SU0012766 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

drainage plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works before grading permits are issued. t * Impact DW-2: Increased Flight Safety Hazard The construction of detention basins for storage of stormwater runoff within the flightline area of the airport property could pose a flight safety hazard as a result of the attraction of waterfowl F to the basins and ponds. Waterfowl pose a threat to aircraft using the runway when the birds land and takeoff from water bodies. The detention basins described in the drainage study that are located between the runways have been designed to hold water during storms for short periods of time. The detention ponds at the north end of the runway would have standing water for approximately 240 hours during a 100-year storm. Because the ponds would have water in them for a relatively short period of time, it is expected that waterfowl would not be greatly attracted to them; therefore, many of the potential conflicts between birds and flight safety of aircraft would be avoided. In addition, the high noise levels associated with airport facilities should deter most birds from entering the area. However, because of the potential for waterfowl to be attracted to the site, this impact is considered significant. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level. w Mitigation Measure DW-2: Implement Measures to Minimize the Attraction of Waterfowl to the Detention Facilities After the detention facilities are in place, the Department of Aviation shall evaluate the degree to which waterfowl are attracted to the detention basins and ponds. If the Department determines that the attraction of waterfowl to the basins and ponds poses a hazard to aircraft, appropriate measures shall be incorporated into the design and operation of the basins and ponds to minimize the attraction of the pond and deter waterfowl from landing. Potential measures include physical structures and operational procedures, such as cables or netting stretched across the surface of the basins and ponds that would restrict bird landings and takeoffs, and hazing measures, such as automated noise generators. Before implementation of these measures, a wildlife biologist should review the proposed measures to ensure that objectives for minimal attraction of waterfowl can be achieved. The California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) should also review proposed measures so that laws applicable to wildlife harassment and protection are not violated. $ Stockton Metropolitan Airport Project Chapter S. Drainage and Water Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report 5-8 March 20, 1998