1 / 12

Draft ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Analysis

Draft ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Analysis. Key issue: Will the proposed Runway Extension and airport improvements have a significant impact on the environment? OSU draft conclusion: The proposed improvements will have no significant impact (FONSI = Finding Of No Significant Impact)

major
Télécharger la présentation

Draft ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Analysis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Draft ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Analysis • Key issue: Will the proposed Runway Extension and airport improvements have a significant impact on the environment? • OSU draft conclusion: The proposed improvements will have no significant impact (FONSI = Finding Of No Significant Impact) • What is a Significant Impact? • In the case of noise, a greater than 1.5 dB increase in the Day Night Level (DNL).

  2. Preliminary Conclusions: EA is inadequate The EA is inadequate because: 1.  It fails in several areas to reflect the full noise impact of future operations.  These areas are:      a) predicting retirement of current serviceable and noisy aircraft,      b) failing to show any use of several noisy based aircraft, and      c) exaggerating the actual climb profiles of aircraft by failing to consider ATC restrictions. 

  3. Preliminary Conclusions: Fleet Mix prediction is wrong  Predicting retirement of current serviceable and noisy aircraft: There is an undocumented and unsubstantiated assumption that the following will be retired:      a)  100% of the Citation 3 fleet.      b)  100% of the Canadair 600 fleet.      c)  100% of the Citation 500 fleet.      d)    98% of the Citation 55B fleet.      e)   100% of the Gulfstream IV fleet.       f)   100% of the Gulfstream V fleet.      g)    83% of the Learjet 25 fleet. If the fleetmix remains unchanged, the 1.5 dB threshold would be exceeded.

  4. Preliminary Conclusions: Fleet Mix prediction is wrong  Based jet aircraft missing entirely from the forecast operations include:      a) Beechjet 400      b) 525 Cessna Jet      c) Citation 2      d) Falcon 50      e) Falcon 200       f) Hawker Siddeley 800      e) Learjet 31 These are noisy jet aircraft whose operation must be included in the noise model.  Failure to include these aircraft understates the noise impact.

  5. Preliminary Conclusions: Growth Rates are understated  2.  CAGR fails to adequately reflect future operations. Three elements shown for growth in Airport operations:      a) A 2.2 compound annual growth rate (CAGR)      b) An additional 22,000 operations from construction of the hangars      c) 450 additional operations from lengthening of the RW   Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) over the past seven years has varied from -17 percent to +19 percent.  2.2 percent is not the worst-case required by the NEPA.   A 3.6% CAGR with the same fleet mix and the forecast hanger and RW extension = 1.5 dB contour increase  

  6. FLEET MIX The sponsor claims the effect of lengthening RWY 9L/27R is to add only 450 new operations over five years. This is curiously low, and if founded, would not justify the expense to add 3,000 ft of runway. “COST BENEFIT”

  7. CLIMB RATES The INM (Integrated Noise Model) modeled climb fails to reflect the shallower climbs which keep aircraft lower to the ground. The result of this oversight is an understatement of the noise exposure contours from the model.

  8. Conclusions • The EA’s noise analysis has critical flaws: • Unjustified retirement of noisy aircraft • Inadequate Fleet mix • Improper Departure profiles • Low Compound Annual Growth Rate • Any one of these flaws would push the noise impacts of the proposed improvements over the 1.5 dB threshold

  9. Updated Schedule • Thursday October 14th Citizens Advisory Committee mtg • Thursday October 14th Public Meeting • November – EA released to public for formal review • November/December – Public Hearing • Submission to FAA for review -?- • 6-12 months review • Publication in Federal Register • Comment by Public (up to 180 days) • Action by FAA either • FONSI • or • EIS • Submission to OSU Board -?-

More Related