Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-08-26 Airport Advisory Board Agenda # t • ' M^r III I NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING THE DANIA BEACH AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMITTEE WILL HOLD A PUBLIC MEETING ON AUGUST 26, 20045 7 P.M.. DANIA BEACH CITY HALL 100 WEST DANIA BEACH BOULEVARD Z F!:...t. .. n wwuwnswff.�vTW.umuMacw.0 AGENDA '= DANIA BEACH AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMITTEE AUGUST 26, 2004, THURSDAY, 7:00 P.M. ATTENTION MEMBERS: THERE IS A JOINT MEETING SCHEDULED BETWEEN THE DANIA, HOLLYWOOD AND DAVIE AIRPORT BOARDS FOR SEPTEMBER 22, 6 P.M. AT THE DRIFTWOOD COMMUNITY CENTER, 3000 NORTH 65 AVENUE. MAP IS ENCLOSED. PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO SAVEOURSHORELINEC&-AOL.COM FOR UPDATES. THE MEETING DATE HAS ALREADY BEEN MOVED ONCE AND SAVEOURSHORELINE WOULD PROBABLY UPDATE ANY FURTHER CHANGES. 1. ROLL CALL AND SELF INTRODUCTION 2. EXCUSED ABSENCES 3. MINUTES 3.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MEETING JULY 22, 2004. 4. PRESENTATION OF SUB COMMITTEE REPORTS. 4.1 DISCUSSION OF RUNWAY PROJECT, MASTER PLAN UPDATE & PART 150 PROJECT, EIS UPDATE, TASK FORCE UPDATE, WEB PAGE STATUS. 4.2 NOISE ABATEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING DISCUSSION 4.3 PRESENTATION OF ANY MEMBER RUNUP LOGS 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 6, NEW BUSINESS 7. ADJOURN A REMINDER FROM THE CHAIR: ALL COMMITTEE MEMBERS WHO ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING SHOULD WRITE A NOTE TO DANIA CLERK STATING YOU WILL BE ABSENT OR YOU WILL BE CHARGED WITH AN UNEXCUSED ABSENCE. THANK YOU. SEE YOU AT THE MEETING. MSN Maps & Directions - Map Print Page 1 of 1 4 w Featuring#4 soff-'.... ` # Maps & Directions 3000 NW 69th Ave,Hollywood,FL 33024 I 5W m i nr �PV SW tft 6h St 8A OW.St- A6oryd I:r # C-r�nk Sk I lead itsfv .}, rn s• Fit 35th St Meade St t ... Ct #er St f ' 35th St 3000-NW Aver NW 33rd St ' ` Hollywood, FL 33024 Holl�tvsood {radian 1 31 st Reservation ca` Cad " . NWk NW 3h St tt 5k NCI 29th St NW :2ft St rn 28ith S# . . Farr ut St Nw 27th.Ct a�rra�gut St Raley St PNN 27#h St Farra ut St : sleigh St NW 26�th St 3 St - trod St" : 2'5th St NW:'25 St i 822 man Sk NW 23rd St Tt St Thom St thomas St Lee St Lite St c Stott-St Stott St Park°St Park St 402003Miciosoff Nip 02603NaVfech;andjorGOT.inc. tie St oo�dge S# Your ri ht to use maps and routes generated on the MSN service is subject at all times to the MSN Terms of Use. Data credits,copyright,and disclaimer. http://mapblast.com/(k5kg 1 a55ogjgep55pxfxv4g4)/PrintMap.aspx?MPMtd=M&ID=27CiJ.&... 8/18/04 Minutes City of Dania Beach Airport Advisory Board Thursday,July 22"',2004 Jay Field, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Members present: Jay Field Edwin Summers Geri Gilyard-Ingraham Gary Luedtke Irvin Witz Members absent: Zachary Adams Beulah Lair Billy Phipps Nancy Stafford Cathy David Karen Gottlieb Claude Davis, Jr. Charlene Scalese Also present: Suzanne Witz The following members were granted an excused absence: Beulah Lair, Cathy David, Zachary Adams and Karen Gottlieb. Motion made by Gary Luedtke, seconded by Geri Gilyard-Ingraham and carried. Minutes of the previous meeting held May 27"were presented for approval. Motion to approve as written made by Gary Luedtke, seconded by Edwin Summers and carried. Misspelling of Mr. Luedtke's name will be corrected. Ed Summers spoke briefly on the EIS, saying that is where he wants to focus his attention. He also reported he was able to get three documents posted on the city's website as requested by Chairman Field at the May 27'meeting. Chairman Field said the runway project is predicated on the operations forecast and asked if anyone had an opinion as to whether the way the forecast was prepared might be faulty. Mr. Luedtke answered immediately, saying he has been objecting to the forecast ever since it came out. The forecast is for a 50%increase by the year 2020. It was prepared based on terminal area records for the past eight years. There are at least twenty years of records available for use in making a determination but only the past eight years were used to prepare the twelve year forecast. Mr. Luedtke stated he had tried to bring this to the attention of the proper people but he has received little or no response. The consultant says they have no reason to question the forecast. Chairman Field commented that this might be an area which should be examined further. I. Chairman Field stated it is difficult to know what action should be taken at this time because there are so many things that have to be considered. For instance, the airport is going to have to compete for the funding, not only for the extended runway but also for some of the mitigation and there is some question as to whether or not the airlines are going to agree with the raising of the passenger facility charge to $4.50, In addition,the FAA will have to start funding the noise bank. There are numerous ifs, ands and buts. Chairman Field said the only thing that is really happening now is the discussion of flight checks for Davie. He asked Mr. Luedtke to report on the June Noise Abatement Committee meeting. Mr. Luedtke said the Airport Director requested that the Noise Abatement Committee do the Part 150 Study. The Part 150 Study would do two things. It would look at how current airport operations can be quieted and also explore mitigation for the future, meaning runway expansion. The Part 150 Study is expected to be completed by the end of next year. That was the main item covered at the meeting. Mr. Luedtke stated that he made a request for a log documenting times and number of arrivals and departures that occur at the airport on an average day. The purpose of obtaining this information is to see if there is a pattern of one hour versus another of heavy usage and determine if operations in two directions are really necessary. He also announced that the control tower manager will be at the September meeting. He will explain how the air space can become filled, causing planes to be grounded in Ft. Lauderdale and Palm Beach. Ed Summers made a comment that if the skies are becoming so crowded, building another runway certainly doesn't make sense. He said he did not understand why a south runway was being considered when a parallel north runway is much more practical, not only from a financial standpoint but also from a noise standpoint. Mr. Luedtke commented that a flat, equal length, north runway could be constructed with considerable less problems with power lines, mitigation, environmental impact, and expense. He also mentioned that Miami had recently completed a new runway which is directly parallel to an existing runway. Mr. Summers said he felt the FAA and the airlines should be approached with the logical reasons why a north parallel runway would be much more practical. In summary, Chairman Field said he felt that the situation is presently in a"holding pattern" and that there is little that can be done other than to continue what Mr. Luedtke is doing insofar as the forecast is concerned and what Mr. Summers is working on in regard to the EIS. He urged committee members to attend the next Noise Abatement meeting in September Chairman Field asked for comments from the members. Mr. Luedtke said he had two items he wanted to mention. He said he recently attended the Davie Airport Advisory Committee meeting. His presence was not recognized and he was unable to ask questions 2. or take part in the meeting in any way. He felt they were only interested in curtailing noise in their area and showed little interest in the south runway.. The second item he wanted to mention was the NOISE Seminar currently taking place. At the Davie meeting it was reported that Davie paid for a number of their committee members to take part. He said he had intended to make a request of the Dania Beach Commission to sponsor one or more representatives of the Dania Beach Airport Board but there was no commission meeting held where this could be done. He said he was very disheartened that there were not any members of the Dania Beach Airport Advisory Board asked to attend as these seminars are usually very informative. After some discussion a motion was made by Ed Summers to ask Commissioner Mikes or whoever was in charge of attendance at the Noise Seminar why a representative or representatives of the Dania Beach Airport Committee were not invited and request that they be included in any meeting of this kind in the future. Motion seconded by Geri Gilyard-Ingraham and carried. The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Field at 8:00 PM. Jay Field, Chairman Respectfully submitted, Suzanne Witz a � WHITE & CASE White&Casw?t I P Tel + 1 305 311 2700 Wach(1vii:1 Finonc lid Conter,Suite 4900 Fax .1. 1 305 358 b144/6766 700 South His(.ayn{;Boulevard www.whitecaseA;0fTI Miami,Florida 33131-73W Direct Dial+(305)995-5255 nmealile r u whitecase.com August 6, 2004 VIA U.S. MAIL Mr. Gary M. Sypek Airport Planning Manager Broward County Aviation Department 320 Terminal Drive Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33315 Ms. Virginia Lane Project Manager Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando District Office 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400 Orlando, Florida 32822 Re: Expansion Projects at the Ft. Lauderdale- Hollywood Airport Dear Mr. Sypek and Ms. Lane: I am writing with regard to the expansion of the Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport ("Airport"). As you know, this firm represents the City of Dania Beach, City of Hollywood, and Town of Davie in relation to the Airport expansion. These municipalities are deeply concerned that the Airport is being expanded without adequate regard for the adverse environmental impacts on local residents. They strongly believe that Broward County and the Federal Aviation Administration("FAA") must fully disclose and fairly analyze environmental impacts— in an open, public process—pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. To that end, we have followed closely the draft Environmental Impact Statements ("EIS")prepared by the FAA regarding Broward County's Airport expansion program. In recent weeks, we have become aware that Broward County has proposed that three individual expansion projects be removed from the EIS and approved with almost no environmental review. Those three projects are the construction of a new Concourse A and Cruise Ship Passenger Check-in Facility; renovations of Terminal 4(including expansion of the Federal Inspection +11'' ':`:v^U`I;i1 il/•'`:i;Kllt: il.l.:l'`.li NI lil I'`. Iit+Ali'ilAVA 111iUSSI I S NIPAN S 1 0111 SUI'N�MISS[I llOW 1IIANKI IN I IIAi�4BWIG III I SINKi I•! •I!I iA 6:-.1i•.I! ..I"+ !i'f11S i•.it�9E+ SIi1`�.1:111 .II11��`.P!f��dlSf:Ut':L %NI!UIti IIIS ANG11.1!` N-1tXI:ll C I I Y M 1 A M 1 hiIIAIN ti:[15 cI': + N1UN114AI N!VkJ Y{IHK IWU AIIU nC!S I'I,ai Ul 1;"r.++dill Iilli•.11 ;1N I;;"r`�;:iSCii :AI; i'A1110 SIIANGI:A; SINGAI'GIII S10GKIIIIIJ-41 IOKY(1 +NA1;5fl1"d �iVAtiH1NG1[1N. Ili, MIAMI 501531(2K) t z WHITE & CASE August 6, 2004 Service facility); and alterations to the Airport Exit Roadways. It is my understanding that the FAA already has determined that Broward County could separate these three projects from the ongoing EIS process; has already determined that the latter two projects are"categorically excluded" from NEPA review; and has asked Broward County to prepare an Environmental Assessment on the construction of a new Concourse A and Cruise Ship Passenger Check-In Facility. We are unaware that there has been any advance notice to the public of the removal of these projects from the EIS process. We are very concerned about the decision to separate out these projects, limit their environmental review, and effectively limit opportunities for public input. These projects cause significant environmental impacts and are integral parts of the overall Airport expansion plan. They should be fully evaluated, and the public should be given meaningful opportunities to provide comments, prior to the FAA making any final decisions. For the following reasons, we believe that the public has been wrongly excluded from the process,that the Environmental Assessment for Concourse A contains systemic errors that render it useless, and that the FAA has improperly decided to categorically exclude the other two projects from further NEPA review. 1. THE PUBLIC HAS BEEN IMPROPERLY DENIED NOTICE AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE COMMENT Broward County's proposals to dramatically expand the Airport have been highly controversial. The Airport expansion plan has generated several lawsuits over the years; thousands of people have appeared at public hearings; and the expansion plan is the subject of regular media coverage. This controversy reflects the fact that the long-term increases in Airport operations have negatively affected the lives of tens of thousands of nearby residents. Despite the great public interest in the Airport expansion plan, we are unaware of any public notice of the categorical exclusions or the Environmental Assessment regarding the three projects identified above. The draft Environmental Assessment for the Concourse A project explicitly states that"[t]here does not appear to be a need to involve the public with this project." According to a Broward County Aviation Department("BCAD") email dated May 28, 2004, the FAA has decided that it"will require a public notice in the newspaper after the FAA has made their[sicl detennination"' regarding Concourse A. (emphasis added). It is improper for Broward County and the FAA to avoid public notice, comment, and hearings on these proposed projects. The FAA's own regulations provide that: "Citizen involvement, where appropriate, should be initiated at the earliest practicable time and continued throughout the development of the proposed project in order to obtain meaningful input. . . . While requests for Federal airport actions originate with a local public agency, the involvement of the community at large is a necessary element in the decision making process." FAA Order 5050.4A, 118. Federal regulations more specifically require that there be a public hearing where there is "[s]ubstantial environmental controversy concerning the proposed action 2 MIAMI 501531(2K) August 6, 2004 or substantial interest in holding the hearing." 40 CFR § 1506.6(c)(1); FAA Order 5050.4A, ¶ 49. Given the controversy over the Airport expansion plan, it is clear that there should be advance public notice and opportunity to comment on these three individual projects. Providing public notice after the FAA has made its decision—which apparently is the intention regarding these three projects--hardly provides the public with"an effective opportunity to comment"or allow for"meaningful input." The FAA and Broward County would benefit from such public notice and comment, because it would allow them to correct the obvious errors in these documents before final decisions are made. The fact that the public in the past has directed most of its comments at the South Runway extension, and not at other Airport facility projects, does not mean that these specific projects are without controversy. To our knowledge Broward County and the FAA have never given prior public notice of the environmental reviews of these ground facility projects. Moreover, Broward County and the FAA have taken the position that the ground facilities have no effect on overall aircraft operations, a technical conclusion that a layperson would not have the expertise to question. If there has been no public controversy regarding these specific types of projects, it is because the public has never been given accurate information about the environmental impacts of these projects, or given a chance to submit comments. The failure to provide public notice on the two categorically excluded projects calls into question the validity of those decisions. Regarding the Concourse A project, it is critical that the draft Environmental Assessment be circulated for broad public comment so that proper-decisions can be made. Accordingly, i request that Broward County and the FAA provide me and my clients advance notice, opportunity for public comment, and conduct public hearings on all future requests for categorical exclusions and Environmental Assessments related to the Airport. II. THE THREE PROJECTS SHOULD Nur HAVE BEEN SEPARATED FROM THE ONGOING EIS PROCESS These three projects should not be reviewed separately from the overall Airport expansion plan. Piecemeal environmental review has been the hallmark of expansion of the Airport over the past two decades. This has resulted in the systematic underestimation of the cumulative environmental impacts of the Airport's growth. The decision to separate out these projects from the overall Airport expansion plan improperly continues this pattern. These three projects are integral parts of the overall Airport expansion plan, and should not be treated as separate projects. All of these projects were identified in the 1994 Master Plan update for the Airport expansion. The 2001 Draft EIS and 2002 Supplemental Draft EIS on the South Runway extension both identified these projects as part of the"proposed project" to be analyzed as part of the EIS. See, e.g., SDEIS, at 1-6("The Proposed Project . . . includes the following elements: . . . Construction of Concourse A with 5 gates"); see also Broward County "Application to FAA for Consideration of Categorical Exclusions for Near Term Improvements for Three Projects at the Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport," at 1 (Jan. 2004) (hereinafter referred to as"2004 Application"). It was not until January 2004 that Broward 3 MIAMI 501531(ZK) � K . C a August 6, 2004 County asserted that these three projects"should be removed from the SDEIS." See 2004 Application, at 1. The reason why these projects originally were included in the draft EIS's is obvious: they are necessary elements of the overall Airport expansion plan. In order for the Airport to operate, it needs not only runways and other"airside" developments, but it also needs passenger and terminal facilities such as gates, terminals, parking garages, roadways, etc. If passengers cannot (or do not want to)gain access to aircraft at the Airport, then the runways will not be used. On the other hand, if the non-airside facilities increase demand to use the Airport, then there will be additional aircraft operations. The close relationship between groundside facilities and aviation demand is well known among aviation professionals. In 1996, BCAD acknowledged that both runway capacity and ground facilities were needed to accommodate projected growth in operations. See Letter from Diana Lewis to Bart Vernace dated Sept. 16, 1996("The existing airfield would support an annual demand of about nine million emplaned passengers . . . [and] 60 gates would be required for the 7.2 million emplanements expected by PAL 2"). In its June 2004"Supplemental Noise Assessment," Leigh Fisher& Associates noted that "at major airports, non-airfield facility developments such as passenger terminals, air cargo areas, and general aviation facilities were important generators of aircraft operations demand, and that managing these developments can be as, or more, important to managing growth than managing developments of the airfield itself." LFA Supplemental Noise Assessment Report, at 23. The Broward County Commission recognized this relationship when, on December 9, 2003, it directed BCAD to "define a framework for managing aircraft operational demand and growth through planned facility development." Given the symbiotic relationship between airfield and non-airfield facility developments in the overall aviation demand at the Airport, it is improper to separate these three projects for purposes of environmental review. It is inaccurate to state that these projects"are not related to and have independent utility from the South Runway Extension and the remaining projects in the SDEIS." 2004 Application, at 1. By reviewing the individual Airport expansion projects separately, Broward County and the FAA are improperly segmenting environmental review in violation of federal law. We believe that most of the current environmental impacts caused by the Airport today have been caused by such non-airfield facility developments. While the public's attention for years has been focused on the South Runway extension, Broward County and the FAA have been approving—piece-by-piece-- a massive development plan for the ground facilities at the Airport. The public has been told that none of these projects have affected the number of aircraft operations at the Airport. However, the implementation of these projects has corresponded to a 4 MIAMI 501531(2K) � K WHITE & CASE August 6, 2004 massive increase in aircraft operations and corresponding negative impacts on neighboring residents_ Recent studies have revealed how the construction of new ground facilities has increased aircraft operations at the Airport. As of 2000, there were 39 gates at the Airport. SDEIS, at 1-6. Since then, 18 new gates have been constructed in Concourses B and C, a 46% increase in the number of gates. Simultaneously, the Airport has been adding facilities to accommodate more passengers, including 4,900 new parking spaces in a parking garage, larger Airport roadways, and other projects. Broward County's recent Airfield Capacity Analysis concluded that adding five new gates would generate approximately 25,000 new air carrier operations a year. See 2004 Application, at 13. A rough extrapolation of this analysis suggests that adding 18 gates would result in 90,000 additional annual air carrier operators. This estimate is corroborated by Leigh Fisher& Associates, which recently issued a statistical comparison of major Airports in the United States showing that airports with 57 gates generally had approximately 50,000 more air carrier departures (or approximately 100,000 additional airport operations, once landings are included with takeoffs) than airports with 39 gates. Considering;that there were 158,528 total air carrier operations in 2001 (the last year for which there is actual data under the 2003 FAA Terminal Area Forecast), the increase in noisy aircraft operations resulting from the groundside developments is huge. This indicates that the construction of new ground facilities at the Airport in recent years has been the cause of the massive increase in aircraft operations, noise levels, constructive use of local parks, and other adverse impacts associated with the Airport. It is no longer credible for Broward County and the FAA to claim that that these and other individual Airport expansion projects are independent of each other and have no significant environmental effects. These projects must be analyzed in the ongoing EIS process regarding the overall Airport expansion plan. 1.11. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR CONCOURSE A VIOLATES NEPA The Environmental Assessment prepared for the Concourse A project does not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), either. The document is riddled with errors; it is based on assumptions that are contradicted by materials in Broward County's own files; and it makes a series of indefensible conclusions. According to the 2004 Application, this project will"add an additional concourse, Concourse A, to the Existing Terminal One complex . . . [and] involves construction of. . . five gates." The project also"will be designed to include a group check-in facility to accommodate existing cruise passengers" to relieve congestion. 2004 Application, at 11. The Environmental Assessment concludes that this project will not cause any significant environmental impacts. This conclusion is clearly false. 5 MIAM1 S0IS31(2K) � x August 6, 2004 A. The Environmental Assessment Falsely Assumes that Adding Gates Will Not Increase Airport Operations The first major flaw with the Environmental Assessment is that it is based on the false premise that the Concourse A project will not change operations at the Airport. The Environmental Assessment states that "The proposed action is not expected to induce additional aircraft operations nor modify other aspects of the operation of the airport that could significantly change operational noise levels (e.g.,time of operation, runway utilization, and aircraft flight tracks/altitudes). Over time, it is expected that there will be a growth in operations, but this is projected to occur under both the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives." Short Environmental Assessment for Concourse A and Group Check-in Facility, at 6 (May 14, 2004). Based on the assumption that the Concourse A project will not induce additional aircraft operations, the Environmental Assessment concludes that there will be no significant environmental impacts. This assumption is completely incorrect. First, it is inconsistent with the generally understood relationship between non-airfield facility developments and aviation demand. Adding terminal and gate capacity leads to increases in aircraft operations. Leigh Fisher& Associates demonstrated this fact by comparing the number of aircraft operations and the number of gates at major airports around the United States. Their statistical analysis showed "a correlation between the number of gates at an airport and the associated volume of aircraft operations." LFA Supplemental Noise Assessment Report, at 23. Adding gates means that more flights can be serviced at the Airport. By reducing congestion, additional capacity for cruise ship passengers also will stimulate demand to use the Airport. Second, Broward County already has documented that adding gates at the Airport will increase aircraft operations significantly. When Broward County first asked the FAA for the Concourse A project to be categorically excluded from environmental review, it attached an "Airfield Capacity Analysis" that concluded that"[t]he five new gates can be expected to generate in excess of 25,000 annual aircraft operations on the basis of seven turns per gate." 2004 Application, at 13. After operational reductions caused by reduced use of Concourse C were taken into account,the analysis concluded that there would be a"net increase of slightly less than 20,000 annual aircraft operations in Terminal L" Id. It is astounding that the Environmental Assessment could blithely state that the Concourse A project"is not expected to induce additional aircraft operations"when Broward County already had documented that the project would generate 20,000 annual aircraft operations. The Environmental Assessment's analysis is therefore based on a false premise. 6 MIAM1 w153I RK) a r WHITE • CASE August 6, 2004 Third, the 2003 Terminal Area Forecast("TAF") is not to the contrary. The TAF for the Airport apparently was calculated on the assumption that there would be sufficient capacity to meet projected demand. The TAF did not calculate what demand would be at the Airport assuming only existing ground facilities. Since the TAF assumes that there will be new facilities, it is improper to use that forecast to jutx such facilities. B. Increasing AitportOperations Will Cause a Series of Significant Environmental Impacts, None of Which Are Acknowledged in the Environmental Assessment Since the Concourse A project will increase airport operations by at least 20,000 a year, the Environmental Assessment's conclusions that there will be no environmental impacts are completely false. Most of the environmental impacts at airports are caused by aircraft operations (i.e., takeoffs and landings). In particular, noise impacts, air pollution, and socioeconomic impacts are driven by the number of aircraft using the Airport. Increasing the number of flights at the Airport will increase those and other impacts. There can be no doubt that those impacts would be significant. The Concourse A project will not simply increase the number of aircraft operations per year, but it will increase one of the noisiest categories of operations - large jet commercial jets. According to the 2003 FAA Terminal Area Forecast,there were 158,528 air carrier operations in 2001 (the last year for which there were actual data),there will be 164,346 air carrier operations in 2004, and there will be 187,146 air carrier operations in 2007(when the Concourse A project would be completed). An additional ° 004 levels and an 11% increase over r operations would be a l l/o increase over 2 20,000 air Carrie projected 2007 levels. Those levels of operational increases undoubtedly will expand the noise contours and increase the number of neighbors exposed to high noise levels. it also appears that Concourse A will increase air pollution by at least 11-12%, cause increased socioeconomic impacts due to additional use of the Airport, and cause other environmental impacts. Since the Airport's high noise contours already intersect several Florida, County, and local parks, increases in the noise contours also mean that more park land will be constructively used within the scope of Transportation Act Section 4(f), 33 U.S.C. § 303(c). In particular, it seems apparent that the additional operations will increase noise levels by more than 1.5 DNL over portions of John U. Lloyd State Park that already experience noise levels above 65 DNL. Other environmental impacts also would increase correspondingly. The Environmental Assessment's conclusion that there will be no significant impacts from the Concourse A project is completely wrong. This project requires preparation of an EIS. C. The Environmental Assessment Contains No Meaningful Discussion of Alternatives In addition to failing to acknowledge the significant impacts of the Concourse A project,the Environmental Assessment also fails to analyze a range of alternatives for this project. The Environmental Assessment purports to analyze three alternatives: construction of the proposed Airport; gates and Group Check in Facility at another location at the construction of the Group Check-in Facility off-site; and "no action." Environmental Assessment, at 3-4. However, the 7 MIAMI 501531(2K) August 6, 2004 Environmental Assessment does not identify any specific details regarding those alternatives: there are no specific locations, no facility configurations, or any other details that could allow a meaningful consideration of differences between the alternatives. The discussion of the alternatives also does not analyze the different environmental impacts of any alternatives, but rather whether the alternative locations would be more functionally convenient. While functional convenience may be an important concern for airport planning, it is not a substitute for the comparative analysis of environmental impacts. The assertions in the Environmental Assessment that alternatives were analyzed in"the master planning process" does not satisfy NEPA, either. First, it is unclear exactly when and how those alternative terminal and gate arrangements were analyzed. The term"master planning process" is vague. Apparently that term does not include the Airport's Master Plan, because that term was included in a draft of the Environmental Assessment and subsequently removed after a Broward County reviewer noted that"no master plan addressed this." Broward County and the FAA should clearly identify the planning process used in evaluating alternatives at the Airport. The draft Environmental Assessment also included a statement that"[t]he proposed action is consistent with the Airport Master Plan,the Airport Layout Plan, and Broward County Long Range Plans." This sentence was changed to "[t]he proposed action is consistent with Broward County long range plans" after a Broward County reviewer noted on the draft that this project is "not in Master Plan" and that it is"not in ALP yet." Based on these comments, we question whether these projects were in fact reviewed and fully analyzed in a prior planning process. Second, even if alternatives had been analyzed previously, we are disturbed by the suggestion that the design and location of these projects were all predetermined by some unnamed "master planning process." We are unaware that Broward County and the FAA have ever complied with NEPA regarding the overall Airport expansion plan. Most elements of the expansion plan were included in "proposed action" for the draft EIS's regarding the South Runway extension, but those ElS's have never been finalized. It is unacceptable to finalize the expansion plan first without full environmental review, and then suggest when there is such review that there are no alternatives to any individual project. D. The Environmental Assessment Contains a Series of Factual and Legal Errors The Environmental Assessment also suffers from a series of other factual and legal errors. First, it largely borrows text from the 2002 SDEIS on the overall Airport expansion plan. See Environmental Assessment, at 4. The SDEIS has been widely discredited -- including by Broward County's own consultants-- and has never been finalized. The Environmental Assessment should not be based on that document. Second,the Environmental Assessment does not identify all parks in the vicinity of the Airport that are subject to Transportation Act Section 4(f). We pointed out a similar flaw in the SDEIS, and need not repeat our discussion here. 8 MIAMI 501.531(2K) J WHITE & CASE August b, 2004 Third, the assertion that additional flights, passengers, or convenience has no socioeconomic impacts is wrong. As we pointed out regarding the SDEIS, Broward County and the FAA have been completely inconsistent on this point, arguing on one hand that Airport expansion projects are necessary for the local economy and then asserting on the other hand that these projects will have no social or economic effects. The Environmental Assessment continues this inconsistent approach. Fourth, discussion whether the local area is in compliance with Clean Air Act ambient air standards does not substitute for a discussion of the effects of new air pollution on local residents. NEPA requires a discussion of environmental impacts regardless of whether the project complies with other laws. Fifth, the Environmental Assessment does not make clear that there has been compliance with the consultation provisions of the Endangered Species Act. The Environmental Assessment only considers endangered species located on the site of the Airport, not species living nearby that would be affected by increases in aircraft operations. Since those species would be affected, the FAA must engage in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. The Environmental Assessment does not indicate that such consultation has occurred. Sixth, the Environmental Assessment does not demonstrate that the Concourse A project will comply with Florida's Coastal Management Plan, as required under the Coastal Zone Management Act. The Environmental Assessment only identities the titles for different sections of the Coastal Management Plan and states a conclusion that the Concourse A project is consistent. There is no discussion that would allow a member of the public to understand how that conclusion was reached. The Environmental Assessment has other technical flaws similar to those identified by Lis regarding the draft EIS's prepared on the overall Airport expansion plan. Instead of repeating those flaws here, I incorporate our other comments by reference. 1 also incorporate by reference the comments submitted by the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency regarding the .Environmental Assessment. However, the bottom line is that the Environmental Assessment is fatally flawed, and this project must be analyzed as part of the ongoing EIS process. IV. THE CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS FOR THE TERMINAL 4 AND THE EXIT ROADWAY PROJECTS SHOULD BE .RESCINDED The FAA also should rescind its decision to categorically exclude the Terminal 4 and Exit Roadway Projects from environmental review under NEPA. For the reasons given above, these projects cannot be separated from the overall Airport expansion plan since they contribute to the increase in aircraft operations at the Airport. The categorical exclusions are based on the assumption that these projects cause no significant impacts, are not controversial, and have no effect on local parks (among other things). As discussed above, those assumptions are false. Pursuant to FAA Order 5050.4A, ¶24,the existence of public controversy and significant 9 MIAM]501531(2K) x August 6, 2004 impacts means that the categorical exclusions should never have been issued. Accordingly, we ask that the FAA rescind the categorical exclusions and these projects should be included in the ongoing FiS process. Thank you for considering;these comments. Please do not hesitate to give me a call if you would like to discuss any of these matters. Sincerely, T. Neal McAliley TNM:w IU MIAMI 501531(2K) 3 RD COUNTY AVIATION DEPARTMENT - Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport 320 Terminal Drive • Fort Lauderdale,Florida 33315• 954-359-6100 r� July 26,2004 JUL 9 9 9nnA Dear Airport Stakeholder: BY• The Broward County Aviation Department (BCAD) has planned a needed maintenance project for the north Runway 9L/27R to ensure safe flight operations at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. The design was completed in 2003, and the Runway 9L/27R maintenance construction work will start in September, 2004. Additional information about the project can be found on the website at www.broward.org/airport . The Runway 9L/27R maintenance project includes the following: asphalt overlay of the Runway length; installation of and Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) at each Runway end to improve safety; upgrade Runway lighting with new wiring; and repainting and grooving of the Runway's surface. The work on the Runway 9L/27R will require use of the airport's diagonal Runway 13/31, which will have short-term noise impacts on adjacent communities that are northwest and southeast of the airport. BCAD has already met with communities and airport stakeholders for input on initial construction phasing options. As a result of those meetings, a recommended construction schedule has been developed. BCAD staff is conducting another public meeting to inform the community of the construction schedule. The public meeting will be held: xx- 1'hursay,lugu lei 2Q04 �SE�" TIC. I 7: U p.m td'8:00:p•Im At � alt Cvol h ' Est a Fork) FL 31a Broward,go" y Bci of County Commissioners Josephus Eggelletion,Jr.•Ben Graber•Sue Gunzburger•Kns t� la ohs-1iene#Jederttfan.•JC?n Nancae.Parrlsh•John E.Rodstrom,Jr. •Jim Scott•Diana Wasserman Rubin =l ` wwuV:�l11'Yet July 26,2004 Page 2 The anticipated construction schedule for Runway 9L/27R closures and for operations on the diagonal Runway 13/31 are as follows: ■ Monday, September 13, 2004 through Tuesday, September 28, 2004. The work is scheduled to last 24 hours per day over a period of 16 days. ■ Monday, November 1, 2004 through Monday, December 6, 2004. The work is scheduled from 12:00 midnight to 6:00 a.m.per day over a period of 16 nights. The enclosed chart provides further details on the construction schedule and can be distributed to your constituency. Please RSVP as soon as possible to Linda Postemice at Dickey Consulting Services, Inc., (954)467-6822, or email: ll)ostemice(@dickeyinc.com. In addition,please notify us if you would like BCAD staff to attend your association's monthly meetings to discuss the construction schedule. BCAD will continue to provide communication to the public about the project during the construction phases. Sincerely, Tom Jargiello Director,Aviation Department TJ:WC-il Enclosure •� ten.. �y O A � C '� O '� b O.`� N va o IQ cr p, :; Al a C t7 4 y a tv gyp,, O rp n -� CD CL rn ° 7d a 7d o 7d v ;-' 7d 7d z x CL CD w O , W�, N � N�'" � � � N � pon' � N CLi. r+ �, r,� J �t J J co N 7d � va000 � o v, �• n. CYS 'd CD . '� O C o (D � � O Lz. � � G. � O' `C •0 m N 0• � 46 • • • • • �d 54 NW* 3 co El co Oo gyp • `' �c '-' O C• b 34 J �' O O y a' c� O tD iv Z a w , J 7d 4 CD ° ° I Al R.PORT ATTORNEYS .COM. A PRACTICE OF KAI'LAN KmsCH & ROCKWELL UP FEDERAL AVIATIONADMINISTRATION REVISES POLICIES ON ANALYZING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS On June 8,2004,the Federal Aviation Administration issued its long-awaited new poli- cies for preparing environmental documents. This was the first comprehensive revi- '4 • sion of FAA environmental policies since 1986. 0*1 The new Order 1050.1E,Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,includes " many substantive changes to FAA's environmental policies. Those changes fall into three major categories: (1) revisions because of changes in the law since 1986,such as 14 the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and Vision 100;(2) updates to reflect techni- cal or policy changes in areas such as noise;and(3) procedural provisions intended to improve guidance to airports and streamline the environmental process. 41 • The new Order provides critical guidance to airports,communities,regulators and oth- ers relating to FAA's environmental obligations. It is important in the planning or approval process for airport infrastructure improvements,airspace or air traffic changes, FAA certification processes,or other matters that involve FAA action and 2004 potential for environmental impacts. The Order intended to support FAA's initiatives to streamline environmental process- ing by providing better guidance and increasing the use of categorical exclusives. Nonetheless,there remain a number of issues that are not fully developed,leaving pro- ject uncertainty. Parties should address these issues as early in the project development process as possible. The following sections provide examples of some of the changes in the new Order that are likely to be of greatest importance. Categorical Exclusions The new Order updates the list of categorical exclusions,excusing the FAA and airport sponsors from preparing Environmental Assessments (EAs) or Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for categories of actions that the FAA believes do not involve signifi- cant environmental impacts. Revising the list of categorical exclusions has been a ma- jor focus of the FAA and airport sponsors seeking to reduce the burdens of environ- mental review for smaller projects. "Controversy"As An Exception To Categorjfial Exclusions The new Order no longer requires an EA or EIS for projects merely because there is community opposition to a project. Controversy will be a reason to prepare an EA or EIS only where controversy concerns the environmental effects of a project. "The term`controversial'means a substantial dispute exists as to the size,nature or effect of a proposed federal action. The effects of an action are considered highly controversial when reasonable disagreement exists over a project's risks of causing environmental harm." The.&I of this cbange will be that the FAA and airport sponsors will'be able to use categorical ex- clusions more often. Fewer projects are likely to trigger this requirement,especially where disagreements relate to matters about which FAA has established relatively firm criteria. a � Categorical Exclusions for Airspace or Procedure Changes Above 3,000 Feet In preparing the new Order,FAA reconsidered a long-standing categorical exclusion for new or revised air traffic pro- cedures conducted at 3,000 or more feet above ground level. The agency had received many comments from the public challenging this categorical exclusion. In its reconsideration,FAA studied the noise and air quality impacts of air traffic changes above 3,000 feet and found that,under normal circumstances, these changes would not have significant im- pacts on noise and air quality. It found that there would have to be hundreds of new or moved operations over a given location to cause a significant noise impact(defined by the FAA as a 1.5 decibel change resulting in a noise exposure level over 65 dB DNL). It also found that aircraft emissions above 3,000 feet AGL would have only a negligible effect on the concentration of air pollutants at ground level. FAA's new standard is likely to lead to more consistent use of categorical exclusions for airspace and air traffic actions. FAA did recog- nize that categorical exclusions would not apply in extraordinary circumstances,such as a very high volume of use or significant nighttime impacts. Other Categorical Exclusions The Order adds to and amends previously existing categorical exclusions. Examples of the categorical exclusions added or amended include: • Approval of noise or access restriction plans for Stage 3 aircraft under 14 C.F.R. Part 161 where the restric- tion does not have the potential to significantly increase noise at the subject airport or airports to which operations may divert. • Federal financial assistance or ALP approvals for certain de-icing/anti-icing facilities that comply with Na- tional Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits. • Construction and expansion of facilities,such as terminal,parking or cargo facilities,that do not substan- tially expand those facilities. • Certain wetland fills where the dredging and filling qualifies for a regional or national general permit from the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. • Repair or replacement of certain above-ground or underground storage tanks at the same location. The new Order and other recent agency initiatives allpoint to an increased use of the categorical exclusion by FAA. FAA intends to"use [categorical exclusions) to the fullest extent provided for in the CEQ regulations." Documentation of Categorical Exclusions In order to address the perception that categorical exclusions provide inadequate opportunity for public notice and comment, FAA has clarified its policy regarding use of so-called"documented categorical exclusions." Documented categorical exclusions provide some written support to justify the applicability of a categorical exclusion and the inappli- cability of any of the exceptions that would otherwise require an EA or EIS. Documented categorical exclusions have been used by FAA or sponsors in some cases in which the agency or a sponsor expected the use of a categorical exclu- sion to be subject to public scrutiny. The Order identifies several examples of unique circumstances that may justify individual documentation for categorical exclusions: (1) there is controversy or public opposition to the proposed action; (2) the applicability of the categorical exclusion is not intuitively clear; (3)litigation is anticipated;or(4) the project is perceived by the public as having the potential for environmental effects. The documented categorical exclusion may be a useful or necessary tool for some sponsors and FAA in situations where some documentation is necessary, but an EA may be more than u necessary. T � � a 'r Qualfty The Order revises FAA's guidance on evaluating air quality because of considerable changes in the law. For example,the Order includes guidance regarding compliance with the EPA's 1993 general conformity regulations and how these regula- tions relate to the NEPA process. The Order sets forth a new FAA policy that the draft conformity determination for a project should be issued for public comment along with a draft EIS and,when the results of the conformity analysis are important to the choice among alternatives,the final conformity determination should be made prior to the completion of the final EIS. It is important to note one area about which the Order does not provide significant new guidance. Order 1050.1E does not contain any new guidance regarding when and how air toxics issues should be addressed and provides only that,if air toxics are to be modeled,the modeling should be done using the Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System. Supplemental Noise Metrics Order 1050.1E,while reiterating that the Day-Night Average Sound Level("DNL")is the primary metric for noise analy- sis and the sole identified metric for determining significance,provides that DNL may be supplemented on a case-by-case basis with supplemental information and metrics. These could include single-event metrics,sleep disturbance informa- tion or other forms of averaging. "There is no single supplemental methodology that is preferable for all situations..." FAA will review both the nature of the proposed action and the type and nature of the affected activity or environment to determine whether and what supplemental metrics may be used. Airports and communities will need to work with FAA early in the process to evaluate what metrics will be appropriate in a particular case. Effects of Noise on National Parks,Wilderness Areas,Historic Resources and Other-Noise-Sensitive Areas The Order provides for special treatment for impacts to certain noise-sensitive portions of National Parks,wildlife ref- uges,historic sites and traditional cultural properties. The Order provides that the general thresholds for incompatible uses (such as the general 65 dB DNL threshold)may not be applicable in these areas. "For example,the DNL 65 dB threshold does not adequately address the effects of noise on visitors to areas within a national park or national wildlife refuge where other noise is very low and a quiet setting is a generally recognized purpose and attribute." Relationship with FAA Airport Environmental Handbook FAA has not yet amended the related Order governing airport environmental impacts,Order 5050.4A. Federal law now requires FAA to issue a draft of revised policies governing airport environmental impacts by the end of this year. In the interim,Order 1050.1E provides that it will take precedence to the extent there is any conflict between it and Order 5050.4A. As a result, the new Order should be the primary point of reference for all FAA envimnmental review obligations. Please visit our website at ww-w.airportattorneys.com and click on the Latest News link to view an electronic version of this Alert which contains links to copies of the new FAA Order 1050.1E and the preamble to the new Order which explains the FAA's reasons for changes in the Order. The FAA has recently issued two other important policy directives thacLe � . � e agency has'issued a proposed new rule on str� 2 } d • lions. Fora copy of the proposal and the FAA's explanaidowq ste rule,please view the electronic version of this Alert one LafiI � � h site at www.airportattorneys.com " i The FAA fiaally issued its report on airport capac%t . 'die reportcatiC metro olitan areas`with ca aci shortfalls in 2003" 3 0 P P ,.t3'. /i���r! trator gave a speech several months ago highhg r 'the repot sued publicly _ p cly until this week. To read a copy of the apacity deport pease vi+�; 3 tropic version of this'Alert on the Latest News page of our websitat www.airportattorneys.com. lot KAPLAN KIRzSCH_ KOCKWELL With lawyers having more than 20 years of experience, Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell's air- ports practice is one of the most experienced in the country. The firm's lawyers have coun- seled clients on issues associated with complex airport development and master planning projects, environmental assessments, permitting and entitlements, rates and charges, secu- rity and safety issues, financing, regulatory and legislative advocacy on a wide range of policy matters, as well as represented clients in litigation related g to airport development and expansion throughout the nation. The firm's clients have included airport proprietors; local and state governments; airport tenants and users; and businesses who are directly af- fected by airport operations. The combination of skills and experiences of the firm's law- yers make the airports practice particularly well-qualified to provide advice to both public and private-sector clients Airport Law Alert is a publication of Kaplan Kirsch&Rockwell LLP and is intended for general information purposes only. Readers are urged to consult their own counsel and consultants concerning their own situation and any specific legal questions. Please contact us if you would like to receive future editions of this occasional publication. CO 'IN DR 3� t � 6- ns;rE c"" r r`�`Si�t✓rx+'''��s``�°S�°"`r xfi` d'��u Da }t arir questions or world�k �eam,aQo' lease contact tro l a:la h p er w ono ze Fes a'Y nY l� ents'Tou listed below. x F ' .a TW`� f k �kfi � F t.,^ c Wp spa r^ 7'nY•C¢'i�e 4aa,. a .� P'"F$' `.r,�� �, �e..� ��•�:? �_. laA��.,.,ry ` ht"r kr�✓°i #��,.�`}"'�yv'� 'r wj h i` ,� e-'n '�ssT tz+� n� ..: ME tr u�4 � 3f� �� Kti.♦ � � x �.� r1 '' .. x ' �`ate Kt ?.=c �� `} irkhen •...........r.�.s..� s.rr..r. Ma.� �{x ��� x'Sh g'.x £,`t5 ' .If-y `,w:, '^ (�P ^� . '�. •�3, j .ek''. -✓ ` "i 63.x eter� I�:irsch •ll.i...........•..K....+..1}..}..t*P��� t• W"� ?. • t S 1° sYs$1,r g L _t. John E.Putnam Daniel S. Reimer �.....•...•a.......'rr... ....t. � a ��. . KA P LAN Kl RS C H & RO C KW E L L LLP Telephone: 303.825.7000 1675 Broadway, Suite 2300 Facsimile: 303.825.7005 Denver, CO 80202 «�vw.airlx�rt�ittc�rncys.com