Loading...
Primer on Environmental AssessmentsInside Major environmental issues for airports ...... 2 EA -triggering events ......................... 2 Airport land -use compatibility guidelines ................... 3 Format of an environmental assessment ................ 4 Schedule and time frame ....................... 5-6 The Carter and Burgess experts ......... 7 A special report from Carter & Burgess, Inc. A Primer on Environmental Assessments for Airports Nof all airport projects are created equal, yet each holds the potential to require some type of environmental assess- ment. Airport managers might suspect that if a project is big and costly, for example, they must produce an environmental impact statement (EIS) or environmental assessment (EA). Not necessarily. In the eyes of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), there are specific criteria to determine whether an airport project requires an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). How does the airport staff determine which assessment to compile — or even whether one is needed at all? Furthermore, what are the key components which must be addressed? Edith A. Linn, airport/environmental planner for Carter and Burgess, Inc., per - sonnies the uncommon blend of environmen- tal scientist and pilot. She brings her unique, twofold expertise to consulting with all types of airports regarding environmental regula- tory compliance. Questions to Linn and to other airport planning and environmental professionals at Carter and Burgess concern- ing this technical area of analysis have prompted the development of this primer on airport EAs. Linn said, "You've got to know both environmental and aviation issues to be effective in this area of consultation. The FAA's philosophy is very different from that of the land -based transportation agencies, for example, and since FAA oversees airport environmental regulatory compliance as outlined by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), it's critical to know aviation characteristics and idiosyncrasies." To EIS or not to EIS? Linn said the more complex and lengthy environmental impact statement is only required if an airport project meets a narrow, specific set of criteria. Actions requiring an EIS are: A. First-time Airport Layout Plan approval or airport location approval for a commercial service airport located in a standard metropolitan statistical area (MSA); and/or B. Federal financial participation in, or Airport Layout Plan approval of, a new Carter r Burgess Consultants in Engineering Architecture, 1 you've already done a great deal of the research and identified the issues," Linn said. The effort and time expended during the EA process does not have to be duplicated to create an EIS. "The EA has the baseline information that would be enhanced for the EIS," she said. The submission of an EA optimally results in a "Finding of No Significant Impact" (FONSI). If a FONSI is not granted, the regulatory agency could ask for more information or possibly require the more comprehensive EIS. Major environmental issues for airports Airports are uniquely three-dimensional facilities, often affecting large areas of land and the air space above it. There are a number of environmental issues which affect airports, and each will have a different degree of significance depending on where the airport is located and what type of project is involved. Noise, land use, wetlands, historic/ archaeological factors, threatened and endangered plants and animals are prime issues. Linn said, "In Wyoming, for example, where much of the land is untouched, historic and archeological issues are prominent in airport building projects. Conversely, in Arlington, Texas, located in the middle of the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex, the land has most likely been disturbed; but, noise may be an issue because people are likely to live near the airport." Gina McAfee, Carter and Burgess senior environmental planner, said it is in the client's best interest to seek out and take seriously public input on airport projects because the public hearing process of an environmental assessment provides an opportunity to find out which issues are important. It can also set the stage for future ongoing relationships between an airport and its neighbors. She said, "With our national experience, we can often anticipate whether the public interest level will be high or low in a given area." Continued on Page 4 3 12. Flood plain 18. Coastal zone mar program 14. Coastal barriers es 15. Wild and scenic r 18. Farmland 17. Energy supply an resources impacts 18. Light emissions 19. Solid waste imps( O. Construction imp,, ind F. Summary of miti .tior echaeo- G. Preparers An airport EA includes a prediction ibility near an airport, both now and in the of the noise impact for areas surrounding future, is a critical part of the airport EA. the airport. The most common tool used in ` "You should never see an amphitheater at this analysis is the FAA end of a runway," Linn Integrated Noise Model said. The FAA has ("), whose product is a Regulatory agency prepared a table of noise contour map detailing concerns may include guidelines on what uses of noise levels from the loudest wetlands, historial land are acceptable within to the quietest around the archaeological ica issues', each noise level contour airport. The noise levels are threatened and endow- surrounding an airport. measured in a value called gered pleats and Linn said, "Schools, Ldn, or day -night sound level, animals. and may hospitals, nursing homes, which describes cumulative require associated churches, outdoor music noise exposure from all surveys. venues, for example, are events over a full 24 hours, not compatible near an 77 nimort according to the and 7 a.m. weighted by 10 decibels to account for greater nighttime noise sensi- tivity. Linn said, "This is the accepted definition, but some states may have something different. California uses the Community Noise Equivalent Level or CNEL, which is a noise metric similar to Ldn. It differs in that there is an additional penalty category for 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. and 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. It essentially requires three weighted averages instead of two." A determination of land -use compat- FAA table." The draft EA must be sent to as- sorted environmental agencies at the local, state and national levels for each agency's comments on the airport project. "One of Carter and Burgess' greatest values to clients is our ability to coordinate among all these agencies," Linn said. Regulatory agency concerns may include wetlands, historic/archaeological issues, threatened and endangered plants and animals, and may require associated surveys. Airports. may have done these types of surveys, Linn added, at some other point or during some other project. It is perfectly accept- able to review the findings of these previous surveys in response to an agency request, she said. "Many levels of governmental agencies," Linn said, "such as the state air and water quality boards, US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, US Army Corps of Engineers and the US Department of Agriculture, must be given the opportunity to review the airport EA." She said the review process gives these agencies 30 days to respond to the document in writing. "We receive replies which run the gamut from letters of approval to change requests. In addition, we compile all of the verbal comments from the public hearing." Following the close of the comment period, the final version of the EA is created. "In the final document, we must respond to every single issue raised, regardless of the source. We have to change text or explain scheduleTypical for an environmental assessmenli Month 1 2 1 3 1 4 T 5 Study design Draft EA Inventory Purpose, need and alternatives Land use plans Geological soils Water quality/wetlands Biology/ecology Air quality Noise Energy supply Aesthetics/light emissions Social impacts Historic/archaeological Induced socioeconomics Other sections Draft EA assembly and production Draft/Final EA Draft EA revisions Final EA revisions Meetings and public hearings* Surveys (Most surveys are time dependent) Public Meetings/Hearings (last one is optional) The FAA requires a 30-day public review of the Draft EA 6 7 8 9 41 C: why we aren't changing it." The final docu- ment goes to FAA, as the lead agency. Linn said the EPA is involved from a comment perspective and as the central core of every- thing environmental in the US; ultimately, the FAA guidelines are a spin-off from NEPA. Recent legislation regarding air quality has resulted in new conformity guidelines for the Clean Air Act (CAA). Linn said, "Since these and other regulations have been recently established or updated, the FAA is in the process of redoing FAA Order 5050.4A, which sets forth the primary EA guidelines." Linn noted that water and air quality certifications are also required from the governor of the state (or appointed person) before the EA or EIS will be approved by the FAA. Achieving the EA's goal, a "Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)" from the FAA, is the likely outcome of thorough prepa- ration and skillful coordination among the agencies. Linn said, "Since we have had ready access to all possible comments, we can have everything fixed within the final document. We are talking with agency representatives all the time, so they are in on the process." "We're not out to fight the public or the agencies," McAfee emphasized. "The only way this works is if everyone's happy. If not, the airport staff's life will be miserable. We advocate doing it right the first time without trying to cut corners. We want to be secure in the knowledge that we are within the limits of the law to achieve our goal." Schedule and time frame While the process and format of an airport EA follow a predictable path, the time frame is heavily dependent on coordination and communication, and often indeterminate. "Regulatory agency coordination is the most time-consuming element in the process, and the most variable," Linn said. "Although I would like to say we must have at least nine months to prepare an airport EA," Linn said, "the reality is that it can take more or less time, depending on how quickly we get responses back from the different agencies." As in any detail -oriented project, the more lead time, the better. The average project is based on a nine- to 12- month schedule. No airport project is exactly like any other, Linn said, but she outlined a typical EA schedule for reference purposes (see page five). Summary In approaching environmental assess- ments, the challenge for airports lies in the details — determining what amount and what kind of environmental impact their improve- ment projects may involve, if any; consulting and coordinating with appropriate local, state and national agencies, as well as the public, in the process; and knowing and appreciating the distinct requirements of aviation projects. Linn said, `Environmental regulations over- lap; you'll find some similarities and some peculiarities. The FAA is unique within the US Department of Transportation in that they have specific instructions for everything, and expect that you will adhere to them. It's up to us at Carter and Burgess to know the nitty- gritty details to ensure a successful outcome for our clients." Bauman Jones Linn McAfee Nesta Veal Larry Bauman, P.E., manager of Carter and Burgess' aviation planning activities, provides expertise in aviation system planning, aviation planning procedures, airport financial control and economic impact of airports. Bauman has 16 years of experience in all aspects of airport master plan development for both civilian and military projects: "A good airport plan helps airport managers 1) maximize runway layout; 2) anticipate future problems by building in flexibility; 3) maximize capacity; 4) enhance ability to park aircraft and 5) identify surplus non -aviation areas for maximum revenue return." James O. Jones, Manager of the Ecological Services Group for Carter and Burgess, has 20 years of experience in biology, terrestrial and aquatic ecology, physical oceanography, estuarine pollution and regulatory affairs. His specialty is the manage- ment of controversial and difficult permit applications. He has worked closely with federal, state, and local agencies to expedite environmental compliance on behalf of project owners. Other specialty areas include wetland mitigation banks, endangered species studies, and land resource management programs. In July 1982, he testified as an expert witness before the Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Washington, D.C. With more than -eight years' experience in transportation and environmental planning, Edith A. Linn, airport/environmental planner for Carter and Burgess, specializes in the preparation of environmental assessments, site assessments, environmental impact reports, and environmental impact statements. She has prepared environmen- tal studies for airports in Arizona, California, Texas, Oregon, Washington, Wyoming and Alaska. Linn also maintains technical expertise in the areas of air quality moni- toring and noise modeling. Gina McAfee, AICP, is a senior environmental planner with Carter and Burgess. Her 18 years of experience include land use and environmental analysis for transporta- tion projects. One of her strengths is in conducting public involvement programs, in which she manages the solicitation of public input and coordinates public; response during the environmental study process. She has managed environmental impact statements and environmental assessments for numerous transportation projects across the United States, including Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, Wash- ington, Oregon, Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, Montana, Wyoming, Michigan, South Carolina, and Illinois. Nicholas L. Nesta Jr. has more than nine years of experience in aviation planning. He has been involved in the development of all aspects of airport master planning including noise and land use plans, inventory, demand/capacity forecasts, airport layout plans, environmental analyses, site selection analyses, and others. His respon- sibilities at Carter and Burgess include project management as well as development of environmental assessments for both commercial service and general aviation airports. Mr. Nesta has aviation planning experience in the states of Florida, Colo- rado, Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Nebraska to name a few. Steven C. Veal, P.E., is an associate principal of Carter and Burgess with a national reputation for expertise in storm water management and development of pollution prevention programs for transportation projects. Veal also serves as group leader of the firm's GIS department, and is responsible for GIS applications to solving environ- mental problems. Veal has more than 17 years of experience in the permitting, design, management and construction supervision of major storm drainage and flood control facilities. He has directed more than 200 major NPDES storm water permitting projects, many at airports located across the nation. N — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — � o � Would you like back issues of our other publications When ordering copies of publications, or if you would like and technical newsletters? to be added to our mailing list, please provide the follow- ❑ ing information. To make changes to your mailing label, 3-part series on ISTEA please attach your label and mark the changes on the label. El Mobile Source Air Quality Analysis Name/title: ❑ 4-part series on Sludge Management Company: LiGIS: A world of possibilities ❑ EPA's guidelines on sewer system design Address: ❑ Development of building interiors City/State/Zip: Would you like to receive back issues of Carter and — — — — — — — — -- — , Burgess' quarterly magazine? ❑ Buildings and Interiors Place mailing label here ❑ Focus on Transportation ❑ Challenges in Industry and Manufacturing Questions or comments on this issue: ❑ Responding to Environmental Challenges ❑ Innovations and New Technology ❑ Please call me regarding the above: Please fill out this form and return to: Name: Carter and Burgess, Inc. 3880 Hulen Street Phone: Fort Worth, Texas 76107-7254 _ L— — — - — - — — - ----------------------------- Carftr = Burgess Consultants in Engineering, Architecture, Planning and the Environment Offices Arlington, TX (817) 860-8887 Austin, TX (512) 474-9445 Dallas, TX (214) 638-0145 Denver, CO (303) 820-5240 Ft. Myers, FL (813) 334-2333 Ft. Worth, TX (817) 735-6000* Houston, TX (713) 869-7900 Las Vegas, NV (702) 794-0807 Little Rock, AR (501) 223-0515 McAllen, TX (210) 618-2256 Missoula, MT (406) 721-1471 Raleigh, NC (919) 783-5988 Tampa, FL (813) 971-4859 Mexico City (011-52-5) 254-6242 * Denotes corporate headquarters LARRY GALLAGHER CITY OF KALISPELL P.O. Box 1997 KALISPELL MT 59903-1997 904A Painted on recycled paper