7.1.4-EIS,_Disposal_and_Reuse_of_Naval_Air_Station_Barbers_Point_Hawaii_-_Final_EIS-Feb1999.pdf

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the

'Disposal and Reuse of Naval Air Station

Barbers Point, Hawaii

Department of the Navy

February 1999

FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT"STATEMEbJ.J Fo~·nu .. -DISPOSAL AND REUSE

OF NAVAL AIR''STATION BARBlRS PO)Nr;· HAWA'II ·

Lead Agency:

Cooperating Agency:

Proposed Action :

U.S. Departmeht.of,th·e Navy ' t .

U.S. Department of,Tra'nsportation, Federal Aviation Administration Disposal and Reuse of Naval Air Station Barbers 'Poi11t .. _ '· ., ;.

This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) e,valuates the potential environmentpl impacts of t~.e proposed disposal and subsequent. reuse 6f Navaf Air. Station Barbers Point (NASBP), Hawaii ... It incorporates comments received during the: 45-d~y p~bi iC: comment period of the. Qrafi" Els.'· .

The FEIS is being prepared pursuant to Section 102_(2),(c)' of th~ Nat,ional,Env,ironn'1ental Poli~y Act (NEPA) of 19691 42 U.5.C. §4332; Navy guidelines, OPNAYJNSJ ~og·q.18; arid i~e 1990 Defense .. B9-se Closure and Realignment Act (DBCRA), 10 U.S.C. §2687- note,. as a_mer:,ded by the 1 ~93 B?se R.eal.fgnrn,ent _and Closure (BRAC) process. In addition ··to serving N~V,Y rein1ireme.nts, the FEIS provides}b.e,,infqrrnat'ion necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FA1l fo'~prep~r~ ·decisig_n documEints'recommeriding terms and conditions for airport conveyance. It .'!Jso· provides the envirc~mmental .r!'!vie»' required to obtain FAA approval of the Airport Layout Pl'an.(ALP},.for airway and supportin'g facilities at NASBP-. ·' r, . . - : . ·.,, .

This FEIS evaluates four reuse alternative$, . each· emphasizing various type_s of development, e.g., residential, light industrial 1 recreation, COrJlr:nercic:lL'· three of. .th~ alte{rnqtives, including tlie. p-Jan -• approved by the Barbers Point Naval Air Stado·n Rei; velopment -~ortimission (the LRA) and s,igned ~y the Governor, include a general aviation r:eliever,ahpor:t.AJifth alternative, No Action,. assumes the existing airport would not be used and, al6,:ig ,with oth~r-~~rP,fus land (land not bei'ng retc1Jned by Navy or other federal agencies), would be retained by Navy· in:'taretaker status. 'NASBP will close on July 2, 1999. , . .. . . I, r

No significant environmental impacts, with the exceptipn _of i~frequent (se.veral times per year) and severe traffic conditions resulting from major events ·~t. sli~c·i~il attractions (e.g., motor sports raceway complex), are anticipated from the proposed acHoh '..'Moit.:of. the .identified 'r{.itigation would be the responsibility of the entity taking ownership of or d~v,elbpin.g· t,he ~urplus property. Appropriate treatment' of significant cultural resources will be ensured by deM, covenants as a result of Navy's consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) pu.rsu.ant to ·section 106 of the National Historic , Preservation Act. Implementation of these protective cdvenants reduces the impacts of disposal and reuse to a not significant level.

For further information, please contact th~, foljowing.

· Mr. Melvin ~aku Pacific Division, Naval, Faciiiti!;S Engineering. Command

.... . ' f-

258 Makalapi! Drjy~,· Suite 1001

Pearl Harbor, t"i'a.,waif96860-JiJ4 Telephone: (808) 471'.§ii.i( Fax' (~mH 4,7-4~5909

TABLE OF CONTENTS:·

GLOSSARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CHAPTER ONE

PURPOSE AND NEED

1.1 OVERVIEW/FORMAT OF THE FEIS ..................................... 1-1

1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................. 1-2

1.3 LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................ 1-2

1.4 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ................... 1-4

1.5 BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE PROCESS ........................... 1-4

1.5.1 Homeless Assistance Application ................................. 1-6

1.6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .............................................. 1-7

1.6.1 Scoping .................. ,.; ................................. 1-7

1.6.2 Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements ..................... 1-9

1.7 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND IMPACTS ............ 1-10

1.8 RELATED PLANNING ISSUES ......................................... 1-11

1.8.1 Hawaiian Home Lands Recovery Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-11

1.8.2 Airport Layout Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-11 1 .8.3 Ceded Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-11

1.9 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND RELATED COORDINATION ................ 1-12

1.10 LIST OF KEY APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS ..................... 1-12

CHAPTER TWO

ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSEDACTION.

2.1 REUSE PLANNING PROCESS .......................................... 2-1

2.1.1 Background .................. • .. · ................................ 2-1

2.1.2 Agency/Community Input and Decisions ofBarbers Point Local

Redevelopment Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.2 STATE-PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (NAVY:-PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) ......... 2-4

2.3 LARGE AIRPORT ALTERNATIVE ....................................... 2-9

2.4 SMALL AIRPORT ALTERNATIVE ...................................... 2-10

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF NAS BARBERS POINT TABLE OF CONTENTS

2.5 NO AIRPORT ALTERNATIVE 2-15

2.6 NO ACTION .......................... " ............................ 2-15

2.7 REQUEST CONSIDERED AND NOT INCLUDED IN THE ALTERNATIVES ...... 2-15

2.8 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS .................................. 2-15

CHAPTER THREE

AFFECTED ENVIRON ME NT

3.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ........................................... 3-2

3.1.1 Geology, Topography, and Soils .................................. 3-2

3.1.2 Groundwater ................................................. 3-3

3.1.3 Surface Water ................................................ 3-4

3.1.4 Climate and Air Quality ..... : .................................. 3-7

3.1.5 Noise ...................................................... 3-8

3.1.6 Visual Resources ........... .- . .- ............................... 3-11

3.1.7 Transportation ............................................... 3-11

3.1.7.1 AirTransportation ... :: ............................... 3-11

3.1.7.2 MarineTransportation .. : .. : .......................... 3-12

3.1.7.3 Roads and Traffic .................................... 3-12

3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................................... 3-17

3.2.1 Terrestrial Flora ............................................. 3-18

3.2.2 Terrestrial Fauna ............................................ 3-21

3.2.3 Marine Biota ............................................... 3-21

3.2.4 Sensitive Habitats ........................................... 3-22

3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................ 3-22

3.3.1 Archaeological Sites ......................................... 3-23

3.3.2 Historic Structures ........................................... 3-25

3.4 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ....................................... 3-26

3.4.1 On-site Contaminated Areas/Hazardous Substances ................. 3-26

3.4.1.1 Overall Process Used to Identify Contamination

and Description of Potentially Contaminated Areas .......... 3-27

3.4.1.2 Regulatory Programs for Hazardous Materials and Storage Tanks 3-27

3.4.1.2.1 Asoest6s--Containing Materials (ACM) ........... 3-27

3.4.1.2.2 Polythlcirinated Biphenyls (PCBs) .............. 3-28

3.4.1.2.3 Lead-Based Paint (LBP) ...................... 3-28

3.4.1.2.4 Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)/Aboveground

Sforage'lanks (ASTs) ........................ 3-31

3.4.2 Hazardous Air Pollutants and Hazardous Materials at Neighboring

Campbell Industrial Park ...................................... 3-31

3.4.3 Airport Protection Zones .... ; ................................. 3-36

3.4.4 Explosive Safety Quantity D'i·#~nce (ESQD) ........................ 3-38 ii

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF NAS BARBERS POINT TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.5 PUBLIC SERVICES ......................... ." ........................ 3-38

3.5.1 Education ................................................. 3-38

3.5.2 Police ........................................... · ......... 3-39

3.5.3 Fire ...................................................... 3-39

3.5.4 U.S. Coast Guard ............. ; .................... : ......... 3-39

3.5.5 Health Care ................................................ 3-39

3.6 SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT ................................... 3-40

3.6.1 Demographics ............................................. , . 3-40

3.6.2 Employment ............................................. • .. 3-40

3.6.3 Household Income .......................................... 3-41

3.6.4 Economics .............................................. • ... , .. 3-41

3.6.5 Housing ................................................... 3-42

3.6.6 Recreation ................................................. 3-42

3.7 INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................. 3-42

3.7.1 Potable Water .............................................. 3-43

3.7.2 Non-Potable Water ............................. _. ............. 3-48

3.7.3 Wastewater ............................... , ....... r • •••.•••• 3-49

3.7.4 Drainage ......................................... · .......... 3-51

3.7.5 Electricity ............... _- ..... · ............................. 3-53

3.7.6 Solid Waste ................ · ................................ 3-55

3.7.7 Communications System ...................................... 3-56

CHAPTER FOUR

ENVIRONMENT AL CONSEQUENCES

4.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ........................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Geology, Topography, and Soils ................................. 4-1

4.1.1.1 Significance Criteria ................................... 4-1

4.1.1.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation .......................... 4-1

4.1.1.3 Cumulative Impacts ................................... 4-2

4.1.2 Groundwater Quality ......................................... 4-2

4.1.2.1 Significance Criteria ................................... 4-2

4.1.2.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation .......................... 4-3

4.1.2.3 Cumulative Impacts ..•.. : .............................. 4-3

4.1.3 Surface Water Quality ....... , .... ; .. · ............................ 4-4

4.1.3.1 Significance Criter,ia ._. . ··:·· ............................. 4-4

4.1.3.2 Potential Impacts apd ~jtigatipfl .......................... 4-4

4.1.3.3 Cumulative Impacts_.:\.,::,:,: .. : . · ....... , .................... 4-6

4.1.4 Air Quality .............. •.:·••:•~ •. · ............................ 4-6

4.1.4.1 Significance Criteria : 1 ,. , • , •• , •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 4-6

4.1.4.2 Potential Impacts ar:id-/y&itjgation .......................... 4-7

4.1.4.3 Cumulative Impacts ~· ,-1 , •• , •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 4-10

4.1.5 Noise ............................ · ....•.................... 4-11 . .

4.1.5.1 Significance Criteria ... : .............................. 4-11

4.1.5.2 Potential Impacts and ,Mitigation ......................... 4-13

4.1.5.3 Cumulative Impacts .................................. 4-28

4.1.6 Visual Resources ............................................ 4-41 iii

4.1.6.1 Significance Criteria ................................. . 4-41

4.1.6.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation ........................ . 4-41

4.1.6.3 Cumulative Impacts ................................. . 4-41

4.1.7 Transportation ............................................. . 4-41

4.1.7.1 Significance Criteria ................................. . 4-41

4.1.7.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation ........................ . 4-43

4.1.7.2.1 Air Transportation ......................... . 4-43

4.1.7.2.2 Marine Transportation ...................... . 4-43

4.1.7.2.3 Roads and Traffic ......................... . 4-44

4.1.7.3 Cumulative Impacts ................................. . 4-58

4.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................................... 4-59

4.2.1 Significance Criteria .......................................... 4-59

4.2.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation ................................ 4-59

4.2.2.1 Terrestrial Flora ...................................... 4-60

4.2.2.2 Terrestrial Fauna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-61

4.2.2.3 Marine Biota ........................................ 4-61

4.2.2.4 Sensitive Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-61

4.2.3 Cumulative Impacts .......................................... A-62

4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................ 4-62

4.3.1 Significance Criteria .......................................... 4-62

4.3.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation ................................ 4-63

4.3.2.1 Archaeological Sites .................................. 4-63

4.3.2.2 Historic Structures ................................... 4-67

4.3.3 Cumulative Impacts .......................................... 4-67

4.4 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ....................................... 4-67

4.4.1 On-site Contaminated Areas/Hazardous Substances ................. 4-67

4.4.1.1 Significance Criteria .................................. 4-67

4.4.1.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation ......................... 4-67

4.4.1.3 Cumulative Impacts .................................. 4-68

4.4.2 Hazardous Air Pollutants and Hazardous Materials at Neighboring Campbell Industrial Park ...................................... 4-68

4.4.2.1 Significance Criteria .................................. 4-68

4.4.2.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation ......................... 4-69

4.4.2.3 Cumulative Impacts .................................. 4-70

4.4.3 Airport Protection Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-70

4.4.3.1 Significance Criteria .................................. 4-70

4.4.3.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation ......................... 4-71

4.4.4 Explosive Safety Quantity Distance (ESQD) ........................ 4-75

4.4.5 Executive Order 13045 - Protection of Children from Environmental

Health Risks and Safety Risks ................................... 4-75

4.5 PUBLIC SERVICES .................................................. 4-76

4.5.1 Significance Criteria .......................................... 4-76

4.5.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation ................................ 4-76

4.5.2.1 Education .......................................... 4-77

4.5.2.2 Police ............................................. 4-77 iv

4.5.2.3 Fire ....................... · ........................ 4-77

4.5.2.4 U.S. Coast Guard .................................... 4-78

4.5.2.5 Health Care ........................................ 4-78

4.5.3 Cumulative Impacts .......................................... 4-78

4.6 SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT ................................... 4-79

4.6.1 Significance Criteria .......................................... 4-79

4.6.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation ................................ 4-79

4.6.2.1 Population ......................................... 4-79

4.6.2.2 Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-80

4.6.2.3 · Fiscal Impacts ....................................... 4-81

4.6.2.4 Housing ........................................... 4-83

4.6.2.5 Recreation ........................................ : 4-83

4.6.3 Executive Order 12898 - Environmental Justice ..................... 4-83

4.6.4 Cumulative Impacts .......................................... 4-85

4.7 INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................. 4-85

4.7.1 Potable Water .............................................. 4-85

4.7.1.1 Significance Criteria .................................. 4-85

4.7.1.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation ......................... 4-86

4.7.1.3 Cumulative Impacts .................................. 4-88

4.7.2 Non-Potable Water .......................................... 4-89

4.7.2.1 Significance Criteria .................................. 4-89

4.7.2.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation ......................... 4-89

4.7.2.3 Cumulative Impacts .................................. 4-92

4.7.3 Wastewater ................................................ 4-93

4.7.3.1 Significance Criteria .................................. 4-93

4.7.3.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation ......................... 4-93

4.7.3.3 Cumulative Impacts .................................. 4-96

4.7.4 Drainage .................................................. 4-96

4.7.4.1 Significance Criteria .................................. 4-96

4.7.4.2 Pot'ential Impacts and Mitigation ......................... 4-97

4.7.4.3 Cumulative Impacts ................................. 4-101

4.7.5 Electricity ................................................. 4-103

4.7.5.1 Significance Criteria ................................. 4-103

4.7.5.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation ........................ 4-103

4.7.5.3 Cumulative Impacts ....•............................ 4-105

4.7.6 Solid Waste ............................................... 4-105

4.7.6.1 Significance Criteria ... , ....•........................ 4-105

4.7.6.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation ........................ 4-106

4.7.6.3 Cumulative Impacts ................................. 4-108

4.7.7 Communications ........................................... 4-109

4.7.7.1 Significance Criteria ................................. 4-109

4.7.7.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation ........................ 4-109

4.7.7.3 Cumulative Impacts ................................. 4-109

V

CHAPTER FIVE

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES-OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

IRRETRIEVABLE/IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES .............. 5-1

ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL ............... 5-1

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USE AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 5-1

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ..................... 5-2

COMPLIANCE WITH FAA ORDER 5050.4A .............................. 5-2

CONSISTENCY WITH LAND USE PLANS, POLICIES AND CONTROLS ......... 5-3

5.6.1 Local Land Use Plans/Zoning Restrictions .......................... 5-3

5.6.1.1 City and County of Honolulu General Plan .................. 5-3

5.6.1.2 Ewa Development Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6

5.6.1.3 NAS Barbers Point Master Plan .......................... 5-10

5.6.1.4 Inconsistencies with Existing Land Use Plans ............... 5-15

5.6.2 Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Water Act, Rivers and Harbors Act,

5.6.3 5.6.4 5.6.5 5.6.6 5.6.7 5.6.8 5.6.9 5.6.10

CHAPTER SIX

and Executive Order 11990 - Protection of Wetlands Endangered Species Act Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Clean Air Act National Historic Preservation Act Executive Order 11988 - Floodplain Management RCRNCERCLNEnvironmental Compliance Coastal Zone Management Act Department of Transportation, Section 4(f)

LIST OF PREPARERS

CHAPTER SEVEN

DISTRIBUTION OF FEIS

CHAPTER EIGHT

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

Appendix A Appendix A-1 Submittals to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Appendix A-2 Notice of Intent (NOi) Appendix A-3 Notice of Availability of Public Hearings for the DEIS Appendix A-4 DEIS Distribution List Appendix A-5 Public Hearing Comments and Navy Responses Appendix A-6 DEIS Comment and Response Letters vi

5-15 5-16 5-17 5-17 5-18 5-18 5-18 5-19 5-19

Appendix A-7 Appendix A-8 Appendix A-9 Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D

FIGURES

Figure ES-1 Figure ES-2 Figure ES-3 Figure ES-4 Figure 1.3-1 Figure 2. 1-1 Figure 2.2-1 Figure 2.3-1 Figure 2.4-1 Figure 2.5-1 Figure 3.1-1 Figure 3.1-2 Figure 3.1-3 Figure 3.2-1 Figure 3.2-2 Figure 3.4-1

Figure 3.4-2 Figure 3.7-1 Figure 3.7-2

Figure 3.7-3 Figure 3.7-4 Figure 3.7-5 Figure 4.1-1 Figure 4.1-2 Figure 4. 1-3 Figure 4.1-4 Figure 4. 1-5 Figure 4.1-6 Figure 4.1-7 Figure 4.1-8 Figure 4.1-9 Figure 4.1-10 Figure 4.1-11 Figure 4.1-12 Figure 4.1-13 Figure 4. 1-14 Figure 4.1-15 Figure 4.1-16

CZM letters Section 7 Letters Section 1 06 Letters Land Use Development Assumptions Average Daily Aircraft Operations Memorandum of Understanding

State-preferred Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-3 Large Airport Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-4 Small Airport Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-5 No Airport Alternative ........................................ ES-6 Site Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3 Central Area, State-preferred Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6 State-preferred Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7 Large Airport Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11 Small Airport Alternative ...................................... 2-13 No Airport Alternative ........................................ 2-17 Flood Hazard Areas ........................................... 3-6 Noise Contours: 1987 Conditions ................................ 3-9 Existing Roadways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13 Location of Vegetation Communities ............................. 3-19 Location of Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20 Location of POI/IRP Sites in Surplus Areas Requiring Further Study/Action ......................................... 3-29 Existing Airport Layout ........................................ 3-37 C&C of Honolulu Region Potable Water Supply System .............. 3-45 Navy Potable Water Source, Transmission and Primary Distribution System ................................... 3-47 NAS Barbers Point Existing Sewer System ......................... 3-50 Ewa Regional Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-52 Main Electric and Telephone Facilities ........................... 3-54 Flight Tracks: 2020 State-preferred Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-15 Flight Tracks: 2020 Large Airport Alternative ....................... 4-17 Flight Tracks: 2020 Small Airport Alternative ....................... 4-19 Noise Contours: 2020 State-preferred Alternative ................... 4-21 Noise Contours: 2020 Large Airport Alternative .................... 4-23 Noise Contours: 2020 Small Airport Alternative .................... 4-25 Flight Tracks: 2020 State-preferred Alternative with HIA .............. 4-29 Flight Tracks: 2020 Large Airport Alternative with H IA ............... 4-31 Flight Tracks: 2020 Small Airport Alternative with HIA ............... 4-33 Noise Contours: 2020 State-preferred Alternative with HIA ............ 4-35 Noise Contours: 2020 Large Airport Alternative with HIA ............. 4-37 Noise Contours: 2020 Small Airport Alternative with HIA ............. 4-39 Planned Road Linkages for State-preferred Alternative ................ 4-45 Planned Road Linkages for Large Airport Alternative ................. 4-46 Planned Road Linkages for Small Airport Alternative ................. 4-47 Planned Road Linkages for No Airport Alternative ................... 4-48 vii

Figure 4.4-1 Figure 4.7-1 Figure 4.7.2

Figure 5.6-1 a Figure 5.6-1 b Figure 5.6-1 c Figure 5.6-1 d

TABLES

Table 1.5-1 Table2.1-1 Table 2.8-1 Table3.1-1 Table 3.1-2 Table 3.1-3 Table 3.3-1 Table 3.3-2 Table 3.4-1

Table 4.1-1 Table 4.1-2

Table 4.1-3 Table 4.1-4a Table 4.1-4b Table 4.1-5 Table 4.1-6 Table 4.1-7 Table 4.1-8 Table 4.1-9 Table 4.1-1 O Table 4.3-1

Table 4.3-2

Table 5.6-1

Table 5.6-2

Selected FAA Design Criteria from Airport Layout Plan ............... 4-73 State-preferred Alternative Proposed Wastewater Facilities ............ 4-95 Schematic Diagram of Kapolei/Kaloi Gulch Drainage Through Barbers Point .............................................. 4-100 State-preferred Alternative and Navy-retained Land Uses ............. 5-11 Large Airport Alternative and Navy-retained Land Uses ............... 5-12 Small Airport Alternative and Navy-retained Land Uses .............. 5-13 No Airport Alternative and Navy-retained Land Uses ................ 5-14

Property Disposal Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7 Land Use Types and Associated Areas ............................. 2-5 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation for All Alternatives .............. 2-20 NASBP Annual Aircraft Operations, 1983 to 1993 .................. 3-11 Summary of Regional Roadways Supporting NASBP ................. 3-14 Summary of Roadways on NASBP ............................... 3-15 Archaeological Sites Eligible for Listing in NRHP .................... 3-23 Historic Structures Eligible for Listing in NRHP ..................... 3-25 Summary and Status of POI/IRP Sites Located Within Reuse Areas and Requiring Further Action January 1998 ........................ 3-32 Summary of Vehicular Emissions ............................ ; .... 4-9 Annual Aircraft Operations, Forecast for Kalaeloa Airport 1993 to 2020 for Al I Airport Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10 Allowable Noise Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12 LOS Classifications for Signalized Intersections .................... 4-42 Level of Service (LOS) Classifications For Unsignalized Intersections .... 4-43 Summary of Vehicle Trips Generated For Each Reuse Alternative ....... 4-50 Summary of Traffic Conditions at Selected Intersections .............. 4-51 Possible Traffic Mitigation Measures ............................. 4-52 Traffic Delays and Parking Requirements - Raceway Park ............. 4-55 Traffic Delays and Parking Requirements - Festival Center ............ 4-56 Possible Parking Areas for Major Events at Special Attractions .......... 4-57 Comparison of Alternatives for Archaeological Sites Eligible for Listing in the NRHP .......................................... 4-64 Comparison of Alternatives for Historic Structures Eligible for Listing in the NRHP .......................................... 4-66 Applicable General Plan and Policies and Consistency Determinations .............................................. 5-4 Applicable Ewa Development Plan Policies and Consistency Determinations .................................... 5-7 viii i

AAQS

ACHP

ACM

ACOE

ADT

AICUZ

ALP

AST

ATCT

BMPs

BRAC

BWS

C&C

CAA

CEQ

CERCLA

CERFA

C.F.R.

cfs

CIP

CLEAN

cm co Commission

CWA

CWRM

yd3

CZM

dB dBA

DBCRA

DBEDT

DEIS

DES

DHHL

DLNR

DNL

DOD

DOH

DOI

DOT

DPW

DTS

EBS

EIS

EMI

Ambient Air Quality Standards Advisory Council on Historic Preservation asbestos-containing materials Army Corps of Engineers Average Daily Trips Air Installations Compatible Use Zones Airport Layout Plan aboveground storage tank Airport Traffic Control Tower Best Management Practices Base Realignment and Closure Board of Water Supply City & County Clean Air Act Council on Environmental Quality Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act Code of Federal Regulations cubic feet per second Campbell Industrial Park Campbell Local Emergency Action Network centimeter carbon monoxide Barbers Point Redevelopment Commission Clean Water Act Commission on Water Resources Management cubic yards Coastal Zone Management decibels decibels (A-weighted scale) Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism Draft Environmental Impact Statement Department of Environmental Services Department of Hawaiian Home Lands Department of Land and Natural Resources day-night average sound level U.S. Department of Defense State Department of Health U.S. Department of Interior State Department of Transportation C&C Department of Public Works Department of Transportation Services Environmental Baseline Survey Environmental Impact Statement electromagnetic interference

DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF NAS BARBERS POINT

EMR

EPA

ERPG

ESA

ESQD

FAA

FAR

FEIS

FEMA

FIRM

FOSL

FOST

GPD

gpad

HAR

H2S

HECO

HHA

HHLRA

HIA

HPTA

HRS

HUD

INM

IRP

km

KV

LBP

Leq

LOS

LOTMA

LRA

m m3 m3/d m3/ha/d m/sec m3/sec

MGD

mg/I

MOA

MOU

mph

MSL

MSW

MVA

MW

NAAQS

NASBP

electromagnetic radiation Environmental Protection Agency Emergency Response Planning Guide Endangered Species Act Explosive Safety Quantity Distance Federal Aviation Administration Federal Aviation Regulations Final EIS Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map Finding of Suitability to Lease Finding of Suitability to Transfer gallons per day gal Ions per acre per day Hawaii Administrative Rules hydrogen sulfide Hawaiian Electric Company Hawaii Housing Authority Hawaiian Home Lands Recovery Act Honolulu International Airport Honolulu Public Transit Authority Hawaii Revised Statutes U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Integrated Noise Model Installation Restoration Program kilometers kilovolt lead-based paint equivalent sound level Level of Service Leeward Oahu Transportation Management Association Local Redevelopment Authority meters cubic meters cubic meters per day cubic meters per hectare per day meters per second cubic meters per second million gallons per day miligrams per liter Memorandum of Agreement Memorandum of Understanding miles per hour mean sea level municipal solid waste megavolt-amps megawatts National Ambient Air Quality Standards Naval Air Station Barbers Point ii

DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF NAS BARBERS POINT

NAVFACENGCOM

Navy PWC

NEPA

NESHAP

NHPA

NMFS

N02

NOi

NPDES

NRHP

NRMP

OEQC

OMPO

OTS

PACNAVFACENGCOM

Pb

PM-10

POI

ppm

PSD

PUC

RCRA

ROD

ROI

ROFA

RPZ

RSA

SARA

SOWA

SHPO

SIP

S02

SPA

TPD

TSCA

UIC

u.s.c.

USFWS

USGS

USN

UST

V/C

VMT

WWTP

ZOM

Naval Facilities Engineering Command Navy Public Works Center Pearl Harbor National Environmental Policy Act National Emmission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants National Historic Preservation Act National Marine Fisheries Service nitrogen dioxide Notice of Intent National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System National Register of Historic Places Natural Resources Management Plan ozone Office of Environmental Quality Control Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization Oahu Transit Services Pacific Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command lead particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter Point of Interest parts per million Prevention of Significant Deterioration Public Utilities Commission Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Record of Decision Regions of Influence runway object free area runway protection zone runway safety area Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act Safe Drinking Water Act State Historic Preservation Officer State Implementation Plan sulfur dioxide State-Preferred Alternative tons per day Toxic Substance Control Act Underground Injection Control United States Code U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service United States Geological Survey U.S. Navy underground storage tank volume-to-capacity vehicle miles traveled wastewater treatment plant zone of mixing iii

Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) evaluates the potentially significant environmental impacts that may result from the proposed disposal and subsequent reuse of Naval Air Station Barbers Point (NASBP), Hawaii. It incorporates comments received during the 45-day public comment period of the Draft EIS (DEIS).

The FEIS is being prepared pursuant to Section 102 (2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. §4332, as implemented by Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, 40 C.F.R. Parts 1500-1508; Navy guidelines (OPNAVINST 5090.1 B); and the 1990 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act (DBCRA), 10 U.S.C. §2687 note, as amended by the 1993 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. It is also being prepared in accordance with FAA Orders, Airport Environmental Handbook (October 8, 1985) and Policies and Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (December 5, 1986), that implement the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, 49 U.S.C. §47101 et seq., and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, 49 U.S.C. §303.

The federal agencies responsible for the preparation of this FEIS include Navy as the lead federal agency and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as a cooperating agency. Pursuant to CEQ § 1501.6, the cooperating agency is defined as any other federal agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental issue, which should be addressed in the EIS.

The FAA is a cooperating agency since it is responsible for the approval of the public benefit conveyance of surplus federal property for use as a civilian airport. This approval is required by the Surplus Property Act of 1944. The FAA must also approve an Airport Layout Plan that depicts the proposed action of conveying the surplus property to the State of Hawaii.

Purpose of Document

The purpose of the FEIS is to assist the Secretary of the Navy in determining the environmental impacts of the disposal and alternative scenarios for reuse of surplus properties at NASBP, as described by the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) in the local redevelopment plan. Because of the proposed use of existing airport facilities, the FEIS will satisfy the NEPA environmental review required to obtain FAA approval of the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) and provide information needed by FAA to prepare decision documents recommending terms and conditions for airport conveyance. Navy will use the FEIS analysis in its consideration of disposal options in its Record of Decision (ROD).The NEPA process must be completed before surplus property can be conveyed.

Following property disposal, no additional NEPA review by Navy is anticipated.

This document also provides the decision-makers and interested public with information on the environmental consequences of future alternative reuses at NASBP, and on potential environmental impacts and mitigation to avoid or minimize adverse impacts.

Description of the Proposed Action

As a result of the 1993 Base Closure and Realignment Commission recommendations, which were approved by President Clinton and Congress, NASBP will be closed on July 2, 1999. NASBP consists of 3,833 acres (1,551.1 hectares) of land including 110 acres of non-contiguous area at

ES-1

DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF NAS BARBERS POINT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Kaula Island and Iroquois Point. Out of the 3,833 acres (1,551.1 hectares), approximately 1,238 (- \ acres (501.0 hectares) are being retained by Navy (including ·all of the non-contiguous area);

approximately 1 acre (0.4 hectare) will be conveyed to the West Oahu Community Federal Credit Union; and approximately 457 acres (184.9 hectares) are being transferred to other federal agencies. lnteragency transfers of the 457 acres (184.9 hectares) of base closure property are planned as follows.

• Veterans Administration (6 acres [2.4 hectares])

• FAA (18 acres [7.3 hectares])

• U.S. Postal Service (1 acre [0.4 hectare])

• National Guard Bureau (149 acres [60.3 hectares])

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (239 acres [96.7 hectares])

• U.S. Coast Guard (44 acres [17.8 hectares])

The remaining approximately 2,137 acres (864.8 hectares) of base closure property have been declared surplus and are the focus of this FEIS.

The proposed action is the disposal of approximately 2,137 acres (864.8 hectares) of surplus Navy properties in a manner consistent with the subsequent reuse and redevelopment of the property as identified in the Naval Air Station Barbers Point, Community Redevelopment Plan (Helber, Hastert & Fee, Planners, March 1997) and as amended by the Naval Air Station Barbers Point, Community Redevelopment Plan, Amendment 1 (Helber, Hastert & Fee, Planners, December 1997). Property disposal and reuse will comply with the DBCRA of 1990, 10 U.S.C. §2687 note, as amended by the 1993 BRAC process; President Clinton's Five-Point Plan, "A Program to Revitalize Base Closure Communities" Uuly 2, 1993); the National Defense Authorization Act for ( Fiscal Year 1994, Pub. L. 103-160, Title XXIX, Subtitle A (1993); and Revitalizing Base Closure Communities and Community Assistance, 32 C.F.R. Parts 174 and 175. Surplus property can be disposed of by various conveyance authorities and include public benefit conveyances. It is proposed that a portion of the surplus property be conveyed under the Hawaiian Home Lands Recovery Act of 1995, 48 U.S.C. §§691-716, to settle long-standing land claims against the federal government.

In accordance with DBCRA of 1990, 10 U.S.C. §2687 note, the LRA-the Barbers Point Naval Air Station Redevelopment Commission-was established to prepare a local redevelopment plan that considers the reuse potential of existing facilities or systems, the needs of the community, alternative redevelopment scenarios, and development priorities. Findings of the LRA are documented in the Naval Air Station Barbers Point, Community Redevelopment Plan and Naval Air Station Barbers Point, Community Redevelopment Plan, Amendment 1. These documents contain the redevelopment plan approved by the LRA and the Governor, herein referred to as the State-preferred alternative, and three other alternatives that are described and evaluated in this FEIS.

The State-preferred alternative and other reuse alternatives are shown in Figures ES-1 through ES-4.

These maps show the proposed land uses for the surplus property to be disposed; areas to be retained by Navy and other federal agencies are also indicated. New roadways shown for the various alternatives are conceptual and alignments would be changed as required. (For example, if the Small Airport alternative is implemented, the roadway through the FAA parcel would have to be realigned.) In the descriptions given below, the sizes of the designated land use areas are only approximate, based on the LRA's plan.

ES-2

Sources: Helber Hastert & Fee Planners (March 1997 and December 1997);

PACNAVFACENGCOM, map of federal retention areas as of September 28, 1998.

0 300 600

SCALE IN METERS

0 1200 2400

NORTH SCALE IN FEET

iiiiiil

4800 -

LEGEND

IZZ] Residential

~ ResidentiaVPublic Facility

- CommerciaVLight Industrial

ITIIII CommerclaVRecreation

[JJ Light Industrial

~Park

- Public Facility pt~S>-1 Airport

~:::::::3 Recreation

~ Open Space

Retained Federal Lands Ill (Navy-retained areas unless otherwise noted)

DHHL Department of Hawaiian Home Lands

HMLS Homeless Providers

- Major and Collector Roads

- - Future Road

Figure ES-1

STATE-PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

EIS for the Disposal and Reuse of Naval Air Station Barbers Point, Hawaii t "' 0

I§

"' 0)

HI

PACNAVFACENGCOM, map of federal retention areas as of September 28, 1998.

0 300 600 1200

SCALE IN METERS

0 1200 2400 4800 -NORTH SCALE IN FEET

7- ~

LEGEND

IZZ] Residential

~ ResidentiaVPublic Facility

Ollllllll CommerciaVLight Industrial

[Ill] CommerciaVRecreation

[[]] Light Industrial

~Park

- Public Facility @,<,,,! Airport

~ Vi

~:::::::~ Recreation t•:-:-:-j Open Space

1111 Retained Federal Lands (Navy-retained areas unless otheiwise noted)

DHHL Department of Hawaiian Homelands

HMLS Homeless Providers

- Major and Collector Roads

Figure ES-2

LARGE AIRPORT ALTERNATIVE

EIS for the Disposal and Reuse of Naval Air Station Barbers Point, Hawaii j

0 300 600 1200

SCALE IN METERS

0 1200 2400 4800 -NORTH SCALE IN FEET

LEGEND

IZZI Residential

~ Residential/Public Facility lllllIIID CommerciaVlight Industrial

[[[lj CommerciaVRecreation

[[]] light Industrial

~Park

- Public Facility F' :,:! Airport

_J

QC\

~:::::::3 Recreation t•:•:•:•j Open Space

11111 Retained Federal lands (Navy-retained areas unless otherwise noted)

DHHL Department of Hawaiian Home lands

HMLS Homeless Providers

- Major and Collector Roads

Figure ES-3

SMALL AIRPORT ALTERNATIVE

EIS for the Disposal and Reuse of Naval Air Station Barbers Point, Hawaii t

Ii ill

0 300 600

SCALE IN METERS

0 1200 2400

NORTH SCALE IN FEET

1200 - 4800 -

LEGEND

~ Residential

~ ResidentiaVPublic Facility

OJI] CommerciaVRecreation

[JJ Light Industrial l2Z1Park

- Public Facility l;:;:;:;:3 Recreation t•:•:•:•j Open Space fial Retained Federal Lands (Navy-retained areas unless otherwise noted)

DHHL Department of Hawaiian Home lends

HMLS Homeless Providers

- Major and Collector Roads

Figure ES-4

NO AIRPORT ALTERNATIVE

EIS for the Disposal and Reuse of Naval Air Station Barbers Point, Hawaii

I

9 ..

ill

~" State-preferred Alternative (Navy-preferred Alternative). The State-preferred plan consists of a 709-acre (286.9-hectare) general aviation reliever airport for Honolulu International Airport (HIA), with two parallel runways and a crosswind runway. Large areas (totaling approximately 686 acres [277.6 hectares]) are planned for park and recreational uses. Approximately 515 acres (208.4 hectares) are planned for commercial/private recreation and light industrial uses; and 165 acres (66.8 hectares) for residential use, including 13 acres (5.3 hectares) designated for homeless providers. Remaining lands are for public facilities, roads, open space, and utilities. This alternative is also Navy's preferred alternative.

Large Airport Alternative. This alternative consists of a 968-acre (391 .7-hectare) general aviation reliever airport with two parallel runways and a crosswind runway. Light industrial and commercial uses would occupy approximately 519 acres (210.0 hectares). Park and recreation activities are planned over 395 acres (159.9 hectares). Residential uses would occupy 220 acres (89.0 hectares) and include 13 acres (5.3 hectares) for homeless providers.

Small Airport Alternative. This alternative includes an airport, two parallel runways, and no crosswind runway. Approximately 708 acres (286.5 hectares) are planned for airport use. Park and recreation uses occupy the largest area (approximately 745 acres [301.5 hectares]) in this plan, followed by 489 acres (197.9 hectares) for light industrial/private recreation/commercial uses, and 160 acres (64.7 hectares) for residential use (including 13 acres [5.3 hectares] for homeless providers).

No Airport Alternative. This alternative eliminates any reuse of the existing airport, thus requiring U.S. Coast Guard relocation. South of the existing airport is an area (approximately 50 acres [20.2 hectares]) designated as "airport" over the existing U.S. Coast Guard facility. This area would be limited to helicopters for the Hawaii Army National Guard. The No Airport alternative focuses on the development of community- and tourist-related recreational activities. Approximately 965 acres (390.5. hectares) are designated for parks and recreation, 749 acres (303.1 hectares) for commercial/private recreational/light industrial uses, and 190 acres (76.8 hectares) for housing (including 13 acres [5.3 hectares] for homeless provider use). Remaining lands are for public facilities, roads, open space, and utilities.

No Action. In the No Action alternative, Navy would retain ownership of the surplus property in caretaker status. There would be no reuse of surplus property, thus requiring U.S. Coast Guard relocation.

Summary of Impacts and Mitigation

Potentially significant issues and impacts were identified in the scoping process and are evaluated in Chapter Four. Significant impacts were determined by considering the following: absolute change from existing conditions (baseline conditions that generally reflect the NASBP activity levels in 1993, just prior to the base closure decision), duration of change, extent (geographical or population affected) of change, and the relationship between the change and compliance with applicable federal, state, or local rules, ordinances, policies, or plans. With the mitigation measures identified in Chapter Four, no significant impacts are expected under all reuse alternatives except for traffic. Traffic impacts associated with major events held possibly several times per year at special attractions, e.g., the motor sports raceway complex, cannot be entirely mitigated.

ES-7

FINAL ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT STATEMENT

In most cases, mitigation will be the responsibility of the LRA or the developer. For those parcels being conveyed through the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI), Navy will be responsible for informing the appropriate bureau within the U.S. DOI of its responsibility to consult under Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973. This Section 7 consultation should be initiated prior to land conveyance from U.S. DOI to the State of Hawaii and the C&C of Honolulu.

Additionally, Navy is responsible for developing deed covenants with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for those parcels with cultural resources. This action by Navy will ensure appropriate treatment of cultural resources affected by proposed reuse.

Findings of the EIS evaluation are summarized below:

Geology, Topography, and Soils. No significant impacts on soil stability would result from planned construction, as engineering designs would account for site soil conditions in all reuse alternatives.

Moreover, NASBP is not susceptible to erosion since soils are shallow and highly permeable, and the topography is relatively level.

Groundwater. No significant impacts on groundwater are expected in any of the reuse alternatives.

Groundwater beneath NASBP is brackish and not suitable for consumption or for irrigation without desalinization. Potential effects from airport or light industrial activities on groundwater would not be significant as long as operational controls such as providing adequate containment for chemical or fuel storage areas and designating well-contained areas for maintenance activities are utilized and adequately enforced. ·

Surface Water. No significant impacts on surface waters are expected in any of the reuse alternatives. The seasonal wetland located on the surplus property and adjacent receiving waters ( such as Ordy Pond (the only anchialine pond on NASBP, which is planned for transfer to USFWS), two coastal salt flats, and the ocean will not be significantly impacted in all reuse alternatives as long as Best Management Practices (BMPs) (control techniques such as use of silt curtains) are used when construction activities occur. Potential effects on water quality from light industrial activities would not be significant because of the existing laws and regulations concerning industrial or construction-related runoff.

Air Quality. No significant impacts on air quality would occur in any of the alternatives based on evaluations of stationary- and mobile-type (vehicular and aircraft) emission sources. No significant impacts from stationary sources would occur because of the existing regulatory requirements, such as the Clean Air Act (CM), that control emissions relative to state and national ambient air qual_ity standards (MQS). While no significant impact from stationary sources are expected, alternatives were evaluated for their potential to emit air pollutants. Based on the assumption that commercial and light industrial uses provide the areas where stationary source emissions could exist, and that the potential for air emissions is a direct function of the area planned for these uses, the No Airport alternative has the greatest potential for pollutant emissions. This alternative also contains a power plant, which would pose specific air quality concerns. For all other reuse alternatives, the potential for stationary source emissions is about the same, or less than that anticipated in the No Airport alternative. No stationary source emissions would occur in the No Action alternative and would result in a decrease in emissions relative to baseline conditions.

No significant impacts on air quality from mobile sources are expected. No significant impacts from vehicular emissions are expected provided the traffic mitigation measures described in this FEIS are implemented. Based on the number vehicle trips associated with the alternatives, vehicular

ES-8

emissions would be greatest in the Large Airport alternative and least in the State-preferred alternative. Aircraft emissions are considered to be insignificant because the projected number of annual aircraft operations are below the activity levels for which FM criteria require consideration of an air quality analysis.

The proposed action, federal property disposal, is exempt from the federal conformity rules that implement the intent of Section 176(c) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. §7401. In addition, these rules do not apply in attainment areas.

Noise. No significant impacts from noise would occur; rather, reductions in aircraft noise levels are to be expected and no mitigation is required. This determination was based on the findings that noise levels would be lower than baseline conditions, and that the 60 day-night average sound level (DNL) would not be exceeded in noise-sensitive areas such as residential areas, even when the cumulative impacts with Honolulu International Airport are considered.

Construction and other specific land use activities that generate noise would not significantly impact baseline noise levels because they must comply with the Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) Chapter 11-46, Community Noise Control. Moreover, the preparation of an environmental assessment or impact statement may be required, in accordance with Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 343. These requirements will result in an evaluation of the potential noise levels for specific activities, e.g., motor sports raceway complex, and the identification of appropriate mitigation measures.

Visual Resources. No significant impacts on visual resources would occur due to the proposed reuse alternatives. Coastal parks and shoreline access are major components of all reuse alternatives. The development of shoreline parks will open up coastal areas that have been less accessible to the public for years. Conversely, these areas would remain somewhat restricted to the publicunder the No Action alternative. For the State-preferred and other airport alternatives, the existing airport runways will continue to allow uninterrupted views from inland areas to ocean and distantcoastal landmarks.

Transportation. No significant impact on air or marine transportation would occur because the transportation of goods,…