Aviation and the Environment
Systematically Addressing Environmental Impacts and Community Concerns Can Help Airports Reduce Project Delays
Gao ID: GAO-10-50 September 13, 2010
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) estimates that the number of flights in the United States will increase 20 percent by 2024. It also has identified numerous airports that will need to expand to handle more flights. However, increasing airport capacity and operations poses potentially significant impacts on the environment and quality of life for surrounding communities. This report addresses (1) airports' actions to reduce their environmental impacts, (2) the extent airports believe environmental issues delay development or operational changes, and (3) the strategies airports can adopt to address environmental issues. GAO reviewed pertinent federal laws and regulations; interviewed airport officials, state and local regulatory agencies, metropolitan planning organizations, and community groups for 10 selected airports, as well as federal officials and national industry and advocacy groups; and surveyed the 150 busiest airports as measured by the number of operations. This report does not contain recommendations. A draft was provided to the Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and two organizations representing airports and airport officials. GAO incorporated technical clarifications they provided as appropriate.
Almost all the airports GAO surveyed took some actions to address their environmental impacts in four key areas: reducing noise levels, controlling water pollution, reducing emissions, and using environmentally sustainable practices. These include voluntary actions, such as asking pilots and controllers to use aircraft operational procedures that lower noise levels, as well as actions required by federal and state laws, such as in the areas of controlling water and air pollution. Larger airports, which can have more environmental impacts, were more likely than other surveyed airports to take a wider range of actions, such as soundproofing homes or installing loading bridges that supply aircraft with electric power to lower engine usage and emissions. Finally, GAO found that airports were moving toward a more holistic approach to environmental management, including following environmentally sustainable standards and implementing an Environmental Management System (EMS). Less than half of the surveyed airports believe that addressing environmental issues somewhat or greatly delayed a development project (35 percent) or operational change (42 percent) at their airport over the last 5 years, even though the vast majority had undertaken a capital development project or operational change during this time period. Both the reported delay and the extent and significance of delay were determined by the responding airport. Less than half similarly believe that addressing environmental issues will cause delays in the next 5 years. More airports reported that they had been somewhat delayed than greatly delayed. Larger airports were somewhat less likely than all surveyed airports to believe that addressing environmental issues will cause a delay in development projects (30 percent) or operational changes (36 percent). Addressing water issues and noise issues was the most commonly cited environmental issue that led to delay in implementing development projects and operational changes, respectively. A number of airports have adopted strategies to systematically address environmental impacts and community concerns, which can help both mitigate environmental impacts and anticipate and reduce problems with communities and other stakeholders that can lead to delays. Airports are integrating environmental considerations into their planning process, including 7 of the 10 airports GAO visited. Some airports are also finding success in streamlining the federal environmental review process and in integrating their EMS processes with the federal environmental review process. Finally, effective community outreach that solicits stakeholder input, fosters interactive communication with local communities, and evaluates its outreach efforts can help airports better anticipate and deal with community opposition.
E-supplements Aviation and the Environment: Survey of Airport Officials on Airport Environmental Issues (GAO-10-748SP, September 2010), an E-supplement to GAO-10-50
GAO-10-50, Aviation and the Environment: Systematically Addressing Environmental Impacts and Community Concerns Can Help Airports Reduce Project Delays
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-50
entitled 'Aviation And The Environment: Systematically Addressing
Environmental Impacts and Community Concerns Can Help Airports Reduce
Project Delays' which was released on September 21, 2010.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
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.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
September 2010:
Aviation And The Environment:
Systematically Addressing Environmental Impacts and Community Concerns
Can Help Airports Reduce Project Delays:
GAO-10-50:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-50, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) estimates that the number of
flights in the United States will increase 20 percent by 2024. It also
has identified numerous airports that will need to expand to handle
more flights. However, increasing airport capacity and operations
poses potentially significant impacts on the environment and quality
of life for surrounding communities.
This report addresses (1) airports‘ actions to reduce their
environmental impacts, (2) the extent airports believe environmental
issues delay development or operational changes, and (3) the
strategies airports can adopt to address environmental issues. GAO
reviewed pertinent federal laws and regulations; interviewed airport
officials, state and local regulatory agencies, metropolitan planning
organizations, and community groups for 10 selected airports, as well
as federal officials and national industry and advocacy groups; and
surveyed the 150 busiest airports as measured by the number of
operations. This report does not contain recommendations. A draft was
provided to the Department of Transportation, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and two organizations representing airports and
airport officials. GAO incorporated technical clarifications they
provided as appropriate.
What GAO Found:
Almost all the airports GAO surveyed took some actions to address
their environmental impacts in four key areas: reducing noise levels,
controlling water pollution, reducing emissions, and using
environmentally sustainable practices. These include voluntary
actions, such as asking pilots and controllers to use aircraft
operational procedures that lower noise levels, as well as actions
required by federal and state laws, such as in the areas of
controlling water and air pollution. Larger airports, which can have
more environmental impacts, were more likely than other surveyed
airports to take a wider range of actions, such as soundproofing homes
or installing loading bridges that supply aircraft with electric power
to lower engine usage and emissions. Finally, GAO found that airports
were moving toward a more holistic approach to environmental
management, including following environmentally sustainable standards
and implementing an Environmental Management System (EMS).
Less than half of the surveyed airports believe that addressing
environmental issues somewhat or greatly delayed a development project
(35 percent) or operational change (42 percent) at their airport over
the last 5 years, even though the vast majority had undertaken a
capital development project or operational change during this time
period. Both the reported delay and the extent and significance of
delay were determined by the responding airport. Less than half
similarly believe that addressing environmental issues will cause
delays in the next 5 years. More airports reported that they had been
somewhat delayed than greatly delayed. Larger airports were somewhat
less likely than all surveyed airports to believe that addressing
environmental issues will cause a delay in development projects (30
percent) or operational changes (36 percent). Addressing water issues
and noise issues was the most commonly cited environmental issue that
led to delay in implementing development projects and operational
changes, respectively.
A number of airports have adopted strategies to systematically address
environmental impacts and community concerns, which can help both
mitigate environmental impacts and anticipate and reduce problems with
communities and other stakeholders that can lead to delays. Airports
are integrating environmental considerations into their planning
process, including 7 of the 10 airports GAO visited. Some airports are
also finding success in streamlining the federal environmental review
process and in integrating their EMS processes with the federal
environmental review process. Finally, effective community outreach
that solicits stakeholder input, fosters interactive communication
with local communities, and evaluates its outreach efforts can help
airports better anticipate and deal with community opposition.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-50] or key
components. To view the E-supplement online, click [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-748SP]. For more information,
contact Dr. Gerald L. Dillingham, (202) 512-2834, dillinghamg@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Surveyed Airports Reported Taking a Variety of Actions to Reduce or
Mitigate Their Environmental Impacts:
Less Than Half of Airports That Undertook or Will Undertake Capital
Projects or Operational Changes Believed Addressing an Environmental
Objective Resulted in Delays:
Several Environmental Strategies and Community Outreach Practices Can
Help Airports Mitigate Delays and Address Environmental Issues:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: List of Airports That Responded to Our Survey and We
Visited:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Figures:
Figure 1: Examples of Possible Airport Environmental Effects:
Figure 2: Variety of Airport Actions Taken to Address Aircraft Noise:
Figure 3: Variety of Airport Actions Taken to Reduce Emissions:
Figure 4: Variety of Airport Actions Taken to Address Water Pollution:
Figure 5: Variety of Actions Taken to Become More Environmentally
Sustainable:
Figure 6: Example of Features from a LEED-Certified Terminal:
Figure 7: Number of Airports That Have Undertaken or Will Undertake a
Capital Development Project or Operational Change:
Abbreviations:
ACRP: Airport Cooperative Research Program:
ACI-NA: Airports Council International - North America:
AIP: Airport Improvement Program:
ANCA: Airport Noise and Capacity Act:
ASNA: Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act:
ATC: Air Traffic Control:
AAAE: American Association of Airport Executives:
CAA: Clean Air Act:
CAEP: Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection:
CDA: Continuous Descent Approach:
CEQ: Council on Environmental Quality:
CFEMS: Compliance-Focused Environmental Management System:
CFR: Code of Federal Regulations:
CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level:
CO: carbon monoxide:
CWA: Clean Water Act:
DNL: day-night level:
DOE: Department of Energy:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
EA: Environmental Assessment:
EIS: Environmental Impact Statement:
EMS: Environmental Management System:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
FAA: Federal Aviation Administration:
FACT 2: Future Airport Capacity Task 2:
GHG: greenhouse gas:
GSE: ground support equipment:
HAP: hazardous air pollutants:
ICAO: International Civil Aviation Organization:
ISO: International Organization for Standardization:
JPDO: Joint Planning and Development Office:
LED: light-emitting diode:
LEED: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design:
Leq: Equivalent Sound Level:
Lmax: Maximum Sound Level:
MPO: Metropolitan Planning Organization:
NAS: National Airspace System:
NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act:
NextGen: Next Generation Air Transportation System:
NOx: nitrogen oxides:
NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System:
OEP: Operational Evolution Partnership:
Pb: lead:
PFC: passenger facility charge:
PM: particulate matter:
RNP: Required Navigation Performance:
SAM: Sustainable Airport Manual:
SEL: Sound Exposure Level:
SIP: State Implementation Plan:
SOx: sulfur oxide:
TRB: Transportation Research Board:
USGBC: U.S. Green Building Council:
VALE: Voluntary Airport Low Emissions:
Aviation and the Environment: Survey of Airport Officials on Airport
Environmental Issues (GAO-10-748SP, September 2010), an E-supplement
to GAO-10-50:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 13, 2010:
The Honorable Gabrielle Giffords:
Chairman:
The Honorable Pete Olson:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics:
Committee on Science and Technology:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Jerry F. Costello:
Chairman:
The Honorable Thomas Petri:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Aviation:
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Mark Udall:
United States Senate:
Balancing the capacity enhancing needs of the national airspace system
(NAS) with the need to protect the environment can be challenging. The
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) estimates that the annual number
of passengers traveling by air in the United States will grow from 750
million in 2012 to over 1 billion by 2023. It also forecasts a
corresponding 20 percent increase in the number of flights, which
could add to existing flight delays and air traffic congestion. We and
others have reported that both the NAS and airport capacity will need
to expand to handle the projected increase in traffic.[Footnote 1]
Even while the aviation system has grown and continues to grow,
airports have sought to limit the environmental impacts generated by
their construction and operations--such as noise, water, air, and
waste pollution--in part, to meet applicable legal requirements.
However, airports' environmental impacts have been a source of
friction with neighboring communities. As we have previously reported,
community opposition due to concerns about aviation noise and other
environmental impacts can arise during the public outreach required by
federal law when federally-funded airport expansion projects are
proposed and can contribute to project delays at some airports.
[Footnote 2] We have previously reported that new runway construction
from initial planning to completion takes a median of 10 years, but
delays from lawsuits or addressing environmental issues can add an
additional 4 years to the median time.[Footnote 3] The Joint Planning
and Development Office's (JPDO) 2007 Concept of Operations document
also projected that, based on current operational trends,
environmental impacts, particularly noise, will be the primary
constraint on the capacity and flexibility of the Next Generation Air
Transportation System (NextGen) unless these impacts are managed and
mitigated.
FAA is undertaking several efforts to ensure the safety and efficiency
of the NAS, including NextGen-the transformation of the air
transportation system by 2025 from the current radar-based system,
into a more automated aircraft-centered, satellite-based system. FAA
has also undertaken several airspace redesign efforts, including those
in the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia airspace, and Florida's West
Coast airspace that will result in changes in aircraft flight paths
around airports there. Both efforts are intended to increase
efficiency and reduce delays, and are expected to produce substantial
environmental benefits, such as reducing emissions growth and
decreasing aircraft noise. Their success depends in part on changes to
operational procedures undertaken by aircraft during their arrival and
departure and airport expansion and improvement projects. According to
FAA, environmental and energy issues, such as noise levels in
communities surrounding airports, will also significantly influence
the future capacity and flexibility of the NAS.[Footnote 4]
FAA has identified 35 of the busiest U.S. commercial airports as
providing critical services to the NAS either in terms of passengers,
cargo, or as connecting airports and which may require additional
capacity. These 35 airports are known as Operational Evolution
Partnership (OEP) airports.[Footnote 5] More than 70 percent of U.S.
passengers travel through OEP airports. FAA has also identified 27
airports that it forecasts will be significantly congested by 2025 if
currently planned improvements--such as new or extended runways,
airspace redesign, and some NextGen improvements (e.g., reduced
separation requirements for arrivals and departures)--do not occur at
Future Airport Capacity Task 2 (FACT 2) airports.[Footnote 6] Nineteen
of the 27 FACT 2 airports are OEP airports, and all but 1 of the OEP
and FACT 2 airports are among the nation's 66 large and medium hub
airports.[Footnote 7] Large and medium hub airports are referred to as
larger airports throughout this report. We previously found that
larger airports are best able to fund capital development projects.
[Footnote 8]
Given that successfully reducing airports' environmental impacts is
critical to maximizing airport capacity, you asked that we update our
work on airports' actions to address their environmental impacts. This
report addresses (1) the actions that airports have taken to reduce
environmental impacts of airport operations and development, (2) the
extent to which airports believe that environmental issues have or
will delay capital projects or operational changes, and (3) the
strategies airports can adopt to mitigate delays in implementing
capital projects and operational changes and address environmental
issues.
To answer our three objectives, we conducted a Web-based survey of
knowledgeable officials from the 150 busiest U.S. airports, which
include commercial airports and general aviation airports.[Footnote 9]
The full survey and responses are contained in a separate e-supplement
GAO-10-748SP. Of surveyed airports, 141 airports (94 percent)
responded, including 63 of 66 larger airports--which include all 35
OEP airports and 26 of 27 FACT 2 airports[Footnote 10]--12 small hubs,
15 non-hubs, and 51 general aviation airports.[Footnote 11] Large and
medium hub airports account for about 90 percent of U.S. passengers,
35 percent of operations, and are key to the efficiency of the NAS and
have the greatest resources to fund projects, including capital
development projects. To determine whether there were any differences
in the environmental actions taken by, and perspectives of, these
larger airports, we compared the survey results from large and medium
hub airports to the data from airports in our survey. We administered
our survey only to airport officials. We also interviewed officials
from 10 airports, including Chicago O'Hare International Airport in
Illinois; Long Beach/Daugherty Field and Los Angeles International
Airports in California; Naples Municipal, Palm Beach International,
and Southwest Florida International Airports in Florida; John F.
Kennedy International Airport in New York; Philadelphia International
Airport in Pennsylvania; Portland International Airport in Oregon; and
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in Washington. We selected these
airports to include airports that have one or more of the following
characteristics: have undertaken efforts to become "green" or more
environmentally sustainable; have been identified through FAA's OEP or
FACT 2 as needing additional capacity; have community groups involved
in environmental issues or have taken steps to reach out to such
groups; are in nonattainment areas for identified criteria pollutants;
[Footnote 12] and are located in various regions of the country. See
appendix II for a list of the airports that we visited or responded to
our survey.
Additionally, we interviewed FAA representatives from headquarters and
5 regional offices; officials from 6 regional EPA offices and 12
relevant state and local environmental regulatory agencies; and 3
aviation environmental experts. We also interviewed representatives
from 7 metropolitan planning organizations, 2 environmental advocacy
groups, and 10 community groups. We also reviewed literature to
determine leading practices in stakeholder and community involvement
in environmental issues, notably our past reports, as well as those of
the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP), which is sponsored by
FAA and managed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB), a unit of
the National Research Council within the National Academy of Sciences.
Additional information on our scope and methodology appears in
appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from January 2008 through
September 2010 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives.
Background:
Airports can affect the environment in a number of ways (see figure
1). [Footnote 13]
Figure 1: Examples of Possible Airport Environmental Effects:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Noise:
Aircraft fly over nearby homes and schools during takeoffs and
landings.
Emissions:
Emissions come from aircraft as well as from airport vehicles and
traffic coming to/from the airport (including rental cars and parking
shuttles).
Water pollution:
Runoff from construction activities, aircraft deicing operations, or
from spilled fuel pollute local streams.
Environmental sustainability:
* Airport terminal operations including lights, computer systems, and
air conditioning consume large amounts of energy.
* Garbage from shops, restaurants, on-board food service, etc.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
* Noise: Airports can be a significant source of noise for surrounding
communities, particularly from aircraft takeoffs and landings. The
impact of aviation noise is usually analyzed in terms of the extent to
which noise annoys people by interfering with their normal activities,
such as sleep, relaxation, speech, telephone conversations, television
viewing, and school. The generally accepted model for assessing the
cumulative effects of airport noise exposure is the Integrated Noise
Model. FAA requires use of the model, or an FAA approved equivalent,
to predict noise levels for its Part 150 noise compatibility programs,
which provide federal funding under the Airport Improvement Program
(AIP) to airport sponsors that volunteer to mitigate present and
future noise impacts.[Footnote 14] FAA also requires use of the model
for environmental analyses to meet requirements under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).[Footnote 15] Among other
functions, the model provides a correlation of the day-night level
(DNL)[Footnote 16] to the percentage of population highly annoyed by
recurring noise sound events. For NEPA purposes, FAA defines a
significant aviation noise impact as a DNL 1.5-decibel increase
occurring over noise sensitive land uses located at or above a 65-
decibel day night level (DNL 65 dB). Perceptions of aviation noise
vary from one individual to another, and, as a result, even
comparatively low levels of noise exposure can be annoying to some
individuals. The Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990
(ANCA)[Footnote 17] required the retirement or modification of older,
noisier jet aircraft that could not meet FAA noise standards, and this
requirement was enabled by technological advancements to jet aircraft.
[Footnote 18] According to FAA, this contributed to reducing the
number of people exposed to significant aviation noise levels by more
than a third from 2000 to 2006. Local government decisions that allow
communities to expand land uses that are noise sensitive near airports
may, however, erode some of the noise reduction gains, according to a
2004 FAA report to Congress.[Footnote 19] In addition, future
increases in air traffic and changes in aircraft flight paths, which
can expose neighborhoods to aircraft noise that had not been
previously exposed to it or that concentrate more flights on some
existing flight paths, could lead to more noise complaints from the
community.
* Emissions: Aviation-related activities produce about 3 percent of
total U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and less than 1 percent of
air pollutant concentrations nationwide, but these concentrations are
expected to increase with forecasted growth in the aviation sector,
according to FAA. According to the EPA, in areas with busy airports,
aircraft contribute a larger amount of total mobile source
emissions.[Footnote 20] Aircraft are a significant source of airport
emissions (e.g., idling at the gate, taxiing, takeoffs, and
landings).[Footnote 21] Airport ground support equipment and passenger
vehicles, as well as various stationary sources located on airport
grounds, such as boilers, emergency generators, and incinerators, also
produce emissions. Together, these sources emit nitrogen oxides and
volatile organic compounds, which lead to the formation of ground-
level ozone (that is, smog) and other substances that contribute to
local air pollution, as well as carbon dioxide and other GHGs that
rise into the atmosphere and contribute to climate change. These
pollutants can also affect the quality of human life and health. For
example, according to a National Research Council panel, ozone can
aggravate respiratory ailments, and even short-term exposure is likely
to contribute to premature deaths of people with asthma, heart
disease, and other preexisting conditions. About 160 commercial
service airports[Footnote 22] are located in non-attainment and
maintenance areas.[Footnote 23]
* Water pollution: Airports and their tenants can affect water quality
through activities such as aircraft and vehicle fueling and
maintenance, as well as runway and aircraft deicing and anti-icing
activity. Chemicals from such activities may contaminate groundwater
and surface water supplies if allowed to flow from airport facilities
to storm drains or waterways. Airports often need to take steps to
contain or treat runoff in order to meet federal Clean Water Act
[Footnote 24] (CWA) requirements. Fuel spills, which may contaminate
soil or groundwater if not contained or diverted to a fuel collection
separation system, are another concern, and may result from leaks,
improper connections, and improperly monitored storage tanks. Toxic
pollutants--such as solvents, dioxins, and metals that can be present
in airport runoff--in the water supply can cause immediate short-term
human health effects, such as respiratory irritation, and long-term,
permanent health problems such as cancer, kidney and liver damage,
anemia, and heart failure.
* Resource and environmental sustainability: Environmental
sustainability refers to sustaining our natural resources and
safeguarding our environmental assets for future generations.[Footnote
25] Airports, like other large businesses, can consume large amounts
of water and energy to operate lighting, heating and cooling systems,
and computers. Airport concession shops and food service operations,
as well as airlines, can also generate significant quantities of solid
waste, such as cardboard, wooden pallets, aluminum, plastic, glass
containers, and leftover food. Airports' and their tenants' activities
to address these issues, as well as their activities to address noise,
emissions and water pollution, can promote sustainability.
Airports are subject to federal, state, and local laws and regulations
designed to protect the environment. FAA, as the lead federal agency
for airport development and funding, has the responsibility for
analyzing and disclosing potential environmental impacts from proposed
airport development. Other federal agencies, such as EPA, are also
involved in federal oversight over airport activities that impact the
environment. Several federal environmental laws, including the CWA and
Clean Air Act (CAA), are generally administered by states' operating
programs that EPA has authorized.
Aircraft noise is regulated at the source, that is, engines must meet
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) noise standards which
have been promulgated by regulation by FAA.[Footnote 26] Congress also
set phase out requirements for noisier aircraft under the Airport
Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA).[Footnote 27] In addition, the
Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (ASNA) established
airport noise compatibility planning grants,[Footnote 28] which are
administered under and implemented in accordance with FAA's Part 150
noise compatibility regulations--14 C.F.R. part 150. California has
also set a somewhat more stringent standard for the acceptable level
of noise in the vicinity of airports--65 Community Noise Equivalent
Level (CNEL),[Footnote 29] and airports whose operations produce noise
that exceeds this standard must obtain a variance from the state that
requires that the airport develop a schedule for reducing noise
impacts in its vicinity.
The CAA mandates standards for mobile sources of emissions, such as
aircraft and the equipment that services them at airports, as well as
stationary sources, such as power plants located at airports. EPA sets
aircraft emissions standards and has adopted those set by the ICAO.
FAA administers and enforces these standards.[Footnote 30] The CAA, as
amended, also regulates hazardous air pollutants (HAP), such as
benzene, which is found in aviation fuels. Some states and local
jurisdictions also have additional requirements pertaining to air
pollution. As a result, air pollution control regulations can be site-
or area-specific.[Footnote 31]
The CWA sets the basic structure for regulating discharges of
pollutants to waters of the United States. Under the permitting system
established under the CWA, airports must obtain a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from EPA or an authorized
state for covered discharges of stormwater or other wastewaters. In
addition, under the national pretreatment program, airports are
required to pretreat their wastewater before discharging into sewer
systems to remove pollutants that may pass through or interfere with
the treatment processes at municipal wastewater treatment facilities.
Many airports are also subject to regulations that require them to
develop programs to prevent and immediately clean up oil and chemical
spills.[Footnote 32] EPA has also established reporting requirements
for hazardous substance releases.[Footnote 33]
By contrast, there are currently no federal laws or regulations that
specifically require airports to make their buildings "green" or act
in a more environmentally sustainable manner. Using more
environmentally sustainable practices, however, may help airports meet
other federal environmental requirements, such as the CAA.
Certain federal actions, including airport expansion and large capital
projects that use federal funding, require compliance with NEPA.
[Footnote 34] Under NEPA, federal agencies evaluate the potential
environmental effects of actions they are proposing or ones for which
third parties, such as airports seek federal approval or funding. The
agencies can meet the NEPA requirements by categorically excluding the
project, using an environmental assessment (EA) or, if actions are
likely to significantly affect the environment, preparing a more
detailed environmental impact statement (EIS).[Footnote 35] NEPA
implementing regulations set forth requirements that federal agencies
must adhere to in the EIS process. For example, an EIS must, among
other things, (1) describe the environment that will be affected, (2)
identify alternatives to the proposed action and identify the agency's
preferred alternative(s), (3) present the environmental impacts of the
proposed action and alternatives, and (4) identify any adverse
environmental impacts that cannot be avoided should the proposed
action be implemented. Throughout the EIS process, FAA must make
diligent efforts to involve the public, which may involve holding
public hearings.[Footnote 36] For additional direction on implementing
NEPA and related regulations, FAA developed an order[Footnote 37] that
governs, among other things, its EIS process and issued best practices
for EIS management.
During the environmental review process, other substantive
environmental laws may also be implicated. For example, under the
CAA's conformity provision,[Footnote 38] FAA must determine whether a
project will conform to an applicable state implementation plan (SIP);
for example, emission increases that result from an airport project
must not exceed the SIP's emission forecast or budget for that
airport.[Footnote 39] Airports may be required to obtain environmental
permits or approvals from other federal, state, and local agencies
before they can begin construction of a proposed project. For example,
Section 404 of the CWA generally prohibits the discharge of dredged or
fill material into the waters of the United States, including certain
wetlands, without a permit from the Corps of Engineers.[Footnote 40]
State and local agencies may also require permits dealing with air and
water quality.
FAA provides guidance and funding for airport development projects,
including environmental planning and mitigation. FAA's environmental
guidance for airports is contained in a series of orders, advisory
circulars, and handbooks.[Footnote 41] Among these are guidance on
environmental planning, noise abatement, water quality, air emissions,
and Environmental Management Systems (EMS).[Footnote 42] Over the past
several years, FAA has provided over $3.5 billion annually to airports
for airport capital projects through its AIP. Part of the cost of
project development is the cost for environmental planning, including
conducting an EIS, if necessary, and performing environmental
mitigation, such as installing stormwater drainage, creating or
enhancing wetlands, and noise soundproofing. In addition, 35 percent
of FAA's AIP discretionary funds are reserved by FAA for noise-
abatement and emissions-reductions projects under FAA's Voluntary
Airport Low Emissions (VALE)[Footnote 43] program if the airport is in
a nonattainment or maintenance area.[Footnote 44]
Surveyed Airports Reported Taking a Variety of Actions to Reduce or
Mitigate Their Environmental Impacts:
Our survey results and interviews with airport officials show that
airports have taken a variety of actions to reduce the environmental
impacts resulting from their operations and development. The majority
of airports took at least one action in each of the four environmental
areas included in our survey during the period 2006-2009. Some of the
actions taken help ensure compliance with environmental laws and
regulations, while others represent voluntary airport efforts to
reduce their environmental impacts.[Footnote 45] Although every
surveyed airport, regardless of size or geographic location, was asked
whether it had taken the same list of actions, it should be noted that
some actions are not necessarily appropriate for all airports. For
example, smaller airports generally produce less noise, emissions and
water pollution than larger airports and may not need to take as many
actions to address environmental impacts. In addition, some actions
are necessitated by an airport's location so that for instance,
airports in areas with high annual rainfall may need to do more to
deal with runoff than those airports located in desert climates.
Within each environmental area we first describe the actions taken by
all surveyed airports and then focus on the actions of the 63 large
and medium hub airports (or "larger airports") because of their size
and significance to the system and their level of future investments
in NextGen and airport improvements.
Most Airports Took Multiple Actions to Address Noise, While Larger
Airports Were More Likely to Implement More Costly Measures:
Over the 3-year period 2006 through 2009, most responding airports,
sometimes in conjunction with airlines and the FAA, had taken a
variety of actions to address or reduce or mitigate aircraft noise,
most commonly, monitoring noise or developing aircraft operational
procedures that reduce the amount of noise affecting nearby
communities. (see figure 2).
Figure 2: Variety of Airport Actions Taken to Address Aircraft Noise:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked horizontal bar graph]
Number of airports: 141.
Monitored aircraft noise:
Large and Medium hub airports: 60;
Other airports: 67.
Had operational procedures:
Large and Medium hub airports: 61;
Other airports: 62.
Purchased avigation easements:
Large and Medium hub airports: 47;
Other airports: 50.
Purchased nearby properties:
Large and Medium hub airports: 44;
Other airports: 17.
Soundproofed properties:
Large and Medium hub airports: 47;
Other airports: 11.
Had sound mitigation structures or enclosures:
Large and Medium hub airports: 23;
Other airports: 15.
[End of figure]
Most responding airports, regardless of size, reported taking steps to
assess their noise impacts on the community, although larger airports
were more likely to use noise measurement metrics besides the
traditional DNL to measure noise impacts. Of the responding airports
that monitored aircraft noise, 127 airports (90 percent) collected
noise complaints from the public during the last 3 years,[Footnote 46]
while 83 airports (59 percent) monitored noise levels in the areas
surrounding the airport, including 54 airports that used supplemental
noise metrics for this purpose. As we have previously reported,
supplemental noise metrics can define noise exposure in ways that the
public can understand more readily than the DNL metric required by FAA
in noise studies under the Part 150 program. The three most commonly
used supplement metrics were, in descending order, Maximum Sound Level
(Lmax), Sound Exposure Level (SEL), and Equivalent Sound Level (Leq).
[Footnote 47] FAA reports supplemental metrics in an EIS when its NEPA
analysis shows a proposed action would cause significant noise impacts
on communities. Projects at larger airports are more likely to require
such statements, according to FAA. Also, 31 airports voluntarily used
supplemental metrics, while 20 airports said they were required to do
so.
At the majority of airports we surveyed, including most larger
airports, operational procedures that reduce noise levels on
surrounding communities were in place, such as noise abatement flight
paths (90 airports), preferential runway use (79 airports), or
procedures to reduce noise aircraft produce during routine aircraft
engine maintenance tests known as ground run ups (77 airports).
[Footnote 48] At a few surveyed airports, air carriers participated in
new flight procedures that are part of FAA's NextGen initiative. For
example, Continuous Descent Approach (CDA), which allow aircraft to
stay at cruise altitudes longer and use lower power levels as they
approach the airport, thereby reducing noise and emissions, was used
at 9 airports while at 21 airports Required Navigation Performance
(RNP), which permits aircraft to descend on a precise route and
thereby potentially avoid noise sensitive areas, was used.[Footnote
49] Larger airports were slightly more likely than smaller airports to
have CDA and RNP procedures in place, constituting 6 of the 9 and 11
of the 21 airports that had these procedures in place, respectively.
Twenty-seven airports impose curfews on aircraft operations, a number
which may not increase significantly in the future given the fact that
since 1991, airports are required under FAA's Part 161 regulations,
which implement ANCA, to meet more stringent requirements in order to
impose a restriction. Only one airport, Naples Airport in Florida, has
successfully completed the process since 1991.
Most responding airports, including a majority of larger airports,
also took actions to limit the amount of residential property exposed
to high levels of aircraft noise, including purchasing or otherwise
obtaining avigation easements[Footnote 50] (97 airports), purchasing
nearby homes (50 airports), purchasing nearby land (47 airports), and
erecting sound mitigation structures or enclosures (38 airports).
Airports also soundproofed a variety of buildings within the DNL 65 dB
contour, most commonly homes (50 airports), but also schools,
hospitals, and certain commercial buildings.[Footnote 51] Airports
soundproofed anywhere from two to thousands of homes; 20 of the 21
airports that reported soundproofing 1,000 or more homes were larger
airports. Airports often obtain funding for home and land purchases,
sound mitigation structures and enclosures, and soundproofing from AIP
grants or can use PFC for these purposes. As figure 2 shows, while
larger airports, which generally have a larger noise footprint than
smaller airports, took many of the actions to address noise, they
implemented the majority of the non-operational noise reduction
measures reported in our survey. For example, 47 larger airports
soundproofed homes, which represented 81 percent of all responding
airports that reported doing so. And only 18 larger airports reported
that they did not purchase some type of property to address noise
issues, while the majority of all responding airports reported not
doing so.
Although most airports we surveyed took a variety of actions to reduce
or mitigate aircraft noise, only a few airports quantified the impact
these actions had on noise levels in surrounding communities. We did
not assess these quantifications.[Footnote 52] Nine airports
quantified the impact of their actions on noise, one noting that new
departure procedures implemented with the opening of a new runway
reduced the number of people within the 60 plus DNL contour by 4,349
and the number of dwellings by 1,926. Some airports cited other non-
quantified results of what they viewed as successful noise reduction
and mitigation actions, including an improved environment around the
airport (49 airports), improved relationships with the community (33
airports), reduced noise complaints (31), and more compatible land use
around the airport (17 airports).
Most Responding Airports Addressed Emissions in Some Way, but Larger
Airports Reported Taking a Wider Variety of Actions:
Our survey results show that responding airports, often in conjunction
with the air carriers that serve them, have taken measures to reduce
and quantify emissions from major sources (figure 3). Most common are
providing transportation facilities, followed by having on-airport
systems to reduce emissions (like the use of electric vehicles),
transportation programs for employees that encourage reducing vehicle
emissions, conducting emission studies, and voluntary actions by air
carriers to reduce their emissions. Although some airports may be
required to mitigate emission increases arising from projects covered
by NEPA and the CAA, our previous work indicated that most emission
reduction actions are done so voluntarily.[Footnote 53]
Figure 3: Variety of Airport Actions Taken to Reduce Emissions:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked horizontal bar graph]
Number of airports: 141.
Had transportation facilities to reduce emissions:
Large and Medium hub airports: 63;
Other airports: 48.
Had systems to reduce emissions:
Large and Medium hub airports: 62;
Other airports: 24.
Transportation programs to reduce emissions:
Large and Medium hub airports: 40;
Other airports: 39.
Conducted studies of airport emissions:
Large and Medium hub airports: 47;
Other airports: 21.
Had voluntary policies to encourage air carriers to reduce aircraft
emissions:
Large and Medium hub airports: 20;
Other airports: 10.
Source: GAO survey.
[End of figure]
Most responding airports have taken some actions to reduce emissions
from vehicular traffic. For example:
* 101 airports provided access to a public bus stop;
* 84 airports provided a staging area for taxis to reduce idling;
* 62 airports provided a cell phone lot to reduce circling the
airport; and:
* 47 airports had consolidated rental car facilities to reduce the
number of passenger pick up vans at the airport.
While 78 percent of airports reported that voluntary air carrier
operational procedures to reduce aircraft emissions were not used at
their airport, some airports have encouraged carriers to voluntarily
reduce emissions through modified operational procedures. A ground no-
idle policy was the most frequently policy cited (17 airports),
followed by single-engine taxiing (11 airports). Aircraft ground
operational procedures to reduce aircraft emissions are at the
discretion of the pilot, and it is unknown to what extent such
procedures are used at airports that have them.
The widest variety of emissions reducing actions reported in our
survey were undertaken by larger airports, which tend to produce more
emissions and which may have more funding and staff available to
address them than smaller airports. Almost all larger airports
provided public bus access and taxi staging areas, while about 40 to
50 percent of larger airports also provided consolidated rental car
facilities and access to rail stations. Most of the airports that
reported encouraging air carriers to use modified operational
procedures to reduce emissions were larger airports. In addition, the
vast majority of larger airports had invested in emissions reducing
systems, which are expensive and possibly more cost effective for
larger airports than for smaller airports, which have limited numbers
of commercial operations. These systems include:
* loading bridges that supply aircraft with electricity (59 airports)
and pre-conditioned air (55 airports), which eliminate the need for
aircraft to run their auxiliary engines to power and cool the aircraft
at the gate;
* underground hydrant systems (47 airports), which reduce the need for
fueling trucks and thus the emissions they produce; and:
* fueling or charging stations for alternative fuel vehicles,
including those using compressed natural gas, bio-diesel, electric, or
hybrid technology (43 airports). Larger airports made up 54 of the 94
airports that reported having alternative fuel vehicles, including 21
of the 29 airports with vehicle fleets made up of at least 50 percent
alternative fuel vehicles.
Airports in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas can apply
for funding from FAA's VALE program for the purchase of emissions
reducing systems, as well as for alternative fuel vehicles. As of
April 2010, 17 airports had qualified for a total of about $49 million
in VALE funding.
Larger airports also represented 42 of the 53 airports that undertook
general emissions inventories, which estimate the amounts of emissions
produced by airport sources (e.g., ground support equipment (GSE), and
aircraft) in tons and may be required for environmental reviews of
proposed airport projects. However, few larger airports conducted a
more detailed analysis to determine the concentration of various
pollutants in the airport vicinity--e.g., hazardous air pollutant
analyses (17 airports) and air pollutant measurements (9 airports)--or
conducted studies that assess the human health risks, such as the
incidence of pollution related health effects in the airport vicinity,
from emissions (3 airports).[Footnote 54] These types of detailed
analyses and studies can be complex and resource intensive to conduct.
In addition, according to FAA there is no clear federal guidance on
conducting human health risk assessments.
Of the 92 airports that reported taking some action to reduce
emissions, 9 provided estimates of reductions. For example, one
airport estimated that providing electricity and preconditioned air at
its gates reduced aircraft auxiliary engine usage and thus nitrogen
oxide emissions by up to 10 tons per year. Another airport reported
that it had constructed a compressed natural gas fueling station and
converted its fleet of buses to natural gas, which eliminated 76 tons
of emissions per year.[Footnote 55]
Almost All Responding Airports Took Multiple Steps to Control Water
Pollution, Many of Which Were Required:
Over 90 percent of responding airports have multiple systems and
procedures in place to address water pollution. Many of these systems
and procedures are those generally required to meet various
environmental laws and regulations, such as those required to obtain
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits.[Footnote 56] For example, nearly all the airports we surveyed
had Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans, and a large majority had
Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plans, which, as noted,
many airports are required to develop in order to prevent and
immediately clean up oil, chemical, and fuel spills. The vast majority
of the airports we surveyed also had individual systems and procedures
in place to prevent or control spills, which can be part of the
aforementioned plans, as well as systems in place to minimize the
impact of such spills (see figure 4).
Figure 4: Variety of Airport Actions Taken to Address Water Pollution:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked horizontal bar graph]
Had systems to minimize impact of spills:
Large and Medium hub airports: 63;
Other airports: 77.
Had systems to prevent or control spills:
Large and Medium hub airports: 63;
Other airports: 75.
Had written plans to control pollution:
Large and Medium hub airports: 63;
Other airports: 74.
Had procedures to prevent or control spills:
Large and Medium hub airports: 62;
Other airports: 75.
Had systems to control runoff:
Large and Medium hub airports: 61;
Other airports: 73.
Obtained water pollution control permits:
Large and Medium hub airports: 60;
Other airports: 66.
Monitored stormwater outflows:
Large and Medium hub airports: 58;
Other airports: 52.
Had systems to minimize the impact of deicing fluids:
Large and Medium hub airports: 28;
Other airports: 32.
Source: GAO survey.
[End of figure]
Likewise, most of the airports in our survey had obtained discharge
permits such as a state issued NPDES permit, and 69 airports have
state government water discharge permits, as appropriate. Surveyed
airports have installed a variety of systems to control storm water
runoff, many of which may have been necessary to meet their permit
requirements, with the most common being catch basins (99 airports),
detention ponds (96 airports), and vegetative filter strips, which are
constructed areas of vegetation that remove sediment and other
pollutants from surface water runoff by filtration, absorption, and
decomposition (59 airports).[Footnote 57] Most of the airports we
surveyed (110) also monitored the water quality of storm water
outflows.
Our survey indicates that larger airports are more likely to have
systems in place to minimize the use and impact of runway and aircraft
deicing fluids. Deicing fluids are mainly used at commercial airports
in colder climates,[Footnote 58] and our survey shows that deicing is
done at 82 (58 percent) of the total airports in our survey as
compared to 53 (84 percent) of the larger airports. As indicated in
figure 4, significantly higher percentages of larger airports that
deice made greater use of practices and systems to minimize the use
and impact of deicing fluids. As noted later in this report, effluent
limit guidelines addressing airport deicing that EPA has proposed may
require more airports to implement systems and practices to minimize
the use and impact of deicing fluids.
Well over half of the airports responding to our survey cited
accomplishments resulting from their actions to control water
pollution. Seventy-five airports said that their actions had a
positive environmental impact, while 25 said that their actions helped
improve compliance with water quality regulations. However, only two
airports provided quantitative data on the impact of their actions.
According to one of these airports, the installation of a large-scale
deicing pad where much of the aircraft deicing was performed prevented
250,000 gallons of deicing fluid from contaminating nearby streams.
Most Airports Have Undertaken Various Conservation Practices, and an
Increasing Number Intend to Make These Part of a More Holistic
Approach to Environmental Management:
Most surveyed airports reported using at least one "green" or
environmentally sustainable practice. Based on the survey of airports,
more intend to move toward a more holistic approach to environmental
management, which involves a broader or more systematic approach to
managing environmental impacts, such as following environmental
sustainable standards or implementing an Environmental Management
System (EMS) (see figure 5).
Figure 5: Variety of Actions Taken to Become More Environmentally
Sustainable:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked horizontal bar graph]
Used at least one energy conserving device:
Large and Medium hub airports: 59;
Other airports: 68.
Used at least one water conserving device:
Large and Medium hub airports: 53;
Other airports: 64.
Followed a green or environmental sustainable standard:
Large and Medium hub airports: 54;
Other airports: 26.
Had Environmental Management System (EMS):
Large and Medium hub airports: 24;
Other airports: 10.
Had at least one building constructed in accordance with LEED
standards:
Large and Medium hub airports: 16;
Other airports: 13.
Source: GAO survey.
[End of figure]
The greatest number of airports reported relatively simple steps like
using energy conserving devices. For example, 127 surveyed airports
used at least one energy conservation device, and 117 airports used at
least one water conservation device. Four energy conservation devices--
Light-Emitting Diode (LED) airfield lights,[Footnote 59] energy-
efficient lighting, room occupancy sensors, and light-colored roofs to
reflect sunlight--were used by at least 49 percent of larger airports.
Three water conservation devices--both automatic shutoff and low-flow
restroom plumbing fixtures and landscaping with native plants to
reduce irrigation--were used by at least 42 larger airports. Between
50 to 80 percent of all surveyed airports reported recycling or
reusing five of the six recyclable materials included in our survey,
with paper, plastic, and aluminum recycled or reused by more airports
than glass and building materials. By contrast, de-icing materials
were reported as being recycled or reused for non aviation purposes by
12 of 82 surveyed airports that reported using de-icing or anti-icing
materials, although some of the airports may not use large quantities
of these materials.
About 71 percent of larger airports, as compared to 57 percent
overall, reported following "green" or environmental sustainability
standards. These standards can assist airports in implementing
practical and measurable green building design, construction, and
operations and maintenance solutions, such as those shown in figure 6.
Following such a standard is generally voluntary; 34 airports,
however, said that compliance with such a standard was a state or
local requirement. The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) Green Building Rating Systems was the most followed "green"
standard, used by 54 surveyed airports (38 percent).[Footnote 60] A
LEED certified building indicates that an independent, third-party,
has verified that the building project meets the highest green
building and performance measures, as determined by the U.S. Green
Building Council (USGBC).
Figure 6: Example of Features from a LEED-Certified Terminal:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
1) Water-efficient plumbing;
2) Energy-efficient electric lighting;
3) High-insulation glass;
4) Natural lighting;
5) Construction waste recycling;
6) Use of recycled or local construction materials;
7) Adhesives, sealants, paints, and carpets which contain little or no
volatile organic compounds;
8) Roofing and paving designed to combat the "heat island effect" by
reflecting heat away from terminal buildings;
9) Alternative fuels for ground transportation;
10) Policies to encourage use of HOV lanes at airport;
11) Stormwater filtration devices to remove suspended solids and
phosphorous from storm runoff.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
More airports reported plans to build in accordance with LEED
standards than those that had already done so. For example, 29
airports had constructed a building in accordance with LEED standards,
and 12 airports had at least one LEED-certified building.[Footnote 61]
Fifty-five airports reported plans to build in accordance with LEED
standards. While an airport official noted that LEED certification can
raise the profile of a project for sustainable construction and
operation within the community, about half of the 51 surveyed airports
that had or planned to build in accordance with LEED standards cited
cost as the reason why they had not or will not seek LEED
certification. According to the USGBC, LEED standards are flexible
enough to apply to all building types. Some airport officials we
interviewed, however, said that LEED standards are difficult to adapt
to airports. Surveyed airports reported following one of three airport-
specific "green" standards.[Footnote 62] One of these three standards
is outlined in Chicago O'Hare International Airport's Sustainable
Airport Manual (SAM), which was completed in 2009. It expanded on the
airport's predecessor manual, the 2003 Chicago O'Hare Modernization
Program's Sustainable Design Manual, by including lessons learned, new
technologies, and best environmental practices used by airports
worldwide. According to the Chicago Department of Aviation, SAM is
intended to be an international model for airport sustainability and
involved approximately 160 participants, including FAA, EPA, airports,
and industry experts.
Survey responses to questions about voluntary EMSs also suggest that
more airports are moving toward a more holistic, sustainable approach
to operations and development.[Footnote 63] An EMS is a set of
procedures and policies used to systematically identify, evaluate, and
manage the environmental impacts of an organization's ongoing
activities in order to improve environmental performance and
regulatory compliance.[Footnote 64] Thirty-four airports had adopted
an EMS, while 35 airports planned to do so. Although the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14001 standards for EMS require
that an EMS identifies all environmental impacts, only 8 of the 34
surveyed airports that had an EMS said it covered all their airport
operations.[Footnote 65]
As with all responding airports, more larger airports planned to build
in accordance with LEED standards than those that reported having done
so. Sixteen larger airports had built in accordance with LEED
standards, and 32 planned to do so. Twenty-four larger airports had an
EMS, while 22 planned having one. Larger airports comprised 70 percent
of surveyed airports that had an EMS and 63 percent of those that plan
to develop an EMS. In 2007 FAA expanded AIP funding eligibility for
developing--although not maintaining--an EMS to large and medium hub
airports.[Footnote 66] As a condition of receiving AIP funding, the
airport must submit a self-certification that its EMS is compliant
with a recognized EMS standard. Larger airports comprised 15 of the 19
airports that reported their EMS followed ISO 14001 standards, EPA's
compliance-focused EMS (CFEMS) standards, or another recognized EMS
standard.
Less Than Half of Airports That Undertook or Will Undertake Capital
Projects or Operational Changes Believed Addressing an Environmental
Objective Resulted in Delays:
Almost All Surveyed Airports Have Undertaken or Will Undertake Capital
Development Projects or Operational Changes:
Almost all of the nation's 150 busiest airports have faced in the 5-
year period 2004-2009, or expect to face in the next 5 years, the
challenge of implementing a timely and environmentally sound capital
development project or operational change. As figure 7 shows, the vast
majority of responding airports reported that (1) they undertook or
considered undertaking a capital development project in the past 5
years, and that (2) they will undertake or are considering undertaking
such a project in the next 5 years. The incidence is even higher for
larger airports, where 59 of the 63 larger airports had undertaken a
capital project in the last 5 years and 55 expect to do so over the
next 5 years. About a third of responding airports reported that they
implemented or considered implementing an operational change in the
past 5 years, or will do so in the next 5 years.
Figure 7: Number of Airports That Have Undertaken or Will Undertake a
Capital Development Project or Operational Change:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked horizontal bar graph]
Airports with capital development projects in the past 5 years (n=138):
Large and Medium hub airports: 59;
Other airports: 70.
Airports with operational changes in the past 5 years (n=136):
Large and Medium hub airports: 38;
Other airports: 37.
Airports planning capital development projects in the next 5 years
(n=137):
Large and Medium hub airports: 55;
Other airports: 58.
Airports planning operational changes in the next 5 years (n=136):
Large and Medium hub airports: 30;
Other airports: 26.
Source: GAO survey.
[End of figure]
Less than Half of Surveyed Airports Implementing Capital Development
Projects or Operational Changes Believe Environmental Issues Delayed
Their Efforts:
In our survey, we asked airports to estimate how much, if at all,
addressing a specified environmental objective delayed implementation
of a capital project or an operational change at their airport in the
past 5 years or will delay implementation in either of those
categories in the next 5 years.[Footnote 67] Both the reported delay
and the extent and significance of delay were determined by the
responding airport. During survey pre-testing, airport officials
interpreted delay as meaning a change or deviation from the project or
operational change's original implementation timeline. For example, an
airport's concept of delay may include underestimating the time needed
to comply with the NEPA process as well as unanticipated delay, such
as delays resulting from litigation.[Footnote 68] When asked how
addressing an environmental objective delayed or will delay
implementation, airports cited the time it takes to do necessary
environmental studies, obtain permits, implement the necessary
environmental systems, and take mitigating actions required for
approval. Also, airports said that delays can arise because of
community opposition or disputes over requirements or regulations with
federal, state, or local regulators, or conflicting interpretations of
requirements among these regulators. Airports face the challenge of
managing the proposed projects and operational changes throughout the
environmental review and implementation process, and according to a
2009 ACRP report, delays can significantly increase the costs or
benefits of specific projects.[Footnote 69]
Thirty-five percent of airports that had considered or undertaken a
capital project, and 42 percent of those that had considered or
undertaken an operational change, over the last 5 years reported that
addressing environmental issues somewhat or greatly delayed their
implementation (see figure 8). Forty-seven airports (35 percent) that
have undertaken or considered undertaking a capital project over the
last 5 years believe the project was greatly or somewhat delayed as a
result of addressing an environmental objective. While fewer airports
reported undertaking operational changes over the last 5 years, 35
airports (42 percent) believe that environmental issues greatly or
somewhat delayed doing so. Of those airports that reported a delay,
far fewer airports believed that their project was "greatly delayed"
as opposed to "somewhat delayed." For both capital projects and
operational procedures, larger airports were slightly less likely to
report a delay (30 percent and 36 percent, respectively). Looking to
the future, about 40 percent of surveyed airports that reported
implementing or considering implementing a capital development project
or an operational change in the next 5 years believe that addressing
an environmental objective will delay implementation. Larger airports
were again slightly less likely than other airports to predict a delay.
Figure 8: Number of Airports Reporting That Addressing Environmental
Issues Somewhat or Greatly Delay Implementation of a Capital
Development Project or an Operational Change in the Past 5 Years and
Next 5 Years:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked horizontal bar graph]
Capital development somewhat or greatly delayed in the past 5 years
(n=135):
Large and Medium hub airports: 18;
Other airports: 29.
Operational changes somewhat or greatly delayed in the past 5 years
(n=84):
Large and Medium hub airports: 16;
Other airports: 19.
Capital development somewhat or greatly delay in the next 5 years
(n=133):
Large and Medium hub airports: 22;
Other airports: 32.
Operational changes somewhat or greatly delay in the next 5 years
(n=90):
Large and Medium hub airports: 15;
Other airports: 24.
Source: GAO survey.
[End of figure]
Addressing Noise and Water Issues Were the Most Frequently Cited
Sources of Past Delay:
Airports that believed they had experienced delay in the past most
often associated the delay with addressing noise and water pollution,
whereas airports appear to be increasingly concerned that addressing
GHG emissions and "green" building standards will be a potential
source of delay. Of the four environmental objectives listed in our
survey, reducing noise impacts and controlling water pollution were
consistently the two most frequently cited sources of past delay--by
all responding airports and by larger airports--for both capital
development projects and operational changes (see figure 9).[Footnote
70] As previously discussed, noise has traditionally been the
environmental area of greatest concern to communities near airports,
and airports are subject to a number of environmental requirements--
including permitting requirements--with respect to controlling water
pollution.
Figure 9: Environmental Objectives Cited as Sources of Delay in
Implementation of Capital Development Projects and Operational Changes
in the Past and Next 5 Years:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Environmental objectives as cited sources of delay:
Reducing the effects of noise on surrounding communities:
Past 5 years (n=135):
Capital improvement project at other airports: 13;
Operational changes at other airports: 10.
Next 5 years (n=133):
Capital improvement project at other airports: 22;
Operational changes at other airports: 10.
Past 5 years (n=84):
Operational changes at large and medium airports: 8;
Operational changes at other airports: 8.
Next 5 years (n=90):
Operational changes at large and medium airports: 7;
Operational changes at other airports: 17.
Controlling water pollution:
Past 5 years (n=135):
Capital improvement project at other airports: 12;
Operational changes at other airports: 16.
Next 5 years (n=133):
Capital improvement project at other airports: 19;
Operational changes at other airports: 13.
Past 5 years (n=84):
Operational changes at large and medium airports: 8;
Operational changes at other airports: 10.
Next 5 years (n=90):
Operational changes at large and medium airports: 9;
Operational changes at other airports: 15.
Reducing emissions of local air pollutants or greenhouse gases:
Past 5 years (n=135):
Capital improvement project at other airports: 7;
Operational changes at other airports: 9.
Next 5 years (n=133):
Capital improvement project at other airports: 14;
Operational changes at other airports: 17.
Past 5 years (n=84):
Operational changes at large and medium airports: 5;
Operational changes at other airports: 7.
Next 5 years (n=90):
Operational changes at large and medium airports: 9;
Operational changes at other airports: 10.
Making airport buildings more ’green“ or environmentally sustainable:
Past 5 years (n=135):
Capital improvement project at other airports: 3;
Operational changes at other airports: 3.
Next 5 years (n=133):
Capital improvement project at other airports: 14;
Operational changes at other airports: 11.
Past 5 years (n=84):
Operational changes at large and medium airports: 3;
Operational changes at other airports: 5.
Next 5 years (n=90):
Operational changes at large and medium airports: 5;
Operational changes at other airports: 8.
Source: GAO survey.
[End of figure]
When asked about potential delays in the next 5 years, airports
generally believed that addressing water pollution and noise would
remain the two top environmental sources of delay.[Footnote 71]
Substantially more airports predicted that controlling air pollution
and making buildings more "green" or more environmentally sustainable
may cause a delay in the next 5 years than those issues did in the
past 5 years (see figure 9). Of the air issues, several airports
expressed concern about controlling GHG emissions. This may reflect
the increased attention that these other environmental issues have
received in recent years. For example, when asked if addressing
environmental objectives might delay the implementation of future
projects and operational procedures, several airports said they
anticipated increased scrutiny of environmental impacts or mentioned
new or more stringent regulations, including the following.
* Deicing: EPA already requires that deicing fluid runoff that reaches
navigable waters be subject to a NPDES permit. EPA's proposed effluent
limitations rule would require primary commercial airports with annual
departures of at least 10,000, and over 1,000 annual jet departures,
to collect a specified minimum percentage of the amount of deicing
fluid sprayed and treat it or send it off site for treatment.[Footnote
72] According to a recent ACRP report, because many large airports
already have been working to address deicing discharges, the proposed
rule may have its greatest affect on medium and smaller airports,
where environmental regulators may previously have considered deicing
operations and runoff too small to be of significant concern.
* GHG: EPA issued a rule effective December 29, 2009, requiring the
reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from all sectors of the economy.
[Footnote 73] The rule applies to, among others, large facilities
emitting 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2 equivalent GHG emissions
per year. According to an ACI-NA representative, approximately 10
airports may need to submit an annual GHG report to EPA. Unlike for
noise and local air quality computations, the first specific guidance
for airports in developing and computing GHG emission inventories was
only issued in 2009.
* Ozone: In January 2010, EPA proposed more stringent ground-level
ozone standards. Sixty-six responding airports are currently either in
nonattainment and maintenance areas. The proposed standards will,
according to EPA and FAA, increase the number of U.S. counties, and
hence airports, that would be in nonattainment areas or maintenance
areas and thus required to tighten controls on nitrogen oxides and
some types of volatile organic compounds that also contribute to ozone
formation.
Several Environmental Strategies and Community Outreach Practices Can
Help Airports Mitigate Delays and Address Environmental Issues:
Some Airports Have Proactively Integrated Environmental Considerations
into the Airport Planning Process:
Incorporating environmental considerations early on in the planning
process can help airports anticipate and address environmental
impacts, as well as navigate the NEPA process. Such a holistic
approach to managing environmental impacts, as opposed to an issue-by-
issue approach to environmental issues, may also help airports address
the broader range of environmental issues that a number of surveyed
airports predicted could potentially affect implementation of capital
projects and operational changes. We have previously reported on the
benefits of conducting long-range environmental planning for federal
highway projects.[Footnote 74] For example, in 2008 we reported on
legislative changes to the planning and environmental processes
required of state and local transportation agencies for federally
funded transportation projects. Several of these changes required
early stakeholder participation, including (1) requiring plans for
coordinating the participation of the public and federal and state
agencies responsible for natural resources, environmental protection,
and historic preservation; (2) obtaining public and resource agency
participation in, and comment on, environmental reviews of projects;
and (3) involving participating agencies and the public in defining a
project's purpose and need and developing project alternatives.
According to state departments of transportation, participating
agencies, and other transportation stakeholders we contacted, these
requirements may help improve project management, increase the
likelihood of weeding out flawed alternatives early, and better inform
and involve resource agencies.[Footnote 75]
Seven of the 10 airports we visited have incorporated long-range
environmental planning into their airport master planning process. FAA
has issued best practices for preparing EISs which stress the need for
airports to consider environmental factors as early as possible in
planning projects in order to successfully complete the environmental
review process in the least amount of time,[Footnote 76] and FAA noted
it has conducted numerous workshops and conferences that encourage
airports to integrate environmental issues into the planning process.
According to Portland International Airport officials, expanding their
2000 airport master plan to include sections devoted to environmental
planning and citizen involvement and communications reduced opposition
to airport projects. A recent ACRP report also found that early
stakeholder coordination and consultation generally facilitated the
transition from the planning process to the environmental review
process, and ultimately to the initiation of project construction.
[Footnote 77] Some airport officials and an aviation environmental
expert also told us that early stakeholder engagement in the planning
phase can improve stakeholder relationships and facilitate project
implementation.[Footnote 78] City of Chicago officials, for example,
told us that their decision to conduct extensive outreach and
coordination early in the planning process for a major expansion of
O'Hare International Airport helped them address environmental
concerns early, get resource agencies and contractors on board in
order to prevent potential delays and litigation, and gain project
support from numerous communities surrounding the airport.
According to FAA, a number of airports have expressed interest in a
new FAA pilot program that allows AIP funds to be used to support long-
term airport environmental planning, be it in an airport master plan
or a stand-alone sustainability document. Two airports (Ithaca
Tompkins Regional Airport in New York and St. Augustine Airport in
Florida) participated in the pilot program, and in April 2010, another
eight airports were selected to participate. Selected airports must
complete their long-term environmental plans within 2 years of
receiving funding. FAA officials said they intend to track costs
closely and ask airports for lessons learned to determine, among other
things, (1) if there are differences in approaching environmental
planning through an airport master plan, which most pilot participants
are doing, or through a separate sustainability document; and (2)
whether to require sustainability as a critical element in airport
master plans.
Streamlining the Environmental Review Process for Capacity Enhancement
Projects at Congested Airports May Reduce Delays:
The Aviation Streamlining Approval Process Act of 2003, enacted as
part of Vision 100, introduced environmental streamlining for three
types of projects, including capacity enhancement projects at
congested airports.[Footnote 79] The environmental streamlining
process enables FAA to better coordinate and expedite the
environmental review process for such projects while complying with
NEPA. According to FAA officials, three projects have successfully
completed the streamlining process--projects at Chicago O'Hare
International Airport, Philadelphia International Airport, and Ft.
Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport--while three projects are
currently being streamlined, and one or two new projects will likely
begin the streamlining process in the next year. FAA and EPA officials
underscored that streamlining of capacity projects is reserved for
airports where expansion is critical for handling the growth of air
traffic; can mandate only federal--and not state--participation in the
coordinated and expedited review process, which according to FAA does
not diminish the process, but makes it more efficient; and requires
more staff resources than traditional environmental reviews.
According to FAA officials, airports have had limited interest in
environmental streamlining, believing that it may add time to the
environmental review process. While these officials acknowledged that
the streamlining process requires more up-front time--agencies, for
example, may initially negotiate a multiagency agreement that
specifies each agency's roles and responsibilities and establishes
review and permitting decision deadlines--they believe it expedites
the overall review process. Both FAA and EPA officials, for example,
said that streamlining expedited the EIS review for Chicago O'Hare's
major modernization project. FAA officials noted that while a
reviewing agency has occasionally fallen behind a decision deadline
set forth in a multiagency streamlining agreement because of limited
resources, FAA has used a liaison to help elevate the issue and obtain
a relatively quick resolution. FAA officials also noted that state
participation, which is encouraged by the act, is key to effective
streamlining. They pointed to the EIS review at Philadelphia
International Airport, which involved the cooperation of approximately
18 federal and state agencies. FAA officials said the Ft. Lauderdale-
Hollywood International Airport streamlining process was not quite as
smooth because FAA had to work separately with federal and state
agencies. Several officials from federal agencies involved in the
streamlined review process indicated that while they have met
deadlines for completing their reviews, the reviews required more
staff than usual and some stated that the reviews were not as detailed
as they would have liked because their agency lacked the staff to
dedicate someone full time to the endeavor.
FAA and EPA officials we interviewed generally agreed that weak
planning by airports, which are responsible for planning projects at
their facilities, can complicate the review process, even if the EIS
the FAA is required to prepare was slated for environmental
streamlining.[Footnote 80] The EIS for one environmental project, for
example, has been through the streamlining process, but to date FAA
has not issued its record of decision. According to FAA and EPA
officials, the project was not a good candidate for streamlining
because the airport was not far along enough in the environmental
process to warrant federal agencies reviewing its documentation.
Specifically, the airport had not fully determined the proposed
project's benefits (e.g., reducing congestion or increasing
operational efficiency) at the time when those benefits needed to be
assessed against environmental impacts. As a result, the airport was
suggesting project alternatives that were not fully vetted.
Integrating the EMS Processes and the NEPA Process Can Help Airports
Mitigate and Reduce Their Environmental Impacts:
In addition to helping airports better manage their day-to-day
environmental impacts, an EMS's continuous self-monitoring cycle can
help airports prepare for and address environmental issues that may
arise during the NEPA process. As discussed above, about 80 surveyed
airports have or plan to have an EMS. Both EPA and FAA endorse EMSs,
and EPA has encouraged organizations to adopt them, underscoring that
such systems have produced environmental benefits.[Footnote 81] In
addition, ACI-NA has also set goals for its member airports to
institute an EMS. Several airport officials we interviewed or who
responded to our survey said that their EMSs had produced
environmental benefits. Officials from one airport, for example, said
that their EMS helped them establish pollution prevention, waste
reduction, and energy efficiency goals for years, reduce the airport's
environmental effects, and raise environmental awareness. Officials
from another airport cited reduced disposal costs, emissions, and
regulatory violations and penalties, and improved public opinion and
relations with regulatory agencies. No airport official, however,
mentioned their EMS in connection with preparing for the environmental
review process.
FAA, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), and EPA, in
conjunction with the Department of Energy (DOE), have each recognized
the complementary nature--and encouraged the alignment--of the
processes used in an EMS and the NEPA process. According to FAA,
aligning the processes can, among other things, improve the quality of
environmental analyses and decision-making.[Footnote 82] For example,
FAA states that an EMS's continuous evaluation of environmental
aspects of operations may provide a compilation of information for
analyzing the cumulative environmental effects of a proposed project.
Similarly, EPA's EMS Primer notes that integrating the two processes
can help ensure that the right information gets to top decision makers
in a timely manner.[Footnote 83] CEQ guidance details how elements of
the two processes, such as communicating with stakeholders, can be
better aligned.[Footnote 84]
Effective Community Outreach Could Help to Mitigate Delays and Shape
Environmental Actions:
Airports that anticipate and effectively address community concerns
about the environmental impacts of their daily operations, capital
development projects, and operational changes during planning efforts
are better positioned both to reduce the environmental impacts that
are of most concern to the community and to minimize the likelihood of
project implementation delays. In our survey, 21 airports said that a
project was delayed because the community, environmental groups, or
politicians opposed it on environmental grounds. Effective community
outreach efforts by airports during their planning efforts and by FAA
during the environmental process are critical. These efforts can
enhance community members' understanding of the roles of airport
managers and FAA in airport operations and development and the
competing demands that most airports must balance. This understanding
can help manage community expectations and facilitate community and
airport cooperative efforts to address environmental concerns while
meeting operational needs. ACRP's Community Toolkit predicts that
community attitudes toward expanded and new airports will become an
even more important element of airport system planning in light of
anticipated increases in air travel demand.
Our survey asked airports about certain aspects of their community
outreach efforts, including what environmental information they made
available to the public, how they conducted community outreach, and
whether they evaluated the effectiveness of their community outreach
efforts. As discussed below, their responses, along with interviews
with airport and FAA staff and community group members, show that many
airports are using some community outreach practices that we and
others have identified as effective.[Footnote 85] However, our survey
results and interviews also suggest that a number of airports could
incorporate more effective community outreach practices, particularly
with respect to evaluating their outreach efforts.
Actively solicit stakeholder input and make key information readily
available and understandable to all. Airports during their planning
efforts should seek input from all community members that could
potentially be affected by an airport decision or airport operations
to ensure that all viewpoints are considered. A majority of responding
airports used each of the following outreach methods identified in our
survey--airport Web sites, local newspapers, and mail or e-mail--to
notify community members of meetings, events, or news, while only 9
percent used social media, such as Facebook or Twitter. Community
members should also have access to and understand airport
environmental and planning information in order to meaningfully
participate in the process. Over half of responding surveyed airports--
and about 70 percent of larger airports--used at least one of the
methods identified in our survey to make airport-related information
readily available to community members. Noise issues have often been
the focus of airport efforts to make information understandable to the
public.
In the future, airports may need to extend their outreach efforts to
communities that they have not worked with in the past in order to
reach all community members that could potentially be affected by
airport operations, capital development projects, and new operational
procedures. For example, with the changes in aircraft flight paths
that will accompany NextGen and airspace redesign efforts, some
communities that were previously unaffected by noise will be exposed
to noise and may have concerns about those higher noise levels. We
have also reported that noise complaints and demands for action to
address noise are coming increasingly from outside the DNL contours
where homes are not eligible for federal soundproofing assistance.
[Footnote 86]
Actively foster responsive, interactive communications. Interactive
communication--both through formal forums, such as hearings, and
informal meetings, which tend to provide a more collegial atmosphere--
promotes understanding between community members and decision makers.
[Footnote 87] The results of our survey, which focused on more formal
community participation methods, show that 109 airports, including 49
larger airports--or just over 75 percent of all airports--reported
holding public meetings. Several airport officials also told us they
hosted informal meetings and other informal community events. In
addition, 79 surveyed airports (56 percent), including 30 larger
airports (48 percent) reported that their airport had a community
roundtable or advisory committee that meets on a regularly-scheduled,
ongoing basis. Our survey asked airports how often FAA officials,
community group representatives, the general public, airport staff,
air carrier staff, and consultants, attend community roundtable or
community advisory committee meetings. As shown in figure 10, the 79
airports that had community roundtables and advisory committees
reported varying levels of participation by FAA officials.
Furthermore, of the six stakeholder groups identified in the survey,
airports said FAA officials were the least likely group to "always" or
"usually" attend and the most likely group to "seldom" or "never"
attend. Our survey did not ask the extent to which airports invited
these stakeholder groups to attend community roundtables or advisory
meetings.[Footnote 88]
Figure 10: Surveyed Airports Responses to How Often FAA Officials
Attend Community Roundtable or Advisory Committee Meetings:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Always:
Large and medium hub airports: 6;
Other airports: 4.
Usually:
Large and medium hub airports: 6;
Other airports: 2.
Sometimes:
Large and medium hub airports: 7;
Other airports: 15.
Seldom:
Large and medium hub airports: 9;
Other airports: 16.
Never:
Large and medium hub airports: 0;
Other airports: 8.
No answer:
Large and medium hub airports: 1;
Other airports: 3.
Source: GAO survey.
Note: Of 141 surveyed airports, 79 airports responded to this question.
[End of figure]
Because FAA plays a critical role in everyday airport operations, as
well as in development projects and operational changes, its
involvement in airport community forums can also enhance the
effectiveness of community outreach efforts. FAA's Best Practices for
EIS Management acknowledges that community confidence in FAA's
commitment to effective environmental mitigation, as well as
reasonable access to FAA staff to answer questions, help build local
consensus and address community opposition. Accordingly, it recommends
that knowledgeable people, "usually a combination of airport
proprietor staff, EIS consultants, and FAA," attend informal community
workshops during the environmental review process. Several airports we
visited indicated that these roundtables or advisory committees were
their most effective airport community participation program.
Evaluate outreach efforts to enhance strategic community outreach.
Both our previous work and ACRP's Community Toolkit underscore the
importance of approaching community outreach strategically. We
previously reported that a strategic approach requires that an airport
identify all potentially affected or interested community members,
define participation goals, create a plan for community participation,
evaluate the results of its strategic approach, and make adjustments
as needed. ACRP's Community Toolkit recommends that airports evaluate
their community outreach program, including conducting a self-
assessment of their program at least annually. Few airports responding
to our survey, however, indicated that they had ever evaluated the
effectiveness of their community outreach activities (see figure 11).
Larger airports were not more likely to evaluate the effectiveness of
their community outreach activities: Of the 29 airports (21 percent)
that had done so, 11 were larger airports (17 percent). Airports that
do not evaluate the effectiveness of their outreach efforts may be
missing opportunities to identify and address weaknesses from their
community participation efforts. For example, after surveying local
communities, one of the airports we surveyed focused its outreach
around those issues the public said they did not fully understand.
Figure 11: Surveyed Airport Responses to Question about Evaluating
Effectiveness of Community Outreach Activities:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Has your airport ever evaluated the effectiveness of its community
outreach activities?
Yes: 21%;
No: 55%;
Don't know: 24%.
Source: GAO survey.
[End of figure]
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Transportation
(DOT) and EPA for review and comment. We also provided a draft to the
American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) and ACI-NA in order
to obtain comments reflecting the perspectives of airports and airport
officials. DOT, EPA, and ACI-NA provided technical clarifications,
which we incorporated into the report as appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no distribution of this report until 8
days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this
report to the Administrators of FAA and EPA and appropriate
congressional committees. In addition, the report is available at no
charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov. Contact points
for our offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be
found on the last page of this report. GAO staff that made major
contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV.
Signed by:
Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D.
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
This report addressed the following objectives: (1) the actions that
airports have taken to reduce environmental impacts of airport
operations and development, (2) the extent to which airports believe
that environmental issues have or will delay capital projects or
operational changes, and (3) the strategies airports can adopt to
mitigate delays in implementing capital projects and operational
changes and address environmental issues.
To address all of these objectives, we used a variety of methods and
sources of information. We reviewed and synthesized information from
relevant literature and our body of work on airport-related
environmental issues. We interviewed officials from the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), associations representing major airports in the United States,
and selected environmental advocacy groups. We also interviewed
officials from 10 airports (see appendix II), selected to include
airports that have one or more of the following characteristics: have
undertaken efforts to become "green" or more environmentally
sustainable; have participated in FAA's Voluntary Airport Low
Emissions (VALE) program; have been identified by FAA's Operational
Evolution Partnership (OEP) or Future Airport Capacity Task 2 (FACT 2)
studies as needing additional capacity; have community groups involved
in environmental issues or have taken steps to reach out to such
groups; are located in nonattainment or maintenance areas for
identified criteria pollutants; and are dispersed in various regions
of the country. As part of our work regarding these airports, we also
interviewed FAA representatives from headquarters and 5 regional
offices, officials from 6 regional EPA offices, 12 relevant state and
local environmental regulatory agencies, 2 environmental advocacy
groups, 7 metropolitan planning organizations, 3 aviation
environmental experts, and 10 community groups.
We also conducted a Web-based survey of knowledgeable airport
officials from the 150 busiest U.S. airports in terms of the number of
operations (departures or arrivals) from FAA's 2008 Air Carrier
Activity Information System database. The survey and its results are
available on the GAO Web site at GAO-10-748SP. Since responses to
surveys are often subject to non-sampling errors, we attempted to
minimize these errors by taking several precautions during the
questionnaire design. To structure and gather expert opinions from the
airport officials for the survey, we employed a pilot survey and
obtained opinions from 19 airport officials using questionnaires
administered over the Internet, which ran from September 28 to October
10, 2008. We asked the airport officials to respond to 16 open-ended
questions about the actions they take to reduce or control noise
problems, water pollution, airport emissions and other environmental
problems, and about the factors that help and that hinder airports in
doing so. We performed a content analysis of the responses to these
open-ended questions in order to help us design a comprehensive
airport environmental survey consisting of both close-ended and open-
ended questions on the environmental impacts associated with the
development and operations of airports and the actions airports are
taking to balance these concerns. We pre-tested the comprehensive
airport environmental survey with seven airports to ensure that the
questionnaire was clear and unambiguous, and did not place undue
burden on individuals completing it. We made relevant changes to the
content and format of the final questionnaire as a result of these
pretests. The questionnaire was administered on the Internet to the
150 busiest U.S. airports from March 25 to June 8, 2009. We received
responses from 141 airports, resulting in a 94 percent response rate.
Appendix II provides the complete list of airports that responded to
our survey.
We conducted this performance audit from January 2008 through
September 2010 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: List of Airports That Responded to Our Survey and We
Visited:
Airport, location, and type:
Name: Acadiana Regional;
ID: ARA;
City: New Iberia;
State: LA;
Type: GA;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Addison;
ID: ADS;
City: Dallas;
State: TX;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Albuquerque International Sunport;
ID: ABQ;
City: Albuquerque;
State: NM;
Type: MH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: 2009;
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Arlington Municipal;
ID: GKY;
City: Arlington;
State: TX;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Austin-Bergstrom International;
ID: AUS;
City: Austin;
State: TX;
Type: MH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall;
ID: BWI;
City: Baltimore;
State: MD;
Type: LH;
OEP: [Check];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Barnstable Municipal-Boardman/Polando Field;
ID: HYA;
City: Hyannis;
State: MA;
Type: NP;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Bob Hope;
ID: BUR;
City: Burbank;
State: CA;
Type: MH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Boeing Field/King County International;
ID: BFI;
City: Seattle;
State: WA;
Type: NP;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Brackett Field;
ID: POC;
City: La Verne;
State: CA;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Bradley International;
ID: BDL;
City: Windsor Locks;
State: CT;
Type: MH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Buffalo Niagara International;
ID: BUF;
City: Buffalo;
State: NY;
Type: MH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Camarillo;
ID: CMA;
City: Camarillo;
State: CA;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Castle;
ID: MER;
City: Merced;
State: CA;
Type: GA;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Centennial;
ID: APA;
City: Denver;
State: CO;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Charlotte/Douglas International;
ID: CLT;
City: Charlotte;
State: NC;
Type: LH;
OEP: [Check];
FACT 2: [Check];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Chicago Midway International;
ID: MDW;
City: Chicago;
State: IL;
Type: LH;
OEP: [Check];
FACT 2: [Check];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Chicago O'Hare International*;
ID: ORD;
City: Chicago;
State: IL;
Type: LH;
OEP: [Check];
FACT 2: [Check];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Chino;
ID: CNO;
City: Chino;
State: CA;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International;
ID: CVG;
City: Covington;
State: KY;
Type: MH;
OEP: [Check];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: 2009;
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: City of Colorado Springs Municipal;
ID: COS;
City: Colorado Springs;
State: CO;
Type: SH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Cleveland-Hopkins Municipal;
ID: CLE;
City: Cleveland;
State: OH;
Type: MH;
OEP: [Check];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Craig Municipal;
ID: CRG;
City: Jacksonville;
State: FL;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Dallas Love Field;
ID: DAL;
City: Dallas;
State: TX;
Type: MH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Dallas/Fort Worth International;
ID: DFW;
City: Dallas/Ft Worth;
State: TX;
Type: LH;
OEP: [Check];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Daytona Beach International;
ID: DAB;
City: Daytona Beach;
State: FL;
Type: NP;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Dekalb-Peachtree;
ID: PDK;
City: Atlanta;
State: GA;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Denver International;
ID: DEN;
City: Denver;
State: CO;
Type: LH;
OEP: [Check];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County;
ID: DTW;
City: Detroit;
State: MI;
Type: LH;
OEP: [Check];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: 2007;
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Eppley Airfield;
ID: OMA;
City: Omaha;
State: NE;
Type: MH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Ernest A. Love Field;
ID: PRC;
City: Prescott;
State: AZ;
Type: NH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Executive;
ID: ORL;
City: Orlando;
State: FL;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Falcon Field;
ID: FFZ;
City: Mesa;
State: AZ;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Flying Cloud;
ID: FCM;
City: Eden Prairie;
State: MN;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Fort Lauderdale Executive;
ID: FXE;
City: Fort Lauderdale;
State: FL;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International;
ID: FLL;
City: Fort Lauderdale;
State: FL;
Type: LH;
OEP: [Check];
FACT 2: [Check];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Fort Worth Meacham International;
ID: FTW;
City: Fort Worth;
State: TX;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: General Edward Lawrence Logan International;
ID: BOS;
City: Boston;
State: MA;
Type: LH;
OEP: [Check];
FACT 2: [Check];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: General Mitchell International;
ID: MKE;
City: Milwaukee;
State: WI;
Type: MH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: George Bush Intercontinental/Houston;
ID: IAH;
City: Houston;
State: TX;
Type: LH;
OEP: [Check];
FACT 2: [Check];
VALE: 2005;
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Gillespie Field;
ID: SEE;
City: San Diego/El Cajon;
State: CA;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Glendale Municipal;
ID: GEU;
City: Glendale;
State: AZ;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Grand Forks International;
ID: GFK;
City: Grand Forks;
State: ND;
Type: NP;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International;
ID: ATL;
City: Atlanta;
State: GA;
Type: LH;
OEP: [Check];
FACT 2: [Check];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Hayward Executive;
ID: HWD;
City: Hayward;
State: CA;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Honolulu International;
ID: HNL;
City: Honolulu;
State: HI;
Type: LH;
OEP: [Check];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Indianapolis International;
ID: IND;
City: Indianapolis;
State: IN;
Type: MH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: John F. Kennedy International*;
ID: JFK;
City: New York;
State: NY;
Type: LH;
OEP: [Check];
FACT 2: [Check];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: John Wayne Airport-Orange County;
ID: SNA;
City: Santa Ana;
State: CA;
Type: MH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Check];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Kahului;
ID: OGG;
City: Kahului;
State: HI;
Type: MH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Kansas City International;
ID: MCI;
City: Kansas City;
State: MO;
Type: MH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Kendall-Tamiami Executive;
ID: TMB;
City: Miami;
State: FL;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Kissimmee Gateway;
ID: ISM;
City: Orlando;
State: FL;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Kona International at Keahole;
ID: KOA;
City: Kailua/Kona;
State: HI;
Type: SH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: LaGuardia;
ID: LGA;
City: New York;
State: NY;
Type: LH;
OEP: [Check];
FACT 2: [Check];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Lakeland Linder Regional;
ID: LAL;
City: Lakeland;
State: FL;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Lambert-St. Louis International;
ID: STL;
City: St. Louis;
State: MO;
Type: MH;
OEP: [Check];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Laurence G. Hanscom Field;
ID: BED;
City: Bedford;
State: MA;
Type: NP;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Lehigh Valley International;
ID: ABE;
City: Allentown;
State: PA;
Type: SH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Livermore Municipal;
ID: LVK;
City: Livermore;
State: CA;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Long Beach/Daugherty Field*;
ID: LGB;
City: Long Beach;
State: CA;
Type: SH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Check];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Long Island MacArthur;
ID: ISP;
City: Islip;
State: NY;
Type: SH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Los Angeles International*;
ID: LAX;
City: Los Angeles;
State: CA;
Type: LH;
OEP: [Check];
FACT 2: [Check];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Louis Armstrong New Orleans International;
ID: MSY;
City: New Orleans;
State: LA;
Type: MH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Louisville International-Standiford Field;
ID: SDF;
City: Louisville;
State: KY;
Type: MH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Luis Munoz Marin International;
ID: SJU;
City: San Juan;
State: PR;
Type: MH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: McCarran International;
ID: LAS;
City: Las Vegas;
State: NV;
Type: LH;
OEP: [Check];
FACT 2: [Check];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: McClellan-Palomar;
ID: CRQ;
City: Carlsbad;
State: CA;
Type: NP;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: McGhee Tyson;
ID: TYS;
City: Knoxville;
State: TN;
Type: SH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Meadows Field;
ID: BFL;
City: Bakersfield;
State: CA;
Type: NP;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Melbourne International;
ID: MLB;
City: Melbourne;
State: FL;
Type: NP;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Memphis International;
ID: MEM;
City: Memphis;
State: TN;
Type: MH;
OEP: [Check];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Merrill Field;
ID: MRI;
City: Anchorage;
State: AK;
Type: NP;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Metropolitan Oakland International;
ID: OAK;
City: Oakland;
State: CA;
Type: MH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Check];
VALE: 2010;
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Miami International;
ID: MIA;
City: Miami;
State: FL;
Type: LH;
OEP: [Check];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Minneapolis-St Paul International/Wold Chamberlain;
ID: MSP;
City: Minneapolis;
State: MN;
Type: LH;
OEP: [Check];
FACT 2: [Check];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Montgomery Field;
ID: MYF;
City: San Diego;
State: CA;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Morristown Municipal;
ID: MMU;
City: Morristown;
State: NJ;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Nantucket Memorial;
ID: ACK;
City: Nantucket;
State: MA;
Type: NP;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Napa County;
ID: APC;
City: Napa;
State: CA;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Naples Municipal*;
ID: APF;
City: Naples;
State: FL;
Type: NP;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Nashville International;
ID: BNA;
City: Nashville;
State: TN;
Type: MH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Newark Liberty International;
ID: EWR;
City: Newark;
State: NJ;
Type: LH;
OEP: [Check];
FACT 2: [Check];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International;
ID: SJC;
City: San Jose;
State: CA;
Type: MH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: 2009;
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: North Las Vegas;
ID: VGT;
City: Las Vegas;
State: NV;
Type: NP;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: North Perry;
ID: HWO;
City: Hollywood;
State: FL;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Oakland County International;
ID: PTK;
City: Pontiac;
State: MI;
[Empty];
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Ontario International;
ID: ONT;
City: Ontario;
State: CA;
Type: MH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Orlando International;
ID: MCO;
City: Orlando;
State: FL;
Type: LH;
OEP: [Check];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Orlando Sanford International;
ID: SFB;
City: Orlando;
State: FL;
Type: SH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Ormond Beach Municipal;
ID: OMN;
City: Ormond Beach;
State: FL;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Palm Beach International*;
ID: PBI;
City: West Palm Beach;
State: FL;
Type: MH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Check];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Palo Alto Airport of Santa Clara County;
ID: PAO;
City: Palo Alto;
State: CA;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Philadelphia International*;
ID: PHL;
City: Philadelphia;
State: PA;
Type: LH;
OEP: [Check];
FACT 2: [Check];
VALE: 2008;
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Phoenix Deer Valley;
ID: DVT;
City: Phoenix;
State: AZ;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Phoenix Goodyear;
ID: GYR;
City: Goodyear;
State: AZ;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Phoenix Sky Harbor International;
ID: PHX;
City: Phoenix;
State: AZ;
Type: LH;
OEP: [Check];
FACT 2: [Check];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Phoenix-Mesa Gateway;
ID: IWA;
City: Phoenix;
State: AZ;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Pittsburgh International;
ID: PIT;
City: Pittsburgh;
State: PA;
Type: MH;
OEP: [Check];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Pompano Beach Airpark;
ID: PMP;
City: Pompano Beach;
State: FL;
Type: GA;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Port Columbus International;
ID: CMH;
City: Columbus;
State: OH;
Type: MH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Portland International*;
ID: PDX;
City: Portland;
State: OR;
Type: MH;
OEP: [Check];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Portland-Hillsboro;
ID: HIO;
City: Portland;
State: OR;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Pueblo Memorial;
ID: PUB;
City: Pueblo;
State: CO;
Type: CS;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Raleigh-Durham International;
ID: RDU;
City: Raleigh/Durham;
State: NC;
Type: MH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Ramona;
ID: RNM;
City: Ramona;
State: CA;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Reid-Hillview of Santa Clara County;
ID: RHV;
City: San Jose;
State: CA;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Reno-Tahoe International;
ID: RNO;
City: Reno;
State: NV;
Type: MH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Republic;
ID: FRG;
City: Farmingdale;
State: NY;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Richard Lloyd Jones Jr;
ID: RVS;
City: Tulsa;
State: OK;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Rocky Mountain Metropolitan;
ID: BJC;
City: Denver;
State: CO;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Ronald Reagan Washington National;
ID: DCA;
City: Arlington;
State: VA;
Type: LH;
OEP: [Check];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Ryan Field;
ID: RYN;
City: Tucson;
State: AZ;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Sacramento International;
ID: SMF;
City: Sacramento;
State: CA;
Type: MH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Salt Lake City International;
ID: SLC;
City: Salt Lake City;
State: UT;
Type: LH;
OEP: [Check];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: San Antonio International;
ID: SAT;
City: San Antonio;
State: TX;
Type: MH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Check];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: San Carlos;
ID: SQL;
City: San Carlos;
State: CA;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: San Diego International;
ID: SAN;
City: San Diego;
State: CA;
Type: LH;
OEP: [Check];
FACT 2: [Check];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: San Francisco International;
ID: SFO;
City: San Francisco;
State: CA;
Type: LH;
OEP: [Check];
FACT 2: [Check];
VALE: 2009;
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Santa Monica Municipal;
ID: SMO;
City: Santa Monica;
State: CA;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Sarasota/Bradenton International;
ID: SRQ;
City: Sarasota/Bradenton;
State: FL;
Type: SH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Scottsdale;
ID: SDL;
City: Scottsdale;
State: AZ;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Seattle-Tacoma International*;
ID: SEA;
City: Seattle;
State: WA;
Type: LH;
OEP: [Check];
FACT 2: [Check];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Snohomish County (Paine Field);
ID: PAE;
City: Everett;
State: WA;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Space Coast Regional;
ID: TIX;
City: Titusville;
State: FL;
Type: GA;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: St. Lucie County International;
ID: FPR;
City: Fort Pierce;
State: FL;
Type: GA;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International;
ID: PIE;
City: St. Petersburg-Clearwater;
State: FL;
Type: NP;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Stinson Municipal;
ID: SSF;
City: San Antonio;
State: TX;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Tampa International;
ID: TPA;
City: Tampa;
State: FL;
Type: LH;
OEP: [Check];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Ted Stevens Anchorage International;
ID: ANC;
City: Anchorage;
State: AK;
Type: MH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Teterboro;
ID: TEB;
City: Teterboro;
State: NJ;
Type: NP;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Tucson International;
ID: TUS;
City: Tucson;
State: AZ;
Type: MH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Check];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Tulsa International;
ID: TUL;
City: Tulsa;
State: OK;
Type: SH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Van Nuys;
ID: VNY;
City: Van Nuys;
State: CA;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Vero Beach Municipal;
ID: VRB;
City: Vero Beach;
State: FL;
Type: GA;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Washington Dulles International;
ID: IAD;
City: Chantilly;
State: VA;
Type: LH;
OEP: [Check];
FACT 2: [Check];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Westchester County;
ID: HPN;
City: White Plains;
State: NY;
Type: SH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: 2008;
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Wichita Mid-Continent;
ID: ICT;
City: Wichita;
State: KS;
Type: SH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: Will Rogers World;
ID: OKC;
City: Oklahoma City;
State: OK;
Type: SH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Name: William P. Hobby;
ID: HOU;
City: Houston;
State: TX;
Type: MH;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Check];
VALE: 2006;
Nonattainment: [Check].
Name: Zamperini Field;
ID: TOA;
City: Torrance;
State: CA;
Type: R;
OEP: [Empty];
FACT 2: [Empty];
VALE: [Empty];
Nonattainment: [Empty].
Source: GAO analysis of FAA data.
Notes:
An asterisk beside an airport indicates we visited that airport. We
also visited but did not survey Southwest Florida International
Airport (RSW) in Fort Myers, Fl., for a total of 10 airports.
Airport categories based on passenger boardings:
LH = large hub commercial service airport with 1 percent or more of
total annual passenger boardings:
MH = medium hub commercial service airport with at least 0.25 percent
but less than 1 percent of total annual passenger boardings:
SH = small hub commercial service airport with at least 0.05 percent
but less than 0.25 percent of total annual passenger boardings:
NH = nonhub commercial service airport with at least 10,000 boardings
but less than 0.05 percent of total annual passenger boardings:
CS = nonprimary commercial service airport with more than 2,500
boardings but less than 10,000 enplanements:
GA = general aviation airport:
R = reliever airport, an airport designated by the FAA to relieve
congestion at a commercial service airport and to provide improved
general aviation access to the overall community. A reliever airport
may be publicly or privately-owned.
Large and medium hub airports are from FAA's 2008 Enplanement Data.
The Future Airport Capacity Task 2 (FACT 2) airports are airports and
metropolitan areas needing additional capacity in 2025 without planned
improvements.
VALE = Voluntary Airport Lower Emissions program and the year the
airport first participated.
Nonattainment and maintenance = If the airport resided within this EPA
designated area as of January 23, 2009.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Gerald Dillingham, Ph.D. (202) 512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Paul Aussendorf (Assistant
Director), Ed Laughlin (Assistant Director), Mark Braza, Lauren
Calhoun, Jim Geibel, Brandon Haller, Nick Jepson, Delwen Jones,
Kirsten Lauber, Rosa Leung, Jessica Lucas-Judy, Heather May, Kelly
Rubin, and Jerry Sandau made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
National Airspace System: FAA Reauthorization Issues Are Critical to
System Transformation and Operations. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-377T]. Washington, D.C.: February
11, 2009.
Aviation and the Environment: Initial Voluntary Airport Low Emissions
Program Projects Reduce Emissions, and FAA Plans to Assess the
Program's Overall Performance as Participation Increases. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-37]. Washington, D.C.: November 7,
2008.
Aviation and the Environment: NextGen and Research and Development Are
Keys to Reducing Emissions and Their Impact on Health and Climate.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-706T]. Washington,
D.C.: May 6, 2008.
Aviation and the Environment: FAA's and NASA's Research and
Development Plans for Noise Reduction Are Aligned, but the Prospects
of Achieving Noise Reduction Goals Are Uncertain. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-384]. Washington, D.C.: February
15, 2008.
Aviation and the Environment: Impact of Aviation Noise on Communities
Presents Challenges for Airport Operations and Future Growth of the
National Airspace System. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-216T]. Washington, D.C.: October
24, 2007.
Aviation and the Environment: Strategic Framework Needed to Address
Challenges Posed by Aircraft Emissions. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-252]. Washington, D.C.: February
28, 2003.
Aviation and the Environment: Transition to Quieter Aircraft Occurred
as Planned, but Concerns about Noise Persist. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-1053]. Washington, D.C.: September
28, 2001.
Aviation and the Environment: Federally Authorized Funding for Noise-
Related Projects. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-00-285R]. Washington, D.C.:
September 27, 2000.
Aviation and the Environment: Results from a Survey of the Nation's 50
Busiest Commercial Service Airports. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-00-222]. Washington, D.C.: August
30, 2000.
Aviation and the Environment: Airport Operations and Future Growth
Present Environmental Challenges. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-00-153]. Washington, D.C.: August
30, 2000.
Aviation and the Environment: FAA's Role in Major Airport Noise
Programs. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-00-98].
Washington, D.C.: April 28, 2000.
Aviation and the Environment: Aviation's Effects on the Global
Atmosphere Are Potentially Significant and Expected to Grow.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-00-57]. Washington,
D.C.: February 18, 2000.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, National Airspace System: Regional Airport Planning Could
Help Address Congestion If Plans Were Integrated with FAA and Airport
Decision Making, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-120]
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 23, 2009). DOT OIG, Observations on Short-term
Capacity Initiatives, AV-2008-087 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 26, 2008).
Adie Turner and Robert Puentas, Expect Delays: An Analysis of Air
Travel Trends in the United States, Metropolitan Policy Program at
Brookings (October 2009).
[2] GAO, Aviation and the Environment: Impact of Aviation Noise on
Communities Presents Challenges for Airport Operations and Future
Growth of the National Airspace System, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-216T] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 24,
2007).
[3] See GAO, Aviation Infrastructure: Challenges Related to Building
Runways and Actions to Address Them, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-164] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30,
2003).
[4] See Statement of Victoria Cox, Vice President for Operations
Planning Services, FAA, Before the House Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Aviation on Air Traffic Control
Modernization and NextGen: Near Term Achievable Goals (Mar. 18, 2009).
[5] OEP airports are commercial U.S. airports with significant
activity. These airports serve major metropolitan areas and also serve
as hubs for airline operations. The OEP airports were identified in
2000 based on lists from FAA and Congress, as well as a study that
identified the most congested U.S. airports.
[6] FAA's 2007 report, Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System
2007-2025: An Analysis of Airports and Metropolitan Area Demand and
Operational Capacity in the Future, (Washington, D.C.: May 2007) (FACT
2), among other things, identifies airports that it predicts will face
significant capacity constraints by 2015 and 2025 under two different
scenarios: (1) if planned improvements, such as airspace redesign or
new or extended runways, are carried out and (2) if planned
improvements do not occur. See GAO, National Airspace System: Regional
Airport Planning Could Help Address Congestion If Plans Were
Integrated with FAA and Airport Decision Making, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-120] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 23,
2009) for a detailed discussion of the FACT 2 report and its forecasts.
[7] FAA categorizes the nation's commercial airports into four main
groups based on the number of passenger enplanements--large hubs,
medium hubs, small hubs, and nonhubs. The categories are based on the
number of passengers boarding an aircraft (enplaned) within the United
States. A large hub enplanes at least 1 percent of all systemwide
passengers, a medium hub at least 0.25 but fewer than 1 percent, a
small hub at least 0.05, but fewer than to 0.25 percent, and a nonhub
less than 0.05 percent. See 49 U.S.C. § 47102. The 66 large and medium
hub airports are based on FAA's 2008 enplanement data.
[8] GAO, Airport Finance: Observations on Planned Airport Development
Costs and Funding Levels and the Administration's Proposed Changes in
the Airport Improvement Program, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-885] (Washington, D.C.: June 29,
2007).
[9] We surveyed the 150 busiest airports as measured by operations
(the number of landings and takeoffs) for calendar year 2008, as
reported by FAA.
[10] One FACT 2 airport, T.F. Green Airport in Warwick, Rhode Island,
was not included in our survey.
[11] The group of general aviation airports we surveyed includes
reliever airports, which according to FAA, are airports designated by
FAA to relieve congestion at commercial service airports and to
provide improved general aviation access to the overall community.
General aviation airports are the largest single group of airports in
the U.S. system. This category also includes privately owned, public
use airports that enplane 2,500 or more passengers annually and
receive scheduled airline service.
[12] The Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended, requires the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to set national ambient air quality standards
for six air pollutants, known as criteria pollutants, to protect
public health and the environment: nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur
oxides (SOx), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), particulate matter
(PM), and lead (Pb). 42 U.S.C. 7409; 40 C.F.R. part 50. Geographic
areas that have levels of a criteria pollutant above those allowed by
the standard are called nonattainment areas.
[13] This report focuses on airport-level sources of pollution,
specifically, those environmental impacts we asked about in depth on
our survey: noise, water pollution, emissions, and environmental
sustainability. Airports can also have other environmental impacts,
including those that may affect endangered species, wetlands, cultural
sites (such as historic buildings, churches, and cemeteries), and
protected lands (such as national and state parks).
[14] 14 C.F.R. part 150.
[15] Pub. L. No. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852, codified, as amended, at 42
U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. According to FAA, Environmental Impacts:
Policies and Procedures Order 1050.1E, March 20, 2006, all formal
actions taken by FAA officials are subject to NEPA review unless
statutory law applicable to the FAA's operations expressly prohibits
or makes compliance impossible, or are otherwise excepted by NEPA
regulations. Actions covered by NEPA review include grants, loans,
contracts, leases, construction, research activities, rulemaking and
regulatory actions, certifications, licensing, permits, plans
submitted to the FAA that require FAA approval, and legislation
proposed by FAA.
[16] DNL is a noise descriptor or metric that takes into account the
magnitude of the sound levels of all individual events that occur
during a 24-hour period, the number of events, and an increased
sensitivity to noise during typical sleeping hours (between 10:00 p.m.
and 7:00 a.m.). Although FAA requires the use of DNL for airport
analyses, it also promotes the use of supplemental metrics, which
according to the Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise, are
also useful in addressing various public noise concerns and helping
the public to further understand airport-related noise impacts.
[17] Pub. L. No. 101-508, 104 Stat. 1388, 1388-378--384.
[18] 14 CFR Part 36.
[19] FAA, Aviation and the Environment: A National Vision Statement,
Framework for Goals and Recommended Actions (Washington, D.C.:
December 2004).
[20] According to EPA, in 2002, for the 10 non-attainment areas with
busy airports, nitrogen oxide emission contributions ranged from 1
percent to 7.1 percent; for volatile organic compounds (which
contribute to ozone formation) the range was 0.9 to 2.3 percent and
the range for PM (2.5 micrometers) was 0.8 to 3.2 percent. EPA noted
that the percentages are expected to increase by a factor of 2 to 3 in
the upcoming decade.
[21] An ACRP report estimates that commercial airlines account for 11
percent of U.S. GHG emissions from transportation sources, the third
largest source of transportation GHG emissions, behind automobiles and
personal trucks. For a discussion of options that airlines and others
are taking to reduce aircraft GHG and other emissions, see GAO,
Aviation and Climate Change: Aircraft Emissions Expected to Grow, but
Technological and Operational Improvements and Government Policies Can
Help Control Emissions, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-554] (Washington, D.C.: June 8,
2009).
[22] According to FAA, commercial service airports are publicly-owned
airports that have at least 2,500 passenger boardings each calendar
year and receive scheduled passenger service.
[23] Maintenance areas are areas that did not meet the standard for a
criteria pollutant in the past but have reached attainment and met
certain procedural requirements.
[24] 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.
[25] See GAO, Measuring Our Nation's Natural Resources and
Environmental Sustainability: Highlights of a Forum Jointly Convened
by the Comptroller General of the United States and the National
Academy of Science, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-127SP] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 24,
2007).
[26] 14 C.F.R. part 36. ICAO is an organization affiliated with the
United Nations that aims to promote the establishment of international
civilian aviation standards and recommended practices and procedures.
FAA, as the U.S. representative to ICAO, in consultation with EPA,
works with representatives from other countries to set certain
environmental standards, including for noise.
[27] Pub. L. No. 101-508, 104 Stat. 1388, 1388-378--384. ANCA required
the phase-out Stage 2 aircraft (older aircraft that did not meet the
ICAO standard existing at the time for aircraft, i.e. Stage 3
aircraft) by December 31, 1999, with certain exceptions. Pursuant to
this requirement, specific aircraft operators had to transition from
Stage 2 to Stage 3 aircraft. ANCA also resulted in new regulations
affecting the airport proprietors, the Part 161 regulations (14 C.F.R.
part 161) that limit the ability of airports to impose limits on their
operations. Now, regardless of the nature of the local Stage 2
restrictions--whether involving aircraft flight procedures or ground
restrictions--ANCA requires airports to seek public and FAA comment
before instituting any such restrictions.
[28] Pub. L. No. 96-193, § 103, 94 Stat. 50, 51, codified as amended
at 49 U.S.C. § 47505.
[29] The CNEL, like DNL, is used to characterize average noise levels
over a 24-hour period. Both assign additional weight to aircraft
sounds occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. However, CNEL
assigns an additional weight for aircraft sounds occurring between
7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.
[30] For example, according to FAA, it ensures compliance by reviewing
and approving certification test plans, procedures, test reports, and
engine emissions certification levels.
[31] Other federal laws may affect airport expansion, such as the
National Historic Preservation Act, which requires any agency
providing federal assistance to a project, prior to the approval of
the expenditure of any federal funds, to take into account the effect
of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or
object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National
Register. The act may apply when airport operations or airport
development projects, including their associated air pollution
emissions, affect cultural or historic resources.
[32] See 40 C.F.R. part 112.
[33] 40 C.F.R. part 117.
[34] 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. According to FAA, Environmental Impacts:
Policies and Procedures Order 1050.1E, March 20, 2006, all formal
actions taken by FAA officials are subject to NEPA review unless
statutory law applicable to the FAA's operations expressly prohibits
or makes compliance impossible, or are otherwise excepted by NEPA
regulations. Actions covered by NEPA review include grants, loans,
contracts, leases, construction, research activities, rulemaking and
regulatory actions, certifications, licensing, permits, plans
submitted to the FAA that require FAA approval, and legislation
proposed by the FAA.
[35] According to FAA, approximately 40 percent of airport projects
undergo the less rigorous EA, while less than 1 percent of airport
projects require an EIS. The remaining 60 percent of projects,
according to FAA, are categorically excluded under NEPA. When an
agency determines that proposed activities fall within a category of
activities the agency has already determined has no significant impact-
-called a categorical exclusion--then the agency generally need not
prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.
A federal action may be categorically excluded--thus exempting it from
the federal environmental review process--if, based on agency
experience, the proposed action does not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the environment. See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.4.
[36] 40 C.F.R. § 1506.6 (c).
[37] FAA Order 1050.1E, Chg 1, which is the most recent version, was
updated on March 20, 2006. FAA Order 5050.4B addresses NEPA
requirements specifically for airport actions.
[38] 42 U.S.C. § 7506(c)(1) (the Conformity Provision).
[39] States are required to submit implementation plans to EPA setting
forth the state strategy for eliminating or reducing emissions in
areas that fail to meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards set
by EPA under the Clean Air Act for criteria pollutants.
[40] 33 U.S.C. § 1344(a).
[41] FAA, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing
Instructions for Airport Actions, Order 5050.4B April 28, 2006; Desk
Reference for Airport Actions, October 2007; Environmental Impacts:
Policies and Procedures, Order 1050.1E, Change 1, March 20, 2006;
Environmental Management Systems for Airport Sponsors, Advisory
Circular 150/5050-8, September 26, 2007; and Air Quality Handbook,
June 2, 2005.
[42] An EMS is a management tool that enables an organization to
identify and control the environmental impact of its activities;
improve its environmental performance; and implement a systematic
approach to setting environmental goals and demonstrating that they
have been achieved.
[43] Vision 100-Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, Pub. L. No.
108-176, 177 Stat. 2490, §§ 121, 151, 158, and 159 (2003), established
a voluntary program to reduce ground emissions at commercial service
airports in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas. To
implement the Vision 100 provisions relating to airport emissions
reductions, FAA created and began administering the VALE program in
2005. Consistent with the authorizing legislation, airports eligible
for the VALE program can apply for federal AIP funds "set aside" for
noise and air quality projects or, with FAA approval, use Passenger
Facilities Charges (PFC), which airports can collect from passengers
to use for eligible airport development projects, to fund low-
emissions projects. See GAO, Aviation and the Environment: Initial
Voluntary Airport Low Emissions Program Projects Reduce Emissions, and
FAA Plans to Assess the Program's Overall Performance as Participation
Increases, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-37]
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 7, 2008).
[44] FAA's VALE program seeks to reduce airport ground emissions by
providing financing for low emission vehicles, refueling and
recharging stations, gate electrification, and other airport air
quality improvements at commercial service airports located in
designated air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas.
[45] Our survey did not ask airports to distinguish between actions
taken to reduce their environmental impacts as part of their day-to-
day operations and those taken to mitigate their environmental impacts
identified in the NEPA process in connection with an airport project
or operational change.
[46] The most common methods of complaint collection was by phone
hotline (111 airports), Web site (71 airports), and an online
complaint form (53 airports).
[47] Sound Exposure Level (SEL) is a measure of duration and magnitude
of a single noise event. Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) is the average
noise level over a specified time period, such as during school hours.
Maximum Sound Level (Lmax) is commonly used to describe the maximum
noise level from a single event.
[48] Although often voluntary, some noise abatement operational
procedures may be instituted at airports to mitigate noise problems
identified in a NEPA environmental review.
[49] These new flight procedures are currently used only for a limited
number of approaches and landings at airports. RNP procedures also can
have other environmental benefits including reducing an aircraft's
consumption of fuel and lowering its emissions of carbon dioxide and
nitrogen oxides. GAO, Next Generation Air Transportation System: FAA
Faces challenges in Responding to Task force Recommendations,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-188T] (Washington,
D.C.: Oct. 28, 2009) and GAO, Aviation and the Environment: Impact of
Aviation Noise on Communities Presents Challenges for Airport
Operations and Future Growth of the National Airspace System,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-216T] (Washington,
D.C.: Oct. 24, 2007).
[50] A navigational easement permits free flights over the land in
question. United States v. Brondum, 272 F.2d 642, 645 (5th Cir. 1959).
[51] Such commercial buildings include offices, portions of retail
stores where the public is received or other noise sensitive areas
within commercial buildings.
[52] Nor did we evaluate airports' self-reported assessments of the
reduced environmental impacts of their actions in the three other key
environmental areas covered in our survey.
[53] GAO, Aviation and the Environment: Strategic Framework Needed to
Address Challenges Posed by Aircraft Emissions, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-252] (Washington D.C.: Feb. 28,
2003).
[54] According to EPA, approximately 29 million people live within 10
kilometers of a commercial service airport located in a nonattainment
area.
[55] Estimates such as these do not take into account the full
lifecycle costs of a particular technology or all of the relevant
pollutants and their effects.
[56] The Clean Water Act generally prohibits the discharge of
pollutants into waters of the United States without a permit. 33
U.S.C. § 1342(a). In most cases, states administer the NPDES program,
which regulates the discharge of pollutants from industrial,
municipal, and other facilities.
[57] Such water quality measures must be designed to minimize their
attraction to birds and wildlife that can collide with aircraft. See
FAA Advisory Circular 150.5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractions on
or Near Airports.
[58] See GAO, Aviation Safety: Preliminary Information on Aircraft
Icing and Winter Operations, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-441T] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 24,
2010).
[59] According to an Airports Council International-North America (ACI-
NA) official, LED lights may not melt ice and snow that accumulate on
them and are, therefore, not used at some airports in colder climates.
[60] LEED standards promote a whole-building approach to
sustainability by recognizing performance in nine key areas of human
and environmental health: sustainable site development, water savings,
energy efficiency, materials selection, indoor environmental quality,
location linkages, awareness and education, innovation in design, and
regional priority.
[61] Boston's Logan International Airport opened the world's first
LEED-certified terminal in 2006. In late 2009, it also opened the
nation's first runway repaved with "warm-mix" asphalt, which requires
less energy to make, produces fewer GHG emissions when applied, and
uses a higher percentage of recycled asphalt pavement.
[62] Four large and medium hubs reported using the O'Hare
Modernization Program's Sustainable Design Manual. In addition, nine
surveyed airports followed the Clean Airport Partnership's Green
Airports Initiative, including seven large and medium hubs, and two
large and medium hubs used the Los Angeles Airports Sustainability
Plan. Another 37 airports, including 23 large and medium hubs,
reported using an environmental sustainability standard other than one
listed in our survey.
[63] A 2008 Airport Cooperative Research Program Report also noted
that airports are moving toward a more holistic, sustainable approach
to operations and development. See Transportation Research Board,
Airport Cooperative Research Program Synthesis 10 Report: Airport
Sustainability Practices (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 23, 2008).
[64] See CEQ guidance. According to an FAA advisory, the EMS process
to address environmental matters includes identifying and meeting
environmental goals, determining progress, and making changes to
ensure continual improvement. See FAA, Advisory Circular 150/5050-8,
Environmental Management Systems for Airport Sponsors (Sept. 26, 2007).
[65] According to FAA, most EMS frameworks are based on the ISO 14001
EMS model. Ten airports (about 23 percent of responding airports that
had an EMS) reported following this standard. Seven airports reported
using EPA's standards, and two used other EMS standards. Four
airports, including one large and medium hub, also reported that their
EMS was third-party certified.
[66] FAA Advisory Circular No.150/5050-8. As a condition of receiving
AIP funding for the development of an EMS, an airport must maintain
environmental records, conduct internal audits to ensure that the EMS
is kept current, and annually submit to FAA management reviews of its
EMS to demonstrate its continued currency. To date, one medium hub
received grant funding in 2009 for a maximum $1,250,000 to develop an
EMS, another medium hub airport has applied for $500,000 in fiscal
year 2010 AIP funding for its EMS development.
[67] Specifically, responding airports could indicate that
implementation was not delayed, somewhat delayed, or greatly delayed.
[68] As previously discussed, FAA and airports are required under NEPA
to identify and consider environmental issues for, among other things,
airport construction projects that receive federal funding or
operational changes that require FAA approval. DOT has explained that
the NEPA environmental review process cannot be cleanly segregated
from a project's overall planning process. DOT, Report to the U.S.
Congress on Environmental Review of Airport Improvement Projects (May
2001). As noted new runway construction from initial planning to
completion takes a median of 10 years, but delays from lawsuits or
addressing environmental issues can add an additional 4 years to the
median time.
[69] Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council,
Airport Cooperative Research Program Report 15, Aircraft Noise: A
Toolkit for Managing Community Expectations (Washington, D.C.: 2009).
[70] Airports were also asked to predict the extent to which
addressing environmental issues other than those specified in our
survey had caused or would cause a delay.
[71] We have previously reported that according to a California air
quality official, many of the same communities that have interacted
with airports over aviation noise have more recently recognized that
they could also be affected by emissions from airport sources. See
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-706T].
[72] Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for the Airport Deicing Category, 74 Fed. Reg. 44676
(proposed August 2009).
[73] 74 Fed. Reg. 56260 (October 2009).
[74] GAO, Highways and Environment: Transportation Agencies Are Acting
to Involve Others in Planning and Environmental Decisions, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-512R] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 25,
2008); GAO, Surface Transportation: Many Factors Affect Investment
Decisions, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-744]
(Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2004); GAO, Highway Infrastructure:
Stakeholders' Views on Time to Conduct Environmental Reviews of
Highway Projects, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-534]
(Washington, D.C.: May 23, 2003); and GAO, Highway Infrastructure:
Perceptions of Stakeholders on approaches to Reduce Highway Project
Completion Time, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-398]
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 9, 2003).
[75] GAO, Highways and Environment: Transportation Agencies Are Acting
to Involve Others in Planning and Environmental Decisions, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-512R] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 25,
2008). Because the requirements were relatively new at the time of our
report, stakeholders identified potential, rather than actual,
benefits.
[76] FAA recommends airports consider environmental factors early in
airport planning, but notes that if an EIS is prepared long after an
airport master plan, the planning data and environmental inventories
prepared as part of the master planning may be outdated. FAA, Best
Practices for Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Management
(Washington, D.C.: January 2002).
[77] Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council,
Airport Cooperative Research Program Synthesis 17: Approaches to
Integrating Airport Development and Federal Environmental Review
Processes, (Washington, D.C.: 2009). The report findings were based on
17 case studies, where airports used various practices to integrate
airport development and the NEPA review processes.
[78] Stakeholders can include contractors, tenants, metropolitan
planning organizations (MPO), state environmental agencies,
communities, and passengers.
[79] Pub. L. No. 108-176, §§ 302, 304, 308, 117 Stat. 2490, 2533-2540,
codified at 49 U.S.C. § 47171 et seq. Under the act, a "congested
airport" is an airport that accounted for at least 1 percent of all
delayed aircraft operations in the United States in the most recent
year for which such data is available and an airport listed in table 1
of the FAA Airport Capacity Benchmark Report 2001. An "airport
capacity enhancement project" is a project for construction or
extension of a runway, including any land acquisition, taxiway, or
safety area associated with the runway or runway extension; and such
other airport development projects as the Secretary of Transportation
may designate as facilitating a reduction in air traffic congestion
and delays. Pub. L. No. 108-176, § 304, 117 Stat. 2490, 2538, codified
at 49 U.S.C. § 47175. Environmental streamlining can also be used for
aviation safety and aviation security projects, but according to FAA
officials, has yet to be used for these types of projects because the
regular environmental review process seems to be working well.
[80] According to these officials, other factors that may delay the
environmental review process include the extent of public comments
received, local politics, and limited resources of other federal and
state environmental agencies that FAA coordinates with during the EIS
process.
[81] See EPA Position Statement on Environmental Management Systems
(EMS), Dec. 13, 2005 and FAA Order 5050.4B on the value of EMS. The
International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO) Committee on
Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) is preparing a report on the
use of EMS and will recommend how the committee could promote the use
of EMS within the aviation system. That report will be based on the
results of a questionnaire on EMS use, which was distributed to member
states and other organizations.
[82] See FAA, Environmental Management Systems (EMS) and NEPA Adaptive
Management (May 2004). FAA's guidance focuses on how an EMS can
improve the NEPA process by supporting an adaptive management approach
for projects that face uncertain or unforeseen conditions during
implementation. We have previously reported on the benefits of using
an adaptive management approach. GAO, FAA Airspace Redesign: An
Analysis of the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Project, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-786] (Washington, D.C.: July 31,
2008).
[83] DOE and EPA, Environmental Management Systems Primer for Federal
Facilities (1998). According to the Primer, the systematic nature of
the EMS allows for a more inclusive and proactive view of
environmental protection. In turn, demonstrating improved
environmental performance and making the environmental management
structure and procedure more visible can lead to improved relations
with regulators, stakeholders, and the public.
[84] See CEQ, Aligning National Environmental Policy Act Processes
With Environmental Management Systems, A Guide for NEPA and EMS
Practitioners (April 2007).
[85] We have previously identified seven core principles for effective
stakeholder participation based on our review of participation
literature and policies from leading federal agencies in stakeholder
participation, including the three discussed in this report which are
applicable to airports. See Fisheries Management: Core Principles and
a Strategic Approach Would Enhance Stakeholder Participation in
Developing Quota-Based Programs, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-289] (Washington, D.C.: February
2006). ACRP's Community Toolkit also identifies strategies for
effective community engagement programs, many of which substantively
mirror the effective stakeholder participation practices we identified.
[86] GAO, Aviation and the Environment: Impact of Aviation Noise on
Communities Presents Challenges for Airport Operations and Future
Growth of the National Airspace System, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-216T] (Washington, D.C.: October
2007).
[87] Ibid. According to the ACRP Community Toolkit, two-way airport-
community communications is critical for effective community outreach.
[88] Our survey asked about community roundtable and advisory
committee meetings that are regularly-scheduled and ongoing. These
meetings may include, but are not limited to meetings and workshops
that take place during the environmental review process.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: