Condensed Environmental Assessment

Transcription

Reviewer Instruction Sheet
Draft Environmental Assessment Contents
This copy of the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) has been provided for public
review.
How to Comment on the Draft EA
All interested parties may provide comments concerning the scope and content of
the Draft EA.
• Comments should be as specific as possible.
• Comments should address the contents of the Draft EA, such as the analysis of
potential environmental impacts, the adequacy of the proposed action to meet
the stated need, or the merits of the alternatives.
• Reviewers should organize their participation to make their comments
meaningful and effective.
• Reviewers should use quotations, page references, and other specific citations
to the text of the Draft EA and related documents to express the reviewer's
interests and concerns.
Comments are to be submitted to Ms. Sarah Potter, at the following address:
Landrum & Brown
Attn: Sarah Potter, LCK EA
11279 Cornell Park Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Email: [email protected]
Fax: (513) 530-2271
All comments must include the full name and address of the individual commenting
and be emailed, postmarked, or faxed by:
5:00 p.m. (EST), Tuesday, April 28, 2015.
Other Ways to Obtain Information about the Draft EA
A Public Information Workshop/Public Hearing will be held at the following location
from 5:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. (EST) on Tuesday, April 14, 2015:
Rickenbacker International Airport
Charter Terminal
2241 John Circle Drive
Columbus, OH 43217
Federal Aviation Administration – Great Lakes Region
Airport: Rickenbacker International Airport Project: Air Cargo Terminal 5 and
Associated Airside and Landside Development
Federal Aviation Administration
Great Lakes Region
The Condensed Environmental Assessment (Condensed EA) is appropriate for Great Lakes
Region airport projects when a project:



Cannot be Categorically Excluded (CATEX),
Does not have significant impacts, and
A detailed Environmental Assessment (EA) is not needed.
Proper completion of this document will allow the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and/or
State Block Grant States, to determine whether the Condensed EA is appropriate for the proposed
project and to support a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
Resource guidance used in preparation of this form comes from the FAA’s Order 1050.1E,
“Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” or subsequent revisions. This order
incorporates the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as well as the US Department of Transportation’s
environmental regulations (including FAA Order 5050.4B or subsequent revisions), and other
federal statues and regulations. Accordingly, this form is intended to meet the Federal regulatory
requirements of an EA.
This format is appropriate if the proposed project’s involvement with, or impacts to, extraordinary
circumstances are not notable in number or degree and do not rise to the level of a full EA.
Consult with an Environmental Specialist at the FAA to determine if this form is appropriate
for your project.
To complete this form, the preparer should describe the proposed project and provide information
on any potential impacts of the proposed project. It will be necessary for the preparer to have
knowledge of the environmental features of the airport. Although some of this information may be
obtained from the preparer’s own observations, environmental studies or other research may be
necessary. Complete consultation with applicable Federal, state, and local resource agencies
responsible for protecting specially protected resources prior to submitting this form to the FAA.
This form is not meant to be a stand-alone document. Rather, it is intended to be used in
conjunction with the applicable orders, laws, and guidance documents, and in consultation with
the appropriate resource agencies.
An appendix that contains all the figures, correspondence, and completed studies (or executive
summaries of completed studies) should accompany the completed Condensed EA when
submitted to the FAA for final approval.
This is page 1 of 17.
Date:
March 2015
This form is only applicable for Great Lakes Region projects
Federal Aviation Administration - Great Lakes Region
Project Location:
Airport Name:
Airport Identifier:
LCK
Address:
7161 Second Street
City: Columbus
County: Franklin/Pickaway
State:
OH
Airport Sponsor Information:
Point of Contact:
Address:
City: Columbus
Telephone Number:
Email:
Mark Kelby
4600 International Gateway
State: OH
614-239-5014
[email protected]
Zip Code:
43219
Zip Code:
45242
Condensed EA Preparer Information:
Point of Contact:
Address:
City: Cincinnati
Telephone Number:
Email:
Sarah Potter
11279 Cornell Park Drive
State: OH
513-530-1271
[email protected]
Identify all Attachments to this Condensed EA:
Include aerial photos, maps, plans, correspondence, and completed studies (or executive summaries)
Attachment 1 – Exhibits
Attachment 2 – Noise Analysis
Date:
March 2015
Part I - General Project Identification
PURPOSE AND NEED:
Describe the problem that the project will address and the goals of the project.
The primary purpose of air cargo warehouse facilities is for the transfer of air cargo between the
airside of the airport to the landside of the airport (and vice versa) in as efficient manner as possible.
Sorting, storing, build-up and breakdown, and loading/unloading of air cargo aboard trucks plus
administrative activity such as Customs clearance in addition to the “pass through” function are
primary activities that take place in an air cargo warehouse. Air cargo warehouse buildings are
constructed in a manner to enable this activity including floor level truck docks on the landside, large
airside doors, open warehouse area, high value goods isolation and administrative space. Leasable
space of air cargo warehouse facilities at Rickenbacker totals 262,800 square feet consisting of:


Air cargo warehouse space with direct airfield access totaling 138,000 square feet.
o
ACT 3 – 40,000 square feet
o
o
Forward Air international sort facility – 50,000 square feet
Air cargo warehouse space without direct airfield access, but still in close proximity to the airfield
and accessible by vehicle gate, totaling 124,800 square feet.
o
o
ACT 2– 57,600 square feet
FedEx Express and UPS activity represents a significant portion of the air freight handled at LCK,
serving the retail distribution base in the immediate area and in the region. LCK sees seven FedEx
flights a day during the mid-week. During the peak cargo season, LCK is second only to Memphis in
outbound express package volumes for FedEx. LCK also sees twice daily service by UPS and a
variety of smaller domestic air freight operators.
The international air cargo tonnage at LCK has grown by double-digits over the last two years on the
strength of market and distribution assets present for access to North American consumers. This is
partially due to lower landing fees and significantly less congestion compared to other gateways.
Cargolux began two-day a week scheduled service to LCK in June of 2013 with the Boeing 747-8
freighter aircraft and in May of 2014, added a 3rd weekly frequency. In December 2014, Cargolux
began loading exports bound for their European gateway in Luxembourg through LCK and will likely
add additional capacity through LCK as the export volumes increase. In March of 2014, Cathay
Pacific also began two day per week scheduled service flying Boeing 747-8 freighter and a third day
per week was added in June 2014. Cathay opened up an export station at Rickenbacker in
September of 2014. International air freight traveling through LCK now comes from areas outside of
Ohio and flows to destinations all over Asia and Australia through Cathay Pacific’s hub in Hong Kong
and to Europe and beyond through Cargolux’s Luxembourg hub. Building on this success in
Columbus, Cathay has expressed the intention of increasing up to five, possibly six weekly
frequencies as soon as volume builds and are actively looking to add capacity into LCK in early
2015. The international freighter service by Cargolux and Cathay is in addition to the existing ad-hoc
service by others including Kalitta and Atlas. Rickenbacker ended 2013 with 162 Boeing 747
freighter arrivals from international points of origin, up from 156 in 2012. Rickenbacker received over
278 Boeing 747 international freighter arrivals in 2014. Apart from the Asia origins, other carriers
from areas of the world such as the Middle East have been expressing strong interest in serving
LCK.
Date:
March 2015
Due to the previously described activity at the Airport, LCK is nearly out of air cargo warehouse
space with strong interest from both existing carriers and other prospects to expand or add service at
LCK. Additional building capacity and apron space is needed to accommodate this demand and
capitalize on the economic opportunities. The purpose of the proposed development is to provide
additional revenue to the Columbus Regional Airport Authority (CRAA). The proposed development
would provide economic development opportunities on unused/underutilized land in the northeast
airfield at LCK. The site is of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed development and has
access to utilities to support the proposed development on the site.
PROPOSED ACTION (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE):
Describe the preferred alternative in detail, including how the project fits into the airport layout plan.
The Proposed Action is the development of approximately 27 acres along the northeast boundary of
LCK in an area that is mostly paved. Initial plans for the project call for the development of one
building, constructed in two phases, with a total square footage of approximately 214,800 to
250,000 square feet, approximately 8.5 acres of apron and Ground Service Equipment (GSE)
pavement, and approximately 5.5 acres of landside parking pavement. The Proposed Action would
be constructed in at least two phases. The proposed apron pavement would ultimately
accommodate up to five additional Boeing 747-8 sized aircraft. An unnamed access road currently
provides landside access to the site from George Page Jr. Road. Improvements to this unnamed
access road, George Page Road, and the intersection of George Page Road and Port Road may be
required due to the poor conditions of the roadway pavement. During construction, a temporary
access road would be constructed directly adjacent to the existing unnamed access road to allow
for improvements to be made to this road. The attached exhibit (Exhibit 1, Proposed Action)
shows a conceptual layout of the full build-out of the proposed development and the area of
disturbance. This EA assesses the potential impacts of the proposed development being fully
implemented and operating at its maximum capacity.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
Describe alternatives considered, including the Do-Nothing Alternative
Three build alternatives were identified during the EA process. The build alternatives were limited to
the northeast airfield as this is the area identified for cargo operators and the existing location of the
other cargo facilities at LCK. Each build alternative included different variation in the size and layout
of the landside parking, cargo building, and aircraft apron. Factors such as construction costs, future
airport development, and environmental issues were considered during the alternative evaluation.
With the No Action (Do-Nothing) Alternative, the existing airfield would remain as it is currently and
no additional facilities or apron expansion would occur.
Explain in detail the reason for eliminating each non-preferred alternative.
As a requirement of Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the No Action Alternative will be carried
forward in the assessment of environmental impacts. Factors such as construction costs, future
airport development, and environmental issues were considered during the alternative evaluation.
The evaluation found that none of the other build alternatives were superior to the Proposed Action
Alternative. Therefore, only the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternatives will be carried
forward for detailed evaluation.
Date:
March 2015
AIRPORT DESCRIPTION:
Fill out the following information if the proposed project includes any changes to the existing airport design
Existing
Runway:
Length:
Width:
Pavement Strength:
NAVAIDS:
Approach Minimums:
Critical Aircraft (e.g. B-II) :
RPZ Area:
Proposed
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
Federally Owned: Y
N
If the airport has multiple runways, this section should be filled out for each runway.
Remarks:
The Proposed Project does not include any changes to the existing airport design at LCK.
LAND ACQUISITION:
Amount (acres)
Land Use Types
Residential
Commercial
Agricultural
Forest
Wetlands
Other:
Permanent
Easement
TOTAL
Remarks:
The Proposed Project would occur entirely on Airport owned property and would not
require land acquisition or easements.
PROJECT SCHEDULE:
Discuss the proposed schedule for the project, including permits and construction.
Final design is scheduled for completion in March 2015. Following environmental approval,
construction on the ramp would begin in early summer of 2015. Construction for the first phase of
this project is scheduled to be completed by mid-2016.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT:
Succinctly describe existing environmental conditions of the potentially affected area.
LCK encompasses over 4,000 acres of land and is situated east of the Scioto River, west of Little
Walnut Creek, and south of Interstate 270. The airport environs consist of the area in southern
Franklin County and northern Pickaway County, Ohio. The airport environs do not follow geographic
boundaries, but rather encompass generally the area that lies between Parsons Avenue and U.S. 23
to the west; Interstate 270 and Groveport Road to the north; Braun Road and London-Groveport
Road to the east; and Duvall Road to the south.
The proposed project site is located adjacent to the FedEx facility, Forward Air facility, and Air Cargo
Terminal 4 on the northeast boundary of LCK in an area that is mostly paved. Access and utilities
are available from George Page Jr. Road via an unnamed access road. Aircraft pavement abuts the
project site along with an Environmental Area of Concern (AOC) of the former Lockbourne Air Force
Base (AFB) which is currently under investigation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
Date:
March 2015
Part II – Environmental Consequences
Air Quality
Is the project in an air quality nonattainment or maintenance area?
If Yes, is the:
Project listed on Presumed to Conform List
Project accounted for in State Implementation Plan
Project emissions below applicable de minimis levels
Does the project require an air quality analysis?
Does the project require an air quality analysis for construction impacts?
Remarks:
Yes
X
No
X
X
X
X
X
With the No Action Alternative the existing conditions at LCK would remain in place.
Therefore, there would be no impacts to air quality not already occurring or expected to occur.
LCK spans Franklin County and Pickaway County, Ohio, which are included in the
Metropolitan Columbus Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (Columbus AQCR). The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has designated the Columbus AQCR as
nonattainment for ozone (O3) and maintenance for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Franklin
and Pickaway Counties are designated attainment for all the other Federally-regulated
pollutants, which are carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
coarse particulate matter (PM10), and lead (Pb).
The air quality assessment completed for the CMH Replacement Runway Environmental
Impact Statement at Port Columbus International Airport demonstrated that a project, which
had a higher number of aircraft operations forecasted and more development, would not
cause an increase in air emissions above the applicable de minimis thresholds.
Consequently, the Proposed Action at LCK is also assumed to not cause an increase in de
minimis thresholds as it is a smaller project. As a result it is assumed the Proposed Action at
LCK conforms to the Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP), NEPA and the Clean Air Act
(CAA) and would not create any new violation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS), delay the attainment of any NAAQS, nor increase the frequency or severity of any
existing violations of the NAAQS. Therefore, no adverse impact on local or regional air quality
is expected by construction or implementation of the Proposed Action.
Coastal Areas
Yes
Is the project located in a Coastal Barrier Resource System?
Is the project located in a Coastal Zone Management Program?
If Yes, Is a consistency finding required?
No
X
X
Remarks:
Compatible Land Use
Will proposed action comply with local/regional development patterns for the area?
Is the proposed project located near or will it create a wildlife hazard as defined in FAA
Advisory Circular 150/5200-33, “Wildlife Hazards on or Near Airports”?
Has coordination with USDA Wildlife Services occurred?
Is a Wildlife Assessment required?
Date:
March 2015
Yes
X
No
X
X
X
Remarks:
The project site is located on Airport owned property on or adjacent to the existing runway
and taxiway system. The existing land uses in the vicinity of the project site are made up
of commercial and aviation-related land uses.
Construction Impacts
Will construction of the proposed project:
Increase ambient noise levels due to equipment operation
Degrade local air quality due to dust, equipment exhaust, or burning debris
Deteriorate water quality when erosion or pollutant runoff occur
Disrupt off-site and local traffic patterns
Remarks:
Yes
No
X
X
X
X
There would be a temporary increase in noise levels due to construction activity and
construction vehicles in use during the construction process. The nearest residential area
is located approximately 3,800 feet north of the project site. Due to the location of the
proposed construction site in relation to the nearest residential areas, it is unlikely that
noise from construction would be noticeable at these locations. Therefore, no significant
construction noise impacts would occur.
Impacts to air quality would occur due to the use of mostly diesel-powered equipment and
fugitive dust. Construction emissions would be temporary and minimized by maintaining
traffic flow during construction periods. The discharge of fugitive dust at the construction
site could be minimized by the use of BMPs such as ground sprinkling practices during
high-dust generating activities or extended dry periods. Dust from construction and
materials delivery vehicles could be minimized by the use of cargo-covering tarps and
wet-downs, when possible. Other recommended BMPs from USEPA include:

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
Use ultra-low sulfur fuel (<15 ppm) in all diesel engines
Use add-on controls such as catalysts and particulate traps where suitable
Minimize engine idling (5-10 minutes / hour)
Use equipment that runs on clean, alternative fuels as much as possible
Use updated construction equipment that was either manufactured after 1996 or
retrofit to meet 1996 emissions standards
Prohibit engine tampering and require continuing adherence to manufacturer's
recommendations
Maintain engines in top running condition tuned to manufacturer's specifications
Phase project construction to minimize exposed surface areas
Reduce speeds to 10 and 15 mph in construction zones
Conduct unannounced site inspection to ensure compliance
Locate haul truck routes and staging areas away from sensitive population centers
Emissions from construction vehicles would temporarily impact local air quality; however,
annual emissions from construction equipment would not equal or exceed the de minimis
thresholds defining insignificant and negligible emissions. Therefore, no significant
adverse construction impacts would occur relative to air quality.
Temporary impacts to surface water quality could result from erosion and siltation born
from site disturbance activities. Cut and fill operations in the areas of potential
disturbance may contribute to siltation during construction activities. Sediment transport
would be temporary during the construction process. This risk of impact to water quality
Date:
March 2015
would be minimized to the fullest extent possible through the use of Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans and BMPs including adherence to any “Clean Water Permit” conditions.
The use of silt fences and/or vegetative filter strips to buffer streams and drainages would
also be used to the extent practicable. Areas of disturbance would be re-vegetated to
minimize erosion using native plant species compatible with the local landscape and
wildlife needs. Therefore, no significant adverse construction impacts would occur relative
to surface waters. All necessary construction and water quality permits would be obtained
as appropriate.
Construction activities associated with the Proposed Action are expected to include the
short-term use or generation of hazardous and non-hazardous materials and waste
common to construction including petroleum hydrocarbon-based fuels, lubricants, and
oils, paints, and cleaning solvents for the construction equipment. If any materials or
contaminated soils are encountered during construction appropriate materials
management measures would be followed to manage and dispose of hazardous and nonhazardous substances. Therefore, no significant adverse construction impacts would
occur relative to hazardous or solid wastes.
Cultural Resources
Results of Research
Eligible or Listed Resources Present:
Archaeology
History/Architecture
Yes
Project Effect
No Historic Properties Affected
No Adverse Effect
Adverse Effect
Yes
X
Completed Documentation
Historic Properties Short Report
Historic Property Report
Archaeological Records Check/ Review
Archaeological Phase I Survey Report
Archaeological Phase II Investigation Report
Archaeological Phase III Data Recovery
APE, Eligibility and Effect Determination
Memorandum of Agreement
Yes
No
X
X
N/A
SHPO/FAA Approval Dates
X
X
N/A
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SHPO/FAA Approval Dates
Describe all efforts to document cultural resources using the categories outlined in the remarks box.
Section 106 work required, such as mitigation or deep trenching.
Date:
March 2015
Include any additional
Remarks:
Area of Potential Effect (APE): See Exhibit 2, Indirect and Direct Area of Potential
Effect.
Coordination with Consulting Parties: N/A
Archaeology: The Proposed Action would occur on an area that is mostly paved or has
previously been disturbed. Therefore, no impacts to archaeological resources would
occur.
Historic Properties: The Proposed Action does not include the demolition or modification
to any National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) properties. Therefore, the Proposed
Project would not directly impact any NRHP properties. Additionally, there are no NRHP
properties located in the Indirect APE (view shed or 65 DNL noise contour) and therefore
the Proposed Action would not impact any NRHP properties.
Documentation, Findings: No impacts to cultural resources would occur from the
implementation of the Proposed Action.
Public Involvement: The document is available to the public at the Columbus Regional
Airport Authority Administrative Offices at Port Columbus International Airport and
Rickenbacker International Airport; the Columbus Metropolitan Library Southeast Branch;
the Pickaway County Public Library; the Federal Aviation Administration Detroit Airports
District Office; and the Columbus Regional Airport Authority website.
In addition, a public hearing is planned for April 14, 2015.
Department of Transportation Section 4(f)
Does the project area contain:
Publicly owned Park/Recreation Areas
Wildlife and/or Waterfowl Refuges
Historic Properties
Yes
No
X
X
X
Individual Section 4(f) Evaluation
“De minimis“ Impact
FAA Approval
X
X
Only to be used for the following circumstances:
o Historic Properties: project includes No Adverse Effect Finding with SHPO/THPO concurrence
o Parks, Recreation Areas, or Wildlife/Waterfowl Refuges: project will not adversely affect activities, features, and
attributes of the property and the official with jurisdiction concurs with the finding
Refers to Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (now 49 USC § 303). Discuss De minimis impacts below.
Individual Section 4(f) documentation must be separate Draft and Final documents.
Remarks:
Date:
March 2015
Ecological Resources
Biotic Resources
Describe the various types of flora (plants), fauna (fish, birds, reptiles, mammals, etc), and habitat located in the project area.
Indicate if the project will have any impact on these species or their habitat.
Remarks:
LCK is located in Franklin County and Pickaway County, Ohio. According to the U.S. Fish
& Wildlife Service (USFWS), there are currently several Federal and/or state protected
species found in Franklin County and Pickaway County as shown in Table 1. The project
site consists mostly of paved areas with small patches of grassy areas. The Proposed
Action would not impact any suitable habitat. Utility lines would be installed on previously
disturbed land. Therefore, no significant impacts would result from the construction and
Table 1
FEDERAL THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
COMMON NAME
SCIENTIFIC NAME
FEDERAL STATUS
Clubshell mussel
Indiana bat
Northern long-eared bat
Northern riffleshell mussel
Rabbitsfoot mussel
Rayed bean mussel
Scioto madtom
Snuffbox mussel
Bald Eagle
Pleurobema clava
Myotis sodalis
Myotis septenrionalis
Epioblasma torulosa rangiana
Quadrula cylindrica
Villosa fabalis
Noturus trautmani
Epioblasma triqutra
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
E
E
Proposed E
E
T
E
E
E
*
E = Endangered; T = Threatened; C = Candidate; SC = Species of Concern
Source: US Fish & Wildlife Service, 2015.
* Note: The bald eagle was removed from the federal list of threatened and endangered species on August 9, 2007 but
remains protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Threatened or Endangered Species
Is the project within the known range of any federal species?
Does the project area contain any critical habitat?
Is Section 7 formal consultation required for this action?
Are there any State threatened or endangered species in the area?
Remarks:
Yes
X
No
X
X
X
With the No Action Alternative, the existing conditions at LCK would remain in place.
Therefore, there would be no impacts to Threatened or Endangered species with the No
Action Alternative.
No known areas of critical wildlife habitat exist within the Proposed Action site. There are
no trees on the site; therefore, no impacts to Indiana bat or Northern long-eared bat are
anticipated. In addition, no suitable habitat is present on the Proposed Action site for the
mussel species or bald eagle.
Date:
March 2015
Energy and Natural Resources
Yes
Will the project result in energy impacts during or after construction?
Will demand exceed supply?
Are scarce or unusual materials required for the proposed project?
Will the project change existing aircraft fuel consumption?
Remarks:
No
X
X
X
X
Therefore, there would be no impacts to natural resources and energy supply not already
occurring or expected to occur. No unusual energy uses that would indicate that the
power companies or fuel suppliers would have difficulty providing adequate capacity to
meet the demand of Airport facilities were identified, or that any natural resources used
during construction would be in short supply. Based on these findings, it is anticipated
neither the Proposed Action nor the No Action Alternative would result in significant
adverse impacts to the supply of energy or adversely affect the supply of natural
resources.
Environmental Justice (EJ)
Yes
Are any EJ populations located within the project area?
Will the project result in adversely high or disproportionate impacts to the EJ population?
Remarks:
No
X
X
The Proposed Action is not expected to cause impacts to environmental justice as the
project would occur on Airport property.
Farmland
Yes
Will the project affect any Agricultural Lands?
Is there any Prime Farmland (per NRCS) in the project area?
NRCS-CPA-1006 Form score:
NA
Remarks:
No
X
X
NA
Floodplains
Yes
Is the project located in a FEMA designated floodplain?
No
X
Attach the corresponding FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) or other documentation in the appendix.
Remarks:
The project site is not located within a mapped 100-year floodplain. According to Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), published by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) and as shown on Exhibit 3, Floodplains, the nearest floodplain to the
project site occurs along the eastern edge of Airport property. Therefore no impacts to
floodplains would occur with the implementation of the Proposed Action or No Action
alternative.
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Section 6(f)
Yes
Are there areas acquired or improved with Land and Water
Conservation Fund grant assistance?
Remarks:
No
X
NA
Date:
March 2015
Light Emissions and Visual Effects
Yes
Will the project result in airport-related lighting impacts?
Does the proposed project fit with the existing environment?
Remarks:
No
X
X
The Proposed Action does not include high-intensity strobe lights that would shine directly
into residences, nor would it cause lights to affect pilots or air traffic controllers.
Therefore, no special lighting study is warranted and the Proposed Action would not result
in significant light emission impacts. The Proposed Action includes the construction of a
building; however it would not significantly alter the existing views at the Airport as it would
be located adjacent to buildings similar in kind. Therefore, there would be no visual
impacts with implementation of the Proposed Action or the No Action alternative.
Noise
Will the project change the current noise levels?
Are there non-compatible land uses within the 65 DNL?
Will the project create temporary (less than 180 days) noise impacts?
Is a noise analysis required in accordance with FAA regulations?
Remarks:
Yes
X
No
X
X
X
A noise analysis for 2016 and 2021 conditions was prepared for the Proposed Action.
The 2016 condition assumed the facility was fully implemented and operating at its
maximum capacity. As a result, the noise modeling for the 2016 condition used the full
build-out operation levels to determine if a significant noise impact would occur. Based on
the results of the analysis, there would not be a 1.5 dB increase in the 65 DNL noise
contour over noise sensitive areas due to the Proposed Action in 2016 conditions. The
2021 condition was analyzed to determine if significant impacts would occur five years
after implementation. The noise modeling for the 2021 condition was based on projected
growth in activity at the Airport plus the full build-out operation levels from the 2016
condition. Like the analysis for 2016, there would not be a 1.5 dB increase in the 65 DNL
noise contour over sensitive areas due to the Proposed Action in 2021. Therefore, no
significant noise impact would occur from the Proposed Action. See Attachment 2 –
Noise Analysis for more information on the noise analysis and results.
Date:
March 2015
Social Impacts
Yes
Will the proposed action result in the relocation people, businesses or farms?
Number of relocations:
Remarks:
Residences:
Businesses:
Farms:
No
X
Other:
The area affected by the Proposed Action is located on Airport property and
implementation of the Proposed Action would have no impact on residences,
communities, or businesses located beyond the project area. The area affected by the
Proposed Action does not contain any non-aviation related businesses. The No Action
would not change any of the physical characteristics of the Airport and would have no
impact on or off of the Airport.
At full capacity it is estimated the Proposed Action would generate approximately 60
additional trucks per day. These 60 trucks would not arrive or depart at the facility at
the same time, but would rather be arriving and departing the facility at various times
throughout the day. To accommodate the trucks, widening the intersection of George
Page Jr. Road and Port Road and repaving the entrance road to the proposed facility,
would occur as part of the Proposed Action. In addition, the intersection of Port Road
and SR-317 is signalized which would reduce congestion. As a result, no reduction in
the level of service on the local roadways surrounding LCK would occur with
Level of service reductions are not expected on the regional roadways surrounding LCK
as regional roadway improvement plans, over the last five to ten years, have factored in
growth at LCK. These improvements have included upgrades to the intersection of
Alum Creek Drive and Groveport Road.
In 2012, the intersection handled
approximately 41,000 vehicles per day. With the upgrades, the intersection can now
handle approximately 73,000 vehicles per day. In addition, Rickenbacker Parkway was
widened to accommodate four lanes of traffic to allow for better truck movement in the
area surrounding the Airport, including freight routes between the Norfolk-Southern
Rickenbacker Intermodal Facility and nearby interstates. Lane widening and pavement
resurfacing also has occurred along SR-317 east and west of Alum Creek Drive and on
Alum Creek Drive north of SR-317. Improvements included street lighting, signal
replacement, sidewalks and a shared-use path.
The Ohio Department of
Transportation also recently constructed an east-west connector roadway that connects
LCK to US 23. The east-west connector provides an alternative to Alum Creek Drive.
As a result of these improvements, the increase in truck traffic due to the Proposed
Action would have negligible impact on the roadways and could be accommodated
without causing any reductions in the level of service. As a result no impacts to surface
transportation would occur with the Proposed Action.
Date:
March 2015
Socioeconomic Impacts
Will the proposed action result in:
A change in business or economic activity in the project area
An impact on local public service demands
Induced/Secondary impacts
Remarks:
Yes
X
No
X
X
The Proposed Action would induce temporary positive secondary impacts within the
region as a result of construction activity. These impacts would benefit surrounding
communities during construction by increasing employment opportunities and
expenditures on local services and materials. Therefore, the net secondary impacts of
the Proposed Action would be positive. Neither the Proposed Action nor the No Action
alternative would result in shifts in patterns of population movement or growth.
Additionally, public service demands in the communities surrounding the Airport would
not be impacted by the Proposed Action or the No Action alternative. Therefore, neither
the Proposed Action nor the No Action alternative would induce adverse secondary
(induced) impacts.
Solid and Hazardous Waste
Yes
Is there an Environmental Due Diligence Audit (EDDA) Phase I Report?
If Yes, is EDDA Phase II required/completed
If Yes, is EDDA Phase III required/completed
Does the project require the use of land that may be contaminated?
Will the proposed project generate solid waste?
If Yes, are local disposal facilities capable of handling the additional waste?
Remarks:
No
X
X
X
X
The Proposed Action site is adjacent to an AOC for hazardous materials. However, the
USACE has plans to remove any hazardous materials associated with the AOC. The
process by which cleanup of the site would occur will be documented and disclosed. This
site (compositely called AOC 8/9) has petroleum in the soil and groundwater. The Bureau
of Underground Storage Tank Regulations (BUSTR) will approve the work plan prior to
construction and all BUSTR regulations will be followed during closure of the site.
Therefore, the conditions at the AOC would not result in a significant impact.
The USACE has maintained a cooperative relationship with the CRAA when intrusive
activity is undertaken in potentially contaminated areas of the Former Lockbourne Air
Force Base (LAFB). According to the FEIS – Disposal and Reuse of Portions of
Rickenbacker Air National Guard Base, the U.S. Air Force is committed to the remediation
of all contamination at Rickenbacker ANGB due to past Air Force activities. The CRAA
would continue to rely on the USACE and/or the U.S. Air Force for resources in the event
military contamination is discovered for which the USACE has jurisdiction.
At this time no known hazardous substances are present on the project site. The CRAA
would prepare specifications for dealing with contamination during construction, as is
done with all construction projects. The Proposed Action is not expected to generate
significant amounts of solid waste. Any solid waste produced during construction would
be hauled off-site to be properly disposed. No significant impacts to hazardous materials
or solid waste are expected to occur.
Date:
March 2015
Water Quality
Streams, Rivers, Watercourses & Jurisdictional Ditches
Are there Streams, Rivers, Watercourses or Ditches in/near the project area?
Is there any Wild, Scenic or Recreational Rivers in/near the project area?
Yes
Other Waters
Are there any lakes or ponds in/near the project area?
Are there other surface/below surface waters in/near the project area?
Remarks:
No
X
X
X
X
Therefore, there would be no impacts to water quality not already occurring or expected to
occur.
The Proposed Action would have no adverse impacts on the surface water quality at LCK.
All construction activities would occur away from water bodies. The Proposed Action
would not adversely impact the quantity or quality of stormwater runoff. The Proposed
Action would create approximately 4 acres of additional impervious surfaces. However,
this represents less than a 0.1 percent increase in impervious surface at the Airport.
Currently the Airport is compliant with all applicable water quality standards. Therefore,
significant adverse impacts to water quality are not expected to occur. Best Management
Practices (BMPs) would be employed during construction to limit runoff and erosion. It is
expected that stormwater runoff would be captured by the existing stormwater collection
system at LCK. In addition, implementation of the Proposed Action would not introduce
new potential sources of water pollution within the site.
Wetlands
Yes
No
Are there wetlands in/near the project area?
Total wetland area:
Wetland
No.
Classification
Total Size
(Acre)
Wetland Delineation Report
Conceptual Mitigation Plan (see remarks)
Mitigation Available
X
acre(s)
Total wetland area impacted:
Impacted
Acres
Jurisdictional
Yes
No
X
X
X
NonJurisdictional
acres(s)
Comments
Individual Wetland Finding
Alternatives that will not result in any wetland impacts are not practicable because such
avoidance would result in (Mark all that apply and explain):
Substantial adverse impacts to adjacent homes, business or other improved properties;
Substantially increased project costs;
Unique engineering, maintenance, or safety problems;
Substantial adverse social, economic, or environmental impacts, or
The project not meeting the identified needs
Date:
March 2015
Yes
No
X
X
X
X
X
Discuss measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate wetland impacts. Make sure to include mitigation ratios.
Remarks:
A comprehensive survey of potentially jurisdictional aquatic resources (i.e. wetlands,
streams, jurisdictional ditches and ponds) on property owned by the CRAA in and around
the LCK in Franklin and Pickaway County, Ohio was conducted between July 25, 2011
and March 7, 2012. No wetlands were identified in the project area during this survey. As
a result there would be no impacts to wetlands with the implementation of the Proposed
Action or No Action alternative.
Cumulative Impacts
Yes
When considered together with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
development projects on or off the airport, would the proposed project produce a
cumulative effect on any of the environmental impact categories above?
Remarks:
No
X
Because of the minimal impacts of the proposed development, any contribution to
cumulative impacts would be minimal.
Part III – Permits, Mitigation, Coordination and Public Involvement
PERMITS/MITIGATION
Permits
List all required permits for the proposed project & indicate if any problems are anticipated in obtaining the permit
Remarks: The construction activity would require an amendment to or a new National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
Mitigation
Describe all mitigation measures for the proposed project. Include any impacts that cannot be mitigated or those that cannot
be mitigated below threshold levels. Also, provide a description of any resources that must be avoided during construction.
Remarks:
No mitigation is required as the Proposed Action would not result in any significant
impacts to any of the environmental categories.
Date:
March 2015
EARLY COORDINATION
List each agency coordinated with, the date coordination was sent, and if a response was received in the following table.
Make sure to include a copy of the response in the appendix.
Resource Agency
Date ECL Sent
NA
NA
NA
Date Response
Received
NA
NA
NA
Date Draft EA
Sent
March 9, 2015
March 9, 2015
March 9, 2015
Ohio Historic Preservation Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region 5
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
Ohio Department of Natural
Resources
Ohio Department of
Transportation - Aviation
Ohio Department of
Transportation - Highways
Franklin County Engineer
Pickaway County Engineer
NA
NA
NA
NA
March 9, 2015
March 9, 2015
NA
NA
March 9, 2015
NA
NA
March 9, 2015
NA
NA
NA
NA
March 9, 2015
March 9, 2015
Date Response
Received
Remarks:
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Some level of public involvement is encouraged for every Federal Action. The level of public involvement should be
commensurate with the proposed action. Discuss any public involvement activities (legal notices, letters to affected
property owners and residents, meetings, special purpose meetings, newspaper articles, etc.) for this project.
Remarks:
The document is available to the public at the Columbus Regional Airport Authority
Administrative Offices at Port Columbus International Airport and Rickenbacker
International Airport; the Columbus Metropolitan Library Southeast Branch; the Pickaway
County Public Library; the Federal Aviation Administration Detroit Airports District Office;
and the Columbus Regional Airport Authority website.
In addition, a public hearing is planned for April 14, 2015.
Public Controversy on Environmental Grounds
Is the project anticipated to involve substantial controversy concerning community and/or
natural resource impacts?
Date:
March 2015
Yes
No
x
Attachment 1
PORT RD
LO
G
OR
E
G
SI
D
N
A
L
E
E
D
GE
PA
JR
ND
O
N-
G
RO
PO
VE
RT
RD
RD
PROPOSED PROJECT BOUNDARY/
AREA OF DISTURBANCE
G
N
KI
R
PA
D
AN
E
EV
D
T
AC
LO
#5
T
EN
PM
IL
BU
G
IN
D
SE
G
M
VE
PA
T
EN
N
RO
AP
M
VE
PA
T
EN
Legend
ACT #5
GSE/Apron
Landside Parking
and Development
Airport Property Boundary
0
The drawing shows a conceptual layout. The final
design will be dependent upon the needs of the
CRAA. The overall project boundary is fixed and
will not change.
Environmental Assessment
Rickenbacker
International Airport
DRAFT
9,000
Feet
±
Prepared by Landrum & Brown - 1/22/2015
Filename: P:\CMH\NEPA On Call\LCK - ACT 5\GIS
1_Proposed Action.mxd
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus
EXHIBIT:
Proposed
Action
DS, USDA,
USGS, AEX,
Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, 1
and
the GIS User Community
PORT RD
ALUM CREEK DR
SHOOK RD
LONDON-GROVE
PORT RD
INDIRECT AREA OF
POTENTIAL EFFECT (APE)
DIRECT AREA OF
POTENTIAL EFFECT (APE)
Legend
Area of Potential Effect
(APE) - Direct
JD
19
75
Area of Potential Effect
(APE) - Indirect
0
DRAFT
1,000
2,000
Feet
±
2_Indirect and Direct Area of Potential Effect (APE).mxd
Rickenbacker
EXHIBIT:
Indirect and Direct
of Potential
Effect
DS, USDA,Area
USGS, AEX,
Getmapping, Aerogrid,
IGN,(APE)
IGP, swisstopo, 2
and
PORT RD
LONDON-GROVE
PORT RD
100-YEAR
FLOODPLAIN
ALUM CREEK DR
SHOOK RD
100-YEAR
FLOODPLAIN
PROPOSED PROJECT BOUNDARY/
AREA OF DISTURBANCE
Legend
Proposed Project Boundary
100-Year Floodplain
DRAFT
±
3_Floodplains.mxd
Rickenbacker
EXHIBIT:
Floodplain
Map
DS, USDA,
USGS, AEX, Getmapping,
Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, 3
and
Attachment 2
NOISE ANALYSIS TECHNICAL REPORT
Air Cargo Terminal 5 and Associated Airside and
Landside Development
at the Rickenbacker International Airport
March 2015
Prepared for:
Columbus Regional Airport Authority
Prepared by:
Landrum & Brown, Incorporated
11279 Cornell Park Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45242
RICKENBACKER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
I.
DRAFT
INTRODUCTION
This appendix describes the methodology, assumptions, and results of the aircraft
noise analysis that was conducted to assess the potential noise impacts of the
Proposed Action at Rickenbacker International Airport (LCK). The Proposed Action is
the development of approximately 27 acres along the northeast boundary of LCK.
Initial plans for the project call for the development of one building, with a total
square footage of approximately 214,800 to 250,000 square feet, approximately
8.5 acres of apron and Ground Service Equipment (GSE) pavement, and
approximately 5.5 acres of landside parking pavement.
The proposed apron
pavement would ultimately accommodate up to five additional Boeing 747-8 sized
aircraft. A noise analysis was conducted for 2016 (first full year of implementation)
and 2021 conditions (five years after implementation).
The 2016 condition
assumed the facility was fully implemented and operating at its maximum capacity.
The noise modeling for the 2021 condition was based on projected growth in
activity at the Airport plus the full build-out operation levels from the 2016
condition.
II.
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED
The noise exposure levels associated with the No Action alternative and the
Proposed Action Alternative were evaluated for forecast activity levels in 2016, the
anticipated first full year of operation of the proposed cargo facility; and 2021,
which represents five years from the date of implementation of the Proposed
Action. The No Action and Proposed Action are described in the following sections.
No Action
Under the No Action alternative, no cargo facility would be constructed at LCK.
However, aircraft operations would be expected to increase due to normal growth
to meet forecasted demand. Runway 23L has an Instrument Landing System (ILS)
which is currently out of service and is expected to be back on line by the end of
2015 or early 2016. This action is being planned independently of the Proposed
Action and is thus included as part of the No Action alternative.
Proposed Action
The Proposed Action includes the development of a new air cargo warehouse facility
with additional apron and landside parking at LCK. Under this alternative, aircraft
operations would be expected to increase due to normal growth to meet forecasted
demand with additional growth due to the increased capacity of the cargo facility.
The planned reactivation of the Runway 23L ILS is included in both the No Action
and the Proposed Action alternatives.
III. THRESHOLD OF SIGNIFICANCE
In this analysis, criteria from Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 1050.1E,
Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, was used to assess
whether the Proposed Action would result in significant noise impacts to noise
Landrum & Brown
Noise Analysis Technical Report
Page 1
DRAFT
sensitive land uses near the Airport.1 As stated on Page A-61 of Order 1050.1E,
Change 1, a significant noise impact would occur if analysis shows that the
proposed action will cause noise sensitive areas to experience an increase in noise
of DNL 1.5 dB or more at or above DNL 65 dB noise exposure when compared to
the no action alternative for the same timeframe. For example, an increase from
63.5 dB to 65 dB is considered a significant impact. Therefore, the primary goal in
this analysis was to evaluate whether the Proposed Action would cause significant
increases in noise exposure over noise sensitive areas compared to the No Action
alternative.
IV. NOISE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
Noise Model
The noise analysis was performed using the FAA’s Integrated Noise Model (INM),
Version 7.0d. The INM was developed under the guidance of the FAA and it is the
preferred aircraft noise contour software approved by FAA to conduct aircraft noise
studies, Part 150 studies and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) noise
evaluations. The noise contours calculated by the INM for an airport are a function
of several factors including: the number of aircraft operations during the period
evaluated, the types of aircraft flown, the time of day when they are flown, how
frequently each runway is used for arrivals and departures, the routes of flight used
to and from the runways, and the operating weight of the aircraft.
The INM produces day-night average sound level (DNL) noise contours. The DNL
metric represents the cumulative noise level in an area over a 24-hour period,
typically an average day during any given year. The INM computes DNL levels by
summing the noise produced by all aircraft events during a 24-hour period and then
adding an extra 10 decibel weight to nighttime operations (between 10:00 p.m. and
6:59 a.m.).
For this analysis, the INM was used to produce noise contours at 65, 70 and 75 DNL
for the No Action alternative for aircraft operating levels forecast for 2016. The INM
was then used to calculate the difference in noise levels between the No Action and
the Proposed Action Alternatives to determine if an increase of DNL 1.5 dB or
greater would occur within the 65 DNL. The same process was repeated for the
2021 forecast year.
Aircraft Operations and Fleet Mix
2016 No Action
The number of annual operations used for modeling the No Action conditions is
based on the FAA’s Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) for the year 2016, which includes
41,800 annual operations. This number was rounded up to 116 average-annual
day operations or 42,340 annual operations. Specific aircraft types and times of
operation for commercial aircraft were developed from Airport Noise and Operations
Monitoring System (ANOMS) data from September 2013 through August 2014, and
from landing reports from March through September 2014 supplied by the
1
Noise-sensitive land uses include residences, schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, and nursing homes.
Landrum & Brown
Page 2
DRAFT
Columbus Regional Airport Authority (CRAA). Table 1 provides a summary of the
average daily operations and fleet mix for the 2016 No Action condition at LCK,
organized by aircraft type, operation type, and time of day (daytime or nighttime).
The ratio of daytime (7:00 a.m. – 9:59 p.m.) to nighttime (10:00 p.m. - 6:59 a.m.)
operations is based on actual flight times of aircraft observations obtained from the
ANOMS data from September 2013 through August 2014. Based on this data,
approximately 76 percent of aircraft operations at LCK occur during the daytime
and 24 percent occur during the nighttime.
Table 1
DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE DAILY OPERATIONS BY AIRCRAFT CATEGORY
2016 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
User Group & Aircraft
Type
INM ID
Large Cargo Jets
Airbus A-300-600
A300-622R
Boeing 757-200
757RR
Boeing 767-200
767CF6
McDonnell Douglas DC-10
DC1010
Boeing 747-800
7478
Subtotal
Passenger / Charter Jets
McDonnell Douglas MD-83
MD83
Subtotal
Air Taxi / Small Cargo Jets
Learjet 35
LEAR35
Subtotal
Air Taxi / Cargo Props
Beech 58 Baron
BEC58P
Cessna 208 Grand Caravan
CNA208
Piper Navajo Chieftain
PA31A
Alenia ATR-42-300/320
ATR42
Rockwell Commander 500
RWCM50
Cessna 210 Centurion
CNA210
Subtotal
General Aviation Jets
Cessna 525 Citation Jet
CNA525C
Cessna 550 Citation 2
CNA550
Cessna 560 Citation 5 Ultra
CNA560U
Bombardier Global 5000
BD700
Subtotal
Landrum & Brown
Arrivals
Day
Night
Departures
Day
Night
Total
Day
Night
0
1
0
1
1
3
2
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
1
1
1
0
5
0
1
0
1
2
4
4
1
2
1
0
8
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
2
2
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
2
0
0
3
3
1
1
2
6
1
0
0
1
10
1
3
1
1
1
0
7
3
6
1
0
0
1
11
0
3
1
1
1
0
6
5
12
2
0
0
2
21
1
6
2
2
2
0
13
0
1
1
1
3
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
3
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
2
2
6
2
0
0
0
2
Page 3
DRAFT
Table 1, (continued)
Type
General Aviation Props
Aero Commander 680F
Cessna 172 Skyhawk1
Beechcraft Bonanza1
Piper Cheyenne 1
Cirrus SR-20
Pilatus PC-12
Piper Saratoga
Subtotal
Military Fixed-Wing
Boeing KC-1351
Swearingen Metroliner
Gulfstream 5
Lockheed C-130 Hercules
Beech 200 Super King Air
Subtotal
Military Helicopters
Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk
Subtotal
Grand Total
INM ID
Arrivals
Departures
Total
Day
Night
Day
Night
Day
Night
AC69
CNA172
BEC33
PA31
PA31T
SR22
PC12
PA32SG
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
KC135R
SAMER4
GV
C130E
BEC200
5
2
2
1
1
11
1
1
0
0
0
2
5
2
2
1
1
11
1
1
0
0
0
2
10
4
4
2
2
22
2
2
0
0
0
4
S70
6
6
44
1
1
14
6
6
44
1
1
14
12
12
88
2
2
28
Notes: Day = 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m., Night = 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m.
1/ A portion of these aircraft are modeled as touch-and-go operations, which consist of an arrival and a departure.
Source: Landing Fee Reports, CMH ANOMS Flight Tracking System Data, Landrum & Brown, 2015.
2016 Proposed Action
Aircraft operating levels for the 2016 Proposed Action alternative are expected to
remain the same as the 2016 No Action Alternative with the exception of additional
cargo aircraft that would be accommodated by the proposed cargo facility
development. Based on discussion with representatives from the CRAA, it is
anticipated that on an average-annual day, an additional 12 cargo operations (six
arrivals and six departures) would occur at LCK if the proposed cargo facility was
constructed. This increase would raise the total average-annual day operations to
approximately 128. The Boeing 747-800 aircraft was used to represent the 12
additional cargo operations. It was assumed that these 12 additional operations
would occur at night (10:00p.m. to 6:59 a.m.). Table 2 provides a summary of
the average daily operations and fleet mix for the 2016 Proposed Action condition
at LCK, organized by aircraft type, operation type, and time of day (daytime or
nighttime).
Landrum & Brown
Page 4
DRAFT
Table 2
2016 PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Type
INM ID
Large Cargo Jets
Airbus A-300-600
A300-622R
Boeing 757-200
757RR
Boeing 767-200
767CF6
DC1010
Boeing 747-800
7478
Subtotal
MD83
Subtotal
Learjet 35
LEAR35
Subtotal
Beech 58 Baron
BEC58P
CNA208
PA31A
Alenia ATR-42-300/320
ATR42
RWCM50
CNA210
Subtotal
Cessna 525 Citation Jet
CNA525C
CNA550
CNA560U
BD700
Subtotal
Aero Commander 680F
AC69
1
Cessna 172 Skyhawk
CNA172
Beechcraft Bonanza1
BEC33
PA31
Piper Cheyenne 1
PA31T
Cirrus SR-20
SR22
Pilatus PC-12
PC12
Piper Saratoga
PA32SG
Subtotal
Landrum & Brown
Arrivals
Departures
Total
Day
Night
Day
Night
Day
Night
0
1
0
1
1
3
2
0
1
0
6
9
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
1
1
1
6
11
0
1
0
1
2
4
4
1
2
1
12
20
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
2
2
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
2
0
0
3
3
1
1
2
6
1
0
0
1
10
1
3
1
1
1
0
7
3
6
1
0
0
1
11
0
3
1
1
1
0
6
5
12
2
0
0
2
21
1
6
2
2
2
0
13
0
1
1
1
3
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
3
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
2
2
6
2
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Page 5
DRAFT
Type
Military Fixed-Wing
Boeing KC-1351
Gulfstream 5
Subtotal
Subtotal
Grand Total
INM ID
Arrivals
Departures
Total
Day
Night
Day
Night
Day
Night
KC135R
SAMER4
GV
C130E
BEC200
5
2
2
1
1
11
1
1
0
0
0
2
5
2
2
1
1
11
1
1
0
0
0
2
10
4
4
2
2
22
2
2
0
0
0
4
S70
7
7
44
0
0
20
7
7
44
0
0
20
14
14
88
0
0
40
Source: Landing Fee Reports, CRAA ANOMS Flight Tracking System Data, CRAA, Landrum & Brown, 2015.
2021 No Action
The number of annual operations used for modeling the 2021 No Action condition is
based on the FAA’s Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) for the year 2021, which includes
43,193 annual operations, or approximately 122 average-annual day operations.
Specific aircraft types and times of day were based on OAG data similar to the 2016
conditions. Based on this data, approximately 75 percent of aircraft operations at
LCK in 2021 would occur during the daytime and 25 percent would occur during the
nighttime. Table 3 provides a summary of the average daily operations and fleet
mix for the 2021 No Action condition at LCK, organized by aircraft type, operation
type, and time of day (daytime or nighttime).
Landrum & Brown
Page 6
DRAFT
Table 3
Type
Large Cargo Jets
Airbus A-300-600
Boeing 757-200
Boeing 767-200
Boeing 747-400
Subtotal
Subtotal
Learjet 35
Subtotal
Beech 58 Baron
AleniaA ATR-42-300/320
Subtotal
Cessna 525 CitationJet
Subtotal
Aero Commander 680F
Cessna 172 Skyhawk
Beechcraft Bonanza
Piper Cheyenne 1
CIirrus SR-20
Pilatus PC-12
Piper Saratoga
Subtotal
Landrum & Brown
INM ID
Arrivals
Departures
Total
Day
Night
Day
Night
Day
Night
A300-622R
757RR
767CF6
DC1010
747400
0
1
0
1
1
3
2
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
1
1
1
0
5
0
1
0
1
2
4
4
1
2
1
0
8
MD83
2
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
4
4
0
0
LEAR35
2
2
1
1
3
3
0
0
5
5
1
1
BEC58P
CNA208
PA31A
ATR42
RWCM50
CNA210
2
6
1
0
0
1
10
1
3
1
1
1
1
8
3
6
1
0
0
1
11
0
3
1
1
1
1
7
5
12
2
0
0
2
21
1
6
2
2
2
2
15
CNA525C
CNA550
CNA560U
BD700
0
1
1
1
3
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
3
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
2
2
6
2
0
0
0
2
AC69
CNA172
BEC33
PA31
PA31T
SR22
PC12
PA32SG
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Page 7
DRAFT
Type
Military Fixed-Wing
Boeing KC-135
Gulfstream 5
Subtotal
Subtotal
Grand Total
INM ID
Arrivals
Departures
Total
Day
Night
Day
Night
Day
Night
KC135R
SAMER4
GV
C130E
BEC200
5
2
2
1
1
11
1
1
0
0
0
2
5
2
2
1
1
11
1
1
0
0
0
2
10
4
4
2
2
22
2
2
0
0
0
4
S70
7
7
46
0
0
15
7
7
46
0
0
15
14
14
92
0
0
30
Aircraft operating levels for the 2021 Proposed Action Alternative are expected to
remain the same as the 2021 No Action Alternative with the exception of additional
operations due to the cargo facility development. Similar to the 2016 Proposed
Action Alternative, it is expected that a total of 12 additional cargo operations (six
arrivals and six departures) would occur at LCK in 2021 if the proposed cargo
facility was constructed. Table 4 provides a summary of the average daily
operations and fleet mix for the 2021 Proposed Action condition at LCK, organized
by aircraft type, operation type, and time of day (daytime or nighttime).
Landrum & Brown
Page 8
DRAFT
Table 4
Type
Large Cargo Jets
Airbus A-300-600
Boeing 757-200
Boeing 767-200
Boeing 747-400
Boeing 747-800
Subtotal
Subtotal
Learjet 35
Subtotal
Beech 58 Baron
AleniaA ATR-42-300/320
Subtotal
Cessna 525 CitationJet
Subtotal
Aero Commander 680F
Cessna 172 Skyhawk
Beechcraft Bonanza
Piper Cheyenne 1
CIirrus SR-20
Pilatus PC-12
Piper Saratoga
Subtotal
Landrum & Brown
INM ID
Arrivals
Departures
Total
Day
Night
Day
Night
Day
Night
A300-622R
757RR
767CF6
DC1010
747400
747800
0
1
0
1
1
0
3
2
0
1
0
0
6
9
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
1
1
1
0
6
11
0
1
0
1
2
0
4
4
1
2
1
0
12
20
MD83
2
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
4
4
0
0
LEAR35
2
2
1
1
3
3
0
0
5
5
1
1
BEC58P
CNA208
PA31A
ATR42
RWCM50
CNA210
2
6
1
0
0
1
10
1
3
1
1
1
1
8
3
6
1
0
0
1
11
0
3
1
1
1
1
7
5
12
2
0
0
2
21
1
6
2
2
2
2
15
CNA525C
CNA550
CNA560U
BD700
0
1
1
1
3
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
3
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
2
2
6
2
0
0
0
2
AC69
CNA172
BEC33
PA31
PA31T
SR22
PC12
PA32SG
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Page 9
DRAFT
Type
Military Fixed-Wing
Boeing KC-135
Gulfstream 5
Subtotal
Subtotal
Grand Total
INM ID
Arrivals
Departures
Total
Day
Night
Day
Night
Day
Night
KC135R
SAMER4
GV
C130E
BEC200
5
2
2
1
1
11
1
1
0
0
0
2
5
2
2
1
1
11
1
1
0
0
0
2
10
4
4
2
2
22
2
2
0
0
0
4
S70
7
7
46
0
0
21
7
7
46
0
0
21
14
14
92
0
0
42
Runway Use
The INM requires input regarding the number of operations (takeoffs and landings)
that use each runway end at the Airport.
2016 No Action
In general, the proportional use of the runway ends is based largely on the position
of aircraft terminals and ramps in relation to the runway ends, as well as the
average conditions of wind direction and velocity and runway visual aids and
instrumentation. Average-annual day runway end utilization for the 2016 conditions
is derived from ANOMS data from September 2013 through August 2014 with
adjustments made for the expected use of Runway 23L for approaches once the ILS
is back on line based on historic usage.
There are three currently-approved noise abatement procedures that affect runway
use at LCK. The first procedure is in effect between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. when
the airport operates in contra-flow when conditions permit. The contra-flow
procedures direct aircraft to arrive from the south on Runways 05R and 05L and
depart to the south on Runways 23L and 23R. The second noise abatement
procedure directs military touch-and-go operations to depart Runways 23L and 23R
as often as wind, weather, and operational restrictions allow. The third noise
abatement procedure directs all jet departures on Runway 5L or 5R to turn right as
soon as practicable.
Landrum & Brown
Page 10
DRAFT
Table 5 summarizes the percent use by each aircraft category on each of the
runways for takeoffs and landings at LCK during the daytime (7:00 a.m. – 9:59
p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. – 6:59 a.m.).
Runway 05L/23R is used a greater percentage of time for departures due to the fact
that it is closer to the terminal and apron areas. Departures occur in south flow
more often due to the prevailing winds and noise abatement procedures at LCK.
North flow arrivals favor Runway 05L over Runway 05R, which both have an ILS,
due to the proximity to the terminal and apron areas. It is expected that south flow
arrivals would occur most often to Runway 23L once the ILS is back in service on
that runway end.
The majority of aircraft operations at LCK are itinerant (i.e., arrive/depart LCK
from/to another airport). However, a portion of the traffic is local (i.e., operates
within the local traffic pattern by taking off and landing at LCK), such as touch-andgo operations. Approximately 25 percent of general aviation prop operations were
modeled as touch-and-go flights using single-engine piston aircraft, and
approximately 47 percent of all military fixed-wing operations were modeled as
touch-and-go operations using Boeing KC-135 aircraft. Touch-and-go operations
were modeled on the four runway ends at percentages similar to arrival runway
percentages at LCK. Touch-and-go patterns are directed to flow a circular route to
the southeast of LCK to avoid more populated areas to the northwest.
Helicopter arrivals and departures were modeled for 2016 conditions on the ANG
helipad, Runway 05L/23R, and the assault strip (decommissioned Runway 6/24);
with approximately one-third of the operations modeled at each location. A small
number of military helicopter operations were modeled in hover taxi mode between
the helipad and Runway 05L/23R.
Runway use is not expected to change under the 2016 Proposed Action Alternative.
It is expected that the proposed additional cargo operations would be assigned to
similar runway use patterns as other cargo operations at LCK; therefore, the same
runway use percentages from the 2016 No Action, as shown in Table 5, were
modeled for the 2016 Proposed Action.
2021 No Action
Runway use is not expected to change under the 2021 No Action Alternative.
Therefore, the same runway use percentages from the 2016 No Action, as shown in
Table 5, were modeled for the 2021 No Action.
Runway use is not expected to change under the 2021 Proposed Action Alternative.
It is expected that the proposed additional cargo operations would be assigned to
similar runway use patterns as other cargo operations at LCK; therefore, the same
runway use percentages from the 2016 No Action and 2021 No Action, as shown in
Table 5, were modeled for the 2021 Proposed Action.
Landrum & Brown
Page 11
DRAFT
Table 5
RUNWAY END UTILIZATION
Runway
User Group
Large Cargo Jets
Air Taxi Jet
Military
Takeoff
Daytime
Nighttime
Landing
Daytime
Nighttime
Takeoff
Daytime
Nighttime
Landing
Daytime
Nighttime
Takeoff
Daytime
Nighttime
Landing
Daytime
Nighttime
Takeoff
Daytime
Nighttime
Landing
Daytime
Nighttime
Takeoff
Daytime
Nighttime
Landing
Daytime
Nighttime
Takeoff
Daytime
Nighttime
Landing
Daytime
Nighttime
Takeoff
Daytime
Nighttime
Landing
Daytime
Nighttime
05L
05R
23L
23R
2%
3%
9%
8%
34%
8%
55%
82%
21%
40%
13%
11%
62%
47%
4%
2%
9%
n/a
17%
n/a
4%
n/a
70%
n/a
30%
n/a
8%
n/a
49%
n/a
13%
n/a
27%
n/a
5%
n/a
9%
n/a
60%
n/a
27%
56%
7%
9%
14%
2%
53%
32%
26%
18%
4%
7%
5%
5%
65%
71%
26%
48%
7%
4%
43%
31%
24%
18%
20%
39%
7%
0%
6%
0%
68%
61%
23%
29%
5%
7%
46%
53%
26%
12%
19%
n/a
7%
n/a
13%
n/a
60%
n/a
19%
n/a
7%
n/a
48%
n/a
27%
n/a
16%
4%
14%
0%
28%
44%
41%
52%
13%
21%
13%
22%
63%
48%
11%
10%
Notes: Daytime = 7:00 a.m. – 9:59 p.m., Nighttime = 10:00 p.m. – 6:59 a.m.
Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.
Source: ANOMS data; 2007 Part 150 Study; Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
Page 12
DRAFT
Flight Tracks
The INM requires generalized flight tracks that aircraft utilize during their approach
to or departure from the Airport. The INM also requires input information regarding
the horizontal dispersion of aircraft in space when they use these flight tracks.
Flight routes to and from an airport are generally a function of the geometry of the
runways and the surrounding airspace structure in the vicinity of the airfield, as
well as the origin/destination of the flight.
2016 No Action
For this analysis, flight track locations were based on previous analysis conducted
for LCK, including the 2007 Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study. Flight track
densities were based on a review of typical origins/destinations to and from LCK
and data compiled from previous studies. Helicopter operations were modeled in a
northeast/southwest direction parallel to the runway headings.
Flight track locations and dispersions are not expected to change significantly under
the 2016 Proposed Action Alternative. It is expected that the proposed additional
cargo operations would be assigned to similar flight tracks as other cargo
operations at LCK; therefore, the same flight track locations and distribution
patterns from the 2016 No Action were modeled for the 2016 Proposed Action.
2021 No Action
Flight track locations and dispersions are not expected to change under the 2021
No Action alternative. Therefore, the flight tracks modeled for the 2016 No Action
Alternative remain the same for the 2021 No Action.
Flight track locations and dispersions are not expected to change significantly under
the 2021 Proposed Action Alternative. It is expected that the proposed additional
cargo operations would be assigned to similar flight tracks as other cargo
operations at LCK; therefore, the same flight track locations and distribution
patterns from the 2016 No Action, 2016 Proposed Action, and 2021 No Action
alternatives were modeled for the 2021 Proposed Action.
Landrum & Brown
Page 13
DRAFT
Aircraft Weight and Trip Length
Aircraft weight upon departure is a factor in the dispersion of noise because it
impacts the rate at which an aircraft is able to climb. Generally, heavier aircraft
have a slower rate of climb and a wider dispersion of noise along their flight routes.
Where specific aircraft weights are unknown, the INM uses the distance flown to the
first stop as a surrogate for the weight, by assuming that the weight has a direct
relationship with the fuel load necessary to reach the first destination. The INM
groups trip lengths into nine stage categories and assigns standard aircraft weights
to each stage category. These categories are:
Stage Category
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Stage Length
0-500 nautical miles
6500+ nautical miles
2016 No Action
Table 6 shows departure stage length by aircraft user group for the
2016 No Action. In total, 95.3 percent of aircraft departures are modeled using a
stage length of one (0-500 nautical miles). Destinations within this range include
cities on the lower East Coast, Midwest and Southeast United States (north of the
Gulf Coast). Approximately 3 percent of departures are modeled with a stage
length of two (500-1,000 nautical miles). Destinations within this range include
cities on the upper East Coast, Florida, the Gulf Coast, and the central United
States. Approximately 2 percent of departures are modeled using a stage length of
four (1,500 to 2,500 nautical miles). Destinations within this range include cities
on the West Coast.
Landrum & Brown
Page 14
DRAFT
Table 6
STAGE LENGTH DISTRIBUTION
Stage
Length
Cargo
Jets
Charter
Jets
Air
Taxi
Cargo
Props
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
83.3%
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Total
General
Aviation
Jets
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
General
Aviation
Props
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Military
Total
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
95.3%
2.3%
0.0%
2.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Totals may not equal sum due to rounding.
Source: ANOMS data, Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015.
It is unknown at this time what destinations would be served by the additional
cargo flights. Therefore, assumptions were made regarding cargo destinations that
could potentially be served by the additional flights. For this analysis, it was
assumed that the additional flights would serve markets that are within the stage
lengths of five (2500-3500 nautical miles) and six (3500-4500 nautical miles).
Destinations from LCK within a stage length of five include Alaska and the United
Kingdom. Destinations from LCK within a stage length of six include Western
Europe. Table 7 shows departure stage length by aircraft user group that was
modeled for the 2016 Proposed Action.
Landrum & Brown
Page 15
DRAFT
Table 7
STAGE LENGTH DISTRIBUTION
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
General
Aviation
Jets
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
General
Aviation
Props
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Stage
Length
Cargo
Jets
Charter
Jets
Air
Taxi
Cargo
Props
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
58.3%
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
16.7%
8.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Military
Total
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
87.8%
2.0%
0.0%
4.1%
4.1%
2.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Totals may not equal sum due to rounding.
Source: ANOMS data, Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015.
2021 No Action
Typical departure stage lengths by aircraft user group are not expected to change
significantly by 2021; therefore, the same departure stage lengths that were
modeled for the 2016 No Action as shown in Table 6 were modeled for the 2021
Proposed Action alternative.
It is unknown at this time what destinations would be served by the additional
cargo flights. Therefore, assumptions were made regarding cargo destinations that
could potentially be served by the additional flights. These assumptions remain the
same for the 2016 Proposed Action and the 2021 Proposed Action alternatives.
Therefore, departure stage lengths modeled for the 2016 Proposed Action as shown
in Table 7 were modeled for the 2021 Proposed Action alternative.
Landrum & Brown
Page 16
V.
DRAFT
RESULTS
Exhibit 1, 2016 No Action Compared to 2016 Proposed Action Noise
Exposure Contour shows a comparison of the noise exposure contours modeled
for the 2016 No Action and 2016 Proposed Action alternatives. Exhibit 1 shows the
65 dB DNL contours for both alternatives. The 70 and 75 dB DNL noise contours
are not shown as they remain completely over Airport property. The exhibit also
shows the area of DNL 1.5, dB increase within the 65 DNL of the 2016 Proposed
Action Alternative noise exposure contour. As shown in Exhibit 1, the 65 DNL of
the 2016 Proposed Action noise exposure contour is larger in size compared to the
65 DNL of the 2016 No Action noise exposure contour. This increase is due to the
increase in aircraft operations that would be expected to occur under the Proposed
Action. The most noticeable increases in size are to the northeast of the approach
end of Runway 23L, which is the most used runway for nighttime cargo arrivals;
and to the southwest of Runway 23R, which is the most used runway for nighttime
cargo departures. As shown in this exhibit, changes in noise contours associated
with the Proposed Action would cause an increase in noise of DNL 1.5 dB or greater
within the 65 DNL. The area of DNL 1.5 dB increase within the 65 DNL remains
over airport property and undeveloped or commercial/industrial land uses. There
are no noise-sensitive land uses that would experience an increase of DNL 1.5 dB or
more within the 65 DNL noise exposure contour for the 2016 conditions.
Exhibit 2, 2021 No Action Compared to 2021 Proposed Action Noise
Exposure Contour shows a comparison of the noise exposure contours modeled
for the 2021 No Action and 2021 Proposed Action alternatives. Similar to the 2016
conditions, the 70 and 75 dB DNL noise contours are not shown as they remain
completely over Airport property and the adjacent roadway. Due to the small
increase in forecasted operations between 2016 and 2021 conditions, the size of
the 2021 65 DNL noise contour is only slightly larger than the 2016 65 DNL noise
contour. Exhibit 2 also shows the area of DNL 1.5, dB increase within the 65 DNL
of the 2021 Proposed Action Alternative noise exposure contour. As shown in
Exhibit 2, the 65 DNL of the 2021 Proposed Action noise exposure contour is larger
in size compared to the 65 DNL of the 2021 No Action noise exposure contour. This
increase is due to the increase in aircraft operations that would be expected to
occur under the Proposed Action. The most noticeable increases in size are to the
northeast of the approach end of Runway 23L, which is the most used runway for
nighttime cargo arrivals; and to the southwest of Runway 23R, which is the most
used runway for nighttime cargo departures. As shown in this exhibit, changes in
noise contours associated with the Proposed Action would cause an increase in
noise of DNL 1.5 dB or greater within the 65 DNL. The area of DNL 1.5 dB increase
within the 65 DNL remains over Airport property and undeveloped or
commercial/industrial land uses. There are no noise-sensitive land uses that would
experience an increase of DNL 1.5 dB or more within the 65 DNL noise exposure
contour for the 2021 conditions.
As previously stated, the threshold for a noise significant impact is defined as an
increase in noise of DNL 1.5 dB or more at or above DNL 65 dB noise exposure over
a noise-sensitive land use. Because no noise-sensitive land uses would experience
an increase in noise of DNL 1.5 dB or greater within the 65 DNL; it can be
Landrum & Brown
Page 17
GRO
VEP
O
LONDON GROVEP
ORT RD
RD
PORT RD
SHOOK RD
HR
RO
RT R
D
65 DNL
HAYES RD
23
R
23
L
Rickenbacker
International
Airport
5R
ASHV
ILLE P
K
FRANKLIN COUN
BRAUN RD
5L
PONTIUS RD
65 DNL
Legend
TY
2016 No Action
Noise Exposure Contour
PICKAWAY COUN
TY
Area of 1.5 dB Increase
within the 65 DNL
Single-Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Manufactured/Mobile Home
PK
Agricultural/Vacant
IELD RD
WAL
NUT
HARRISBURG FA
IRF
Rickenbacker
Institutional
CRE
EK
ASHVILLE PK
BULEN PIERCE
RD
AIRBASE RD
Commercial/Industrial
County Boundary
0
Airport/Transportation/Military
DRAFT
1,750
3,500
Feet
±
2016 CONTOUR.mxd
Contours: LCK_16NANoise-Contours/
LCK_16PANoise-Contours
2016 No Action Compared to
2016 Proposed Action Noise Exposure Contour
EXHIBIT:
1
DRAFT
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Landrum & Brown
Page 19
GRO
VEP
O
LONDON GROVEP
ORT RD
RD
PORT RD
SHOOK RD
HR
RO
RT R
D
65 DNL
HAYES RD
23
R
23
L
Rickenbacker
International
Airport
5R
ASHV
ILLE P
K
FRANKLIN COUN
BRAUN RD
5L
PONTIUS RD
65 DNL
Legend
TY
2021 No Action
PICKAWAY COUN
TY
Area of 1.5 dB Increase
within the 65 DNL
Single-Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Manufactured/Mobile Home
PK
Agricultural/Vacant
IELD RD
WAL
NUT
HARRISBURG FA
IRF
Rickenbacker
Institutional
CRE
EK
ASHVILLE PK
BULEN PIERCE
RD
AIRBASE RD
Commercial/Industrial
County Boundary
0
Airport/Transportation/Military
DRAFT
1,750
3,500
Feet
±
2021 CONTOUR.mxd Contours: LCK_21NANoise-Contours/
LCK_21PANoise-Contours/LCK_21_DiffNoise_Contours_
CLIP_65_NA_PA_band
2021 No Action Compared to
2021 Proposed Action Noise Exposure Contour
EXHIBIT:
2
DRAFT
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Landrum & Brown
Page 21

Condensed Environmental Assessment

Transcription

Similar documents

Air Cargo Routes: to PIA - Mid

HOTEL ETOILE PEREIRE

Lodging copy_revised dates

Aeroportos do Brasil_eng

IFR Mastery #2: Circling Approach vs Tailwind?

AIRMAN`S INFORMATiON MANUAL

7851 Horan Wall Perspex Posters3.indd

summer meeting

Travel information Costa Almeria - Clima and

Lynden Pindling International Airport