Supplemental Appendix — Friends of Gateway v. Mineta

01 7590 0c19 200

No.

AK

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

FRIENDS OF GATEWAY, EDUCATORS OF GATEWAY,

FLOYD BENNETT FIELD GARDENS ASSOCIATION,

Petitioners,

v.

NORMAN Y. MINETA, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION,

JANE GARVEY, ADMINISTRATOR,

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

Respondents.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX

MINNA KOTKIN

Counsel of Record.

BLS Legal Services Corp.

Federal Litigation Program

One Boerum Plaza

Brooklyn, New York 11201

(718) 780-7994

ROBERT HOUSMAN

BRACEWELL & PATTERSON

2000 K Street, NW, Suite 500

Washington, D.C. 20006

(202) 828-7637

PRESS OF BYRON S. ADAMS # WASHINGTON, D.C. @ 1-800-347-8208

1b

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

RECORD OF DECISION

FOR TERMINAL DOPPLER WEATHER RADAR TO SERVE

JOHN F. KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AND LAGUARDIA

AIRPORTS, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK

Section 1. Decision

Pursuant to the authority granted to the Administrator of the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) found at 49 United

States Code (U.S.C.) Subtitle VII, Part A, and a careful

review of the administrative record, including the final

environmental impact statement (EIS) released in J anuary

1999, it is the final determination of the FAA that installation

and operation of the Terminal Doppler Weather Radar

(TDWR) to serve John F. Kennedy International (JF K) and

LaGuardia (LGA) Airports at the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)

Air Station Brooklyn site in Kings County, New York, is

approved. This action was identified as both the agency's

preferred alternative and the environmentally preferable

alternative in the final EIS.

The proposed action of installing a single TDWR to serve

JFK and LGA Airports is consistent with the responsibilities

of the FAA Administrator under 49 U.S.C. §§44501 and

44502 et seq. This action is also consistent with direction

provided by Congress in the 1995 Department of

Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,

P.L. 103-331 (Sept. 30, 1994), Conference Report on H.R-

4556, 103rd Congress, 2nd Session, 140 Congressional

Record 9-603 (Sept. 26, 1994). In reaching this decision,

2b

careful consideration has been given to aviation safety and

operational needs as well as potential environmental effects.

A discussion of the factors considered by the FAA in

reaching this decision follows.

Section 2. Purpose and Need

The purpose of the proposed action is to detect and track

severe weather in the vicinity of JFK and LGA Airports.

That information is used to warn pilots of potentially

hazardous weather conditions, thereby enhancing aviation

safety, and to plan airport runway use configurations,

thereby enhancing the efficiency of airport operations.

However, the proposed action will not result in changes at

either airport in airport capacity, number of flights, airport

approach and departure procedures or standard flight paths

of aircraft arriving or departing those airports.

The FAA, as part of the U.S. Department of Transportation

(DOT), routinely develops and deploys advanced weather

surveillance systems to serve the nation's airports. The

Administrator of the FAA is authorized and directed by Title

49 U.S.C. §44502 to prescribe, among other aviation-related

activities, the locations of air safety systems such as TDWR.

TDWR is an automated radar system designed to provide

accurate and reliable detection and tracking of severe

weather conditions that are hazardous to aircraft, thereby

enhancing aviation safety. TDWR is a highly sophisticated

Doppler weather radar and represents a significant

improvement over alternative methods of detecting and

tracking severe weather features. It is specifically designed

to detect and track Microbursts, a type of wind shear that

presents a grave risk to aircraft in flight and has been the

primary cause for a number of aircraft accidents and

hundreds of fatalities. A tragic example of this hazard is —

3b

Eastern Airlines flight number 66; that plane crashed due to

wind shear on approach to JFK Airport in 1975, resulting in

112 deaths. Hazardous weather has been identified as a cause

of 18 accidents involving commercial aircraft since 1970,

resulting in 575 fatalities. A Doppler weather radar system

located at the U.S. Coast Guard Air Station Brooklyn site

will enable the FAA to improve the safety of air travel at

JFK and LGA Airports through the timely detection,

tracking, and reporting of severe weather.

The U.S. Congress has appropriated funds for 47 TDWR

units to serve high-priority airports. Prior to Fiscal Year

1995, the FAA proposed the installation of two TDWR units

to serve JFK and LGA Airports in New York City----one

TDVWR at the Roslyn Air National Guard Station in Nassau

County, New York, to serve LGA airport and a second

TDWR at the Bellmore U.S. Army Reserve Center in Nassau

County, New York, to serve JFK airport. However, after

Congress directed the FAA, in the House/Senate Conference

Report accompanying the 1995 DOT Appropriations Act, to

install a single TDWR to serve both JFK and LGA Airports,

the FAA conducted an in-depth site survey of a single

TDWR to serve the two airports. TDWR survey found that a

single TDWR, located at the U.S Coast Guard Air Station

Brooklyn site, could most effectively track, detect, and report

severe weather that may affect aircraft using JFK and LGA

Airports.

Of the 47 TDWR units for which funds were authorized by

Congress, 39 have been commissioned and are in full

operation serving high priority airports in the U.S., two units

are being used for technical support and training at the Mike

Monroney Aeronautical Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,

four are installed and in pre-commissioning check-out and

the remaining two units are planned for installation in the

near future, one to serve JFK and LGA Airports and the

4b

other to serve Chicago Midway Airport. The production line

for TDWR units has long been closed and the manufacture

of additional TDWR units is not practical or economically

feasible. Thus, in keeping with congressional direction and

the, availability of a single TDWR unit, the FAA has__

determined that a single TDWR will be issued to serve JFK

and LGA Airports at the former U.S. Coast Guard Air

Station Brooklyn. Installation of a single TDWR at this site

will most effectively provide the radar coverage required to

reduce severe weather hazards to aircraft approaching and

departing JFK and LGA Airports.

Section 3. Proposed Action

TDWR is an automated radar operating at a frequency of

5,600 to 5,650 megahertz. This TDWR system will consist

of a 25-foot parabolic dish enclosed in a 37-foot diameter

fiberglass radome, mounted on a steel-lattice tower with a

height of 82 feet. The total height of the structure will be 117

feet. Electronic equipment and a standby generator to

provide emergency electric power will be enclosed in a one-

story, roughly 1,200-square- foot building at the base of the

tower. These items will be located within a 110-foot by 110-

foot fenced area. TDWR is automated and no staff will

normally be present at the site; periodic maintenance visits

will occur about once per week. The proposed location for

TDWR is a 1. 8 1 -acre FAA-owned parcel at the former

U.S. Coast Guard Air Station Brooklyn at Floyd Bennett

Field in the Borough of Brooklyn (Kings County), New

York City. The former U.S. Coast Guard property has been

used for aviation and transportation purposes for over six

decades and is part of Floyd Bennett Field, a former

municipal airport and U.S. Navy base. In 1972, the Gateway

Act (16U.S.C.§460cc-I et. seq.] established Gateway

National Recreation Area (NRA). Included within the

boundaries of the recreation area were a number of

5b

properties owned by a number of federa! agencies, including

the Departments of Defense and Transportation (e.g., U.S.

Coast Guard Air Station Brooklyn), and properties owned by

local government and private parties.

After establishment of Gateway NRA, the U.S. Coast Guard

Air Station Brooklyn continued as a base for helicopter

operations in Support of search and rescue missions until its

closure by the U.S. Coast Guard in 1998. After closure of the

air station the property, with the exception of the 1.81-acre

FAA parcel was, transferred to the National Park Service.

The National Park Service, in turn, leased the property for a

period of 25 years to the New York City Police Department

for operations of the Aviation Unit and the property is

currently used for helicopter landings and takeoffs and

maintenance and repair of police helicopters. The FAA

parcel planned for installation of TDWR is wholly

surrounded by the property leased to the New York City

Police Department and is roughly 400 feet south of the

helicopter operations area actively used by the Police. The

FAA property is only accessible by crossing the police.

property anc access to the police property is restricted to

authorized persons only, because of the hazard from

helicopter operations as well as the need for security.

The FAA property and the surrounding New York City

Police Department leasehold property generally are within

the recreation area as defined by the Gateway Act which

established Gateway NRA. However, there are no

recreational resources located at the FAA property. The

general public is not allowed onto either the police or FAA

properties and no public recreational activities occur on

either of these properties. The entire former U.S. Coast

' Guard property, including both the police and FAA

properties, is expressly designated as a nonpark use area by

the Gateway General Management Plan, prepared by the

6b

National Park Service. Even in the absence of TDWR, the

access restrictions necessary for police helicopter operations

would prevent use of the FAA property by the general public

for recreational purposes. Installation of TDWR would not

remove any property from existing or possible future

recreational or other use by the public, at least for the

twenty-five years during which the adjacent property is

leased to the New York City Police Department for the

purpose of conducting helicopter operations.

The installation of TDWR at the former U.S. Coast Guard

Station Brooklyn is consistent with the purpose and intent of

the Gateway Act. Moreover, the Gateway Act does not

prohibit the installation of the TDWR at the FAA property at

Floyd Bennett Field. Section 3(e) of the Gateway Act [16

U.S.C. §460cc-2(e)] specifically recognizes the "authority of

the Secretary of Transportation to install necessary new

facilities within the recreation area ... in accordance with

plans which are mutually acceptable to the Secretary of the

Interior and the Secretary of Transportation and which are

consistent with both the purposes of this subchapter and the

purpose of existing statutes dealing with the establishment

maintenance, and operation of airway facilities...." While the

TDWR is equipment to be installed on an existing airway

facility, and not a "new facility” within the apparent intended

meaning of the Gateway Acct its use of the existing facility is

consistent with the National Park Service's Gateway General

Management Plan designation of this area for "nonpark use.”

The lease by the National Park Service of the property

surrounding the FAA property to the New York City Police

Department demonstrates that this plan for this area to be for

nonpark use is intended to continue for at least the next 25

years. This plan of the Secretary of the Interior has been and

remains acceptable to the Secretary of Transportation.

7b :

Section 3(e) also states that it does not authorize the

“expansion” of airport runways into Jamaica Bay or air

facilities at Floyd Bennett Field. Expansion of "airport

runways" and associated "air facilities” (e.g. taxiways,

hangars etc.) is very different than "installation” of

equipment such as the TDWR. Nowhere in the statute is

there a prohibition of "installation" of equipment at Floyd

Bennett Field. Nor is there any mention of such a prohibition

in the Conference Report on the Gateway Act. The only

reference found in the Conference Report is to “airway

facilities" where paragraph 12 of the Joint Statement of the

Committee reads: "The committee accepted the House

provision prohibiting further extension of the runways into

Jamaica Bay." [Legislative History, P.L. 92-592, Conference

Report No. 92-1589, 92nd Congress, Second Session 1972)]

Reading this statement together with Section 3(e), it is clear

that what Congress intended to preclude that section was

expansion of runways and similar facilities, not installation

of needed equipment such as TDWR. :

Careful consideration of the past and present uses of the site

and vicinity and detailed environmental analyses contained

in the final EIS show that installation and operation of

TDWR at this site will not result in significant adverse

effects on natural and cultural resources of the area,

including the recreation values of Gateway NRA Installation

of TDWR at this site is in accordance with the Gateway

General Management Plan, published by the National Park

Service, which designates the entire former U.S. Coast

Guard Station Brooklyn, including the 1.8 acres owned by

the FAA, as a nonpark use area.

Construction of TDWR is expected to occur during 1999 and

will last approximately 4 months. Tower and electronics

delivery through flight check and commissioning will last an

additional 6 months. All construction waste will be removed

8b

from the site and properly disposed off-site, in permitted

waste disposal facilities. TDWR is expected to be in service

for approximately 20 years, the typical life span for this type

of equipment.

Section 4. Alternatives Considered

The Final EIS evaluates potential environmental effects of

the proposed action and seven alternative actions, described

below:

TDWR at the selected site (agency's preferred

alternative) at former U.S. Coast Guard Air

Station Brooklyn. TDWR at this site would provide

low-level radar coverage of the essential microburst

warning area for both JFK and LGA Airports. It

would also be easier to access and maintain than

TDWR at the alternative locations considered in the

Final EIS and, as a result, would be in service a

greater proportion of the time.

TDWR at a site on Hart Island in the Borough of

the Bronx, New York City. TDWR located at Hart

Island would require installation of a roughly 3,000-

foot underwater cable between City Island and Hart

Island to provide telephone and electric service.

TDWR at Hart Island would provide slightly better

radar coverage of LaGuardia Airport but much worse

coverage of JFK Airport.

TDWR at a typical ocean site. This alternative was

suggested by members of the public during the EIS

scoping period. The TDWR would require extensive

design modifications for ocean use and conditions,

including but not limited to personnel safety

facilities, exterior fighting and a foghorn to reduce

9b

the risk of a boat collision with TDWR, and

installation of a runway 2-mile underwater cable in

Lower New York Bay to provide electric power and

telephone service for TDWR.

TDWR adjacent to the U.S. Coast Guard

Ambrose Light in Lower New York Bay. This

alternative was suggested by members of the public

during the EIS scoping period. A new ocean platform

would have to be constructed because the U.S. Coast

Guard platform could not physically accommodate

TDWR. The design modification described above for

TDWR at the ocean site and a roughly 6- mile

underwater cable in Lower New York Bay would be

necessary to provide electric power and telephone

service for TDWR.

Electronic wind shear systems on aircraft. These

systems are only available for certain types of larger,

generally commercial, aircraft and provide far less

warning time than TDWR. Many aircraft could not

be equipped with these systems and would not be

protected.

Airport surveillance radar/weather system

processor (ASR/WSP). An electronics upgrade

package, known as a weather system processor

(WSP), would add severe weather detection, tracking,

and reporting capabilities to the existing airport

surveillance radar- (ASR) at IFK Airport. ASR/WSP

could not be installed at LGA Airport because there

is no ASR at that airport and no plans to install one.

Due to the limited range of ASR/WSP, an ASRIWSP

at JFK Airport could not serve LGA Airport.

10b

FAA use of the existing Doppler 4000. This

alternative was suggested by members of the public

during the Draft EIS comment period. Doppler 4000

is a weather radar owned and operated by a private

television station in Manhattan. Doppler 4000 is not

designed to detect wind shear and microbursts, two of

the most hazardous weather cogditions to aircraft and

is poorly located to provide low-level radar coverage

of JFK and LGA Airports.

No-action alternative. This alternative would not

fulfill the need to provide timely warning to pilots

and air traffic controllers of severe weather

conditions.

The Conference Report accompanying the DOT and Related

Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1995 expressly

addresses the need for wind-shear protection for New York

City airports. (Conference Report on H.R. 4556, 103rd

Congress 2nd Session (1994)). In the Conference Report the

conferees also expressed that they 'firmly" supported the

proposition that TDWR “... will not be sited in North

Bellmore or Roslyn’ and directed the FAA to site a single

TDWR to serve both LaGuardia and IFK Airports.

Installation of a single TDWR at the Bellmore site or the

Roslyn site would not provide coverage for both airports.

Therefore, in accordance with congressional direction,

neither installation of two TDWR at sites in Roslyn and

Bellmore, nor the installation of a single TDWR at either site

were further examined in this final EIS as alternative actions.

In addition, as the Report language evidences congressional

disapproval and strongly suggests intent not to fund TDWRs

at these sites, these sites were remote, speculative, and no

longer reasonable alternatives capable of implementation. In

light of the close of production and the fact that there is now

llb

only one TDWR available for installation to serve both JFK

and LGA Airports, these sites are also unreasonable to meet

the purpose and need of the proposed action. Given the lack

of potentially significant adverse impacts of the preferred

alternative, the National Environmental Policy Act's goals

and policies would not be served by retaining these sites for

detailed study and seeking to modify Congressional approval

or funding.

Congressional direction aside, given the close of production

and the fact that only one TDWR is now available to serve

both JFK and LGA airports, the installation of two TDWRs

at two separate sites for each JFK and LGA Airports is no

longer a reasonable alternative.

The effectiveness of each alternative analyzed in the final

EIS at fulfilling the required mission is based on the volume

of airspace for which radar coverage is provided, the location

of radar coverage with respect to airspace at and near the two

airports of concern, and the types and numbers of aircraft

served. In terms of mission effectiveness, the proposed

action and alternatives are ranked from most effective to

least effective as follows:

Most Efictive TDWR atthe preferred ste

| TDWR atthe Hat Isiand site

J TDWR at the ocean site

| ASRIWSP at JFK Airport

TDWR at the Ambrose Light ste

y ; On-arcratt wand shear sysems

Use of Doppler 4000

Least Effective No-action aernative

12b

On-aircraft wind shear systems, ASR/WSP, or use of

Doppler 4000 would not fulfill the mission; therefore these

alternatives were not analyzed in the Affected Environment

and Environmental Consequences and Mitigation sections of

the Final EIS. The no-action alternative would also not fulfill

the mission, but is extensively analyzed in the Final EIS for

comparative purposes as required by Council on

Environmental Quality Regulations at 40 Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) 1502.14 and chapter 6, paragraph 64 of

FAA Order 1050. ID.

Section 5. Mission Effectiveness of Alternatives

The mission of TDWR is to detect and track severe weather

events that may be hazardous to aircraft during flight

landings, or take-offs, or that may affect airport operations.

TDWR fulfills that mission by providing radar coverage of

the microburst alert warning area (MAWA) which surrounds

the runways at the airports of interest and the principal

coverage region (PCR), which is the area within 6 nautical

miles (nmi) of the approximate center of the airport. The

extent to which TDWR can provide radar coverage of the

MAWA and PCR depends on the location of TDWR with

respect to the airports to be served. The degree to which an

alternative technology such as ASR/WSP can provide radar

coverage is also dependent on the location of its host radar

with respect to the airports of interest. On-aircraft systems

are mounted on a mobile platform (the airplane), thus the

location with respect to the airport is not of concern as is the

case for stationary radar systems. Table I summarizes the

mission effectiveness of the alternatives (except the no-

action alternatives, compared to the proposed action of

installing TDWR at U.S. Coast Guard Air Station Brooklyn

site, agency's preferred alternative. The analysis presented in

Table 1 accounts for all factors affecting mission

13b

effectiveness, including distance to the airport angle to the

runway most used during inclement weather, cone of silence,

radar blockage by hills and buildings, portion and types of

aircraft served, earth curvature, and difficulty of operation

and maintenance.

As shown in Table 1, the proportion of time which a TDWR

at Hart Island could operate would be less than for TDWR at

the preferred site because of the relatively inaccessibility of

Hart Island, which is served by a ferry operating only 14

percent of the time. TDWR at Hart Island would have

suitable angles to the runways at JFK Airport most used

during inclement weather, but would have a radar floor at

considerably greater height above the airport than that of

TDWR at the preferred site. Radar coverage of JFK Airport

would be considerably poorer from TDWR at Hart Island

than from TDWR at the preferred site because of the

distance from JFK Airport which is greater than optimal and

blocking of the radar beam by hills and buildings. TDWR at

Hart Island would be closer to LGA Airport than TDWR at

the preferred site and would have an acceptable angle to the

runway used most during inclement weather. However,

blockage of the TDWR beam would be caused by the towers

of the Throgs Neck and Whitestone Bridges as well as

vehicles on those bridges, and could adversely affect the

effectiveness of radar coverage. Overall the deficiency in

radar coverage of the JFK Airport and access difficulties

would render TDWR at Hart Island less effective than

TDWR at the preferred site.

On-aircraft wind shear systems are much more limited in

their capabilities than TDWR, They do not provide

comprehensive radar coverage of the airport area, as TDWR

would, but would provide limited radar coverage for use by

the individual pilots flying equipped planes. The information

from these systems is not widely distributed to air traffic

14b

controllers, who relay the information widely to Airport

users, as is the case for TDWR data. On-aircraft wind shear

systems also have reduced range and detection capabilities

compared with TDWR. Because of the relatively small

percentage of airplanes that are or can be equipped with such

Systems and the lesser technical capability, ties alternative

would not be able to effectively fulfill TDWR's mission.

ASR/WSP is designed to provide similar inflation as TDWR.

However, like TDWR, its effectiveness is dependent upon

location with respect to the airports to be served. The ASR-9

host at JFK Airport is located on the airport near the runways

most used during inclement weather.

Since ASR cannot scan at high elevation angles and is

located at the airport, WSP’s effectiveness would be reduced

substantially. Portions of the MAWA and PCR for JFK

Airport would be included in the cone of silence for

ASR/WSP and would not receive radar coverage. The

portions of the MAWA and PCR for JFK Airport not

receiving radar coverage would be far greater than for

TDMM installed at the preferred site. The angles to the

runways at JFK Airport most used during inclement weather

are somewhat better for this alternative than for the TDWR

at the preferred site. Overall, this alternative would be

substantially less effective at serving JFK Airport than

TDWR at the preferred site. Due to intervening obstructions,

radar coverage of LGA Airport would be considerably

poorer for ASR/WSP than the TDWR at the preferred site. In

addition, the angle to the runway most used during inclement

weather would be much larger for ASR/WSP than for

TDWR at the preferred site. Both factors would cause

ASR/WSP to provide considerably reduced radar coverage

of LGA Airport compared with the TDWR at the preferred

site. To summarize, this alternative would provide less

1Sb

effective radar coverage of both JFK and LGA Airports than

the TDWR at the preferred site.

TDWR at an ocean site would also offer less effective

coverage than TDWR at the preferred site. TDWR at an

ocean site would be similar to the TDWR at the preferred

site in terms of both radar coverage of JFK Airport and

angles to runways at JFK Airport. TDWR at an ocean site

would be the optimal distance from JFK Airport (8-12 nmi)

while TDWR at the preferred site would be less than optimal

distance from JFK Airport. However, this would be offset by

physical blocking of the TDWR signal by the buildings on

Rockaway Island, which would reduce the effective

coverage of JFK Airport by TDWR at an ocean site. Radar

coverage of JFK Airport by TDWR at the preferred site

would, not be affected by those buildings. With regard to

LGA Airport, the floor of radar coverage would be higher

above airport level than for the TDWR at the preferred site.

There would be little difference between this and the TDWR

at the preferred site in angles to the runway most used during

inclement weather. TDWR on an ocean platform would be

available for operation for a far lower percentage of the time

that TDWR at the preferred site, because of the relative

difficulty of accessing an ocean platform. Thus, the TDWR

at the preferred site would be considerably superior at

serving LGA Airport than this alternative.

16b

Table 1

MISSION EFFECTIVENESS OF ALTERNATIVES

COMPARED WITH TOWR AT THE PREFERRED SITE

On-aircraft TOWR TOWRa«t Doppler

TOWRat Windshear ASRWSP AtOcean Ambrose 4006

Hartisiand systems at JEK Ste Light Se Radar

Radar Coverage of

MAWA/PCR

KK -- NA 0 o

LGA + ey x ou

Angie to incement

Weather Runway

JFK 0 NA + 0 6

LGA * mo 0 - a

Advance ves some yes

of Weather Events systems aa - -

onty

Aupianes Served al Equipped all ai a at

commercial

jets only

Service Availability o< — 0 se - 0

+ Marginally superior to prefemed action

- — Marginalty infenor to praserned action

-- inferior to preferred action

: Cansidesaibty

N/A Not appfidabte

TDWR located at the Ambrose Light site would be an

appropriate distance from JFK Airport but much further from

LGA Airport than is acceptable. In regard to geometry-to the

runways most used during inclement weather, the angle to

JFK Airport would be acceptable, but the angle to LGA

Airport would be far larger- than is desired. In general radar

coverage of JFK Airport would be fairly good but radar

coverage of LGA Airport would be much poorer than for

TDWR at the preferred or other alternative sites contained in

this Final EIS. The amount of time in service would be

reduced by the difficulty of repairing TD WR and its

in an ocean setting.

Although Doppler 4000 can provide information of general

weather conditions, it cannot identify wind shear or

microbursts. Its location, at large angles to the runways used

during inclement weather, and height above the ground will

17b

adversely affect its capabilities Thus, Doppler 4000 cannot

fulfill TDWR's mission.

With regard to overall mission effectiveness, TDWR at the

preferred site and alternatives can be ranked as follows (from

most effective to least effective): TDWR at the U.S. Coast

Guard Air Station Brooklyn site, TDWR at Hart Island site,

TDWR at ocean site, ASRIWSP, TDWR at Ambrose Light

site, on-aircraft wind shear systems, Doppler 4000 and the

no-action alternative. ASR/WSP and on-aircraft wind shear

Systems alternatives would be deficient in filtering the

desired mission. ASR/WSP would not detect wind shear or

microbursts at LGA Airport. On-aircraft systems provide a

much-reduced warning time for aircraft in the vicinity of

wind shear than would TDWR Many aircraft are not required

to have such systems, and commercially available systems

are lacking for some types of aircraft. The deficiencies of

ASR/WSP and on-aircraft wind shear systems are substantial

and these systems would not achieve the desired mission.

The no-action alternative would also not fulfill the mission.

Section 6. Environment Impact Assessment

The Final EIS evaluates in detail the proposed action and the

alternatives described above. The following impact

categories were analyzed in the Final EIS to determine the

potential for installation and operation of TDWR at the U.S.

Coast Guard Air Station Brooklyn site to affect the quality of

the human environment:

1. Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR) Effects-TDWR radio

emissions will comply by a wide margin with current

national safety standards, developed by the American

National Standards Institute and included in FAA Order

3910.3A, for exposure of the general public to radio

18b

signals. No health hazards to persons in the vicinity

would result.

. Land Use and Coastal Zone Management-The FAA has

determined, and the State of New York concurs, that

TDWR at this location will be consistent with the New

York State Coastal Management program. Federal

regulations do not require the FAA to comply with local

zoning law. As such, TDWR is exempt from local zoning

regulations. However, New York City has zoned the

TDWR site as an "MI - I" manufacturing district and a

radio tower, such as TDWR, is an allowable use in that

district.

Geology and Soils--The site is level and no significant

ground erosion or topographic alteration will be required

for TDWR installation

. Water Resources and Hydrologic Processes--The site is

not within a 100-year floodplain does not contain

federal-jurisdiction wetlands. TDWR will not generate

wastewater during operation and will not result in

adverse effects on water quality of Jamaica Bay.

Air Quality-TDWR will include a standby generator that

will operate infrequently. Air emissions generated by the

generator or vehicles used during construction and

operation of TDWR will not cause or add to violations of

federal or state air quality standards.

. Flora and Fauna-Adverse impacts will not result on

species listed under the Endangered Species or Marine

Mammals Acts. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and

the National Marine Fisheries Service Concur with that

determination.

19b

7. Recreational Resources-The TDWR site is designated

by the National Park Service as a nonpark use area

within Gateway NRA and no recreational resources will

be displaced or significantly affected. The FAA parcel

planned for installation of TDWR is wholly surrounded

by the property leased to the New York City Police

Department and roughly 400 feet south of the helicopter

operations area actively used by the New York City

Police. The FAA property is only accessible by crossing

the police property and access to the police property is

restricted to authorized persons only, because of the

hazard from helicopter operations as well as the need for

security.

8. Section 4(f) properties (i.e. publicly owned park land,

recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or historic

site)-Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation

Act, 49 U.S.C. §303, does not apply to the installation of

the TDWR at the former U.S. Coast Guard Station

Brooklyn located at Floyd Bennett Field. First,

consideration under Section 4(f) is not required because

the site was acquired for transportation purposes before

the Gateway NRA was designated. [See, 23 C.F.R-

Section 771.135(h)]. Second, as the land has been

publicly owned for transportation purposes, it is not

considered publicly owned for park or recreational

purposes within the meaning of Section 4(f). Third,

where, as in this location, Federal lands are administered

for multiple purposes, the Federal official having

jurisdiction over the lands determines whether the subject

lands are in fact being used for park, recreation, wildlife,

or waterfowl or historic purposes within the meaning of

Section 4(f). Although the entire former U.S. Coast

Guard property, including the 1. 8 acres owned by the

FAA, is technically within the boundaries of the Gateway

NRA, the property is one of several portions of the area

20b

which are not in fact being administered or used for park

or recreational uses. It is undisputed that the historic use

of the land owned by the FAA has been for aviation

purposes. This nonpark use is evidenced by the Gateway

General Management Plan [NPS, 1976] Which the

National Park Service issued to implement the Gateway

Act. This Plan expressly indicated that the former U.S.

Coast Guard property is designated as a nonpark use

area. The 1.8 acres owned by the FAA are within

approximately 400 feet of a maintenance apron and

active runway used by the New York City Police

Department. The New York City Police Department has

relocated its helicopter operation to the former U.S.

Coast Guard Property under a twenty-five year lease. For

security reasons, the New York City Policy Department

, has continued the restriction on public access and no

recreational park visitors have access to the area. Further,

because of the security restriction, there are no

recreational activities in the vicinity of the FAA property.

Therefore, even if Section 4(f) did apply, there will be no

actual direct or constructive use of a protected resource

under Section 4(f) as a result of the installation of the

TDWR at the FAA site.

FR Re pr ao een et x ee ee ar)

et a Wert Pea > 61 P a ge & fe gee + ees

- a ey ea

9. Visual Quality-TDWR will be visible from many local

areas but will not be unusual in appearance or overly

obtrusive in setting-a former Navy and Coast Guard base

now used for helicopter operations by the New York City

Police Department.

10. Cultural Resources-The FAA ha determined, and the

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) concur, that

construction and operation of TDWR will not adversely

affect historic or cultural resources.

ee Ee Oe rege

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

21b

Hazardous Materials-All waste materials generated

during TDWR construction will be sent to a proper

disposal facility as required by the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act.

Noise--Noise generated during TDWR construction or

operation will not adversely affect sensitive receptors.

Installation of the TDWR will not result in any increase

in airport capacity at either LGA or JFK Airports. No

changes in aircraft flight paths or procedures would

result and aircraft noise levels would not be affected.

Transportation-During both the construction and

operation periods, TDWR would generate a minimal

number of vehicle trips and would not adversely affect

the level of service of local roads.

Energy Consumption-TDWR would consume an

estimated 840 kilowatt-hours per day, about the same as

40 typically sized houses. Energy consumption would

not exceed the capability of the local service provider.

Socioeconomics--TDWR would provide an extremely

modest economic benefit to the local economy in the

form of expenditures, particularly during the construction

period. No substantial growth-inducing effects would

result.

Environmental Justice--Based on U.S. Census data, the

communities surrounding the TDWR site contain lower

percentages of minority and low-income populations

than Kings County as a whole. No disproportionately

high and adverse effects would result on minority or low-

income populations or children. Exposure of persons to

radiofrequency radiation will comply with applicable

22b

national safety standards. Therefore, there will be no

hazards to persons in the vicinity.

The final EIS contains a thorough investigation of these issue

areas and determines that no significant environmental

impact will result from the installation and operation of

TDWR at the U.S. Coast Guard Air Station Brooklyn site

(the environmentally preferable alternative.)

The final EIS also compares the proposed action with the

alternative actions described above. Installation of TDWR at

the preferred site or implementation of any of the alternative

actions, with the exception of the no-action alternative,

would result in physical changes to the environment and

resulting direct and indirect effects on environmental

resources. The type and extent of environmental effects

would vary considerably among the proposed action and

alternatives. The proposed action and each of the alternatives

would be compatible with existing and planned land uses and

New York City zoning at and near the proposed

implementation site. Effects on long-term productivity of the

land at the preferred and alternative site would likewise be

negligible. Coastal zone policies are applicable to installation

of TDWR at the preferred site, Hart Island site, or an ocean

site, and installation of ASR/WSP at JFK Airport; each of

those options would be consistent with policies set forth in

the New York City and State coastal program. In fact each of

these options would further the objectives of the local and

state coastal programs by benefiting future development of

aviation at New York area airports.

Direct physical impacts of TDWR include potential effects

on land, water, and air. Clearing of small areas of vegetation

would be required if TDWR is installed at the preferred site

or Hart Island site. No significant habit would be affected.

Soil erosion can be minimized through application of sound

23 b

construction practices and would be minor. Installation of

TDWR at Hart Island site, an ocean site, or the Ambrose

Light site would require burying an underwater utility cable

in either Long Island Sound or Lower New York Bay, which

could potentially cause temporary adverse effects on water

quality. Installation of TDWR at the preferred or alternative

sites would result in emissions of minor amounts of dust and

diesel exhaust during the construction period and mission of

exhaust from the standby generator in the long-term. Those

emissions would not cause violations of air quality standards

and would be insignificant. Implementation of the other

alternatives (i.e., on-aircraft wind shear systems, ASR/WSP,

Doppler 4000 data feed to ITWS, or the no-action

alternative) would not require clearing of land, would not

cause sod erosion, and would have little, if any, impact on air

or water quality.

No significant impacts on recreational resources and

activities, park land, or historic or archaeological cultural

resources would result from implementation of the preferred

action. The New York SHPO and the ACHP concur with

that determination. In the absence of detailed field surveys

at the Hart Island and ocean sites, possible impacts on

archaeological resources from construction of TDWR at

these alternative sites are not known. Due to a lack of nearby

sensitive receptors, noise from construction of TDWR at

Hart Island or an ocean site would not cause adverse effects.

Noise from construction of TDWR at the preferred site

would be audible to persons using portions of Gateway

NRA, but because of the distance from the preferred site,

would not unreasonably disrupt or prevent recreational

activities. TDWR would not dominate views or be visually

incompatible with surrounding facilities at the preferred or

alternative sites. Visual impacts would be insignificant. The

preferred site has been surveyed for the presence of

archaeological resources and no evidence of resources was

24b

found. Installation of the underwater utility cables to serve

TDWR at Hart Island or Lower New York Bay could affect

submarine archaeological resources.

Construction of TDWR or installation of ASR/WSP would

result in a minor amount of local construction expenditures.

TDWR or ASR/WSP would be unmanned and would bes -

maintained by existing FAA organizations based at JFK

Airport. Expenditures to operate TDWR would be greater

for an ocean-based TDWR than for TDWR at Hart Island.

TDWR at the preferred site or ASR/WSP would be least

costly to operate. In any case, operational expenditures

would be minor in relation to the size of the local economy.

A thorough environmental justice analysis demonstrates that

implementation of the preferred or alternative actions would

not result in disproportionately high and adverse effects on

minorities or low- income communities. Socioeconomic

impacts would be insignificant for the preferred and each of

the alternative actions.

Transportation needs and energy use wouid vary greatly

among the alternatives. TDWR at an ocean site or at the

Ambrose Light site would generate the greatest amounts of

traffic (including land, water, and air trips) and consume the

most energy during the construction and operation periods.

The TDWR ocean platform would also create a collision

hazard for vessels sailing in Lower New York Bay. TDWR

at the Hart Island site would generate the second greatest

amount of traffic and consume the second greatest amount of

energy. The preferred site is the most easily accessible of the

alternative sites for TDWR. Traffic generation and energy

consumption would be less than for TDWR, at Hart Island or

at ocean sites. Implementation of ASR/WSP, Doppler 4000

data feed to an Integrated Terminal Weather System (IWS),

or the no-action alternative would generate little or no traffic

and would consume little or no energy. Installation of on-

25b

Aircraft wind shear systems would not generate traffic, but

would result in consumption of relatively large amounts of

energy because of the need to equip many aircraft.

Installation of TDWR at the preferred site would not _

substantially affect biological resources. Protected species

are not present at the preferred site and would not be

affected. Installation of TDWR in Hart Island or an ocean

site has much greater potential to affect biological resources.

In particular, dredging to install the underwater utility cable

could harm marine fauna. Coastal wetlands and the :

biologically productive shoreline areas at Hart Island City

Islands would be disturbed if TDWR is installed at Hart

Island. The shoreline area at Rockaway Peninsula would be

disturbed if TDWR is located in the ocean. The shore

terminus for the utility cable serving an ocean-based TDWR

could affect important habitat for the rare piping plover and

seabeach amaranth. Due to the relatively short height of the

TDWR tower and the lack of structural elements that are

hard to see, the potential collision risk to birds would be

minimal. Installation of on-aircraft wind shear systems or —

ASR/WSP, implementation of Doppler 4000 data feed to

ITWS, or the no-action alternative would not affect

biological resources.

The TDWR signal would comply by a wide margin with

national and international safety guidelines for exposure of

persons to peak and average levels of radio frequency

radiation (RFR). Likewise, the TDWR signal would not

affect operation of cardiac pacemakers. Based on

engineering studies and operation of TDWR at other

locations, TDWR would not cause interference with radio or

television broadcasts or operation of model airplanes. The

TDWR signal is not powerful enough to detonate

electroexplosive devices, or affect fuel-handling operations.

On-aircraft systems would be smaller and less powerful than

26b

TDWR and would not cause RFR effects on persons or

electronic systems or devices. Implementation of ASR/WSP,

Doppler 4000 data feed to ITWS, or the no-action alternative

would not generate new RFR emissions. RFR effects from

implementation of the preferred or any or the alternative

actions would be insignificant.

With regard to the potential for effects on the environment,

the preferred and alternative actions that could fulfill the

required — ran be ranked as follows:

Least Impact TDWR at the preferred site

i | TDWR at the Hart Island ste

, si TDWR at the ocean site

Most Impact TDWR at the Ambrose Light site

The action that would fulfill TDWR's mission with the least

environmental impact is installation of TDWR at the U.S.

Coast Guard Air Station Brooklyn site, which is the

environmentally preferable alternative and the agency's

preferred alternative.

Section 7. Mitigation Measures

Based on the extensive studies conducted to date and careful

consideration of public input, I find that installation and

operation of TDWR at the U.S. Coast Guard Air Station

Brooklyn site will not result in significant impacts on the

quality of the human environment. The mitigation measures

listed below will be implemented to reduce non- significant

environmental impacts to negligible levels:

27b

To reduce emissions of dust during the construction

period, areas cleared of vegetation during

construction will be watered periodically. Standard

measures to control soil erosion, drainage, and

washing of soil away from the site will be employed

during the construction period. After construction of

TDWR is completed, disturbed areas will be restored

to their pre-construction condition to the maximum

extent possible. This may require replanting of those

areas with suitable native vegetation.

Excess soil and groundwater extracted during TDWR

construction will be tested for the presence of

petroleum products and if found to be contaminated

at regulatory action levels, will be removed for

proper treatment and disposal at facilities properly

licensed to handle and/or accept such waste under

Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA)

requirements, as required.

If potentially significant historic artifacts or human

remains are uncovered during site preparation,

construction activities will be suspended near the find

and the New York SHPO will be contacted to

determine the significance of the find. Necessary

measures will be undertaken to protect and curate

uncovered artifacts as deemed necessary by the

SHPO.

To reduce noise impacts during the construction

period, equipment should be turned off when not in

use and construction activities should occur during

normal working hours to the greatest extent possible.

The TDWR standby generator should be equipped

with a critical-grade silencer to minimize long-term

noise impacts.

10

11.

28 b

The finished floors of all occupied structures will be

located at a minimum elevation of 11 feet MSL,

which is one foot above the base flood level.

A spill prevention, containment and countermeasure

plan for the on-site storage of diese! fuel for the

standby generator will conform with FAA Order

1050.15A

Rewards of all maintenance and operational use of

the TDWR standby generator will be maintained for

at least five years in accordance with New York State

Department of Environment Conservation

regulations.

With the exception of the L-810 red aviation warning

fight at the top of the radome, continuously operating

and automatically timed exterior lights at the TDWR

site will be shielded to minimize possible adverse

effects on nearby uses and to minimize attraction of

birds.

To enhance visual quality, the concrete masonry unit

at the TDWR site will have a facing consistent with

the character of neighboring park facilities.

The National Park Service, U.S. Coast Guard, and

New York City Police Department will be apprised in

advance of the schedule for construction activities to

minimize the potential for conflicts with non-FAA

activities in the vicinity.

If deemed necessary by the FAA, the FAA will

provide to the New York City Police Department and

the U.S. Coast Guard filters for installation on radio

29b

systems operated by those agencies to prevent

electromagnetic interference caused by the TDWR

radio signal.

12. After the useful fife of the TDWR has ended, the

FAA will decommission the system and remove it.

The FAA will take the necessary steps, to the extent

feasible, to implement a plan to reclaim the site to

pre-TDWR condition as described in the EIS.

Section 8. NEPA Coordination and Public and Agency

Involvement

The final EIS conforms with legal requirements set forth in

President's Council on Environmental Quality Regulations

for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National

Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1500 et seg.) and FAA

Order 1050. ID, Policies and Procedures for Considering

Environmental Impacts. A programmatic EIS, prepared in

1991 by the FAA, examined potential environmental effects

of the nationwide TDWR program. The final EIS examines

potential environmental effects of installing a single TDWR

in the New York City area to serve JFK and LGA Airports.

The FAA was the lead agency for preparation of the

programmatic EIS and the final EIS.

A 135-day scoping period for the final EIS was conducted in

January through June 1996, during which written comments

on the scope of the EIS were accepted and four official

scoping meetings were held in the potentially affected area

of New York City. The results of the scoping process are

summarized in a Final Scoping Paper, issued by the FAA in

August 1996. The technical breadth of the final EIS is

consistent with the recommendations of the Final Scoping

Paper.

30b

On August 15, 1997, a draft EIS was issued by the FAA and

a Notice of Availability was published in the Federal

Register (62 Federal Register 43768). Display

advertisements and legal notices announcing the availability

of the Draft EIS and schedule for public hearings were

published in local newspapers. Copies of the draft EIS were

neared to all parties who participated in the EIS scoping

process, all persons who expressed interest to the FAA about

the proposed action, and relevant government agencies. The

draft EIS was distributed to over 600 persons and

organizations. Comments on the draft EIS were accepted

through November 21, 1997, a period of 98 days. A total of

five public hearings were held in Brooklyn and Queens

during the comment period and were attended. Copies of all

written comments on the draft EIS received by the FAA and

verbatim transcripts of the public hearings are included in the

final EIS. All comments received during the comment

period were carefully reviewed. The final EIS contains

written, responses to all substantive comments received by

the FAA, whether submitted in writing during the public

comment period or verbally at the public hearings held on

the draft EIS.

On January 20, 1999, the FAA issued the final EIS and a

Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register.

Legal notices announcing the availability of the final EIS

were published in local newspapers. Copies of the final EIS

were mailed to over 800 persons and organizations. Six

comments were received on the final EIS and considered by

the Agency prior to making this decision. The attached

Appendix presents the agency's responses to those

comments.

Copies of the final EIS and this ROD may be obtained by

written request to:

31b

Jerome Schwartz

Environmental Lead for TDWR, AND-402

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

Section 9. Order

The FAA has broad and pervasive authority in the fields of

airspace management and air safety. Congress has authorized

the FAA to acquire, establish, improve, operate and maintain

air navigation systems such as TDWR (e.g., 49 U.S.C.,

section 44505). In accordance with that authority, the FAA

certifies that a federally funded TDWR is reasonably

necessary to enhance the safety of aviation at JFK and LGA

Airports.

The FAA conducted a detailed environmental review of this

proposed action in conformance with requirements set forth

in FAA Order 1050. ID -Policies and Procedures for

Considering Environmental Impacts. Throughout the EIS

process, the FAA provided data used in the technical

analysis and reviewed key portions of the analysis prior to

incorporating the results into the final EIS. The FAA

evaluated the technical feasibility of the proposed TDWR

facility and determined which alternatives were acceptable

for consideration. As the nation's aviation agency, the FAA

has the ultimate technical expertise to develop, evaluate, and

select actions and alternatives that will result in safe and

efficient use of U.S. airspace. The Final EIS and this ROD

represent the best judgment of the FAA in this key area of

expertise.

326

Based on the extensive studies conducted to date and careful

consideration of the public input received during the

environmental review process, I find that installation,

operation and eventual decommissioning of TDWR to serve

JFK and LGA Airports at the U.S. Coast Guard Air Station

Brooklyn site will not result in significant impacts on the

quality of the human environment. The mitigation measures

listed in Section 7 above will be implemented to minimize

non-significant impacts.

I have carefully considered the FAA's goals and objectives in

relation to deployment of the TDWR to serve JFK and LGA

Airports, New York City, New York, as discussed and

evaluated in the final EIS and ROD. This consideration

includes the purpose and need for TDWR, possible

alternative sites and technologies, extensive environmental

review, and mitigation measures. Under the authority

delegated to me by the Administrator of the FAA, I find that

TDWR should be installed at the U.S. Coast Guard Air

Station Brooklyn site as described in this ROD. The final

EIS contains a site-specific analysis of possible

environmental effects that could result from installation of

TDWR at this site and concludes that significant

environmental impacts will not result. Based on careful and

thoughtful review of the final EIS and public and agency

submissions received during the EIS process, the following

factors support the decision to install TDWR at the preferred

site, the U.S. Coast Guard Air Station Brooklyn site:

e TDWR at this site will provide highly effective weather-

radar coverage of the principal coverage regions and

microburst alert warning areas at JFK and LGA Airports

e Construction at this site is highly feasible

33b

Maintenance requirements of TDWR can be reasonably

met at this site

This site is available for TDWR use

TDWR will be electromagnetically compatible with

nearby electronic system

The proposed action will be consistent with policies of

the New York State Coastal Management Program

The proposed action will result in no adverse effect on

historic resources eligible for or listed on the National

Register of Historic Places

No significant impacts on legally protected species will

result

Implementation of the proposed action will conform with

policies for floodplain management and protection of

wetlands set forth in Executive Orders 11988 and 11990

Implementation of the proposed action will conform with

policies to prevent disproportionately high and adverse

impacts on minority populations, low-income

populations, and children set forth in Executive Orders

12898 and 13045

Implementation of the proposed action will not result in

direct or constructive use of properties defined in Section

4(f) of the DOT Act and will conform with policies for

protection of parks, recreation areas, wildlife and

waterfowl refuges, and historic properties set forth in that

section.

34b

¢ Implementation of the proposed action is consistent with

Section 3(e) of the Gateway Act. The proposed site was

acquired for transportation purposes before the Gateway

NPA was designated and its historical use has been

aviation. Installation of TDWR is in accordance with the

Gateway General Management Pian, issued by the

National Park service to implement the Gateway Act.

This plan expressly indicates that the entire former U.S.

Coast Guard Station Brooklyn, including the 1. 8 acres

owned by the FAA, is designated as a nonpark use area.

Therefore, under the authority delegated to me by the

Administrator of the FAA, I order that TDWR be installed at

U.S. Coast Guard Air Station Brooklyn site. This decision is

taken pursuant to 49 U. S.C. Subtitle VII, Part A, and

constitutes a final order of the Administrator subject to

review by the Courts of Appeal of the United States within

60 days from issuance in accordance with the provisions of

49 U.S. C. Section 46110. This ROD will be sent to those

parties who have indicated an interest in this TDWR project.

The FAA will publish a notice in the Federal Register and

legal notices in newspapers of the affected area of New York

City announcing this decision and the availability of this

ROD.

~"

Nae ke re ve

James C. Link

Leader, integrated Product Team for Surveillance, AND-400

35b

APPENDIX: Responses to Comments on the FEIS

This appendix presents FAA's responses to comments

received concerning the FEIS. The comment letters are

displayed and addressed in chronological order. -

Senator Schumer/Representative Nadler/Representative

Weiner letter dated February 9, 1999.

Response: This letter raised three issues: blind spots for the

TDWR, findings with regard to the Hart Island alternative,

and concerns of the Department of the Interior. These

concerns were raised earlier in the EIS process. They are

thoroughly addressed in the FEIS at pages 85-88, 93-94, 98-

99, 115-118, 123-124, 127, 132, 165, 173-175, 185-190 209-

232, 310, 313-316 and 535, and this ROD at pages 3-5, 8,

15, 16 and 21. They are also specifically addressed in the

FAA letters dated March 29, 1999 (attached). Senator

Schumer and Representatives Nadler and Weiner will

receive a copy of this ROD, when issued.

Bourque, New York City Audubon Society letter dated

February 20, 1999.

Response: The issues raised in the attached letter were

expressed earlier in the EIS process. They are addressed in

the FEIS at pages 2, 5-9, 32-35, 45-51, 53-61, 79-84, 96-

125, 325-332, 532-538 and Technical Appendices E and F,

and in this ROD at pages 2-3, 5, and 6-7. Mr. Bourque was

sent a copy of the FEIS and will receive a copy of this ROD,

when issued.

36b

Taylor, U.S. Department of the Interior letter dated

February 24, 1999,

Response: The issues raised in the attached letter were

expressed earlier in the EIS process. They are addressed in

the FEIS at pages vii-viii, 14, 39-40, 53-56, 58-60, 65-66, 68,

79, 101-115, 122-123, 125, 209-232, 532-538, and Appendix

E-33, and this ROD at pages 3-5, 12-13, and 21. They are

also specifically addressed in the FAA letter dated March 18,

1999 (attached). In addition, representatives of the FAA

Chief Counsel's Office met with representatives of the

Department of Interior's Solicitor to discuss these issues on

March 23, 1999. Mr. Taylor will receive a copy of the ROD,

when issued.

Hargrove, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

letter dated March 3, 1999.

Response: The EPA states that their "concerns have been

adequately addressed” in the FEIS. They continue "we have

concluded that the proposed project would not result in

significant adverse environmental impacts; therefore, EPA

has no objections to its implementation.” The EPA will

receive a copy of this ROD, when issued.

Kiernan, National Parks and Conservation Association

letter dated March 10, 1999.

Response: The issues raised in the attached letter were

expressed earlier in the EIS process. They are addressed in

the FEIS at pages vii-viii, 14, 39-40, 53-56, 58-60, 65-66, 68,

79, 101-115, 122-123, 125, 209-232, 532-538, and Appendix

E-33, and in this ROD at pages 3-5, 11-14, and 17-18. Mr.

Kiernan was sent a copy of the FEIS and will receive a copy

of this ROD, when issued.

37b

Sewell, Natural Resources Defense Council letter dated

March 10, 1999, :

The issues raised in the attached letter were expressed earlier

in the EIS process. They are addressed in the FEIS at pages

Vii-vili 14, 35-37, 39-40, 53-56, 58-60, 65-66, 68, 79, 101-1

15, 122-123, 125, 209-232, 532-538, and Appendix E-33,

and in this ROD at pages 3 -5, 8, 11-14, 15, 16, 17-18 and

21. Mr. Sewell was sent a copy of the FEIS and will receive

a copy of this ROD, when issued.

4