|
Frequently Asked Questions
GNOSS FIELD BACKGROUND AND OPERATIONS
1. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
classifies Gnoss Field as a "general aviation"
airport. What does that mean?
General aviation airports are restricted to
serving personal and private business aircraft
that are not scheduled. General aviation
airports cannot and do not accommodate aircraft
operated by commercial airlines.
2. How many flights per day use the runway at
Gnoss Field?
The airport has approximately 95,000
operations per year. An operation is a
takeoff or a landing. All of these occur
on the existing Runway 13/31.
3. How many aircraft are currently home based
at Gnoss Field?
The Airport is home to approximately 295
aircraft ranging from small, single-engine
planes to corporate jets. There is also
one helipad.
THE PROBLEM AND PROPOSED SOLUTION
4. Why is a longer runway needed at Gnoss
Field?
The need for the project is two-fold, but
ultimately comes down to safety. First,
most aircraft that depart from Gnoss Field
(there are approximately 95,000 operations there
annually) cannot do so with a full fuel tank or
passenger/cargo load. The existing runway
is simply too short for aircraft to take off
safely at their rated fuel and passenger/cargo
capacities. As a result, many aircraft
departing Gnoss Field have to stop at another
airport to refuel during their flight to their
intended destination --- a measure that would
not typically be necessary, if these aircraft
could operate at their full fuel capacity. In
addition, aircraft are frequently forced to make
two roundtrips to transport what would otherwise
be a normal passenger and/or cargo load. Thus,
to takeoff safely from Gnoss Field, many
aircraft are forced to operate in a highly
inefficient and wasteful manner.
Second, the runway safety areas (RSAs) at
Gnoss Field --- defined surfaces at each end of
the existing runway that accommodate aircraft,
as well as emergency vehicles in the unlikely
event that an aircraft leaves the runway (e.g.,
during an aborted takeoff) --- do not meet FAA
minimum length and size guidelines. As a
result, pilots and aircraft using Gnoss Field
are at risk in a takeoff or landing emergency.
5. What are the specific provisions of the
proposed runway extension project?
The project, as proposed, would address the
two-fold problem described above by extending
Gnoss Field's existing Runway 13/31 from 3,000
to 4,400 feet and lengthen the taxiway to match
the length of the new runway. The expanded
runway would also include RSAs that meet the
FAA's minimum size guidelines. Airport
drainage around the project site would be
realigned and the airport's pilot navigational
aids would be re-programmed to correspond to the
extended runway and taxiway.
6. Why is this project needed now?
This project is needed so that the airport
can meet FAA standards. In the last five
years, the FAA has encouraged all airports to
fully comply with safety standards and has
dedicated funding for meeting that goal.
7. What would happen if the runway operation
and safety problems were ignored?
The potential environmental consequences of
this scenario are not known now but will be
analyzed in the EIS and EIR as one of the
alternatives to the proposed project --- the
"No-Action Option." The likely results and
consequences, on a practical level, of doing
nothing about the runway safety and operational
deficiencies are summarized below:
- The current
airport inefficiencies would continue
whereby pilots using Gnoss Field would have
to continue to compensate for the airport's
inadequate runway length by reducing fuel
and/or passenger loads below normal levels
or continue to be at risk during landings
and takeoffs.
- To meet current FAA standards for RSAs
(see prior explanation above about Runway
Safety Areas), the length of Gnoss Field's
existing runway would need to be reduced to
accommodate the longer and wider RSAs. This
could force aircraft operators who use Gnoss
Field to move to other area general aviation
airports with longer runways that comply
more fully with current safety standards.
8. How long would it take to complete the
proposed runway extension project, if it were
implemented?
The Marin County Public Works Department,
which staffs and maintains Gnoss Field,
estimates that the proposed project would be
completed in approximately five years.
Completing the environmental studies, namely the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and
concurrent Environmental Impact Report (EIR), is expected
to take 30-36 months. The Marin County Board of
Supervisors would subsequently make a decision
about the proposed project based, in part, on
the analyses presented in a certified EIR.
Assuming that the Marin County Board of
Supervisors approves the proposed project and
the FAA, based on the results of the EIS, does
also, construction would likely begin in late
2011 or early 2012 with completion by the close
of 2013 --- some five years from now (2008).
9. Who is funding the preparation of the
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental
Impact Report?
The FAA is funding 90% of the total cost of
preparing the Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Report with the
County of Marin funding the remaining 10%.
10. Would the proposed runway extension, if
completed, enable larger private aircraft to
land at Gnoss Field? Could this eventually pave
the way for future commercial jet service to and
from the Airport?
As noted in Question #1 above, Gnoss Field is
classified by the FAA as a "general aviation"
airport, which means it is restricted to serving
only unscheduled personal and business aircraft
that typically range from single-engine private
planes to corporate jets. The proposed
runway extension would not enable the Airport to
change its classification or serve private
aircraft that are any larger than those now
accommodated. The proposed runway
extension is not part of a planned first step
toward transforming Gnoss Field into a full
service, commercial airport with scheduled
service to other cities.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
11. What is CEQA and what is its purpose?
CEQA stands for California Environmental
Quality Act. This state law was enacted in 1970
to:
- Inform government decision-makers and the
public about the potential, significant
environmental effects of actions proposed by
private or public entities before a decision is
reached regarding its approval or denial
- Identify the ways that significant adverse
environmental effects can be avoided or
significantly reduced through the use of
alternatives or mitigation measures
- Encourage early and effective coordination
among agencies in reviewing proposed projects to
ensure that they are compatible with their
respective missions and plans
- Ensure meaningful public participation in
the environmental study and project
decision-making process
12. Why does CEQA apply to the proposed
runway extension project?
CEQA only applies to projects that require
discretionary approval by a government agency. A
discretionary approval is one that requires the
use of judgment on the part of a decision-maker
or decision-making body. For this project, the
Marin County Board of Supervisors has a choice
to either approve or deny the proposed runway
extension or an alternative to it. The reason
the County has responsibility for this decision
is that it has jurisdiction over land use in the
unincorporated areas of Marin County that
include Gnoss Field and is also responsible for
the operation and management of Gnoss Field.
CEQA does not apply to ministerial
(non-discretionary) projects. A project
requiring only ministerial approval simply
involves a comparison of a project with specific
set of standards and checking for compliance.
The proposed Gnoss Field runway extension does
not fit this circumstance.
13. What is NEPA and how does it apply to the
proposed runway extension project?
NEPA is the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). It is a federal law that requires
federal agencies to take their own steps to
assess potential environmental impacts and, when
possible, eliminate or lessen the potentially
adverse impacts generated by proposed
actions/projects over which they have some
jurisdiction. In this case, the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible for
the safety and efficiency of aviation in the
United States. Accordingly, it has
jurisdiction over that aspect of operations at
Gnoss Field and, as a result, over the runway
extension proposed there. Sometimes, federal,
state and local agencies join together to
prepare CEQA and NEPA documents. That has
occurred on this project, as Marin County and
the FAA have agreed to prepare a joint EIS and EIR.
This approach generally saves time and money
and, at a minimum, ensures that the principal
agencies are aware of each other's actions,
analyses and concerns.
14. Who is preparing the EIS and EIR and what
experience do they have?
The FAA is responsible for the preparation of
the EIS and the County of Marin is responsible
for the preparation of the concurrent EIR. The prime
contractor for the EIS and EIR is Landrum & Brown
(L&B), the oldest private aviation-consulting
firm in the U.S. L&B has offices in Los
Angeles, Chicago and Cincinnati, among other
cities. The firm's focus is on airport and
environmental planning. They are joined by
a team of Bay Area and northern California
sub-consultants, each specializing in
functional areas vital to the preparation of a
sound EIS and EIR: Foothill Associates
(overall EIS and EIR management & wetlands
mitigation); Civil Engineering Solutions
(hydrology & flood plain analyses); Kleinfelder,
Inc (biological & geo-technical studies);
Tremaine & Associates, Inc (archeological &
cultural resources); and Urban Alternatives
(public information & participation).
15. Will the environmental consultants
recommend a particular project or alternative in
the EIS and EIR?
No. The EIS and EIR are each an impartial, fact-based
evaluation of the potential impacts on the
environment of the proposed project and its
alternatives. As such, its role is
descriptive, not prescriptive. It is intended to
serve as an unbiased disclosure document to be
used by decision makers in reaching an informed
conclusion about which, if any, project or
alternative they should approve.
However, in accordance with CEQA, the EIR
will identify an "environmentally superior
alternative" (ESA). Similarly, NEPA
requires the identification of an
"environmentally preferable alternative" (EPA)
in the EIS. In either case, the ESA and the EPA
represent the alternative, based on the
environmental information available in the
EIS and EIR, that would have the fewest significant
adverse effects on the environment. Bear
in mind that designating an alternative as the
"ESA" or "EPA" does not constitute a
recommendation about which alternative should be
chosen. It is a statement of fact and does not
obligate decision-makers to select the ESA or
EPA as the final solution.
16. Will potential economic impacts be
analyzed the EIS and EIR?
The scope of an EIS and EIR is confined to the
evaluation of potential environmental
effects. In accordance with CEQA and NEPA,
economic impacts are not considered
"environmental" and are, therefore, not
typically addressed in an EIS and EIR. This limitation would not
preclude Marin County or the FAA from preparing
a separate economic impact analysis if the
situation warranted it. However, that
report would not be part of the EIS and EIR.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
17. How can interested citizens,
organizations and public agencies participate in
the environmental study process?
The heart of NEPA and of CEQA is public
disclosure. Early and thorough public
participation is especially encouraged as a way
to avoid unnecessary controversies later on that
could seriously delay the study process and
project decision.
Essentially, there are two ways for the public
to get its views and concerns considered and
incorporated, if applicable, into the
environmental study process. The first
method is via in-person oral comments. During
the preparation of the EIS and EIR, there will be at
least two opportunities for interested members
of the public and public agencies to present
in-person oral comments to Marin County, the FAA
and the consultant team. These are:
-
Public Scoping
Meeting which was held on Thursday,
August 14, 2008 from 6:30 PM – 8:30 PM at
the Marin Humane Society Auditorium, 171 Bel
Marin Keys Blvd., Novato, CA. The public was
invited to this meeting to present oral
comments to help shape the scope of the EIS
and EIR regarding the issues and
alternatives to be studied.
- Public
Hearing on the Draft EIS and Draft EIR at
which oral comments will be received from
the public regarding the adequacy of the
environmental analyses in the Draft EIS and
Draft EIR. It is anticipated that this
public hearing would take place in
mid-to-late 2010, after the Draft EIS and
Draft EIR are prepared and are being circulated.
The second avenue for public involvement is
through the submission of written comments by
public agencies and members of the public to the
County of Marin and the FAA. The opportunities
for submitting written comments will parallel
those for presenting oral comments that were
explained above:
-
Scoping Comment
Period opened on July 11, 2008.
Written comments were to be sent to the
address below anytime between July 11 and
before August 29, 2008. Comments were to be
postmarked by August 29, 2008. These
written comments were sent to:
Barry Franklin
Federal Aviation Administration
San Francisco Airports District Office
831 Mitten Road, Rm. 210
Burlingame, CA 94010
Response
to Scoping Comments
All
comments received at the Agency and Public
Scoping Meetings and during the official
comment period are currently being reviewed
and considered by the FAA and the County of
Marin. The FAA and County will prepare
responses to comments, either individually
or collectively, and include them in the
Draft EIS and Draft EIR. Responses to
comments will be made by at least one of the
means listed below:
-
Modification of
alternatives studied in the EIS and EIR,
including the proposed action/proposed
project.
-
Development and evaluation of
reasonable alternatives meeting the purpose
and need for the project not previously
identified or given adequate consideration.
-
Explanation of why a comment does not
warrant further consideration and subsequent
incorporation in the EIS and EIR scope of
work, citing the sources, authorities, or
reasons which support that decision.
- Review
and Comment Period on the Draft EIS and Draft EIR is a
45-60 day period (depending on the complexity of
the proposed project) in which the public can
submit its written comments to Marin County, the
FAA and the consultant team regarding the
adequacy of the Draft EIS and Draft EIR.
Marin County and the FAA will respond in
writing regarding the status of all the public
comments received, both oral and written, with
specific focus on what impact, if any, the
comments had in shaping the content and analyses in the Final EIS and
Final EIR.
To make sure that you are notified about
these opportunities for public input and receive
or have access to all relevant reports, fact
sheets and project documents, go to the "Home"
page or "Public Participation" page of this
website and click on sign up for mailing list.
|
print
view