal .actions, associated with the Proposed Project lncltlde potential :approv a of the Airport I- yout Plan and processing grant requests, These require that FAA consider p,., CC. riU al erwirc:£nmentnl m,pacf[s in accordance with tlhe Naflor'ia/ t nvItc?'il'?7eRJf ,r P011,('�k'" ? cal lCl rI i ;i'r'i`TIr e ' " effeC t tll fedeWr"n n�tlolns c7rl c48 �:(, a esoun:.�es It! ac,, >r'r.danic v/ith Section, 106 of rho �' ti rfr f�£ r lt. ri`stft �r � sf This r �i, � y. � if coordinate Llr� �e �� b l yO W o Yf ' e t ",e Area of Cr te ft Gl Effect c` "'naled, ..I Y 1ri:; a,C"Id t.ilei...rs '1,=�av:(In`f7 � ,b I � Area ( Dokte rr[l�,l Effect ,,, j y order to _ rt- J c po°er�tia efiects if t.d I (E ..? r i rot, t, t`.,.' i..l 't )r Y,P�.n, i ..,a �11 ''l)it_ �i r'�i .,I;:r. '.tnd -. I �I t 2Jnl , 11I ., ^vA :a r r,( ,. ,T I I �e 1, �_t <" -c l l f a l u E ,.. 9� "➢I ` j£ �' .. S , i' r £. �,,,., ,,..� u. '; l,�i„ 2,IIt. 'I';:,�i ,. ... .I (,ill', � ,� ci Jdk 2 vegetaiion [ridirect irnpact, be rn'er ,,,-)rn-rj,, I 1 11 J I u-t.ly assm-,,1,,,,,ted vMh ....raft noi-se -i 0 accm-,int foi [his- the APl'--' flClUdes, area tha,' w,,-,),,i I be i 1 e.,4 v i n u d e�,1 l..,ll t h e D N L 65 110ise eXf-)OSUre COJ-ItOUI' J he APE is Ciepictleri H rl"ie attached F-igUre 2, Historic and Cultural Resources in the APE One reSOUrce listed on t1le NationaJ ["Reg'siter of I fistoric Places (N RI l F-1), the George Adderley HOUse, is located approxinnately 4,000 feet' VVeSt-S0Uthwes1[ of flhe airport, This reSOUrce is not located wlth6n the APE. Photographs taken from the 1940s through the 1990s and published histories of Marathon indicate that there are no historic resources more than 50 years old or of exceptional importance located within the APE. The residential neighborhoods which contain portions of the APE are modern. A review of the Monroe County Property Appraiser's online CAI'S database shows that most residential construction in these neighborhoods occurred from the 1960's through the early 1980s. The neighborhoods are interspersed with houses of more recent construction. Some of the newer home construction appears to have redeveloped 1960s. and 1970s era home sites with larger and more modern residential structures, Overall, house types, construction styles, and age vary within each neighborhood. Images of the structures located within the APE and a key map are also attached to this letter. used on a reconnaissance of the neighborhoods and a review of available information, no structures, properties, or resources within the Area of Potential Effect were considered to be eligible for listing in the NR. In a letter dated August 5, 2010, your office noted several previously recorded archaeological sites within the general vicinity of MTH, None of the sites are located within the portion of the APE for archaeological resources that would be disturbed by construction. With the exception of the 40-foot wide strip of vegetation to be cleared, the project impact area has been previously disturbed by airport development and construction. Proposed Proje Impacts The Proposed Pro, w not iect ould 6rectly inipact or pl-Iysically drStUrr., any NR-lisled. or NR-eHgible ctfltural reSOUH-ces. In tern ,s of aircraft noise leveSr A grid analysis reveals that rcraft r1loise eXPC)SUf'e levels witi`i'M the APf'7' WOUld be approxin-i-ately DNL -4-012 i[ 2C06 and 2021 as a reSUlt of the Proposed Project, "F[")e reSUItS of the noise an@��Ysls condU.-ted for this EP, denionstratl.e that th,,-.re WOLII•:-i be no irlcrease in llo&-,., �evels if the Proposed Project was irnplernented, -10LIgh 1-11-90f 10-,,-.,�ited within the AF,1E, a --irid ana!ysirs shows th, t roise 1e\11,els r-i(' t��e George Aciderley kioi-jse woulrl change IDY DNI.,- +-0 1. a evel v- Vvu-k cu � H ,"i i J C'n rnp,e��-ceplibler In, egad f, Vis"'Ic-11 AU(, , of daft ,voi,Jld be at t;"ie s,,arne -.11t ,ude o,,Ier the George A,,-lrJcq1.n',/ 1-1sle, arld using thc sarne �-,,irrlval ar,] cep.artute t[Nln No-Actlon 1-1m,,,-ve�-, the '�`Haht pa,h, 3,,Iot,fld be sli;ftleri 4.0 feel Ir thie nc-th 0 -F ,,vou!c! b g,,,--,-,e;-a' h, "D i C11 1, 3 A review of the site records and the project it pact area indicate a low potential for "he -In r, � I Proposed Project to disturb unrecorded archaeological resources that would result in: significant impacts, However, provisions will be included in the project specifications to suspend work and contact your office if artifacts are found during construction. Bas�7,,,c1 on t1he analyses cO11,ClL1ctc,.,,d, the FAA has made a determination that the Proposed Project would not affect any historic resources listed in or eligible for listing in the NR. l"AA req,,,jests that your agericy review the enclosed inforr-naltion anid provide cornn"ier,,t, Please direct, coti'mients and infon-nation directly to me. Please feel free to contact nn;e at (407) 812-6331, exterision 129 or via ernall at v1rg1Na.lane,,,' faa.gov, Sincerely, Virginia Lano-11CP Environmental Specialist Enclosures cc: Peter Green, URS Corporation Peter Horton, Key West International Airport ;uatussassv le;uawuojinuj .. (LSAMH,LNON AHI 01 �a uoPeaolaN SZ-L_SuetunN '14 Of AVANNIIN IAIHS) � podaid uoq;eaeK s fax ep!.Iol,q aq L _ I a:4PONd QASOdONd w I I � T j I I n fll 7 Z 14 I ,2I II Q w w 3 ¢ W w w w or�w m a �o O}; I Iw� p - o z � '^ S, o a 3��m - w � � o } J xo 3 > a i .i N a _ r #I 11❑v.f Qr. El El o z I + 0 1$Hie6 ❑ I4<1 El + - a L i � t <�El Iz oo I❑ I � rov o 'o N O Q o 0001$ ss o lol 3 lal 15Zo H,ss I w I 7 aL w> I _ N, Cr I y .. =a$ u)6� NIISIX3 I ¢ wam J io Ia :< } r /3 OdOdd Qz .ObZ coop a l 3 I s s o u os v 3 I � J �� pQ� I a p i o'- � 3 4 LG Q t yL„e ap Ny o 0�nEl LEI ❑Ilok O O 0 Q 0 oszl aZ I �C' as a �. �ls oNzg 3 Q oaz Z Q ovz a ,$ Z a l 3 t o I. I. �W < �W � n IN � I < 3 3 I y LU W 3 3 d❑•C 9 M/�l V' S H�e Z .. W Z O Z ba aoea� 0'w I f WZ dZ / li I I' W W C1 �1 �4 69:6 Z,o/«/m bmpa 91JVd3 �oy�o�owVr JU3MSSaSS'V JUaU3WUOPAUJ u0W'z)0laM SUL�fPmtunM (lav)ID111:1 IVIJLN:IJLOJ Jo vJHv j.jodj!V uoqjum,", s,OM uppolA aql -"AQ a�g, t �� n, rt}�� Y � - �\\l1{I i��} $ {}\r.tsr{t ct t r s tl r l va -R, NOR �, �l wft all I Uk- MIR wv� NK A " I 1}t P M"ll"ll N, v -,A NO SF � to�� +tJ�sil> � � CM: liti VIEW, ' A gk �k a, R'll ql 4,S) -T- WA IN OP, M lit 7q,"; LJ ma JU3MSSaSS'V JUaU3WUOPAUJ (iiol (lav)ID111:1 IVIJLN:IJLOJ JO V:IHV u0Pt'z)OlaN SUL�fPmtunH pod.i!V uoqjuwft, s,ON uppol_j aql NIHIlm SJHfllDflHlS WAV a',TWA. .... K W w An �l Tol SI NMI! m1ma V yx� "NMI' �Kx TAM pg, A Vl,v iky A, is k A0 rg 41 -0,1 4a" Q, e�_ 11 (1� n"'.1 2A it .4 01 �13 ld, RN, ff IN, Ni� -MCI my xg FLORIDA KEYS MARATHON AIRPORT(MTH) RUNWAY 7/25 RELOCATION STRUCTURES WITHIN THE AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT Compiled by URS Corporation The following photographs depict structures located within the Area of Potential Effect identified by the Federal Aviation Administration for the proposed 40-foot lateral shift of Runway 7/25 at the Florida Keys Marathon Airport (Monroe County, Florida). Photographs obtained from GoogleEarth Street ViewTM (imagery dated March 2011). See attached Figure 2 for the location of each structure. E r q 4 k y 4 a,. - t E — y I l k k e t T r t k Ir { Page 1 of 17 s t � "t�(lts �$l�1ll`hlj v s � 1, x n 14, `• ,I' s �1 Yc� nt�� 5. � i, 1� t?`��71��3�YJ s Page 2 of 17 r - A�) ', Exit Street Vi _— t r �s Page 3 of 17 k K t m, t pM, Y, to �A„aI IPoll,,Vtt a? '.Exit Street Vi s y ,} 5 t i 3 u >� � a43 s �yOtt� , ��" t��'�h��,i'' v- Page 4 of 17 y e, F I s „ q , �if( �i v i1t l{IC �ti tf t n, n l9 �, Page 5 of 17 M , F i f , r � ,: , ,.. ,,,£,r,.,. S„ ,dl ,f.,.:+. � .,t,�,��.., .:....,., r if t)n,S.a V �?1,1,:,.r�\> r,,ti t_.l~i•r„<,. ,.,. l? �2t � 4 - a` a ni t d xs x t s dt' 1f*i PNi � £if s t t f 1 ia�rt �r. t moo.. r.�ww�"-sue 4 S 'xm-feu 1�� Page 6 of 17 r? or' Stref b @ r r {hi iS {,, r s,a,r1} �} c %rt g, {jt r �i t3 s tSS4 V+l kt ttA � 1t(t{\ }r Sly 4-t}(l�l`I��if 14 tJ st 1 fi fir'., € tpllti t t�� 4lr i��V1 ssl�S�t)t7 (}�{\i' t srl e t 114C )A�u �'tt`>1�t dff4 t it ) Y)J`i{ ltt t t t� } tt g4 Stet tJ4� l Page 7 of 17 �k T t � I , 'I �Y a N rias �n i fi s t Y ky� ' iM LL Page 8 of 17 ...................... ....... 4 d o- — z -e� �4 rlr u�t v a+a w ..gip.. �,k✓ ,��1.1,� � �L- �� (,i� - J � (S £,�(t��tS7ir�.. , a rs k 0 J Page 9 of 17 s_ - i4.'v�ys f I�� r . 4x No r - t � �r �`zr1r, � ?� Vr• � �� ' i ?q r: MY I(5� ¢7( 1 N t l t-t r s S r� s S( tiyait rEm r - h s r Page 10 of 17 4 ! � A ;r t,§ r 2 ,vrr rr t r&rt ' t�rt� t )3t \ Srrts®RttM� itS4 t3 o t \I�t,�i s t sn t3 - � yr i�3, �lv tv it , MR vl�lvv i { � �', s �, +i�t{'\��3�1��h�i�}SS�i��,i��l�-��rt , t4k\1 vets Ift�l'A�tV�Vt�uir,��llsdtttti{oa tYJ,7r�f 1Vvi>� �• •� �� ).o,{,s` �,t) ,)}�1J<,+ 1rr1Js ,,,v��i�£�„ ,�,;?��t,, .,1,�1�r1, st� 1Z.,t„1�\�,ffF�j 11,v�i�r)� AAA1 it, r{,S v �• 2; {2. t {i� =s�.•fir t ��i�9,� ss y`.. �,s, t, t r�s� .{ �,.�,,`st s. A& � t v ?4,7z=st k r � ,, Page 11 of 17 r. N S7, w� t t� �1 s` r Page 12 of 17 _ t r r,,,�� v�� {�,f �-,..j �A1 it r i$1� r}Ji�S�I Si 4 zI,s�.,•„f At y,s s)�t,, ) !J s} 6If t'--'t t t\ i! F�:t {„rif,..,rr,;i f F�� -.. � +s! 'rl.... ( �t}i!,! �.f'��S y {S� s�,1��. 4�, i,tJii�}j,<ri, 1 � � �ly, i,,,,l� i (i,xl,•r, {1!� � w.i st s,�' � , `•t ! a ,fir S-� "Jr` 5 R zK! �' sytt MOO — ,t VAM r ,nt r t A!{t tN 1 l�ty, � s i t a Ara rh !,, t a o a ti ,a-n :, ..A! Page 13 of 17 yj M r f. 4, ;G�VA3S�S;`''st�i�tuass ;j �1'�i b,��ti41�6v"st'l)\t,'Sti n k - �11t site #x�R,,lt�ill�k itit�i�i�tl � to i` ,� �s v 1�'hsttk� $ �ls$t�,t4r� }2`;i-��i✓ii�;�h k) Page 14 of 17 S n r� t ?lN i yip N1110S1 = t 1 "fi40 Ong Ago a ! a its {`far,+ sr 19't is 4 14y ,tt 1r� �� a 41 1 4 Imam �I . { }S�tr�r� .7)�{� �i lk v3 tV } � {}� a iti ka rf}� WIN - a �ti ��b t r ttri UstF � - a �s lc4 �r i �iti'i ��ma a t u,a,��ta ' 99 �`ra r 'an a111 s A'" +`'s`4��,= IsQ i r `4 '�1.t t7 Mr r !�IMMIR r Vic Page 15 of 17 r t ' f C ; r n f< , f I T T f l r t l h � f r > t 1 t r I t t r , tt r1 t. t t # t{ t� t t I —_— t � t \� t t i l t! ,\, 4,_,„S ,. ,! � ..f_-. _ _ ._. 1. _ _• _. 't_ � ____. __ �� ___� f !\r� to„„ k, e t��,. t. a _ — ;t ) r� tf\t}{sr\t�Yl+,i�4t t(t. t,rtt}..tss+l�� r\ii��tts�,11\1 l#4t11�1t_sq j��t}� t\}f, ��•" » � x 1== u� r , 3 t IIV #4£r t , Vz 4 i hMu £ i.1 ? lE t t Y-r R t �r Page 16 of 17 L . � 1 SS p y G' `E '�;t�t t! t I ,;-t tt,,,; a ty ti ��Y\i t ttl � h\,4{ t�•a., t� t 4,7 c' Cox Ott �a t I � n nt3 D ! t t7tt Page 17 of 17