Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-07-08 City Council (7)TO: City of Palo Alto C ty Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: City Manager July 8, 1996 CMR:334:96 Air Cargo Operations Proposed for Moffett Federal Airfield - Draft Environmental Assessment REOUEST A Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared for the proposed Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) Air Cargo Operations at Moffett Federal Airfield. The EA is the primary tool used by a federal agency to determine whether or not to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. The Council is requested to review the EA and approve a response commenting on the adequacy of the document. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Council direct the Mayor to send the attached letter to NASA which states the City of Palo Alto’s comments concerning the Draft Environmental Assessment on the air cargo operations proposed for Moffett Federal Airfield. POLI Y PLICATIONS Despite periodic requests from other jurisdictions, the Council has not adopted an official policy relative to Moffett Federal Airfield, according to a review of Council legislative history. ~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The CRAF air car o ro am. The proposed action is to allow a limited number of commercial air cargo members of the Department of Defense’s (DoD) Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) to operate at Moffett Federal Airfield. The CRAF program augments U.S. military airlift needs with civil air carrier resources during increased airlift activity, when the federal government cannot independently meet these heightened levels of activity. The DoD has been seeking ways to further commit civil carriers to the CRAF program and a mechanism is the 1994 Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act which allows the federal government to open up military airfields to commercial use by carriers supporting CRAF. CMR:334:96 Page 1 of 5 The cargo carders, such as Federal Express, United Parcel Service and DHL, which would bid for access to Moffett Federal Airfield, would transport shipments of the same type and nature that are handled at commercial airports in the U.S. Only domestic flights would be allowed at Moffett pursuant to the CRAF program. Backaround on Moffett Federal Airfield. In 1994, Naval Air Station Moffett Field was decommissioned as an active Navy base and MolTeR Federal Airfield (MFA) was established as a federal facility under the administration of NASA. The airfield is a shared federal facility open only to federal agencies and entities sponsored by the federal govemment. Commercial and non-profit entities which engage in activities related to NASA’s mission may also qualify to use certain facilities at MFA. Despite NASA’s efforts to secure new users for the airfield and facilities, MFA currently functions at only 60 percent of its current approved capacity and has a $3.5 million annual operating deficit. NASA is under direction to reduce its budget and cannot continue to absorb the MFA loss. Fees associated with limited commercial access to MFA by CRAF air cargo operators could provide NASA with sufficient funding through the DoD to address the MFA operating deficit. The air cargo carriers consider MFA attractive as both a relocation site for some services currently provided through San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose international airports and an expansion site in order to better serve the South Bay area. The Baseline 2010 Comprehensive Use Plan. In 1994, NASA prepared a Comprehensive Use Plan (CUP) in order to implement the transfer of stewardship of MFA from the Navy to NASA. The CUP considered future development projects and provided information on the proposed future uses at MFA by NASA and the resident agencies up to the year 2010. Future development and operations of MFA are to remain consistent with the CUP. The 2010 forecast conditions are 80,000 annual aircraft operations; of these, approximately 60,000 are considered aircraft takeoffs and landings and 20,000 are overflights traversing the MFA airspace in communication with the MFA air traffic control tower. The forecast figures in the CUP are comparable to the level of activity at the peak use of the airfield in 1990. However, since the departure of the Navy, aircraft operations have significantly declined; in 1995, approximately 24,000 aircraft operations occurred at MFA. An EA was completed on the CUP, and a Finding of No Significant Impact was issued in August 1994. Project specific environmental impacts of individual proposed actions at MFA will continue to be assessed on an individual basis. Although the number of flights proposed by the CRAF operations is consistent with the CUP, certain factors warranted viewing it as a new action for purposes of environmental review (the related ground transportation, a variation in the anticipated mix of aircraft, the timing of the flights, and the public interest). CMR:334:96 Page 2 of 5 For purposes of the EA for the proposed CRAF air cargo operations, NASA identified four alternatives to review and compare for environmental effects. Refer to Attachment B for brief descriptions of the alternatives. All alternatives were designed to fit within the envelope of total annual aircraft operations approved through the CUP (60,000 aircraft takeoffs and landings through the year 2010). The Preferred Alternative. NASA has preliminarily identified Altemative 2 as its preferred alternative. 11,223 annual air cargo operations would ultimately occur. In a typical day, there would be 18 arrivals and 18 departures. The number and time of operations would be as follows: Arrivals 4 - 7 a.m. (12) 4- 6 p.m. (6) Departures 5 - 5:30 a.m. (2) 7 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. (4) 5:30 - 8:30 p.m. (12) The flight paths of MFA operations between the nighttime hours of 11 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. would be redirected over San Francisco Bay, meaning less noise impact on populated areas. (As a federal airfield, MFA is open 24 hours a day; however, the tower presently operates from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m.) The analysis of 49 years of historic weather data for Moffett Field indicated that the generally calm weather conditions during the nighttime hours would permit the Bay approach 98% of the time. Between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., the traffic pattern would be the normal one of arrivals over Sunnyvale and takeoffs over the Bay. During those hours, Moffett air traffic patterns are constrained by the flight operations associated with other Bay Area airports. NASA intends to restrict the air cargo carriers to Stage III aircraft, the quietest class of commercial aircraft available at this time. Impact on Palo Alto. Staff reviewed the EA with the objective of seeking any potential impacts of the preferred Alternative 2 upon the City of Palo Alto. This staff report does not address the adequacy of the assessment with respect to impacts on other jurisdictions. Air ~. The air quality impact analysis assumes that only 25% of the new aircraft, truck and automobile activity associated with the proposed action would represent new activity within the San Francisco Bay Air Basin. The project-related emissions would not exceed the "de minimis" thresholds that would call for Clean Air Act conformity determinations. Traffic. The EA determined that areas of traffic congestion in immediate proximity to the South Gate access to MFA would result from the employee and truck traffic associated with the air cargo operations which would be based out of and around Hangar 1. However, the CMR:334:96 Page 3 of 5 delays occurring there would be localized and are not expected to interfere with the flow of traffic on Highway 101 serving Palo Alto. Noise. The EA noise level measurements of MFA and CRAF aircraft are estimates based upon the best available data from the FAA. Noise levels were provided by aircraft type, acknowledging there would be variances with aircraft model, engine type, and the amount of weight and cargo the airplanes are carrying. Takeoff noise levels are measured 6,500 meters (4.04 miles) from the takeofflocation, which is the point at which the FAA measures airplane noise in order to regulate and categorize airplanes as Stage III. Typically, an airplane would be approximately 600 to 730 meters (2,000 to 2,400 feet) in the air at this stage in the takeoffmode. Landing noise levels are measured 2,000 meters (1.24 miles) from the landing threshold. The contribution of noise from the aircraft proposed by the CRAF project, along with the documented noise levels of the aircraft that currently operate at MFA, was used to develop the noise contours for the four altematives evaluated in the EA. The noise contours represent the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), the A-weighted average continuous noise level in decibels over a 24-hour period, with special weighting factors applied to noise events during the nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.), the evening (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) and the daytime (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.) The Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150 only requires the use of noise contours of CNEL 65 dB and above for impact analysis purposes. In assessing the environmental impact, the project was compared to the CUP’s approved Baseline 2010 conditions rather than the existing flight operations (the 24,000 annual aircraft operations in 1995), since these existing operations could return to the historically higher levels (60,000 aircraft operations) at any time without further environmental assessment. Overall, all four alternatives would result in an increase over the existing noise exposure. However, the preferred Alternative 2 would not increase the exposure of residential land uses to CNEL 65 dB, when considering 2010 conditions. Because this alternative includes the incorporation of the nighttime Bay traffic pattern, the populated areas that would be exposed to CNEL above 65 dB are actually decreased. With respect to Palo Alto, no areas inside the city limits are shown within the CNEL 60 dB contour for existing noise, let alone the 65 dB contour. However, the Baseline 2010 CNEL 60 dB contour extends into the Palo Alto Baylands in the northerly area between Mayfield and Charlesto, n sloughs. It is interesting to note that in the case of all four air cargo operations alternatives, the CNEL 60 dB contour retracts and is again outside the Palo Alto city limits, to approximately the position of the contour representing existing conditions. Apparently this is attributed to a differing mix of aircraft that was forecast for the CUP Baseline 2010. Information important to a better understanding of the potential noise impacts upon Palo Alto would include: 1) verification that the approach and departure patterns used in developing CMR:334:96 Page 4 of 5 the CNEL contours are, in fact, what will be used and that overflights of Palo Alto will not occur; and 2) evaluation of the effect that variations in atmospheric conditions could have on the noise levels associated with the aircraft operations. Federal Authority. Moffett Federal Airfield is constitutionally exempt from the application of local land use plans and policies. However, NASA has expressed its intention to cooperate with neighboring jurisdictions to the maximum extent feasible and has indicated its willingness to consider local planning policies and guidelines as advisory resources. NASA has established an MFA Internet website at http://eefarc.nasa.gov/jf/mfa for dissemination of information. The cities of Mountain View and Sunnyvale are working diligently to assure that their residents and businesses are involved in helping NASA achieve a balance at MFA which protects the economic and environmental welfare of the community within the fmancial and policy constraints of federal decision making. Both cities have established telephone hotlines for constituent information. Additional public meetings will be held on July 10 (4 p.m. at NASA Ames Visitor Center and 7 p.m. at Sunnyvale City Hall) and on July 29 (7:30 p.m. at Mountain View City Hall). FISCAL IMPACT No direct fiscal impact on the City of Palo Alto has been identified. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The EA disclosed no potential environmental impacts affecting the City of Palo Alto. It is recommended that the Council suggest to NASA that additional noise analysis may be warranted. ATTACHMENTS A. Letter from Mayor Wheeler to NASA Ames Research Center, July 9, 1996. B. Executive Summary, Draft Environmental Assessment for CRAF Air Cargo Operations at Moffett Federal Airfield. Note: The complete Draft Environmental Assessment has been distributed to Council Members. Copies are available for review in the following locations: City Manager’s Office, Palo Alto; the NASA Ames Visitor Center; the temporary Mountain View Public Library located at the intersection of Moffett Boulevard and Middlefield Avenue, Mountain View; and the Sunnyvale Public Library, 665 West Olive Avenue, Sunnyvale. PREPARED BY: Vicci Rudin, Assistant to the City Manager CITY MANAGER APPROVAL~ B e)~nar~l M.z~roj-~y Assistant gity Manager CMR:334:96 Page 5 of 5 ATTACHMENT A July 9, 1996 NASA Ames Research Center Mail Stop 19-1 Moffett Field, California 94035-1000 Attention: Suzanne Petroni Re:Draft Environmental Assessment for CRAF Air Cargo Operations at Moffett Federal Airfield Dear Ms. Petroni: The Palo Alto City Council has reviewed the draft environmental assessment concerning the proposal to allow CRAF air cargo carriers to operate at Moffett Federal Airfield and wishes to comment on its adequacy from our perspective. We know that Sunnyvale and Mountain View residents have considerable concern about the noise associated with increased aircraft activity, particularly at late night and early morning hours. Although Palo Alto residents are at a greater distance from the airfield, we have similar concerns related to the aircraft approaching and departing Moffett. The information presented in the CNEL contour figures in the environmental assess- ment document indicates that, regardless of the alternative, the area within the City of Palo Alto would remain outside the CNEL 60 dB contour. This is approximately the same situation as under existing conditions. Only in the case of the Baseline 2010 does the CNEL 60 dB contour extend into the Paio Alto Baylands in the northerly area between Mayfield and Charleston sloughs. We would like to see further documentation in the Final EA that the approach and departure patterns used in developing the CNEL contours are, in fact, what will be used and that overflights of Palo Alto will not occur. Is there the potential that flight patterns could bring aircraft over Palo Alto and, if so, how would this affect the noise exposure projections? It would be helpful if the Final EA included more detailed illustrations of the typical patterns and altitudes which the air cargo aircraft will fly during the daytime and nighttime operations. The illustrations on pages 19 and 21 are insufficient. It appears unlikely that the noise analysis conducted for the draft EA considered the variations in atmospheric conditions and the resultant impact on the transmission of noise. Unfortunately, residents in certain areas of Palo Alto and adjacent communities have been impacted over the years by noise from Shoreline Amphitheatre under certain conditions and they are concerned that similar periodic disturbances could be associated with nighttime aircraft operations. The final EA should address the relationship of weather conditions and aircraft noise levels. Page Two With respect to the environmental assessment of the surface traffic related to the air cargo operations at MFA, we do not believe the additional volume will have any significant impact on Palo Alto traffic conditions and do not question the adequacy of that data. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft document. Sincerely, Lanie Wheeler Mayor cc:City Council City Manager City Council, City of Mountain View City Council, City of Sunnyvale Supervisor Dianne McKenna Representative Anna Eshoo ATTACHMENT B EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR CRAF AIR CARGO OPERATIONS AT MOFFETT FEDERAL AIRFIELD Commercial air cargo members of the Department of Defense’s Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) have expressed interest in operating several air cargo aircraft at Moffett Federal .Mrfield (MFA), Moffett Field, California. The CRAF program augments United States military airlift needs with civil air carrier resources during times of increased airlift activity, when the U.S. government cannot independently meet thes~ heightened levels of activity. Through the CRAF program, the Department of Defense is able to call upon civil CRAF carriers to support its missions. As the Federal host of MFA, a shared Federal facility operated for the benefit of the Federal government and local industry, NASA initiated an environmental review process in December 1995 to analyze the environmental effects of allowing C,RAF air cargo carriers to operate at MFA. Through this process, NASA identified four alternatives to review and compare for environmental effects. Brief descriptions of these alternatives follow: - Alternative 1. Alternative 1 allows a total of 58,151 annual aircraft operations, of which 11,223 are air cargo operations. In a typical day, there would be 18 arrivals and 18 departures. For this alternative, the air cargo operations would utilize current flight patterns at MFA. o Alternative 2. Alternative 2 would have the same frequency and hours of operations as Alternative 1, but the flight paths of MFA operations would be directed over the San Francisco Bay during the nighttime (11:00 pm to 6:30 am). This alternative was anticipated to have less noise impact on populated areas than Alternative 1. o Alternative 3. For Alternative 3, the timing of flight operations would be similar to those described for Alternatives 1 and 2, but the number of air cargo operations would be increased from 11,223 annual operations to 19,873 annual operations (with the number of annual aircraft operations at MFA totaling 58,981). The air cargo operations would utilize current flight patterns at MFA. ¯ Alternative 4. Alternative 4 would have the same frequency and hours of operations as Alternative 3, but the flight paths of the nighttime operations would be directed over the San Francisco Bay between 11:00 pm and 6:30 am. Similar to Alternative 2, this alternative was anticipated to have less noise impacts on populated areas when compared to Alternative 3. All alternatives were designed to fit within the envelope of total annual aircraft operations (60,000) projected by and approved through the Moffett Field Comprehensive Use Plan (CUP) in 1994. All CRAF Air Cargo alternatives asst~me continued growth by government aircraft at MFA. On June 17th, a Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 USC 4321 et.seq.) and NASA’s policy and procedures (14 CFRSubpart 1216.3), for the proposed CRAF AirCargo Operations at MFA was released for public and agency review. The Draft EA examines the potential environmental effects the four alternatives noted above, as well as the No Action Alternative. An EA is the primary tool used by a Federal agency to determine whether or not to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). As stipulated in the NEPA regulations, an EIS would be required if a proposal would have the potential to significantly affect the quality of the environment. If a proposal has no individual or cumulative significant environmental effect, a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) may be issued. The Draft EA identifies Alternative 2 as having the least amount of environmental effects. This alternative would not result in signific.ant impacts to the environment, with the implementation of mitigation measures outlined in the Draft EA. NASA has preliminarily identified Alternative 2 as its preferred alternative. Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 would result in a cumulative increase in noise exposure, when compared to the projections made by the CUP in 1994, and Alternatives 3 and 4 would result in a significant increase in air emissions. NASA will be accepting written comments on the Draft EA through July 18, 1996. To submit comments on the Draft EA, please contact: NASA Ames Research Center Mail Stop 19-1 Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000 Atm: Suzanne Petroni July 1 Time: Location: Draft EA Public Meetings Sponsored by NASA Ames Research Center 4:00 pm NASA Ames Visitor Center Time: Location: July 10 Time: Location: Time: Location: 7:00 pm Mountain View City Hall, Council Chambers 4:00 pm NASA Ames Visitor Center 7:00 pm Sunnyvale C~ty Hall, Council Chambers CRAF AIR CARGO OPERATIONS MOFFETT FEDERAL AIRFIELD Draft Environmental Assessment June 17,1996 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION PLAC.E POSTAGE NASA .Ames Research Center Mail Stop 19-21 - Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000 Attn: Teresa Alvarado PLEASE CUT ALONG DOTTED LINE ATT.ENTION:PLEASE CUT OUT AND RETORN THE ABOVE POSTCARD TO RECEIVE A CO~Y OF THE FINAL,~NVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT . Teresa’Alvarado " NASA Ames Resear(~h Center Please send me a copy Of the Final EA, (~RAF Air Cargo Operations at Moffett Federal Airfield Print Your Name and Address Below PLEASE CUT ALONG DOTTED LINE ATTENTION:PLEASE CUT OUT A~iD RETURN THE ABOVE POSTCARD TO RECEIVE A coPY OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL, ASSESSMENT CRAF Air Cargo Operations Moffett Federal Airfield, California Draft Environmental Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS m [] [] II. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Ao B. C. D. E. The Proposed Action Environmental Assessment Content Report Organization Public Participation Summary of Findings PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES A~ B. C. D. Location Background Description of the Proposed Action Alternatives No Action Alternative III.EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS A.Land Use and Planning B.Population, Housing, and Environmental Justice C.Geology D.Water E.Air Quality F.Transportati0n/Circulation G.Biological Resources H.Hazards I.Noise J.Public Services K.Utilities and Service Systems L.Aesthetics M.Cultural Resources N.Recreation 1 4 4 5 6 11 11 11 15 24 25 25 29 31 32 32 35 41 44 45 49 49 49 49 51 IV.ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 55 A.Land Use and Planning 56 B.Population, Housing, and Environmental Justice 62 C.Geology 54 D.Water 65 E.Air Quality 67 F.Transportation/Circulation 71 G.Biological Resources 86 H.Hazards 88 I.Noise 90 J.Public Services 110 tC Utilities and Service Systems 111 L.Aesthetics 112 M.Cultural Resources 113 N.Recreation 114 REPORT PREPARATION A.Organizations and Individuals Consulted B.References 115 115 117 List of~endi~s B. F. G. H. I. J. Glossary NASA’s Response to Questions Submitted by the Cities of Sunnyvale and Mountain View Airfield Operations Assumptions Federal Aviation Administration Letter Regarding Preferred Runway Use Aircraft Emissions Analysis Expected Weekday Trip Generation Intersection Level of Service Analysis Methodologies California Clapper Rail Habitat State Historic Preservation Officer Correspondence Weather Data Analysis List of Tables 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 9. 10. 11. Comparison of Adverse Impacts after Proposed Mitigation Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Proposed CRAF Alternatives: MFA Annual Operations (2010) Moffett Field Employment Major Criteria Pollutants Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Special Status Bird and Mammal Species Occurring in the Vicinity of MFA Project-Related New Emissions Ellis Street Interchange Level of Service Interseetion Level of Service Noise Levels of MFA and CRAF Aircraft 8 9 20 30 33 34 43 68 81 81 91 List of Figures 1.Regional Location 2.Project Location 3.Photos of Project Location 4.Current Flight Patterns 5.Bay Approach and, Departure Flight Patterns 6.Container Transport Vehicle 7.Shuttle Van 8.Surrounding Land Use 9.Transportation/Cireulation Area Map 10.Existing AM Peak Hour Volumes 11.Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes 12.US 101/Ellis Street Interehange Proposed Design 13.Existing Noise Exposure for Airfield Operations ¯ 14.City of Sunnyvale Noise Contour Map 15.Year 2010 Volumes Without Air Cargo (AM Peak) 16.Year 2010 Volumes Without Air Cargo (PM Peak) 17.Year 2010 Volumes for Alternatives 1 and 2 (AM Peak) 18.Year 2010 Volumes for Alternatives 1 and 2 (PM Peak) 19.Year 2010 Volumes for Alternatives 3 and 4 (AM Peak) 20.Year 2010 Volumes for Alternatives 3 and 4 (PM Peak) 21.Comparative Noise Levels 22.Baseline 2010 Noise Exposure for Airfield Operations 23.Baseline 2010 Cumulative Noise Environment 24.Alternative 1 Noise Exposure 25.Alternative 2 Noise Exposure 26.Alternative 3 Noise Exposure 27.Alternative 4 Noise Exposure 12 17 18 19 21 23 23 26 36 38 39 40 47 50 73 74 76 77 78 79 92 93 95 97 99 101 103 111 List of Abbreviations and Acronyms AAL AGL AHB AIR AMSL ATA ATA ATC ATCALS Ames Aeronautical Laboratory Altitude Above Ground Level Ames Handbook Air Quality Altitude Above Mean Sea Level Airport Traffic Area Actual Time of Arrival Air Traffic Control Air Traffic Control and Landing Systems BAAQMD BayTRACON BCDC Bay Area Air Quality Management District Bay Terminal Radar Approach Control Bay Conservation and Development Commission C2 CAA CAMI CANG CAP CARB CDFG CFR CIRC CNDD CNEL " CO CRAF CSC CTOL CUP Federal listing may be warranted Clean Air Act Commercial Access to Military Installations California Air National Guard Clean Air Plan California Air Resources Board California Department of Fish and Game Code of Federal Regulations Circulation California Natural Diversity Database Community Noise Equivalent Level Carbon Monoxide Civil Reserve Air Fleet California Species of Special Concern Conventional Takeoff and Landing Container Transport Vehicle Comprehensive Use Plan dB dBA DHS DME DNL DoD Decibel (a measure of noise level) A-weighted decibel California Department of Health Services Distance Measuring Equipment Day-night Average Noise Level United States Department of Defense EA EIS Environmental Assessment Environmental Impact Statement EPA FAA FAR FEMA FIP FONSI FT GPS HC IFR ILS IMC IRP LCO LOS LRT LTO LTS MFA MLO United States Environmental Protection Agency Federal Aviation Administration Federal Aviation Regulations Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Implementation Plan Finding of No Significant Impact Federally Threatened Global Positioning System Hydrocarbons Instrument Hight Rules Instrument Landing System Instrument Meteorological Conditions Installation Restoration Program Limited Cargo Operations Day-night average noise level Equivalent noise level Level of Service Light Rail Train Landin~d’rakeoff Operation Less Than Significant Moffett Federal Airfield Moffett Liaison Office NAS NASA NEPA NO2 NOA NOC NOD NOI NOP NOx NPDES Naval Air Station National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Environmental Policy Act Nitrogen Dioxide Notice of Availability Notice of Completion Notice of Determination Notice of Intent Notice of Preparation Nitrogen Oxides National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 03 PCL PM~o ppb ppm RA ROG RWQCB S SE SID SIP SO2 SOx STOL STOVL SU TAC TACAN TSP USAF USC USCG USFWS Ozone Pilot Controlled Lighting Suspended paniculate material less than 10 microns in diameter Parts per billion Parts per million Resident Agency Reactive Organic Gas Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Significant California (State) Endangered Standard Imtrument Departures State Implementation Plan Sulfur Dioxide Sulfur Oxides Short Takeoff and Landing Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing Significant and Unavoidable Toxic Air Contaminant Tactical Air Navigation Total Suspended Particulates United States Air Force United States Code United States Coast Guard United States Fish and Wildlife Service VFR VMC VSTOL VTOL Visual Hight Rules Visual Meteorological Conditions Vertical and Short Takeoff and Landing Vertical Takeoff and Landing vi Chapter I INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY [] [] [] This document is an environmental assessment (EA) prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 USC 4321 et.seq.) and NASA’s policy and procedures (14 CFR Subpart 1216.3), for the proposed Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) Air Cargo Operations project at Moffett Federal Airfield (MFA), Moffett Field, California. This EA examines the potential environmental effects of four alternatives of the CRAF project at MFA, as well as the No Action Alternative. An EA is the primary tool used by a Federal agencyto determine whether or not to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). As stipulated in the NEPA regulations, an EIS would be required if a proposal would have the potential to significantly affect the quality of the human environment. If a proposal has no individual or cumulative significant environmental effect, a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) may be issued. A~ The Proposed Action The proposed action is to allow commercial air cargo members of the Department of Defense’s (DoD) CRAF program to operate at MFA. The CRAF program was established by Executive Order in 1951 to support the DoD in providing strategic mobility capability for the United States. The importance ofthe CRAF program was reinforced in 1987, with the issuance of a new National Airlift Policy. The CRAF program augments US military airlift needs with civil air carrier resources during increased airlift activity, when the US government cannot independently meet these heightened levels of activity. Through the CRAF program, DoD is able to call upon the civil members of CRAF to support its missions. The CRAF concept was validated during the Persian Gulf War, when over 20 percent of the total missions were flown by CRAF carriers. The DoD has been seeking ways to further commit civil carriers to the CRAF program. The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, signed by the President in October 1994, allows the Government to open up military airfields to commercial use by carriers supporting CRAF. In exchange for increasing the amount of aircraft they commit to the CRAF program, the CRAF carriers can gain access to these installations for their commercial business. The Air Force Air Mobility Command, which runs the CRAF program for DoD, has indicated to NASA its desire to sponsor CRAF carriers at MFA under this new program. Because MFA is operated to support the Federal government, and because NASA does not now anticipate significant short- term growth at MFA by governmental aircraft, NASA is considering CRAF operations at MFA, and is undertaking this EA to determine the potential environmental effects of this proposed action. For environmental review purposes, the environmental effects of four CRAF Air Cargo Operations alternatives (Alternatives 1 through 4) are examined in this F_A, in addition to the No Action Alternative. NASA has preliminarily identified Alternative 2 (which incorporates a Bay approach for all aircraft landing at MFA between 11:00 pm and 6:30 am) as its preferred alternative. The proposed action is considered a new activity to the extent that is was not anticipated by previous planning and environmental doenmentation at MFA. The followin.g sections specifically describe which portions of the proposed action are new activities, and which are considered consistent with previous planning and environmental documentation. 1.Previous Planning Efforts In 1994, NASA prepared a Comprehensive Use Plan (CUP) in order to implement the transfer of stewardship of IVIFA from the Navy to NASA. The CUP considers future development projects and provides information on the proposed future uses at Moffett Field by NASA and Resident Agencies (RAs) up to the year 2010. The 2010 forecast condition in the CUP for the airfield is 80,000 annual operations. The 80,000 operations outlined in the CUP include aircraft operations and overflights.1 Of the 80,000 operations, approximately 60,000 are considered aircraft operations, and the remaining 20,000 are overflights. An EA under NEPA was completed on the CUP, and was finalized in August 1994, when a FONSI was issued. 1 For the purposes of this EA, and previous environmental review at MFA, an aircraft operation is either a takeoff or landing. One landing and one takeoff is considered two operations. An overflight is an aircraft that communicates with the MFA air traffic control tower, but does not takeoff or land at MFA. 2 2.Previously Approved Actions The number of aircraft operations proposed by the CRAF project at MFA do not by themselves necessitate additional NEPA review. The CRAF alternatives described in Chapter II are designed to be consistent with the number of operations previously described in the CUP and the CUP EA. All of the CRAF alternatives analyzed in this EA are within the previously ¯ described 60,000 aircraft operations at MFA (including both cargo operations and other non-cargo ~peratlons). The CUP and CUP EA do not restrict the timing of these flights. As a Federal airfield, MFA is open 24 hours a day. Currently, operations do occur at all times of the day, including early mornings. No restrictionshave been previously implemented regarding timing of flights, primarily because maximum flexibility is desired for a Federal facility. The airfield is intermittently used at all hours of the day by the various RAs at MFA, as well as by transient Federal aircraft. When the air traffic control tower is closed (currently from 11:00 pm to 7:00 am) pilots can use Pilot Controlled Lighting (PCL) to facilitate takeoffs or landings on Runway 32R/14L at the airfield. 3.New Actions As described above, the number and timing of flights proposed by the CRAF at MFA are consistent with previous planning efforts at MFA. However, NASA is considering the proposed CRAF activity as a new action for several reasons: Ground Transportation. The CUP and CUP EA did not anticipate the volume of truck traffic, and possibly employee traffic, associated with the CRAF project. Type of Aircraft. The type of aircraft that would be used by the cargo carriers would be different in nature than those anticipated through the CUP EA. It should be noted that the CUP itself does not stipulate a specific aircraft mix.2 Timing of Flights. The air cargo operators anticipate some early morning flights, in addition to afternoon and evening flights. Again, because the CUP does not restrict the timing of flights (as described in 2 The aircraft mix was established by the CUP EA for environmental review purposes to represent a reasonable forecast scenario. It does not necessarily bind MFA to this mix, but was formulated for the purpose of the analysis in the EA. Section 2 above), this factor alone would not necessitate additional environmental review. Public Interest. Another factor to be considered when determining the appropriate vehicle for environmental review is the level of public interest. Preliminary discussion of the proposed action has generated significant community interest. The combination of the above factors resulted in NASA’s decision to prepare an EA on the CRAF Air Cargo Operations at MFA project. It is intended that this EA, as well as other environmental planning documems be integrated into MFA planning, dissemination of information to the public, and decision- making. B. Environmental Assessment Content The information contained in this report is based on the investigations of NASA representatives, planning consultants, and environmental specialists. A registered transportation engineer, noise Specialists, and air quality and emissions experts performed the field work and analyses included in this report. In addition, previous environmental analyses of the site, including the CUP EA,3 have been used to describe existing and anticipated environmental conditions at MFA. C. Report Organization This EA is organized as follows: ¯Chapter I: Introduction describes the content of this report and the major findings. Chapter 1I: Proposed Action and Alternatives describes the four project alternatives being considered by NASA, as well as the No Action Alternative. Chapter 111: Existing Environmental Conditions provides a brief summary of existing environmental conditions at MFA. Chapter 1~: Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action contains an analysis of the project alternatives’ effect on the environment. 3 Brady and Associates. Moffett Field Comprehensive Use Plan Environmental Assessment. Prepared for NASA Ames Research Center. August 1994. 4 Chapter V." Report Preparation summarizes the persons and organiza~tions consulted in preparation of this report, and contains a bibliography of references used in the preparation of this EA. Additionally, Appendix A contains a glossary of terms used throughout this EA. Several other appendices provide detailed technical information. Please refer to the Table of Contents for a complete listing. D. Public Participation NASA and thesurrounding cities have undertaken a comprehensive public involvement process to inform the public about the proposed CRAF project. City representatives have met extensively with NASA representatives, and public outreach efforts have occurred th~.ough a joint effort. Specific activities of these efforts are outlined below. Additionally, the CRAF project has been the subject of a series of articles in the San Jose Mercury News. NASA has also provided responses to a list of questions asked by representatives of the surrounding cities, which are presented in Appendix B. 1.City of Mountain View The City of Mountain View has presented a briefing paper and updates on the CRAF project through their World Wide Web site on the internet (www.abag.ca.gov). On Saturday, March 23, 1996, the City of Mountain View held a public information meeting regarding MFA. City staff presented the background and history of MFA, regulations pertaining to Federal land ownership, and the City’s role relative to land use and control. Though this presentation was not specifically focused on the CRAF proposal, it provided background information that was relevant to the project. The meeting was broadcast on community access cable television. Additionally, the CRAF project has been the subject of articles in the Mountain View Voice, the local newspaper, and Mountain View has established a Moffett information hotline (415-903-6616). The City of Mountain View may also hold additional community meetings for the CRAF project, independent of the EA public meetings. 2.City of Sunnyvale Beginning in February 1996, a major effort was undertaken by the City of Sunnyvale to solicit input from the community through the Moffett information hotline (408-737-4900) and a City Council letter (dated February 1996) that was mailed to all Sunnyvale residents. Approximately 1,000 letters were also mailed to Sunnyvale businesses through the Chamber of Commerce. The City received over 200 calls on the hotline, and over 600 responses to the mailing. Sunnyvale has also aired Mountain View’s March 23rd community meeting over the City’s community access cable television channel. Additionally, the CRAF project has been the subject of articles in the Sunnyvale Sun, the local newspaper. The City of Sunnyvale may also hold community meetings for the CRAF project, independent of the EA public meetings. NASA NASA is committe.d to working with the surrounding community and interested agencies throughout the EA process. In May 1996, NASA administered an extensive mailing to interested Sunnyvale and Mountain View residents. A mail-back card to request copiea of this Draft EA was included in the mailing. Public meetings on the Draft EA will be held in July 1996 as an integral part of the NEPA process. When the meeting dates and times are established they will be announced through local newspapers, and a comprehensive mailing to agencies and residents who have expressed interest in the proposed action. Copies of the Draft EA and Final EA will be available for review at the Sunnyvale Public Library, located at 665 West Olive Avenue in Sunnyvale, as well as the temporary Mountain View Public Library, located at the intersection of Moffett Boulevard and Middlefield Avenue, and the NASA Ames Visitor Center. Throughout the Spring of 1996, the Director of Moffett Federal Airfield briefed several community and industry groups on the issue of potential CRAF cargo operations at MFA. NASA has also developed a World Wide Web site on the Internet (http://cef.are.nasa.gov/jf/ mfa) to provide updated information on this subject. E. Summary of Findings The impacts of the proposed action alternatives and the No Action Alternative are. summarized and compared in the following Table 1. For the purposes of this table, the level of significance after the implementation of feasible mitigation measures (as outlined in this EA) is compared. Level of impact significance are categorized as follows: -S = Significant -LTS = Less Than Significant --- = No Impact Secondly, a summary of all impacts and mitigation measures contained in Chapter IV of this EA is provided in Table 2. Information in this table, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, is arranged in four columns: 1) impacts; 2) level of significance prior to mitigationmeasures; 3) mitigation measures; and 4) level of significance after mitigation. For a complete description of potential impacts and recommended mitigation measures, please refer to the specific discussions in Chapter IV. Impact numbers begin with a reference to the impact section, which are abbreviated as follows: AIR = Air Quality CIRC = ,Transportation/Circulation NOISE = Noise Impacts and mitigation measures are also numbered consecutively. 7 I 10 Chapter II PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES Commercial air cargo members of the DoD’s CRAF program have expressed interest in operating several air cargo aircraft at MFA, Moffett Field, California. The Air Force Mobility Command, which runs the CRAF program, has indicated its desire to sponsor CRAF carriers at MFA. This proposed action is known as the CRAF Air Cargo Operations project at MFA. This chapter further details this proposed action. A. Location MFA is located on the southwest shoreline of the San Francisco Bay, about 40 kilometers (25 miles) east of the Pacific Coast in the uninCorporated area of the County of Santa Clara known as Moffett Field, as shown in Figure 1. Moffett Field includes MFA and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Ames Research Center, both of which are operated by NASA, and the Onizuka Air Station Annex. The City of Mountain View is adjacent to the western and southern boundaries of Moffett Field and the City of Sunnyvale is adjacent to the eastern and southern boundaries. Downtown San Jose is about 11 kilometers (7 miles) southeast, and the City of San Francisco is about 52 kilometers (32 miles) northwest. US Highway 101 passes just south of the facility site. MFA encompasses approximately 578 hectares (1,427 acres). Under NASA’s stewardship, MFA is currently used for flight operations, research and development, administrative support, and operational and personnel functions, all in support of the Federal government. In additionl much of the northern portion of the site is open space and wetlands. B. Background In October, 1991, Congress and the President of the United States accepted the recommendation of the Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC) to disestablish Naval Air Station (NAS) Moffett Field. Because the 11 Concord B~rkeley Walnut Creek Dublin Heyward Fremont Moffett Field 0 Pleasanton San Jos~ Figure 1 Regional Location 496:~)1 availability of the airfield had become essential to the mission of NASA and other government agencies and contractors, the BRAC recommended that NAS Moffett Field remain a Federa! property and suggested that the DoD negotiate a transfer of responsibility for MFA to NASA. This suggestion was well received by the neighboring communities. The property was transferred to NASA on July 1, 1994. It included 578 hectares (1,427 acres) of land and over 0.85 million square meters (2.8 million square feet) of buildings and other facilities. It did not include the military family housing areas and several community-related facilities, which were retained by DoD for administration by Onizuka Air Station. NASA now operates the remainder of the former NAS Moffett Field property -- now designated Moffett Federal Airfield -- for the benefit of itself and several other government agencies, some of which were previously present at NAS Moffett Field, and others which relocated there subsequent to the transition. Under the guidelines established when NASA took control of MFA, the property has been operated as a shared Federal facility. Agencies and Federal organizations which operate at MFA, known as Resident Agencies (RAs), reside and use MFA through agreement with NASA. Government agencies may sponsor certain non-governmental activities through agreement with NASA. Commercial and non-profit entities which engage in activities related to NASA’s mission may also qualify to use certain facilities at MFA. These are the only types of activities permitted at MFA. A Comprehensive Use Plan (CUP) was developed by NASA in order to effectively implement .the transfer of stewardship of MFA to NASA. The CUP considers future development projects and provides information on the proposed future uses at MFA by NASA and the RAs up to the year 2010. Futtire development and operations of MFA are to remain consistent with the CUP. The 2010 forecast conditions in the CUP for the airfield are 80,000 annual aircraft operations. The 80,000 operations outlined in the CUP include ground operations and overflights. Of the 80,000 operations, approximately 60,000 are considered aircraft operations and the remaining 20,000 are overflights. An EA under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 13 was completed on the CUP, which was finalized in August 1994, when a FONSI was issued) At this time, RAs and government-spomored tenants include the following: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) United States Naval Air Reserve California Air National Guard (CANG) United States Army (US Army) United States Army Reserve United States Air Force (USAF) Lockheed Martin Missiles and Space (contractor to US/W) Raytheon/Beech Aerospace Services Incorporated (contractor to US Army) United States Department of Veterans Affairs Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms United States Geological Survey (USGS) Space Camp California (sponsored by NASA) All aircraft using MFA are required to comply with the Moffett Federal Airfield Operations Manual, which was approved in June 1994,2 and updated in June 1996. NASA has taken a proaetive stance toward bringing new users in to utilize the airfield and other facilities at MFA. The Director of MFA, with the assistance of the Moffett Liaison Office (MLO), is responsible for bringing other government agencies and government-sponsored entities to MFA. As the facilities reach capacity, NASA’s net costs for operating MFA diminish due to an increase in revenues. The Director of MFA and the MLO have contacted Federal government agencies which could potentially need an airfield, or administrative, warehouse, or maintenance space. Several of these contacts have been fi’uitful. Since 1994, units of the Naval Air Reserve, Army Reserve, and active Army, as well as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, U.S. Geological Survey, and Department of Veterans Affairs have located their operations at MFA. NASA has also worked with the US Space Camp 1 NASA Ames Research Center. Final Environmental Assessment: Moffett Field Comprehensive Use Plan, Moffett Field, California. Prepared by Brady and Associates. August 1994. NASA Ames Research Center Flight Operations Office. Airfield Operations Manual. MFA, California. Code O Manual 0-10. June 1996. 14 Foundation to establish Space Camp California at MFA, under NASA sponsorship. Currently, discussions are underway with the United States Coast Guard (USCG), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and other government agencies regarding the use of facilities at MFA. While there has been some growth on the part of government agencies at MFA, NASA does not now anticipate the airfield to reach its capacity (as defined in the CUP) through use by government aircrah alone. Therefore, NASA is seeking to fill the "unused capacity" at MFA through other Federal government sponsored options. The CRAF program, sponsored by the United States Air Force, would benefit the Federal government, help NASA to reduce its net operating costs for MFA, and maintain it as a shared Federal facility. C. Description of the Proposed Action Alternatives The proposed action is to allow limited use of MFA by commercial cargo members of the Department of Defense CRAF. Under the CRAF program, which is run by the Air Force Air Mobility Command, civil air carriers contract with the Air Force to provide aircraft and crews for use in the event of emergencies, contingencies and war. The Air Force relies heavily on these aircraft to transport government cargo and personnel, as it often cannot fully provide for the government’s airlift requirements using military aircraft. In exchange for a commitment by the carriers to increase their participation in the CRAF fleet, the carriers can bid for access to certain government installations for commercial purposes. This program further commits the cargo carriers, to the CRAF program, thus ensuring a strong national airlift capability. The proposed air cargo operations would be limited by a specified allocation of operations per day .and year. It is intended that these commercial cargo operations, in combination with current NASA and RA operations, fit within the envelope of total operations projected by and approved through the 1994 CUP. Cargo carriers at MFA would transport shipments of the same type and nature that are handled at commereial airports in the United States. Shipments containing dangerous goods are limited to the materials and 15 quantities authorized for air transportation by the regulations of the International Air Transport Association (IATA). Pursuant to these regulations, cargo carriers would accept no live animals and no substances regulated as EPA hazardous wastes. Additionally, the cargo companies carry no explosives other than the defined "safety" explosives, such as small arms ammunition (Division 1.45); no toxic gases; no materials that are spontaneously combustible; no toxic liquids or solids unless shipped in a special high-integrity DOT exemption package; no infectious substances; and no high-level radioactive materials. As another restriction, only domestic flights would be allowed at MFA pursuant to the CRAF program. Commercial cargo carriers are considering MFA as both an expansion site and a relocation site for operations in order to provide better service to customers in the southern San Francisco Bay area. Currently, commercial cargo companies operate from San Jose International Airport (SJC), Oakland International Airport (OAK), and San Francisco International Airport (SFO). However, it is currently difficult to accommodate growth or to meet customer requirements at these airports because facility and operational expansion is limited, especially at SFO and SJC. This is due to restrictions on space, number of flight operations allowed, and hours of operation. The following sections describe the proposed action alternatives and the No Action Alternative. The differences between each of the four proposed action alternatives are detailed below. The alternatives addressed in this EA alter the future mix of aircraft that was anticipated at MFA in the CUP EA. In particular, because growth on the part of government aircraft is not anticipated to be as robust as envisioned in that earlier document, the total number of projected government operations has been reduced. Several aircraft which were anticipated to be operated in the future are being phased out or located elsewhere. The proposed action would permit operations by commercial air cargo members of the DoD’s CRAF program in place of the government air operations that are currently not anticipated. I.Project Location The CRAF project would be based out of and around Hangar 1 at MFA, as shown on Figure 2. Access to and from the Hangar would be provided through the South Gate, which is located at Ellis Street and Macon Road. Photographs of these facilities are presented in Figure 3. 16 South Gate LEGEND: (~1 Photograph Locations A~ CAR~OOPEP~TIONS Figure 2 Project Location 496:003 Photo 3a: View of Hangar 1 and the Moffett Complex from South Macon Road Photo 3c: South Gate (Ellis Street) Photo 3b: Close-up view of Hangar 1 Photo 3d: Ellis Street and South Macon Road Intemection Figure 3 Photos of Project Location ,m:o02 2.Proposed Aircraft Operations The proposed annual aircraft operations for the CRAF project alternatives are shown in Table 3. The operations outlined in Table 3 are for the total year. At this time it is anticipated that the cargo companies would generally operate six days a week primarily excluding Sundays. Anticipated daily cargo operations can be obtained by dividing the numbers shown in Table 1 by 312 days. Other aircraft operations at MFA will continue to occur seven days a week. As previously discussed, it is intended that the following CRAF cargo operations, in combination with the current NASA and RA operations, fit within the envelope of total operations projected by and approved through the CUP in 1994. For this reason, forecasted NASA and RA operations have been reduced to allow for CRAF air cargo operations. For ease of identifying which operations are air cargo, and which are related to NASA and RA activities, Table 3 identifies these activities separately. It is anticipated that the air cargo operations proposed by the CRAF project would be phased-in over time. Initially, air cargo operations would be less than outlined in this section. The following paragraphs describe the characteristics of the cargo operations of the four proposed action alternatives. Figure 4: Current Flight Patterns a. Alternative 1. Alternative 1 allows a total of 58,151 annual aircraft operations, of which 11,223 are air cargo operations. In a typical day, there would be 18 arrivals and 18 departures. Twelve flights would arrive between 4:00 and 7:00 am, and the remaining six would arrive between 4:00 and 6:00 pro. Two air cargo flights are expected to depart between 5:00 and 5:30 am, four would depart between 7:00 am and 5:30 pro, and. 12 flights ’would depart between 5:30 and 8:30 pm. For this alternative, the air cargo operations would utilize current flight patterns at MFA, as depicted in Figure 4, and detailed in Appendix C) All flight paths are weather and safety permitting. 19 Table 3 PROPOSED CRAF ALTERNATIVES: MFA ANNUAL OPERATIONS (2010)’ ~ :.-: i Baseline 2010~ ~,] 2Alternatives~ Atrcrs~t Typeb’~ :"¯ :::.i -(No Project) ]-. ’"-.’,:1, :& ’& 4 ’ CRAF AIR’ CARGO OPERATIONS B747d DC8d B757 B767 B727QF DC10 A-300 A-310 MD11 Single Propeller Aircraft CRAF Air Cargo Operations Subtotal 312 1~48 2,044 864 1,351 1.~51 1,351 1,351 1,351 .-] 11223 421 1,560 2,701 1,064 2,008 2,0oa 2,701 2,701 2,701 2,008 [ 19,873 OTI~R MRCRAFT OPERATIONS (NASA and RA Aircraft)" B747d C5A/C5B C9 C12!King Air C130 C141 DC8d ER2 GIV H-l/Hughes 500 H-53 H-60 LEAR 25 P3 Jet Trainer/Fighter Other Aircraft Operations Subtotal 548 146 5,767 15,403 511 256 256 110 110 1,971 2,446 18,360256 9,636 4,198 59,974 314 548 146 2,920 14,600 146 256 110 110 110 730 16,316 256 8,176 2,190 46,928 314 300 146 2,920 14,600 146 256 110 110 110 110 13,000 256 6,000 730 39,108 Total Annual Operations For the purposes of this EA and environmental review at MFA, an operation is either a takeoff or landing. One landing and one takeoff is considered two operations. Aircraft types are described in Appendix A. Year 2010 Total Operations as defined by the CUP EA, August 1994. These aircraft (B747 and DCS) are used by both the air cargo companies and current users of MFA. For this reason, specific operations allocations have been given for both users in this table. The aircraft in this allocation include NASA aircraft that may no longer operate at MFA pending NASA Headquarters decision regarding the consolidation of the Agency’s aircraft at the Dryden Flight Research Center. 2O Figure 5: Bay Approach and Departure Flight Patterns b. Alternative 2. Alternative 2 would have the same number and timing of operations as Alternative 1, but the flight paths of MFA operations would be redirected over the San Francisco Bay during the nighttime (11:00 pm to 6:30 am), as depicted in Figure 5. This alternative was anticipated to have less noise impact on populated areas than Alternative 1. Generally, all arrivals at MFA between 11:00 pm and 6:30 am would occur on Runway 14L and all departures would occur on Runways 32R!L, as detailed in Appendix C.4 Both of these paths would shift noise toward the San Francisco Bay to the northeast when compared to Alternative 1. The FAA has determined that these flight patterns are viable, as documented in Appendix D. c. Alternative 3. For Alternative 3, the timing of flight operations would be similar to those described for Alternatives 1 and 2, but the number of air cargo operations would be increased fi’om 11,223 annual operations to 19,873 annual operations (with the number of aircraft operations at MFA totaling 58,981). In a typical day, it is expected that there would be 32 arrivals and 32 departures. Twenty-two air cargo flights would arrive between 4:00 and 7:00 am, and ten flights would arrive between 7:00 am and 5:30 pm. Four flights would depart between 5:00 and 7:00 am, eight would depart between 7:00 am and 5:00 pm, and 20 air cargo flights would depart the Airfield between 5:00 and 8:30 pro. The air cargo operations would utilize current flight tracks at MFA. 4 All flight paths are weather and safety permitting. NASA and the representative cargo" companies have obtained and analyzed 49 years of weather data for Moffett Field (Appendix J). From this data, it has been estimated that, between the hours of 11:00 pm and 6:30 am, flights would have to be redirected to land on Runways 32R/L (over the City of Sunnyvale) less than two percent of the time. There is also a small percentage of time that flights could not use either runway at MFA, and would have to be diverted to another airport. 21 d. Alternative 4. Alternative 4 would have the same number and timing of operations as Alternative 3, but the flight paths of the nighttime operations would be redirected over the San Francisco Bay (between 11:00 pm and 6:30 am). Similar to Alternative 2, this alternative is anticipated to have less noise impacts on populated areas when compared to Alternative 3. In general, all arrivals to MFA occurring between 11:00 pm and 6:30 am would occur on Runway 14L and all departures would,occur on Runways 32R/L, as detailed in Appendix C. Both of these paths would redistribute noise over the San Francisco Bay. 3.Employment Alternatives 1 and 2 could employ up to 240 new personnel at MFA at one time, and Alternatives 3 and 4 could employ up tO 390 new personnel at one time. However, it is anticipated that two employment shifts would occur during a given day (with each shift comprised of a separate group of employees). Therefore, air cargo operations at MFA could generate up to 480 jobs for Alternatives 1 and 2, and up to 780 jobs for Alternatives 3 and 4.5 Current employment at Moffett Field (including NASA personnel) totals 8,762. Therefore, with the addition of air cargo operations, employment would total a maximum of 9,242 employees for Alternatives 1 and 2, and 9,542 employees for Alternatives 3 and 4. The CUP anticipates a maximum employment at MFA of 10,610 by 2010. 4. Transportation Trucks, vans, and automobiles associated with air cargo companies would access MFA through the South Gate, which is located at Ellis Street and Macon Road immediately adjacent to a diamond interchange on Highway 101. 5 Personnel estimates have been derived from current air cargo operations of carriers in the Bay Area, such as FedEx and UPS. 22 Figure 6: Container Transport Vehicle Cargo transported to MFA via aircraft would be off-loaded using a combination of trailer trucks and smaller trucks (sometimes referred to as Container Transport Vehicles), and shuttle vans. Examples of these vehicles are presented in Figures 6 and 7. Figure 7: Shuttle Van The shuttle vans ’would be used to gather last minute parcels from customers as their business day is coming to a close. This is especially critical on. the west coast since the cargo aircraft must depart in the early evening to meet with the rest of a carrier’s aircraft at its sorting hub. Employees are expected to access the site through the South Gate.6 It is anticipated that two shifts would accommodate the timing of flights in and out of MFA, one in the morning and one in the evening. Space and Operational Requirements Most of the incoming freight under the proposed project would be removed from the aircraft and transferred directly into Container Transport Vehicles. In some cases, freight would be sorted and delivered to various city distribution centers, including locations in the City of Sunnyvale; via shuttle vans. Some mechanical apparatus, such as conveyer belts, would be brought to MFA as part of the project. No structural modifications to Hangar 1 are included in any of the proposed action alternatives. 6 Though air cargo employees could access the site through the Main Gate or through the bicycle route at Gate 17, it has been assumed that all employees would utilize the South Gate for %vorst case" environmental impact assessment purposes. 23 D. No Action Alternative Analysis of the No Action Alternative is required under NEPA. The No Action Alternative would allow flight operations to occur at MFA consistent with the CUP. Under this scenario, annual aircraft operations could total 60,000. These operations would include NASA research aircraft, as well as aircraft of RAs, but commercial air cargo operators would not be considered in the RA mix. Employment could reach 10,610 at MFA, as detailed in the CUP. The CUP is a programmatic document which describes, in general, . the level of activity anticipated at Moffett Field through the year 2010. An EA under NEPA was completed on the CUP, and was finalized in August 1994, when a FONSI was issued. Project specific environmental impacts of individual proposed actions at Moffett Field would continue to be assessed on an individual basis. Environmental analysis of individual projects at Moffett Field would comist of completing an environmental checklist, completing an EA, or completing an EIS, depending upon the scope of the specific proposed action and whether the proposed action falls within the activity level and assumptions made in the CUP and CUP EA. 24 , Chapter III EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS [] [] [] The following chapter summarizes the existing environmental conditions at lVlFA. Analysis of the environmental effects of the proposed action is set forth in Chapter IV. 1. Land Use A. Land Use and Planning MFA encompasses approximately 578 hectares (1,427 acres). Under NASA’s stewardship, MFA is currently used for flight operations, research and development, administrative support, and operational and personnel support. In addition, much of the northern portion of the site is open space and wetlands. Properties adjacent to MFA are generally within the city limits of the City of Sunnyvale and the City of Mountain View, and can be categorized into the following land uses, as shown on Figure 8. Industrial/Commercial. Commercial and industrial business parks are the predominant uses immediately surrounding MFA, as shown on Figure 8. Residential. In the City of Mountain View, residential uses in the immediate vicinity of MFA are limited to the Santiago Villa Mobile Home Park located to the west of Stevens Creek, and residential uses ranging from low to high density south of Highway 101. In the City of Sunnyvale, the closest residential lands are east of Mathilda Avenue, south of State Route 237. These residential land uses include mobile homes, low density housing, and some medium and high density housing. Historically, these land uses have been affected by flight operations since they are directly below the flight paths for arrivals and departures. Additionally, there are approximately 800 housing units located in the Onizuka Air Station Annex. These units are divided among Officer’s housing, located along Highway 101 to the south of 25 LEGEND: Open Space. Regional Recreation Areas Residential Commercial/Office/Industrial Federal Property Source: Brady and Associates, May 1996. N~e Ties m~p is intended to g~ve genemt incatlbns of swroond~ng land uses. It does no~ attempt to mapexacf land uses within the cl~les o~ Sunnyvale ~nd Moun~n View. Please r~ler tothe ap~.,=~e General MOFF’~’TT Figure 8 Surrounding Land Use NASA Ames Research Center, and multi-family housing units located along Stevens Creek to the west of NASA Ames Research Center. Open Space and Recreation. Open space and recreation land uses surrounding MFA include the wetlands and tidal marshes of the San Francisco Bay, the San Francisco Bay Trail, the Stevens Creek Regional Trail, Shoreline at Mountain View, various neighborhood parks, and several private recreation areas including facilities provided at the Shoreline Technology Park. Local Government Policies MFA lies primarily within the unincorporated lands of the County of Santa Clara. Adjacent properties are within the city limits of the City of Sunnyvale and the City of Mountain View, which control zoning and land use of those properties. Although MFA is constitutionally exempt from the application of local land use plans and policies, NASA intends to continue to cooperate, to the maximum extent practicable, with the cities of Sunnyvale and Mountain View on matters of mutual concern. In addition, NASA will attempt, whenever possible, to meet local planning guidelines and standards. NASA considers these local planning policies and guidelines as advisory resources. City policies for the surrounding local governments are described below: City of Mountain View. The primary policy document in the City of Mountain View is the City of Mountain View 1992 General Plan. The General Plan is the City’s framework for future deeisious, especially for community development and environmental protection. Particular policies regarding MFA include measures aimed at reducing or controlling existing noise sources, and preventing unacceptable noise generating activities within the City. Additionally, the City opposes the use of MFA for general aviation. City of Sunnyvale. Development within the City of Sunnyvale is also guided by a General Plan. The General Plan directs the City to acknowledge the presence of Moffett NAS1 as a land use within the urban service area of the City. ’Additionally, the City is to consider annexing Moffett NAS into the City. However, it is noted that the City of Sunnyvale should comply with Federal guidelines for the compatibility of land uses surrounding MFA. Existing land uses in i The NAS at Moffett Field no longer exists. The Moffett Field property was transferred to NASA on July 1, 1994, and is now known asMFA. However, several of the government agencies that used NAS Moffett Field are still operating at MFA under NASA’s stewardship. 27 Sunnyvale generally comply with these goals and the corresponding policy and action statements, with the exception of approximately 15 percent of land uses under the MFA approach and departure paths. The Sunnyvale General Plan states that aircraft on approach to MFA are the second largest source of noise in Surmyvale.2 Additionally, the City opposes the use of MFA for civil or general aviation purposes. 3.Federal Policies Under the guidelines established when NASA took control of MFA on July 1,. 1994, the property has been operated as a shared Federal facility. Agencies and Federal organizations which operate at MFA, known as Resident Agencies (RAs), reside and use MFA through agreement with NASA. Government agencies may sponsor certain non-governmental activities, through agreement with NASA. Commercial or non-profit entities which engage in activities related to NASA’s mission may also qualify to use certain facilities at MFA. The following plans and regulations guide the operation of MFA under NASA’s stewardship: FAR Part 150 - Airport Noise Compatibility Planning. Because NASA operates MFA, the airfield is not considered a military-operated facility, though the facilities are used by military RAs. For this reason, when NASA became the steward of MFA in 1994, the agency made a management commitment to use FAA regulations for civil airports as a guideline. FAR Part 150 specifically addresses airport noise compatibility planning. These regulations prescribe the procedures, standards, and methodology governing the development, submission, and review of airport noise exposure maps and airport noise compatibility programs, including the process for evaluating and approving projects related to those programs. FAR Part 150 directs that noise contours for airports be developed using the FAA’s Integrated Noise Model (INM) for developing standardized noise exposure maps and predicting noise impacts. Noise monitoring may be utilized by airport operators for data acquisition and data refinement, but is not required. Noise contours of Ld~3 65, 70, and 75 dB are required for aircraft operations. Additionally, the agency must identify 2 City of Sunnyvale. Sunnyvale General Plan Executive Summary. Community Development Department. Sunnyvale, California. May 1994. ~ Day-night average noise level (’L,~) is generaliy equivalent to the community noise equivalent level (CNEL) used elsewhere in this report. 28 incompatible land uses within the noise contours, including those within the L~ 65 dB contours. No land use has to be identified as incompatible if the self-generated noise from that use or the ambient noise from other non-aircraft and non-airport uses is equal to or greater than the noise from aircraft and airport sources. Comprehensive Use Plan. The CUP was developed by NASA in order to effectively implement the transfer of stewardship of MFA to NASA. The CUP considers future development projects and provides information on the proposed future uses at MFA by NASA and the RAs up to the year 2010. Future development and operations of airfield are to remain consistent with the CUP. Under the CUP, the airfield is to continue to be restricted to use by the Federal government. Air operations are to support NASA’s aviation aetivities sueh as aerospace research and development and platform researeh aircraft operation, as well as the routine oPeration and training of the RAs. The CUP outlines a projected activity level of 80,000 annual aircraft operations~ in 2010, which includes both aircraft operations and overflights. Airfield Operations Manual. MFA is a Federal-use-only airfield operated by NASA Ames Researeh Center to meet the needs of the NASA, RAs, and other authorized users. Use of the airfield is limited to agencies of the Federal government or agencies supporting requirements established by the Federal government. The Airfield Operations Manual provides general instruction pertaining t~ the operation of aireraft at MFA, including navigation, air traffic control, noise abatement, and arrival and departure instruetions. All aircraft using MFA must adhere to the rules, procedures, and guidelines in this doeument. B. Population, Housing~ and Environmental Justice Current employment at MFA totals 8,762, as detailed by employer in Table 4. The CUP anticipates a maximum employment at MFA of 10,610. Historically, housing has been available in the residential areas of Onizuka Air Station. However, these areas are not considered part of MFA. 4 For the purposes of this EA, and previous environmental review at MFA, an aircraft operation is either a takeoff or landing. One landing and one takeoff is considered two operations. 29 Table 4 MOFFETI" FIELD EMPLOYMENT .-Agen~.-.-:~I" =ii: "-i.-::~ i=":~i’::-.: ::~ ~ ~ :,:i- ::i "~i:. :..i: ::..:. ....~ ’’ " .’ ¯ :- Employees Naval Air Reserve Santa Clara Army Reserves United States Army California Air National Guard Onizuka Air Station (MFA activities) Defense Commissary Agency Navy Exchange Defense Fuel Supply Center United States Post Office Golden Bay Credit Union Veterans Affairs Department Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms NASA MFA Resident Activities NASA Ames Research Center Total Employees Source: NASA Ames Research Center, April 1996. 1,978 485 62 866 104 88 180 11 5 50 3 I 461 4,468 s,762 Environmental justice is the principal that low income populations and minority.populations should not disproportionately bear the burden of environmental hazards (Question "d" above). On February 11, 1994, the President of the United States issued an Executive Order on Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations. and Low-Income Populations.5 The Order is designed to focus Federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions in minority communities and low income communities with the goal of achieving environmental justice. NASA has developed an Environmental Justice Strategy6 which implements the Executive Order. NASA intends to integrate environmental justice into all of 5 Executive Order #12898. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. February 11, 1994. (59FR 7629 of February 16, 1994). 6 National Aeronautics and Space Administration. ’Environmental Justice Strategy, March 14, 1995. 3O its programs and activities. In doing so, NASA plans to implement the environmental justice mandate promptly and effectively, while keeping the administrative burden at the minimum levei necessary. With regard to areas of racial and ethnic minority concentrations, only two census tracts surrounding MFA are considered areas of high racial/ethnic minority concentrations. These areas are Census Tract 5087.01, bordered by Central Expressway/Arques Avenue, Wolfe Road, Evelyn Avenue, and Mathilda Avenue; and Census Tract 5088, bordered by Maude Avenue, Fair Oaks Avenue, Central Expressway/Arques Avenue, and Mathilda Avenue.7 No areas surrounding MFA have a significant poverty level. However, Census Tract 5046.01 in Mountain View is considered an area of low-income population.8 This area is bordered by NASA Ames Research Center, Highway 101, Bayshore Parkway/San Antonio Road, and the northernmost Mountain View city limit. According to ’applicable City and US Housing and Urban Development (HUD) standards, none of the immediately surrounding areas in the City of Sunnyvale are defined as areas of low-income concentration? C. G~oiogy MFA is located in one of the most seismically active regions of the United States. The topography in the area is fiat except for the levees between the San Francisco Bay, Stevens Creek, and the site. The soils of the property are comprised of silty days that have a high shrink-swell potential. The potential for bay mud compression and/or liquefaction of the sand layers located within the site and subsequent settlement hazards are present. These stability concerns are especially prevalent near the banks of Stevens Creek. Although settlement and seismic hazards do exist, structures can be designed, sited, and constructed to reduce the possibility of serious damage or human harm. 7 NASA Ames Research Center, information to be included in the Environmental Justice Plan, which is currently being developed. ¯ 8 Mountain View defines an area of low-income concentration to be a census tract where more than 37.64 percent of the residents are low-income. 9 NASA Ames Research Center, information to be included in the Environmental Justice Plan, which is currently being developed. 31 D. Water The major water resources in the vicinity of MFA are the San Francisco Bay, Stevens Creek, and the Santa Clara Valley groundwater basin. MFA obtains the majority of its water supply through the San Francisco Water Company. The northern portion of MFA is located within the 100-year tide elevation and is therefore subject to 100-year tidal flooding. Building construction on MFA must meet Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements for flood elevations. Federal requirements are also followed to prevent the exposure of people or property to flood hazard. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for stormwater runoff is in place for MFA pursuant to the Clean Water Act and the regulations of the State Water Resources Control Board. E. Air Quality Both the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air. quality standards are levels of contaminants which represent safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called "criteria" pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. Table 5 identifies the major criteria pollutants, characteristics, health effects and typical sources. The Federal and California State ambient air quality standards are summarized in Table 6 for important pollutants. The Federal and State ambient standards were developed independently with differing purposes and methods, although both processes attempted to avoid health-related effects. As a result, the Federal and State standards differ in some cases. In general, the California State standards are more stringent. This is particularly true for ozone and PMI0. The project is located within the San Francisco Bay Air Basin. The local air quality agency is the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The BAAQMD operates a network of air monitoring sites in the Bay Area. 32 Table 6 FEDERAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS ’~: ~.:/:..-.~.-:.~i:i-~?/.i--:~-::::i?-~’:.~:./.~.~-. ":/~=:~::/./--]~-:-’..:~Federal:.:. ~ ~, ~i.--¯ Ozone l-hour 0.12 PPM 0.09 PPM Carbon Monoxide 8-hour 9.0 PPM 9.0 PPM l-hour 35.0 PPM 20.0 PPM iNitrogen Dioxide Sulfur Dioxide PMIo Lead Annual 1 -hour Annual 24-hour 1 -hour Annual 24-hour 30-day average Month average 0.05 PPM 0.03 PPM 0.14 PPM 50 ~g/m3 150 ~tg/m~ 1.5 ~g/m3 0.25 PPM 0.05 PPM 0.5 PPM 30/~g/m3 50 ~tg/m3 PPM -- Parts per Million ~tg/m3 = Micrograms per Cubic Meter The closest air monitoring site to MFA is located in San Jose. For the five- year period 1990-1994 no violations of the Federal ambient air quality standards were recorded in San Jose. However, violations of the California ambient air quality standards were recorded during this period for ozone and PM10. The Federal Clean Air Act requires that the CARB, based on air quality monitoring data, designate portions of the State where the Federal ambient air quality standards are not met as "nonattainment areas". The Bay Area recently was recently redesignated by the EPA as a "maintenance area" for ozone. Designation as a maintenance area indicates that the Federal standards have been met, and the focus of air quality planning shifts from attaining the standards to maintaining the standards. The "Urbanized Area" of the air basin is considered nonattaimnent for-carbon monoxide (however, a request for redesignation to "maintenance area" has been submitted to the EPA). 34 The Federal Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401), as amended, requires that Federal actions be found in conformity with the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Conformity to a SIP is defined in the Act as amended in 1990 as meaning conformity to a SIP’s purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and achieving expeditious attainment of such standards. The Federal agency responsible for the action is required to determine if its actions conform to the applicable SIP. Determining conformity of Federal actions to State (or Federal) Implementation Plans requires conformity determinations when the total of direct and indirect emissions that would be caused by the Federal action would exceed certain "de minimis" levels that reflect the severity of the air quality problem. Within the San Francisco Bay Air Basin, these "de minimis" thresholds are 100 tons per year for ozone precursors (reactive organic gases), nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide. Transportation/Circulation Transportation to and from MFA is predominantly by automobile. There are four gates and two main interchanges along Highway 101 which provide access to the site. In addition, a NASA shuttle provides transportation to and from the Mountain View CalTrain station, and Santa Clara Transportation Agency buses provide service to MFA. Access to MFA is also available through the Bicycle Commute Trail, which runs from the Stevens Creek Regional Trail to the Wright Avenue Gate (Gate 17). Figure 9 presents an area map of the Ellis Street interchange with the Highway 101 freeway and the MFA South Gate, which would be utilized by proposed air cargo operations traffic.1° Currently Ellis Street has four travel lanes through its underpass of the Highway 101 freeway, as well as to the east and west of the freeway. Freeway off-ramps are stop-sign controlled at Ellis Street as are the Manila Drive, Fairchild Drive and Clyde Drive intersection approaches. At the South Gate, one inbound and one outbound lane are in operation, although second lanes in each direction are available for use if needed. t0 Geographically, Ellis Streei runs in a north-south direction in the project area while the US 101 freeway and all other surface streets run in an east-west direction. However, because the 101 freeway runs in a general north-south direction on a regional basis and due to the reference of the Ellis Street gate as the South Gate, the freeway will be referenced running "north-south* in the report while Ellis Street will be referenced running in an ea~t-west direction. 35 * I ! i 1.F.aisfing Traffic Conditions Peak period traffic counts (both AM and PM) were conducted by Crane Transportation Group on Thursday, April 18, 1996, at the Ellis Street intersections with Manila Drive, the Highway 101 north and southbound freeway ramps, Fairchild Drive, Clyde Drive and at MFA’s South Gate. The peak traffic hours were determined to be 6:45 to 7:45 am and 5:00 to 6:00 pro. Figures 10 and 11 present existing AM and PM peak hour volumes, respectively. Currently, volumes at the South Gate are 400 inbound and 55 outbound vehicles during the AM peak hour and 150 inbound and 245 outbound vehicles during the PM peak hour. There were no observed baekups of inbound traffic from the South Gate to the Manila Road intersection at any time during the morning or afternoon peak traffic periods. Less than one percent of the vehicles passing through the gate during either time period were trucks. 2.Planned Improvements at the Ellis Street Interchange The .Santa Clara Transportation Agency will begin construction of the Light Rail Train (LRT) extension from Great America in Santa Clara to downtown Mountain View in the late summer or fall of 1996.n Construction is planned to take two to three years. This ~I’asman Corridor~ extension will extend along the southeastern boundary of MFA (along Manila Drive) and then pass under the Highway 101 freeway at Ellis Street (on the south side of the interchange). The Ellis Street interchange will be reconstructed as part of the LRT extension. The reconstruction will include signalization of the Ellis Street freeway ramp intersections adding lanes to both off-ramps, and restriping Ellis Street (to maintain four travel lanes under the freeway). Figure 12 presents a detailed plan of the proposed reconstructed interehange while Figure 9 presents a view of the proposed LRT alignment near the South Gate. Neither the Ellis Street/Manila Drive nor the Ellis Street/Fairchild Drive-Clyde Drive intersections will be signalized under current plans. An LRT station will be provided along Manila Drive just south of Ellis Street to allow LRT rider access to the South Gate of MFA. n Highway 101/Ellis Street Interchange Tasman Corridor LRT Traffic Operations Analysis by Rajappan & Meyer, December 17, 1994. 37 The LRT tracks will cross Clyde Drive, the southbound freeway on-ramp, the northbound freeway off-ramp and Manila Drive. Flashing lights and gates will protect each crossing. Previous analysis for the system has projected up to 10 trains in each direction during morning and evening commute hours. Gates at the freeway ramps would be down from 40 to 48 seconds for each train. Previously developed future year (2005) traffic projections for the Ellis Street interchange area show significantly increased volumes on Manila Road (up to 700 new vehicles during the PM peak traffic hour) due to the planned closure of an existing on-ramp to the northbound Highway 101 at the south end of the airfield, now used primarily by Lockheed Martin employees. G. BiologicalResources MFA contains three distinct terrestrial habitats: urban, grassland, and wetlands. The vegetation which comprises the urban habitat includes typical urban tree, shrub, and ground cover. In addition, various grasses and annual weedy plants that grow in disturbed areas comprise the grassland habitats, and cordgrass, pickleweed, salt grass, and brackish marsh vegetation are found in the wetland areas. These resources are described in detail in the Site-Wide Ecological Assessment.12 However, they are not considered further in this assessment because there is no evidence that they would be affected by noise or any other aspect of the project, primarily because no land clearing or development will occur if the proposed action is implemented. Wetlands north and west of the project site provide important habitat for many wildlife species, and including the following: Tidal brackish and salt marsh along Stevens Creek Isolated seasonal marshes Diked brackish marshes Diked salt marshes Storm water retention ponds Salt evaporation ponds 12 WESCO.’ Phase I Site-wide Qualitative Habitat and Receptor Characterization Study. NAS Moffett Field. October 1993. 41 All wildlife habitats within the area have been extensively altered and disturbed by human activity over the past 150 years. There are no designated critical habitat areas within, or in the vicinity of MFA. Nevertheless, the area continues to support valuable wildlife resources, including many species that are year-long residents, as well as~ large numbers of migratory waterfowl and shorebirds. Special-status species that are known to exist in, or are potentially present in the area include the following: Those currently listed as threatened or endangered under Federal or State law; ¯Candidates for possible future Federal listing; -Those with State designation as "Species of Special Concern"; and ¯Those fully protected in California. Speeial-statns species are of particular interest in the context of the proposed project because any harm caused to them as a result of exposure would constitute an impact under State and Federal regulations. A total of 14 special-status bird and mammal species have been reported to occur within 1.6 to 2.4 kilometers (1 to llA miles) of MFA, as detailed in Table 7. Approximately half of these species are not known to breed in the area, but may exhibit transient or seasonal use. The California brown pelican, American white pelican, and California least tern are visitors to the salt evaporation ponds and may occasionally use the stormwater retention pond, as well. The western snowy plover has been reported on the salt pond levees. The American Peregrine falcon and golden eagle may occasionally hunt in the Moffett Field area, especially in fall and winter. These wide-ranging raptors may utilize any portion of the project area during hunting activity. The remaining special-status species are resident throughout the year and may breed in or near the project area. Suitable habitat for the endangered California clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse is restricted to the tidal salt marsh along Stevens Creek, the adjoining diked salt marsh, the Bayshore north of the runways, and Guadalupe Slough, as shown in Appendix H. The salt marsh common yellowthroat and possibly the black-shouldered kite nest in " the diked brackish marshes just north of the Outdoor Aerodynamics Research Facility (OARF). Loggerhead shrikes nest in shrub thickets north of the 42 Table 7 SPECIAL STATUS BIRD AND MAMMAL SPECIES OCCURRING IN THE VICINITY OF MFA .....- i¯i ¯’¯¯.~:i¯¯.I i-:¯ .....’ .........¯¯~ ¯¯"i¯:. ¯ ....¯~ ¯¯¯ Common ¯Name ::,.....-: ~.- ] , . ScientificName .-~- ¯ ¯ - Salt marsh harvest mouse California least tern California clapper rail California brown pelican American peregrine falcon Western snowy plover Black-shouldered kite Loggerhead shrike Western bun-owing owl Salt marsh common yellowthrnat Northern harrier Golden eagle American white pelican Horned lark Status Definitions FE: Federally Endangered FT: Federally Threatened C2: Federal .Listing May Be Warranted SE: California (State) Endangered CFP: California Protected CSC: California Species of Special Concern Reithrodontomys raviventri~ raviventri~ Sterna antillarum browni Rallus lon~rostris obsoletus Pelecanus occidentalis californicus Falco peregrinus anatum Charadrius al~andrinus nivosus Elanus caeruleus Lanius ludovicianus Athene cunicularia hypugea Geothlypsis trichas sinuosa Circus cyaneus Aquila chrysaetos Pelecanus erythrorhynchos Eremophila alpestris aetia .Sensitivity Status FE/SE FE/SE FE/SE FE/SE FE/SE FT/CSC CFP C2/CSC C2/CSC C2/CSC CSC CSC CSC C2/CSC Source: Adapted from Table 1. WESCO. Phase I Site-wide Qualitative Habitat and Receptor Characterization Study. HAS MFA. October 1993. 43 OARF and hunt over a variety of adjacent habitats, including diked salt marsh, diked brackish marsh, isolated seasonal marshes, annual grassland/ ruderal areas, and levee banks along Stevens Creek. Northern harriers hunt over diked brackish marsh and annual grassland/ruderal habitat. Finally, burrowing owls utilize disturbed ruderal and landscaped areas at Moffett Field as nesting and foraging habitat. H. Hazards A considerable variety of hazardous and toxic substances are used at MFA. In addition, there are several hazardous waste sites on the property which have been identified, and some which have been scheduled for cleanup. These are summarized below. MFA is used as one of nine Pacific Fleet Support Stations and is designated as a Secondary Ammunition Stock Point. This designation has resulted in the storage of weapons. Weapons and ordnance storage currently occurs in several areas at MFA. The distribution of fuel to and within MFA provides fuel for aircraft, vehicles, and other uses such as emergency generator engines. The Defense Fuel Supply Center (DFSC) provides jet fuel for aircraft operating at MFA. Jet fuel is currently received by trucks and pumped to several large storage tanks. From these tanks, fuel is dispensed to aircraft hydrants located at various sites around the airfield. DFSC plans to continue with an already existing project to dredge the Guadalupe Slough to enable its contractor’s fuel barge to better access the fuel dock at MFA. This project was planned prior to, and remains independent of, potential CRAF operations at MFA. Until the dredging project is completed, DFSC is trucking fuel into MFA to supply existing and future aircraft. The Installation Restoration Program (IRP) was established by the United States Navy to evaluate, investigate, and remediate sites with ground water and/or soil contamination problems resulting from past hazardous waste management practices. Twenty-four sites have been identified at MFA as potential hazardous waste disposal or spill locations under the IRP. Another large site of approximately 320 acres (130 hectares) has been identified by the US EPA as a contaminated Superfund site (Middlefield-Ellis-Whisman Superfund Site). The primary contaminants are trichloroethylene, other chlorinated solvents, and petroleum hydrocarbons. The site will be remediated by a regional.groundwater extraction system. The area of groundwater contamination of MFA is approximately 162 hectares (400 acres). The Navy is committed to cleanup of all IRP sites at MFA to levels negotiated with regulatory agencies. The Navy retains full responsibility for all environmental requirements and regulations arising out of or related to the previous activities of the Navy. In addition to continued environmental clean-up efforts by the Navy, NASA has developed several plans related to hazardous wastes. These plans will ensure that MFA meets aH Federal, State, and local regulations regarding hazardous wastes. Hazardous Waste Minimization Plans outline reduction measures for hazardous waste. Additionally, the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan and site specific Building Emergency Action Plans, which contain a thorough coverage of response organization and procedures, and the Hazard Communication Plans are sources of information regarding hazardous materials. NASA Ames also follows a Pollution Prevention Plan, which was established agency-wide in December 1995. I. Noise The following section summarizes the sources of noise at MFA, the existing noise environment, and regulations governing noise at MFA. 1.Existing No|s~ Sources MFA is home to a variety of unique aircraft. In addition to the NASA and military aircraft, there are a variety of aircraft which use the airfield. These aircraft are described and illustrated in Appendix A. Noise generated by existing wind tunnel facilities at MFA also contributes to the general noise environment of the area. Wind tunnels which produce the most noticeable noise levels include the Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel Complex, the 40- by 80-Foot Wind Tunnel and the 80- by 120-Foot Wind Tunnel. Other wind tunnels at NASA Ames Research Center include the 12-Foot Pressure Wind Tunnel and 3.5-Foot Hypersonic Wind Tunnel. The Outdoor Aerodynamic Research Facility (OARF) also produces noise at NASA Ames Research Center. The OARF is located in the northern portion of NASA Ames Research Center in an open area between the airfield runways and the western boundary of the property. High noise generating projects, such as powered model tests, have run an average of two hours per day. Other tests have been administered at the facility for up to seven hours per day. Additionally, several significant noise sources beyond MFA affect the surrounding community. They include heavy, nearly continuous automobile and truck traffic along the Bayshore Freeway (Highway 101), and noise from other thoroughfares such as the Central Expressway,. Stevens Creek Freeway (Highway 85), and the South Bay Freeway (Highway 237). 2.Existing Noise Environment Historically, aviation activities at MFA have averaged about 80,000 annual operations. Of these annual average operations, approximately 60,000 have actually occurred on the airfield, while the remaining 20,000 operations were typically overflights by aircraft traversing the MFA airspace. However, as a result of the transfer of MFA to NASA and the phase-out of active duty P-3 squadrons, overall aviation activity has decreased over the past few years. While there recently has been some growth in the number, size, and level of activities of government agencies at MFA, existing operations have significantly declined since the Navy transferred MFA to NASA. In ¯1995, approximately 24,000 annual aircraft operations occurred at MFA. CNEL noise contours have been prepared for those conditions, as shown in Figure 13 (using the FAA’s Integrated Noise Model). For the purpose of establishing baseline conditions against which to compare project impacts, these recent, lower levels of activity have not been used, since these flight operations could return to the historically higher levels at any time, without further environmental review, as long as noise contours remained within the 1994 CUP 2010 description. A projected activity level of approximately 80,000 annual operations serves as the 2010 forecast conditions, as defined by the MFA CUP. The figure of 80,000 annual operations includes approximately 20,000 overflights by aircraft crossing MFA airspace. These overflights are not factored into the noise modeling assumptions because they would not have any measurable effect on community noise impacts. These forecast noise levels are shown in Chapter IV for impact assessment purposes. 3.Regulation of Noise No State or local noise criteria regulate aircraft noise at MFA since it is a Federal facility and is not subject to State or local aircraft noise control regulations. NASA attempts, whenever possible, to meet local guidelines and .standards and considers them advisory in nature. NASA does use community noise standards as a measure of significance when evaluating the environmental impacts of a proposed project. Additionally, NASA has no specific noise criteria of its’ own, beyond those guidelines presented in the NASA Health Standard on Hearing Conservation. 46 in meter~ 500 1000 1500 2000 Am C~J~GO0PE]~,I’IOI~ -- ’ MOFI’ITT Figure 13 Existing Noise .Exposure for Airfield Operations (1995 Conditions) Legend: ~’"=""=’=~ 1995 CNEL Noise Contour (dB) 496:024 The City of Sunnyvale, which is the community that is most affected by MFA aircraft operations, includes a Noise Contour Map in their Noise Sub-Element of the General Plan (Figure 14). This map includes contours for MFA, which are generally consistent with the noise contours prepared for Baseline 2010 MFA conditions, as documented in Chapter IV. J. Public Services Fire protection, police protection and security are provided by NASA through private contract. PG&E provides power and natural gas and AT&T/Pacific Bell provides telephone service to the site. Utilities and Service Systems Water supply for MFA is provided through contract with the San Francisco Water Department. Wastewater discharges are transported to and treated at the Sunnyvale publicly owned treatment works and the City of Mountain View collection system/Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant. L. Aesthetics The w~de open spaces of the airfield and the wetlands, in addition to the views of the San Francisco Bay, provide a pleasant visual environment. Numerous birds and animals inhabit the marshes and provide interesting observation possibilities. In addition, there are a substantial number of well-preserved buildings that date back to the original construction of MFA dating back to 1932. Also, MFA is the site of three impress!ve structures known as Hangars 1, 2 and 3. M. Cultural Resources Historic use of MFA has been carefully documented in nominations submitted by the Navy for inclusion of Shenandoah Plaza as a designated historic district in the National Register of Historic Places. The Shenandoah Plaza Historic District was designated an official historic district in the National Register of Historic Places by the National Park Service in February 1994. This designation inehided Shenandoah Plaza and Hangars 1, 2 and 3. Additionally, the Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel complex in the existing Ames Research Center has been designated a National Historic Landmark based on its association 49 LEGEND: ~ CNEL Noise Contour (dB) ~ MFA Noise Contour CNEL 65 dB OPERATION~ Figure 14 City of Sunnyvale Noise, Contour Map (CNEL) Source: City of Sunnyvale Noise Sub-Element of the General Plan, 1985. 49~:00S with the development of the US space program13, and the 40- by 80-Foot Wind Tunnel may be eligible for listing as an historic resource in the National Register. The MFA vicinity has been extensively studied for archaeological resources as part of Navy, NASA, and other development and highway projects. The Crittendon Kitchen Midden (CA-SCL-23) and several other archeological sites have been recorded at MFA. Most of these were noted in a 1909 survey and located in 1912. Others were identified in 1925, and adjacent studies have been conducted in the 1980s and 1990s. A large shellmound suggested evidence that intensive occupation in the general vicinity of MFA had occurred for many centuries. Investigations in this part of the Bay Area indicate that some sites were occupied continuously for up to 3,600 years. Most of the evidence of such occupation has be~n destroyed, however, by urban development, bay fill, and agricultural production.14 An archeological study was recently conducted on a 24-he~tare (60-acre) site on the northwest portion of Ames Research Center in November 1993 to determine the presence or absence of the previously recorded Kitchen Midden. No remnants of the Kitchen Midden or any other prehistoric cultural artifacts were found in this area. N. Recreation Several recreation opportunities exist in and around MFA, as summarized below. City Parks Over 20 public parks and recreation facilities are located in the vicinity of MFA. These parks are operated and maintained by the City of Mountain View and the City of Sunnyvale. 13 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Environmental Resources Document. NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA. June 1992. 14 David Chavez. Cultural Resources Review for the Ames Research Center Environmental Resources Document. Santa Clara County, CA. March 1981. 51 2.Stevens Creek Regional Trail The Stevens Creek Regional Trail is a proposed 16-kilometer (10-mile) trail system beginning in Shoreline at Mountain View and crossing through several cities to the Stevens Creek Reservoir. Mountain View has completed the northernmost section of the trail from Shoreline to L’Avenida.15 3.Shoreline at Mountain View Shoreline at Mountain View is a 268-hectare (662-acre) regional recreation and wildlife preserve which forms the northern boundary of the City of Mountain View. This regional park has a 81-hectare (200-acre) golf course, and valuable wetland and upland habitat. Jogging, bicycling, wind surfing, small boat sailing, golf, and environmental education are among the activities available at Shoreline. 4.San Francisco Bay Trail The San Francisco Bay Trail is a planned 644-kilometer (400-mile)*bicycle and pedestrian trail system around the shoreline of the San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. The trail was established by the California State Legislature in 1987. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is responsible for implementing the Bay Trail Plan in cooperation with local governments, agencies, and property owners around the Bay. ABAG, in cooperation with the South Bay Ad Hoe Committee of the San Francisco Bay Trail coalition, is studying the feasibility of extending the Bay Trail to connect existing segments in the cities of Sunnyvale and Mountain View. The alignment preferred by the Ad Hoe Committee is along the northern side of MFA, near the waters of the San Francisco Bay. NASA has concerns about the development of the northern route of the Bay Trail beeanse it would bring public users of the trail within the vicinity of active ordnance magazines, ordnance handling pads, the Outdoor Aeronautics Research Facility (OARF), and the end of the runway at MFA. Laser research is also periodically conducted in close proximity to the proposed northern alignment. On December 15, 1994, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) approved a Consistency Determination for the MFA CUP, which allows for the development of the Bay Trail to the is City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View 1992 General Plan. A Comprehensive Revision of the 1982 Mountain View General Plan. City of Mountain View. October 29, 1992. 52 maximum extent feasible consistent with safety and security needs at MFA. To date, safety and security needs have precluded the development of the Bay Trail to the north of MFA. 5.Onizuka Housing Recreation Facilities Within the Federally owned Onizuka Air Station Annex there are several recreational facilities provided for the use of the residents of the housing area. These include several baseball diamonds and basketball courts, the Youth and Teen Center, and many playground facilities scattered throughout the housing areas. Additionally, there is a par course facility to the south of the Senior Officer’s Quarters, located in the eastern annex. This trail system also provides access to the MFA recreation facilities described below. 6.MFA Recreation Facilities Adjacent to the southern portion of the runways of MFA are some military and civilian recreation facilities. This area serves as the central core of MFA and includes a park, playing fields and picnic grounds. The Onizuka Air Station Servib.e Flight and the Naval Air Reserves provide leisure time entertainment for active duty and retired military personnel. Recreational facilities include a gymnasium, swimming pool, golf course and dub honse, racquetball courts, recreational parks and tennis courts.16 NASA has also developed the Bicycle Commute Trail, which runs from the Stevens Creek Regional Trail to the Wright Avenue Gate (Gate 17) of NASA Ames Research Center. The trail is open during daylight hours on days when Ames Research Center is open. It is used for Ames civil service and contractor personnel, and the general public, when going to or from Ames Research Center. ~6 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Naval Air Station Moffett Field, Existing Conditions Report, Phase 2. NASA Ames Research Center Facilities Planning Office. May 22, 1992. 53 54 Chapter IV ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The following chapter provides an analysis of the environmental effects of the proposed CRAF Air Cargo Operations at MFA alternatives. For a further description of the project alternatives, please refer to Chapter II.~ Impacts are categorized by type of impact as follows: ¯S = Significant ¯LTS = Less Than Significant These abbreviated conclusions follow each impact and each mitigation measure to identify their significance before and after mitigation. The following environmental issue areas are considered in this analysis: A~ B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. Land Use and Planning Population, Housing, and Environmental Justice Geology Water Air Quality Transportation/Circulation Biological Resources Hazards Noise Public Services Utilities and Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources N.Recreation 55 A. Land Use and Planning The proposed action is to allow limited use of MFA by commercial cargo members of the DoD’s CRAF program. Flight operations of the cargo carriers would be limited by a specified allocation of operations per day and year, as further detailed in Chapter II. These flight operations are currently allocated to NASA and other RAs through the CUP.~ The EA~- on the CUP assessed a level of flight activity consistent with the proposed alternatives. Based on that EA and other relevant information, NASA issued a finding of no significant impact in August 1994. Although MFA is constitutionally exempt from the application of local land use plans and policies, NASA intends to meet local land use plans and policies to the maximum extent practicable. The only possible land use impact could be related to an increase in noise. For this reason, the noise assessment contained in Section J of this chapter should be referenced for more detail on these potential impacts. A separate checklist is provided for each of the proposed action alternatives for this environmental topic, due to the varied characteristics of the four alternatives. ~ NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California. Moffett Field Comprehensive Use Plan. September 1994. ~ Brady and Associates. Moffett Field Comprehensive Use Plan Final Environmental Assessment. Prepared for NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California. August 1994. 56 1.Alternative 1 Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b)Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Substantial Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c)Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d)Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands) or impacts from incompatible land uses)? Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? As described in Section J of this chapter, Alternative I would result in an increase in noise exposure. This increase of noise would result in further exposure of residential land uses to CNEL 65 dB and above, which is considered the threshold for compatibility. This impact is further described on ,page 106 of this report. Though the noise generated by aircraft using the runways has been cited as one of the largest sources of noise in the surrounding communities, the long range planning documents for these cities acknowledge that the Federal property is an important economic resource, and that the community should support the continued operation of the airfield by the Federal govermnent. Specifically, the City of Sunnyvale’s Noise Sub-Element of the General Plan anticipates noise ~om MFA that is generally consistent with the CUP. If the proposed action were to be implemented, the cargo carriers that would be introduced to MFA would be required to comply with existing Federal regulations and policies which govern the airfield. As described in Chapter II, these include the CUP and the Airfield Operations Manual, each of which is described below. Comprehensive Use Plan. Under the CUP, future development and operatiom of the airfield are to continue to be restricted to use by the Federal government. Air operations are to support NASA’s aviatio~t 57 activities such as aerospace research and development, as well as the routine operation and training of the RAs. Because the flight operations proposed by the commercial cargo carriers were previously allocated to NASA and other RAs through the CUP, the proposed action is consistent with the CUP. AirfieM Operations Manual All aircraft using MFA are required to adhere to the rules, procedures, and guidelines contained in the MFA Operations Manual. Because Alternative 1 is consistent with the above regulations and polidies, no significant impacts with regard to public polices are anticipated. In addition, Alternative 1 would not affect agricultural resources or operations and would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community since no changes in land use are proposed. 2.Alternative 2 Would the proposal: a) Conflict.with general plan designation or zoning? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Substantial Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b)Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c)Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d)Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? As described in Section J of this chapter, Alternative 2 would not result in an increase in noise that would result in further exposure of residential land uses to incompatible noise. The populated areas that would be exposed to CNEL above 65 dB t~ough implementation of this alternative are actually decreased when compared to year 2010 forecast conditions contained in the CUP, as further described on page 107 of this report. 58 Because Alternative 2 is consistent with the regulations and policies described above (within the assessment for Alternative 1), no significant impacts with regard to public policies are anticipated. In addition, Alternative 2 would not affect agricultural resources or operations and would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community since no changes in land uses are proposed. 3.Alternative 3 Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b)Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Substantial Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community.)? As described in Section J of this chapter, Alternative 3 would result in an increase in noise exposure. This increase of noise would result in further exposure of residential land uses to CNEL 65 dB and above, which is considered the threshold for compatibility. This impact is further described on pages 107 and 108 of this report. Because Alternative 3 is consistent with the regulations and policies described above (within the assessment for Alternative 1), no significant impacts with regard to public policies are anticipated. In addition, Alternative 3 would not affect agricultural resources or operations and would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community since no changes in land uses are proposed. 59 Alternative Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b)Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project’!. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? I£1 13 I£1 d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)7 e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? As described in Section J of this chapter, Alternative 4 would not result in an increase in noise that would result in further exposure of residential land uses to incompatible noise. The populated areas that would be exposed to CNEL above 65 dB through implementation of this alternative are actually decreased when compared to 2010 forecast conditions contained in the CUP, as further described on page 108 of this report. Because Alternative 4 is consistent with the regulations and policies previously described (within the assessment for Alternative 1), no significant impacts with regard to publie policies are anticipated. In addition, Alternative 4 would not affect agricultural resources or operations and would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community since no changes in land uses are proposed. $.No Action Alternative The No Aetion Alternative would allow flight operations to occur at MFA consistent with the CUP. Under this scenario, annual aircraft operations could total 60,000. These operations would include NASA researeh aircraft, as well as aircraft of RAs, but commercial air cargo operators would not be considered in the RA mix. The CUP is a programmatic document which describes, in general, the level of activity anticipated at Moffett Field through the year 2010. An EA under NEPA was completed on the CUP, and was finalized in August 1994, when a FONSI was issued. Project specific environmental impacts of individual proposed actions at Moffett Field would continue to be assessed on an individual basis. Environmental analysis of individual projects at Moffett Field would comist of completing an environmental checklist, completing an EA, or completing an EIS, depending upon the scope of the specific proposed action and whether the proposed action falls within the activity level and assumptions made in the CUP and CUP EA. 61 B, Population, Housing, and Environmental Justice Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? d) Disproportionately place the burden of environmental hazards on low income and minority populations? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Substantial Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1.Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 Alternatives 1 and 2 would employ up to 240 new personnel at Moffett at one ¯ time, and Alternatives 3 and 4 would employ up to 390 new personnel at one time. However, it is anticipated that two employment shifts will occur during the day and it is expected that employees for each shift will differ. Therefore, air cargo operations at MFA could generate up to 480 jobs for Alternatives 1 and 2, and up to 780 jobs for Alternatives 3 and 4, as described in Chapter II. Current employment at MFA totals 8,762. Therefore, with the addition of air cargo operations, employment would total a maximum of 9,242 employees for Alternatives 1 and 2, and 9,542 employees for Alternatives 3 and 4. The CUP anticipates a maximum employment at MFA of 10,610. Therefore, the proposed action is consistent with the population projections for the area. Additionally, no substantial growth is expected to occur, and housing will not be displaced as a result of the project. Environmental justice is the principle that low income populations and minority populations should not disproportionately bear the burden of environmental hazards (Question "d" above). Becanse the proposed action is not expected to involve or result in any significant environmental hazards, no 62 substantial impacts with regards to environmental justice are anticipated. further discussion of environmental hazards, refer to Section H of this chapter. l~or The only possible environmental justice impact could be related to an increase in noise. However, the noise exposure and levels of any of the four proposed action alternatives would not reach "hazardous" levels, but could be considered annoying. The noise assessment contained in Section J of this chapter should be referenced for more detail on potential noise impacts. Because noise would not reach hazardous levels, this potential environmental justice impact is considered less than significant. 2.No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, current employment at MFA would remain at 8,758. However, employment could grow to the 10,610 allowed under the CUP. There would be no change in impacts to low income or minority populations through the No Action Alternative. C. Geology Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Substantial Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudflows? f) Erosion, changes in .topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soils? i) Unique geologic or physical features? 1.Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 The proposal would introduce additional employees to MFA, which is located in one of the most seismically active regions of the United States. Conditions at the project site do not substantially differ from conditions that would be encountered in other locations in the San Francisco Bay Area. Additionally, the project does not include the construction of any additional facilities, which would have to be engineered to meet current safety standards. Existing geologic conditions associated with the site would not change with project implementation. 2.No Action Alternative Without implementation of the proposed action, geologic conditions at the site would remain the same. Additional employees could be introduced to the site, up to the number described in the CUP (10,610 persons). D. Water [] [] [] Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff?. b)Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? )Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? i)Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater othe~vise available for public water supplies? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Substantial Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1.Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 No construction of buildings or structures is included in the proposed action. The proposed action does not include any proposed changes to water bodies, drainage patterns, or the introduction of additional sources of surface runoff. Additionally, activities associated with the proposed action would occur outside of the 100-year flood plain, with the exception of the northern portions of the runways. For these reasons, impacts to water systems or resources that would be anticipated with the implementation of the proposed action are negligible. 65 2.No Action Alternative No changes to water bodies, drainage patterns, or the introduction of additional sources of surface runoff would occur with the implementation of the No Action Alternative, beyond the development allowed by the CUP. The CUP EA incorporates mitigation measures to prevent possible impacts to Stevens Creek, so no impacts to this water body are anticipated. Additionally, development must be consistent with the existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. Building construction at MFA must also meet Federal Emergency Management Agency requirements for flood elevations. No impacts are anticipated under the No Action Alternative. E. Air Quality A separate checklist is provided for Alternatives 1 and 2, and Alternatives 3 and 4, due to the varied conditions of these two activity levels, with respect to air quality. 1.Alternatives 1 and 2 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Substantial Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? Alternatives 1 and 2 would increase aircraft, truck and automobile activity at MFA, changing air pollutant emissions from these indirect sources of pollution. However, only a portion of the new aircraft, truck and automobile activity would be considered new to the region, since a portion of this activity would be transferred to this site from other Bay Area airports. The following impact analysis assumes that for Alternatives 1 and 2, only 25 percent of the new aircraft, truck and automobile activity associated with the proposed action would represent new activity within the San Francisco Bay Air Basin. This is because air cargo companies will likely decrease operations at San Jose International, San Francisco International, and Oakland International airports if they are able to operate at MFA. Aircraft emissions for the year 2010 have been calculated for baseline conditions and with Alternative 1 or 2.3 Estimated new aircraft emissions have been estimated for Alternatives 1 and 2 and are shown in Table 8 and detailed in Appendix E. Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc.; Moffctt Field Aircraft Pollutant Emissions; 1996, 67 Table 8 AircraR Alternative 1 & 2 Alternative 3 & 4 Employees Alternative I & 2 Alternative 3 & 4 Trucks" Alternative 1 & 2 Alternative 3 & 4 i Total Alternative 1 & 2 Alternative 3 & 4 PROJECT-RELATED NEW EMISSIONS (In Pounds and Tons per Year) 72.360 232,480 340 1,440 10,340 41,320 83,040 275,240 36.18 116.24 0.17 0.72 5.17 20.66 41.52 137.62 Carbon Monoxide ¯ lbs --:tons 70,600 224,860 4,260 17,060 13,660 54,600 7,500 3.75 33,540 16.77 280 0.14 1,140 0.57 2,400 1.20 9,58O 4.79 10,180 5.09 44,260 22.13 88,520 296,520 35.30 112.43 2.13 8.53 6.83 27.30 44.26 1148.26 As detailed in Section H, trucks will also be.bringing fuel to MFA through the year 1998. However, these trucks will not be arriving or departing during peak commute hours, and this activity is considered temporary. For this reason, the truck volume projections contained in this EA do not specifically allocate trips or air emissions to fuel trucks. Note:The above calculations for new emissions assume that for Alternatives 1 and 2, only 25 percent of the new aircraft, truck and automobile activity associated with the proposed action would represent new activity within the San Francisco Air Basin. For Alternatives 3 and 4, only 50 percent of the new activity is considered new within the Air Basin because some of the operations would transfer from other Bay Area airports. New activity is defined as the difference between baseline conditions (NASA Fleet 2010) and conditions with air cargo operations (NASA and Cargo Fleet), as further detailed in Appendix E. New employee and truck emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS-54 computer program developed by the CARB. Emissions fi’om employee trips and truck trips were calculated separately so that differing vehicle mixes and average trip lengths could be assumedJ The origin of the name URBEMIS comes from the nomenclature URBan EMISsions. 5 Employee vehicles were assumed to be all made by Light Duty Autos with Bay Area default trip lengths. The truck vehicle mix was assumed to consist of 64 percent Heavy Duty Diesel and 36 percent Medium Duty Gasoline vehicles. The truck trip length was taken as 7.6 miles, the average trip length for Santa Clara County in the year 2010 as defined by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 68 The significance of project-related emissions can be evaluated by comparing project impacts to the "de minimis" thresholds that represents a Federal impact criterion. The total of new emissions from aircraft, truck and automobile activity shown in Table 8 does not exceed the conformity "de minimis" levels of 100 tons per year. Alternatives 1 and 2 would not have a significant regional air quality impact, and would not require a conformity determination. With regards to cumulative effects of the proposed action, current projections are that regional emissions of air pollutants will decrease in the future, despite cumulative growth in population and vehicle use. This anticipated decrease is due to regional programs for reducing emissions that are in place or currently being considered. Alternatives 1 and 2 would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, alter air movement, moisture, or temperature or cause any change in climate. Increased aircraft activity under Alternative 1 and 2 would increase the potential for jet exhaust odors that some people find objectionable. These exhausts would occur at asubstantial distance from the general public and sensitive receptors, so this impact would be less than significant. 2.Alternatives 3 and 4 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Substantial Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? Alternatives 3 and 4 would increase aircraft, truck and automobile activity at MFA, changing air pollutant emissions from these indirect sources of pollution. However, only a portion of the new aircraft, truck and automobile activity would be considered new to the region, since a portion of this activity would be transferred to this site from other Bay Area airports. The following impact analysis assumes that for Alternatives 3 and 4, only 50 percent of the new aircraft, truck and automobile activity associated with the proposed action 69 would represent new activity within the San Francisco Bay Air Basin. This is because air cargo companies will likely decrease operations at San Jose International, San Francisco International, and Oakland International airports if they are able to operate at MFA.. Impact AIR-1. Alternatives 3 and 4 would generate significant increases in nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide air emissions. (S) As shown in Table 8 Alternatives 3 and 4 could have a significant impact on ozone and carbon monoxide air quality, and a conformity determination would be required for NOx and CO emissions before final compliance with the Clean Air Act (CAA) could be assured. Conformity can be demonstrated by showing that the emission increases are specifically identified and accounted for in the applicable SIP’s attainment or maintenance demonstration, or demonstrate that the emissions are fully offset through a revision to the SIP or a similarly enforceable measure that effects emissions reductions so that there is no net increase in emissions. If a conformity determination cannot be made, the above impact would remain significant. Alternatives 3 and 4 would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, alter air movement, moisture, or temperature or cause any change in climate. Increased aircraft activity under Alternative 3 and 4 would increase the potential for jet exhaust odors that some people find objectionable. These exhausts would occur at a substantial distance from the general public and sensitive receptors, so this impaet would be negligible. 3.No Action Alternative This alternative would not change local or regional air pollutant emissions amounts or patterns. This alternative would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any ehange in climate. Increased aircraft activity whieh could be implemented under the No Action Alternative could increase the potential for jet exhaust odors that some people find objectionable. These exhausts would occur at a substantial distance from the general public and sensitive receptors, so this impact would be negligible. In general, current projeetions are that regional ~ "em~sslons of air pollutants will decrease in the future, despite cumulative growth in population and vehicle use. This anticipated decrease is due to regional programs for reducing emissions that are in place or currently being considered. 70 F. Transportation/Circulation Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b)Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Conflicts with adopted pohcies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, watedx~me or air traffic impacts? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Less Than No Mitigation Significant Substantial Incorporated Impact Impact Analysis has been conducted to determine the expected traffic impacts resulting from implementation of air cargo operations at MFA. All air cargo operation employee and truck traffic would normally utilize the MFA’s South Gate at Ellis Street to access the Highway 101 freeway viaan interchange less than 500 feet from MFA~ The interchange and adjacent areas will be undergoing reconstruction starting in late 1996 for a two-year period in order to accommodate the Tasman Corridor Extension of the Santa Clara County Transit’s Light Rail Train (LRT) system. Tracks will have their own right of way in the Ellis Street underpass of the freeway and both ramp intersections with Ellis Street will be signalized.6 Traffic volumes have been projected for the year 2010 for two levels of air cargo activity (Alternatives 1 and 2, and Alternatives 3 and 4), as well as for a future condition without air cargo operations (No Action Alternative). Operating conditions have been determined for both AM and PM peak hour traffic periods at the Ellis Street interchange, the South Gate and at the Ellis Street intersections with Manila Drive (adjacent to the South Gate) and Fairchild Drive/Clyde Drive just west 6 "Signalized" indicates that a traffic signal has been installed and is in operation at an intersection. 71 of the freeway interchange. Operating conditions, reflect delays caused by 20 LRT movements through the interchange during both peak traffic hours. Analysis methodology for the signalized ramp intersections is the same as that employed in the Highway 101 and Ellis Street interchange Tasman Corridor LRT traffic operations analysis by Rajappan & Meyer in December 1994. Methodology for the analysis of the unsignalized Manila Drive and Fairchild Drive/Clyde Drive intersections is detailed in the updated 1994 Highway Capacity Manual? Year 2005 AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes have been projected for the Ellis Street interchange with the Highway 101 freeway in the previously referenced traffic study by Rajappan & Meyer. Based upon input from the City of Mountain View Traffic Engineer, these projections assumed full employment at MFA (but without air cargo operations). However, since this EA is examining a 2010 horizon, the previously developed 2005 projections were factored upwards to reflect 2010 conditions (to correspond to CUP. projections) using a growth rate of one percent per year (for all movements except those to and from MFA, which were assumed at maximum levels by year 2005). Figures 15 and 16 present 20i0 AM and PM peak hour volumes, respectively, without air cargo operations at MFA. Existing traffic activity at the South Gate was projected to increase in a straight line relationship with increased employment at the Moffett Field. At full employment, South Gate peak hour volumes in the year 2010 were projected to increase by 21 percent over existing levels. Detailed input was solicited from UPS, Federal Express and DHL (three of the likely air.cargo operators at MFA) regarding the expected number of employees and trucks that would be associated with the start-up of their air cargo operations at MFA. Morning and afternoon ingress and egress times for employee autos and cargo delivery trucks were estimated by each company based upon the projected arrival and departure times of their individual aircraft. Start-up traffic activity levels were then expanded to reflect maximum employee levels of 240 and 390 staff during both morning and early evening activity time periods (i.e., 240 employees in the morning and 240 employees in the evening would count as 480 employees toward the MFA maximum employment level of 10,610 staff). Any air cargo companies other than UPS, Federal Express or DHL that might eventually use MFA were assumed to have traffic activity patterns similar to the composite traffic activity level generated from the three surveyed companies due to the limited windows for plane arrivals and departures in order to provide next-day delivery service throughout the United States. Transportation Research Board Special Report 209. 1.Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 a. Future Traffic Volumes. Appendix F of this EA details traffic activity associated with the air cargo operations. These operations would generally occur from about 3:00 to 8:30 am and from about 3:00 to 9:00 pm. Figures 17 and 18 present 2010 AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the South Gate and the Ellis Street freeway for Alternatives 1 and 2. The expected number of large and small trucks associated with air cargo operations are also detailed on the figures.8 Figures 19 and 20 present 2010 AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for Alternatives 3 and 4. At the higher activity level of air cargo operations, the projections for Alternatives 1 and 2 air cargo related employee and truck traffic would be expected to increase by about 65 percent. b. Future Intersection Operating Conditions. The operating conditions of a roadway system are conventionally described by focusing on the operating conditions at key intersections. Signalized intersection operation is graded according to a qualitative scale called Level of Service (LOS), which ranges from LOS A, indicating free flow conditions with little or no delay for drivers, down to LOS F, indicating extensive delays and congestion (as further described in Appendix G). For unsignalized intersections where only side street movements are stop sign controlled, LOS designations are determined for stop sign controlled approaches or turn movements, but not for the entire intersection as in the case of signalized intersections. Average vehicle delays are also tabulated for the individual turn movements in unsignalized analysis. More detail regarding the relationship between LOS and average vehicle delay for signalized and unsignalized intersections is presented in Appendix G of this EA. The City of Mountain View considers LOS D to be the minimum acceptable level of peak.hour operation at signalized intersections. Exceptions are those intersections along Congestion Management Agency (CMA) monitored routes, such as the future signalized Ellis Street/freeway ramp .intersections where LOS E peak hour operation will be acceptable. The City currently has no s Air cargo truck volume projections are conservatively high to ensure that impacts are no_..3t unde.....~restimated. It is assumed that all of the air cargo planes will be large in size rather than a mix of large and small planes. Total volumes in the figures also reflect a reduction in non-air cargo MFA traffic that would be required to keep total employment at the airfield at a 10,610 employee level. As detailed in Section H, trucks will also be bringing fuel to MFA through the year 1998. However, these trucks will not be arriving or departing during peak commute hours, and this activity is considered temporary. Additionally, the air cargo operations would not reach the peak activity level by 1998. For this reason, the truck volume projections contained in this EA do not specifically allocate trips to fuel trucks. 75 minimum LOS standard for stop sign controlled turn movements or intersection approaches at unsignalized intersections. However, typical City practice has been to accept LOS E operation, but to investigate the possibility of signalization in cases where LOS F operation would occur. Table 9 shows that by the year 2010 with full employment at MFA but no air cargo operations (the No Action Alternative), the system of signalized freeway ramp intersections with Ellis Street would be operating acceptably during both AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions: at the southbound ramps LOS C AM peak hour operation and LOS D PM peak hour operation; at the northbound ramps LOS D AM peak hour operation and LOS C PM peak hour operation. Table 10 shows that for the same 2010 time periods and without air cargo operations, stop s.ign controlled left-turn movements from Fairchild Drive and Clyde Drive to Ellis Street would all be operating unacceptably at LOS F, indicating extended delay. At Manila Drive (Table 10), the left-turn movement to Ellis Street would be operating at an acceptable LOS C during the AM peak hour and at an unacceptable LOS F during the PM peak hour. Both the Manila Drive and the Fairchild Drive/Clyde Drive unsignalized intersections would experience volumes exceeding peak hour signal warrant criteria levels9 during both commute time periods. With air cargo activities at MFA in 2010, operating conditions at the signalized freeway ramp intersections with Ellis Street would remain at acceptable levels during both AM and PM peak traffic conditions; at the southbound ramps LOS D+ to D AM peak hour operation and LOS D+ PM peak hour operation; at the northbound ramps LOS D- AM peak hour operation and LOS C- PM peak hour operation. For most conditions, peak direction flows of air cargo employees and truck traffic at the interchange ramp intersections would be the reverse of the peak direction flows of ambient traffic and would not typically add to critical volume movements at either intersection. Thus, while air cargo related traffic increases are large for some movements, impacts to overall interchange operation are expected to be small in most eases. Analysis of the Ellis Street interchange assumes a split phase operation for east- and westbound flow through both ramp intersections,t° Therefore, there should be adequate vehicle storage within the underpass for left turns to both on-ramps. Caltrans Warrant #11 One of two alternatives examined in the Rajappan & Meyer study. 80 Highway 101 SB Ramps/Ellis St,C 20.0 D+26.8 D 34.3 (signalized) Highway 101 NB Ramps/Ellis St.D 35.3 D-37.0 D-37.3 (signalized) PM:Peak ¯Hour--.." ......:. :..-:/?.:.,~ ...i"::i’ .-.,-.::- -,~-:i-. ;, :- ......,~ --"-- " Highway 101 SB Ramps/Ellis St.D+ 28.1 D+28.6 D+28.8 (signalized) Highway 101 NB Ramps/Ellis St.C 22.0 C-23.4 C-24.0 (signalized) Note:All analysis assumes 20 trains per hour on the Santa Clara County Tasman Corridor Light Rail Transit Extension. Source: Crane Transportation Group. Results adjusted in a manner similar to analysis in the Highway 101/Ellis Street interchange Tasman Corridor LRT traffic operations analysis by Rajappan & Meyer, December 1994. Table 10 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) (Year 2010) -::~. -: -~ -* -With AI -+ ++i ++++ i .+++++ ~ !--:+:++.++....i.i++ ++.?.+i.:i;-+i ?:.:++-;-:+.Wllh~i~P:+:.i-~.q+ .Alls,+:1 +nd 2 +- + i-Alts:~.and+++ :"+--++- :.+.: :+: .+ :+-. .+-++ i + :++ : :: : :+++++ ::"+f+++: :: ++"i:I++:+!+i+ i++ ++.m!~+y+in-+ i+ +.: +.+-I-+I~ +lay’in ’ +f: +].’Delay in+ Inierr+ectlon ++-‘+ +-+- " :u +++ .... ’::/ ¯ ":’" +::-:~ :: ::+-t~O+. -Second++. :+LOS+:. +-m rends- .-LOS +| ++Seconds %:+ - :i:+.+AM+PeakHour:---++- -+-:¯ ....+" -+?++++ ++ +::++~:+:+++ .+. +:, :: ++++:+.+i::+-++.~++:::.. ++-+ :++:+ -++.:-: Ellis St./Manila Dr. Unsignalized C-17.4 F Signalized A/B 5.0 A/B Ellis St,/Fairchild Dr.-Clyde Dr.F n/a F 48.2 F 92.6 5.0 A/B 5.0 n/a F n/a PM PeakHour :++ ++ ++ Ellis St./Manila Dr. Unsignalized F 100+F Signalized B+9.0+B- Ellis St,/Fairchiid Dr.-Clyde Dr.F n/a F n/a -- not available. 100+ 14.0 n/a F 100+ C-22.0 F n/a Source: Crane Transportation Group; 1994 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodologies. 81 Impact CIRC-1. At the Ellis Street/Manila Drive intersection, air cargo activities would result in a further degradation of unsignalized intersection Level of Service (LOS) for stop sign controlled movements from Manila Drive (ass~uming the existing signal remains inactive). Without a signal in operation, this intersection would operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour with or without implementation of air cargo activities at .MFA, given projected growth at MICA, (S) As previously described, signalization of the Ellis Street/Manila Drive intersection will be warranted before 2010 even without air cargo activities. However, addition of the air cargo activities proposed by the CRAF project would contribute to the unacceptable unsignalized condition (LOS F). At Manila Drive, air cargo traffic would add to the unacceptable and extended delays expected for stop sign controlled northbound Manila Drive traffic in 2010 forecast conditions. Operation of the sloop sign controlled left turn movement from Manila Drive to Ellis Street would change from LOS C to LOS F during the AM peak traffic hour due to the addition of air cargo traffic on Ellis Street. Projected LOS F PM peak hour operation for this movement would also be significantly aggravated. Air cargo traffic would also further increase volumes at this intersection above signal warrant criteria levels. There currently is a non-working signal at the Ellis Street/Manila Drive intersection. Any reinstitution of signalization at this intersection (which is under control of the City of Mountain View) would potentially require an equipment upgrade. A signal at the Ellis/Manila Drive intersection would facilitate safer pedestrian flow across Ellis Street between MFA and the planned or new LRT station south of Ellis Street. A signal at this location will need to be interconnected with the signals at the freeway interchange and the adjacent LRT crossing on Manila Drive. Additional turn lanes will potentially also be needed on intersection approach. 82 Mitigation Measure CIRC-1. NASA shall coordinate with the City of Mountain View to ensure the operation of a signal at the Ellis Street/Manila Drive intersection. This measure shall include either of the following: Reactivating the existing signal, should the City of Mountain View agree that it is fully operational; or Providing a fair share contribution towards the upgrading of the existing signal equipment. With a signal in operation, the Ellis Street/Manila Drive intersection would operate at LOS A/B during the AM peak hour (with or without air cargo operation) and at LOS B+ (without) or LOS B- to C- (with air cargo operations) during the PM peak traffic hour. (LTS) Alternatively, other potential long-range solutions include the elimination of the Manila Drive connection to Ellis Street (an option that would likely be favored by the City of Mountain View, but not by the City of Sunnyvale), or the realignment of the northbound freeway off-ramp to connect with Manila Drive south of the LRT station rather than to Ellis Street. At the Ellis Street intersection with Fairchild Drive/Clyde Drive, project traffic increases would be expected to be minimal as virtually all air cargo truck and employee traffic would be accessing the freeway to travel to the cargo companies’ distribution centers. With or without air cargo operatiom, the City of Mountain View may wish to comider eliminating the Clyde Drive connection to Ellis Street once the LRT system is in operation given the potential vehicle backups to Ellis Street that may occur.during passage of a light rail train. Alternatively, the City may wish to consider allowing right-turn movements only from Clyde Drive and Fairchild Drive to Ellis Street. This alternative may require provision of a dedicated westbound to eastbound U-turn area for autos on Ellis Street west of the intersection. c. South Gate Operating Conditions. During the AM peak traffic hour (6:45 to 7:45 am) inbound traffic at the South Gate would be expected to increase from an existing 400 up to 490 vehicles by 2010 without air cargo operations. With air cargo operations, inbound traffic in 2010 would be expected to increase from 490 up to about 505 vehicles for Alternatives 1 and 2. About 35 of the 505 vehicles would be expected to be trucks. 83 During the PM peak traffichour (5:00 to 6:00 pro) inbound traffic at the South Gate would be expected to increase from an existing 150 up to 185 vehicles by 2010 without air cargo operations. With air cargo operations, inbound traffic in 2010 would be expected to increase from 185 up to about 395 vehicles for Alternatives 1 and 2. About 80 of the 395 inbound vehicles would be expected to be trucks. For Alternatives 3 and 4, inboundtraffic in 2010 would be expected to increase from 490 up to about 510 vehicles during the AM peak traffic hour (6:45 to 7:45 am). About 55 of the 510 inbound vehicles would be expected to be trucks. During the PM peak traffic hour inbound traffic in 2010 would be expected to increase from 185 up to about 525 vehicles for Alternatives 3 and 4. About 130 of the 525 inbound vehicles would be expected to be trucks. Inbound flows to the South Gate due to air cargo operations would increase more rapidly during the PM peak traffic hourthan during the AM peak hour, with total inbound flows during both time periods becoming about equal with maximum air cargo operations. Impact CIRC-2. The increased inbound traffic flows at the South Gate due to air cargo operations could potentially result in significant traffic queues on Ellis Street through the Manila Drive intersection and to the freeway interchange. (S) The above impact would result if one of the following two eireurnstances took place: Any type of increased security cheeks at the entry gate which would cause traffic, especially trucks, to stop for several seconds. The distance from the South Gate to the Manila Road intersection allows storage (in one lane) for no more than five autos or one big truck and one auto. Any measurable delays experienced by inbound traffic at the one main intersection immediately inside the gate (at Macon Road). To prevent the above impact from occurring, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. Mitigation Measure CIRC-2. The following two measures shall be required: Any increased security checks at the South Gate (which may result during an emergency or other unusual condition) will require the use of ~he existing inspection area internal to the base to lessen potential vehicle delay at the gate and lengthy queuing of inbound vehicles; and The existing traffic signal at the Ellis Street/Macon Road intersection shall be reactivated to allow all inbound vehicles to proceed north or south on Macon Road without stopping. Some upgrade of signal equipment may be required. (LTS) With the implementation of these measures, the above impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. 2.No Action Alternative As previously described, by the year 2010 with full employment at MFA but no air cargo operations, the system of signalized freeway ramp intersections with Ellis Street would be operating acceptably during both AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions; at the southbound ramps LOS C AM peak hour operation and LOS D PM peak hour operation; at the northbound ramps LOS D AM peak hour operation and LOS C PM peak hour operation (Table 9). Additionally, stop sign controlled left-turn movements from Fairchild Drive and Clyde Drive to Ellis Street would all be operating unacceptably at LOS F (Table 10), indicating extended delay. At Manila Drive, the left movement to Ellis Street would be operating at an acceptable LOS C during the AM peak hour and at an unacceptable LOS F during the PM peak hour. Both the Manila Drive and the Fairchild Drive/Clyde Drive tmsignalized intersections would have volumes exceeding peak hour signal warrant criteria levelsn during both commute time periods. During the AM peak traffic hour (6:45 to 7:45 am) inbound traffic at the South Gate would be expected to increase from an existing 400 up to 490 vehicles by 2010 without air cargo operations. During the PM peak traffic hour (5:00 to 6:00 pro) inbound traffic at the South Gate would be expected to increase from an existing 150 up to 185 vehicles by 2010 without air cargo operations. n Caltrans Warrant #11 85 G. Biological Resources Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? ¢)Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Substantial Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1.Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 The proposed action does not include the construction of buildings or structures in a habitat area. Therefore, the only possible impact to biological resources would be the potential effects of increased noise on wildlife species that may be affected by high noise levels. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has stated that they are concerned about any noise increases of CNEL 65 dB or above with regard to the California dapper rail,12 whose habitat is in the tidal salt marsh and tidal brackish marsh in the vicinity of MFA. The California dapper rail is categorized as an endangered species by both the Federal and State government. When comparing Baseline 2010 noise conditions previously approved through the CUP EA, and the noise contours generated for the proposed action alternatives using the FAA’s Integrated Noise Model (INM), the CNEL noise exposure of 65 dB and above does not increase in the California clapper rail 12 Mr. Jim Browning, United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Personal Communication. March 26, 1996. 86 habitat areas for any of the four alternatives.13 In all alternatives, noise exposure is actually decreased over the California clapper rail habitat, when compared to 1994 CUP 2010 conditions. Therefore, no substantial impacts are anticipated. 2.No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would allow flight operations to occur at MFA consistent with the CUP. Under this scenario, aircraft operations could total 60,000 (not including overflights). These operations would include NASA research aircraft, as well as aircraft of RAs, but commercial air cargo operators would not be considered in the RA mix. Noise conditions under the No Action Alternative could be similar to the conditiom proposed by the project alternatives, if the anticipated operations and activity level -under the CUP were realized (see Figures 22 and 23). The CUP is a programmaticdocument which describes, in general, the level of activity anticipated at Moffett Field through the year 2010. An EA under NEPA was completed on the CUP, and was finalized in August 1994, when a FONSI was issued. Project specific environmental impacts of individual proposed actions at MoffeR Field would continue to be assessed on an individual basis. Environmental analysis of individual projects at Moffett Field would consist of completing an environmental checklist, completing an EA, or completing an EIS, depending upon the scope of the specific proposed action and whether the proposed action falls within the activity level and assumptions made in the CUP and CUP EA. 13 This impact analysis is based on the noise contours produced for the noise analysis contained in Section I of this chapter. 87 H. Hazards Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not fimited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than No Significant Substantial Impact’Impact b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d)Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e)Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? 1.Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 All regulatory requirements with regard to hazards as outlined in the CUP EA would remain in place with the proposed action. Risks of explosions or the release of hazardous substances include those related to the distribution and use of fuel for the commercial air cargo companies. As documented in Chapter III: Existing Environmental Conditions (Section H: Hazards), aviation fuel is planned to be received by barge via Guadalupe Slough. Currently, trucks bring fuel to .MFA pending the planned dredging of the Slough (planned by DFSC to be completed by 1998).14 Under NASA’s stewardship, several measures have been implemented to ensure that fuel is transported and stored safely at MFA. These measures are 14 The fuel trucks used for this temporary activity will not be arriving or departing during peak commute hours. Additionally, the air cargo operations would not reach the peak activity by 1998. For this reason, the truck volume projections contained in the Transportation/Circulation analysis do not specifically allocate trips to fuel trucks. 88 documented in the CUP EA. The commercial cargo companies would be required to adhere to all safety measures at MFA, as any RA would. However, these measures cannot eliminate risks associated with the use of hazardous substances. These risks are not anticipated to increase at MFA with the introduction of commercial air cargo operations. No interference with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans are anticipated as a result of the proposed action, and no health hazards are anticipated. Existing sources of contamination and hazards exist at MFA, as documented in Chapter III. The proposed action would expose employees of cargo companies to these hazards. However, clean-up efforts are in place for these sites, and operation of the airfield is co.nsistent with Federal, State, and local regulations regarding hazardous wastes. Documents which detail these regulations and requirements include Hazardous Waste Minimization Plans, the Spill Control and Countermeasures Plan, and the Hazard Communication Plans. With these regulations and requirements in place, no substantial impacts are anticipated. No substantial increase in fire hazards in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees is anticipated with implementation of the proposed action since the existence of vegetation surrounding Hangar 1 is minimal. 2.No Action Alternative All requirements with regard to hazards as outlined in the CUP EA would remain in place with the No Action Alternative. Environmental hazards would not change or increase with implementation of this alternative. However, risks related to accidental explosions or releases of hazardous substances would still exist, and people would continue to be exposed to existing sources of contamination. These conditions are considered less than significant because Federal, State, and local regulations and requirements would continue to govern the use of hazardous materials at MFA. 89 I. Noise While people may respond more to individual aircraft noise events, the long- term effects of prolonged exposure to noise best correlate with cumulative noise exposure metrics. A cumulative noise metric is one which provides a single number which is equivalent to the total noise exposure over a specified time period. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is the cumulative noise metric adopted by the State of California for assessing aircraft noise impacts. CNEL is expressed in decibels and represents the average noise level during a 24-hour day, and is adjusted to account for people’s lower tolerance for noise intrusions during the evening and nighttime periods relative to the daytime period. The adjustment involves weighting noise levels during evening and nighttime so that the aggregate result penalizes noise during those time periods. A similar metric, the Day-Night Average Sound Level (L~ or DNL) is the adopted FAA cumulative noise metric. L~ is similar to CNEL, but does not have the penalty for evening operations. For comparative purposes, however, CNEL and L~ can be considered nearly identical. Noise contours have been prepared for Baseline 2010 conditions for the airfield, the cumulative effects of the Baseline 2010 conditions, and the four alternatives of the proposed action (Figures 22 to 27). The FAA’s Integrated Noise Model (INM), version 3.10, was used to perform~ calculations and produce contours of noise exposure for this study. One of the largest contributors of noise in all noise contours developed for this report is the H-60 helicopters, which are currently, stationed and operating at MFA. Even though there are relatively few H-60 arrivals and departures on the helicopter flight tracks, the low altitude of the helicopters results in substantial noise contribution. Additionally, to gain a further understanding of the contribution of noise by the various aircraft, the documented noise levels of the aircraft that currently operate at MFA, along with the aircraft proposed by the CRAF project are presented in Table 11. A comparison of some of these noise levels is shown in Figure 21. 9O Table 11 NOISE LEVELS OF MFA AND CRAF AIRCRAFT (As Reported by the FAA) Note: The noise levels in this table are estimates based upon the best available data from the FAA. Noise levels will vary with different aircraft models, different engine types, different stage lengths, and the amount of weight and cargo the airplanes are carrying. Noise Levels (dB)~ :Jd~RType~i/’:" i;: : !~ -TakeolP Landing~ CRAF AIR CARGO OPERATIONS B747e 90 95 DC8~86 89 B757 70 88 B767 76 88 B727QF 88 86 DC10 84 94 A-300 79 90 A-310 82 * MDll (Cessna) 83 89 Single Propeller Aircraft "65 73 OTHER AIRCRAIrr OPERATIONS (NASA and RA Aircraft) B747~ CSA/CSB C9 Cl2/King Air C130 C141 DC8’ ER2 GIII GIV H-I/Hughes 500 H-53 H-60 Jet Trainer/Fighter 93 97 86 69 86 94 86 83 67 83 81 100 96 96 91 78 98 89 83 81 94 90 90 Data is not ava!lable for these aircraft through FAR Part 36. Aircraft types are described in Appendix A. A 10 dB increase in noise level is perceived by most people as a doubling of noise. Takeoff noise levels are measured 6,500 meters (4.04 miles or 21,325 feet) from the takeoff location, which is the point at which the FAA measures airplane noise in order to regulate and categorize airplanes as Stage III, or otherwise. Typically, an airplane would be approximately 600 to 730 meters (2,000 to 2,400 feet) in the air at this stage in the takeoff mode, although this varies. Landing noise levels are measured 2,000 meters (1.24 miles or 6,562 feet) from the takeoff landing threshold. Because these measurements are made closer to the noise source, noise levels are higher than those shown in the "takeoff’ column. However, in general, landings are quieter than takeoffs. These aircraft (B747 and DCg) are used by both the air cargo companies and current users of MFA. Noise levels of the same MFA and cargo aircraft are equivalent given the same weight and overall conditions. However, noise levels can be different given different models and engine types. For this ~cason the noise levels of the 747s in the cargo fleet are anticipated to be lower than the noise levels of the 747s in the current MFA fleet. Flyover at 500 feet. Source: Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 36. 91 I ! ! I I ! ! I ! ~ i I i ! scale In reuters 0 500 1000 1500 2000 sc~e in feet o 2OOO 4O0O 600O 8ooo CRAFAm CARGOOPERATIONS MOFFETTFEDERAL Figure 22 Baseline 2010 Noise Exposure for Airfield Operations (CNEL) Legend: LLII-I~j CNEL Noise Co~Itour (dB) Sources: 1. Moffett Field Comprehensive Use Plan Environmental Assessment, August 1994. 2. Verification by P & D Aviation, April 1996. 4%:018 scale in meters 0 500 1000 1500 2000 scale In feet 0 2000 4000 6000 so00 ~ CAI~GO OPEI~IOI~ MO~"~’~TT Figure 23 Baseline 2010 Cumulative Noise Environment (CNEL) Legend: ~CNEL Noise Co~tour (dB) ~ ,,-- n ,~ Contour Information Boundary Sources: ¯ 1. Moffett Field Comprehensive Use Plan Environmental Assessment, August 1994. 2. P & D Aviation, April 1996. 3. City of Mountain View 1992 General Plan. ,4. City of Sunnyvale Noise Sub-Element of the General Plan, 1985. 5. NASA Ames Aerodyqamics Testing Program, Draft EIS, June 1995 Note:This figure includes the projected noise exposure for the NASA Ames Aerodynamics Testing Program, as documented in the Draft EIS which was published in June 1995. NASA has directed that Altemative 2 of the proposed testing program be used for cumulative noise environment mapping. 496.019 scale In meters scaJe in feet 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 CRAFAIR CARGOOPEP~TIONS MO~ZTT AI~V~D Figure 24 Alternative 1 Noise Exposure (CNEL) Legend: Alternative 1 C~iEL Noise Contour (dB) Baseline 2010 CNEL Noise Contour (dB) Sources: 1. Moffett Fiel~l Comprehensive Use Plan Environmental Assessment, August 1994. 2. P & D Aviation, April 1996. 49~:020 scaJe in meters 0 500 1000 1500 2000 scale in feet 0 2OOO 40(X) 6OOO 8OOO AB C~J~GOOW, P~110NS Figure 25 Alternative 2 Noise Exposure (CNEL) Legend: ~=’="=~ Altemative 2 CN~L Noise Contour (dB) ’~ Baseline 2010 CNEL Noise Contour (dB) Sources: 1. Moffett Field Comprehensive Use Plan Environmental Assessment, August 1994. 2. P & D Aviation, April 1996. 496:021 132R scaJe in metem sca~e in feet o ~oo ~ooo isoo ~ooo o ~oo 4ooo eooo 80oo FEDERALAllU’IELD Figure 26 Alternative 3 Noise Exposure (CNEL) Legend: ~I"~ Alternative 3 CNEL Noise Contour (dB) ~ Baseline 2010 CNEL Noise Contour (dB) Sources: 1. Moffett Field Comprehensive Use Plan Environmental Assessment, August 1994. 2. P & D Aviation, Apd11996. 4%:022 # 14L I 1 41~:1 IiOi,-I-I~l ! FEDEI~J..~RFIEB:) scale in meters scale in feet o soo looo lsoo 2o0o o 2ooo ~ooo sooo sooo Am C~J~Go Figure 27 Alternative 4 Noise Exposure (CNEL) Legend: ~ Alternative 4 C~IEL Noise Contour (dB) ...... ~ Baseline 2010 CNEL Noise Contour (dB) Sources: 1. Moffett Field Comprehensive Use Plan Environmental Assessment, August 1994. 2. P & D Aviation, April 1996. 4%’023 Generally, all of the cargo aircraft proposed for use at MFA are Stage III aircraft, though use of some Stage II aircraft may occur in the event of an emergency or other unusual circumstance. Stage II and Stage III noise level designations are given to civil subsonic turbojet airplanes with a maximum certificated weight of 75,000 pounds or more. As a general rule, airplanes labeled Stage III are quieter than those labeled Stage II. The FAA is regulating the phase out of operations of all Stage II aircraft by December 31, 1999. Stage II aircraft engines will be required to be replaced with quieter engines, or their existing engines will be retrofitted with a hushkit to attain Stage III noise requirements. The proposed action is to allow limited use of MFA by commercial cargo members of DoD CRAF program. These operations would be limited by a specified allocation of operations per day and year, as further detailed in Chapter II. These number of flight, operations are operations that are currently anticipated for NASA and other RAs through the CUP.15 The EA16 on the CUP assessed a level of flight activity consistent with the proposed alternatives. NASA issued a finding of no significant impact on the CUP in August 1994. The following noise assessment considers the effect of changing the current allocation of aircraft operations to allow for commercial air cargo operations under the CRAF program. For the purpose of forecasting future baseline conditions against which to compare project impacts, existing flight operations (approximately 24,000 annual aircraft operations in 1995) are not considered, since these existing operations could return to the historically higher levels (60,000 aircraft operations) at any time without further environmental assessment as long as the noise contours were within those presented for Alternative 1 of the CUP (Baseline 2010 eonditious).17 1~ NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California. Moffett FieM Comprehensive Use Plan. September 1994. ~6 Brady and Associates, Inc. Moffett Field Comprehensive Use Plan Final Environmental Assessment. ’Prepared for NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California. August 1994. ~7 60,000 ground operations were approved through the CUP process, which included the development of an EA. These operations were anticipated to include both NASA operations and RA operations. 105 A separate checklist is provided for each of the proposed action alternatives for this particular environmental topic, due to the varied characteristics of the four alternatives and outcomes of this assessment. 1.Alternative 1 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Substantial Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to hazardous noise levels? As described in Chapter II, Alternative 1 allows a total of 58,151 annual aircraft operations, of which 11,223 are air cargo flight operations. The air cargo operations would utilize current flight patterns at MFA, as detailed in Appendix C. Non-air cargo aircraft operations would continue at MFA up to the allocations specified in Chapter II. Alternative 1 would result in an increase to existing noise exposure (Figure 13). However, for impact analysis, it is appropriate to consider the change in noise exposure ~om conditions projected and approved programmatically for 2010 (Figure 22) through previous environmental documentation at MFA (CUP EA), with the proposed action’.s projected conditions in 2010 (Figure 24). Additionally, the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150 only requires the use of noise contours of CNEL 65 dB and above for impact analysis purposes. Impact NOISE-1. Alternative I would result in an increase in noise that would result in further exposure of residential land uses to CNEL 65 dB and above. (S) When comparing Baseline 2010 conditions with contours developed for Alternative 1, the proposed action would result in an increase in noise exposure to residential land uses. There would be an increase in the area of housing exposed to CNEL 65 dB and above, as shown on Figure 24. There is no feasible mitigation for this impact. 106 2.Alternative 2 Potentially $ignifcant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Substantial Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to hazardous noise levels? As described in Chapter II, Alternative 2 would have the same number and timing of operations as Alternative 1, but the flight paths of MFA operations would be directed over the San Francisco Bay during the nighttime (11:00 pm to 6:30 am). This alternative was anticipated to limit the amount of noise that nighttime operations would create in populated areas. Alternative 2 would result in an increase to existing noise exposure (Figure 13). However, Alternative 2 would not result in an increase in noise that would result in further exposure of residential land uses to CNEL 65 dB, when considering 2010 conditions (Figure 25). Because this alternative includes the incorporation of a preferred runway plan, the populated areas that would be exposed to CNEL above 65 dB are actually decreased,is 3.Alternative 3 Potentially significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Substantial Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to hazardous noise levels? ~ Though the CNEL 60 dB noise exposure contour for Alternative 2 extends further than the Baseline 2010 CNEL 60 dB noise exposure contour, the FAA and other relevant regulations and guidelines do not recognize this noise exposure level as siguifieant. FAR Part 150 only requires the use of noise contours of CNEL 65 dB and above for impact assessment purposes. 107 As described in Chapter II, the timing of flight operations for Alternative 3 would be similar to those described for Alternatives 1 and 2, but the number of cargo operations would increased from 11,223 annual operations to 19,873 annual operations (with the number of operations at MFA totalling 58,981). The air cargo operations would utilize current flight patterns at MFA, as detailed in Appendix C. Non-air cargo operations would continue at MFA up to the numbers specified in Chapter II. Impact NOISE.2o Alternative 3 would result in an increase in noise that would result in further exposure of residential land uses to CNEL 65 dB and above. (S) Alternative 3 would result in an increase to existing noise exposure (Figure 13). Additionally, when comparing Baseline 2010 conditions with contours developed for Alternative 3, the proposed action would result in an increase in noise exposure to residential land uses. There Would be an increase in the area of housing exposed to CNEL 65 dB and above, as shown on Figure 26. There is no feasible mitigation for this impact. 4.Alternative 4 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Substantial lmpact Incorporated impact Impact Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to hazardous noise levels? As described in Chapter II, Alternative 4 would have the same number and timing of operations as Alternative 3, but the flight paths of MFA operations would be redirected over the San Francisco Bay during the nighttime (11:00 pm to 6:30 am). This alternative was anticipated to limit the amount of noise that nighttime operations would create in populated areas. Alternative 4 would result in an increase to existing noise exposure (Figure 13). However, Alternative 4 would not result in an increase in noise that would result in further exposure of residential land uses to CNEL 65 dB, when considering 2010 conditions (Figure 27). Because this alternative includes the incorporation of a preferred runway plan, the populated areas that are exposed to CNEL above 65 dB are actually decreased. Alternative 4 is the alternative with the least impacts with regards to noise, when considering the four proposed action alternatives. 108 ~.No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would allow flight operations to occur at MFA consistent with the CUP. Under this scenario, aircraft operations could total 60,000. These operations would include NASA research aircraft, as well as aircraft of R_As, but commercial air cargo operations would not be considered in the mix. Noise conditions under the No Action Alternative could be similar to the conditions proposed by the project alternatives, if the anticipated operations and activity level under the CUP were realized (see Figures 22 and 23).. The CUP is a programmatic document which describes, in general, the level of activity anticipated at Moffett Field through the year 2010. An EA under NEPA was completed on the CUP, and was finalized in August 1994, when a FONSI was issued. Project specific environmental impacts of individual proposed actions at Moffett Field would dontinue to be assessed on an individual basis. Environmental analysis of individual projects at Moffett Field would consist of completing an environmental checklist, completing an EA, or completing an EIS, depending upon the scope of the specific proposed action. 109 J. Public Services Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Substantial Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including marls? e) Other governmental se~,/ices? 1.Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 Current employment at MFA totals 8,762. With the addition of air cargo operatiom, employment would total a maximum of 9,242 employees for Alternatives i and 2, and 9,542 employees for Alternatives 3 and 4. Since the CUP anticipates a maximum employment at MFA of 10,610, the proposed action alternatives are consistent with the growth anticipated at MFA. The proposal would not result in any additional need for public services. 2.No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, current employment at MFA would remain at 8,758. However, employment could grow to the 10,610 allowed under the CUP. Public services have previously been allocated for these employment levels, therefore no impacts to public services are anticipated with implementation of the No Action Alternative. 110 K. Utilities and Service Systems Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Substantial Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: ¯ a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? 0 Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? 1.Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 Current employment at MFA totals 8,758. With the addition of air cargo operations, employment would total a maximum of 9,238 employees for Alternatives 1 and 2, and 9,538 employees for Alternatives 3 and 4. Since the CUP anticipates a maximum employment at MFA of 10,610, the proposed action alternatives are consistent with the growth anticipated at MFA. Additionally, flight operations of the cargo companies would fall within the existing capacities and operational constraints of the existing utility systems. For these reasons, the proposal would not result in any substantial impact to utilities and service systems. 2.No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, current employment at MFA would remain at 8,758. However, employment could grow to the 10,610 allowed under the CUP, and annual aircraft operations could increase to 60,000. Utilities and service systems have previously been allocated for these operational le;,,els, therefore no impacts to utilities and service systems are anticipated with implementation of the No Action Alternative. 111 L. Aesthetics Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Substantial Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?[~[:][=][] b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?[~[~[~[] c) Create fight or glare7 [~[~[~[] 1.Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 Since no construction or alteration of the physical environment is included in the proposed action, no substantial aesthetic effects are anticipated. 2.No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, construction could occur consistent with the CUP. However, no substantial impacts on aesthetics would be anticipated since new and reused building would be located adjacent to existing structures and would not obstruct views. 112 M. Cultural Resources Potentially ¯ Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Substantial Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources? d) Have the potential to cause a physical change. which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e)Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 1.Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 Since no construction or alteration of the physical environment is included in the proposed action, no cultural effects are anticipated. NASA has contacted the State Historic Preservation Officer at the California Office of Historic* Preservation regarding the use of Hangar 1 for air cargo activities. NASA has determined that no adverse effect would result from the CRAF proposal, with regards to historic resources. This determination and correspondence was made pursuant to the Programmatic Agreement between NASA, the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Appendix I). 2.No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, construction could occur consistent with the CUP. However, no substantial impacts to cultural resources would be anticipated since mitigation measures outlined in the CUP EA would be implemented to prevent these potential impacts. 113 N. Recreation Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Substantial Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 1.Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 The number of recreational facilities offered by MFA and the surrounding community will more than adequately supply ,the additional employees proposed by the proposed action. No additional residents are proposed by the project alternative. 2.No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, current employment at MFA would remain at 8,762. However, employment could grow to the 10,610 allowed under the CUP, and annual aircraft operations could increase to 60,000. Both these conditions would not result in any significant recreation impacts, as previously documented in the CUP EA. 114 Chapter V REPORT PREPARATION A. Organizations and Individuals Consulted Donald Ballanti, Consulting Certified Meteorologist Bay Area Air Quality Management District ’ Tom Addison Brady and Associates, Inc., Prime Consultant, EnvironmentalAssessment Bobbette Biddulph, Environmental Assessment Project Manager David Clore, Principal-in-Charge Crane Transportation Group (CTG), Circulation/Transportation Analysis Mark Crane, Principal Defense Fuel Supply Center John Barterthagon DHL, Ineo~, Air Cargo Representative Frank Jesse, Director, Corporate Real Estate Energy and Environmental Anal~,sis, Inc. (EEA), Aircraft Emissions Analysis Sandy Webb, Director Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Pamela Adams, Procedure Specialist, BayTRACON Harvey Hartmann, Assistant Manager for Programs, BayTRACON William Johnstone, Air Traffic Division 115 Federal Express (FedEx), Air Cargo Representative Sandy Dickey, Managing Director, Government Affairs J. Mark. Hansen, Legal and Regulatory Affairs David Hurtado, Managing Director, Real Estate and Airport Development Donald J. Taddia, Senior Manager, Airport Relations and Development Shawn Yadon, Manager, Western Region Government Affairs California Office of Historic Preservation Cherilyn Widdell, State Historic Preservation Officer CiW of Mountain View Dennis Belluomini, Traffic Engineer National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) William Brockett, Airborne Science and Flight Research Division William E. Dean, Deputy Director, NASA Ames Research Center Mike Falarski, Chief, Facilities and Logistics Management Division John Gordon, Airfield Management Office ’ G. Warren Hall, Airborne Science and Flight Research Division W. Carl Honaker, Moffett Liaison Office Kenneth Kumor, Environmental Management Division, NASA Headquarters Seth Kurasaki, Executive Assistant to the Director, Moffett Federal Airfield Donald James, Special Assistant, Government Affairs Ken K. Muneehika, Director, Moffett Federal Airfield Shelly Navarro, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) Sandra Olliges, Safety, Health, and Environmental Services Office Suzanne Petroni, CRAF Project Manager, Moffett Liaison Office Odean Serrano, Environmental Program Manager, NASA Headquarters Dennis Shew, DMJM, Contract Administrator George P. Sloup, Attorney Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel Gary Thornton, Airfield Management Office Garrett M. Turner, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) P&D Aviation, A Division of P&D Consultants, Inc., Noise Analysis Michael McClintoek, AICP, Associate Vice President City of Sunnwale 116 United Parcel Service (UPS), Air Cargo Representative Chris Bearden, Airport Properties John E. Hindman, Public Affairs Manager Douglas R. Kuelpman, Vice President John Miller, West Zone Coordinator Joe Richardson, Airline Real Estate Manager Denny Stephens, Northwest Region Air Manager United States Air Force (USAF) William Heisel, Lt. Col., CRAF Program Office, Air Mobility Command United States Environmental Protection Agency_ (EPA), Region IX Bob Palarino United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Jim Browning B. References Bass, Ronald E., Albert I. Herson. Mastering NEPA: A Step-by-Step Approach. Solano Press Books. 1993. Brady and Associates. Moffett FieM Comprehensive Use Plan Final Environmental Assessment. Prepared for NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California. August 1994. City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View 1992 General Plan. A Comprehensive Revision of the 1982 Mountain View General Plan. October 29, 1992. City of Sunnyvale. Sunnyvale General Plan Executive Summary. Community Development Department. Sunnyvale, California. May 1994. Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President. Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental PolicyAct. 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508. 117 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Cultural Resources Review for the Ames Research Center Environmental Resources Document. David Chavez, Santa Clara County, CA. March 1981. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Environmental Resources Document. NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA. June 1992. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Implementing the Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. April 1980. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). NASA Ames Research Center Flight Operations Office. Airfield Operations Manual. MFA, California. Code O Manual 0-10. June 1996. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California. Moffett Field Comprehensive Use Plan. September 1994. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). National Aeronautics and Space Administration Health Standard on Heating Conservation. NHSflH-1845.4. NASA Ames Research Center. 1991. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Naval Air Station Moffett Field, Existing Conditions Report, Phase 2. NASA Ames Research Center Facilities Planning Office. May 22, 1992. WESCO. Phase I Site-wide Qualitative Habitat and Receptor Characterization Study. NAS Moffett Field. October 1993. 118 Appendix A GLOSSARY The following appendix provides further detail on the following terms used throughout this EA: Aircraft. Descriptions. This first section lists the aircraft described as part of the proposed project alternatives, and provides a brief description. Glossary of Terms. Technical terms used in this EA are defined in this section. A. Aircraft Descriptions1 The following provides a brief summary of the aircraft that currently use Moffett Federal. Airfield, in addition to those proposed through the introduction of air cargo operations. 1.Air Cargo Operations B-747 B-747: The first wide-body aircraft was the Boeing. 747, with the first flight taking place in early 1969. The 747 is a four engine jet, with a gross weight of 836,000 pounds, more than that of any other aircraft ever built. The 747-200B can carry a maximum payload of 144,520 pounds for a Information for this section was gathered from the foliowing sources.." Franciilon, Rene. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft since 1920, Vol. II. Naval Institute Press. 1990. Loftin, Laurence. Quest for Performance. NASA. 1985. Airbus Industries. "Airbus Today". 1994. Biay, Roy. ’~ockheed Horizons". Lockheed. 1988. Jane’s All the World Aircraft. Jane’s Information Group. 1982-83; 1986-87; 1991-92; 1994-1995. Harvey, David. "T)efense Rotorcraft in the United States".Rotor and Wing International. 23:1. 1989. United Parcel Service. Federal Express. A-1 distance of 6,854 miles and has a cruising speed of 564 miles per hour (mph).2 The 747-400F is an all-freight version of the 747-400, and was certified in 1993. B-757 B-757: The second new Boeing jetliner of the 1980s, the 757-200 made its first flight in 1983. The 757 was intended as a fuel-efficient replacement for the long-lived Boeing 727 on short-range routes. The 757 is a narrow body, twin-engine airliner with a gross weight of approximately 241,000 pounds. The 757-200 PF Package Freighter was developed for United Parcel Service in 1993. B-767: The specialized Boeing 767 package freighter was ordered by United Parcel Service in January 1993 and delivered in late 1995. The 767- 300F modifies the original 767 by reinforcing landing gear and internal wing structure, strengthening the main deck floor, removing passenger windows, and including extensive component commonality with the 757 Package Freighter, also flown by UPS. The maximum gross weight is 408,000 pounds, with a maximum payload range of 3,542 miles. B-767 B-727 B-727: The three-engine, t-tailed Boeing 727 may be considered the most successful jet transport aircraft yet produced. The prototype first flew in 1963, and was introduced into service in 1964. The last 727, a cargo version, was delivered in 1984. For operation on hot days from airports All speeds given in these descriptions assume an altitude of 35,000 feet. A-2 located at high altitudes, the three engine arrangement allows for significantly better takeoff and climb performance than was practical for an efficient twin- engine design. The Boeing 727 has a gross weight of approximately 210,000 pounds, with a maximum payload range of 3,335 miles, and a cruising speed of 593 mph. Many 727s have been re-engined or hushkitted to meet Stage III noise requirements. DC-8: The second long-range, high- passenger-capacity transport that, along with the Boeing 707, initiated the jet revolution in air transportation was the McDonnell Douglas DC-8. This aircraft debuted in 1958, and production was terminated in 1972. The DC-8 is a four-engine jet with a gross weight of approximately 358,0~) pounds. The DC-8 can carry a maximum payload of 67,735 pounds for a distance of 6,997 miles. The aircraft has a maximum cruising speed of 550 mph. Many DC-Ss have been re-engined or hushkitted to meet Stage III noise requirements. DC-10: The DC-10 is a three- engined, wide-bodied, long range aircraft which debuted in 1971, and was last produced in 1989. The DC- 10 cargo plane (DC-10-30 CF) has a gross weight of 235,340 pounds, putting it in a weight class between that of the 707 and the heavy 747. The aircraft has a maximum payload range of 3,300 miles with 99,660 pounds cargo, and a maximum cruising speed of 574 mph. ~ DC.IO MD-II: The MD-11 is a modified version of the tri-engine DC-10, with the addition of winglets and a revised tail cone. The MD-11 began flight in 1990, and has a gross weight of 277,500 pounds and a maximum takeoff weight of 625,000 pounds. The aircraft has a maximum payload range of 4,075 miles with a maximum speed of 588 mph. Federal Express operates the MD-11F, an all-freight version of this aircraft. Ao3 A -300 A-300: The A-300 was Airbus Industries first product and the world’s first twin-engined, wide-bodied airliner.. The A300-600 Freighter first flew for Federal Express in December 1993. The Freighter version modified the A300 to remove passenger systems and accommodate specific freight requirements. The maximum gross weight is 375,900 pounds, with a maximum range of 3,050 miles. A-310: The A-310 is 20 percent smaller than the A-300, but has drag- reducing wingtip fences and incorporates an all-composite vertical fin, which was the first all-composite item of primary structure to enter service on a civil aircraft. This design improves efficiency and reduces fuelA-310 consumption. As a result of the successes of the A-300 and A-310, twin engined jets are now able to fly long overwater legs. Federal Express operates the A310-200F, an all-freight version of this aircraft. Single Propeller:. The Cessna Cardinal RG II is an all-metal, high- performance contemporary general aviation aircraft that represents a typical single propeller aircraft. The Cardinal cruises at 171 mph at 7,000 Single Propeller feet and weighs 2,800 pounds. Single propeller aircraft are sometimes operated by air cargo carriers as feeders to service smaller airports. A-4 Other Moffett Federal Airfield Operations C-SA/C-SB: Powered by four 41,000 pound turbofans, the first C-5A Galaxy was flown in 1968. With a wing span of 223 feet and an overall length of 248 feet, the Galaxy is one of the largest planes in the world. It has a total useable volume of 35,000 cubic feet and can take off with a gross weight of 798,000 pounds. The C-SB incorporates a modified wing design as well as many other improvements. The last C-SB was delivered in 1989. C-9: The C-9B Skytrain II is the Navy version of a McDonnell Douglas DC-9, operated for fleet logistics support transport. It can accommodate between 90 and 139 passengers, depending on the configuration. C-12/lOn8 Air C-12/King Air The C-12 is the military version of the Beechcraft Super King Air 200, a twin turboprop pressurized passenger or cargo light transport. This aircraft began flying in the United States in 1975. This aircraft has a maximum takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds and an economical cruising speed at 25,000 feet of 325 mph. C.130 C-130: The C-130 was built for the USAF as a medium-sized logistics and tactical transport to replace piston- engined aircraft, and was first flown in 1954. The plane is powered by four 3750-eshp turboprop engines. The C- 130 program is the longest-lasting large transport program in history. Its diverse activities have included photo mapping, hurricane hunting, mid-air satellite recovery, search and rescue, and forest fire fighting, to name a few. The C-130A has a gross weight of 124,000 pounds, compared to the C-130B, with a gross weight of 135,000 pounds, and economical cruising speeds of 345 mph. C-141: The C-141A Stadifter was the winner of a 1961 competition to build a large jet cargo .plane for the U.S. Air Force. The aircraft has a cruising speed of 480 mph with a swept-back high wing with four Pratt & Whitney 21,000 pound thrust turbofan engines. The plane took its first flight in 1963. The C-141 Starlifter delivered to NASA operates with civil registration from NASA Ames Research Center as an airborne infared laboratory. DC.8 pounds. distance of 6997 miles. 550 mph. DC-8: The second long-range,, high- passenger-capacity transport that, along with the Boeing 707, initiated the jet revolution in air transportation was the McDonnell Douglas DC-8. This aircraft debuted in 1958, and production was terminated in 1972. The DC-8 is a four-engine jet with a gross weight of approximately 358,000 The DC-8 can carry a maximum payload of 67,735 pounds for a The aircraft has a maximum cruising speed of ER-2: In 1981, NASA received an ER-2 aircraft, which is a Lockheed TR-1A that has been specially modified for NASA. The ER-2 is a single seat, high-altitude research aircraft which was acquired for Earth resources studies, and for scientific measurements in the stratosphere. The aircraft is designed to cruise at an altitude above 70,000 at 478 mph. Based at the Ames Research Center, the ER-2 is used for NASA missions under the direction of the Office of Mission to Planet Earth at NASA Headquarters. ER-2 A-6 G-III: The Gulfstream Aerospace Gulfstream III has a military designation of C-20. This twin turbofan transport aircraft made its first flight in 1979, and production ended in 1986. The maximum takeoff weight of the Gulfstream III is 69,700 pounds, and the long-range cruising speed is 561 mph. G-IV: The G-IV is a twin turbofan long range business transport aircraft which first flew in 1985. The G-IV is lighter than the G-III and has a structurally redesigned wing with 30 percent fewer parts. This aircraft has a maximum takeoff weight of 73,200 pounds and a cruising speed of 391 mph. H-l/Hughes 500: The Hamilton H-1 is a turbofan powered military trainer and close support tactical aircraft based on the airframe of the all-composite two-seat Hamilton HX-321 homebuilt aircraft. The H-1 is powered by one turbofan rated at 4,500 pounds. The H-1 first flew in 1989. H-53: The Sikorsky CH-53 Super Stallion and the MH-53E Sea Dragon are triple-engine heavy-lift helicopters that are intended for minesweeping capabilities. This aircraft was first flown in 1976. The US Navy employs a squadron of over 200 of these helicopters, which were used extensively in the Persian Gulf. Much of the MH-53H flying is at night, conducted over water, and features air refueling. H-60: The Sikorsky UH-60 Blackhawk is used primarily for troop air assault, extraction and resupply, search and rescue, medivacs, and combat support. Black Hawks were recently fitted with enlarged crashworthy fuel tanks. A-7 LEARIET LEAR 25: First flown in 1966 as the Learjet 25, the current model 25D accommodates eight passengers and a crew of two, and has been flying in the United States since 1985. The Learjet 25D is a twin-jet light executive transport aircraft with a maximum takeoff weight of 15,000 pounds and an economical cruising speed of 493 mph. P-3: The P-3 Orion was designed as a land-based anti-submarine warfare (ASW) to replace the Lockheed Neptune series. The first P-3 flew in 1961 and is powered by four turboprop engines. The P-3 can be equipped with rotodome radar, becoming the P-3 AEW&C, Airborne Early Warning and Control. The P-3 has a maximum permissible take-offweight of 135,000 pounds, and has a 25,000-foot cruising speed of 378 mph. Jet Trainer/Fighter: The General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon is a single-and two-seat multi-role fighter that first flew in 1974. The F-16 represents a typical Jet Trainer/Fighter ~,.that is used at Moffett FederalF.16 Airfield. This aircraft has a maximum takeoff weight of 42,300 pounds, and can go more than Mach 2.0 at 40,000 feet. Other fighters that may be present at this site included the FA-18 and the McDonnell Douglas/BAE AV-SB. B. Glossary of Terms A-weighted sound level: The sound level measured on an instrument containing an "A" Filter, which electronically simulates the frequency response of the human ear under an average level of sound. Decibels measured using the A-weighted sound level can be denoted as "dBA". A-8 adverse: A term used to describe unfavorable, harmful, or detrimental environmental condition changes. airfield operation: An airfield operation consists of either a takeoff or a lading. One landing and one takeoff is considered two operations. ambient noise: The background noise associated with a given environment, being usually a composite of sounds from many sources near and far. approach minima: The minimum .combination of cloud ceiling and visibility under which landing is permitted. Expressed in terms of the height of the base of clouds (hundreds of feet) and visibility in statute miles. The approach minima at MFA, for the ILS, 32R are 300-3/4. For 14L, the minima are 400-1 1/4. assessment: Determination of the nature, amount, importance, or value of an environmental condition change. attenuation: To lessen in severity; to decrease or reduce. background noise: Same as ambient noise. The noise associated with a given environment, being usually a composite of sounds from many sources near and far. Bay Terminal Radar Approach Control (BayTRACON): The local arm of the FAA responsible for the navigable airspace around ,the San Francisco Bay. buffer:. A strip of land intended to protect one type of land use from another with which it is incompatible. carbon monoxide: Carbon monoxide is. an odorless, invisible gas usually formed as the result of incomplete combustion of organic substances. About 78 percent of the carbon monoxide emitted in the San Francisco Bay area comes from motor vehicles. High levels of carbon monoxide can impair the transport of oxygen in the bloodstream, thereby aggravating cardiovascular disease and causing fatigue, headaches, and dizziness. Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF): The CRAF program is sponsored by the Department of Defense, and run by the Air Force Air Mobility Command. Civil air carriers contract with the Air Force to commit aircraft and crews for emergencies, contingencies and war. A-9 Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) Commercial Access to Military Installations (CAMI) Contract. A contract authorizing air carrier participation in the CRAF CAMI program in return for a long-term increased commitment of aircraft in excess of the air carrier’s minimum CRAF commitment(s). The "CAMI legislation" was passed in 1994, permitting CRAF carriers the use of designated military installations as weather alternates, as technical stops not involving the enplaning or deplaning of passengers or cargo, or in the case of an installation within the United States, for other commercial purposes. These uses shall not involve international operations. community noise equivalent level (CNEL): The CNEL represents the A-weighted average continuous noise level in decibels over a 24-hour period, with special weighting factors applied to noise events during the nighttime (10 pm to 7 am), the evening (7 pm to 10 pro), and the daytime (7 am to 7 pm). Comprehensive Use Plan (CUP). Document prepared by NASA upon the transfer of property at Moffett Field from the Navy. Among the long:term guidelines set by the CUP was a limit of 60,000 annual aircraft operations (not including overflights). Container Transport Vehicle (CTV). A large truck used to transfer cargo containers from sorting areas or distribution centers to aircraft and vice versa. day-night average sound level (DNL or L~): The A-weighted average sound level in decibels during a 24-hour period with a 10 dB weighting applied to nighttime sound levels (10 pm to 7 am). This exposure method is similar to the CNEL, but deletes the evening time period (7 pm to 10 pro) as a separate factor. decibel (dB): A unit for expressing the relative intensity (loudness) of sounds. The decibel is the logarithm of the ratio of ti~e intensity of a given sound to the faintest sound discernible by the human ear. This is equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micropascals (20 micronewtons per square meter). degradation: The reduction of environmental quality in an area through a lessening of diversity, the creation of growth anomalies, or the supplanting of native species by non-native plant and animal species. ecology: The interrelationship of living things to one another and to their environment or the study of such relationships. A-IO Economy Act. 31 USC Section 1535 of the United States Code, which allows an agency of the United States Government to accept money from another¯ federal agency in reimbursement of goods or services provided by the First agency; this is one exception to the Miscellaneous Receipts Statute, but it only applies to transfers of funds between federal agencies. ecosystem: The continuing interaction of a biological community with its environment. emission standard: The maximum amount of a pollutant legally permitted to be discharged from a source, either mobile or stationary. endangered: A species or subspecies of plant or animal whose prospects of survival and reproduction are in immediate jeopardy. Environmental Assessment (EA): An En~,,ironmental Assessment is a concise public document prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act that is prepared to determine whether a proposed action requires an Environmental Impact Statement. During the preparation of an Environmental Assessment, an agency should clarify and evaluate the proposed action to determine ff it would result in significant effects to the human environment. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): An environmental impact document prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. estimate: A statement regarding future conditions based on non-mathematical analysis. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA is charged with controlling the use of navigable airspace of the United States and regulating both civil and military operations in such airspace in the interest of safety and efficiency. The FAA has been an integral part of the discussions of CRAF at MFA. forecast: A statement regarding future conditions based on non-linear numerical assumptions. general plan: A legal document, in the form of a map and accompanying text adopted by the local legislative body, which is a compendium of its policies regarding the long-term development of its jurisdiction. It is sometimes called a city plan, comprehensive plan, or master plan. A-11 habitat: The environment with which an organism interacts and from which it gains its resources; habitat is often variable in size, content, and location, changing with the phases in an organism’s life cycle. hazardous noise: A noise hazard exists wherever an operation, process or procedure generates noise of sufficient duration and intensity to be capable of producing a permanent loss of hearing in an unprotected person. Instrument Landing System (ILS). Electronic equipment which provides two beams for precise landings. One beam provides directional information (localizer), the other provides altitude information (glideslope). Cockpit instruments indicate whether the aircraft is right or left of the localizer beam and above or below the glideslope. landing minima (also known as approach minima): The minimum combination of cloud ceiling and visibility under which landing is permitted. Expressed in terms of the height of the base of clouds (hundreds of feet) and visibility in statute miles. The landing minima at MFA, for the ILS, 32R are 300-3/4. For 14L, the minima are 400-1 1/4. lead agency: The public agency which has principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. The lead agency is also responsible for preparing and certifying an adequate EIR/EIS. Iocalizer. A localizer is an electronic beam which is broadcast away from the runway and which is an extension of the runway centerline. Flying directly on the beam will align the aircraft with the runway centerline at touchdown. Cockpit instruments indicate whether the aircraft is right or left of the centerline. loudness: Loudness is a subjective perception-of the magnitude of sound. Miscellaneous Receipts Statute. 31 USC Section 3302(b) of the United States Code, which requires that "an official or agent of the Government receiving , money for.the Government from any source shall deposit the money in the Treasury as soon as practicable without deductions for any charge or claim." Congress can and has provided for exceptions in legislation. Moffett Federal Airfield (MFA). Formerly Naval Air Station Moffett Field, responsibility for this property was transferred to NASA on July 1, 1994. NASA operates this 1427 acre site as a shared federal facility for the benefit of the federal government. A-12 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Enacted in 1969, NEPA contains a declaration of policy expressing a commitment to environmental values and a requirement that federal agencies prepare Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for their projects which may have a significant adverse impact on the environment. nitrogen dioxide: Nitrogen dioxide is the %vhiskey brown" colored gas readily visible during periods of heavy air pollution. The major sources of nitrogen dioxide are vehicular, residential, and industrial combustion. noise dose: A measure of cumulative noise exposure over a stated time period which takes into account both the level of a sound and the duration of exposure. noise level: The instantaneous measure of the magnitude of a sound at any given time. Noise levels can be used to measure hazards to health and hearing ,that can result from exposures to even very brief but high noise levels. noise: Annoying, harmful, or unwanted sound. ordinance: A law adopted by a city, county or local agency governing body. ozone: Ozone is the most prevalent class of photochemical oxidants formed in the urban atmosphere. Ozone is not usually emitted directly into the atmosphere, but is a secondary air pollutant produced in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight, through a complex series of photochemical reactions involving hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides. Motor vehicles are the major source of ozone precursors in the San Francisco Bay Area. Ozone causes eye and respiratory irritation, reduces resistance to lung infection, and may aggravate pulmonary conditions in persons with lung disease. Ozone also damages some materials such as rubber, and may damage plants and crops. Pilot Controlled Lighting (PCL). A switching system which allows the pilot to activate the runway and taxiway lights using airport radios. projection: A statement regarding future conditions based on linear extrapolations of past and present conditions. propagation: The transmission of sound waves through the air. rare: A condition in which a species or subspecies, although not currently threatened with extinction, exists in Suchsmall nmnbers throughout its range that it may be endangered if the quality of its environment worsens. A-13 reactive organic gases: Classes of hydrocarbons (olefins, substituted aromatics, and aldehydes) that are likely to react with ozone and nitrogen dioxide in the atmosphere to form photochemical smog. Resident Agency (RA). A tenant at Moffett Federal Airfield. shuttle van. Smaller vehicles used to transfer cargo from sorting areas or distribution centers directly to delivery sites and back. sound pressure level: The term used to identify a sound measurement expressed in decibels. It is mathematically equivalent to 20 times the common logarithm of the ratio of a measured sound pressure to the standard reference pressure of 20 micropascals (measured in decibels). sound refraction: The bending of sound waves as they travel through different mediums. Stage 3. The quietest class of commercial aircraft available at this time. stationary source: An immobile source of air pollution, such as a heating plant or an exhaust stack from a laboratory. technical stop. Use of an airfield for purposes other than enplaning or deplaning cargo or passengers, such as crew change, refueling, or minor maintenance. time weighted average: The sound level which, if constant over an 8-hour workday exposure, would result in the same noise dose as measured. unincorporated area: Areas that are not within the bounds of an incorporated city. weather alternate. An approved airfield to which a flight may proceed if landing at the airfield to which the flight was dispatched becomes inadvisable due to weather. wetland: A term generally applied to an area where the ground is permanently wet or wet most of the year. wildlife corridors: A natural corridor, such as an undeveloped ravine, that is frequently used by wildlife to travel from one area to another. A-14 wind rose. Meteorological diagrams depicting the distribution of wind direction over a period of time. zoning ordinance: A local law that contains detailed standards and procedures to implement the general plan. The ordinance divides the city into various zoning districts with different land uses permitted in the districts. A-15 A-16 Appendix B NASA’S RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE CITIES OF SUNNYVALE AND MOUNTAIN VIEW (See pages A-8 through A-14 for the glossary that is referenced in this appendix) B-1 B-2 CIVIL RESERVE AIR FLEET (CRAF)/COMMERCIAL ACCESS TO MILITARY INSTALLATIONS (CAMI) ISSUES Issues/Questions for NASA OPERATIONAL ISSUES 1) What will be the flight path for each flight scheduled into Moffett Field? Over the Bay? Over the community? What alternative flight paths can be used and when will use of them be triggered? The regular flight path at Moffett Federal Airfield has the aircraft approaching North over the City of Sunnyvale on Runway 32 and departing over the Bay. In the early morning hours, however, there is little air traffic over the Bay. There would also be little conflict with the traffic of other regional airports during this time, particularly because San Jose International Airport does not open until 6:30 am. NASA is therefore working with the FAA to have most of the aircraft approaching Moffett between 11:00 pm and.6:30 am use Runway 14, or the Bay approach. Potential CRAF cargo operations would fly in primarily between 4:00 am and 7:00 am, although miscellaneous Government aircraft may fly in at any time of the day or night. Aircraft departing from Moffett at any time of day would use the regular departure path, over the Bay, weather and safety permitting. The Bay approach is an established approach that has been approved by the FAA and used for many years. NASA would incorporate into the MFA Airfield Operations Manual the policy that, between 11:00 pm and 6:30 am, all aircraft approaching MFA would approach from the Bay, weather and safety permitting. The FAA’s Bay Terminal Radar Approach Control center (BayTRACON) will have the final say in this matter. It should be noted that the Bay approach and departure pattern can not be guaranteed to occur 100% of the time. Because of weather or safety considerations, there may be times when the pattern is switched. Specifically, based upon early morning historical data for Moffett Field, it has been determined that landings on Runway 32 would occur less than 2% of the time at these hours. Between 6:30 am and 11:00 pro, all aircraft would approach MFA on the current flight path, over Sunnyvale on to Runway 32, safety and weather permitting. 2) If early morning flights into Moffett Field are to be over the Bay rather than the community, provide documentation on the feasibility; show commitment/ agreement from FAA and air traffic controllers. The "Bay approach" on Runway 14 is an established approach that has been approved by the FAA and used for years. The FAA’s Bay Terminal Radar Approach Control center (Bay TRACON) has verified in writing the operational feasibility of a Bay approach for early morning flights into Moffett, as well as Bay TRACON’s intent to participate in any preferred runway approach program requested by Moffett Field. 3) Under what conditions would flights be unable to approach from the Bay ? What is the plan for these occurrences? In cases where the tailwinds exceed 10 knots, or when the ceiling is below 400 feet and the visibility is less than 1 1/4 miles, the approach may be changed to Runway 32R. It should be noted that such high winds and low visibility are extremely rare in the early morning .hours. Forty nine years of historical data show that, in the early morning hours, Runway 14 could not be used only 3.4% of the time due to wind or low ceilings. In over half of these cases, both runways were actually below approach minima (i.e., low ceiling), meaning that no aircraft could land at MFA at all (see chart). To apply this to the potential CRAF cargo operations: Twelve air cargo arrivals between 4:00 and 6:30 am would be 3744 landings per year (6 days/week operation). Given these .weather conditions, there would be approximately 126 arrivals out of 3744 which could not land on Runway 14. Of these 126 times, about 89 would not be able to land at MFA at all. Only about 64 landings (1.7% of the total) would occur on Runway 32 for the entire year. 4) For weather conditions that would not permit an approach over the Bay, review annual weather patterns and provide information on the average number of times this would occur over a year. It is our understanding that there is an existing "wind rows" study that addresses this question. The City would like a copy of the study. NASA has received wind rose information for Moffett Field, taken over a forty- nine year period, from the Federal Climate Complex in Asheville, North Carolina. These historical data show that, in the early morning hours, Runway 14 could not be used only 3.4% of the time due to wind or low ceilings. In over half of these cases, both runways were actually below approach minima (i.e., low ceiling), meaning that no aircraft could land at MFA at all (see chart). 5) Does the existing ILS at Moffett Airfield satisfy the requirements.for an "over the bay" approach? Will additional ILS capability have to be added for this purpose ? Who will pay this cost ? Yes, the current ILS satisfies the requirements for an "over the Bay" approach. There is a localizer on Runway 14 which would provide instrumentation for the Bay approach. A localizer is an electronic beam which is broadcast away from the runway and which is an extension of the runway centerline. Flying directly on the beam will align the aircraft with the runway centerline at touchdown. Cockpit instruments indicate whether the aircraft is right or left of the centerline. This should satisfy most carriers’ requirements for this approach. The approach on Runway 14 is an established approach that has been approved by the FAA and used for years. At this time, no additional ILS capability is envisioned. Any modifications or construction that may be needed to satisfy the carriers’ requirements would have to be paid for by the carriers. The current tenants (Resident Agencies) at MFA would not be required to contribute to this cost, as they do not require such a capability. 6) lf Moffett Field is to open earlier to allow air cargo aircraft toffy in, will other users be able to operate during those hours also? If so, will they also be restricted to approaches over the Bay, or will they be able to fly normal flight patters over the Sunnyvale community? What commitments can you require from the other federal users to ensure they approach over the Bay during early hours? Moffett Federal Airfield is currently open 24 hours a day. While it is not currently used on a regularly scheduled basis for early momingflights, the airfield is used intermittently at all hours by the various tenants at Moffett, as well as by transient federal aircraft. When the air traffic control tower is closed, currently from 11:00 pm to 7:00 am, pilots can use "Pilot Controlled Lighting," or PCL, to land on either runway at the airfield. Currently, pilots are encouraged to use the Bay approach for all early morning arrivals. With the approval.of the FAA’s Bay TRACON, NASA will guide all aircraft to land over the Bay, weather and safety permitting. 7) The initial report states that only Stage 3 certified aircraft will fly into Moffett. What models/kinds of aircraft are included in this description? Under what circumstances can that be altered "temporarily"? Would noise levels be impacted by different models? How do noise levels compare to the C130’s and P3’s that currently operate out of Moffett? The information needs to be expressed in ’comparative terms that the average citizen can understand. Various types of commercial aircraft are classified as Stage 3. For the aircraft being proposed at Moffett, this includes the DC-8,727-QF (Quiet Freighter), 757- PF (Package Freighter), 767, MD-11, DC-10, A300 and A310. NASA will restrict the air cargo carriers to Stage 3 aircraft at MFA. P&D Aviation has provided comparisons between various types of aircraft, as well as between these aircraft and easily identifiable generators of noise (i.e., lawnmower, highway traffic). These comparisons have been provided to City representatives and will be published in the Environmental Assessment. 8) Establish a strict limitation on any aircraft that are not Stage 3 certified, with guarantees that future noise abatement technology upgrades and improvements are made expeditiously. Commercial cargo carders are required by the Aircraft Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 to certify all of their aircraft as Stage 3 by the Year 2000. While some of the carders still have Stage 2 aircraft remaining in their fleet at this time, MFA policy will prohibit such aircraft from landing at or departing from MFA, except in extraordinary circumstances. 9) Will the Air Guard provide air traffic control for the extended hours? Will the air cargo companies pay their additional costs? Does the Air Guard have the staffing resources to cover the extended hours? NASA is working with the Air National Guard to provide additional air traffic control for the extended tower operations, as w~ell to meet Crash, Fire Rescue and Airfield Security requirements. The cargo c .arriers will pay any new costs associated with their operations at Moffett. 10) The City of Sunnyvale has been told that there is a difference in approach patterns for military/federal and commercial aircraft, and that trees at Sunnyvale Municipal Golf Course may have to be cut or removed. The City needs to know any impacts on City facilities if the CRAF program is approved. Approach criteria for military and civil aircraft are generally the same. The trees at the approach end of Runway 32 do affect the determination of MFA’s minimum landing criteria. Minima for the ILS approach on Runway 32 are now at a 300 foot ceiling with 3/4 mile visibility. NASA does not currently envision the need to cut or remove the trees at the Sunnyvale Municipal Golf Course, beyond current maintenance efforts. The Sunnyvale Municipal Golf Course is built on land owned by the federal government (NASA) precisely because it is in the immediate flight path of Moffett Field. Allowing the City to use this land for a golf course has worked out very well over time and no change in that situation is being considered. 11 )Identify any public improvements required and/or anticipated for ground access. The Environmental Assessment for this project is looking at the issues associated with ground access at Moffett Federal Airfield. This information should be available by June 17. 12) Require concurrence from, resident Moffett federal contractors that air cargo operations will not result in negative impacts on current/planned operations or expansion plans, NASA will request such concurrence in writing from Lockheed Martin Missiles and Space, as well as Raytheon and Beech Aerospace Services Inc.. There have been no indications to. date that limited cargo operations at MFA will affect their . operations or plans. Additionally, the military Resident Agencies at MFA have indicated that air cargo o .perations will not negatively impact their operations here. 13) The initial information from the Air Freight Association refers to an "initial maximum. ’° What process will bb used for consideration of future requests to increase the number of flights; to revise flight times; to reconsider flight paths; revise type of aircraft, etc. ? The Environmental Assessment will provide.a boundary to the upper limits of the potential operations. Future aircraft operations at MFA will remain under the 60,000 annual operations stated in the Comprehensive Use Plan EA, including the cargo flights, and will not create a significant environmental impact on the local communities. MISCELLANEOUS OPERATIONAL/SUPPORT ISSUES - NASA 14) NASA needs to identify potential commercial users that will benefit and get them to "tell their story." For example, Lockheed Martin decision to retain Sunnyvale site was due, in part, to Moffett Airfield location/facility and ability to use it to ship products. In addition to government contracts, they are now in commercial satellite industry and would plan to use the airfield (positive impact on jobs, etc.). Need to get this story out and that of others (Loral? Trimble ? ) Ok. 15) NASA needs to more clearly explain to the community what their situation is, what level of flights is necessary to alleviate the financial costs to NASA for operating the airfield, what it means to the long term viability and growth of Ames’programs and related jobs in the this region, future plans for NASA to remain as operator (given Goldin’s posture), etc.. Ok. 16) NASA needs to provide information on the environmental impact process -- what are they required to do (EIR/EIS/EA); what are they planning to do (if more than required); will this provide limits for the long term, if so, what can be limited through the environmental process and to what extent, etc. ? The Cities may require additional processes. The Comprehensive Use Plan Environmental Assessment is a programmatic-level analysis that describes, in general, the expected environmental impacts from implementing the CUP. In general, as long as projects and operations fit within the umbrella of CUP Future Concept 1, no significant environmental impact would be expected. However, new projects or changes in operations that produce environmental impacts would still require NASA to conduct an environmental analysis pursuant to NEPA. The level of analysis would depend on the project. All projects, and changes in operations that produce an environmental impact, are analyzed using an environmental checklist. If no potential for a significant impact is identified, then a record of environmental consideration is signed, stating that the action qualifies for a categorical exclusion. If there is a potential for a significant environmental impact from a change in operations (i.e., CNEL contours increase > 5dB over community standards, the project would cost more that $1M, or there is significant public controv.ersy) then NASA is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA). EAs for actions or projects that were anticipated by the CUP can incorporate the analyses that were conducted for the CUP EA, as appropriate. If the EA identifies a significant environmental impact, then NASA is required to .prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Both EAs and EISs can incorporate information from Ames Environmental Resources Document (ERD), which describes current operations and their impacts. The ERD is authorized in NASA’s NEPA regulations. It is unclear what is meant by the statement, "the Cities may require additional processes. ’" Please clarify. 17) Business leaders and community groups have requested a "glossary" of terms related to this issue. A glossary is attached here. Sources 1. FAA approval of the Bay approach is documented in a letter to Director, Moffett Federal Airfield from the Air Traffic Manager, Federal Aviation Administration’s Bay Terminal Radar Approach Control, dated April 29, 1996. Historic weather data for Moffett Field comes from the Federal Climate Complex, Asheville, North Carolina, and covers 49 years of data. The specific data addressed here comes from the weather conditions at 4:00 am and 7:00 am. 2. See Bay TRACON letter dated April 29, 1996. 3. Historic weather data for Moffett Field comes from the Federal Climate Complex, Asheville, North Carolina, and covers 49 years of data. The specific data addressed here comes from the weather conditions at 4:00 am and 7:00am. 4. See #3 above 5. The cargo carriers have indicated that a localizer on 14 will be acceptable for their operations at Moffett Federal Airfield. It is NASA policy to have any new Resident Agency provide its own equipment or funds for. facilities it requires. NASA will not fund any upgrades or provide any new equipment for Resident Agencies unless these upgrades or equipment meets its own requirements. 6. See Bay TRACON letter dated April 29, 1996,. 7. The Aircraft Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 requires all cargo aircraft to be Stage 3 aircraft by the Year 2000. 9. Conversations between the CANG 129th RQW and NASA, specifically between Colonel Steve Speer of the CANG and Dr. KenMunechika of NASA, and between Lt. Col Fred Francisco of the CANG and Suzanne ’Petroni of NASA. 10. Approach minima are developed for specific approaches, and not determined by whether an aircraft is civil or military. 11. Crane Transportation is the subcontractor for the ground transportation study at Moffett Federal Airfield. 12. The military Resident Agencies at Moffett Federal Airfield were queried in an Executive Committee meeting in January, 1996 regarding their operational compatibility with the cargo carders. Their only request was that they have mission priority over CRAF commercial cargo flights when necessary. The cargo carders have agreed verbally to this. They are also required by the Commercial Access to Military Installations program to allow military use to take priority. 13. The Comprehensive Use Plan Environmental Assessment, completed in 1994, limits the airfield to 60,000 takeoffs and landings per year. Instrument Landing System (ILS) and Landing Minimums at Moffett Federal Airfield (MFA) The Instrument Landing System (ILS) is an electronic guidance system designed to provide precise information, both laterally and vertically, relative to an aircraft’s position on a pre-determined approach path to a runway. Moffett Federal Airfield has an ILS whicti provides for precision approaches to Runway 32 right (from the south). MFA also has a localizer for approaches to Runway 14 left (from the north).. Approach procedures are designed, reviewed, and published for each runway and navigation aid on an airport. Landing minimums are established for each instrument approach procedure by considering several different factors, such as aircraft speed, obstructions surrounding the airport, accuracy of the landing aids, and airfield lighting systems. Under Federal .regulations, no pilot may land at an airport when the flight visibility is less than that published in the approach procedure. Published minimums for the straight-in ILS runway 32 right approach procedure at MFA are 300 feet and 3/4 mile visibility. These minimums are derived from the decision height (279’ above mean sea level rounded up to the nearest reportable cloud height value) an~d the visibility approved for the procedure (3/4 of a statute mile). Publication of theseminimums assist the pilot in pre-flight, helping him or her determine if planning for a specific approach procedure would be feasible or an alternate should be considered. An aircraft may commence an approach in weather conditions lower than the published minimums, but the aircraft cannot land unless the runway is in sight at the appropriate point during the procedure. Source: NASA Ames Airfield Management Office and Moffett Liaison Office Environmental Assessments at MFA The Comprehensive Use Plan Environmental Assessment is a programmatic-level analysis that describes,in general, the expected environmental impacts from implementing the CUP. In general, as long as projects and operations fit within .the umbrella of CUP Future Concept 1, no significant environmental impact would be expected. However, new projects or changes in operations that produce environmental impacts would still require NASA to conduct an environmental analysis pursuant to NEPA. The level of analysis would depend on the project. All projects, and changes in operations that produce an environmental impact, are analyzed using an environmental checklist. If no potential for a significant impact is identified, then a record of environmental consideration is signed, stating that the action qualifies for a categorical exclusion. If there is a potential for a significant environmental impact from a change in operations (i.e., CNEL contours increase > 5dB over community standards, the project would cost more that $1M, or there is significant public controversy) then NASA is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA). EAs for actions or projects that were anticipated by the CUP can incorporate the analyses that were conducted for the CUP EA, as appropriate. If the EA identifies a significant environmental impact, then NASA is required to .prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Both EAs and EISs can ~ncorporate information from. Ames Environmental Resources Document (ERD), which describes current operations and their impacts. The ERD is authorized in NASA’s NEPA regulations. Source: NASA Ames Environmental Services Office JFC:19-1 Ms. Nadine Levin Assistant City Manager City of Mountain View P.O. Box 7540 Mountain View, CA 94039-7540 Nay 16, 1996 Dear Nadine: Thank you for your April 17, 1996 letter regarding Airfield safety criteria waivers. The eight waivers you address were Naval Air Station Moffett Field exceptions to U.S. Navy airport design criteria, as established by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Most dealt with topographical or geographical issues, such as the proximity of structures and roads to runways and taxiways, which existed prior to publication of the design criteria. The "waivers" were granted because these conditions were judged as having no undo impact on the safety of flight operations. NASA, now the federal government host for Moffett Federal Airfield (MFA), while not governed by the U.S. Navy’s design criteria, accepted these pre- existing conditions as having no adverse impact on continued flight operations. The presence of most of the identified structures, roads, hangars, and aids to navigation will remain for the foreseeable future. However, since NASA became the host for the airfield in July 1994, three of the pre-existing conditions, identified as MF-9, MF-10 and MF-11, and portions of others, have been eliminated through removal of the structures and aircraft parking spaces. The number of pre-existing conditions has thus been reduced to five (see enclosure). As recently as May 14, 1996, the NASA Ames Airworthiness and Flight Safety Review Board examined the remaining five pre-existing conditions. That Board’s determination was that those existing roads and structures posed no hazard to flight operations.- NASA’s operation of MFA will follow FAA standards for objects affecting navigable airspace. Structures which intrude into that airspace will be subject to aeronautical study and, if necessary, flight and ground operating procedures will be adopted to maximize operational safety. All aircraft using MFA, including the U.S. Air Force’s Civil Reserve Air Fleet, will operate under these rules. We appreciate the concern expressed by you and your constituents, and trust this information answers your questions. Please feel free to contact me at (415) 604-0906 with any further questions. Sincerely, Suzanne Petroni Moffett Liaison Office Enclosure MOFFETT FEDERAL AIRFIELD 15 May 96 This list includes waivers to Navy design criteria which were current when Moffett Federal Airfield was transferred to NASA on 7/1/94. Line-outs indicates that obstacle has been removed, or procedures changed to eliminate concern. Time frame of removal/change is in bold print. MF-7f will be removed as indicated. MF-3, dated 3/5/65 Description: To permit the thresholds of runways 32R and 32L to be located 1265 feet from Bayshore highway 101. MF-4, dated 3/5/65 Description: To permit the installation of standard displaced threshold lighting and marking at a distance of 607 feet from the end of runway 32L: MF-5, dated 3/5/65 Description: To permit the existing rigid type fence to remain in the approach zone of runways 32R and 32L in lieu of providing type "F" collapsible fence. MF..6, dated 10128/70 Description: To permit the following conditions: a. Centedines of runways 32L-14R and 32Ro14L are 600 feet apart. b. Hangar #1 2750 feet from the runway 32R end and 1420 feet left of the 14R-32L centedine. Penetrates the 7:1 transition surface by 120 feet. c. Hangar #2 3275 feet from the runway 32R end and 1185 feet right of the 32R-14L centerline. Penetrates the 7:1 transition surface by 125 feet. d. Hangar #3 3275 feet from the runway 32R end and 1675 feet fight of the 32R-14L centedine. Penetrates the 7:1 transition surface by 55 feet. e. NASA wind tunnel 4500 feet from the runway 32L end and 3200 feet left of the 32L- 14R centedine. Penetrates the inner horizontal surface by about 4 feet. f. East edge of aircraft parking apron adjacent t0the east end of hangar #1 is 650 feet from the centedine of runway 32Lo14R and 112 feet from the centerline of the west parallel taxiway. g. Building 158 1520 feet from the runway 32I, end and 1040 feet left of centedine. Penetrates the 7:1 transition surface by 21 feet. i h. Building 75 3300 feet from the runway 32L end and 750 feet left of the 14R-32L centerline. Penetrates the 7:1 transition surface by 49 feet. i. South perimeter road located 1130 feet outboard of the ends of runways 32R and 32L. MF-7, dated 3/18F/1 Description: To permit the existing violations to remain. b. Power transformer building #411 located 1850 feet inboard the runway 32R end and 300 feet left of the 14L-32R centerline. Elevation is 86 inches above runway centerline. e. Runway Visual Range 1. Transmitter located 1100 feet inboard the 32R end and 550 feet right of the runway 14L-32R centerline. 2. Receiver located 1600 feet inboard the 32R end and 500 feet right of the runway 14L-32R centerline. Both the transmitter and receiver are 12 feet 4 inches above the runway centerline. f. Ceilometer1. Transmitter located l OO feet outboard the displaced threshold of the runway 32L end and 740feet left of the 14R-32L centerline. 1. Receiver located 500feet inboard the displaced threshold of the runway 32L end and 740feet left of the 14R-32L centerline. (scheduled for removal July 1996) (aircraft parking redesignated by NASA) 1 AT) ~T (removed by Nawy prior to transfer) (aircraft parking re-designated by NASA) (removed by Navy prior to transfer) Appendix C AIRFIELD OPERATIONS ASSUMPTIONS The following tables detail the flight operations assumptions for the CRAF at MFA alternatives, including the following: Runway Use: Departures Runway Use: Arrivals Time of Day Distribution IFR Flight Track Utilization Table C-1 RUNWAY USE ASSUMPTIONS: DEPARTURES 32L 32R Alternatives 1 & 3 VFR (Touch & Gos)"1.0 % 8.6 % 4.0 % 4.5 % 44.0 % 35.0 % 51.0 % 51.9 % Alternatives 2 & 4 (Touch & Gos)* Daytime and Evening IFR (7am to 10pm) Nighttime IFR (10pro to 7am) 1.0 % 8.6 % 2.0 % 4.0 % 4.5 % 0.0 % 44.0 % 35.0 % 0.0 % 51.0 51.9 98.0 Under normal conditions, touch & go OPerations do not occur between 10pm and 7am. Table C-2 RUNWAY USE ASSUMPTIONS: ARRIVALS Alternatives 1 & 3 (Touch & Cos)’1.0 %- 4.0 %44.0 %51.0 % IFR 8.6 %4.5 %35.0 %51.9 % Alternatives 2 & 4 (Touch & Cos)’1.0 %4.0 %44.0 %51.0 % Daytime and Evening IFR 8.6 %4.5 %35.0 %51.9 % (Tam to 10pm) Nighttime IFR 98.0 %0.0 %0.0 %2.0 % (10pro to 7am) Under normal conditions, touch & go operations do not occur between 10pro and 7am. C-2 Table Co3 TIME OF DAY DISTRIBUTION ASSUMPTIONS (Non-Cargo Operations)" Historical Conditions VFR (Touch & Gos)82.5 %17.5 %0.0 % IFR 79.0 %20.0 %1.0 % The ~Ftme of Day" distributions for cargo operations are detailed in Chapter II of this Environmental Assessment. Table IFR FLIGHT TRACK UTILIZATION ASSUMPTIONS" (All Scenarios) Arrivals 100.0 %0.0 % I Departures 50.0 %50.0 % I These flight tracks are conceptualized on the following page. C-3 DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACKS and-7 Straight Straight ~N Appendix D FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION LETTER REGARDING PREFERRED RUNWAY USE U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Bay Terminal Radar Approach Control 1029 Grumman Street Oakland, CA 94621 April 29, 1996 Dr. Ken K. Munechika Director Moffett Federal Airfield Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000 Dear Dr. Munechika: The following information is provided in response to your letter dated April 12, 1996. Bay TRACON will participate in any "preferred runway/approach" program or any other type of procedure requested by Moffett field with respect to traffic flows and noise mediation efforts. The approach to Runway 14 is operationally feasible. Our compliance with the subject "Bay approach" would be subject to several factors. Weather will always dictate if such an approach is feasible. Both cloud conditions and surface winds will determine landing runways and approach direction. A pilot’s request is another factor which might preclude a landing on Runway 14. This over water approach could experience some delays, if other Bay area traffic is in conflict. It is very difficult to forecast the frequency of this eventuality. However, during the hours scheduled for this o~eration, these subject delays should be minimal. We understand that NASA is in the process of completing an Environmental Assessment for this operation which includes any work relevant to flight patterns. Please contact our Regional Office for assistance in this area. The contact for this effort is William Johnstone (310) 725-6535. Sincerely, ~~~~Ma~nager, Bay Term=nal Radar Approach Control Appendix E AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS ANALYSIS [] R [] E-2 (~r-U r" ~) .~2 ,,~ Z Z0 xo 0 o~ 0121 o xo o o q Appendix F EXPECTED WEEKDAY TRIP GENERATION CIVIL RESERVE AIR FLEET MOFFETT FEDERAL AIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT BRADY AND ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY 1996 Table F-1 CRAF AT MFA EXPECTED WEEKDAY TRIP GENERATION : i~i , Alternatives-land2 .-~. /-:- ¯ : .-"Alternatives3 and 4 :"Employe~s.(Autos)i i: ’::-.-’i’iTrncks::: ~, .:. :. -:iii:.Emp!oye~s :.(Autos) ....Trucks 3:00-4:00 AM 4:00-5:00 AM 5:00-6:00 AM 6:00-7:00 AM 7:00-8:00 AM 8:00-9:00 AM 9:00-10:00 AM TOTAL 3:00 - 10:00 AM 48 161 17 14 82 42 102 14 24O 240 42 T 69 T 35 S 69 T 45 S 180 T 80 S 42 T 69 T 35 S 69 T 45 S 180 T 70 S 78 262 28 134 22 67 167 22 390 390 I, out 67 T I12 T 56 S 67T If2 T I12 T 73 S 56.S 112 T 73 S 291 T 129 S 5:00-6:00 PM 6:00-7:00 PM 7:00-8:00 PM 137 17 8:00-9:00 PM 171 69 24O 7T 62T 18S 12 T 101 T 28 S 291 T 129 S 42 T 38 S 69 T 66 S 14 T 7S 55 T 28 S 76 T 69 S 35 T 223 28 278 112 67 T 62 S 112 T 106 S 22 T IlS 90T 45 S 123 T 112 S 56 T 18 S 28 S 180 T 390 390 291 T 291 T 122 S 196 S 196 S :67T.22T 62 S 11 S TOTAL 240 3:00 - 9:00 PM PM AmbientPeak-i ./"137 - ~-,- ’Hour (~;:00-6:00) ..... ~ - T -- Large truck (cab and trailer) S = Small self-contained truck Source:Crane Transportation Group, based upon input fi’om UPS, Federal Express and DHL regarding expected mix of auto and truck traffic. Fo2 Appendix G INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY m [] [] (3-1 "Signalized" Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Definitions Level of Service Description A B C D E F Very low delay, less than 5.0 seconds per vehicle. Progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths contribute to low delay. Delay in the range of 5.1 to 15.0 seconds per vehicle. Good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop causing higher levels of average delay. Delay in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 seconds per vehicle. Fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures, resulting in drivers having to wait through more than one red signal indication, begin to appear. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, although man), still pass through the intersection without stopping. Delay in the range of 25.1 to 40.0 seconds per vehicle. The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high volumes. Many vehicles stop, the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures noticeable.- Delay in the range of 40.1 to 60.0 seconds per vehicle. The limit of acceptable delay. Poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high volumes. Individual cycle failures are frequent. Delay in excess of 60.0 seconds per vehicle. Unacceptable to most drivers. Oversaturation, arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths. Source: 1994 Highway Capacity Manual IAla "Unsignalized" Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Definitions Level of Service Average Total Delay (seconds per vehicle) A _<5 B > 5 and -< 10 C > 10 and ~ 20 D > 20 and _~ 30 E > 30 and _< 45 F > 45 Total delay is defined as the total elapsed time fi’om when a vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line; this time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last-in-queue position to the first-in-queue position. Source: 1994 Highway Capaei .ty Manual FIGURE 4-5. PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT "T o -r lO0 f2 OR MORE LANES 6‘ 2 OR MORE LANESsoo I I ] I I I II 400 -- 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 MAJOR STREET -- TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES -- VPH "NOTE:150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. FIGURE 4-6. PEAK FLOUR VOLUME WARRANT (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) I00 300 /2 OR MORE LANES 6‘ 2 OR MORE LANES o> -r ¢,/2 OR MORE LANES 6" 1 LANE 400 500 600 700 ’800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET -- TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES -- VPH "NOTE:100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TVVO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR .STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. PEAK HOUR SIGNAL WARRANT # l 1 Table A-1 US 101 Southbound Ramps/Ellis Street Movement YR 2010 ILO3 From Passer III WITHOUT iAVe Delay - Se~/Veh LRT ! Traffic Volume !Movement Time - mac YR2010 i LRT Movements WITH i LRT Confliots LRT Delay 3 Train Consist-se~/oycle i Houtiy Adjusted LRT Delay-sec/cycl Houdy Weighted Deiey-se~/veh t LO$ With Houdy Weighted Delay # of oyolas = 45 AM Peak Hour Without Air Cargo Operations EBT EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL C C B-B-B-C B+ 21,17 21.17 13.04 13.04 13.04 21,17 6.98 646 145 29 29 0 20 0 2O 8 383 372 4O 4O 4O i 20 o o 20 0 0 40 0 0 22.7 0 363 57 39 10 ! 0 20 o 20 i C D+ ; 0 22.7 21.17 43.87. 35.74 13.04 13.04 C E+ D- B- B- Movement f YR 2010 I LO3 From Passer III i WITHOUTI Ave Delay - i .m" Traffio Volume Movement Time - YR 2010 LRT Movements WITH LRT Conflicts LRT LRT Delay 3 Train Consist-se~/cycle Hourly Adjusted LRT Delay-sec/cycl ’ Houdy Weighted Delay-see/yah LOS With Houdy Weighted Delay Peak Hour With Air Cargo Operations @ 246 Employees SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL C C C D+ EB’I"EBR D+D+ 29.34 .29.34 644 145 26 26 0 20 0 2O 0 40 0 22.7 29.34 52.04 D+E # of oyoles = 45 Movement YR 2010 iLOS From Passer III }WITHOUTI Ave Delay - 3eo/Veh Traffic Volume f Movement Time - !YR 2010 ILRT Movements WITH Confli(~ts t LRT Delay 3 Train Consist-seo/0yole i Houtty LRT Deiay-se~/cyclAdjusted i Houdy Weighted i LOS With Houdy Weighted Delay # of ~ycles = 45 18.54 18.54 18.54 8 422 372 34 34 34 20 0 0 20 0 O 40 0 0 22.7 0 0 41.24 18.54 18.54 E+C C EBF~~BT ~;BL D/E C-C- 40.46 22.61 22.61 29.34 5.32 369 237 46 20 0 20 0 20 0 4O 0 29.34 D+ 22.7 28.02 D+ Peek Hour With Air Cargo Operations @ 390 Employees WBL B 444 32 2O 0 0 22.7 0 45.31 22.61 E+C- 3BR WBT C- I DIE 2.61 t-4o.46 372 i 371 32 J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22.61 40.46 C-DIE EBT D/E 641 23 0 0 0 0 40,46 D/E 145 23 2O 2O 22.7 63.16 F Whole C+ 17.62 m74 8O 9,88 348 26 20 20 22.7 31 .SB D 20.03 C Whole C- 22.81 2197 80 26.84 D+ Whole D+ 2g.43 2329 80 84,31 D Table A-2 US 101 Southbound Offramp/FJlis Street Movement I YR 2010 1 LOS From Passer III ! WITHOUT I Ave Delay - Se~/Veh - !LRT f i PM Peek Hour Without Air Cargo Operations EBT EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT C/D CID I D+D+D+CID 25.01 25.01 25.54 25.54 25.54 25.01 i Traffio Volume 335 ! Movement Time - see 18 YR 2010 LRT Movements 0 WITH ) LRT Conflicts 0 LRT LRT Delay 0 ! ’ 3 Train Consist-see/eyole !Houtly Adjusted LRT Delay-sec/oyol I 0 I Houdy Weighted Delay-see/yah } 25.01 I LOS With Houdy Weighted Delay C/D # of oyol~ = 51 Movement LOS From Passer III i Ave Delay - See/Veh ’Traffic Volume ’Movement Time - s~ LRT Movements LRT Conflicts LRT Delay 3 Train Coneist-see/cyele YR 2010 WITHOUT LRT YR 2010 WITH LRT Hourly Adjusted LRT Delay-see/cy¢l Houdy Weighted Deley-see/veh LOS With Houdy Weighted Delay # of oyoles = 51 Movement !YR~tO t LOS From Passer WITHOUT ! Ave Delay - See/Veh YR 2010 WITH LRT 274 18 5 83 285 21 21 21 793 49 20 45.01. E+ 20 I 20 20 20 40 40 20 45.54 E+ 0 0 o 0 25.54 25.54 D+D+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25.01 D+ EBT EBR D+D+ 26.24 26,24 335 274 18 18 0 20 0 20 0 4O WBL Whole B+C 7.49 21.48 457 2212 31 70 2O 20 2O 27.49 28.13 D+D+ D+D+ 25.54 25.54 5 215 21 21 20 0 20 O 40 0 Peak Hour WithAirCerQo Opera~ons@240EmpIoyees SBR WBT D+ j D+ 25.54 26.24 235 I 0 20 26.24 46.24 D+ 791 49 0 0 0 0 26.24 D+ WBL Whole B+C- 7.26 22.30 475 2380 31 70 20 2O 4O 20 27.26 28.64 D+D+ Traffic Volume Movement Time -sec LRT Movements LRT Confl|ots LRT Delay 3 Train Consist-se(>/¢yole Houtly Adjusted Deiay-see/ey¢lLRT i Hourly Weight~l Delay-sac/yah LOS With Houdy Weighted Deiey 20 0 0 45.54 25.54 25.54 E+ D+ D+ PM Peak Hour With Air Cargo Operaffon$ @ 390 Employees EBT EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL D+D+D+D+D÷ D+ 26.95 26.95 25.54 25.54 25.54 26.24 343 274 18 18 o 20 o 20 5 308 285 21 21 21 20 0 20 0 4O 0 0 0 20 0 0 45.54 25.54 25.54 E+D+D+ 791 49 0 0 0 0 26.24 D+ 0 4O 0 20 26.95 46,95 D+ E Whole C+C- 7.54 22.61 464 2490 31 70 20 20 20 27.54 28.74 D+D+ # of cycles = 51 Table A=3 US 101 Northbound Ramps/Ellis Skeet Movement YR 2010 ILOS From Passer III !WITHOUT! Ave Delay - SeojVeh IYR2010 I LWIEI~H !Traffio VolumeIMovement Time - ! LRT Movements ! LRT Conflic~ts LRT Delay 3 Train Consist-se~/oyole Hourly Adjusted LRT Delay-seo/eyol Houdy We ghted Delay-see/veh I LOS With Houdy Weighted Delay # of eyolK = 45 YR 2010 WITHOUT LRT YR 2010 WITH LRT Movement LOS From Passer III lave Delay - ~Tmffio Volume Movement Time - s~ LRT Movements LRT Conflicts LRT Delay 8 Train Consist-see/cycle I Hourly Adjusted LRT Delay-se~/ey¢l Hourly Weight~l Delay-se¢/veh t LOS With Heudy Weighted Delay # of oyolee = 45 Movement YR 2010 i LOS From Passer III WITHOUT! Ave Delay - S~/Veh LRT , Traffio Volume ! Movement Time - s~I YR 2010 LFIT Movements IWTTH . LRT ConfllotsI LRT I LRT Delay 3 Train Consist-se~/~yele ,Houl~y Adjusted LRT Delay-seQ/oyel IHourly Weighted Delay-sec/veh 1LOS With Hourly Weighted Delay Peak Hour Without Air Cargo Operations EBT EBL D+B i 870 59 51 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28.68 11,21 D+B WBT NBT NBL D+C C 28.68 19.70 19.70 ;: 7 310 29 29 0 i 20 20 0 I 20 20 0 48 48 I 2 8 48.70 48.70 D+ ( E E NBR C 19.70 323 29 2O 20 48 29 48.70 E’ Whole C/D 24.87 1778 8O Peak Hour With Air Cargo Operations @ 240 Employees EBT D+ 28.88 1007 56 0 0 0 EBL WBT C D+ 20.30 28.88 58 296 87 19 28.88 20.30 2 8 D+ C D+ NBT NBL NBR C/D C/D C/D 25.28 25.28 25.29 7 310 350 25 25 25 20 20 20 20 20 20 48 48 48 29 29 29 54.28 54.28 54.28 E-E-E- Whole D+ 27.44 2029 80 36.98 D- IAM Peak Hour With Air Cargo Operations @ 390 Employees EBT EBL WBT NBT NBL D+D-D+D+D+ 26.97 38.46 26.87 28.72 29.72- 1026 59 55 33 418 25 7 310 23 23 0 0 0 0 26.87 38.46 D+D- o i 0 26.87 D+ 0 20 0 20 0 48 29 57.72 E- 20 20 29 57.72 E- NBR Whole D+D+ 28.72 27.76 I ~67 2187 23!80 57.72 37.33 E- #ofQyoles= 45 Table As4 US 101 Northbound Ramps/Ellis Street YR 2010 WITH LRT YR 2010 {LOS From Passer III WITHOUT i Ave Delay - Se~/Veh LRT ~ i Traffic VolumeiMovement Time -seo I LRT Movements , LFIT Conflicts Delay 3 Train Consist-sea/cycle ~Houtiy Adjusted LRT Deley-see/oyol ~Houdy Weighted Deiay-se~/veh ,LOS With Houdy Weighted Delay # of cycles = 51 Movement I YR 2010 1 LOS From Passer III ! WITHOUTi Ave Daisy - See/Yah )LRT 1 Traffic Volume, Movement Time - I YR 2010 WITH LRT LRT Movements LRT Conflicts i PM Peek Hour Withour Air Cargo Operations ~’BT EBL WBT Whole C+B-C+C+ 17.12 11.87 17.12 16.99 137 281 50 17 0 0 LRT Delay 3 Train Consist-see/cycle Houdy Adjusted LRT Delw-se~/oy¢l 0 Houdy Weighted Delay-see/yah I 17.18 I , LOS With Houdy We ghted Delay C+ # of cycles = 51 Movement YR 2010 !LOS From Passer III WITHOUT; Ave Delay - Seo/Veh i Treffi~ Volume i Movement Time - see YR 2010 i W~TH LRT LRT Movements LRT Confli~t~ LNT Delay 3 Train Consist-see/cycle Hourly Adjusted LRT Deiay-se~/ey¢l Houdy Weighted Delay-see/yah LOS With Houdy Weighted Delay # of cycles = 51 0 0 o o 17.12 11.87. c+B- 1024 33 0 0 o 17.12 c+ Ni~T NBL NBR C C C 20.34 20.34 20.34 5 226 119 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 48 48 48 25.5 25.5 25.5 45.84 45.84 45.84 E+E+E+ 1772 70 22.02 C Peak Hour With Air Cargo Operations @ 240 Employees WBT NBT NBL C+C C 17.18 20.34 20.34 ! O40 5 226 34 20 20 0 20 20 O 20 20 0 48 48 0 25.5 25.5 17.18 45.84 45.84 C+E+E+ NBR Whole C C+ 20.34 17.23 277 2104 20 70 20 20 48 25.5 45.84 23,39 E+C- EBT EBL C+B- 17,18 11.46 295 26! 50 17 0 O O 0 0 0 0 11.46 B- Peak Hour With Air Cargo Operations @,390 Employees EBT EBL WBT NBT NBL NBR Whole C+C+ 17,13 17.33 392 50 17 1 C÷ 17.13 1046 33 0 0 0 0 17,13 C+ C C C 20.34 20.34 20.34 5 226 375 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 ’48 46 48 2307 70 25,5 25.5 25.5 45,84 45,84 45.84 24,08 E+E+E+ i C- 0 0 17.13 11.46 C+ Appendix H CALIFORNIA CLAPPER RAIL HABITAT I-I-1 LEGEND: scale In feet 0 2oo0 4o00 600( scale in meters 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Clapper Rail Foraging Area Clapper Rail Nesting Area Figure H-1 California Clapper Rail Habitat Source:WESCO. Phase I Site-wide Qualitative Habitat and Receptor Characterization Study. NAS Moffett Field, October 1993. Appendix I STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER CORRESPONDENCE I-1 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000 May 20, 1996 Ms. Cherilyn Widell State Historic Preservation Officer Office of Historic Preservation Department of Parks and Recreation P.O. Box 942896 -Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 Dear Ms. Widdell: NASA Ames Research Center is planning to utilize Hangar One at Moffett Federal Airfield to house the limited cargo operations involving private enterprise cargo companies under Department of Defense sponsorship. We have applied the criteria of effect and adverse effect, found in 36 CFR Part 800.9 of the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation’s regulations, to this undertaking and have determined that it will have no adverse effect on the historic property. We are writing to obtain your concurrence with this finding. As part of NASA’s policy to make use of Moffett Federal Airfield (MFA) facilities, NASA Ames Research Center is investigating the utilization of Hangar One to serve as the onsite location for limited cargo operations involving private enterprise cargo companies under Department of Defense sponsorship. An environmental assessment (EA) is currently underway to determine the expected impact/non- impact of such an activity at MFA. Should this activity be brought to MFA, Hangar One and the apron area in the immediate vicinity of the facility would serve as both aircraft, motor vehicle, and office housing, and the location for loading and unloading of cargo aircraft. No modifications are anticipated for the interior or exterior of the facility. This submission is made per the Programmatic Agreement among NASA, National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Therefore, if we do not hear from you within twenty working days after receipt of this letter, we will assume that you concur with our determination, and will proceed, subject to the provisions for treating historic properties contained in 36 CFR Part 800.11. If you have any questions, please contact me at (415) 604-4504. Sincerely W. David Gambrel Acting Facilities Preservation Officer cc:S. Petroni D. Shew WDGambrel:ceb:5-20o96:4o4504 Appendix J WEATHER DATA ANALYSIS ~ I-- w Z w 0 w Z c Z MOFFETT FEDERAL AIRFIELD RUNWAY USAGE BY PERCENT OF ARRIVING AIRCRAFT MONTH JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC IRW 14 LND POSSIBLE = RW 32 LND REQUIRED.-- IDIVERT REQUIRED = i EARLY MORNING- 0400 ARRIVAL j MONTHRW 14 LND POSSIBLE 91.8% 93.1% 97.8% 98.4% 99.5% 99.5% 99.6% 99.0% 99.0% 96.6% 94.1% 90.7% can safely land on RW 14, i.e. tailwind < 10 knots, ceiling ¯ 400, and vis > 1 1/4 mile must land on RW 32 due to RW 14 ceiling and vis below rains or tailwind > 10 knots airfield closed for landings due to ceiling < 300 and/or visibility < 3/4 mile MORNING - 0700 ARRIVAL JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN ;~UL AUG SEP . OCT NOV DEC RW 32 LND DIVERT REQUIRED REQUIRED 3.2%5.0% 2.9%4.0% 1.8%O.4% 1.2%0.4% 0.5%0.0% 0.5%0.0% 0.4%0.0% 0.6%0.4% 0.6%0.4% 1.4%2.0% 2.9%3.0% 4.3%5.0% RW 14 LND POSSIBLE 88.6% 89.9% 97.2% 98.3% 99.8% 99.6% 99.5% 99.0% 98.0% 93.3% 91.5% 87.1% RW 32 LND DIVERT REQUIRED REQUIRED 3.4%8.0% 3.1%7.0% 1.8%1.0% 0.7%1.0% 0.2%0.0% 0.4%0.0% 0.1%O.4% 0.6%O.4% 1.0%1.0% 2.7%4.0% 2.5%6.0% 3.9%9.0% I The basis for this analysis is USN weather observations taken every three hours over a 49 year period. The figures above represent the percentage of arriving aircraft that could utilize the indicated options at the respective times. RW 32 usage based on ILS approach which requires ceiling of 300 feet / visibility 3/4 mile. RW 14 usage based on Localizer Only approach which requires ceiling of 400 feet /visibility 1 1/4 mile. Cross winds in excess of 25 knots were statistically negligible. Analysis by Bill Brockett, Flight Operations Branch, Ames Research Center, (415) 604-3126. MOFFETT FEDERAL AIRFIELD RUNWAY USAGE BY NUMBER OF AIRCRAFT JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC YEARLY TOTALS RW 14 LND POSSIBLE 292 267 311 303 316 306 317 315 305 3O8 290 288 RW 32 LND REQUIRED 10 8 6 4 2 2 1 2 2 4 9 14 RW 14 LND POSSIBLE -- RW 32 LND REQUIRED = D VERT REQU RED = EARLY MORNING ARRIVALS-0400 ] DIVERT REQUIRED 16 11 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 6 9 16 can safely land on RW 14, i.e. tailwind < 10 knots, ceiling > 400, and vis > 1 1/4 mile must land on RW 32 due to RW 14 ceiling and vis below mins or tailwind ¯ 10 knots aidield closed for landings due to ceiling < 300 and/or visibility < 3/4 mile JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC [MORNING ARRIVALS - 0700 ] RW 14 LND POSSIBLE 282 257 309 303 317 307 316 315 302 297 282 277 RW 32 LND DIVERT REQUIRED REQUIRED 11 25 9 20 6 3 2 3 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 3 3 8 13 8 18 12 29 3618 64 62 YEARLY 3564 64 116TOTALS ASSUMES 12 AIRCRAFT ARRIVE AT THE INDICATED TIME, 6 DAYS A WEEK FOR 52 WEEKS (3744 TOTAL AIRCRAFT ARRIVALS) I The basis for this analysis is USN weather observations taken every three hours over a 49 year period. The figures above represent the number of arriving aircraft that could utilize the indicated options at the respective times. RW 32 usage based on ILS approach which requires ceiling of 300 feet / visibility 3/4 mile. RW 14 usage based on Localizer Only approach which requires ceiling of 400 feet / visibility 1 1/4 mile. Cross winds in excess of 25 knots were statistically negligible, Analysis by Bill Brockett, Flight Operations Branch, Ames Research Center, (415) 604-3126.