Document Palmdale_doc_328e9740a8

)216, $,575$)),&&21752/72:(55(3/$&(0(17 -$18$5< 1(3$ &RGHRI)HGHUDO DQG$LU)RUFH  $7&7 DW$LU)RUFH3ODQW LQ ,1752'8&7,21 7KH86$LU)RUFH 86$) $7&7  WRPRGHUQDLUWUDIILFFRQWURO 385326($1'1((' DVZHOODV IDFLOLW\ WKDW FDQPHHW 6(/(&7,2167$1'$5'6 E\&LYLO DQG VWDIIDQG$LU)RUFH)OLJKW  x x x &ULWHULD 1)3$/LIH6DIHW\&RGH 62, 7UDIILF&RQWURO7RZHUDW$)3 3DOPGDOH&$  ---PAGE BREAK--- '(6&5,37,212)352326('$&7,21$1'$/7(51$7,9(6 G ± 8QGHUWKLV 3ODQW6LWH WRWKH$7&7&DEOHZRXOGUXQWKURXJKIHHWRI $/7(51$7,9(6&216,'(5('%87(/,0,1$7(')520)857+(5678'< 7KH UHTXLUHVWKDW ---PAGE BREAK--- GLGQRW $7&7 %XLOGLQJ (19,5210(17$/&216(48(1&(6 /DQG8VH1RLVH LQQRWDEOH $LU4XDOLW\ HPSOR\HHV 7KH$LU)RUFH$LU&RQIRUPLW\$SSOLFDELOLW\0RGHO 86$)  E :DWHU5HVRXUFHV 6:333 IRUDOO ---PAGE BREAK--- UHVRXUFHV 7KHUHIRUHQR%$6+HIIHFWVZRXOGEH 0HDVXUHVWREHDSSOLHGIRUJHQHUDOZRUNHUVDIHW\ WKHAir Force Guidance Memorandum to AFI 91-203, Air Force Consolidated Occupational Safety +D]DUGRXV0DWHULDOVDQG:DVWH KD]DUGRXV RU ZKHQWKH\RXQJRIDOOODWH OHIWWKHQHVW ---PAGE BREAK--- UHVRXUFHV &XOWXUDO5HVRXUFHV WZR $7&7 $UHD RI (IIHFWV ZLWK WKH 6WDWH +LVWRULF 6+32 %XLOGLQJ LVQRW HOLJLEOH IRU LQ WKH RI +LVWRULF 3ODFHV XQGHU DQ\ FULWHULD *HRORJ\DQG6RLOV 7KHQHZ$7&7ZRXOG JHRORJ\DQGVRLOV ---PAGE BREAK--- LQIUDVWUXFWXUH SODQ DQGWUDIILF $*(1&<&2168/7$7,21$1'38%/,&&225',1$7,21   RIWKH($ LQWKH 3DOPGDOHAntelope Valley Press WKLV'UDIW($ DQG)216, DQG FRS\RIWKH($ ZLOOEHPDGHDYDLODEOHDW WKH3DOPGDOH3XEOLF/LEUDU\DQGWKH&LW\RI3DOPGDOH KDVDJUHHGWRSRVWDQHOHFWURQLFFRS\RIWKLV'UDIW($DQG)216,RQWKHFLW\ZHEVLWH )216, 1R   'DWH ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER REPLACEMENT AIR FORCE PLANT 42 PALMDALE, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA January 2019 US Air Force LCMC Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Prepared By: US Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA - Page Left Intentionally Blank - ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA i CONTENTS 1.0 Purpose and Need for Action 1-1 INTRODUCTION 1-1 BACKGROUND 1-1 PURPOSE AND NEED 1-3 DECISIONS TO BE MADE 1-4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PROCESS 1-4 Public Review 1-5 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND COORDINATION 1-5 2.0 Description of Proposed Action & Alternatives 2-1 PROPOSED ACTION 2-1 SELECTION STANDARD DEVELOPMENT ALONG WITH IDENTIFICATION OF INITIAL RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES 2-2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED 2-4 Location A: Northern ATCT Location Alternative 2-4 Location B: GOCO Plant Site 2 ATCT Location 2-4 Location C: Mid-Airfield Options 2-4 Location D New: New ATCT Near Existing ATCT 2-4 Location D Renovate: Renovate Existing ATCT 2-4 ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD 2-5 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2-5 Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative): Location E: ATCT Mid-Airfield 2 2-5 3.0 Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 3-7 AIR INSTALLATION COMPATIBLE USE ZONE (AICUZ)/LAND USE/NOISE 3-7 Affected Environment 3-7 Environmental Consequences 3-7 AIR QUALITY & CLIMATE CHANGE 3-8 Affected Environment 3-9 Environmental Consequences 3-10 WATER RESOURCES 3-13 ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA ii Affected Environment 3-14 Environmental Consequences 3-15 SAFETY AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH 3-15 Affected Environment 3-15 Environmental Consequences 3-16 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/HAZARDOUS WASTE 3-17 Affected Environment 3-17 Environmental Consequences 3-18 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3-19 Affected Environment 3-19 Environmental Consequences 3-24 CULTURAL RESOURCES 3-26 Affected Environment 3-27 Environmental Consequences 3-28 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3-29 Affected Environment 3-29 Environmental Consequences 3-30 SOCIOECONOMICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 3-30 Affected Environment 3-30 Environmental Consequences 3-31 UTILITIES/ INFRASTRUCTURE 3-31 Affected Environment 3-31 Environmental Consequences 3-31 TRANSPORTATION & 3-32 Affected Environment 3-32 Environmental Consequences 3-32 4.0 Cumulative Effects 4-1 5.0 Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted 5-1 6.0 List of Preparers 6-2 7.0 References 7-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA iii APPENDICES 8-1 A. Air Conformity Applicability Model (ACAM) Reports B. Fish and Wildlife Consultation Correspondence: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) including List of Federally-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Known to Occur in the Action Area) C. Cultural Resources Consultation Correspondence: State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Tribes D. Applicability of the Construction General Permit to Plant 42 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Regional Location Map 1-2 Figure 1-2. Air Force Plant 42 1-3 Figure 2-1. New ATCT 2-1 Figure 2-2. Existing ATCT 2-2 Figure 2-3. Locations Considered for New ATCT 2-3 Figure 2-4. Proposed New ATCT Site and Existing ATCT Site 2-6 Figure 3-1. Habitat Disturbance Map from 2009 TES Survey Fig. 9 21) 3-20 Figure 3-2. Habitat Communities Map from 2009 TES Survey Fig. 6 18) 3-20 Figure 3-3. Preferred Alternative New Tower Site 3-24 LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1. Resource Agency Permits, Coordination, and Compliance Required 1-5 Table 1-2. Other Compliance Requirements 1-6 Table 3-1. AVAQMD Attainment Designations 3-10 Table 3-2. AVAQMD Emissions California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Significance Thresholds 3-10 Table 3-3. Federal General Conformity de minimis Thresholds for Ozone Precursors 3-11 Table 3-4. Preferred Alternative: Criteria Pollutant Emissions-Construction and Demolition 3-12 Table 3-5. USFWS List of Threatened or Endangered Species that Could Occur Near the General Project Area 3-22 ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ABA Architectural Barriers Act AFB Air Force Base AFI Air Force Instruction AFFSA Air Force Flight Standards Agency Air Force Life Cycle Management Center AFMC Air Force Materiel Command AFP 42 Air Force Plant 42 AFPD Air Force Policy Directive AGL Above Ground Level AHERA Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act ARB Air Resources Board ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ATCT Air Traffic Control Tower AVAQMD Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District BASH Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard BMPs Best Management Practices CAA Clean Air Act CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA Clean Water Act DOD Department of Defense EA Environmental Assessment EIAP Environmental Impact Analysis Process EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EZVP Engineering Directorate – Acquisition, Environmental, and Industrial Facilities Division – Industrial Facilities Branch EZVC Engineering Directorate – Acquisition, Environmental, and Industrial Facilities Division – Environmental Compliance Branch FAA Federal Aviation Administration FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact g Gravitational force GHG Greenhouses Gases GOCO Government Owned-Contractor Operated H2S Hydrogen sulfide HEPA High-Efficiency Particulate Air HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning ICC International Code Council ICRMP Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA i MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MDAB Mojave Desert Air Basin mph Miles per hour N2O Nitrous oxide NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAGPRA Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFPA National Fire Protection Association NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NRHP National Register of Historic Places PEP Palmdale Energy Project PFCs Perfluorocarbons PM Particulate Matter PPE Personal protective equipment PRA Palmdale Regional Airport RACM Regulated Asbestos-Containing Materials RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ROG Reactive organic gases (same as VOCs) SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SDLAC Sanitation District of Los Angeles County SF6 Sulfur hexafluoride SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SIP State Implementation Plan SMBMI San Manuel Band of Mission Indians SNMP Salt and Nutrient Management Plan SOx Sulfur oxides SOI Statement of Intent SOP Standard Operating Practices or Procedures Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan UPS Uninterruptable power supply USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USAF United States Air Force USC United States Code USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service VOC Volatile organic compound WEAP Worker Environmental Awareness Program WQC Water Quality Certification ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 1-1 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION INTRODUCTION The U.S. Air Force (USAF) at Air Force Plant 42 (AFP 42) proposes to build a new air traffic control tower (ATCT), and demolish the existing ATCT to improve and update air traffic control management functions at AFP 42 in Palmdale, California. This proposed federal action requires evaluation in accordance with Air Force regulation and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The USAF prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to evaluate and document potential effects of this ATCT proposal. The EA has been prepared in compliance with Air Force regulation and NEPA. BACKGROUND AFP 42 is located in the Mojave Desert, approximately 65 miles northeast of Los Angeles and about 20 miles southwest of Edwards Air Force Base (AFB) (Figure 1-1). AFP 42 covers approximately 5,800 acres generally bounded by Columbia Way (Avenue M) to the north, E. Rancho Vista Boulevard (Avenue P) to the south, Sierra Highway to the west, and 50th Street E. to the east. The existing ATCT is located off Administration Road, and accessed by 25th Street E. off of East Avenue P. AFP 42 supports facilities for the production, engineering, final assembly, and flight testing of high performance aircraft. AFP 42 is owned by the USAF, and managed by the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center which is headquartered at Wright- Patterson AFB near Dayton, Ohio. Several plant sites within AFP 42 are operated by various aerospace industry contractors as government owned-contractor operated (GOCO) facilities. AFP 42 shares a common runway with Palmdale Regional Airport (PRA). Both AFP 42 runways are associated with Plant Site 5, common use area. The existing air traffic control tower serves two 12,000-foot runways and eight production plant sites at AFP 42 (Figure 1-2). According to Air Force real property records, the present air traffic control tower was constructed in 1959. The existing ATCT is located on a site determined by both aircraft operations of that period and the airfield configuration at that time. As high performance aircraft developments advanced, the AFP 42 airfield configuration has been modified to support these changing operational needs. The original northeast-southwest runway was extended from 7,000 to 12,000 feet in 1954. The 12,000-foot east-west runway was constructed in 1956 (Earth Tech, 1998). The original 1959 ATCT has remained in operation, yet due to modern air traffic control (ATC) needs and current airfield use practices, its location no longer meets visibility requirements for observation and control of aircraft operations. The technical capabilities of this aging facility are also becoming increasingly outdated and inadequate. Structural constraints prevent the tower from meeting today’s tower cab space, seismic, and safety standards. Consequently, it is not feasible to renovate and upgrade the existing ATCT. ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 1-2 Figure 1-1. Regional Location Map ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 1-3 AFP 42 Air Traffic Control Tower Project Objectives: • Provide ATCT facilities compliant with USAF and FAA standards and policies, • Ensure life safety and structural risk management, and • Support AFP 42’s robust aircraft industrial plant mission needs. PURPOSE AND NEED AFP 42 supports a busy aircraft operations mission. The AFP 42 air traffic control tower must provide safe and efficient ATC services to support this mission. Project objectives have been developed to help describe the ATCT capabilities needed at AFP 42. AFP 42 operational mission activities require the ATCT to provide for excellent visual surveillance and depth perception of the aerodrome. Air traffic controllers must have unobstructed visibility of aircraft parking areas and taxiways. The ATCT cab, or visual control room, needs to be large enough to accommodate essential equipment, air traffic controllers, and trainees. Robust tower infrastructure, including mechanical and electrical Figure 1-2. Air Force Plant 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 1-4 components, is needed to maintain reliable and cost-effective ATC service. Emergency egress must be adequate to meet current life and fire safety standards and the tower facility must meet structural integrity and seismic standards as well. The purpose of the Air Force’s Proposed Action is provide a facility that meets all of these requirements. These needs would be best met by a cost-effective solution with the capacity to provide ATC services into the future. The existing ATCT has served well for nearly 60 years, but it no longer meets current mission requirements or building safety standards. The existing ATCT’s inadequate location and physical constraints preclude its renovation and modification to satisfy mission requirements. The Air Force’s Proposed Action, therefore, is to construct a new ATCT in a location better positioned to provide safe and effective ATC services now and into the future. The purpose of this Proposed Action is to meet the mission and safety needs by addressing current deficiencies and fulfilling the ATCT Replacement Project Objectives. DECISIONS TO BE MADE The U.S. Air Force will use this EA and other associated documents to determine whether: 1. The proposed management actions, as described, might have significant impacts requiring analysis in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); 2. No new action should be taken to bring AFP 42 Air Traffic Control capabilities into compliance with FAA and Air Force regulations; or 3. The Air Force should conduct the proposed management actions as described and approve a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) based upon the proposed analysis contained herein. These decisions will not be made until after a review of public comments received during a 30-day public comment period on this Draft EA and Draft FONSI. This EA will remain valid, unless the Proposed Action is so modified and/or such new information becomes available that the anticipated effects would be different than those documented in this EA; at which point additional documentation would be prepared. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PROCESS This EA has been prepared to determine the potential for significant impacts on the human environment resulting from the Proposed Action, and to determine whether a FONSI is warranted or an EIS should be prepared. The EA has been prepared in accordance with: • NEPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.); • Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA procedural provisions (40 CFR § 1500–1508); and ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 1-5 • Air Force regulations on the Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP). Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-7061, adopting 32 CFR § 989. NEPA requires federal agencies to consider and publicly disclose the potential for environmental consequences associated with proposed actions. The USAF is the lead federal agency for the NEPA process concerning this Proposed Action. Public Review A notice of availability will be published in the Palmdale Antelope Valley Press soliciting input on this Draft EA and FONSI. The public will have 30 days from the publish date to review the Draft EA and FONSI and submit comments on them or the Proposed Action. A paper copy will be made available at the Palmdale Public Library, and the City of Palmdale has agreed to make an electronic copy of this Draft EA and FONSI available through the city website. Public and agency comments on the Draft EA and FONSI will be included in the Air Force’s decision making and Environmental Impact Analysis Process to ensure all potential environmental impacts are considered. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND COORDINATION The NEPA planning and decision-making process for actions proposed by federal agencies involves compliance with other relevant environmental statutes and regulations. Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 32-70, Environmental Quality, states that the USAF will comply with the applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations. Listed below are key environmental compliance requirements, consultation, laws, regulations, Executive Orders, and permit requirements applicable to the Proposed Action. As required in 40 CFR 1500.2(c) and as provided in Table 1-1, the EA contains a list of permits and coordination that may be required in implementing the Proposed Action. Table 1-2, lists other requirements where compliance must be demonstrated or deemed not applicable. Table 1-1. Resource Agency Permits, Coordination, and Compliance Required Agency Permit/Approval/Condition U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Measures to avoid nesting migratory birds to comply with the Migratory Bird Act Treaty Act (MBTA) Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD) Compliance with AVAQMD’s Regulation XIX, Rule 1901, Federal Conformity – General Conformity California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 1-6 Table 1-2. Other Compliance Requirements Regulation Source Noise Noise Control Act of 1972 42 U.S.C. 4901 et seq., Public Law 92- 574 Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Program AFI 32-7063; Department of Defense (DOD) Instruction 4165-57 Architecture Noise and Vibration Control UFC 3-101-01; UFC 3-450-01 Land Use and Planning Land Use Planning Bulletin, Base HQ USAF/LEEVX, 1 August, 1986 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Clean Air Act of 1970 and Amendments of 1977 and 1990, including the General Conformity Rule and the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., as amended Air Quality Compliance and Resource AFI 32-7040 Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance (5 October 2009) EO 13514 Health and Safety USAF Mishap Prevention Program AFI 91-202 Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks (23 April 1997) EO 13045 Hydrology, Water Resources, and Water Quality Clean Water Act of 1972 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., as amended Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 42 U.S.C. 300 Water Quality Compliance AFI 32-7041 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Section 438 42 U.S.C. 152 ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 2-1 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION & ALTERNATIVES This section presents the range of alternatives considered to meet the purpose and need described above. Alternatives initially considered but eventually eliminated from further evaluation are described briefly along with the rationale for elimination. The Proposed Action is fully described. The No Action alternative describes how flight operations would be supported if no changes were implemented. Air Force NEPA regulations at 32 CFR 989.8(a)(d), direct that an EA must include at least the No Action alternative, except for rare instances excused by law. PROPOSED ACTION The U.S. Air Force Proposed Action is to construct a new, 160-foot high air traffic control tower (ATCT) facility and demolish the existing ATCT (Building 555). The Proposed Action includes constructing associated parking areas, access driveways, and storm water management xeriscaping. Construct new ATCT The Proposed Action incorporates modern ATCT facility features to comply with current safety and operations standards, regulations, and requirements (1.3 Purpose and Need). The proposed tower building would contain interior work spaces for supervision, training, and administrative personnel. The tower building would be about 160 feet above ground level (AGL). The total height including tower cab and antennas would be approximately 180 feet AGL. The new ATCT (Figure 2-1) would be designed and constructed according to policies and standards from USAF, Department of Defense, and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), including: FAA Order 6480.4, ATCT Siting Criteria (FAA, 2006) FAA Order JO 6480.7, Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) and Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) Design Policy (FAA, 2009) Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 3-260-01, Airfield and Heliport Design and Planning (DOD, 2008) Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 4-133-01, Air Traffic Control and Air Operations Facilities (DOD, 2016) Figure 2-1. New ATCT ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 2-2 Two access driveways with two new parking areas would approach the tower building from the north and south. An enclosed mechanical A storm water management/drainage area composed of rock mulch would be constructed adjacent to the ATCT building. The new facility footprint would cover approximate 2 acres. Demolish Existing ATCT Phased demolition of the existing ATCT building and foundation (approximately 2,380 square feet), would occur after the new ATCT has been built. The existing tower is approximately 106 feet above ground level (AGL), and has a footprint of approximately 350 square feet (AFFSA 2013). This steel structure with metal paneling was built at the end of the 1950’s (Figure 2-2). The California State Historic Preservation Officer has agreed that Building 555 has no historic value requiring special consideration (Appendix The existing tower is nearby other buildings and would likely be taken down mechanically (without using explosives), while minimizing the amount of dirt and debris created. SELECTION STANDARD DEVELOPMENT ALONG WITH IDENTIFICATION OF INITIAL RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES NEPA and CEQ regulations mandate consideration of reasonable alternatives for the proposed action. Reasonable alternatives must satisfy the purpose and need of the proposed action. The USAF applies selection standards to establish this initial range of reasonable alternatives, in accordance with Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP) regulations (32 CFR §989.8). The initial range of Alternatives were developed considering operational and engineering suitability, and siting locations that fulfill the purpose and need. The Alternatives evaluated in this EA were evaluated by Civil Engineering, Planning, and supporting installation staff, and Air Force Flight Standards Agency (AFFSA). Suitable ATCT locations were analyzed in accordance with UFC 3-260-01 Sec. 17 ATCT Siting Criteria; UFC 4-133-01, Air Traffic Control and Air Operations Facilities; AFMAN 32-1084; IBC; NFPA 101 Life Safety Code 2015; Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) Accessibility Standard for DoD Facilities; ASCE 7-10; Statement of Intent (SOI) for Proposed Construction of a New Air Traffic Control Tower at AFP 42 Palmdale, CA Figure 2-2. Existing ATCT ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 2-3 2013 (AFFSA 2013); and SOI for proposed construction of a new control tower at AFP 42, Palmdale, CA, Air Force Plant 42 OL AFP 42/DD). The initial array of alternatives included four different locations for a new ATCT, and a renovation of the existing ATCT alternative (Figure 2-3). One of the four ATCT locations considered was brought forward for environmental impact evaluation. The renovation alternative was dropped due to the substantial cost needed to meet structural safety standards and because it would not solve the problem of the obstructed view. The three potential ATCT alternative locations were dropped from further consideration due primarily from the inability of other alternatives because they did not provide an unobstructed view required by UFC 3-260-01, Sec. 17 ATCT Siting Criteria: "B17-2.1 Unobstructed View. The air traffic controllers operating this facility must have a clear, unobstructed, and direct view to all operating positions of the airport traffic area; to the approach end of the primary instrument runway; and all other active runways, taxiways, parking aprons, test pads, and similar areas..." Figure 2-3. Locations Considered for New ATCT ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 2-4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED Location A: Northern ATCT Location Alternative The Northern ATCT Location Alternative identified a possible tower site between GOCO Sites 1 and 2 (see Figure 2-3). Subsequent analysis determined this alternative would not comply with the Unobstructed View Siting Requirements (UFC 3-260-01, Sec.17 ATCT Siting Criteria). Additional selection standards (including current FAA, industry, federal, DOD, and Air Force standards and codes for ATCTs) also indicate this location’s obstructed view would disqualify it as a viable option. Consequently, the Northern ATCT Location Alternative was dismissed from further detailed analysis. Location B: GOCO Plant Site 2 ATCT Location During plan scoping discussions, a possible new ATCT location was identified at the GOCO Plant Site 2 (see Figure 2-3). Later, it was determined that an ATCT at this site would interfere with substantial resources already committed to existing uses. In addition, available building space was limited, and a proposed natural gas-fired power plant to be built immediately northeast of AFP 42 could obstruct the view with its steam exhaust system. GOCO Plant Site 2 was therefore dismissed from further analysis. Information on the Palmdale Energy Project (PEP) is provided in Section 4.0, Cumulative Effects. Location C: Mid-Airfield Options The mid-airfield area, located northwest of Taxiway Lima and Taxiway Romeo junction was identified early on as a potential alternative. However, a new tower in this area would conflict with several important monitoring wells actively tracking groundwater transport of soil pollution. If shifted outside the monitoring well area, the ATCT would become subject to view restrictions from existing antennas. Consequently, this Mid- Airfield Alternative was dismissed from further detailed analysis. Location D New: New ATCT Near Existing ATCT Constructing a new tower at Location D (see Figure 2-3) was dismissed in early screening for impractical tower height restrictions. The tower height would need to exceed 191 feet in order to see over existing buildings that otherwise block the line of sight. However, the ATCT height would have to be limited due to a risk of collapse onto nearby Building 553. This height restriction would create visual blind spots on each runway. Consequently, constructing a new ATCT near the existing ATCT was dismissed from further detailed analysis. Location D Renovate: Renovate Existing ATCT Renovation of the existing ATCT would fail to meet the need to improve visibility of the main runway handling 85 percent of the traffic through AFP 42 and Palmdale Regional Airport. Although, technically available structural modifications to the existing ATCT would be expected to reduce risks of severe damage from an earthquake or strong winds, such structural reinforcement would still not bring the building into complete compliance ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 2-5 with building code requirements (ASCE 2013). Retrofitting would require doubling the size of all framing members to meet the current wind and seismic standards, making the renovation alternative cost prohibitive (USACE, 2012). Project objectives to meet ATCT standards and improve visibility and building safety would not be met by renovating the existing tower. Consequently, this alternative was dismissed from further analysis. ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD Alternative 1: No Action Alternative No changes or new construction would take place under the No Action Alternative. The existing ATCT facility would continue to be used for controlling air traffic at AFP 42. However, the long standing deficiencies of the existing tower facility and its location would not be addressed. The No Action Alternative would not fully address the need to comply with FAA and USAF operational requirements including unobstructed visibility for airfield operations. The existing ATCT would continue to be operated at higher risk of structural failure and higher safety threat to personnel and property. The No Action Alternative would not correct identified air traffic control safety issues. Despite these deficiencies, continuing to operate the existing ATCT remains a viable course of action. AFP 42 currently operates the existing ATCT with air traffic control limitations that provide for acceptable operational risk. Mission tempo, types of aircraft and other air traffic control tower capabilities may be affected by these limitations. Under the No Action alternative these air traffic control limitations would continue. Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative): Location E: ATCT Mid-Airfield 2 Under the Preferred Alternative, the new ATCT would be located mid-airfield, within AFP 42’s Common Area known as Plant Site 5 (See Figure 2-3). The new ATCT, would be about 160 feet high. Total height including the tower cab, catwalk and antennas would be about 180 feet. From the control cab, technical eye-level elevation would be approximately 151 feet above ground level; the control cab finished floor of the would stand 146 feet AGL. This height would provide adequate visibility for taxiways and runways, and also provide the minimum viewing angle for adequate depth perception to the farthest aircraft traffic surface on the airdrome. The cab window would face downward to prevent glare to pilots. Facility features and tower height would provide the necessary equipment, training, briefing, and administrative space to meet project objectives and provide for modern aircraft observation and control. Surface area disturbed by the project would be approximately 2 acres (see Figure 2-4). Building site preparation for construction would include demolishing and removing existing pavement. Clearing and grubbing would be limited to removing individual small shrubs within the planned developed areas. Two drainage structures would be required to ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 2-6 direct storm water away from the facility. A portion of the security fence would also be removed. Primary power to the ATCT would be from the existing overhead power lines. Copper and fiber optic cables would extend from Building 510 to the ATCT. Cable would run through 4,500 feet of existing underground telecommunications duct banks and 600 feet of new duct bank. Municipal water service will be provided via a new 650-foot lateral water service line along 510 Access Road. Sewer service will hookup to an existing gravity line approximately 1,000 feet to the east. The ATCT’s access driveways would approach the ATCT from north and south. Vehicle parking lots would accommodate 15 vehicles. Short concrete sidewalks would be poured around the perimeter of the building and to the parking lot. EISA compliant low impact design (LID) measures would be incorporated. For example, rock xeriscaping around the ATCT would provide for surface water percolation, and a mechanical/electrical equipment enclosure would be constructed on a porous gravel surface. Figure 2-4. Proposed New ATCT Site and Existing ATCT Site ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 3-7 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Section 3.0 presents the current conditions of the environmental resources and impacts caused by implementing the Preferred and No Action Alternatives. AIR INSTALLATION COMPATIBLE USE ZONE (AICUZ)/LAND USE/NOISE The Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Program, (AFI 32-7063), provides guidance to air bases and local communities in planning land uses compatible with airfield operations. The AICUZ program describes existing aircraft noise and flight safety zones on and near USAF installations. Affected Environment Overall land use at AFP 42 is urbanized, including institutional (military), light, and heavy industrial practices. AFP 42 is zoned for airfield and related uses. No change in land use is scheduled or proposed. Surrounding areas are urban (primarily residential and commercial), agricultural, as well as shrub and brush rangeland. Land management includes weekly to biweekly mowing of approximately 2,700 acres of agriculturally developed grassland around runways and the southern section of AFP 42, and weekly insecticide/herbicide applications around all buildings, taxiways, runways, fence lines, and road shoulders (Mosley, 2008). Environmental Consequences Preferred Alternative – Proposed Action Construction of the project would not result in the conversion of farmland or impact the designated land use of the area. The proposed action and alternatives would not result in any significant changes to existing operational noise conditions at the facility. Noise associated with construction of the new ATCT would be temporary and intermittent. There are no buildings in the immediate area where the new tower would be constructed so there are no noise effects on airport personnel. Short term effects on construction employees are limited to those going to and from their vehicles during construction, and thereby, are not analyzed further in this EA. No Action Alternative There would be no change to operational noise conditions and no construction noise effects under the No Action Alternative. ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 3-8 AIR QUALITY & CLIMATE CHANGE AFP 42 is in eastern Los Angeles County, and lies within the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB). Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD) has primary authority for regional air quality here in the southwestern portion of the MDAB. AVAQMD regulates stationary source and construction air pollutant emissions in the project area. Regional planning and attainment of air quality goals also involve air quality agencies in neighboring San Bernadino, Kern, and Riverside counties. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) oversees implementation of the 1990 federal Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Federal activities resulting in the discharge of air pollutants must conform to National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the State Implementation Plan (SIP), unless the activity is explicitly exempted by EPA regulations. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) regulates mobile sources and oversees implementation of state air quality laws, including the 1988 California Clean Air Act (Health & Safety 42300 et seq.). Pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act, the EPA has established national ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants, including ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), inhalable particulate matter (PM10 is 10 microns or smaller diameter), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5 is 2.5 microns or smaller diameter). For each of these six criteria pollutants there are federal and state standards designed to protect the public health and welfare within a reasonable margin of safety. California’s ambient air quality standards are generally more protective than federal standards. The State has also established standards for additional pollutants. Regions with pollutant concentrations higher than the national or state ambient air quality standards are designated as non-attainment areas. When an area has been reclassified from non-attainment to attainment for a federal standard, the status is designated as maintenance, and there must be a plan and measures established that would keep the region in attainment status for the following 10 years. Federal agencies are responsible for demonstrating conformity with local SIPs (40 CFR § 93.154), known as general conformity. SIPs are developed as a means to meet attainment of NAAQS within specific air basins. In order to demonstrate conformity, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated rules and generated guidance setting de minimis general conformity thresholds. If a federal action’s emissions fall under these de minimis thresholds (measured in tons/year), the action is not required to have a general conformity analysis. If, however, the action exceeds these thresholds even after reasonable mitigation measures are applied, the activity would require the federal agency to perform a general conformity analysis and examine stricter emission reductions measures. If, when working with the local air district, general conformity thresholds are still exceeded despite strict emission controls, the federal agency may request incorporating the activity in the SIP, or if available, may pursue an emissions offset agreement with the air district. ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 3-9 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate In 2016, the Council on Environmental Quality issued its “Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of GHGs and the Effects of Climate Change for NEPA Reviews” (CEQ, 2016). The 2016 Final Guidance explains the application of NEPA principles and practices that federal agencies should consider when addressing the potential effects of a proposed action on climate change as indicated by assessing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and the effects of climate change on a proposed action and its environmental impacts. A proposed action exceeding an annual threshold of 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions would trigger a quantitative analysis and be used to determine the significance criteria for climate change. Greenhouse gases (GHG) are compounds that contribute to the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is a natural phenomenon where gases trap heat within the surface- troposphere (lowest portion of the earth’s atmosphere) system, causing heating at the surface of the earth. The primary long-lived GHG directly emitted by human activities are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). This EA follows the Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas issued by the CEQ (CEQ, 2010). The potential effects of proposed GHG emissions are by nature global and cumulative effects, as individual sources of GHG emissions are not large enough to have an appreciable effect on climate change. As such, this EA estimates CO2 levels as appropriate for disclosure purposes. Affected Environment Polluted air from the Los Angeles Basin, especially during the summer, moves into the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB), creating an NAAQS exceedance of ozone. Southern California is known for strong temperature inversions that can hold pollutants in the basin for long periods of time. Current attainment designations for the Antelope Valley portion of the MDAB are identified in Table 3.1. AVAQMD is in attainment status for all criteria pollutants except ozone. As a non- attainment area for federal ozone standards and non-attainment under state standards for ozone and PM10, air quality data and emission trends must be evaluated to determine how much these pollutant concentrations will need to be reduced to attain the standard in the future. Pursuant to the approved 2008 Federal Ozone Attainment Plan and given the non- attainment (Severe-15) designation, the AVAQMD has 13 years from the plan approval date (2004) to achieve attainment 2019). ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 3-10 Table 3-1. AVAQMD Attainment Designations Pollutant Federal Designation State Designation CO Attainment Attainment O3 Non-attainment* (Classification: Severe-15; TBD) Non-attainment PM10 Attainment (Unclassified) Non-attainment PM2.5 Attainment (Unclassified) Unclassified NOx Attainment (Unclassified) Attainment SO2 Attainment (Unclassified) Attainment Pb Attainment (Unclassified) Attainment SO4 N/A Attainment (Antelope Valley AQMD, 2016) * Ozone 8-hr. (2015 federal standard) Expected Non-attainment, Classification to be determined; (2008 and 1997 federal standards) Classification: Severe-15 Environmental Consequences Regulated air pollutant thresholds developed by the AVAQMD and EPA were used to determine the air quality effects of the alternatives. If the total direct and indirect emissions associated with a project do not exceed established de minimis threshold levels, then a project would be considered in CAA conformance (40 CFR § 51.853 and 93.153(b)(1)). The applicability of general conformity requirements were used as the basis for evaluating significance of adverse impacts associated with a project. Air pollutant emissions thresholds for projects within the AVAQMD jurisdiction are shown in Table 3-2. Table 3-2. AVAQMD Emissions California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Significance Thresholds Criteria Pollutant Annual Threshold (ton/yr.) Daily Threshold (lbs./day) Greenhouse Gases (CO2e) 100,000 548,000 Carbon Monoxide (CO) – ozone precursor 100 548 Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) – ozone precursor 25 137 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) – ozone precursor 25 137 Oxides of Sulfur (SOx) 25 137 Particulate Matter (PM10) 15 82 Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 12 65 Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) 10 54 Lead (Pb) 0.6 3 (Source: AVAQMD CEQA and General Conformity Guidelines, 2016) ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 3-11 For projects within designated non-attainment or maintenance areas, General Conformity de minimis thresholds for pollutants serve to evaluate project emissions (such as the ozone precursors de minimis thresholds in Table 3-3). When de minimis thresholds are combined with local background levels they may be compared with ambient air quality standards. Table 3-3. Federal General Conformity de minimis Thresholds for Ozone Precursors Ozone Precursor de minimis Threshold (ton/yr) for Severe Non- attainment Areas Carbon monoxide (CO) 100 Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 25 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) or Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 25 (Source: 40 CFR §93.153) Nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are measured as indicator pollutants for ozone (O3) concentration in evaluating conformity determinations and local and state thresholds. Ozone gas is not emitted directly into the air, rather it forms from chemical reaction between two precursors — nitrogen oxides (NOx) and VOCs — in the presence of sunlight. Preferred Alternative – Proposed Project The proposed construction of the new ATCT and demolition of the existing ATCT would create short-term consequences to air quality due to increased vehicle emissions and fugitive dust from the use of construction equipment in clearing, grubbing, and grading. Some combustion emissions would result from the use of construction equipment and construction worker vehicle trips to and from the project area. The Proposed Action would not be expected to increase the number of AFP 42 employees during operations. The Air Force Air Conformity Applicability Model (ACAM) was applied to assess potential air quality effects associated with the Proposed Action in accordance with AFI 32-7040 (USAF 2014), 32 CFR § 989; and 40 CFR § 93.153(b). Assessing project effects to air quality considered fuel combustion from heavy-duty construction equipment and worker vehicles through phased activities: site grading, trenching, ATCT building construction, architectural coatings, paving, and existing ATCT demolition. Results of the ACAM emissions calculations (annual tons) of criteria pollutants from the proposed ATCT construction and demolition are listed below in Table 3-4. Detailed ACAM emissions figures are reported in Appendix A. Data inputs reflect a conservative emissions analysis. In the scenario modeled, expected construction would start in the 4th quarter 2019 and end in the 2nd quarter 2021. Engine emission rates from implementing the Preferred Alternative could be less than the rates shown in Table 3-4 if the actual construction period is longer than the 19 months modeled, and/or newer more fuel- efficient construction equipment and vehicles are used. ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 3-12 Table 3-4. Preferred Alternative: Criteria Pollutant Emissions - Construction and Demolition Construction & Demolition Emissions VOC/ROG (ton/yr) NOx (ton/yr) 2019 0.015 0.104 2020 0.157 0.953 2021 0.281 0.212 General Conformity de minimis Thresholds* 25 25 Significant Adverse Effect? No No VOCs: Volatile Organic Compounds ROG: Reactive Organic Gases NOx: nitrogen oxides *Emission levels for conformity applicability analysis in a severe non- attainment area for ozone (40 CFR § 93.153 Antelope Valley AQMD 2016). The Preferred Alternative emissions fall below the conformity threshold values established in 40 CFR § 93.153 and local thresholds set by AVAQMD by at least an order of magnitude. Therefore, a general conformity analysis is not required and AVAQMD’s significance thresholds would not be exceeded. The Preferred Alternative’s anticipated air emissions of criteria pollutants or ozone precursor pollutants would be kept to a negligible level by implementing the following minimization measures and best management practices. Consequently, there would not be significant impacts to air quality or GHG. Construction emission control practices to control fugitive dust and diesel exhaust emissions will include: • Water all exposed surfaces twice daily. Exposed surfaces include but are not limited to: soil piles, graded areas, unpaved parking areas, staging areas, and access roads. • Cover or maintain at least 2 feet of free board space on haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material on the site. Any haul trucks that would travel along freeways or major roadways should be covered. • Use wet power vacuum street sweepers to remove any visible track-out mud or dirt from adjacent public roads at least once a day. Use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • Complete all roadways, driveways, sidewalks, or parking lots to be paved as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 3-13 • Minimize idling time either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the time of idling to 5 minutes [required by California Code of Regulations, Title 13, sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485]. Provide clear signage that posts this requirement for workers at the site entrances. • Maintain all construction equipment in proper working condition according to the manufacturer’s specifications. The equipment would be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition before it is operated. The construction contractor would submit a list of vehicles to be used in the construction project for approval by AFP 42 and AVAQMD. In order to maintain acceptable emissions levels, the following best management practices (BMPs) would be followed, in addition to the AVAQMD Guidance for Construction GHG Emissions Reductions. • Maintain all construction equipment in proper working condition according to manufacturer’s specifications. The equipment would be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition before it is operated. • Use diesel-fueled equipment manufactured in 2003 or later, or retrofit equipment manufactured prior to 2003 with diesel oxidation use low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, after-treatment products, and/or other options as they become available. • Any equipment found to exceed 40 percent opacity (Ringelmann 2.0) would be repaired immediately, and USAF and AVAQMD would be notified within 48 hours of identification of non-compliant equipment. No Action Alternative Under the no action alternative the existing ATCT would not be demolished and a new ATCT would not be constructed. Consequently, there would be no construction-related impacts to air quality in the project area. The existing tower emergency generator would continue to be regularly maintained. Standard maintenance practice would require periodic generator operation, but impacts of short term generator operation and emissions would be negligible. Air quality would continue to be influenced by climatic, geographic conditions, and existing anthropogenic activities. WATER RESOURCES This subsection addresses the potential for the alternatives to result in adverse effects associated with surface water and groundwater resources. ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 3-14 Affected Environment The area surrounding the Proposed Action site is relatively flat with a slope of 0-1%. It is located within the arid Antelope Valley Watershed which is a large, closed basin in the western Mojave Desert draining approximately 3,387 square miles. The watershed has no outlets to the ocean. Average annual precipitation reported at Palmdale Airport/AFP 42 is 8.30 inches. Surface waters generally flow northeast from the San Gabriel Mountains and percolate into the underlying groundwater basin or flow toward three dry lakes located on Edwards Air Force Base. The valley floor is characterized by a low slope and generally lacks defined natural channels outside the foothills. Scant surface flows are carried by ephemeral streams (Los Angeles County and Antelope Valley SNMP Stakeholders Group, 2014) and the valley is subject to unpredictable sheet flow patterns following infrequent storms (SDLAC, 2005)(CPUC, 2006). There is no hydrologic connection between AFP 42 and any waters of the U.S. (Appendix D: Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board notice from 2014). No precipitation falling within the Antelope Valley Watershed routes to waters of the U.S. In a letter dated June 11, 2014, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provided AFP-42-OL with a determination that there are no jurisdictional waters of the U.S. on the AFP 42 property and stated that no Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permits are required. The letter is included in Appendix D, As CWA Section 404 is not applicable, no CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) or Section 402 Construction General Permit (CGP) would be required. Regardless of the requirement to obtain a CGP, Air Force regulations require the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan AFP 42 is federally owned DoD land, and developments must adhere to Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requirements to limit storm water runoff. Antelope Valley activities impacting waters of the State, may be required to comply with California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. AFP 42 contains no waters of the State, except an intermittent stream (Amargosa Creek) located west of the operational area of AFP 42. The Proposed Action area is neither adjacent, nor hydrologically connected to Amargosa Creek. Approximately 3miles east of AFP 42 lies another intermittent stream/dry wash towards the foothills (Little Rock Wash). Surface waters within the main operational area of AFP 42 are limited to a storm water drainage system, which consists of underground storm drains and shallow ditches. AFP 42 storm water runoff generally flows north into man-made evaporation ponds. All drainage from the Proposed Action heads north to AFP 42’s storm water drainage system. The AFP 42 storm water drainage system is typically dry except after rainfall events or localized discharges from AFP 42 activities. Rainstorms are rare in this area, but due to their short duration and high intensity, much of the storm runoff is not confined to channels and may result in sheet flow and flooding. However, storms contribute relatively very little precipitation throughout the Mojave Desert region (USFWS, 2014). ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 3-15 Environmental Consequences Preferred Alternative – Proposed Action The Proposed Action would have a localized and temporary effect on surface water hydrology. Ground disturbance during construction has the potential to increase soil erosion that could degrade water quality. Erosion control techniques would be incorporated to minimize erosion during construction. Air Force regulations requires the development and implementation of a for all ground-disturbing activities. The would outline strict construction site management practices designed to protect the quality of the surface water, groundwater, and natural environment through which they flow. Therefore, adverse impacts to surface waters would not be expected as a result of the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action would have no significant impact on groundwater within the Project area. The creation of large, impervious surfaces could affect groundwater recharge by precipitation or surface water infiltration; however, due to the relatively small size of the proposed parking lots, these effects are negligible resulting in no adverse impacts to groundwater. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, a new ATCT would not be constructed, nor would the existing ATCT be demolished. This alternative would have no effects related to surface or groundwater in the area. SAFETY AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Affected Environment The close proximity of the proposed project to the airfield is unlikely to create potential for bird/aircraft collisions. Bird/wildlife aircraft strike hazard is considered a safety hazard by AFFTC. Scrub plant communities surrounding the main runway attract limited species of birds that stand on the ground between bushes feeding on insects and herbaceous seeds on the shoulders of the runway. Waterfowl and shorebirds are not attracted to the project area, since there are no bodies of surface water to attract them. The AFFTC supplement to AFI 91-202, The U.S. Air Force Mishap Prevention Program, and Air Force Pamphlet 91-212, Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) Management Techniques (2004), outline actions designed to provide for safe mission operations by limiting BASH through bird avoidance and control (including harassment, ground maintenance, habitat modification, and depredation). AFP 42 has a BASH management plan in place that includes regular mowing of areas surrounding the airfield to discourage use by bird and other wildlife species. The current AFP 42 BASH Plan has been very successful in decreasing BASH incidents, and sufficiently meets current mission needs. ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 3-16 Environmental Consequences Preferred Alternative – Proposed Action Construction of a new ATCT tower would result in permanent and temporary disturbance of creosote habitat. Changes in vegetation communities could alter the bird species utilizing the area. Small numbers or individual birds could periodically use the surrounding area for foraging, but creosote does not have high forage value for these species. Post construction revegetation in areas used for staging would minimize any change in vegetation community composition. Continued implementation after construction of standard practices to control roosting and nesting habitats would minimize the potential for BASH. Therefore, no BASH effects would be anticipated. Measures to be applied for worker safety and protection when handling materials during demolition are described in Section 3.5, Hazardous Materials. Measures to be applied for general worker safety (other occupational hazards), are contained in the 2018 Air Force Guidance Memorandum to AFI 91-203, Air Force Consolidated Occupational Safety Instruction. Under this memorandum, the following precautionary measures and programs would be implemented to protect worker safety (not exhaustive): • Preparation of a Job Site Analysis that examines safety hazards and ways to mitigate those hazards. • Use of personal protective equipment (PPE), including use of hardhats and steel toe boots by personnel during construction; use of protective respiratory equipment when applying architectural coatings; use of fall protection equipment; and providing medical emergency response kits and eyewash stations for mishaps. • Requiring mandatory worker safety training. • Providing appropriate material labeling and handling instructions. No Action Alternative Site conditions would remain the same under the No Action Alternative. Continued implementation of the AFP BASH Plan would occur. There would be no change in BASH effects. No additional measures would be needed for worker safety. ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 3-17 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/HAZARDOUS WASTE A hazardous material is any substance that generally can cause or significantly contribute to increased mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating reversible illness, or that can potentially pose a substantial risk to human health or the environment. Hazardous materials use is regulated by U.S. Department of Transportation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA, 40 CFR § 302). Hazardous waste is any solid waste which, because of its physical, chemical, or biological characteristics, quantity, or concentration, may contribute to adverse effects in organisms or their pose a substantial present or future danger to the environment; or result in damage to or loss of equipment, property, or personnel. Hazardous wastes are regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Non-hazardous solid wastes are to be managed as a separate waste stream and do not fall under RCRA regulations. Solid waste management at AF Plant 42 follows solid waste management requirements in accordance with AFI 32-7042, Waste Management. Affected Environment The 2010 Site-Specific Environmental Baseline Survey for Plant Sites 5 and 6 was completed to document the environmental condition of property at Plant Sites 5 and 6 resulting from historic and current storage, release, use, and disposal of hazardous substances, petroleum products, and their wastes. The evaluation was based on thorough records search, visual site inspections, and employee interviews. The environmental baseline surveys (EBS) supplemented prior AFP 42 surveys of hazardous materials and wastes in accordance with AFI 32-7066, EBS in Real Estate Transactions (USAF, 1994). The existing ATCT (Building 555) and the proposed new ATCT location were included in this EBS. Inspection of the existing tower site found there was no evidence of liquid hazardous substances/waste or petroleum products/waste storage, treatment, disposal, or releases – either currently or in the past. This physical site inspection noted an emergency generator in proximity to the existing ATCT. Upon transfer of ATC duties to the new tower, this generator system may be re-used or excessed. Buildings onsite constructed prior to 1978, including the ATCT are presumed to contain lead-based paint and asbestos. A hazardous materials survey identified asbestos containing materials, lead-based paint use, polycarbonate biphenyl (PCB) containing materials, electronic wastes, fluorescent bulbs, and various household chemicals as potential hazards. The ATCT has not housed medical waste, radiological substances, or pesticides in its history. ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 3-18 Environmental Consequences Preferred Alternative – Proposed Action Demolition of the existing ATCT could result in the exposure of personnel and surrounding area to hazardous materials. Environmental and worker protection measures would be implemented to ensure proper disposal and reduce exposure to personnel. All new construction and demolition would be undertaken using the current federal and Air Force standards for hazardous materials and waste management. Implementing these standard management measures would limit the risk of adverse effects to a negligible level. With appropriate contractor oversight, only minor potential impacts could result. The Contractor would be required to develop and implement a hazardous materials management plan prior to initiation of construction. The plan would include BMPs to 1) reduce risk of spill of toxic chemicals and other hazardous materials during construction; describe a specific protocol for the proper handling and disposal of materials and contingency procedures to follow in the event of an accidental spill; and describe a specific protocol for the proper handling and disposal of hazardous materials resulting from the demolition of the existing ATCT. Such measures include: • Remove and dispose of identified Regulated Asbestos-Containing Materials (RACM) if they are to be affected by renovation and/or demolition plans. Removal/disturbance of this material would be performed using appropriate work practices, proper engineering controls, and waste handling requirements. This work would be conducted by a licensed and registered abatement contractor. • Floor tiles that may contain asbestos would be removed using wet methods including High-Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) vacuums, half-faced respirators, prompt cleanup of waste, and 1-stage decontamination chamber in a negative pressure contained work area by a trained and licensed asbestos abatement contractor. Waste would be labeled as “asbestos-containing construction waste” and go to an approved landfill. • Any other suspect materials not sampled and tested for asbestos content would be assumed to contain asbestos and managed accordingly, or characterized by an Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) Certified asbestos inspector prior to disturbance or demolition. • Retain a licensed asbestos consultant and/or qualified industrial hygienist to conduct observation of abatement work practices, perimeter air monitoring, worker exposure monitoring and post-abatement visual clearance inspection to verify and document compliance with local, state and federal asbestos and lead paint abatement requirements. ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 3-19 • If removal or demolition of the existing cab is anticipated, remove and dispose of identified PCB-containing black/gray mastic located along the exterior wall base of the cab’s exterior platform. Removal/disturbance of this material would be performed using appropriate work practices and waste handling requirements. A licensed and registered hazardous materials abatement contractor would conduct this work. • Collect and recycle all fluorescent light tubes and ballasts according to all applicable local, state and federal regulations. • Collect and recycle all electronic waste (e-waste) and other small, unregulated commercial chemical substances described in this report according to all applicable local, state and federal regulations. Construction of a new ATCT could result in the accidental spills of petroleum products used to operate construction equipment. The contractor would be required to have a prepared prior to construction and spill cleanup kit(s) onsite to abate onsite spills from equipment. No Action Alternative This alternative would not disturb materials containing hazardous materials or generate hazardous wastes. The EBS would reference potential hazardous material issues associated with the existing ATCT, but since no construction or demolition activities would be disturbing the latent hazardous materials, they would not have a potential to adversely impact the environment. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section discusses the special status species that could be present or have the potential to seasonally occur in or near the project area. Affected Environment Approximately 78 percent of AFP 42 land is considered highly disturbed habitat; this includes over 96 percent of Agricultural/Developed and 100 percent of Industrial/Developed land use types (USAF, 2009) (Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2). ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 3-20 Figure 3-1. Habitat Disturbance Map from 2009 TES Survey Fig. 9 21) Figure 3-2. Habitat Communities Map from 2009 TES Survey Fig. 6 18) ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 3-21 Six habitat types were identified at AFP 42 based on an assessment of dominant plant species (USAF 2009). The Preferred Alternative is in both the Creosote Bush Scrub and Agricultural/Developed habitats, and the No Action Alternative is located in the Agricultural/Developed habitat. Agriculture/Developed habitat is characterized by annual grasses, past agricultural uses, mowed fields, roads, and pavement that are no longer in use. Many of these areas are regularly mown. Creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) scrub habitat is a mixed shrub community that can be found throughout most of the California Mojave Desert below 4,000 feet (1.2 kilometers) northeast to the Little San Bernardino Mountains. Soils are typically well drained. Shrubs are usually 1.5 to 10 feet (0.5 to 3.0 meters) tall, widely spaced, with bare ground between. Creosote bush scrub integrates at higher elevations with shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia) scrub, or Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia var. brevifolia) woodland, and at lower elevations or more osmotic (higher level of salt in soil water solution) sites with desert saltbush (Atriplex sp.) scrub (Holland, 1986). Joshua tree woodland habitat is described as open woodlands of scattered Joshua trees within desert scrub habitat. Joshua trees typically require deep, well-drained soils between 750 to 2,300 feet (2,500 to 7,500 meters) in elevation and are found mostly on the periphery of the Mojave Desert between creosote bush scrub and pinyon juniper woodlands (Sawyer and Wolf, 1995). The City of Palmdale adopted the Native Desert Vegetation Ordinance to conserve the Joshua tree. The Joshua tree is not a federally or State listed species. The Joshua tree is a perennial shrub or tree in the Agavaceae family native to the southwest United States. The Joshua tree plays an important role in the Mojave Desert ecosystem, providing vertical structure and habitat in an otherwise shrubby ecosystem. Threats to the Joshua tree include loss of habitat through continued expansion of cities, non-compatible land use (i.e. grazing/agriculture), and spread of invasive plant species. In addition to the habitat types described above, the surrounding area contains Salt cedar (Tamarix spp.) windrows. Salt cedar is a non-native species considered invasive to the desert southwest. This habitat consists of planted borders of salt cedar, generally associated with a boundary, roadway, and/or drainage. These areas are found throughout AFP 42. Habitat disturbance at AFP 42 ranges from minimal to high levels based on past and present industrial development buildings, parking lots, roads, runways, and other structures), past and present land use/maintenance practices agricultural practices, mowing of grasses, and shrubs), other anthropogenic disturbance, vegetation densities, degrees of succession, and invasive species present (USAF 2014). The vast majority of entire AFP42 lands are highly disturbed, developed land (see Figure 3-1). The project area has the lowest levels of biodiversity and highest levels of non-native invasive plant species. (USAF 2009). Disturbance categories are defined as follows: ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 3-22 • Minimal disturbance level – Areas virtually void of development or disturbance, little to no invasive species present, and mature stand of parent habitat community. • Minimal-to-moderate disturbance level – Primarily void of development, stands in later stage of succession, disturbance type typical to past agricultural use, and few invasive species. • Moderate-to-high disturbance level – Areas with development or disturbance noticeably present, parent habitat community species low and in early stages of succession due to development or past use, and invasive species up to 50 percent of species present. • High disturbance level – Areas developed recently or currently being used or managed for ongoing AFP 42 activities where invasive species dominate intermixed a predominant stand of creosote, the only native habitat community present. Endangered Species Act Section 7 states that all federal agencies shall, in consultation with the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce, ensure federal actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. In July, 2018, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service supplied an official list of federally-listed threatened and endangered species known to occur in the vicinity of the proposed activity. That list of species known to occur in the general area is contained in Table 3.5. USFWS has stated for the record that it does not consider Air Force Plant 42, specifically, to provide habitat or designated critical habitat for any currently listed species (Appendix Table 3-5. USFWS List of Threatened or Endangered Species that Could Occur Near the General Project Area Species name Listing status Suitable habitat onsite? California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) Endangered Maybe. Marginal foraging habitat may be available. No nesting habitat. Least bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) Endangered No. Species associates with willow scrub habitats in riverine areas. Desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) Threatened Yes. California condor and least Bell’s vireo are unlikely to occur on site. Suitable habitat is present for the desert tortoise, however it is not likely that any occur on site. The project area is within the western edge of the desert tortoise’s range. ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 3-23 Tortoise numbers have been in decline throughout most of the Mojave Desert for several decades (1980s through present). The Mojave population of the desert tortoise was federally listed as Threatened in 1990. The desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) occasionally occurs in creosote bush scrub, but could also occur in saltbush scrub and Joshua tree woodlands. In the Antelope Valley, tortoise populations most likely have been extirpated in and or near major cities like Lancaster and Palmdale, California. Some tortoises are present within the Antelope Valley, but usually occur in remote and minimally disturbed areas. Reasons for the declines of the tortoise vary throughout the desert. Some of these reasons include, but are not limited to: disease (such as upper respiratory track disease), vehicle effects, poaching, predation, as well as their habitat being altered, degraded, and fragmented (USFWS, 1994). In the Antelope Valley, desert tortoises have declined for several reasons. The primary reasons are large areas of habitat loss, fragmentation, or alteration. The cities of Lancaster and Palmdale have expanded rapidly in the last 20 years, pushing the desert tortoise out of the Antelope Valley. Increased habitation in the Antelope Valley has also contributed to another factor in tortoise declines–increased predation by ravens. Ravens will feed on young tortoises whose shells have not completely hardened yet. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) MBTA prohibits the taking, killing, or possessing of migratory birds and their nests unless permitted by regulation promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior. The project is located in and adjacent to habitat that supports nesting birds protected under the MBTA. These include lesser nighthawk, black-throated sparrow, and sagebrush sparrow. An October, 2018 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) letter indicates there have been recorded observations of Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni) about 4 miles southwest of the site. Swainson's hawk are regularly observed foraging throughout the Palmdale and Lancaster area. There have also been recorded observations of foraging wintering mountain plover ( Charadrius montanus) immediately to the east and northeast of AFP 42, and loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), a CDFW species of special concern (SSC), have been observed immediately to the west and northwest of AFP 42. Executive Order 12112, Invasive Species Federal agencies whose actions affect the status of invasive species. It would, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, identify such action and, subject to available appropriations, prevent the introduction and spread of invasive species through restoration and monitoring. ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 3-24 Environmental Consequences A Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Assessment evaluating the Proposed Action and Alternatives was sent to CDFW and the Department responded with the October 2018 letter mentioned above. The letter also included recommendations for preparing the EA and implementing the project. Similar correspondence with the USFWS prompted Service responses with their recommendations for the record (included in Appendix Preferred Alternative – Proposed Action Vegetation The Proposed Action would permanently impact 1.5 acres of previously disturbed creosote bush habitat (Figure 3-3). The Proposed Action is not expected to result in the spread of invasive species. Figure 3-3. Preferred Alternative New Tower Site ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 3-25 Migratory Birds There would be no effects to migratory birds after September 15th when the young of all late nesting birds have fledged (left the nest). Vegetation removal should be scheduled to avoid the bird nesting season (February to mid-September). During the nesting season, there would be negligible effects to migratory birds from site construction activities, provided the following measures are implemented. If construction activities are scheduled during nesting season, management measures to minimize impacts to migratory birds would be applied before and during those construction activities. These measures would include: • Pre-construction biological clearance surveys would be performed to minimize effects on birds. Pre-construction bird nesting surveys would be conducted within 30 days of the start of construction by the Air Force’s biologist or qualified biologist that is contracted to perform the task. Potential impacts to special-status species would be addressed in line with appropriate federal and/or State guidance as described in the AFP 42 Threatened and Endangered Species Survey. • The pre-construction surveys would be performed to determine whether nesting birds, including migratory birds, raptors, and special status bird species, are present in or immediately adjacent to the proposed project area. • Protective flagging or fencing would be placed around nesting birds located near construction and maintenance areas. • A Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) would be prepared and all construction crews and contractors would be required to participate in WEAP training prior to starting work on the project. The WEAP training would include a review of the special-status species and other sensitive resources that could exist in the project area, the locations of the sensitive biological resources, their legal status and protections, and BMPs to be implemented for avoidance of these sensitive resources. A record of all personnel trained would be maintained. • Biological monitors could be assigned to the project. If applicable, the monitors would be responsible for ensuring that effects to special-status species, native vegetation, wildlife habitat, or unique resources would be avoided to the fullest extent possible. Where appropriate, monitors would flag or fence the boundaries of areas where activities need to be restricted in order to protect native plants and wildlife, or special-status species. These restricted areas would be monitored to ensure their protection during construction. Desert Tortoise Although suitable habitat for desert tortoise is present within the project area, no tortoises or sign were identified within the project area in initial and past surveys. It is likely that desert tortoises have been extirpated from the area due to recent development of the cities of Palmdale and Lancaster. The construction of a new ATCT and demolition of the existing ATCT would have no effect on the desert tortoise. ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 3-26 Wildlife Habitat The area surrounding the existing ATCT consists of the airport (developed industrial) or highly managed open space. Construction of the new tower and demolition of the existing ATCT would not result in the loss of any wildlife habitat of value. Construction and demolition activities have the potential to result in short term, direct, yet negligible effects to terrestrial wildlife from heavy equipment and other vehicles, increased dust and disturbance to nearby vegetation and wildlife. The USFWS reports no need for the Service to prepare planning aid letters or Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act reports for activities at AFP 42 (Appendix No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the existing ATCT would not be demolished, and a new ATCT would not be constructed. This alternative would have no effects on existing vegetation and wildlife in the proposed project area including desert tortoise and migratory birds. CULTURAL RESOURCES The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA, 16 USC § 470 et seq. [54 USC § 300301 et seq.]), and its implementing regulations for section 106 (36 CFR § 800) require that any federal agency, before beginning any action, must take into account the effects of the undertaking on historic properties that have been determined to be eligible for listing in, or are listed in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment on these actions. Federal agencies may comply with Section 106 by either completing the processes indicated in the implementing regulations (36 CFR § 800) or preparing an agreement document that describes the particular process an agency will use to complete the same steps for a specific set of undertakings. In accordance with Section 106, in August 2018, the Air Force initiated consultation with the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) through a consultation package that provided a description of the Proposed Action and requested SHPO review and response (Appendix Section 106 also requires “government-to-government” consultations with Native American Tribes that ascribe religious or cultural significance to potential historic properties in the vicinity of the undertaking. In August 2018, the Air Force initiated government-to-government consultations with several Native American Tribes in the vicinity of AFP 42. Cultural resources information sources for the Proposed Action included a review of existing cultural resources information, archival research, archaeological surveys of the project area, and multiple surveys evaluating existing standing structures within AFP 42. ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 3-27 Affected Environment NHPA Section 106 compliance at AFP 42 is guided by an Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP) developed in consultation with the SHPO. The AFP 42 ICRMP describes the context and historic themes applicable to AFP 42. According to the ICRMP, there are no known areas of archaeological, historical, or Native American concern at AFP 42 (Kaya Associates, Inc. 2014). Four archaeological investigations have been completed at AFP 42. As of 2013, all of the undisturbed and undeveloped land at AFP 42 have been surveyed for archaeological resources – approximately 1,565 acres of 5,832 total acres (Earth Tech 1998a; Kaya Associates, Inc., 2014). Nearly three quarters of the entire installation is heavily developed and does not require surveys. California SHPO has concurred with this position (Kaya Associates, Inc. 2014). Three historic building and structure evaluations have been conducted on AFP 42. The first cultural resources inventory was completed in 1997 for the entire AFP 42 installation. The survey evaluated the existing ATCT (Building 555) and included the new ATCT project area as well. This study recommended that three structures be considered eligible for listing on the NRHP (Buildings 150, 210, and 531). In addition, 64 recorded prehistoric or historic archaeological sites within AFP 42 boundaries were documented. Five of the historic-era sites were identified in the areas surrounding the ATCT, however, none were within the project APEs. These sites included a wood retaining wall from a loading platform and four trash scatters. The latter have been mechanically disturbed following grounds maintenance activities. All of the 64 archeological sites recorded at AFP 42 were recommended not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and California SHPO has concurred (Kaya Associates, Inc. 2014). A second cultural evaluation completed in 2005, and a third study completed in 2016, inventoried a total of 93 buildings and structures over 50 years old including the existing tower, Building 555. None of the structures were recommended as eligible for the NRHP. As a result of this current undertaking, a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search was completed through the Native American Heritage Commission on January 25, 2017 with an update on July 25, 2018. The Sacred Lands File search returned negative results for the project APEs. There are no known traditional cultural properties or sacred sites within the boundary of AFP 42. Following the file search, consultation letters were sent to the SHPO (August 13, 2018) and Native American Tribal contacts (August 13, 2018) identified through the SLF file search (Appendix A 30 day consultation period followed, and concluded on September 17, 2018. The consultation was completed with three federally-recognized Native American Tribes identified through the SLF search who have interests in the AFP 42 area. In addition, the SLF search also identified two non-federally recognized tribes that were also consulted as they are considered concerned members of the public. Appendix C contains consultation letters, responses, and memos. ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 3-28 NRHP Eligible Buildings and Viewsheds In addition to the archeological sites recorded as part of the 1997 inventory mentioned above, twelve buildings at AFP 42 were also documented. Of those twelve buildings, only three were determined eligible for listing in the NRHP ─ a World War II-era hangar (Building 531) and two Cold War-era buildings (150 and 210). The buildings were evaluated as significant to the NRHP under Criterion A for their contributions to the history of aviation. Collectively, these buildings also compose the historic viewshed of the proposed ATCT project. An historic viewshed may refer to historic view(s) from the relevant structures or view(s) of the historic structures from other points. Should these viewsheds be deemed linked to historic values and eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, impacts to them must also be evaluated. Of the three recorded NRHP-eligible buildings, only Building 531 is within relative proximity to the existing ATCT proposed for demolition. The existing ATCT would be in the foreground of Building 531 at approximately 1,000 ft. to the east of the historic structure. The remaining historically significant buildings (150 and 210) are on the northern edge of Runway 07/25. From their locations, the existing ATCT is at a minimum nearly 1.4 miles south, across both runways. Environmental Consequences Preferred Alternative – Proposed Action The Proposed Action construction and demolition sites both lie within heavily developed and industrial land uses. No historic properties were identified within these two ATCT project APEs. Consultation with the SHPO resulted in concurrence with the finding of no adverse effects for the project. The SHPO also concurred with the determination that the ATCT (Building 555) is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under any criteria. SHPO concurrence on the project was received on September 19, 2018 (Appendix In addition, consultation with Native American Tribes interested in the project area did not determine that sites of cultural importance were within the project area (letters and memo in Appendix A viewshed analysis for the proposed new ATCT determined there would be no impacts to the viewshed of the significant historic structures. The proposed ATCT is expected to conform with the existing aviation-related built landscape. Moreover, the proposed ATCT is anticipated to be visually compatible in both its construction and design. Based on distances from the three historically significant buildings, Buildings 150, 210, and 531, the proposed ATCT would be considered in the viewshed backgrounds. Given the distances, it is also expected that the visual quality of the viewshed toward the ATCT would be seasonally diminished, especially during the summer months, as heat rises from the asphalt runways creating atmospheric conditions. The Proposed Action would neither affect historic properties, nor cause adverse effects to historic resources. According to the 2014 ICRMP, given the prehistory and history of the Antelope Valley region, there is some potential for additional, unexpected archaeological resources to occur (Kaya Associates, Inc. 2014). In the event that cultural resources are identified ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 3-29 during construction of the Proposed Action, a qualified cultural resource specialist would be consulted to evaluate the eligibility of the cultural resource and determine appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation actions, according to the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) in the AFP 42 ICRMP (Kaya Associates, Inc., 2014). These ICRMP SOPs specify under which conditions, the applicable protection and compliance measures would be implemented in accordance with Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), state codes, NHPA, and pertinent regulations. As such, the Proposed Action would not result in substantial impacts to cultural resources. See Appendix C, Cultural Resources Consultation Correspondence: State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Tribes. Through section 106 Tribal consultation (see Section 3.7.1 above), the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI), identified additional complementary resource protection and compliance measures and conditions. Should these conditions occur, the following measures would be respectfully implemented as described: • If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated with the project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) would cease and USAF would be notified immediately. • In the event that Native American cultural resources (archaeological artifacts) are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) would cease and USAF would be notified immediately. Work on the other portions of the project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period, at the discretion of the appropriate USAF command or staff. No Action Alternative Not constructing the new ATCT facility or demolishing the existing tower would not affect historic properties or cause adverse effects to historic resources. The No Action Alternative would not result in impacts to cultural resources. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Affected Environment The Antelope Valley is located in the western Mojave Desert, bordered by the Tehachapi Mountains in the north and the San Gabriel Mountains in the south. Ten soil types are present within AFP 42, as mapped by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (2009). The most abundant types are Adelanto coarse sandy loam (20.6 percent), Cajon loamy sand (16.7 percent), and Rosamond fine sandy loam (16.1 percent). Due to past disturbance and ground leveling, the area of construction is sloped at 1 percent. Construction of the project occurs on highly disturbed ground that would not affect topography of the region, since it would remain flat after construction of the new tower is completed. ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 3-30 The nearest active fault is the San Andreas Fault southwest of the project area which has a maximum credible earthquake of 8.0 or more on the Richter scale with a reoccurrence of 50 to 200 years (City of Palmdale, 1993). Smaller faults, such as the Owens Fault, are also located in the valley. The area experiences frequent mild earthquakes and has a high probability of experiencing significant earthquakes in the future. Liquefaction and landslides are major sources of damage during earthquakes. No potential areas for liquefaction or landslides were identified within the project area. Environmental Consequences Preferred Alternative – Proposed Action The new ATCT would be built in full accordance with all relevant guidelines and building codes, however, it will not be designed to withstand high-intensity earthquakes like those generated by the San Andreas fault. No Action Alternative The existing ATCT is considered seismically unsound. Use of this substandard building would continue, increasing both risk to staff safety and risk of disruption to ground-based regional and defense air traffic control capabilities should the building be damaged during an earthquake. SOCIOECONOMICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Effects to socioeconomics can include changes to income earning potential, numbers of jobs available, prices of goods and services, housing inventory and costs, demographics, and aspects of the community. Environmental justice effects would include disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations. Executive Order 12898 directs federal agencies to identify and address the effects to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. Affected Environment The nearby City of Palmdale and City of Lancaster are not considered low-income or minority communities based on demographic details compiled by the 2010 federal census. According the U.S. Census Bureau (2010), the City of Palmdale had a population of 156,633 in 2010. The U.S. Census Bureau calculates estimates of population in non- census years. The Census Bureau estimated Palmdale population in 2017 to be 157,519, an increase of 3.1% over the 2010 census. The 2017 median income of households in Palmdale was estimated to be $56,699. ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 3-31 According the U.S. Census Bureau (2010), the City of Lancaster had a population of 156,633 in 2010. The Census Bureau estimated Lancaster population in 2017 to be 160,316, an increase of 2.3% over the 2010 census. The 2017 median income of households in Lancaster was estimated to be $49,314. The aerospace industry is the top employer in Antelope Valley with over 20,000 positions, followed by jobs in local and state government, then healthcare (Greater Antelope Valley Economic Alliance, 2018). Environmental Consequences Preferred Alternative – Proposed Action The nearby communities are not considered low-income or minority. Therefore no disproportionate effects to low-income or minority communities would occur as a result of implementing the proposed action. There would be no effect to community gathering places or housing. Construction of the project and demolition of the existing tower will likely result in short term benefits to the community by creating jobs and/or additional income in the community by the spending from construction personnel. No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would have no effect on socioeconomics or environmental justice. UTILITIES/ INFRASTRUCTURE Affected Environment Existing power, water, telecommunications and sewer services are available onsite. A new access road will be required in order to service the ATCT. Environmental Consequences Preferred Alternative – Proposed Action Only minor new hookups to existing utilities would be required to build the ATCT. Primary power to the ATCT would be from the existing overhead power lines. Copper and fiber optic cables would extend from Building 510 to the ATCT 4,500 feet in existing underground telecommunications duct banks and 600 feet of new duct bank. Municipal water service will be provided via a new 650-foot lateral water service line along 510 Access Road. Sewer service will hookup to an existing gravity line approximately 1,000 feet away to the east, but will require a grinder pump and 2-inch force main. Changes in the level of use of these utilities is not anticipated. ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 3-32 The net increase in surface area of pavement used to construct the access road and parking lot would be minor. The existing paved areas at the existing ATCT will be demolished. No Action Alternative No short-term effects to utilities or roadways would be expected under the No Action Alternative. Over-time utilities and paved surfaces would have to be repaired, upgraded, or replaced. TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC Affected Environment Surface transportation at the site consists of multiple existing local paved, 2-lane roadways and paved taxiways/runways. Immediately adjacent to the project area the land is disturbed and there are multiple overland, unpaved roadways. The airport overall supports commercial and defense air traffic. Environmental Consequences Preferred Alternative – Proposed Action The impacts to transportation and traffic would be associated with construction and demolition activities and limited to those periods of activity. Impacts would be temporary and of short duration. However, there are likely to be some minor disruptions to traffic flow during heavy equipment transport, and during demolition waste hauling activities. There may also be minor disruptions to traffic during installation of new utility line segments and service connections. The relatively small number of project workers entering the installation each day may have negligible impacts to traffic flow as well. These minor, temporary impacts would be minimized through implementation of an approved traffic control plan. The construction contractor would coordinate with AFP 42 managers and the City of Palmdale to prepare a traffic control plan prior to construction. This traffic control plan would include specific measures to manage traffic in the project area and along haul routes. The plan would be submitted to the City of Palmdale and AFP 42 for review and approval prior to initiation of construction. It is important that the installation review the plans to evaluate public safety and to prevent damage to property. The purpose of the plan would be to: • Reduce, to the extent feasible, the number of vehicles (construction and other) on the roadways adjacent to the project area. • Reduce, to the extent feasible, the interaction between construction equipment and other vehicles. • Promote public safety through actions aimed at driver and road safety. ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 3-33 Since construction contractors may utilize different means and methods to conduct their operations, they develop a traffic control plan designed to address the specific details of their operation. It is important that installation coordination and review is thorough. The traffic control plan should include measures like those listed below. Implementation of these or similar measures would ensure impacts to transportation and traffic circulation remain minor and of short duration. • Provide access for emergency vehicles at all times. • Maintain access for driveways and private roads. • Provide adequate off-street parking for construction. • Identify any roadway segments or intersections that are at or approaching a level of service that exceeds local standards. Provide a plan for construction traffic to avoid these locations at the peak periods. • Limit heavy or wide loads to routes capable of accommodating this traffic. • Include flag persons to direct drivers in traffic controls on major roads. • Maintain access to, and movement of, public transit. • Post construction warning signs. • Provide written notification to contractors regarding access roads, as well as weight and speed limits on those roads. • Post a sign (minimum size of 1 square yard) at all active construction sites giving contact information for complaints regarding construction traffic. ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 4-1 4.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS NEPA requires consideration of potential cumulative effects if, when combined, past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions have a cumulatively considerable effect on the environment. Cumulative effects could result from individually minor, but collectively substantial actions taking place over a period of time. The AFP 42 facility started as an Army Air Corps base in 1940 when the first runway was constructed, creating the first major disturbance of the site. The base was used during World War II, but declared surplus after the war through 1950. It was then repurchased by the Air Force as part of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. In 1961, AFP 42 was formally designated as the Production Flight Test Installation. Most other Air Force Plants were divested by the late 1990s, concentrating Air Force resources on just a few remaining plants, including AFP 42. By the 1980s and 1990s, several aerospace and defense contractors including Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop-Grumman, had established manufacturing and testing facilities adjacent to AFP 42, connected by taxiways, and generating additional land disturbance. In 1989, the Air Force signed an agreement with the City of Palmdale to support commercial flights using the AFP 42 runway. The historic uses of the site resulted in polluted soil and groundwater in some areas. The AFP 42 site has been subject to multiple hazardous materials cleanup plans including remediation of contaminated soils and groundwater. For example, in the last decade, Plant Site 1 underwent a groundwater remediation action to remove trichloroethylene using an extraction, treatment, and reinjection method. Activities operating concurrently with the proposed action include Northrop’s construction of a 1 million square foot facility. Construction of this new facility may overlap in time with the construction of the ATCT. Other defense industry contractors at AFP 42 currently maintain maintenance facilities for various generations of aircraft. AFP 42 also shares a runway with Palmdale Regional Airport, which operates commercial flights. The Palmdale Energy Project (PEP), an approximately 650 megawatt natural gas power plant, is expected to begin construction as early as 2019 with operations commencing sometime after 2021. The PEP is located immediately west of AFP 42 north of the runway, on approximately 370 acres of land, containing Joshua trees and creosote habitat. The main facility will be 50 acres in size with another approximately 13 acres of disturbance for appurtenant features and access roads. The remainder of the site will remain undeveloped. Construction of the PEP may overlap with the construction of the ATCT. Adverse effects identified in Section 3 were all short-term to medium term in duration and found to be negligible or minor. Cumulative creosote habitat loss on the AFP 42 site ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 4-2 has been moderate since defense operations started there in 1940, and the construction of the new ATCT would incrementally add to the lost creosote habitat by only 1.5 acres. Construction of the Northrop facility and the PEP between 2019 and 2021, may create substantial loss of that habitat type in the area of AFP 42, but even then should not result in a serious loss of the habitat type overall in the region. The proposed project would not substantially affect these resources individually, nor would it meaningfully contribute to the cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable future actions. Air quality and traffic impacts would be compounded by the construction of the ATCT during the same construction periods as the PEP and Northrop facilities. However, the ATCT would contribute only a very minor increment to the cumulative effects that the PEP and Northrop projects would have to air quality (construction equipment emissions and fugitive emissions), and traffic (haul traffic for construction). The ATCT project effects are short term and they will not contribute to any longer term air quality and traffic impacts that the PEP and Northrop projects may have. The proposed ATCT project would not substantially affect these resource values individually, nor would it meaningfully contribute to the cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable future actions. ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 5-1 5.0 AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS CONSULTED U.S. Air Force, Christina Powell, PhD, Community Planner, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio Shari Fort, AFMC NEPA Liaison, Air Force Installation and Mission Support Center/Det-6/CEO, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio Mariana E Aboujaoude, Industrial Facilities Engineer, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio Frank Tokarsky, Jr., Natural and Cultural Resources Manager, Retired, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio Bradley Gale, PE, Civil Engineer, Retired, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio Daniel Stanton, Environmental Program Manager, 412 TW/OL –AFP 42/CE, Air Force Plant 42, California Ray Bransfield, Biologist, Palm Springs Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Andrew Valand, Environmental Scientist, California Department Fish and Wildlife Julianne Polanco, State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento, California Federally recognized tribes: • Dennis Patch, Chairman, Colorado River Indian Tribes, Parker, Arizona • Robert Martin, Chairman, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Banning, California • Denisa Torres, Cultural Resources Manager, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Banning, California • Lynn Valbuena, Chairperson, San Manuel Mission Band of Indians, Highland, California • Lee Clauss, Director of Cultural Resources, San Manuel Mission Band of Indians Highland, California ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 6-2 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District Jack E. Pfertsh, M.A., RPA, Archaeologist Wesley Wong, M.S., Environmental Manager Dave Fluetsch, M.S., Military Construction Environmental Lead Andrea Meier, M.P.P.A, Chief, Environmental Analysis Section ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 7-1 7.0 REFERENCES AFFSA (Air Force Flight Standards Agency). 2013, April 11. Statement of Intent (SOI) for proposed construction of a new control tower at Plant 42, Palmdale, CA. Air Force Flight Standards Agency (AFFSA). 2013. SOI. Statement of Intent for proposed construction of a new control tower at Plant 42, Palmdale, CA. Air Force Plant 42 OL AFP 42/DD). 2014, May 30. MFR. ATCT Siting Memorandum for Record. Antelope Valley AQMD. (2016). California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Federal Conformity Guidelines. Lancaster: AVAQMD Planning, Rule-making and Grants Section; AVAQMD Air Monitoring Section. ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). 2013. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (7-10, Third Printing). Standards ASCE/SEI 7-10, 3rd Printing. CARB. 2017. iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics webpage. Retrieved April 2017, from CEQ. 2016, August 1. Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of GHGs and the Effects of Climate Change for NEPA Reviews. CFR. 40 CFR § 302 (1985, as amended). CPUC (California Public Utility Commission). 2006. Final Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement, Antelope Pardee 500-kV Transmission Project. DOD. 2008. UFC 3-260-01. Airfield and Heliport Planning and Design, Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC). Retrieved 2017, from www.wbdg.org DOD. 2012, February 9. UFC 4-010-01. DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings, Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC). Retrieved 2016, from DOD. 2016, Change 1, December 2017. UFC 4-133-01. Air Traffic Control and Air Operations Facilities, Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC). Retrieved 2018, from Earth Tech. 1998, March. Environmental Baseline Survey for Air Force Plant 42. U.S. Air Force Aeronautical Systems Center Acquisition Environmental Management. FAA. 2006, April 10. FAA Order 6480.4A. Air Traffic Control Tower Siting Process. Retrieved 2018, from FAA. 2009, January 14. FAA Order JO 6480.7E. Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) and Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) Design Policy. Retrieved 2018, from Greater Antelope Valley Economic Alliance. 2018. Our Industries. Retrieved December 2, 2018, from: ICC (International Code Council). 2018. IBC (International Building Code). Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (2014, July Notice of Termination of Coverage under Statewide Storm Water General Permit for WDID 6B191023132. Notice of Termination letter to Air Force Plant 42. ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 7-2 Los Angeles County and Antelope Valley SNMP Stakeholders Group. 2014. Salt and Nutrient Management Plan for the Antelope Valley. Prepared by Los Angeles County, Department of Pubic Works - Waterworks District No. 40, Sanitation Districts Nos. 14 & 20, and Antelope Valley Salt & Nutrient Management Planning Stakeholders Goup. Retrieved from http://www.ladpw.org/wwd/avirwmp/docs/saltplan/Salt%20and%20Nutrient%20 Management%20Plan%20for%20Antelope%20Valley_May%202014.pdf MHW Americas. 2012, April 25. Report of Findings and Recommendations Facility Condition Assessment Air Traffic Control Tower, Air Force Plant 42, Palmdale, CA. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District. NFPA (National Fire Protection Association). 2017. National Electrical Code. NFPA 70. SDLAC (Sanitation District of Los Angeles County). 2005, April. Draft Palmdale Water Reclamation Plan. 2025 Facilities Plan and Environmental Impact Report. U.S. Air Force (USAF). 2001. Air Traffic Control Tower and Radar Control Facility Design Guide. Design Group Division, Headquarters, Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment (HQ AFCEE/DCD). Retrieved 2017, from USAF. 1994. AFI 32-7066. Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-7066 Environmental Baseline Surveys in Real Estate Transactions. USAF. 1999. Unnamed digital film on Plant 42 History. Retrieved December 2, 2018, from: ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 8-1 8.0 APPENDICES A. Air Conformity Applicability Model (ACAM) Reports B. Fish and Wildlife Consultation Correspondence: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW), including List of Federally-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Known to Occur in the Action Area C. Cultural Resources Consultation Correspondence: State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Tribes D. Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board – Applicability of the Construction General Permit to Plant 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- Air Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA 5(32576 ---PAGE BREAK--- $,5&21)250,7<$33/,&$%,/,7<02'(/5(3257 5(&25'2)&21)250,7<$1$/<6,6 52&$ 7KH$LU)RUFH¶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roposed ATCT Site: Air Force Plant 42 ±  )HHW  DRAFT For Official Use Only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ir Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA &8/785$/5(6285&(6 &2168/7$7,21&255(6321'(1&(  67$7(+,6725,&35(6(59$7,212)),&( 6+32 ---PAGE BREAK--- State of California x Natural Resources Agency Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor '(3$570(172)3$5.6$1'5(&5($7,21 2)),&(2)+,6725,&35(6(59$7,21 Julianne Polanco, State Historic Preservation Officer 1725 23rd Street, Suite 100, Sacramento, CA 95816-7100 Telephone: (916) 445-7000 FAX: (916) 445-7053 [EMAIL REDACTED] www.ohp.parks.ca.gov Lisa Ann L. Mangat, Director 5HSO\LQ5HIHUHQFH7R  5H RI &RQWURO 7RZHU$LU )RUFH3ODQW3DOPGDOH 'HDU0V3RZHOO 86$) 6+32 UHJDUGLQJLWV HIIRUW 7KH86$)LV D DLUWUDIILF FRQWURO WRZHU DW$LU)RUFH3ODQW 7KHIRRW SDUNLQJ DQG XWLOLW\ ZLOOEHUHTXLUHGDQGWKH FXUUHQW FRQWURO WRZHU %XLOGLQJ ZLOOEH 7KH86$)¶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age 1 of 2 *Resource Name or (Assigned by recorder) Building 555 P1. Other Identifier: DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information State of California
The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date *P2. Location: X Not for Publication Unrestricted County Los Angeles County USGS 7.5' Quad Date T ; R ; of of Sec ; B.M. c. Address: Air Force Plant 42 – Site 5 City: Palmdale Zip: 93550 d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone , mE/ mN e. Other Locational Data: parcel directions to resource, elevation, decimal degrees, etc., as appropriate) *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) Building 555 is a 10-story air traffic control tower. The square tower is topped by the hexagonal control room. The first floor of the building is constructed of poured concrete pilings at the four corners with concrete block walls. The subsequent stories are of metal frame construction with metal panel exterior. The interior is divided into three sections: an elevator shaft, a stairwell, and a room. The room on each floor varies in use, but it is primarily used for storage. Each floor has a window in the stairwell and one in the room. The windows throughout the building are four-light awing windows; some of the windows are covered on the exterior. The control tower has six sets of two-light, fixed sash windows that are angled inward. A three-foot wide catwalk with a metal railing wraps around the perimeter of the building directly below the control room. Lightening rods extended from the roof of the control room. *P3b. Resource Attributes: HP34 (Military Building) *P4. Resources Present: X Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date, accession Oblique view, facing northeast. *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source: X Historic Prehistoric Both 1959, Real Property Records *P7. Owner and Address: Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433 *P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Summer Ciomek New South Associates Stone Mountain, Georgia *P9. Date Recorded: August 2015 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Historic Resource Survey of AFP 42 *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") Historic Building Inventory and Evaluation of Air Force Plant 42, Palmdale, California New South Associates 2015 *Attachments: NONE Location Map 
Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List): P5a. Photograph or Drawing ---PAGE BREAK--- age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date
Continuation
Update  
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _Building Page of
NRHP Recommendation Building 555 is not recommended as eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Evaluated on the local, state, and national level under Criteria A, B, and C, the building is not associated with any historic event or person of significance nor is it a significant example of a building type or possess any noteworthy architectural characteristics. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK---  )URP /HH&ODXVV 6HQW )ULGD\1RYHPEHU 30 7R 6XEMHFW >1RQ'R'6RXUFH@5( $)31HZ$LU7UDIILF&RQWURO7RZHU $7&7 'ŽŽĚĂĨƚĞƌŶŽŽŶ͕ŚƌŝƐƚŝŶĂ͕  dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĨŽƌƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐƚŚĞ^ĂŶDĂŶƵĞůĂŶĚŽĨDŝƐƐŝŽŶ/ŶĚŝĂŶƐ;^DD/ͿƵůƚƵƌĂůZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ;ZDͿ ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚĐƵůƚƵƌĂůƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐƌĞƉŽƌƚƌĞůĂƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞĂďŽǀĞͲƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘^DD/ĂƉƉƌĞĐŝĂƚĞƐ ƚŚĞŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚLJƚŽƌĞǀŝĞǁƚŚŝƐĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůƉƌŽũĞĐƚĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ͕ǁŚŝĐŚǁĂƐƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚďLJŽƵƌƵůƚƵƌĂůZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ DĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ;ZDͿĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽŶKĐƚŽďĞƌϰ͕ϮϬϭϴ͘  ƵĞƚŽƚŚĞůĂŶĚƵƐĞŚŝƐƚŽƌLJŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚΖƐW ;ƉƌŝŽƌĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĂůĂŶĚƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůƵƐĞ͕ĂůŽŶŐǁŝƚŚďŽƚŚŚŝƐƚŽƌŝĐĂŶĚ ĐŽŶƚĞŵƉŽƌĂƌLJŵŝůŝƚĂƌLJƵƐĞƐŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚŚĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ͕ĞdžƉĂŶƐŝŽŶ͕ĂŶĚƵƐĞŽĨƌƵŶǁĂLJƐ͕ƚĂdžŝǁĂLJƐ͕ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ͕ĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌ ĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐͿ͖ƚŚĞŶĂƚƵƌĞŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ;ƚŚĞĚĞŵŽůŝƚŝŽŶŽĨŽŶĞddĂŶĚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŽĨĂŶĞǁŽŶĞͿ͖ƚŚĞƌĞƐƵůƚƐŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŝŽƌ ƌĞĐŽƌĚƐƐĞĂƌĐŚĂŶĚĨŝĞůĚƐƵƌǀĞLJƐĂŶĚ͖ŐŝǀĞŶƚŚĞZDĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ͛ƐƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƐƚĂƚĞŽĨŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞ͕^DD/ĚŽĞƐŶŽƚŚĂǀĞ ĂŶLJŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞƚƌŝďĂůĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐƚŽƐŚĂƌĞǁŝƚŚƌĞŐĂƌĚƚŽƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͛ƐŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ͕ĂƐƉůĂŶŶĞĚ͕ĂƚƚŚŝƐƚŝŵĞ͘ƐƐƵĐŚ͕ ƚŚĞZDĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚĐĂŶŽĨĨĞƌĐŽŶĐƵƌƌĞŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞh^ŝƌ&ŽƌĐĞΖƐW ĚĞůŝŶĞĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ͞EŽ,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐ WƌŽƉĞƌƚŝĞƐĨĨĞĐƚĞĚ͘͟  dŚĂƚƐĂŝĚ͕ǁŚŝůĞƚŚĞůŝŬĞůŝŚŽŽĚŽĨĞŶĐŽƵŶƚĞƌŝŶŐĐƵůƚƵƌĂůƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚŝƐƵŶĚĞƌƚĂŬŝŶŐŝƐǀĞƌLJ ůŽǁ͕ƚŚĞZDĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƌĞƐƉĞĐƚĨƵůůLJƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐůĂŶŐƵĂŐĞďĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚͬƉĞƌŵŝƚͬƉůĂŶ ĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌƚŚŝƐƵŶĚĞƌƚĂŬŝŶŐ͗͞/ĨŚƵŵĂŶƌĞŵĂŝŶƐŽƌĨƵŶĞƌĂƌLJŽďũĞĐƚƐĂƌĞĞŶĐŽƵŶƚĞƌĞĚĚƵƌŝŶŐĂŶLJĂĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐ ĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ǁŽƌŬŝŶƚŚĞŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞǀŝĐŝŶŝƚLJ;ǁŝƚŚŝŶĂϭϬϬͲĨŽŽƚďƵĨĨĞƌŽĨƚŚĞĨŝŶĚͿƐŚĂůůĐĞĂƐĞĂŶĚh^& ƐŚĂůůďĞŶŽƚŝĨŝĞĚŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůLJ͘/ŶƚŚĞĞǀĞŶƚƚŚĂƚEĂƚŝǀĞŵĞƌŝĐĂŶĐƵůƚƵƌĂůƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ;ĂƌĐŚĂĞŽůŽŐŝĐĂůĂƌƚŝĨĂĐƚƐͿĂƌĞ ĚŝƐĐŽǀĞƌĞĚĚƵƌŝŶŐƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐ͕ĂůůǁŽƌŬŝŶƚŚĞŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞǀŝĐŝŶŝƚLJŽĨƚŚĞĨŝŶĚ;ǁŝƚŚŝŶĂϲϬͲĨŽŽƚďƵĨĨĞƌͿƐŚĂůůĐĞĂƐĞĂŶĚ h^&ƐŚĂůůďĞŶŽƚŝĨŝĞĚŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůLJ͘tŽƌŬŽŶƚŚĞŽƚŚĞƌƉŽƌƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚŽƵƚƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŚĞďƵĨĨĞƌĞĚĂƌĞĂŵĂLJ ĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚŝƐĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚƉĞƌŝŽĚ͕ĂƚƚŚĞĚŝƐĐƌĞƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞh^&ĐŽŵŵĂŶĚŽƌƐƚĂĨĨ͘ΗůƐŽ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞŶŽƚĞ ŝŶƚĞƌŶĂůůLJǁŝƚŚŝŶh^&Ăƚ&WϰϮƚŚĂƚ^DD/ŝƐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚŝŶŐƚŚĂƚ͕ŝĨĂŶĚǁŚĞŶƐƵĐŚĂƌƚŝĨĂĐƚƐ͕ĂŶĐĞƐƚŽƌƐ͕ŽƌĐƵůƚƵƌĂůĚĞƉŽƐŝƚƐ ĂƌĞĨŽƵŶĚ͕ƚŚĂƚƚŚĞdƌŝďĞďĞĐŽŶƚĂĐƚĞĚĂŶĚŵĂĚĞĂƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚĂŶĚŵŝƚŝŐĂƚŝŽŶĐŽŶǀĞƌƐĂƚŝŽŶ͕ƐŽƚŚĂƚĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶƐ ĂƌĞŶŽƚŵĂĚĞďLJĂŐĞŶĐLJƐƚĂĨĨĂŶĚͬŽƌĐŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐZDƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůƐǁŝƚŚŽƵƚƚŚĞďĞŶĞĨŝƚŽĨƚƌŝďĂůŝŶƉƵƚ͘  KŶĐĞĂŐĂŝŶ͕ƚŚĞ^ĂŶDĂŶƵĞůĂŶĚŽĨDŝƐƐŝŽŶ/ŶĚŝĂŶƐĂƉƉƌĞĐŝĂƚĞƐƚŚĞŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚLJƚŽĐŽŵŵĞŶƚŽŶƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ĂŶĚŐƌĞĂƚůLJĂƉƉƌĞĐŝĂƚĞƐLJŽƵĨƵůĨŝůůŝŶŐƚŚĞZDĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ͛ƐƉƌŝŽƌŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶͲďĂƐĞĚƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƐ͘/ĨLJŽƵƐŚŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞĂŶLJ ƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐǁŝƚŚƌĞŐĂƌĚƚŽƚŚŝƐĐŽƌƌĞƐƉŽŶĚĞŶĐĞ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞĚŽŶŽƚŚĞƐŝƚĂƚĞƚŽĐŽŶƚĂĐƚŵĞĂƚLJŽƵƌĐŽŶǀĞŶŝĞŶĐĞ͕ĂƐ/ǁŝůů ĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞƚŽďĞLJŽƵƌWŽŝŶƚŽĨŽŶƚĂĐƚ;WKͿĨŽƌ^DD/ǁŝƚŚƌĞƐƉĞĐƚƚŽƚŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘  ZĞƐƉĞĐƚĨƵůůLJ͕  >ĞĞ       ---PAGE BREAK---  >ĞĞůĂƵƐƐ dKZ͕h>dhZ>Z ^KhZ D Ed K͗;ϵϬϵͿϴϲϰͲϴϵϯϯdžϱϬϯϮϰϴ /ŶƚĞƌŶĂů͗ϱϬͲϯϮϰϴ D͗;ϵϬϵͿϲϯϯͲϱϴϱϭ ϮϲϱϲϵŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĞŶƚĞƌƌŝǀĞ,ŝŐŚůĂŶĚĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂϵϮϯϰϲ   ͲͲͲͲͲKƌŝŐŝŶĂůDĞƐƐĂŐĞͲͲͲͲͲ &ƌŽŵ͗WKt s͕/ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů&ĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ ŶǀŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞ ΀ŵĂŝůƚŽ͗ĐŚƌŝƐƚŝŶĂ͘ƉŽǁĞůů͘ϯΛƵƐ͘ĂĨ͘ŵŝů΁ ^ĞŶƚ͗dƵĞƐĚĂLJ͕^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϱ͕ϮϬϭϴϭϭ͗ϭϵD dŽ͗>ĞĞůĂƵƐƐф>ůĂƵƐƐΛƐĂŶŵĂŶƵĞůͲŶƐŶ͘ŐŽǀх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗Z ͗&WϰϮEĞǁŝƌdƌĂĨĨŝĐŽŶƚƌŽůdŽǁĞƌ;ddͿWƌŽũĞĐƚ͕WĂůŵĚĂůĞ͕  >ĞĞ͕  /ƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚƚŚĞĞŵĂŝůĂŶĚŵLJƐĞĐƵƌŝƚLJƐĞƚƚŝŶŐƐǁŽŶΖƚůĞƚŵĞŐŽƚŽƚŚĞƐŝƚĞ͘/ĂŵƐŽƐŽƌƌLJĨŽƌƚŚĞƚƌŽƵďůĞ͘/ǁŝůůƉƵƚƚŚĞ ƐƵƌǀĞLJŽŶĂĚŝƐŬƉƵƚŝƚŝŶƚŚĞŵĂŝů͘WůĞĂƐĞůĞƚŵĞŬŶŽǁŝĨLJŽƵĚŽŶ͛ƚƌĞĐĞŝǀĞŝƚǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞŶĞdžƚƚǁŽǁĞĞŬƐ͘ŐĂŝŶ͕/ΖŵƐŽƌƌLJ ĨŽƌĂŶLJĞdžƚƌĂǁŽƌŬƚŚŝƐŚĂƐĐĂƵƐĞĚ͘  dŚĂŶŬƐ  ŚƌŝƐƚŝŶĂ  ͲͲͲͲͲKƌŝŐŝŶĂůDĞƐƐĂŐĞͲͲͲͲͲ &ƌŽŵ͗>ĞĞůĂƵƐƐ΀ŵĂŝůƚŽ͗>ůĂƵƐƐΛƐĂŶŵĂŶƵĞůͲŶƐŶ͘ŐŽǀ΁ ^ĞŶƚ͗dƵĞƐĚĂLJ͕^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϱ͕ϮϬϭϴϭ͗ϯϮWD dŽ͗WKt s͕/ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů&ĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ ŶǀŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞ фĐŚƌŝƐƚŝŶĂ͘ƉŽǁĞůů͘ϯΛƵƐ͘ĂĨ͘ŵŝůх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗΀EŽŶͲŽ^ŽƵƌĐĞ΁Z ͗&WϰϮEĞǁŝƌdƌĂĨĨŝĐŽŶƚƌŽůdŽǁĞƌ;ddͿWƌŽũĞĐƚ͕WĂůŵĚĂůĞ͕  ,ŝŚƌŝƐƚŝŶĂ͕  /ũƵƐƚŽƉĞŶĞĚĂĚƌŽƉďŽdžǁŝƚŚŝŶŽƵƌĨŝůĞƐŚĂƌĞƐĞƌǀŝĐĞĐĂůůĞĚ^ĞĐƵƌĞ^ŚĂƌĞďLJWƌŽŽĨƉŽŝŶƚ͘zŽƵƐŚŽƵůĚƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĂŶĞͲŵĂŝů ĨƌŽŵƚŚĂƚƐĞƌǀŝĐĞǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞŚŽƵƌ͘  /ĨLJŽƵƐĞĞŶŽƚŚŝŶŐďLJĚĂLJΖƐĞŶĚ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞůĞƚŵĞŬŶŽǁ͘  dŚĂŶŬƐƐŽŵƵĐŚ͕  >ĞĞ    >ĞĞůĂƵƐƐ dKZ͕h>dhZ>Z ^KhZ D Ed K͗;ϵϬϵͿϴϲϰͲϴϵϯϯdžϱϬϯϮϰϴ /ŶƚĞƌŶĂů͗ϱϬͲϯϮϰϴ D͗;ϵϬϵͿϲϯϯͲϱϴϱϭ ϮϲϱϲϵŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĞŶƚĞƌƌŝǀĞ,ŝŐŚůĂŶĚĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂϵϮϯϰϲ  ---PAGE BREAK---   ͲͲͲͲͲKƌŝŐŝŶĂůDĞƐƐĂŐĞͲͲͲͲͲ &ƌŽŵ͗WKt s͕/ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů&ĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ ŶǀŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞ ΀ŵĂŝůƚŽ͗ĐŚƌŝƐƚŝŶĂ͘ƉŽǁĞůů͘ϯΛƵƐ͘ĂĨ͘ŵŝů΁ ^ĞŶƚ͗dƵĞƐĚĂLJ͕^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϱ͕ϮϬϭϴϱ͗ϰϵD dŽ͗>ĞĞůĂƵƐƐф>ůĂƵƐƐΛƐĂŶŵĂŶƵĞůͲŶƐŶ͘ŐŽǀх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗Z ͗&WϰϮEĞǁŝƌdƌĂĨĨŝĐŽŶƚƌŽůdŽǁĞƌ;ddͿWƌŽũĞĐƚ͕WĂůŵĚĂůĞ͕  >ĞĞ͕  /ĨLJŽƵĂƌĞŽŬĂLJǁŝƚŚƵƐŝŶŐLJŽƵƌĨŝůŝŶŐƐŚĂƌŝŶŐƐLJƐƚĞŵ͕/ǁŽƵůĚďĞŚĂƉƉLJƚŽƚƌLJŝƚ͘/ĨŝƚΖƐŶŽƚƚŽŽŵƵĐŚƚƌŽƵďůĞ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞůĞƚ ŵĞŬŶŽǁǁŚĂƚ/ŶĞĞĚƚŽĚŽ͘  dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĨŽƌǁŽƌŬŝŶŐǁŝƚŚŵĞ͘  dŚĂŶŬƐ͕  ŚƌŝƐƚŝŶĂ    ͲͲͲͲͲKƌŝŐŝŶĂůDĞƐƐĂŐĞͲͲͲͲͲ &ƌŽŵ͗>ĞĞůĂƵƐƐ΀ŵĂŝůƚŽ͗>ůĂƵƐƐΛƐĂŶŵĂŶƵĞůͲŶƐŶ͘ŐŽǀ΁ ^ĞŶƚ͗DŽŶĚĂLJ͕^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϰ͕ϮϬϭϴϱ͗ϭϰWD dŽ͗WKt s͕/ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů&ĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ ŶǀŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞ фĐŚƌŝƐƚŝŶĂ͘ƉŽǁĞůů͘ϯΛƵƐ͘ĂĨ͘ŵŝůх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗΀EŽŶͲŽ^ŽƵƌĐĞ΁Z ͗&WϰϮEĞǁŝƌdƌĂĨĨŝĐŽŶƚƌŽůdŽǁĞƌ;ddͿWƌŽũĞĐƚ͕WĂůŵĚĂůĞ͕  dŚĂŶŬƐ͕ŚƌŝƐƚŝŶĂ͘  ƐŽƵƌƐĞĐƵƌŝƚLJƌĞƐƚƌŝĐƚŝŽŶƐĚŽŶŽƚĂůůŽǁĚŽǁŶůŽĂĚƐĨƌŽŵDZ ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞĚŽƐĞŶĚƚŚĞƌĞƉŽƌƚǀŝĂͲZKD͘;tĞŚĂǀĞ ŽƵƌŽǁŶĨŝůĞƐŚĂƌŝŶŐƐLJƐƚĞŵǁĞĐŽƵůĚŝŶǀŝƚĞLJŽƵƚŽƵƐĞ͕ďŽƚŚŽƚŚĞƌŽƐƚĂĨĨŚĂǀĞƌĞƉŽƌƚĞĚĂŶŝŶĂďŝůŝƚLJƚŽƵƐĞĞdžƚĞƌŶĂů ĨŝůĞƐŚĂƌĞƐ͘/ĨƚŚĂƚΖƐŶŽƚĂƉƌŽďůĞŵĨŽƌ͕ǁĞĐĂŶƐĞƚƚŚĂƚƵƉƚŽƐĂǀĞLJŽƵŵĂŬŝŶŐĂŶĚŵĂŝůŝŶŐĂ͘Ϳ  ĞƐƚĂŶĚƚŚĂŶŬƐĂŐĂŝŶ͕  >ĞĞ    >ĞĞůĂƵƐƐ dKZ͕h>dhZ>Z ^KhZ D Ed K͗;ϵϬϵͿϴϲϰͲϴϵϯϯdžϱϬϯϮϰϴ /ŶƚĞƌŶĂů͗ϱϬͲϯϮϰϴ D͗;ϵϬϵͿϲϯϯͲϱϴϱϭ ϮϲϱϲϵŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĞŶƚĞƌƌŝǀĞ,ŝŐŚůĂŶĚĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂϵϮϯϰϲ   ͲͲͲͲͲKƌŝŐŝŶĂůDĞƐƐĂŐĞͲͲͲͲͲ &ƌŽŵ͗WKt s͕/ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů&ĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ ŶǀŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞ ΀ŵĂŝůƚŽ͗ĐŚƌŝƐƚŝŶĂ͘ƉŽǁĞůů͘ϯΛƵƐ͘ĂĨ͘ŵŝů΁ ^ĞŶƚ͗DŽŶĚĂLJ͕^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϰ͕ϮϬϭϴϭϮ͗ϬϬWD ---PAGE BREAK---  dŽ͗>ĞĞůĂƵƐƐф>ůĂƵƐƐΛƐĂŶŵĂŶƵĞůͲŶƐŶ͘ŐŽǀх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗Z ͗&WϰϮEĞǁŝƌdƌĂĨĨŝĐŽŶƚƌŽůdŽǁĞƌ;ddͿWƌŽũĞĐƚ͕WĂůŵĚĂůĞ͕  DƐ͘ůĂƵƐƐ͕  dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵƐŽŵƵĐŚĨŽƌLJŽƵƌƌĞƉůLJĂŶĚŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚŝŶƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘dŚĞƌĞƉŽƌƚŝƐϭϳD͘/ĐĂŶƐĞŶĚǀŝĂDZ ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐĂŶ ĞůĞĐƚƌŽŶŝĐĨŝůĞƐŚĂƌŝŶŐƐLJƐƚĞŵŽƌŝĨLJŽƵƉƌĞĨĞƌ͘WůĞĂƐĞůĞƚŵĞŬŶŽǁŝĨLJŽƵŚĂǀĞĂŶLJƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐŽƌǁŽƵůĚůŝŬĞĂŶLJ ĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͘  dŚĂŶŬƐĂŐĂŝŶ͕   ŚƌŝƐƚŝŶĂWŽǁĞůů͕WŚ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJWůĂŶŶĞƌ ϭϵϴϭDŽŶĂŚĂŶtĂLJ ůĚŐ͘ϭϮ͕ƌĞĂ͕ƵďŝĐůĞϭϮϴ͘ϴ tW&K,ϰϱϰϯϯ ϵϯϳͲϵϬϰͲϯϲϵϰ     ͲͲͲͲͲKƌŝŐŝŶĂůDĞƐƐĂŐĞͲͲͲͲͲ &ƌŽŵ͗>ĞĞůĂƵƐƐ΀ŵĂŝůƚŽ͗>ůĂƵƐƐΛƐĂŶŵĂŶƵĞůͲŶƐŶ͘ŐŽǀ΁ ^ĞŶƚ͗&ƌŝĚĂLJ͕^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϭ͕ϮϬϭϴϮ͗ϱϱWD dŽ͗WKt s͕/ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů&ĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ ŶǀŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞ фĐŚƌŝƐƚŝŶĂ͘ƉŽǁĞůů͘ϯΛƵƐ͘ĂĨ͘ŵŝůх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗΀EŽŶͲŽ^ŽƵƌĐĞ΁&WϰϮEĞǁŝƌdƌĂĨĨŝĐŽŶƚƌŽůdŽǁĞƌ;ddͿWƌŽũĞĐƚ͕WĂůŵĚĂůĞ͕  'ŽŽĚŵŽƌŶŝŶŐ͕DƐ͘WŽǁĞůů͕  dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĨŽƌĐŽŶƚĂĐƚŝŶŐƚŚĞ^ĂŶDĂŶƵĞůĂŶĚŽĨDŝƐƐŝŽŶ/ŶĚŝĂŶƐ;^DD/ͿƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚĞĂďŽǀĞͲƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘ ^DD/ĂƉƉƌĞĐŝĂƚĞƐƚŚĞŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚLJƚŽƌĞǀŝĞǁƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ͕ǁŚŝĐŚǁĂƐƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚďLJŽƵƌƵůƚƵƌĂůZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ DĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ;ZDͿĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽŶƵŐƵƐƚϮϭ͕ϮϬϭϴ͘LJƚŚŝƐĞͲŵĂŝů͕^DD/ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƐƚŽĐŽŶƐƵůƚǁŝƚŚdŚĞh^ŝƌ&ŽƌĐĞ ƉƵƌƐƵĂŶƚƚŽƚŚĞEĂƚŝŽŶĂů,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐWƌĞƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶĐƚ;E,WͿĂŶĚŝƚƐŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚŝŶŐƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂƌĞĂ ĞdžŝƐƚƐǁŝƚŚŝŶ^ĞƌƌĂŶŽĂŶĐĞƐƚƌĂůƚĞƌƌŝƚŽƌLJĂŶĚ͕ƚŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞ͕ŝƐŽĨŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚƚŽƚŚĞdƌŝďĞ͘  /ŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽŵŽƌĞĨƵůůLJƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚƚŚĞůĂŶĚƵƐĞŚŝƐƚŽƌLJĂŶĚƉƌŝŽƌĚŝƐƚƵƌďĂŶĐĞƐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞƚǁŽ;ϮͿƌĞĂƐŽĨWŽƚĞŶƚŝĂů ĨĨĞĐƚ ƐͿLJŽƵŚĂǀĞŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚ͕ĂƐǁĞůůĂƐƚŚĞůĞǀĞůƐŽĨƉƌŝŽƌďĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚĂŶĚĂƌĐŚĂĞŽůŽŐŝĐĂůƐƵƌǀĞLJƚŚĂƚŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶ ƵŶĚĞƌƚĂŬĞŶǁŝƚŚƌĞŐĂƌĚƚŽƚŚĞůĂŶĚƐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞW Ɛ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞƐƵƉƉůLJƚŚĞƌĞůĞǀĂŶƚĐƵůƚƵƌĂůƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐͬĂƌĐŚĂĞŽůŽŐŝĐĂů ƌĞƉŽƌƚƐƚŚĂƚŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚĂŶĚĂƌĞŶŽǁďĞŝŶŐƌĞůŝĞĚƵƉŽŶǁŝƚŚƌĞƐƉĞĐƚƚŽƚŚĞĂŐĞŶĐLJ͛Ɛ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϭϬϲͲďĂƐĞĚ ĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞ͘^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂůůLJ͕LJŽƵƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŶŽƚĞƐĂϭϵϵϳ ĂƌƚŚdĞĐŚĂŶĚZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŽŶƐƵůƚĂŶƚƐ/ŶĐ͘Ͳ ĂƵƚŚŽƌĞĚƌĞƉŽƌƚ͘WůĞĂƐĞĚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞŝƚƚŽŽƵƌĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ͕ĂůŽŶŐǁŝƚŚĂŶLJŽƚŚĞƌŵŽƌĞƌĞĐĞŶƚƐƚƵĚŝĞƐƚŚĂƚŵĂLJŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶ ƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĞĚ͘^DD/ǁŝůůŶĞĞĚƚŚŝƐŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶƚŽďĞƐƵƉƉůŝĞĚďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞZDĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚĐĂŶŽĨĨĞƌŵĞĂŶŝŶŐĨƵů ĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐĂƐƚŽLJŽƵƌĨŝŶĚŝŶŐŽĨEŽ,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐWƌŽƉĞƌƚŝĞƐĨĨĞĐƚĞĚ͘  KŶĐĞĂŐĂŝŶ͕ƚŚĞ^ĂŶDĂŶƵĞůĂŶĚŽĨDŝƐƐŝŽŶ/ŶĚŝĂŶƐĂƉƉƌĞĐŝĂƚĞƐƚŚĞŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚLJƚŽƌĞƐƉŽŶĚƚŽLJŽƵƌŝŶŝƚŝĂůŶŽƚŝĐĞ ƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚĞŶĞǁůLJƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŝƌdƌĂĨĨŝĐŽŶƚƌŽůdŽǁĞƌĂƚ&WϰϮŝŶWĂůŵĚĂůĞ͕͘/ĨLJŽƵƐŚŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞĂŶLJĨƵƌƚŚĞƌ ƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐǁŝƚŚƌĞŐĂƌĚƚŽƚŚŝƐŵĂƚƚĞƌ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞĚŽŶŽƚŚĞƐŝƚĂƚĞƚŽĐŽŶƚĂĐƚŵĞĂƚLJŽƵƌĐŽŶǀĞŶŝĞŶĐĞ͕ĂƐ/ǁŝůůďĞLJŽƵƌWŽŝŶƚŽĨ ŽŶƚĂĐƚ;WKͿĨŽƌ^DD/ǁŝƚŚƌĞƐƉĞĐƚƚŽƚŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘&ŝŶĂůůLJ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞŶŽƚĞƚŚĂƚǁŚĞŶƐƵƉƉůLJŝŶŐƚŚĞĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂů ---PAGE BREAK---  ŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶƚŚĂƚŚĂƐďĞĞŶƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚ͕ǁĞŚĂǀĞĂŶĞͲŵĂŝůĂƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐŝnjĞůŝŵŝƚŽĨϭϮD͘/ĨƚŚĞĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶLJŽƵǁŝůů ďĞƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐĞdžĐĞĞĚƐƚŚĂƚ͕LJŽƵŵĂLJƐĞŶĚƚŚĞŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐƚŽƵƐŽŶĂͲZKDŝŶƐƚĞĂĚ;ĨůĂƐŚĚƌŝǀĞƐĐĂŶŶŽƚďĞĂĐĐĞƉƚĞĚͿ͘    ZĞƐƉĞĐƚĨƵůůLJ͕        >ĞĞůĂƵƐƐ dKZ͕h>dhZ>Z ^KhZ D Ed K͗;ϵϬϵͿϴϲϰͲϴϵϯϯdžϱϬϯϮϰϴ /ŶƚĞƌŶĂů͗ϱϬͲϯϮϰϴ D͗;ϵϬϵͿϲϯϯͲϱϴϱϭ ϮϲϱϲϵŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĞŶƚĞƌƌŝǀĞ,ŝŐŚůĂŶĚĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂϵϮϯϰϲфŚƚƚƉ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ƐĂŶŵĂŶƵĞůͲŶƐŶ͘ŐŽǀх      E KE>z&KZd, KEd/E/E&KZDd/KEd,d/^WZ/s/> ' y DWd&ZKD/^>K^hZ hE  >t͘/ĨƚŚĞƌĞĂĚĞƌŽĨƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝƐŶŽƚƚŚĞŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚŽƌĂŐĞŶƚƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞĨŽƌĚĞůŝǀĞƌŝŶŐƚŚĞŵĞƐƐĂŐĞƚŽƚŚĞ ŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚ͕LJŽƵĂƌĞŚĞƌĞďLJŶŽƚŝĨŝĞĚƚŚĂƚĂŶLJĚŝƐƐĞŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶŽƌĐŽƉLJŝŶŐŽĨƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŝƐƐƚƌŝĐƚůLJ ƉƌŽŚŝďŝƚĞĚ͘/ĨLJŽƵŚĂǀĞƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚƚŚŝƐĞůĞĐƚƌŽŶŝĐƚƌĂŶƐŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŝŶĞƌƌŽƌ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞĚĞůĞƚĞŝƚĨƌŽŵLJŽƵƌƐLJƐƚĞŵǁŝƚŚŽƵƚĐŽƉLJŝŶŐ ŝƚĂŶĚŶŽƚŝĨLJƚŚĞƐĞŶĚĞƌďLJƌĞƉůLJĞͲŵĂŝůƐŽƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĞŵĂŝůĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƌĞĐŽƌĚĐĂŶďĞĐŽƌƌĞĐƚĞĚ͘dŚĂŶŬzŽƵ  нннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннн dŚŝƐŝƐĂŶĞdžƚĞƌŶĂůĞŵĂŝů͘hƐĞĐĂƵƚŝŽŶďĞĨŽƌĞĐůŝĐŬŝŶŐĂƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐŽƌůŝŶŬƐ͘  &ŽƌƐƵƐƉŝĐŝŽƵƐĞŵĂŝůƐƉůĞĂƐĞĐŽŶƚĂĐƚƚŚĞ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞĞƐŬĂƚĞdžƚĞŶƐŝŽŶϰϱϬϬŽƌĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŽƵƚƐŝĚĞĂƚϵϬϵϴϲϯϱϳϬϬ͘zŽƵŵĂLJ ĂůƐŽĨŽƌǁĂƌĚƚŚĞƐƵƐƉŝĐŝŽƵƐĞŵĂŝůƚŽƐƉĂŵΛƐĂŶŵĂŶƵĞů͘ĐŽŵd,/^D E KE>z&KZd,  EDzKEd/E/E&KZDd/KEd,d/^WZ/s/> ' y DWd&ZKD/^>K^hZ hE >t͘/ĨƚŚĞƌĞĂĚĞƌŽĨƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝƐŶŽƚƚŚĞ ŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚŽƌĂŐĞŶƚƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞĨŽƌĚĞůŝǀĞƌŝŶŐƚŚĞŵĞƐƐĂŐĞƚŽƚŚĞŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚ͕LJŽƵĂƌĞŚĞƌĞďLJŶŽƚŝĨŝĞĚ ƚŚĂƚĂŶLJĚŝƐƐĞŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶŽƌĐŽƉLJŝŶŐŽĨƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŝƐƐƚƌŝĐƚůLJƉƌŽŚŝďŝƚĞĚ͘/ĨLJŽƵŚĂǀĞƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚƚŚŝƐĞůĞĐƚƌŽŶŝĐ ƚƌĂŶƐŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŝŶĞƌƌŽƌ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞĚĞůĞƚĞŝƚĨƌŽŵLJŽƵƌƐLJƐƚĞŵǁŝƚŚŽƵƚĐŽƉLJŝŶŐŝƚĂŶĚŶŽƚŝĨLJƚŚĞƐĞŶĚĞƌďLJƌĞƉůLJĞͲŵĂŝůƐŽƚŚĂƚ ƚŚĞĞŵĂŝůĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƌĞĐŽƌĚĐĂŶďĞĐŽƌƌĞĐƚĞĚ͘dŚĂŶŬzŽƵ  нннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннн dŚŝƐŝƐĂŶĞdžƚĞƌŶĂůĞŵĂŝů͘hƐĞĐĂƵƚŝŽŶďĞĨŽƌĞĐůŝĐŬŝŶŐĂƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐŽƌůŝŶŬƐ͘  &ŽƌƐƵƐƉŝĐŝŽƵƐĞŵĂŝůƐƉůĞĂƐĞĐŽŶƚĂĐƚƚŚĞ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞĞƐŬĂƚĞdžƚĞŶƐŝŽŶϰϱϬϬŽƌĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŽƵƚƐŝĚĞĂƚϵϬϵϴϲϯϱϳϬϬ͘zŽƵŵĂLJ ĂůƐŽĨŽƌǁĂƌĚƚŚĞƐƵƐƉŝĐŝŽƵƐĞŵĂŝůƚŽƐƉĂŵΛƐĂŶŵĂŶƵĞů͘ĐŽŵd,/^D E KE>z&KZd,  EDzKEd/E/E&KZDd/KEd,d/^WZ/s/> ' y DWd&ZKD/^>K^hZ hE >t͘/ĨƚŚĞƌĞĂĚĞƌŽĨƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝƐŶŽƚƚŚĞ ŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚŽƌĂŐĞŶƚƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞĨŽƌĚĞůŝǀĞƌŝŶŐƚŚĞŵĞƐƐĂŐĞƚŽƚŚĞŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚ͕LJŽƵĂƌĞŚĞƌĞďLJŶŽƚŝĨŝĞĚ ƚŚĂƚĂŶLJĚŝƐƐĞŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶŽƌĐŽƉLJŝŶŐŽĨƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŝƐƐƚƌŝĐƚůLJƉƌŽŚŝďŝƚĞĚ͘/ĨLJŽƵŚĂǀĞƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚƚŚŝƐĞůĞĐƚƌŽŶŝĐ ---PAGE BREAK---  ƚƌĂŶƐŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŝŶĞƌƌŽƌ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞĚĞůĞƚĞŝƚĨƌŽŵLJŽƵƌƐLJƐƚĞŵǁŝƚŚŽƵƚĐŽƉLJŝŶŐŝƚĂŶĚŶŽƚŝĨLJƚŚĞƐĞŶĚĞƌďLJƌĞƉůLJĞͲŵĂŝůƐŽƚŚĂƚ ƚŚĞĞŵĂŝůĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƌĞĐŽƌĚĐĂŶďĞĐŽƌƌĞĐƚĞĚ͘dŚĂŶŬzŽƵ  нннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннннн dŚŝƐŝƐĂŶĞdžƚĞƌŶĂůĞŵĂŝů͘hƐĞĐĂƵƚŝŽŶďĞĨŽƌĞĐůŝĐŬŝŶŐĂƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐŽƌůŝŶŬƐ͘  &ŽƌƐƵƐƉŝĐŝŽƵƐĞŵĂŝůƐƉůĞĂƐĞĐŽŶƚĂĐƚƚŚĞ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞĞƐŬĂƚĞdžƚĞŶƐŝŽŶϰϱϬϬŽƌĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŽƵƚƐŝĚĞĂƚϵϬϵϴϲϯϱϳϬϬ͘zŽƵŵĂLJ ĂůƐŽĨŽƌǁĂƌĚƚŚĞƐƵƐƉŝĐŝŽƵƐĞŵĂŝůƚŽƐƉĂŵΛƐĂŶŵĂŶƵĞů͘ĐŽŵ E KE>z&KZd, KEd/E/E&KZDd/KEd,d/^WZ/s/> ' y DWd&ZKD/^>K^hZ hE  >t͘/ĨƚŚĞƌĞĂĚĞƌŽĨƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝƐŶŽƚƚŚĞŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚŽƌĂŐĞŶƚƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞĨŽƌĚĞůŝǀĞƌŝŶŐƚŚĞŵĞƐƐĂŐĞƚŽƚŚĞ ŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚ͕LJŽƵĂƌĞŚĞƌĞďLJŶŽƚŝĨŝĞĚƚŚĂƚĂŶLJĚŝƐƐĞŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶŽƌĐŽƉLJŝŶŐŽĨƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŝƐƐƚƌŝĐƚůLJ ƉƌŽŚŝďŝƚĞĚ͘/ĨLJŽƵŚĂǀĞƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚƚŚŝƐĞůĞĐƚƌŽŶŝĐƚƌĂŶƐŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŝŶĞƌƌŽƌ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞĚĞůĞƚĞŝƚĨƌŽŵLJŽƵƌƐLJƐƚĞŵǁŝƚŚŽƵƚĐŽƉLJŝŶŐ ŝƚĂŶĚŶŽƚŝĨLJƚŚĞƐĞŶĚĞƌďLJƌĞƉůLJĞͲŵĂŝůƐŽƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĞŵĂŝůĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƌĞĐŽƌĚĐĂŶďĞĐŽƌƌĞĐƚĞĚ͘dŚĂŶŬzŽƵ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK---  )URP WKSR#PRURQJRQVQJRY! 6HQW 30 7R 6XEMHFW >1RQ'R'6RXUFH@5( ,ĞůůŽŚƌŝƐƚŝŶĂ͕  tĞŚĂǀĞŶŽĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐŽƌĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶĂƚƚŚŝƐƚŝŵĞĂŶĚŵĂLJĐŽŶĐůƵĚĞĐŽŶƐƵůƚĂƚŝŽŶ͘  dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵ͘  ^ŝŶĐĞƌĞůLJ͕  dƌĂǀŝƐƌŵƐƚƌŽŶŐ dƌŝďĂů,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐWƌĞƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶKĨĨŝĐĞƌ DŽƌŽŶŐŽĂŶĚŽĨDŝƐƐŝŽŶ/ŶĚŝĂŶƐ ϵϱϭͲϳϱϱͲϱϮϱϵ ŵĂŝů͗ƚŚƉŽΛŵŽƌŽŶŐŽͲŶƐŶ͘ŐŽǀ    ͲͲͲͲͲKƌŝŐŝŶĂůDĞƐƐĂŐĞͲͲͲͲͲ &ƌŽŵ͗WKt s͕/ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů&ĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ ŶǀŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞ ΀ŵĂŝůƚŽ͗ĐŚƌŝƐƚŝŶĂ͘ƉŽǁĞůů͘ϯΛƵƐ͘ĂĨ͘ŵŝů΁ ^ĞŶƚ͗dƵĞƐĚĂLJ͕KĐƚŽďĞƌϮϯ͕ϮϬϭϴϭϬ͗ϮϴD dŽ͗dƌŝďĂů,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐWƌĞƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶKĨĨŝĐĞ ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ŝƌ&ŽƌĐĞWůĂŶƚϰϮŝƌdƌĂĨĨŝĐŽŶƚƌŽůdŽǁĞƌWƌŽũĞĐƚ  Dƌ͘ƌŵƐƚƌŽŶŐ͕  ƚƚĂĐŚĞĚĂƌĞƚŚĞƚǁŽůĞƚƚĞƌƐƐĞŶƚƚŽƚŚĞDŽƌŽŶŐŽĂŶĚŽĨDŝƐƐŝŽŶ/ŶĚŝĂŶƐƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘WůĞĂƐĞůĞƚŵĞ ŬŶŽǁŝĨLJŽƵŚĂǀĞĂŶLJƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐŽƌŶĞĞĚĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͘  dŚĂŶŬƐ͕  ŚƌŝƐƚŝŶĂWŽǁĞůů͕WŚ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJWůĂŶŶĞƌ ϭϵϴϭDŽŶĂŚĂŶtĂLJ ůĚŐ͘ϭϮ͕ƌĞĂ͕ƵďŝĐůĞϭϮϴ͘ϴ tW&K,ϰϱϰϯϯ ϵϯϳͲϵϬϰͲϯϲϵϰ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ir Force Plant 42 Air Traffic Control Tower – Administrative Review Draft EA $33/,&$%,/,7<2)7+(&216758&7,21 *(1(5$/3(50,7723/$17 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK---