THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON. O.C. 20590

fiy 18, 2001

The Honorable John McCain

Chairman, Committee on Commerce,

Science, and Transportation

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The enclosed report is provided in response to congressional direction in

Section 310 of the Wendell H., Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act

for the 21” Century. The U.S. Department of Transportation was directed to

conduct a study of Federal environmental requirements related to the planning

and approval of airport improvement projects and to report on the results of the

study, together with any recommendations for streamlining the environmental

review process.

Identical letters have been sent to Chairman Young, Senator Hollings. and

Congressman Oberstar.

Enclosure

,
THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, O.C. 20593

May 18. 2001

The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings

Committee on Commerce, Science,

and Transportation

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Hollings:

The enclosed reportis provided in response to congressional direction in

Section 310 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act

for the 21*’ Century. The U.S. Department of Transportation was directed to

conduct a study of Federal environmental requirements related to the planning

and approval of airport improvemsnt projects and to report on the results of the

study, together with any recommendations for streamlining the environmental

review process.

Identical letters have been sent to Chairmen Young and McCain and

Congressman Oberstar.

Enclosure
THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, O.C. 20590

May 18, 2001

The Honorable Don Young

Chairman, Committee on Transportation

and Infrastructure

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The enclosed report is provided in response to congressional direction in

Section 310 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the

21*’ Century. The U.S. Department of Transportation was directed to conduct a

study of Federal environmental requirements related to the planning and

approval of airport improvement projects and to report on the results of the study,

together with any recommendations for streamlining the environmental review

process.

Identical letters have been sent to Chairman McCain, Senator Hollings, and

Congressman Oberstar.

Enclosure
THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, DC. 20590

May 18, 2001

The Honorable James L. Oberstar

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Transportation

and Infrastructure

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Oberstar:

The enclosed report is provided in response to congressional direction in

Section 310 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act

for the 21” Century. The U.S. Department of Transportation was directed to

conduct a study of Federal environmental requirements related to the planning

and approval of airport improvement projects and to report on the results of the

study, together with any recommendations for streamlining the environmental

review process.

Identical letters have been sent to Chairmen Young and McCain and Senator

Hollings.

Enclosure
REPORT TO THE U.S. CONGRESS

ON

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

OF AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

from the

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

MAY 2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I. INTRODUCTION

II. THE OUTLOOK FOR NEW RUNWAYS AND THEIR

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS

Ill. THE RECENT ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD AND EIS

TIME LINES

IV. OVERVIEW OF WHY AND HOW ENVIRONMENTAL

ISSUES AND PROCESSES AFFECT MAJOR

AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

l Public Opposition on Environmental Grounds

l National Environmental Policy Act

Requirements

. Other Federal Environmental Laws, Executive

Orders, and Regulations

l Findings of No Significant Impact

l State Environmental Requirements

l Environmental Permits for Airport Improvement

Projects

V. CURRENT LEVEL OF COORDINATION AMONG

FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES

l Federal Agencies

l State Agencies

VI. ROLE OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

VII. STAFFING AND OTHER RESOURCES

l FAA Staffing

l Consultant Resources

l EIS Team Resources

3

5

9

9

I I

13

14

15

16

18

18

20

21

23

23

24

25
Page

VIII. FAA ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES 26

l Initiative #I: EIS Teams

l initiative #2: FAA Environmental Staff

Resources

l Initiative #3: Consultant Resources

l Initiative #4: Streamlining the Environmental

Process and Product

l Initiative #5: Interagency Cooperation and

Coordination

l Initiative #6: Best Practices for ElSs

IX. POSSIBLE NEXT STEPS

l Environmental Mitigation

l Airport Funding of FAA EIS Team Resources

l Streamlining the Environmental Process and

Product

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 - (1 page)

AIR-21, Section 310, Environmental Review of Airport

Improvement Projects

Appendix 2 - (1 page)

Large Hub Primary Airports

Appendix 3 - (6 pages)

Time Lines for FAA Environmental Impact Statements

Approved in Last 5 Years for New Runway Projects

(1996-2000)

Appendix 4 - (1 page)

Environmental impact Statement (EIS) Flow Chart

Appendix 5 - (1 page)

Federal Environmental Laws and Executive Orders

Appendix 6 - (2 pages)

Cleveland EIS Team

27

28

29

29

32

34

34

34

36

37
REPORT TO CONGRESS

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In Section 310 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for

the 21*’ Century, Congress directed the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a

study of Federal environmental requirements related to the planning and

approval of airport improvement projects. Congress specifically requested the

Secretary to assess the current level of coordination among Federal and State

agencies, the role of public involvement, staffing and other resources, and the

time line for environmental reviews. The Secretary was directed to submit a

report on the results of the study, together with any recommendations for

streamlining the environmental review process.

The US. Department of Transportation seeks to reduce undue delays while

maintaining the integrity of the environmental process and complying with all

environmental protection requirements. Consultation with other Federal

agencies, State aviation agencies, airport sponsors, consultants, environmental

interests, and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) employees engaged in

environmental reviews has substantially contributed to this study.

Outlook for New Runways and Their Environmental Review Status. Airport

congestion primarily occurs at large hub primary airports. (The word “hub” in this

context has nothing to do with airline hubbing.) The 31 large hub primary airports

in the United States collectively enplane about 70 percent of U.S. air passengers.

The top 25 of these airports account for 86 percent of all severe air traffic delays.

Airport proprietors are responsible for planning and constructing new runways.

Local airport planning efforts have to date identified 18 new runways at the 31

large hub primary airports between now and 2010. The FAA has issued
ii

environmental approvals for 9 of these runways, and Environmental Impact

Statements (EIS) are underway for 5 more. Table 1 on page 4 of the report

identifies these runways and the status of their environmental reviews.

The Recent Environmental Record and EIS Time Lines. This report primarily

focuses on the EIS process for new runways at commercial set-vice airports. In

the last 5 years (1996-2000). the FAA approved ElSs for new runways at 10

commercial service airports. At seven of these airports, the ElSs also included

extensions of other runways to enhance the capability of the aitfield. In this

same timeframe, FAA environmentally approved two additional commercial

service runways based on written reevaluations of previously approved EISs.

Individual profiles on the EIS time lines for the commercial service runways

approved in the last 5 years are in Appendix 3 of the report. The average time

line for an EIS for a new runway is 3 years from initiation of the EIS process to

EtS approval. After EIS approval, the FAA must issue~a decision on a project

(Record of Decision). The average time’to issue a Record of Decision following

EIS approval is 3% months. Overall, the average FAA environmental review time

line, including the decision time, is about 3% years-or one-third of the average

IO-year planning time line for a new commercial service runway.

The planning of a new runway involves more than environmental review. There

are multiple tasks that require amounts of time. In addition to environmental

review, planning tasks include the assessment of the capability of current

facilities; review and refinement of aviation demand forecasts; evaluation of

options to accommodate forecast demand and their physical, operational, and

financial parameters; safety factors; airspace review; terminal and ground access

issues; detailed design and engineering: development costs and financing plans.

Some planning tasks go on concurrently with the EIS process. The EIS process

cannot cleanly be segregated from the overall planning process, and it should not

be assumed that planning time would be one-third shorter absent an EIS.
LII

In advance of an EIS, airport proprietors spend varying amounts of time during

early planning to evaluate the environmental feasibility and acceptability of a

project. After an EIS. Federal, State, and local permits outside the purview of the

FAA can take time to obtain. This report deals to some extent with pre-EIS and

post-EIS environmental work that is not within the FAA’s jurisdiction or control.

While the environmental review process may not be as long as some people may

perceive, it is a substantial component of the airport planning process and merits

the consideration and adoption of streamlining initiatives.

Why and How Environmental Issues and Processes Affect Major Airport

Projects. The underlying environmental impediment to airport expansion is not

the environmental review process. It is the opposition on environmental grounds

to airport expansion. Americans expect and demand an air transportation

system that can move large numbers of people and goods safely and

conveniently. .At the same time, public opposition to airport expansion continues

to rise. The NIMBY (“not in my backyard”) effect should not be dismissed as an

environmental fringe element. It is based on real environmental concerns and

has an increasingly broad-based constituency. The primary concerns are aircraft

noise, air pollution, and water pollution-with noise by far the greatest.

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). and its implementing

regulations as formulated by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).

require Federal agencies to prepare ElSs for projects significantly affecting the

environment. Since most new commercial service runways and major runway

expansions produce significant environmentat impacts, as EIS is usually

required. The FAA must also comply with NEPA requirements as implemented

by DOT and FAA orders. The requirements of NEPA, implemented in Federal

regulations and orders and interpreted by case law, are substantial.

The FAA must not only comply with NEPA, but also with all other applicable

environmental requirements. There are approximately 40 Federal laws,
iv

executive orders, and regulations that protect particular parts of the environment;

e.g., Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, National Historic

Preservation Act, Executive Order on Protection of Wetlands. These

requirements were promulgated individually and were not harmonized with

NEPA. They have substantive compliance requirements that differ from NEPA’s

requirements, special analyses, public reviews, and involvement by other

agencies. While CEQ, DOT, and F/+A have worked to integrate and coordinate

other requirements into the NEPA process, they do increase the complexity of

ElSs and add to EIS time lines.

Some States have NEPA-like reviews for airport development. Some have no

NEPA-like reviews, but have State requirements and/or permits covering certain

types of impacts; e.g.. air quality, water quality, coastal resources, State-listed

endangered and threatened species. Even when Federal and State processes

are done concurrently, they are not consistent in their requirements. Combined

Federal and State ElSs are more complex and take longer to complete.

Current Level of Coordination Among Federal and State Agencies. Federal

agencies have different missions and priorities and are governed by varying

environmental requirements and responsibilities that cause tension and create

different time lines. The bulk of coordination occurs at the regional level of

Federal agencies. Regional environmental specialists within FAA assess the

current level of Federal interagency coordination as ranging from good to poor.

State agency coordination also runs this gamut. Common causes of poor

coordination and factors facilitating good coordination are outlined in the report.

Role of Public Involvement. Public involvement is an essential part of the

environmental review process. An EIS is intended to disclose the environmental

impacts of proposed Federal actions to the public, as well as to Federal agency

decisionmakers. CEQ regulations and FAA guidance include basic requirements

and discretionary advice on the extent of public review, meetings, and hearings.
As public interest in environmental protection has increased, so has public

involvement in the environmental process. There is usually a high degree of

public interest in airport projects, including a certain amount of public opposition.

Airport proprietors and the FAA have generally responded by holding additional

public meetings and hearings above and beyond basic requirements and by

extending public comment periods on ElSs. For highly controversial airport

projects, public involvement can add extensive time to the EIS process.

Staffing and Other Resources. Within the FAA, the responsibility for the

environmental review of airport projects is in the Office of the Associate

Administrator for Airports (Airports Office). Currently, the Airports Office has 33

environmental specialists in FAA headquarters, regional, and larger field offices.

Trained environmental attorneys are vital for EIS work, which must be legally

sufficient. The FAA has 17 environmentally-trained attorneys, including 4 in

headquarters. Both environmental specialists and environmental attorneys have

multiple responsibilities and must. balance EIS work with other work.

For complex and controversial EISs, there is a tradeoff between resources and

time lines-that is. the FAA can prepare a more timely EIS by assigning more

expert staff resources to it. This is the “EIS team” approach. EIS teams have a

proven successful track record, and airport proprietors like them. EIS teams,

however, are extremely resource-intensive. For that reason, they have been

very selectively used for only a handful of ElSs for major airport projects.

The FAA could not accomplish environmental reviews without consultants. The

bulk of technical analyses for ElSs is done by consultants. However, consultants

cannot entirely take the place of FAA staff resources. Under CEQ regulations,

certain NEPA functions must be retained by a Federal agency.

FAA Environmental Initiatives. The FAA continues to foster and support

environmental mitigation to benefit the public and to reduce the environmental

constraints on aviation growth. FAA-supported mitigation programs include
aircraft source noise and emissions reductions, water quality protection from

aviation activities including airport and aircraft de-icing, airport noise compatibility

programs backed up by Federal funding, noise abatement aircraft operational

procedures and flight tracks, a compatible land use initiative, and funding support

for environmental mitigation.

In early January 2001, FAA Administrator Jane Gatvey approved initiatives to

enhance and streamline FAA’s environmental performance. No one measure is

a “silver bullet.” The goal of reducing environmental delays requires tackling

resource, process, product, and interagency coordination problems that

cumulatively can make a difference.

FAA Initiative #I is to establish an EIS team for each new EIS for a major

runway project at a large hub primary airport. This initiative also includes

strengthening EIS teams by adding more FAA members, asking airport

proprietors tom contribute members, and padding EIS consultants to teams.

FAA Initiative #2 is to reallocate FAA staff resources. The FAA’s ability to staff

more EIS teams depends on resources. In FY 2001, five more positions in FAA’s

Airports Office will be converted to environmental specialist positions.

However, demand for accelerating ElSs for critical airport projects continues to

increase. Some airports have expressed interest in paying for additional FAA

environmental specialists and environmental attorneys for expedited EIS reviews

through a reimbursable agreement. One option under Initiative #2 is to establish

a reimbursable funding arrangement for FAA staff resources. A prototype

reimbursable agreement is currently being developed.

FAA Initiative #3 is to maximize consultant resources to perform more EIS

tasks. The FAA will exercise administrative flexibility through existing third party

EIS contracts to have consultants perform such tasks as direct assistance to the
vii

FAA project manager on EIS coordination and administrative work, research and

briefing papers on special environmental issues, and correspondence.

FAA Initiative #4 is to streamline the environmental process and product to use

more categorical exclusions and to shorten and streamline EISs, as well as

Environmental Assessments/Findings of No Significant Impact (WFONSI). This

initiative will streamline environmental requirements for all airport projects, not

only critical capacity projects, within the current structure of environmental laws.

FAA’s expanded categorical exdusion list is in final development with CEQ and

will be included in FAA Order 1050.1E. “Environmental Impact: Policies and

Procedures,” currently under final review. The streamlining effort for ElSs and

EAlFONSls will begin in early summer in consultation with CEQ and the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). CEQ and EPA have been consulted

and have indicated general support.

The FAA proposes to get back to basics and conform its EIS practices to explicit

streamlining opportunities provided for in CEQ regulations, including reducing the

size of El%, preparing analytical rather than encyclopedic EISs, concentrating

on significant issues and impacts and only briefly discussing insignificant ones,

writing ElSs in plain language, reducing technical material in the body of EISs,

and setting time limits.

FAA Initiative #5 is to improve interagency cooperation and coordination on

environmental reviews for airport projects and on the issuance of environmental

permits. Secretary Mineta and Administrator Garvey propose to discuss with the

heads of other departments and agencies the national importance of airport

capacity and of intergovernmental cooperation to avoid unnecessary delays. The

FAA will have similar interactions at regional interagency levels.

On a project level, the FAA will engage other agencies at the very beginning of

an EIS. In some cases, a formal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) may
outline agency roles and working relationships. For the most part, the FAA finds

that informal arrangements are preferable and achieve results. Flexibility to have

either an informal or formal arrangement on a particular project is desirable.

In April 2001, the FAA and the National Association of State Aviation Officials

(NASAO) signed an agreement for a one-year joint review of Federal/State

environmental processes and coordination, State by State. The goal of the

review is to recommend ways in which Federal and individual State requirements

can be more effectively and efficiently combined and coordinated.

FAA Initiative #6 is to compile and issue a guide to best practices for EIS

management and preparation. Skilled approaches to EIS technical analyses,

procedures, and coordination can reduce problems and delays. This guide will

include practices that are the responsibility of the airport proprietor and EIS

consultant, as well as those of the FAA. The best practices guide will be

available to everyone on FAA’s Web page in early summer 2001.

Possible Next Steps. The FM believes that implementation of its initiatives will

show real and measured progress in streamlining environmental reviews; Other

issues and ideas have been raised and discussed by aviation and environmental

interests, as well as within FAA, and are briefly described in the final section of

the report.
REPORT TO CONGRESS

ENVIRONMENTAL REViEW OF AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

I. INTRODUCTION

In Section 310 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation investment and Reform Act for

the Zlst Century (AIR-21) Congress directed the Secretary of Transportation to

conduct a study of Federal environmental requirements related to the planning

and approval of airport improvement projects. Congress specifically requested

the Secretary to assess the current level of coordination among Federal and

State agencies, the role of public involvement, staffing and other resources, and

the time line for environmental reviews. .The Secretary was directed to submit a

report on the results of the study, together with any recommendations for

streamlining the environmental review process. The complete text of Section

310 is in Appendix 1.

Prior to the enactment of AIR-21, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had

begun an internal review of environmental requirements for airport improvement

projects. The FAA’s review focused on the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) process because this process provides a framework to address the

environmental requirements associated with a project. The FAA’s goals in this

review were to (1) maintain a high level of environmental protection and quality in

Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), (2) manage staff resources to address a

growing EIS workload within a responsible timeframe, (3) eliminate delays and

improve efficiencies in EIS preparation and procedures, and (4) be able to

address projects having minor environmental effects more efficiently and with

fewer resources.
2

By the fall of 2000, there was increasing focus on the need for more runways at

congested airports to handle the soaring demand for air travel and to reduce

delays. Environmental streamlining became part of the equation for reducing the

time involved in approving new runway construction. FAA Administrator Jane

Garvey requested her staff to recommend immediate streamlining options and, in

early January 2001, she approved several resource and process initiatives to

enhance FAA’s environmental performance. These initiatives are identified and

discussed in the body of this report.

The need for environmental streamlining was raised in confirmation hearings for

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary Norman Mineta. Secretary

Mineta has pledged to look for ways to accelerate the environmental process for

runway projects and has also stated that this will not be done at the cost of

environmental protection.

In recent months, members of Congress and representatives of the aviation

industry have begun considering proposals to streamline ElSs for critical airport

capacity projects. Consultation with other Federal agencies, State aviation

agencies, airport sponsors, consultants, environmental interests, and FAA

employees engaged in environmental reviews has substantially contributed to the

study and its recommendations. The parties consulted include the Council on

Environmental Quality, Envimnmental Protection Agency, Federal Highway

Administration, American Association of Airport Executives, Airports Council

International-North America, Airport Consultants Council, National Association of

State Aviation Officials, National Organization to Insure a Sound-Controlled

Environment, individual airport sponsors, environmental consultants and

attorneys, and Federal employees.

The clear goal of DOT in reviewing and streamlining the environmental process

is to reduce undue delays in the process while maintaining the process’s

environmental integrity and complying with all environmental protection

requirements.
II. THE OUTLOOK FOR NEW RUNWAYS AND THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL

REVIEW STATUS

There has been an increasing focus on new runways as one piece of the aviation

congestion solution, and on the extent to which Federal environmental reviews

delay new runway construction.

Airport congestion primarily occurs at large hub primary airports. Large hub

primary airports are defined as those commercial service airports that enplane

more than 1 percent of total national enplaned passengers. (The word ‘hub” in

this context has nothing to do with airline hubbing.) The 31 large hub primary

airports in the United States are listed in Appendix 2. They collectively enplane

about 70 percent of U.S. air passengers. The top 25 of these airports account for

86 percent of all severe air traffic delays.

Airport proprietors are responsible for planning and constructing new runways.

As of the date of this report, airport proprietor planning efforts have identified new

runways at 18 of the 31 large hub primary airports between now and 2010.

Table 1 on the following page identifies these runways and the status of their

environmental reviews.

The FAA has already issued environmental approvals for 9 of these runways.

ElSs are underway for 5 more runways, and a Draft EIS has been issued for 4 of

them. EIS startup is expected in the near future for Washington Dulles

International Airport, and a FAA EIS team is already in place and has discussed

the EIS scope with the airport. The runway proposals at Dallas-Fort Worth

International Airport, Baltimore-Washington International Airport, and Tampa

International Airport have not yet sufficiently advanced in the planning process

for the airport proprietors to submit them to FAA for environmental review.

Table 1 does not include airport capacity that is being added to the national

aviation system through the conversion of former military airfields to civil use.
Ill. THE RECENT ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD AND EIS TIME LINES

Looking at the EIS record for the last 5 years (1996-2000) the FAA approved

ElSs for new runways at 10 commercial service airports. At seven of these

airports, the ElSs also included extensions of other runways to enhance the

capability of the airfield. These airports are:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport

Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport

Miami International Airport

Lambert-St. Louis International Airport

Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport

George Bush Houston Intercontinental Airport

Charlotte Douglas International Airport, NC

San Jose international Airport, CA

Dane County Regional Airport, Madison WI

North Carolina Global Transpark

In this same S-year timeframe, FAA environmentally approved a 16,000-foot sixth

runway at Denver International Airport and a lO.OOO-foot runway at Detroit-Metro

Airport based on written reevaluations of previously approved EISs.

Individual profiles on the EIS time lines for new runway projects approved in the

last 5 years are in Appendix 3. The average time line for an EIS for a new

commercial service runway from initiation of the EIS process until Final EIS

approval is 3 years. Five of the above airports had EIS time lines of 3 years or

less, and five exceeded 3 years-two slightly longer and three significantly

longer.

Following Final EIS approval, the FAA must issue a decision on a project (called

a Record of Decision). The average time to issue a Record of Decision following
6

Final EIS approval is 3% months. Approximately 1% months of this time involve

required procedure. It requires about 2 weeks to print the approved Final EIS,

distribute copies to all interested parties, and have the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) publish a notice of the approval in the Federal Reqister. Following

the Federal Reqister notice, there is a required minimum 30day period before a

Record of Decision may be issued. Factors contributing to the additional

average time to issue a Record of Decision are described later in this report.

Airport proprietors generally began planning these runways in a range of time

from the mid-1980’s to the mid-1990’s. The average time line from the start of

planning until the start of construction is around 10 years, with the EIS occupying

about one-third of the planning time line. The planning required for an airport

project involves more than just the environmental review. Other planning work

necessary to develop a new runway is ongoing while an EIS is being prepared.

The EIS process cannot cleanly be segregated from the overall planning

process. It should, therefore, not be assumed that the planning process would

be shortened by as much as one-third if an EIS were not required.

The planning of a new runway involves multiple tasks-all of which require

amounts of time. In addition to environmental review, planning tasks include the

assessment of the capability of current facilities; review and refinement of

aviation demand forecasts: evaluation of options to accommodate forecast

demand and their physical, operational, and financial parameters; operational

safety factors, including obstruction evaluation; airspace review; terminal and

ground access issues; detailed design and engineering; development costs and

financing plans. When the planning information that defines and describes a

proposed runway project is of high quality, the efficiency of the EIS process is

increased. In some cases, new planning data or changes in a project during the

progress of an EIS causes an EIS time line to be extended.
EIS time lines are not the beginning and the end of environmental reviews of

airport improvement projects. Airport proprietors perform varying amounts of

study of environmental factors during the early planning phase of a runway in

order to gauge environmental feasibility. The amount of early environmental

study varies, depending upon the severity of anticipated environmental impacts

and community controversy.

Airport proprietors also engage in work to prepare for an EIS, including forming

their own project team to coordinate with the FAA; developing a memorandum of

understanding with the FAA on respective responsibilities, EIS consultant

arrangements, and scope of work; and hiring a consultant that FAA selects for

the EIS under a third-party contract arrangement.

Following the completion of an EIS and the FAA’s Record of Decision, airport

proprietors may still need to obtain Federal, State, and local environmental

permits to construct a runway. Permits are not a FAA responsibility and are not

within the FAA’s control. The FAA attempts to include data and environmental

analyses needed for permits in ElSs and to coordinate with permitting agencies

during an EIS so that subsequent permitting can be facilitated. This approach is

successful for some projects and not successful for others. Permitting can take

an appreciable amount of time after a Record of Decision.

This report deals to some extent with pre-EIS and post-EIS environmental work

that is not within the FAA’s jurisdiction or control. Appendix 3 includes factors

that have added to the overall environmental working time of the new runway

ElSs approved in the last 5 years.

More runways are in the EIS pipeline at the following eight airports. The top five

of these are large hub primary airports.

. Atlanta-Hartsfield International Airport
8

l Los Angeles International Airport (runway relocation)

l San Francisco International Airport

. Boston-Logan International Airport

. Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky International Airport

. New Orleans International Airport

l Piedmont Triad International Airport, Greensboro, NC

. Norfolk International Airport, VA

Atlanta-Hartsfield International Airport proposes to gain a new air carrier runway

by extending a previously approved commuter runway. Los Angeles

.

International Airport proposes runway relocation and extension to enhance

airfield capability. Although not classified as a new runway, the proposed

extension of a runway at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport is in the

EIS stage and, if approved. will accommodate larger and heavier air carrier

aircraft and business aircraft.

Two more ElSs currently in progress may result in new commercial airport

sites-one proposed for landbanking in the Chicago region by the State of Illinois

and the other, a former military base (El Toro), proposed for conversion to civil

use.

The airports and runway projects listed above do not comprise all of the EIS work

related to airport improvement projects. Seven additional ElSs were. approved in

the last 5 years for runway extensions, terminal and access projects, and runway

safety areas. Twelve ElSs are currently in the pipeline for airport improvement

projects in addition to the ones identified above. All together, these ElSs

comprise a high volume of substantial airport development proposals and an

active EIS workload.
9

IV. OVERVIEW OF WHY AND HOW ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND

PROCESSES AFFECT MAJOR AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

Public Opposition on Environmental Grounds

The underlying impediment to airport capacity improvements is not the

environmental process. It is the opposition on envimnmental grounds to

substantial airport development. Americans expect and demand that the national

air transportation system must move increasing numbers of people and goods

safely and conveniently. At the same time, public opposition to airport expansion

continues to rise. “Not in my back yard,” commonly referred to as the NIMBY

effect, is often expressed as no growth positions by airport neighbors, sometimes

combined with suggestions to search for capacity solutions at other airports.

The NIMBY effect should not be dismissed as an environmental fringe element.

It is based on real environmental concerns and has an increasingly broad-based

constituency. The primary environmental concerns related to airports are aircraft

noise, air pollution, and water pollution--with noise being the greatest concern by

far. The heightened focus on the need to increase operations at our busiest

urban airports to accommodate rapidly rising demand adds to concerns among

some communities, environmental interest groups, and others that airport

operations may have an increasingly detrimental effect on the environment and

on their quality of life. This observation was included in an August 2000 General

Accounting Office (GAO) report on “Aviation and the Environment-Airport

Operations and Future Growth Present Environmental Challenges.”

Environmental opposition affects airport expansion in a number of ways. First

and foremost, local consensus is normally necessary to support a major

expansion proposal. Strong environmental opposition diminishes the ability to

achieve a critical mass of consensus in support of airport expansion. Without
IO

local consensus, there can be insufficient local political impetus to undertake

needed airport capacity projects.

Building local consensus for airport expansion faces substantial challenges in

certain locations. The level of difficulty and controversy deters some airport

proprietors from engaging in meaningful interaction with the local community until

the airport’s expansion plans are well advanced. Local communities, in turn,

complain of being shut out of the airport planning process when they might have

had a role in influencing the consideration of expansion alternatives that could be

more acceptable to the community.

Consensus at the State level, as well as at the local level, can be a constraint.

Some States exercise substantial control, tantamount to a veto power over local

airport development, through State channeling acts or other legal mechanisms.

In Illinois, for example, a channeling act effectively gives the governor the ability

to approve or deny development at O’Hare International Airport.

When airport projects are proposed and an EIS is begun, organized opposition

will usually extend the EIS time line with requests for more environmental

analyses, pressure to provide multiple public meetings and extended EIS public

review periods, extensive correspondence, requests under the Freedom of

Information Act for all materials related to the proposed project and EIS, political

action to engage high-level officials and members of Congress. and litigation

threats. Potential litigation tends to engender extra effort to resolve adverse EIS

comments from other agencies, to engage in additional public outreach, to add

mitigation to gain more public support, and to take special care to provide

thorough responses to all issues raised by project opponents.

Among the ElSs approved for new runways in the last 5 years, strong local public

opposition caused marked delays for the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport,

11

Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, Lambert-St. Louis international Airport,

and Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport.

Determined opponents will often initiate litigation once the FAA has approved an

EIS and issued a favorable Record of Decision on an airport improvement

project. While the FAA has an excellent record of winning NEPA litigation, it

does take time. Although airport proprietors are rarely legally restrained from

proceeding, they sometimes determine that it is prudent to delay projects

pending a satisfactory outcome to litigation. The airport proprietor delayed

runway construction at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport for over 2 years

pending the outcome of the environmental lawsuit.

National Environmental Policy Act Requirements

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, requires

Federal agencies to prepare an EIS for major Federal actions significantly

affecting the quality of the environment. “Major Federal actions” include FAA

actions to approve airport proprietor requests for Airport Improvement Program

funding for projects, for the use of Passenger Facility Charges, and for approval

of new development on airport layout plans. Most new commercial service

nmways and major runway extensions at high activity airports require an EIS.

This report, therefore, focuses primarily on the EIS process, which is the longest

of the NEPA processes. However, it also includes the review of other NEPA

processes; i.e.. categorical exclusions, environmental assessments, and findings

of no significant impact.

When an EIS is required, the President’s Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ) regulations mandate a sequence (Notice of Intent+Scoping+Draft

EIS+Final EIS+Record of Decision) and provide a recommended format for all

Federal agencies. CEQ has issued regulations, and both DOT and FAA have
12

issued orders that apply to FAA’s NEPA process. Appendix 4 provides a graphic

depiction of the sequential steps in the EIS process.

Briefly, the process first involves a determination by the FAA that a proposed

project would have one or more significant environmental impacts requiring the

preparation of an EIS. The FAA issues a Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS and

works with the airport proprietor to select a consultant to assist the FAA in

preparing the EIS.

The first substantial task is to ‘scope” the EIS-that is, to determine the range of

actions, the number of alternatives, and the kinds of envimnmental impacts that

must be examined in detail. The next sizeable amount of time is spent doing the

complex technical analyses of the potential environmental impacts of the

proposed action and reasonable alternatives. ElSs entail sophisticated technical

analyses and discussions of multiple alternatives. This information is published

in a Draft EIS that is issued for public comment and for review by Federal, State,

and local agencies for a period of at least 45 days.

The final stage is the preparation of a Final EIS, which involves responding to all

substantive comments received on the Draft EIS, revisiting planning assumptions

and analyses on which questions were raised, revising or supplementing some

analyses, and completing environmental mitigation plans. Finally, a Final EIS is

approved, printed, and distributed. Once distribution is made, the Final EIS is

filed with EPA, and notice of the approval is published in the Federal Reqister.

The FAA’s Record of Decision may be issued at any time following a 30day

period after the Federal Reqister publication. On contmversial projects,

comments are often received during the 30day period, and the FAA addresses

these further comments in its Record of Decision.

Generally, most of the EIS work occurs between the Notice of Intent and the

issuance of a Draft EIS. During this period, aviation planning parameters and
13

technical reviews are scrutinized, alternatives that could meet aviation needs are

examined, decisions are made about the type and extent of environmental

analyses needed, technical analyses are performed, a number of public meetings

are usually held, and the writing of the Draft EIS is done. The period from Notice

of intent to Draft EIS can be expected to consume about two-thirds of the overall

EIS time line on the average, although there are wide variations.

The remaining EIS time line is occupied with dealing with the bulk of issues and

problems raised by public and agency review, reconfirming and/or revising

technical analyses, reaching agreements on the parameters of environmental

mitigation with the airport proprietor and other agencies with jurisdiction, and

carefully preparing and scrutinizing for legal sufficiency a Final EIS that must

withstand legal challenge.

The procedural requirements of NEPA, as implemented by Federal regulations

and orders and interpreted by case law, are substantial. An agency’s failure to

comply with the statute and its implementing regulations can result in delays, as

new or revised ElSs may be required by the courts.

Other Federal Environmental Laws, Executive Orders, and Regulations

As demanding as the NEPA requirements and process are, this is not the entire

story. Many Federal laws, executive orders, and regulations protect particular

parts of the environment; e.g., Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered

Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Executive Order on Protection of

Wetlands. There are approximately 40 such laws and executive orders. They

are listed in Appendix 5. Each Federal agency is responsible for complying with

all requirements that apply to its decisions and actions.
14

Therefore, in accordance with CEQ regulations and DOT policy, the FM not only

complies with NEPA when preparing an EIS, but also complies with all other

applicable environmental requirements. The NEPA process is used as an

“umbrella” for complying with other environmental requirements. These

requirements were developed and promulgated individually and create unique

substantive compliance requirements that differ from and sometimes exceed

NEPA’s requirements. Particular analyses are required, as well as coordination

with the relevant agency and public review. There is special involvement by

other Federal agencies responsible for administering particular laws, any of

which may raise concerns that can delay the progress on proposed airport

projects if their requirements and recommendations are not satisfied (e.g.,

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for Clean Air Act requirements, Army

Corps of Engineers for Section 404 permits to dredge or till navigable waters

induding wetlands, Fish and Wildlife Service for biological opinions under the

Endangered Species Act, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for

memoranda of understanding on historic property mitigation).

These many different requirements multiply the complexity of EIS analyses and

coordination and add to EIS time lines. While they each serve a worthwhile

environmental value, one might question whether the same level of

environmental protection could not be achieved with a better harmonization of

the many different environmental requirements. This would entail a broad

Governmentwide review of significant magnitude, probably under the leadership

of CEQ. It is beyond the intent of this review to do more than apprise Congress

of the issue and of the immensity of any potential remedy.

Findings of No Significant Impact

Certain runways and runway extensions at commercial service airports can be

approved with a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) if all environmental
15

impacts are below the significant thresholds established in FAA’s environmental

handbook. The ability to issue a FONSI, instead of an EIS, is valuable and

expedites the process for projects that do not have significant impacts.

The FAA has approved a number of new runways in the State of Alaska with a

FONSI, including within the past 5 years new commuter runways at the Gambell

and Noorvik commercial service airports. Expedited environmental approval is

particularly important in Alaska, where transportation is dependent on air travel.

Between 1996-2000, the FAA also approved FONSls for a 5,000-foot crosswind

runway at Sawyer International Airport, Michigan: a 5,000-foot crosswind runway

at Chippewa County International Airport, Michigan; a general aviation runway at

Eugene Airport, Oregon; and the upgrade to commercial service of a general

aviation nmway at Omaha, Nebraska. FONSls are more common for nmway

projects at general aviation airports than at commercial service airports.

State Environmental Requirements

Some States have NEPA-like reviews for airport development. Some have no

NEPA-like reviews, but do have State requirements and/or permits covering

certain types of impdcts; e.g., air quality, water quality, coastal resources,

State-listed endangered and threatened species.

State environmental reviews can add complexity and time to the overall

environmental review process. This is particularly the case in States that have

strong and detailed NEPA-like reviews. The most far-reaching State review of

this type is the California Environmental Quality Act. Substantial airport

development projects in California require a State Environmental Impact Report

(EIR). in addition to a Federal EIS.
16

In the past. airport proprietors may have gone through sequential State and

Federal NEPA processes which substantially extended overall environmental

review time lines. CEQ regulations strongly recommend integrating all

environmental review and consultation requirements in order to avoid delays

resulting from sequential processes. It is DOT and FAA policy and practice to

make every effort to combine Federal and State reviews to the extent possible,

and this usually occurs. However, it is not mandated by law. Airport proprietors

may exercise their discretion to separate Federal and State processes. The

longest EIS time line of all ElSs for new runways approved in the last 5 years

was for San Jose, California--primarily due to the airports decision to separate

the State EIR from the Federal EIS, which resulted in sequential processes.

Even when Federal and State processes are done concurrently, they are not

consistent in their requirements. Dual track Federal/State environmental

documents are more complex and take more time. The Minneapolis EIS was a

dual track document, and it had the second longest time line of new runway ElSs

approved in the last 5 years. The State process was voluminous, as described in

Appendix 3. A new airport site was seriously examined as an alternative to

expanding the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.

Environmental Permits for Airport Improvement Projects

After the FAA issues a Record of Decision giving its approval to a project, the

airport proprietor may still be required to obtain permits from other agencies in

order to begin construction. (No environmental permits are required to be issued

by FAA.) The FAA’s practice is to include analyses within its ElSs to satisfy the

needs of permitting agencies in order to facilitate the issuance of permits

immediately after FAA’s project approval. Sometimes this is successful, and

sometimes it is not. Federal and State permits can take another 6 to 12 months,

sometimes more, after the FAA Record of Decision.
17

Of the 10 new runway ElSs approved in the last 5 years, 3 airports experienced

pen-nit-related project delays. One, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, has

had an unusually long and particularly difficult problem. The FAA’s Record of

Decision approving the runway was issued in July 1997. The airport proprietor

completed the design for wetlands mitigation following the Record of Decision

and applied for 401 and 404 permits required under the Clean Water Act in

December 1997. (The 401 permit includes a Stormwater Management Plan and

is issued by the State. The 404 permit regulates filling or dredging of wetlands

and is issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.) In September 1998, the

airport proprietor discovered additional wetlands on land acquired to build the

runway, which triggered a reexamination of the proposal for permitting purposes.

(The airport did not have access to this land prior to acquisition to evaluate it for

wetlands.) In September I@@@, the airport proprietor reapplied for the permits

after supplementing its earlier application to include additional planning and

mitigation for the additional affected wetlands. During this time, the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service listed two new threatened species (the Puget Sound chinook

salmon and the Puget Sound bull trout) that potentially use the area in the vicinity

of the airport. This threatened species listing required the re-initiation of

consultation under the Endangered Species Act and the preparation of a new

biological assessment of potential project impacts, since the biological opinion

rendered at the time of FAA’s EIS did not include consideration of these species

as threatened species. Compliance with the Endangered Species Act has further

complicated and delayed the permitting process.

Four other airports of the 10 experienced a gap of time between the FAA’s

Record of Decision and the issuance of a 404 penit. However, there was no

notable effective delay due to permitting because the airports either were not

ready to start construction at that time for other reasons or were able to start

construction outside of the permit area.
18

The FAA has had mixed success in combining the EIS process with 404 permit

reviews. Most 404 permits require a significant amount of project design

information for the Corps of Engineers to review. This design information is

beyond what is normally available in an EIS. Some airport proprietors are more

willing and able than others to incur the risk and financial cost of going forward

with this work during an EIS and before FAA’s Record of Decision approving the

project. Additionally, coordination of these processes between the FAA and

Corps of Engineers has been more effective on some projects than others. A

number of the general common causes of good and poor interagency

coordination listed in the next section of this report are applicable to coordination

successes and difficulties between the FAA and Corps in trying to combine EIS

and 404 analyses.

V. CURRENT LEVEL OF COORDINATION AMONG FEDERAL AND STATE

AGENCIES

Federal Agencies

Federal agencies have different missions and priorities and are governed by a

multitude of varying environmental requirements and responsibilities that cause

tension and create different time lines. The primary Federal agencies that FAA

coordinates with on ElSs for airport projects are the Environmental Protection

Agency, Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Interior (both Fish and Wildlife

Service and National Park Service), Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and National Marine Fisheries Service.

The need to coordinate effectively with Federal environmental agencies is not

unique to FAA. Within DOT, the FHWA and Federal Transit Agency have been

working intensively with Federal environmental agencies to facilitate
19

environmental reviews in response to provisions in the Transportation Equity Act

for the 21” Century.

The bulk of coordination occurs at the regional level of FAA and other agencies.

Regional environmental specialists within FAA assess the current level of

Federal interagency coordination as ranging from good to poor.

The factors that facilitate good coordination are:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Establishment of good interagency relationships and cooperative staff4evel

interfaces

Assignments of priority and staff to critical airport ElSs

Effective engagement of agencies early and continuously in an EIS

Extensive informal coordination to supplement formal coordination processes

Interagency environmental workshops

Resource agency awareness of aviation need for airport capacity expansion

FAA inclusion in an EIS of analyses needed by other agencies, induding

analyses for permits

Agreement during EIS scoping on alternatives and analyses

Rapid and meaningful response by FAA to other agenci,es’ concerns

Interagency commitment to an EIS’s preparation and schedule

The common causes of poor coordination (in no particular order) appear to be:

. Competing priorities, limited personnel and resources for timely participation

l Lack of understanding of aviation factors and extent of FAA and airport

proprietor controls, resulting in disagreements on aviation need and requests

for additional alternatives and mitigation in an EIS

. Disagreement on standards and methods of impact analyses

. Disagreement on the adequacy of proposed environmental mitigation

l Continuous requests for new information and analyses as an EIS progresses
20

l Changes in personnel during an EIS

. Lack of participation in scoping at the beginning of an EIS

l Identification of major problems and disputes late in the EIS process

l Regional interpretations of requirements that differ from the national level

. Delay in commenting within prescribed EIS commenting timeframes

l View of mission as adversarial to airport expansion

Among the 10 ElSs appmved in the last 5 years for new runways, FAA regional

environmental specialists reported that 6 of these ElSs were delayed to some

extent due to Federal interagency coordination. Three of these six ElSs were still

completed within the FAA’s average 3-year EIS time line or less. The other three

ElSs (Seattle, Minneapolis, Charlotte) had longer time lines, partly due to

difficulties of Federal interagency coordination-although other factors made

equal contributions to these EIS time lines.

State Agencies

The need for coordination with State agencies vanes State by State because

each State has different requirements. Some States are very active in the

environmental review and permitting of airport development projects; other

States are not. Some States have a NEPA-like review, mirroring but not exactly

the same as the Federal NEPA. Other States perform specific reviews of certain

types of environmental impacts, but not the complete array of impacts.

State agency coordination also runs the gamut from good to poor, according to

FAA regional environmental specialists who interact with State agencies on EISs.

Agencies in some States are reported to make the FAA’s EIS preparation easier

and faster, while others add to the level of difficulty-including the requirement

for extensive and time-consuming analyses by the airport proprietor for State

permits following FAA’s project approval. Since a major airport project with
21

significant environmental impacts does not occur frequently within most individual

States, State agencies may have the additional challenge of getting up to speed

on the details of requirements and coordination responsibilities.

It is not possible to generalize about State agency environmental coordination.

The FAA and the National Association of State Aviation Organizations (NASAO)

pmpose to conduct a more detailed State-by-State analysis of the relationship of

Federal and State environmental processes and coordination. This review is

further described later in this report under FAA Environmental Initiatives.

VI. ROLE OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Public involvement is an essential part of the envimnmental review process. An

EIS is intended to disclose the environmental impacts of proposed Federal

actions to the public, as well as to Federal agency decisionmakers. CEQ

regulations and FAA environmental guidance include both basic requirements

and discretionary advice on the extent of public review, meetings, and hearings.

As public interest in environmental protection has increased, so has public

involvement in the environmental process. Airport proprietors and the FAA have

generally responded by holding additional public meetings and hearings above

and beyond basic requirements and by extending public comment periods.

CEQ regulations require that a Draft EIS be available for public review for not

less than 45 days. ElSs for major airport projects are sizeable and complex

documents containing extensive technical analyses. There is usually a high

degree of public interest in the proposed projects, including a certain amount of

project opposition. The FAA commonly provides public review periods longer

than the minimum 45 days for Draft EISs, often at the request of the airport

proprietor. Public review periods between 75 and 90 days are common.
22

Due to the intensity of public interest and controversy on the proposed projects at

Los Angeles International Airport, the airport proprietor extended the public

comment period on the State Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to 180 days

and requested the FAA to provide the same period on the Federal EIS. This

document is a combined Federal EIS and State EIR, and the FAA agreed to the

airport proprietor’s request. This is an unprecedented Draft EIS review period in

the FAA’s experience. The FAA defers to the airport proprietor’s judgment of

local public circumstances and notes that the lAX experience could be a

harbinger of the future unless steps are pursued to limit extended reviews while

still protecting the public’s interest.

Public opposition to major airport development was discussed earlier in this

report, including how active opposition groups extend EIS time lines with

requests for additional environmental analyses, submission of extensive critical

technical comments and/or competing technical analyses to which the FAA must

respond in a Final EIS, submission of extensive correspondence and FOIA

requests throughout the EIS process, political action, and litigation.

The public has increasingly come to engage in the process after the FAA has

approved a Final EIS. The 30day minimum period between the

Federal Reqister notice that a Final EIS has been approved and the issuance of

a Record of Decision is not an official public comment period. However, the FAA

has come to expect many comments during this time. The FAA’s practice is to

respond to Final EIS comments in the Record of Decision in order to ensure that

the record clarifies that FAA has considered all substantive issues in its decision.

A well-documented Record of Decision is beneficial for a project that faces NEPA

litigation. For highly controversial airport projects, the interaction between public

involvement late in the EIS process and the FM’s Record of Decision adds time

to the completion and issuance of the Record of Decision.
23

VII. STAFFING AND OTHER RESOURCES

FAA Staffing

Within FAA, the responsibility for the environmental review of airport

improvement projects resides in the Office of the Associate Administrator for

Airports (referred to as Airports Office). The environmental responsibilities of the

Airports Office include:

l Development and publication of national environmental requirements

governing airports.

. Environmental reviews of all Federal decisions involving airport development

(i.e., Airport Improvement Program funding, Passenger Facility Charge use,

airport layout plan approval, new airport sites, military base reuse,

conveyances or releases of airport property) and the issuance of an EIS,

FONSI, or categorical exclusion for each decision.

l Administration of the airport noise compatibility program under Federal

Aviation Regulations part 150.

l Review of proposed airport noise and access restrictions under Federal

Aviation Regulations part 161.

l Administration of Federal real property acquisition policies and relocation

responsibilities.

.

. Technical guidance relating to elrgrbrlrty of environmental measures under the

Airport Improvement Program and Passenger Facility Charge program.

. Ad hoc environmental issues relating to airports.

These responsibilities are carried out by an Environmental Division in the Airports

Oftke in FAA headquarters and by professional environmental staff in FAA

regional and field offices.
24

As the environmental workload increased during the 1990’s, the Airports Office

increased its environmental staff resources by converting vacated positions into

environmental specialist positions. Currently, the headquarters Environmental

Division totals eight positions, induding management. There is generally one

environmental specialist in each regional office. (The Western-Pacific regional

office has two environmental specialists and the Alaskan regional office has a

combination airport planner/environmental specialist.) In addition, there is one

environmental specialist in each of the larger field offices in the regions having

field offices. Nationally, this totals about 33 people. These specialists are

heavily engaged in EIS work, but must balance EIS work with the other Airports

Office environmental responsibilities listed above.

In fulfilling its environmental responsibilities, the Airports Qffice relies heavily on

the FAA Office of the Chief Counsel and on Regional Counsel offices. Trained

environmental attorneys are vital for EIS work, which must be legally sufficient.

Currently, the FAA headquarters Environmental Law Branch totals four attorneys.

including management. In addition, there is one attorney in each regional office

(two in the New England and Western-Pacific regions) and in the two FAA

centers who are trained in environmental law. Nationally, this totals 17 attorneys.

As with Airports Office staff, attorneys must balance EIS responsibilities with their

enforcement workload and other legal responsibilities.

Consultant Resources

The bulk of technical analyses for ElSs is done by consultant support under a

third-party contract arrangement in which the FAA selects the consultant and the

airport proprietor contracts with and pays the consultant.

The FAA. could not accomplish environmental reviews without consultants.

However, consultants cannot take the place of FAA staff resources. Under CEQ
25

regulations, certain NEPA functions must be retained by a Federal agency.

When a consultant assists the FAA in preparing an EIS. the FAA must:

. Exercise oversight of the consultant and subcontractors to ensure a conflict of

interest does not exist, induding obtaining a disclosure statement.

. Take the lead in the EIS scoping process.

. Furnish guidance and participate in the preparation of the EIS.

. Independently evaluate the EIS and verify the environmental information

provided by the airport proprietor or others, adding expertise and review.

. Take responsibility for the scope and content of the EIS.

. Approve the EIS.

. Issue the Record of Decision

EIS Team Resources

For complex and controversial EISs. there is a tradeoff between resources and

time lines-that is, the FAA can prepare a more timely high quality EIS by

assigning more expert staff resources to it. The FAA calls this the ‘EIS team”

approach. The FAA has successfully used the team approach to prepare ElSs

for a few major projects, including the new Denver International Airport and new

runways at St. Louis, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Miami, and Cleveland. To date this

year, FAA has established EIS teams for four projects--San Francisco,

Cincinnati, Dulles, and the South Suburban Airport new site and landbanking

proposal for the Chicago region.

On each FAA team are usually two to three Airports Program environmental

specialists and one or two environmental attorneys. Their job is to provide on

time expertise to keep the environmental process on schedule, to identify and

resolve problems at the most productive level (e.g., headquarters or regional
26

agency level) within the least time possible, and to substitute a one-stop

coordinated FAA review for the usual sequential organizational EIS reviews,

EIS teams have a proven successful track record, and airport proprietor like to

have teams dedicated to EISs. Appendix 6 describes the EIS team effort for

Cleveland. (Cleveland was a complex and controversial EIS with significant

environmental issues, substantial interagency coordination requirements, and a

high level of opposition. The EIS team completed the EIS in 2 years, 1 month.

The FAA issued a Record of Decision 5 months later.) EIS teams, however, are

extremely resource-intensive. For that reason, they have been very selectively

used for only a handful of EISs.

VIII. FAA ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES

The continued ability of the national airports system to grow to meet air

transportation demand is related to the reduction and mitigation of the

environmental effects of that growth. The FAA is continuing to foster and support

environmental mitigation to benefit the public and to help ease the environmental

constraints on aviation. FAA-supported mitigation programs include aircraft

source noise and emissions reductions, water quality protection from aviation

activities including airport and aircraft de-icing, airport noise compatibility

programs backed up by Federal funding, noise abatement aircraft operational

procedures and flight tracks, a compatible land use initiative, and funding support

for environmental mitigation. The U.S. government is also working within the

International Civil Aviation Organization to develop international noise and air

quality standards for aircraft engines.

With respect to streamlining environmental reviews, as a practical matter sitespecific circumstances dictate different EIS time lines for individual airport

projects. For example, there is obviously more technical analysis, as well as
27

heightened public concern, related to the potential impacts of constructing a new

runway in the bay at San Francisco than in constructing a runway in the midst of

other runways within developed airport areas. For some proposed projects,

there is earlier integration of airport planning and the EIS process than for other

projects. Starting an EIS at a projects earlier planning stage may lengthen the

EIS time line as planning is refined, but may shorten the overall planning time

line for the project. In sum, there will always be some circumstances beyond

FAA’s control that add to the length of particular environmental processes.

The FAA is committed to addressing factors within its control. The Administrator

has approved the following initiatives to provide real progress towards reducing

environmental review time lines. No one measure is a “silver bullet.” The goal

of reducing environmental delays requires tackling resource, process, product,

and interagency coordination problems that cumulatively can make a difference.

FAA Initiative #I: Establish an EIS Team for Each New EIS for a Major

Runway Project at a Large Hub Primary Airport. Strengthen EIS Teams by

Adding More FAA Members, Airport Members, and Consultants.

The EIS team approach is highly effective. More teams are needed for critical

airport projects, and teams need to be more fully staffed.

The FAA proposes to establish a team for each new EIS for a major runway

enhancement project at a large hub primary airport. These are the top

31 airports in the Nation listed in Appendix 2 that enplane 70 percent of U.S. air

passengers. For ElSs that are substantially underway, FAA intends to

determine, in consultation with the airport proprietor, whether shifting to the team

approach at this point in the EIS process would be desirable.
28

The FAA wants to strengthen FAA team membership to include on each team

not only Airports Office environmental specialists and a regional environmental

attorney but also an airport planner, a headquarters environmental attorney (as

needed), and an air traffic environmental specialist (as needed).

The FAA also wants to strengthen the teams by asking airports to contribute

members. While certain EIS responsibilities are required by CEQ regulations to

be performed by Federal employees as previously described in this report, there

are many interrelated airport planning, environmental, and public involvement

tasks that are properly performed by employees of airport proprietors. The FAA

recommends that airports provide a project manager/environmental specialist,

community relations specialist, and environmental attorney. Airport proprietors

should examine whether they have committed or can commit sufficient resources

of their own to have the strongest possible team.

Consultant participation has not always been maximized on EIS teams, but

should be. Each team should include the project manager for the consulting firm

assisting FAA in the EIS preparation.

FAA Initiative #2: Reallocate FAA Staff Resources to Support

Environmental Work. Seek Airport Reimbursable Agreements to Expedite

Reviews.

The FAA’s practical ability to staff more EIS teams and to strengthen the FAA

membership on teams depends on personnel resources. In FY 2001, five more

positions in the FAA’s Airports Office will be converted to environmental

specialist positions-one in headquarters and one in each of the regions with the

bulk of the EIS workload (Eastern, Great Lakes, Southern, Western-Pacific).
Several airports have expressed interest in paying for additional FAA

environmental staff resources-environmental specialists and environmental

attorneys-for expedited EIS reviews through a reimbursable agreement. The

FAA has been reviewing legal and practical issues related to such an

arrangement. The basic requirements would be that (1) it could be done

relatively soon to boost resources on ElSs in the pipeline, (2) it must be done in a

way to provide reasonable stability in FAA’s resource pool so that new people

are not constantly coming and going, and (3) it must avoid an impermissible

appearance of a conflict of interest. The FAA is in the process of developing the

first reimbursable agreement of this type.

FAA Initiative #3: Maximize the Use of Consultant Resources to Assist FAA

with More EIS-related Tasks.

The FAA intends to exercise administrative flexibility to make use of consultants

through existing third party EIS contracts to assist FAA in more tasks than in the

past, Examples of new tasks are direct assistance to the FAA project manager

on EIS coordination and administrative work, research and briefing papers on

specialized environmental issues, and drafting of related correspondence. The

FAA will immediately delineate these tasks and institute this practice. This

should provide immediate and noticeable improvements in FAA’s environmental

service capability at such locations as San Francisco.

FAA Initiative #4: Streamline the Environmental Process and Product to

Use More Categorical Exclusions, and to Shorten and Streamline

Environmental Assessments/Findings of No Significant Impact and

Environmental Impact Statements.
30

The FAA has an active initiative to streamline environmental requirements for all

airport projects within the current structure of environmental laws.

Categorical Exclusions. An initial product of this effort is an expanded list of

small- and modest-sized projects on airports that are categorically exduded from

detailed environmental review based on their lack of potential for significant

impact (referred to as ‘categorical exdusions” or ‘CATEX”).

While the FAA must still exercise sufficient review to ensure that no extraordinary

circumstances create unexpected impacts requiring environmental assessment,

such circumstances are indeed rare. Almost all CATEXs are determined by the

FM in a very limited amount of time, require no special documentation from

airport proprietors, and are integrated into FAA’s normal planning and funding

processes and timelines. In a 1999-2000 survey of the Nation’s 50 busiest

commercial service airports, the GAO found that many airports were not even

aware of the time spent by FAA on CATEX reviews of their airport layout plans

and funding’requests. The expanded CATEX list is in final development with

CEQ and will be included in the update to FAA’s agencywide environmental

order, FAA Order 1050.1E, ‘Environmental Impact: Policies and Procedures,”

which will be issued following the final review that is currently in progress.

Environmental Assessments/Findings of No Significant Impact (EAIFONSI).

The level of documented environmental review that is more than a CATEX. but

much less than an EIS, is an Environmental Assessment (EA). An EA is

prepared by an airport proprietor to assess whether any environmental impacts

are significant. The EA is submitted to FAA for evaluation and acceptance. If no

impacts exceed FAA’s thresholds of significance, the FAA completes a FONSI

and approves the project. In the same GAO survey of the 50 busiest commercial

service airports, the majority of airports indicated satisfaction with the EA/FONSl
31

process. The FAA is exploring ways to streamline the EAlFONSl process

further, such as (1) using a tool such as a kind of documented CATEX instead of

an EA for minimal environmental impacts on protected resources. and (2) using a

short-form EA when an EA is appropriate. CEQ has advised that it will closely

review these proposals to maximize FAA streamlining opportunities.

Environmental impact Statements. Reductions in environmental requirements

through CATEX and EA/FONSI streamlining are highly desirable, but the primary

need is to streamline EISs. CEQ regulations currently incorporate EIS

streamlining concepts under headings of reducing paperwork and reducing

delay. Unfortunately, in everyday practice, ElSs on a Govemmentwide basis

have been increasing in both size and technical complexity for years.

The FAA proposes to get back to basics and to conform its EIS practices to

explicit streamlining opportunities listed in the CEQ regulations, including:

l Reducing the size of ElSs

. Preparing analytical ElSs rather than lengthy descriptions of every

conceivable aspect of the environment

. Concentrating on significant issues and impacts and only briefly discussing

insignificant ones

l Writing ElSs in plain language

. Including more technica) material in appendices or incorporating it by

reference, instead of including it within the body of an EIS

l Setting time limits

This effort will begin in early summer of 2001 in consultation with CEQ and EPA.

Senior staff at CEQ and EPA have been preliminarily consulted by FAA and have

indicated general support for this initiative. The FAA regards this as a worthwhile

effort, but not simple. It involves taking a different direction than the one
32

developed over time in response to additional environmental requirements and

requests for more information and analyses in EISs. EIS streamlining must fully

comply with environmental requirements and must not unreasonably jeopardize

ElSs in litigation, which could further delay airport projects,

A guiding principle in FAA’s EIS streamlining effort will be the public interest. In

addition to benefiting EIS time lines, ElSs that are shorter, readable, and

understandable-rather than volumes of compilation of technical detail-should

help members of the public that have project concerns and want to understand

and comment on potential impacts.

FAA initiative #5: Improve Interagency Cooperation and Coordination to

Achieve More Consistent, Effective, and Timely Environmental Reviews of

Airport Projects, including Permitting Reviews.

Federal Agencies. Secretary Mineta and Administrator Garvey propose to

discuss with the heads of other departments and agencies the national

importance of airport capacity and of intergovernmental cooperation and

coordination to avoid unnecessary delays during the environmental review and

permitting processes. Impediments to effective working relationships caused by

differences in missions, requirements, resources, and timing will be identiied and

managed to the extent possible. The FAA will have similar interactions with

counterparts of other Federal agencies at regional levels to build more effective

and cooperative EIS working relationships. FAA regional management will

intervene when staff-level cooperation among Federal agencies breaks down

and will refer any escalating issues to FAA headquarters.

On a national basis, there are both substantive and relationship issues that are

ripe for discussion. For example, there are air quality concerns that can benefit

from combined FAA and EPA attention, including adequate allowances for
33

aviation in State Implementation Plans (SIP) and potential changes to the air

quality general conformity process to treat airport construction emissions like

other transportation project construction emissions and to facilitate

determinations on types of projects that do not require individual conformity

determinations.

On a project level, the FAA will involve other agencies that have important roles

in airport projects at the very beginning of an EIS. In some cases, a formal

Memorandum of Understanding may be developed to establish a written

agreement of agency roles and working relationships. For the most part, the

FAA finds that informal arrangements are preferable and achieve results. Formal

MOUs do not absolutely bind agencies in any case, and they can take more time

to prepare than is worthwhile for airport projects, considering the extent of delays

caused by interagency coordination. Formal MOUs can be counterproductive by

actually extending EIS time lines, not only due to their preparation time, but also

in the amount of time coordinating agencies specify for reviews in MOUs to

provide a cushion for meeting a formally-agreed written time schedule. The FAA

prefers to retain the flexibility to pursue either an informal or formal route on a

particular project to reach Federal consensus to the extent possible on EIS

contents and analyses and to shorten Federal review and permitting timetables.

State Agencies. In March 2001, the FAA and NASA0 developed an agreement

for a joint review of Federal/State environmental processes and coordination,

State by State. An MOU formalizing the agreement for this one-year review was

signed in April. The goal of the review is to recommend ways in which Federal

and State requirements can be more effectively and efficiently combined and

coordinated to streamline the overall process for the environmental review of

airport projects.
34

FAA Initiative #6: Compile and Issue a Guide to Best Practices for EIS

Management and Preparation.

Skilled management of the various aspects of EIS technical analyses,

procedures, and coordination can reduce problems and delays.. The FAA is in

the process of compiling a guide to best practices that can facilitate EIS

production and approval. It will include practices that are the responsibility of the

airport proprietor and EIS consultant, as well as those of the FAA. Best practices

include such diverse topics as consultant selection, project management,

scheduling of EIS analyses, successful public input techniques, interagency

coordination, and the effective use of technology. The best practices guide will

be available to everyone on FAA’s Web page in early summer 2001.

IX. POSSIBLE NEXT STEPS

The FAA believes that implementation of the initiative% identified above will shoti

real and measured progress in streamlining environmental reviews. Other issues

and ideas have been raised and discussed by aviation and environmental

interests, as well as within FAA. Some of them are linked to FAA’s initiatives and

others are independent. The FAA will continue to explore options for further

progress, which will be coordinated and reviewed within the Administration.

There are three broad areas that merit additional consideration including

improving the utilization of existing resources, alternatives for pn’oritizing of EISs,

and streamlining the environmental process and product.

1. Environmental Mitiqation

1.a. Broader Use of Airport Revenue for Environmental Mitigation for

Critical Airport Capacity Projects. An airport accepting Federal financial aid

must agree to use all airport revenue for airport-related costs. The FAA has for
35

some time recognized that mitigation directly associated with the environmental

impacts of an airport capital development project is an allowable use of airport

revenue. Some airports have expressed interest in an ability to use airport

revenue to reach practical mitigation agreements with nearby communities for

critical airport capacity projects, even if such uses are not traditionally permitted

under existing rules. Key questions are (1) the extent to which more flexibility in

the use of airport revenue could help achieve airport capacity and environmental

mitigation goals and (2) whether such flexibility could be provided without

undermining existing protections on the use of airport revenue.

1.b. Use of AIP Noise Set-Aside to Fund Noise Mitigation in Environmental

Documents. FAA approval of an airport noise compatibility program under

Federal Aviation Regulations Part 150 is a prerequisite for elrgrbrlrty for the

Airport Improvement Program noise set-aside, with a few minor exceptions.

Currently, an airport sponsor must prepare and submit a Part 150 program to

FAA for approval. Expanding eligibility for access to the noise set-aside to FAAapproved noise mitigation in NEPA documents for airport development could

provide an additional source of funds for noise mitigation for critical airport

capacity projects.

l.c. Use of AIP Noise Set-Aside to Fund Community Planning and Projects

for Noise Compatibility. In the past, the R,E&D Advisory Committee to the FAA

submitted a report to the Administrator, recommending legislation to authorize

grants from the noise set-aside to State and local governments that are not

airport sponsors to make the use of land within their jurisdictions around airports

more compatible with aircraft noise. The twin goals of such a consideration

would be to (1) achieve more noise mitigation and compatible land uses around

airports and (2) reduce noise-based opposition to airport expansion.
36

1.d. Support Continued Technological Advances. Technology is a key

component of environmental mitigation. The FAA seeks to support continued

effective technological advances.

Despite tremendous progress in reducing aircraft source noise over the past 25

years, aircraft noise continues to pose the most significant environmental barrier

to community acceptance of airport capacity expansion. The FAA, working with

NASA, is seeking to foster advanced noise reduction technology for jet airplanes.

This endeavor, in close cooperation with U.S. industry, is focused on systematic

development and validation of noise reduction technology in engine systems,

aircraft systems, and operational procedures.

While aviation noise continues to be the primary environmental concern, air

quality is also a concern. The FAA, working dosely with NASA, EPA, the

aviation industry, and nongovernmental organizations, is engaged in a variety of

research and modeling efforts on air emissions reduction technology and

procedures.

2. Airport Funding of FAA EIS Team Resources

2.a. Reimbursable,Agreements. The FAA is authorized to enter into

reimbursable agreements with airports to fund additional FAA staff for specific

projects under the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968. 31 USC §!j6501

et seq. The expedited preparation of an EIS is a specialized service for which

FAA could accept reimbursement from public airport authorities.

2.b. Five-Year Pilot Program. Another alternative approach could be to

establish a 5year pilot program for critical airport projects. A legislative proposal

would have to be developed to permit the Secretary of Transportation to initiate a

5-year program, funded by airport sponsors, to hire full-time equivalent
37

environmental specialists and attorneys for environmental review of runway

development projects at large hub airports as defined in 49 USC §41713. FAA

positions filled under this program would not be subject to the normal

appropriations process.

3. Streamlininq the Environmental Process and Product

The FAA’s initiatives to streamline CATEXs. EA/FONSls, and ElSs are within its

administrative authority, in coordination with CEQ and EPA. It is beyond the

scope of this study to recommend changes to NEPA or other environmental law.

3-a. Air and Water Quality Certification. A Governor’s air and water quality

certification (49 USC 947106 (c)(l)(B)) has been required in airports legislation

since 1970, predating air and water quality protections that are currently in place

under other Federal environmental law. In the August 2000 report to Congress

on Aviation and the Environment, the GAO suggested that Congress may wish to

consider eliminating the state air quality certification requirement in airports

legislation because it is duplicative of protections offered under the Clean Air Act.

The FAA agrees with the GAO’s duplication finding and believes that a parallel

situation exists with respect to the state water quality certification; that is, it is

largely duplicative of protections in the Clean Water Act.

In exploring next steps, it is important that the FAA continue to work with other

Federal, as well as State and local agencies, to consider the impact of any

proposals.
Appendix 1

AIR-21

SEC. 310. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT

PROJECTS.

(a) STUDY.-The Secretary shall conduct a study of Federal environmental

requirements related to the planning and approval of airport improvement

projects.

(b) CONTENTS.-In conducting the study, the Secretary, at a minimum, shall

assess-

(1) the current level of coordination among Federal and State agencies in

conducting environmental reviews in the planning and approval of airport

improvement projects;

(2) the role of public involvement in the planning and approval of airport

improvement projects;

(3) the staffing and other resources associated with conducting such

environmental reviews; and

(4) the time line for conducting such environmental reviews.

(c) CONSULTATION.-The Secretary shall conduct the study in consultation

with the Administrator, the heads of other appropriate Federal departments

and agencies, airport sponsors, the heads of State aviation agencies,

representatives of the design and construction industry, representatives of

employee organizations, and representatives of public interest groups.

(d) REPORT.-Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the

Secretary shall transmit to the Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on

Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report on the results

of the study, together with recommendations for streamlining, if appropriate,

the environmental review process in the planning and approval of airport

improvement projects.
Appendix 2

LARGE HUB PRIMARY AIRPORTS

1. Atlanta Hartsfield

2. Chicago - O’Hare

3. Los Angeles

4. Dallas - Fort Worth

5. San Francisco

6. Denver

7. Detroit - Metro

8. Newark

9. Phoenix - Sky Harbor

10. Miami International

11. Las Vegas - McCarren

12,Minneapolis - St. Paul

13.New York - JFK

14. Houston - George Bush

15. St. Louis - Lambert

16.Odando International

17. Seattle - Tacoma

18. Boston Logan

19. New York - LaGuardia

20. Philadelphia

21. Honolulu

22.Cincinnati

23.Chariotte - Douglas

24.Salt Lake City

25Washington - Dulles

26. Pittsburgh

27. Baltimore - Washington

28.San Diego

29.Tampa

30.Washington - Reagan National

31. Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood

Large hub, primary airports are defined as those airports that enplane more than

1 percent of the total national enplanements. To qualify as a large hub airport, at

least 6,841,636 passengers had to be enplaned in calendar year 1999.
Appendix 3

TIME LINES FOR FAA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS

APPROVED IN LAST 5 YEARS FOR NEW RUNWAY PROJECTS

(1996-2000)

(Seven projects also included runway extensions)

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport

Project included runway extension.

EIS Time Line: Notice of Intent

Draft EIS Issued

Final EIS Approval

Supplemental EIS Notice

Supplemental Draft EIS Issued

Supplemental Final EIS Approval

Record of Decision

Elapsed Time: Notice of Intent to: Draft EIS

Final EIS

Sup. Draft EIS

Sup. Final EIS

Decision

Commentarv:

Jan. 1994

April 1995

Feb. 1996

Dec. 1996

Feb. 1997

May 1997

July 1997

1 year, 4 ~months

2 years, 1 month

3 years, 1 month

3 years, 5 months

3 years, 7 months

. Airport expansion planning process started in 1989.

. Replacement airport option considered.

. Strong public and agency opposition to airport expansion; 14 lawsuits to date.

. Major increase in forecast aviation activity after 1996 Final EIS approval

required a Supplemental EIS. Air quality was impact of most concern with

higher forecast.

. 401 and 404 permit delays Biological opinion for two newly listed threatened

species under Endangered Species Act has further delayed permits.

. Lawsuit challenging FAA’s compliance with Endangered Species Act is

pending.
2

Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport

EIS Time Line: Notice of Intent April 1992

Draft EIS Issued Dec. 1995

Final EIS Approval May 1998

Record of Decision Sept. 1998

Elapsed Time: Notice of Intent to: Draft EIS 3 years, 8 months

Final EIS 6 years, 1 month

Decision 6 years, 6 months

Commentaw:

Airport expansion planning process started in 1989.

The 1989 Minnesota Legislature directed the Metropolitan Airports

Commission and Metropolitan Council to examine how best to meet the

region’s aviation needs 30 years into the future. The agencies were directed

to undertake 7 years of planning studies comparing expansion of MinneapolisSt. Paul International Airport (MSP) with construction of a replacement airport.

The 7-year process, known as the Dual Track Airport Planning Process, was

completed in April 1996 when the State Legislature selected the development

of MSP as their preferred alternative.

Prior to the EIS, three Alternative Environmental Documents (AED) were

prepared for the State to assess the environmental impacts of (1) site

selection for a replacement airport, (2) long-term plans for a new airport site,

and (3) major expansion of MSP. Public scoping and hearings were held on

each AED.

EIS was prepared to satisfy both Federal and State requirements.

Extreme high volume of study and public interest, filling 10 5drawer filing

cabinets.

Coordination with FWS on impacts and mitigation for Minnesota Valley

National Wildlife Refuge was extensive and time-consuming.

Environmental mitigation requirements following FAA Record of Decision were

extensive.

Several Federal and State permits delayed start of construction 8-9 months.
3

Miami International Airport

EIS Time Line: Notice of Intent

Draft EIS Issued

Final EIS Approval

Record of Decision

Elapsed Time: Notice of Intent to: Draft EIS

Final EIS

Decision

Commentan/:

March 1995

Dec. 1997

Sept. 1998

Dec. 1998

2 years, 9 months

3 years, 5 months

3 years, 8 months

. Airport expansion planning process started in 1991.

. Local and state procurement laws created issues that delayed EIS consultant

selection.

. EIS was put on hold while evaluation of a gate expansion for American Airlines

was conducted.

. Park overflight issues raised by National Park Service toward end of EIS.

LambertSt. Louis International Airport

Project included runway extension.

EIS Time Line: Notice of Intent

Draft EIS Issued

Final EIS Approval

Record of Decision

Elapsed Time: Notice of Intent to: Draft EIS

Final EIS

Decision

Commentarv:

Aug. 1995

Oct. 1996

Dec. 1997

Sept. 1998

1 year, 2 months

2 years, 4 months

3 years, 1 month

. Airport expansion planning process started in 1987. Original runway option

was deemed not feasible to construct while maintaining airport operation.

. Strong public opposition extended public review period of Draft EIS and

extended time between Final EIS and Record of Decision. Approximately

15,000 public comments received.

. FAA re-evaluation of technical operational issues raised by project opponents

delayed Record of Decision.

. Airport proprietor delayed construction approximately 2 years pending

outcome of environmental litigation.
Cleveland Hopkins International Airport

Project included runway extension.

EIS Time Line: Notice of Intent May 1998

Draft EIS Issued Oct. 1999

Final EIS Approval June 2000

Record of Decision Nov. 2000

Elapsed Time: Notice of Intent to: Draft EIS

Final EIS

Decision

Commentary:

1 year, 5 months

2 years, 1 month

2 years, 6 months

l Airport expansion planning process started in 1991. Planning was delayed for

several years pending resolution of zoning issues between the Cii of

Cleveland, the airport proprietor, and the Community of Brook Park.

l The airport layout plan study was delayed due to design standard concerns

with a cross wind runway.

l After initiation of the EIS, the airport proprietor acquired a large complex for

potential future construction of a third runway-requiring revision of the

cumulative environmental impact analysis before issuing the Draft EIS.

l Public opposition extended the Draft EIS review period and the period

between Final EIS approval and FAA Record of Decision.

l Coordination of~a Memorandum of Understanding for the desbuctioti of a

National Historic Landmark took time.

l Environmental litigation is pending.

George Bush Intercontinental Airport, Houston

Project also included extension of a commuter runway for air carrier operations.

EIS Time Line: Notice of Intent

Draft EIS Issued

Final EIS Approval

Record of Decision

Elapsed Time: Notice of Intent to: Draft EIS

Final EIS

Decision

Commentary:

Nov. 1998

Nov. 1999

July 2000

Sept. 2000

1 year

1 year, 9 months

1 year, 11 months

l New runway was first mentioned in a 1983 Airport Master Plan. Airport

proprietor began actively pursuing the project in 1995.

l Local issues with third-party contract delayed El.5 consultant selection.

l State air quality certification was delayed.

* Environmental litigation is pending.
Charlotte Douglas International Airport

Project included runway extension.

EIS Time Line: Notice of intent

Draft EIS Issued

Final EIS Approval

Record of Decision

Elapsed Time: Notice of Intent to: Draft EIS

Final EIS

Decision

Commentarv:

March 1995

July 1998

Nov. 1999

April 2000

3 years, 4 months

4 years, 8 months

5 years, 1 month

l Airport expansion planning process began in 1995.

l Consultant selection process was lengthy.

. After initiation of EIS process, airport proprietor changed the proposed project

to include terminal and landside projects.

l Interagency coordination with Corps of Engineers on wetland impacts added

time to EIS. Corps was extremely cooperative.

. Internal FAA reviews were lengthy and contentious.

l Memorandum of Agreement on historic property impact mitigation was difficult

and took extra time.

. Airport proprietor chose not to incur cost of wetlands mitigation planning during

EIS to facilitate 404 permit.

San Jose international Airport

Project included runway extension.

EIS Time Line: Notice of Intent Jan. 1991

Draft EIS Issued April 1999

Final EIS Approval Oct. 1999

Record of Decision Dec. 1999

Elapsed Time: Notice of Intent to: Draft EIS

Final EIS

Decision

8 years, 4 months

8 years, 9 months

8 years, 11 months

Commentary:

. Airport expansion planning process started in 1991 and was essentially

complete in 1996. Environmental process started early in planning process.

. Joint federal ElSlstate EIR was begun. Following scoping in 1995, airport

proprietor decided to proceed independently with State EIR.

l Quality of EIS work, outdated data and analyses delayed EIS.
Dane County Regional Airport, Madison, WI

EIS Time Line: Notice of Intent

Draft EIS Issued

Final EIS Approval

Record of Decision

Elapsed Time: Notice of Intent to: Draft EIS

Final ElS

Decision

Commentary:

June 1993

Oct. 1993

March 1996

June 1996

4 months

2 years, 10 months

3 years

l Airport expansion planning process began in 1991. -

l Problems with aviation forecasts.

. Resolution of comments from EPA took extra time.

. Impacts to wetlands and historic properties caused some delay.

l Permits took 6-12 months following FAA Record of Decision.

North Carolina Global Transpark

Project included runway extension.

EIS Time Line: Notice of Intent

Draft EIS Issued

Final EIS Approval

Record of Decision

Elapsed Time: Notice of Intent to: Draft EIS.

Final EIS

Decision

Commentary:

July 1994

Jan. 1997

July 1997

Sept. 1997

2 years, 6 months

3 years

3 years, 2 months

l Airport planning began in 1991.

l After initiation of the EIS, the airport proprietor changed the project-requiring

new analyses and EIS revision.

l Coordination difficulties between airport proprietor, FAA. and EIS consultant.

l Issue of potential lack of water supply in region took extra time to address.

l Development of a wetlands mitigation plan acceptable to resource agencies

took extra time.

l Agreement with State Historic Preservation Officer on impacts to historic

properties took extra time.
Appendix 4

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) FLOW CHART

k.SUE DRAFT EIS

EPA PUBLISHES

AVAILAEILIIYOF

DRAFT EIS IN F.R.

RESPOND TO COMMENTS

ON DRAFT EIS AND

PREPARE FINAL EIS

J

APPROVE FINAL EIS

PRINT AND DISTRIBUTE

FILE WITH EPA

JI

EPA PUBLISHES

NOTICE OF

FINAL EIS IN F.R.

(30 DAY HOLD MIN.)

tt

I

ISSUE

RECORD OF DECISION
Appendix 5

FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS

FEDERAL LAWS:

American Indian Religious Freedom Act

Anadromous Fish Conservation Act

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act

Archeological Resources Protection Act

49 U.S.C. 47101 et seq., formerly Airport and Airway Improvement Act

Clean Air Act

Clean Water Act

Coastal Barrier Resources Act

Coastal Zone Management Act

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

Department of Transportation Act, Section 4(f)

Endangered Species Act, Section 7

Farmland Protection Policy Act

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

Land and Water Conservation Fund, Section S(f)

Marine Mammal Protection Act

National Environmental Policy Act

National Historic Preservation Act

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

Pollution Prevention Act

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Rivers and Harbors Act

Safe Drinking Water Act

Sikes Act Amendments

Toxic Substances Control Act

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

EXECUTIVE ORDERS:

11593. “Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment”

11990, “Protection of Wetlands”

11998, “Floodplain Management”

12088, “Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Sfandards”

12372, “Infergovemmenfal Review of Federal Programs”

12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minotify and LowIncome Populations”

13007, “Indian Sacred Sites”

13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks”

13084, ‘Consultation & Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”

13112, “Invasive Species”

13186, “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies fo Protect Migratory Birds”
Appendix 6

CLEVELAND EIS TEAM

On November 8,2000, FAA completed an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

and Record of Decision (ROD) for a replacement runway and a major runway

extension at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport-culminating a planning

effort that began in the early 1990’s. Also involved in this effort was the

completion of the Airport Capacity Design Team Study, an updated Airport

Master Plan, and an updated Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program. With

approval of the ROD, the city of Cleveland can proceed with the development of

a replacement air carrier runway and extension of a second runway, as well as

related facilities. This development will enhance capacity, reduce delays, and

eliminate confusing airport geometry, which has caused past runway incursions.

This was one of the most challenging environmental processes in recent years.

Due to the complexity of the proposed project and its impact on other Federal

agencies, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) were cooperating agencies.

The EIS involved a number of difficult and controversial issues that included:

l Destruction of the NASA Rocket Engine Test Facility, a National Historic

Landmark-requiring a Memorandum of Agreement between the Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation and other Federal and State agencies:

l Soundproofing of a number of historic homes-requiring a Programmatic

Agreement with the surrounding communities;

l Relocation of Abrams Creek, fill of approximately 3 million cubic yards,

and mitigation for the impacts to Abrams Creek;

l Removal and mitigation of approximately 87 acres of high-grade wetlands;

l Relocation of a major road and associated impacts to l-480;

l Remediation actions for hazardous waste on NASA property; and

l Relocation of several NASA facilities.

FAA recognized early that the Cleveland project would contain a number of

unusual and difficult environmental issues, and accordingly formed an EIS team

to handle the effort from cradle to grave. The EIS team consisted of the following

FAA staff: Airports District Office Planner, Airports Regional Program Analyst,

Regional Environmental Attorney, Headquarters Airport Environmental Specialist,

and Headquarters Environmental Attorney.
2

One of the first things the EIS team did was Federal interagency coordination.

Prior to formal EIS scoping, the EIS team met with the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA) to discuss ways to expedite and streamline the

environmental process. FAA also consulted USEPA early on air quality issues.

As the EIS progressed, the EIS team conducted additional briefings of Federal

agencies. These early coordination efforts provided other agencies with a clear

understanding of the airport development and enabled them to concur with the

projects purpose and need and with the alternative analysis early in the EIS

process. A pm-draft EIS was coordinated with USEPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This coordination enabled FAA

to assure that the majority of concerns of these agencies were addressed in the

Draft EIS. This resulted in a huge time and papetwork savings because these

agencies had far fewer subsequent comments on the published Draft EIS to

which FAA had to respond.

In addition to pre-ooordination before the Draft EIS, coordination was done with

these agencies between the draft EIS and final EIS to ensure all issues and

comments were resolved. The EIS team also held many lengthy indepth

meetings and teleconferences with NASA, FHWA. the Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation, National Park Service, State Historic Preservation Officer,

a congressional office, FAA’s internal lines of business, and local interest groups

to ensure that all concems were understood and addressed.

Extra coordination was especially important to NASA because the proposed

replacement runway location required the destruction of the Rocket Engine Test

Facility (RETF), a National Historic Landmark. A Memorandum of Agreement

allowed the airport development to go forward after historic documentation of the

RETF in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s standards.

The EIS team gave early attention to permits that would be needed for the

project and recommended to the city of Cleveland to start work on the required

Section 401 and 404 pemits concurrently with the EIS. By following the EIS

team’s recommendation, the city was able to expedite the review and approval of

these permits by the various Federal and State agencies by several months.

Because of the team approach, FAA was able to perform timely and concurrent

internal agency reviews. Prior to issuance of the Draft EIS. Final EIS, and ROD,

the EIS team met and reviewed documents for accuracy and consistency with

FAA policies. Team members had authority to concur for their organizations.

Due to the EIS team and its approach to coordination with other Federal and

State agencies, the time line for completion of this EIS was 2 years, 1 monthalmost a year under the average EIS time line of 3 years. This type of projectwith its level of complexity, interagency coordination, and controversydould

normally be expected to have a ,much longer than average time line. The ROD

was issued 5 months after Final EIS approval.