|
Comments of the Natural Resources Defense Council on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Relocation of the
Panama City-Bay County International Airport Submitted by Jessica C. Landman Senior Counsel January 28, 2005 The following comments begin with a general discussion of the legal and substantive issues presented, and then proceed with a section by section analysis of the DEIS. I. NEPA Requirements Apply Both to FAA and the Corps of Engineers, its NEPA requires that all Federal agencies prepare a “detailed statement” (i.e., an EIS) regarding all “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). In this case, the Federal Aviation Administration (hereafter “FAA”) has stated that the FAA “is the agency responsible for reviewing and approving federal actions that pertain to airports and their operations, and therefore is the lead federal agency for” this DEIS.[1] The DEIS further states that the “U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has agreed to participate as a cooperating agency for this DEIS, having jurisdiction by law because the proposed federal action has the potential for significant wetland impacts. If the proposed federal action were to be implemented, it would require a Section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act of 1972 due to impacts on Waters of the United States.”[2] While this statement is fine so far as it goes, the term “cooperating agency” is not otherwise defined anywhere in the documents. The key question is whether the COE thinks that, since it has “cooperated” in this DEIS, it has fulfilled its own obligation to prepare an EIS should the proposed project – and the many associated wetlands-destroying projects that it will induce – move forward. Let there be no doubt: the COE has its own responsibility to comply both with NEPA requirements and with the Clean Water Act. NEPA, the Clean Water Act’s 404(b)(1) guidelines and the COE’s own rules impose specific requirements on the Corps to carefully assess the direct, indirect (secondary) and cumulative effects of its 404 permit decisions before it makes them. Permits that fail to meet CWA requirements cannot be issued. The scope of wetlands projects that airport relocation will induce goes far beyond the initial airport construction site, where FAA’s role may end. II. Clean Water Act Requirements Further Obligate Corps of Engineers Scrutiny In the first place, the 404(b)(1) guidelines impose different, and more stringent, tests on the permissibility of federal actions than NEPA alone. The Clean Water Act’s “guidelines” are binding regulations, promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps pursuant to CWA § 404(b)(1), that impose specific restrictions on discharges of dredged or fill material in order to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of waters of the United States,” including wetlands.[3] Unlike NEPA, these restrictions are not merely procedural in nature. They include prohibitions on the issuance of § 404 individual permits where: 1) a practicable alternative exists; 2) the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species is jeopardized; 3) significant degradation of the waters of the United States is caused or contributed to; and 4) appropriate and practicable steps have not been taken to minimize potential adverse effects of the discharge on the aquatic ecosystem.[4] The Corps is prohibited from issuing any permit unless there is "sufficient information to make a reasonable judgment as to whether the proposed discharge will comply with [the 404(b)(1)] Guidelines."[5] Moreover, whereas NEPA requires that agencies consider less environmentally damaging alternatives, the 404(b)(1) guidelines go further: they expressly prohibit the Corps from issuing a § 404 permit if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which will have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences.[6] For activities that are not “water dependent,” such as an airport and its attendant runways, service roads, parking lots and service industries – to say nothing of the secondary development such a facility would induce – the regulations create a very strong presumption that there are, in fact, practicable and environmentally preferable alternatives to discharging dredged and fill material into wetlands and other special aquatic sites.[7] In addition, practicable alternatives that do not involve discharges into wetlands are presumed to have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, unless clearly demonstrated otherwise.[8] The Corps is also required to conduct a "public interest review" in order to determine whether the proposed activity is contrary to the public interest based on the factors set forth in the regulations. The regulations provide three "general criteria" to be considered in the evaluation of every application as part of the public interest review: (1) “the relative extent of the public and private need for the proposed structure or work;” (2) “the practicability of using reasonable alternative locations and methods to accomplish the objective of the proposed structure or work;” and (3) “the extent and permanence of the beneficial and/or detrimental effects which the proposed structure or work is likely to have on the public and private uses to which the area is suited.” The proposed new site contains thousands of acres of wetlands, many of which would be destroyed by the project. (By the DEIS’ own calculation, “Based on jurisdictional determinations completed by the USACE and FDEP, approximately 1,896 acres or 47 percent of the total site is jurisdictional wetlands and approximately 587 acres or 46 percent of the initial development area is jurisdictional wetlands.” DEIS at 3.2.6.1) Land use planning designation changes from “Agriculture/Timberland” and “Conservation” to “Airport/Industrial” would be necessary to accommodate the airport. The evidence regarding the actual need for a new site, and the practicability of remaining at the current site, will need to be revisited by the COE. In this context, the FAA’s analysis finding 6800 feet runway perfectly adequate would be highly relevant. While Chapter 5 indicates that the “a separate USACE permit
will be considered for approval by the USACE under current federal guidelines,”[9]
the document is silent on the Corps’ view of NEPA and its role. The fact that the COE has participated in
meetings with the state in its Environmental Team Permitting process in no way
relieves it of its obligations to conduct a public and comprehensive review of
its own, consistent with federal rules and the CWA. The COE’s NEPA analysis
will have to reach beyond the initial airport site and treat all the induced
development and wetlands destruction programmatically. Finally, while the FAA is wrong to narrow its ‘direct impacts’ focus to the airport site and immediate surrounding area i.e., the “initial development components,” this narrowing of perspective is even less acceptable for the COE, which will be called upon to write permits for many, many additional wetlands-destroying and habitat-altering activities that will flow directly and foreseeably from the relocation of the airport to the West Bay site.[10] Many known and reasonably foreseeable actions that require 404 permits (already in the planning and/or permitting and/or implementation stages) will occur if the airport is relocated; the COE is required to take all of them into consideration before it issues a single permit for the first of what would be a long string of related, similar and/or cumulative impacts. The need for a programmatic EIS that captures the full extent of the Airport Sponsor’s planned alteration of the landscape throughout the West Bay region would be a logical approach for the COE to consider. In short, whatever its shortcomings from the standpoint of the FAA’s obligations, which are discussed more fully below, this DEIS does not satisfy the more extensive NEPA obligations of the COE. III. There are Critical Informational and
Decisional Gaps in the DEIS; a There are significant informational gaps in the DEIS. The data and information gaps we identify throughout our detailed comments include missing information on water quality impacts (such as pollutant loadings), water flow and hydrology impacts, endangered species impacts and the plans for mitigation which are referenced but not laid out. These gaps in the DEIS must be filled. An opportunity for public review and comment must be offered before the EIS is finalized. IV. The FAA Fails to Exercise its Independent Judgment as Required by Law Both NEPA and the Transportation Act (sec. 4(f)(1)) require the FAA to define at the outset the transportation goals for a project, and to determine which alternatives would reasonably fulfill those goals.[11] The first and most important duty of the FAA as it begins the NEPA process is properly to evaluate the proposed project’s purpose and need, and to exercise its own independent judgment in defining the purpose and need in a way that reflects the general public’s needs, not simply those of the proponent of the project.[12] An agency considering a proposed action must look at alternatives to see if they satisfy the general purpose or need identified, and not simply whether the proponent gets what it wants: [T]the evaluation of “alternatives” mandated by NEPA is to be an evaluation of alternative means to accomplish the general goal of the action; it is not an evaluation of the alternative means by which a particular applicant can reach his goals. Van Abbema v. Fornell, 807 F.2d at 638. While courts will defer in general to the judgment exercised by agencies in defining purpose and need and the reasonable alternatives that could fulfill them, the FAA and COE cannot expect from the public or the courts that their efforts to accommodate the private proponent will receive infinite deference. As one court said in rejecting an unreasonably pro-project definition of purpose, need and alternatives:
“No decision is more important than delimiting what …”reasonable alternatives” are. That choice, and the ensuing analysis, forms “the heart of the environmental impact statement.” 40 CFR 1502.14. To make that decision, the first thing an agency must define is the project’s purpose. [citation omitted.] The broader the purpose, the wider the range of alternatives; and vice versa. The ‘purpose’ of a project is a slippery concept, susceptible of no hard-and-fast definition. One obvious way for an agency to slip past the strictures of NEPA is to contrive a purpose so slender as to define competing ‘reasonable alternatives’ out of consideration (and even out of existence). The federal courts cannot condone a frustration of Congressional will. If the agency constricts the definition of a project’s purpose and thereby excludes what truly are reasonable alternatives, the EIS cannot fulfill its role. Nor can the agency satisfy the Act. Simmons v. U.S.A.C.O.E., 120 F.3d 664, 666 (7th Circ. 1997), citing 42 USC 4332(2)(E). In this DEIS, the FAA failed to exercise its independent judgment in a proper manner. In assessing the community’s need for airport services, FAA had determined several critical factors about the community’s need for air services and the current airport’s ability to fulfill those needs – which it proceeds to ignore in assessing reasonable alternatives in this DEIS. First, the FAA’s Terminal Area Forecast (hereafter “TAF”) had firmly determined that a 6,800 foot runway alternative was sufficient to meet any foreseeable need in the time frame for analysis relevant to this proposed project. As the DEIS concedes, “the 6,800-foot runway alternative …is the length identified by the FAA as warranted based on the FAA TAF.”[13] Second, the FAA’s TAF had already determined that the level of air operations likely to exist in the region over its own time horizon could be satisfied with the facilities already in place at the Panama City-Bay County Airport’s (hereafter “PFN”) current location. As the DEIS coyly notes, “there is some divergence between the Airport Sponsor’s forecasts and those of the FAA. The FAA’s Terminal Area Forecasts (TAF) present a more conservative estimate of future demand based on a projection of past socioeconomic and activity trends forward to the year 2020.”[14] Yet, despite having studied the region’s needs and made a judgment of its own respecting airport runway lengths and the level of service that the region could reasonably anticipate needing and supporting, the FAA nevertheless proceeds in this DEIS to define the project’s purpose and need in precisely the terms selected by the project sponsor.[15] The obvious result is that the project sponsor’s alternative site and runway sizes can be treated as if they were reasonable or even preferable alternatives to the current PFN site – something that would never have occurred had the FAA stuck to its own judgment. Had it done so, no 8,400 foot runways would ever have become part of the ‘reasonable alternatives’ analysis. While the DEIS’ “purpose and need” analysis does hark back to the “Feasibility Study” conducted by the sponsor several years ago, that feasibility study naturally represents the Airport Sponsor’s – not the FAA’s – judgment about which alternatives can satisfy the purpose and need for a new site.[16] Notably absent from the list of factors taken into consideration in deciding to relocate the airport is the impact of the relocation on either wetlands or endangered species: while the Feasibility study summary claims that the alternative site selected has fewer wetlands – only 46% of the area affected! – than other alternative sites, it makes no effort to compare wetlands or endangered species impacts between the current site and the alternative site. The
four factors that the DEIS cites for determining the purpose and need for the
new site are tailored to justify the Airport Sponsor’s desire to relocate the
airport. According to the DEIS, “The purpose of the Proposed Project is to
develop aviation facilities that meet FAA safety and design standards, operate
and grow the airport without physical constraints, prepare for future
opportunities to expand air carrier service, and plan future aviation development
that is compatible with local and regional planning objectives.” Obviously, the sponsor would have the FAA
focus on its desire to “grow the airport without physical constraints,” but
this is hardly a need that FAA should honor as gospel: every airport that serves its surrounding
community efficiently must be close to other intermodal transportation and
convenient to its users, see 49 USC 47101(a)(5) (airports should encourage
development of intermodal connections, serve passengers and cargo efficiently
and effectively, etc.) – things that physically constrain airport growth, but
for excellent reasons. While convenient
for private developers who hope to profit from opening the West Bay site to
profitable new construction, it is not a valid basis for defining reasonable
alternatives that meet legitimate purposes and needs. Moreover, relocation of the airport flies in the face of other FAA policy goals, such as that
“airport development projects… provide for the protection and enhancement of
natural resources and the quality of the environment of the United States.”[17] While FAA is within its discretion in
determining that the purpose and need for this project is to “prepare for
future opportunities for accommodating projected demand and expansion opportunities,”
FAA must exercise independent judgment as to what that projected demand and
need for expansion would justify as it evaluates reasonable alternatives. The proper measure of purpose and need for
FAA is actually the FAA’s National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems
(hereafter NPIAS), which has its own set of goals. (Those goals include “providing as many persons as possible
access to air transportation, with typical travel distances of 20 miles more or
less to the nearest NPIAS airport.” By
this standard, the current site is far more convenient to the principal
airport-using community of Panama City, for whose residents the current airport
is about five miles away and the new one is closer to thirty miles away.)
FAA’s TAF determined that projected
operational needs can be accommodated with a 6,800 foot runway, attainable at
the current site; yet, the DEIS “includes the Airport Sponsor’s identified
need” for a far longer runway of 8,400 feet. Does it reasonably meet the purpose and need
for a 6800 foot runway that can adequately be served by existing airport
parking, access roads, ancillary services, etc., to relocate the airport to a
greenfield (undeveloped) site far away from the principal community the airport
serves, destroying thousands of acres of wetlands and endangered species
habitat in the process? Is it
reasonable to define a purpose of making airport expansion ‘without
constraints’ feasible, when the FAA’s own projections of growth demonstrated that
unconstrained expansion was neither needed nor warranted? No.
An alternative premised on inappropriate definitions of purpose and need
is not reasonable. Yet, in this DEIS it
receives a full analysis as if it made sense. While the federal courts will grant agencies leeway, up to a point, in determining reasonableness, this DEIS goes too far in bending over backwards to make the project sponsor’s alternative appear reasonable. As one court has put it, “We realize… that the word “reasonableness is not self-defining. Deference, however, does not mean dormancy, and the rule of reason does not give agencies license to fulfill their own prophesies, whatever the parochial impulses that drive them. Environmental impact statements take time and cost money. Yet an agency may not define the objectives of its action in terms so unreasonably narrow that only one from among the environmentally benign ones in the agency’s power would accomplish the goals, and the EIS would be a foreordained formality.” Citizens Against Burlington, Inc., v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190, 196 D.C. Cir. 1991). The DEIS says, “As indicated in Chapter 2, the FAA has carefully examined the purpose and need for the Airport Sponsor’s proposed action in consideration of the range of reasonable alternatives that would substantially meet the stated purpose and need for the project.” But whose stated purpose and need? The FAA has allowed the project sponsor’s definition of the purpose and need to swamp its own analysis, so as to accommodate the sponsor’s desire to justify a massive project when a far smaller one will do. In this way it has rendered ‘reasonable’ a proposal that is far from benign, by suggesting that only the more massive project can fulfill a trumped up need.[18] Despite
the FAA’s transparent desire to put the best possible face on the sponsor’s
desired outcome, the DEIS contains within its four corners many pieces of
information that demonstrate the huge difference in relative environmental
impacts of the two locations. Moreover,
the DEIS references its own previous analyses regarding forecasting and needs
to enable the careful reader to discover that FAA does not think massive room
for expansion would be justified. Only
by manipulating the data and expansion assumptions can one reach the conclusion
that the environmental harm associated with the relocated site could be
justified as unavoidable. Below we offer section by section comments on the DEIS. Organization of the comments in this fashion is intended to simplify review, rather than indicate order of significance. Section by Section Comments 1.2.1 Proposed project phasing Although the DEIS says that “all facilities and
operations at the existing airport site would be replaced at and/or relocated
to the proposed site,” DEIS at 1.2 , the new airport
would not, as proposed, replace the existing facilities “in kind.” The crosswind runway is not oriented 90 degrees from the
main runway, and the crosswind runway is only 100 feet wide vs. 150 feet wide
at the existing facility. The new
facility will have only one additional capability, a longer main runway. In every other material respect, the
existing facility either has or can be readily improved to the same or better
capability than the proposed facility.
It has been reported that the proposed location is in an area where the
Tyndall AFB RAPCON radar cannot reliably observe aircraft below 2000 feet in
altitude. Pilots who transit the
proposed site frequently report that ground fog and convective thunderstorms
occur much more often than at the existing facility. These phenomena, if confirmed, add risks to aviation that should
be considered. 1.4 Runway Safety Areas The DEIS states that “[t]he RSA for Runway 14-32, the primary air carrier runway, does not conform to FAA standards due to natural and man-made features that constrict the Runway 14-32 RSA both laterally from the runway centerline and at each end.”[19] But it should be noted that this is hardly fatal to airport operations. 45 percent of runways under the program do not meet the standards; the safety of PFN cannot be too irretrievably compromised, since Air Force Two was allowed to land there in September 2004! As stated in this DEIS, it is not FAA’s practice to shorten runways in order to enhance RSA’s, if shortening would curtail aircraft already using the runway. Other solutions can be and are found at airports around the nation when new FAA standards render older airports in need of upgrades. 1.4 .4 Air Cargo Facilities The DEIS notes the presence of a 4000 square foot building that is available but not currently occupied “because it does not have direct access to the airfield.” This assertion is unsupported. It may in fact be unoccupied because the current cargo market is so small that no building is needed. If and when needed, there is plenty of land with access to the current airfield for a cargo building. This type of assertion gives rise to an overall impression that the DEIS is biased in favor of concluding that a massive new construction project is required to meet the region’s air service needs, when the facts show otherwise. 1.5 Airspace and air traffic control While the DEIS characterizes the airspace and air traffic control situation around PFN as “complex,” it is hardly atypical. The geometries and procedures described in the DEIS are the routine activities of Air Traffic Control, and more “complex” situations are common in the region and all over the country. Moreover, the suggestion that interplay with Tyndall and Eglin is so problematic that it supports airport relocation is also misplaced. See discussion of Chapter 2 for additional details. 1.6 Air service area (attraction to other customers): According to the Airport Sponsor, there is potential for an airport at the proposed site to serve more passengers than the current location due to the proposed site’s closer proximity to leisure destinations in western Bay and eastern Walton counties, and improved overall access. But by disingenuously drawing one “30 minute drive time” circle around both the current location and the proposed new location, the sponsor obscures the fact that the current site is extremely convenient for Panama City residents – the largest segment of current airport users – while the proposed relocation site is out in the boondocks, far from town and from everything else, such as public services and amenities. While the developers who wish to donate land for the airport and who will thereby make their own surrounding land far more valuable would have an airport convenient for their purposes, for the current customer base the proposed relocation is anything but convenient. 1.7 Aviation Forecasts The importance of the selection of aviation forecasts for the preparation of this DEIS should not be overlooked. The FAA has an obligation to rely upon forecasts it deems most appropriate so as not to allow the project sponsor to pre-determine the outcome of the DEIS by making one alternative appear infeasible when it is not, and another reasonable when it is not. Unfortunately, the FAA declined to exercise its judgment and rule out unrealistic and unsupported aviation forecasts. The DEIS asserts: In the preparation of an EIS, the FAA determines the most appropriate set of forecasts to use that reflect current data and trends and provide the best basis for the assessment of potential environmental effects. In light of the four years that have passed since the forecasts were prepared for the Feasibility Study and the events that have occurred since that time, and as a part of the ongoing planning process, the Airport Sponsor prepared the Updated Forecasts and provided them to the FAA in January 2004. According to the Airport Sponsor, the Updated Forecasts reflect an evaluation of the potential for an airport located at the Airport Sponsor’s proposed site to serve (1) a larger percentage of travelers in the overall air service area and (2) potential transatlantic charter service. During the same period, the FAA prepared the 2003 TAF, released in February 2004, for PFN. The FAA TAF will be used for defining a base case scenario in the DEIS. The Updated Forecasts, prepared by the Airport Sponsor, also will be used in the evaluation of the potential effects of the Proposed Project and the alternatives to ensure that the analyses presented in this DEIS fully disclose the range of potential effects of the proposed project.[20] By using the “updated forecasts of the Airport Sponsor” the FAA skewed the entire DEIS since a proposal that is nonsensical on its face becomes more of a reasonable alternative if massive growth in demand is built into the equation. As a measure of the undue optimism of the Airport Sponsor’s forecasts, one should consider that the 2000 “Feasibility Study” forecast 217, 247 enplanements for 2005, indicating that current activity is well below the level forecast pursuant to which a new airport was deemed “feasible”. The 2000 study also forecast over 119,000 operations for 2005, whereas actual 2004 operations were 93,000. Also since the forecast was completed, US Air Express has withdrawn approximately 3,500 operations for 2005. In summary, none of the forecasts upon which the sponsor’s proposed airport relocation project was based have been accurate; the FAA’s judgment has proven far more accurate! The project sponsor makes much of its claim that longer runways will be needed to accommodate the growth that it sees in the future (but that the FAA itself does not). The FAA’s Terminal Area Forecast indicates that a runway longer than 6800 feet is not required for “aviation growth in the Panama City vicinity,” and “the Airport Sponsor’s long-term needs” is an undefined term that should not be allowed to drive decision-making. As critics have repeatedly noted, air service today does
not tax – much less overtax – PFN resources.
Currently, daily commercial air carrier
operations have declined from 40+ in 2001 to about 24 in 2005. While general aviation operations are
growing robustly (by 15% in 2004), air carrier operations – the ones supposedly
creating the need for longer runways and more terminal services – have declined
33% in 3 years.[21] Ch. 2 Purpose and Need 2.2.2 Proposed Project Components: The DEIS assesses the potential environmental consequences of the relocated airport and “initial development components,” but that narrow window on the anticipated development that will arise if the airport is relocated is not appropriate. A great deal of secondary development is foreseeable – indeed, in assessing the proposed new site the DEIS takes credit for the positive economic effects which the developer foresees from this development – and its equally foreseeable environmental consequences should be fully factored into the analysis. As Craig Pittman’s article in the St. Pete Times in early 2004 made clear, the plans for the airport are part of a far, far larger plan to transform the environment of Bay County. The land-‘donating’ St. Joe Company is pursuing multiple projects: “St Joe’s plans are massive and immediate. The company has 20 developments in various stages of planning and construction, with permits to build more than 10,000 homes so far and more developments on the way. … [It’s being called] ‘regional place-making’ – re-drawing the map of Florida.”[22] In a letter to the stockholders of the St. Joe Company, according to Pittman, the corporation’s Chairman called the new airport “essential to unlocking the enormous value of our holdings.” Thus, everyone involved in the proposed airport relocation project can readily foresee the secondary development it is intended to induce. Failure fully to consider the full environmental impacts of that development would violate NEPA and would be arbitrary and capricious. 2.3 Airport Sponsor’s goals and objectives The DEIS states the goals and objectives of the sponsor of the proposed relocation of PFN in the beginning of Chapter Two of the DEIS, namely to provide airport facilities that meet FAA safety and design standards; operate and grow without physical constraints; prepare for future opportunities for accommodating projected demand and expansion opportunities, and plan future aviation development that is consistent with local and regional planning objectives;[23] not until 22 pages later does the FAA lay out its own view of the project’s purpose and need, which are stated as follows: · Ensure that the airport meets FAA design standards and is operated in a safe and efficient manner · Address aviation demand for the Panama City-Bay County air service area · Address the effects of PFN airport expansion related to noise and land use compatibility DEIS at 2.5.3, p. 2-28. In that context the FAA then declares that Based on FAA aviation forecasts and runway length analysis, the FAA has determined that a 6,800-foot runway would provide sufficient capability to accommodate projected aircraft activity through 2018 (the timeframe for this DEIS). According to the FAA’s independent review of runway length requirements, an initial runway length of 6,800 feet would accommodate the regional jet and narrow-body jet aircraft operating in those markets that would be expected to receive non-stop service from Panama City during the DEIS planning period through 2018. DEIS at 2.5.3, pp. 2-28 to 29 (emphasis supplied). This is a very significant statement; it ought to lead the discussion of purposed and need that define Chapter Two! It also should rule out any proposed airport configurations that are more environmentally damaging and that go beyond the identified purpose and need as a result – such as any and all 8,400 foot runway configurations at either site. However, even while softly articulating its independent ‘purpose and need’ FAA appears reluctant to step on the project sponsor’s toes. It frames the issue of safety with reference to existing runway 14-32 and its compliance with FAA safety standards (all of which can be addressed through relatively minor reconfiguration at the existing location, discussed elsewhere in the DEIS) and the potential for conflict with Tyndall AFB (which Tyndall officials discount, and which are at least matched with concerns expressed by the military regarding potential conflicts with Eglin if there is a decision to relocate, also as noted elsewhere in the DEIS record).[24] The DEIS even makes reference to its concerns about aircraft noise, noting that the current airport is located in an area with residential uses – despite the fact that elsewhere in the DEIS a detailed analysis shows virtually no incremental impacts of this noise on the community that currently surrounds the airport and no exceedances of FAA’s own noise standards! In essence, while including many of the facts that support a determination that relocation is not justified by purpose and need and that relocation will be massively more environmentally damaging than modifications at the existing site, FAA is loathe to reach a determination (i.e., identify the preferred alternative) that the facts ought to compel it to reach. 2.4.1.1 Runway safety and design standards: A primary purpose of the Proposed Project is to meet FAA safety standards, including runway safety areas, object free areas, and object free zones for the primary runway. FAA frames the purpose slightly differently: “Ensure that the airport meets FAA design standards and is operated in a safe and efficient manner.” While no party disputes that the current main runway at PFN is shorter than the prescribed 6,800 feet and that modest modifications to the main runway may be necessary, a more pragmatic analysis of the current airport’s limitations and the ‘real world’ of airport operations reveals that PFN is far from incapacitated by its current runway length. PFN ranks 186th in passenger traffic among commercial service airports in the U.S, with 185,000 (0.185 million) passenger enplanements per year. The main runway is 6304 feet, comparatively short but by no means the shortest. Passenger traffic shows no correlation to runway length; many less active airports have long runways, and several vastly busier airports having comparable or even much shorter runways. The most glaring example of this disparity is John Wayne/Santa Ana airport in Orange County, CA: it has a single 5700 foot runway, yet accommodates over 3,000,000 (3 million) enplanements annually. Other high-volume airports with comparable runway lengths are Washington-Reagan National (6889 foot runway, 7 million enplaned), LaGuardia (7000 foot runway, 11 million enplaned), and Burbank, CA (6800 foot runway, 3 million enplaned).[25] Clearly, the FAA has been able to make peace with shorter runways, appropriately constrained, in other circumstances. Forty five percent of U.S. airports do not meet the newer FAA runway safety design standards, yet continue to operate with admirable safety records.[26] The same result is being and can continue to be achieved at PFN’s existing site. 2.4.2 “Operate and grow the airport without physical constraints” The DEIS cites (while disputing) the sponsor’s claim that the proposed longer runways are needed to accommodate a family of narrow-body jet aircraft operations within the next 20 years without payload restrictions, to meet anticipated demand for international charter operations, to attract new air carrier service to Bay County and allow for large military transports to use the airport. These claims are not supported by the FAA’s TAF analysis. Nor did we find any support in the DEIS record of the military’s desire to be able to use PFN for military aircraft – either aircraft PFN could currently accommodate, or others that might need longer runways. Indeed, with Tyndall and Eglin in the immediate neighborhood this unsupported assertion lacks credibility. “Growing unconstrained” might be every developer’s dream, but it is hardly a factor appropriate for deciding to re-locate a functioning airport serving a close-in community. Of course, one thing the ‘unconstrained” design does do, particularly when it includes the unwarranted 8,400 foot runway, is to create a cost comparison that makes relocation look more favorable. Only by comparing the costs of expanding the runway at the present location to 8400 feet (a patent impossibility, but not necessary for the TAF’s projected demand) to the costs of an 8400 foot runway at a greenfield site could the relative cost of relocation be made to appear lower than the cost of remaining at the current location, thereby ‘justifying’ relocation on cost grounds. 2.4.1.1 The DEIS discusses modifications to the current site that would be required to attain compliance with FAA runway safety rules. The DEIS indicates that declared distances could be employed to address this issue, and other commentators have discussed the feasibility of using EMAS measures to address the relatively small shortfall in runway landing areas that would necessary for PFN to be brought into conformity with new FAA requirements.[27] But we also note that, while the DEIS refers to the potential for runway landing areas to constrain the use of certain larger aircraft (such as a B737-800), there has been a significant shift in small-market air service. Regional jets of 50 to 90 seats are being introduced rapidly over the U.S. These smaller modern jets require shorter runways than mainline jets, and it is likely that they will comprise the bulk of scheduled operations into Bay County for many years. (Note: the DEIS fails to note that, from 1991-1995, several 737’s operated daily to service from PFN to Atlanta; that service was not impeded by runway length.)[28] The DEIS says that “significant man-made and natural environmental features combine to render the development of fully conforming RSAs (along with the maintenance of the current runway length) a difficult and costly option, with impacts to protected seagrass beds, wetlands, and/or adverse impacts to key community transportation infrastructure.”[29] This statement reflects quite clearly the FAA’s efforts to overstate the challenges at the current site, while understating the problems at the proposed new site. While impacts that would result from runway modifications to sea grass beds, wetlands and water quality are not inconsequential, this statement suggests that they are impracticable or environmentally unacceptable. In fact, the destruction of natural environmental features – for example, wetlands and endangered species habitat – associated with the existing site option compared to the greenfield relocation site option demonstrates the wildly disproportionate impacts of selecting the greenfield site. For example, in the numbers of acres of wetlands destroyed, the impacts on endangered species, and the increased pollutant loadings from stormwater as thousands of acres are paved, the relocation site is disastrous.[30] 2.4.2 “Operate and Grow Airport Services Without Physical Constraints” While the project sponsor’s objective is to be able to “operate and grow airport services without physical constraints, the FAA’s definition of the purpose and need of the project is narrower (see discussion above). And the DEIS’ characterization of the constraints that affect the existing site are not supported by the record. The DEIS asserts: The forecasts of aviation demand for PFN predict an increase in commercial jet operations, particularly the replacement of turboprop commuter flights by higher performance regional jets. The FAA met with military personnel from the U.S. Air Force in September 2003. In that meeting, Air Force representatives expressed concerns regarding the potential for airspace conflict in Bay County/Panama City area because of the proximity of PFN to Tyndall AFB, increasing numbers of aircraft operations at PFN, and the increasing use of high-performance passenger aircraft (regional jets and, potentially, narrow-body mainline jets) over time (see Appendix B for meeting minutes). This characterization of the Air Force’s position is inaccurate. The minutes cited above include the following statements: The meeting began with a statement by Lt. Colonel Seaman expressing that the USAF does not want to be the reason that a particular site is chosen or not chosen. Rather the USAF wanted to ensure that all parties were aware of the potential consequences, positive and negative, associated with the existing Airport site and potential relocation sites. The existing Airfield at existing demand levels was briefly discussed. Those present agreed that while Tyndall AFB and KPFN were in close proximity to each other, conflicts between the two airfields were already mitigated. Existing procedures and agreements between the Tyndall AFB RAPCON and Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) for the control of air traffic developed over many years have allowed the two airports to operate safely on a daily basis. With respect to the proposed alternative site, the Air Force representative said the following: The final site alternative discussed was the Sponsor’s
proposed site also known as Alternative 3A. Concern was expressed about the proximity of
the site to the Tyndall B MOA however the floor of the MOA is at 9,000’ MSL.
The proximity of the site to the Eglin Restricted Areas 2914A and R2914B
was also of a concern. The controlled airspace associated with this site and
the approach procedures using it would have to be 3.0 nm from the Eglin
Restricted Areas. Concern was expressed that aircraft circling to the west for
landing at the Proposed site would in some circumstances come closer than 3.0
nm to the Eglin Restricted Areas. Concern was also expressed that operations at
the Proposed Site and KPAM may not be aligned or in the same direction due the
effect of sea breezes. Representatives of the Panama City Bay County Airport
and Industrial District stated that wind analysis of the new site indicated
that this would not be anticipated to occur more than 10% of the time. *** The general consensus of the USAF/DOD representatives was, that when the Proposed Site was compared to an improved existing airport, Alternative 3B or Alternative 3C, the Proposed Site had the least adverse impacts on the regions SUA. However when the Proposed Site was compared to the existing operation at KPFN, the existing operation at KPFN had the least impact on the regions SUA. (Emphasis supplied.) In light of these Air Force comments, it can hardly be said that the military finds the new location preferable in all respects or that it is unable to come to agreement with the airport about a safe way to manage modified operations at the existing site! Yet, the DEIS fails to note any of the negative remarks about the relocation site in discussing the pros and cons. The DEIS makes the claim that, “to reduce the potential for increases in airspace conflicts, it would be advantageous to increase the separation between these facilities. Moving PFN to the Airport Sponsor’s Proposed Site would increase the separation between the civilian facility and Tyndall AFB, which would reduce to some extent the complexity/potential conflicts associated with the current location of airspace for Tyndall AFB and the existing airport site.”[31] However, as the DEIS fails to note, relocating to the new site apparently will increase conflicts with Eglin AFB![32] Once again, the bias of the FAA in favor of relocation is notable in how it characterizes the Air Force’s position on the airport’s location. It would behoove the decision makers to keep in mind the most important component of the Air Force’s position respecting the decision to be made: “The meeting began with a statement by Lt. Colonel Seaman expressing that the USAF does not want to be the reason that a particular site is chosen or not chosen.” The Air Force is offering to work out airspace issues for the site ultimately selected, and will undoubtedly be able to do so. If the nation’s capital can operate Reagan National Airport and its 7 million passengers per year within two miles of the White House, surely Tyndall and Eglin can accommodate the operations at PFN. 2.4.2.1 “Surrounding incompatible land use” The discussion of the proximity of residential areas and noise in the context of PFN’s current location is remarkable for what it does not say: while the DEIS discusses the fact that there is a good deal of residential development in vicinity of Runway Protection Zones, it does not mention any noise complaints from surrounding communities. (Perhaps those who choose to live hard by an existing airport purchase these sites because they are unconcerned with noise levels or count the convenience of the location as more important than the noise level.) The DEIS’ detailed analysis of noise impacts reveals that no households and residents will be subject to unacceptable levels of noise if the existing site 6800 foot runway alternative is selected. While noise concerns of communities that abut airports deserve serious attention, problems with the current PFN site are not documented in this DEIS. Once again the FAA makes a far stronger rhetorical case in this “purpose and need” discussion than can be supported by its own data. 2.4.2.2 Airport Facilities Development The DEIS avers that the terminal was designed (1996) to accommodate 220,000 annual passengers in an unconstrained manner.”[33] It goes on to say that “this does not mean that the terminal building could not serve a higher level of demand, but that doing so would reduce the qualitative experience and result in increased congestion.”[34] The DEIS goes on to speculate that congested conditions would result in the loss of passengers to other airports, but without evidence to support this anxiety. Surely this is a red herring. The Airport Authority acknowledges that demand/capacity of the current airport is adequate until 2020, but claims that the new location would give them the “ability” to expand capacity. Since the time frame of this DEIS is 20 years, the ability to expand is irrelevant. Moreover, in a 2001 analysis of a daily schedule covering a 20 hr. period, Bay County Airport had a total of 45 arrivals/departures. During the six (6) hour peak period (10:00a to 4:00p) there were19 arrival/departures averaging one arrival every 30 minutes and one departure every 51 minutes. During the one (1) hour peak period (10:00a to 11:00a), there were six (6) arrivals/departures averaging one arrival every 15 minutes and one departure every 30 minutes. This is not an air traffic control burden by any means, and it is not an unmanageable burden on land based passenger facilities, either.[35] The current (January 2005) air carrier schedule is only 24 operations per day, a 45% decline in four years, and further lessening the air traffic control workload. 2.4.2.2.2 Inability to provide a perimeter roadway: The DEIS states that “the lack of a fully functional perimeter road system erodes operational margins of safety and can directly contribute to the potential for runway incursions, a condition directly contrary to the FAA’s major ongoing national safety initiative to reduce/eliminate runway incursions. Further, the ability to provide a perimeter roadway that conforms to FAA airfield design requirements is precluded at PFN by a number of contributing limitations, including the lack of area outside the required runway safety areas and object-free areas, and environmental conditions such as potential wetlands and the proximity to the North Bay and Goose Bayou.”[36] We have been unable to identify any FAA design standard that specifies a requirement for a perimeter road. If FAA is actually referring to the design requirements of the RSA, (FAA seems to use ‘service road’ and ‘perimeter road’ interchangeably), it is true that Runway 14-32 and its RSAs presently extend end-to-end of the property and the service road goes through the RSA, requiring coordination with the control tower for a ground vehicle to transit the RSA. There are no reported runway incursions at PFN in the record. This condition can be addressed at the existing site. In the commenters’ suggested EMAS alternative submitted during scoping, a right-of-way for a service road is provided outside the RSA; it can be accomplished readily. Even in the FAA's 6800 foot extension alignment, there is no reason the service road cannot be realigned to the southeast of the extension, since it is being realigned in any event. In other words, this alleged obstacle really is not insurmountable by any means.
2.4.2.2.3 Airport Industrial Development The DEIS states that “the area for expansion of airport industrial activity is largely wetlands – Hugh A. Nelson Industrial Park area.” “Within the Airport District’s two existing industrial developments (Frankford Avenue and Hugh A. Nelson Industrial Parks), only 63 acres of land is available for development without the complications of wetlands permitting.”[37] Of course, the same or far worse is true of the proposed new location, as well, which would require the destruction of thousands of acres of wetlands to build the airport and industrial expansion areas. The fact that a COE permit is needed for wetlands destruction, also noted in the DEIS, is true in either location where wetlands are in issue. Once again, the DEIS paints the most negative possible portrait of the existing site even though this depiction is not supported by the facts in the record. 2.4.2.5 Storm Surge and Floodplain Impacts The DEIS cites the susceptibility of PFN to storm surge and flooding as a basis for relocation, calling the site “particularly vulnerable” to storm surge. Yet, Eglin and Tyndall are both located in the storm surge zone, as well. And the proposed new location is also flood prone, with more acres in a flood hazard area than the current location! [See discussion infra regarding Chapter 5.] Chapter 3 – Alternatives As noted elsewhere, under
NEPA rules the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), as the lead agency, has a
responsibility to explore and evaluate objectively all prudent, feasible,
reasonable, and practicable alternatives, including those beyond the FAA’s
jurisdiction.[38] As the DEIS again notes in discussing the purpose and need for the project, “the Airport Sponsor identified the need for an initial runway length of 8,400 feet to meet anticipated demand and to provide flexibility to respond to potential market opportunities.”[39] But it also notes that “an independent FAA analysis indicated that a runway length of 6,800 feet would be sufficient to meet FAA’s forecasted level of activity through 2018, the EIS analysis horizon.”[40] One obvious outcome of the FAA’s independent determination is that it should not accept the sponsor’s more expansive definition of purpose and need. However, “the FAA determined that the investigation of impacts should not be limited solely to alternatives that include a 6,800-foot primary runway, but also should address the environmental consequences associated with the Airport Sponsor’s proposal of an alternative that includes an 8,400-foot primary runway with supporting facilities. Therefore, alternatives considered in this DEIS include both 6,800-foot and 8,400-foot primary runway scenarios with supporting facilities.”[41] By treating the 8,400 foot runway as a “reasonable alternative” the DEIS lends credence to, among other things, unjust cost comparisons between the current site and the proposed site (where, e.g., real estate condemnation costs and community impacts at the current site render an 8,400 foot runway option infeasible). The way in which inclusion of the 8,400 foot runway option warps the results of this DEIS can be clearly seen in the following analysis, which reverts once again to the Airport Sponsor’s forecast of growth with which the FAA did not concur: The Airport Sponsor has acknowledged that additional improvements to current aviation facilities beyond those included in this DEIS could become necessary based on long-term planning demands. This development might include extended runway length, an additional parallel air carrier runway, or expansion of landside facilities. Relative to the provision of a parallel air carrier runway to relieve runway congestion, when and if warranted, the provision of a parallel air carrier runway at PFN would most desirably be located to provide simultaneous approach and departure capability in instrument operations conditions. This would require a minimum of 4,300 feet of separation between the runway centerlines and would result in significant impacts to the surrounding natural and built environments. Because of the limited size of the Existing Airport Site envelope and surrounding development, any expansion of airport facilities could not be accomplished without significant impacts to the local community and environmental habitats. DEIS at 3.2.7, p. 3-10. Obviously, the sponsors of the relocation project would like nothing more than for their unrealistic projections of demand to pre-determine the outcome of this DEIS! But the FAA’s obligation is to rely upon its own judgment and not to substitute the biased hopes of a project’s proponents. The FAA justifies its
decision to lend credence to the 8,400-foot runway alternatives by averring,
“While all of the Existing Airport Site airfield alternatives could be
expanded, some options would vary in terms of costs, schedule delays,
relocations, and impacts to natural resources.
The ability for an alternative to be expanded is a key consideration
because, according to the specific policies of the FAA delineated in the NPIAS,
the selected alternative must depend on limited public resources and have
long-term viability.”[42]
While the NPIAS does have a
focus on expansion capability, the FAA itself uses a twenty-year time horizon
in considering expansion – and the existing site satisfies FAA’s expansion
forecasts! Thus, this characterization
by the FAA is further evidence that the alternatives analysis is biased toward
the airport sponsor’s desired outcome. 3.2.3 The No-Action Alternative - Use of other airports The DEIS asserts that “Because it is a joint-use facility, Okaloosa Regional Airport (VPS) is particularly limited in its ability to be flexible and to expand to serve commercial operations. Commercial activity at VPS is limited to a small area on Eglin Air Force Base (AFB) and expansion beyond this limited land envelope is precluded by existing agreements with the U.S. Air Force. Also, specific operational caps exist that limit the total number of commercial aircraft operations, which then further limit the flexibility of the facility to respond to changing demand. Finally, general aviation activity is prohibited at VPS. Given these considerations, the flexibility and expandability of VPS is essentially precluded.” While we do not advocate the ‘no action’ alternative, we do take issue with this characterization of Okaloosa. Okaloosa Regional Airport (VPS) is located on Eglin AFB as a joint tenant. VPS’ lease runs to 2031. A new $29 million passenger terminal opened in December 2004. VPS’ Runway 12/30 is 12,005 feet x 300 feet; Runway 1/19 is 10,000 feet' x 300 feet. Therefore, it can accommodate large aircraft. At present, Okaloosa Regional Airport is authorized 84 operations/ day in its lease with Eglin AFB. They are currently conducting only 62 operations per day, and will be down to 54 operations per day with the shut down of USAIR scheduled for January 2005. (Prior to 9/11 Okaloosa Regional in 2000 had 816,875 enplanements and deplanements. In 2001 that number dropped off to 774,431.) Charter flights are authorized at VPN, but have to have prior approval from the Okaloosa Regional Airports director.[43] In other
words, contrary to the DEIS’ claims,
Okaloosa has more than ample room for expansion; it has a lease that provides
for such expansion that runs to 2031, making claims of lack of flexibility or
room to expand factually incorrect. Moreover, to describe the space available
as a “limited land envelope” is highly misleading – while it may be true in
relationship to Eglin as a whole, the runways are vastly larger than would be
needed for PFN – type service (and the DEIS offers no detail as to the “land
envelope’s” restrictions that would justify concerns about this issue). While we
dispute the sponsor’s forecast of larger charter aircraft in need of longer
runways, if it were true that larger jets might need longer runways then an
option that should have been considered in the DEIS is to combine the 6,800
foot runway expansion at the existing site with the ability to direct any
larger charter aircraft that might wish to reach the air service area to
available slots at Okaloosa. The
feasibility of this option is demonstrated by the information noted above. 3.2.7
Existing site alternatives The detailed and highly technical discussion of measures for meeting runway safety needs for a 6,800 foot runway at the existing site boil down to a relatively simple conclusion: one or more of the three runway extension options for 14-32 is/are feasible and can be implemented, although – as is normal, “For each of the alternatives for extending Runway 14-32 to 6,800 feet in length, it was determined that conformity with FAA safety and design criteria would be required to receive the necessary approvals and funding for the development of the alternative. This assumption is consistent with FAA policy.”[44] While we adopt and incorporate by reference the comments submitted by Don Hodges to address in more detail the runway design issues, it is worth noting that no insurmountable technical obstacles exist to addressing runway service lengths at the existing site. What would be necessary would simply be the cooperation of technical experts at FAA, the airport sponsor and the permitting agencies to resolve technical and design challenges. 3.3.1.2 Location of relevant population To serve the air service area, an alternative should be located within a reasonable commute distance and commute time from the primary concentration of demand within the market. The FAA recommends that aviation services be provided within a 20-mile travel distance of the primary concentration of traveler demand. While 87 percent of the passengers surveyed at PFN came from Bay County, the population of Bay County is heavily concentrated in Panama City. The proposed new site is much farther away and less convenient for the airport’s primary current users than the existing site. The way in which the DEIS constructs the “drive time” analysis, drawing one massive circle over the area which encompasses both the old site and the new site, masks this significant factor. Particularly for general aviation airport users, the additional distance from Panama City to the new site will be a significant deterrent to usage. 3.3.1.2 Provide for Demand within the Market Area FAA in this portion of the DEIS again makes note that the TAF they have is very different from the sponsor’s claimed traffic forecast, and that the FAA thinks a 6800 foot runway is sufficient – yet it goes on to treat the sponsor’s plan for an 8,400 foot runway and larger, expanded facilities as reasonable: “The FAA has determined that a 6,800-foot runway would accommodate future demand, while the Airport Sponsor is indicating a need to develop 8,400 feet to provide for future opportunities for expanding air carrier service including international charter airline activity.” We reiterate that, by treating the sponsor’s desire to expand as a reasonable, even when its own analysis finds this unreasonable, the DEIS’ analysis of consequences casts the existing site alternative in an inappropriately negative light. 3.6 Level 1 evaluation – existing site alternatives A close reading of the level one analysis in the DEIS demonstrates that the existing site is adequate to meet the community’s needs, consistent with the FAA’s forecast of demand for air services. Specifically, the DEIS states that, “Based on September 2003 site visits to PFN, both terminal facilities and other ancillary support facilities are deemed capable of meeting, or being expanded to meet, the forecast of activity used as a basis for this DEIS.”[45] And the airport at the existing site can be operated without untenable conflicts with Tyndall or Eglin, as the DEIS also must concede based on Air Force statements: PFN has operated in conjunction with operations at Tyndall AFB for a number of years, and procedures have been developed and modified over time to address the airspace considerations. Although the military representatives have stated their concerns, the Airport has operated and can continue to operate within the current airspace structure. “It cannot be definitively stated that a southerly extension of Runway 14-32 to provide 6,800 feet of runway would create a significant adverse effect on the navigable airspace. With the ability to conduct operations currently from the Existing Airport Site, alternatives using extensions of Runway 14-32 to 6,800 feet could be operated within the existing airspace structure.”[46]
These determinations by the DEIS are crucial ones to keep in mind. Much as the sponsor might wish to move the airport to a new greenfield site and open a major undeveloped section of Bay County to sprawl, the current site can meet the community’s air service needs. Therefore, the question for this DEIS should be: which alternative causes greater negative environmental impacts? 3.8 Level 2 criteria: Impacts to natural environment The DEIS says its level 2 screening process is “intended to further refine the evaluation of alternatives through the application of specific criteria that will ultimately determine alternatives considered to be the most feasible, prudent and reasonable.”[47] While it makes obvious sense for the FAA to employ broad screening criteria in narrowing reasonable alternatives, to be useful such screens should cover all of the major environmental consequences of the proposed project that any alternative might cause. To do otherwise suggests inappropriate bias. This DEIS appears to have succumbed to the temptation to highlight the environmental problems it wants to see at one site, and downplay the ones it would like to ignore. Unfortunately, as discussed below, the degree to which the DEIS identifies and measures these environmental and socioeconomic impacts varies strikingly. By choosing to focus on the environmental harms associated with one of the two sites and to downplay or even fail to measure the consequences of the other, the DEIS demonstrates bias. Specifically, in applying the Level 2 criteria, the DEIS states: “The consideration of impacts to the natural community included impacts to marine resources, specifically Class II Waters of the State of Florida, seagrass habitat, and State sovereign submerged lands.”[48] Note that impacts to wetlands and endangered species are not applied as level two screens to determine which alternatives should be carried forward for analysis! It is notable that the proposed relocation site is awash in wetlands and endangered species, yet has no seagrasses or marine resources. The failure to apply the same level of scrutiny to the massive wetlands and endangered species impacts that would be associated with the relocation site – losses in the hundreds of acres! – is arbitrary and capricious. This DEIS’ Level 2 evaluation criteria look suspiciously like approval of draining Lake Michigan because it has no measurable impacts on marine water quality. For example: the analysis states “There are no fill impacts to Class II Waters of the State, seagrass habitat or sovereign submerged lands” from the airport sponsor’s site development plan.[49] Okay. But to screen for these environmental impacts while not screening for either wetlands or endangered species demonstrates arbitrariness. As discussed above, “an agency may not define the objectives of its action in terms so unreasonably narrow that only one from among the environmentally benign ones in the agency’s power would accomplish the goals, and the EIS would be a foreordained formality.”[50] Nor can an agency define the environmental consequences in such a narrow way that entire categories of concerns are deemed irrelevant, which also renders the EIS a foreordained formality. Along the same lines, further demonstrating the one-sidedness of FAA’s Level 2 screening process, the DEIS notes that “A permit under Section 404 and Section 10 of the Clean Water Act would be required by USACE for any dredge and fill impacts to Goose Bayou/North Bay.”[51] While this is true, the same would also be true for dredge and fill operations at the relocation site! And while the DEIS highlights the negative view of Florida regulators towards permitting in seagrass areas, it says nothing about the COE’s constraints on permitting for avoidable wetlands destruction. Just as Florida strongly disfavors permitting fill operations that destroy seagrass beds, so, too is the COE bound by law and regulation to disfavor permitting for wetlands destruction for non-water-dependent uses. Yet, the Level 2 screen is silent respecting this important factor. Had a meaningful Level 2 screen been applied for environmental factors, it is our belief that the proposed relocation site would have been rejected outright at this stage. 3.8.2 Community impacts Similar biases apply to the community impact factors that the DEIS selects for its level two screen. The DEIS considers residential relocations and implies there will be substantial costs, but merely identifies businesses located in or on airport property and says they “would be relocated” to the sponsor’s proposed site. These business owners might or might not be financially capable of meeting relocation expenses; the DEIS does not investigate. Neighboring businesses that draw their customers from their proximity to the airport clearly will be left behind, yet this issue receives no attention. Airport employees who live nearby will be faced with far longer and costlier commutes if the facility re-locates far from housing and schools, yet this issue receives no attention. By looking at residential relocations and not business relocations in this narrow fashion, skewed results are obtained. For example: with respect to the relocation site, the DEIS states, “No residential or business relocations are required for this alternative.”[52] While it may be true that no existing businesses at the relocation site would be forced to more (since the site is on undeveloped wetlands and silvicultural land), nevertheless airport-dependent businesses will have to re-locate or perish. By looking only at businesses that would have to shut down if their land were taken, rather than businesses that would have to shut down if their customer base were taken, the results are unhelpful. For example, the “Business Inventory” in Chapter 4 identifies 39 accommodation or food service businesses in the vicinity of the existing airport.[53] What would be the fate of hotels and restaurants if a principal ‘customer magnet’ like the airport were to disappear? In assessing potential negative impacts on community services, the DEIS states “[t]he relocation of airport facilities to the West Bay Site would not result in relocations of community facilities or services. Accordingly, relocation of airport facilities to the West Bay Site would avoid negative impacts of reducing school enrollment or the property tax base.” Of course, new community schools would have to be constructed, drawing from the community tax base, along with fire and emergency service facilities. While students would be “displaced” from public schools in the analysis of the existing site alternative, the creation of a new school population (and attendant school construction and operating costs) in the new site is ignored. Since we consider all alternative scenarios for 8,400 foot runways unsupported by the project’s purpose and need, we do not repeat this critique but simply point out that the FAA’s own analysis of air service needs makes such a project indefensible in any event. In sum, the environmental/community impacts level 2 screening is biased and arbitrary, resulting in an arbitrarily rosy view of the airport sponsor’s desired outcome. By ruling out all of the 6,800 foot runway options that involve any incursions whatsoever into Goose Bayou based on environmental impacts to seagrasses, submerged lands and waters of Florida, while failing to rule out any (or, for that matter, all) of the relocation site designs despite their massive impacts to wetlands, endangered species and Florida waters, the Level 2 screening process in effect biases the entire DEIS and is arbitrary and capricious. Chapter 4 Affected Environment While Chapter Four omits any discussion of the environmental consequences of sprawl, and even the Cumulative Impacts analysis buried in Chapter Five manages to skirt the issue, the plain fact is that the airport itself is only the tip of the sprawl iceberg for Bay and Walton Counties if it is sited at the West Bay location. 4.1.3 Study area definition The current airport is only 5 miles from the Central Business District[54] The actual distance of the new site from downtown Panama City is twenty miles from the current airport site, and closer to 25 miles from Panama City.[55] Placing the new airport in this effectively virgin territory is envisaged by the sponsor (and the land-‘donating’ St. Joe Company) as the first step in a massive sprawl development plan that will gobble up much of the open space that could otherwise remain undeveloped. Basic principles of smart growth dictate that communities should begin with infilling: directing new development in already-built areas by locating new housing and commercial activity in areas close to existing services, transportation and people. This enables the preservation of surrounding open space, reducing the cost of public services and the environmental and economic costs of road construction and maintenance, energy consumption and sewer, stormwater and water systems. Planners in Bay County and elsewhere in the region clearly are concerned about this issue. For example, Walton County wants to “discourage sprawl” and issue “permits for new development only if there is availability of public facilities.”[56] Gulf County wants to “promote the redevelopment and renewal of blighted areas” and “utilize existing infrastructure to minimize urban sprawl,” and “direct residential development to occur in proximity to existing development.” [57] Yet, somehow, the “Affected Environment” discussion in Chapter 4 never addresses this fundamental point – one which drives nearly every development-stressed community’s planning decisions. Instead, the DEIS disingenuously asserts that “The comprehensive plans for adjacent counties do not make specific reference to the airport, with the exception of Washington County, which notes that the area is serviced by the Tri-County airport in Bonfay, Holmes County for general aviation purposes, and Tallahassee Municipal, Dothan Municipal, and PFN for commercial aviation.”[58] More striking still is the DEIS’ selective inclusion of elements of the Bay County Comprehensive Plan. [59] The table of ‘relevant sections’ included in the DEIS supports the FAA’s and airport sponsor’s desired outcome, more or less, but the selections do not reveal all relevant objectives in the County’s Plan. For example: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||