Reasonable Alternative Two – Site A Build Alternative 3 (Proposed Action. An increase in emissions will occur from construction related activities. During construction, reasonable measures will be taken to mitigate fugitive dust. The combined aeronautical activity will result in a net decrease in emissions within the airport service area since one airport will be maintained rather than two airport facilities. Emissions from ground maintenance vehicles and vehicular traffic will be less than if two airports were maintained.
Reasonable Alternative Two – Site A Build Alternative 3 (Proposed Action. Nearly all of Site A is under cultivation with the exception of a pond, two intermittent streams, wooded areas around the intermittent streams, one ephemeral drainage way and road right of way (220th Street). Xxxxxx & Associates Inc. assessed the project area for the presence of the Indiana Bat and Northern Long-Eared Bat habitat. Pedestrian surveys were conducted on May 6, 2015 and May 18, 2015 (see Technical Memorandum: Indiana Bat and Northern Long-Eared Bat Habitat Assessment – Xxxxxx & Associates, Inc. – June 19, 2015) (Appendix I). The proposed project will cause minor permanent alterations of the existing woodland habitat. The impact is considered minor because the proposed project would remove woodland habitat that supports a minimal number of biotic resources in the effected area. A bat habitat survey was completed during the spring of 2015. This project will not have a permanent impact on threatened, endangered, or special concern species. The identified roost trees will be removed during the hibernation season from October 1 through March 31. There are no local, state or federally designated forest, grasslands, or wildlife refuges on or adjacent to Site A.
Reasonable Alternative Two – Site A Build Alternative 3 (Proposed Action. There will be an increase in CO2 emission equal to the emissions by aircraft that will be relocated from the Pella, Oskaloosa, and Ottumwa Municipal Airports. The increase in greenhouse gases will be offset by removal of aircraft generated greenhouse gases at the Pella Municipal Airport and Oskaloosa Municipal Airport.
Reasonable Alternative Two – Site A Build Alternative 3 (Proposed Action. If the proposed action results in the physical use or constructive use of a resource listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the potential impact must be evaluated. Wapsi Valley Archaeology conducted a reconnaissance level historic architectural survey to identify properties within the area of potential effect that may be eligible for listing. Of the 13 properties, only one (1) property, at 0000 000xx Xxxxxx, may retain sufficient integrity to meet criteria for listing on the National Register. In addition to the residential structure, an associated earth cellar may be individually significant and eligible for listing. Wapsi Valley Archaeology conducted an intensive level survey and evaluation of the Xxxxx Cemetery. The evaluation concluded that the Xxxxx Cemetery is eligible for listing because it retains a high level of integrity (see Section 5.10 Historic, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources). There is a previously recorded prehistoric lithic artifact site (13MK341) located on land proposed for acquisition. The residence and earth cellar, located at 0000 000xx Xxxxxx, as well as the Xxxxx Cemetery are located outside the area proposed for acquisition. Based on proposed mitigation measures, the proposed action will not result in the constructive use of the cultural resources eligible or potentially eligible for listing. Constructive use occurs when the impacts of a project on a Section 4(f) resource are as severe that the activities, features, or attributes that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f) are substantially impaired (See Section 5.10 Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resoures/ 5.10.3.5 – Reasonable Alternative Two – Site A Build Alternative 3).
Reasonable Alternative Two – Site A Build Alternative 3 (Proposed Action. The Proposed Action will require the acquisition of 582 acres of land in fee with approximately 303 acres being directly converted to airside and landside facilities and approximately 279 acres being indirectly converted from agricultural use without restrictions to agricultural uses with restrictions (as may be set forth in FAA grant assurances). The combined Part VI score (see Appendix B Form AD-1006) for the proposed Build Alternative was 95. Total combined scores on Form AD- 1006 below 160 do not require further analysis. The total point score from Part V (Relative value of farmland) and Part VI (Site Assessment Points) was 175. The total points (175) from Part V and Part VI does not exceed the maximum point threshold of 260. Where the total points equal or exceed 160, alternative actions, where appropriate, should be considered. Alternative actions may include an alternative site, modification to the airport geometry or other mitigation (See Section 5.8.4). Except for areas required for an aeronautical purpose (i.e. runway, taxiway, airport hangars and facilities, and associated object free areas), the remaining 279 acres could remain under agricultural production. This area may be leased back and would generally include the land within the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) and the area extending out from the Runway and Taxiway Object Free Areas (ROFA/TOFA) to the proposed airport property line. Areas of agricultural production including land within the Runway Protection Zones (RPZ) and the areas extending beyond the Runway and Taxiway Object Free Areas (ROFA/TOFA) to the proposed airport property line require crop restrictions, as shown on the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) – Land Use Plan Sheet (see Appendix E). The acquisition of agricultural property for the project action will be carried out in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (URA), as amended, 49 CFR Part 24.
Reasonable Alternative Two – Site A Build Alternative 3 (Proposed Action. There are no known hazardous materials on Alternative Two – Site A. The volume of solid waste generated will not be disproportionally greater than the volume generated by the two (2) existing airports. The Mahaska County Landfill is located 11 miles from the proposed site. Therefore, the Mahaska County Landfill is not considered a potential wildlife attractant. Fuel (Jet A, 100LL) will be stored in double wall above ground storage tanks. The storage tanks and fuel dispensing units will be subject to regulations set forth by the Office of the Iowa State Fire Xxxxxxxx and Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 5.10 Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources
Reasonable Alternative Two – Site A Build Alternative 3 (Proposed Action. Surface analysis and the implementation of the subsurface testing led to the identification of four (4) archaeological sites within the proposed project area. One (1) previously recorded site, 13MK341, was also investigated as part of the Phase I survey. The two (2) archaeological sites (13MK610 and 12MK611) identified within the project boundaries, do not appear to meet minimum requirements for nomination to the National Register of Historical Places. No further testing was recommended by Consulting Archaeological Services. Consulting Archaeological Services concluded that a previously recorded prehistoric lithic artifact site (13MK341) does not meet minimum requirements for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Section 4(f) protects only historic or archaeological properties on or eligible for inclusion on the National Registry of Historic Places (see Section 5.7).
Reasonable Alternative Two – Site A Build Alternative 3 (Proposed Action. The development of Site A Build Alternative 3 (Proposed Action) will require the acquisition of 582 acres of land. The site, with the exception of road right-of-way (220th Street) and an unnamed drainageway located north of the crosswind (Runway10/28) and primary runway (Runway 14/32) intersections, is under cultivation. The other exception is a grass waterway located beyond the south end of the proposed primary runway. Unlike Site B, there are no farmsteads proposed for relocation. There are no proposed residential or farmstead relocations or demolition of building structures. The Proposed Action will require the disconnection of 000xx Xxxxxx. The optimum location for the terminal area is south of the crosswind runway and west of the primary runway. Access from Iowa Highway 163 will be provided by 220th Street. At present, 220th Street is a gravel surfaced roadway that will ultimately be paved. The Mahaska Rural Water Association maintains an elevated water storage facility adjacent to the proposed terminal area. The proposed airport development will have no adverse effect on the water storage facility, nor will the structure have an adverse impact on airport operations. There is a vineyard located approximately one (1) mile southwest of the proposed crosswind runway (Runway 10). The proposed airport will have no adverse effect on the vineyard. Rainbow Seed Company, located south of the site, will have no adverse impact of airport operations. The seed company maintained a turf runway (Xxxxxxx Field – IA 32) adjacent to the seed processing facility. The airfield is no longer in use. The proposed airport will have an impact on current farming practices. Of the 582 acres of land that will be federally obligated, 279 acres of the converted land will be available for agricultural use. Agricultural land uses are generally compatible with airport operations. Row crop production of corn and soybeans is the primary economic activity that exists on and around the proposed airport site. It is anticipated that the surrounding land, not directly converted to aviation operations, will retain the capacity to continue current economic activities. Generally, land uses such as row crop production, grain and pasture ground are compatible with airport operations. Existing land uses in the vicinity of the proposed airport will have no adverse effect on airport operations. The South Central Regional Airport will work with Mahaska County and the City of Oskaloosa to ensure the ...
Reasonable Alternative Two – Site A Build Alternative 3 (Proposed Action. Alternative Two – Site A will consume less energy to construct than would Alternative One as there is less grading. When compared to Alternative One, the consumption of natural resources is comparable. The Proposed Action (if implemented) will reduce the consumption of energy used to maintain and operate the airport. New building construction may be more energy efficient than existing structures located at the two existing airports.
Reasonable Alternative Two – Site A Build Alternative 3 (Proposed Action. The Airport Layout Plan shows the orientation of the two (2) runways and terminal areas proposed for construction. The runway and taxiway lighting will have no adverse effect on adjacent agricultural land uses. There are no residential structures or farmsteads located under approach surfaces (FAR Part 77) and within close proximity of the runway ends. The proposed approach light system will be installed over terrain with a downward slope and will have no adverse effect on vehicle movements on Iowa Highway 163 (see Airport Layout Plan). The terrain beyond the proposed site is relatively level with elevations generally decreasing away from the site. Therefore, the light beam from the rotating beacon light will have no adverse effect on adjacent land uses. Airfield lighting will be operational during periods of low visibility or darkness and will be activated by the aircraft pilot. The introduction of proposed building structures (pre-engineered hangars) have architectural elements similar to modern farm buildings. The building elevations would not typically exceed forty (40) feet in height. The terminal building will not exceed two (2) stories. The rural agricultural character of the area has been altered by improvements to Iowa Highway 163. An elevated water storage facility is located adjacent to the proposed terminal area. The views to the east, west, and south of the Xxxxx Cemetery will retain their agricultural character. Several non-farm structures exist within the immediate view from Xxxxx Cemetery. These elements include an elevated water storage facility – Mahaska Rural Water Systems and the Xxxxxxx Seed Producers Facility. The terminal building as proposed will be located approximately one half mile northwest. The structure (if located on the building restriction line) will not exceed a height of 35 feet. Wapsi Valley Archaeological Inc. concluded that the proposed undertaking will have no adverse visual impact to the Xxxxx Cemetery. The house and earth cellar, located at 0000 000xx Xxxxxx, may be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Terminal area development will be located immediately north of the house and earth cellar. The proposed aircraft storage hangars and terminal building will be visible. As previously noted, the structures (pre-engineered) will resemble modern farm buildings. A view shed impact study was completed by Wapsi Valley Archaeology Inc. for the property located at 0000 000xx Xxxxxx. Wapsi Valley Archaeology In...
