Guidance for Using the Interactive Tool for Understanding NEPA at General Aviation Airports (2020)

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.

10 The Team developed a work plan for review and comment by the Panel. The resulting Anno- tated Work Plan outlined the following approaches. Early in the process, the Panel asked the Team to focus on developing an interactive tool that would, in effect, produce a documented CATEX, because that would be most useful to the staffs at GA airports. The research plan con- sisted of interviews with FAA NEPA practitioners, literature reviews, and case studies. 2.1 FAA NEPA Practitioner Interviews The FAA NEPA practitioner interviews provided excellent information on the most common problems found in the FAA’s reviews of NEPA documents submitted by airport sponsors and their consultants. The Team interviewed 20 FAA NEPA practitioners at the ADO, Regional, and Headquarters levels including attorneys and EPSs to identify (1) common problems encoun- tered in reviewing and approving NEPA documents for GA airports and (2) representative projects as case studies that would aid in the tool development. Although the responses to the interview questions depended to some degree on the role of the FAA NEPA practitioner, many of the observations cut across all levels of the FAA. The Team contacted environmental practitioners in eight of the nine FAA regions. These contacts were particularly important in identifying areas of special focus that can delay the timely approval of GA airport NEPA documents. The Team screened numerous airport NEPA studies to identify nine case studies at GA air- ports in five FAA regions. The case studies reflect various types of projects and levels of NEPA documentation. The Team also identified three projects at non-hub commercial service air- ports with substantial GA activity to provide additional insights into larger development projects than those usually found at GA airports. These case studies emphasized CATEX docu- ments, which represent the most common form of NEPA documentation. 2.1.1 Lessons Learned The responses to the interview questions depended to some degree on the role of the FAA NEPA practitioner. FAA attorneys and Headquarters staff had more exposure to more complex and challenging problems. Regional staff were also more likely to be involved in larger and more complex NEPA processes. At the Headquarters and Regional levels, comments about the purpose and need for the project, the range of alternatives considered, and the possibility that a project had been improperly separated from (segmented from) a larger development program were more common. Many of the observations, however, cut across all levels of FAA problems and included poor document quality control and failure to comply with NEPA. C H A P T E R 2 Research

Research 11 The experience of the Team members is consistent with the observation that the NEPA pro- cess is often complicated by poor or non-existent project planning. In many cases, Team Mem- bers have had to revisit or even initiate the airport planning needed to identify the need for the project and the range of alternatives that must be considered to meet requirements of NEPA and applicable special-purpose laws. This type of planning should occur as part of a master plan or similar comprehensive process. Figure 1 shows that the most frequently cited problems relate to poor or incomplete project planning and inadequate understanding of the FAA’s NEPA imple- menting instructions. Often planning at GA airports occurs many years before a project moves into the implementation phase, and the resources available to conduct detailed planning are less relative to air carrier airports. Survey respondents also noted that some airport sponsors relied on their engineering con- sultants or on environmental consultants providing services to their municipal governments who were not NEPA specialists. These consultants may not routinely provide airport-specific NEPA services, because they either focus on engineering (rather than environmental services) or because they do not often provide NEPA services under the FAA’s NEPA implementing procedures. Initial Questions. The single most frequent recommendation is for airport sponsors and/or their consultants to coordinate with their ADO EPS or other designated FAA staff early in the process, well before initiating the NEPA process for a proposed federal action. The partici- pants’ most frequent observations and suggestions for each category are summarized below. 1. What types of airport development projects come to you for NEPA review most often? The answers varied depending on the level at which the participant worked. FAA NEPA practitioners at the regional and headquarters levels tended to see major projects involving one or more of the following characteristics: complex technical issues, extensive involvement by resource agencies in connection with special-purpose laws, demanding schedules, and/or high levels of public controversy. Such projects include new airports, new or extended run- ways, runway safety area (RSA) compliance, and terminal and roadway projects. Projects Incomplete/Inadequate Planning Knowledge of FAA NEPA Process Documentation Other Issues NEPA Compliance Figure 1. Most common NEPA document deficiencies.

12 Guidance for Using the Interactive Tool for Understanding NEPA at General Aviation Airports involving private developers, either for aeronautical or other uses, may reach regional or headquarters practitioners. At the ADO level, projects tended to be more routine, but still could pose challenges. Air- field projects including taxiway and runway rehabilitation are most common. Hangar con- struction is also frequent, as are runway extensions. In general, projects at the ADO level often relate to compliance with FAA standards. 2. In your experience, do airports and/or their consultants typically reach out to you for advice before starting the NEPA process? Alternatively, do you have opportunities to correct potential errors and omissions before the airport completes the initial document? Sponsors and their consultants rarely consult with headquarters or regional staff because they usually contact the ADO responsible for the GA airport. ADO participants generally said that the more experienced sponsors and consultants are more likely to reach out to the EPS. Those who gave numerical estimates of the percentage of the time that sponsors or their consultants contacted the ADO EPS in advance of submitting a NEPA document gave values of 20% to 30%. 3. What would you say are the most common problems you encounter on a regular basis when reviewing and/or approving NEPA documents? Poor or incomplete planning was by far the most frequently cited cause of problems and delays in the NEPA process. Planning problems, especially for Environmental Assessments (EAs) centered on poorly structured documentation of the need for the project (insuffi- cient information showing a problem exists), incomplete project descriptions (insufficient information about the project to enable evaluation), inadequate consideration of alternatives (for projects affecting resources protected by special-purpose laws, often only the sponsor’s desired development was considered), and poor quality control. Often, these problems were associated with sponsors and/or consultants who did not understand what would be needed in the NEPA process to enable project approval or did not understand the environmental issues associated with the special-purpose laws. One ADO EPS raised concerns about segmentation because the sponsors for smaller air- ports tend to get environmental approvals for each individual project as it gets funded when the projects might be interdependent parts of a larger development. Specific environmental issues could cause lengthy delays, but no single environmental issue was cited as being especially difficult to resolve. 4. With what specific projects have you encountered this issue? Do you have any specific airport examples or case studies you might be willing to share? (Note that we would obtain approvals from the airport sponsor prior to publishing any airport-specific information.) Many participants declined to name specific airports or projects. Those surveyed, even those who declined to give examples, stated that any kind of project could result in serious deficiencies and delays in the process. In general, projects involving previously undeveloped land or demolition of potentially historic buildings posed the greatest risk of complication. Pop-up projects (meaning projects not developed through a planning process) were also mentioned as being more likely to have problems in the NEPA process for the same reasons noted earlier. 5. How did you resolve this issue? Was this the most efficient path/route for accomplishing the task? Do you have any recommendations for airports who might be dealing with a similar situation? In nearly all cases, the response was that problems were eventually resolved through coordination between the FAA and the sponsor. This coordination sometimes required revising project plans as well as the associated NEPA documents and could result in sub- stantial delays.

Research 13 6. What was the most challenging project you have worked on? What made it so challenging? How did you resolve the situation to arrive at an approval? Major projects such as new airports and/or runways, runway extensions, and projects affecting natural resources under the jurisdiction of another agency were generally identi- fied as the most challenging. Also, airport development for which the NEPA process is led by another federal agency, such as the Department of Defense (DOD), can be difficult. These issues were resolved through coordination with agencies and/or with the sponsor. 7. Do you have any other suggestions for GA airport sponsors to bear in mind as they start the NEPA process for proposed development at their airports? Virtually all participating FAA NEPA practitioners at all levels urged sponsors to contact their ADO EPS as early in the process as possible, ideally when the CIP is being formulated. This coordination would enable the EPS to help the sponsor identify the appropriate envi- ronmental process early, thus enabling the sponsor to conduct the necessary process in suf- ficient time. Nearly all FAA NEPA practitioners stated that sponsors should ensure that the project is on the ALP, funded, and fully planned. Most ADOs also have a timeline for NEPA compliance, particularly if grant funding is involved, and thus, staff encouraged knowing those timelines and reflecting them in project schedules. Additional Questions. The following additional questions address issues beyond the NEPA process questions above. The purpose of these questions is to obtain suggestions from practitio- ners about improving the FAA Airports NEPA process in general. 1. When completing NEPA documentation, what area of the overall process do you think could have better guidance or assistance to ease airport cooperation with FAA regulations? Most participants stated that airport sponsors need to understand that planning must be done prior to NEPA. Many participants also stated that better communication and/or edu- cation was needed to help sponsors to understand what NEPA is, what it requires, and how long it may take. Many airports think of NEPA as a permit, rather than as a decision-making process, and do not give adequate consideration to environmental factors in their project planning. Other suggestions include developing more CATEXs and promoting better coor- dination between FAA Lines of Business (LOBs). 2. In your experience, have you come across any particularly helpful online tools to assist airports in the NEPA process? Perhaps an online tool, which may not receive as much attention? A lesser-known online tool? None of the participants identified new or little-known tools, but many identified those that they have found to be most useful. The tools mentioned include regulatory agency web- sites; Google Earth; NWI mapping; the USEPA’s NEPAssist website; County soil surveys (if available); the EPA’s Environmental Justice (EJ) Screen (the FAA’s Aviation Environmental Design Tool also provides an EJ screening tool); the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) website; the Sustainable Avia- tion Guidance Alliance (SAGA) database; state cultural resources websites (if available); and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) online tools. 3. In your opinion, what are your most straightforward types of NEPA projects to review and/or approve? Why is that the case? Pavement rehabilitation was the most frequently cited project type. In general, projects eligible for a simple CATEX that did not involve ground disturbance were considered to be the easiest to approve. For larger projects more likely to require regional and/or head- quarters review, participants noted that projects closely aligned to the FAA’s mission, such as safety enhancement, compliance with standards, and capacity improvements, were the most straightforward because they fall within the FAA’s area of expertise and have objective standards.

14 Guidance for Using the Interactive Tool for Understanding NEPA at General Aviation Airports 2.1.2 Application of Interview Results The Interactive Tool includes prompts advising the user to contact the appropriate FAA EPS for guidance at key points in the process. Situations encountered in any given NEPA process are unique and cannot be applied in a general sense. The likelihood that a situation facing a user of the Interactive Tool will exactly match the specific situations encountered by the FAA NEPA practitioners is slight. For these reasons, the Interactive Tool does not prompt users to specific interview questions; rather, the results of the interviews are reflected in the guidance provided in starting the process and as notes or cautions that the Interactive Tool generates in response to user inputs. The FAA NEPA practitioner interviews contribute to capabilities 1, 3, and 7 as described below. 1. Discussion of NEPA, when it applies, and its integration in the planning process. The results of the survey will be reflected in the Interactive Tool in prompting the user to enter information about the planning that led to the project and its consistency with FAA-approved forecasts and airport planning guidelines. The Interactive Tool also prompts the user to describe the alternatives considered and all of the development or other actions needed for the project to function as intended. 3. Specific airport project examples from each level of NEPA review reflecting surveyed FAA Regions. The interviews describe the interviewees’ experiences in reviewing NEPA docu- ments prepared for various (usually unnamed) airports. 7. Lessons learned and how issues can be overcome. Questions 3, 4, 5 and 7 in particular focus on problems arising from airport sponsors’ misunderstandings of the NEPA process. 2.2 Literature Review The research program for ACRP Project 02-73 included the preparation of an Annotated Bibliography of over 150 laws, regulations, guidance documents, data sources, and research tools (see Appendix E). The Interactive Tool incorporates the Annotated Bibliography as a database for regulatory guidance and as a source of research tools. This database includes links to relevant sources and, as users go through the project definition and impact assessment phases of the process, the Interactive Tool will prompt users to follow the links to the appropriate guidance or resource. Although a relatively small number of these documents apply to a typical airport devel- opment approval, the Interactive Tool provides references to all of the environmental resources documented in the Annotated Bibliography. The Interactive Tool will provide access to all of the environmental resources documented in the Annotated Bibliography as shown in Figure 2. The Interactive Tool also contains links to other reference documents when possible. 2.2.1 Lessons Learned NEPA is often called an “umbrella law,” meaning that compliance with NEPA may also require compliance with numerous other “special-purpose laws” that address 21 broadly defined envi- ronmental resources (see FAA Order 1050.1F, Exhibit 4-1). An indication of the importance of these special-purpose laws in the NEPA process is the fact that NEPA specific documents and sources represent only 13% of the total; most of the remainder address specific environmental resources. Compliance with special-purpose laws often imposes more requirements on the NEPA pro- cess than NEPA itself. Although NEPA is relatively straightforward, the need to comply with such a wide range of special-purpose laws can greatly complicate the process. Most of the effort to develop the Interactive Tool was devoted to meeting the requirements of these special-purpose

Research 15 laws. Working through all of the possible combinations of special-purpose law requirements and the resulting NEPA implications generates literally millions of possible outcomes. To further emphasize the importance of these other considerations, FAA Order 1050.1F iden- tifies 13 “extraordinary circumstances” that may determine the type of NEPA process required for approval. These extraordinary circumstances generally relate to the potential impacts of a project on environmental resources subject to special-purpose laws. 2.2.2 Application of the Annotated Bibliography The Interactive Tool includes prompts advising the user to contact the appropriate FAA EPS for guidance at key points in the process. As noted above, the Interactive Tool provides context- sensitive links to the appropriate guidance or resource. The Annotated Bibliography contributes to capabilities 1, 2, and 6 as described below. 1. Discussion of NEPA, when it applies, and its integration in the planning process. The Inter- active Tool prompts users to follow links to FAA NEPA guidelines as the user defines the project and determines the likely NEPA process. In addition, the Interactive Tool will refer users to the applicable environmental guidance documents and/or tools as users determine the environmental issues and associated requirements. 2. Steps needed for each level of NEPA review and which steps can be best executed by the airport operator. The Interactive Tool incorporates the decision-making logic reflected in FAA NEPA documents to guide the user in determining the appropriate level of NEPA review. 6. Additional resources. The Interactive Tool uses the Annotated Bibliography as a database to link the user to resource materials, including guidance documents and web-based tools. 2.3 Case Studies The research team focused on projects at GA airports in five FAA regions. The case studies examined different types of projects and levels of NEPA documentation. The investigation emphasized CATEX documents, which represent the most common form of NEPA approval for projects at GA airports. The research team also considered projects for GA development at commercial service airports to expand the types of projects and environmental issues covered by Figure 2. Application of annotated bibliography in the Interactive Tool.

16 Guidance for Using the Interactive Tool for Understanding NEPA at General Aviation Airports the case studies. A list of potential case studies was submitted for Panel review, and the selected case studies were incorporated in an Interim Report. Acting on the Panel’s concerns that the case studies presented in the Interim Report did not provide sufficient explanation or lessons learned, the Team revisited the case studies to provide additional background and explanation of the results. Some case studies were replaced with others that provided more information. 1. General Aviation Airport – CATEX for runway and apron rehabilitation and drainage improvements 2. Non-Hub Commercial Service (61% of operations by GA aircraft) – CATEX for Fixed-Base Operator Hangar and Tie-Down Positions 3. General Aviation Airport – CATEX for hangar development 4. Non-Hub Commercial Service (93% of operations by GA aircraft) – CATEX for land transfer and non-aeronautical (commercial) development 5. Non-Hub Commercial Service (93% of operations by GA aircraft) – EA for commercial (aircraft manufacturing) development 6. General Aviation Airport – CATEX for taxiway extension and rehabilitation 7. General Aviation Airport – CATEX for runway reconstruction 8. General Aviation Airport – Programmatic EA for nonaeronautical development 9. General Aviation Airport – EA for runway safety area 10. General Aviation Airport – CATEX for Rotating beacon replacement and Airport Weather Surveillance System 11. General Aviation Airport – EA for Runway Extension and Runway Safety Area Improvements 12. General Aviation Airport – EA for aeronautical development Figure 3 provides an overview of the issues addressed in the following case studies. Most of the case studies involved more than cursory analysis of impacts to multiple resources subject to special-purpose laws. Many of the projects required at least a moderate level of investigation to satisfy the requirements of one or more disciplines. Two case studies involved impacts to environmental resources that could have required the consideration of a broader range of alter- natives. One case study involved impacts to environmental resources that could have caused the NEPA process to escalate from a CATEX to an EA. Appendix C, Case Study Narratives, contains the case study narratives. 2.3.1 Lessons Learned Although case studies cannot represent the entire range of airport development types or envi- ronmental interactions, they provide an in-depth look at how NEPA and other environmental requirements have been met under specific “real-world” conditions. These case studies show that resource-specific environmental laws and regulations, or “special-purpose laws,” typically demand the most time and effort to resolve. Although NEPA is a procedural law, meaning that following the process correctly is the primary requirement, many special-purpose laws impose requirements regarding the acceptability of impacts to the protected resource. Of special importance to the NEPA process, the special-purpose laws governing cultural and recreational resources subject to Section 4(f) of the DOT Act, wetlands and floodplains (both included under Water Resources in Figure 3) require the FAA, and therefore the airport sponsor, to demonstrate that no practicable or reasonable alternative could have avoided or minimized the impact. The requirement to avoid or minimize impacts can be difficult to meet if project planning did not consider avoidance alternatives. In turn, anticipating this need is difficult unless the airport sponsor knows in advance that protected resources may be present. The case studies emphasize the importance of aiding the user in complying with all applicable special-purpose laws. The projects included in the case studies affected most of the environ- mental resources that fall under the NEPA umbrella. Many of these resources are governed

Research 17 by special-purpose laws that entail procedural and substantive requirements beyond those of NEPA. All of the case studies involved impacts to at least one resource governed by a special-pur- pose law. For example, 7 of the 12 case studies involved wetlands and/or floodplains, which are subject to Executive Orders 11990 and 11998, respectively. Wetlands impacts may also require a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act [5] administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). One case study involved impacts to a potentially historic hangar, neces- sitating Section 106 consultation between the FAA and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). In this event, the FAA and SHPO concurred that the hangar did not retain its historical context and would not be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The level of effort required to address the various environmental resource categories depended on the airport’s setting as well as the nature of the project. A large construction project might Source: RS&H, May 2017 Figure 3. Cost and schedule implications of case studies.

18 Guidance for Using the Interactive Tool for Understanding NEPA at General Aviation Airports require extensive air quality analysis in a severe nonattainment area, while the same project in an attainment area would require little effort. Similarly, only airports in a coastal zone would have to assess impacts to coastal resources. Figure 3 shows that the following environmental issues were most likely to require documentation in support of the NEPA process: • Air Quality. A construction emissions inventory was required in most cases to demonstrate that the action would conform to the applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP), as the specific airports were in nonattainment or maintenance areas requiring the FAA to show conformity. In some cases, operational emissions were also addressed. • Biological Resources. Some level of field investigation was required in most cases. Such investigations were often combined with wetlands investigations. • Water Resources. Wetlands investigations were the most commonly required water resource investigations. These investigations were often combined with biological surveys, as noted above. In some cases, Section 404 permitting requirements involved more extensive analysis and coordination. Floodplain regulations were an issue in a few cases, but were generally resolved through compliance with local floodplain ordinances. • Historical and Cultural Resources. Projects involving the demolition of old buildings or development of previously undisturbed land typically required some degree of coordina- tion with the SHPO, conducted through the FAA. In some cases, this consultation process involved detailed investigations and additional time. • Hazardous Materials. Projects that require demolition of buildings that may contain hazard- ous materials are not eligible for NEPA approval as a CATEX. The sponsor has the option of completing the investigation and, if necessary, remediation prior to completing a CATEX, or initiating an EA and conducting the necessary investigations and remediation as part of a subsequent construction project. 2.3.2 Application of Airport NEPA Case Studies Some special-purpose laws require the FAA, as the lead federal agency, to lead the process directly. The FAA must lead consultation with the SHPO or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer in complying with Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act. Impacts to resources subject to Section 106 are also subject to DOT Section 4(f), which, as noted above, must be justified by planning analysis demonstrating that a feasible and prudent alternative avoiding the impact does not exist. Nearly 40% of the projects reflected in the 14 case studies involved impacts to resources subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act [6]. Other special-purpose laws and regulations that impose additional procedural requirements include the General Confor- mity provisions of the Clean Air Act [7] and the Endangered Species Act [8]. Only 14% of the case studies did not involve impacts to at least one resource subject to special-purpose laws. The case studies underscore the importance of building the requirements of special-purpose laws into the Interactive Tool. The case studies will be incorporated in a database that will be accessible to users. While case studies provide much useful information about the steps taken to address specific situations and ways used to resolve regulatory issues in the past, each project is different and the solutions illustrated in any given case study may not apply to the user’s situation. For this reason, the Interactive Tool will note that this database may provide useful information at various points in the process, but will not prompt the user to follow links to specific case studies. These case studies contribute most directly to capabilities 3 and 7, as described below. 3. Specific airport project examples from each level of NEPA review reflecting surveyed FAA Regions. The case studies include both CATEX and EA processes for a wide range of airside, landside, and revenue generation projects. 7. Lessons learned and how issues can be overcome. The case studies highlight the key envi- ronmental issues encountered during the NEPA process and how those issues were resolved.

Research 19 2.4 Interactive Tool Platform and Software Development The Team investigated several software platforms to support the interactive tool in terms of user familiarity and intuitiveness, ease-of-use, and ability to provide the desired capabilities. The Team also investigated software development specifications/requirements to ensure that the interactive tool could be developed within the scope of the project. Microsoft Visual Studio was selected as the basic platform based on cost, compatibility, user interaction, and overall functionality. SQLite was selected as the database to simplify deploy- ment to end users and minimize the risk of compatibility problems on end-user computers. In addition, the software is free, requiring no purchases or additional installations by the user.