Aviation Infrastructure
Challenges Related to Building Runways and Actions to Address Them
Gao ID: GAO-03-164 January 30, 2003
Aviation experts believe that building runways is one key way to address airport capacity issues and prevent delays that can affect the entire U.S. economy, but runway projects are often controversial and time-consuming. GAO was asked to examine how much time airports spend completing runways, what challenges airports and other stakeholders experience during this process, and what airports and other stakeholders have done to address challenges related to runway projects. GAO analyzed the results of surveys from 30 airports on 32 runway projects and visited 5 airports in order to interview numerous runway project stakeholders. The Department of Transportation agreed with GAO's characterization of the challenges associated with building runways and some of the initiatives taken to address these challenges. They did express some concerns related to GAO's analysis of the time airports spent or estimated spending in developing runways, and suggested that GAO acknowledge additional FAA efforts to improve the runway process. We believe that our approach was a reasonable assessment of the amount of time taken to build runways; however, we clarified our discussion about the length of time. We also added information regarding initiatives undertaken by FAA.
The amount of time airports spend planning and building their runways can vary because of numerous factors. In light of this variation, for the 32 runway projects we analyzed, we used median rather than average time. The median time was about 10 years for runways that had been completed and was estimated to be about 14 years for those not completed. Most airports and stakeholders we visited and surveyed said they faced a variety of challenges that had delayed their runway projects. While the level of challenges that airports faced varied in part depending on the proximity of the airport to a major city and the amount of community opposition to the runway, some common themes emerged, including challenges related to the following: reaching stakeholder agreement on purpose and need for the runway; completing the environmental review process; reaching agreement on noise mitigation and other issues; and designing and constructing the runway. Although there may be no single solution to the challenges involved in developing runways, the federal government and airport authorities have undertaken a number of initiatives in this area. Recently, the President issued an Executive Order that is directed at streamlining the environmental review of transportation infrastructure projects, including runways. In addition, two federal legislative initiatives designed to streamline the runway process were considered in the 107th Congress. In addition, FAA has undertaken a number of initiatives directed at streamlining parts of the process. Airports have also undertaken initiatives in this area, including involving stakeholders such as community groups early in the process, and reaching early agreement on how best to mitigate noise and other runway impacts. These initiatives may be a step in the right direction, but it is too early to assess their impact on the runway process.
GAO-03-164, Aviation Infrastructure: Challenges Related to Building Runways and Actions to Address Them
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-164
entitled 'Aviation Infrastructure: Challenges Related to Building
Runways and Actions to Address Them' which was released on January 31,
2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products‘ accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
Report to the Subcommittee on Aviation, House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure:
January 2003:
Aviation Infrastructure:
Challenges Related to Building Runways and Actions to Address Them:
GAO-03-164:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-164, a report to the Aviation Subcommittee, House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
January 2003:
Aviation Infrastructure:
Challenges Related to Building Runways and Actions to Address Them:
Why GAO Did This Study:
Aviation experts believe that building runways is one key way to
address
airport capacity issues and prevent delays that can affect the entire
U.S.
economy, but runway projects are often controversial and time-
consuming.
GAO was asked to examine how much time airports spend completing
runways,
what challenges airports and other stakeholders experience during this
process, and what airports and other stakeholders have done to address
challenges related to runway projects.
GAO analyzed the results of surveys from 30 airports on 32 runway
projects
and visited 5 airports in order to interview numerous runway project
stakeholders.
The Department of Transportation agreed with GAO‘s characterization of
the
challenges associated with building runways and some of the initiatives
taken
to address these challenges. They did express some concerns related to
GAO‘s
analysis of the time airports spent or estimated spending in developing
runways, and suggested that GAO acknowledge additional FAA efforts to
improve
the runway process. We believe that our approach was a reasonable
assessment
of the amount of time taken to build runways; however, we clarified our
discussion about the length of time. We also added information
regarding
initiatives undertaken by FAA.
What GAO Found:
The amount of time airports spend planning and building their runways
can
vary because of numerous factors. In light of this variation, for the
32
runway projects we analyzed, we used median rather than average time.
The
median time was about 10 years for runways that had been completed and
was
estimated to be about 14 years for those not completed. Most airports
and
stakeholders we visited and surveyed said they faced a variety of
challenges
that had delayed their runway projects. While the level of challenges
that
airports faced varied in part depending on the proximity of the airport
to a
major city and the amount of community opposition to the runway, some
common
themes emerged, including challenges related to the following:
* Reaching stakeholder agreement on purpose and need for the runway;
* Completing the environmental review process;
* Reaching agreement on noise mitigation and other issues; and
* Designing and constructing the runway.
Although there may be no single solution to the challenges involved in
developing runways, the federal government and airport authorities have
undertaken a number of initiatives in this area. Recently, the
President
issued an Executive Order that is directed at streamlining the
environmental
review of transportation infrastructure projects, including runways. In
addition, two federal legislative initiatives designed to streamline
the
runway process were considered in the 107th Congress. In addition, FAA
has
undertaken a number of initiatives directed at streamlining parts of
the
process. Airports have also undertaken initiatives in this area,
including
involving stakeholders such as community groups early in the process,
and
reaching early agreement on how best to mitigate noise and other runway
impacts. These initiatives may be a step in the right direction, but it
is
too early to assess their impact on the runway process.
Figure: Amount of Time Airports Spent or Estimated Spending to Complete
Runways
Varied:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-164
To view the full report, including the scope and methodology, click on
the
link above. For more information, contact Gerald Dillingham, Ph.D., at
(202) 512-3650 or via E-mail at dillinghamg@gao.gov.
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Some Airports Have Spent Many Years Building Runways and Have Faced a
Variety of Challenges:
A Number of Initiatives Are Underway to Address Challenges Related to
Building Runways:
Agency Comments:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Airport Site Visits:
General Edward Lawrence Logan International Airport - East Boston, MA:
Current Status of the Runway Project:
Stakeholders Cite Community Opposition as a Major Challenge and Say
Efforts to Address This Issue Were Unsuccessful:
Stakeholders Say Meeting Extensive Environmental Requirements Has Been
Challenging Because of Community Opposition:
Litigation Added Time to Process:
Appendix III: Dalls-Fort Worth International Airport-DFW, TX:
Current Status of the Two Runway Projects:
Airport Officials Described Extensive Environmental Review Process as
Challenging:
The Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport Used Some Unique Approaches
to Mitigate Runway Impacts:
Stakeholder Experiences, from Start to Finish, Were Many and Varied:
Litigation Delayed Process:
Appendix IV: Memphis International Airport:
Status of the Runway project:
Airport Officials Stated That They Faced Challenges Reaching Consensus
among Stakeholders on Project Funding Issues and Decisionmaking:
Extensive Requirements Raised Challenges Regarding Wetlands Mitigation
and Land Acquisition during Construction of
Runway:
Site-Specific Challenges Involved Relocating Other
Infrastructure:
Appendix V: Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport:
Current Status of the Runway Project:
Stakeholders Agree That Comprehensive Mitigation Plans Are Essential
but Difficult to Develop:
Stakeholders Believe That Mitigation Funding Should Be More Flexible to
Include More Communities:
A Nationwide Low Frequency Noise Policy Is Not in Place:
Some Communities Question Justification of State Zoning Laws:
Appendix VI: Seattle-Tacoma International Airport:
Status of the Runway project:
Simplifying Purpose and Need May Help Reduce the Circuitous Nature of
the Review Process:
A Compatible Land Use Program May Help to Reduce
Opposition:
New Mitigation Approaches and Increased Community Interaction Could
Help Foster Community Support:
Extensive Regulatory and Legal Requirements Posed Resource Challenges:
Site-Specific Issues Involve Safety and Environmental
Challenges:
Appendix VII: Lester B. Pearson International Airport, Toronto, Canada:
Status of Runway Projects:
Airport Development Process in Canada Differs from U.S.
Process:
Canadian Airports Face Many of the Same Challenges as U.S. Airports:
Appendix VIII: Survey of Airports:
Appendix IX: Survey of Airports with Recent or Planned Runway Projects:
Tables Tables :
Table 1: Summary of Provisions in H.R. 4481 and S. 633, and the
Challenges Each Seeks to Address:
Table 2: Airports Selected for Site Visit and their Runway Projects:
Table 3: History of the Boston Logan Runway Project:
Table 4: History of Dallas-Fort Worth Runway Project:
Table 5: History of Memphis Runway Project:
Table 6: History of Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport Runway
Project:
Table 7: History of Sea-Tac Runway Project:
Table 8: Airports Surveyed:
Figures:
Figure 1: Runway Development Process:
Figure 2: Amount of Time Airports Have Spent or Planned to Spend on
Runway Projects Varied:
Figure 3: Median Time Spent on Runway Projects Overall and on Each
Phase:
Figure 4: Airport Diagram--Boston‘s Logan International Airport:
Figure 5: Airport Diagram--Dalls-Fort Worth International Airport:
Figure 6: Airport Diagram--Memphis International Airport:
Figure 7: Airport Diagram--Sea-Tac International Airport:
Figure 8: Airport Diagram--Lester B. Pearson International Airport:
Letter:
January 30, 2003:
The Honorable John L. Mica
Chairman
The Honorable William O. Lipinski
Ranking Democratic Member
Subcommittee on Aviation
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
House of Representatives:
Although the events of September 11, 2001, diverted the aviation
industry‘s attention from airport flight capacity to security issues,
aviation experts believe that addressing capacity issues must be
brought back to the forefront to prevent costly flight delays and their
negative effect on the U.S. economy. According to a recent report on
the impact on civil aviation,[Footnote 1] the flight congestion and
delay problems that were experienced in 2000 had a significant effect
on the entire U.S. economy and were felt not only in the commercial
aviation industry but also in the tourism and related supplier
industries. The report found that in 2000, commercial aviation delays
resulted in over $9 billion in negative economic effects on the entire
U.S. economy and cost commercial airlines over $3 billion. In addition,
the report stated that if there were no new investments in airport
construction (including new runways) or in the air traffic system
beyond 2000, delays could potentially cost the U.S. economy $13.5
billion in 2007 and $17.2 billion in 2012.
Building runways can involve years of planning, an extensive
environmental review phase, and the design and construction of the
actual runway. Airport authorities who want to build a runway must also
coordinate with numerous stakeholders, including airlines, federal and
state officials, and community groups. In addition, they may face legal
challenges from opponents of the runway that can take years to resolve.
Nonetheless, according to FAA, despite these challenges, building new
runways is widely regarded as the most effective way to increase
capacity in the national airspace system and is critical to the entire
U.S.
economy.[Footnote 2] This report provides information on the process
for building runways, taking into consideration the needs of the system
and the concerns of the various stakeholders. Specifically, as agreed
with your offices, we address the following questions:
1. How much time do airports spend building their runway projects, and
what challenges do airports and other stakeholders experience during
this process?
2. What have airports and other stakeholders done or proposed to do to
address the challenges they experienced in building runways?
To determine the amount of time that airports spent to complete runway
projects, along with challenges that airports and other stakeholders
faced during this process and initiatives to address these challenges,
we surveyed 30 airports that had built or planned to build a total of
32 runways between 1991 and 2010. Based on survey responses, we
selected 5 airports that were diverse in size, location, and challenges
at which we conducted in-depth site visits in order to understand the
perspectives of numerous stakeholders. At these locations, we
interviewed airport, airline, federal and state, and community
officials about their experiences. We also visited the Lester B.
Pearson International Airport in Toronto, Canada, to gain a perspective
on the Canadian runway development process. A more detailed explanation
of the scope and methodology can be found in appendix I.
Results in Brief:
The amount of time that airports spend planning and building their
runways can vary because of a number of factors. For example, although
it is relatively straightforward to determine the beginning and ending
of the environmental and the design and construction phases of the
runway development process, there is no consensus among stakeholders
about what constitutes the beginning of the planning phase of the
process. Consequently, the length of time and the number of activities
considered by some airports to be part of the planning phase vary. In
light of these circumstances, we decided to use a median time rather
than the average time because it would minimize the impact of outlying
airports that may have taken a very long or very short time. For the
airports we surveyed, the median time spent from planning to completion
of their runway projects was about 10 years, and the median time that
airports estimated they would spend on projects not yet completed was
about 14 years. Several of the airports with unfinished runway projects
stated that significant challenges had delayed their projects‘
completion. Although the level of challenges faced by airports varied
depending on such factors as proximity of the airport to a major city,
amount of community opposition to the runway, and specific
environmental issues, some common themes emerged. For example, several
airports described challenges related to reaching stakeholder agreement
on the purpose and need for the new runway. Another theme was the
challenge of completing required environmental reviews; specifically,
airports described challenges related to complying with extensive and
duplicative federal and state requirements and obtaining the necessary
permits. Some airports also described challenges related to reaching
agreement on how to mitigate the impact of noise and other issues.
Several airports commented that they faced challenges during the design
and construction of their runways such as dealing with weather and site
preparation issues.
Although there may be no single solution that addresses all the issues
involved in planning and building runways, the federal government and
airport authorities have undertaken a number of initiatives in this
area. Most recently, the President issued an Executive Order that is
directed at streamlining the environmental review of transportation
infrastructure projects by requiring federal agencies that conduct
environmental reviews to develop procedures that will allow the reviews
to be completed in a timely and responsible manner. In addition, to
address challenges associated with the many regulatory requirements of
the runway development process, two legislative initiatives designed to
streamline the runway development process have been under consideration
at the federal level. FAA has also undertaken several initiatives
directed at increasing communication and coordination, and at
streamlining the planning and environmental review of runway projects.
FAA officials expect these initiatives to produce measurable
improvements in the runway development process. Although some airports
stated that the federal initiatives held promise for helping airports
to resolve challenges more quickly, it is too early to assess their
impact on the runway development process. Airports have also undertaken
initiatives to address challenges related to building runways,
including getting local stakeholders such as community groups involved
at the very beginning of the process and reaching early agreement on
how to mitigate the impacts of the runway. Airports described these
initiatives as helpful to facilitating the completion of their runway
projects, and their efforts may be useful for other airports involved
in runway projects to consider, but the variety of situations that
airports described and the different levels of challenges they faced
make it difficult to generalize from one airport‘s experience to
another.
We provided the Department of Transportation with a draft of this
report for their review and comment. FAA officials agreed with our
characterization of the challenges associated with building runways and
our identification of some of the initiatives to address these
challenges. However, they did express some concerns related to our
analysis of the time that airports spent developing their runways, and
suggested that GAO include more acknowledgment of FAA‘s efforts to
improve the process. In response to FAA‘s comments, we believe our
approach was a reasonable assessment of the amount of time it takes
airports to build runways; however, we clarified our discussion about
the length of time. We also added information regarding several
initiatives that FAA has undertaken to streamline the runway
development process, and we made technical changes where appropriate.
Background:
The decision to build runways has traditionally elicited strong and
often emotional reactions among stakeholders, both negative and
positive. Generally, these reactions are directed at the decision to
build a runway--usually in response to the perceived environmental or
economic impacts that the proposed project will have on the surrounding
communities. Often, opponents to a runway project base their opposition
on the belief that the negative impact of the runway on their quality
of life will outweigh the projected benefits of the project. At other
times, opponents contend that alternatives such as high-speed rail,
regional airports, or demand management are better alternatives to
resolving delay issues than building new runways. In contrast,
proponents of new runway projects generally contend that building new
runways can increase the level of service and reduce delay at the
airport, can result in a positive economic impact to the region served
by the airport, and in some cases can reduce noise pollution by
distributing flights over a larger geographical area.
Airports that plan to build runways must comply with what can become a
complex process involving three general phases that often overlap:
planning, environmental review, and design and construction. In
addition, airports can be involved in legal actions that can occur in
any or all of the three phases.
The first phase in the runway development process is planning.
According to FAA guidance, airports should begin planning for a new
runway when the airport has reached 60 to 75 percent of total annual
flight capacity. During the planning phase, airport authorities and
local officials begin by identifying the type of development needed at
a specific airport and the proposed project‘s estimated cost and
benefits, in both political and economic terms. Some of the planning
tasks include establishing the purpose and need for the runway (for
example, assessing the capability of current facilities, reviewing and
refining aviation demand forecasts, and evaluating options to
accommodate forecast demands), coordinating land use issues with
community planning boards, and preparing capacity enhancement plans,
master plans, airspace reviews, cost benefit analyses, and airport
layout plans.[Footnote 3] Further, most airports consider numerous
alternatives for increasing capacity or reducing delay before deciding
on a project to pursue. During this phase, airports will begin
addressing how to fund the proposed project.
The environmental review phase, which often overlaps with planning, is
the second phase in the runway development process. This phase
typically begins with a determination by FAA of the extent to which a
proposed project will affect the quality of the environment.[Footnote
4] To make this determination, FAA examines the proposed project and
its possible environmental impacts on air and water quality, on noise,
and on historical lands. FAA will make one of three determinations. If
the agency determines that the scope of the project is such that it
will not directly affect the environment, it will issue a categorical
exclusion.[Footnote 5] If FAA determines that a project will have a
measurable effect on the environment, but that its impact will not
exceed guidelines established in the agency‘s Environmental Handbook,
it will issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). After
issuance of a FONSI, runway projects can begin applying for necessary
permits, such as those that may be required under the Clean Air Act or
the Clean Water Act. Where potentially significant impacts are obvious,
FAA will proceed directly to the preparation of an environmental impact
statement (EIS) rather than start with the airport sponsors‘
environmental assessment.[Footnote 6]
If FAA determines that a proposed project will have significant
environmental effects, it will issue a notice of intent to prepare an
EIS. An EIS includes an analysis of the potential environmental effects
of a proposed project and how to mitigate significant impacts. Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations do not require that all
impacts be mitigated; agencies are required to disclose impacts that
will not be mitigated, and the reason. After the draft EIS is
completed, FAA provides it to the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), which publishes a notice of its availability in the Federal
Register, where it is made available for review and comment to federal,
state, and local agencies and the public for at least 45 days. Public
hearings, if necessary, usually occur during the review and comment
period. At the end of the public comment period, FAA responds to
comments received on the draft and prepares the final EIS. Once FAA
approves the final EIS, the document is printed, distributed, and once
again filed with EPA. EPA subsequently publishes notice of the
availability of the final EIS in the Federal Register. According to CEQ
regulations, FAA can not issue a Record of Decision (ROD) for at least
30 days after the publication of the final EIS. Once the final EIS has
been issued, it takes FAA an average of about 3 months to issue a ROD.
The ROD, which is the final step of the environmental review process,
summarizes the administrative record of the agency‘s proposals,
alternatives, analysis, findings/ determinations, decisions, actions,
and mitigation measures that were made a condition of approval of the
EIS. If, however, FAA finds that the revised draft differs
significantly from the initial draft, the agency may issue a
supplemental draft EIS and release this document for further review and
comment. In addition, other factors that may lead to a supplemental EIS
include a change in the proposed action, a change in the agency‘s
decision, or new reasonable alternatives not previously evaluated. A
supplemental draft EIS can occur anywhere in the environmental process.
In addition to the requirements above, airport sponsors may be required
to obtain environmental permits/approvals from other state, local, and
federal agencies before they can begin construction of the proposed
project. These permits/approvals cover various federal and state
requirements related to wetlands, water and air quality, coastal zone
management, and endangered species, among others. These requirements
arise from various regulations, including the federal Clean Water Act
and Clean Air Act. For example, the Army Corp of Engineers requires
permits when proposed projects have an impact on wetlands under the
Clean Water Act. State and local agencies may also be responsible for
requiring permits dealing with air and water quality. Similar to the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, the permitting
process may include a public review and comment period. Project
opponents may initiate litigation once the final EIS has been approved
and the FAA has issued a favorable ROD. However, a lawsuit can be filed
at any time during the planning, environmental, and design and
construction phases.
Following the completion of the permit process, project sponsors
generally begin the final phase of the runway development process--the
design and construction phase. This phase includes a myriad of tasks,
such as project engineering, financing, contracting, land acquisition,
site preparation, and actual project construction. This phase also
includes construction tasks related to mitigating noise, wetland, and
other environmental impacts. According to FAA, it is common for airport
sponsors to begin runway design while the environmental process is
underway in the interest of saving time by undertaking these actions
concurrently. Once construction of the runway has been completed, FAA
certifies the runway for operation and commissions it for service.
Figure 1 illustrates the main steps involved in the runway development
process.
Figure 1: Runway Development Process:
[See PDF for image]
Note: GAO analysis of FAA and other documents.
[End of figure]
Some Airports Have Spent Many Years Building Runways and Have Faced a
Variety of Challenges:
The amount of time that airports spend planning and building their
runways can vary because of a number of factors. For example, although
it is relatively straightforward to determine the beginning and ending
of the environmental and the design and construction phases of the
process, there is no consensus about what constitutes the beginning of
the planning phase. Consequently, the length of time and the number of
activities considered by some airports to be part of the planning phase
vary. Airports also described a variety of challenges that they said
delayed their projects. Many of these challenges related to reaching
stakeholder agreement, completing the environmental review phase,
mitigating the impact of noise, or designing and constructing the
actual runway.
Completed Runways Took a Median of 10 Years to Build, and Unfinished
Runways May Take Even Longer:
As shown in figure 2, airports we surveyed reported spending a wide
range of time in completing runway projects. In general, airports
reported spending less time on completed projects than they estimate
they will spend on those projects not yet completed; for example,
airports reported that about half of the completed runways took 10
years or less but estimated that almost all the projects that were not
yet completed (16 out of 17) would take 10 years or more. According to
the airports with uncompleted projects, a number of factors contributed
to the time spent, such as community opposition and difficulties in
dealing with environmental requirements.
Figure 2: Amount of Time Airports Have Spent or Planned to Spend on
Runway Projects Varied:
[See PDF for image]
Note: GAO analysis of airport survey data.
[End of figure]
Figure 3 shows that the median time spent on completed runway projects
was about 10 years, while the median time airports estimated they would
spend on runway projects not yet completed was about 14 years.
Similarly, the median time spent on the planning and environmental
phases for airports that had completed these phases was significantly
shorter than the median time airports estimated would be spent on those
phases for projects that they had not yet completed. This may have been
because the three projects in the planning phase and the five projects
in the environmental phase were experiencing challenges that the
airports believed would delay the completion of the respective phases.
Moreover, the median time spent on the environmental phase of projects
that had completed their environmental requirements under a FONSI was
about 2.7 years, while the median time spent on the environmental phase
of projects that had completed their environmental requirements with an
EIS was about 3.7 years. This difference is likely attributable to the
greater number of requirements that accompany an EIS as compared with a
FONSI.
Figure 3: Median Time Spent on Runway Projects Overall and on Each
Phase Varied:
[See PDF for image]
Note 1: GAO analysis of airport survey data.
Note 2: Airports used different milestones to indicate the start and
end dates for each phase. Given this difference, we used median time
rather than average time.
Note 3: Although we received 32 responses regarding the amount of time
taken or estimated to complete the overall process, the number of
responses regarding the amount of time taken or estimated to complete
each phase varied.
[End of figure]
In May 2001, the Department of Transportation issued a report to the
Congress on an environmental review of airport improvement projects
that reported results similar to our analysis.[Footnote 7] As a part of
its analysis, FAA measured the average time that elapsed between the
start of planning and the start of construction for 10 airports that
received approval for a new runway between 1996 and 2000. FAA found
that the average time from the start of planning until the start of
construction was about 10 years.[Footnote 8] The report also stated
that the average time to complete an EIS for a new runway was 3.25
years
from the beginning of the EIS process to the issuance of the Record of
Decision--or about one-third of the 10-year time. According to FAA,
there can be a considerable lag from the inception of the runway
process
until the runway is completed and in operation. FAA added that these
delays occur as part of the process that airports sometimes go through
in seeking to achieve consensus and the political will to move forward
while contending with local public and political opposition to runway
development. According to FAA, numerous examples can be found where
runway development has been delayed 5, 10, or more years while plans
are revised, discarded, or shelved until political and/or economic
factors can be satisfied. FAA stated that these actions make it
difficult to determine how long it takes to build a runway.
Several Themes Emerged among the Challenges That Airports Described:
Most airports that we surveyed and visited described significant
factors that delayed their runway projects. In many cases, the
challenges they described were interrelated. For example, several
airports said they faced significant community opposition, which
affected their ability to reach stakeholder agreement and to complete
the environmental review phase. Although many of the airports we
surveyed experienced similar types of challenges, some airports, such
as those in Boston, Atlanta, and Seattle, faced a heightened level of
challenges because of their locations in urban areas with a large
number of residences very close by. Some of the specific challenges
identified by airports and other stakeholders we visited include the
following:
Reaching stakeholder agreement. Reaching consensus on the purpose and
need for a runway was described by several airports as being
particularly challenging. In order to reach this consensus, airports
generally must meet numerous times with stakeholders who may have
differing opinions about the runway project or uses of land surrounding
the airport. For example, airport officials in Los Angeles and Boston
described challenges related to working with community interest groups
and local metropolitan planning organizations that opposed the runway
projects and advocated using means other than building a new runway to
address capacity issues, such as developing regional airports, building
new airports, or pursuing alternative transportation modes like high-
speed rail.
Some airports described challenges related to reaching agreement with
stakeholders other than community groups. For example, stakeholders in
Seattle said that reaching agreement was challenging on issues such as
where the runway should be located or the coordination of sometimes
inconsistent land use plans among various planning groups. Officials at
Boston‘s Logan Airport said they could not reach agreement with FAA, a
key stakeholder on all runway projects, regarding what was needed to
satisfy the environmental review process. Specifically, Logan Airport
officials disagreed with FAA‘s decision to extend its environmental
process by requiring a supplemental EIS because they believed that
environmental issues had been settled during the initial analysis. They
believed that FAA‘s decision to require the supplemental draft stemmed
from significant public and political pressure from those opposed to
the project.
Completing the environmental review phase. Of the 30 airports we
surveyed, 13 stated that one of their most significant challenges in
planning and building their runways was complying with environmental
requirements. Under the current process, airports must comply with over
40 federal laws, executive orders, and regulations that often overlap
with the environmental requirements mandated by some states. For
example, federal law requires the governor of each state to certify
that federally funded runways conform to local air quality standards, a
requirement known as the Governor‘s certification. In addition, the
Clean Air Act requires FAA to determine whether emissions from each
airport project conform to its state‘s plan for implementing national
air quality standards. According to officials from the American
Association of Airport Executives and Airports Council International,
many state air quality plans contain unrealistically low airport
emissions budgets, and few realistically anticipate reasonable airport
growth. They believe that coordinating airport development activity
with the state air quality plans causes a major source of delay and
risk to airport projects. The officials also noted that the Governor‘s
Certificate requirement duplicates requirements found in the Clean Air
Act and Clean Water Act.
Moreover, several airports, including those in Boston, Atlanta,
Houston, and Minneapolis-St. Paul, commented that obtaining the permits
necessary to complete the environmental review was a challenge that
delayed their projects, because permitting agencies often took much
longer than expected. Boston Logan officials stated that they
experienced delays because the permitting agencies did not agree on the
order in which the permits should be issued. For example, the coastal
zone management agency was unwilling to issue its permit until FAA
issued the ROD; however, FAA was unwilling to issue the ROD until the
coastal permit was issued. According to FAA officials, the agency was
able to obtain a satisfactory assurance from the state permitting
agency that allowed FAA to move forward with the issuance of the ROD.
As a result, according to FAA officials, they were able to avoid a
significant delay.
Mitigating the impact of noise and other issues. As we reported in
October 2000,[Footnote 9] mitigating the potential impact of aircraft
noise on the surrounding community continues to be a significant
challenge for airports that are building new runways. One of the
reasons is that community concerns with aircraft noise are generally
already high around many airports, and adding new runways adds to the
already heightened concern. Another reason, according to some
stakeholders, why mitigating noise is particularly challenging for
several of the airports is because they do not participate in FAA‘s
voluntary Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program, which provides funding
to airports to help mitigate the impact of noise on the communities.
Several other airports also told us that their noise problems are the
result of incompatible land uses (existing or planned) around the
airports.
In addition to mitigating the impact of noise on the surrounding
community, officials at Sea-Tac Airport said that they were equally
challenged to mitigate the impact of the project on wetlands,
particularly because two key stakeholders had conflicting views on how
this should be done. According to Sea-Tac officials, the state of
Washington has a strong preference that mitigation measures for wetland
and stream impacts be located in the same water basin where the impacts
occur. However, because of concerns about attracting wildlife, and the
danger to aircraft of bird strikes, FAA strongly advises that airports
avoid locating wetlands within 10,000 feet of runways.
Design and construction of the runway. Several airports commented that
they also faced some challenges during the design and construction
phase of their runways. For example, Dallas-Fort Worth officials stated
that adverse weather conditions created construction problems for them,
as the region‘s high temperatures made it difficult to ensure that
concrete poured for the runway would cure properly. Airport officials
at Sea-Tac also described challenges related to the design and
construction phase. For example, before Sea-Tac can build its runway it
has to import 17 million cubic yards of dirt to the airport to extend a
plateau for a foundation. Thus, the airport authority has to find
suitable, nonpolluted fill dirt to use for the foundation. Once the
dirt is located, it must be transported to the airport over an indirect
route using trucks that the airport is required to clean before they
leave the airport. Finally, the airport authority is to use extensive
mitigation measures to ensure that moving the dirt will not adversely
affect the surrounding communities and wetlands.
Appendixes II through VI provide a detailed description of how various
challenges have affected runway projects at the Boston, Dallas,
Memphis, Minneapolis-St. Paul, and Seattle airports, according to
airport authorities and other stakeholders.
A Number of Initiatives Are Underway to Address Challenges Related to
Building Runways:
While there may be no single solution to all the challenges associated
with planning and building runways, the federal government and airports
have undertaken a number of initiatives to address the challenges
related to such issues as duplicative environmental requirements,
stakeholder differences, and noise mitigation. Primarily, these
initiatives focused on streamlining the environmental review process
and improving cooperation, communication, and coordination among major
stakeholders.
Federal Initiatives Focus on Streamlining the Environmental Review
Process to Reduce Duplication:
One initiative designed to address a significant issue identified by
airports and other stakeholders--the extensive and often duplicative
environmental review requirements--is Executive Order 13274, entitled
Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infrastructure Project
Reviews, which was signed by the President on September 18,
2002.[Footnote 10] The order directs agencies that conduct required
environmental reviews with respect to transportation infrastructure
projects, including runways, to formulate and implement administrative,
policy, and procedural mechanisms that enable the agencies to ensure
completion of such reviews in a timely and environmentally responsible
manner. The order also states that the Secretary of Transportation
shall:
* designate a list of high-priority transportation infrastructure
projects to receive expedited agency reviews;[Footnote 11]
* chair an inter-agency task force to monitor and expedite
environmental reviews of high-priority transportation infrastructure
projects, and identify and promote policies that can effectively
streamline the environmental review process; and:
* prepare an annual report to the President describing the results of
the expedited reviews, and provide recommendations.
Executive departments and agencies shall take appropriate actions, to
the extent consistent with applicable law and available resources, to
promote environmental stewardship in the nation‘s transportation system
and to expedite environmental reviews of high-priority transportation
infrastructure projects. The Secretary has stated that the Department
of Transportation will work with federal and state agencies to reduce
duplicative and overlapping requirements and promote effective
strategies for enhancing the timeliness of the decisionmaking process.
Proposed legislation was introduced in the 107th Congress to address
several of the concerns raised by a number of airports and other
stakeholders we surveyed and visited--H. R. 4481, the Airport
Streamlining Approval Process Act of 2002, and S. 633, the Aviation
Delay Prevention Act. H.R. 4481, the House bill, focused on capacity-
enhancement projects and was generally directed at streamlining the
runway development process, while the Senate bill was directed at
reducing aviation delays. Table 1 summarizes some of the key provisions
in H.R. 4481 and S. 633 that sought to address the challenges the
airports identified.
Table 1: Summary of Provisions in H.R. 4481 and S. 633, and the
Challenges Each Seeks to Address:
H.R. 4481, Airport Streamlining Approval Process Act of 2002: Directs
FAA to take action to encourage the construction of airport capacity-
enhancement projects at congested airports.; S. 633, Aviation Delay
Prevention Act: Requires DOT to designate certain airport projects as
national capacity projects. The airports where these national capacity
projects are designated would be required to complete the planning and
environmental review process within 5 years, or else lose access to
certain federal funds.; Challenge addressed: Reaching stakeholder
agreement..
H.R. 4481, Airport Streamlining Approval Process Act of 2002:
Authorizes DOT to develop interagency cooperative agreements with other
federal and state stakeholders in the environmental review process.; S.
633, Aviation Delay Prevention Act: Requires DOT to implement an
expedited coordinated environmental review process for national
capacity projects that provides for better coordination among federal,
regional, state, and local agencies.; Challenge addressed: Completing
the environmental review phase..
H.R. 4481, Airport Streamlining Approval Process Act of 2002: Allows
airports to reimburse FAA for the additional staff necessary to review
and approve project construction requests.; S. 633, Aviation Delay
Prevention Act: Authorizes DOT to develop a 5-year pilot program funded
by airport sponsors to hire additional FAA environmental specialists
and attorneys.; Challenge addressed: Completing the environmental
review phase..
H.R. 4481, Airport Streamlining Approval Process Act of 2002: Makes DOT
the lead agency for all capacity-enhancement project environmental
reviews, with responsibility for setting time frames for all relevant
agency reviews. All federal agency reviews would be required to occur
concurrently.; S. 633, Aviation Delay Prevention Act: Requires DOT to
implement an expedited environmental review process that provides a
’date certain“ process deadline for environmental reviews.; Challenge
addressed: Completing the environmental review phase..
H.R. 4481, Airport Streamlining Approval Process Act of 2002: Allows
DOT to define the purpose and need for any airport capacity-enhancement
project for any federal or state review that requires the establishment
of a purpose and need.; S. 633, Aviation Delay Prevention Act: Not
addressed.; Challenge addressed: Reaching stakeholder agreement..
H.R. 4481, Airport Streamlining Approval Process Act of 2002:
Eliminates the required Governor‘s certification, which states that an
airport will meet state and local environmental standards.; S. 633,
Aviation Delay Prevention Act: Eliminates the required Governor‘s
certification, which states that an airport will meet state and local
environmental standards.; Challenge addressed: Completing the
environmental review phase..
Source: U.S. General Accounting Office.
[End of table]
In responding to our survey, seven airports stated that eliminating the
governor‘s certificate requirement would reduce duplicative
environmental requirements. In an August 2000 report to the Congress on
aviation and the environment, we suggested that Congress may wish to
consider eliminating the state air quality certification requirements
in airport legislation becauseit is duplicative of protections offered
under the Clean Air Act.[Footnote 12] FAA officials stated that they
agreed with our suggestion and believed that a parallel situation
exists with respect to state water quality certification, which is
largely duplicative of protections under the Clean Water Act. Both the
House and the Senate bills would have eliminated the Governor‘s
Certificate requirement.
FAA Initiatives Focus on Streamlining the Planning and Environmental
Review Processes:
FAA has identified and undertaken several initiatives directed at
streamlining the planning and environmental review processes and
improving cooperation, communication, and coordination among major
stakeholders. Some of the initiatives have been implemented, and others
are currently underway. FAA officials believe that the initiatives, if
successful, will provide measurable improvements in the amount of time
and resources spent in the planning and environmental review phases of
the process.
FAA has undertaken several initiatives to improve the planning and
environmental processes that the agency believes will help ensure that
runway projects are completed in a timely manner. With respect to
planning, FAA prepared an internal Memorandum of Agreement in September
2002 to standardize the procedures for establishing multidisciplinary
teams to participate in major airport planning studies. The agency has
plans to update its guidance on airport master plans and to upgrade an
airspace and ground capacity simulation model in fiscal year 2003, and
to update its guidance on airport terminal planning and design by the
end of fiscal year 2004. With respect to streamlining the environmental
review process, FAA began implementing several initiatives in January
2001 that are designed to produce measurable improvements. FAA began
establishing multidisciplinary EIS teams for new EISs at large hub
primary airports, reallocating staff resources and seeking airport
reimbursable agreements to support environmental work, and increasing
the use of consultants to assist FAA with coordination and
administration of EISs.
To increase coordination and assign accountability for runway
development tasks to key stakeholders, FAA began another initiative in
August 2001 as a part of its Operational Evolution Plan--a 10-year plan
to expand and modernize the nation‘s airport system. FAA developed
detailed plans called Runway Template Action Plans to provide a
standard set of tasks that must be considered when developing new
runways. FAA has completed Runway Template Action Plans for 12 airports
that are expected to complete new runways by 2008. According to FAA
officials, the agency has met the deadlines for its commitments at all
of the airports, and no runway completion date has changed as a result
of FAA actions since the program began.
While the Executive Order and the proposed legislation were designed to
address challenges some of the airports experienced, it is too early to
assess their impact; the Executive Order was only recently signed, and
the legislation did not pass in the 107th session of Congress.
Nonetheless, several stakeholders, including airports we surveyed and
visited, supported efforts consistent with these initiatives. Further,
FAA officials believe that the initiatives FAA has taken and proposed
will yield measurable improvements in the runway development process--
particularly with respect to the planning and environmental review
phases of the process.
Airports Have Undertaken Some Initiatives to Address Challenges:
Airports we visited and surveyed described a number of actions they
have taken to address the challenges they faced in building their
runways. These actions included proactive approaches to working with
stakeholders to plan for and mitigate various impacts of the runway
projects on neighboring communities. For example, the Louisville
airport used an unusual approach to deal with the needs of neighboring
homeowners who would be required to move in order to be outside the
noise parameter levels posed by the new runway. After reaching
agreement on the market value that the airport would pay for each home,
the airport offered these residents a choice: residents either could
move to a new home of equal value in a new community development being
built by the airport, or they could participate in the traditional
relocation program, where the airport purchases the home and the family
relocates to a home and location of its choosing. Airport officials
stated that this approach worked well for both the airport and the
displaced residents. According to airport officials, the residents
benefited because those who wished to stay together as a community
(which was the preference of many) were able to do so, and the airport
saved approximately $17,000 per home on those homes built in the new
community development.
A Washington State Department of Transportation official stated that
minimizing controversy over the uses of land needed for expanding
runway capacity could be important in avoiding lengthy project delays.
The department developed an Airport Land Use Compatibility Program,
implementing a 1996 amendment of the Washington State Growth Management
Act--the state‘s land-use planning law. The law requires cities and
counties to identify, site, and protect essential public facilities
(including airports) from incompatible land use, such as encroaching
development. In other words, when developing local land-use plans,
cities and counties must ensure that their plans do not adversely
affect these facilities. As part of the land-use compatibility program,
certain state transportation officials provide consultations,
including mediation, between airport sponsors and community
representatives (often municipal or county planning staff) to balance
the state‘s dual interest of promoting aviation and ensuring the
health, safety, and welfare of its residents. The approach to
facilitating airports‘ future expansion includes several steps,
including the development of planning-based solutions and the
integration of those solutions into a legally enforceable document,
such as a comprehensive development plan--rather than the Airport
Master Plan, which is not binding on land-use authority--in order to
increase the probability that the solutions will succeed.
In Minneapolis, the airport attempted to build consensus throughout the
project by considering mitigation agreements that were more liberal
than those required by FAA. For example, the airport has been pursuing
a liberal noise-mitigation strategy in order to better address
community concerns about noise impacts. The airport chose to keep
residential blocks together for noise-mitigation measures, whether or
not the entire block fell within the same noise contour. In other
words, if one residence in a block lay within the 65-decibel Day Night
Average Sound Level (DNL) noise contour, every residence on the block
received similar mediation measures.[Footnote 13] Another challenge for
which the airport had to develop a solution was mitigating the noise
impacts on a National Wildlife Refuge located within the flight path of
the new runway. The refuge contains an educational center and is a
popular location for bird watching. The refuge contended that the
usefulness of the center and bird watching activities would be severely
impacted by noise from the runway. The airport and the refuge were
ultimately able to negotiate an agreement whereby the airport authority
would pay the organization $26 million for the right to conduct flight
operations over the refuge.
In Dallas-Fort Worth, the airport chose to implement a four-stage
approach to mitigating the noise impacts of the runway project: 1)
direct land acquisition for properties located in the runway protection
zone, 2) direct land acquisition of certain properties for noise
mitigation, 3) sound proofing structures for noise mitigation, and 4)
acquisition of aviation easements. Airport officials noted that the
first three stages of the mitigation plan are standard among most
runway projects and, in the case of acquiring properties in the runway
protection zone, required of all airports. However, with respect to
aviation easements, the airport undertook an approach that it
considered to be extraordinary at the time. The airport offered
residents 25 percent of the fair market value of their property to
acquire easements for noise impacts. The easements are attached to the
property deed, affecting the current property owner and all future
owners of that property.
Overall, the airports that described these initiatives believed they
had a positive impact on their runway projects. Other airports
described similar initiatives that they believed were helpful in
facilitating the completion of the various phases of their projects. It
may be helpful for other airports to consider these initiatives when
faced with similar challenges; however, the wide variety of situations
faced by airports and the differing levels of community opposition or
environmental issues each airport faces make it difficult to determine
whether an effort undertaken successfully by one airport will have the
same positive results at another airport.
Agency Comments:
We provided the Secretary of Transportation with a copy of a draft of
this report. FAA officials agreed with our characterization of the
challenges associated with building runways and our identification of
some of the initiatives to address these challenges. However, they did
express some concerns related to our analysis of the amount of time
airports spent or estimated spending in developing their runways, as
compared with the results of FAA‘s 2001 study. They also suggested that
GAO include more acknowledgment of their efforts in trying to improve
the runway development process. Regarding FAA‘s concerns, we believe
our approach was a reasonable assessment of the amount of time it takes
airports to build runways. However, we clarified our discussion on the
length of time by focusing on the median time rather than the average
time because this approach minimizes the impact of outlying airports
that may have taken a very long or a very short time to build their
runways. We also compared our analysis of the time taken by airports to
build runways with FAA‘s study. See appendix I for a more detailed
discussion of the comparative analysis. Finally, we included
information regarding several initiatives that FAA has undertaken to
streamline and improve the planning and environmental processes. We
also made technical changes throughout the report as appropriate.
We performed our work from April 2001 through December 2002 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
As agreed with your office, unless you release its contents earlier, we
plan no further distribution of this report until 10 days after the
date of its issuance. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to congressional committees with responsibilities for the activities
discussed in this report; to the Secretary of Transportation; and to
the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration. We will make
copies available to others upon request. This report is also available
at no charge on GAO‘s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding the contents of this
report, please call me or Tammy Conquest at (202) 512-2834. Other key
contributors to this report were Ruthann Balciunas, William Chatlos,
David Hooper, Gary Lawson, David Lehrer, and Alwynne Wilbur.
Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
Signed by Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Our primary methods for addressing our two research questions--first,
how much time do airports spend building their runway projects and what
challenges do airports and other stakeholders experience during this
process, and second, what have airports and other stakeholders done or
proposed to do to address the challenges they experienced in building
runways---were to conduct a nationwide survey of airports that built
new runways between 1991 and 2000 or planned to build new runways by
2010, and to perform site visits at five airports. The survey
population included 30 airports, 16 of which had built their airports
between 1991 and 2000, and 14 of which had planned to build new runways
by 2010. The survey, conducted in February 2002, provided data on the
amount of time that 30 airports spent in planning and building 32
runway projects; on key factors that accelerated or delayed the
projects; and on initiatives that airports have taken to address the
challenges they faced during the process.[Footnote 14]
Based on our analysis of the survey responses, we judgmentally selected
five airports at which to conduct site visits, to develop a more in-
depth understanding of the experiences and challenges they faced. We
subsequently visited Boston Logan, Dallas-Fort Worth, Memphis Shelby
County, Minneapolis-St. Paul, and Seattle-Tacoma Airports, where we
interviewed the airport authority, FAA, hub airlines, state agencies,
metropolitan planning organizations, and local community and
environmental groups about their experiences with the runway projects.
In addition, we also interviewed officials from Lester B. Pearson
International Airport in Toronto, Canada, and Transport Canada to gain
an understanding of the Canadian runway development process.
We also compared our analysis with FAA‘s May 2001 report. While the
results of the two studies are similar, there are some methodological
differences between the two studies. First, our measurement begins at
the start of planning and ends with the completion of the runway. In
contrast, FAA‘s measurement begins with planning but ends with the
beginning of the design and construction phase. Second, GAO‘s analysis
is based on the median time, which minimizes the impact of runways that
take a very long or a very short time to complete; FAA‘s estimate,
however, is based on the average time, which does not account for the
impact of outliers. Based on our survey responses, when considering the
average time, we found that airports that had completed their projects
took 12.25 years and airports that had not yet completed their projects
estimated that their projects would take about 16 years. Third, our
survey allowed the airports to determine the beginning and end of each
of the process phases, whereas FAA selected specific events for
analysis. For example, FAA‘s analysis based the end of the
environmental review phase on the issuance of the ROD. Certain airports
responding to GAO‘s survey included federal and state permits as part
of the environmental process. FAA‘s May 2001 report found that federal
and state permits can take 6 to 12 months or more to complete after the
ROD. Finally, each of the two analyses examined a different universe of
airports. FAA analyzed data on 10 airports that had projects approved
between 1996 and 2000. GAO analyzed data on over 30 runway projects
that were completed, or expected to be completed, between 1991 and
2010. GAO‘s analysis included 6 of the 10 airports that FAA analyzed.
We also interviewed officials from FAA, Airports Council International,
the Airline Transport Association, and the National Association of
State Aviation Officials to obtain information on the process for
building runways and to identify what actions have been taken to
address challenges related to planning and building runways.
We conducted our work from April 2001 through December 2002 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Airport Site Visits:
To gain additional perspective on the runway development process, we
visited five airports that had significant positive or negative
experiences in going through the runway development process; some of
the airports identified initiatives to overcome these
challenges.[Footnote 15] We also included airports that were in various
stages of completing their runway projects, and in various parts of the
country. We asked the airports to share their experiences in the
process of building new runways, as well as those events that either
significantly delayed or accelerated the completion of the runway
projects. We identified several key factors--the amount of time that
transpired, how this time compared with the airports‘ expectations of
the process timeline, how key stakeholders‘ timeliness compared with
the airports‘ expectations, and the significant events that either
delayed or accelerated the completion of the runways. In addition, we
considered the airports‘ responses to other questions, as warranted. We
also visited the Lester B. Pearson International Airport in Toronto,
Canada, to gain an understanding of the Canadian runway development
process and of the airport‘s experiences in building runways. The
overarching factor leading to selection was the airports‘ experiences
that appeared appropriate for other airports to draw upon. These
experiences, both positive and negative, are intended to yield lessons
that other airports can emulate or avoid. Table 2 shows the airports we
selected and the phase of each project as of December 2002.
Table 2: Airports Selected for Site Visit and their Runway Projects:
Airport: Gen. Edward Lawrence Logan International; Location: East
Boston, MA; Size: Large; Phase[A]: Environmental.
Airport: Dallas-Fort Worth International; Location: DFW, TX; Size:
Large; Phase[A]: Completed.
Airport: Dallas-Fort Worth International; Location: DFW, TX; Size:
Large; Phase[A]: Suspended[B].
Airport: Memphis International; Location: Memphis, TN; Size: Medium;
Phase[A]: Completed.
Airport: Minneapolis-St. Paul International; Location: Minneapolis,
MN; Size: Large; Phase[A]: Construction.
Airport: Seattle-Tacoma International; Location: Seattle, WA; Size:
Large; Phase[A]: Environmental.
Airport: Lester B. Pearson International; Location: Toronto, Ontario;
Size: Large; Phase[A]: Completed.
Airport: Lester B. Pearson International; Location: Toronto, Ontario;
Size: Large; Phase[A]: Completed.
Airport: Lester B. Pearson International; Location: Toronto, Ontario;
Size: Large; Phase[A]: Planning.
Source: U. S. General Accounting Office.
[A] Runway development phases often overlap. The phase shown is the
phase with the predominant activity as of December 2002. :
[B] The airport suspended development of this runway to explore
implications of recent economic and industry events.
[End of table]
Appendixes II through VII contain a summary of the results of our visit
to each airport, including background information and status of the
runway project. The summaries also highlight significant events and
experiences for each specific location, based on our discussions with
the airport authorities and key stakeholders. While each of the
airports we visited experienced challenges within several broad themes
noted earlier (resolving stakeholder differences, completing extensive
environmental requirements, and addressing issues related to runway
design and construction), those broad themes were not necessarily the
most important at that specific site. Consequently, we highlight
different experiences at each site. For example, the Boston airport‘s
legal challenges were much more extensive than were those at the
Minneapolis-St. Paul airport. We discuss Boston‘s legal challenges at
length, while we mention those at Minneapolis-St. Paul as they applied
to other experiences.
General Edward Lawrence Logan International Airport - East Boston, MA:
Boston‘s Logan International Airport is operated by the Massachusetts
Port Authority (Massport). According to FAA, airport, state, and
airline officials, Logan plays a critical role in the New England
economy, and it serves as the region‘s long-haul and international
gateway airport. According to Massport officials, in 2000, the airport
handled 27.4 million passengers and contributed about $6.6 billion to
the regional economy, supporting about 100,000 jobs. It was North
America‘s nineteenth-busiest in terms of passenger traffic. Logan is
consistently ranked as one of the nation‘s most delayed airports. In
2000, Logan was the sixth-most delayed airport overall and second-most
delayed for arrivals. Logan is served by all the major U.S. carriers.
The top carriers are U.S. Airways, American, and Delta, with roughly
equal shares of passenger traffic. The airport is primarily an origin
and destination point, with about 90 percent of the passengers
beginning or ending their trips at Logan.
In good weather, Logan generally operates on a north-south, three-
runway configuration with a capacity of about 120 flight operations per
hour. However, during adverse weather conditions (such as northwest or
southeast winds in excess of 10 knots per hour, which occur about one-
third of the year), the airport can be reduced to as few as 60 to 90
operations per hour on an east-west, one-or two-runway operation.
Massport believes that its proposed 5,000-foot, unidirectional runway
will avoid the significant reduction in efficiency during adverse
weather conditions and help mitigate weather-related delays.[Footnote
16] Massport views the runway as a capacity-neutral airfield
enhancement, which means that the proposed runway will decrease delays
without increasing the airport‘s top capacity of about 120 flights per
hour. The Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
administers the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, the state‘s
environmental protection act. In its Final Environmental Impact Report
certificate, the Secretary, Massachusetts Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs, stated that the central environmental question
is not whether the project is accommodating or generating demand per
se, but rather whether Massport is operating the airport in a manner
that avoids, minimizes, or mitigates environmental impacts in light of
its obligations under MEPA. An official from the environmental office
stated that the project might increase airfield capacity, but that an
airport capacity determination was beyond the scope of its review.
Figure 4 shows the existing Logan runway configuration, including the
proposed runway project.
Figure 4: Airport Diagram--Boston‘s Logan International Airport:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
We selected Logan Airport as a site-visit location, in part, because
its runway project has been in the planning phase since 1969.[Footnote
17] Further, a state court injunction against building new runways at
the airport has been in place since the mid-1970s (FAA approved an EIS
for a runway in the same general location on the airfield in the late
1960s). Further, because of the injunction, Massport decided not to
actively pursue the project until the project was reinstituted in 1995,
based on an FAA Capacity Enhancement Study. Logan is an example of an
airport that has spent a long time in the process, and it has gone
through several iterations of the EIS review process.
We interviewed officials at Massport, who were the main sponsors of the
new, sixth runway at Logan. We also interviewed officials at FAA‘s New
England Region, American Eagle Airlines, Massachusetts Executive Office
of Environmental Affairs, and the Massachusetts High Technology
Council. We also gathered information from Communities Against Runway
Expansion, the primary community interest group.[Footnote 18]
Current Status of the Runway Project:
FAA issued its ROD indicating that the project had satisfied all
federal environmental requirements on August 2, 2002. However, the
airport can not yet begin constructing the runway because of an
existing state court injunction. Moreover, opposition groups appealed
the ROD in August 2002 in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington,
D.C., arguing, among other things, that FAA did not adequately analyze
the noise and air quality impacts on neighboring communities.
Stakeholders Cite Community Opposition as a Major Challenge and Say
Efforts to Address This Issue Were Unsuccessful:
Massport and other stakeholders we interviewed (American Eagle
Airlines, Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, FAA,
and the High Technology Council) said that the lack of agreement among
stakeholders--particularly with regard to responding to the strong
ongoing community opposition to the runway project--has presented a
major challenge. Communities Against Runway Expansion and other local
community groups surrounding the airport opposed the project because of
a number of issues, including the impact of the runway on noise,
emissions, economic growth, and endangered species. Opponents to the
project also question the intended use of the runway (for example,
delay reduction versus capacity enhancement). According to FAA,
Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, American Eagle
Airlines, the High Technology Council, and Massport officials
themselves, the public appears to distrust Massport. These stakeholders
added that much of the opposition stems from the fact that the airport
is located in downtown Boston rather than from plans for a new runway,
and that community groups opposed to the project are not likely to
change their position. According to an American Eagle Airlines
official, FAA should help community groups understand the economic
benefits of the project on their communities.
Massport said it has attempted to address this challenge through
extensive public participation and review efforts, but that these have
not been successful. FAA, Massachusetts Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs, and the airlines have agreed that Massport
involved the public throughout most of the lengthy process, and that
the public was able to express its concerns to Massport through the
public meetings and the required public comment periods on FAA‘s
decisions. According to Massport, in response to public pressure, FAA
created a special review panel and required Massport to undertake a
supplemental Draft EIS as a means to further expand public
participation. As part of the public outreach process, Massport
provided $350,000 for technical assistance to the Community Advisory
Council. Communities Against Runway Expansion, on the other hand,
stated that Massport‘s efforts toward communication were for appearance
only--that the airport authority spoke to them but did not listen to
their concerns. All agreed that extensive communication did not lead to
cooperation and consensus.
Stakeholders Say Meeting Extensive Environmental Requirements Has Been
Challenging Because of Community Opposition:
Massport and FAA prepared a joint Draft Environmental Impact Report and
Draft EIS to meet state and federal requirements. According to
Massport, this joint effort is a common approach for streamlining the
environmental review process. The joint state and federal permit
process lasted over 7 years. Stakeholders said this is partly
attributable to community opposition and to the effect of this
opposition on the process.
In 1995, in what it described as an effort to conduct the environmental
analysis with input from all concerned parties, Massport established
the Airside Review Committee, which included representatives from the
24 communities surrounding the airport and from 11 business and
industry organizations. However, according to both FAA and Massport,
this effort was suspended for about 18 months between 1996 and 1998,
when the entire runway project stalled because of a change in Massport
leadership and priorities. In 1998, according to Massport officials,
the airport attempted to pick up the environmental review process where
it had been suspended. Community groups complained that they had not
been part of the recent process and appealed to FAA that the Draft EIS
was no longer accurate, complete, or up-to-date. Massport believes it
did try numerous times to meet with the Airside Review Committee, but
to no avail.
The state approved the Draft Environmental Impact Review in May 1999
and the final Environmental Impact Review in June 2001. However, FAA
requested a Supplemental Draft EIS rather than approving the Draft EIS.
FAA officials stated that the agency did so because it needed to
address several issues, including changing technology and the high
level of concerns expressed by project opponents in public comments to
the Draft EIS. Massport, the Massachusetts High Technology Council, and
American Eagle Airlines all believe that FAA‘s decision was
unreasonable. Massport officials contended that the project had already
undergone 5 years of public process, that continuation was unlikely to
help achieve local consensus, and that they believed it had not. FAA
officials, however, believe that it did result in a better, more
informative EIS document.
Individuals, communities, action groups, and business groups submitted
comments during public information meetings and hearings and in
response to the Draft EIS and Final EIR documents that were extensive.
For example, about 800 people attended the two April 2001 public
hearings for the Supplemental Draft EIS document and about 850 comment
letters were received during the 75-day comment period.
The Supplemental Draft EIS took about 1 year to complete, and it
delayed the filing of the Final EIS by about 1.5 years, according to
Massport. During this time, in another attempt to develop agreement
among stakeholders, FAA chaired a city and commonwealth Task Force to
request further comments to the Draft EIS for incorporation into the
Supplemental Draft EIS. Although this group met, analyzed, and
discussed many runway issues, not all stakeholders were pleased with
its outcome. For example, Communities Against Runway Expansion stated
that the products of the panel‘s work, the Supplemental Draft EIS and
the Final Environmental Impact Review, were inaccurate and
inconclusive, and they justified the runway without proposing a viable
alternative.
In late June 2002, FAA issued the Final EIS for public comment, as
required by the NEPA process. FAA received approximately 100 comment
letters raising 42 main issues, ranging from general opposition to a
concern about the adequacy of technical analyses. FAA said that it
responded to the comments as required and issued its final approval,
the ROD, in August 2002. In both the Final EIS and the ROD, FAA
included a restriction (which Massport officials said was
unprecedented) that the proposed runway be used only when winds create
conditions in which the usefulness of other current runways is
limited.[Footnote 19] FAA considers this wind restriction a mitigation
measure, as it would ensure that the runway was not used to increase
capacity during good weather. Many stakeholders--including proponents
and opponents--view this restriction as a compromise designed to
achieve consensus, but others, such as community groups, maintain that
the wind restriction does not go far enough to mitigate the
environmental effects of this project. Communities Against Runway
Expansion continued to contest FAA‘s approval in the press and in
federal court and, through an urgent message on its Web page, urged
others to respond to the Final EIS. Moreover, Massport and
Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs officials said
that, by issuing the ROD with wind restrictions, FAA could reactivate
the state environmental review process because the approved project
differs significantly from what Massachusetts Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs approved in 2001. Subsequently, the Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs chose not to reexamine the
environmental document because it did not believe that the wind
restriction significantly changed the environmental impacts of the
runway.
FAA, Massport, and American Eagle Airlines said that, during the length
of time spent attempting to get all of the environmental approvals
needed, some assumptions made early on in the process have been called
into question. For example, concerns have been raised that traffic
forecasts may not materialize, that the increasing use of Regional Jets
may change the equipment mix more than planned, and that the 5,000 foot
runway may not be long enough to be as useful as hoped. They believe
that these issues played a part in triggering FAA‘s Supplemental Draft
EIS process. However, a Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs official stated that it is not possible to ’freeze“ the process
to figure out all the answers before making a decision. According to
many stakeholders, the environmental review process is a continuous
cycle in which comments require additional study, which leads to
revisions, which lead to more comments, which lead to additional study.
They contend that the circuitous nature of the process is the primary
source of delay. The Massachusetts environmental permit process has
important time triggers that allow for the process to come to an end.
Massport believes that if similar triggers were in place at the federal
level, many of the delays encountered during the EIS process could have
been avoided.
Litigation Added Time to Process:
Massport first suggested, and actually began construction on, a new
3,830 foot runway in the same general location on the airfield almost
30 years ago (May 1974). Massport took the position that the 1974
runway project did not require a state environmental review because 1)
both the Massport Board and the Commonwealth Office of Transportation
and Construction determined it had no environmental impact and 2) the
project commenced before July 1, 1973, the effective date of the
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act. The City of Boston and the
Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental Affairs both disagreed and
sued Massport. The Suffolk Superior Court enjoined Massport from
proceeding with the 1974 Runways Project, pending the preparation,
filing, and review of a final EIR as directed by the Secretary of
Environmental Affairs.
On June 15, 2001, the Secretary of Environmental Affairs determined
that Massport‘s Final EIR submitted in March 2001 adequately and
properly complied with the Massachusetts Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs. Massport went to court to get the injunction
lifted. The court began considering this injunction in late January
2003. Groups opposing the project declared victory because the motion
to lift the injunction went to trial. A second lawsuit, regarding
runway development in Plymouth County, located southeast of the
airport, resulted in a summary judgment in favor of Massport. This
matter is now under appeal. Plymouth County includes the cities of
Hull, Hingham, and Cohasset, all in the flight path of the over-the-
water operations. These local municipalities alleged that the state
environmental permit was invalid because Massport misled the
Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs about the
project‘s impact by providing incomplete and inaccurate technical data.
Table 3 summarizes the history of the Boston Logan runway project.
Table 3: History of the Boston Logan Runway Project:
Date: Late 1960s; Event: FAA approves new runway..
Date: August 1974; Event: State court injunction against building new
runways at airport..
Date: June 1976; Event: State court injunction against building new
runways at airport amended..
Date: November 1995; Event: Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental
Affairs defines Draft EIR scope..
Date: November 1995; Event: Massport establishes Airside Review
Committee..
Date: January 1996; Event: FAA defines Draft EIS scope..
Date: February 1999; Event: Massport files Draft EIS/Draft EIR with
state and FAA..
Date: April 1999; Event: FAA and Massport hold public meetings on Draft
EIS/Draft EIR..
Date: May 1999; Event: State approves Draft EIR..
Date: January 2000; Event: FAA orders supplemental Draft EIS..
Date: March 2001; Event: Massport submits supplemental Draft EIS/Final
EIR to state and FAA..
Date: April 2001; Event: FAA and Massport hold public hearings on
supplemental Draft EIS/Final EIR..
Date: June 2001; Event: State approves Final EIR..
Date: June 2002; Event: FAA publishes Final EIS for public comment..
Date: August 2002; Event: FAA issues ROD..
Date: August 2002; Event: FAA approves Airport Layout Plan..
Date: August 2002; Event: Community groups appeal ROD in U.S. Court of
Appeals..
Date: September 2002; Event: Massachusetts MEPA decides not to reopen
state process..
Date: October 2002; Event: Community challenge of state environmental
approval trial dismissed..
Date: January 2003; Event: Massport challenge of injunction trial date
(Suffolk Superior Court)..
Date: Spring 2006; Event: Projected completion date..
Source: U.S. General Accounting Office.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport - DFW, TX:
In 2001, the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport was the fourth-
busiest North American airport in terms of passengers. Both American
Airlines and Delta Airlines run hub operations at the airport, with
about 70 percent and 19 percent of the airport‘s annual operations,
respectively. According to the airport‘s Chief Executive Officer, the
airport provides $12 billion in annual economic activity for North
Texas.
The Dallas-Fort Worth Airport Board (the Board) governs the airport.
The Board is composed of 12 members, 11 of whom are appointed by the
councils of the airport‘s owner cities in accordance with each city‘s
ownership interest in the airport; 7 represent the city of Dallas, and
4 represent the city of Fort Worth. The 12th member is a nonvoting
member representing the neighboring host cities of Coppell, Euless,
Grapevine, and Irving on a rotating annual basis (the member is from a
particular city every fourth year). The Board may enter into contracts
without approval of the City Councils, but its annual operating budget
requires City Council approval of the owner cities.
The airport lies within the city limits of the four host cities. It
obtained the freedom to pursue independent development through state
legislation known as the Texas Municipal Airports Act. It covers over
29 square miles, and its real property consists of over 18,000 acres.
The current configuration is seven runways--five north-south parallel,
two diagonal. Four of these runways are over 11,000 feet in length.
This configuration allows the airport to land four planes
simultaneously. In good weather, the airport generally operates with a
capacity of about 260 to 270 operations per hour. Airport revenue is
shared with the surrounding cities based upon the location of the
enterprise. For example, the rental car franchises are located in
Euless, so that city receives a portion of the car rental tax revenues.
The seventh runway was designed to reduce delays as well as to increase
overall aircraft operations capacity. Airport officials developed the
1991 DFW Airport Development Plan, which included two new runways in
response to market demand, to maintain the highest level of service for
their customers. Figure 5 shows the existing Dallas-Fort Worth
International Airport configuration, including the proposed eighth
runway and several proposed extensions.
Figure 5: Airport Diagram--Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
We selected the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport for a site
visit because the airport, which was completed in February 1974, is one
of the most recently constructed airports in the United States (only
Denver is a more recently constructed large hub airport). The airport
completed its seventh runway in 1996, and had planned to complete an
additional eighth runway before more sophisticated demand-delay studies
were completed. Furthermore, the airport reported in our survey that
many elements of the runway development process took less time than
expected.
We interviewed officials at the following: Dallas-Fort Worth
International Airport, the sponsor of the new runway projects; the four
host cities surrounding the airport--Coppell, Euless, Grapevine, and
Irving; FAA Southwest Regional Office and Airports District Office;
North Central Texas Council of Governments; and the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality. We attempted to contact American Airlines, but
airline officials said that too much time had passed since the early
phases of the project for its response to be meaningful.
Current Status of the Two Runway Projects:
The seventh runway was commissioned in October 1996. All activities for
the proposed eighth runway have been temporarily suspended while
airport officials explore the implications that recent economic and
industry events will have for runway need.
Airport Officials Described Extensive Environmental Review Process as
Challenging:
According to the airport Chief Executive Officer, the environmental
review process for the seventh runway required the airport to
coordinate the activities of 19 federal agencies and 15 state agencies,
and this process was further complicated by the lack of prime contacts
and personnel changes at reviewing agencies. Public controversy and
public demands for information exceeded the airport‘s expectations and
necessitated a highly detailed environmental review. According to
airport officials, this review included an analysis of 12 project
alternatives, although many were not equally viable or would not
survive the review process. According to these officials, the airport
will probably include two alternatives in future reviews--build/no
build--and then add specific alternatives for study if reviewers
request that additional alternatives be examined. Officials felt that
preparing an analysis of alternatives in this way will likely be less
costly and time-consuming than would preparing alternatives that, in
their opinion, clearly have no relevance.
The Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport Used Some Unique Approaches
to Mitigate Runway Impacts:
The Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport chose to implement a four-
stage approach to mitigating the off-airport noise impacts of the
runway project: 1) direct land acquisition for properties located in
the runway safety area; 2) direct land acquisition of certain
properties for noise mitigation; 3) sound-proofing structures for noise
mitigation; and 4) acquisition of aviation easements.[Footnote 20] The
airport offered 25 percent of the fair market value of the property to
acquire aviation easements. According to airport officials, the
easements were written so that residents who accepted them still have
legal standing to take the airport to court over noise impacts. Airport
officials estimated that final mitigation costs would be about $176
million. The last of the real estate settlements were paid out in 2002.
The final cost of the mitigation program exceeded the runway cost by a
wide margin.
The airport created an independent agency, the Action Desk, before
beginning the mitigation plan implementation. The Action Desk was the
main point of contact for property owners to provide and obtain
information and to file concerns and complaints. This office developed
a database of property-owner information and disseminated a newsletter.
According to airport officials, this approach was highly effective in
providing property-specific information to property owners that
countered misinformation about the project and allayed fears. The
airport also hired a consultant to manage the mitigation process, and
it established an appeals process by which property owners could
contest the acquisition process. The appeals council was composed of
airline employees, local residents, a local clergy member, and airport
board members. The airport Chief Executive Officer had final approval
of any appeals.
Stakeholder Experiences, from Start to Finish, Were Many and Varied:
The Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport still maintains its
Capacity Enhancement Team, first established in the 1970s, composed of
officials from FAA, the airport, and the airlines. The airport refers
to the team as a ’three-legged stool.“ Each of the groups is equally
important to supporting this stool. If one of the ’legs“ doesn‘t
provide support, the stool falls over. Airport officials, FAA, and even
local governments made reference to this team during our visit. The
team‘s responsibility is to recommend how the airport should address
increases in airfield efficiency, safety, and capacity.
According to airport officials, one of the biggest factors contributing
to the successful completion of the seventh runway project was the
staff dedicated to the project from FAA, the Department of Justice, and
various consultant teams. These stakeholders were assigned to the
project. The dedicated team provided the airport with single points of
contact and reduced the potential for misinterpretation or ambiguity,
as well as continually reeducated the participants. This experience was
in contrast to the difficulties the airport experienced in coordinating
the input from over 30 agencies in the environmental review process.
Airport officials wished that they had kept the Environmental
Protection Agency involved throughout the process, rather than only at
the beginning and at the end. They also suggested that FAA limit the
time frame for agency comments, and thereby eliminate lengthy comment
periods. The Environmental Protection Agency took 260 days to review
the EIS, which is considerably longer than the 60 to 90 days that the
airport expected.
FAA officials thought that holding many more public information
meetings than required also contributed to the success of the project,
especially during the environmental review process. This way, FAA and
others answered questions or comments and addressed concerns before the
official comment period began. FAA also repeated the airport‘s
suggestion that FAA should adhere to the comment deadlines.
The four communities surrounding the airport had both positive and
negative experiences while working with the airport. Three cities
challenged the ROD on the basis that its noise analysis and mitigation
plan were insufficient. (The ROD was upheld 23 months later.) Grapevine
felt that the airport broke long-standing promises. According to
Grapevine representatives, the plan that the airport originally
presented would have placed the area subsequently developed by
Grapevine outside projected flight patterns. Currently, if the airport
continues with its plan for the eighth runway, flights will go directly
over the city of Grapevine. Irving realized that asking for no airport
expansion was probably unreasonable, and ’you really have to cut the
best deal you can.“ The best possible runway development process should
make the city whole. Euless will be more affected by the eighth runway.
While Euless initially joined forces with two cities to contest the
ROD, it withdrew its challenge. The Euless City Manager stated that he
appreciated the positive economic impact of the airport on the North
Central Texas economy and believed the airport needs additional
capacity to support that economic impact. If the eighth runway does
become a reality, the City Manager expects the same mitigation plan
that Irving received for the seventh runway, which he considered fair.
The fourth community, Coppell, did not challenge the ROD. According to
the Coppell City Manager, Coppell realized that it had to do its part
to approve the runway somehow, because the airport is seen as vital to
the economies of Coppell as well as to the region. The manager felt
that airport staff were professional, knowledgeable, and helpful and
never held things out to be different from reality. For example, the
airport put together a task force to work with the communities affected
by overflights.
Litigation Delayed Process:
The surrounding communities of Irving, Grapevine, Euless, and Coppell
challenged the airport, asserting that the cities had the rights to
control zoning on the airport property that fell within their municipal
boundaries. The municipalities wanted to zone the land for ’government
use.“ Such zoning would require that the airport obtain the approval of
the city boards prior to doing any construction on airport property.
The airport objected, and took the cities to court. The cities won the
case, and also won the subsequent appeal. The Texas State Legislature
ultimately passed the Texas Municipal Airports Act, which stated that
the airport sponsors and not the municipalities control zoning on
airport property. According to the Chief Executive Officer, while the
act can apply to any Texas municipal airport, the wording of the act
leaves little doubt that it applies specifically to the Dallas-Fort
Worth International Airport. The Chief Executive Officer also felt that
the support of the local business community was crucial in the
development and implementation of the project. For example, the
business community provided support to the airport in the state
legislature. This case resulted in nearly 7 years of litigation in
state courts and ended when the Texas Supreme Court denied hearing the
complaint.
In addition to the zoning suit, the surrounding municipalities filed
suit contending that the FAA ROD was based on an inadequate
environmental impact study. According to the airport‘s General Counsel,
the cities surrounding the airport alleged that FAA and airport
officials did not properly follow the environmental review process,
primarily because the airport did not use a proper methodology in
determining single-event noise impacts. The U.S. Court of Appeals of
the District of Columbia upheld the ROD after 23 months of argument,
and the U.S. Supreme Court denied hearing the case. The runway
construction was delayed 23 months pending the resolution of the case.
Table 4: History of Dallas-Fort Worth Runway Project:
Date: February 1974; Event: Airport opens..
Date: September 1986; Event: FAA Task Force forms to explore means of
expanding air space capacity..
Date: January 1987; Event: FAA Task Force initiates Metroplex Air
Traffic System Plan Studies..
Date: September 1987; Event: DFW begins runway planning..
Date: February 1989; Event: DFW begins EIS Scoping..
Date: April 1990; Event: Neighboring cities challenge DFW on zoning
issues..
Date: August 1990; Event: FAA releases Draft EIS..
Date: March 1991; Event: DFW completes runway planning, publishes
Airport Development Plan..
Date: December 1991; Event: FAA issues Final EIS..
Date: April 1992; Event: FAA issues ROD..
Date: April 1992; Event: Three cities challenge ROD..
Date: 1993; Event: DFW seeks legislative solution to zoning issues from
the 73rd Texas Legislature..
Date: May 1993; Event: Texas Municipal Airports Act, reaffirming DFW as
exempt from local zoning ordinances, takes effect..
Date: March 1994; Event: U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit upholds
ROD..
Date: April 1996; Event: Texas Supreme Court denies hearing appeal on
zoning case from Fort Worth Court of Appeals..
Date: October 1996; Event: DFW completes construction of 7th runway..
Date: February 1998; Event: Texas Supreme Court denies appeal on zoning
case from Dallas Court of Appeals..
Date: May 1998; Event: DFW publishes 1997 Airport Development Plan
Update..
Date: October 2001; Event: DFW suspends activities for 8th runway,
while DFW Capacity Design Team explores implications of recent economic
and industry events for runway need..
Date: Spring 2002; Event: DFW pays final real estate settlements..
Source: U.S. General Accounting Office.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Memphis International Airport:
The Memphis International Airport is a medium-size hub airport that has
significant levels of both commercial passenger traffic and cargo
traffic. According to FAA data, this airport was among the 31 busiest
U.S. airports in 2001. Memphis is one of three major hubs operated by
Northwest Airlines. Federal Express is based in Memphis, and along with
other cargo airlines operating there, Memphis has served as the busiest
cargo airport in the world for the past several years. Additionally,
Memphis has claimed the distinction of being the number one hub airport
in the United States for on-time flights. The Memphis-Shelby County
Airport Authority operates the Memphis and two general aviation
airports. The authority is managed by a seven-member county board
composed of commissioners who must be qualified community leaders in
the fields of aviation, engineering, or finance. Of the airlines
operating at Memphis, three account for about 60 percent of the
operations. Northwest and Federal Express each accounts for slightly
more than 20 percent of the operations, while Northwest Airlink--a
commuter airline--accounts for slightly less than 20 percent.
Memphis currently has four runways, three of which are parallel and run
north and south, including the new runway on the east side of the
airport, developed between 1984 and 1997, which was the focus of our
study. The fourth runway runs east and west and is located north of the
other runways. The addition in 1997 of the new 9,000 foot runway (18L/
36R) raised the airport‘s maximum capacity in good weather from 131 to
145 operations per hour (about 11 percent) and in bad weather from 84
to 99 operations per hour (about 18 percent). However, the runway was
constructed mainly to counteract the capacity reduction incurred by the
reconstruction and extension of an existing runway, and to help the
combination of commercial and cargo air service work at the airport.
Figure 6 shows the existing Memphis airport configuration.
Figure 6: Airport Diagram --Memphis International Airport:
[See PDF for image]
Note: According to Memphis airport officials, the center runway has
been completed, and changes to the remaining runways are no longer
planned.
[End of figure]
We selected the Memphis Airport for study because it had quite recently
experienced all phases of the runway development process--planning,
environmental, and design and construction. In addition, unlike most
other airports in our study, it had a significant proportion of its
operations devoted to cargo, and it was the only medium-size hub
airport we visited.
We interviewed airport officials from the Memphis-Shelby County Airport
Authority who were the sponsors of the runway project. We also
interviewed officials at FAA Memphis Airport District Office; Federal
Express Airlines, which accounted for about 20 percent of the airport‘s
operation but about 50 percent of its landed weight; Northwest
Airlines, Memphis‘s leading commercial airline; neighboring business
community and residential representatives; Tennessee Department of
Transportation, Aeronautics Division and Highway Division; and
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation.
Status of the Runway project:
FAA commissioned the runway in 1997.
Airport Officials Stated That They Faced Challenges Reaching Consensus
among Stakeholders on Project Funding Issues and Decisionmaking:
A Memphis Shelby County Airport Authority official stated that the
airport faced challenges reaching agreement among airlines regarding
project funding during the development of their runway project.
Specifically, during the planning phase, a funding disagreement arose
between the two airlines that were the biggest airport users--one a
passenger airline and one a cargo airline. The passenger airline
objected to the airport‘s initial proposal to fund a major portion of
the project using passenger facility charges, which are collected only
by commercial passenger airlines and not by cargo airlines, as it
believed that this approach would disproportionately benefit the cargo
airlines. Ultimately, the airport authority was able to negotiate an
agreement with the airlines in which project funding was based on
landing fees, which are proportionate to the gross landed weight at the
airport and therefore apply to both passenger and cargo aircraft.
The disagreement among airlines regarding project funding highlighted a
broader issue regarding the establishment of the overall decisionmaking
process at the airport, according to an airport official. The Memphis
airport uses a Majority-in-Interest Agreement that stipulates how the
airlines (and other airport tenants) are involved in the airport‘s
decisionmaking process. As some airline fees are based on landed
weight, some airports‘ agreements base each airline‘s vote on its
proportion of landed weight, giving more power to those airlines with
the greatest landed weight and highest fees. However, the Memphis
airport chose to structure its voting process to prevent any one
airline from dominating the decisionmaking process. According to its
Majority-in-Interest Agreement, a vote to approve or reject a proposal,
such as any that addressed the runway completed in 1997, must have
represented more than 51 percent of signatory airlines‘ landed weight
and more than 51 percent of the number of signatory airlines serving
the airport. This approach allowed all airlines to participate in
runway project decisions affecting them. Additionally, after 1996, the
airport started using an ’inverted“ Majority-in-Interest Agreement,
whereby the airport may proceed with projects unless an airline
requests a formal vote and the majority of airlines vote to disapprove
the project. This approach--supported by the two hub airlines at the
airport--gives the airport more flexibility in project development than
would an approach requiring airlines to affirmatively approve every
significant project step.
Extensive Requirements Raised Challenges Regarding Wetlands Mitigation
and Land Acquisition during Construction of Runway:
Airport officials said that extensive environmental and land
acquisition requirements presented challenges during the construction
of the runway project. The airport was required to mitigate a wetland
area called Hurricane Creek and a series of small, adjacent marshy
areas on its property that needed to be relocated because of impacts
associated with the construction of the runway and adjacent developable
land.[Footnote 21] Airport officials said wetlands attract birds that
must be ’harvested“ through periodic hunting because of the danger that
birds represent to jet airplanes, and that airport workers do not like
being exposed to the poisonous snakes in the creek as they work to
maintain the relocated wetlands. According to airport officials, it was
necessary to relocate a portion of the existing creek to construct the
new runway, and to straighten the remainder of the creek to maximize
the use of remaining developable airport property. The airport proposed
a concrete-lined channel for the relocated creek based on a City of
Memphis standard. However, state governmental authorities required the
airport to obtain an aquatic alteration permit from the state and
requested that it relocate the creek in its natural state so that
animals such as frogs and poisonous snakes in the creek bed would still
have their habitat. According to an official from the Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation, this type of requirement is
fairly typical for airports that are expanding into areas containing
water. Another state environmental official said that the airport‘s
concrete lined-channel approach had no habitat for living species and
would be a direct conduit for pollutants. Ultimately, large wire
baskets filled with medium-sized rocks were used along the new stream
alignment, and four artificially constructed habitat structures were
added in the channel bottom to support fish that had been in the stream
before it was altered.
Airport officials stated that acquiring land for the runway project
took longer than they expected because of litigation and requirements
associated with acquiring the land. According to airport officials, for
the new runway, the airport acquired a road and adjacent property next
to the airport that previously contained gas stations and industrial
property. Some of the acquired properties contained underground tanks
that had previously leaked chemicals into the ground. The state
environmental agency required the airport to clean up the polluted
properties prior to constructing the project, although the airport did
not cause the residue problems.
Site-Specific Challenges Involved Relocating Other Infrastructure:
During the construction phase, the Memphis airport faced a challenge in
attempting to relocate a road that lay adjacent to the airport and in
the path of the new runway. According to airport officials, the City of
Memphis preferred that the airport be responsible for relocating the
road to ensure that the work was done in a timely manner. After the new
runway project was completed in 1997, the airport had a subsequent
project to reconstruct and extend an existing runway by 2,700 feet to
permit use by larger planes used for international flights. An airport
boundary road had to be lowered to allow for the proper clearance of
the flight path for the extended runway over the boundary road.
According to airport officials, the City of Memphis owned the road and
had widened it about 15 years earlier; the road could have been lowered
for an additional $250,000. However, the city refused to fund the
additional project cost at that time. When the airport asked for
funding from the Federal Highway Administration to assist in lowering
the highway, the agency determined that no funds were available to meet
the airport‘s required time schedule, and it could not fulfill the
request. Ultimately, the airport accomplished the project with FAA and
bond funds.
On another roadway project through the center of the airfield, the
airport worked with the Tennessee Department of Transportation to widen
and lower a portion of an existing road passing under an existing
taxiway, the original center runway, and two additional taxiways. The
state transportation agency chose to be responsible for the design and
construction of a new roadway to match the city‘s current road plan.
The airport notified the city that the taxiway and runway would be
closed to air traffic because of airport reconstruction, and it offered
the opportunity to accomplish the needed street improvements at the
least cost. The airport funded and constructed two taxiway crossings
over the existing road in the same general time period, and it
contributed funds toward the cost of a replacement tunnel and a portion
of the lowered and widened roadway needed to accommodate the eastern
taxiway. According to airport officials, the airport was responsible
for these improvements at a cost of $17 million. They said that the
airport complied with state requests at a cost and time greater than
was planned for by the airport because of the state transportation
agency‘s jurisdiction and power over factors that can slow down or stop
an airport‘s project.
Table 5: History of Memphis Runway Project:
Date: June 1984; Event: Airport initiates Master Plan for new runway..
Date: March 1987; Event: Airport initiated Environmental Assessment and
noise study..
Date: June 1989; Event: Airport‘s noise study report issued. Litigation
began..
Date: June 1991; Event: First Majority in Interest Agreement between
airport and airlines to build a new runway is reached..
Date: December 1991; Event: Airport completes Environmental
Assessment..
Date: December 1991; Event: FAA begins EIS process..
Date: April 1992; Event: Airport initiates first of eight runway design
projects..
Date: May 1992; Event: FAA publishes Draft EIS..
Date: November 1992; Event: FAA issues Supplemental Draft EIS to
address EPA noise comments..
Date: April 1993; Event: FAA issues Final EIS..
Date: May 1993; Event: FAA issues ROD..
Date: July 1996; Event: Airlines‘ disagreement about prorated funding
for runway project resolved..
Date: September 1997; Event: Airport opens runway..
Date: October 2000; Event: Litigation ended..
Source: U.S. General Accounting Office.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport:
The Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (Minneapolis-St. Paul)
ranked as North America‘s tenth-busiest airport in terms of passenger
traffic during 2001. The Metropolitan Airports Commission (Commission)
broke ground in May 1999 for the new north-south runway. This runway,
the airport‘s fourth, is expected to add about 25 percent additional
capacity. According to the Commission Chairman at the groundbreaking,
the new runway is vital to the economic growth of Minnesota and the
region.
The Commission owns and operates the Minneapolis-St. Paul International
Airport and six reliever airports. The Commission reports directly to
the Minnesota legislature and governor. Northwest Airlines, the major
hub carrier serving Minneapolis, accounts for nearly 80 percent of
annual operations. Several other airlines account for the remaining
traffic. Northwest is headquartered in the neighboring community of
Eagan, Minn.
The configuration is two parallel northwest-southeast runways, one
crosswind runway, and the new north-south runway. In good weather, the
airport operates with a capacity of 115 to 120 operations per hour. The
runway was originally scheduled for completion in December 2003, but
the terrorist events of September 11, 2001, forced the airport to delay
completion until November 2004--an 11 month delay. Airport officials
cited reduced cash flow as the primary reason for this delay. They also
said that the new runway would accommodate future demand, increase
runway capacity, relieve congestion, and reduce delays. Figure 7 shows
the existing airport configuration, including the new runway.
Figure 7: Airport Diagram--Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
We selected Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport as a site-visit
location because it is one of the nation‘s busiest airports with an
active runway project; its project was in the construction phase; it
had detailed and comprehensive planning and environmental phases; and
its Executive Director has been a prominent speaker regarding airport
issues.
We interviewed Commission officials who were the main sponsors of a new
fourth runway at the airport. We also interviewed officials at FAA‘s
Minneapolis Airport District Office; Northwest Airlines, which had a
majority of the air operations at the airport; Minnesota Department of
Transportation Office of Aeronautics, which is responsible for
promoting safety zones around the airport; and the Metropolitan
Council, which had a key role in the planning process. Additionally, we
interviewed representatives of the cities of Eagan, Richfield, and
Bloomington, which surround the airport and are impacted by the runway
project.
Current Status of the Runway Project:
The Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport is in the construction
phase for its fourth runway (Runway 17/35).
Stakeholders Agree That Comprehensive Mitigation Plans Are Essential
but Difficult to Develop:
According to both FAA District Office and airport officials, the
Commission worked hard at building consensus throughout the project and
entered into numerous mitigation agreements to resolve issues. The
prevailing philosophy was to do whatever was necessary to make the
project successful. Commission officials, communities, airlines, and
other stakeholders worked together to achieve this. For example, when
developing noise contour maps, the Commission chose to include an
entire city block if the noise contour intersected any part of the
block. If one residence received sound insulation measures because it
lay within the Day Night Noise Level (DNL) 65 contour, every house on
the block received identical remediation measures. According to
Minneapolis-St. Paul airport officials, the effort represented good
comprehensive community involvement. The Commission spent considerable
resources trying to keep all stakeholders satisfied. According to
airport officials, the Commission and FAA also tried to avoid having
the project go into litigation, viewed as an unproductive use of time
and resources and the worst scenario in the process. In the long run,
the FAA District Office, the state Department of Transportation, and
Commission officials agreed that consensus building, while taking
longer than expected in the project‘s early stages, saved time in the
long run.
However, often what was good for one community was bad for another
community. At least one community accused the Commission of buying
communities off, neighborhood by neighborhood. For example, Minneapolis
was ’made happy“ by eliminating the north parallel runway from
consideration. A National Wildlife Refuge located near the airport was
’made whole“ through the payment of over $26 million;[Footnote 22]
however, the noise will continue over the refuge. According to FAA
officials, this cost was required to mitigate the impact on refuge
property protected under 49 U.S.C. 303(c), formerly known as section
4(F) of the DOT Act. The opposition viewed the process as achieving
’traveling“ consensus--just moving the problem around. Opposition
groups described the process as one seeking cooperation for appearances
only--a ’divide and conquer“ approach.
Stakeholders Believe That Mitigation Funding Should Be More Flexible to
Include More Communities:
Stakeholders impacted by the runway said that they would be more
supportive of the project if the airport authority would increase the
level of noise mitigation on the surrounding community. The FAA
concluded, as indicated in its Minneapolis-St. Paul ROD, that federal-
funds eligibility for future residential sound insulation measures is
generally limited to the DNL 65+ contour. However, it said that FAA
might extend federal-funds eligibility for the residential insulation
program to include the area out to the DNL 60 contour if there are
applicable local standards. For the Minneapolis airport, FAA plans to
evaluate this extension through a future Commission-initiated Federal
Aviation Regulations Part 150 Noise Compatibility Plan. The Commission
submitted an updated noise compatibility plan to FAA in November 2001
and withdrew it in May 2002, prior to an FAA decision. Mitigation
efforts continue in the DNL 65+ contour area; time frames released to
the public called for the extended (DNL 60-64) program to be completed
in phases between 2005 and 2012. A major factor in Northwest Airlines‘
objection to paying for the additional mitigation measures was that the
future had changed significantly enough since September 11, 2001, to
reevaluate these additional measures.[Footnote 23]
A Nationwide Low Frequency Noise Policy Is Not in Place:
The impact of low frequency noise on the surrounding community is an
issue for the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport, which is close to
neighborhoods, according to the Federal Interagency Committee on
Aviation Noise: (FICAN).[Footnote 24] According to the City of
Richfield
official, the Commission received $10 million in FAA Airport
Improvement
Program funds for noise mitigation activities for the west side of the
new runway (the City of Richfield lies west of the new runway), pending
FAA‘s review of the noise impacts of the project. The $10 million was
earmarked in the 2001 Department of Transportation Appropriations Act
conference report.[Footnote 25]
In December 1998, the City of Richfield and the Commission agreed to
undertake a detailed study of existing and potential impacts of low
frequency aircraft noise in communities around the airport. In order to
develop a consistent low frequency noise policy, FAA turned to FICAN
for input on the review of this study and technical aspects of the
issue--particularly for an assessment of the problem and metrics to
evaluate it. Low frequency noise was discussed at the committee meeting
held in June 2001. Commission and Richfield experts attended. The
Committee released its findings in August 2002 and basically said that
additional data are needed to determine whether any relationship exists
between low frequency noise and human annoyance.[Footnote 26] According
to FAA officials, FAA is reluctant to fund low frequency noise
mitigation until the alleged adverse impacts are conclusively validated
and national standards established.
Some Communities Question Justification of State Zoning Laws:
According to the Minnesota Department of Transportation, FAA, the
Commission, and community officials, Minnesota has state safety zones
that go beyond the federal Runway Protection Zone limits.[Footnote 27]
Within these safety zones, certain types of development are prohibited.
The establishment of safety zones involves issues of safety, land use,
and encroachment that can impact not only the development of an airport
runway but also the development of land surrounding the airport. Some
communities around the airport question whether the safety zones are
beneficial for them. Although not all stakeholders oppose Minnesota‘s
strict zoning, The Commission authorized and funded a consultant study
to research the need for the state safety zones as well as the
approaches that the other 49 states have taken. The consultant‘s April
2002 report, sent to the Joint Zoning Board, found no justification for
the strict zoning.
The application of a grandfather clause in the use of state-created
safety zones presents an additional challenge to the communities
surrounding the airport. Under the terms of the grandfather clause, if
a residential area existed in the state zones in 1978 or earlier, it
was allowed to remain in place and not be removed by the airport.
However, business expansion in the general area around the airport is
subjected to state safety zone restrictions. Communities are unhappy
because it makes no sense to the community leaders to leave residences
closer to the runway itself but not permit businesses to expand in an
area further away from the airport. Businesses feel that, although
their property was not acquired, the impact is the same, since
expansion is forbidden.
Table 6: History of Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport Runway
Project:
Date: October 1988; Event: Metropolitan Airports Commission
(Commission) and Metropolitan Council issue Airport Adequacy Study..
Date: May 1989; Event: Minnesota legislature establishes Dual Track
Airport Planning Process..
Date: April 1992; Event: Scoping meetings held. FAA, in cooperation
with Commission, publishes Notice of Intent to prepare EIS. FAA and
Commission issue First Phase Scoping Report..
Date: March 1993; Event: FAA and MAC publish responses to First Phase
Scoping Report..
Date: December 1993; Event: Airport Capacity Team completes Capacity
Enhancement Plan..
Date: December 1994; Event: State Department of Transportation
completes Terminal Airspace Study for relocated airport..
Date: May 1995; Event: FAA issues Second Phase Scoping report, holds
public meetings..
Date: July 1995; Event: FAA issues EIS Scoping Decision..
Date: December 1995; Event: FAA and Commission publish Draft EIS..
Date: March 1996; Event: Commission and Metropolitan Council issue Dual
Track Planning Study..
Date: April 1996; Event: Minnesota legislature decides to expand
existing airport..
Date: August 1996; Event: FAA issues Airport Capacity Enhancement
Terminal Airspace Study..
Date: May 1998; Event: FAA issues Final EIS..
Date: September 1998; Event: FAA issues ROD..
Date: December 1998; Event: Richfield individual files suit against
Commission and state Environmental Quality Board..
Date: May 1999; Event: Commission commences runway construction..
Date: June 2000; Event: State Court of Appeals upholds Summary judgment
regarding Richfield individual‘s lawsuit..
Date: October 2000; Event: $10 million earmarked for noise mitigation
activities for the west side of the new runway..
Date: June 2001; Event: Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise
begins discussing low frequency noise standards..
Date: November 2001; Event: Commission submits Part 150 Noise
Compatibility Plan..
Date: March 2002; Event: FAA clarifies airport zoning standards..
Date: April 2002; Event: Study authorized by Commission results in
consultant report that finds no need for state safety zones..
Date: May 2002; Event: Commission withdraws Part 150 Noise
Compatibility Plan..
Date: November 2004; Event: Planned runway completion..
Source: U.S. General Accounting Office.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Seattle-Tacoma International Airport:
The Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (Sea-Tac) is the primary air
transportation hub of Washington State and the northwestern United
States. It is the 17th-busiest passenger airport, the 20th-busiest
cargo airport, and among the 31 busiest hub airports in the United
States. Located 12 miles south of downtown Seattle and 20 miles north
of Tacoma, it is the primary provider of international and domestic air
carrier service in the region surrounding the Seattle/Tacoma area. Its
primary service market is the Puget Sound region, composed of four
counties and approximately 3.5 million people. About three-fourths of
the air travelers using Sea-Tac Airport are origin and destination
passengers who begin or end their trip at the airport. The remaining
flights are connecting flights. The airport is a significant employer
in the region, with 20,000 airport employees.
Sea-Tac currently has two parallel runways. Our primary focus was on a
runway development project for a new third parallel runway first
considered in Sea-Tac‘s plans in 1989, and which the Port of Seattle
approved in 1992. The project has proceeded through several steps of
the environmental review process, and it is currently scheduled for
completion in 2006. Sea-Tac‘s sole purpose for adding this 8,500 foot
parallel runway, which would be separated by 2,500 feet from the
furthest parallel runway, is to address constraints attributable to
Seattle‘s poor weather, and although the new runway would increase
capacity, airport officials do not consider the runway project to be a
capacity-enhancing project. During periods of reduced weather
conditions, which occur about 44 percent of the time, Sea-Tac can use
only one of the two existing runways for arrivals because of the narrow
spacing between them, thereby causing delays. The number of flights
that can be accommodated drops from about 60 arrivals per hour in good
weather to 48 or fewer in poor weather. The new runway, which is
planned to have much greater separation from other runways, would allow
independent landings on two runways at the same time, which reduces
delays. Figure 8 shows the existing Sea-Tac airport configuration,
including the proposed runway.
Figure 7: Airport Diagram--Sea-Tac International Airport:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
We selected Sea-Tac Airport for study because it was an airport with a
significant amount of both passenger and cargo operations and it had
experienced significant planning and environmental issues during the
development of its runway project. Additionally, in constructing the
planned runway, Sea-Tac is expanding the plateau where the airport is
located--undertaking one of the most significant landfill and
embankment projects in the United States (about 17 million cubic
yards). According to Sea-Tac officials, this earth-moving project is
producing several accompanying environmental considerations.
We interviewed officials from Sea-Tac, who were the sponsors of the
runway project. We also interviewed officials at the FAA Seattle
Airports District Office; Alaska Airlines; Puget Sound Regional
Council; Airport Community Coalition; Regional Commission on Airport
Affairs; Washington State Department of Transportation Aviation
Division; Washington State Department of Ecology; the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers; and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Status of the Runway Project:
As indicated above, the runway project for the new third parallel
runway at Sea-Tac has completed environmental review and has received
state and Corps wetland fill permits. However, according to Sea-Tac
officials, both permits are currently in litigation and under appeal.
Sea-Tac has begun constructing the foundation that will be required to
support the third runway.
Simplifying Purpose and Need May Help Reduce the Circuitous Nature of
the Review Process:
Sea-Tac officials stated that continual review of the purpose of and
need for their runway project, as well as alternatives to it, presented
a significant challenge to moving forward in the process. They stated
that reducing the number of reviews could reduce the amount of
potential delay in the process. The purpose and need was established
and reviewed by the airport, FAA, consultants, and the local
Metropolitan Planning Organization during the planning and
environmental process; it was then re-reviewed by the Corps of
Engineers (Corps) during the permitting process under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act.[Footnote 28] FAA officials questioned the
usefulness of the Corps‘ review of the project‘s purpose and need,
stating that the extra review created frustrations for other
stakeholders and added time to the process when the purpose and need
had already been established. Additionally, FAA officials said that
aviation expertise is needed to analyze the alternatives, and the Corps
has no such expertise. According to Corps officials, the Corps is
required to ensure that alternatives have been adequately
considered.[Footnote 29] Corps officials said that their review of the
alternatives was justified because it had been a considerable time
since the EIS had been developed, and it wanted to determine if the
events of September 11, 2001, had changed the relative benefits of the
alternatives. Officials from the Puget Sound Regional Council, the
metropolitan planning organization in the Seattle area, suggested that
the Corps could have been included more in the early consideration of
alternatives, but acknowledged that the Corps‘ limited resources made
early participation difficult. FAA officials, however, believe that the
Corps did participate in the development of alternatives in its role as
a cooperating agency during the development of the EIS.
Sea-Tac Airport, while not specifically citing purpose and need, said
that a clear federal policy of encouraging runway development and
moving projects through the regulatory process would help ensure that
adequate airport capacity is in place to reduce growing air traffic
delays. It suggested that such a commitment could be similar to the one
the federal government took in developing the interstate highway system
and national railroads. A task force could be created to identify
runway projects that are critical to the national air transportation
system. Such an approach could help expedite implementation of
decisions already made at the local level. Additionally, they suggested
that Congress could adopt a policy of directing all organizations to
achieve a balance between environmental, economic, and social goals,
coupled with statutory deadlines for decisionmaking. They contend that
such an approach, now used by other countries, would help agencies make
difficult decisions and get needed runways built.
A Compatible Land Use Program May Help to Reduce Opposition:
A Washington State Department of Transportation official stated that
minimizing controversy over the uses of land needed for expanding
runway capacity could be important in avoiding lengthy project delays.
The department developed an Airport Land Use Compatibility Program,
implementing a 1996 amendment of the Washington State Growth Management
Act--the state‘s land use planning law. The law requires cities and
counties to identify, site, and protect essential public facilities
(including airports) from incompatible land use, such as encroaching
development. In other words, when developing local land use plans,
cities and counties must ensure that their plans do not adversely
affect these facilities.
As part of the land use compatibility program, certain state
transportation officials provide consultations, including mediation,
between airport sponsors and community representatives (often municipal
or county planning staff) to balance the state‘s dual interest of
promoting aviation and ensuring the health, safety, and welfare of its
residents. The approach to facilitating airports‘ future expansion
includes several steps, including the development of planning-based
solutions and the integration of those solutions into a legally
enforceable document such as a comprehensive development plan (rather
than the Airport Master Plan, which is not binding on a land use
authority).
New Mitigation Approaches and Increased Community Interaction Could
Help Foster Community Support:
In Seattle, the Airport Communities Coalition, representing several
communities near Sea-Tac Airport but not the city of SeaTac, said that
expanding the scope of mitigation beyond direct environmental
applications would go far in building community support for runway
projects. They said that the airport‘s use of heavy trucks over local
roads to haul dirt for its landfill project for the runway caused
significant deterioration of the community‘s roads, for which it has
not been reimbursed.[Footnote 30] Similarly, when the airport acquires
residence and business locations in order to mitigate noise or wetland
impacts, these buyouts deplete the tax base in the community where the
properties are based, resulting in negative economic impacts for which
the community is not reimbursed. Therefore, the community has no reason
to support the runway project. However, they said that the community
would have reasons to support the project if some funding were provided
to mitigate the economic damage to the community. An organization
official said that the Department of Defense reimburses communities for
economic loss when it acquires property within the community to build
military bases. Officials at the Regional Commission on Airport
Affairs, a citizens‘ group in the greater Seattle metropolitan area,
stated that that the airport could do more to mitigate economic
impacts. However, they also said that expanding the scope of mitigation
would not diminish their opposition to the runway project.
According to the Airport Communities Coalition, communities seek to
contribute meaningful input into the airport expansion process;
however, when they are not allowed to do so, they are forced to file
lawsuits against airports and other stakeholders over decisions that
have been made. Officials at both the Coalition and the Regional
Commission believed that the planning process used by the airport and
the Puget Sound Regional Council needed to include meaningful input
from the communities near the airport. An official at the Regional
Commission stated that there should be a citizen‘s advisory committee
with genuine input into the airport‘s expansion projects early in the
planning process. The official suggested that the federal government
should provide the incentive for the establishment of such a committee
by providing federal funds only when such a committee was established.
In the official‘s view, the success of such an approach would be
contingent on the airport‘s taking the committee‘s views into account
and substantively addressing them. These community organizations have
filed several lawsuits against the airport, the Puget Sound Regional
Council, and FAA, based on objections to their approach for addressing
environmental issues. An Airport Communities Coalition official said
that the community filed lawsuits in part, to get the airport to listen
to the needs of the community and to negotiate solutions. The official
noted that communities near other airports had successfully used such
an approach. Sea-Tac and FAA officials stated that there was extensive
community involvement beyond that required by law.
An official at the Airport Communities Coalition said that the public
hearing process on environmental matters gives stakeholders the ability
to voice concerns but, because of the limited time allocated to each
person, does not give those convening the hearing an ability to
understand the concerns or allow citizens to have an impact on the
project. The thrust of FAA‘s 2001 best practices guide seems to agree
with the coalition official; the guide states that periodic informal
workshops during the planning and environmental processes tend to
provide better forums for community consultation than do formal public
hearings. Understandable information on the project and its
environmental impacts should be made available at the workshop, and
knowledgeable stakeholders such as the airport, FAA, and EIS
consultants should be present to answer questions. In the guide, FAA
notes that strong local opposition tends to slow down the environmental
process and that a citizens‘ advisory committee in some locations has
been useful in improving working relationships and communication
between the airport and the community. FAA said that such a committee
may be established on either a permanent basis or for the duration of a
specific project‘s planning and environmental review. FAA added that
factors that help build local consensus and address opposition include,
among others: 1) open and frank dialogue on the aviation need and the
airport proprietor‘s initial planning, including possible
alternatives; 2) an effective forum for constructive exchanges on
expected benefits, impacts, alternatives, and mitigation prospects; and
3) serious consideration of community concerns and views, including
project adjustments that have merit and are possible, as well as
responses to community proposals that cannot be accommodated, and the
reasons why. A SeaTac official emphasized that the airport did include
public outreach beyond that required by environmental regulations. For
example, such efforts included public information sessions and
community open houses, among others.
Extensive Regulatory and Legal Requirements Posed Resource Challenges:
Stakeholders may have limited staff and resources to address the
extensive regulatory and legal requirements of the process, leading to
delays. For example, officials from FAA‘s Seattle office said that when
an endangered species of fish was identified at Sea-Tac Airport, 20
months elapsed before officials from the federal Fish and Wildlife
Service and the state Department of Marine Fisheries approved actions
to address the conditions of endangered species. Both agencies had
limited staff to review and analyze the discovery and the approach for
addressing it. FAA officials said that they understood that the Corps
had only six staff members to review about 1,000 water quality permits,
and according to state aviation department officials, the Corps had a
significant backlog in processing permit applications.
Additionally, an official from the state Department of Ecology said
that the Sea-Tac runway project had been a significant drain on
resources at the agency. The agency has had difficulty finding
sufficient resources to complete environmental reviews and must
redirect personnel from other functions. The official said that,
because of the shortage of state funds, applicants wanting reviews to
proceed quickly will have to bear the burden of funding water quality
reviews. Sea-Tac officials noted that additional staff resources are
needed in regulatory agencies in order to process environmental permits
in a timely manner and, aside from adding federal funding, funding
could be provided by project proponents. The airport acknowledged that
agencies were reluctant to accept funding because of a concern with
potential conflicts of interest. The airport suggested that Congress
could make guidelines under which the agencies could remain impartial.
The purpose of allowing such funding would not be to curry favor but to
work efficiently with the federal government to get runways built. They
asserted that these staff would work exclusively under FAA‘s
supervision and would be under no obligation to the airport. They
contended that this proposal would provide a mechanism for airports to
bear the financial cost of accelerated project reviews.
Site-Specific Issues Involve Safety and Environmental Challenges:
A major site-specific challenge involves the construction of a large
plateau to enable the airport to construct the new runway. According to
Sea-Tac officials, in order to bring the new runway site up to the
elevation of its other two runways, a 17-million cubic yard landfill
and embankment is being built. The embankment will require three
retaining walls to reduce impacts on a nearby creek and wetlands and to
accommodate safety areas at the ends of the runway. The walls are
mechanically stabilized, using concrete panels and layers of galvanized
reinforced strips that bind to and reinforce the embankment material in
a coherent way. According to the Port, this type of wall is highly
earthquake resistant, and it has been used successfully elsewhere in
the United States. In April 2002, Sea-Tac Airport officials said that
the communities surrounding the airport were concerned that the wall
will collapse or will be unable to withstand an earthquake. However,
according to airport officials, the airport used the services of
consulting engineers, geotechnical consultants, and earthquake
engineers from companies and the University of Washington, and sought
advice from a technical review board in developing the wall design to
ensure that it is safe. The airport has also held public hearings in an
attempt to enlighten the public about the durability and safety of the
wall project.
Table 7: History of Sea-Tac Runway Project:
Date: June 1992; Event: Puget Sound Regional Council completes 2.5 year
study of air capacity needs that included possible third runway at
SeaTac..
Date: April 1993; Event: Metropolitan Planning Organization approves
Regional Airport System Plan..
Date: November 1993; Event: Initial design contracts awarded..
Date: October 1994; Event: Metropolitan Planning Organization concludes
no sites suitable for new airport..
Date: February 1996; Event: Final EIS completed..
Date: July 1996; Event: Metropolitan Planning Organization amends
metropolitan transportation plan to include new runway..
Date: August 1996; Event: Airport authority adopts revised Master Plan
that includes new runway..
Date: December 1996; Event: Supplemental EIS begun..
Date: May 1997; Event: Final Supplemental EIS issued..
Date: July 1997; Event: ROD issued..
Date: August 1997; Event: ROD challenged..
Date: December 1997; Event: Airport submits permit applications to
state and Corps of Engineers..
Date: March 1998; Event: Construction begins on the first phase of the
landfill project..
Date: September 1998; Event: New wetlands discovered in project area..
Date: January 1999; Event: Circuit court affirms ROD..
Date: September 1999; Event: Airport submits revised permit
applications..
Date: November 1999; Event: Public comment hearings held on permit
applications..
Date: September 2000; Event: Airport withdraws permit application
before expiration deadline to address remaining issues and provide
agency additional time to process application..
Date: October 2000; Event: Airport resubmits permit applications..
Date: January 2001; Event: Public comment hearings held on permit
applications..
Date: August 2001; Event: State issues water quality certification..
Date: December 2001; Event: State water quality certification suspended
pending community appeal to Pollution Control Hearings Board..
Date: July 2002; Event: FAA approves Part 150 noise study..
Date: August 2002; Event: Pollution Control Hearings Board upholds
water quality certification, subject to additional conditions..
Date: September 2002; Event: Airport appeals Pollution Control Hearings
Board‘s conditional approval of water quality certification..
Date: December 2002; Event: Corps issues wetland permits; permits
challenged..
Date: 2006; Event: Planned completion of runway construction..
Source: U.S. General Accounting Office.
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Lester B. Pearson International Airport, Toronto, Canada:
The Lester B. Pearson International Airport (Pearson) is the primary
commercial airport serving the Toronto area. The Greater Toronto
Airports Authority manages the day-to-day operations of the Pearson
airport, as well as managing its capital infrastructure projects. The
Greater Toronto Airports Authority was established in March 1993 as a
community initiative, was reconstituted in accordance with Canadian
Airport Authority guidelines, and was recognized by the Minister of
Transport in November 1994 as the airport authority responsible for
Pearson airport. The airport authority is a private, not-for-profit
corporation. Its 15-member Board of Directors is composed of nominees
from the City of Toronto, the Province of Ontario, the Government of
Canada, and four regional municipalities. The airport authority assumed
control of the management, operation, and maintenance of Pearson on
December 2, 1996.
Pearson Airport is the busiest airport in Canada and the 16th-busiest
in North America, having served 28 million passengers in 2001. With
regard to international passengers, Pearson was ranked as the 2nd-
busiest in North America and 17th-busiest in the world in 2001. To
handle the projected demand for air travel through the airport, the
airport authority developed a $4.4 billion (Canadian) development plan
for the improvement of the airport‘s infrastructure--the Airport
Development Program (ADP), which includes new runway projects, among
other infrastructure projects. Figure 9 shows the existing Pearson
airport configuration.
Figure 8: Airport Diagram--Lester B. Pearson International Airport:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
We chose Pearson Airport as a site visit to learn about the runway
development process used in Canada, and because the airport had three
runway projects that met the criteria we used to select airports in the
United States--one runway completed in 1997, one completed in October
2002, and one planned for future implementation.[Footnote 31] The three
additional runways were approved for development as warranted by demand
in 1993 by Transport Canada after a lengthy Environmental Assessment
Review process in 1990-1992.
Status of Runway Projects:
As noted above, Pearson Airport completed the construction of a new
runway in 1997, completed the construction of a second new runway in
2002, and has a third runway in the planning stages, to be constructed
when capacity demands warrant another runway.
Airport Development Process in Canada Differs from U.S. Process:
The airport development process in Canada differs from the U.S. process
in several distinct ways. Pearson Airport was one of the first airports
in Canada to attempt to build additional runways since the airports
were first constructed to serve the Canadian military during World War
II. As a result, there was no established runway development process in
place--Transport Canada officials had to learn about the process as
they progressed through it. In the broadest sense, there are three
pieces of legislation that affect the process--the Aeronautics Act, the
Fisheries Act, and the Environmental Act.
The environmental phase differs greatly from that employed in the
United States. Prior to the development of the EIS, the airport
authority begins the process with scoping. The scoping process is a
public process. According to airport officials, every project goes
through environmental screening (equivalent to an Environmental
Assessment) as a part of the planning process. When the Pearson project
went through the screening process, the airport authority was
responsible for conducting environmental screening. However, current
legislation requires that the screening results be available to the
public.
The Minister of Transport and the Minister of the Environment
cooperatively choose an Environmental Review Panel consisting of
government officials and knowledgeable local residents (that is,
academics.) The panel begins by developing a list of issues that it
believes the EIS must identify. The issues and, therefore, the
requirements of the EIS will vary from airport to airport. Airport
officials referred to the process as ’organic“--changing from airport
to airport, project to project. The airport authority is responsible
for preparing the EIS documents, and it submits them to the panel for
review. The panel reviews the environmental impact documents and
convenes hearings to hear testimony in order to formulate its opinions
regarding the environmental impacts of the project and accompanying
mitigation measures. The hearings are judicial in nature, and attendees
have never resorted to shouting or histrionics. According to airport
officials, the hearings were well balanced between opponents and
proponents of the projects. With respect to the EIS, the focus of the
environmental hearings was medium-term capacity enhancement projects--
the three runways at Pearson. The issues that the panel considered
depended greatly on their perception of the issues raised during the
hearings. The members of the panel did not work on the EIS full-time,
and did not have the requisite expertise to conduct their reviews--the
panel either hires knowledgeable consultants or develops the necessary
knowledge. This process takes a long time.
Once the EIS is completed, the panel reviews the document, develops a
series of recommendations, and submits them to the Minister of
Environment. The Minister of Environment then makes a final
determination and submits recommendations to the Minister of Transport.
The Minister of Transport has sole discretion as to whether to
implement the recommendations of the Minister of Environment. The
Minister of Transport makes the final determination, and it is
incumbent upon the airport authority to respond to the final
recommendations.
The design and construction process in Canada does not differ
substantially from that in the United States. The airport must prepare
preliminary engineering and final design, and then construct the runway
infrastructure. Finally, in summary, airport officials believed that
the process went very well and did not believe that they would proceed
dramatically differently if they were to go through the process again.
However, both airport and Transport Canada officials noted that the
recently passed Canadian Environmental Assessment Act will result in
changes to the existing process.
Canadian Airports Face Many of the Same Challenges as U.S. Airports:
Airports in Canada seeking to add capacity by constructing new runways
face many of the same challenges that airports in the United States
face, including environmental issues, wetlands mitigation issues, and
the impacts of noise on the surrounding communities. These impacts
generally lead to some community opposition to the proposed project.
Canadian airports are also subject to site-specific constraints
attributable primarily to the northern climate.
Because of the northern climate, airport operations in Toronto require
extensive ice removal in the winter months, resulting in the use of a
large quantity of Glycol that can cause an environmental impact on
surrounding wetlands. The airport straddles both the Etobicoke and
Mimico Creek watersheds, covering 1,640 hectares of land. Most of the
airport, including runways, cargo areas, Terminal Three, Terminal One
aprons, and infield areas, drains to Etobicoke Creek. According to the
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, although runoff
contamination from these sources is a concern, significant progress has
recently been made to mitigate the airport‘s impact on water quality
through the expanded use of wastewater and storm water recovery and
containment systems. Airport officials cited their wastewater treatment
facility as contributing greatly to allaying the concerns of residents
over ground and surface water contamination, and they stated that the
airport has never exceeded contaminant limits.
The Council of Concerned Residents, a coalition of three residents‘
associations near the airport, opposed the expansion of the airport
fundamentally on the premise that the projects would increase the noise
impacts on their communities. In 1993, the group filed a lawsuit
against the airport claiming that the proposed project was illegal for
three reasons: 1) a 1973 order precluded the Toronto airport from
expanding beyond its borders; 2) a federally approved airport master
plan and the local municipality‘s land use plan stipulated that they
were based on the assumption that the airport would have no more than
three runways; and 3) the Environmental Review Panel stated that the
project should not be pursued because the adverse social impacts of the
project outweighed the capacity gains at the airport. According to
Transport Canada officials, Canada‘s noise mitigation standards are
very similar to FAA‘s Federal Aviation Regulations Part 150 programs in
the United States. According to airport officials, neither Transport
Canada nor the airport authorities are required to acquire noise-
sensitive properties surrounding the airport.
According to airport authority officials, airports in Canada face a
shortened construction season because of the sometimes severe winter
weather associated with the northern climate. Therefore, airports
seeking to construct runways must take the climate into account when
entering into the construction phase of the runway development process.
Airports must schedule construction tasks such that weather-dependent
tasks such as concrete construction are scheduled during the warmer
months, and reserve climate-independent tasks for the winter months.
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: Survey of Airports:
The following section provides a copy of the survey that we sent to
airports that have built a runway between 1991 and 2000 or planned to
do so by 2010. Where appropriate, we have summarized their responses to
each question. In instances where summarized answers are not possible-
-such as dates--we have listed the number of airports that answered the
question.
In total, we sent 39 surveys to 34 airports--Dallas-Fort Worth,
Detroit, Indianapolis, Louisville, and Washington Dulles received more
than one survey, because each had more than one runway that met our
criteria. We excluded five surveys because the airports reported that
their projects did not meet our selection criteria. For our statistical
analysis, we excluded responses from five airports--Kailua-Kona, Little
Rock, Reno, Sacramento, and one of the two surveys sent to Washington
Dulles--because their responses indicated that their projects did not
meet our criteria. The primary reason why their responses were dropped
from our statistical analysis was that they planned only runway
extensions or no new runways during our time frame. We did, however,
rely on their responses during the remainder of our review. In total,
we received 32 out of a potential 34 responses from 30 airports--a
response rate of 94 percent. Table 8 lists the airports we surveyed.
Table 8: Airports Surveyed:
1. Atlanta Hartsfield.
2. Baltimore; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty].
3. Boston Logan; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty].
4. Charlotte; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty].
5. Cincinnati; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty].
6. Colorado Springs; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty].
7. Dallas-Fort Worth (2); [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty].
8. Denver; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty].
9. Detroit Wayne County (2); [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty].
10. Grand Rapids; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty].
11. Houston; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty].
12. Indianapolis (2); [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty].
13. Kansas City; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty].
14. Las Vegas; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty].
15. Los Angeles; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty].
16. Louisville (2); [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty].
17. Madison; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty].
18. Memphis Shelby County; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty].
19. Miami; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty].
20. Minneapolis; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty].
21. Nashville; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty].
22. Orlando; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty].
23. Philadelphia; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty].
24. Phoenix; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty].
25. Salt Lake City; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty].
26. San Francisco; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty].
27. Seattle; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty].
28. St. Louis Lambert; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty].
29. Tampa; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty].
30. Washington-Dulles; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty]; [Empty].
Source: U.S. General Accounting Office.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IX: Survey of Airports with Recent or Planned Runway Projects:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
FOOTNOTES
[1] The National Economic Impact of Civil Aviation, DRI-WEFA, Inc.,
July 2002.
[2] Some in the aviation industry believe that demand management and
peak pricing are also feasible alternatives to reducing congestion and
delays.
[3] Airports and other stakeholders develop these plans to help them
identify potential ways to increase airfield capacity at major airports
and to coordinate major infrastructure projects at the airports.
[4] Some states have environmental review requirements in addition to
federal requirements.
[5] Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, a categorical
exclusion exempts the project from the requirements of the federal
environmental review process. However, according to FAA, categorical
exclusions are not an option for a new runway or major runway
extension. A categorical exclusion does not necessarily relieve the
project from state and local environmental review requirements.
[6] An EIS is a document required of federal agencies by the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and its implementing regulations as
formulated by the Council on Environmental Quality for major projects
or legislative proposals that significantly affect the environment. It
describes the environmental effects of the undertaking and lists
alternative actions. In principle, it is a basis for deciding whether
to approve the project. FAA is responsible for preparing an EIS for a
major airport project or selecting a contractor (that is, consultant)
to assist FAA in preparing the EIS. Typically, FAA coordinates with the
airport authority when it selects an EIS consultant.
[7] Report to the U. S. Congress on Environmental Review of Airport
Improvement Projects, U.S. Department of Transportation, May 2001.
[8] FAA officials said that if they added 3 to 5 years for design and
construction, then FAA‘s determination of average time to complete a
runway would become about the same as that reported by GAO for projects
not yet completed.
[9] U.S. General Accounting Office, Aviation Infrastructure: Challenges
Associated with Building and Maintaining Runways, GAO-01-90T
(Washington, D.C., Oct. 5, 2000).
[10] The order does not supersede the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act or other environmental laws.
[11] On October 31, 2002, the Secretary of Transportation selected
seven high-priority transportation projects. One airport project was
selected--a runway construction project at the Philadelphia
International Airport. The Secretary is currently considering
additional transportation projects, including airport projects, to add
to the initial list.
[12] U.S. General Accounting Office, Aviation and the Environment:
Airport Operations and Future Growth Present Environmental Challenges,
GAO/RCED-00-153 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 30, 2000).
[13] The Day Night Average Sound Level is a measurement of the average
noise impacts of the airport on the surrounding community.
[14] Information on the time airports spent in various parts of the
process is based, in part, on estimates provided by some airports that
have not yet completed their projects.
[15] See appendix I for the methodology we used to select the airports
we visited.
[16] All flights using this runway would arrive from the southeast or
depart from the northwest, over Boston Harbor.
[17] Logan Airport was not the only airport that spent a long time in
the planning phase. Of the 30 airports we surveyed, two others--Phoenix
and Indianapolis--also reported spending a long time (about 20 years or
more) in the planning phase.
[18] The Communities Against Runway Expansion Vice President is also
the Chair of the Community Advisory Council, a group representing
various communities around Logan.
[19] The ROD limits the use of the proposed 14/32 runway to those times
when wind conditions equal or exceed 10 knots, either northwest or
southeast. FAA Air Traffic Control is responsible for runway
assignments and will base its use of 14/32 on forecasted wind
conditions. The Record of Decision also includes a 2-hour window to
adjust to changing conditions.
[20] Aviation Easements (also referred to as Avigation Easements) are
rights given to the airport to fly aircraft over property; they
indicate that property owners acknowledge and accept the noise impacts
of the aircraft.
[21] According to FAA officials, the EIS addressed all major
development in the Memphis Airport Master Plan, including the new
runway. FAA officials contend that if the EIS had included only the new
runway, no appreciable wetland impacts would have occurred.
[22] According to an airport official, the amount was determined by an
independent professional appraiser and includes costs to relocate
significant educational activities.
[23] MAC intends to update the noise contours to reflect a 2002 base
year and the 2007 forecast, incorporating the 2007 fleet mix plans. As
a result, noise contours could shrink because of quieter aircraft. MAC
adopted a noise-mitigation plan for single-family homes in the DNL
60-64 contours in April 2002. Implementation of this plan is contingent
upon resubmission of the Part 150 Update and its FAA approval.
[24] Low frequency noise is aircraft-generated noise that is likely to
induce audible rattles in residences, most likely below 100 hertz.
[25] House Conference Report 106-940, October 5, 2000.
[26] Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise on the Findings of
the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport Low Frequency Expert
Panel, August 2002.
[27] FAA requirements cover both the primary runway surface and runway
protection zone limits. The length and width of the zones depend upon
the aircraft operating on the particular runway and the visibility
minimums. Minnesota state requirements include 1) Zone A--begins 200
feet from the runway end and extends for a distance two-thirds the
runway length; 2) Zone B--begins at the end of Zone A and extends for a
distance of one-third the runway length; and 3) Zone C--the required
horizontal clearance.
[28] According to Sea-Tac and FAA, the Corps was involved as a
cooperating agency during Master Plan updates and participated in an
early EIS draft.
[29] 33 CFR part 323.
[30] An airport official stated that most of the impacts have been to
roads in the city of SeaTac, and that mitigation costs pertaining to
the impacts have been addressed.
[31] When we visited the airport, the runway project completed in
October 2002 was still under construction.
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548: