National Academies Press: OpenBook

Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience (2012)

Chapter: Chapter Two - Case Examples

« Previous: Chapter One - Introduction
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22773.
×
Page 6
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22773.
×
Page 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22773.
×
Page 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22773.
×
Page 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22773.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22773.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22773.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22773.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22773.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22773.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22773.
×
Page 16

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

7 IntroductIon The goal of this Synthesis report is to identify current plans and practices for managing climate risks at airports through analysis of case examples and supplementary review. The cases that follow begin with an example of a mature response to climate change, illustrating the reality of climate change at Alaskan airports. The chapter closes with a profile of one Mis- sissippi airport’s response to the tornadoes that accompanied Hurricane Katrina, as a reminder that extreme weather, with or without climate change, is a challenging and continual propo- sition for the nation’s airports. Other examples demonstrate emerging trends in address- ing climate risk. At Oakland International Airport, planners and engineers included sea level rise as a factor in design changes they were developing for other purposes. At Toronto Pearson International Airport the head of Environmental Systems Management used his profession’s model climate change vulnerability assessment protocol as a tool for con- sidering climate risk in stormwater system reviews and water quality regulatory compliance activities. In the following case examples, drivers for reviewing climate risks included: • Severe weather events and related costs; • Awareness raised from sustainability and greenhouse gas mitigation activities; • Model adaptation guidance prepared by a professional society in a technical field; • Executive leaders serving as champions; • Participation in state, regional, and local adaptation plan- ning efforts; and • Federal grants and planning frameworks. Overall there are few examples of actual funding or planning decisions at airports that were based on climate change considerations, and incorporation of climate change into existing decision-making processes is just beginning to develop. case examples case 1: alaska The state of Alaska has responsibility for the maintenance of aviation facilities in more than 200 villages that have no access to the road system. Residents in these communities rely on aircraft and alternatives (barges, snowmachines/ snowmobiles, etc.) for access to food, fuel, emergency care, law enforcement, and other services. The nearest hospital, for example, may be 200 miles away by airplane. Many of these villages are situated at latitudes with year-round per- mafrost and lie along coasts and rivers. Severe flooding and erosion has been reported in such villages for many decades, caused by seasonal factors such as snow melt and ice jams during the winter break up (GAO 2003). Increases in average temperature in recent decades have led to glacier melt, which has exacerbated the flooding and erosion. This warming also has led to a decrease in sea ice along the western and northern coasts of Alaska, and without this buffer from the sea, severe storms are erod- ing the shoreline, often at a rate of up to 100 ft per year. In addition, the permafrost layer is melting, causing settling that disrupts infrastructure on the surface (GAO 2003). Airstrips and airport access roads are incurring structural damage from erosion and settling, and flooding can restrict access to airports. Response measures have included rein- forcement or elevation of runways and access roads, and relocation (GAO 2003). With the support of various agencies, several villages have taken action to meet these challenges. Regarding avia- tion facilities, support in 2002–2003 included a $300,000 FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant for a Master Plan for the village of Kaktovik, and the village of Koyukuk received an AIP grant of more than $10,000,000 to elevate the runway out of the 100-year flood plain. Despite these kinds of measures, academic research has reported that the potential risks from climate change in most of Alaska’s transportation sector, including aviation, were not being addressed in a sys- tematic way (McBeath 2003). The same year the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported on the circumstances facing the villages and outlined the funding, coordination, and prioritization required to address their needs. GAO explained that two agencies with flood and watershed responsibilities, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), have cost–benefit analysis requirements that have inhibited the flow of aid. However, GAO cited examples where Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and FAA were supporting the reinforcement of aviation facilities in some villages and providing planning money for the potential relocation with respect to other villages chapter two case examples

8 (GAO 2003). The FAA has found ways to work within its authorities to address the cost–benefit issues that have been barriers to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and NRCS sup- port for the villages (FAA 2004). In addition, the AIP-funded project in Koyukuk, completed in 2006, protected the newly elevated runway from flooding occurring that same year (Coffey 2009). The more complex process of relocating villages is slow and expensive. Construction of a new rural Alaska airport, for example, costs $15 to 20 million and takes 3 to 5 years, some- times as much as 10, owing to building methods required in these locations (FAA 2004). Many entities have been involved in making the man- agement of this long-term issue as transparent and efficient as possible (GAO 2009) including a special oversight sub- committee in the U.S. Senate (FAA 2004). In 2007, Alaska made the villages’ concerns about erosion and flooding a component of its Climate Change Task Force work (GAO 2009). The University of Alaska researched and developed a method for prioritizing adaptation measures for the state’s transportation network (Larsen et al. 2008). Significant chal- lenges still remain for coordinating and funding the larger issue of village erosion (GAO 2009). In Alaska, there are new policy cues with respect to climate change and airports. The state now has a public infrastructure climate adaptation strategy, and the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities keeps the climate risk to village airports on its programmatic and public outreach agenda (e.g., Coffey 2009). More broadly, it has developed an adaptable statewide aviation system plan that is guided by the FAA Airport System Planning Process (ASPP). The Alaska Aviation System Plan, found at www.alaskaasp.com, provides a dedicated process that will • Identify airport improvements needed; • Set priorities for funding; • Propose aviation policy; and • Document the existing system with photos, maps, and data. One critical component of the Airport System Planning Process is the preparation of studies that characterize the eco- nomic significance of rural Alaska airports. It would appear that these studies can contribute to cost–benefit analyses, where such information did not previously exist. Observations: Climate change adaptation is a difficult and iterative process, and takes place in the context of other press- ing issues and needs. In this case, early investments were made in an ad hoc manner, prior to systematic planning. However, having large sums of money at stake was a driver for signifi- cant, higher-profile planning efforts. Oversight measures have been used as the work progressed. Planning and prioritizing are also informed by systemized documentation of airport facilities and economic analyses that may facilitate decisions on aviation infrastructure funding. case 2: Jacksonville, Florida The Jacksonville Aviation Authority (JAA), located in northeast Florida, manages Jacksonville International Air- port (JIA), Cecil Airport, Jacksonville Executive at Craig Airport, and Herlong Recreational Airport, all of which are 25 to 75 ft above sea level. The largest airport under JAA purview, JIA, is located 15 miles from the Atlantic Ocean and 6 miles from an inland waterway. The terminal, apron areas, and runways were built on former pasture land and a large amount of fill was needed to raise the level of the base of the structures. Many areas around JIA are at a lower elevation. A total of 5.6 million passengers used this air- port in 2010. Cecil Airport is 34 miles from the ocean and 13 miles from an inland waterway. Cecil Airport is a former Navy base that was closed in the Base Realignment and Closure process and deeded to the JAA in 1999. This airport is a JAA planning priority, as the authority seeks to develop it into an aviation business center attracting military contrac- tors, aviation-related businesses, and their suppliers. This plan combined with increasing the current level of freight service would make Cecil Airport a major economic engine for Jacksonville. The current chief executive officer (CEO) of JAA arrived in September 2009 from Oakland International Airport in California, where he had been Director of Aviation for 17 years. Oakland International Airport is a revenue division of the Port of Oakland, which has had a sustainability policy since 2000. That sustainability policy’s foundational prin- ciples are environmental responsibility, social equity, and economic vitality (referred to as the “3 E’s”: environment/ equity/economics). When hired in 2009, the CEO empha- sized the need to run JAA as a business, and viewed the concept of sustainability as a piece of that strategy. More specifically, he viewed addressing potential risks to oper- ations and infrastructure from climate changes as a part of planning for and support of “economic vitality” in the Jacksonville area. In early 2011, the JAA CEO commissioned a white paper from his staff to examine possible changes in climate condi- tions, identify their potential effects on JAA operations and infrastructure, and suggest possible actions. With respect to climate change effects, the CEO tasked the JAA’s environ- mental planner with developing the climate effects white paper for final approval within 3 months. At the time the white paper was commissioned, the JAA also was in the early stages of developing a sustainability plan; although some conference calls and meetings had taken place, this project was just beginning to take shape. In commissioning the paper,

9 it was that clear climate change was its own topic, although connected in many ways to sustainability. Early drafts of the white paper required some revisions to reach a consensus among internal departments, because it was a new topic area. The final version describes the changes in climate relevant to the Southeast region of the United States (as projected within 20 years, at mid-century, and by 2100); the effects and hazards that may result from these impacts, along with a set of potential solutions for each; and some potential next steps. The next steps would be to monitor pro- jected changes, “consider incorporating adaptation consider- ations into future airport planning and operating documents,” and consider developing design and construction guidance to prepare current and future infrastructure for potential climate change. In addition to making the white paper’s content (e.g., the list of possible climate effects and likely adaption mea- sures) relevant to JAA’s situation, its structure had another notable aspect; it did not use terms from the adaptation lexi- con, such as adaptive capacity or vulnerability. The resulting document, however, was a cogent and informed overview, designed to create awareness and stimulate discussion. Despite a lack of relevant policy, guidance, or other sources of information within JAA, the environmental planner had tapped into the state-wide discussions on both sustainability and climate change. He also had access to several data bases that permitted him to successfully complete this assignment. First, in developing the white paper, the environmental plan- ner was able to draw on two reports on potential climate impacts, the U.S. Global Change Research Program report on regional climate impacts in the United States and an FHWA report on climate impacts to transportation (“Regional Cli- mate Effects . . . ” 2010), also organized on a regional basis for the United States. Next, the CEO served as champion for the project, and provided active and sustained support and awareness as to its importance. In addition, the city of Jacksonville had opened an Office of Sustainability under the purview of the mayor’s office in 2008. This office in turn cre- ated a city government-wide sustainability policy. Through this office, public awareness about the broader topic would lend support to this exercise to review climate change effects. Other resources were JAA colleagues, who shared common concerns if not in-depth knowledge of climate change per se. A simple but important aspect of this endeavor was that JAA holds weekly interdepartmental briefing sessions where all topics of common concern are discussed. Coincidentally, soon after the white paper was released, there was a inter- departmental briefing held at Jacksonville’s Emergency Operations Center as an informational field trip exercise. City officials in the Jacksonville Emergency Preparedness Division mentioned and reinforced many of the issues raised in the climate change effects white paper, particularly in rela- tion to a severe storm event. Observations: The CEO’s commissioning of the white paper began a dialogue on climate change risk, resilience, and adap- tation, providing a means for people to discuss and digest information on the topic. It also built a strong knowledge base within the environmental planning office that can support ongoing education and inform decisions on the issue. case 3: san diego, california Located in the southwest corner of Southern California, the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority plans and operates San Diego International Airport (SAN). The third busiest passenger airport in California, San Diego Interna- tional Airport served approximately 17 million passengers in 2010. The single-runway airport is located on 661 acres near downtown San Diego on the north end of San Diego Bay, just above sea level. ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability) is an inter- national membership organization whose mission is to edu- cate and empower communities to set and achieve greenhouse gas emission and sustainability goals. In 2010, ICLEI joined forces with two organizations local to San Diego: the Tijuana National Estuarine Research Reserve and the San Diego Foun- dation, whose civic engagement projects include a climate ini- tiative. The organizations became partners in developing a sea level rise adaptation strategy for San Diego Bay. The partners convened a steering committee composed of those entities with land use and jurisdictional control of the land areas adjacent to San Diego Bay. Among these was the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, with two representatives to the steering committee: its manager of air- port planning and its director of environmental affairs. The three partners also created a stakeholder working group and technical advisory committee to provide input into develop- ment of the strategy. The project vision relied on ICLEI’s adaptation model. ICLEI describes adaptation as a process involving leadership commitment and five milestones, as depicted in Figure 1. FIGURE 1 ICLEI’s Five Milestones of Adaptation.

10 The project’s focus was on sea level rise, the single most prominent climate threat to the collected entities. Under the ICLEI model, development of an adaptation strategy would move San Diego Bay through Milestones, 1, 2, and 3 for adapting to sea level rise and related issues. ICLEI and the steering committee developed a series of project-level mile- stones and deliverables to be met between August 2010 and October 2011, including an existing conditions report, a vulnerability assessment to sea level rise for 13 sectors for the time frames 2050 and 2100, policy recommendations, and an overall adaptation strategy derived from the other three documents. The 13 sectors included potable water, stormwater, and wastewater utilities; energy facilities; local transportation facilities; emergency response facilities; commercial and residential building stock; and regional air- port operations. The project first examined the outputs of sea level rise models for the area surrounding San Diego Bay; the added effect of tides; and the likely impacts to result, including the hazards from increased erosion, flooding, inundation, and salt water intrusion. Under the vulnerability assessment methodology, project participants analyzed existing and future conditions in rela- tion to the following three adaptation planning factors: Exposure: a determination of whether the system as a whole or parts of the system will experience a specific changing climate condition. Sensitivity: the degree to which a system would be impaired by the impacts of climate change were the system to hypothetically experience those impacts. Systems that are greatly impaired by small changes in climate have a high sensitivity, whereas systems that are minimally impaired by the same small change in climate have a low sensitivity. Adaptive capacity: the ability of a specific system to make adjustments or changes to maintain its primary func- tions even with the impacts of climate change. This does not imply that the system must look the same as before the impact; however, it must provide the same services and functions it did before the impact occurred. Each of the 13 sector’s vulnerabilities were rated in a qual- itative way, and the project described the potential impacts in 2050 and 2100 from sea level rise, as exacerbated by, for example, high tides and potential problems in the stormwater drainage system. As noted, among the 13 sectors examined closely for vulnerabilities to sea level rise were regional air- port operations. The findings indicated that there are risks to regional airport operations, especially in 2100, assuming San Diego International Airport continues its role as the primary air- port for the San Diego region. For the interim year 2050, model outputs showed that San Diego International Airport would not be flooded from the shoreline. However, local- ized inundation from flooding as well as backups in storm drains may be possible. By 2100, models showed that the primary access road to the airport (North Harbor Drive) would be inundated regularly, and under extreme events a portion of the airfield area would flood. Where a new pas- senger terminal may be planned, there would be extensive flooding in 2100. With regular flooding and closure of a pri- mary access road, there would be regular airport closures in 2100. Experts believed that all air traffic to San Diego Inter- national Airport could not be handled by other local airports, as their runways are shorter and other airport facilities are smaller and cannot accommodate the forecast demand for air passenger service. With respect to regional airport operations, two strat- egies were presented as potential options for addressing the flooding and inundation vulnerabilities, as prioritized by the stakeholder working group and technical advisory committee. 1. Incorporate sea level rise flood scenarios at San Diego International Airport into the Regional Aviation Stra- tegic Plan process and the consideration of alterna- tive sites. 2. In the San Diego International Airport Master Plan, explore the potential for reconfiguring airport access away from key roads that may experience significant flooding and are threatened by inundation. The steering committee, which as noted includes the two representatives from the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, participated in the preparation of the adaptation strategy. ICLEI views the adaptation strategy’s release in late 2011 as completion of Milestones 1, 2, and 3, with the next step being Milestone 4, Implementation. At that time, the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority was con- sidering integrating the relevant components of the strategy into its sustainability policy. Observations: This regional effort raised awareness of a very significant climate change effect, sea level rise, throughout the San Diego Bay area. Use of the ICLEI model and its resources meant the region could start the project at an advanced level and progress to more evolved strategies more rapidly. It helped communicate to the public and decision makers the extent of the risk to the airport; for example, that inundation from the shoreline is not likely but stormwater problems may require future investment. More broadly, including San Diego County Regional Airport Authority representatives on the steering committee helped to define the airports’ interests in regional activities and bring the findings and potential next steps back to their own organization.

11 case 4: atlanta, Georgia Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL) is located in Atlanta, Georgia. On average it handles 250,000 passengers daily; nearly 90 million passengers a year. ATL is presently the world’s busiest airport, supporting 1 million take-offs and landings annually. It has a 5.6 million-square- foot terminal complex with a 4,800-acre campus containing cargo, maintenance, and support facilities. A recent $6 bil- lion capital improvement project has included projects such as the new consolidated rental car center, a fifth runway, and a new international terminal. The airport is owned and operated by the city of Atlanta Department of Aviation. In 2008, the city sought to host a con- vention, but lost out to another city perceived as “greener.” In February 2009, the city and several partners began a pro- gram to create “Zero Waste” zones, which became a highly successful initiative as reported in the national news. In October 2010, the city launched a sustainability plan that set targets in key areas, such as waste minimization and energy efficiency. The city encouraged its residents and city depart- ments to support this plan. The Department of Aviation began considering strategies for addressing sustainability at Hartsfield–Jackson in support of the city’s initiative, and formed the Asset Management and Sustainability Division. Furthermore, the Department of Aviation secured funding from an FAA pilot program designed to support the development of either a sustainable management plan or sustainable master plan. Hartsfield– Jackson was one of ten airports chosen, and it elected to develop a sustainable management plan. The airport’s deci- sion to develop such a plan was based on timing; the next cycle for the airport master plan was more than two years away. When the Sustainable Management Plan was finalized in late 2011, procurement for the 18-month master plan pro- cess was just getting underway. In 2010, once FAA funding for a sustainable management plan was in place, ATL conducted several exercises: • Agency scoping sessions as part of the initial brain- storming and visioning process; • Development of baseline information on resource con- sumption to identify opportunities for improvement; • Review of sustainability initiatives for similar airports and industries; • Review of global reporting initiative indicators for sus- tainability monitoring categories; and • Public and stakeholder meetings to establish goals, tar- gets, and initiatives. The airport organized its work into four focus areas: procurement, construction, operations and maintenance, and policy. It focused on the collection of baseline data in electricity, water, greenhouse gas emissions, and waste, as well as natural gas, jet fuel, diesel, and hazardous mate- rial usage. Through the exercise listed earlier, the plan took shape. The resulting sustainable master plan document identifies metrics for achieving goals established for each focus area and anticipates tracking accountability for those metrics year by year. An annual report card will be devel- oped and policies will be updated each fiscal year to ensure progress toward the end goals. A significant area of rel- evance to projected climate change impacts include water conservation, because the southeast United States, includ- ing the Atlanta area, has experienced persistent drought over the last several years. The Department of Aviation anticipates developing an environmental and sustainability system that documents the airport’s environmental footprint on a continual basis, complementing the work of the Planning and Environmen- tal Division that already monitors the regulatory impact of environmental operations at the airport. Future study will be given to preparing for projected climate change in the southeast United States, specifically relating to impacts on Hartsfield–Jackson. Once the sustainable management plan was completed in late 2011, the airport’s aggressive implementation strat- egy included the drafting of the scope of work for on- call consultants to support the plan. This scope of work included a Request for Proposals that went out for tender in the same month that the airport delivered its completed sustainable management plan to FAA. The scope of work anticipates significant public outreach and communications activity, including the release of an annual sustainability report card, to ensure understanding and buy-in. The pri- mary requirement, however, is development of a combined asset management and sustainability plan that would be long range and include a climate action plan, water mas- ter plan, energy management plan, and updated sustainable management plan. At a more strategic level, airport management antici- pates making the sustainable management plan one chapter in the master plan currently under development. With the institutional policies and processes in place or on sched- ule for development, the airport management reports that it is well-positioned to identify and address emerging cli- mate change issues that may affect airport assets and other resources. Observations: The airport took policy cues from its owner, the city of Atlanta, and pursued a sustainability initiative that puts in place avenues for identifying and addressing climate risks, such as organizational changes reflecting the importance of sustainability, a sustainable management plan, a combined sustainability and asset management plan (including climate action plan, water master plan, and energy management plan),

12 and a master plan that includes a section devoted to sustain- ability. There is a flexible process in place, including signals from leadership, for considering climate change impacts at the appropriate time. case 5: oakland, california Oakland International Airport is a major airport on the coast of Northern California. It has two terminals, four runways, and significant general aviation activity. Approximately 11 million passengers use the airport annually. In 2009, it had the highest on-time arrival percentage among the 40 bus- iest North American airports. The airport lies near sea level, and the possibility of even partial inundation already drives decision making in several areas. California has significant seismic activity and, as with most infrastructure in that state, there are earthquake-related risks at the airport; for example, seismically induced lique- faction of sediment has been a long-standing concern among planners. Separately, FEMA has standards and accreditation relevant to the robustness of dikes that apply to the perim- eter dike at the airport. Although there has not been flooding, there has been some seepage at the dike. The accumulated water creates wetlands, and impacts to these are regulated. An added directive affecting these wetlands is the required development of “Runway Safety Areas” by the end of 2015, which may require filling in the wetlands. Each of these diverse regulatory drivers call for technical reviews by plan- ners and engineers. Also, in recent years, the broader region has been concerned about sea level rise stemming from cli- mate change; as a result, the airport’s planners and engineers have focused on the potential risks from this climate change- related effect as well. Airport staff cites one ongoing awareness-building and adaptation planning project as being particularly influential in securing their attention to adaptation and resilience planning. This project is Adapting to Rising Tides (ART), sponsored by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is being conducted at the sub-regional level. Its goal is to provide future scenarios and develop strategies for reducing and managing risks from projected climate change impacts. Oakland International Airport staff credits this effort with raising awareness on that subject. As part of the inventorying of sub-regional assets of interest, ART stakeholders select asset categories, choose metrics to characterize the assets, and use these metrics to assess exist- ing conditions and stressors of assets. Sector-specific metrics were developed in many areas, including airports. As noted, the airport’s staff had been reviewing the perim- eter dike and other infrastructure for several reasons. They viewed sea level rise as a minor risk relative to others. How- ever, it was decided to incorporate sea level rise into design requirements for the perimeter dike because it was feasible to do so. Given that sea level models do not provide definitive information on the projected sea level rise, a rough average of modeling results was determined. The result for the perimeter dike’s design was a 1 ft increase in height, and the ability to receive additional load in the future. As noted, this decision was made within a broader planning context that addressed, for example, seismic and FEMA standards related to the perimeter dike. At this time, a budget earmark for this work is awaiting final approval. Lesson Learned: Climate change impacts can be a consideration in the preparation of design requirements and, in some cases, there is less of a need to wait for absolute rigor and precision in the technical information supporting them. Participation in broader climate adaptation planning efforts can cultivate this thinking. Airport planners also benefited from having model- ing of projected climate impacts already available, as this freed the planners and engineers to think and act within a set of given parameters. case 6: toronto, ontario Toronto Pearson International Airport is in a region with harsh winters and significant precipitation year round. The airport is bounded on one side with by a significant creek and a tributary. At the airport, there was some awareness of potential cli- mate change issues because a senior manager had reviewed a climate change vulnerability assessment protocol issued by an engineer’s professional society. Specifically, the Director of Environmental Management Systems with purview over the airport took an interest in this protocol, which was recom- mended (but not required) by government, and believed that it provided the flexibility needed to address certain issues. Airport staff also was aware of anecdotal reports of micro- bursts in the local watershed. The unpredictability of the weather became a consid- eration in development of stormwater design criteria. The airport follows a long-standing master plan process to con- duct cyclical reviews that ensure stormwater events, and possible environmental impacts are mitigated and flooding of the creek are understood. Typically, engineers oversize certain elements of a stormwater system. As part of the most recent review, the airport had found that its infrastructure was already sufficient and there would not be localized flood- ing despite several modeled severe storm events. However, if the system was compromised in some way; for example, the clogging of a pipe, there could be a problem. The addition of another runway would require the extension of an existing triple box culvert approaching 50 years in age, which would require additional hydraulic capacity to convey the tributary by means of a new large-diameter pipe. When conducting the necessary hydraulic study, there was a general understand-

13 The Southwest Airlines hub, Dallas Love Field, closed temporarily. As a result, thousands of football fans were left in limbo making for a major public relations problem that was a potential threat to DFW’s reputation and busi- ness goals. At DFW, runways and taxiways could not be cleared quickly enough because the existing snow and ice removal equipment had significant limitations; the existing equip- ment could only clear one of DFW’s seven runways in one hour after a deicer had been applied. For more than 25 years, the existing fleet had consisted of the following highway- grade snow and ice removal equipment: • For the airfield, DFW had ten plows mounted on dump trucks, with eight of the trucks also outfitted with airfield sand spreaders. The airfield equipment also included two snow blowers, two de-icer tanker trucks with boom sprayers, and two loaders. • For the terminals ramps (aprons) near the airline gates there was inadequate preparation and snow removal equipment. • For roads, there were 3 plows mounted on dump trucks, 2 loaders, and 12 gravel spreaders mounted on small dump trucks or pickup trucks. Several inherent deficiencies led to the clearance prob- lems at the time of the 2011 Super Bowl. Almost one-third of the dump trucks and pick-up trucks used with the plows and spreaders were beyond their useful life. The plows had only a minimal top curvature; therefore, overspray continu- ally reached truck windshields, slowing the work. In con- trast, airfield plows are designed with more curvature and a rubber deflector to reduce overspray. The plows also were for highway use and therefore their effective width was only 12 ft, whereas airfield plows are designed with a 22-ft effec- tive width. Based on this analysis of their current capacity to deal with snowstorms, after experiencing significant snow and ice storms during three of the four previous winter sea- sons, including the Super Bowl snowstorm catalyst, DFW developed a strategy with a set of objectives designed to meet certain snow and ice removal requirements. In addi- tion to aiming to increase support to ramps and increase road response, DFW defined its objectives for the airfield as the following: • Be prepared for back-to-back, 2-in. snow or ice storm events. • Have the capability to remove snow and ice from all select runways in one hour. • Be able to keep two parallel runways and one diagonal runway open at all times. Although development of these objectives did not follow from a review of climate change projections, the snow and ing among the professional staff that the weather and climate may become less predictable. Another instance involved de-icing. Currently, at the air- port, all de-icing fluids are collected; however, low con- centrations are allowed to be discharged to the municipal wastewater treatment plant through surcharge agreements. Airport managers have observed less snow and more pre- cipitation mix in the region, with more wing ice a possible effect. Also, the airport takes flights from many other regions that will experience changes away from historical weather patterns, and this will require potential use of more de-icing. An increase in the use of de-icing fluids may increase con- centrations in run-off, potentially triggering increases to the surcharge agreements. Since the winter of 2010–2011, the airport staff has considered this issue and at the end of 2011 was in the process of finalizing the scope of a study on this subject. In short, from its knowledge of the model climate change vulnerability assessment protocol: (1) the airport gave con- sideration to climate change as it conducted a hydraulic anal- ysis for a new culvert; and (2) the airport expects to formally study the potential impacts of a new precipitation mix on de-icing fluid use and water quality. Observations: Climate change vulnerability or risk assessment guidance and protocols tailored to a specific profession can help the target professionals assimilate information on potential climate change impacts and adapt related considerations into their current practices. case 7: dallas and Fort Worth, texas Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) encom- passes more than 18,000 acres, making it the second largest airport in the United States in terms of land area. It has five terminals, seven runways, and its own post office, zip code, and public services. DFW is the fourth busiest airport in the world in terms of aircraft movements. In recent years, DFW has managed several weather-related risks to its business and operations, including regional water scarcity and an unusual snow event. These events have raised awareness of climate risks and the effects climate changes can have on other activities, such as regulatory compliance. At the same time, DFW has a $1.9 billion renovation and expan- sion initiative underway, with an expected completion date in 2017. Three cases described here demonstrate the growing awareness of climate risks to DFW and to its growth, as well as its increasing capacity to address those risks. The first case arose when, on February 4, 2011, the Dallas, Texas, region received 2.6 in. of snow, just two days before the Super Bowl. As a result, more than 300 arriving flights were canceled at DFW, a hub for American Airlines.

14 ice storms experienced during the past few years and the impact of the most recent storm to DFW operations espe- cially during a major event in the DFW metroplex caused DFW to re-examine its capability to respond appropriately to weather events. DFW therefore sought information from airports with similar climate conditions as those experi- enced February 4, 2011. Specifically, to develop a compara- tive analysis, DFW obtained information from peer airports experienced in addressing ice and snow events, including Atlanta, Denver, Minneapolis–St. Paul, Chicago O’Hare, and Boston Logan. As a result of this research and planning effort, DFW selected a set of equipment upgrades that enables it to clear three runways in 14 minutes for a 2-in. snow event, with a cost of $10 million for the new equipment, and $3 mil- lion for a storage facility, as well as $560,000 annually for operations and maintenance. DFW plans for airport- grade equipment including 10 pieces of multi-functional snow removal equipment that can plow, broom, and blow snow; 4 dedicated high-speed snow brooms; 2 dedicated 4,000 gallon tanker/sprayer trucks for airside pavement de-icing; and a 2,000 gallon tanker for landside pave- ment de-icing. In contrast, Denver and Chicago have 40 and 41 multi-tasking snow removal systems, respectively; Minneapolis–St. Paul has 4 and Atlanta none. Atlanta has four deicer tanker/sprayers, and through this exercise DFW doubled its tanker fleet from 2 to 4. This case demonstrates the significance of a single, cata- lyzing event, and it is clear that DFW rebounded quickly. Less than a month after the snowstorm a formal funding request for the new equipment was submitted. The funding request stated the following: “The amount of revenue loss to both DFW and the airlines due to the suspension of aircraft landing and takeoff operations during one snow and ice event would more than compensate for the proposed purchase of new snow and ice removal equipment.” This request was approved four months later on August 1, 2011, with the full support of the airlines. This equipment upgrade makes the airport more resilient to at least one climate risk, the extreme winter weather pro- jected to occur more frequently in the future. DFW considers this upgrade as a major accomplishment; all airport stake- holders including the airlines accepted that it was time DFW had the airfield-grade snow and ice removal equipment that was comparable to peer airports, without knowledge that the winter storm events may be associated with climate change. The second case at DFW relates to another climate change expected for the North Central Texas region; more frequent drought. DFW is in a water-scarce region that already periodically experiences drought. The airport also experi- ences consecutive days of temperatures above 100°F, and has implemented water use restrictions during the past few years. As a result, water conservation measures at DFW have severely limited the use of water for irrigation, pave- ment power washing, and gas well facing. Also, although not restricted, the Central Utilities Plant at DFW uses potable water in its cooling towers, because the airport cools approx- imately 700,000 gallons of water per night to keep terminals air conditioned during the hottest part of the day. A termi- nal expansion will increase annual departures by 7,500 as early as 2014, significantly adding to the expected increase in water use per year. As the city of Fort Worth planned for the development of a new reclaimed water facility, it was clear DFW would be the majority user of the water. Indeed, because of the stress on regional water supplies and the expected increase in costs for potable water used for nondrinking purposes, DFW staff hope to shift about 25% of water used in the Central Utili- ties Plant cooling towers from potable to reclaimed water, as well as for the previously mentioned irrigation of airport open space and the gas drilling operations conducted on air- port property. The cost of the city’s water plant and related infrastructure was estimated at $26 million, with a $16 mil- lion pipeline ultimately paid for through American Recov- ery and Reinvestment Act funding. The city would deliver water right up to the airport’s property line, requiring DFW to build its own infrastructure to distribute the reclaimed water across its property and facilities, at a cost of $18 mil- lion for the first phase. Reclaimed water—which is waste water processed to a nonpotable standard acceptable for industrial and other uses not affecting human health—has a stigma that can be diffi- cult to overcome. Additionally, although reclaimed water is not as expensive as potable water, an appropriate rate needed to be set for the city to justify the project. In March 2008, the DFW board authorized the negotiation of cost sharing and/ or set rates for the time when the water would be available and delivered to DFW. DFW, as well as the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, agreed that the use of reclaimed water for nonpotable water usage at the airport was a prudent initia- tive based on the continuing North Central Texas extreme drought conditions and scarcity of water resources. Eighteen months later, in September 2009, the DFW board approved the agreement reached with the city. That same month, funding also was approved for the $18 mil- lion. The justification for these decisions was that reclaimed water would provide a long-term, less-expensive, and sus- tainable water supply and that its substitution for potable water would provide economic and environmental benefits to DFW and the region. DFW also justified the expense on the basis that an additional water supply would provide ser- vice reliability and reduce demands on existing water sup- plies and infrastructure. DFW calculated that the airport would save $4 million in costs over 20 years, and $121 mil- lion more over 60 years, through use of reclaimed water. Drought resistance was cited as an unquantified but antici- pated benefit as well.

15 in the Great Plains, they are accustomed to handling irregu- lar operations and disaster situations, an issue illustrated by the following summary of JMAA’s procedures as well as its activities after a major hurricane. JMAA standard operating procedures call for continual assessment of the weather in the surrounding area and at the most logical points where its airports’ operations will be affected. In the absence of a forecast major weather event, a routine day means that JMAA checks the weather in the area, which includes all of Mississippi with a concentration on the Gulf of Mexico activity, and large parts of Louisi- ana, Arkansas, and Tennessee. Next, JMAA reviews the cities where it has direct service. If they are to be affected by an event, Jackson-based staff knows it will likely result in delays and/or have service interruptions. JMAA next reviews national events that are likely to affect areas over the following two days. If in watching the weather there are predictions of thun- derstorms or tornado activity, JMAA keeps phones and com- puters running with weather information/radar reports in the background and pages out information on National Weather Service Watches all day. When a “watch” becomes a “warn- ing,” JMAA implements its Crisis Management Center, makes calls to confirm the status and paths, and alerts the airlines, fixed-based operations (FBOs), and other tenants of the likely impacts. It is at this point that the emergency man- agement processes technically begin. Where a major weather event, such as a hurricane, can be expected and there is lead time, the process is as follows. At first notice of activity in the Gulf of Mexico, JMAA holds an internal staff meeting to assess the tracks and impacts. They confirm contact lists, basic supplies such as water, ready made meals, cots, etc., and staff availability. When a track shows a direct impact to the Jackson metro area, JMAA calls a meeting of key JMAA personnel, ten- ant managers, TSA, and FAA management to review plans for fuel, standby power, and basic food and water supplies. They then reach out to the airlines that serve the main air- port and provide notice of the predicted impacts. At this point, JMAA begins to work with the airlines to determine when they will “intentionally interrupt” operations. This outreach helps JMAA plan in several ways; for example, with respect to reaching the media to ensure that people do not make travel decisions that leave them stranded at the terminal. If a hurricane is more likely to hit Texas, Louisi- ana, or Alabama than Jackson, JMAA reaches out to those airports and the airlines that operate both in Jackson and in those other areas. JMAA begins to allocate space for air- craft to be intentionally ferried to Jackson to protect them during the storms. Although this proactive approach does not fix the problem of unannounced diversions, it helps JMAA to allocate space for the additional aircraft that can be planned for. However, DFW’s major tenant airlines needed to be con- vinced. In 2011, the region experienced the worst drought on record, which justified proceeding with this initiative. This circumstance helped make the case for finalizing the DFW’s reclaimed water distribution project. Despite the prominence of the water scarcity issue, the initiative, as with the win- ter storms case, was not developed or discussed as a climate change adaptation measure. The third case at DFW relates to the projected increases in regional temperature. DFW is undertaking a $1.8 billion terminal expansion and renovation initiative (Terminal D). Projects under this initiative are subject to environmental compliance review, including those covering federal and state air quality requirements. Early in 2011, the North Cen- tral Texas region was downgraded by the EPA from “mod- erate non-attainment” to “serious non-attainment” under federal air quality standards. This reduced the de minimus threshold for two pollutants, nitrogen oxide (NOx) and vola- tile organic compounds (VOC), from 100 tons per year to 50 tons per year, for both direct emissions (such as construc- tion) and indirect emissions (such as operational emissions). The change could affect DFW’s proposal to construct and operate new gates at Terminal D. Aircraft emissions from the air services using the additional gate capacity, when added to the emissions from construction and passenger busing, may exceed the new 50 ton per year de minimus standard. In effect, this air quality compliance issue could stall the expansion. Increased temperatures under climate change are likely to increase NOx and VOC emissions. For example, EPA estimates that a 10°C increase in tempera- ture doubles emissions of these pollutants (Grambsch n.d.). For the short term, DFW will work through its air quality issues; however, the exacerbating effect of climate change on regulatory compliance is directly influencing the think- ing of DFW personnel. Observations: Because of the projected climate variations for the region and these three unrelated experiences—involving ways to address the risk of another extreme winter storm in the future, continuing drought, and compromised air quality— the DFW will continue to consider new initiatives and/or programs for climate change adaptation. case 8: Jackson, mississippi The Jackson Municipal Airport Authority (JMAA) is located in Jackson, Mississippi, 170 miles from the Gulf of Mexico. JMAA manages the Jackson–Evers International Airport and the Hawkins Field Airport, with more than 600,000 enplane- ments in 2010. In 2010, Mississippi experienced 182 confirmed torna- does, with 24 fatalities; in 2011, there were 94 confirmed tornadoes. Because JMAA’s two airports are in a region with a tornado frequency higher than the infamous Tornado Alley

16 At 10:00 a.m. on August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina made landfall in Mississippi with sustained winds of 120 mph. Inland, the last attempted aircraft departure as the hurricane approached the Jackson area was at 2:30 p.m. During the event, Jackson experienced sustained winds of 40 mph and nearly 4 in. of rain over a 10-hour period. Across the state, there were 13 tornadoes, rated F1 (73–112 mph) and F2 (113–157 mph). There was serious damage to the airports and the region. Commercial flights were suspended from about 3:00 p.m. August 29 to about 11:00 a.m. the next day. Helicopters were the primary form of transportation used by federal emergency response management team leaders to reach the impacted areas of Mississippi. The airports received evacuees and first responders. There were several hangars available for use; however, a terminal and a parking lot were under construction, and the land was wet from the storm. As a result of damage from the extreme weather, the airports lacked the following: commercial power, landlines, cell phones, gasoline, Jet A fuel, parking spaces, staff, air conditioning, and local hotel rooms. There were not enough rental cars or restaurants for the people present. Conditions in the aftermath of the weather event hindered operations and required JMAA’s management to find ways to overcome them. The following is a list of those major operational issues that needed resolution: • Because resources were expected to be limited for some time, JMAA focused on the primary mission of the airport; that is, keeping the airfield open, securing fuel for generators, ensuring that lights and naviga- tional aids are in working order, and requiring staff to clear debris. • JMAA, as the owner/operator of the two airports in Jackson, also was called on to manage relationships with the tenant airlines, FBOs, and emergency response teams to ensure coordination of operations and avail- ability of supplies and equipment. Various issues arose; for example, emergency responders often had chal- lenges working through the TSA’s protocols governing last-minute flight changes. • JMAA had to manage the public’s expectation of using the airport as a safe haven. It worked directly with the local and regional media to provide timely information on airline operations, availability of flights, and local housing options to assist people leaving the area and prevent them from arriving at the airport with no trans- portation options. JMAA worked with aid agencies to ensure that evacuees were advised of and/or taken to shelters so that the airport could perform its primary mission. • To address inefficiency in shift changes, JMAA insti- tuted several governance actions. – An essential personnel system. By identifying only essential personnel, JMAA reduced 108 full-time positions to 18, who worked 12-hour shifts, but as a small group they could more effectively use and communicate information. Nonessential personnel were put on paid administrative leave. Senior man- agement personnel did not take days off in a regular pattern, but worked short and long days in turn as they could after the first week. The communications center remained staffed at all times, and generally six law enforcement personal were on duty at all times. JMAA had two operations staff on duty at all times. Maintenance and administrative staff were retained on an as-needed basis. – JMAA reserved leadership personnel for key nego- tiations and regional coordination and kept a running log of actions taken and services restored to reduce duplication of efforts. – JMAA’s communications center was kept open 24-7 to provide for a secure central information center for status reports, resource allocations, remaining reserves, and expenditures. – JMAA sought to ensure a productive system for man- aging data, keeping documentation to ensure reim- bursement from insurance companies and vendors. – Because cell phones and landline service was inter- mittent at best, JMAA scheduled daily in-person meetings with staff, then with tenants and emer- gency agencies, to review daily schedules. Also with respect to telecommunications, JMAA learned that continuing operations planning that included higher end technology did not work as well as predicted. A key example was the use of satellite phones. JMAA has satellite communications systems, but were not able to communicate with other agencies that relied on land lines or cell systems. • As a result of the intensity of the storm, the hundreds of miles of damaged roadways, and the direct impact of the hurricane on fuel refineries based along the Gulf of Mexico, the fuel supply chain was interrupted nationwide. – JMAA worked with the FBOs directly to learn if they were going to be able to provide fuel to commercial airplanes. In turn, this knowledge allowed JMAA to advise the airlines on what their best fueling options were, there in Jackson or “fueling through,” by carry- ing extra fuel on board to reach their next destination safely without having to fuel up in Jackson. – Unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel was in such low supply across the region that JMAA provided fuel to both FAA Air Traffic Control and Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting personnel for use in their personal vehicles at the rate of 5 gallons per day to ensure that they could report to the airport to support operations. In some cases these employees chose to temporar- ily reside at the airport versus travelling to and from their residences to conserve that fuel.

17 Some issues had to wait until operations were back to normal. When they were, JMAA quickly moved to address ways to ensure supplies of the essential resource for an air- port’s operation: fuel. Since Hurricane Katrina, JMAA has acquired an additional 500-gallon above-ground storage tank for unleaded fuel, and it is in the design stages of a project that will allow for 72 hours of power based on bi- fuel generators. Observations: Current weather variations are unpredictable and present a significant challenge in some locations. Existing procedures are in place to address interdependencies, such as with the airlines and other airports. – JMAA also provided fuel to essential JMAA person- nel such as JMAA police officers, maintenance per- sonnel, and operations personnel. This approach was taken to conserve fuel supplies and to reduce the strain on limited resources such as water and batteries. – Fuel service vehicles were hesitant to enter the region owing to violence and reports of hijackings on the roadways. Faced with the need to provide both unleaded fuel for ground vehicles and Jet A fuel to support air operations, JMAA arranged for a two-car police escort to meet a fuel tanker at the Alabama/ Mississippi border, approximately 150 miles east of Jackson.

Next: Chapter Three - Methods and Survey Responses »
Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Synthesis 33: Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience reviews the range of risks to airports from projected climate change and the emerging approaches for handling them.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!