Opinion ID: 196673
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence Regarding Effects of Post-Phase I

Text: (ii) Evidence Regarding Effects of Post-Phase I Redevelopment. Other air quality studies conducted by NHDES, Redevelopment. however, suggest potential violation of the conformity criteria in later phases of Pease redevelopment, absent mitigation measures. With respect to CO emissions, the FEIS indicated that by the year 2010 redevelopment was expected to generate 68,000 daily vehicle trips into the Pease area. The main area of concern for traffic congestion causing emissions increases is the intersection of Spaulding Turnpike and Gosling Road. Post-FEIS air quality studies of that intersection indicated that, while construction of the new Spaulding Turnpike/Gosling Road interchange by NHDOT would bring the area into compliance with NAAQS for CO through the end of the decade, traffic volumes associated with Pease redevelopment and regional growth through the full build-out year 2010 could cause violations unless a second entrance interchange to Pease was constructed. Redevelopment would therefore contribute to new violations of the NAAQS for CO sometime after the turn of the century. Similarly, an EPA memorandum dated July 24, 1991, indicated that, while Phase I of Pease redevelopment was expected -40- to generate only 2.5 tons per day of HCs (a major ozone precursor), Phase II extending to the year 2002 was estimated to generate 4.8 tons per day. At that level, Phase II would increase existing violations, as well as delay attainment, of the NAAQS for ozone absent some other changes or the institution of mitigation measures. b. Mitigation Measures. Plaintiffs contend that the b. Mitigation Measures. supporting agencies improperly shifted the burden of compliance to New Hampshire and the SIP process and that the mitigation measures agreed to by the parties failed to meet the statutory criteria of the conformity provision. (i) Carbon Monoxide. With respect to CO emissions, (i) Carbon Monoxide. the MOU requires PDA to conduct a surface transportation study, develop a traffic model and master plan for the Pease area, conduct intermittent CO analyses, and implement mitigation measures as needed. As to the latter, the MOU states categorically that PDA, and if necessary in conjunction with any other appropriate state agency, will implement measures necessary to reduce projected traffic increases and/or air emissions impacts to a level which will not result in any violation of, or any contribution to a violation of, the NAAQS for carbon monoxide. (Emphasis added.) These commitments are sufficient to ensure compliance with the statutory requirement that Pease redevelopment will not cause or contribute to any new violation of the NAAQS for CO, see 42 U.S.C. 7506(c)(1)(B)(I), for two reasons. -41- First, PDA's open-ended commitment to implement necessary mitigation measures includes by implication a commitment to implement the mitigation measures already identified in the area of the Spaulding Turnpike/Gosling Road interchange. Specifically, it includes a commitment by PDA, along with NHDOT and other necessary state agencies, to build the second access to Pease, unless later studies reveal preferable alternatives for satisfying the commitment. See supra pp. 38-39. Corroborating this commitment is a July 31, 1991, letter from PDA to the Air Force stating that compliance with the NAAQS would require completion of improvements to the Spaulding Turnpike/Gosling Road interchange as well as construction of a second access to Pease prior to the time the improved interchange reaches maximum capacity. To permit construction of the second access, PDA requested that a portion of the golf course at Pease be made available. In the Application and Acceptance for the transfer of airport property, the Air Force agreed to transfer the needed portions of the golf course. Second, the agreement requiring ongoing studies and analyses and implementation of mitigation measures as needed was a reasonable way to ensure conformity under the circumstances. The details of the redevelopment project are not fixed and its time line is extended. As the FAA pointed out in its ROD, air quality impacts stemming from certain aspects of the airport development were speculative when the conformity determinations -42- were made because the project-specific design detail necessary to assess those impacts properly and develop a range of alternative mitigation measures was lacking. Similarly, the nonaviation business tenants at the on-airport industrial park had not yet been selected. In addition, over the 20-year life of Pease redevelopment, other environmental factors in the region, as well as technologies available to address them, may change. Given these uncertainties, a commitment to pursue ongoing studies and analyses and to implement appropriate mitigation measures based on demonstrated needs was a reasonable approach to meeting the statutory requirement. (ii) Ozone Precursors. With respect to ozone (ii) Ozone Precursors. standards, the MOU requires NHDES to work with PDA and incorporate projected emissions from Pease redevelopment into the SIP revisions.8 Unless and until the new SIP is approved, however, it bars PDA from developing Pease beyond the level anticipated to generate 3.3 tons per day of hydrocarbon emissions--the level of emissions from Pease permitted under the existing SIP. Thus, the MOU does not place the entire burden of addressing HC emissions on the SIP process. To the extent that the MOU does rely on the SIP process to deal with projected increases in HC emissions, however, it 8 According to the 1990 Amendments, New Hampshire was required to revise its SIP to achieve at least a 15% reduction in VOC emissions (including HCs) from 1990 levels on or before November of 1996 (accounting for any growth in emissions after 1990), and 3% additional annual reductions on average thereafter through 1999. See 42 U.S.C. 7511a(b)(1)(A) & (c)(2)(B) (Supp. III 1991). -43- does so properly under the circumstances. The 1990 CAA amendments required New Hampshire to revise its SIP to address VOC emissions (which include HC emissions) within approximately three years. See 42 U.S.C. 7511a(c), (b)(1). See supra p. 14. NHDES's commitment to consult with PDA and incorporate emissions from Pease development into required revisions of the SIP is consistent with the SIP process and NHDES's role as the state agency responsible for developing the SIP. While the EPA and the legislature set ultimate standards and goals--including the NAAQS and deadlines for attaining them--the state prescribes in its SIP how it will achieve those goals. See 42 U.S.C. 7407. Thus, if NHDES chooses to incorporate into the required revisions of the SIP certain levels of emissions from the Pease project, that is its prerogative under the statutory SIP process. By agreeing to incorporate Pease emissions into SIP revisions that will reduce overall ozone-precursor emissions in the region, NHDES has enabled PDA to undertake the redevelopment without increasing the severity of or delaying attainment of the NAAQS for ozone. Presumably New Hampshire will accommodate increased HC emissions from Pease and achieve interim required emissions reductions and timely attainment of the NAAQS for ozone by cutting VOC emissions in other areas. This will permit later stages of Pease redevelopment to go forward without increasing existing violations of the NAAQS for ozone or delaying attainment -44- of the NAAQS for ozone or other CAA standards. 42 U.S.C. 7506(c)(1)(B)(ii), (iii). Unless and until a new SIP incorporating higher levels of emissions from Pease is approved, however, the MOU prohibits redevelopment of Pease beyond a level producing 3.3 tons per day of HC emissions. While the cap is in compliance with the terms of the existing SIP, it is not so clear it will ensure that Pease redevelopment activities will not increase the severity of existing ozone violations and delay compliance with ozone standards. Whether redevelopment will increase the severity of existing violations depends in part on the baseline emissions. When compared to 1989 emissions, 3.3 tons per day represents no increase in the severity of violations of the NAAQS for ozone. Because, as we stated earlier, use of 1989 estimates is reasonable under the circumstances, see supra pp. 45-47, and because the existing SIP permits this level of emissions, the provisions of the MOU satisfy the conformity requirements under section 7506(c)(1)(B)(ii). Regarding delaying attainment of the ozone standards, plaintiffs appear to suggest that to meet the section 7506(c)(1)(B)(iii) criteria, emissions from the Pease project must be consistent with the VOC emissions reductions set out in 42 U.S.C. 7511a(c)(2). Prior to incorporation into a revised SIP, however, these reductions apply only in conformity decisions related to transportation plans, programs and projects and therefore are not relevant here. See 42 U.S.C. -45- 7506(c)(3)(A)(iii); see also 136 Cong. Rec. S16973 (October 27, 1990) (Statement of Senator Baucus, sponsor and manager of the Senate bill) ([Transportation] plans and programs adopted for areas that are nonattainment for ozone or carbon monoxide during the interim period shall contribute to annual emission reductions consistent with the emissions reductions schedules adopted in the bill for such areas. . . .) (emphasis added).