FINAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Proposed National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 

Prepared for: 

Resource Management Group 

2201 Civic Circle, Suite 515 

Amarillo, TX 79109 

Prepared by: 

AECOM Technical Services Inc. 

November 2016 
[Page intentionally blank to facilitate double-sided printing] 
Executive Summary Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation ES-1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 

(OMAO) is responsible for managing and operating NOAA's fleet of ships and aircraft. NOAA’s fleet of nine 

manned aircraft has been operated, managed, and maintained since 1993 at OMAO’s Aircraft Operations Center 

(AOC) located at 7917 Hangar Loop Drive, Hangar 5, on MacDill Air Force Base (AFB) in Tampa, Florida. The 

AOC is comprised of up to 110 NOAA staff and operates from the circa 1940s-built Hangar 5, and associated 

ramp, office, shop and storage facilities. 

Due to a Department of Defense (DoD) realignment of aircraft assets nationally, MacDill AFB has been directed 

by its command to make space available for additional KC-135R air refueling aircraft and 400 support personnel. 

The OMAO AOC is directed to vacate the Hangar 5 location no later than July 1, 2017. In response, the OMAO 

has determined that regional entities that can offer long-term occupancy of a similarly sized AOC facility at an 

airport equipped with a minimum of an 8000-ft long runway, up to 99,000 square feet (SF) of hangar space (with 

adequate height), and administrative and storage space at an airport within 50 miles of MacDill AFB would most 

effectively and efficiently meet its relocation criteria. Two action alternatives are being evaluated by NOAA per 

Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) under 42 U.S. Code (USC) §4332, and 

Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing Procedural Provisions of NEPA at 40 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500-1508. 

NOAA has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) analyzing the potential environmental consequences of 

implementing any one of two action alternatives, as well as effects of the No-Action Alternative. In accordance 

with NOAA Administrative Order 216-6, Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing the NEPA, as 

amended May 1999, NOAA has analyzed and considered the potential environmental consequences of its 

proposed action at the two viable action alternatives, and the No-Action Alternative, before commitment to a 

specific course of action. A No-Action Alternative is presumed to be a condition in which the AOC operations are 

not relocated and no DoD action affecting the existing AOC occurs. Should NOAA conclude that the EA supports 

a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would not be required. 

This EA identifies anticipated environmental consequences and, if applicable, presents mitigation measures that 

could be expected to reduce environmental effects. 

Facilities have been offered at Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport (Action Alternative 1), or LAL, located within 

the southwest boundary of the city of Lakeland, Polk County, Florida. The facilities offered would require 

replacement of a portion of an end unit from a large, existing hangar structure located at 3450 Flightline Drive 

which is currently occupied by Rob Dinic Interiors, a firm that customizes and refurbishes aircraft and helicopter 

interiors. Replacement of approximately the southern two-thirds of the 36-year-old hangar unit would occur by 

demolishing that portion of the concrete block structure, replacing its cement foundation with a thicker 10-inch 

deep cement foundation and attaching a pre-engineered metal hangar structure. A vehicle parking area that would 

accommodate the required 110 spaces is adjacent to the hangar, plus adequate apron area and aircraft tie-down 

locations as specified in the OMAO request for bids is proposed. 

Facilities have also been offered at St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport (Action Alternative 2), or PIE, 

a public/military airport within an unincorporated area of Pinellas County serving the St. Petersburg-ClearwaterTampa Bay Metro Area, and adjacent to Tampa Bay. The facilities offered are owned and operated by Sheltair 

Aviation. They propose replacing the shell of the 452- by 215-foot, former Clearwater Aviation hangar located in 
Executive Summary Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation ES-2 

the eastern portion of PIE. Replacement of the exterior shell of the circa 1964-built hangar would occur by 

removing the metal siding and roofing while keeping the foundation and the metal frame, which consists of 

vertical metal supporting braces and cross beams. The structural renovations and replacements would include 

attaching a new 24-foot-tall storage high bay with an added footprint of roughly 45-foot by 175-foot area and 

applying new, replacement metal siding and roofing to the entire hangar frame. The height of the renovated 

hangar would be 52 feet above ground level. 

No significant effects to the resources analyzed in the environmental assessment would result. A summary of 

anticipated impacts and recommended mitigation measures are presented in Table ES-1. 

Table ES-1: Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts and Suggested Mitigation

Resources Anticipated Impact Suggested Mitigation 

Land Use 

Recreational 

Resources 

Cultural Resources 

Wetlands 

Floodplains 

Coastal Zone 

Management 

Agricultural Resources 

Utilities and Service 

Systems 

Visual and Aesthetic 

Resources 

Climate Change and 

Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions 

Cumulative 

Action Alternative 1: 

No effect. 

Action Alternative 2: 

No effect. 

Action Alternative 1: 

No mitigation measures are recommended. 

Action Alternative 2: 

No mitigation measures are recommended.

Geological Resources 

Noise 

Transportation 

Environmental Justice 

and 

Socioeconomics

Action Alternative 1: 

Negligible. 

Action Alternative 2: 

Negligible. 

Action Alternative 1: 

No mitigation measures are recommended. 

Action Alternative 2: 

No mitigation measures are recommended.

Air Quality Action Alternative 1: 

No effect. 

Action Alternative 1: 

No mitigation measures are required. Standard BMPs to 

reduce construction related emissions can be applied. 

Action Alternative 2: 

No effect.

Action Alternative 2: 

No mitigation measures are required. Standard BMPs to 

reduce construction related emissions can be applied.
Executive Summary Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation ES-3 

Table ES-1: Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts and Suggested Mitigation

Resources Anticipated Impact Suggested Mitigation 

Water Resources Action Alternative 1: 

Negligible. 

Action Alternative 1: 

Mitigation for the water quantity and quality impacts would consist 

of designing a proposed project drainage system that meets State 

water quality standards as set forth in Chapter 17-3, FAC, by 

apply its recommended BMPs and/or those published in the 

Florida Airports Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual. 

Action Alternative 2: 

Negligible. 

Action Alternative 2: 

Mitigation for the water quantity and quality impacts would consist 

of designing a proposed project drainage system that meets State 

water quality standards as set forth in Chapter 17-3, FAC, and its 

recommended BMPs.

Flora and Fauna Action Alternative 1: 

Minor effect. 

Action Alternative 1: 

NOAA shall ensure that the commitments listed below will be 

followed by the site owner and the construction-related 

contractors implementing the proposed action at this site: 

1. The USFWS’ Standard Protection Measures for the eastern 

indigo snake shall be adhered to during construction; 

2. Prior to construction, appropriate habitats at the site shall be 

surveyed for gopher tortoise. If any burrows are located within 

the site, the site owner shall inform NOAA and coordinate with 

the FWC to secure any permits needed to relocate gopher 

tortoises prior to construction. 

Action Alternative 2: 

Minor effect. 

Action Alternative 2: 

NOAA shall ensure that the commitments listed below will be 

followed by the site owner and the construction-related 

contractors implementing the proposed action at this site: 

The USFWS’ Standard Protection Measures for the eastern 

indigo snake shall be adhered to during construction..

Hazardous 

Materials

Action Alternative 1: 

Minor effect. 

 

Action Alternative 1: 

NOAA shall ensure the lease agreement includes conditions 

requiring that the owner prepare the existing building in a manner 

consistent with all applicable federal, state and local laws 

pertaining to hazardous materials handling, storage, 

transportation and disposal, including (but not limited to) relevant 

laws pertaining to asbestos and lead-based paint. 

Action Alternative 2: 

Minor effect.

Action Alternative 2: 

NOAA shall ensure the lease agreement includes conditions 

requiring that: 

The owner prepare the existing building in a manner consistent 

with all applicable federal, state and local laws pertaining to 

hazardous materials handling, storage, transportation and 

disposal, including (but not limited to) relevant laws pertaining to 

asbestos and lead-based paint. 

The owner is responsible for remediating existing soil and 

groundwater contamination at the site to required federal, state, 

and/or local standards.
Executive Summary Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation ES-4 

[Page intentionally blank to facilitate double-sided printing] 
Table of Contents Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... ES-1

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED ........................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................... 1-5

1.3 Purpose and Need ......................................................................................................................... 1-7

2.0 ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport ........................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport .................................................. 2-10

2.3 No-Action Alternative ................................................................................................................ 2-17

2.4 Alternatives Considered and Not Analyzed ............................................................................... 2-17

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................. 3-1

3.1 Land Use ...................................................................................................................................... 3-2

3.2 Geological Resources ................................................................................................................... 3-5

3.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................... 3-9

3.4 Water Resources ......................................................................................................................... 3-14

3.5 Recreational Resources .............................................................................................................. 3-25

3.6 Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 3-27

3.7 Flora and Fauna .......................................................................................................................... 3-34

3.8 Wetlands ..................................................................................................................................... 3-41

3.9 Floodplains ................................................................................................................................. 3-44

3.10 Coastal Zone Management ......................................................................................................... 3-51

3.11 Agricultural Resources ............................................................................................................... 3-54

3.12 Noise ........................................................................................................................................... 3-56

3.13 Transportation ............................................................................................................................ 3-62

3.14 Utilities and Solid Waste ............................................................................................................ 3-65

3.15 Aesthetics and Visual Resources ................................................................................................ 3-67

3.16 Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................................... 3-70

3.17 Environmental Justice and Socioeconomic Resources ............................................................... 3-76

3.18 Climate and Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................... 3-81

3.19 Cumulative Effects ..................................................................................................................... 3-85

4.0 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS AND SUGGESTED MITIGATION ......................... 4-1

5.0 FINDINGS AND PUBLIC OUTREACH .............................................................................................. 5-1

6.0 PREPARERS ........................................................................................................................................... 6-1

7.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 7-1

 
Table of Contents Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation ii 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1-1 Existing OMAO Aircraft Operations Center at MacDill AFB–Location 

Figure 1-2 Existing OMAO Aircraft Operations Center at MacDill AFB–Existing AOC Facility 

Figure 2.1-1 Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport –Project Location 

Figure 2.1-2 Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport – Project Area (overview) 

Figure 2.1-3 Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport – Project Area (showing taxi lanes) 

Figure 2.1-4 Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport – Project Area (showing tie downs) 

Figure 2.1-5 Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport – Overall Floor Plan 

Figure 2.1-6 Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport – Floor Plan Diagram 

Figure 2.1-7 Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport – Elevation View 

Figure 2.2-1 Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport –Project Location 

Figure 2.2-2 Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport – Project Area (overview) 

Figure 2.2-3 Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport – Project Area (components 1) 

Figure 2.2-4 Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport – Project Area (components 2) 

Figure 2.2-5 Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport – Elevation View 

Figure 3.4-1 Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport – Drainage Map 

Figure 3.4-1 Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport – Drainage Map 

Figure 3.9-1 Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport – Floodplain Map (2000) 

Figure 3.9-2 Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport – Pending Floodplain Map (2016) 

Figure 3.9-3 Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport – Floodplain Map (2003) 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 3.3-1 NAAQS and Design Values 

Table 3.3-2 

Table 3.3-3 

Table 3.3-4 

Table 3.3-5 

Table 3.4-1 

Table 3.4-2 

Table 3.12-1 

Table 3.12-2 

Table 3.12-3 

Table 3.12-4 

Table 3.12-5 

Table 3.16-1 

Table 3.17-1 

Table 3.17-2 

Table 3.17-3 

Table 3.17-4 

Table 3.17-5 

Table 3.17-6 

Table 4-1 

Appendix A: 

Appendix B: 

Appendix C: 

Appendix D:

Operational Emissions Inventory – Action Alternative 1

Construction Emissions Inventory – Action Alternative 1

Operational Emissions Inventory – Action Alternative 2

Construction Emissions Inventory – Action Alternative 2

Summary of New Impervious Surfaces – Action Alternative 1 

Summary of New Impervious Surfaces – Action Alternative 2 

Existing Condition Aircraft Operations at LAL 

Existing Condition Aircraft Operations at PIE 

2020 Forecast of NOAA Aircraft Landing Take-Off Cycles 

AEM Analysis for LAL

AEM Analysis for PIE

Chemicals and Hazardous Materials Used at AOC Facility

Population Change by Geographic Area – Action Alternative 1

Racial Profile by Geographic Area – Action Alternative 1

Socioeconomic Factors by Geographic Area – Action Alternative 1

Population Change by Geographic Area – Action Alternative 2

Racial Profile by Geographic Area – Action Alternative 2

Socioeconomic Factors by Geographic Area – Action Alternative 2

Summary of Anticipated Environmental Effects and Suggested Mitigation

LIST OF APPENDICES

Summary of Listed Species Impact Determinations

Noise Modeling Data

Agency and Public Comment Letters 

Final Determination for Floodplain Management (EO 11988)
List of Acronyms Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation iii 

LIST OF ACRONYMS 

AEDT Aviation Environmental Design Tool 

AEM Area Equivalent Method 

AFB Air Force Base 

AOC Aircraft Operations Center 

APE Area of Potential Effects 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BMPs Best Management Practices 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBSA Core Based Statistical Areas 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CMP Coastal Management Program 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CZMP Coastal Zone Management Act 

dBA Decibels 

DNL Day-night Average Sound Level 

DoD Department of Defense 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EO Executive Order 

ERP Environmental Resource Permit 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FAC Florida Administrative Code 

FCMP Florida Coastal Management Program 

FDEP Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FIRMs Flood Insurance Rate Maps 

FLUCFCS Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms 

Classification System 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act 

FWC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission 

GA General Aviation 

IATA International Air Transport Association 

ILS Instrument Landing System 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

LAL Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

LOS Level of Service 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

MRO Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul 

MS4s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems 

MSA Metropolitan Statistical Areas 

MSGP Multi-Sector Generic Permit 

MSL Mean Sea Level 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

O3 Ozone 

OMAO Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

Pb Lead 

PM Particulate Matter 

PUD Planned Unit Development District 

RCP Reinforced Concrete Pipe 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RECs Recognized Environmental Conditions 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SIP State Implementation Plans 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

SWFWMD Southwest Florida Water Management 

District 

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 

T/U Transportation/Utility 

TFMSC Traffic Flow Management System Counts 

TPA Tampa International Airport 

U.S. United States 

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers 

USAF United States Air Force 

USC United States Code 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USEPA United States Environmental Protection 

Agency 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 
List of Acronyms Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation iv 

[Page intentionally blank to facilitate double-sided printing] 
1 Purpose and Need Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 1-1

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED 

1.1 INTRODUCTION 

1.1.1 Overview 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 

(OMAO) is responsible for managing and operating NOAA's fleet of ships and aircraft. Comprised of civilians 

and officers of the NOAA Commissioned Officer Corps, OMAO also manages the NOAA Diving Program, 

NOAA Small Boat Program and NOAA Aviation Safety Program (NOAA, 2016a). NOAA’s fleet of nine manned 

aircraft has been operated, managed and maintained since 1993 at OMAO’s Aircraft Operations Center (AOC) 

located at 7917 Hangar Loop Drive, Hangar 5, on MacDill Air Force Base (AFB) in Tampa, Florida (see Figures 

1-1 and 1-2). The AOC accommodates capable, mission-ready aircraft and professional crews that support the

scientific community via safe, efficient and economical use of uniquely equipped NOAA aircraft. OMAO has

more than four decades of experience developing, coordinating and successfully and safely conducting airborne

environmental data gathering missions.

The AOC operates from the circa 1940s-built Hangar 5 and is comprised of up to 110 NOAA staff. The staff 

includes highly qualified technical teams who equip the aircraft with specialized sensor and monitoring 

equipment that enable the fleet to conduct missions that provide critical atmospheric and air-chemistry datagathering capabilities. For example, its highly specialized Lockheed WP-3D "Hurricane Hunter" aircraft are 

equipped with an unprecedented variety of scientific instrumentation, radar systems, and recording systems for 

both in situ and remote sensing measurements of the atmosphere, the Earth, and its environment. Whether 

studying global climate change or acid rain, assessing marine mammal populations, surveying coastal erosion, 

investigating oil spills, flight checking aeronautical charts, or improving hurricane prediction models, the AOC 

flight crews continue to operate in some of the world's most demanding flight regimes (NOAA, 2016b). 

Examples of specialized AOC missions include: 

 Conduct tropical cyclone research and storm reconnaissance to greatly improve our physical

understanding of hurricanes and enhance the accuracy of tropical cyclone forecasts.

 Provide real-time aerial monitoring for marine mammal population studies, shoreline change assessments,

oil spill investigations, and water resource/snowpack surveys for spring flood forecasts.

 Make accurate, real-time measurements of snowpack characteristics and soil moisture across the country

to support decisions in river, flood, and water supply forecasting, agriculture and forest management,

recreation and winter tourism, and other priorities within the commerce, industry, and transportation

sectors of the Nation’s economy.

 Conduct coastal mapping in support of NOAA’s National Geodetic Survey efforts to provide an accurate,

up-to-date and seamless database of the national shoreline and a geographic reference for managing

coastal resources and support marine navigation.
686

682

595

580

590 589

688

584

687

45

597

676

694

582

583

60

574

674

618

580

60

41

41

92

301

19

301

92

175

4

275

275

75

Tampa Bay

McKay

Bay

Hillsbo ro ugh

Bay

East

Bay

Riviera

Bay

Safety

Harbo r

Old Tampa Bay

Ruskin Inlet

Little

Co ckro ach

Bay

Hillbo ro ugh

Cnty Co rr

in Reser

Co ckro ach Bay

Do uble

Bayo u Pass

Pelican Co ve

Reservo irs

Bo ca

Ciega

Bay

Placido

Bayo u

Smacks

Bayo u

Co ffee

Po t

Bayo u

Little Bayo u

Snell

Isle Harbo r

Big Bayo u

Bayo u

Grande

Do uble

Branch

Bay

Co o pers Bayo u

Brandon

Egypt

Lake-Leto

Citrus

Park

Lake Magdalene

Tampa

University

East

Lake

St.

Petersburg

Apollo

Beach

Progress

Village

Boyette

East Lake-Orient

Park

Gibsonton

Greater

Carrollwood

Mango

Palm

River-Clair Mel

Riverview

Temple

Terrace

Town 'n'

Country

Westchase

Feather Sound

Oldsmar

Wimauma

Greater

Sun Center Ruskin

Project

Location

URS Oakland CA 9/15/2016 USER alvarezo PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\CONFIDENTIAL\NOAA_Airport_Relocation\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\Figure_1_MacDillAirForceBase _ProjectLocation.mxd

FIGURE 1-1

Existing OMAO Aircraft Operatio ns Center at

MacDill Air Fo rce Base – Lo catio n

95

75

275 4

10

0 5

Miles

Imagery: ESRI, 2016

NOAA Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 

1-2
Hangar #5

URS Oakland CA 9/15/2016 USER alvarezo PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\CONFIDENTIAL\NOAA_Airport_Relocation\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\Figure_2_MacDillAirForceBase _ProjectArea.mxd

FIGURE 1-2

Existing OMAO Aircraft Operations Center at

MacDill Air Force Base – Existing AOC Facility

Project Area

0 500

Feet

Imagery: ESRI, 2016

NOAA Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 

1-3
1 Purpose and Need Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 1-4

 Collect data for the Arctic Heat project to understand the complex interaction between the atmosphere,

ice, and ocean and its influence on the seasonal cycle of ice melting and freezing in the Arctic as well as

the biological activity related to it while also improving weather and sea-ice hazard forecasts.

 Implement a myriad of mapping missions, such as the TopoBathy LIDAR mission to collect data in the

coastal zone for up-to-date- and accurate marine navigation charts, Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA) and flood plain and inundation maps, and other Integrated Ocean and Coastal Mapping

applications, which helps to ensure safe and efficient marine transportation and benefits coastal

communities with accurate resource management and aid emergency response efforts.

In addition to research and monitoring activities critical to NOAA’s mission, OMAO ships and aircraft provide 

immediate response capabilities for unpredictable events. Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita NOAA ships 

conducted emergency surveys for navigation hazards that helped Gulf ports reopen quickly. Aerial images of 

disaster-torn areas taken by NOAA aircraft enabled residents and emergency workers to verify the condition of 

houses, bridges and roads. 

1.1.2 Background 

Due to a Department of Defense (DoD) realignment of aircraft assets nationally, MacDill AFB has been directed 

by its command to make space available for additional KC-135R air refueling aircraft and 400 support personnel 

from the New Hampshire Air National Guard at Pease Airport. This addition of aircraft and personnel will result 

in non-DOD-essential occupants to be relocated from MacDill AFB aviation operation areas such as at Hangar 5, 

which is occupied by the OMAO AOC. MacDill AFB notified AOC that they need to vacate the Hangar 5 

location no later than July1, 2017. 

The OMAO has determined that regional entities that can offer long-term occupancy of a similarly sized AOC 

facility at an airport equipped with a minimum of an 8000-ft long runway, up to 99,000 square feet (SF) of hangar 

space (with adequate height), and administrative and storage space at an airport within 50 miles of MacDill AFB 

would most effectively and efficiently meet its relocation criteria. NOAA’s Real Property Management Division 

has solicited proposals to public and private entities that could accommodate the OMAO AOC facility and staff 

operating criteria (NOAA, 2016c). They have received two detailed offers for OMAO consideration. These two 

viable action alternatives are being evaluated by NOAA. 

Per Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) under 42 U.S. Code [USC] §4332, 

and Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing Procedural Provisions of NEPA at 40 Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500-1508, NOAA has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzing 

the potential environmental consequences of implementing any one of two action alternatives, as well as effects of 

the No-Action Alternative. In accordance with NOAA Administrative Order 216-6, Environmental Review 

Procedures for Implementing the NEPA, as amended May 1999, NOAA has analyzed and considered the potential 

environmental consequences of its proposed action at the two viable action alternatives, and the No-Action 

Alternative, before commitment to a specific course of action. A No-Action Alternative is presumed to be a 

condition in which the AOC operations are not relocated and no DoD action affecting the existing AOC occurs. 
1 Purpose and Need Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 1-5 

Should NOAA conclude that the EA supports a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) would not be required. This EA identifies anticipated environmental consequences and, if 

applicable, presents mitigation measures that could be expected to reduce environmental effects. 

1.2 PROPOSED ACTION 

NOAA is proposing to relocate its AOC aircraft and operations center to an airport that provides between 95,000 

to 99,000 square feet (SF) of contiguous space consistent with American National Standards Institute/Building 

Owners and Managers Association Office Area definitions. The Government requires space within the State of 

Florida and within 50 road (statute) miles of the Main Gate to MacDill AFB, as bounded by: 

 North: State Route 52 (Meridian Avenue) 

 East: State Route 17 to State Route 98/35 (Zolfo Springs to Dade City) 

 South: State Route 64 (Holmes Beach to Zolfo Springs) 

 West: Gulf of Mexico 

The space provided would accommodate the aircraft hangar, offices, shop/laboratory equipment, conferencing 

facilities, and other spaces as generally described below. 

A minimum hangar area of 56,000 SF (of the up-to 99,000 SF) would provide fully enclosed housing for all 9 of 

NOAA’s aircraft, which is comprised of: 

 Two (2) Lockheed WP-3D Orion (P-3) aircraft 

 One (1) G-IV SP 

 Four (4) DHC-6 Twin Otters 

 One (1) King Air 350 ER 

 One (1) Gulf Stream AC-695 Turbo Commander 

This hangar area must accommodate NOAA’s largest aircraft, the Orion P-3s, which has a tail height of no more 

than 38 feet on a level surface and a length no more than 122 feet. The housing configuration requires that one 

Orion P-3 aircraft be able to remain enclosed (parked) within the hangar while allowing all other aircraft to enter 

and exit the hangar (without moving the parked P-3). The hangar and apron areas must also meet all aircraft 

parking and weight load-bearing requirements as specified on NOAA bid solicitation documentation (NOAA, 

2016c). 

As mentioned above, the proposed AOC action will require relocation to an airport having a functioning runway 

of at least 8000 feet in length, in addition to a fire station in compliance with FAA regulations. NOAA performs 

flight operations 24 hours per day, seven days per week, and 365 days per year. All flight operations are 

conducted in coordination with a manned control tower in compliance with FAA regulations. If the host airport’s 

control tower is not manned continuously, NOAA must have the ability to perform flight operations with 24-hour 

notice to the airport operator to ensure the control tower is appropriately staffed for a scheduled departure/arrival. 

Finally, the airport must have provisioning to defuel aircraft on its premises. 
1 Purpose and Need Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 1-6 

The exterior ramp space for parking NOAA aircraft is to be in close proximity of the hangar entrance and allow 

each aircraft to start and taxi normally without interfering with the other aircraft or Ground Support Equipment. 

Ramp space must adequately hold 3 large aircraft at the same time, specifically: two P-3s and one G-IV SP fully 

loaded. The ramp must have a minimum of 3 tie-down spots that can overlay each other and are configured for: 1) 

DHC-6 300 Series Twin Otter, 2) King Air 350ER, and 3) AC-695 Turbo Commander. This same area must be 

able to tie down a Lockheed WP-3D (overlaid). 

The general office area requirement consists of approximately 15,300 usable square feet which includes primary 

office space (70 cubicles and 20 private offices), reception areas, circulation space, associated storage space, and 

auxiliary facilities such as conference rooms, fitness room, file rooms, fitness room, and/or break room. 

A minimum of three conference rooms are required, with at least one able to accommodate 20 people and at least 

one additional conference room to accommodate 10 people. One or more small conference rooms (8 occupants or 

less) is required. Other spaces that are included in the proposed 99,000-SF facility include: 

 Multi-Purpose Conference Room 

 Employee Break Room 

 Employee fitness Room 

 Server Room 

 Locker Rooms and Showers 

 Aircraft Ground Support Equipment Shop 

 Flight Medicine Exam Room 

 Aviation Life Support Shop 

 Science and Engineering Office Administrative Space (with adjacency to hangar space) 

 Electronics Shop / Lab 

 Radar Lab 

 Calibration Lab 

 Fabrication Shop 

 Miscellaneous Supply, Records and Storage Spaces 

Vehicular parking is required to accommodate no less than 110 outside parking spaces for the exclusive use of the 

Government in a secure and lit environment. A Lease will not be awarded for any offered Property located within 

a 100-year floodplain unless the Government has determined that there is no practicable alternative. 

NOAA requires substantial completion of the requested space no later than May 1, 2017, based on an estimated 

lease award date of December 1, 2016. The Government may accept progressive occupancy of the leased space 

beginning March 1, 2017. 
1 Purpose and Need Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 1-7 

1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED 

1.3.1 Purpose 

The OMAO manages and operates NOAA's fleet of aircraft. The purpose of the proposed AOC relocation is to 

enable OMAO to continue its vital support of NOAA’s mission in an efficient and cost-effective manner. 

OMAO’s aircraft fleet provides capable, mission-ready aircraft and professional crews to support the scientific 

community in data gathering for research and environmental monitoring. In addition to research and monitoring 

activities critical to NOAA’s mission, OMAO ships and aircraft provide immediate response capabilities for 

unpredictable events. AOC is committed to the safe, efficient and economical use of NOAA aircraft and has more 

than four decades of experience developing, coordinating and successfully and safely conducting airborne 

environmental data gathering missions. 

1.3.2 Need 

The NOAA AOC has been housed at MacDill AFB since 1993. The need for the proposed action is due to a DoD 

realignment of aircraft assets, for which MacDill AFB is required by its command to make appropriate space 

available for housing additional staff and equipment associated with the expanded refueling aircraft support 

mission at MacDill AFB. This will result in other non-DoD-essential occupants such as the OMAO’s AOC to be 

relocated off of MacDill AFB. 

The 1995 Base Closure Committee placed Grand Forks AFB on the list of bases to be realigned and Pease AFB 

on the list of bases to be closed. Realignment of Grand Forks AFB and the closure of Pease AFB will culminate in 

a redistribution of eight of the 319th Air Refueling Wing's KC-135R aircraft and 400 personnel to the 6th Air 

Mobility Wing, MacDill AFB, Florida. The additional aircraft and staff at MacDill AFB optimizes unit size and 

capability, and preserves sufficient capacity for future bed-down of next generation tanker aircraft at other 

locations. 

In response, the OMAO has determined that locations which can provide long-term, dedicated occupancy of a 

similarly sized AOC facility at an airport equipped with an 8000-ft long runway with up to 99,000 SF of hangar, 

administrative, and storage space within 50 miles of MacDill AFB would most effectively and efficiently meet its 

mission needs. The 50-mile limit allows NOAA to readily retain its highly specialized workforce and 

substantially reduce the cost of staff relocation. 

NOAA intends to continue to build a civilian and NOAA Corps officer work force that is uniquely qualified to 

gather critical environmental intelligence and be adaptive and responsive to a changing world and work to expand 

our partnerships with other federal agencies. 
1 Purpose and Need Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 1-8

[Page intentionally blank to facilitate double-sided printing] 
2 Alternatives Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 2-1 

2.0 ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: LAKELAND-LINDER REGIONAL AIRPORT 

2.1.1 Project Location/Setting 

Facilities have been offered at Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport (Action Alternative 1) located in the 1/4NW, 

Section 9, Township 29 North, Range 23 East on the Nichols, Florida U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle 

map. The International Air Transport Association's (IATA) Location Identifier for Lakeland-Linder Regional 

Airport is LAL, and this IATA identifier is used throughout this document to refer to the airport. LAL is within 

the southwest boundary of the city of Lakeland, Polk County, Florida (City of Lakeland, 2015a). 

The airport is on 1,700 acres with 1 million square feet of facilities at an elevation of 142 feet above mean sea 

level (MSL). From the 1970s until 1999, the airfield operated as a joint civil-military facility when it hosted Army 

Aviation Support Facility. Prior to the airport being used by the military, it was a strictly commercial airline 

service property. 

The airport is located in Polk County, Florida (see Figures 2.1-1 and 2.1-2). According to the FAA Airport 

Master Record, LAL has 219 based aircraft, including 36 jet aircraft. The airport’s primary runway, Runway 9/27 

is 8,499 feet long and is equipped with an Instrument Landing System (ILS); the secondary runway, Runway 5/23 

is 5005 feet by 150 feet (Global Air, 2016a). LAL is home to the Central Florida Aerospace Academy, which 

provides an aviation-based high school curriculum; and Polk State College’s Aerospace Center, which offers a 

four-year aviation degree. The airport is also home to large, nationally renowned fly-in events, including the SUN 

’n FUN International Fly-In & Expo. 

2.1.2 Project Components 

The facilities offered would require replacement of a portion of an end unit from a large, existing hangar structure 

located in the southern portion of LAL (see Figures 2.1-3 through 2.1-7). The unit is at 3450 Flightline Drive 

and is currently occupied by Rob Dinic Interiors, a firm that customizes and refurbishes aircraft and helicopter 

interiors. 

Replacement of approximately the southern two-thirds of the 36-year-old hangar unit would occur by demolishing 

that portion of the concrete block structure, replacing its cement foundation with a thicker 10-inch deep cement 

foundation and attaching a pre-engineered metal hangar structure (City of Lakeland, 2016a). Glazing would 

replace the concrete block within the structural frame to allow for natural light to enter interior spaces. The 

clearance height of the hangar would be 50’-0” with an aircraft entry door height of 46 feet, 0 inches. The 

northern one-third of the unit would retain its existing shell and be reconfigured internally to meet NOAA’s 

office, shop and storage needs. A vehicle parking area that would accommodate the required 110 spaces is 

adjacent to the hangar, plus adequate apron area and aircraft tie-down locations as specified in the OMAO request 

for bids is proposed. 

Vehicle access is via roadways adjacent to the south side of the airport boundary, primarily Old Medulla Road 

and West Pipkin Road leading to Airside Center Drive and Flightline Drive. 
2 Alternatives Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 2-2 

2.1.3 Construction Activities and Schedule 

Each bidder is responsible for studies and permits required prior to or during construction. Construction may be 

authorized as early as December 1, 2016. These may include federal review by the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) regarding the potential for marking and lighting of obstructions within navigable airspace, 

State stormwater pollution prevention plans, or municipal permits from the City of Lakeland for design review, 

among other agencies. 

Crane, jack hammer, front loader, bobcat loader, and haul trucks would be mobilized to remove portions of the 

existing hangar and its slab foundation and remove remnant or unnecessary underground utility infrastructure. 

Site work would include the framing and installation of a slab foundation to 10-inches thickness, extension of 

underground mechanical, electrical and plumbing conduit, erection of a modular metal building shell, installation 

of glazing and siding, and completion of site work for ramps, tie-downs, striping and parking. 

Hangar door installation and utility/fire protection measures would be installed and connected, followed by 

completion of interior framing, drywall, flooring and painting. Substantial completion is estimated by April 21, 

2017. 

2.1.4 Operations and Maintenance 

Upon substantial completion of all or portions of the construction activities, NOAA would move equipment, 

aircraft, and personnel into ready spaces. Operations would include administrative, workshop, storage, and 

engineering-related tasks in support of crew and aircraft readiness for various environmental monitoring and 

sensing missions. 

Periodic delivery of supplies, parts, and large airframe and power plant components would occur during 

operations and to support maintenance and retrofitting of aircraft. 

 
39

35

566

60

540

574

39

33

37

60

570

92

301

17

98

92

98

4

Pleasant

Grove

Reservoir

Lakeland

Fish Hawk

Plant City

Crystal

Springs

Bartow

Crystal Lake

Fussels

Corner

Gibsonia

Lakeland

Highlands

Kathleen

Medulla

Mulberry

Willow

Oak

Winston

Project Location

URS Oakland CA 8/29/2016 USER alvarezo PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\CONFIDENTIAL\NOAA_Airport_Relocation\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\Figure_1_Lakeland_ProjectLocation.mxd

FIGURE 2.1-1

Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport

Project Location

95

75

275 4

10

0 5

Miles

Imagery: ESRI, 2016

NOAA Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 

2-3
W Pi pkin Rd

Yates Rd

URS Oakland CA 8/29/2016 USER alvarezo PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\CONFIDENTIAL\NOAA_Airport_Relocation\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\Figure_2_Lakeland_ProjectArea.mxd

FIGURE 2.1-2

Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport

Project Area

Project Area

0 500

Feet

Imagery: ESRI, 2016

NOAA Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 

Airside Center Drive

2-4
URS Oakland CA 8/29/2016 USER alvarezo PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\CONFIDENTIAL\NOAA_Airport_Relocation\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\Figure_3_Lakeland_ProjectArea_1.mxd

FIGURE 2.1-3

Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport

Project Area

NOAA Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 

2-5
URS Oakland CA 8/29/2016 USER alvarezo PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\CONFIDENTIAL\NOAA_Airport_Relocation\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\Figure_4_Lakeland_ProjectArea_2.mxd

FIGURE 2.1-4

Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport

Project Area

NOAA Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 

2-6
AECOM Oakland CA 8/29/2016 USER alvarezo PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\CONFIDENTIAL\NOAA_Airport_Relocation\02_Maps\02_Map_Pro

Lakeland-L

NOAA Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 

EXISTING PLAN PROPOSED PLAN

2-7
AECOM Oakland CA 8/29/2016 USER alvarezo PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\CONFIDENTIAL\NOAA_Airport_Relocation\02_Maps\02_Map_Prod

Lakeland-L

NOAA Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 

FIRST FLOOR

SECOND FLOOR

2-8
URS Oakland CA 8/29/2016 USER alvarezo PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\CONFIDENTIAL\NOAA_Airport_Relocation\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\Figure_7_Lakeland_ElevationViews.mxd

FIGURE 2.1-7

Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport

Elevation Views

Imagery: ESRI, 2016

NOAA Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 

NORTH ELEVATION

WEST ELEVATION

SOUTH ELEVATION

2-9
2 Alternatives Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 2-10 

2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: ST. PETERSBURG-CLEARWATER 

INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

2.2.1 Project Location/Setting 

Facilities have been offered at St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport (Action Alternative 2), located in 

the 1/4NE, Section 3, Township 30 North, Range 16 East on the Safety Harbor, Florida, USGS quadrangle map. 

The IATA Location Identifier for St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport is PIE, and this IATA identifier 

is used throughout this document to refer to this airport. PIE is a public/military airport serving the St. PetersburgClearwater-Tampa Bay Metro Area that surrounds Tampa Bay. PIE is within an unincorporated area of Pinellas 

County, nine miles north of downtown St. Petersburg, Florida, and seven miles southeast of Clearwater (see 

Figures 2.2-1 and 2.2-2). 

The airport covers 1,900 acres at an elevation of 11 feet MSL. It has two asphalt runways: Runway 18/36 is 9,730 

by 150 feet and ILS-equipped, and Runway 4/22 is 5,903 by 150 feet (Global Air, 2016b). The National Plan of 

Integrated Airport Systems for 2011–2015 categorized it as a primary commercial service airport since it has over 

10,000 passenger boardings (enplanements) per year. 

In 2014, PIE experienced double-digit growth and handled more than one million passengers for the first time in 

its history. Most scheduled airline traffic in the Tampa Bay Area uses Tampa International Airport (TPA), ten 

miles (16 km) to the east, but PIE remains a destination for low-cost carriers such as the Las Vegas-based carrier 

Allegiant Air. Because it is less busy than Tampa, PIE is frequently used by pilots of private planes and executive 

jets flying to the Tampa Bay region. 

The airport is also the home of Coast Guard Air Station Clearwater, the largest and busiest Coast Guard Air 

Station in the United States (U.S.), operating HC-130 Hercules and MH-60T Jayhawk aircraft. The U.S. Army 

Reserve also maintains an Army Aviation Support Facility at PIE immediately west of the approach end of 

Runway 17R for Companies A and F, 5th Battalion, 159th Aviation Regiment and Medical Evacuation Unit, 

operating UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the FAA-operated control tower, 

the FAA's Central Florida Region Automated Flight Service Station, and the St. Petersburg VORTAC for airways 

navigation are also important federal government services at the airport. 

The airport has a 24-hour Airport Rescue and Fire-Fighting (ARFF) department (Index C), along with operations, 

facilities, engineering, security, and administrative personnel. Along with scheduled passenger and charter airlines 

and military flight operations, United Parcel Service / UPS Airlines, other air cargo, general/corporate aviation are 

also major activities, with UPS conducting extensive Boeing 757 operations. The entire tract of the airport is 

designated as a Foreign Trade Zone and a large Airport Industrial Park developed in the 1980s is a major center of 

commerce. 

2.2.2 Project Components 

The facilities offered would require replacement of the shell of the former Clearwater Aviation, Inc., hangar 

located in the eastern portion of PIE (see Figures 2.2-3 through 2.2-5). The 452- by 215-foot hangar is owned 

and operated by Sheltair Aviation and is located approximately 1,200 feet south of its on-airport offices at 15875 
2 Alternatives Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 2-11 

Fairchild Drive, Clearwater, Florida. The hangar is currently occupied with three aircraft, but otherwise 

unencumbered with a tenant or a dedicated, on-going commercial operation. 

Replacement of the exterior shell of the circa 1964-built hangar would occur by removing the metal siding and 

roofing while keeping the foundation and the metal frame, consisting of vertical metal supporting braces and cross 

beams (Paul Jackson Architects, 2016). The structural renovations and replacements would include attaching a 

new 24-foot-tall storage high bay with an added footprint of roughly 45-foot by 175-foot area and applying new, 

replacement metal siding and roofing to the entire hangar frame. The height of the renovated hangar would be 52 

feet, 0 inches above ground level (AGL), which is beneath the 55-foot limit imposed under CFR Part 77 Civil 

Airport Imaginary Surfaces. Because the proposed action would result in new construction within a public use 

airport, regardless of height or location, the site owner must submit Form 7460-1 to the regional FAA office at 

least 45 days prior to the start of the proposed construction or alteration. A vehicle parking area that would 

accommodate the required 110 spaces is across a tarmac 200 feet south of the subject hangar, plus adequate apron 

area and aircraft tie-down locations are present as specified in the OMAO request for bids is proposed. 

Vehicle access is via roadways adjacent to the west side of the airport boundary, primarily 49th Street North and 

Roosevelt Boulevard leading to Fairchild Drive and Spadco Drive. 

2.2.3 Construction Activities and Schedule 

Each bidder is responsible for studies and permits required prior to or during construction, which may include 

FAA review of Form 7460-1 regarding the potential for marking and lighting of obstructions within navigable 

airspace, Florida state stormwater pollution prevention plans, or municipal permits from Pinellas County for 

design review, among other agencies. 

Crane, jack hammer, front loader, bobcat loader and haul trucks would be mobilized to remove the hangar siding 

and roofing, as well as office interior and remnant and unnecessary utility infrastructure. Site work would include 

extension of underground mechanical, electrical and plumbing conduit, placement of metal building shell siding 

and roofing, installation of man-doors, glazing and siding, construction of the attached high bay segment and 

completion of site work for ramps, tie-downs, striping and parking. Hangar door installation and utility/fire 

protection measures would be installed and connected, followed by completion of interior framing, drywall, 

flooring and painting. Substantial completion is estimated by April 2017. 

2.2.4 Operations and Maintenance 

Upon substantial completion of all or portions of the construction activities, NOAA would move equipment, 

aircraft and personnel into ready spaces. Operations would include administrative, workshop, storage and 

engineering-related tasks in support of crew and aircraft readiness for various environmental monitoring and 

sensing missions. 

Periodic delivery of supplies, parts, and large airframe and power plant components would occur during 

operations and to support maintenance and retrofitting of aircraft. 

 
686

693

679

595

582

666

589

584

687

590 45

574

699

682

694

618

597

586

688

580

60

19

41

41

92

175

4

275

275

Tampa Bay

Boca

Ciega

Bay

Clearwater

Harbor

Hillsborough

Bay

Riviera

Bay

Safety

Harbor

St Joseph

Sound

Old Tampa Bay

Ruskin Inlet

Little

Cockroach

Bay

Boggy Bayou

Holiday Cove

Klosterman Bayou

Cockroach Bay

Double

Bayou

Pass

Pelican Cove

Reservoirs

McPherson

Bayou

Taylor Reservoir

Walsingham

Reservoir

Placido

Bayou

Smacks Bayou

Coffee

Pot

Bayou

Little Bayou

Snell

Isle Harbor

Big Bayou

Bayou

Grande

Smith Bayou

Greens

Bayou

Lundgren Cove

Double

Branch

Bay

Coopers Bayou

Cross

Bayou

Long Bayou

Egypt

Lake-Leto

Citrus Park

Greater

Northdale

Lake

Magdalene

Tampa

Clearwater

East Lake

Largo

Palm

Harbor

Pinellas Park

St.

Petersburg

Cheval

Greater

Carrollwood

Keystone

Lutz

Town 'n'

Country

Westchase

Belleair

Feather Sound

Oldsmar

South

Highpoint

Ruskin

Gulfport

Project Location

URS Oakland CA 8/29/2016 USER alvarezo PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\CONFIDENTIAL\NOAA_Airport_Relocation\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\Figure_1_St_Petersburg_ProjectLocation.mxd

FIGURE 2.2-1

St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport

Project Location

95

75

275 4

10

0 5

Miles

Imagery: ESRI, 2016

NOAA Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 

2-12
UV686

URS Oakland CA 8/29/2016 USER alvarezo PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\CONFIDENTIAL\NOAA_Airport_Relocation\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\Figure_2_St_Petersburg_ProjectArea.mxd

FIGURE 2.2-2

St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport

Project Area

Project Area

0 500

Feet

Imagery: ESRI, 2016

NOAA Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 

2-13
URS Oakland CA 8/29/2016 USER alvarezo PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\CONFIDENTIAL\NOAA_Airport_Relocation\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\Figure_3_St_Petersburg_ProjectCompArea.mxd

FIGURE 2.2-3

St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport

Project Area

Project Components

Area Outline

Project Boundary

0 1,000

Feet

Imagery: ESRI, 2016

NOAA Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 

2-14
URS Oakland CA 8/29/2016 USER alvarezo PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\CONFIDENTIAL\NOAA_Airport_Relocation\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\Figure_4_St_Petersburg_ProjectCompArea2.mxd

FIGURE 2.2-4

St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport

Project Area

Project Components

Project Boundary

Parking

0 100

Feet

Imagery: ESRI, 2016

NOAA Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 

2-15
AECOM Oakland CA 8/29/2016 USER alvarezo PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\CONFIDENTIAL\NOAA_Airport_Relocation\02_Maps\02_Map_Produ

St. Petersburg-Clearwate

NOAA Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 

SOUTH ELEVATION

NORTH ELEVATION

2-16
2 Alternatives Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 2-17 

2.3 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

The No-Action Alternative is a condition in which the AOC operations are not relocated from their current 

location at MacDill AFB, because no DoD action affecting the space used for existing AOC activities at MacDill 

AFB would occur. The location and intensity of operations and existing facilities associated with AOC at MacDill 

AFB would remain unchanged. 

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND NOT ANALYZED 

Prospective interest to formally propose adequate facilities at Tampa International Airport in response to the 

NOAA OMAO solicitation for bids was withdrawn by the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority. It was 

withdrawn primarily due to the schedule requirements for OMAO AOC occupancy. 

No other offers that would meet the requisite airport runway, facilities, and service requirements necessary within 

fifty ‘driving’ miles of MacDill AFB were received and considered. 
2 Alternatives Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 2-18 

[Page intentionally blank to facilitate double-sided printing] 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-1 

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES 

This section describes the existing conditions for key resource topics, the anticipated environmental consequences 

from implementation of the Proposed Action (at each alternative) and the No-Action Alternative, and any 

mitigation measures that would avoid, reduce, or minimize any adverse effects of the Proposed Action. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-2 

3.1 LAND USE 

3.1.1 Regulatory Setting 

Florida State Regulation 163.3177, Comprehensive Land Plan, sets forth the requirements for a comprehensive 

plan to be prepared by a local jurisdiction, such as a city or county. A comprehensive plan serves as a blueprint or 

document that provides principles, guidelines, standards and strategies for economic, social, physical, 

environmental and fiscal development of that area. As part of the plan, designations and zonings for future general 

distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for residential uses, commercial uses, industry, agriculture, 

recreation, conservation, education, public facilities, and other categories of the public and private uses of land are 

proposed (Online Sunshine, 2016). 

Florida State Regulation 163.3202, Land development regulation, requires all municipalities to adopt or amend 

and enforce land development regulations that are consistent with their comprehensive plan. Local land 

development regulations contain specific details and provisions, including: 1) regulating subdivision of land; 2) 

regulating use of land and water for land use categories; 3) regulating areas subject to seasonal flooding and 

provide stormwater management; 4) providing protection of potable water wellfields; 5) providing protection of 

environmentally sensitive area and; 6) requiring public facilities and services to meet or exceed standards 

established in the capital improvements element (Florida Senate, 2016). 

The Public Buildings Amendments of 1988 (40 USC 601), Public Law 100-678, requires a federal agency to 

comply with a nationally recognized model building code and other applicable nationally recognized codes, such 

as electrical, life safety, and plumbing codes. Federal agencies shall consider state or local zoning and similar 

laws and consult with appropriate officials and make plans available upon request. State and local government 

may make recommendations and the federal agency should give due consideration to those recommendations and 

local conditions. However, no action, fine or penalty may be brought against the federal government for failure to 

meet the requirements of this Public Law, or for failure to carry out any State or local government 

recommendation. 

Executive Order (EO) 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Program, directs federal agencies to provide 

opportunities for consultation to elected officials of state and local governments and to provide state and local 

officials the opportunity to comment on actions that could affect their jurisdictions. The EO was issued with the 

intent to foster intergovernmental partnership and to increase the reliance of state and local processes coordination 

and review of proposed Federal financial assistance and direct federal development. Florida currently participates 

in the intergovernmental review process (Office of Management and Budget, no date). 

3.1.2 Affected Environment 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

Action Alternative 1 at LAL has existing county, city, and airport level plans that describe the allowable land use 

and associated restrictions. LAL is within the jurisdiction of the City of Lakeland, within Polk County. The City 

has a Comprehensive Plan that establishes its goals, objects and policies related to growth management and 

redevelopment. In addition, the City’s Land Development Codes provide regulations and standards related to land 

use. The City is divided into zoning districts for the purpose of regulating the use of property. Article 2, Use 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-3 

Standards prescribes standards for zoning, land-use and development. The purpose of these standards is to 

prevent or mitigate negative impacts of incompatible uses (City of Lakeland, 2016b). 

According to the Lakeland Zoning Map, the airport is in the Planned Unit Development District (PUD) Industrial. 

PUDs are unique zoning districts having use and/or development regulations that are tailored to the particular site. 

Additionally, to ensure that land uses, activities and structures are compatible with the operations of LAL, 

development shall conform to the standards set forth in the Polk County Airport Zoning Regulations, established 

by the Polk County Joint Airport Board pursuant to Chapter 333, Florida Statutes. The regulations establish 

certain limits and requirements pertaining to structure height, noise-sensitive land uses, land uses within 

overflight zones, educational facilities, and land uses or activities that may induce a bird strike hazard or visual or 

electronic interference with aircraft (City of Lakeland, 2016b). In addition, LAL has a Regional Airport Master 

Plan Update (AmHerst Consulting, 2011). 

Land uses to the west in unincorporated Hillsborough County consist of agricultural properties with less dense 

development that in Polk County. To the east, south and north are primarily single-family residences in Polk 

County, with some retail/commercial businesses. There are a few locations where the city has zoned an area for 

limited development. 

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

Action Alternative 2 at PIE has existing county, city, and airport level plans that describe the allowable land use 

and associated restrictions. PIE is located in unincorporated Pinellas County, approximately 8 miles north of the 

St. Petersburg-Clearwater, Florida, metropolitan area. The County has a Comprehensive Plan that establishes the 

City’s goals, objects and policies related to growth management, conservation of natural and economic resources 

and redevelopment to meet the needs of the population and the local economy (Pinellas County, 2013). 

The land use code established by Pinellas County for the Action Alternative 2 site is Transportation/Utility (T/U) 

(Pinellas County, 2015). The T/U land use category depicts those areas of the County that are now used for 

transport and public/private utility services, and to recognize such areas consistent with the need, character and 

scale of the transport/utility use relative to surrounding uses, transportation facilities, and natural resource 

features. Primary and secondary uses in the T/U land use category are identified as airport and storage, 

respectively. In addition, PIE has a Master Plan Update dated January 2004 (PBSJ, 2004). 

Land uses surrounding PIE to the west across major thoroughfares include single-family residences, general 

retail/commercial businesses, and limited agricultural estates. To the south and southeast are general 

retail/commercial businesses, and to the east are residential developments and the Feather Sound Country Club. 

PIE is bounded to the north and northeast by Old Tampa Bay, part of the larger Tampa Bay. 

3.1.3 Environmental Consequences 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

The proposed Action Alternative 1 at LAL would be consistent with the City of Lakeland’s Comprehensive Plan 

and zoning requirements, since the current use of the site as an airport would remain unchanged. Additionally, the 

project would be consistent with Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport Master Plan, as the existing hangar facilities 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-4 

offered to the government would involve an alteration that would replace portions of the structure with a modular 

hangar facility. There would be no change in land use and no adverse effect to existing land uses under this 

alternative. 

The proposed action at this alternative would result in no effect to land use. 

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

The proposed Action Alternative 2 at PIE would be consistent with the county of Pinellas’s Comprehensive Plan 

and zoning requirements, since the current use of the site as an airport would remain the same. Additionally, the 

project would be consistent with the St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport Master Plan Update, as the 

existing hangar facilities offered for government use would not pose a change in the type or intensity of use. 

The proposed action at this alternative would result in no effect to land use. 

No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative assumes that NOAA would continue to operate their AOC program at their current 

location at MacDill Airport. No impacts to land-use would occur under this alternative. 

3.1.4 Mitigation Measures 

No mitigation measures are required for either of the two Action Alternatives, or for the No-Action Alternative in 

relation to land use. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-5 

3.2 GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

3.2.1 Regulatory Setting 

Project-related impacts associated with geological resources may include hazards such as landslides, erosion, fault 

rupture, seismic shaking, liquefaction, sinkholes and subsidence, and effects to mineral resources or protected 

geological features. Geologically hazardous areas pose a threat to the health and safety of citizens when 

incompatible development is sited in areas of significant hazard. Some geological hazards can be reduced or 

mitigated by engineering, design or modified construction practices, but other geological hazards are best 

avoided. 

To examine the effects of the proposed action on geological resources (and the effects of these resources on the 

proposed action), this analysis considers the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (Public Resources Code, 

Division 2, Chapter 9, Section 2710 et seq.), the Historic Sites Act of 1935, and geologic conditions or subsurface 

mineral rights that may affect or be affected by the proposed action. 

The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act was enacted to address the need for a continuing supply of mineral 

resources and to prevent or minimize the adverse impacts of surface mining to public health, property, and the 

environment. 

3.2.2 Affected Environment 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

Action Alternative 1 is located in the central highlands physiographic province of Florida. The site is generally 

flat, and is approximately 130 feet above MSL (USGS, 2012). The regional and local topographic relief in the 

vicinity of the site slopes towards the south-southwest. 

Surface and near surface sediments in Polk County consist of quartz sand, clay, phosphorite, limestone, and 

dolomite, ranging in age from Late Eocene to Holocene (40 million years ago to present) (FGS, 1986). The area 

surrounding the Action Alternative 1 site is underlain by the Bone Valley formation of the Hawthorn Group, a 

phosphate-containing sandstone of Tertiary age (66 million to 3 million years old) and undifferentiated surficial 

sands of Quaternary age (3 million to 12 thousand years old) (FGS, 1992). 

Soil survey data from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) shows Action Alternative 1 is 

predominantly underlain by Pomona fine sand and Holopaw fine sand (NRCS, 2016a). Pomona fine sand is a 

poorly-drained soil with low infiltration rates. The seasonal high water table is within 12 inches of the surface for 

one to four months during most years. Holopaw fine sand is a very poorly drained clayey soil with very slow 

infiltration rates. This soil is ponded for more than six months during most years (Chastain Skillman, 2016). Other 

areas of the site are characterized as “urban land”, which consists of areas more than 70 percent covered by 

structures or other impervious surfaces, so that the natural soils are not readily observable (NRCS, 2016a). 

The central portion of Polk County, including Action Alternative 1 and surrounding areas, is classified as “Area 

III” by the Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Geology with respect to susceptibility to sinkhole and 

subsidence hazards. Area III zones typically have cover between 30 to 200 feet in thickness, which consists 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-6 

mainly of cohesive clayey sediments of low permeability. Land within Area III is most susceptible to sinkhole 

development. Sinkholes may be of varying size, and typically develop abruptly. Cover-collapse sinkholes are the 

most common type of sinkhole within Area III (Sinclair & Stewart, 1985). A map of all reported sinkholes in Polk 

County shows two sinkholes (both of less than 10 feet width) within two miles of LAL (Florida Center for 

Instructional Technology, 2008a). 

The state of Florida is one of the areas of the contiguous U.S. at least risk of seismic activity. The USGS (2014) 

has estimated that horizontal ground shaking has a one in 50 (two-percent) probability of exceeding 4 percent of g 

(where g is the acceleration of an object falling due to gravity) in a 50-year period, which is considered a very low 

hazard according to FEMA. The probability of an earthquake of 5.0 magnitude or greater occurring within 30 

miles of Polk County, Florida over the next 50 years is 0.4 percent, and there have been no recorded earthquakes 

in this area since 1931 (Homefacts, 2016a). 

Florida ranks fifth in the nation industrial mineral production with a value of $1.92 billion, including phosphate, 

limestone, sand and gravel, clay, and heavy minerals (FGS, 2016a). Polk County contains mineral-producing 

areas for industrial sand (FDEP, 2015), including the Wellman-Lord Trust Mine just south of Pipkin Road, 

approximately 0.25 miles south of the Action Alternative 1 site. No existing mineral resource recovery operations 

occur on the Action Alternative 1 site, and such operations are also unlikely to be developed in the future, due to 

the presence and operation of LAL. 

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

The Action Alternative 2 site and surrounding areas are generally flat, and are approximately 5 to 10 feet above 

MSL (EPAC, 2016a). 

Pinellas County lies on the southwestern flank of the Ocala platform, and is underlain by a series of limestone 

formations, all of which dip toward the south (Pinellas County, 2008). Surficial areas in the vicinity of the Action 

Alternative 2 site comprise undifferentiated Quaternary shell beds (FGS, 1993). 

The NRCS Soil Survey report characterizes the Action Alternative 2 site as “urban land,” a classification which 

consists of areas more than 70 percent covered by structures or other impervious surfaces, so that the natural soils 

are not readily observable (NRCS, 2016b). “Urban Land” areas often contain a shallow layer of artificial fill 

(EPAC, 2016a). The Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan classifies the area as “Group C” soils, which have a 

slow infiltration rate and consist chiefly of soils that have a layer that impedes the downward movement of water 

and have a slow rate of water transmission (Pinellas County, 2008). 

The majority of Pinellas County, including Action Alternative 2 and surrounding areas, is classified as “Area III” 

by the Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Geology with respect to susceptibility to sinkhole and 

subsidence hazards. Area III zones typically have cover between 30 to 200 feet in thickness, which consists 

mainly of cohesive clayey sediments of low permeability. Land within Area III is most susceptible to sinkhole 

development. Sinkholes may be of varying size, and typically develop abruptly. Cover-collapse sinkholes are the 

most common type of sinkhole within Area III (Sinclair & Stewart, 1985). Sinkholes are primarily found in the 

northern third of the County, inland of Tarpon Springs. Sinkholes in other parts of the County, including near 

Action Alternative 2, are much less common (Pinella County, 2008). A map of all reported sinkholes in Pinellas 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-7 

County shows only one sinkhole (of less than 10 feet width) within four miles of Action Alternative 2 (Florida 

Center for Instructional Technology, 2008b). 

The state of Florida is one of the areas of the contiguous U.S. at least risk of seismic activity. The USGS (2014) 

has estimated that horizontal ground shaking has a one in 50 (two-percent) probability of exceeding 4 percent of g 

(where g is the acceleration of an object falling due to gravity) in a 50-year period, which is considered a very low 

hazard according to FEMA. The probability of an earthquake of 5.0 magnitude or greater occurring within 30 

miles of Pinellas County, Florida over the next 50 years is 0.28 percent, and there have been no recorded 

earthquakes in this area since 1931 (Homefacts, 2016b). 

No existing mineral resource recovery operations occur on or near the Action Alternative 2 site (FGS, 2016a), and 

such operations are also unlikely to be developed in the future, due to the presence and operation of PIE. 

No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alternative, NOAA would not relocate its AOC program to either Action Alternative. The 

No-Action Alternative assumes that NOAA would continue to operate their AOC program at their current 

location at MacDill AFB. The affected environment would not change under this alternative. 

3.2.3 Environmental Consequences 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

The proposed Action Alternative 1 would have no adverse impacts to geological resources. Existing facilities on 

the leased area at the airport would be utilized. Improvements would be made, but largely within the footprint of 

the existing facilities, except for additional 5 feet of width to portions of the west side of the hangar to be 

replaced. Replacement of approximately the southern two-thirds of the 36-year-old hangar unit would occur by 

demolishing that portion of the concrete block structure, replacing its cement foundation with a thicker 10-inch 

deep cement foundation and attaching a pre-engineered metal hangar structure. Resurfacing of apron and parking 

lot areas would also occur, and construction of some new parking areas would also occur. 

The proposed expansion of the existing facility, including the new foundations, would be designed to current 

Florida Building Code standards, which would minimize any potential impacts relating to potentially unstable 

subsurface conditions, including karst-related hazards such as sinkholes. It is expected that a site-specific 

geotechnical investigation would be undertaken prior to detailed design of the proposed foundations, including 

investigation of the potential for sinkhole development, and that any recommendations of that investigation would 

be incorporated into the foundation design. No activities would be undertaken as part of the proposed action that 

would result in human-induced sinkhole development. 

Due to the minor nature of the proposed construction activities, and with implementation of standard and 

customary best management practices (BMPs) during construction, erosion of site soils during construction 

activities would be extremely limited and contained within the construction site. 

Impacts to geological resources resulting from proposed Action Alternative 1 would be negligible. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-8 

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

The proposed Action Alternative 2 would have no adverse impacts to geological resources. Existing facilities on 

the leased area at the airport would be utilized. Improvements would be made, including replacement of the 

existing shell of the building. The existing foundation of the building would remain. 

The proposed replacement of the existing building shell would be designed to current Florida Building Code 

standards, which would minimize any potential impacts relating to potentially unstable subsurface conditions, 

including karst-related hazards such as sinkholes. No activities would be undertaken as part of the proposed action 

that would result in human-induced sinkhole development. 

Due to the minor nature of the proposed construction activities, and with implementation of BMPs for 

construction, erosion of site soils during construction activities would be extremely limited and contained within 

the construction site. 

Impacts to geological resources resulting from proposed Action Alternative 2 would be negligible. 

No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative assumes that NOAA would continue to operate their AOC program at their current 

location at MacDill Airport. No impacts to geological resources would occur under this alternative. 

3.2.4 Mitigation Measures 

No mitigation measures are required for either of the two Action Alternatives, or for the No-Action Alternative in 

relation to geological resources. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-9 

3.3 AIR QUALITY 

3.3.1 Regulatory Setting 

Pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and its amendments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA) identifies air pollutants that cause or contribute to the endangerment of human health and or 

environmental welfare, and establishes air quality “criteria” that guide the establishment of air quality standards to 

regulate these pollutants (42 U.S.C. §7408 - §7409). To date, USEPA has established such criteria for six air 

pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), fine and respirable particulate 

matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and sulfur dioxide (SO2), and has subsequently promulgated National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) meant to safeguard public health (i.e., primary NAAQS) and environmental welfare 

(i.e., secondary NAAQS). 

For the purposes of appraising compliance with the NAAQS, and conjunction with the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection (FDEP), USEPA collects and evaluates ambient (i.e., “outdoor”) monitoring data on a 

geographic basis, delineated by Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSA) or Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) 

established by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget and U.S. Census Bureau. From each ambient monitor 

within a CBSA/MSA, USEPA derives criteria pollutant design values, which are statistics that describe the air 

quality status of a given location relative to the level of the NAAQS. Areas where monitored ambient air 

concentrations (i.e., design values) are within an applicable NAAQS are considered in attainment of that NAAQS. 

If sufficient data are not available to make a determination, the area is instead deemed attainment/unclassifiable. 

Areas where monitored ambient air concentrations exceed the NAAQS are designated by USEPA as 

nonattainment areas. Lastly, areas that have historically violated the NAAQS, but have since instituted controls 

and programs that have successfully remedied these violations are known as maintenance areas. Current NAAQS 

and applicable attainment designations are summarized in Table 3.3-1 for the Proposed Action at each of the 

Action Alternatives. 

States with nonattainment areas within their jurisdiction are charged with developing air quality control plans, 

called State Implementation Plans (SIP), that include strategies and measures to bring the area back into 

compliance with the NAAQS by an USEPA-prescribed regulatory deadline, or maintain compliance once 

attainment is achieved. 

The General Conformity regulations required under Section 176(c) of the CAA (42 U.S.C §7506) and codified at 

40 CFR Part 93 mandate that a federal agency undertaking, approving, funding or otherwise supporting any action 

in USEPA-designated nonattainment or maintenance areas prove that undertaking the action does not exacerbate 

existing violations of the NAAQS, cause new violations, or interfere with an approved SIP to improve or maintain 

air quality. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-10 

Table 3.3-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Design Values 

Pollutant Averaging 

Time Level Form 

2013-2015 Design Value 

Hillsborough 

(MacDill) 

Polk 

(LAL) 

Pinellas 

(PIE) 

Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) 

[76 FR 54294, 

Aug 31, 2011] 

8-hour 9 ppm Not to be exceeded 

more than once per 

year 

0.7 -- 0.6 

1-hour 35 ppm 1.9 -- 1.7 

Lead (Pb) 

[73 FR 66964, 

Nov 12, 2008] 

Rolling 3 month 

average 

0.15 μg/m3

 Not to be exceeded 0.49 -- -- 

Nitrogen 

Dioxide (NO2) 

[75 FR 6474, 

Feb 9, 2010] 

[61 FR 52852, 

Oct 8, 1996] 

1-hour 100 ppb 

98th percentile of 1-

hour daily maximum 

concentrations, 

averaged over 3 years 

-- -- 30.0 

Annual 53 ppb Annual mean 12.0 -- 4.0 

Ozone (O3) 

[80 FR 65292, 

Oct 26, 2015] 

8-hour 0.070 ppm 

Annual fourth-highest 

daily maximum 8-hr 

concentration, 

averaged over 3 years 

0.069 0.063 0.063 

Particle 

Pollution 

[78 FR 3085, 

Jan 15, 2013] 

PM2.5

Annual 

(primary) 

12 μg/m3 Annual mean, 

averaged over 3 years 

7.8 6.5 6.5 

PM2.5

Annual 

(secondary) 

15 μg/m3 Annual mean, 

averaged over 3 years 

PM2.5

24-hour 

35 μg/m3 98th percentile, 

averaged over 3 years 19.0 14.0 16.0 

PM10

24-hour 

150 μg/m3

Not to be exceeded 

more than once per 

year on average over 

3 years 

No exceedances reported 

Sulfur Dioxide 

(SO2) 

[75 FR 35520, 

Jun 22, 2010] 

[38 FR 25678, 

Sept 14, 1973] 

1-hour 75 ppb 

99th percentile of 1-

hour daily maximum 

concentrations, 

averaged over 3 years 

66 26 9 

3-hour 0.5 ppm 

Not to be exceeded 

more than once per 

year 

No exceedances reported 

Sources: Federal Register as above, and USEPA Air Quality Design Values, https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-designvalues#report, Accessed 26 August 2016. Note: Design values are monitoring data statistics computed by EPA to describe the air quality 

status of a given location relative to the NAAQS. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-11 

3.3.2 Affected Environment 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

LAL is in Polk County. The area within which Action Alternative 1 for the Proposed Action is located is 

presently designated as attainment/unclassifiable with respect to all NAAQS; therefore the General Conformity 

regulations do not apply to the Proposed Action at Action Alternative 1. 

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

PIE is in Pinellas County. The area within which Action Alternative 2 for the Proposed Action is located is 

presently designated as attainment/unclassifiable with respect to all NAAQS; therefore the General Conformity 

regulations do not apply to the Proposed Action at Action Alternative 2. 

No-Action Alternative 

MacDill AFB is in Hillsborough County. As shown in Table 3.3-1, the Pb design value for Hillsborough County 

is 0.49 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) and accordingly a portion of Hillsborough County is included in the 

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL nonattainment area for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. However, the boundaries of 

this nonattainment area do not contain MacDill AFB, which is the site of the No-Action Alternative. Additionally, 

although the design values listed on Table 3.3-1 indicate no violation of SO2 NAAQS, a portion of Hillsborough 

County is currently designated nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS by USEPA. Again, the area containing 

MacDill AFB is adjacent to this area; it is not included in the nonattainment area boundary. 

3.3.3 Environmental Consequences 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

In terms of operational emissions, air quality effects of the proposed Action Alternative 1 pertain to the emissions 

associated with the operation of AOC aircraft and support equipment that would be based at LAL. Constructionrelated emissions are temporary in nature and occur due to (1) construction equipment and vehicle operations, and 

(2) demolition, earthworks, ground disturbance and paving activities during the construction period. 

Table 3.3-2 summarizes the CY 2020 operational emissions inventory of AOC aircraft and support equipment 

that will be based at LAL, compared to LAL emissions under the No-Action Alternative. As shown, emissions 

increases due to the Proposed Action total 1.4 tons of CO, 1.3 tons of NOx, 0.0 tons of Pb, 0.1 tons of PM2.5, 0.1 

tons of PM10, 0.2 tons of SO2, and 0.2 tons of VOC.1

 However, because the AOC fleet would no longer be 

operating at MacDill AFB, emissions at MacDill AFB would be reduced commensurately, resulting in no net 

increase of emissions in the air shed of the Proposed Action at Action Alternative 1. 

 1

 NOx and VOC are considered precursors to O3 formation and are included as proxies for the purposes of air quality 

impact assessment. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-12 

Table 3.3-2 Operational Emissions Inventory: Action Alternative 1 

Category CY 2020 Emissions (tons) 

CO NOx Pb PM2.5 PM10 SO2 VOC 

No-Action Alternative 863.3 18.9 0.4 0.8 0.8 2.2 11.3 

Action Alternative 1 864.7 20.1 0.4 0.9 0.9 2.4 11.4 

Difference 1.4 1.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 

Sources: FAA, 2016a. Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) Version 2b SP3. Values reflect rounding. 

As shown on Table 3.3-3, construction period emissions associated with Action Alternative 1 total 8.3 tons of 

CO, 4.2 tons of NOx, 0.6 tons of PM2.5, 3.5 tons of PM10 and 7.8 tons of VOC.2

 

Table 3.3-3 Construction Emissions Inventory: Action Alternative 1 

Category Emissions (tons) 

CO NOx PM2.5 PM10 SO2 VOC 

Off-Road Equipment 1.9 3.8 0.2 0.2 <0.1 0.8 

On-Road Vehicles 6.4 0.4 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.3 

Fugitive Emissions -- -- 0.3 3.2 -- 6.6 

Total 8.3 4.2 0.6 3.5 <0.1 7.8 

Sources: AECOM, 2016. Estimated Construction Equipment and Usage, NOAA OMAO AOC Relocation Project, August 

2016. Values reflect rounding.

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

In terms of operational emissions, air quality effects of the proposed Action Alternative 2 pertain to the emissions 

associated with the operation of AOC aircraft and support equipment that would be based at PIE. Constructionrelated emissions are temporary in nature and occur due to (1) construction equipment and vehicle operations, and 

(2) demolition, earthworks, ground disturbance and paving activities during the construction period. 

Table 3.3-4 summarizes the CY 2020 operational emissions inventory of AOC aircraft and support equipment 

that will be based at PIE, compared to PIE emissions under the No-Action Alternative. As shown, emissions 

increases due to the Proposed Action total 1.4 tons of CO, 1.2 tons of NOx, 0.0 tons of Pb, 0.1 tons of PM2.5, 0.1 

tons of PM10, 0.2 tons of SO2 and 0.2 tons of VOC.3

 However, because the AOC fleet would no longer be 

operating at MacDill AFB, emissions at MacDill AFB would be reduced commensurately, resulting in no net 

increase of emissions in the air shed of the Proposed Action at Action Alternative 2. 

 2

 Construction emissions sources do not use leaded fuel and therefore lead emissions are not included. 

3

 NOx and VOC are considered precursors to O3 formation and are included as proxies for the purposes of air quality 

impact assessment. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-13 

Table 3.3-4 Operational Emissions Inventory: Action Alternative 2 

Category CY 2020 Emissions (tons) 

CO NOx Pb PM2.5 PM10 SO2 VOC 

No-Action Alternative 538.5 92.1 0.1 2.1 2.1 9.0 16.7 

Action Alternative 2 539.8 93.4 0.1 2.1 2.1 9.1 16.8 

Difference 1.4 1.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 

Sources: FAA, 2016a. Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) Version 2b SP3. Values reflect rounding. 

As shown on Table 3.3-5, construction period emissions associated with Action Alternative 2 total 5.3 tons of 

CO, 3.4 tons of NOx, 0.4 tons of PM2.5, 1.9 tons of PM10 and 4.1 tons of VOC.4

 

Table 3.3-4 Construction Emissions Inventory: Action Alternative 2 

Category Emissions (tons) 

CO NOx PM2.5 PM10 SO2 VOC 

Off-Road Equipment 2.8 3.2 0.2 0.2 <0.1 0.7 

On-Road Vehicles 2.5 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 

Fugitive Emissions -- -- 0.2 1.6 -- 3.3 

Total 5.3 3.4 0.4 1.9 <0.1 4.1 

Sources: AECOM, 2016. Estimated Construction Equipment and Usage, NOAA OMAO AOC Relocation Project, August 

2016. Values reflect rounding.

No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alternative, emissions associated with NOAA operations would occur as usual. No 

construction-related emissions would occur. NOAA-related emissions levels in CY 2020 would approximate 

those identified in Tables 4.3-2 and 4.3-4 for the Proposed Action Alternatives. 

3.3.4 Mitigation Measures 

Because the Proposed Action at each of the Action Alternatives is located in areas considered by USEPA as 

attainment/unclassifiable with respect to the NAAQS, established impact significance thresholds do not apply to 

the Proposed Action at each of the Action Alternatives and under the No-Action Alternative. No mitigation 

measures are required. 

However, standard and customary BMPs during construction should be applied to minimize construction-related 

emissions, including (but not limited to), dust suppression on unpaved areas, minimization of vehicle and 

equipment idling, covering of materials stockpiles, and recycling construction materials on-site where possible. 

 4

 Construction emissions sources do not use leaded fuel and therefore lead emissions are not included. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-14 

3.4 WATER RESOURCES 

3.4.1 Regulatory Setting 

Water resources, including stormwater management, are regulated by various federal, state, regional and local 

governmental agencies. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has jurisdiction over Waters of the U.S. as 

defined under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The USACE also has jurisdiction of dredge and fill 

activities within wetlands and surface waters. No limits are placed on stormwater pollutants but the State agency 

responsible for water quality must certify the project meets State Water Quality Standards before they will issue a 

permit. The USACE has no requirement or control on stormwater volumes or peak runoff rates. 

Under Section 401 of the CWA, USEPA has delegated the responsibility of regulating and granting permits 

through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to the FDEP. The NPDES permit process 

places limits on the concentration of pollutants in stormwater discharges and wastewater discharges. The 

objective of the permitting process is to limit the pollutants entering Waters of the U.S. to a level that will not 

harm its natural functions. The FDEP issues permits under the NPDES program for stormwater discharges for 

construction activity, municipal systems, industrial activities, and wastewater discharges, as discussed below: 

 Industrial Activities: The FDEP requires facilities with industrial activities to obtain coverage under the 

NPDES general permit, known in Florida as a "generic" permit. A generic permit is a general permit 

issued by FDEP under the authority of Section 403.0885, Florida Statutes. The FDEP identifies the 

generic permit as the State of Florida Multi-Sector Generic Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated 

with Industrial Activity (MSGP). The MSGP divides the regulated industrial activities into 30 sectors of 

related activity and specifies both general and sector-specific requirements for each. Airports are in sector 

S, which is associated with industrial activities such as vehicle and aircraft maintenance, fueling, and the 

storage and handling of hazardous materials. 

 Construction Activities: The NPDES stormwater program for construction activity regulates "large" and 

"small" construction activity. The program regulates stormwater associated with construction activities 

that discharge to surface waters of the State or into a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4). 

“Large” construction activity is defined as activity that disturbs five acres or greater of land, or disturbs 

less than five acres of land that is part of a larger common plan of development or sale that will ultimately 

disturb five acres or greater. “Small” construction activity is defined as activity that disturbs equal to or 

greater than one acre of land and less than five acres of land, or disturbs less than one acre of land that is 

part of a larger common plan of development or sale that will ultimately disturb between one and five 

acres. An NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) must be submitted to the FDEP before any construction activity 

begins within the detailed study area. 

 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems: An MS4 is a publicly-owned conveyance or system of 

conveyances (i.e., ditches, curbs, catch basins, underground pipes, etc.) that is designed or used for 

collecting or conveying stormwater and that discharges to surface waters of the State. An MS4 can be 

operated by public agencies including, but not limited to, municipalities, counties, drainage districts, 

colleges, or military bases. The FDEP categorizes MS4s into two programs identified as Phase 1 and 

Phase II. Phase I addresses discharges of stormwater runoff from "medium" and "large" MS4s (i.e., those 

in areas with populations of 100,000 or greater). Under Phase II, the program regulates discharges from 

certain MS4s not regulated under Phase I, and that meet designation criteria in Chapter 62-624, FAC. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-15 

The FDEP and the five water management districts have the ultimate responsibility for regulating stormwater 

treatment and attenuation management systems within the State. Each NOAA AOC Action Alternative, and the 

No-Action Alternative, is within the jurisdiction of the Southwest Florida Water Management District 

(SWFWMD) and they would be responsible for issuing an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) for land 

development activities. Projects affecting wetlands, water quality of stormwater runoff, and water quantity 

attenuation of stormwater runoff are permitted through an ERP. 

The rules found in Chapters 40D-4 and 40D-40, FAC establish guidelines for obtaining individual and general 

ERPs, respectively, for stormwater management systems. The SWFWMD has established criteria which govern 

the issuance of ERPs in “Part II Criteria for Evaluation” in the Environmental Resource Permit Applicant’s 

Handbook (SWFWMD, 2013a; 2013b). The criteria for evaluation guidelines address stormwater quality, stating 

that “projects shall be designed so that discharges will meet State water quality standards as set forth in Chapter 

17-3, FAC”. The criteria for evaluation provide guidelines for a variety of recommended BMPs with regards to 

stormwater quantity and stormwater quality. 

Commercial and industrial projects are required to install a drainage system to provide flood attenuation and any 

additional retention/detention required for water quality purposes. The required water quality system must have 

treatment capacity for one inch of runoff if wet detention is used, or one half-inch of runoff if retention, effluent 

filtration or exfiltration is used, from the total developed site and contributing offsite area. 

3.4.2 Affected Environment 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

Action Alternative 1 is located within three drainage sub-basins identified as 419, 419A and 421B, which 

collectively encompass approximately 31.49 acres (see Figure 3.4-1). Stormwater runoff from the two sub-basins 

identified as 419A and 421B located north of the existing hangar building and along Taxiway E1 west of the 

existing hangar building, respectively, is collected in the existing underground closed pipe storm sewer system. 

This existing storm sewer was constructed as part of the recently completed Taxiway E1 project and consists of 

36-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) that conveys the stormwater westward for approximately 553 

feet where it crosses under taxiway E1 and outfalls into an existing ditch (Amherst Consulting, no date). This 

ditch is oriented in a north-south direction and conveys the stormwater southward to another ditch oriented in an 

east-west direction. 

Sub-basin 419 includes the entire subject hangar building and the concrete apron to the south. Stormwater runoff 

from sub-basin 419 is collected in an underground closed pipe storm sewer system. The downstream end of the 

closed storm sewer system is a 54-inch RCP located at the southwest corner of the existing apron. Stormwater 

runoff discharges from this 54-inch RCP into the upstream end of the aforementioned ditch that is oriented in an 

east-west direction. This ditch flows westward for approximately 670 feet where intersects the aforementioned 

ditch oriented in an east-west direction that conveys the stormwater runoff southward from Sub-basins 419A and 

421B. The east-west ditch continues to convey water westward for approximately 865 feet where it makes a 90-

degree turn to the north and conveys the water northward for approximately 1,550 feet where it joins a bay swamp 

tributary of English Creek. This bay swamp tributary of English Creek flows westward for approximately half a 

mile up to Medulla Road where it passes under this road through an existing bridge structure and continues to 

flow for approximately 7 miles into English Creek just north of Pipkin Road West. 
Pond

C

421

421D

36" RCP

English Creek Tributary

305C

305B

133

305D

305E

112A

112B

121

137

142

29A

29B

29C

29E 29D

135A

305A

437

438A

438B

438C

36A

19

36B

21

136

135B

141

122A 122B

122C

123

109

108

107

201A

125C 416A 416B

125A

139

126

419

422 421C

420

423

418

424

429

430

428

433

436

435

34

432A

432B

120

431

444

427 567B

567A

426 425

304D

124

417

304C

Pond

D

37

38

39

22

421B 421A

419A

North-South Ditch

54" RCP

East-West Ditch

Medulla Road

Existing Bridge Crossing

URS Oakland CA 9/20/2016 USER alvarezo PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\CONFIDENTIAL\NOAA_Airport_Relocation\04_Original_Data\GIS_EdgarDale_AECOM_20160920\GIS\GIS\MXD\Lakeland Drainage Map.mxd

FIGURE 3.4-1

Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport

Drainage Map

Pipes or Ditches

Sub-basins

Project Area

0 900

Feet

Imagery: ESRI, 2016;

Drainage: AECOM, no date

NOAA Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 

3-16
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-17 

Stormwater within the three sub-basins is currently not being treated in a SWFWMD-permitted stormwater 

management system, such as dry retention pond, wet detention pond, exfiltration systems, among other systems. 

However, stormwater runoff flowing off the pavement for Taxiway E1 and the connector taxiway that connects 

Taxiway E1 to the existing apron to the east is treated by overland flow within the vegetated buffer adjacent to 

both sides of the taxiway (GTC Engineering Corporation, 2013). This vegetated buffer was authorized to function 

as a stormwater treatment system by the SWFWMD as part of the ERP application for the Taxiway E1 project. 

The water quantity design criteria mandated by the SWFWMD for stormwater management systems within an 

open drainage basin, which the detailed study area is within is as follows: 

 The allowable discharge shall be no more than the pre-development discharge leaving the site by gravity 

for the 25-year 24-hour storm. 

 The 25-year 24-hour discharges for the pre- and post-developed conditions shall be computed using the 

SWFWMD’s 25-year 24-hour rainfall maps and the NRCS type II Florida Modified 24-hour rainfall 

distribution with an antecedent moisture condition of II. 

These requirements apply to LAL because the storm sewer systems ultimately discharge runoff into off-site 

drainage systems that are not tidally influenced. 

The governing authority of LAL must provide reasonable assurance in the ERP application that the proposed 

Action Alternative 1 will not cause the following adverse impacts: 

 Water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; 

 Flooding to on-site or off-site property; 

 Impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities; and 

 The maintenance of surface or ground water levels or surface water flows. 

Regulated MS4 operators must obtain an NPDES stormwater permit and implement a comprehensive stormwater 

management program to reduce the contamination of stormwater runoff and prohibit illicit discharges to the MS4. 

LAL is within the City of Lakeland. The City of Lakeland and all of the other incorporated cities and towns 

within Polk County are co-permittees with Polk County as MS4 operators linked to one permit. Polk County 

submitted an NOI to the FDEP to obtain coverage for Polk County and all co-permittees under the Phase I MS4 

NPDES and the FDEP issued coverage on 9/12/2011 with the Facility ID FLS000015. Coverage under the generic 

MS4 NPDES permit expired on 9/11/2016. The FDEP website lists all of the entities covered under the Phase 1 

MS4 permit. The FDEP records indicate Polk County issued their Notice of Intent (NOI) on October 26, 2016, 

and the FDEP issued coverage on the same day. The permit expires on October 25, 2021. The City of Lakeland 

is a co-permitee with Polk County along with the other municipalities in Polk County. 

The Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport prepared a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and submitted 

an NOI to the FDEP to receive coverage under the NPDES MSGP for Industrial Activities. The FDEP issued 

coverage for the Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport under the MSGP for Industrial Activity on 7/29/2011 with the 

Facility ID FLR05A537. The latest information obtained from the FDEP web site indicates coverage under the 

MSGP for Industrial Activity expired on 7/28/2016 (FDEP, 2016). 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-18 

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

Stormwater runoff from the St. Petersburg Clearwater International Airport discharges into Tampa Bay which is 

classified as an “Outstanding Florida Water” by the FDEP. Therefore, retention/detention systems at PIE are 

required to provide a treatment volume 50 percent more than required for other treatment systems. A stormwater 

collection and conveyance system must be provided to interconnect the retention/detention system with the 

project outfall. The system is not required to limit discharge under full build-out design conditions because the 

drainage system discharges to a tidal water body. Currently there are no existing retention/detention systems that 

treat stormwater runoff from the Action Alternative 2 site. 

Action Alternative 2 is located within three drainage sub-basins identified as B19050, B19060 and B21145, which 

collectively encompass approximately 21.85 acres (see Figure 3.4-2). Stormwater runoff from the two sub-basins 

identified as B19050 and B19060, located on the west side of the subject hangar building, is collected in the 

existing concrete apron. The stormwater concentrates in a v-bottom concrete swale within the apron that runs 

parallel to the west side of the subject hangar building. The high point of the concrete swale is located at the subbasin boundary between Sub-basins B19050 and B19060 where stormwater runoff splits and drains to the north 

and south in Sub-basins B19050 and B19060, respectively. 

The concrete swale in Sub-basin B19060 conveys stormwater runoff southward for approximately 130 feet into an 

existing storm sewer inlet located on the edge of pavement where the black asphalt pavement on the south side of 

the hangar building joins the concrete apron on the west side of the hangar building. An existing, 18-inch 

diameter reinforced RCP conveys stormwater collected in this storm sewer inlet southward to another inlet 

located in the grassed infield area where all of the stormwater runoff in Sub-basin B19060 eventually ends up. 

The concrete swale in Sub-basin B19050 conveys stormwater runoff northward for approximately 435 feet into an 

existing storm sewer inlet located within the grassed infield area located on the north side of the hangar building 

where all of the stormwater runoff in Sub-basin B19050 eventually ends up. The two storm sewer inlets located 

within the grassed infield areas at the north and south sides of the existing hangar building are both connected to 

18-inch diameter RCP that convey the stormwater runoff from Sub-basins B19050 and B19060 westward to an 

18-inch diameter primary trunk line that conveys the stormwater northward for approximately 1,700 feet to an 

existing ditch located north of the terminal area. This ditch conveys water northward for approximately 400 feet 

to an existing 48-inch diameter RCP that conveys water northward under Fairchild Drive into the tidally 

influenced Cross Bayou Canal where the tidal flux moves water in a northward direction during the descending 

tide for approximately 2,800 feet to Tampa Bay and a southward direction away from Tampa Bay during the 

rising tide. 

Stormwater runoff from the sub-basin identified as B21145 located on the east side of the existing hangar building 

where the alternative site is located is collected in the existing large grassed infield area located west of Runway 

18-36. Stormwater runoff sheet flows eastward to an existing swale located along the west side of Runway 18-36. 

This swale is approximately 1,500 feet long and conveys water northward to an existing inlet at the north end of 

the grass infield area. An existing 36-inch RCP conveys stormwater runoff from this inlet northward under the 

paved taxiway pavement into an existing drainage ditch that continues to convey stormwater northward for 

approximately 1,300 feet up to an existing 42-inch RCP. This 42-inch RCP conveys water under Fairchild Drive 

into a rectangular shaped pond that is directly connected to the tidally influenced Cross Bayou Canal. 
Pond

Cross Bayou Canal

48" RCP

Ditch

Ditch

36" RCP

48" RCP

Ditch

18" RCP

18" RCP

18" RCP

18" RCP

Inlet

Inlet

Inlet

Swale

18" RCP

V-Bottom Conc. Swale

Fairchild Dr.

18" RCP

Inlet

To Tampa Bay

URS Oakland CA 9/20/2016 USER alvarezo PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\CONFIDENTIAL\NOAA_Airport_Relocation\04_Original_Data\GIS_EdgarDale_AECOM_20160920\GIS\GIS\MXD\St Pete Drainage Map.mxd

FIGURE 3.4-2

St. Petersburg Clearwater International Airport

Drainage Map

Pipes or Ditches

Sub-basins

Project Area

0 500

Feet

Imagery: ESRI, 2016;

Drainage: AECOM, no date

NOAA Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 

3-19
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-20 

Stormwater within the three sub-basins is currently not being treated in a SWFWMD-permitted stormwater 

management system, such as dry retention pond, wet detention pond, exfiltration systems, among other systems. 

PIE is within a drainage area where the stormwater runoff is conveyed to the Cross Bayou Canal, which 

ultimately discharges into Tampa Bay. The Cross Bayou Canal and Tampa Bay are tidally influenced water 

bodies. The SWFWMD does not regulate the discharge rate of stormwater runoff into tidal water bodies; hence, 

the water quantity regulations mandated by the SWFWMD do not apply to Action Alternative 2 at PIE. 

Regulated MS4 operators must obtain an NPDES stormwater permit and implement a comprehensive stormwater 

management program to reduce the contamination of stormwater runoff and prohibit illicit discharges to the MS4. 

The St. Petersburg/Clearwater International Airport is within the unincorporated area of Pinellas County. Pinellas 

County submitted an NOI to the FDEP for coverage under the Phase I MS4 NPDES and the FDEP issued 

coverage on 1/1/2013 with the Facility ID FLS000005. Coverage under the generic MS4 NPDES permit will 

expire on 12/31/2017. Pinellas will reapply for coverage prior to this expiration date in order to maintain 

coverage. 

PIE prepared a SWPPP and submitted an NOI to the FDEP to receive coverage under the NPDES MSGP for 

Industrial Activities. The FDEP issued coverage for the St. Petersburg/Clearwater International Airport under the 

MSGP for Industrial Activity on 4/28/2013 with the Facility ID FLR05A364. Coverage under the MSGP for 

Industrial Activity expired on 4/27/2018. The St. Petersburg/Clearwater International Airport will reapply for 

coverage prior to this expiration date in order to maintain coverage. 

No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alternative, NOAA would not relocate its AOC program to either Action Alternative. The 

No-Action Alternative assumes that NOAA would continue to operate their AOC program at their current 

location at MacDill AFB. The affected environment would not change under this alternative. 

3.4.3 Environmental Consequences 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

Land will be disturbed within a limited area at LAL by clearing, excavation, and construction activities associated 

with proposed Action Alternative 1. Therefore, some short-term and temporary water quality impacts may result 

from construction activities. The proposed Action Alternative 1 has the potential to exceed applicable water 

quality standards in adjacent drainage ways during construction. The potential impacts may include increases in 

sedimentation and turbidity during rainfall events. Since these activities would also involve the use of vehicles 

and equipment, fuels and lubricants, and the storage of construction materials, there is a potential risk of release or 

spills of construction-related hazardous materials or petroleum substances. In this regard, the proposed Action 

Alternative 1 has the potential to exceed applicable State of Florida water quality standards promulgated in 

Chapter 62-302, FAC. 

Permanent environmental effects with regards to water resources are determined by the amount of new 

impervious surfaces that are exposed to rainfall and therefore generate stormwater runoff. The new impervious 

area increases the volume of stormwater runoff that could potentially cause adverse flooding. Additionally the 

stormwater runoff from the new impervious areas can potentially carry pollutants associated with industrial 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-21 

activity that occurs at the Action Alternative 1 site. The Action Alternative 1 site contains parking lots and aircraft 

aprons that contain oils, greases, heavy metals and other pollutants associated with aircraft operations. Therefore, 

stormwater runoff flowing off these impervious surfaces comes in contact with these pollutants and becomes 

polluted. 

Polluted stormwater runoff introduces oils, heavy metals, chemicals, sediments, and nutrients into receiving 

waters. The receiving water at PIE is Cross Bayou and ultimately Tampa Bay. The results can generate a human 

health risk or change the structure and processes of the aquatic ecosystems. Elevated levels of these pollutants, 

affects the recreation use of receiving waters. Enrichment of nutrients in a water body can lead to eutrophication, 

which includes excessive algal growth, turbidity, increased metabolism, and changes in community structure. 

The proposed Action Alternative 1 includes the construction of new taxiway pavement, apron pavement, new 

parking lot and the renovation and expansion of an existing hangar building that collectively add approximately 

122,343 square feet of new impervious surfaces. However, a portion of the new impervious surfaces are 

constructed over approximately 63,190 square feet of existing impervious surfaces. Therefore, the net increase in 

impervious surfaces is approximately 59,153 square feet. The breakdown of new impervious surfaces added for 

each new development component along with their respective amounts constructed over existing impervious 

surfaces and the net new impervious area is shown on Table 3.4-1. 

Table 3.4-1: Summary of New Impervious Surfaces: Action Alternative 1 

New Development 

Component 

New Impervious 

Area 

(SF) 

Over Existing 

Impervious Area 

(SF) 

Net New Impervious 

Area 

(SF) 

North Parking Area 92,390 62,740 29,650 

Apron Pavement 5,500 450 5,050 

Taxiway Pavement 21,500 0 21,500 

Hangar Addition 2,953 0 2,953 

Total 122,343 63,190 59,153 

The net new impervious surfaces of 59,153 square feet would increase the volume of stormwater runoff. 

Therefore, the SWFWMD would require the additional stormwater runoff from this new pavement to be 

attenuated to prevent the additional runoff volume from adversely impacting the offsite portion of English Creek 

tributary and ultimately English Creek. 

The SWFWMD would require stormwater runoff from the 122,343 square feet of new impervious area to be 

treated in retention/detention ponds even if the new pavement is constructed where existing pavement is currently 

located. If the new pavement consists of only milling and resurfacing then the stormwater runoff from this 

pavement does not have to be treated. However, the stormwater runoff from the new pavement would have to be 

treated if the existing pavement is completely removed down to the lime rock base layer. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-22

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

Land will be disturbed at the St. Petersburg/Clearwater International Airport by clearing, excavation, and 

construction activities associated with proposed Action Alternative 2. Therefore, short term and temporary water 

quality impacts may result from construction activities. The proposed Action Alternative 2 has some potential to 

exceed applicable water quality standards in adjacent drainage ways during construction. The potential impacts 

may include increases in sedimentation and turbidity during rainfall events. Since these activities would also 

involve the use of vehicles and equipment, fuels and lubricants, and the storage of construction materials, there is 

a risk of release or spills of construction-related hazardous materials or petroleum substances. In this regard, the 

proposed Action Alternative 2 has the potential to exceed applicable State of Florida water quality standards 

promulgated in Chapter 62-302, FAC. 

Permanent environmental effects with regards to water resources are determined by the amount of new 

impervious surfaces that are exposed to rainfall and therefore generate stormwater runoff. The new impervious 

area increases the volume of stormwater runoff that could potentially cause adverse flooding. Additionally the 

stormwater runoff from the new impervious areas can potentially carry pollutants associated with industrial 

activity that occurs at the Action Alternative 2 site. The Action Alternative 2 site contains parking lots and aircraft 

aprons that contain oils, greases, heavy metals and other pollutants associated with aircraft operations. Therefore, 

stormwater runoff flowing off these impervious surfaces comes in contact with these pollutants and becomes 

polluted. 

Polluted stormwater runoff introduces oils, heavy metals, chemicals, sediments, and nutrients into receiving 

waters. The receiving water at PIE is Cross Bayou and ultimately Tampa Bay. The results can generate a human 

health risk or change the structure and processes of the aquatic ecosystems. Elevated levels of these pollutants, 

affects the recreation use of receiving waters. Enrichment of nutrients in a water body can lead to eutrophication, 

which includes excessive algal growth, turbidity, increased metabolism, and changes in community structure. 

Proposed Action Alternative 2 includes the construction of new parking areas, an HVAC building, fire sprinkler 

pump house, and an addition to the existing hangar building that collectively add approximately 74,907 square 

feet of new impervious surfaces. However, the new impervious surfaces are constructed over approximately 

43,205 square feet of existing impervious surfaces. Therefore, the net increase in impervious surfaces is 

approximately 31,712 square feet. The breakdown of new impervious surfaces added for each new development 

component along with their respective amounts constructed over existing impervious surfaces and the net new 

impervious area is shown on Table 3.4-2.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-23

Table 3.4-2:Summary of New Impervious Surfaces: Action Alternative 2 

New Development 

Component 

New Impervious Area 

(SF) 

Over Existing 

Impervious Area 

(SF) 

Net New Impervious 

Area 

(SF) 

West Parking Area 30,305 30,305 0 

Northeast Parking Area 11,427 1,259 10,168 

Southeast Parking Area 17,039 8,788 8,251 

Proposed HVAC Building 4,050 0 4,050 

Fire Sprinkler Pump House 4,050 0 4,050 

Hangar Addition 8,046 2,853 5,193 

Total 74,917 43,205 31,712

The net new impervious surfaces of 31,712 square feet would increase the volume of stormwater runoff. 

However, the stormwater runoff from the site remains within the property boundary of PIE prior to discharging 

into the tidally influenced Cross Bayou and ultimately Tampa Bay. Therefore, the additional stormwater runoff 

volume does not adversely impact offsite properties outside of the airport property. The SWFWMD does not 

consider increased volumes of stormwater from new impervious surfaces from development an adverse impact if 

the stormwater runoff outfalls directly into tidal water bodies without passing through offsite properties. 

Therefore, the increased runoff volume from the 31,712 square feet of net new impervious area is not considered 

an adverse impact with regard to water quantity. As a result the SWFWMD does not require stormwater runoff 

from impervious surfaces associated with new development that discharges directly into tidal water bodies to be 

attenuated within retention/detention ponds or other stormwater BMPs that control the rate of discharge. 

However, the SWFWMD would require stormwater runoff from the 74,917 square feet of new impervious area to 

be treated in retention/detention ponds even if the new pavement is constructed where existing pavement is 

currently located. If the new pavement consists of only milling and resurfacing then the stormwater runoff from 

this pavement does not have to be treated. However, the stormwater runoff from the new pavement would have to 

be treated if the existing pavement is completely removed down to the lime rock base layer. 

No-Action Alternative 

Because the No-Action Alternative does not include construction of new facilities or modification of existing 

facilities, the amount of impervious surface would not change. Therefore, the amount of storm water runoff 

generated would not change and no surface water impacts would occur. However, surface waters would continue 

to be susceptible to contamination by spills and industrial activity at the AOC facility. 

3.4.4 Mitigation Measures 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

Stormwater runoff from the new taxiway pavement at LAL can be treated by overland flow. The FDOT published 

the Florida Airports Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual in December 2010 (FDOT, 2010). 

Recognizing that aircraft and airport operations differ from other regulated development, the manual provides 

alternative methods to meet statutory water quality and water quantity requirements. These BMPs include 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-24 

overland flow, swales and dry retention areas which can be applicable to airside facilities such as taxiways and 

runways. 

However, the stormwater runoff from the proposed parking lot at the north end of the site has to be treated by a 

retention/detention pond, exfiltration etc. Stormwater runoff generated from the net increase of 59,153 square feet 

of impervious area would have to attenuated with a stormwater pond to ensure post development peak discharge 

rates are less than or equal to existing condition peak discharge rates for the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. 

Mitigation for the water quantity and quality impacts for proposed Action Alternative 1 would consist of 

designing a proposed project drainage system that meets State water quality standards as set forth in Chapter 17-3, 

FAC, and by applying its recommended BMPs and/or those published in the Florida Airports Stormwater Best 

Management Practices Manual. 

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

Attenuating stormwater runoff generated from the net increase of 31,712 square feet of impervious area at the St. 

Petersburg/Clearwater International Airport is not required because the stormwater discharges into a tidal water 

body. However, retention/detention ponds or other approved BMPs would have to be designed to treat the 

stormwater runoff from the new impervious areas. 

Mitigation for the water quantity and quality impacts for proposed Action Alternative 2 would consist of 

designing a proposed project drainage system that meets State water quality standards as set forth in Chapter 17-3, 

FAC, and its recommended BMPs. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-25 

3.5 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES 

3.5.1 Regulatory Setting 

National, state and regional recreational resources incorporate established parks, hiking trails, camping, boating 

and touring facilities potentially affected by the proposed action. Local recreational resources may include city, 

county and tribal owned facilities and properties, or locations informally established for recreational activities. 

3.5.2 Affected Environment 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

LAL hosts an annual SUN ‘n FUN Fly-In & Expo since 1975. The event brings over 4,000 aircraft and more than 

150,000 people to the airport over a period of six days each year. Several flight school companies are located on 

the airport’s property, including the Central Florida Aerospace Academy. There are no other recreational 

resources present in or around the area of the proposed action (Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport, 2015). 

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

There are no recreational resources present in or adjacent to PIE. 

No-Action Alternative 

MacDill Airforce Base has established recreational areas outside of the Base perimeter. The U.S. Air Force 

(USAF) maintains Raccoon Creek Recreational Area southwest of the base, providing camping amenities to 

active duty and retired military personnel. Other recreational resources near the Base include Lewis Lake, 

MacDill’s Marina and the City of Tampa Picnic Island Park offering beach swimming, boating and fishing (6th 

Force Support Squadron, 2014). 

3.5.3 Environmental Consequences 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

LAL hosts the annual SUN ‘n FUN Fly-in & Expo in early April. The proposed action would not directly impact 

this event, but may result in advanced planning and heightened awareness by AOC flight operators during the 

event. The airport’s flight schools would not be affected by the proposed action. 

The proposed Action Alternative 1 at LAL would have no adverse effects to recreational resources. 

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

PIE does not host recreational activities, and resources adjacent to the airport would be unaffected. 

The proposed Action Alternative 2 would have no adverse effects to recreational resources. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-26 

No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative assumes that NOAA would continue to operate their AOC program out of MacDill. 

No recreational resources would be impacted by the No-Action Alternative. 

3.5.4 Mitigation Measures 

No mitigation measures are required for either of the two action alternatives or for the No-Action Alternative with 

regard to impacts to recreational resources. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-27 

3.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

3.6.1 Regulatory Setting 

The term “cultural resources” is used to describe archaeological sites, illustrating evidence of past human use of 

the landscape; the built environment, represented by structures such as dams, roadways, and buildings; and 

traditional resources, such as sacred sites and traditional cultural properties. The National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA) of 1966 is the primary federal legislation that outlines the federal government’s responsibility to 

consider cultural resources. Other applicable cultural resources laws and regulations that could apply include the 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. 

Section 110 of the NHPA sets out the broad historic preservation responsibilities of federal agencies and is 

intended to ensure that historic preservation is fully integrated into the ongoing programs of all federal agencies. 

Section 110 states federal agency responsibility for identifying and protecting historic properties and avoiding 

unnecessary damage to them. Section 110 also charges each federal agency with the affirmative responsibility for 

considering projects and programs that further the purposes of the NHPA, and it declares that the costs of 

preservation activities are eligible project costs in all undertakings conducted or assisted by a federal agency. 

Section 106 of the NHPA requires the federal government to take into consideration the effects of an undertaking 

on historic properties. Historic properties are those cultural resources listed or eligible to be listed on the NRHP. 

The criteria used to determine whether a cultural resource is a historic property, and therefore eligible for 

inclusion on the NRHP, are defined in 36 CFR, Part 60. 

The Section 106 process is outlined in the federal regulations at 36 CFR, Part 800. These regulations describe 

the criteria that a lead federal agency uses to evaluate cultural resources. In summary, NOAA must first determine 

if the action has the potential to affect historic properties, defined as cultural resources listed or eligible to be 

listed in the NRHP. If so, NOAA must identify the area of potential effects (APE), determine if historic properties 

are present within that APE, determine the effect that the undertaking will have on historic properties through 

application of the criteria of adverse effect (defined in 36 CFR Part 800.5), and consult with the State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO) and federally recognized tribes with historic ties to the APE. 

3.6.2 Affected Environment 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

The APE defined for the proposed Action Alternative 1 is confined to the maximum extent of the proposed 

improvements at the subject hangar at LAL (refer to the Project Area in Figures 2.1-2 and 2.1-3 above), 

constructed circa 1974 through 1980; and related features associated (e.g., flight aprons, ramp ways), and adjacent 

areas that may be used for staging areas, construction equipment storage, vehicle access and parking, underground 

utility improvements, new modular building locations, and site work improvements (e.g., pedestrian ramps). Since 

the proposed Action Alternative 1 would not substantially alter the existing height, massing, and form of the 

existing buildings in the APE and are surrounded by other recently constructed buildings and structures, an 

indirect APE to consider the visual effects to nearby historic properties was not established. The vertical 

disturbance associated with the proposed Action Alternative 1 within the APE is limited to 6 feet beneath the 

surface for the site work improvements and modular replacement building. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-28 

The APE for the proposed Action Alternative 1 must also include the AOC relocation efforts from its current 

location at Hangar 5 at MacDill AFB, constructed between 1939 and 1941. Hence, the existing conditions at this 

APE are also described in this section and applicable to the analysis under the NHPA. 

LAL is located approximately 30 miles east of Tampa in Lakeland, Polk County. In 1940, the Lakeland City 

Commission passed a resolution to replace the city’s municipal airport, built in 1933. By 1942, construction began 

on the new airport, and it was named Drane Field in honor of former Lakeland mayor and Florida State House of 

Representatives member Herbert J. Drane (City of Lakeland, 2011; U.S. Congress, 2016). However, following the 

Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the airfield was acquired by the military and renamed Lakeland Army Air Field 

(FLGenWeb, 2016). 

During World War II, Lakeland Army Air Field housed several squadrons of fighter aircrafts. In 1943, it was 

considered a sub-base to MacDill AFB (Brooks, 2011). After the conclusion of World War II, the airport was sold 

to the City of Lakeland for “one dollar upon stipulation that the military could reclaim the field should the need 

arise” (FLGenWeb, 2016). The airfield was then seldom used through the 1950s, until a civilian municipal airport 

was built in 1960 at the site and the airfield was renamed Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport. 

The subject hangar at LAL was built circa 1974 through 1980, as an attached facility to a building first 

constructed in 1971. Prior to 1971, the 1941, 1953, 1958, and 1968 aerial photographs show undeveloped vacant 

land with no observable structures or improvements (Chastain-Skillman, Inc., 2016). The structure on the subject 

property is less than 50 years of age and reflects a common design seen in prefabricated hangar construction, with 

a sliding multi-leaf door, rectangular plan, monumental scale, open interior truss system. 

A records search of the Florida Master Site File was conducted for the APE and its environs in August 2016. The 

search areas were defined using Township, Range and Section (and quarter-section) within which the Action 

Alternative 1 APE is located. As a result of the records review, no previously recorded cultural resources were 

identified in or near the LAL search areas. 

MacDill AFB is located on southwestern tip of the Interbay Peninsula, which separates Old Tampa Bay from 

Hillsborough Bay in Hillsborough County. Prior to its occupation by the USAF, the land served as a military 

staging area during the Spanish- American War. In 1939, the U.S. War Department officially commissioned 

MacDill AFB with the base eventually activated by 1941 (USAF, 2014). MacDill AFB was originally known as 

Southeast Air Base, Tampa, but was renamed in 1941 in honor of Colonel Leslie MacDill, a World War I veteran 

and Army aviator (Airplanes of the Past, 2016). 

Following its activation, MacDill AFB primarily served as the training center for bomber aircraft pilots during 

World War II for European engagements. The base housed several B-17 “Flying Fortress” and B-26 “Marauder” 

aircrafts, training hundreds of servicemen as pilots and crew members (USAF, 2014; Airplanes of the Past, 2016). 

Following World War II, MacDill AFB was used for training crews to fly and operate B-29 “Superfortress” 

aircraft from 1945 through 1953. During the early period of the Cold War in January 1948, MacDill AFB became 

an operational base for the military’s Strategic Air Command; however, by 1960, as the bomber was phased out 

for new missile systems and fighter planes, the base’s mission and function shifted. Due to its strategic location 

near Cuba, the base’s importance grew and became home to the U.S. Strike Command in 1961 and the Tactical 

Air Command Training base in 1963. At the onset of the Vietnam War through the Gulf War in 1991, MacDill 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-29 

AFB housed the F-4 “Phantoms” and F-16 “Fighting Falcons, with nearly half of all F-16 pilots trained at the base 

(USAF, 2014; Airplanes of the Past, 2016). 

The subject building at MacDill AFB, known as Hangar 5, was constructed between 1939 through 1941 by the 

USACE, during the base’s activation period. Hangar 5 was one of the original five hangars constructed at the 

base, and was part of the initial core group of buildings constructed at MacDill AFB along Hangar Loop Drive. 

Prior to its construction, servicemen and activities were housed in temporary tents and structures. In 1993, NOAA 

began use of the hangar for its AOC aircraft operations. 

The building has a monumental scale with a rectangular plan. Overall, the exterior can be divided into several 

parts: the large two-story hangar bay portion with a barrel roof and curved parapet, a pair of two-story shed roofed 

projections lining the center of both sides of the building, and four two-story projections located at each corner of 

the building. The building is an example of a Pull-Thru hangar, featuring door pockets extending laterally from 

behind the front and rear elevations. Generally, the building features symmetrical elevations, clean lines, and 

minimal architectural ornamentation. The hangar possesses several elements common to USAF World War II 

military hangars, include its massive scale, rectangular plan, exposed steel truss structural system, varied exterior 

cladding (concrete and corrugated, standing seam, and sheet metal), and multiple leaf hangar doors. Other typical 

property type features include its interior arrangement, and its spatial relationship with runway, other hangars, and 

the rest of base. 

The APE is confined to Hangar 5 and its adjacent apron, and AOC storage structures. In 2011, the Florida SHPO 

evaluated Hangar 5 as a contributing property to the MacDill AFB Historic District, which was found eligible for 

listing in the NRHP under Criterion A and Criterion C for its association with World War II and its Mediterranean 

Revival architecture. The district includes 20 contributing properties, and 10 non-contributing resources with a 

period of significance stretching from 1941 through 1950. Therefore, Hangar 5 has been previously determined to 

be a historic property under Section 106 of the NHPA and NEPA. 

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

The APE defined for Action Alternative 2 is confined to the maximum extent of the proposed improvements at 

the subject hangar at PIE (refer to the Project Area in Figures 2.2-3 and 2.2-4 above), constructed circa 1964 and 

historically identified as the Avant Air Hangar. The APE also include related features proposed for NOAA-only 

operations (e.g., flight aprons, ramp ways) and adjacent construction staging areas, vehicle access and parking, 

underground utility improvements, new building (e.g., high bay, utility structure) locations, and site work 

improvements (e.g., pedestrian ramps). Since the proposed Action Alternative 2 would not substantially alter the 

existing height, massing, and form of the existing structures in the APE and is surrounded by other recently 

constructed buildings and structures, an indirect APE to consider the visual effects to nearby historic properties 

was not established. The vertical disturbance within the APE is limited to 6 feet beneath the surface for the site 

work improvements, including utility extensions. 

The APE for Action Alternative 2 also includes the extent of current AOC operations at Hangar 5 at MacDill AFB 

constructed between 1939 and 1941, which would cease following relocation efforts proposed under Action 

Alternative 2. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-30 

PIE is located on the western shore of Old Tampa Bay in Pinellas County. The airport was originally a small 

municipal airfield and was acquired in 1941 by the U.S. Army Air Forces immediately following the Japanese 

attack on Pearl Harbor. Following its acquisition, the property was known as the Pinellas Army Airfield in order 

to train pilots for service during World War II. The Third Air Force and the 304th Fighter Squadron were the 

main tenants during World War II, and the base housed P-40 “Warhawks” and P-51 “Mustangs”. Antisubmarine 

patrols seeking German U-boats in the Gulf of Mexico also occurred from the base (St. Petersburg-Clearwater 

International Airport, 2015). 

After WWII, Pinellas County acquired the airfield and began operating it as a commercial airport. The name of 

the airfield was changed to Pinellas International Airport. In 1958, the name changed again to St. PetersburgClearwater International Airport following the dedication of the original terminal building the year prior (St. 

Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport, 2015). To accommodate the new “jet age” of air travel, the airport’s 

runways were expanded and new commercial carriers began service to the airport. The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) 

began operations at the airport, establishing USCG Air Station Clearwater, which was its largest air station in 

1976 after relocating from downtown St. Petersburg. The most notable mission out of USCG Air Station 

Clearwater was the response to the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster in 1986 (USCG, 2015). PIE received its 

current name during airport rebranding efforts in 2013 (St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport, 2015). 

The subject building at PIE, historically known as the Avant Air hangar, was built circa 1964, years after the 

construction of the main original terminal building in 1958 (EPAC, 2016a; St. Petersburg-Clearwater 

International Airport, 2015). The hanger has been utilized for aircraft repair, storage, and maintenance since the 

1960s. The hanger has remained relatively unchanged except for the removal of the water treatment system by 

2008, signifying that the operations within the hanger had changed (EPAC, 2016a). The hangar is typical of Cold 

War-era construction of hangars, constructed from standardized designs developed by the USACE, who had 

updated the Army’s standard plans from World War II and reissued them. The hangar features a similar layout 

and format as Hangar 5, and includes a monumental scale with a rectangular plan. Overall, the exterior can be 

divided into several parts: the large two-story hangar bay portion with a gabled roof flanked by a pair of one-story 

shed roofed projections lining the center of both sides of the building. In 2012, the Florida SHPO found the 

property ineligible for listing the NRHP. 

A records search of the Florida Master Site File was conducted for the Action Alternative 2 APE and its environs 

in August 2016. The search areas were defined using the Township, Range and Section (and quarter-section) in 

which the APE is located. PIE is located in Sections 3 and 34, Township 29 South, Range 16 East of the Safety 

Harbor 7.5’ USGS Quadrangle. The records search results revealed ten previously recorded cultural resources 

within and adjacent to the APE: PI12027, PI12028, PI12029, PI12030, PI12031, PI12032, PI12033, PI12034, 

PI12040, and PI12076. Of the ten total resources, nine resources were found ineligible for listing in the NRHP 

and one resource (PI12076) no longer exists. The subject building at PIE was the only building located in the 

APE, recorded as PI2033, and was not evaluated. It was previously evaluated as ineligible for listing in the NRHP 

in 2012. 

The affected environment relating to Hangar 5 at MacDill AFB is the same as described above under Action 

Alternative 1. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-31 

No-Action Alternative 

The APE defined for the No-Action Alternative is confined to the maximum extent of current AOC operations at 

Hangar 5 at MacDill AFB constructed between 1939 and 1941, including related features (e.g., flight aprons, 

ramp ways). Since the No-Action Alternative would not alter the existing height, massing, and form of the 

building in the APE, an indirect APE to consider the visual effects to nearby historic properties was not 

established. 

The affected environment for Hangar 5 at MacDill AFB is described above under Action Alternative 1. 

3.6.3 Environmental Consequences 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

No archaeological resources have been identified in the APE for Action Alternative 1. As such, no known 

archaeological resources will be affected with implementation of proposed Action Alternative 1. Furthermore, due 

to the limited ground disturbance within the existing prism of ground disturbance, there is a low likelihood the 

proposed Action Alternative 1 would cause an impact to undisturbed archaeological resources. 

The APE contains two built environment properties: the subject hangar at LAL and Hangar 5 at MacDill AFB. 

The subject hangar at LAL was built less than 50 years ago and it lacks exceptional significance to qualify it for 

listing in the NRHP as a historic property. Consequently, the relocation of the NOAA AOC to LAL will not affect 

historic resources, since no historic properties were identified. 

Hangar 5 at MacDill AFB is an historic property. The consequences considered at MacDill AFB only include 

those involved with NOAA’s departure. Future occupancy or use of Hangar 5 would be part of a separate NEPA 

or NHPA Section 106 action with a different lead federal agency. Based on the review of an architectural 

historian that meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards, the departure of NOAA 

from MacDill AFB would not cause an adverse effect to Hangar 5 since the property would not be altered in a 

manner that affects its historic integrity. Relocating from MacDill AFB would require NOAA moving equipment, 

aircraft, and personnel; however these actions would not cause a physical or visual change to Hangar 5 or other 

APE elements at MacDill AFB. Therefore, the proposed Action Alternative 1 will not cause an adverse effect to 

Hangar 5 or historic properties at MacDill AFB. 

In summary, proposed Action Alternative 1 is not expected to have an adverse effect to historic properties, due to 

the absence of historic properties at the Action Alternative 1 site, and a lack of substantial alterations to the 

existing historic property at MacDill AFB and the characteristics that make it significant. 

The Florida State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the Draft EA regarding this action alternative for 

possible effects on historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places. The 

review was conducted in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as 

amended, and its implementing regulations in 36 CFR Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties. Based on the 

information provided, it is the opinion of that office that the proposed undertaking will have no effect on historic 

properties (see Appendix C). 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-32 

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

No archaeological resources have been identified in the APE for proposed Action Alternative 2. As such, no 

known archaeological resources will be affected with implementation of proposed Action Alternative 2. 

Furthermore, due to the limited ground disturbance within the existing prism of ground disturbance, there is a low 

likelihood the proposed Action Alternative 2 would cause an impact to undisturbed archaeological resources. 

The APE contains two built-environment properties: the Avant Air Hangar at PIE and Hangar 5 at MacDill AFB. 

The Avant Air Hangar was previously found ineligible for listing in the NRHP in 2011. As a result of this 

assessment, the property continues to be ineligible for listing in the NRHP, since it is not directly associated with 

events that are important to its past and never played an important role towards the mission of the military or 

during the Cold War. It is reflective of a typical standardized design that was common for hangar construction 

during this period, and is not an early example of the property type. As a result, the relocation of the NOAA AOC 

to the Avant Air Hangar at PIE will not affect historic resources, since no historic properties were identified. 

Hangar 5 at MacDill AFB is an historic property. The consequences considered at MacDill AFB only include 

those involved with NOAA’s departure. Future occupancy or use of Hangar 5 would be part of a separate NEPA 

or NHPA Section 106 action with a different lead federal agency. The departure of NOAA from MacDill AFB 

would not cause an adverse effect to Hangar 5 since the property would not be altered in a manner that affects its 

historic integrity. Relocating from MacDill AFB would require NOAA move equipment, aircraft, and personnel 

but actions would not cause a physical or visual change to Hangar 5 or other APE elements at MacDill AFB. 

Therefore, the proposed Action Alternative 2 will not cause an adverse effect to Hangar 5 or historic properties at 

MacDill AFB. 

In summary, proposed Action Alternative 2 is not expected to have an adverse effect to historic properties, due to 

the absence of historic properties at the Action Alternative 2 site, and a lack of substantial alterations to the 

existing historic property at MacDill AFB and the characteristics that make it significant. 

The Florida State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the Draft EA regarding this action alternative for 

possible effects on historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places. The 

review was conducted in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as 

amended, and its implementing regulations in 36 CFR Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties. Based on the 

information provided, it is the opinion of that office that the proposed undertaking will have no effect on historic 

properties (see Appendix C). 

No-Action Alternative 

No archaeological resources have been identified in the APE for the No-Action Alternative. Furthermore, the NoAction Alternative would not involve any construction or ground-disturbing activities. As such, no known 

archaeological resources will be affected under the No-Action Alternative. 

Based on this current analysis, the APE for the No-Action Alternative contains Hangar 5 at MacDill AFB. Hangar 

5 was previously evaluated in 2012 as an historic property as part of the MacDill AFB Historic District, and has 

retained its aspects of historic style, design, purpose and physical integrity to continue to qualify as a historic 

property. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-33 

Under the No-Action Alternative, NOAA AOC operations would remain at MacDill AFB and would not cause an 

adverse effect on Hangar 5, since the property would not be altered in a manner that affects its historic integrity. 

Therefore, the No-Action Alternative will not cause an adverse effect to Hangar 5 or historic properties at 

MacDill AFB. 

3.6.4 Mitigation Measures 

No mitigation measures are required for either of the two Action Alternatives, or for the No-Action Alternative in 

relation to cultural resources. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-34 

3.7 FLORA AND FAUNA 

3.7.1 Regulatory Setting 

The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 USC 1536) provides for the conservation of endangered and 

threatened species of fish, wildlife and plants. Federal agencies must ensure that proposed actions do not 

jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species, or cause the destruction or adverse 

modification of their habitat. If listed species or designated critical habitat are present and could be affected by the 

proposed action, a biological assessment must be prepared to analyze the potential effects of the proposed action 

on listed species and critical habitat and make a determination of effect. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) implements the ESA. The USFWS protects federally-listed plant and animal species pursuant to 

Section 7 of the federal ESA, as amended, as well as designated Critical Habitats, under 17 CFR 35.1532.

Migratory birds listed in 50 CFR 10.13 and their occupied nests are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

(MBTA). This applies to all wild birds except the house sparrow (Passer domesticus), European starling (Sturnus 

vulgaris), rock dove (Columba livia), and some game species. The MBTA makes it unlawful for anyone to kill, 

capture, collect, possess, buy, sell, trade, ship, import, or export any migratory bird including feathers, parts, 

nests, or eggs and prohibits the possession of all nests of protected bird species whether they are active or 

inactive. An active nest is defined as having eggs or young, as described by the Department of the Interior in its 

April 16, 2003 Migratory Bird Permit Memorandum. Nest starts (nests that are under construction and do not yet 

contain eggs) are not protected from destruction. 

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) protects state-listed plant and animal species 

pursuant to Chapters 5B-40 and 68A-27, FAC. 

3.7.2 Affected Environment 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

Available site-specific literature and data was reviewed to characterize habitat features and land use patterns 

within the Action Alternative 1 site at LAL. On August 15, 2016 an ecologist familiar with Florida’s natural 

communities conducted a field review to verify preliminary vegetative communities and classification codes 

established through literature reviews and photointerpretation. All vegetative habitats and land uses within the site 

were classified using the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) (FDOT, 1999). 

Each vegetative community and land use type within the Action Alternative 1 site was visually inspected to assess 

approximate boundaries and dominant vegetation. Exotic plant infestations and other disturbances, such as 

erosion and existing structures (i.e., riprap) were noted. Field activities also included identifying wildlife and 

signs of wildlife usage within the Action Alternative 1 site and adjacent habitats. 

Based on in-house and field reviews, two upland land use/vegetative cover types were identified within the Action 

Alternative 1 site. A summary description of each land use/vegetative cover type is provided below. 

The developed land use type defined as Airports (FLUCFCS: 811) makes up the majority of the Action 

Alternative 1 site and includes the paved aprons, ramps, parking areas, and industrial hangars. The undeveloped, 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-35 

vegetative community within the Action Alternative 1 site is defined by Undeveloped Land within Urban Areas 

(FLUCFCS: 191) and consists of the grassed infields located between the paved parking areas, aprons, and ramps. 

This vegetative community is dominated by ruderal grasses, sedges, and forbs, including St. Augustine grass 

(Stenotaphrum secundatum), bahia grass (Paspalum notatum), frog fruit (Phyla nodiflora), Carolina pony’s foot 

(Dichondra carolinensis), pennyworts (Hydrocotyle sp.), crows foot grass (Eleusine indica), and nut sedges 

(Cyperus sp.). The grassed areas at the Alternative Action 1 site are mowed weekly as part of the airport 

maintenance and operations. 

A list of all the state and federally-listed species that may occur in the vicinity of LAL is provided in Appendix 

A. For a species to be considered potentially present, the site must be within the species’ range and must contain 

suitable habitat for the species. Based on evaluation of collected data and field reviews, the federally and statelisted species discussed below were considered as having the potential to occur within or adjacent to the Action 

Alternative 1 site. An effect determination was then established for each federally and state-listed species 

described below based on an analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed action to each species. 

Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) 

The eastern indigo snake is listed as threatened by the USFWS. The indigo snake can be found in a variety of 

habitats including mesic flatwoods, upland pine forests, swamps, wet prairies, xeric pinelands, and scrub 

(Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, 2016a). Within the Alternative Action 1 site, suitable habitat for this 

species is available within the undeveloped grass fields. 

Blue-Tailed Mole Skink (Plestiodon egregious lividus) and Sand Skink (Plestiodon reynoldsi) 

The blue-tailed mole skink and the sand skink are listed as threatened by the USFWS due to severe population 

declines and habitat degradation. These species are known only to occur along the central Florida ridges at 

elevations of 82 feet or more above sea level. This species prefers xeric habitats, such as sandhill, scrub, and 

longleaf pine-turkey oak associations with excessively drained, well-drained, and moderately well-drained sandy 

soils (USFWS, 2012). 

Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) 

The gopher tortoise is federally listed as candidate species with the USFWS and is listed as threatened by the 

FWC. The gopher tortoise requires well-drained, loose sandy soils for burrowing, and low-growing herbs and 

grasses for food(Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, 2016b). Suitable habitat is available within the Alternative 

Action 1 site within undeveloped grass fields and gopher tortoises have been documented at LAL. 

Florida Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia floridana) 

The Florida burrowing owl is listed as a species of special concern by the FWC. This species inhabits open areas 

that offer an expanse of short, herbaceous groundcover such as prairies, sand hills, and farmland (Defenders of 

Wildlife, 2016). Within the Alternative Action 1 site, suitable habitat for this species is available within the 

undeveloped grass fields. 

Southeastern American Kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus) 

The southeastern American kestrel is listed as threatened by FWC and is non-migratory. The species utilizes open 

habitats for foraging and nests in tree cavities (Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 2016). Suitable habitat for this species 

is available within the Alternative Action 1 site in undeveloped grass fields and manmade structures. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-36 

Migratory Birds 

The Alternative Action 1 site is located along the Atlantic Flyway and several avian species protected by the 

MBTA have been documented at LAL, including the American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), mourning dove 

(Zenaida macroura), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), and eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna). 

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

Available site-specific literature and data was reviewed to characterize habitat features and land use patterns 

within the Action Alternative 2 site at PIE. On August 19, 2016 an ecologist familiar with Florida’s natural 

communities conducted a field review to verify preliminary vegetative communities and classification codes 

established through literature reviews and photointerpretation. All vegetative habitats and land uses on the site 

were classified using FLUCFCS (FDOT, 1999). 

Each vegetative community and land use type within the Action Alternative 2 site was visually inspected to assess 

approximate boundaries and dominant vegetation. Exotic plant infestations and other disturbances, such as 

erosion and existing structures (i.e., riprap) were noted. Field activities also included identifying wildlife and 

signs of wildlife usage within the Action Alternative 2 site and adjacent habitats. 

Based on inhouse and field reviews, two upland land use/vegetative cover types were identified within the Action 

Alternative 2 site: Airports (FLUCFCS: 811) and Undeveloped Land within Urban Areas (FLUCFCS: 191). 

These classifications are described above under Action Alternative 1. 

A list of all the state and federally-listed species that may occur in the vicinity of the Action Alternative 2 site at 

PIE is provided in Appendix A. For a species to be considered potentially present, the Action Alternative 2 site 

must be within the species’ range and must contain suitable habitat for the species. Based on evaluation of 

collected data and field reviews, the federally and state-listed species discussed below were considered as having 

the potential to occur within or adjacent to the Action Alternative 2 site. An effect determination was then 

established for each federally and state-listed species described below based on an analysis of the potential 

impacts of the proposed action to each species. 

Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) 

The eastern indigo snake is listed as threatened by the USFWS. Eastern indigo snakes are restricted to Florida and 

southern areas of Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi. The indigo snake can be found in a variety of habitats 

including mesic flatwoods, upland pine forests, swamps, wet prairies, xeric pinelands, and scrub (Savannah River 

Ecology Laboratory, 2016a). Within the Alternative Action 2 site, suitable habitat for this species is available 

within the undeveloped grass fields. 

Southeastern American Kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus) 

The southeastern American kestrel is listed as threatened by FWC and is non-migratory. While some American 

Kestrels migrate to Central America, the great majority spend the winter in the southern U.S. The species utilizes 

open habitats for foraging and nests in tree cavities (Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 2016). Suitable habitat for this 

species is available within the Alternative Action 2 site in undeveloped grass fields and manmade structures. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-37 

No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alterative, existing OMAO operations would continue unchanged. No adverse effects to 

protected species or their habitat is present within the extent of existing NOAA uses at Hangar 5 and adjacent 

areas. 

3.7.3 Environmental Consequences 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

Eastern Indigo Snake 

The eastern indigo snake has been documented within Polk County; however, no eastern indigo snakes or gopher 

tortoise burrow were observed during the field reviews. The proposed Action Alternative 1 would not impact any 

xeric habitats and the latest version of the USFWS-approved Standard Protection measures for the Eastern Indigo 

Snake would be followed. Therefore, in accordance with USFWS’ North and South Florida Ecological Field 

Services Offices Programmatic Concurrence for Use of Original Eastern Indigo Snake Key, the proposed Action 

Alternative 1 may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the eastern indigo snake. 

Blue-Tailed Mole Skink and Sand Skink 

The Action Alternative 1 site is located within the USFWS consultation area for the blue-tailed mole skink and 

the sand skink and the elevations at the site are between 130 and 135 feet above MSL. Both sand skinks and bluetailed mole skinks are endemic to, which means they occur only on, the sandy ridges of central Florida. Primary 

populations of sand skinks occur on the Lake Wales, Winter Haven, and Mt. Dora Ridges in Highlands, Lake, 

Marion, Orange, Osceola, Polk, and Putnam counties (Hipes, et al, 2001). Blue-tailed mole skinks seem to be 

restricted to the Lake Wales Ridge in Highlands, Polk, and Osceola counties. However, the site does not contain 

designated skink soils as defined in the USFWS Sand Skink and Blue-tailed Mole Skink Biology and Survey 

Protocol (USFWS, 2011). In addition, no sinusoidal skink tracks were observed during the field reviews at the 

site. Therefore, in the judgement of the AECOM field biologist, it has been determined that the proposed Action 

Alternative 1 would have no effect on the blue-tailed mole skink or the sand skink. 

Gopher Tortoise 

Gopher tortoises are found in the Lower Coastal Plain of the Southeast, from southern South Carolina to 

Louisiana and throughout Florida. This species prefers well-drained sandy areas (in which it can burrow) and is 

absent from extensive wetland areas. The gopher tortoise has been documented at LAL, but no gopher tortoise 

burrows were observed within the Action Alternative 1 site during the field review. In addition, LAL has a current 

Wildlife Hazard Management Plan for mitigating potential wildlife hazards, which includes relocating gopher 

tortoises from the airport area of affect. 

Based on current FWC regulations, any gopher tortoises located within 25 feet of a construction area must be 

relocated to an FWC approved recipient site. If gopher tortoises or potentially occupied burrows are found within 

the Action Alternative 1 site prior to construction, the airport would coordinate with the FWC to secure all proper 

permits needed to relocate the tortoises. With this commitment and in the judgement of the AECOM field 

biologist, it has been determined that proposed Action Alternative 1 may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect

the gopher tortoise. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-38 

Florida Burrowing Owl 

Burrowing owls are distributed from the Mississippi to the Pacific, and from Canadian prairie-provinces into 

South America. They are also found in Florida and the Caribbean islands. Burrowing owls have disappeared from 

much of their historic range. Within the Action Alternative 1 site, marginally suitable habitat for this species is 

available within the undeveloped grass fields. However, the Florida burrowing owl has not been documented 

within one mile of the site (FNAI, 2016) and no individuals or burrows were observed during the field review. In 

addition, there is a lack of elevated perches available within the site. Therefore, in the judgement of the AECOM 

field biologist, it has been determined that the proposed Action Alternative 1 would have no effect on the Florida 

burrowing owl. 

Southeastern American Kestrel 

Suitable foraging habitat, but only marginal nesting habitat for the southeastern American kestrel, is available 

within the Action Alternative 1 site. The southeastern American kestrel has been documented in Polk County, but 

no individuals or their nests were observed field reviews. There is a lack of suitable perches available and LAL 

has a current Wildlife Hazard Management Plan for mitigating potential wildlife hazards, which includes hazing 

southeastern American kestrels. Therefore, in the judgement of the AECOM field biologist, it has been 

determined that the proposed Action Alternative 1 may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the southeastern 

American kestrel. 

Critical Habitat 

No designated Critical Habitat for any federally-listed species is present within the Action Alternative 1 site. 

Therefore, in the judgement of the AECOM field biologist, it has been determined that the proposed Action 

Alternative 1 would have no effect on designated Critical Habitat. 

Migratory Birds 

According the USFWS’ Information and Conservation Planning (IPAC) website, 26 migratory bird species have 

the potential be affected by proposed Action Alternative 1 (USFWS, 2016). However, LAL’s Wildlife Hazard 

Management Plan includes a depredation permit that allows hazing and lethal take of migratory bird species. The 

proposed construction under Action Alternative 1 would result in an insignificant loss of grassed field and is not 

anticipated to result in the intentional or unintentional killing of any migratory bird species. Therefore, proposed 

Action Alternative 1 would not adversely affect migratory birds. 

Summary 

Overall, proposed Action Alternative 1 may have a minor effect on flora and fauna. Mitigation is proposed below 

in Section 3.7.4. 

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

Eastern Indigo Snake 

The eastern indigo snake has been documented within Pinellas County; however, no eastern indigo snakes or 

gopher tortoise burrow were observed during the field review at the Action Alternative 2 site. Proposed Action 

Alternative 2 would not impact any xeric habitats and the latest version of the USFWS-approved Standard 

Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake would be followed (USFWS, 2013a). Therefore, in accordance 

with USFWS’ North and South Florida Ecological Field Services Offices Programmatic Concurrence for Use of 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-39 

Original Eastern Indigo Snake Key (USFWS, 2013b) proposed Action Alternative 2 may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect the eastern indigo snake. 

Southeastern American Kestrel 

Suitable foraging habitat, but only marginal nesting habitat for the southeastern American kestrel, is available 

within the Action Alternative 2 site. The southeastern American kestrel has been documented in Pinellas County, 

but no individuals or their nests were observed field reviews. There is a lack of suitable perches available and PIE 

has a current Wildlife Hazard Management Plan for mitigating potential wildlife hazards, which includes hazing 

southeastern American kestrels. Therefore, in the judgement of the AECOM field biologist, it has been 

determined that proposed Action Alternative 2 may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the southeastern 

American kestrel. 

Critical Habitat 

No designated Critical Habitat for any federally-listed species is present within the Action Alternative 2 site. 

Therefore, in the judgement of the AECOM field biologist, it has been determined that proposed Action 

Alternative 2 would have no effect on designated Critical Habitat. 

Migratory Birds 

According the USFWS’ Information and Conservation Planning (IPAC) website, 38 migratory bird species have 

the potential be affected by the proposed Action Alternative 2 (USFWS, 2016). However, PIE’s Wildlife Hazard 

Management Plan includes a depredation permit that allows hazing and lethal take of migratory bird species. The 

proposed construction at the Alternative Action 2 site would result in an insignificant loss of grassed field and is 

not anticipated to result in the intentional or unintentional killing of any migratory bird species. Therefore, in the 

judgement of the AECOM field biologist, proposed Action Alternative 2 would not adversely affect migratory 

birds. 

Summary 

Overall, proposed Action Alternative 2 may have a minor effect on flora and fauna. Mitigation is proposed below 

in Section 3.7.4. 

No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alterative, existing OMAO operations would continue unchanged. No adverse effects to 

state or federally listed species would result based on historical uses at Hangar 5 and adjacent areas. 

3.7.4 Mitigation Measures 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

To avoid and/or minimize the potential of impacting a state or federally listed species under proposed Action 

Alternative 1, NOAA shall ensure that the commitments listed below will be followed by the site owner and the 

construction-related contractors implementing the proposed action at this site: 

1. The USFWS’ Standard Protection Measures for the eastern indigo snake shall be adhered to during 

construction of the proposed action; 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-40 

2. Prior to construction, appropriate habitats at the site shall be surveyed for gopher tortoise. If any burrows 

are located within the site, the site owner shall inform NOAA and coordinate with the FWC to secure any 

permits needed to relocate gopher tortoises prior to construction.

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

To avoid and/or minimize the potential of impacting a state or federally listed species under either of the proposed 

Action Alternatives, NOAA shall ensure that the commitments listed below will be followed by the site owner 

and the construction-related contractors implementing the proposed action: 

1. The USFWS’ Standard Protection Measures for the eastern indigo snake shall be adhered to during 

construction of the proposed action; 

No-Action Alternative 

No mitigation measures are required for the No-Action Alternative in relation to flora and fauna. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-41 

3.8 WETLANDS 

3.8.1 Regulatory Setting 

The SWFWMD regulates impacts to wetlands and stormwater management within the area of the proposed 

Action Alternative 1, Action Alternative 2, and No-Action Alternative. In addition, the FDEP regulates 

stormwater discharges from construction sites during all construction related activities. The permit acquisition 

process for effects to wetlands and stormwater management will depend on the degree of the impact to 

jurisdictional areas. It is anticipated that an ERP from the SWFWMD and a NPDES permit from the FDEP will 

be required for this proposed action. 

The proposed action would not impact jurisdictional waters of the U.S. at either of the airports. Therefore, a 

USACE Individual or Nationwide Permit for dredge and fill would not be required due to construction at either of 

the proposed project locations. 

In accordance with 62-330, FAC., SWFWMD requires an ERP when construction of any project results in the 

creation of a new or modification of an existing water management system or results in impacts to waters of the 

state. The proposed action would not impact state jurisdictional wetlands or surface waters. The complexity 

associated with the ERP permitting process would depend on the size of the proposed action. Under current state 

rules, the SWFWMD may require an individual ERP, or modification of an existing ERP, for this proposed 

action. 

40 CFR Part 122 prohibits point source discharges of stormwater to waters of the U.S. without a NPDES permit. 

Under the State of Florida’s delegated authority to administer the NPDES program, construction sites that would 

result in greater than one acre of disturbance must file for and obtain either coverage under an appropriate generic 

permit contained in Chapter 62-621, FAC, or an individual permit issued pursuant to Chapter 62-620, FAC. A 

major component of the NPDES permit is the development of a SWPPP. The SWPPP identifies potential sources 

of pollution that may reasonably be expected to affect the quality of stormwater discharges from the site and 

discusses good engineering practices (i.e., BMPs) that would be used to reduce the pollutants. 

3.8.2 Affected Environment 

Prior to field visits, site-specific literature and available data was reviewed to characterize habitat features and 

land use patterns within the vicinity of the Action Alternative sites. On August 15, 2016 and August 19, 2016, an 

ecologist familiar with Florida’s natural communities conducted a field review of the Lakeland-Linder and St. 

Petersburg-Clearwater sites, respectively. The purpose of the field reviews was to verify preliminary wetland 

boundaries and classification codes established through literature reviews and photointerpretation. All vegetative 

habitats and land uses within the sites were classified using the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms 

Classification System (FLUCFCS) (FDOT, 1999). The proposed Action Alternative sites were reviewed for 

wetlands and surface waters in accordance with the State of Florida Wetlands Delineation Manual (Chapter 62-

340, FAC.) and the criteria found within the USACE (2010) Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers 

Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coast Plain Region (Version 2.0) (ERDC/EL TR-10-20). 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-42

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

During the field review, each vegetative community and land use type within the Action Alternative 1 site were 

visually inspected to assess approximate boundaries and dominant vegetation. Exotic plant infestations and other 

disturbances, such as erosion and existing structures (i.e. riprap) were noted. Field activities also included 

identifying wildlife and signs of wildlife usage within the site and adjacent habitats. 

Based on in-house and field reviews, two upland land use/vegetative cover types were identified within the LAL 

project area: Airports (811) and Undeveloped Land within Urban Areas (191), as described in Section 3.7.2

above. 

No jurisdictional wetlands and/or surface waters are located within the site of proposed Action Alternative 1. 

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

During the field review, each vegetative community and land use type within the project area was visually 

inspected to assess approximate boundaries and dominant vegetation. Exotic plant infestations and other 

disturbances, such as erosion and existing structures (i.e. riprap) were noted. Field activities also included 

identifying wildlife and signs of wildlife usage within each project area and within adjacent habitats. 

Based on in-house and field reviews, two upland land use/vegetative cover types were identified within the PIE 

project area: Airports (811) and Undeveloped Land within Urban Areas (191), as described in Section 3.7.2

above. 

No jurisdictional wetlands and/or surface waters are located within the site of proposed Action Alternative 2. 

No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alterative, existing OMAO operations would continue unchanged. No adverse effects to the 

jurisdictional wetlands would result based on the paved extent of existing NOAA areas at and adjacent to Hangar 

5. 

3.8.3 Environmental Consequences 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

Based on inhouse and field reviews, there are no jurisdictional wetlands and/or surface waters are located within 

the Action Alternative 1 site at LAL. All proposed impacts would occur within areas that are already developed, 

and/or are upland grass areas that area regularly mowed as part of normal airport maintenance. 

The proposed Action Alternative 1 would have no effect on state or federal jurisdictional wetlands. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-43

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

Based on inhouse and field reviews, there are no jurisdictional wetlands and/or surface waters are located within 

the Action Alternative 2 site at PIE. All proposed impacts would occur within areas that are already developed, 

and/or are upland grass areas that area regularly mowed as part of normal airport maintenance. 

The proposed Action Alternative 2 would have no effect on state or federal jurisdictional wetlands. 

No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alterative, existing OMAO operations would continue unchanged. No adverse effects to 

state or federal jurisdictional wetlands would result based on the extent of existing uses at Hangar 5 and adjacent 

areas. 

3.8.4 Mitigation Measures 

No mitigation measures are required for either of the two Action Alternatives, or for the No-Action Alternative in 

relation to wetlands. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-44

3.9 FLOODPLAINS 

3.9.1 Regulatory Setting 

The 100-year floodplain is an area with a flood elevation that has a one percent chance of being equaled or 

exceeded each year. Although the name implies such a flood every 100 years, in reality, a 100-year flood could 

occur in any year. Executive Order (EO) 11988, Floodplain Management, dated May 24, 1977, requires that 

federal agencies locate facilities outside the 100-year or base floodplain unless there is no practicable alternative 

location. If locating outside the floodplain is unavoidable, structures should be built so that the finished floor 

elevation is above the 100-year flood elevation as determined by the FEMA and depicted on their Flood Insurance 

Rate Maps (FIRMs), or should be flood-resistant. Floodplain management is intended to minimize the potential 

for property damage and to maintain functions of the hydrologic cycle. EO 11988 and NOAA Floodplain 

Guidance, Guidance on Compliance with the Implementing Procedures for Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, 

(2012) are applied to determine effects to these resources. 

Under the provisions of EO 11988 Section 2(a)(1), before taking an action, each agency shall determine whether 

the proposed action will occur in a floodplain--for major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment, the evaluation required below will be included in any statement prepared under Section 

102(2) (C) of the NEPA. This determination shall be made according to a Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) floodplain map or a more detailed map of an area, if available. If such maps are not 

available, the agency shall make a determination of the location of the floodplain based on the best available 

information (President, 1977). Per HUD Guidance, the FEMA designates floodplains and the FEMA Map Service 

Center provides this information in the form of FIRMs (HUD, 2016). 

Likewise, NOAA Guidance on implementing EO11988 states that in order to determine whether a proposed 

action will occur in a 100-year (or 500-year for a critical action) floodplain, the first reference should be the 

FEMA FIRM. If the maps prepared by FEMA do not adequately characterize the flood hazard potential for the 

proposed action, other sources that merit investigation may be used, such as flood hazard studies, hydrologic 

studies, soil surveys, and other investigations. 

In advisory guidance prepared by the Water Resources Council, entitled “Guidelines for Implementing Executive 

Order 11988, Floodplain Management, and Executive Order 13690” (Water Resources Council, 2015), it states: 

Agencies were directed to update their regulations and procedures, as appropriate, for 

implementing EO 11988 after these Guidelines were finalized. Each agency may have a different 

schedule for these updates based on the form of their agency-specific procedures. Agencies will 

continue to comply with the requirements of the 1977 version of E.O. 11988 until they update 

their regulations and procedures to incorporate the amendments from E.O. 13690. These 

regulations and procedures will describe an agency’s schedule for applying any new 

requirements. 

NOAA has revised their Floodplain guidance to reflect EO 13690 but those guidelines were not approved before 

the completion of the EA. Therefore, EO 11988 guidance is still in effect. The Final Determination for 

Floodplain Management (EO 11988) is provided as Appendix D in this document.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-45

Under Section 62-330.301, FAC, the FDEP and the five water management districts also have responsibility for 

regulating floodplain development within the State. The SWFWMD has jurisdiction over areas within which the 

proposed action would occur, including Polk, Pinellas, and Hillsborough Counties. 

Under the General Stormwater Quantity and Flood Control requirements in Part III of the SWFWMD ERP 

Applicant’s Handbook Volume II, flood protection for structures for industrial, commercial or other nonresidential buildings susceptible to flood damage should have the lowest floor elevated above the 100-year flood 

elevation or be designed and constructed so that below the 100-year flood elevation the structure and attendant 

utility facilities are watertight and capable of resisting the effects of the regulatory flood. The design should take 

into account flood velocities, duration, rate of rise, hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces, the effect of buoyancy 

and impacts from debris. Flood proofing measures should be operable without human intervention and without an 

outside source of electricity. Any required compensating storage shall be equivalently provided between the 

seasonal high water level and the 100-year flood level to allow storage function during all lesser flood events. 

Therefore, provisions must be made to replace or otherwise mitigate the loss of historic basin storage provided 

within the project site. 

SWFWMD also requires commercial and industrial projects to install a drainage system to provide flood 

attenuation and any additional retention/detention required for water quality purposes as stated in the General 

Stormwater Quantity and Flood Control requirements in Part IIV of the SWFWMD ERP Applicant’s Handbook 

Volume II. The required water quality system must have treatment capacity for one inch of runoff if wet detention 

is used, or one half-inch of runoff if retention, effluent filtration or exfiltration is used, from the total developed 

site and contributing offsite area. 

3.9.2 Affected Environment 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

Action Alternative 1 at LAL contains approximately 5.05 acres of 100-year floodplains as delineated by FEMA 

on the current official FIRM identified as 12105C0460F dated December 20, 2000 (see Figure 3.9-1; FEMA, 

2000). FEMA classifies this 100-year floodplain as Zone A. Zone A 100-year floodplains do not have a base 

flood elevation associated with them. However, the December 2000 FIRM will not be in effect when the proposed 

action would be permitted for construction. 

FEMA and Cooperating Technical Partners initiated physical map revisions to the FIRMS for all of Polk County 

in 2014, which were completed in August 2014. The analysis was performed to change zone designations, Base 

Flood Elevations, and Special Flood Hazard Areas, and to incorporate previously issued Letters of Map Revision, 

and to reflect updated topographic information. 

This analysis is the “best available data” for floodplains in Polk County, including at the prospective project 

location, and is provided in the pending FEMA FIRM identified as 12105C0460G, which will become the official 

FIRM on December 22, 2016 (FEMA, 2016). The pending FIRM indicates no floodplains within Action 

Alternative 1 at LAL; however, a portion of taxiway typically used for aircraft movements and could be used by 

AOC aircraft would be within Zone A (see Figure 3.9-2). 
URS Oakland CA 9/20/2016 USER alvarezo PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\CONFIDENTIAL\NOAA_Airport_Relocation\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\Figure_3_9_1_Lakeland_FloodPlain2000.mxd

FIGURE 3.9-1

Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport

Flood Plain (2000)

Project Area

0 0.5

Miles

Imagery: ESRI, 2016;FEMA, 2000. Flood Insurance

Rate Map, Polk County, Florida, Panel 460 of

1025, Map Number 12105C0460 F, Effective Date

December 20, 2000.

NOAA Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 

3-4
URS Oakland CA 9/20/2016 USER alvarezo PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\CONFIDENTIAL\NOAA_Airport_Relocation\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\Figure_3_9_2_Lakeland_FloodPlain2016.mxd

FIGURE 3.9-2

Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport

Pending Flood Plain (2016)

Project Area

0 0.5

Miles

Imagery: ESRI, 2016;FEMA, 2016. Flood

Insurance Rate Map, Polk County, Florida, Panel

460 of 1025, Map Number 12105C0460 G, Map

Effective December 22, 2016.

NOAA Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 

3-4
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-48

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

The entire site proposed for Action Alternative 2 is located within the 100-year floodplain, as are runways and 

taxiways used by aircraft, per the FEMA FIRM identified as 12103C0137G and dated September 3, 2003 (see 

Figure 3.9-3; FEMA, 2003). This floodplain designation has not changed (nor is it being updated) since the 

FIRM was issued in 2003. FEMA classifies this 100-year floodplain as a Zone AE with a base flood elevation of 

9 feet referenced to North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). 

No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alterative, existing OMAO operations would continue unchanged. No adverse effects to the 

100-year floodplain would result based on the extent of existing NOAA uses at Hangar 5 and adjacent areas.

3.9.3 Environmental Consequences 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

Action Alternative 1 includes the construction of adjacent taxiway pavement, apron pavement, added vehicle 

parking and the renovation and expansion of an existing hangar building. The environmental effects are quantified 

by the estimated volume of 100-year floodplain potentially filled. 

Floodplain impacts do occur based on the December 20, 2000 FIRM, however as discussed above, this FIRM will 

not be in effect when the proposed action would be permitted for construction, therefore the pending FIRM is 

used to evaluate and determine floodplain impacts for this analysis, and impacts under the existing FIRM are not 

analyzed. NOAA aircraft operations would typically occur on taxiways and runways located outside Zone A; 

however, an alternative taxiway at LAL is located within Zone A. 

Floodplain impacts would not occur from the proposed Action Alternative 1 under the pending FIRM. However, 

given a portion of taxiway available for use an alternative is within Zone A, NOAA has chosen to implement the 

8-step process in accordance with EO 11988 for the review of actions within a floodplain.

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

The proposed Action Alternative 2 within PIE would include the construction or rehabilitation of three vehicle 

parking areas (west, northeast, and southeast), an HVAC building, fire sprinkler pump house, and an addition to 

the existing hangar building. The environmental effects are quantified by the estimated volume of 100-year 

floodplains filled and floodplain resources affected. 

The entirety of Action Alternative 2 is located within the 100-year Zone AE floodplain with a base flood 

elevation of 9 feet, NAVD 88. Therefore, any fill added, including flood-proofing, associated with constructing 

the proposed development components would incrementally reduce the floodplain storage capacity. Available 

floodplain storage is contained between the seasonal high water elevation and the 100-year base flood elevation. 

The seasonal high water elevation at this site is below grade. Therefore, the available floodplain storage volume is 

between the existing grade and the 100-year base flood elevation of 9 feet, NAVD 88. 
URS Oakland CA 9/20/2016 USER alvarezo PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\CONFIDENTIAL\NOAA_Airport_Relocation\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\Figure_3_9_3_St_Petersburg_FloodPlain2003.mxd

FIGURE 3.9-3

St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport

Flood Plain (2003)

Project Area

0 0.5

Miles

Imagery: ESRI, 2016;FEMA, 2003. Flood

Insurance Rate Map, Pinellas County, Florida,

Panel 137 of 327, Map Number 12103C0137 G,

Effective Date September 3, 2003.

NOAA Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 

Airside Center Drive

3-49
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-50

At this phase the exact finished grades proposed for the development components associated with this project are 

not precisely known. Therefore, the exact volume of material placed within the floodplains cannot be quantified. 

Fill would be added to construct all of the new development components (such as flood-proofing) with the 

exception of the 30,305 square feet of new parking area associated with the West Parking Area. The West Parking 

area is an existing parking lot that would be milled and resurfaced at the existing grade. 

The remaining development actions, including areas proposed for flood-proofing, would require some fill in order 

to be properly constructed. Collectively, these fill and flood-proofing actions encompass approximately 97,280 

square feet for the hangar structure plus 44,612 square feet for development actions proposed on the east side of 

the existing hangar building, where the average existing grade elevation approximates 8 feet, NAVD 88. 

Therefore, the volume of floodplain loss from the average existing grade elevation of 8 feet NAVD 88 to the 100-

year base flood elevation of 9 feet NAVD 88 over 141,892 square feet is 141,892 cubic feet (~3.26 acre-feet). 

This is a conservative estimate of floodplain because it assumes the finish grades for all five development

components would be at elevation 9 feet, NAVD 88 or higher. This may not be the case, especially for the 

parking lots, where the finish grades could be only a few inches above existing grade.

From the perspective of the SWFWMD, impacts to floodplains from the proposed Action Alternative 2 would be 

negligible because the floodplains are located within a drainage area that discharges to a tidal water body. 

Therefore, any loss in storage capacity within the floodplain is not substantial and less than significant. As a result 

the SWFWMD does not require the loss in floodplain storage to be replaced. However, the proposed facility and 

associated aircraft operation on runways and taxiways would be within the 1%-chance floodplain. Because the 

proposed action would occur within the 100-year floodplain, NOAA has chosen to implement the 8-step process 

per EO 11988 for review of actions within a floodplain. 

No-Action Alternative 

Because the No-Action Alternative does not include construction of new facilities or modification of existing 

facilities, no fill would be added to a floodplain. Therefore, no impacts to floodplains would occur. 

3.9.4 Mitigation Measures 

No mitigation measures are required for either of the two proposed Action Alternatives, or for the NoAction Alternative, in relation to floodplains. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-51 

3.10 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT 

3.10.1 Regulatory Setting 

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) was passed by Congress in 1972, as amended, and authorizes 

coastal states to actively manage and protect coastal and shoreline resources from residential, recreational, 

commercial and industrial uses. States have the primary role of managing coastal areas via a Coastal Zone 

Management Program (CZMP), which describes how the state will manage its coastal zones and resources. 

Any federal activity, regardless of its location, is subject to the consistency requirement if it will affect any natural 

resources, land uses, or water uses in the coastal zone. CZMA requires that Federal actions that have the potential 

to impact coastal resources be consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with State enforceable policies. 

Federal consistency requirements are described in Section 307 of the CZMA and at 15 CFR Section 930 (BOEM, 

2016). 

Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection is responsible for implementation of the Florida Coastal 

Management Program (FCMP) aimed at protecting coastal resources and managing human uses in the coastal 

zone. As a direct federal action funded by a federal agency for the benefit of a federal agency, a Federal 

Consistency Determination is typically required under each state’s approved Coastal Management Program 

(CMP) and its CZMP. 

Enforceable policies with which such activities must be deemed consistent are policies that are legally binding 

under state law, such as constitutional provisions, laws, regulations, land use plans, ordinances, or judicial or 

administrative decisions, and by which a state exerts control over private and public coastal uses and resources. 

Twenty-four Florida Statutes make up the FCMP. Under the FCMP, federal activities that affect any land use, 

water use or natural resource of the coastal zone must comply with enforceable policies within these 24 laws 

(FDEP, 2016b). 

3.10.2 Affected Environment 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

The entire state of Florida is within the federally approved coastal zone. Thus, the proposed action at LAL in Polk 

County lies within the Florida’s coastal zone. Polk County is located in the interior part of Florida, approximately 

40 miles from major coastal bodies to the west and approximately 65 miles from coastal bodies to the east. The 

affected area is developed with hangars, taxiways, and aircraft ramp areas, in addition to adjacent lawn and an 

established stormwater drainage system. 

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

The affected environment for the proposed action at PIE lies within Florida’s coastal zone and in a paved airport 

environment located just south of Old Tampa Bay. The affected area is developed with hangars, taxiways, and 

aircraft ramp areas, in addition to adjacent lawn and an established stormwater drainage system. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-52 

No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative assumes that NOAA would continue to operate their AOC program at their current 

location at MacDill Airport within the state coastal zone. The affected environment would not change under this 

alternative. 

3.10.3 Environmental Consequences 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

The proposed action at LAL Action Alternative 1 site would have no adverse impacts to coastal zone resources. 

Existing facilities on the leased area at the airport would be utilized. Improvements would be made, but largely 

within the footprint of the existing facilities, except for additional 5 feet of width to portions of the west side of 

the hangar to be replaced. 

Where applicable, each of the Florida Statutes that make up the FCMP has been analyzed in the appropriate 

subsection of this EA. For these resources, the proposed federal action is considered to be consistent with the 

affected Florida Statutes. Provided mitigation measures are implemented, no significant impact to coastal 

resources would result. 

The Florida State Clearinghouse staff have reviewed this action alternative under Presidential Executive Order 

12372; § 403.061(42), Florida Statutes; the Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. §§1451‐1464, as amended; 

and the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321‐4347, as amended. Based on a review of the Draft 

EA submitted and anticipated minimal project impacts, the state has no objections to the subject project and have 

therefore determined it to be consistent with the FCMP (see Appendix C). 

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

The proposed action at the PIE Action Alternative 2 site would have no adverse impacts to coastal zone resources. 

Existing facilities on the leased area at the airport would be utilized. Improvements would be made, but largely 

within the footprint of the existing facilities, except for additional expansion to the northwest corner of the hangar 

to be replaced. 

Where applicable, each of the Florida Statutes that make up the FCMP has been analyzed in the appropriate 

subsection of this EA. For these resources, the proposed federal action is expected to be consistent with the 

affected Florida Statutes. Provided mitigation measures are implemented, no significant impact to coastal 

resources would result. 

The Florida State Clearinghouse staff have reviewed this action alternative under Presidential Executive Order 

12372; § 403.061(42), Florida Statutes; the Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. §§1451‐1464, as amended; 

and the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321‐4347, as amended. Based on a review of the Draft 

EA submitted and anticipated minimal project impacts, the state has no objections to the subject project and have 

therefore determined it to be consistent with the FCMP (see Appendix C). 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-53 

No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alternative, NOAA would not relocate its AOC program at MacDill AFB and would 

continue to operate within existing leased areas in a manner consistent with the FCMP. No effects to coastal zone 

resources would result. 

3.10.4 Mitigation Measures 

Other that mitigation measures affecting coastal resources presented in other sections of this EA, no additional 

mitigation measures are required for either of the two Action Alternatives, or for the No-Action Alternative in 

relation to coastal zone management. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-54 

3.11 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 

3.11.1 Regulatory Setting 

The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) became law in 1981, as a result of millions of acres of farmland 

being converted to non-agricultural uses in the U.S. each year (NRCS, 2016c). FPPA is intended to minimize the 

impact of federal programs converting farmland to nonagricultural uses. Farmland includes: prime farmland, 

unique farmland, and land of Statewide or local importance. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines 

prime farmland as land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, 

feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops and is available for these uses, including cultivated land, pastureland, forest 

land, or other land. 

Under the FPPA, federal agencies must examine whether potentially adverse effects to prime or unique farmlands 

or farmlands of state or local importance would occur before approving any action that would irreversibly convert 

farmland to non-agricultural uses. Soil units and land surface conditions are provided in survey data available 

from the NRCS for each county. Regulations at 7 CFR 658.2(a) exclude land from definition of farmland as those 

lands already in urban use or committed to urban development or water storage (NRCS, 2002). 

For projects that have the potential to convert important farmland to non-farm use, USDA Service Center uses a 

land evaluation and site assessment system to establish a farmland conversion impact rating score on proposed 

sites. This score is used as an indicator for the project sponsor to consider alternative sites if the potential adverse 

impacts on the farmland exceed the recommended allowable level. In instances where the conversion of prime 

farmland is necessary, the USDA has created the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating system. 

4.1.2 Affected Environment 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

Action Alternative 1 at LAL is located in the city of Lakeland, Polk County, Florida. Soil survey data prepared by 

the NRCS for Polk County indicates the affected project area at LAL is within an Urban Land classification and 

not a current or prospective area defined as prime farmland (NRCS, 2016a). The airport does not support 

agricultural practices. The areas surrounding LAL are primarily medium-density, single-family residences and 

clusters of retail/commercial businesses. There are areas with agricultural practices to the west of the airport. 

However, no FPPA-defined agricultural resources, including prime farmland, unique farmland, and land of 

Statewide or local importance are present in areas potentially affected under Action Alternative 1. 

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

Action Alternative 2 proposed at PIE sits within an urbanized area north of St. Petersburg, Florida in 

unincorporated Pinellas County. Soil survey data prepared by the NRCS for Pinellas County indicates the affected 

project area at PIE is within an Urban Land and Matlacha/St. Augustine soils classification and is not a current or 

prospective area defined as prime farmland (NRCS, 2016b). The airport does not support agricultural practices. 

The areas immediately surrounding PIE do not support agricultural activities on. No FPPA resources, including 

prime farmland, unique farmland, and land of Statewide or local importance are present on or within areas 

potentially affected under Action Alternative 2. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-55 

No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alternative, NOAA’s AOC program would not be relocated to either Action Alternative. 

The No-Action Alternative assumes that NOAA would continue to operate their AOC program at their current 

location at MacDill Airport, which is not located in an area that includes prime, unique or locally important 

farmland. 

3.11.3 Environmental Consequences 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

LAL is in a dedicated airport environment surrounded by low-density residential and commercial development. 

Prime farmland, unique farmland, and land of Statewide or local importance are not present in areas where the 

proposed action at LAL would take place. Thus, there would be no effect on any FPPA resources under Action 

Alternative 1. 

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

PIE is in an urbanized area within the city of St. Petersburg, Florida. There are no FPPA resources, including 

prime farmland, unique farmland, and land of Statewide or local importance present in or outside the airport that 

would be affected by the proposed activities. Thus, there would be no effect on any FPPA resources under Action 

Alternative 2. 

No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alternative, NOAA’s AOC program would not be relocated. The No-Action Alternative 

assumes that NOAA would continue to operate their AOC program at their current location at MacDill Airport. 

No farmland resources are present within the AOC operating areas. No effects to protected farmland resources 

would result. 

3.11.4 Mitigation Measures 

No mitigation measures are required for either of the two Action Alternatives, or for the No-Action Alternative in 

relation to agricultural resources. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-56 

3.12 NOISE 

3.12.1 Regulatory Setting 

FAA Order 1050.1F (FAA, 2015a), FAA Order 5050.4B (FAA, 2006), and Title 14 CFR, Part 150 (referred to as 

Part 150 in this EA), specify the methodologies required for evaluation of the airport noise environment. For 

aviation noise analysis, the FAA has determined that the cumulative noise energy exposure of individuals to noise 

resulting from aviation activities must be established in terms of DNL as the FAA’s primary metric. DNL is the 

24-hour average sound level in decibels using the A-weighted scale (dBA). This average is derived from all 

aircraft operations during a 24-hour period representing an average annual operational day (AAD) (FAA, 2015a). 

For convenience, this EA uses the term “DNL xx” as a representation for “DNL xx dBA” (for example, DNL 65 

for DNL 65 dBA). 

FAA Order 1050.1F Desk Reference (FAA, 2015b), paragraph 11.1.3 allows for the use of the Area Equivalent 

Method (AEM) noise screening tool to eliminate the need for a more detailed noise analysis when a proposed 

action results in an general overall increase in daily aircraft operations or change in aircraft type in use. Due to the 

limited number of aircraft operations produced by the relocation of the NOAA AOC, it is expected that the use of 

the FAA’s AEM noise screening tool will show a minimal increase in the DNL 65 contour area. As dictated by 

Order 1050.1F, if the AEM calculations results in an increase of less than 17 percent in area of the DNL 65 noise 

contour, there would be no significant impacts over noise sensitive areas and no further noise analysis would be 

required. The use of AEM is limited to actions that result in a change in fleet mix and/or number of aircraft 

operations only (FAA, 2013); changes to airfield layout and flight tracks cannot use AEM. AEM does not require 

runway or flight track utilization, the only data inputs are Landing and Take-off cycles (LTO) and day – night 

split. An LTO consists of a landing and a take-off, hence, existing condition aircraft operations numbers provided 

in the following sections are halved for input into AEM. 

Not all aircraft are available in the AEM database, so when necessary similar aircraft are substituted. The AEM 

database does provide a list of approved substitutions but in some cases assumptions regarding aircraft types are 

made based on available information. This is the case with the P-3C Orion used by NOAA. There is no official 

substitution in the AEM database, so for this EA analysis, the C-130 as a military, four-engine, turboprop driven 

aircraft is used as the substitution. 

3.12.2 Affected Environment 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

The FAA completed an EA in 2016 for proposed actions at LAL to construct and operate an Aircraft 

Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul (MRO) facility and an Air Cargo Facility (FAA, 2016b). According to that 

MRO EA, the 2023 With Project Noise Contours do not extend off of airport property. For the purposes of this 

EA, the MRO EA 2023 with Project will be used as the baseline for this analysis. 

The 2023 With Project MRO EA forecast 116,561 annual aircraft operations at LAL, or approximately 320 

average annual day operations. AEM does not include rotary wing aircraft in the aircraft database, therefore rotary 

wing operations are eliminated for the analysis. Table 3.12-1 provides the aircraft operations broken down by 

aircraft type and time of day. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-57 

Table 3.12-1: Existing Condition Aircraft Operations at LAL 

Aircraft 

Type 

Average Annual Day Annual 

Day Night Total Day Night Total 

727200 0.01 0.00 0.01 3.77 0.24 4.02 

737700 0.01 0.00 0.01 3.77 0.24 4.02 

737800 0.11 0.00 0.11 40.00 0.00 40.00 

767300 2.02 0.22 2.25 738.00 82.00 820.00 

A320-232 0.11 0.00 0.12 41.89 0.12 42.01 

BEC58P 41.48 2.65 44.12 15138.70 966.30 16105.00 

C130 3.22 0.21 3.42 1175.01 75.00 1250.02 

CIT3 0.55 0.04 0.59 201.16 12.84 214.00 

CL600 3.07 0.20 3.27 1120.43 71.56 1191.99 

CNA172 138.79 8.86 147.65 50658.47 3233.52 53891.99 

CNA206 4.40 0.28 4.68 1605.54 102.48 1708.02 

CNA182 3.52 0.22 3.74 1284.05 81.96 1366.01 

CNA208 4.46 0.28 4.74 1627.15 103.86 1731.01 

CNA441 5.52 0.35 5.87 2013.68 128.32 2142.00 

CNA500 3.93 0.25 4.18 1435.19 91.82 1527.01 

CNA560XL 3.58 0.23 3.81 1306.59 83.40 1389.99 

CNA750 1.38 0.09 1.46 501.96 32.04 534.00 

DHC6 0.69 0.04 0.74 252.86 16.14 269.01 

DO228 3.16 0.20 3.36 1154.33 73.68 1228.01 

F10062 0.28 0.02 0.29 100.60 6.42 107.02 

GASEPF 5.28 0.34 5.61 1926.06 122.94 2049.00 

GASEPV 43.39 2.77 46.16 15839.01 1011.00 16850.01 

GV 0.61 0.04 0.64 221.16 12.84 234.00 

LEAR25 0.11 0.01 0.12 40.42 2.58 43.00 

LEAR35 14.39 0.92 15.31 5253.45 335.54 5588.99 

MD83 0.04 0.00 0.05 15.99 1.02 17.01 

PA28 9.68 0.62 10.29 3531.60 225.42 3757.02 

PA31 2.64 0.17 2.81 963.49 61.50 1024.99 

PA42 0.86 0.06 0.92 314.90 20.10 335.00 

SD330 0.43 0.03 0.46 157.93 10.08 168.01 

TOTAL 297.72 19.08 316.80 108667.16 6964.97 115632.13 

Source: LAL EA for Airport Development Actions, July 2016. 

The day – night split illustrated in Table 3.12-1 is based on the information provided in the LAL MRO EA. 

According to the MRO EA, approximately 94 percent of civilian fixed wing operations, including those generated 

by the Proposed MRO, occurred during daytime hours and 6 percent during night time hours; with 100 percent of 

military and rotary wing operations occurring during daytime hours. For future MRO and air cargo operations, the 

MRO EA assumes 90 percent of the operations would occur during daytime hours and 10 percent at night. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-58 

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

PIE has not completed an environmental study containing noise contours since 2007. Therefore, this EA will 

compile current aircraft operational data to complete the AEM study. PIE provided a breakdown of commercial 

aircraft operations by aircraft type and time of day. In addition, PIE provided counts of military and general 

aviation aircraft operations by time of day. 

Based on the information provided by PIE, there were approximately 104,500 annual aircraft operation, or 286 

average day operations. Fleet mix for commercial operations was also provided by PIE staff. Fleet mix for 

military operations and general aviation aircraft were obtained from the FAA Traffic Flow Management System 

Counts (TFMSC) online database (FAA, 2016c). The data provided by TFMSC was filtered to remove the rotary 

wing operations and the military fleet mix was limited to the fixed wing military aircraft regularly operating at 

PIE, in particular the C-130 and the CASA-235. A breakdown of these operations by aircraft type and time of day 

is provided in Table 3.12-2. 

TABLE 3-12.2: Existing Conditions Aircraft Operations at PIE 

Aircraft 

Type 

Average Annual Day Annual 

Day Night Total Day Night Total 

Commercial Aircraft (COM) 

MD83 16.88 0.53 17.41 6,159.40 193.60 6,353.00 

A320-211 10.89 0.34 11.23 3,974.09 124.91 4,099.00 

A300-622R 1.57 0.05 1.62 572.02 17.98 590.00 

737400 0.03 0.00 0.03 10.66 0.34 11.00 

737700 1.31 0.04 1.35 477.01 14.99 492.00 

737800 0.43 0.01 0.44 157.06 4.94 162.00 

757PW 1.18 0.04 1.22 430.47 13.53 444.00 

767CF6 0.16 0.01 0.16 58.17 1.83 60.00 

EMB190 0.03 0.00 0.04 12.60 0.40 13.00 

COM Total 32.47 1.02 33.49 11,851.49 372.51 12,224.00 

General Aviation Aircraft (GA) 

1900D 0.03 0.00 0.03 10.04 0.32 10.36 

BEC58P 32.77 1.03 33.80 11,962.55 376.00 12,338.56 

CIT3 1.43 0.04 1.48 522.08 16.41 538.49 

CL600 9.05 0.28 9.33 3,303.13 103.82 3,406.95 

CL601 5.01 0.16 5.16 1,827.26 57.43 1,884.70 

CNA172 11.75 0.37 12.11 4,287.04 134.75 4,421.79 

CNA182 4.96 0.16 5.12 1,812.20 56.96 1,869.16 

CNA206 2.43 0.08 2.51 888.53 27.93 916.46 

CNA208 7.04 0.22 7.26 2,570.22 80.79 2,651.00 

CNA441 12.03 0.38 12.41 4,392.46 138.06 4,530.52 

CNA500 9.57 0.30 9.87 3,493.89 109.82 3,603.71 

CNA55B 8.55 0.27 8.82 3,122.41 98.14 3,220.56 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-59

Aircraft 

Type 

Average Annual Day Annual 

Day Night Total Day Night Total 

CNA680 0.74 0.02 0.77 271.08 8.52 279.60 

CNA750 0.87 0.03 0.89 316.26 9.94 326.20 

DHC6 2.71 0.09 2.79 988.93 31.08 1,020.02 

DO228 0.45 0.01 0.47 165.66 5.21 170.87 

ECLIPSE500 3.96 0.12 4.09 1,445.75 45.44 1,491.19 

EMB145 1.44 0.05 1.49 527.10 16.57 543.66 

EMB190 0.03 0.00 0.03 10.04 0.32 10.36 

F10062 1.58 0.05 1.63 577.29 18.15 595.44 

GASEPF 3.97 0.12 4.10 1,450.77 45.60 1,496.37 

GASEPV 26.31 0.83 27.14 9,603.18 301.84 9,905.02 

GII 0.03 0.00 0.03 10.04 0.32 10.36 

GIIB 0.36 0.01 0.37 130.52 4.10 134.62 

GIV 2.37 0.07 2.44 863.43 27.14 890.57 

GV 1.44 0.05 1.49 527.10 16.57 543.66 

IA1125 4.47 0.14 4.61 1,631.49 51.28 1,682.77 

LEAR25 0.10 0.00 0.10 35.14 1.10 36.24 

LEAR35 16.45 0.52 16.97 6,003.87 188.71 6,192.58 

MD81 0.06 0.00 0.06 20.08 0.63 20.71 

MU3001 5.31 0.17 5.48 1,937.70 60.91 1,998.61 

PA28 18.57 0.58 19.15 6,776.94 213.01 6,989.95 

PA30 0.50 0.02 0.51 180.72 5.68 186.40 

PA31 6.07 0.19 6.26 2,213.80 69.58 2,283.38 

SD330 2.48 0.08 2.55 903.59 28.40 931.99 

SF340 0.01 0.00 0.01 5.02 0.16 5.18 

GA Total 204.90 6.44 211.34 74,787.30 2,350.70 77,138.00 

Military Aircraft (MIL) 

737700 2.63 0.08 2.71 959.39 30.16 989.54 

C130 25.41 0.80 26.21 9,274.09 291.50 9,565.59 

SF340 12.27 0.39 12.65 4,477.14 140.72 4,617.87 

MIL Total 40.30 1.27 41.57 14,710.62 462.38 15,173.00 

All Aircraft Types 

TOTAL 277.67 8.73 286.40 101,349.41 3,185.59 104,535.00 

Sources: Sprague, pers. comm., 2016; FAA, 2016c. 

The day – night split illustrated in Table 3.12-1 is based on the information provided in the PIE. According to this 

information, approximately 97 percent of all aircraft operations occurred during daytime hours and 3 percent 

occur during night time hours, regardless of aircraft category. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-60

3.12.3 Environmental Consequences 

For purposes of this EA, the 2020 forecast level of operational activity for the NOAA facility was used to provide 

a worst case aircraft noise scenario. Table 3-12-3 provides the expected level of NOAA aircraft operations for the 

forecast year regardless of proposed alternative site formatted for use in AEM. The original data provided by 

NOAA regarding aircraft operations in 2020 is provided in Appendix B. 

TABLE 3-12.3: 2020 Forecast of NOAA Aircraft Landing Take Off Cycles 

Aircraft Type Average Annual Day Annual 

Day Night Total Day Night Total 

C130 0.70 0.20 0.90 256.67 73.33 330.00 

CNA441 0.22 0.07 0.30 81.00 27.00 108.00 

DHC6 1.23 0.22 1.45 450.07 79.93 530.00 

DO228 0.35 0.12 0.46 126.00 42.00 168.00 

GIV 0.16 0.03 0.19 58.33 11.67 70.00 

Total 2.66 0.64 3.30 972.07 233.93 1,206.00

Source: Appendix B. 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

The Proposed NOAA Relocation AEM analysis results in an increase to approximately 0.52 square miles, or 

332.42 acres within the DNL 65 contour. This increase of approximately 0.038 square miles, or 24.15 acres, 

results in a change in area within the DNL 65 noise contour of approximately 7.8 percent, as shown in Table 

3-12.4. The complete AEM analysis is provided in Appendix B.

TABLE 3-12.4: AEM Analysis for LAL 

Area Measurement Area within DNL 65 Change in Area 

Base Future Area % 

Square Miles 0.48 0.52 0.04 7.8% 

Acres 308.27 332.42 24.15 7.8%

Source: Appendix B. 

As dictated by FAA Order 1050.1F, if the AEM calculations results in an increase of less than 17 percent in area 

of the DNL 65 noise contour, there would be no significant impacts over noise sensitive areas and no further noise 

analysis would be required. Effects relating to noise from proposed Action Alternative 1 would be negligible. 

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

The Proposed NOA Relocation AEM analysis results in an increase to approximately 0.95 square miles, or 608.02 

acres within the DNL 65 contour. This increase of approximately 0.037 square miles, or 23.85 acres, results in a 

change in area within the DNL 65 noise contour of approximately 4.1 percent, as shown in Table 3-12.5. The 

complete AEM analysis is provided in Appendix B. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-61 

TABLE 3-12.5: AEM Analysis for PIE 

Area Measurement 

Area within DNL 65 Change in Area 

Base Future Area % 

Square Miles 0.91 0.95 0.037 4.1% 

Acres 584.16 608.02 23.85 4.1% 

Source: Appendix B. 

As dictated by Order 1050.1F, if the AEM calculations results in an increase of less than 17 percent in area of the 

DNL 65 noise contour, there would be no significant impacts over noise sensitive areas and no further noise 

analysis would be required. Effects relating to noise from proposed Action Alternative 2 would be negligible. 

No-Action Alternative 

The AEM analysis conducted for LAL using the MRO EA 2023 with Project indicate that approximately 0.48 

square miles, or 308.27 acres are encompassed within the DNL 65 contour. As indicated in the MRO EA, this 

contour not only does not encroach upon any noise sensitive land uses, but the contour does not extend off airport 

property. 

Similarly, the AEM analysis conducted for PIE using the data provided by PIE and obtained from the FAA 

TFMSC database, indicates that approximately 0.91 square miles, or 584.16 acres are encompassed within the 

DNL 65 contour. The AEM study does not provide information as to whether the noise contours would extend off 

of airport property. 

3.12.4 Mitigation Measures 

No mitigation measures are required for either of the two Action Alternatives, or for the No-Action Alternative in 

relation to noise.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-62

3.13 TRANSPORTATION 

3.13.1 Regulatory Setting 

The transportation impact analysis assesses the effects of the proposed action on the transportation network in the 

community. A qualitative analysis is used to assess whether the proposed action has the potential to result in a 

significant impact, and whether a quantitative analysis and prospective improvements to transportation 

infrastructure may be necessary. The approach applied involves the use of trip generation data, essentially the 

number of inbound and outbound vehicle trips expected to be generated due to the proposed action during an 

average day or during peak hour traffic. The expected trip generation is compared to accepted thresholds to 

determine whether a more comprehensive traffic analysis is needed. The trip generation process applied provides 

an estimate of the number of trips that would be generated under worst-case conditions. Trip generation rates are 

then compared to the latest available traffic counts. When available, a roadway Level of Service (LOS) is 

identified and the potential to change to the LOS to a more adverse condition due to the proposed action is 

considered. 

LOS is a qualitative measurement used to describe traffic conditions of a transportation route. It is based on the 

number of vehicles using the roadway compared to the maximum number of vehicles the route/intersection was 

designed to accommodate. Six LOS are defined in the Highway Capacity Manual for each type of facility 

(Transportation Research Board, 2000). They are expressed qualitatively using letters from ‘A’ through ‘F’. LOS 

A represents free flow conditions, while F represents gridlock. LOS A (indicating free-flow traffic conditions with 

little or no delay) to LOS F (representing over-saturated conditions where traffic flows exceed capacity resulting 

in long queues and delays). LOS grades represent the perspective of drivers and are an indication of the comfort 

and convenience associated with driving. 

It is the Florida Department of Transportation’s (FDOT’s) intent to plan, design and operate the State Highway 

System at an acceptable LOS for the traveling public. The automobile mode LOS standards for the State Highway 

System during peak travel hours are “D” in urbanized areas and “C” outside urbanized areas (FDOT, 2015). 

3.13.2 Affected Environment 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

The proposed action at the LAL Action Alternative would require use of internal and adjacent access roads about 

one mile south of State Road 570, primarily within Polk County jurisdiction. There are at least two main routes 

that can be taken to enter the proposed site. These routes are described below: 

Route 1: Via Interstate 4, State Road 570 east to Waring Road or Pipkin Road South, southbound, to either W. 

Pipkin Road or Old Medulla Road, westbound. Old Medulla Road becomes Airside Center Drive, then west on 

Flightline Drive to the project area. Airside Center Drive and Flightline Drive are privately owned by the Airport. 

Route 2: Via Interstate 4, County Line Road southbound, West Pipkin Road eastbound, then Airside Center Drive 

northbound and Flightline Drive westbound into the project area. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-63 

Based on 2016 data received from the Polk Transportation Planning Organization, the annual average daily traffic 

(AADT) count for affected portions of West Pipkin Road is 15,000 to 20,000. The LOS is “D” (Polk 

Transportation Planning Organization, 2016). 

Based on data received from City of Lakeland, the traffic count for Airside Center Drive was approximately 2,300 

trips per day in 2015. The mean speed on Airside Center Drive was 29 miles per hour (City of Lakeland, 2015b). 

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

The proposed action at the PIE Action Alternative would occur near Pinellas County Route 611 and Florida State 

Route 686, known as Roosevelt Boulevard, to the west. From these key travel corridors, access to the project area 

is via the Fairchild Drive eastbound onto Rescue Way eastbound. Then, southeast on Spadco Drive to the project 

area. Similarly, access from the Bayside Bridge Bride southbound via State Highway 686 and County Route 611 

provides access to Fairchild Drive eastbound. 

According to 2015 traffic data provided by Pinellas County, the AADT for State Highway 686 (Roosevelt 

Boulevard) is 39,830 and LOS is “D”. The AADT on State Road 611 (49th Street) is 42,515 and LOS is “B” 

(Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2015). 

No-Action Alternative 

Under this alternative, no change to traffic volume or routing at or near MacDill AFB would occur. 

3.13.3 Environmental Consequences 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in slight increases in traffic on the roads near the southern portion of 

LAL to accommodate approximately 110 NOAA AOC staff and delivery vehicles; less traffic would be generated 

during the brief construction period. Access can be achieved with comparable time and distance via two common 

public routes with variant detours. Based on a worst-case increase of 440 weekday trips per day by AOC staff and 

delivery vehicles distributed across multiple public access routes and intersections, the proposed action would not 

cause a discernable change to existing AADT or degrade the current LOS. Action Alternative 1 would have a 

negligible effect on transportation resources based on the current amount of vehicles on the road and the capacity 

of the roads to accommodate traffic. 

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in slight increases in traffic on the state and county routes and 

private roads at the west side of PIE due to anticipated traffic movements from the approximately 110 NOAA 

AOC staff; less traffic would be generated during the brief construction period. When compared to recent traffic 

counts on Highway 686 and Highway 611, the worst-case increase of 440 weekday trips per day AOC staff and 

delivery vehicles would not be substantial or degrade the current LOS. Action Alternative 1 would have a 

negligible effect on transportation resources. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-64 

No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative assumes that NOAA would remain on MacDill AFB. There would be no change to the 

existing site conditions or traffic generation under the No-Action Alternative. 

3.13.4 Mitigation Measures 

No mitigation measures are required for either of the two Action Alternatives, or for the No-Action Alternative in 

relation to transportation.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-65 

3.14 UTILITIES AND SOLID WASTE 

3.14.1 Regulatory Setting 

There are no directly applicable federal regulations pertaining to effects of federal actions on local utilities and 

public services (i.e., solid waste disposal). Regulatory constraints related to the existing capacity and distribution 

of utility services is typically considered through local zoning or land use law. While the federal government is 

not required to follow local regulations under the Public Building Amendments of 1988 (Public Law 100-678), 

they strive to assess potential effects of projects and conform to local requirements to the extent practicable. This 

assessment considers the apparent capacity of utility services and the effects of extending those services to the 

project area. 

3.14.2 Affected Environment 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

The City of Lakeland currently supplies LAL with water and sewage utility services. The airport’s power services 

are provided by Lakeland Electric. In the event Alternative 1 is chosen, landline utility services would be 

provided by Frontier (Hallstrand, pers. comm., 2016). 

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

Pinellas County provides PIE with water and sewage utility services. Duke Power currently provides electric 

utilities to the airport. Landline utility services to St. Petersburg-Clearwater are provided by Frontier (Jackson, 

pers. comm., 2016). 

No-Action Alternative 

The City of Tampa provides water, wastewater (sewer) and solid waste (refuse and recycling) to MacDill AFB 

(Vichich, 2011). The No-Action Alternative assumes continuation of these services to be provided by the City of 

Tampa. 

3.14.3 Environmental Consequences 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

Existing utility services have supported similar aviation-related office and light-industrial operations and staffing 

at this project location. Substantially higher demand for services such as water, power, wastewater, 

telephone/internet or solid waste disposal is not required and, based on past usage of facilities at the project area, 

the expected demand would be within the capacity of existing service providers. No added service capacity or 

major new utility infrastructure would be required; hence, no adverse environmental effects with respect to 

utilities and solid waste would result from the proposed Action Alternative 1. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-66 

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

Existing utility services have supported similar aviation-related office and light-industrial operations and staffing 

at this project location. Substantially higher demand for services such as water, power, wastewater, 

telephone/internet or solid waste disposal is not required and, based on past usage of facilities at the project area, 

the expected demand would be within the capacity of existing service providers. No added service capacity or 

major new utility infrastructure would be required; hence, no adverse environmental effects with respect to 

utilities and solid waste would result from the proposed Action Alternative 2. 

No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative assumes continuation of these services to be provided by the City of Tampa. No 

environmental consequences with respect to utilities and solid waste would result from the No-Action Alternative. 

3.14.4 Mitigation Measures 

No mitigation measures are required for either of the two Action Alternatives, or for the No-Action Alternative in 

relation to utilities and service systems.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-67 

3.15 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

3.15.1 Regulatory Setting 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 43, U.S.C. Section 1701 (a)(8) states that public lands must be 

managed in a manner that will protect the quality of the scenic values. Additionally, Section 1701(c) identifies 

scenic values as a resource that should be managed by the public (USGPO, 2012). 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

While NEPA does not establish particular guidance for determining the significance of visual/aesthetic resources 

impacts, in 43 U.S.C. Section 4331(b)(2), it requires measures be taken to assure that esthetically pleasing 

surroundings are available for all Americans (US Senate, 2002). 

Bureau of Land Management’s Visual Resource Management System 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) developed a system for analysis of visual effects on federal lands. This 

system is called Visual Resource Management, which involves inventorying scenic values and establishing 

management objectives for those values. While Visual Resource Management is typically applied to large federal 

landholdings requiring an EIS, these concepts can be applied to provide a basis for assessing effects within an EA 

for less expansive federal actions proposed on non-federal land parcels (BLM, 2012). 

The concepts include actions to: 

 Identify those views potentially affected and for which the public may express concern. 

 Describe the existing visual conditions and potentially affected critically sensitive views. 

 Estimate the intensity of possible adverse visual impacts on those views. 

 Evaluate the significance of the possible impacts; mitigate, as needed. 

Visual/scenic resources, such as, national, state or local parks, areas adjacent to designated wild and scenic rivers, 

and regionally scenic byways, routes or views from designated viewing areas have a social setting, which includes 

public expectations, values, awareness, and concern regarding visual quality. This social setting is addressed as 

“visual sensitivity,” and is important to assessing how important a visual impact may be and whether or not it 

represents a significant impact. The visual condition and degree of visual sensitivity is expressed as one of the 

following four levels: 

 High sensitivity: A great potential for the public to react strongly to a threat to visual quality. 

 Moderate sensitivity: A substantial potential for the public to express concern. 

 Low sensitivity: A small minority of the public may have a concern. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-68 

 No sensitivity: There is no sensitivity where the potentially affected views are not “public” (not accessible 

to the general public). 

Levels of visual quality consist of three components evaluated using the following general definitions: 

 Low quality: Landscape is common to the region and exhibits few, if any, memorable features or patterns 

which provide visual diversity. 

 Moderate: Landscape exhibits reasonably attractive natural and human-made features. 

 High: Landscape exhibits distinctive and memorable visual features. 

3.15.2 Affected Environment 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

The anticipated level of visual sensitivity at LAL is considered to be low. There are no definitive areas present in 

or adjacent to the airport that would be considered “scenic resources.” The Ridge Scenic Highway over 10 miles 

east in Polk County extends 39 miles along the Lake Wales Ridge and through the historic communities of 

Frostproof, Hillcrest Heights, Babson Park, the Village of Highland Park, Lake Wales, Lake of the Hills, Dundee, 

Lake Hamilton and Haines City. 

The landscape is common to the region and exhibit few, if any, memorable features or patterns which provide 

diversity. To the north of the airport site are residential and industrial areas, lakes and wetlands; to the south are 

residential and business areas, open spaces and wetlands; to the east are residential areas and open space; and to 

the west are mainly agricultural land and estates. 

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

The anticipated level of visual sensitivity at PIE is considered to be low to moderate. The project would use an 

existing hangar at the airport for expansion and certain improvements largely within the existing hangar footprint. 

There are no areas present in or around areas adjacent to the airport that would be considered “scenic resources”, 

other than the Tampa Bay. A corridor that leads out to Old Tampa Bay is designated by the City as a natural 

scenic corridor. Otherwise, the landscape is common to the region and exhibit few, memorable features or 

patterns which provide diversity. To the north of the airport site is the Tampa Bay’s coastal area; to the south are 

business/industrial areas; to the east are residential areas and the gulf’s forests and coastal area; and to the west 

are business/industrial areas. 

No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alternative, NOAA’s AOC program would not be relocated. The aesthetic conditions are 

associated with the No-Action Alternative include aviation-related hangars, runways, aprons and various storage, 

office, staff support and light-industrial activities typical to a large airport or Air Force base. The terrain is level 

and not conducive to establishing distant views of scenic resources of potential interest. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-69 

3.15.3 Environmental Consequences 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

The level of visual sensitivity at LAL is considered to be low. There are no areas in or adjacent to the airport that 

would be considered “scenic resources.” The project would modify an existing hangar building within the airport, 

which would result in a visually imperceptible degree of change in height and footprint when considered from 

views off of the airport property. The landscape is common to the region and exhibits few, if any, memorable 

features or patterns which provide diversity or unique public interest. The nearest scenic corridor, the Ridge 

Scenic Highway, located several miles to the east would not be visually affected. 

Consequently, there are no definitive visual resources associated with Action Alternative 1 that would be 

adversely affected by the proposed project. There would be no effect. 

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

The anticipated level of visual sensitivity at PIE is considered to be low to moderate, as there are no areas present 

in or immediately adjacent to the airport that would be considered “scenic resources,” except for transient views 

from the public traversing the Bayside Bridge or in waterways within the Old Tampa Bay. 

The landscape is common to the region and exhibits few, if any, memorable features or patterns which provide 

diversity or unique interest. There are no designated visual resources such as parks or vistas that would be 

affected by the proposed action at existing airport facilities. 

The project would modify an existing hangar building within the airport, which would have a visually 

imperceptible degree of change in height and footprint when considered from views off of the airport property. 

Distant views from the Bayside Bridge or in waterways within the Old Tampa Bay would not discern such a 

change in building footprint or height. 

Consequently, there are no definitive visual resources associated with Action Alternative 2 that would be 

adversely affected by the proposed project. There would be no effect. 

No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alternative, NOAA’s AOC program would not be relocated to either Action Alternative. 

The No-Action Alternative assumes that NOAA would continue to operate their AOC program at their current 

location at MacDill Airport. The existing affected environment within MacDill AFB would not be affected under 

this alternative. 

3.15.4 Mitigation Measures 

No mitigation measures are required for either of the two Action Alternatives, or for the No-Action Alternative in 

relation to aesthetics and visual resources.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-70 

3.16 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

3.16.1 Regulatory Setting 

Hazardous materials handling and hazardous waste management are subject to numerous laws and regulations at 

all levels of government. State and federal laws require detailed planning to ensure that hazardous materials are 

properly handled, used, stored, and disposed of, and, in the event that such materials are accidentally released, to 

prevent or to mitigate injury to health or the environment. Hazardous materials storage and reporting 

requirements, known as Tier II Requirements, have been delegated to the States by the USEPA. 

Hazardous materials and wastes are regulated in Florida by the FDEP. On February 12, 1985, Florida received 

final authorization from the USEPA to administer its own hazardous waste management and regulatory program 

under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The FDEP Hazardous Waste Regulation Section is 

responsible for implementing the hazardous waste regulatory portion of RCRA. The FDEP also regulates 

underground storage tanks and solid waste disposal facilities in Florida. These laws impose "cradle to grave" 

regulatory systems for the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste in a 

manner that protects human health and the environment. 

Florida has adopted and incorporated portions of Title 40 CFR Part 124 and Parts 260-279 into its administrative 

code as Rule 62-730, FAC effective 04-05-16; Rule 62-710, FAC effective 04/23/13; Rule 62-731, FAC effective 

02/16/12; Rule 62-737, FAC effective 02/16/12; and Rule 62-740, FAC effective 02/16/12. 

The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), is the agency responsible for assuring 

worker safety in the workplace, including safety during construction activities that may result in exposure to 

hazardous materials. Florida does not have an OSHA-Approved State Plan. Federal OSHA also has an asbestos 

survey requirement under Title 29 CFR, which require facilities to take all necessary precautions to protect 

employees and the public from exposure to asbestos. The removal and handling of ACM is governed primarily by 

USEPA regulations under Title 40 CFR. The FDEP Asbestos Removal Program began in 1982 when the USEPA 

delegated enforcement authority to the state. It requires notification to the FDEP about the removal of asbestos 

from certain types of facilities throughout Florida that have the potential to contain contaminated materials. These 

include institutional, commercial, public, and industrial structures and residential buildings with four or more 

units; as well as ships or any active or inactive waste disposal sites. 

Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (Phase I ESAs) have been prepared for both Action Alternative Sites 

under consideration. A Phase I ESA is currently under preparation for the existing AOC facility at MacDill AFB. 

Phase I ESAs are generally performed in conformance with the scope of limitations of the American Society of 

Testing and Materials Practice E1527-13 for the purpose of identifying recognized environmental conditions 

(RECs). The Phase I ESAs for each Action Alternative are intended to satisfy one of the requirements to qualify 

for the innocent landowner, contiguous property owner or bona fide prospective purchaser limitations on liability 

under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. 

This analysis considers project-related effects on identified RECs (e.g., effects on contaminated soil, groundwater 

or sediments), as well as the potential for release of additional hazardous materials during construction, operation 

and maintenance activities under the proposed action. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-71 

3.16.2 Affected Environment 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

The hangar at Action Alternative 1 is currently occupied by Rob Dinic Interiors, a firm that customizes and 

refurbishes aircraft and helicopter interiors. The existing facility contains two spray paint booths and a floor 

trench drain system, waste paint drums, and flammable materials cabinets. An electrical substation, wastewater 

lift station, and an inactive groundwater well/holding tank are located outside of the existing structure (Chastain 

Skillman, 2016). Former operations at the site include occupation by Piper Aircraft Corporation, which conducted 

aircraft manufacturing and fluid power valve and hose fitting manufacturing from at least 1975 to 1980. No 

staining or evidence of discharges were observed, and review of available regulatory records did not identify any 

discharges or required cleanups associated with the subject property. No RECs were identified resulting from 

current or former operations at Action Alternative 1 (Chastain Skillman, 2016). 

It is understood that the current hangar structure was constructed between 1974 and 1980 (Chastain Skillman, 

2016), therefore it is possible that asbestos-containing materials and/or lead-based paint may have been used in 

construction. Federal regulations prohibiting the use of these hazardous materials did not come into full effect 

until the mid-late 1970s. 

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater 

The hangar at Action Alternative 2 is currently owned and operated by Sheltair Aviation, which uses the existing 

hangar to house three aircraft. Otherwise, the facility is currently unoccupied, and was formerly occupied by 

Clearwater Aviation Incorporated for aircraft storage and repair maintenance. Due to the age of the structure 

(circa 1964) it is likely that asbestos-containing materials and/or lead-based paint may be present in building 

materials (EPAC, 2016a). 

The subject property has involved handling of hazardous materials for over 30 years, including presence of 

aboveground and underground storage tanks (since removed). The site once contained an on-site closed loop 

chemical treatment system for residue from a commercial and military aircraft restoration and painting facility 

adjacent (west) to the site. Review of FDEP records show violations and spills have occurred in the past (EPAC, 

2016a). 

The Phase I ESA for the site (prepared when Clearwater Aviation was still using the facility) found several drums 

within the hangar, as well as in and adjacent to the storage shed, several of which were unlabeled, without 

secondary containment, and in need of disposal (EPAC, 2016a). The Phase I ESA identified several RECs at the 

site, due to the history of the site as a handler of hazard waste, the history of the adjacent site to the west as a 

generator of hazardous waste, and the current hazardous waste operations at the site. 

A Phase II investigation was undertaken for the subject property, as well as adjacent parcels to the northwest and 

south in 2016, to determine if any of the RECs have resulted in soil and/or groundwater contamination at the site 

(EPAC, 2016b). The Phase II investigation found carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbons in soil [benzo (a) 

pyrene equivalent] and groundwater (benzene and naphthalene) at concentrations above the FDEP Soil and 

Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels in some locations, and concluded that there is an indication of contaminated 

soil and groundwater at the site. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-72 

No-Action Alternative 

The existing AOC facility is located at MacDill AFB. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) 

for the facility (AECOM, under prep) identifies several RECs at the facility; however, these are due to historical 

and/or current activities on the wider Air Force Base, and not as a result of historic or current operations at the 

AOC. Groundwater monitoring at the site in March 2015 found levels of arsenic, iron, and vinyl chloride above 

the Corrective Action Objective in several of the wells near Hangar 5 (HydroGeoLogic, 2015). The potential 

source for this contamination is thought to be from activities in and around the adjacent Hangar 4 structure to the 

northwest. 

The AOC facility currently uses various chemicals for janitorial and building maintenance purposes, as well as for 

equipment maintenance activities, as detailed in Table 3.16-1 below. Equipment at the site is also fueled by 

and/or contains hazardous materials. 

Table 3.16-1: Chemicals and Hazardous Materials used at AOC Facility 

Equipment Equipment Maintenance Building Maintenance Janitorial 

Battery-powered pallet jack 

(lead acid/gel) 

Battery-powered forklift (lead 

acid/gel) 

Battery-powered manlift 

(lead acid/gel) 

Diesel-powered forklift 

Propane-fueled forklift 

Propane-fueled manlift 

Acetylene 

Argon 

Carbon Dioxide 

Degreaser 

Gasoline 

Hydraulic oil 

Lubricant 

Motor oil 

Oxygen 

Paint 

Parts Washer 

Propane 

Spray Paint 

Transmission Fluid 

Acetylene 

Adhesive 

Argon 

Carbon Dioxide 

Carpet Cleaner 

Degreaser 

Floor Cleaner/Wax 

Gasoline 

Insecticide 

Lubricant 

Oxygen 

Paint 

Parts washer 

Propane 

Spray Paint 

Bleach 

Carpet Cleaner 

Detergent 

Floor Cleaner/Wax

Insecticide 

Polish 

Soap 

Window Cleaner 

Source: Harrison, pers.comm., 2016. 

The existing AOC facility currently generates various wastes, including small quantities of hazardous wastes 

under RCRA, including fuel filters, PT wash fluid, paint/solvent, MOGAS filters, and paint booth filters. NonRCRA hazardous wastes such as oil-contaminated rags, cutting fluids, and jet propellant-contaminated rags are 

also generated on site. The maximum annual weight of RCRA hazardous wastes generated by the AOC facility 

over the last three years was 382 pounds (Harrison, pers. comm., 2016). These wastes are managed and disposed 

of in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations as part of the wider Air Force Base operations, 

under USEPA Generator ID# FL6570024582. 

Other wastes containing small amounts of hazardous materials, such as batteries and fluorescent lamps, are 

managed under the Universal Waste Program. Wastes such as used oil, used hydraulic fluids, scrap metals, and 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-73 

tires are recycled through commercial recycling vendors. These wastes are also managed in accordance with 

applicable federal and state regulations. 

The Phase I ESA for this site (AECOM, under prep) did not identify any past releases from the AOC facility, nor 

any indication that hazardous material handling procedures were lacking. 

3.16.3 Environmental Effects 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

The proposed Action Alternative 1 would involve minor construction relating to the replacement of two-thirds of 

the existing hangar structure, including replacement of the foundation in that portion of the structure. 

The proposed action would require demolition of part of the existing hangar, which could have potentially 

significant impacts on worker health and safety and environmental quality, if appropriate federal, state, and/or 

local regulations, precautions and processes are not followed with respect to closure and decommission of the 

existing building and its contents. There is potential for spills if the existing operation is not completely emptied 

of all containers of hazardous materials prior to demolition and such containers are not disposed of in accordance 

with relevant regulations. Such regulations may include (but are not limited to) Title 29 CFR 1910 and 1926, and 

Title 40 CFR 260-268. It is recommended that an hazardous materials storage, closure and management plan be 

prepared by the entity responsible for closure and decommissioning of the existing facility operations. 

The proposed demolition of a portion of the existing hangar could also have potentially significant impacts on 

worker health and safety, as the hangar may contain asbestos and/or lead-based paint. Compliance with state and 

federal regulations requires an AHERA-style asbestos survey be conducted prior to any renovation or demolition. 

It is anticipated that if asbestos and/or lead-based paint is present in the structure, that applicable state and federal 

regulations would be adhered to during demolition activities, in which case impacts on worker health and safety 

would be reduced to less than significant. 

Machinery and vehicles used during demolition and construction activities, such as graders, backhoes, loaders and 

haul trucks, will use diesel and other fuel. This could have potentially significant impacts on environmental 

quality if BMPs with respect to spill prevention and protection, as required by a NPDES permit, are not utilized. It 

is anticipated that such BMPs would be utilized during construction, and that impacts would be less than 

significant. 

As there is no there is no known soil or near-surface groundwater contamination at Action Alternative 1, 

construction activities for the proposed action at this site would not result in exposure of workers to contaminated 

soils or groundwater, nor would it result in release of contaminants or contaminated sediments, nor generation of 

contaminated cut/fill materials or contaminated groundwater, except for asbestos and lead-based paint, as 

discussed above. 

Operation of the AOC facility at Action Alternative 1 would include maintenance and fueling activities, which 

pose a risk of accidental spills or leaks. Hazardous materials would be stored and used on the site, similar to the 

existing operations at the existing AOC facility at MacDill AFB described in Section 3.16.2, above. Once 

constructed and operational, the majority of the site would be paved and impervious. It is anticipated that NOAA 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-74 

would establish its own Generator ID with the USEPA for management of its hazardous wastes, and would 

manage its hazardous wastes in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. As such, the use 

of hazardous materials at the site would have negligible adverse environmental impacts. 

Proposed Action Alternative 1 could result in minor impacts in relation to hazardous materials and hazardous 

wastes if the mitigation measures outlined in Section 3.16.4, below, or equivalent measures, are not implemented. 

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater 

The proposed Action Alternative 2 would include removal of the hangar siding and roofing, as well as office 

interior and remnant and unnecessary utility infrastructure. Site work would include extension of underground 

mechanical, electrical and plumbing conduit, placement of metal building shell siding and roofing, installation of 

man-doors, glazing and siding, construction of the attached high bay segment and completion of site work for 

ramps, tie-downs, striping, and parking. 

Site preparation activities during construction (e.g., removal of siding and roofing) could have potentially 

significant impacts on worker health and safety and environmental quality, if appropriate federal, state, and/or 

local regulations, precautions and processes are not followed with respect to closure and decommission of the 

existing building and its contents. There is potential for spills if the existing operation is not completely emptied 

of all containers of hazardous materials prior to demolition and such containers are not disposed of in accordance 

with relevant regulations. Such regulations may include (but are not limited to) Title 29 CFR 1910 and 1926, and 

Title 40 CFR 260-268. It is recommended that an hazardous materials storage, closure and management plan be 

prepared by the entity responsible for closure and decommissioning of the existing facility operations. 

The proposed removal of siding and roofing could also have potentially significant impacts on worker health and 

safety, as these items may contain asbestos and/or lead-based paint. Compliance with state and federal regulations 

requires an AHERA-style asbestos survey be conducted prior to any renovation or demolition. It is anticipated 

that if asbestos and/or lead-based paint is present in the structure, that applicable state and federal regulations 

would be adhered to during demolition activities, in which case impacts on worker health and safety would be 

reduced to less than significant. 

Machinery and vehicles used during demolition and construction activities, such as graders, backhoes, loaders and 

haul trucks, will use diesel and other fuel. This could have potentially significant impacts on environmental 

quality if BMPs with respect to spill prevention and protection, as required by a NPDES permit, are not utilized. It 

is anticipated that such BMPs would be utilized during construction, and that impacts would be less than 

significant. 

As there is potential for existing soil and groundwater contamination at Action Alternative 2, construction 

activities for the proposed action at this site could result in exposure of workers to contaminated soils or 

groundwater, or release of contaminants or contaminated sediments if appropriate regulations, precautions and 

processes, such as required by OSHA in Title 29 CFR 1910 and Title 29 CFR 1926, are not followed. It is 

anticipated that such regulations would be followed, and that impacts would be less than significant. 

Operation of the AOC facility at Action Alternative 1 would include maintenance and fueling activities, which 

pose a risk of accidental spills or leaks. Hazardous materials would be stored and used on the site, similar to the 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-75 

existing operations at the existing AOC facility at MacDill AFB described above in Section 3.16.2. Once 

constructed and operational, the majority of the site would be paved and impervious. It is anticipated that NOAA 

would establish its own Generator ID with the USEPA for management of its hazardous wastes, and would 

manage its hazardous wastes in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. As such, the use 

of hazardous materials at the site would have negligible adverse environmental impacts. 

Proposed Action Alternative 2 could result in minor impacts in relating to hazardous materials and hazardous 

wastes, if the mitigation measures outlined in Section 3.16.4 below, or equivalent measures, are not implemented. 

No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative assumes that NOAA would continue to operate their AOC program at their current 

location at MacDill Airport, and would continue to manage hazardous materials and wastes as they currently do. 

No impacts relating to hazardous materials would occur under the No-Action Alternative. 

3.16.4 Mitigation Measures 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

The following mitigation measures are recommended in relation to hazardous materials and waste for Action 

Alternative 1 at LAL. It is assumed that effects relating to hazardous materials would be negligible, provided that 

the following measures, or equivalent actions, are undertaken: 

 NOAA shall ensure that the lease agreement includes conditions requiring that the owner prepare the 

existing building in a manner consistent with all applicable federal, state and local laws pertaining to 

hazardous materials handling, storage, transportation and disposal, including (but not limited to) relevant 

laws pertaining to asbestos and lead-based paint. 

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

The following mitigation measures are recommended in relation to hazardous materials and waste for Action 

Alternative 2 at PIE. It is assumed that effects relating to hazardous materials would be negligible, provided that 

the following measures, or equivalent actions, are undertaken: 

 NOAA shall ensure that the lease agreement includes conditions requiring that the owner prepare the 

existing building in a manner consistent with all applicable federal, state and local laws pertaining to 

hazardous materials handling, storage, transportation and disposal, including (but not limited to) relevant 

laws pertaining to asbestos and lead-based paint. 

 NOAA shall ensure that the lease agreement with PIE includes conditions requiring that the existing 

owner is responsible for remediating existing soil and groundwater contamination at the site to required 

federal, state, and/or local standards. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-76 

3.17 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES 

3.17.1 Regulatory Setting 

Executive Order (EO) 12898, known as the Federal Environmental Justice Policy, requires all federal agencies to 

identify and develop strategies to address disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental 

impacts of its programs, policies and activities on minority and low-income populations in the United States and 

its territories to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law (Federal Register, 1994). Federal agencies are 

required to make all documents, notices and hearings related to human health and the environment accessible to 

the public. The EO is intended to promote nondiscrimination in federal programs, as well as provide minorities 

and low income populations with access to information and public participation. 

Impact assessment criteria associated with environmental justice require that a significant adverse impact will not 

be predominately borne by a minority population and/or a low-income population, and that the impact not be 

appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than would be suffered by the non-minority population and/or 

non-low-income population. This section evaluates regional and census tract population and economic data from 

the U.S. Census Bureau to assess affected populations and the potential for disproportionately high adverse effects 

to occur. 

3.17.2 Affected Environment 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

The proposed action implemented at LAL would occur in the City of Lakeland, Polk County, Florida. Lakeland is 

located in central Florida, approximately halfway between Orlando and Tampa. The city of Lakeland’s population 

in 2014 was estimated at 99,942 and Polk County was estimated at 617,323 (US Census Bureau, 2014). Table 

3,17-1 summarizes the change in population for the City, County and U.S. Census Tract 141.05, the tract 

associated with this Action Alternative, between 2000 and 2014. The County and City’s population percent 

increase was approximately 27% from 2000 to 2014 (US Census Bureau, 2000; 2014). 

Table 3.17-1: Population Change by Geographic Area: Action Alternative 1 

Geographic Area 2000 2010 

(% Change 

2000-2010) 

2014 

(% Change 

2010-2014) 

(% Change 

2000–2014) 

US Census Tract 

141.05 

N/A 6,861 

(N/A) 

7,154 

(N/A) 

City of Lakeland 78,452 97,422 

(24.2) 

99,942 

(2.6) (27.4) 

County of Polk 486,924 602,095 

(23.7) 

617,323 

(2.5) (26.8) 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000, 2010, 2014 

N/A = not available 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-77

Individuals identified as white are the predominate race in the geographic area, making up approximately 79% of 

the population in 2014 (US Census Bureau, 2014). Between the years 2000 to 2014, minorities represented in the 

City, County and Census Tract 141.05 have remained static. Table 3.17-2 illustrates the racial profile of County, 

City, and U.S. Census Tract 141.05 from 2000 to 2014. 

Table 3.17-2: Racial Profile by Geographic Area: Action Alternative 1 

2000 2010 2014 

Race Census 

tract 

141.05 

Lakeland 

City 

Polk 

County

Census 

tract 

141.05 

Lakeland 

City 

Polk 

County

Census 

tract 

141.05 

Lakeland 

City 

Polk 

County

White Unavailable 73.5% 79.6% 85.6% 71.0% 75.2% 84.5% 74.0% 78.8% 

Minority Unavailable 26.5% 20.4% 14.4% 29% 24.8% 15.5% 26.0% 21.2% 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000; 2010; 2014. 

The percentage of the population living in poverty is determined by the family size and earning less than a certain 

amount of income, which is adjusted each year by the U.S. Census Bureau based on inflation and other factors. 

Poverty thresholds are the dollar amount used by the U.S. Census Bureau to determine a family’s poverty status. 

The following values represent the National poverty thresholds since 2000 for a family of four, two adults and 

two dependents (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000; 2010; 2014): 

 2000 – $ 13,874

 2010 – $ 22,314

 2014 – $ 24,008

Table 3.17-3 illustrates the mean income for a household, families living under poverty status, the percentage of 

the population over 16 years of age in the labor force and the percentage of the population that is unemployed in 

the City, County, and Census Tract. The mean income of a household in 2014 in the County of Polk was $56,063, 

which was slightly higher than the City and Census Tract (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014). The County also 

experienced a slightly lower percentage of families living in poverty compared to the Census Tract and the City. 

Table 3.17-3: Socioeconomic Factors by Geographic Area: Action Alternative 1 

Geographic Area 

Mean Household 

Income 

Poverty Status 

for all families Labor Force Unemployment 

U.S. Census Tract 141.05 $52,864 14.2% 50.7% 3.4%

Lakeland City $54,073 14.4% 54.6% 7.1%

Polk County $56,063 13.8% 55.9% 6.7% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-78

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

The proposed action implemented at St. Petersburg–Clearwater International Airport would occur in 

Unincorporated Pinellas County, Florida, adjacent the city of St. Petersburg. The site is on the Florida’s gulf 

coast, located approximately 25 miles Southwest of Tampa, Florida, and 23 miles from NOAA’s current AOC 

base of operations. The City and County experienced a population decrease between 2000 and 2010. However, 

there was a slight population increase between 2010 and 2014 of 1.0% for the City and 0.7% for the County (U.S. 

Census Bureau, 2010; 2014). This population growth rate is far lower than the state average rate of 21.14% and 

the national average rate of 11.61% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010; 2014). Table 3.17-4 illustrates Population 

Change by Geographic area from 2000 to 2014. 

Table 3.17-4: Population Change by Geographic Area: Action Alternative 2 

Geographic Area 2000 2010 

(% Change 

2000-2010) 

2014 

(% Change 

2010-2014) 

(% Change 

2000–2014) 

US Census Tract 245.09 N/A 3,688 

(N/A)

 3,235 

(-12.3%) (N/A)

City of St. Petersburg 248,232 245,715 

 (-1.01) 

248,429 

 (1.0%) (0.1%)

Pinellas County 921,482 918,263 

 (-0.4) 

925,030 

 (0.7) (0.39%)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000; 2010; 2014. 

N/A = not available 

Individuals identified as white are the predominate race in the geographic area, making up approximately 76% of 

the population in the City and County in 2014 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014). However, between the years 2000 to 

2014, minorities represented in the City, County and Census Tract have grown. The Census Tract experienced the 

most growth in minorities between these years from 8.8% to 16.7%. The minority population in the City of St. 

Petersburg was higher at 31.1% than that of Pinellas County at 17.1% in 2014 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 and 

2014). Table 3.17-5 illustrates the racial profile of County, City, and U.S. Census Tract from 2000 to 2014. 

Table 3.17-5: Racial Profile by Geographic Area: Action Alternative 2 

2000 2010 2014 

Census 

tract 

245.09 

City of St. 

Petersburg 

Pinellas 

County 

Census 

tract 

245.09 

City of St. 

Petersburg 

Pinellas 

County 

Census 

tract 

245.09 

City of St. 

Petersburg 

Pinellas 

County 

Race

White N/A 71.4% 85.9% 91.2% 69.3% 83.8% 83.3% 68.9% 82.9%

Minority N/A 28.6% 14.1% 8.8% 30.7% 16.6% 16.7% 31.1% 17.1%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000; 2010; 2014. 

N/A = not available 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-79 

The mean annual income of a household was $64,335 and $64,834 in the City and County, respectively. In 

comparison, the Census Tract income was notably higher at $95,550 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014). Table 3.17-6, 

below, illustrates the mean income for a household, families living under poverty status, the percentage of the 

population over age 16 in the labor force and the percentage of the population that is unemployed in the City, 

County, and Census Tract in 2014. 

Table 3.17-6: Socioeconomic Factors by Geographic Area: Action Alternative 2 

Geographic Area 

Mean Household 

Income 

Poverty Status 

for all families Labor Force Unemployment 

U.S. Census Tract 

245.09 

$95,550 3.3% 75.9% 3.8% 

City of St. Petersburg $64,335 11.9% 64.5% 6.5% 

Pinellas County $64,834 9.7% 59.0% 5.7% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014.

No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative assumes that NOAA’s AOC and its fleet of aircraft operations will remain at its 

current location, MacDill AFB, in Tampa Florida. The No-Action Alternative assumes no substantive change 

occurs in the current socioeconomic environment at MacDill AFB. 

3.17.3 Environmental Consequences 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

The proposed Action Alternative 1 would have negligible socioeconomic effects. Existing conditions in housing, 

incomes and poverty rates would most likely remain unchanged due to the proposed action. Some short-term 

economic benefits to the communities in or near Lakeland may be experienced, as improvements to the existing 

hangar facilities would require a small number of workers related to construction and evaluation activities and a 

long-term benefit due to AOC staff that may relocate to this area. A net increase in noise and air emissions from 

proposed aircraft operations would result from NOAA’s AOC relocation. However, these effects are not expected 

to be substantial based on the analysis of these topics in other sections of this EA. 

No minority or low-income populations are present in the potentially affected area, hence there would be no 

adverse or disproportionate environmental effects to these populations with respect to environmental justice. 

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

The proposed Action Alternative 2 would have negligible socioeconomic effects. Existing conditions in housing, 

incomes and poverty rates would most likely remain unchanged. Short-term economic benefit to communities in 

St. Petersburg would be experienced, as improvements to the existing hangar facilities would require a small 

number of workers related to construction and evaluation activities. 

No minority or low-income populations are present in the potentially affected area, hence there would be no 

adverse or disproportionate environmental effects to these populations with respect to environmental justice. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-80 

No-Action Alternative 

Under No-Action Alternative, NOAA’s AOC program would remain at current location, MacDill AFB, in Tampa 

Florida. No effects to environmental justice or socioeconomic resources would result. 

3.17.4 Mitigation Measures 

No mitigation measures are required for either of the two Action Alternatives, or for the No-Action Alternative in 

relation to environmental justice and socioeconomics. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-81

3.18 CLIMATE AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 

3.18.1 Regulatory Setting 

The USEPA is the federal agency responsible for implementing national programs related to Greenhouse Gas 

(GHG) emissions and climate change under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and Clean Air Act Amendments 

(CAAA). The Supreme Court of the U.S. ruled on April 2, 2007, that CO2 is an air pollutant as defined under the 

CAA, and that USEPA has the authority to regulate emissions of GHGs. In December 2009, the USEPA 

Administrator signed a final action under Section 202(a) of the CAA, which identifies six GHGs that constitute a 

threat to public health and welfare. In light of this, USEPA developed standards and regulations to limit the 

emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles and for specific stationary sources, as well as a renewable fuel 

standard program. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency “Endangerment” and “Cause or Contribute” Findings 

On December 7, 2009, the USEPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding GHGs under Section 

202(a) of the CAA which applies to the federal government’s ability to regulate GHG emissions: 

 Endangerment Finding: The current and projected concentrations of the six key GHGs—CO2, methane,

nitrous oxide, HFCs, PFCs, and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)—in the atmosphere threaten the public health

and welfare of current and future generations.

 Cause or Contribute Finding: The combined emissions of these GHGs from new motor vehicles and new

motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG pollution that threatens public health and welfare.

On August 15, 2016, the USEPA published the final rule which finalizes CAA finding that GHG emissions from 

certain classes of aircraft endanger human health and welfare (USGPO, 2016). 

Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule 

On September 22, 2009, the USEPA issued the Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule, which requires reporting of 

GHG data and other relevant information from fossil fuel and industrial GHG suppliers, vehicle and engine 

manufacturers, and all facilities that would emit 25,000 Metric Tons or more of CO2e per year. Facility owners 

are required to submit an annual report with detailed calculations of facility GHG emissions on March 31 for 

emissions from the previous calendar year. The Reporting Rule also mandates recordkeeping and administrative 

requirements to enable USEPA to verify the annual GHG emissions reports. 

Council on Environmental Quality Guidance 

On August 2, 2016, the Council on Environmental Quality published final guidance that supersedes the draft 

GHG and climate change guidance released by CEQ in December 2014. The final guidance applies to all 

proposed Federal agency actions, including land and resource management actions. This guidance explains that 

agencies should consider both the potential effects of a proposed action on climate change, as indicated by its 

estimated GHG emissions, and the implications of climate change for the environmental effects of a proposed 

action (CEQ, 2016). The guidance encourages agencies to draw from their experience and expertise to determine 

the appropriate level (broad, programmatic or project- or site-specific) and type (quantitative or qualitative) of 

analysis required to comply with NEPA. The guidance recommends that agencies quantify a proposed agency 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-82 

action’s projected direct and indirect GHG emissions, taking into account available data and GHG quantification 

tools that are suitable for the proposed agency action. 

3.18.2 Affected Environment 

Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as GHGs, play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface 

temperature. GHG emissions re-radiate long-wave radiation back to the earth causing the retention of additional 

energy (heat) at and near the surface. This effect has the potential to adversely affect the local and regional 

environment because such emissions contribute, on a cumulative basis, to global climate change and associated 

effects (i.e., changes in rainfall patterns, sea level rise, and erosion rates). Since no single project is large enough 

to result in a measurable increase in global concentrations of GHG emissions, the global warming impacts of a 

project are considered on a cumulative basis. However, global GHG can lead to climate change which has effects 

on local areas. 

St. Petersburg and Lakeland have humid subtropical climates, with mild weather during winters and hot weather 

during summers. High temperatures average about 90 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) throughout the year. High heat 

indices are not uncommon for the summer months in and around the Tampa area. Rainfall averages around 50 

inches annually, with the wettest months being June through September. According to the United States Global 

Change Research Programs, 2014 National Climate Assessment the effects of climate change to the southeast 

region of the U.S. includes sea level rise threats, increasing temperatures, and decreased water availability. 

Hurricane season in Florida extends from June through November; however, the frequency of hurricanes in the 

Gulf of Mexico is greatest during the months of August, September, and October. An estimated 75 percent of all 

damage from annual hurricanes is due to tidal flooding. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC), extreme precipitation events over most of the mid-latitude land mases and over wet tropical 

regions would very likely become more intense and more frequent by the end of this century, as global mean 

surface temperature increases (IPCC, 2013). According to the IPCC, the rate of sea-level rise since the mid-19th

century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia. Over the period 1901 to 2010, 

global mean sea level rose by 7.48 inches. In addition, global mean seal level is expected to continue to rise 

during the 21st century. The IPCC reports that the rate of sea-level rise would very likely exceed that observed 

during 1971 to 2010 0.0787 inch, per year due to increased ocean warming and increased loss of mass from 

glaciers and ice sheets (IPCC, 2013). 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

Since one effect of climate change is sea level rise, the location of LAL with regard to floodplains is relevant to 

climate change. The project location for Action Alternative 1 is generally away from a coastal region and in an 

area with generally level terrain with stormwater runoff infrastructure that allows adequate drainage within the 

airport. As described above in Section 3.9.1, the pending FIRM effective December 2016 indicates the 1%-

chance floodplain is not present within Action Alternative 1 at LAL. 

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

As mentioned above, location within a floodplain is relevant to climate change due to increased threats of sea 

level rise and precipitation events. The project location for Action Alternative 2 is adjacent to Old Tampa Bay, a 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-83 

tidally influenced embayment. The hangar proposed for modification to support NOAA operations would have an 

estimated elevation of 6.5 feet MSL. The hangar is within the 100-year floodplain, which is predicted to reach 9 

feet MSL, as discussed above in Section 3.9.1. 

No-Action Alternative 

Existing OMAO AOC operations at MacDill AFB are located in an area above the 100-year floodplain and at an 

elevation of 14 feet MSL and abutting Old Tampa Bay. 

3.18.3 Environmental Consequences 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

Operational GHG emissions at LAL will increase due to proposed Action Alternative 1; however, emissions at 

MacDill AFB would decrease due to the AOC fleet operations no longer being based there. Therefore, there 

would be no net increase in GHG emissions associated with the proposed Action Alternative 1. However, 

emissions from short-term use of construction equipment will generate minor GHG emissions. There would be no 

measureable net increase or decrease of GHG emissions resulting from the continuation of AOC aircraft, vehicles, 

or ground service equipment operations, as these activities are not expected to change under any of the 

alternatives considered. For the purpose of this evaluation, it is reasonable to conclude that GHG emissions levels 

associated with the temporary construction activities are so low as to be considered inconsequential. No further 

analysis is warranted. 

No adverse effects due to GHG emissions from the proposed Action Alternative 1 are anticipated and no further 

analysis is warranted. Note the project area is not in an area likely to be subject to adverse effects from climate 

change; however, a comprehensive regional assessment of drainage runoff capacity has not been prepared within 

the scope of this project. 

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

Operational GHG emissions at PIE will increase due to proposed Action Alternative 2; however, emissions at 

MacDill AFB would decrease due to the AOC fleet operations no longer being based there. Therefore, there 

would be no net increase in GHG emissions associated with the proposed Action Alternative 2. However, 

emissions from short-term construction will generate minimal GHG emissions. For the purpose of this evaluation, 

it is reasonable to conclude that GHG emissions levels associated with the temporary construction activities are so 

low as to be considered inconsequential. No further analysis is warranted. 

No adverse effects due to GHG emissions from proposed Action Alternative 2 are anticipated and no further 

analysis is warranted. Note the selection of proposed Action Alternative 2 would be subject to climate change 

associated with sea level rise due to its location within a floodplain and adjacency to tidally influenced water 

body. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-84 

No-Action Alternative 

There would be no increase in GHG emissions due to construction or operational emissions. No adverse effects 

due to GHG emissions from the No-Action Alternative are anticipated and no further analysis is warranted. 

3.18.4 Mitigation Measures 

No mitigation measures are required. Because the Proposed Action at any of the Action Alternatives will not 

result in a net change in direct GHG emissions due to operational activates, and construction emissions will be 

negligible and temporary, no impact mitigations measures are warranted. Significance thresholds do not apply to 

the proposed action at each of the Action Alternatives and under the No-Action Alternative. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-85 

3.19 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

3.19.1 Regulatory Setting 

A cumulative impact must be evaluated under the NEPA and is defined as “the impact on the environment which 

results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions.” 

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a 

period of time (40 CFR, Part 1508.7). 

Cumulative impacts result when the effects of an action are added to or interact with other effects in a particular 

place and within a particular time. It is the combination of these effects, and any resulting environmental 

degradation, that is the focus of this cumulative impact analysis. While impacts can be differentiated by direct, 

indirect, and cumulative, the concept of cumulative impacts takes into account all foreseeable disturbances, since 

cumulative impacts result in the compounding of the effects of all actions over time. Thus, the cumulative impacts 

of an action can be viewed as the total effects on a resource, ecosystem, or human community no matter what 

entity (federal, non-federal, or private) is taking the action. 

This analysis of cumulative effects summarizes the evaluation of resources, ecosystems, and human communities 

identified and discussed in this EA relative to other foreseeable future actions. It considers the proximity and 

timing of other concurrent or future foreseeable actions and the potential for exacerbated effects or conflicts that 

would result in a potentially significant impact. The evaluation considers resources subject to potential cumulative 

effects and refers back, if necessary, to information presented in the earlier discussion of project-only effects. 

In general, the proposed action is not reliant upon or connected to other actions, nor is it relied upon for the 

occurrence of other actions. For each of the subject areas analyzed, the contribution of the proposed action is not 

expected to be considerable provided that appropriate mitigation measures are implemented. 

3.19.2 Affected Environment 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

Recent, on-going and foreseeable future projects have been identified at and near LAL. Recently completed 

projects include an Air Traffic Control Tower in March 2016, the rehabilitation of aprons south of Airside Center 

and construction of a permanent Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting facility in 2015, and rehabilitation of a 

Runway 9/27 intersection in 2014. Other recently completed projects at LAL include various taxiway, ramp and 

apron rehabilitation projects, the Flight Safety Facility renovation, and a new turf runway (Runway 9R-27L). 

One existing project is the Aircraft MRO Complex consisting of a hangar, air cargo facility and site infrastructure 

(FAA, 2016b). A new tenant secured by LAL to occupy a hangar at the airport will be the U.S. Customs Service. 

Foreseeable future projects include runway extensions, the rehabilitation, extension or realignment of Taxiways 

E, D, and G, hangar roof replacement at Airside Center, construction of two new hangar facilities, and prospective 

terminal expansion and unspecified Intermodal opportunities planned for cargo and rail (FAA, 2016b). 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-86

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

Recent, on-going and foreseeable future projects have been identified at and near PIE. This encompasses North 

St. Petersburg near to Largo and Clearwater. At PIE, passenger level is projected to increase from 1.7 million in 

FY 2017 to 2.1 million in FY 2022 (Tampa Bay Business Journal, 2016). A $9.8 million project to add 12,000-

square feet to commercial aircraft gates and an additional 350 new seats to the waiting area is underway. The 

project is expected to be completed in summer 2017 (83 Degrees, 2016).

A list of recent and foreseeable future regional projects in the Gateway Development Area of north St. Petersburg 

was published in April 2016. These include commercial industrial development such as a 45,000 remodel 

underway for manufacturing and office space approximately 3⁄4 mile southwest of Action Alternative 2. Beyond 

one mile is a proposed 240,000 square foot Federal Express distribution center to the southwest and two 

residential multi-unit developments to the southeast (Gateway Development Council, 2016). 

No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alternative, no substantive development would occur at or near the current area of the 

OMAO AOC operations at MacDill AFB. 

3.19.3 Environmental Consequences 

Action Alternative 1: Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport 

Several taxiway improvements and apron expansions are expected to have minor environmental impacts as they 

would generally be constructed in developed areas on the airfield. Other projects, such as the Runway 9 

extension, may have moderate environmental impacts associated with wetlands, aircraft noise, and land 

acquisition (FAA, 2016b). 

The potential impacts of each project alternative are discussed in previous sections of this EA. Adverse impacts 

from the Proposed Action on each of these resources would either be no impact or a negligible, temporary, 

localized impact associated with construction. If an alternative would have no or negligible direct or indirect 

impacts to a resource, that alternative is assumed to not contribute to any cumulative impact on that resource, and 

is not discussed further in this section. Because Action Alternative 1 would have no or negligible impacts to the 

environmental resource topics analyzed, there would be no cumulatively significant contribution to impacts on 

these resources. 

Action Alternative 2: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport 

None of the past, on-going and reasonably foreseeable projects at and nearest to PIE are not within close 

proximity and would not contribute to a cumulative impact to resources analyzed in this EA. 

The potential impacts of each project alternative are discussed in previous sections of this EA. Adverse impacts 

from the Proposed Action on each of these resources would either be no impact or a negligible, temporary, 

localized impact associated with construction. If an alternative would have no or negligible direct or indirect 

impacts to a resource, that alternative is assumed to not contribute to any cumulative impact on that resource, and 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-87

is not discussed further in this section. Because Action Alternative 2 would have an impact to floodplain 

resources, it is further considered in this section. 

NOAA data from the St. Petersburg tide gauge station since the 1940s indicate, on average, sea level has been 

rising in Tampa Bay at a rate of about an inch per decade (Tampa Bay Estuary Program, 2016). Lowland areas at 

and adjacent to PIE are more susceptible to the potential impacts of sea-level rise and severe storm events that 

would occur with global climate change. PIE and coastal areas in Pinellas County have been studied and mapped 

for the potential extent of protection likely required due to anticipated sea level rise. The area at and adjacent to 

PIE was given a protection scenario of “almost certain” (Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, 2006). Most of 

the land is already developed (except for certain barrier islands). Both sea-level rise and storm events of increased 

severity could accelerate erosion at the project site and pose an increased risk for flooding. 

The Proposed Action at PIE would result in a minor displacement of the floodplain; however, it would also 

contribute to protection of the hangar facility from these potential flood risks. The minor effects would not 

contribute to adverse cumulative impacts related to climate change over the life of the project (approximately 50 

years). There would be no cumulative effects resulting from proposed Action Alternative 2. 

No-Action Alternative 

Although military lands with uncertain protection are recommended to be given a “reasonably likely” protection 

scenario relative to sea level rise and associated cumulative effets, MacDill AFB has such strategic importance 

nationally, as well as for the Tampa Bay region, that it has been designated as “protection almost certain.” Some 

undeveloped portions of MacDill AFB may not be protected but this cannot be anticipated at this time and 

therefore the entire area is shown as “almost certain” (Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, 2006). No adverse 

change to existing or anticipated conditions would result under the No-Action Alternative. 

3.19.4 Mitigation Measures 

No mitigation measures are required for either of the two Action Alternatives, or for the No-Action Alternative in 

relation to cumulative impacts. The proposed action at PIE includes measures to protect the hangar and attached 

structural areas with a floodwater barrier system. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 3-88

[Page intentionally blank to facilitate double-sided printing] 
4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts and Suggested Mitigation Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 4-1

4.0 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS AND SUGGESTED 

MITIGATION 

No anticipated environmental impacts were identified in relation to the No-Action Alternative. Table 4-1

summarizes the anticipated environmental impacts by environmental resource identified for each action 

alternative and the mitigation measures required to support a finding of no significant impact. 

Table 4-1: Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts and Suggested Mitigation

Resource Anticipated Impact Suggested Mitigation 

Land Use Action Alternative 1: 

No effect. 

Action Alternative 2: 

No effect. 

Action Alternative 1: 

No mitigation measures are recommended. 

Action Alternative 2: 

No mitigation measures are recommended.

Geological Resources Action Alternative 1: 

Negligible. 

Action Alternative 2: 

Negligible. 

Action Alternative 1: 

No mitigation measures are recommended. 

Action Alternative 2: 

No mitigation measures are recommended.

Air Quality Action Alternative 1: 

No effect. 

Action Alternative 2: 

No effect. 

Action Alternative 1: 

No mitigation measures are required. Standard BMPs to 

reduce construction related emissions can be applied. 

Action Alternative 2: 

No mitigation measures are required. Standard BMPs to 

reduce construction related emissions can be applied. 

Water Resources Action Alternative 1: 

Negligible. 

Action Alternative 2: 

Negligible. 

Action Alternative 1: 

Mitigation for the water quantity and quality impacts 

would consist of designing a proposed project drainage 

system that meets State water quality standards as set 

forth in Chapter 17-3, FAC, by apply its recommended 

BMPs and/or those published in the Florida Airports 

Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual. 

Action Alternative 2: 

Mitigation for the water quantity and quality impacts 

would consist of designing a proposed project drainage 

system that meets State water quality standards as set 

forth in Chapter 17-3, FAC, and its recommended 

BMPs. 

Recreational 

Resources

Action Alternative 1: 

No effect. 

Action Alternative 2: 

No effect. 

Action Alternative 1: 

No mitigation measures are recommended. 

Action Alternative 2: 

No mitigation measures are recommended.
4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts and Suggested Mitigation Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 4-2

Table 4-1: Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts and Suggested Mitigation

Resource Anticipated Impact Suggested Mitigation 

Cultural Resources Action Alternative 1: 

No effect. 

Action Alternative 2: 

No effect. 

Action Alternative 1: 

No mitigation measures are recommended. 

Action Alternative 2: 

No mitigation measures are recommended.

Flora and Fauna Action Alternative 1: 

Minor effect. 

Action Alternative 2: 

Minor effect. 

Action Alternative 1: 

NOAA shall ensure that the commitments listed below 

will be followed by the site owner and the constructionrelated contractors implementing the proposed action at 

this site: 

1. The USFWS’ Standard Protection Measures for the

eastern indigo snake shall be adhered to during

construction of the proposed action;

2. Prior to construction, appropriate habitats at the site

shall be surveyed for gopher tortoise. If any burrows

are located within the site, the site owner shall

inform NOAA and coordinate with the FWC to

secure any permits needed to relocate gopher

tortoises prior to construction.

Action Alternative 2: 

NOAA shall ensure that the commitments listed below 

will be followed by the site owner and the constructionrelated contractors implementing the proposed action at 

this site: 

The USFWS’ Standard Protection Measures for the 

eastern indigo snake shall be adhered to during 

construction of the proposed action;

Wetlands Action Alternative 1: 

No effect. 

Action Alternative 2: 

No effect. 

Action Alternative 1: 

No mitigation measures are recommended. 

Action Alternative 2: 

No mitigation measures are recommended.

Floodplains Action Alternative 1: 

No effect. 

Action Alternative 2: 

Negligible effect. 

Action Alternative 1: 

No mitigation measures are recommended. 

Action Alternative 2: 

No mitigation measures are recommended.

Coastal Zone 

Management 

Action Alternative 1: 

No effect. 

Action Alternative 2: 

No effect. 

Action Alternative 1: 

No mitigation measures are recommended. 

Action Alternative 2: 

No mitigation measures are recommended.

Agricultural Resources Action Alternative 1: 

No effect. 

Action Alternative 2: 

No effect. 

Action Alternative 1: 

No mitigation measures are recommended. 

Action Alternative 2: 

No mitigation measures are recommended.
4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts and Suggested Mitigation Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 4-3

Table 4-1: Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts and Suggested Mitigation

Resource Anticipated Impact Suggested Mitigation 

Noise Action Alternative 1: 

Negligible effect. 

Action Alternative 2: 

Negligible effect. 

Action Alternative 1: 

No mitigation measures are recommended. 

Action Alternative 2: 

No mitigation measures are recommended.

Transportation Action Alternative 1: 

Negligible effect. 

Action Alternative 2: 

Negligible effect. 

Action Alternative 1: 

No mitigation measures are recommended. 

Action Alternative 2: 

No mitigation measures are recommended.

Utilities and Service 

Systems

Action Alternative 1: 

No effect. 

Action Alternative 2: 

No effect. 

Action Alternative 1: 

No mitigation measures are recommended. 

Action Alternative 2: 

No mitigation measures are recommended.

Visual and Aesthetic 

Resources

Action Alternative 1: 

No effect. 

Action Alternative 2: 

No effect. 

Action Alternative 1: 

No mitigation measures are recommended. 

Action Alternative 2: 

No mitigation measures are recommended.

Hazardous Materials Action Alternative 1: 

Minor effect. 

Action Alternative 2: 

Minor effect. 

Action Alternative 1: 

NOAA shall ensure that the lease agreement includes 

conditions requiring that the owner prepare the existing 

building in a manner consistent with all applicable 

federal, state and local laws pertaining to hazardous 

materials handling, storage, transportation and disposal, 

including (but not limited to) relevant laws pertaining to 

asbestos and lead-based paint. 

Action Alternative 2: 

NOAA shall ensure that the lease agreement includes 

conditions requiring that: 

1. The owner prepare the existing building in a manner

consistent with all applicable federal, state and local

laws pertaining to hazardous materials handling,

storage, transportation and disposal, including (but

not limited to) relevant laws pertaining to asbestos

and lead-based paint.

2. The owner is responsible for remediating existing

soil and groundwater contamination at the site to

required federal, state, and/or local standards.

Environmental Justice 

and Socioeconomics 

Action Alternative 1: 

Negligible effect. 

Action Alternative 2: 

Negligible effect. 

Action Alternative 1: 

No mitigation measures are recommended. 

Action Alternative 2: 

No mitigation measures are recommended.
4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts and Suggested Mitigation Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 4-4

Table 4-1: Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts and Suggested Mitigation

Resource Anticipated Impact Suggested Mitigation 

Climate Change and 

Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions 

Action Alternative 1: 

No effect. 

Action Alternative 2: 

No effect. 

Action Alternative 1: 

No mitigation measures are recommended. 

Action Alternative 2: 

No mitigation measures are recommended.

Cumulative Action Alternative 1: 

No effect. 

Action Alternative 2: 

No effect. 

Action Alternative 1: 

No mitigation measures are recommended. 

Action Alternative 2: 

No mitigation measures are recommended.
5 Findings Draft Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 5-1

5.0 FINDINGS AND PUBLIC OUTREACH 

The findings of this Environmental Assessment (EA) indicate that no significant effects would result from 

implementation of the proposed action at either of the two Action Alternative sites assuming standard and 

recommended impact mitigation measures listed in Section 4: Summary of Anticipated Impacts and Suggested 

Mitigation are implemented. Based on this analysis, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is warranted. 

Before a final decision to issue a FONSI or any other action, NOAA provided for a 30-day public comment 

period for agencies and the public to review and submit written comments on the content and findings in the Draft 

EA. The comment period commenced September 22, 2016, and ended on October 22, 2016. 

Immediately prior to commencing the comment period, a legal notice describing the public comment period and 

how to submit comments appeared in general circulation newspapers serving the greater metropolitan Tampa Bay 

region, the Tampa Bay Times, and the greater Lakeland, Florida, area, The Legend. 

Two comment letters were received during the public comment period, as contained in Appendix C. 
5 Findings Draft Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 5-2

[Page intentionally blank to facilitate double-sided printing] 
6 Preparers Draft Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 6-1

6.0 PREPARERS 

John A. Chamberlain 

Mr. Chamberlain is a certified Senior Project Manager for AECOM’s San Jose office and served as the Project 

Manager. Mr. Chamberlain has an MS in Environmental Studies with over 30 years of experience in National 

Environmental Policy Act analysis and preparing marine and terrestrial site-selection feasibility studies. 

Otto Alvarez 

Mr. Alvarez is a Senior GIS Specialist for AECOM’s Oakland office and served as a GIS Specialist. He holds a 

PhD in Environmental Systems. Mr. Alvarez has conducted research on ecological niche modeling and 

specializes in ArcGIS. 

Dan Botto 

Mr. Botto is an Airport Environmental Planner for AECOM’s Tampa office and served as the Noise Resource 

Specialist. He has worked exclusively on aviation-related projects with special emphasis on noise studies 

involving use of FAA’s Integrated Noise Model (INM). Mr. Botto has a BS in Aviation Business Administration 

and has over 20 years of experience. 

Terry Cartwright 

Mr. Cartwright is a Senior Ecologist for AECOM’s Tampa office and served as the Flora, Fauna and Wetlands 

Resource Specialist. He has a BS in Resource Conservation – Wetlands Ecology and 20 years of experience in 

wetlands ecology, biology, and environmental permitting. Mr. Cartwright is an FAA-qualified Airport Wildlife 

Hazard Biologist. 

Dale Edgar 

Mr. Edgar is a GIS Specialist for AECOM’s Tampa office and served as a GIS Specialist. He holds a BA in 

Geography and has over 14 years of experience in GIS. Mr. Edgar has led the development of interactive mapping 

websites for AECOM’s airport clients. 

Jeremy Hollins 

Mr. Hollins is an Architectural Historian for AECOM’s San Diego office and served as the Cultural Resource 

Specialist. He holds an MA in History, has over 13 years of experience, and specializes in architectural 

evaluation. Mr. Hollins is a US Secretary of Interior professional qualified architectural historian. 

Sarah Luce 

Ms. Luce is an Environmental Analyst for AECOM’s San Jose office and served as a Project Planner. She is in 

process of earning an MA in Applied Anthropology, with over four years of experience and specializes in 

environmental analysis and logistics. 

Caitlin Miller 

Ms. Miller is an Environmental Scientist and Planner for AECOM’s Santa Maria office and served as the 

Greenhouse Gas Specialist. She has an MA in City and Regional Planning and has over six years of experience. 
6 Preparers Draft Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 6-2

Monica Mello 

Ms. Mello is an Architectural Historian for AECOM’s San Diego office and served as a Cultural Resource 

Specialist. She has an MA in Applied History and has five years of experience. Ms. Mello specializes in historical 

and archival research. 

Stephanie Osby 

Ms. Osby is an Environmental Planner for AECOM’s San Jose office and served as a Project Planner. She has 

recent experience working for a congressional office evaluating public and environmental laws and regulations. 

Ms. Osby holds an MS in Environmental Management with six years of experience and specializes in agricultural 

and ecological evaluation. 

Russell Pratt 

Mr. Pratt is a Civil-Water Resource Engineer for AECOM’s Tampa office and served as the Water Resources and 

Floodplains Specialist. He is experienced in the analysis and design for stormwater drainage systems for a wide 

variety of project types in rural and urban locations, and wetland mitigation. Mr. Pratt is a registered professional 

engineer in the state of Florida and has degrees in both construction and civil engineering, with over 27 years of 

experience. 

Emma Rawnsley 

Ms. Rawnsley is an Environmental Planner for AECOM’s San Jose office and served as the Geology and 

Hazardous Materials Resource Specialist. She has an MS in Geology, over ten years of experience, and 

specializes in environmental impact analysis, environmental site assessments, and environmental, health and 

safety compliance. 

Paul Sanford 

Mr. Sanford is an Airport Planner for AECOM’s Tampa office and served as the Air Quality Specialist. He holds 

a BS in Environmental Science and Policy and has two years of experience. 

Michael Thompson 

Mr. Thompson is a Planning Manager for AECOM’s Tampa office and served as the Aviation Specialist. He 

holds a MBA and has over 35 years of experience. Mr. Thompson specializes in airport and heliport master 

planning, site selection, land use planning, airfield planning, airport layout plans, airport simulation and noise 

studies. 
7 References Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 7-1

7.0 REFERENCES 

6th Force Support Squadron, 2014. “Recreation” webpage. http://www.macdillfss.com/mainmenurc.aspx?SectionID=400. Accessed 09 Aug. 2016. 

83 Degrees, 2016. Development News, http://www.83degreesmedia.com/devnews/piereno032216.aspx, dated 

March 22, 2016 (accessed August 26, 2016). 

AECOM, 2016. Estimated Construction Equipment and Usage, NOAA OMAO AOC Relocation Project, August 

2016 

_______, under prep. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, NOAA OMAO Aircraft Operations Center at 

MacDill Air Force Base, Tampa, Florida. 

_______, no date. Internal database: stormwater drainage information for PIE and LAL. 

Airplanes of the Past, 2016. Airplanes of the Past webpage “MacDill Air Force Base.” 

www.airplanesofthepast.com/macdill-air-force-base.htm. Accessed August 25, 2016. 

AmHerst Consulting, 2011. Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport Master Plan Update, prepared for City of 

Lakeland, September 2011. 

_______, no date. Lakeland Linder Regional Airport Construction Plans for Airside Center Apron Rehabilitation 

Taxiway E1 Improvements and Related Work. 

Brooks, David W., 2011. Military Airfields in WW2: 1941–1945. November 19, 2011. Available online at 

http://www.airfieldsdatabase.com/ww2/ww2.htm. Accessed August 25, 2016. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2012. BLM Manual 8431 - Visual Resource Contrast Rating. Accessed 

on July 16, 2016 from 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook.

Par.79462.File.dat/8431.pdf. 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) (2016). Coastal Zone Management Act. Accessed on July 16, 

2016 from http://www.boem.gov/Coastal-Zone-Management-Act/. 

Chastain Skillman, 2016. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 3445 Aircraft Drive and 3450 Flightline 

Drive, Lakeland, Florida. Prepared for Lunz, Prebor, Fowler Architects, July 12, 2016. 

City of Lakeland, 2011. City of Lakeland webpage “Military/Aeronautics: Overview”. Available online at: 

www.lakelandgov.net/libraryspecialcollections/manuscripts/military. Accessed August 25, 2016. 

_______, 2015a. City of Lakeland Comprehensive Plan: 2010-2020. Updated December 21, 2015. 

_______, 2015b. City of Lakeland Traffic Operations. Traffic Counts for Airside Center Drive, West of Medulla. 

November 30 through December 9, 2015. 
7 References Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 7-2

_______, 2016a. NOAA Request for Lease Proposals RLP No.16EKA0100C. pgs. 7-121. 

_______, 2016b. Land Development Code. 

http://www.lakelandgov.net/Portals/CommDev/Planning%20Division/Current%20Planning/LDCs/Land

%20Development%20Code_5-16-16.pdf. 

Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 2016. All About Birds: American Kestrel. 

www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/American_Kestrel/lifehistory. Accessed 9/13/2016. 

Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2016. Draft Guidance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Available at 

<https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/nepa/ghg-guidance>. Accessed August 

29, 2016. 

Defenders of Wildlife, 2016. Basic Facts about Burrowing Owl. www.defenders.org/burrowing-owl/basic-facts. 

Accessed 9/13/2016. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 2016. Floodplain Management. Available online at: 

https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental-review/floodplain-management. 

EPAC, 2016a. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Sheltair PIE Parcel “A”. Prepared for Sheltair Aviation, 

June 3, 2016. 

_______, 2016b. Phase II Subsurface Assessment, Sheltair PIE Parcel “A”. Prepared for Sheltair Aviation, July 8, 

2016. 

ESRI, 2016. Aerial photograph imagery. www.goto.arcgisonline.com/maps/World_Imagery. 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 2006. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation 

Administration, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport 

Actions; FAA Order 5050.4B, April 28, 2006. Noise 

_______, 2013. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Area Equivalent Method 

(AEM) Version 7.0d Users Guide, July 2013. 

_______, 2015a. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Policies and Procedures 

for Considering Environmental Impacts, FAA Order 1050.1F, July 16, 2015. 

_______, 2015b. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Desk Reference, FAA 

Order 1050.1F, July 16, 2015. 

_______, 2016a. Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) Version 2b SP3. 

_______, 2016b. Draft Environmental Assessment, New Aircraft Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul (MRO) 

Hangars and Air Cargo Facility. Prepared by Environmental Science Associates, April 20, 2016, for the 

City of Lakeland. Publically notified on July 24, 2016. 
7 References Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 7-3

_______, 2016c. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration Traffic Flow Management 

System Counts, available online at https://aspm.faa.gov/tfms/sys/main.asp. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2000. Flood Insurance Rate Map Polk County Florida and 

Incorporated Areas, Panel 460 of 1025, Map Number 12105C0460F, December 20, 2000. 

_______, 2003. Flood Insurance Rate Map Pinellas County Florida and Incorporated Areas, Panel 137 of 327, 

Map Number 12103C0137G, September 3, 2003. 

_______, 2016. Flood Insurance Rate Map Polk County Florida and Incorporated Areas, Panel 460 of 1025, Map 

Number 12105C0460G, December 22, 2016. 

Federal Register, 1994. Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Environmental Justice Policy. 

FLGenWeb Project, Inc., 2016. “Herbert Jackson Drane.” Lakeland Ledger and Star Telegram (Lakeland, FL), 

Tuesday Evening, August 12, 1947. Available online at 

www.fl-genweb.org/decole/Polk/Pioneers/DraneHerbert.html. Accessed August 25, 2016. 

Florida Center for Instructional Technology, 2008a. Sinkholes of Polk County, Florida. Available online at 

http://fcit.usf.edu/florida/maps/pages/11100/f11153/f11153.htm. Accessed August 26, 2016. 

_______, 2008b. Sinkholes of Pinellas County, Florida. Available online at 

http://fcit.usf.edu/florida/maps/pages/11100/f11152/f11152.htm. Accessed August 26, 2016. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), 2015. Mandatory Non-Phosphate Sites 2015. Last 

updated December 31, 2015. Available online at: 

http://geodata.dep.state.fl.us/datasets/c2942fa59140491492f83bc24a8ec1c8_1 

_______, 2016a. FDEP website: Program for Industrial Activity – Multi-Sector Generic Permit (MSGP).

Available online at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/stormwater/npdes/industrial5.htm 

_______, 2016b. About the Coastal Management Program. Accessed on July 16, 2016 from 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/cmp/. 

Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification 

System. Third Edition. 91 pp. Florida Department of Transportation. 

_______, 2010. Florida Airports Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual. December 2010 

_______, 2015. Level of Service Standards for the State Highway System, Topic No.: 000-525-006-b, 

(Tallahassee, FL., Centennial FDOT, Effective: October 9, 2015), Available online at 

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/programs/SM/los/pdfs/LOSPolicy.pdf Accessed: August 10, 

2016. 

Florida Geological Survey (FGS), 1986. Geology of Polk County, Florida. FGS Open File Report 13. 
7 References Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 7-4

_______, 1992. Geologic Map of Polk County, Florida. OPEN FILE MAP SERIES No. 46. 

_______, 1993. Geologic Map of Pinellas County. Florida. OPEN FILE MAP SERIES No. 44. 

_______, 2016a. Florida Geological Survey website “Florida Minerals”. 

www.dep.state.fl.us/geology/geologictopics/minerals.htm. Accessed August 23, 2016. 

Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI), 2016. Maps and database website (http://fnai.org/) accessed August 

2016.

Florida Senate, 2016. 2012 Florida Statutes. Accessed on July 11, 2016 from 

https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/163.3202. 

Gateway Development Council 2016, Gateway Development Projects as of April 2016, 

https://www.stpete.org/economic_development/development_areas/gateway.php, accessed August 26, 

2016 

Global Air, 2016a. US Airport Information for Lakeland Linder Regional Airport. Available online at 

https://www.globalair.com/airport/lakeland-linder-regional-lal.aspx. Accessed August 26, 2016. 

_______, 2016b. US Airport Information for St Pete-Clearwater International Airport. Available online at 

www.globalair.com/airport/st-pete-clearwater-international-pie.aspx#. Accessed August 26, 2016. 

GTC Engineering Corporation, 2013. Drainage Calculations Taxiway E1 Improvements Lakeland Linder 

Regional Airport, GTC Engineering Corporation, July, 2013. 

Hallstrand, Chris, 2016. Personal Communication. Email from Chris Hallstrand, Airport Operations Manager, 

Lakeland Linder Regional Airport to John Chamberlain, AECOM on August 18, 2016 

Harrison, John, 2016. Personal Communication. Email “NOAA: EAS Material”. Sent from John Harrison, Chief 

of Support Services at NOAA AOC, to J. Bruce Crater, Senior Hydrogeologist at AECOM. 4:21 PM, 

August 9, 2016. 

Hipes, D., Jackson, D.R., NeSmith, K., Printiss, D., and Brandt, K., 2001. Field Guide to the Rare Animals of 

Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee. 

Homefacts, 2016a. Homefacts website: “Earthquake Information for Polk County, Florida”. 

www.homefacts.com/earthquakes/Florida/Polk-County.html. Accessed August 23, 2016. 

_______, 2016b. Homefacts website: “Earthquake Information for Pinellas County, Florida”. 

www.homefacts.com/earthquakes/Florida/Pinellas-County.html. Accessed August 23, 2016. 

HydroGeoLogic, 2015. Ninth Annual Basewide Monitoring Report, MacDill AFB, Florida. Prepared for U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers. September 2015. 
7 References Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 7-5

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science 

Basis. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/. Accessed September 16, 2016.

Jackson, Paul, 2016. Personal Communication. Email from Paul Jackson, Paul Jackson Architect, Inc. to John 

Chamberlain, AECOM on August 19, 2016. 

Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport, 2015. “LAL Events” webpage. 11 Aug. 2016. 

http://www.lakelandairport.com/airport-events 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2012. Guidance on Compliance with the 

Implementing Procedures for Executive Orders 11988 and 1199.

_______, 2016a. NOAA Office of Marine and Aircraft Operations webpage: “About OMAO”. 

http://www.omao.noaa.gov/learn/about-omao. Accessed August 26, 2016. 

_______, 2016b. NOAA Fleet Update. May 2016. Available online at: 

http://www.legislative.noaa.gov/policybriefs/NOAAFleetUpdate-May2016.pdf. Accessed August 25, 

2016. 

_______, 2016c. NOAA REQUEST FOR LEASE PROPOSALS NO. 16EKA0100C TAMPA / ST. PETE -

CLEARWATER, FL, May 16, 2016, and Amendment 1 to the RFLP. 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), 2016a. National Register of Historic Places, Polk County. 

www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/fl/polk/state/html. Accessed 8/24/16. 

_______, 2016b. National Register of Historic Places, Pinellas County. 

www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/fl/pinellas/state/html. Accessed 8/24/16. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2002. USDA Environmental Compliance Library - Farmland 

Protection Policy Act (2002), accessed July 18, 2016 from 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1042432.pdf. 

_______, 2016a. Custom Soil Resource Report for Polk County, Florida, Action Alternative 1 Site – LakelandLinder. August 23, 2016. Downloaded from NRCS Web Soil Survey website: 

www.websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ 

_______, 2016b. Custom Soil Resource Report for Pinellas County, Florida, Action Alternative 2 Site – St. 

Petersburg-Clearwater. August 23, 2016. Downloaded from NRCS Web Soil Survey website: 

www.websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ 

_______, 2016c. Farmland Protection Policy Act. Accessed July 2016 

,http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/?ss=16&navtype=SUBNAVIGATION&cid=nrcs143_0

08275&navid=100170180000000&position=Welcome.Html&ttype=detail. 

Office of Management and Budget. no date. Intergovernmental Review,

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/grants/spoc.html. 
7 References Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 7-6

Online Sunshine, 2016. Florida Statutes. Accessed on July 18, 2016 from 

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0100-

0199/0163/Sections/0163.3177.html. 

Paul Jackson Architects, Inc., 2016. Sheltair NOAA RLP 16EKA0100C Conceptual RLP/Lease Compliance 

Plans. Sheets A 0.1-A 4.0. 

PBSJ Corporation, 2004. St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport Master Plan Update, Final Report, 

prepared for St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport, January 2004. 

Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2015. 2015 Level of Service Report. 

www.pinellascounty.org/mpo 

Pinellas County, 2008. Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan, Natural Resource Conservation and Management 

Element, Chapter 1. 

_______, 2013. Comprehensive Plan - Future Land Use & Quality Communities Element. Goals, Objectives and

 Policies. http://www.pinellascounty.org/Plan/comp_plan/02-future/02-goals.pdf. 

_______, 2015. Zoning Summary. http://www.pinellascounty.org/Plan/pdf_files/zonesum.pdf. 

Polk Transportation Planning Organization, 2016. Annual Average Daily Traffic and Level of Service, 

Lakeland, July 25, 2016. 

President of the United States of America, 1977. Executive Order (EO) 11988, Floodplain Management, dated 

May 24, 1977. 

Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, 2016a. Eastern Indigo Snake. www.srelherp.uga.edu/snakes/drycou.htm. 

Accessed 9/13/2016. 

_______, 2016b. Gopher Tortoise. www.srelherp.uga.edu/turtles/goppol.htm. Accessed 9/13/2016. 

Sinclair & Stewart, 1985. Sinkhole Type, Development, and Distribution in Florida. Prepared by the US 

Geological Survey in cooperation with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Bureau of 

Water Resources Management and the Florida Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Geology. 

Tallahassee, Florida. 

Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), 2013a. Environmental Resource Permit 

Applicant’s Handbook Volume I (General and Environmental), Southwest Florida Water Management 

District, October 1, 2013 

_______, 2013b. Environmental Resource Permit Applicant’s Handbook Volume II (Design Requirements of 

Stormwater and Management Systems Water Quality and Water Quantity), Southwest Florida Water 

Management District, October 1, 2013 
7 References Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 7-7

Sprague, Mark, 2016. Personal Communication. From Mark Sprague, Deputy Director, St. Pete-Clearwater 

International Airport (personal communication, August 18, 2016). 

St. Pete-Clearwater International Airport, 2015. St. Pete-Clearwater International Airport webpage: “The 

History of PIE.” Available online at: www.fly2pie.com/about-pie/history. Accessed August 25, 2016. 

Tampa Bay Business Journal, 2016. http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/news/2016/07/08/why-st-peteclearwater-international-airport-saw-a.html, dated July 8, 2016. 

Tampa Bay Estuary Program, 2016. http://tbep.org/pdfs/Tampa-Bay-and-Sea-Level-Rise.pdf, accessed August 

26, 2016 

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, 2006. Draft report, Sea Level Rise in the Tampa Bay Region, August 

14, 2006. 

Transportation Research Board, 2000. Highway Capacity Manual. (Washington, D.C., 2000), ISBN 0-309-

06681-6. 

United States Air Force (USAF), 2014. MacDill Air Force Base webpage: “History of MacDill: 1939–Present.” 

January 1, 2014. Available online at: http://www.macdill.af.mil/Portals/26/documents/AFD-160727-

003.pdf?ver=2016-07-28-121159-130. Accessed August 25, 2016.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers 

Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coast Plain Region (Version 2.0) (ERDC/EL TR-10-20). 

United States Census Bureau, 2000. United States Census Bureau data for 2000 for Polk County, Pinellas 

County, City of Lakeland, City of St. Petersburg, Census Tract 141.05, and Census Tract 245.09. 

_______, 2010. United States Census Bureau data for 2010 for Polk County, Pinellas County, City of Lakeland, 

City of St. Petersburg, Census Tract 141.05, and Census Tract 245.09.

_______, 2014. United States Census Bureau data for 2014 for Polk County, Pinellas County, City of Lakeland, 

City of St. Petersburg, Census Tract 141.05, and Census Tract 245.09.

United States Coast Guard (USCG), 2015. USCG website: “The History of Air Station Clearwater.” February 

26, 2015. www.uscg.mil/d7/airstaClearwater/history.asp. Accessed August 25, 2016. 

United States Congress, 2016. Bibliographical Directory of the United States Congress, Entry: “Drane, Herbert 

Jackson (1863–1947).” Available online at: 

www.bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=D000486. Accessed August 25, 2016. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2016. Air Quality Design Values, 

https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report, Accessed 26 August 2016. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2011. Sand Skink and Blue-tailed Mole Skink Biology and 

Survey Protocol.
7 References Final Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 7-8

_______, 2012. Peninsular Florida Species Conservation and Consultation Guide. Sand Skink and Blue-tailed 

(Bluetail) Mole Skink. February 6, 2012.

_______, 2013a. Standard Protection measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake. August 12, 2013. Available online 

at: https://www.fws.gov/northflorida/indigosnakes/20130812_ 

eastern_indigo_snake_standard_protection_measures.htm. 

_______, 2013b. North and South Florida Ecological Field Services Offices Programmatic Concurrence for Use 

of Original Eastern Indigo Snake Key. Amended August 13, 2013. 

_______, 2016. IPAC-Information Planning and Conservation website. (https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/), accessed 

August 2016. 

United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2012. Topographic Map, Nichols Quadrangle 

_______, 2014. Two percent probability of exceedance in 50 years map of peak ground acceleration, continental 

United States. 

United States Government Publishing Office (GPO), 2012. Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.

Accessed on July 16, 2016 from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/HMAN-112/pdf/HMAN-112-

pg1223.pdf. 

_______, 2016. Finding that greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft cause or may contribute to air pollution that 

may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare; final rule. Available: < 

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-08-15/pdf/2016-18399.pdf>. Accessed August 29, 2016. 

United States Senate, 2002. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Accessed on July 16, 2016 from 

http://www.epw.senate.gov/nepa69.pdf. 

Vichich, Eric, 2011. Where does MacDill’s trash go? Official United States Air Force Website. 10 Aug 2016. 

http://www.macdill.af.mil/News/Commentaries/Article/232733/where-does-macdills-trash-go

Water Resources Council, 2015. “Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 11988, Floodplain 

Management, and Executive Order 13690” Dated October 8, 2015. 
Appendices Draft Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 

Appendix A: Summary of Listed Species Impact Determinations 

 
Appendices Draft Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 

[Page intentionally blank to facilitate double‐sided printing]

 
Appendix A Draft E

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 

APPENDIX A 

SUMMARY OF LISTED SPECIES IMPACT DETERMINATIONS 

Federal Listed Species (FWS) Status Suitable Habitat in Project Area Impact Determ

LAL PIE LAL 

Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi) Threatened Yes Yes May affect, but not likely to adversely affect May 

t

American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) Threatened-SA No No No effect Audubon’s crested caracara (Caracara cheriway) Threatened No No No effect Highlands tiger beetle (Cicindelidia highlandensis) Candidate No No No effect Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) Threatened No No No effect Red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) Threatened No No No effect Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus) Endangered No No No effect Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Endangered No No No effect Wood stork (Mycteria americana) Threatened No No No effect Everglade snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis plumeus) Endangered No No No effect Florida grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum floridanus) Endangered No No No effect Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) Threatened No No No effect Ivory-billed woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) Endangered No No No effect Sand skink (Plestiodon reynoldsi) & Blue-tailed mole skink (P. egregious lividus) Threatened No No No effect Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) Endangered No No No effect 
Appendix A Draft E

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 

State Listed Species (FWC) Status Suitable Habitat in Project Area Impact Determ

LAL PIE LAL 

Southeastern American kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus) Threatened Yes Yes May affect, but not likely to adversely affect MaGopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) Threatened Yes No May affect, but not likely to adversely affect Black skimmer (Rynchops niger) 

Species of Special 

Concern No No No effect 

Florida mouse (Podomys floridanus) 

Species of Special 

Concern No No No effect 

Florida pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus mugitis) 

Species of Special 

Concern No No No effect 

Gopher frog (Rana capito) 

Species of Special 

Concern No No No effect 

Short-tailed snake (Lampropeltis extenuate) Threatened No No No effect Limpkin (Aramus guarauna) 

Species of Special 

Concern No No No effect 

Little blue heron (Egretta caerulea) 

Species of Special 

Concern No No No effect 

Pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus) 

Species of Special 

Concern No No No effect 

Suwannee cooter (Pseudemys concinna suwanniensis) 

Species of Special 

Concern No No No effect 

Snowy egret (Egretta thula) 

Species of Special 

Concern No No No effect 

Tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor) 

Species of Special 

Concern No No No effect 

Roseate spoonbill(Platalea ajaja)

Species of Special 

Concern No No No effect 

White ibis (Eudocimus albus) 

Species of Special 

Concern No No No effect 

Florida burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia floridana) 

Species of Special 

Concern No No No effect 

Florida sandhill crane (Grus canadensis pratensis) Threatened No No No effect Least tern (Sterna antillarum) Threatened No No No effect Sherman’s fox squirrel (Sciurus niger shermani) 

Species of Special 

Concern No No No effect 
Appendices Draft Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 

Appendix B: Noise Modeling Data 

 
Appendices Draft Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 

[Page intentionally blank to facilitate double‐sided printing]

 
Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Environment and Energy

8/26/2016

DNL (dBA)

Baseline Area

(Sq. Mi.)

Alternative

Area (Sq. Mi.)

Change in

Area (Sq. Mi.)

65 0.5 0.5 7.8%

Aircraft

Type

Daytime

LTO Cycles

Nighttime

LTO Cycles

Daytime

LTO Cycles

Nighttime

LTO Cycles

707

720

737

707120

707320

717200

727100

727200 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00

737300

737400

737500

737700 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00

737800 0.05 0.05

747100

747200

747400

7478

757300

767300 1.01 0.11 1.01 0.11

767400

777200

777300

7773ER

7878R

1900D

707QN

720B

727D15

727D17

727EM1

BASE Case ALTERNATIVE Case

Airport Name/Code:

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Environment and Energy

 http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/research/models/aem_model/

Area Equivalent Method (AEM) Version 7.0d

LAL

AEM 6.0c 1
Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Environment and Energy

8/26/2016

Aircraft

Type

Daytime

LTO Cycles

Nighttime

LTO Cycles

Daytime

LTO Cycles

Nighttime

LTO Cycles

BASE Case ALTERNATIVE Case

727EM2

727Q15

727Q7

727Q9

727QF

7373B2

737D17

737N17

737N9

737QN

74710Q

74720A

74720B

747SP

757PW

757RR

767CF6

767JT9

A300B4-203

A300-622R

A310-304

A319-131

A320-211

A320-232 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.00

A321-232

A330-301

A330-343

A340-211

A340-642

A380-841

A380-861

A7D

BAC111

BAE146

BAE300

BEC58P 20.74 1.32 20.74 1.32

C130 1.71 2.42 0.20

C130E

CIT3 0.28 0.02 0.28 0.02

CL600 1.53 0.10 1.53 0.10

CL601

CNA172 69.40 4.43 69.40 4.43

CNA206 2.20 0.14 2.20 0.14

CNA182 1.76 0.11 1.76 0.11

CNA182FLT

CNA208 2.23 0.14 2.23 0.14

CNA20T

CNA441 2.76 0.18 2.98 0.25

AEM 6.0c 2
Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Environment and Energy

8/26/2016

Aircraft

Type

Daytime

LTO Cycles

Nighttime

LTO Cycles

Daytime

LTO Cycles

Nighttime

LTO Cycles

BASE Case ALTERNATIVE Case

CNA500 1.97 0.13 1.97 0.13

CNA510

CNA525C

CNA55B

CNA560E

CNA560U

CNA560XL 1.79 0.11 1.79 0.11

CNA680

CNA750 0.69 0.04 0.69 0.04

COMJET

COMSEP

CONCRD

CRJ9-ER

CRJ9-LR

CVR580

DC1010

DC1030

DC1040

DC3

DC6

DC820

DC850

DC860

DC870

DC8QN

DC910

DC930

DC93LW

DC950

DC95HW

DC9Q7

DC9Q9

DHC-2FLT

DHC6 0.35 0.02 1.58 0.24

DHC6QP

DHC7

DHC8

DHC830

DO228 1.58 0.10 1.93 0.22

DO328

ECLIPSE500

EMB120

EMB145

EMB14L

EMB170

EMB175

EMB190

EMB195

AEM 6.0c 3
Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Environment and Energy

8/26/2016

Aircraft

Type

Daytime

LTO Cycles

Nighttime

LTO Cycles

Daytime

LTO Cycles

Nighttime

LTO Cycles

BASE Case ALTERNATIVE Case

F10062 0.14 0.01 0.14 0.01

F10065

F28MK2

F28MK4

F4C

FAL20

GASEPF 2.64 0.17 2.64 0.17

GASEPV 21.70 1.38 21.70 1.38

GII

GIIB

GIV 0.16 0.03

GV 0.30 0.02 0.30 0.02

HS748A

IA1125

KC135

KC135B

KC135R

L1011

L10115

L188

LEAR25 0.06 0.06

LEAR35 7.20 0.46 7.20 0.46

MD11GE

MD11PW

MD81

MD82

MD83 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00

MD9025

MD9028

MU3001

PA28 4.84 0.31 4.84 0.31

PA30

PA31 1.32 0.08 1.32 0.08

PA42 0.43 0.03 0.43 0.03

SABR80

SD330 0.22 0.01 0.22 0.01

SF340

F16A

F16GE

F16PW0

F16PW9

Total LTOs 148.97 9.43 151.63 10.08

AEM 6.0c 4
Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Environment and Energy

8/26/2016

DNL (dBA)

Baseline Area

(Sq. Mi.)

Alternative

Area (Sq. Mi.)

Change in

Area (Sq. Mi.)

65 0.9 1.0 4.1%

Aircraft

Type

Daytime

LTO Cycles

Nighttime

LTO Cycles

Daytime

LTO Cycles

Nighttime

LTO Cycles

707

720

737

707120

707320

717200

727100

727200

737300

737400 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00

737500

737700 1.97 0.06 1.97 0.06

737800 0.22 0.01 0.22 0.01

747100

747200

747400

7478

757300

767300

767400

777200

777300

7773ER

7878R

1900D 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00

707QN

720B

727D15

727D17

727EM1

BASE Case ALTERNATIVE Case

Airport Name/Code:

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Environment and Energy

 http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/research/models/aem_model/

Area Equivalent Method (AEM) Version 7.0d

PIE

AEM 6.0c 1
Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Environment and Energy

8/26/2016

Aircraft

Type

Daytime

LTO Cycles

Nighttime

LTO Cycles

Daytime

LTO Cycles

Nighttime

LTO Cycles

BASE Case ALTERNATIVE Case

727EM2

727Q15

727Q7

727Q9

727QF

7373B2

737D17

737N17

737N9

737QN

74710Q

74720A

74720B

747SP

757PW 0.59 0.02 0.59 0.02

757RR

767CF6 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00

767JT9

A300B4-203

A300-622R 0.78 0.02 0.78 0.02

A310-304

A319-131

A320-211 5.44 0.17 5.44 0.17

A320-232

A321-232

A330-301

A330-343

A340-211

A340-642

A380-841

A380-861

A7D

BAC111

BAE146

BAE300

BEC58P 16.39 0.52 16.39 0.52

C130 12.70 0.40 13.41 0.60

C130E

CIT3 0.72 0.02 0.72 0.02

CL600 4.52 0.14 4.52 0.14

CL601 2.50 0.08 2.50 0.08

CNA172 5.87 0.18 5.87 0.18

CNA206 1.22 0.04 1.22 0.04

CNA182 2.48 0.08 2.48 0.08

CNA182FLT

CNA208 3.52 0.11 3.52 0.11

CNA20T

CNA441 6.02 0.19 6.24 0.26

AEM 6.0c 2
Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Environment and Energy

8/26/2016

Aircraft

Type

Daytime

LTO Cycles

Nighttime

LTO Cycles

Daytime

LTO Cycles

Nighttime

LTO Cycles

BASE Case ALTERNATIVE Case

CNA500 4.79 0.15 4.79 0.15

CNA510

CNA525C

CNA55B 4.28 0.13 4.28 0.13

CNA560E

CNA560U

CNA560XL

CNA680 0.37 0.01 0.37 0.01

CNA750 0.43 0.01 0.43 0.01

COMJET

COMSEP

CONCRD

CRJ9-ER

CRJ9-LR

CVR580

DC1010

DC1030

DC1040

DC3

DC6

DC820

DC850

DC860

DC870

DC8QN

DC910

DC930

DC93LW

DC950

DC95HW

DC9Q7

DC9Q9

DHC-2FLT

DHC6 1.35 0.04 2.59 0.26

DHC6QP

DHC7

DHC8

DHC830

DO228 0.23 0.01 0.57 0.12

DO328

ECLIPSE500 1.98 0.06 1.98 0.06

EMB120

EMB145 0.72 0.02 0.72 0.02

EMB14L

EMB170

EMB175

EMB190 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00

EMB195

AEM 6.0c 3
Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Environment and Energy

8/26/2016

Aircraft

Type

Daytime

LTO Cycles

Nighttime

LTO Cycles

Daytime

LTO Cycles

Nighttime

LTO Cycles

BASE Case ALTERNATIVE Case

F10062 0.79 0.02 0.79 0.02

F10065

F28MK2

F28MK4

F4C

FAL20

GASEPF 1.99 0.06 1.99 0.06

GASEPV 13.16 0.41 13.16 0.41

GII 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00

GIIB 0.18 0.01 0.18 0.01

GIV 1.18 0.04 1.34 0.07

GV 0.72 0.02 0.72 0.02

HS748A

IA1125 2.23 0.07 2.23 0.07

KC135

KC135B

KC135R

L1011

L10115

L188

LEAR25 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00

LEAR35 8.22 0.26 8.22 0.26

MD11GE

MD11PW

MD81 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00

MD82

MD83 8.44 0.27 8.44 0.27

MD9025

MD9028

MU3001 2.65 0.08 2.65 0.08

PA28 9.28 0.29 9.28 0.29

PA30 0.25 0.01 0.25 0.01

PA31 3.03 0.10 3.03 0.10

PA42

SABR80

SD330 1.24 0.04 1.24 0.04

SF340 6.14 0.19 6.14 0.19

F16A

F16GE

F16PW0

F16PW9

Total LTOs 138.83 4.36 141.50 5.00

AEM 6.0c 4
NOAA Aircraft Operations Center

7917 Hangar Loop Dr.

MacDill AFB, FL 33621

NEPA Environmental Assessment

Data Request

LCDR Nate Kahn

Flight Operations

Section Chief

FY2005

Sortie Information N42RF N43RF N45RF N46RF N48RF N49RF N56RF N57RF N68RF Total

KMCF Takeoffs 73 97 21 0 58 125 N/A 42 N/A 416

KMCF Landings 73 97 21 0 58 125 N/A 42 N/A 416

KMCF Closed Patterns 46 52 17 0 37 46 N/A 33 N/A 231

KMCF Day Sorties 19 38 4 0 17 47 N/A 9 N/A 134

KMCF Night Sorties 8 7 0 0 4 29 N/A 6 N/A 54

KMCF Total Sorties 27 45 4 0 21 76 N/A 15 N/A 188

Engine Use Information

APU/GSE Cycles 35 58 N/A N/A N/A 98 N/A N/A N/A 191

APU/GSE Hours 70 117 N/A N/A N/A 147 N/A N/A N/A 334

Engine Run HRS (Full Pwr) 4 4 1 0 9 0 N/A 9 N/A 27

Engine Run HRS (partial Pwr) 4 4 0 0 2 0 N/A 2 N/A 12

Engine Run HRS (Idle Pwr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0

Compressor Rinses 0 0 0 0 9 0 N/A 9 N/A 18

Notes:

FY 2015

Sortie Information N42RF N43RF N45RF N46RF N48RF N49RF N56RF N57RF N68RF Total

KMCF Takeoffs 9 108 45 56 110 47 9 83 47 514

KMCF Landings 8 109 45 57 111 47 9 84 47 517

KMCF Closed Patterns 0 75 33 41 72 21 0 60 35 337

KMCF Day Sorties 9 34 12 16 39 26 9 23 12 180

KMCF Night Sorties 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

KMCF Total Sorties 9 34 12 16 39 26 9 23 12 180

Engine Use Information

APU/GSE Cycles 12 44 N/A N/A N/A 33 N/A N/A N/A 89

APU/GSE Hours 24 88 N/A N/A N/A 50 N/A N/A N/A 162

Engine Run HRS (Full Pwr) 4 4 2 9 9 0 9 9 0 46

Engine Run HRS (partial Pwr) 4 4 0 2 4 0 1 2 0 17

Engine Run HRS (Idle Pwr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Compressor Rinses 0 0 0 9 9 0 9 9 0 36

Notes:

(2) N46RF was deployed away from AOC for the duration of this fiscal year.

(1) N56RF and N68RF were not part of the AOC fleet during this year.

(5) Idle Pwr Engine Runs are conducted in conjunction with normal aircraft starts.

(4) Idle Pwr Engine Runs are conducted in conjunction with normal aircraft starts.

(1) Only N42RF, N43RF, and N49RF are equipped with APUs or utilize associated GSE.

(2) N45RF, N49RF, and N68RF maintenance and associated engine runs are conducted by contracted maintenance away from

AOC.

(3) Due to the difficult nature of operating in KMCF airspace, a large portion of training events are conducted at other local

fields. If AOC were based out of a different location, it can safely be assumed the number of Closed Pattern events would

increase significantly.

(3) Only N42RF, N43RF, and N49RF are equipped with APUs or utilize associated GSE.

(4) Due to the difficult nature of operating in KMCF airspace, a large portion of training events are conducted at other local

fields. If AOC were based out of a different location, it can safely be assumed the number of Closed Pattern events would

increase significantly.
NOAA Aircraft Operations Center

7917 Hangar Loop Dr.

MacDill AFB, FL 33621

NEPA Environmental Assessment

Data Request

LCDR Nate Kahn

Flight Operations

Section Chief

FY 2020 Forecast (Existing Fleet)

Sortie Information N42RF N43RF N45RF N46RF N48RF N49RF N56RF N57RF N68RF Total

Takeoffs 100 100 60 56 110 50 10 70 48 604

Landings 100 100 60 56 110 50 10 70 48 604

Closed Patterns 65 65 48 40 70 20 0 52 36 396

Day Sorties 35 35 12 16 40 30 10 18 12 208

Night Sorties 10 10 4 4 4 6 0 4 4 46

 Total Sorties 45 45 16 20 44 36 10 22 16 254

Engine Use Information

APU/GSE Cycles 58 58 N/A N/A N/A 46 N/A N/A N/A 162

APU/GSE Hours 117 117 N/A N/A N/A 71 N/A N/A N/A 305

Engine Run HRS (Full Pwr) 4 4 3 10 10 0 10 10 0 51

Engine Run HRS (partial Pwr) 4 4 0 3 5 0 2 3 0 21

Engine Run HRS (Idle Pwr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Compressor Rinses 0 0 0 10 10 0 10 10 0 40

Notes:

(1) Only N42RF, N43RF, and N49RF are equipped with APUs or utilize associated GSE.

(2) N45RF, N49RF, and N68RF maintenance and associated engine runs are conducted by contracted maintenance away from

AOC.

(3) Due to the difficult nature of operating in KMCF airspace, a large portion of training events are conducted at other local

fields. If AOC were based out of a different location, it can safely be assumed the number of Closed Pattern events would

increase significantly.

(4) Idle Pwr Engine Runs are conducted in conjunction with normal aircraft starts.
NOAA Aircraft Operations Center

7917 Hangar Loop Dr.

MacDill AFB, FL 33621

NEPA Environmental Assessment

Data Request

LCDR Nate Kahn

Flight Operations

Section Chief

FY 2020 Forecast (with Additional Aircraft)

Sortie Information N42RF N43RF N45RF N46RF N48RF N49RF N56RF N57RF NEW N68RF NEW Total

Takeoffs 100 100 60 56 110 50 10 70 70 48 48 722

Landings 100 100 60 56 110 50 10 70 70 48 48 722

Closed Patterns 65 65 48 40 70 20 0 52 52 36 36 484

Day Sorties 35 35 12 16 40 30 10 18 18 12 12 238

Night Sorties 10 10 4 4 4 6 0 4 4 4 4 54

 Total Sorties 45 45 16 20 44 36 10 22 22 16 16 292

Engine Use Information

APU/GSE Cycles 58 58 N/A N/A N/A 46 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 162

APU/GSE Hours 117 117 N/A N/A N/A 71 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 305

Eng RUN Full Pwr 4 4 3 10 10 0 10 10 10 0 0 61

Eng Run Partial Pwr 4 4 0 3 5 0 2 3 3 0 0 24

Eng Run Idle Pwr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Compressor Rinses 0 0 0 10 10 0 10 10 10 0 0 50

Notes:

(1) Only N42RF, N43RF, and N49RF are equipped with APUs or utilize associated GSE.

(3) Due to the difficult nature of operating in KMCF airspace, a large portion of training events are

conducted at other local fields. If AOC were based out of a different location, it can safely be assumed the

number of Closed Pattern events would increase significantly.

(4) Idle Pwr Engine Runs are conducted in conjunction with normal aircraft starts.

(2) N45RF, N49RF, N68RFand N69RF maintenance and associated engine runs are conducted by contracted

maintenance away from AOC.

(5) NEW=Additional Twin Otter and King Air
Appendices Draft Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 

[Page intentionally blank to facilitate double‐sided printing]
Appendices Draft Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 

Appendix C: Agency and Public Comment Letters 

 
Appendices Draft Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 

[Page intentionally blank to facilitate double‐sided printing]
From: Stahl, Chris [mailto:Chris.Stahl@dep.state.fl.us] 

Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 12:19 PM 

To: Chamberlain, John 

Subject: State Clearance Letter for FL201609237766C - Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 

October 20, 2016

John  Chamberlain  

AECOM

100 W. San Fernando Street  

San Jose, CA  408961‐8441

    

RE: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ‐ Office Of Marine and Aviation Operations, Draft

Environmental Assessment for Aircraft Operations Center Relocation from Hanger 5 at MacDill Air Force

Base to Other Local Facilities, Hillsborough County, Florida.

SAI # FL201609237766C

Dear Jason:

Florida State Clearinghouse staff has reviewed the proposal under the following authorities: Presidential

Executive Order 12372; § 403.061(42), Florida Statutes; the Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. §§

1451‐1464, as amended; and the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321‐4347, as

amended.

Based on the information submitted and minimal project impacts, the state has no objections to the

subject project and, therefore, it is consistent with the Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP).

The state’s final concurrence of the project’s consistency with the FCMP will be determined during any

environmental permitting processes, in accordance with Section 373.428, Florida Statutes, if applicable.   

Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed plan.  If you have any questions or need further

assistance, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Chris Stahl 

Chris Stahl, Coordinator 

Florida State Clearinghouse 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

2600 Blair Stone Road, M.S. 47 

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 

ph. (850) 717-9076 

State.Clearinghouse@dep.state.fl.us 

RICK SCOTT

Governor

KEN DETZNER

Secretary of State

Division of Historical Resources

R.A. Gray Building • 500 South Bronough Street• Tallahassee, Florida 32399

850.245.6300 • 850.245.6436 (Fax) FLHeritage.com

NOAA Safety and Environmental Compliance Office (SECO) October 6, 2016 

Re: AOC Relocation 

SSMC 4 Room 11126 

1305 East West Highway 

Silver Springs, MD 20910 

RE: DHR Project File No.: 2016-3976, Received by DHR: September 22, 2016 

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Proposed NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation from MacDill Air Force Base 

Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida 

To Whom It May Concern: 

The Florida State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the referenced project for possible effects on 

historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places. The review was 

conducted in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 

and its implementing regulations in 36 CFR Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties. 

Based on the information provided, it is the opinion of this office that the proposed undertaking will have no

effect on historic properties. 

If you have any questions, please contact Scott Edwards, Historic Preservationist, by electronic mail 

scott.edwards@dos.myflorida.com, or at 850.245.6333 or 800.847.7278. 

Sincerely, 

Timothy A. Parsons, Ph.D., RPA 

Director, Division of Historical Resources 

and State Historic Preservation Officer 

Appendices Draft Environmental Assessment 

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 2016 

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation 

Appendix D: Final Determination for Floodplain Management (EO 11988)
Finding of No Practicable Alternative (EO 11988)

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation page1/11

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Finding of No Practicable Alternative (EO 11988)

Proposed NOAA Aircraft Operations Center Relocation

November 28, 2016

1. Introduction and Background Information

This document reviews activities and decisions taken per Executive Order (EO) 11988, Floodplain

Management (1977) for the NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations (OMAO) Aircraft

Operations Center (AOC) Relocation project (proposed action). The proposed action consists of facility

construction or renovation required to support relocation of the NOAA Aircraft Operations Center. The

NOAA AOC, operated by the OMAO, is required to relocate from its existing facility at MacDill Airforce

Base (MacDill) in Tampa, Florida. Two locations were identified by NOAA AOC as options. The

proposed action has also been evaluated in an Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared by NOAA under

the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).

Facilities have been considered at Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport (Action Alternative 1, Alternative 1

or LAL), located within the southwest boundary of the city of Lakeland, Polk County, Florida. Facilities

have also been considered at St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport (Action Alternative 2, 

Alternative 2 or PIE), a public/military airport within an unincorporated area of Pinellas County serving

the St. Petersburg-Clearwater-Tampa Bay Metro Area, and adjacent to Tampa Bay. Proposed actions at

each of these alternatives are further described below.

To avoid or minimize adverse impacts of a proposed action on floodplains, NOAA follows its Guidance

on Compliance with the Implementing Procedures for Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 (2012) and the

Water Resources Council (WRC) “Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 11988, Floodplain

Management, and Executive Order 13690” (2015).

EO 11988 requires federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse

impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect

support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. This objective applies to

acquiring, managing, and disposing of federal lands and facilities, such as that proposed for the OMAO

AOC Relocation project. The intent of EO 11988 is met by implementing an eight-step process, where

applicable. Although a separate federal process from the NEPA process, NOAA may accommodate the

requirements of E.O. 11988 to the extent possible through applicable NEPA procedures found in NOAA

Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, “Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, 

Executive Orders 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions; 11988 and 13690, 

Floodplain Management; and 11990, Protection of Wetlands.”
Finding of No Practicable Alternative (EO 11988)

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation page2/11

In February 1978, the WRC issued Floodplain Management Guidelines for implementing Executive

Order 11988. These guidelines provide a section-by-section analysis of the Executive Order, definition of

key terms, and an eight-step decision-making process for carrying out the Executive Order’s directives.

The process contained in the WRC guidelines incorporates the basic requirements of Executive Order

11988. Briefly, this eight-step process is:

1. Floodplain and/or wetland determination;

2. Public notification;

3. Identify and evaluate practicable alternatives to locating in the base floodplain;

4. Identify the impacts of the proposed action;

5. Evaluate measures to reduce potential adverse impacts of the proposed action;

6. Re-evaluate the alternatives;

7. Make the final determination and present the decision; and

8. Implement the action.

NOAA determined to implement these eight steps for practicable alternatives to its proposed action to

relocate the OMAO’s AOC that may occur within the 1%-chance (or 100-year) floodplain.

2. EO 11988 Eight Step Process

The following eight steps in EO 11988 have been taken by NOAA for the proposed AOC Relocation

project in conjunction with the NEPA process when possible.

2.1 Floodplain determination

Under the provisions of EO 11988 Section 2(a)(1), before taking an action, each agency shall determine

whether the proposed action will occur in a floodplain--for major Federal actions significantly affecting

the quality of the human environment, the evaluation required below will be included in any statement

prepared under Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA. The NOAA Guidance on implementing EO 11988 states that

in order to determine whether a proposed action will occur in a 100-year (or 500-year for a critical action1

)

floodplain, the first reference should be the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). If the maps

prepared by FEMA do not adequately characterize the flood hazard potential for the proposed action,

other sources that merit investigation may be used, such as flood hazard studies, hydrologic studies, soil

surveys, and other investigations.

1

Critical actions include facilities such as hospitals, police stations, fire stations, emergency communication centers, or and

facilities containing extremely hazardous materials that would threaten the public if released. The NOAA AOC does not 

qualify as an emergency response facility or possess extremely hazardous materials that would be a threat to the public if

released.
Finding of No Practicable Alternative (EO 11988)

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation page3/11

2.1.1 Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport

Proposed facilities under consideration at LAL (Alternative 1) are located within the southwest boundary

of the city of Lakeland, Polk County, Florida. The actions evaluated in this section are based on the

information received by NOAA in the City of Lakeland’s response to NOAA Request for Lease Proposals

Tampa/St. Pete- Clearwater, FL. RLP No. 16EKA0100C, dated August 12, 2016 (resubmittal).

The proposed action at Alternative 1 would involve replacement of an existing hangar structure located in

the southern portion of LAL. The portion of the hangar potentially affected is at 3450 Flightline Drive

and is currently occupied by Rob Dinic Interiors, a firm that customizes and refurbishes aircraft and

helicopter interiors.

Replacement of the southern two-thirds of the 36-year-old hangar unit at this address would occur by

demolishing that portion of the concrete block structure, replacing its cement foundation with a thicker 10-

inch deep cement foundation and attaching a pre-engineered metal hangar structure (City of Lakeland,

2016). The northern one-third of the unit would retain its existing shell and be reconfigured internally to

meet NOAA’s office, shop and storage needs. A vehicle parking area that would accommodate the

required 110 spaces is adjacent to the hangar, plus adequate apron area and aircraft tie-down locations as

specified in the OMAO request for bids is proposed. Vehicle access is via roadways adjacent to the south

side of the airport boundary, primarily Old Medulla Road and West Pipkin Road leading to Airside Center

Drive and Flightline Drive.

Crane, jack hammer, front loader, bobcat loader, and haul trucks would be mobilized to remove portions of

the existing hangar and its slab foundation and remove remnant or unnecessary underground utility

infrastructure. Site work would include the framing and installation of a slab foundation to 10-inches

thickness, extension of underground mechanical, electrical and plumbing conduit, erection of a modular

metal building shell, installation of glazing and siding, and completion of site work for ramps, tie-downs,

striping and parking. Hangar door installation and utility/fire protection measures would be installed and

connected, followed by completion of interior framing, drywall, flooring and painting. Substantial

completion is estimated by April 21, 2017.

Upon substantial completion of all or portions of the construction activities, NOAA would move

equipment, aircraft, and personnel into ready spaces. Operations would include administrative, workshop,

storage, and engineering-related tasks in support of crew and aircraft readiness for various environmental

monitoring and sensing missions. Periodic delivery of supplies, parts, and large airframe and power plant 

components would occur during operations and to support maintenance and retrofitting of aircraft. AOC

and other mission-related aircraft would access the proposed facility via use of runways and taxiways at

LAL.

LAL has been previously documented to contain approximately 5.05 acres of 100-year floodplains as

delineated by FEMA on the current Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel No. 12105C0460F and

dated December 20, 2000 (see Figure 1) (FEMA, 2000). FEMA classifies this 100-year floodplain as

Zone A. Zone A 100-year floodplains do not have a base flood elevation associated with them. However,

the December 2000 FIRM will not be in effect when the proposed action would be permitted for

construction, and the December 2000 FIRM is not considered to be the “best available data” for the

floodplain.
Finding of No Practicable Alternative (EO 11988)

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation page4/11

FEMA and Cooperating Technical Partners initiated physical map revisions to the FIRMS for all of Polk

County in 2014, which were completed in August 2014. The analysis was performed to change zone

designations, Base Flood Elevations, and Special Flood Hazard Areas, and to incorporate previously

issued Letters of Map Revision, and to reflect updated topographic information.

This analysis is the “best available data” for floodplains in Polk County, including at the prospective

project location, and is provided in the pending FEMA FIRM Panel No. 12105C0460G, which will

become the official FIRM on December 22, 2016 (FEMA, 2016). The pending FIRM indicates a portion

of the taxiway typically used for aircraft movements and could be used by AOC aircraft and would be

within Zone A (see Figure 2). Therefore, this alternative would occur in the floodplain.

2.1.2 St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport

Proposed facilities under consideration at PIE (Alternative 2) are located within an unincorporated area of

Pinellas County, nine miles north of downtown St. Petersburg, Florida, and seven miles southeast of

Clearwater, Florida. The actions evaluated in this section are based on the information received by NOAA

in Sheltair Aviation’s response to NOAA Request for Lease Proposals Tampa/St. Pete-Clearwater, FL.

RLP No.16EKA0100C and dated August 12, 2016 (resubmittal), including architectural drawings

prepared by Paul Jackson Architects, Inc.

The facilities offered at Alternative 2 would require replacement of the shell of the former Clearwater

Aviation, Inc., hangar located in the eastern portion of PIE. The 452- by 215-foot hangar is owned and

operated by Sheltair Aviation. This 97,280 square-foot hangar structure is estimated to have an average

existing finished floor elevation of approximately 8 feet, NAVD 88. Replacement of the exterior shell of

the circa-1964 hangar would occur by removing the metal siding and roofing while keeping the

foundation and the metal frame, consisting of vertical metal supporting braces and cross beams (Paul

Jackson Architects, 2016). The structural renovations and replacements would include attaching a new

24-foot-tall storage high bay with an added footprint of roughly 45-foot by 175-foot area and applying

new, replacement metal siding and roofing to the entire hangar frame. A vehicle parking area that would

accommodate the NOAA-required 110 spaces is across a tarmac and 200 feet south of the subject hangar;

adequate apron area and aircraft tie-down locations are present as specified in the OMAO request for bids

is proposed. Vehicle access is via roadways adjacent to the west side of the airport boundary, primarily

49th Street North and Roosevelt Boulevard leading to Fairchild Drive and Spadco Drive.

Local regulations (SWFWMD General Stormwater Quantity and Flood Control requirements) require that

structures for industrial, commercial or other non-residential buildings susceptible to flood damage should

have the lowest floor elevated above the 100-year flood elevation, or be designed and constructed so that

below the 100-year flood elevation the structure and attendant utility facilities are watertight and capable

of resisting the effects of the regulatory flood. The design should take into account flood velocities,

duration, rate of rise, hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces, the effect of buoyancy and impacts from

debris. Flood proofing measures should be operable without human intervention and without an outside

source of electricity. The proposed facilities at PIE would be designed in accordance with these

requirements by flood-proofing of the existing main 97,280 square-foot structure and adjacent connecting

structural additions.

Crane, jack hammer, front loader, bobcat loader and haul trucks would be mobilized to remove the hangar

siding and roofing, as well as office interior and remnant and unnecessary utility infrastructure. Site work
Finding of No Practicable Alternative (EO 11988)

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation page5/11

would include extension of underground mechanical, electrical and plumbing conduit, placement of metal

building shell siding and roofing, installation of man-doors, glazing and siding, construction of the

attached high bay segment and completion of site work for ramps, tie-downs, striping and parking.

Hangar door installation and utility/fire protection measures would be installed and connected, followed

by completion of interior framing, drywall, flooring and painting. Substantial completion is estimated by

April 2017.

Upon substantial completion of all or portions of the construction activities, NOAA would move

equipment, aircraft and personnel into ready spaces. Operations would include administrative, workshop,

storage and engineering-related tasks in support of crew and aircraft readiness for various environmental

monitoring and sensing missions. Periodic delivery of supplies, parts, and large airframe and power plant

components would occur during operations and to support maintenance and retrofitting of aircraft. AOC

and other mission-related aircraft would access the proposed facility via use of runways and taxiways at

PIE.

Substantial areas of PIE, including the entire site, taxiways and runways under consideration for use by

NOAA AOC, are located within the 100-year floodplain, as indicated in the FEMA FIRM Panel No.

12103C0137G and dated September 3, 2003 (see Figure 3) (FEMA, 2003). This floodplain designation

has not changed (nor is it being updated) since the FIRM was issued in 2003. FEMA classifies this 100-

year floodplain as a Zone AE with a base flood elevation of 9 feet referenced to North American Vertical

Datum of 1988 (NAVD88).

2.2 Public Notification

Public notification of the potential for the proposed federal action described above to occur within a

floodplain was announced in the legal notices section of the Tampa Bay Times and The Ledger on

September 9 and 11, 2016 (see Attachment A). No public comments were received by NOAA in response

to this public notice.

2.3 Identify and Evaluate Practicable Alternatives to locating in the Base Floodplain

Due to U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) realignment of aircraft assets nationally, MacDill AFB has

been directed by its command to make space available for additional KC-135R air refueling aircraft and

400 support personnel from the New Hampshire Air National Guard at Pease Airport. This addition of

aircraft and personnel will result in non-DOD-essential occupants to be relocated from MacDill AFB

aviation operation areas such as at Hangar 5, which is occupied by the OMAO AOC. MacDill AFB

notified AOC that they need to vacate the Hangar 5 location no later than July1, 2017.

Practicable in the context of EO 11988 has been defined as: Capable of being done within existing

constraints. What is practicable will be context-specific and include consideration of the pertinent factors,

such as environment, statutory authority, legality, cost, technology, and engineering. A “practicable”

alternative in the context of E.O. 11988 varies and, depending on each action, could include carrying out

the proposed action outside of the floodplain, accomplishing the same objective using other means, or

taking no action at all. If there are no practicable sites outside the floodplain, there can be alternative sites

within the floodplain that may need to be evaluated (WRC, 2015).

The OMAO determined that regional entities that can offer long-term occupancy of a similarly sized AOC
Finding of No Practicable Alternative (EO 11988)

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation page6/11

facility at an airport equipped with a minimum of an 8000-ft long runway, up to 99,000 square feet (SF)

of hangar space (with adequate height), and administrative and storage space at an airport within 50

“driving” miles of MacDill AFB would meet its relocation criteria. Per NOAA’s Guidance for

implementing EO 11988, the relocation criterion constitutes the existing constraints for the development

of practicable alternatives for the proposed action.

NOAA’s Real Property Management Division solicited proposals to public and private entities that could

accommodate the OMAO AOC facility and staff operating criteria. They have received two detailed offers

for OMAO consideration, one at LAL (Alternative 1) and one at PIE (Alternative 2). These two viable

action alternatives are being evaluated by NOAA as the practicable alternatives, per EO 11988 and

NOAA’s compliance with NEPA.

Another prospective hangar facility at Tampa International Airport was initially presented in response to

the NOAA OMAO solicitation for bids, but was withdrawn by the Hillsborough County Aviation

Authority. It was withdrawn primarily due to the schedule requirements for OMAO AOC occupancy. It

was also within the 100-year floodplain. Therefore, the Tampa International Airport is no longer an 

option. No other offers that would meet the requisite airport runway, facilities, and service requirements

necessary within fifty ‘driving’ miles of MacDill AFB were received and considered.

Based on NOAA’s review of its Final Environmental Assessment under the NEPA, the two ‘best and

final’ offers and this review under EO11988, there is sufficient information to determine that a practicable

alternative to implementing this project outside a floodplain does not exist.

2.4 Identify the Impacts of the Proposed Action

This section describes flooding conditions at each of the proposed action alternatives, the relationship of

the proposed facilities to the floodplain, the impact of the proposed facilities on the floodplain, and the

potential for the project to support direct or indirect floodplain development.

2.4.1 Lakeland Linder Regional Airport

Flooding Conditions at the Proposed Site Alternative

As indicated above, LAL contains approximately 5.05 acres exists within the 100-year floodplain as

delineated by FEMA on the FIRM Panel No. 12105C0460F and dated December 20, 2000. FEMA

classifies this 100-year floodplain as Zone A (floodplains do not have a base flood elevation associated

with them). However, December the December 2000 FIRM is not considered to be the “best available

data” for the floodplain.

FEMA and Cooperating Technical Partners initiated physical map revisions to the FIRMS for all of Polk

County in 2014, which were completed in August 2014. The analysis was performed to change zone

designations, Base Flood Elevations, and Special Flood Hazard Areas, and to incorporate previously

issued Letters of Map Revision, and to reflect updated topographic information.

Based on this analysis of the “best available data” for floodplains in Polk County, including at the

prospective project location, and provided in the pending FEMA FIRM Panel No. 12105C0460G to be

effective on December 22, 2016, no floodplains within the proposed project construction location at LAL

will occur; however, a portion of the airport taxiway is within the Zone A 100-year floodplain, as
Finding of No Practicable Alternative (EO 11988)

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation page7/11

described above.

Relationship of the Proposed Action Alternative to the Floodplain

Under the existing (December 2000) FIRM, portions of the proposed pre-engineered hangar shell and

foundation replacement would be located within the Zone A floodplain. As discussed above, this FIRM

is not the “best available data.” A pending FIRM is used to evaluate and determine floodplain impacts

for this analysis, and impacts under the existing FIRM are not analyzed.

Under the pending FIRM, none of the proposed facility improvements under Alternative 1 would be

located within the floodplain. However, a portion of the existing taxiway that may be used by AOC

aircraft would be within a Zone A floodplain.

Impact of the Proposed Action on the Floodplain

The location of the proposed facilities to support the NOAA AOC would not be within a floodplain.

However, a portion of taxiway (TaxiwayA) at LAL is within the Zone A floodplain under the pending

FIRM. Based on the analysis provided below, other taxiways exist for AOC aircraft to use that are not

within the 100-year floodplain; hence, the proposed action at Alternative 1 would result in no impact to

the floodplain.

Taxiway Use Analysis

TaxiwayAlpha (TaxiwayA) serves as a full-length parallel taxiway along the north side of Runway 9/27

providing aircraft taxi entry movements to, or exit movements from the runway for both east-to-west or

west-to-east operations. As demand dictates, an eastward extension of Taxiway Papa (Taxiway P) to

serve as a similar full- length parallel taxiway along the south side of the runway is planned and is

depicted on the current FAA- conditionally approved Airport Layout Plan (See Attachment B).

The need for AOC aircraft to utilize TaxiwayAlpha on a regular and sustained basis is unlikely as the

NOAA facility would be located within the airport’s southeast quadrant. At this location, AOC aircraft

would use other Taxiways and Taxiway Connectors to most efficiently access Runway 9/27 or Runway

5/23 (depending upon specific prevailing winds and aircraft-specific runway take-off and landing length

requirements).

Upon examination of the existing taxiway system and without knowledge of any pre-designated taxi paths

imposed by LAL for AOC aircraft when operating to and from the airport’s southeast quadrant, one could

infer that NOAA aircraft may utilize the following Taxiways and Taxiway Connectors on a regular basis

when operating on either runway (see attached Airfield Diagram):

• To and from end of east end Runway 9/27 – Taxiway Echo1, Taxiway Echo, Taxiway Connector B1,

Taxiway Bravo, Taxiway Delta, Taxiway Foxtrot, Taxiway Papa, Taxiway Connector P1.

• To and from end of the west end of Runway 9/27 – Taxiway Echo, Taxiway Echo.
Finding of No Practicable Alternative (EO 11988)

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation page8/11

• To and from end of southwest end Runway 5/23 – Taxiway Echo1, Taxiway Echo

• To and from end of northeast end Runway 5/23 – Taxiway Echo1, Taxiway Echo, Taxiway Charlie.

TaxiwayA is partially located within the Zone A floodplain. Under flood conditions, the non-inundated

portion of TaxiwayA could still be utilized by aircraft as a functional taxiway. Use of the portion of

TaxiwayA in the mapped floodplain could occur by AOC aircraft if directed by Aircraft Control Center

personnel; however, such use would not occur during periods of flooding or inundation of TaxiwayA.

The airport’s Aircraft Control Center could utilize alternative taxiways during periods when flooding is

present. The proposed action would not physically alter any taxiway, and the use of any taxiway would

not add fill or result in new structures within the floodplain. Consequently, there would be no impact on

floodplains from the proposed facilities and operations at LAL.

Land Use Planning and Floodplain Development

The City of Lakeland Comprehensive Plan identifies the area of the proposed action as within the Planned

Unit Development District (PUD) Industrial. PUDs are unique zoning districts having use and/or

development regulations that are tailored to the particular site. LAL has a Regional Airport Master Plan

Update (AmHerst Consulting, 2011).Because the area is largely built out and devoted to airport or other

aircraft-related uses, the proposed action will not induce other development within, or impacts to, the

floodplain.

2.4.2 St. Petersburg/Clearwater International Airport

Flooding Conditions at the Proposed Site Alternative

The existing 97,280 square-foot hangar building proposed for renovation is estimated to have an average

existing grade elevation of approximately 8 feet, NAVD 88. The entire site proposed for development at

PIE is located within the 100-year floodplain, as are runways and taxiways that would be used by AOC

aircraft, based on the FEMA FIRM Panel No. 12103C0137G and dated September 3, 2003 (refer to

Figure 3). This floodplain designation has not changed (nor is it being updated at this time) since the

FIRM was issued in 2003. FEMA classifies this 100-year floodplain as a Zone AE with a base flood

elevation of 9 feet referenced to North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88).

Relationship of the Proposed Action Alternative to the Floodplain

The existing 97,280 square-foot hangar building proposed for renovation is estimated to have an average

existing grade elevation of approximately 8 feet, NAVD 88. The entirety of proposed development action

is located within the 100-year Zone AE floodplain with a base flood elevation of 9 feet, NAVD 88.

Impact of the Proposed Action on the Floodplain

The entirety of proposed development action at PIE (construction or rehabilitation of three vehicle parking

areas, an HVAC building, fire sprinkler pump house, and renovation and addition to the existing hangar

building) are located within the 100-year Zone AE floodplain. Therefore, any fill added due to

constructing the development components would reduce the floodplain storage capacity. Available
Finding of No Practicable Alternative (EO 11988)

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation page9/11

floodplain storage is contained between the seasonal high water elevation and the 100-year base flood

elevation. The seasonal high water elevation at this site is below grade. Therefore, the available floodplain

storage volume is between the existing grade and the 100-year base flood elevation of 9 feet, NAVD 88.

Because the exact finished grades proposed for the development are not precisely known, the exact volume

of material placed within the floodplains cannot be quantified with great precision. Fill would be added to

construct all of the proposed development components with the exception of the 30,305 square feet of new

parking area associated with the West Parking Area. The West Parking area is an existing parking lot that

would be milled and resurfaced at the existing grade.

The remaining development actions, including areas proposed for flood-proofing, would require some fill

in order to be properly constructed. Collectively, these fill and flood-proofing actions encompass

approximately 97,280 square feet for the hangar structure plus 44,612 square feet for development actions

proposed on the east side of the existing hangar building, where the average existing grade elevation

approximates 8 feet, NAVD 88.

Therefore, the volume of floodplain loss from the average existing grade elevation of 8 feet NAVD 88 to

the 100- year base flood elevation of 9 feet NAVD 88 over 141,892 square feet is 141,892 cubic feet

(~3.26 acre-feet). This is a conservative estimate of the floodplain because it assumes the finish grades for

all five development components would be at elevation 9 feet, NAVD 88 or higher. This may not be the

case, especially for the parking lots, where the finish grades could be only a few inches above existing

grade.

The floodplain is located within a drainage area that discharges directly to a tidal water body, and adding

fill to the floodplain at this location would therefore not cause flooding impacts on adjacent properties 

from the perspective of the Southwest Florida Water Management District in Pinellas County. Therefore,

any loss in storage capacity within the floodplain is insignificant adjacent to this tidal water body

influence. As such, the agency responsible for floodplain management would not consider this a

functional loss of floodplain storage.

Given the limited displacement of approximately 3.26 acre-feet caused by the proposed action within a

broad tidal influenced flood region, the incremental change in flood capacity is considered to be

negligible. Additionally, due to the breadth of the floodplain and the current build-out nature of the

floodplain in and immediately adjacent to the project site (i.e., a functioning airport), the proposed

alteration of the floodplain would have negligible effects to the natural and beneficial floodplain values.

The effect the floodplain on the proposed action at Alternative 2 would result in facility inundation if not

protected with flood-proofing. If subject to inundation, operation of the facility would cease and aircraft

would need to be indefinitely pre-positioned to other locations. The proposed action at Alternative 2

includes installing 36-inch-tall pre-engineered concrete and movable aluminum flood-proof panels at the

base of walls and entries, restricting AOC aircraft movements at this facility during full deployment. No

effects to other facilities or human populations would result from the proposed action.

Land Use Planning and Floodplain Development

The proposed action at Alternative 2 within PIE would be consistent with the county of Pinellas’s

Comprehensive Plan and zoning requirements, since the current use of the site as an airport would remain
Finding of No Practicable Alternative (EO 11988)

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation page10/11

the same. Additionally, the project would be consistent with the St. Petersburg-Clearwater International

Airport Master Plan Update, as the existing hangar facilities offered for government use would not pose a

change in the type or intensity of use.

2.5 Evaluate Measures to Reduce Potential Adverse Impacts of the Proposed Action

No feasible mitigation measures were identified that would substantively reduce the negligible impact

to floodplain resources.

2.6 Reevaluate the Alternatives

No practicable alternatives to the proposed action at the two site alternatives evaluated meet the NOAA

criteria for relocation of the AOC operated by the OMAO.

2.7 Make the Final Determination and Present the Decision

NOAA determines that the two sites discussed above are the only options for the relocation of the AOC

operated by the OMAO; therefore, there is no practicable alternative. NOAA also determines that

neither alternative would represent a substantial adverse effect to floodplain resources.

2.8 Implement the Action

NOAA intends to enter into a lease for the proposed facilities at LAL (Alternative 1).
Finding of No Practicable Alternative (EO 11988)

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation page11/11

3. References

City of Lakeland, 2016a. NOAA Request for Lease Proposals RLP No.16EKA0100C. pgs. 7-121.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2000. Flood Insurance Rate Map Polk County

Florida and Incorporated Areas, Panel 460 of 1025, Map Number 12105C0460F, December 20, 2000.

_____, 2003. Flood Insurance Rate Map Pinellas County Florida and Incorporated Areas, Panel 137 of

327, Map Number 12103C0137G, September 3, 2003.

_____, 2016. Flood Insurance Rate Map Polk County Florida and Incorporated Areas, Panel 460 of

1025, Map Number 12105C0460G, December 22, 2016.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2012. Guidance on Compliance with the

Implementing Procedures for Executive Orders 11988 and 1199.

_____, 2016. NOAA REQUEST FOR LEASE PROPOSALS NO. 16EKA0100C TAMPA/ ST. PETE -

CLEARWATER, FL, May 16, 2016, and Amendment 1 to the RFLP.

Paul Jackson Architects, Inc., 2016. Sheltair NOAA RLP 16EKA0100C Conceptual RLP/Lease

Compliance Plans. Sheets A 0.1-A 4.0.

President of the United States of America, 1977. Executive Order (EO) 11988, Floodplain Management,

dated May 24, 1977.

Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), 2013a. Environmental Resource Permit

Applicant’s Handbook Volume I (General and Environmental), Southwest Florida Water Management

District, October 1, 2013

_____, 2013b. Environmental Resource Permit Applicant’s Handbook Volume II (Design

Requirements of Stormwater and Management Systems Water Quality and Water Quantity),

Southwest Florida Water Management District, October 1, 2013

Water Resources Council, 2015. “Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 11988, Floodplain

Management, and Executive Order 13690” Dated October 8, 2015.
Finding of No Practicable Alternative (EO 11988)

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation Figures

Figures
FIGURE 1

Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport

Flood Plain (2000)

NOAAAircraftOperations CenterRelocation

URS Oakland CA 9/20/2016 USER alvarezo PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\CONFIDENTIAL\NOAA_Airport_Relocation\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\Figure_3_9_1_Lakeland_FloodPlain2000.mxd

0 0.5

Miles

Imagery: ESRI, 2016;FEMA, 2000. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Polk County, Florida, Panel 460 of 1025, Map Number 12105C0460 F, Effective Date December 20, 2000.

ProjectArea
FIGURE 2

Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport

Pending Flood Plain (2016)

NOAAAircraftOperations CenterRelocation

 

URS Oakland CA 9/20/2016 USER alvarezo PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\CONFIDENTIAL\NOAA_Airport_Relocation\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\Figure_3_9_2_Lakeland_FloodPlain2016.mxd

0 0.5

Miles

Imagery: ESRI, 2016;FEMA, 2016. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Polk County, Florida, Panel 460 of 1025, Map Number 12105C0460 G, Map Effective December 22, 2016.

ProjectArea
Flood Plain (2003)

 

URS Oakland CA 9/20/2016 USER alvarezo PATH L:\Projects\GIS\Projects\CONFIDENTIAL\NOAA_Airport_Relocation\02_Maps\02_Map_Production_and_Reports\Figure_3_9_3_St_Petersburg_FloodPlain2003.mxd

0 0.5

Miles

NOAAAircraftOperations CenterRelocation

Imagery: ESRI, 2016;FEMA, 2003. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Pinellas County, Florida, Panel 137 of 327, Map Number 12103C0137 G, Effective Date September 3, 2003.

FIGURE 3

St. Petersburg-ClearwaterInternational Airport

ProjectArea

Airside Center Drive
NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation Attachment A

Attachment A
Finding of No Practicable Alternative (EO 11988)

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation Attachment A

351645

Tampa Bay Times

Published Daily

STATE OF FLORIDA }ss

COUNTY OF Hillsborough County, Pinellas County

Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Deird re

Almeida who on oath says that he/she is Legal Clerk of the Tampa

Bay Times a daily newspaper printed in St. Petersburg, in Pinellas

County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a

Legal Notice in the matter RE: NOAA site location was published in

Tampa Bay Times: 9/9/16, 9/11/16. in said newspaper in the issues of

Bay link All Pinellas, Baylink Hillsborough

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 09/11/2016.

Personally known or produced identification

Type of identification produced _

___

JEAN M MITOTES

f·t°Q>} MYCOMMISSION#GG009269

EXPIRES July 06, 2020

(EO)

COMAOJ A

AOC AOC

While NOAA has not made a decision regarding the practicability of each site

alternative, at least one relocation option is located within a Zone AE (Base flood elevations determined) as established by the Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). NOAA is currently evaluating whether other site alternatives are practicable.

NOAA

whe11e

EO 11988, NOAA

NOAA

NOAA

NOAA Safety and Environmental Compliance Office (SECO)

Re:AOCRelocation

SSMC 4 Room 11126

1305 East West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION 

THE LEDGER 

Lakeland, Polk County, Florida 

ST ATE OF FLORIDA) 

COUNTY OF POLK) 

Before the undersigned authority personally appeared 

Michelle Reece, who on oath says that she is an Account 

Executive for Advertising at The Ledger, a daily 

newspaper published at Lakeland in Polk County, Florida; 

that the attached copy of advertisement, being a 

PUBLIC NOTICE 

in the matter of FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT 

Concerning NOAA SITE RELOCATION OPTIONS 

was published in said newspaper in the issues of 

9-9, 9-11; 2016 

Affiant further says that said The Ledger is a newspaper 

published at Lakeland, in said Polk County, Florida, and 

that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously 

published in said Polk County, Florida, daily, and has been 

entered as second class matter at the post office in 

Lakeland, in said Polk County, Florida, for a period of one 

year next preceding the first publication of the attached 

copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has 

neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation 

any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose 

of securing this advertisement for publication in the said 

newspaper. 

Si '-"--'~,r,.,.~(~ Michelle Reece 

Advertising Account Executive 

Who is personally known to me. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 12th day of 

:p~016 

Notary Public 

(Seal) 

PUBLIC NOTICE In conformance with Executive Order (EO) 

11988, 'Floodplain Management," notification is hereby given of the potential for a proposed federal action to be located 

within a floodplain. The National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is evaluating site relocation options for tts Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 

(OMAO) Aircraft Operations Center (AOC), currently at MacDill Air Force 

Base, Florida. The proposed AOC relocation will enable AOC to continue tts vttal mission despite losing their current home 

at MacDill AFB. The proposed project 

would include site improvements to exist- ing airport and hangar structures to accommodate AOC operations. 

While NOAA has not made a decision re- garding the practicabiltty of each site al· 

temative, at least one relocation option is 

located wtthin a Zone AE (Base flood ele- vations determined) as established by the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map 

(FIRM). NOAA is currently evaluatinp 

whether other site alternatives are pract1· 

cable. 

In compliance wtth E.0.11988, NOAA in· 

tends to avoid impacts on floodplains whenever there Is a practicable alternative 

to a proposed action. In conformtty wtth 

EO 11988, should NOAA determine there is no practicable site alternative, NOAA 

will proceed with the floodplain alternative 

and will identify and Implement measures 

to reduce potentially adverae impacts to the resource. NOAA will not award a lease 

for any offered Property located wtthin a 

100-year floodplain unfess It has deter· mined that there is no practicable alternative. NOAA will accept written comments on their pending determination ij directed to 

the following address on or before September 27, 2016: 

NOAA Safely and Environmental 

Compliance Office (SECO) 

Re: AOC Relocation SSMC 4 Room 11126 

1305 East West Hi~a~ 

Sil.var m'1;'8 @Mn~aa. ~v 

l2076 9·9, 9-11; 2016 g 
Finding of No Practicable Alternative (EO 11988)

NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations

Aircraft Operations Center Relocation Attachment B

Attachment B
Finding of No Practicable Alternative (EO 11988)

IAKEIAND,

16259

(LAL) AIRPORT DIAGRAM AL 939(FMJ

LAKELAND UNDER RGNL

FLORDA

rn

'11

_IA

Ch

m

r

,

n

N,

S!

GI

8'

CA

0

n

-i

GI

.s

C"'i N

a..

w

rn

LO

AIRPORT DIAGRAM

16259 LAKELAND

IAKEIAND, FIORIDA

UNDER RGNL (LAL)

ATIS

118.025

IAKELAND TOWER*

12'.5 236.775

Gt«>CON

121.4.

l!J

JANUARY 2015

ANNUALRATEOFCHANGE

o.1•w '---....l......---1.-28°00'N-'- '----+--..+-----1.--1--'---1--..

TWR +:ti :• 285\ •

.

.

.

.

.

..

:

..

./111• il

+-----1 --1-_.. , -+--_,'---....J.j

.., ARE -.STATION

•

:r.'

G BEV A A

132 < 095.5°- 11499x150 'O

a:

p p

D D

E

m

27"59'N -'---'----'-E....1.... --1.... -.1----'- ELEV ti!! .. lil

RWY 05 23 130 ...

PCN35 F/A/X/T

S-94,D·150,25-93

RWY0927

PCN40 F/A/X/T

S-105,D-170,25-175

A288

CAUTION:BE ALERT TORUNWAYCROSSING ClEARANCES.

READBACK OFAll RUNWAY HOIDING INS1RUCT10NS ISREQUIRED.

i

82"02'W 82"01W
1

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY AND

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS CENTER RELOCATION

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Purpose and Need

The Office of Marine and Aviation Operations (OMAO) manages and operates National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) fleet of aircraft. The purpose of the proposed Aircraft 

Operations Center (AOC) relocation is to enable OMAO to continue its vital support of NOAA’s 

mission in an efficient and cost-effective manner. OMAO’s aircraft fleet provides capable, missionready aircraft and professional crews to support the scientific community in data gathering for research 

and environmental monitoring. In addition to research and monitoring activities critical to NOAA’s 

mission, OMAO ships and aircraft provide immediate response capabilities for unpredictable events. 

AOC is committed to the safe, efficient and economical use of NOAA aircraft and has more than four 

decades of experience developing, coordinating and successfully and safely conducting airborne

environmental data gathering missions.

The NOAA AOC has been housed at MacDill Air Force Base (AFB) since 1993. The need for the 

proposed action is due to a Department of Defense (DoD) realignment of aircraft assets, for which 

MacDill AFB is required by its command to make appropriate space available for housing additional 

staff and equipment associated with the expanded refueling aircraft support mission at MacDill AFB. 

This will result in other non-DoD-essential occupants such as the OMAO’s AOC to be relocated off of 

MacDill AFB.

Proposed Action

NOAA is proposing to relocate its AOC aircraft and operations center to an airport that provides 

between 95,000 to 99,000 square feet (SF) of contiguous space consistent with American National 

Standards Institute/Building Owners and Managers Association Office Area definitions. 

The space provided would accommodate the aircraft hangar, offices, shop/laboratory equipment, 

conferencing facilities, and other spaces as generally described below. A minimum hangar area of 

56,000 SF (of the up-to 99,000 SF) would provide fully enclosed housing for all 9 of NOAA’s aircraft, 

which is comprised of:

• Two (2) Lockheed WP-3D Orion (P-3) aircraft

• One (1) G-IV SP

• Four (4) DHC-6 Twin Otters

• One (1) King Air 350 ER

• One (1) Gulf Stream AC-695 Turbo Commander

Site Alternatives Considered

Under Site Alternative 1, facilities have been offered at Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport (LAL)

located in the 1/4NW, Section 9, Township 29 North, Range 23 East on the Nichols, Florida U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map. The airport is on 1,700 acres with 1 million square feet of 

facilities at an elevation of 142 feet above mean sea level (MSL). From the 1970s until 1999, the airfield 
2

operated as a joint civil-military facility when it hosted Army Aviation Support Facility. Prior to the 

airport being used by the military, it was a strictly commercial airline service property. According to the 

FAA Airport Master Record, LAL has 219 based aircraft, including 36 jet aircraft. The airport’s primary 

runway, Runway 9/27 is 8,499 feet long and is equipped with an Instrument Landing System (ILS); the 

secondary runway, Runway 5/23 is 5005 feet by 150 feet (Global Air, 2016a). LAL is home to the 

Central Florida Aerospace Academy, which provides an aviation-based high school curriculum; and 

Polk State College’s Aerospace Center, which offers a four-year aviation degree. The airport is also 

home to large, nationally renowned fly-in events, including the SUN’n FUN International Fly-In & 

Expo.

Under Site Alternative 2, facilities have been offered at St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport

(PIE), located in the 1/4NE, Section 3, Township 30 North, Range 16 East on the Safety Harbor, 

Florida, USGS quadrangle map. PIE is a public/military airport serving the St. Petersburg-ClearwaterTampa Bay Metro Area that surrounds Tampa Bay. PIE is within an unincorporated area of Pinellas 

County, nine miles north of downtown St. Petersburg, Florida, and seven miles southeast of Clearwater.

The airport covers 1,900 acres at an elevation of 11 feet MSL. It has two asphalt runways: Runway 

18/36 is 9,730 by 150 feet and ILS-equipped, and Runway 4/22 is 5,903 by 150 feet (Global Air, 

2016b). The National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems for 2011–2015 categorized it as a primary 

commercial service airport since it has over 10,000 passenger-boardings per year.

No Action Alternative

The No-Action Alternative is a condition in which the AOC operations are not relocated from their 

current location at MacDill AFB, under the condition in which no DoD action affecting the space used 

for existing AOC activities at MacDill AFB would occur. The location and intensity of operations and 

existing facilities associated with AOC at MacDill AFB would remain unchanged.

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

Prospective interest by Tampa International Airport in response to the NOAA OMAO solicitation for 

bids was withdrawn by the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority. It was withdrawn primarily due to 

the schedule requirements for OMAO AOC occupancy. No other offers that would meet the requisite 

airport runway, facilities, and service requirements necessary within fifty ‘driving’ miles of MacDill 

AFB were received and considered.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

NOAA prepared an EA analyzing the proposed action in conformance with procedural requirements of 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The document adheres to requirements of 

NOAA Administrative Order 216-6, Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act (amended May 20, 1999).

Based on an evaluation of the proposed action’s effect on the human environment, it was determined 

that no significant impacts would result. 
3

The EA analyzed the following topics:

• Land Use 

• Geological Resources

• Air Quality

• Water Resources

• Recreational Resources

• Cultural Resources

• Flora and Fauna

• Wetlands 

• Floodplains

• Agricultural Resources 

• Noise

• Transportation

• Utilities and Solid Waste

• Aesthetics and Visual Resources

• Hazardous Materials

• Socioeconomics

• Climate and Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions

• Cumulative Impacts

No anticipated environmental impacts were identified in relation to the No-Action Alternative. Table 4-1 

summarizes the anticipated environmental impacts to environmental resources identified in the Final EA

for each action alternative and any mitigation measures required to support this Finding of No 

Significant Impact.

Table 4-1: Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts and Suggested Mitigation

Resource Anticipated Impact Suggested Mitigation

Land Use Action Alternative 1: Action Alternative 1:

No effect. No mitigation measures are recommended.

Action Alternative 2: Action Alternative 2:

No effect. No mitigation measures are recommended.

Geological Resources Action Alternative 1:

Negligible.

Action Alternative 2:

Negligible.

Action Alternative 1:

No mitigation measures are recommended.

Action Alternative 2:

No mitigation measures are recommended.

Air Quality Action Alternative 1:

No effect.

Action Alternative 2:

No effect.

Action Alternative 1:

No mitigation measures are required. Standard BMPs to 

reduce construction related emissions can be applied.

Action Alternative 2:

No mitigation measures are required. Standard BMPs to 

reduce construction related emissions can be applied.

Water Resources Action Alternative 1:

Negligible.

Action Alternative 2:

Negligible.

Action Alternative 1:

Mitigation for the water quantity and quality impacts would 

consist of designing a proposed project drainage system 

that meets State water quality standards as set forth in 

Chapter 17-3, FAC, by apply its recommended BMPs 

and/or those published in the Florida Airports Stormwater 

Best Management Practices Manual.

Action Alternative 2:

Mitigation for the water quantity and quality impacts would 

consist of designing a proposed project drainage system 

that meets State water quality standards as set forth in 

Chapter 17-3, FAC, and its recommended BMPs.

Recreational Action Alternative 1: Action Alternative 1:

Resources No effect. No mitigation measures are recommended.

Action Alternative 2: Action Alternative 2:
2

No effect. No mitigation measures are recommended.

Table 4-1: Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts and Suggested Mitigation

Resource Anticipated ImpactSuggested Mitigation

Cultural Resources Action Alternative 1: Action Alternative 1:

No effect. No mitigation measures are recommended.

Action Alternative 2: Action Alternative 2:

No effect. No mitigation measures are recommended.

Flora and Fauna Action Alternative 1:

Minor effect.

Action Alternative 2:

Minor effect.

Action Alternative 1:

NOAA shall ensure that the commitments listed below will 

be followed by the site owner and the construction- related 

contractors implementing the proposed action at this site:

• The USFWS’ Standard Protection Measures for the 

eastern indigo snake shall be adhered to during 

construction of the proposed action;

• Prior to construction, appropriate habitats at the site 

shall be surveyed for gopher tortoise. If any burrows 

are located within the site, the site owner shall inform 

NOAA and coordinate with the FWC to secure any 

permits needed to relocate gopher tortoises prior to 

construction.

Action Alternative 2:

NOAA shall ensure that the commitments listed below will 

be followed by the site owner and the construction- related 

contractors implementing the proposed action at this site:

The USFWS’ Standard Protection Measures for the eastern 

indigo snake shall be adhered to during construction of the 

proposed action.

Wetlands Action Alternative 1: Action Alternative 1:

No effect. No mitigation measures are recommended.

Action Alternative 2: Action Alternative 2:

No effect. No mitigation measures are recommended.

Floodplains Action Alternative 1: Action Alternative 1:

No effect. No mitigation measures are recommended.

Action Alternative 2: Action Alternative 2:

Negligible effect. No mitigation measures are recommended.

Coastal Zone Action Alternative 1: Action Alternative 1:

Management No effect. No mitigation measures are recommended.

Action Alternative 2: Action Alternative 2:

No effect. No mitigation measures are recommended.

Agricultural Resources Action Alternative 1:

No effect.

Action Alternative 2:

No effect.

Action Alternative 1:

No mitigation measures are recommended.

Action Alternative 2:

No mitigation measures are recommended.
3

Table 4-1: Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts and Suggested Mitigation

Resource Anticipated Impact Suggested Mitigation

Noise Action Alternative 1: Action Alternative 1:

Negligible effect. No mitigation measures are recommended.

Action Alternative 2: Action Alternative 2:

Negligible effect. No mitigation measures are recommended.

Transportation Action Alternative 1: Action Alternative 1:

Negligible effect. No mitigation measures are recommended.

Action Alternative 2: Action Alternative 2:

Negligible effect. No mitigation measures are recommended.

Utilities and Service Action Alternative 1: Action Alternative 1:

Systems No effect. No mitigation measures are recommended.

Action Alternative 2: Action Alternative 2:

No effect. No mitigation measures are recommended.

Visual and 

Aesthetic Resources

Action Alternative 1:

No effect.

Action Alternative 2:

No effect.

Action Alternative 1:

No mitigation measures are recommended.

Action Alternative 2:

No mitigation measures are recommended.

Hazardous Materials Action Alternative 1:

Minor effect.

Action Alternative 2:

Minor effect.

Action Alternative 1:

NOAA shall ensure that the lease agreement includes 

conditions requiring that the owner prepare the existing 

building in a manner consistent with all applicable 

federal, state and local laws pertaining to hazardous 

materials handling, storage, transportation and disposal, 

including (but not limited to) relevant laws pertaining to 

asbestos and lead-based paint.

Action Alternative 2:

NOAA shall ensure that the lease agreement includes 

conditions requiring that:

• The owner prepare the existing building in a manner 

consistent with all applicable federal, state and local 

laws pertaining to hazardous materials handling, 

storage, transportation and disposal, including (but

not limited to) relevant laws pertaining to asbestos 

and lead-based paint.

• The owner is responsible for remediating 

existing soil and groundwater contamination at 

the site to required federal, state, and/or local

standards.
4

Environmental Justice 

and Socioeconomics

Action Alternative 1:

Negligible effect. 

Action Alternative 

2: Negligible effect.

Action Alternative 1:

No mitigation measures are recommended.

Action Alternative 2:

No mitigation measures are recommended.

Table 4-1: Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts and Suggested Mitigation

Resource Anticipated Impact Suggested Mitigation

Climate Change and Action Alternative 1: Action Alternative 1:

Greenhouse Gas No effect. No mitigation measures are recommended.

Emissions Action Alternative 2: Action Alternative 2:

No effect. No mitigation measures are recommended.

Cumulative Action Alternative 1: Action Alternative 1:

No effect. No mitigation measures are recommended.

Action Alternative 2: Action Alternative 2:

No effect. No mitigation measures are recommended.
5

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations state that the determination of significance 

using an analysis of effects requires examination of both context and intensity, and lists ten criteria for 

intensity (40 CFR 1508.27). In addition, NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6, Section 6.01(b) 1 

– 11, provides eleven criteria, the same ten as the CEQ Regulations and one additional for determining 

whether the impacts of a proposed action are significant. Each criterion is discussed below with respect 

to the proposed action and considered individually as well as in combination with the others.

1. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to cause both beneficial and adverse impacts that overall may 

result in a significant effect, even if the effect will be beneficial?

No. The EA analyzes the proposed action at a preferred site alternative and the no-action alternative. No 

other viable alternatives were considered. The EA describes the proposed action and environmental 

settings, and analyzes associated environmental consequences based on established standards and criteria. 

Analyses for each of the following topics and resource areas were undertaken: Land Use, Geological 

Resources, Air Quality, Water Resources, Recreational Resources, Cultural Resources, Flora and Fauna, 

Essential Fish Habitat, Wetlands and Navigable Waters, Floodplains, Coastal Zone Management, 

Agricultural Resources, Noise, Transportation, Utilities and Solid Waste, Visual and Aesthetic Resources, 

Hazardous Materials, Socioeconomics, and Cumulative Impacts.

2. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to significantly affect public health or safety?

No. Public health and safety effects are not expected to be significant. NOAA shall ensure the lease 

agreement includes conditions requiring that the owner prepare the existing building in a manner 

consistent with all applicable federal, state and local laws pertaining to hazardous materials handling, 

storage, transportation and disposal, including (but not limited to) relevant laws pertaining to asbestos and 

lead-based paint.

3. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to result in significant impacts to unique characteristics of the 

geographic area, such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild 

and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas?

No. Action Alternatives are not expected to have an adverse effect to historic properties, due to the 

absence of historic properties at the sites, and a lack of substantial alterations to the existing historic 

property at MacDill AFB and the characteristics that make it significant. No ecologically sensitive areas 

would be affected, including parkland, prime farmland, wetlands, river and estuarine areas or karst 

environments.

4. Are the proposed action’s effects on the quality of the human environment likely to be highly controversial?

No. The proposed action involves the relocation of NOAA’s AOC aircraft and operations center to an 

airport.

This EA analyzes the effects of proposed action on the human environment. A draft of this document was 

circulated and made available for review and comment by interested members of the public and 

government agencies. NOAA accepted comments on the draft during a formal 30-day public comment 

period beginning September 22, 2016, and ending October 22, 2016. No highly controversial topics were 

raised during the comment period.
6

5. Are the proposed action’s effects on the human environment likely to be highly uncertain or involve unique or 

unknown risks?

No. The anticipated effects of the proposed action on the human environment are evaluated the EA based 

on conceptual plans and worst-case conditions. There is a minimal level of uncertainty in these 

anticipated effects because final design details have not been used for the final analysis. However, while 

effects may occur, mitigation measures were recommended that would eliminate the potential for 

uncertain levels of effect or other unique or unknown risks. 

6. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to establish a precedent for future actions with significant 

effects or represent a decision in principle about a future consideration?

No. The project consists of a stand-alone facility that is limited in scope and extent. It would neither be a 

catalyst or precedent for other future actions by NOAA or others that would result in significant effects, 

nor would it influence a future action under consideration. 

7. Is the proposed action related to other actions that when considered together will have individually 

insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts?

No. The proposed action is not reliant upon or connected to other actions, nor is it relied upon for the 

occurrence of other actions. For each of the subject areas analyzed in the EA, the contribution of the 

proposed project to a cumulatively significant impact is not considerable, provided the recommended 

mitigation measures are implemented. Therefore, the proposed action will not result in a significant 

cumulative impact to the human environment.

8. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or 

objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction 

of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources?

No. The Florida State Historic Preservation Officer has determined that the project would not affect 

archaeological resources or have a direct or indirect impact to other structures either eligible for or listed 

on the Nation Register of Historic Places. 

9. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to have a significant impact on endangered or threatened 

species, or their critical habitat as defined under the Endangered Species Act of 1973?

No. Proposed Action may have a minor effect on flora and fauna. NOAA shall ensure that the commitments listed 

below will be followed by the site owner and the construction- related contractors implementing the proposed 

action at this site:

The USFWS’ Standard Protection Measures for the eastern indigo snake shall be adhered to during construction 

of the proposed action. Prior to construction, appropriate habitats at the site shall be surveyed for gopher tortoise. 

If any burrows are located within the site, the site owner shall inform NOAA and coordinate with the FWC to 

secure any permits needed to relocate gopher tortoises prior to construction.

10. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to threaten a violation of Federal, state, or local law or 

requirements imposed for environmental protection?

The effect of the proposed action on the human environment has been analyzed relative to applicable Federal, 

state and local environmental laws or regulations. No regulatory violations or other significant environmental 

effects are expected to result provided that mitigation measures recommended in the EA are implemented.
11. Can the proposed action reasonably be expected to result in the introduction or spread of a non-indigenous 

species? 

No. No transport, release, propagation or spread of non-indigenous species is associated with the proposed action. 

DETERMINATION 

In view of the information presented in this document and the analysis contained in the supporting Environmental 

Assessment prepared for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for its proposed Office of marine 

and Aviation Operations' Aircraft Operations Center relocation, it is hereby determined that the undertaking of 

the proposed action will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment. In addition, all beneficial 

and adverse impacts of the proposed action have been addressed to reach the conclusion of no significant impacts. 

Accordingly, preparation of an environmental impact statement for this action is not necessary. 

Edward Horton 

// /2:3 IM1 ~ Date I I 

NOAA Chief Administrative Officer 

7