This is the summary of what is required for projects listed under the Airport Layout Plan for the RDU 2040 Master Plan.
Content in italics include findings or observations made by StopRDUQuarry Volunteers, bolded items are items that may be significant to the Odd Fellows Tract development.
Note: the Quarry does not show up on the list of projects, so no environmental assessment, or environmental impact study was done to determine the quarry development’s impact on the environment. As the quarry development project wasn’t listed, it appears that no coordination with other agencies occurred.
The “Borrow” Areas are where RDUAA plans to get dirt and fill for the runways. Notice that Borrow area 3 is basically the all of the area at the end of the small plane runway….the area that Umstead was forced to give up back in the 1950’s or so…and a whole lot more that is contiguous with the border of Umstead.
Based on my read of the document, the use of the Borrow areas are NEVER discussed. They talk about the moving the runway to the North East and no issues noted…but they don’t talk about or assess the Borrow dirt issue. Seems this should be required to be discussed given that it will directly impact Umstead.
Borrow area 3 is most of 286….and it includes the end of the small runway.
By not listing projects that will reduce forest cover and segmenting the projects, RDU Airport Authority has attempted to skirt the regulations in place to protect Umstead State Park.
Environmental Overview Raleigh Durham International Airport — June 2017 (draft)
7.1.1 HISTORIC, ARCHITECTURAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
The William B. Umstead State Park, adjacent to the eastern Airport property boundary, is a designated Cultural Resource District in the National Register of Historic Places, and is thus considered a cultural resource under Section 106 of the NHPA. A potential cultural effect was noted for Master Plan Study projects in Tables 7-1 and 7-2 if a project development footprint has the potential to affect a cultural resource. An effect may occur if a project would introduce an atmospheric, audible, or visual feature to the area that would diminish the integrity of the property’s significant historic features. Several landside and roadway improvement projects are located on Airport property adjacent to the William B. Umstead State Park and were identified as projects that may require additional consideration of cultural resources effects.
Pursuant to FAA Order 1050.1F. projects that would have an adverse effect on cultural resources under Section 106 of the NHPA may require an EA or an EIS, even if the project would normally qualify for a CATEX under NEPA. The timing of the NEPA Section 106 process, which involves FAA consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), depends on the level of environmental review (i.e., CATEX, EA, or EIS). SHPO consultation should be considered when defining the level of effort and schedule for NEPA review.
We need to call the State Historic Preservation Officer and ask what features are on the Odd Fellows Tract, near the proposed quarry in Umstead State Park, on RDU Airport Managed land including 286 and Lake Crabtree County Park.
7.1.2 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECTION 4(f)
Properties protected under DOT Section 4(f) include:
- Parks and recreational areas of national, state, or local significance that are both publicly owned and open to the public.
- Publicly owned wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance that are open to the public.
- Historic sites of national state, or local significance in public or private ownership regardless of whether they are open to the public.
Note: SaveRDUForest volunteers found some historic information about Foxcroft Lake on the Odd Fellows Tract. The East Coast Greenway is of national significance and will be impacted by two driveways into the proposed quarry site, and hazards from logging and bridge building trucks. The Odd Fellows Tract has been used by the Boy Scouts for generations as a camp, and has been used by Orienteering clubs as well.
The William B. Umstead State Park and other areas designated as park, open space, surface water, and greenways comprise park/open space properties surrounding the Airport. Master Plan Study projects were identified in Tables 7-1 and 7-2 as potentially affecting a Section 4(f) resource if the footprint of a Master Plan Study project would involve a physical use of a park or other property protected under DOT Section 4(f) (e.g., purchase of land or a permanent easement or physical occupation of the property) or a constructive use of a protected property. A constructive use of a property protected under Section 4(f) would occur if secondary project effects, such as noise, air quality, or water quality, would substantially diminish the activities, features, or attributes that contribute to the significance or enjoyment of the resource. Several landside improvement, roadway improvement, and support projects would occur adjacent to park properties along the Airport boundary and were identified as projects that need further analysis to determine if a constructive use of a park could occur Future environmental reviews under NEPA would need to document whether the affected properties are protected under DOT Section 4(f) as part of the assessment of potential effects.
Airside projects that would alter aircraft flight patterns and/or ground movement also have the potential to cause a constructive use of Section 4(f) resources through changes in aircraft noise exposure at Section 4(f) resource properties. Noise effects on these resources would need to be evaluated in future NEPA reviews. Section 1.2 presents a noise analysis of two future runway configurations identified in the Master Plan Study, and identifies that several areas designated as parks, open space and greenways may be affected by changes in noise exposure with these projects in place. Future environmental reviews under NEPA would need to document whether the affected properties are protected under DOT Section 4(f) as part of the assessment of potential effects
The FAA may approve a project that affects a Section 4(f) resource if it is determined that no feasible and prudent alternative exists and the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm. Additionally, FAA can make a deminimis determination if avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures are implemented public review has occurred, and the official with jurisdiction over the resource concurs. For Master Plan Study projects that potentially affect a Section 4(f) resource, the Airport Authority should coordinate with the North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation early during the NEPA process.
7.1.3 Floodplains
The extents of the 100-year floodplain are shown on Exhibit 7-1. If the development footprint of a Master Plan Study project is within the 100-year floodplain, the potential for a floodplain impact was identified in Tables 7-1 and 7-2.
If the only practicable alternative to a project that affects a floodplain requires siting the project In the floodplain, a floodplain encroachment would occur and environmental analysis would be needed to justify this effect. Per FAA Order 1050. IF, if the project is within a floodplain, it must be determined whether the encroachment is significant based on the intensity of the encroachment and its impacts on the floodplain s natural and beneficial values. A significant floodplain encroachment is defined as one that results in one or more of the following: (1) a considerable probability of loss of human life; (2) likely future damage associated with the encroachment that could be substantial in cost or extent, including interruption of service on or loss of a vital transportation facility; and (3) a notable adverse impact on “natural and beneficial floodplain values
A significant floodplain encroachment, however, is not necessarily considered a significant environmental impact under NEPA. The FAA may approve a project involving a floodplain encroachment if a finding can be made there is no practicable alternative to placing a project in the floodplain and that all measures to minimize harm will be included in the project. The NEPA document should explain that other alternatives were analyzed,justify locating the project in the floodplain as the only practicable alternative, and incorporate mitigation measures into the project in order to minimize potential harm to or within the floodplain.
Advanced planning and design of projects that have the potential to affect floodplains should explore the ability to avoid or minimize floodplain impacts, if possible. If a floodplain affect cannot be avoided and the project encroaches on a 100-year floodplain, notification of a floodplain encroachment would be required as part of the NEPA analysis.
7.1.4 Hazardous Materials
A Superfund site, the Ward Transformer site, is located adjacent to the Airport, north of Lumley Road and west of Mt Herman Road. A potential hazardous materials effect was identified in Tables 7-1 and 7-2 if the footprint of a Master Plan Study project is in the vicinity of the Ward Transformer Superfund site and/or if it is anticipated that the project would involve the use, transport, or storage of hazardous materials.
NEPA documentation for Master Plan Study projects should include discussion of the Ward Transformer Superfund site, including its location, owner/operator, the type and extent of contamination, the distance and direction of the contaminated site from the location of the project, and the regulatory status of the contaminated site, including clean-up activities. If a Master Plan Study project would be located at a site where contamination has occurred, cleanup activities that have been done in the past or any cleanup that would be done prior to or during the commencement of the project should be described in the NEPA document.
7.1.5 Wetlands and Water Resources
Water resources in the vicinity of the Airport are shown on Exhibit X-1 (This figure is missing). A potential water resources or wetland effect for Master Plan Study projects was identified in Tables 7-1 and 7-2 if the project footprint directly affects a water resource or wetland. Potential water resource effects were also identified if the project would be expected to increase the quantity of stormwater runoff due to the addition of new impermeable surfaces.
Water resources include water features such as streams, ponds, and wetlands. In addition to water features, Airport property contains areas designated as Neuse River buffer around water features designated to protect water quality of the Neuse River.
Given the extent of water resources on and around the Airport, the ability to avoid water resource effects is limited. Therefore, the Airport Authority should prioritize minimizing direct effects to water resources during advanced planning and design. Additionally, the Airport Authority should initiate coordination with agencies of Jurisdiction early to identify mitigation strategies and permit approvals for unavoidable impacts:
- For effects involving the discharge of fill material into streams, wetlands, and open waters, the Airport Authority would coordinate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to obtain a 404 permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
- For effects involving discharges to waters of the U.S., the Airport Authority would coordinate with the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to obtain a 401 water quality certification. The DEQ is the state agency responsible for issuing 401 water quality certifications pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act The 401 water quality certification verifies that the project would not degrade waters of the U.S. or violate state water quality standards.
- For effects involving impacts to wetlands or waters that are not within the USACE’s jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Airport Authority may need to coordinate with the DEQ’s Division of Water Resources (DWR) to obtain an Isolated and Other Non-404 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters Permit
- For effects to the Neuse River buffer, projects must be evaluated to identify if they are exempt, potentially allowable, or prohibited within the riparian buffer. The Neuse River buffer rules define projects such as airport facilities, roadways, and utilities as potentially allowable subject to authorization by DEQ.
If a project would affect wetlands or the Neuse River buffer, all practical means should be employed to minimize the impacts. The NEPA document must contain a description of proposed mitigation measures. with the understanding that a detailed mitigation plan must be developed to the satisfaction of the permitting agencies having an interest in the affected resource.
7.1.6 Air Quality
As identified in the Environmental Inventory, the Airport is in an attainment/maintenance area for carbon monoxide (CO) and ozone (03), which requires general conformity determinations for federal actions that would increase emissions above a de minimis level. Therefore, under NEPA, temporary emissions from construction activities, as well as long-term changes in operational emissions (e.g., new buildings, changes that affect aircraft and vehicle emissions) would need to be evaluated.
Following criteria established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the FAA has identified actions that are presumed to conform to a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and are therefore exempt from the general conformity regulations. If a Master Plan Study project is not exempt, consideration of construction emissions would be necessary to determine if construction would cause pollutant concentrations to exceed one or more of the NAAQS or would increase the frequency or severity of any existing violations.
In addition to construction emissions, Tables 7-1 and 7-2 identify those Master Plan Study projects that may affect operational emissions and, thus, it is anticipated that analysis would be required to determine if operation with implementation of the project(s) would cause pollutant concentrations to exceed one or more of the NAAQS or would increase the frequency or severity of any existing violations for CO and 03. If the project would cause an exceedance of de minimis emissions levels, or be regionally significant, a positive conformity determination/NAAQS assessment would be required. If project emissions would not exceed de minimis thresholds, or be regionally significant, the FAA can determine that the General Conformity Rule does not apply and no further analysis or documentation is required.
7.1.7 Noise
Changes to the Airport’s runway configuration or changes in the operational use of the runways based on new and relocated facilities supporting aircraft (e.g., cargo or general aviation) would likely require consideration of aircraft noise during environmental review under NEPA. Master Plan Study projects with the potential to affect aircraft noise are identified in Tables 7-1 and 7-2.
In addition to identifying Master Plan Study projects that may affect aircraft noise, the Master Plan Study included a preliminary evaluation of aircraft noise exposure for runway improvements recommended 1n the Master Plan Study. The results of the Master Plan Study aircraft noise analysis are summarized in Section 1.2
7.1.8 Surface Traffic
Surface traffic falls under the NEPA resource category of Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Children’s Environmental Health and Safety Risks. Consideration of surface traffic effects includes evaluation to determine if a project disrupts local traffic patterns or substantially reduces the levels of service (LOS) of roads serving the Airport and the surrounding community. Tables 7-1 and 7-2 identify Master Plan Study projects that have the potential to change ground vehicle activity-roadway projects that change vehicle routing or new/relocated facilities that affect vehicle access routing, such as a new parking facility. Evaluation of these projects under NEPA may require surface traffic analyses to evaluate LOS along roadway segments and at roadway intersections to quantify the significance of changes associated with the Master Plan Study projects.
500 trucks per day will be traveling on the gravel based Old Reedy Creek Road (a vital segment of the East Coast Greenway) with two driveways entering the Odd Fellows Site to remove overburden.
7.2 Airport Noise Screening Analysis
Changes to an airport’s runway configuration are a common development action that may change the aircraft noise environment in the vicinity of an airport. Therefore, an aircraft noise exposure analysis was prepared as part of the Master Plan Study to estimate the existing aircraft noise exposure conditions and future conditions with implementation of the projects recommended in the Master Plan Study.
When runway projects are ready for evaluation under NEPA, the significance of the change in noise conditions would be determined by comparing the noise conditions during a future year with the runway improvements in place and the no action alternative (i.e., no runway improvements) in the same future year. The results presented herein serve as an indication of noise exposure changes compared with existing conditions but are not intended to indicate whether a change in noise exposure would be significant under NEPA. The noise exposure analysis, therefore, is prepared for comparative purposes to estimate order-of-magnitude changes in noise exposure that would be anticipated with the recommended Master Plan projects in place.
Appendix T provides a background discussion of aircraft noise modeling and presents the modeling input data and assumptions. This section summarizes the aircraft noise modeling results for existing noise exposure conditions and conditions during two future years associated with runway development milestones. The existing noise exposure modeled in this study represents conditions in 2014, which is the most recent year for which full data were available at the time this analysis was prepared. Two implementation phases associated with runway development proposed in the Master Plan Study were assessed to estimate future aircraft noise exposure conditions:
- 2020 Aircraft Noise Analysis-An intermediate phase of Master Plan development, representing future conditions in 2020, was modeled to estimate noise conditions associated with operation of the Airport when the 10,000-foot Runway 5L-23R is relocated 537.5 feet to the northwest.
• 2025 Aircraft Noise Analysis-A second scenario was modeled to represent conditions in 2025 to assess the planned extension of Runway 5L-23R to 11,500 feet.
The future operations and fleet mix used in the noise analysis for 2020 and 2025 were developed based on the Airport Master Plan Update, Aviation Activity Forecast, which was approved by the FAA on December 4, 2015.
7.2.1 EXISTING AIRCRAFT NOISE ANALYSIS RESULTS
The existing noise environment in the Airport vicinity includes noise from Airport-related activities such as aircraft departing, landing, and taxiing. Other sources of noise within the Airport vicinity include roadway noise (nearby interstates, state routes, and local roadways) and freight train noise (two rail lines are located approximately 2 to 4 miles to the southwest of the Airport). The existing noise exposure modeled in this analysis represents noise generated by Airport-related aircraft arrival and departure operations. Further details of existing aircraft operations are provided in Appendix X (?).
The runway configuration modeled for existing conditions includes:
- Runway 5L-23R-10,000 feet in length, oriented northeast-southwest.
• Runway 5R-23L-7,500 feet in length, oriented northeast-southwest.
• Runway 14–32–3,570 feet in length, oriented northwest-southeast.
The 2014 existing conditions noise exposure contours are depicted on Exhibit 7.2–1. The DNL 65 dB contour, which represent FAA’s threshold for impacts to noise-sensitive facilities, is primarily confined to Airport property with approximately 13 percent of the contour area extending off Airport. The DNL 65 dB contour extends approximately 5,500 feet beyond the Airport property line to the northeast and approximately 3,650 feet beyond the Airport property line to the southwest.
Table 7.2–1 summarizes population and noise-sensitive facilities exposed to aircraft noise above DNL 55 dB, in DNL 5 dB band increments. Population and dwelling units associated with 2010 U.S. Decennial Census block centroids that fall within each noise DNL 5 dB band were counted to determine the total population exposed to each noise contour range. Under existing conditions, no residents or dwelling units are located within the DNL 65 dB and greater noise exposure contour. Portions of five properties designated in Wake County’s Geographic Information System (GIS) database as park or open space are within the DNL 65 dB contour.
Note: Parks and Other Open Space data were obtained from the Wake County GlS database of public open space, which includes greenways, mitigation sites, and other public open spaces.
Population and noise-sensitive facilities are identified using a banded contour methodology In which the resources are identified within only the contour
band in which they are located (e.g a facility identified as being in the DNL 60–65 contour is not included in those facilities identified as being within the DNL 55–60
Noise sensitive facilities tabulated from publicly available GIS database sources that have not been validated. Additional validation efforts should be considered upon any future NEPA analysis to verify actual conditions.
SOURCES. U.S Census Bureau, 2010 U.S Census Tract Data, 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 2016 TIGER/Line Shapeflles.
http://wwwce11sus.gov/cgib1n1geo/shapefiles2016/ma111 .accessed June ‘:.7, 2017); Wake County GJS Map Se1v1ces, Download Data G!S Shapefile data
http:/;www wakegov com/gis/ serv1ces/Pages/data.aspx (accessed: August 7, 2015); North Carolina Center for Geog1aph1c Information and Analysis, JC One Map Geospat,al Data http, data.11conemap gov ‘geoportal/catalog,content/about.page ,accessed December 18. 2015); Google Earth Pro. 2017
PREPARED ev· Ricondo & Associates, Inc. March 2017
Assumptions regarding future aircraft operations and fleet mix used for the 2020 noise analysis are provided in Appendix T.
The 2020 future conditions noise exposure contours are depicted on Exhibit 7.2–2. As a result of the runway relocation and forecast increase in aircraft operations, the DNL noise contours for the 2020 future scenario would be slightly larger than existing conditions and would shift slightly to the northwest. In 2020, the DNL 65 dB contours are confined mainly to the Airport property with 3pproximately 20.5 percent of the contour area extending off Airport. The DNL 65 dB contour extends approximately 6,500 feet beyond the Airport property line to the northeast and approximately 4,500 feet beyond the Airport property line to the southwest.
Table 7.2–2 summarizes population and noise-sensitive facilities exposed to aircraft noise above DNL 55 dB, 1n DNL 5 dB band increments. Results indicate that two people and one housing unit would be within the DNL 65–70 dB contour fm 2020, as compared with none in the 2014 existing conditions results. This housing unit 1s located southwest of the Airport in Morrisville. One house of worship would be located within the DNL 65–70 dB contour, the Sorrell Grove Baptist Church in Morrisville. Furthermore, nine park/open space properties would be above DNL 65 dB, three of which would be within the DNL 70–75 dB contour. In addition to the five park/open space properties within the DNL 65 dB for 2014, four new properties would be in areas exposed to DNL 65 dB and greater
DOURCES. U.S Census Bureau, 2010 U.S Census T1act Data 2010. U.S Census Bureau 2016 TIGER/Line Shapefiles. http://www.census gov/cg1- b1n1geo/shapefiles20161 ma111 (accessed June 27 2017); Wake County G!S Map Services, Download Data. G!S Shapefile data
http//www wakegovcom/g1s/ services/Pages/data.aspx (accessed. August 7 2015); North Carolina Center for Geog1aph1c Information and Analysis. NC OneMap Geospat,al Data http 1 ‘data.nconemap govigeoportal/catalog;content/about.page (accessed December 18. 2015); Google Earth Pro. 2017
PREPARED BY R1condo & Associates. Inc March 2017
7.2.2. 2020 Aircraft Noise Analysis Results
The 2020 future noise exposure modeled in this analysis represents noise generated by Airport-related aircraft arrival and departure operations based on the Master Plan Study aircraft operation forecast and the following runway configuration for 2020:
- Runway SL-23R-10.000 feet in length, oriented northeast-southwest. This runway would be relocated 537.5 feet to the northwest. The available runway length would remain at 10,000 feet in length, with a 288-foot displaced arrival threshold at the Runway SL end and a 72-foot displaced arrival threshold at the Runway 23R end.
• Runway SR-23L-7,500 feet in length, oriented northeast-southwest. The Runway SR end threshold would be shifted 101 feet to the northeast.
• Runway 14–32–3,570 feet in length, oriented northwest-southeast. This runway would remain unchanged from the existing conditions.
7.2.3 2025 Aircraft Noise Analysis Results
The 2025 future noise exposure modeled in this analysis represents noise generated by Airport-related aircraft arrival and departure operations based on the Master Plan Study aircraft operation forecast. In 2025, the 537.5-foot relocation of Runway 5L-23R to the northwest would be maintained. This phase would include an extension of Runway 5L-23R. Runway configurations modeled for this scenario are:
Runway 5L-23R-11,500 feet in length, oriented northeast-southwest. The Runway SL end would be extended to the south 350 feet. A displaced threshold would result in changes only to Runway 23R departures, Runway SL arrivals would continue to land in the same location as the 2020 scenario with an arrival threshold of 639 feet. The Runway 23R end would be extended to the north 1,150 feet. A displaced threshold would result in changes only to Runway SL departures, Runway 23R arrivals would continue to land in the same location as the 2020 scenario with an arrival threshold of 1,223 feet.
Runway 5R-23L-7,500 feet in length, oriented northeast- southwest. unchanged from the 2020 conditions.
This runway would remain
Runway 14–32–3,570 feet in length, oriented northwest-southeast. This runway would remain unchanged from the exIstIng and 2020 conditions.
Assumptions regarding future air-craft operations and fleet mix used for the 2025 noise analysis are also provided in Appendix X.
The 2025 conditions noise exposure contours are depicted on Exhibit 7.2–3. As a result of the shifts in the runway configuration and forecast increase in aircraft operations, the DNL noise contours for the 2025 future scenario would be slightly larger than existing conditions and would shift slightly to the northwest. The 2025 noise contours are similar in shape and size to the 2020 contours. In 2025, the DNL 65 dB contours are confined mainly to the Airport property with approximately 21.3 percent of the contour area extending off Airport. The DNL 65 dB contour extends approximately 7,100 feet beyond the Airport property line to the northeast and approximately 4,800 feet beyond the Airport property line to the southwest.
Table 7.2–3 summarizes population and noise-sensitive facilities exposed to aircraft noise above DNL 55, in DNL 5 band increments. As with the 2020 scenario, in 2025 two people and one housing unit would remain exposed to the DNL 65 dB noise contour. Similarly, the Sorrell Grove Baptist Church house of worship would remain within the DNL 65–70 dB contour. The same nine park/open space properties above DNL 65 dB in 2020 would remain above DNL 65 dB in 2025, one of which would be within the DNL 70–75 dB contour.
7.2.4 NOISE OVERLAY DISTRICTS
As presentted in Section 9.2.5.2.: there are existing overlay distncts in the vicinity of the Airport. In general, the purposes of these overlay districts include protecting the safety of aircraft operations and protecting the public from adverse impacts due to aircraft noise. Jurisdictions with airport overlay districts include the Cities of Raleigh Durham and Morrisville, as well as Durham County. At the time of definition, the airport overlay disticts reflected consideration of aircraft noise exposure contours developed for the Airport.
Noise exposure contours prepared as part of the current master· plan are notably smaller than contours prepared in the previous (1994) master plan study due to significant changes in aircraft engine technology, flight tracks and air· traffic procedures, aircraft fleets operating at the Airport, and related factors. While the noise exposure contours have been reduced in size, indicating that the surrounding community is exposed to less noise than previously predicted, the airport overlay districts used for land use controls have not been modified.
In addition to protecting against adverse noise impacts, airport overlay districts help to ensure that development within these districts is compatible with airport operations and air traffic activities. This is accomplished in part by limitng land uses to those without high population concentrations, restricting (development or material storage that can pose a safety hazard and limiting structure heights. For these reasons and given the possibility that the threshold for noise exposure significance may be reduced to 60 DNL or 55 DNL, the reduced noise exposure contour footprints generaated by the master plan noise analysis do not provide an appropriate Justification for a modification of the airport overlay districts.
7.3 Environmental Processing Strategy
The ALP depicts planned development project(s) identified through the master planning process that ar·e reasonably foreseeable over the planning horizon. The ALP also reserves areas for future (post-planning horizon) development as a means of promoting compatible uses within the Airport limits. Environmental approval of planned facilities depicted on an ALP can occur in one of two ways: 1) conditional approval where projects require further environmental review before being undertaken and 2) unconditional, where NEPA compliance has been achieved for all projects depicted on the ALP
Coordination with the FAA and other stakeholders (e.g., agencies with Jurisdiction over affected resources) should occur well in advance of the need for environmental approval to determine how NEPA compliance car be achieved, including protocols and analyses required to support a compliance determination. Environmental processing of projects can take three or more years for an EIS and a year or more for an EA. Projects eligible for CA TEX can be processed in a shorter time period (i e., three to six months) Prnjects requiring permits from other agencies often require additional time after the NEPA processing 1s complete to obtain permits; therefore, permit processing should be factored into the environmental processing timeline
When considering environmental processing of Master Plan Study projects, the dependencies and connections among projects must be considered. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations require that connected projects be considered in the same environmental document. Projects may be connected either because one project enables another or because one project would not happen without a second. In addition, projects occurring in a similar location and/or timeframe should be considered in the same environmental document. When proceeding with environmental review and approval of projects that have the potential to be connected to other projects, independent utility must be demonstrated if those potentially connected projects are not considered.
Fill for the new airport runways will be obtained from the borrow pits, which are located adjacent to Umstead State Park. Umstead volunteers have also been told that the overburden from the Odd Fellows Tract will be used for the new runway. Segmenting these projects to avoid environmental review is wrong, and the decision to allow this should be reconsidered by FAA.
Also…if RDUAA is going to claim they have full control of Odd Fellows and 286, then they should be required to list all projects that are going to occur on those lands — the quarry and the parking lots….both hurt Umstead.
If RDUAA is supposed to be protecting Umstead, then leaving off what they plan to do with Odd Fellows and 286 is either an error or outright fraud.
As the anticipated timing for undertaking the Master Plan Study projects is further evaluated and refined through subsequent advanced planning and decision making, the issues identified in this section as well as other emerging environmental issues should be reflected Ill the NEPA processing strategy. Ongoing collaboration with FAA regarding updates and refinements to future project assumptions, such as timing and anticipated impacts, will be critical to refining a NEPA processing strategy and associated timeline.
The source document for this blog post is available here:
Note, the PDF was created using a font color that was so light, that when the document was printed, the words were almost invisible. It was almost like they were trying to hide the information.
