Loading...
Item H3BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY MEETING DATE: 7/15/03 DIVISION: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BULK ITEM: NO - Time Approximate DEPARTMENT: AIRPORTS AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Discussion of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) response to the submittal of the Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area (RSA) Feasibility Study. ITEM BACKGROUND: As can be seen by the attached correspondence between the Airport and the FAA, the RSA Feasibility Study has been reviewed by the FAA. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION. RSA Feasibility Study was presented to the BOCC at the 4/17/03 meeting. CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The FAA's response to the study calls for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), that will take 3 to 5 years to complete, and cost approximately 1 million dollars. However it is the Airports view that an Environmental Assessment would be more appropriate, and would save approximately 3/4 million dollars, and 3 to 5 years time. We have invited the FAA to attend this meeting to clarify their position. The BOCC should decide whether to accept the decision of the Airports District Office (ADO) of the FAA ,or appeal it to the FAA Regional Office. TOTAL COST: $1,000,000.00 or $250,000.00 BUDGETED: N/A at this time COST TO AIRPORT: Unknown at this time SOURCE OF FUNDS: N/A COST TO PFC: Unknown at this time COST TO COUNTY: None REVENUE PRODUCING: N/A AMOUNT PER MONTH/YEAR: APPROVED BY: County Attorney N/A OMB/Purchasing N/A Risk Management N/A DIRECTOR OF AIRPORTS APPROVAL ?-a-& Pet r J. Orton DOCUMENTATION: Included X To Follow DISPOSITION: Not Required AGENDA ITEM # h6l /bev APB ry U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration June 2, 2003 Mr. Peter Horton Airport Director Key West International Airport 3491 S. Roosevelt Blvd. Key West, FL 33040 Dear Mr. Horton: ORLANDO AIRPORTS DISTRICT OFFICE 5950 Hazeltine National Dr., Suite 400 Orlando, Florida 32822-5024 Phone: (407) 812-6331 Fax: (407) 812-6978 RE: Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study This responds to your May 9, 2003, letter requesting that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) consider an alternate configuration to the standard runway safety area (RSA). We have reviewed the RSA Feasibility Study and have concluded that it is appropriate to move forward with an environmental impact statement (EIS) to improve the runway safety area to FAA design standards to the extent practicable. The county's alternate configuration of the RSA may be considered as we progress through the EIS process, along with other alternatives, if it appears to be a practicable alternative. The FAA will identify the final RSA improvement alternative at the end of the EIS process. Our environmental specialist, Ms. Virginia Lane, will be in contact with you shortly to implement the EIS process. If you have any questions regarding this matter, do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Bart Vernace, P. E. Assistant Manager cc: Virginia Lane PARTNERS IN CREATING TOMORROW'S AIRPORTS-�- C UNTY o MONROE KEY WEST FLORIDA 33040 (305)294-4641 Key West International Airport 3491 S. Roosevelt Boulevard Key West, Florida 33040 June 6, 2003 Bart Vernace, Assistant Manager FAA Orlando Airports District Office 5950 Hazeltine National Drive ,quite 400 Orlando, Florida 32822-5024 Mayor1 "M. Spehar,District George Charl s "Sonny" McCoy, District 3 David P.^ RJce, District ^+r VJU :m Reference: Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study Your Letter Dated June 2, 2003 Dear Mr. Vemace: This is in response to your above letter and the referenced RSA Study. As you know, the County's purpose in undertaking this study was primarily to obtain the reaction and feedback of the permitting agencies and their indication of the required mitigation ratios, the availability of mitigation sites, and the resulting estimated cost. The study indicated more than 24 million dollars in estimated mitigation and development costs for a standard RSA (500' x 1000'). Also, the remoteness of mitigation sites seem to make this option unacceptable and not practicable. Although the County shares in the FAA's concern for safety, the recommendation by the County was based on limited operations by small Regional Jets (Category C — 2) with no predictions for a larger category aircraft on a scheduled basis. It was also felt that the County's recommendation of an RSA could be accomplished with an EA in lieu of an EIS, which should save approximately 3/4 million dollars, and 3 to 4 years in time. In addition, mitigation could probably be obtained on site. In view of the FAA decision to require an EIS for the large aircraft RSA (500' x 1000') as a starting point, it is requested and considered urgent that an FAA representative attend the Key West Board of County Commissioners meeting on July 15"', to explain this decision. I believe this is the only way to assure this proposed critical safety development will proceed uninterrupted. Thank you for your consideration and cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Peter J. Horton ` Airport Manager, KWIA PJH/bev cc: Dean Stringer Virginia Lane JUL-UC-,ZUUj U'j:7>b UKLHNUU HVU t'.Ul Q U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration July 8, 2003 Mr. Peter Horton Airport Director Key West International Airport 3491 S. Roosevelt Blvd. Key West, FL 33040 Dear Mr. Horton: ORLANDO AIRPORTS DISTRICT OFFICE 5950 Hazeltine National Dr., Suite 400 Orlando, Florida 32822-5024 Phone: (407) 812-6331 Fax: (407) 812-6978 OPTIONAL FORM 09 (7-901 RE: Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) versus Environmental Assessment (EA) This responds to your June 6, 2003, letter requesting that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) attend the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners meeting on July 15`' to explain our decision regarding the implementation of an EIS for the runway safety area (RSA) improvement for Key West International Airport. Due to scheduling conflicts, we would not be able to send a representative for the July 15`" meeting. However, if the Board requires our presence we can schedule another date. would like to take the opportunity in this letter to explain our decision to move ahead with an EIS rather than with an EA. No matter what alternatives are evaluated in the environmental document, significant impacts are expected to be identified. Also, we expect that the RSA improvement project will generate controversy based on environmental grounds. The RSA feasibility study was commenced to identify the wetland impacts and potential mitigation due to constructing a standard RSA. It also provided a venue to communicate with federal, state and local agencies. If the FAA decided to pursue the RSA improvement as an EA rather than an EIS, then an EA has only one of two conclusions. The first conclusion is that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is determined, which means there are no significant impacts or the impacts have been mitigated below a threshold level of significance. The second conclusion is that if a FONSI cannot be issued, then the EA process is halted and the FAA would start an EIS by selecting the consultant, issuing a notice of intent to do an EIS and implementing public and agency scoping meetings. This scenario can add two years to the process. PARTNERS IN CREATING TOMORROW'S AIRPORTS -3 JUL-06-c0W UKLHNllU HVU P.O� 2 As mentioned earlier, the RSA feasibility study only identified potential wetland impacts for only one alternative, which was a standard RSA. We anticipate evaluating a series of alternatives, in addition to the standard RSA, that will improve the RSA to the maximum extent practicable. There are many other impact categories that we need to evaluate, such as noise, threatened and endangered species, biotic communities, coastal zone management, historic resources and wetlands just to name a few. We do not have enough information at this point to identify a preferred alternative, identify the total impacts and be confident that a FONSI can be issued. I would like to offer a recommendation that we used at another airport, which we started the environmental process as an EIS, but in the "notice of intent" we disclosed that if the preferred project has no impacts or impacts can be mitigated below a threshold level of significance, then we would terminate the EIS and proceed with an EA. In this case the analysis would have been completed, Monroe County would take the document over and convert it to an EA, have a public hearing, respond and incorporate the comments into the EA document and send it to the FAA for review and issuance of a FONSI. I also would like to point out that the "purpose and need" for the EIS is to provide a standard RSA to the maximum extent practicable. We cannot ignore the fact that a standard RSA can be constructed on airport property. We realize that the wetland impacts are significant, but this RSA improvement would be one of a series of alternatives and would be compared to other alternatives that would be evaluated against safety, environmental impact and cost. I hope that this letter responds to your concerns regarding our previous decision. If you have any questions regarding this matter, do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, -�o 'e Bart Vernace, P. E. Assistant Manager cc* Virginia Lane TOTAL P.02 To: Commissioner Sonny McCoy From: Peter I Horton, Director of Airports Date: 07/10/03 Subject:: Comparison of an EIS to an EA Attached is the information that you requested last week. The document was prepared by Peter Green of URS. cc. Mayor and Commissioners County Administrator SUMMARY OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Comply with National Environmental Policy Act Comply with NEPA. . (NEPA). Federal agencies to consider a nd disclose Federal agencies to consider and disclose environmental impacts. environmental impacts. Purpose Ensure policies and goals of NEPA are incorporated Ensure policies and goals of NEPA are incorporated into federal agency decision process. into federal agency decision process. Provide information to FAA to prepare Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or determine if EIS is required. Facilitates preparation of EIS, if required. An EIS is prepared for major federal actions An EA is prepared for proposed actions with expected or known to have the potential for expected minor or uncertain environmental significant environmental impacts and/or impact potential. significant controversy When to Prepare An EIS can be downgraded to an EA during An EA can be upgraded to an EIS during preparation (happens rarely). preparation if it is determined that there will not be significant impacts or controversy (e.g., Palm Beach Runway Extension EIS to EA). An EIS involves thorough evaluation and An EA requires analysis and documentation documentation of a proposed action's purpose similar to that of an EIS, but with somewhat Level of Study and need, alternatives, affected environment, and environmental consequences. The study less detail and coordination. The study requires requires EIS scoping and coordination with coordination with federal, state, and local agencies. No scoping is required. federal, state, and local agencies and the public. EIS requires formal advertisement and notice in the No formal notice or scoping process required. Federal Register by FAA and the EPA. Scoping Public information meetings and early agency Agency and meetings are required to obtain early agency and coordination are recommended but not required. Public public input for EIS preparation. Participation Other Federal agencies (i.e., US Army Corps of Engineers) may participate in the FAA EIS as a Cooperating Agency. Agency and public comment on Draft EIS and Final Agency and public comment on Draft EA. EIS. Record of Decision (ROD) made available for public review, but no provision for comments. Opportunity for Public Hearing must be afforded to Opportunity for Public Hearing to receive comments receive comments on the Draft EA. If hearing is planned, must be held after a 30-day advertisement Agency and on the Draft EIS must be afforded. Public period. Public Review Hearing(s) normally held if there is substantial controversy or interest in the project, or if requested by a jurisdictional agency. If hearing is planned, must be held after a 30{lay advertisement period. Notices for the Draft EIS and Final EIS are published in the Federal Register. Public review period for each is a minimum 45 da s. A third -party contracting process is implemented Airport owner selects the consultant and enters into where the FAA selects and directs the consultant, but the contract and invoicing is through the Airport contract with the consultant. Airport owner and sponsor. The consultant coordinates directly with consultant prepare the EA that is submitted to the FAA and later becomes a federal document. Who Prepares FAA, who controls document preparation. Document Coordination with the Airport sponsor is permitted, but the consultant may not be directed by the airport to perform analyses or document edits without approval from FAA. A memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is entered into between the FAA and the airport sponsor. URS Corporation, 2003. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Environmental Assessment (EA) (Continued) The consultant must sign a non -interest disclosure statement that indicates that they have no interest (financial or otherwise) in the out come of the study. This usually precludes the airport's current consultants from preparing the EIS for the FAA. Mitigation is not normally required in the EIS A "Mitigated EA" requires that any potential Mitigation process, but often included. However, subsequent significant impact can be mitigated to less than agency permit process may require mitigation. significant levels. Mitigation accomplished during subsequent agency permit process. After ROD, there is 60-day window of time that a After FAA's FONSI, challenges would be litigated in lawsuit can be filed against the FAA on the EIS. If the US District Court. There is no statute of litigation occurs, traditionally, challenges would be limitations for when a suit could be filed. The litigated in the US Circuit Court of Appeals litigation would involve one judge, a jury, and expert bypassing the US District Court process. This could witnesses. The FAA's track record is OK in District save years and millions of dollars in the litigation Court but not as good as the Circuit Court of process. The Circuit Court will have a three judge Appeals. panel, no jury, no witnesses, and try the case based on the FAA's Administrative Record. (FAA's files). An Administrative Record is not typically prepared If the case is appealed, it may first go to all of the by the FAA for an EA. judges on that circuit for review and then could be Legal appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. FAA has a Considerations very good record in US Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the Circuit Court jurisdiction on FAA Airport Division EIS's has been based on provisions established in 49 U.S.0 Sec 46110, Part A (Air Commerce and Safety). Some recent court findings have ruled that Part A may not apply to airport development EIS's. If Part B (Airport Development and Noise) applies, then the litigation must be brought in the District Court. If the proposed actions addressed in the EIS are found to be applicable to Part A, then the Circuit Court will likely have jurisdiction. Cost An airport development EIS normally costs $1 An airport development EA may cost between million or more. $300K and $1 million. If all planning data is approved and available, an If all planning data is approved and available, an EA Schedule EIS may take approximately 24 to 36 months. If may take approximately 12 to 24 months. If not, the not, the time frame could extend to 48 months or time frame could extend to 36 months or longer. longer. Note: The information provided above is a brief summary provided for informational purposes only. For more detailed and spec information, please consult FAA Order 5050.4A and other relevant NEPA guidance materials. URS Corporation, 2003.