Draft Environmental Assessment - Bolingbrook`s Clow International

US Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
Great Lakes Region
Chicago Airports District Office
Draft Environmental Assessment
BOLINGBROOK’S CLOW INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
BOLINGBROOK, ILLINOIS
The Village of Bolingbrook, Illinois proposes the following improvements to Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport:
Reimbursement for the acquisition of the privately-owned airport formerly known as Clow International. This action includes the
previous acquisition by Village of approximately 80 acres and associated airfield improvements. Acquire approximately 1.2 acres
of land in fee simple title and approximately 48 acres of easements. Install perimeter fencing to preserve security. Remove
Airport design deviations and FAR Part 77 obstructions - remove buildings, trees, utility lines, pavements, grading and filling.
Construct new, replacement Runway 18-36, 3,360 feet long by 100 feet wide. The new runway will be located parallel to and
approximately 75 feet west of the existing runway. This action includes grading, drainage and filling in pavement side slopes to
provide safety areas. Construct two (2) 80 by 100 foot blast pads on each runway end. Install Precision Approach Path Indicator
(PAPI-4) Lights to serve pilots on approach to both runway thresholds. Install Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL) that serves
pilots on approach to both runway ends. Install Supplemental Wind Cones on each runway end. Construct new parallel Taxiway
to Runway 18-36 to current FAA design standards. Install Medium Intensity Taxiway Lights (MITL) and Guidance Signs.
Construct additional aircraft hangar and parking apron facilities. Construct additional auto parking facilities. Install Airport
Rotating Beacon. Install Automated Weather Observing Station (AWOS-II). Identify mitigation for any potential wetlands,
floodplain, wildlife or cultural resource impacts, if applicable. Deactivate and remove the existing Runway 18-36 and associated
parallel taxiway. Reduce wildlife attractants through modification to existing storm water retention facilities located adjacent to
the Airport.
This Environmental Assessment (EA) and Section 4(f) Evaluation is submitted for review in accordance with the following public
law requirements: Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (PL 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); the
Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (Recodified as 49 U.S.C. § 40101 et seq.); the Airport Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (Recodified
as 49 U.S.C. Section 47101 et seq., PL 97-238, as amended by the Airport and Airway and Capacity Expansion Act of 1987);
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recodified at Section 303c, as amended; Sections 401 and 404 of
the Clean Water Act of 1972, (P.L. 107-303); Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended; Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act of 1934, as amended; Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended; Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended;
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, Executive Order 11998, Floodplain Management; Title V of Public Law
97-248, and other laws as applicable. Additionally, the format and subject matter included in this report conform to the
requirements and standards of the FAA as set forth in FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures”
and FAA Order 5050.4B, “National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Projects.”
The Federal Aviation Administration’s proposed actions include: unconditional approval of the revised ALP, final airspace
determination for the proposed development, final determination of potential obstructions to navigable airspace per an
aeronautical study, and final certification that proposed aeronautical development is reasonably necessary for use in air
commerce or for national defense.
This environmental assessment becomes a Federal document when evaluated and signed by the responsible FAA official.
Responsible FAA Official
Date
Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter – Topic .......................................................................................................................................... Page Number Title Page ......................................................................................................................................... Title Page Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................ i‐v Appendices ................................................................................................................................................v‐vii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ vii I – PURPOSE AND NEED I.1 I.2 I.3 I.4 I.5 I.6 I.7 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Setting ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 2 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................................... 3 Aircraft Activity.................................................................................................................................... 3 Sponsor’s Proposed Action ................................................................................................................. 5 Requested Federal, State, and Local Actions ...................................................................................... 6 I.7.1 Federal Actions ....................................................................................................................... 7 I.7.2 State Actions .......................................................................................................................... 7 I.7.3 Regional and Local Actions ..................................................................................................... 7 II – ALTERNATIVES II.1 General Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 9 II.2 Alternatives under Consideration ....................................................................................................... 9 II.2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 9 II.2.2 Alternatives Identified ............................................................................................................ 9 II.2.2.1 No Action Alternative .............................................................................................. 9 II.2.2.2 Alternative 1: Shift Runway 18‐36 Centerline 75' West & Widen to 100' ............ 10 II.2.2.3 Alternative 2: Widen Runway 18‐36 to 100' ......................................................... 10 II.2.2.4 Alternative 3: Construct New Runway 05‐23, 3,360’ long by 100' wide ............... 10 II.2.2.5 Alternative 4: Construct New Runway 11‐29, 3,360’ long by 100' wide ............... 10 II.2.2.6 Alternative 5: Construct a New Airport ................................................................. 11 II.2.2.7 Alternative 6: Use of Alternative Airports ............................................................. 11 II.2.2.8 Alternative 7: Use of Alternative Modes of Transportation .................................. 11 II.2.2.9 Alternative 8: Use of Advanced Technologies ....................................................... 11 II.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration ....................................................................... 11 II.3.1 Alternative 2: Widen Runway 18‐36 to 100' ........................................................................ 11 II.3.2 Alternative 3: Construct a New Runway 05‐23, 3,360’ long by 100' wide ........................... 12 II.3.3 Alternative 4: Construct a New Runway 11‐29, 3,360’ long by 100' wide ........................... 12 II.3.4 Alternative 5: Construct a New Airport ............................................................................... 12 II.3.5 Alternative 6: Use of Alternative Airports ............................................................................ 13 II.3.6 Alternative 7: Use of Alternative Modes of Transportation ................................................ 13 II.3.7 Alternative 8: Use of Advanced Technologies ..................................................................... 13 II.4 Alternatives Considered for Further Examination ............................................................................ 13 II.4.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................................... 13 Table of Contents Page i Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA II.4.2 June 08, 2011 Alternative 1: Shift Runway 18‐36 Centerline 75' West & Widen To 100' ........................... 13 III – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III.1 III.2 III.3 III.4 III.5 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 14 Airport and Project Location ............................................................................................................. 14 Land Use and Zoning ......................................................................................................................... 14 Demographic and Socioeconomic Overview .................................................................................... 15 Inventory of Natural Environment .................................................................................................... 15 III.5.1 Ecological Communities ....................................................................................................... 15 III.5.2 Water Resources .................................................................................................................. 16 III.5.3 Climate Change/Greenhouse Gases..................................................................................... 17 IV – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV.1 Noise.................................................................................................................................................. 17 IV.1.1 General Discussion ............................................................................................................. 17 IV.1.2 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................. 20 IV.1.3 2014 Without Action .......................................................................................................... 20 IV.1.4 2014 With Action (Sponsor’s Proposed Action) ................................................................. 20 IV.1.5 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 21 IV.1.6 Mitigation ........................................................................................................................... 21 IV.2 Land Use Impacts .............................................................................................................................. 21 IV.2.1 General Discussion ............................................................................................................. 21 IV.2.2 No Action Alternative ......................................................................................................... 22 IV.2.3 Sponsor’s Proposed Action ................................................................................................. 22 IV.2.4 Mitigation ........................................................................................................................... 22 IV.3 Social Impacts .................................................................................................................................... 23 IV.3.1 General Discussion ............................................................................................................. 23 IV.3.2 No Action Alternative ......................................................................................................... 23 IV.3.3 Sponsor’s Proposed Action ................................................................................................. 23 IV.3.4 Mitigation ........................................................................................................................... 24 IV.4 Induced Socioeconomic Impacts ....................................................................................................... 24 IV.4.1 General Discussion ............................................................................................................. 24 IV.4.2 No Action Alternative ......................................................................................................... 24 IV.4.3 Sponsor’s Proposed Action ................................................................................................. 24 IV.4.4 Mitigation ........................................................................................................................... 25 IV.5 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................................... 25 IV.5.1 General Discussion ............................................................................................................. 25 IV.5.2 No Action Alternative ......................................................................................................... 26 IV.5.3 Sponsor’s Proposed Action ................................................................................................. 26 IV.5.4 Mitigation ........................................................................................................................... 28 IV.6 Water Quality .................................................................................................................................... 28 IV.6.1 General Discussion ............................................................................................................. 28 IV.6.2 No Action Alternative ......................................................................................................... 29 IV.6.3 Sponsor’s Proposed Action ................................................................................................. 29 Table of Contents Page ii Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 IV.6.4 Mitigation ........................................................................................................................... 31 IV.7 Department of Transportation Act, Section 4(f) [Recodified 49 USC Section 303(c)] ...................... 31 IV.7.1 General Discussion ............................................................................................................. 31 IV.7.2 No Action Alternative ......................................................................................................... 31 IV.7.3 Sponsor’s Proposed Action ................................................................................................. 32 IV.7.4 Mitigation ........................................................................................................................... 32 IV.8 Archaeological, Architectural, Historic and Cultural Resources ........................................................ 32 IV.8.1 General Discussion ............................................................................................................. 32 IV.8.2 No Action Alternative ......................................................................................................... 33 IV.8.3 Sponsor’s Proposed Action ................................................................................................. 33 IV.8.4 Mitigation ........................................................................................................................... 33 IV.9 Biotic Communities ........................................................................................................................... 33 IV.9.1 General Discussion ............................................................................................................. 33 IV.9.2 No Action Alternative ......................................................................................................... 33 IV.9.3 Sponsor’s Proposed Action ................................................................................................. 33 IV.9.4 Mitigation ........................................................................................................................... 34 IV.10 Endangered and Threatened Species of Flora and Fauna ................................................................. 34 IV.10.1 General Discussion ............................................................................................................. 34 IV.10.2 No Action Alternative ......................................................................................................... 34 IV.10.3 Sponsor’s Proposed Action ................................................................................................. 34 IV.10.4 Mitigation ........................................................................................................................... 35 IV.11 Wetlands and Waters of the United States ...................................................................................... 35 IV.11.1 General Discussion ............................................................................................................. 35 IV.11.2 No Action Alternative ......................................................................................................... 36 IV.11.3 Sponsor’s Proposed Action ................................................................................................. 36 IV.11.4 Mitigation ........................................................................................................................... 36 IV.12 Floodplains ........................................................................................................................................ 36 IV.12.1 General Discussion ............................................................................................................. 36 IV.12.2 No Action Alternative ......................................................................................................... 37 IV.12.3 Sponsor’s Proposed Action ................................................................................................. 37 IV.12.4 Mitigation ........................................................................................................................... 37 IV.13 Energy Supply and Natural Resource Development ......................................................................... 37 IV.13.1 General Discussion ............................................................................................................. 37 IV.13.2 No Action Alternative ......................................................................................................... 38 IV.13.3 Sponsor’s Proposed Action ................................................................................................. 38 IV.13.4 Mitigation ........................................................................................................................... 39 IV.14 Light Emissions .................................................................................................................................. 39 IV.14.1 General Discussion ............................................................................................................. 39 IV.14.2 No Action Alternative ......................................................................................................... 39 IV.14.3 Sponsor’s Proposed Action ................................................................................................. 39 IV.14.4 Mitigation ........................................................................................................................... 40 IV.15 Construction Impacts ........................................................................................................................ 41 IV.15.1 General Discussion ............................................................................................................. 41 IV.15.2 Noise ................................................................................................................................... 41 IV.15.3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................... 41 IV.15.4 Water Quality ..................................................................................................................... 42 Table of Contents Page iii Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 IV.15.5 No Action Alternative ......................................................................................................... 42 IV.15.6 Sponsor’s Proposed Action ................................................................................................. 42 IV.15.7 Mitigation ........................................................................................................................... 42 IV.16 Solid Waste ........................................................................................................................................ 42 IV.16.1 General Discussion ............................................................................................................. 42 IV.16.2 No Action Alternative ......................................................................................................... 44 IV.16.3 Sponsor’s Proposed Action ................................................................................................. 44 IV.16.4 Mitigation ........................................................................................................................... 44 IV.17 Hazardous Waste .............................................................................................................................. 44 IV.17.1 General Discussion ............................................................................................................. 44 IV.17.2 No Action Alternative ......................................................................................................... 44 IV.17.3 Sponsor’s Proposed Action ................................................................................................. 44 IV.17.4 Mitigation ........................................................................................................................... 45 IV.18 Environmental Justice and Children’s Environmental Health Risks .................................................. 45 IV.18.1 General Discussion ............................................................................................................. 45 IV.18.2 No Action Alternative ......................................................................................................... 45 IV.18.3 Sponsor’s Proposed Action ................................................................................................. 45 IV.18.4 Mitigation ........................................................................................................................... 45 IV.19 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................................................... 46 IV.19.1 General Discussion ............................................................................................................. 46 IV.19.2 Past Airport Projects ........................................................................................................... 47 IV.19.3 Current and Present Airport Projects ................................................................................. 47 IV.19.4 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Airport Actions ................................................................ 47 IV.19.5 Off‐Airport Projects ............................................................................................................ 48 IV.19.6 Summary and Conclusion ................................................................................................... 48 V – CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION V.1 V.2 V.3 V.4 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 49 Agency Coordination ......................................................................................................................... 49 Public Coordination ........................................................................................................................... 51 Permits and Commitments ............................................................................................................... 51 VI – LIST OF PREPARERS VI.1 List of Preparers ................................................................................................................................ 53 VII – REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 54 Appendices Appendix A – Exhibits Exhibit I‐1 Sponsor’s Proposed Action .............................................................................................. A‐1 Exhibit I‐2 Existing Airport ................................................................................................................. A‐2 Exhibit I‐3 26 October 2006 MOS Letter ........................................................................................... A‐3 Exhibit II‐1 No Action Alternative ...................................................................................................... A‐4 Table of Contents Page iv Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA Exhibit II‐2 Exhibit II‐3 Exhibit II‐4 Exhibit II‐5 Exhibit II‐6 Exhibit III‐1 Exhibit III‐2 Exhibit III‐3 Exhibit III‐4 Exhibit IV‐1 Exhibit IV‐2 Exhibit IV‐3 Exhibit IV‐4 Exhibit IV‐5 Exhibit IV‐6 Exhibit IV‐7 Exhibit IV‐8 Exhibit IV‐9 Exhibit IV‐10 Exhibit IV‐11 Exhibit IV‐12 Exhibit IV‐13 Exhibit IV‐14 Exhibit IV‐15 Exhibit IV‐16 Exhibit IV‐17 Exhibit IV‐18 June 08, 2011 Alternative 1 ‐ Shift Runway 18‐36 Centerline 75' west & Widen to 100' ....................... A‐5 Alternative 2 ‐ Widen Runway 18‐36 to 100' ................................................................... A‐6 Alternative 3 ‐ Construct a new Runway 05‐23, 3,360' long by 100' wide ...................... A‐7 Alternative 4 ‐ Construct a new Runway 11‐29, 3,360' long by 100' wide ...................... A‐8 Alternative Airports Location Map .................................................................................. A‐9 Project Location Map ..................................................................................................... A‐10 Village of Bolingbrook Zoning Map ................................................................................ A‐11 City of Naperville Existing Land Use Map ...................................................................... A‐12 Chicago Area Transportation Study Coordination ......................................................... A‐13 Aircraft Flight Tracks Existing Activity and 2014 Without Action .................................. A‐23 Aircraft Flight Tracks 2014 with Action .......................................................................... A‐24 Existing Conditions Noise Contours ............................................................................... A‐25 2014 Without Action Noise Contours ............................................................................ A‐26 2014 With Action (Sponsor’s Proposed Action) Noise Contours ................................... A‐27 DNL Grid and Location Point Analysis ............................................................................ A‐28 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Coordination ................................................ A‐29 Illinois Department of Natural Resources ‐ Federal Aid Coordination .......................... A‐30 Section 4(f) Lands ........................................................................................................... A‐31 Illinois Historic Preservation Agency Coordination ....................................................... A‐32 National Heritage Database Review .............................................................................. A‐33 U.S. Department of Interior ‐ Fish & Wildlife Coordination .......................................... A‐35 Proposed Action with NWI Data .................................................................................... A‐38 Section 404 Coordination .............................................................................................. A‐39 Flood Insurance Rate Map ............................................................................................. A‐41 Soil Survey Map with Proposed Action .......................................................................... A‐42 Illinois Department of Agriculture Coordination ........................................................... A‐43 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Coordination .................................................... A‐44 Appendix B ‐ Applicable Regulatory Statues B.1.1 The Airport and Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1987 (P.L. 100‐223) ................. B‐1 B.1.2 Federal Aviation Act of 1958, (P. L. 85‐726) now Recodified as Subtitle VII, Title 40 U.S. Code ‐ “Aviation Programs,” (§40101 et seq.) ...................................................................................... B‐1 B.1.3 The National Environmental Policy Action of 1969 ................................................................... B‐1 B.1.4 Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Section 4(f) [Recodified 49 USC Section 303(c)] .. B‐1 B.1.5 The Farmland Protection Act of 1981, 7 U.S.C. §4201, et seq. ................................................. B‐2 B.1.6 Illinois Interagency Wetland Policy Act of 1989, (20 ILCS 830/), et seq. ................................... B‐2 B.1.7 Farmland Preservation Act of 1982, 505 ILCS 75/1, et seq. ...................................................... B‐2 B.1.8 Endangered Species Protection Act of 1972, 520 ILCS 10/1, et seq. ......................................... B‐2 B.1.9 Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA), 33 U.S.C. §1251, et seq. ........................................................ B‐2 B.1.10 The Clean Air Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. §4701, et seq. .................................................................. B‐3 B.1.11 The Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. §1531, et seq. ................................................ B‐3 B.1.12 The Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990, (P.L. 101‐508) ..................................................... B‐3 B.1.13 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. §1451, et seq. ............................................ B‐4 B.1.14 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. §470 et seq. .......................................... B‐4 B.1.15 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, 16 U.S.C. §1271, et seq. ................................................... B‐4 B.1.16 Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, 16 U.S.C. §4600‐5, et seq. ........................... B‐4 Table of Contents Page v Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA B.1.17 B.1.18 B.1.19 June 08, 2011 Coastal Barrier Resources Act, 16 U.S.C. §3501 et seq. ............................................................ B‐5 National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. §4001 et seq. ................................................ B‐5 Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. §4002 et seq. ................................................ B‐5 Appendix C – Federal and State Endangered Species C.1 Federal Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species ................................................................. C‐1 C.1.1 Threatened Species ................................................................................................................... C‐1 C.1.2 Endangered Species ................................................................................................................... C‐1 C.1.3 Candidate Species ...................................................................................................................... C‐1 C.2 State Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................................................ C‐1 C.2.1 Threatened Species ................................................................................................................... C‐1 C.2.2 Endangered Species ................................................................................................................... C‐2 Appendix D – Recommended Runway Width Memo ............................................................................... D‐1 List of Tables Table I‐1 Based Aircraft by Type ................................................................................................................ 4 Table I‐2 Annual Operations by Aircraft Type ............................................................................................ 5 Table I‐3 Federal Aviation Administration Terminal Area Forecasts ......................................................... 5 Table III‐1 Population Growth Trends and Projections .............................................................................. 15 Table IV‐1 Runway Data ............................................................................................................................. 18 Table IV‐2 Runway End Use ........................................................................................................................ 19 Table IV‐3 Day‐Night Operational Percentage ........................................................................................... 19 Table IV‐4 Annual Operations by INM Aircraft .......................................................................................... 20 Table IV‐5 Integrated Noise Model Contour Area Analysis ....................................................................... 21 Table IV‐6 Aircraft Emissions Inventory ..................................................................................................... 27 Table IV‐7 “de minimis” Thresholds ........................................................................................................... 28 Table of Contents Page vi Purpose and Need Chapter One Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 I.1 – Introduction Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport (Airport), located in Will County, Illinois, is owned and operated by the Village of Bolingbrook (Village). The Village proposes herein to provide a series of operational and safety improvements to the Airport to accommodate existing and projected aeronautical demand. Some of the development items studied in this environmental document include: reimbursement for the acquisition of the original private airport; removal of impediments regarding runway safety areas, runway object free areas, runway obstacle free zones and runway protection zones; acquisition of avigation easements (air rights) to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)‐prescribed levels; and removal of FAA identified obstructions to 14 CFR Part 77. This report also studies the environmental implications of relocating and widening a north‐south, Runway 18‐36 to improve crosswind landing and take‐off capabilities. The Sponsor’s Proposed Action also includes other ancillary airfield improvements to enhance the Airport’s operational efficiency. The Village plans to apply for Federal financial assistance under the Airport Improvement Program, as authorized by the public law requirements of the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 (P.L.104‐
264) in order to construct those portions of the proposed Airport improvements, which are eligible for Federal funding. To be eligible to receive Federal funds, the Sponsor must prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA). This EA is being prepared in accordance with FAA Orders 1050.1E; Environmental Impact: Policies and Procedures, and 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions. These orders implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), specifically Sections 1505.1 and 1507.3, as set forth by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). This EA includes the following reviews and determinations:  Identify of the need for the project and reasonable alternatives including the proposed improvements set forth by the Airport.  Review all applicable resources to determine whether or not the proposed airport improvements create environmental impacts.  Provide the basis for the FAA’s and Illinois Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics’ (IDOT) Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).  Identify and satisfy special purpose Federal laws, regulations, and executive orders.  Identify and satisfy State and Local laws and regulations applicable to the proposed improvements.  Identify any permits, licenses, or other entitlements required for the proposed improvements.  Coordinate with all applicable agencies for the proposed improvements.  Inform the general public and disclose all known environmental impacts. This EA has been prepared to define the purpose of and the need for the proposed airfield improvements; evaluate reasonable alternatives; identify potential environmental consequences associated with the proposed development; and propose methods to mitigate for potential environmental impacts. I.2 – Setting The Village of Bolingbrook is located in the northern portion of Will County, Illinois and is a part of the Chicago metropolitan area. The Village is surrounded by the communities of Naperville, Romeoville, Woodridge, DuPage Township and Wheaton Township. See Exhibit I‐1 ‐ Area Location Map. The Airport is located in the northwest section of the Village at the corner of Naperville and Boughton Chapter One – Purpose and Need Page 1 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 Roads. The airfield encompasses approximately 76 acres bordered to the east by commercial businesses (Home Depot, Meijer), to the north by Boughton Road and to the west and south by residential homes. I.3 ‐ Background In the late 1950’s Clow Airport opened and was named after its builder, Boyd Clow. The original grass strip was eventually replaced in the 1970’s with an almost 3,400 foot long by 50 foot wide asphalt runway. In 1973, the airport was renamed Clow International Airport. Throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s the airport grew and received numerous awards. However, in 1998 a developer purchased the airport and planned to close the facility. In 2004, after discussions with the developer, the Village acquired the airport and renamed it Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport. Today, the Airport provides general aviation access to the Village, Will County, and portions of Cook and DuPage Counties. The 110 based aircraft (5010Web.com, July 2007) and the numerous visiting aircraft generate an estimated 50,000 annual aircraft operations1. The Airport is home to A&M Aviation (Fixed Base Operator ‐ FBO), Charlie’s Restaurant and the Illinois Aviation Museum. Patrons of the FBO can take flying lessons, charter and rent aircraft, and have maintenance performed on their aircraft. The Illinois Aviation Museum is a 501(c)3 Non Profit Corporation and is manned wholly by volunteers. The museum conducts airplane restoration and aviation‐related artifacts seminars, workshops, special events and ground schools. The airport is also host to the Village’s Annual Cavalcade of Planes held ever summer. This airport open house event invites the public to the airport to view and ride in aircraft and helicopters, witness parachute jumps and spend time at the museum inspecting historical aircraft. The existing Airport facilities include a single paved north‐south Runway 18‐36 that is 3,362 feet long and 50 feet wide. See Exhibit I‐2 ‐ Existing Airport. The east side of the runway is served by a non‐
standard (according to Federal criteria) parallel taxiway. A transient aircraft parking apron is located east of the parallel taxiway adjacent to the general aviation terminal building. The aircraft parking apron is approximately 1,100 feet long by 130 feet wide and has tie‐down locations for approximately 56 paved and 25 grass tie downs. The eastside aircraft hangar facilities are composed of 13 separate hangar buildings. Additional aircraft storage is also located adjacent to the west and southwest boundaries of the airport. As a part of planning the future direction for the Airport, the Village of Bolingbrook prepared an Airport Layout Plan (ALP) in 2005. This planning document reviewed existing airport facilities, compared those facilities with FAA Airport Design Criteria and created a course of action to resolve any inconsistencies. The ALP was submitted to the FAA for review and as a part of the approval process several Modification to Standards (MOS) were issued by the agency for action by the Village. See Exhibit I‐3 – 25 October 2006 MOS Letter. In summary, the MOS are:  The runway centerline to taxiway centerline’s required separation is 150 feet. Currently only 120 feet of separation is present.  The required taxiway width for the designated Critical Aircraft is 25 feet. Currently only 16 feet is present.  The required Runway Obstacle Free Zone (ROFZ) is 250 feet. The existing ROFZ is currently 118 feet.  The minimum required runway width is 60 feet. The existing runway is 50 feet wide. 1
FAA Terminal Area Forecast (TAF), 2010. Chapter One – Purpose and Need Page 2 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011  The required taxiway hold line distance from the runway centerline is 125 feet. The current hold lines vary and are as close as 79 feet, in certain locations, from the runway centerline. I.4 – Purpose and Need The Airport is the closest publicly‐owned airfield to communities adjacent to Bolingbrook in Will and Cook Counties and it provides general aviation access to the national airport system. The airfield was originally developed by a private owner to State of Illinois design standards. In 2004, the Village acquired the airfield and became directly responsible for the operation and development of the Airport. Since the facility was acquired, the based aircraft population has continued to grow to its present 110 based aircraft. As noted previously, the Airport has been subject to the issuance of MOS by the FAA. In addition, the Village has developed a program for implementing other FAA prescribed criteria such as: runway and taxiway safety area development; control through fee or easement of runway protection zones and airport imaginary surfaces (FAR Part 77); development of compliant runway and taxiway object free areas; clearing impediments to runway obstacle free zones; and other appropriate airport design criteria. The Purpose of this project is to provide safe, efficient and usable facilities at the Airport while at the same time maintain existing aeronautical capacity. The Purpose of this project is also to accommodate projected aeronautical demand and to limit to the extent practicable environmental impacts. The Need of this project is to comply with FAA safety guidelines and regulations and to correct existing airfield MOS. I.5 – Aircraft Activity As a part of this EA, a review was conducted of existing aviation activity and future aeronautical projections at the Airport. The current number of based aircraft at Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport was provided by the Village of Bolingbrook. The data was taken from 5010Web.com, July 2009. The existing estimate of annual aircraft operations at the Airport is based on the FAA Terminal Area Forecast, 2010. For purposes of forecasting future aeronautical actions at the Airport, it was determined that the Existing Condition Year would be 2009; the projected future airport operations level without airport improvements will be called the 2014 Without Action; and the projected future operations level with airport improvements will be called the 2014 With Action. To project future based aircraft at the Airport, a review of the 2009‐2025 FAA Aerospace Forecast was conducted. The 2014 based aircraft projections for the Airport were calculated using Table 27 ‐ Active General Aviation and Air Taxi Aircraft and Table 28 ‐ Active General Aviation and Air Taxi Hours Flown from the FAA forecast report. Specifically, from Table 27, 2014 total aircraft were divided by the 2009 total aircraft which resulted in the growth percentage of total aircraft over the 5 year horizon period. This calculated growth rate was then used to determine the 2014 based aircraft, without proposed action, by multiplying the growth rate by the existing number of based aircraft. The 2014 based aircraft with proposed action was created by increasing the growth rate based upon the improvements at the Airport and the Airport’s ability to attract new users due to improvements. Chapter One – Purpose and Need Page 3 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 Aircraft Fleet Percentages were then calculated using the 2014 number for each aircraft (i.e. Turboprop, Rotorcraft, Very Light Jet [VLJ], and Multi‐Engine Piston) and then divided by the total fleet. These results were then adjusted to reflect local airport conditions (i.e. short 3,300 foot runway length) and surrounding economic factors. These factors include consideration of the highly urbanized Bolingbrook area that includes large industrial and commercial operators that are anticipated to use the VLJ. This “adjusted percentage” was then used to create the Proposed Action breakdown of based aircraft at the Airport. To create the forecasted aircraft type, the adjusted percentage was multiplied by the total number of based aircraft to get the breakdown of each aircraft type based at the airport. The single engine piston based aircraft was determined by subtracting the sum of the calculated Rotorcraft, Multi‐
Engine Piston, Light Jet and Turboprop from the total based aircraft. See Table I‐1 ‐ Based Aircraft by Type. Existing aircraft operations were quantified by multiplying the based aircraft in each category by the following operations per based aircraft: 





Single Engine Piston (SEP) – 425 operations per based SEP Multi‐Engine Piston (MEP) – 750 operations per based MEP Turboprop (TP) – 1,000 operations per based TP Very Light Jet (VLJ) – 1,250 operations per VLJ Rotorcraft (Rotary) – 1,000 operations per based Rotary Ultra Lights (UL) – 250 operations per UL Please note that VLJ numbers are based on transient aircraft in the existing and proposed without development scenarios. SEP operations were also adjusted to reflect additional transient operations. Table 1‐1 – Based Aircraft by Type Aircraft Type Single‐Engine Piston Existing Conditions 96 2014 Without Action 98 2014 With Action 99 Multi‐Engine Piston 6 8 10 Turboprop 1 2 3 Very Light Jet 0 0 1 Rotorcraft 2 3 3 Ultra Light 5 5 5 110 116 121 Total Notes: Current data from Village records and 5010Web.com, July 2009. 2014 projections by Hanson from analysis of FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2009‐2025, FAA, Office of Aviation Policy & Plans, February 2009. Proposed operations per based aircraft are based on the ratio of hours flown to the number of aircraft in Tables 27 and 28 for the FAA’s Aerospace Forecast. The resulting ratio was multiplied by the operations per based aircraft to get the adjusted operations per based aircraft for proposed action scenarios. The proposed operations were determined by multiplying the based aircraft in each category by the operations per based aircraft. A small number of operations were adjusted in each category after taking into account airport conditions as mentioned above. Chapter One – Purpose and Need Page 4 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 In summary, aircraft operations are projected to increase at the Airport, with the activity becoming increasingly business in nature. Forecasts of aircraft annual operations are shown in Table I‐2 ‐ Annual Operations by Aircraft Type. Table I‐2 ‐ Annual Operations by Aircraft Type Aircraft Type Single‐Engine Piston Existing Conditions 41,125 2014 Without Action 41,500 2014 With Action 41,000 Multi‐Engine Piston 4,500 5,500 6,000 Turboprop 1,000 1,500 2,000 125 250 500 Rotorcraft 2,000 3,000 3,000 Ultra Light 1,250 1,250 1,250 Total 50,000 53,000 53,750 Light Jet Notes Current data by Hanson from analysis of Village of Bolingbrook activity survey, July 2007. 2014 projections by Hanson from analysis of FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2009‐2025, FAA, Office of Aviation Policy & Plans, February 2008. As a means of validating the forecasts of aeronautical activity, the 2009 FAA Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) was reviewed. In Table I‐3 – FAA Terminal Area Forecasts, based aircraft levels and annual aircraft operations contained in the TAF for the Airport are listed. FAA APP‐1’s Forecast Guidance issued June 6, 2008, states that Airport Sponsor’s forecasts must be within 10% for 5 year and 15% in ten years to be compliant with the TAF. The Airport’s Forecasts of Aeronautical Operations are consistent with that planning guidance. Table I‐3 ‐ FAA Terminal Area Forecasts Notes: Horizon Year Based Aircraft Aircraft Operations 2009 152 50,000 2014 152 50,000 2010 FAA Terminal Area Forecast (TAF), Office of Aviation Policy & Plans. I.6 – Sponsor’s Proposed Action With implementation of the Sponsor’s Proposed Action, the Airport will be in full compliance with all FAA design requirements, and the Modification to Standards listed above will be eliminated. The increased operations, coupled with its added operational and maintenance responsibilities, led the Village to develop a program for implementing FAA‐prescribed runway and taxiway safety areas, runway protection zones, runway and taxiway object free areas, runway obstacle free zones, and related regulations and FAA airport design criteria. This Safety and Improvement Program, described herein as the Sponsor’s Proposed Action. The Sponsor’s Proposed Action is not intended to accommodate larger or faster aircraft, as these aircraft would require a longer runway length, but rather to furnish the existing aircraft now using or capable of using the Airport with the safety and operational attributes required under FAA airport design criteria. The Sponsor’s Proposed Action is planned to provide runway and taxiway facilities that incorporate the safety and operational features recommended by the FAA. The changes include the relocation of the Chapter One – Purpose and Need Page 5 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 existing runway, taxiway, aprons, and related features that obstruct the Airport’s safety zones and protection areas. Therefore, much of the development is the relocation of these facilities. The runway length will not appreciably change (from 3,362 feet to 3,360 feet); however, provision of wider runway pavement (from 50’ to 100’) and the obstruction‐free safe zones, are expected to result in increased activity at the Airport. Justification for the proposed runway widening is contained in Appendix D. Furthermore, the plan allows for the accommodation of increased Airport activity that is occurring in the area whether or not the Sponsor’s Proposed Action is implemented. To address existing and future aeronautical needs, the Village is proposing several airfield development items for the Airport. This Sponsor’s Proposed Action, detailed as follows, and is also depicted in Exhibit 1 in Appendix A:  Reimbursement for the acquisition of the privately‐owned airport formerly known as Clow International. This includes the acquisition of approximately 80 acres and associated airfield improvements.  Acquire approximately 1.2 acres of land in fee simple title and approximately 48 acres of easements.  Install perimeter fencing to preserve security.  Remove Airport design deviations and FAR Part 77 obstructions ‐ remove buildings, trees, utility lines, pavements, grading and filling.  Construct new, replacement Runway 18‐36, 3,360 feet long by 100 feet wide. The new runway will be located parallel to and approximately 75 feet west of existing runway. This action includes grading, drainage and filling in pavement side slopes to provide safety areas.  Install Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI‐4) Lights to serve pilots on approach to both runway thresholds.  Install Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL) that serves pilots on approach to both runway ends.  Install Supplemental Wind Cones on each runway End.  Construct new full length parallel taxiway, 35 feet in width, to Runway 18‐36.  Install Medium Intensity Taxiway Lights (MITL) and Guidance Signs.  Construct additional aircraft hangar (21 T‐hangars, 15 corporate hangars) and parking apron facilities (Approximately 28,500 sq yd of new or replaced apron).  Construct additional auto parking facilities (Approximately 36 new parking spaces (1,900 sq yds) added to existing parking facilities).  Construct two (2) 80 by 100 foot blast pads on each runway end.  Install Airport Rotating Beacon.  Install Automated Weather Observing Station (AWOS‐II).  Implement mitigation for any potential resource impacts, if applicable.  Deactivate and remove the existing Runway 18‐36 and associated parallel taxiway.  Modification to existing storm water retention facilities located adjacent to the Airport to reduce wildlife attractants. I.7 – Requested Federal, State, and Local Actions Several actions of Federal, State, and Local government bodies are required to obtain environmental approval and/or coordination of the proposed project. Outlined below is a list of agencies and actions necessary to develop the Sponsor’s Proposed Action. Chapter One – Purpose and Need Page 6 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 I.7.1 – Federal Actions The Sponsor’s Proposed Action will require compliance by the following agencies with the indicated Federal statutory or regulatory requirements: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration  FAA acceptance of the forecast analyses, contained in this document, and federal approval of the Airport Layout Plan (49 U.S.C. 47107 (a)(16);  FAA environmental approval to allow use of Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funds for AIP eligible projects;  Final airspace determination (14 CFR Part 157) (49 U.S.C. 40103(b) and 40113);  Final determination of potential obstructions to navigable airspace per an aeronautical study outlined under 14 CFR Part 77 (49 U.S.C. 40103(b) and 40113);  Final certification that proposed aeronautical development is reasonably necessary for use in air commerce or for national defense (49 U.S.C. 44502(b) and 14 CFR Part 169);  Final environmental approval for Federal construction of navigational aids;  Final environmental approval to develop new approach procedures contained in this document, per 49 U.S.C. 40103(b) and 14 CFR Part 91;  Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended;  Compliance with and Federal finding for Executive Order 12372 – Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs;  Compliance with and Federal finding for Executive Order 11988 ‐ Floodplain Management;  Compliance with and Federal finding for Executive Order 12898 – Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low‐Income Populations;  The Department of Transportation Order 5660.1A, Preservation of the Nation’s Wetlands, which implements Federal Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands. I.7.2 – State Actions Development at the Airport will require actions on the part of several State agencies as identified below:  IDOT acceptance of the forecast analyses, contained in this document, and approval of the Airport Layout Plan (49 U.S.C. 47107 (a)(16);  Application of all required permits including two NPDES permits, one for construction at the airport, and one for operation and a stormwater pollution prevention plan/NPDES General Permit;  Application for Federal assistance in the construction, development, and maintenance of the facility;  Coordination with the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency (IHPA), State Historic Preservation Officer, pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966;  Coordination with Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) regarding threatened and endangered species and wetlands. I.7.3 – Regional and Local Actions The Airport’s sponsor coordinating with the following regional and local entities:  Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP);  Local communities; Chapter One – Purpose and Need Page 7 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA 




June 08, 2011 Local highway districts; Local school districts; Local fire and rescue services; Local planning and zoning administrators; Local municipalities, townships and counties. Chapter One – Purpose and Need Page 8 Alternatives Chapter Two Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 II.1 – General Discussion Federal guidelines concerning an environmental review process require that all reasonable alternatives that could address the Purpose and Need of the Airport be considered. The examination of alternatives is of critical importance to the environmental review process and serves to ensure that an alternative that may enhance environmental quality or have a less detrimental effect has not been prematurely dismissed from consideration. The purpose of this Chapter is to describe the process followed during the analysis of alternatives to the proposed project. Alternatives that do not meet the purpose and need of the environmental review process are dismissed from further consideration. All alternatives considered to be reasonable and practicable are carried through the study to assess their individual environmental consequences. II.2 – Alternatives Considered II.2.1 – Introduction Chapter One – Purpose and Need, determined that the existing aeronautical facilities at the Airport are insufficient to meet the airport design requirements of the FAA and the general aviation aircraft operator’s requirements on a continuous basis. Several options exist in addressing the purpose and need of this proposed action. 








No Action Alternative. Alternative 1: Shift Runway 18‐36 Centerline 75' west, widen to 100'. Alternative 2: Widen Runway 18‐36 to 100'. Alternative 3: Construct a new Runway 5‐23, 3,360' long by 100' long. Alternative 4: Construct a new Runway 11‐29, 3,360' long by 100' long. Alternative 5: Construct a new airport. Alternative 6: Utilize Alternative Airports. Alternative 7: Utilize Alternative Modes of Transportation. Alternative 8: Utilize Advanced Technologies. In all airfield alternatives, the parallel taxiway is located 150 feet from the runway centerline, in accordance with FAA airport design standards. II.2.2 – Alternatives Identified II.2.2.1 – No Action Alternative The Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations includes specific directions on the consideration of alternatives. Section 1502.14(d) of said regulations state that “Agencies shall include the alternative of no action in any environmental analysis.” The No Action Alternative, shown in Exhibit II‐1 – No Action Alternative, for this study assumes that the Airport will maintain its current north‐south runway length and width and will not provide any additional facilities that would address the constraints outlined in the purpose and need. Chapter Two – Alternatives Page 9 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 II.2.2.2 – Alternative 1: Shift Runway 18‐36 Centerline 75' west, widen to 100' This alternative, shown in Exhibit II‐2 – Alternative 1 – Shift Runway 18‐36 Centerline 75’ West and Widen to 100’, includes the widening of the existing Runway 18‐36 to 100 feet and shifting the runway centerline 75' to the west. This alternative includes construction of a new, full length parallel taxiway (35' wide) 150’ east of the proposed runway centerline, as depicted on the approved Airport Layout Plan. Also included is the acquisition of 1.2 acres of commercial land in fee simple title and 48 acres of avigation easements. Additional improvements would include installing runway and taxiway lighting, obstruction removal, construction of additional aircraft hangar and parking apron facilities, construction of auto parking facilities, installation of a rotating beacon and automated weather observing station, and wildlife control measures on retention basins adjacent to the airport. II.2.2.3 – Alternative 2: Widen Runway 18‐36 to 100' This alternative, shown in Exhibit‐II‐3 – Alternative 2 – Widen Existing Runway 18‐36 to 100 Feet, includes widening the Runway 18‐36 to 100' while remaining in its current location. The new taxiway would shift to the east to provide the adequate runway safety areas. This alternative also includes the acquisition of 7.5 acres of commercial land in fee simple title. An additional 26.2 acres of commercial land and 18.2 acres of residential land would be needed for avigation easements. Additional improvements would include installing runway and taxiway lighting, obstruction removal, construction of additional aircraft hangar and parking apron facilities, construction of auto parking facilities, installation of a rotating beacon and automated weather observing station, and wildlife control measures on retention basins adjacent to the airport. II.2.2.4 – Alternative 3: Construct a new Runway 5‐23, 3,360' long by 100' wide This alternative, shown in Exhibit‐II‐4 – Alternative 3 – Construct Runway 05‐23, 3,360 Feet Long by 100 Feet Wide, proposes to construct a new Runway 5‐23 and parallel taxiway. For this option, 12.8 acres of residential and 0.9 acres of commercial property would need to be acquired in fee simple title. An additional 14.4 acres of commercial land and 63.3 acres of residential land would be needed for avigation easements. Relocation assistance would be required for this option. Alternative 3 would require not only paving of a new runway and taxiways, but filling in retention basins, installing lighting, signage, navigation aids, and completing obstruction removal, marking, grading and turfing. II.2.2.5 – Alternative 4: Construct a new Runway 11‐29, 3,360' long by 100' wide This alternative, shown in Exhibit‐II‐5 – Alternative 4 – Construct Runway 11‐29, 3,360 Feet Long by 100 Feet Wide, proposes to construct a new Runway 11‐29 and parallel taxiway. For this option, 14.2 acres of residential and 1.0 acres of commercial property would need to be acquired in fee simple title. An additional 17.8 acres of commercial land and 68.7 acres of residential land would be needed for avigation easements. Relocation assistance would be required for this option. Alternative 4 would require not only paving of a new runway and taxiways, but installing lighting, signage, navigation aids, and completing obstruction removal, marking, grading and turfing. Chapter Two – Alternatives Page 10 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 II.2.2.6 – Alternative 5: Construct a new airport This alternative would require the preparation of a new Airport Master Plan and Site Selection Report to locate and construct a new Airport for the Bolingbrook area. This alternative would require significant acquisition of property including residences and businesses; relocation and severance of roadways; construction of a new runway, taxiway, aprons, navigational aids, and general aviation and corporation facilities; and the creation and/or extension of water, sewer and utility lines to serve a new site. A new and separate environmental action and study would be required if this alternative were chosen. II.2.2.7 – Alternative 6: Use of Alternative Airports This alternative would use alternate airfields to address the existing and future aeronautical demand for the Airport. Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport is listed on the Federal Aviation Administration’s National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). Alternative nearby NPIAS airports include: DuPage Airport, Chicago‐Romeoville Airport, Joliet Regional Airport, Aurora Municipal Airport and Morris Municipal Airport. See Exhibit II‐6 ‐ Alternative Airports Location Map. II.2.2.8 – Alternative 7: Use of Alternative Modes of Transportation This alternative would use other modes of transportation to address the airfield’s purpose and need. This alternative includes automobiles, buses, and trains for passenger service. II.2.2.9 – Alternative 8: Use of Alternative Technologies Alternative technologies considered for use include High Speed Rail, Intelligent Vehicle Highways Systems, Magnetic Levitation Systems, Telecommunications and Video Conferencing, and Tilt Rotor Aircraft.  High Speed Rail includes the use of high‐speed rail systems for the transport of passengers to and from specific locations in southwestern Chicagoland region to outside destinations.  Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems provides passenger interface with current conditions and information services from a passenger vehicle.  Magnetic Levitation Systems (MAGLEV) provides for high‐speed rail to operate several inches above the actual rail. These systems are still in experimental stages.  Telecommunications and Video Conferencing allow business, education, and personal interfaces via telephone lines.  Tile Rotor Aircraft is a type of aircraft used primarily for the purpose of passenger transport in areas where open land is scarce. Typical tilt rotor aircraft carry less than 15 passengers. II.3 – Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration This section discusses those alternatives that have been dismissed from further review and lists the reasons for their dismissal. II.3.1 – Alternative 2: Widen Runway 18‐36 to 100' This alternative proposes to widen the existing runway to 100 feet. Widening the runway in its current location and relocating the parallel taxiway, according to current FAA separation standards, would Chapter Two – Alternatives Page 11 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 reduce the available apron space for aircraft parking. In addition, some structures within the Building Restriction Line (BRL) would need to be relocated to be compliant with FAA standards. Alternative 2 does not address the Airport’s established purpose and need because it does not maintain the existing aeronautical capacity (due to the reduced apron space) and was dismissed from further consideration. II.3.2 – Alternative 3: Construct a new Runway 05‐23, 3,360' long by 100' long This alternative proposes to construct a new Runway 05‐23. One hundred thirty one homes and five businesses would need to be acquired. In addition, storm water retention facilities would need to be filled and compensatory storage would be needed to mitigate for the loss. Additional developments would restrict airfield improvements such as connecting taxiways, navigational aids, fencing, signage, lighting and providing obstruction removal, marking, grading and drainage and turfing improvements. The large amount of relocation of residents and businesses are considered significant social impacts. This alternative does not meet the established purpose and need, which states that the proposed alternative must limit to the extent practicable, environmental impacts. Since this alternative does not meet the purpose and need, this alternative was dismissed from further consideration. II.3.3 – Alternative 4: Construct a new Runway 11‐29, 3,360' long by 100' long This alternative proposes to construct a new Runway 11‐29. One hundred sixty‐six homes and four businesses would need to be acquired. Additional developments would restrict airfield improvements such as connecting taxiways, navigational aids, fencing, signage, lighting and providing obstruction removal, marking, grading and drainage and turfing improvements. The large amount of relocation of residents and businesses are considered significant social impacts. This alternative does not meet the established purpose and need which states that the proposed alternative must limit to the extent practicable, environmental impacts. Due to this alternative not meeting the purpose and need, this alternative was dismissed from further consideration. II.3.4 – Alternative 5: Construct a new airport This alternative would provide a new primary runway at a new location capable of handling the existing Airport’s operations. This development would require the preparation of a new Airport Master Plan and Site Selection Study. This plan, which would be subject to a regional consensus on the airfield’s location, would identify new development areas for runways, taxiways, aprons, General Aviation and Corporate facilities and hangars, new air cargo facilities including aircraft parking areas, new navigational aids, a new Airport entrance road and on‐airport service roadways. Development and construction of these facilities would require the acquisition of several hundred acres and would, in all likelihood, include the purchase of numerous residences and businesses. Numerous local roads would likely be severed, and in some limited cases relocated. Land use in the immediate site location would be significantly altered. It is possible that wetland and floodplain areas would be impacted by this alternative. A new and separate environmental study would also be required. This alternative does not meet the established purpose and need which states that the proposed alternative must limit to the extent practicable, environmental impacts. Due to this alternative not meeting the purpose and need, this alternative was dismissed from further consideration. Chapter Two – Alternatives Page 12 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 II.3.5 – Alternative 6: Use of Alternative Airports This alternative proposes to use other airfields to address the existing and future aeronautical demand for the Airport. Alternative airports similar in size and type in the northeast portion of Illinois include: Lewis University Airport, Joliet Regional Airport, Aurora Municipal Airport, DuPage Airport, Schaumburg Regional Airport, and Morris Municipal Airport. Use of other “urban” airport facilities does not address the established purpose and need of removing and complying with the Modification to Standards issued by FAA. Therefore, this alternative has been dismissed. II.3.6 – Alternative 7: Use of Alternative Modes of Transportation This alternative calls for the use of other modes of transportation to address the airfield’s purpose and need. These alternatives include automobiles, buses, and trains for passenger service. This Alternative does not provide efficient and/or usable facilities at the Airport while maintaining existing aeronautical capacity to accommodate projected aeronautical demand. Therefore, this Alternative does not satisfy the established purpose and need and was dismissed from further consideration. II.3.7 – Alternative 8: Use of Alternative Technologies This option calls for the use of alternative technologies to address the airfield’s purpose and need. Alternative technologies do not provide safe, efficient and usable facilities at the Airport while at the same time maintaining existing aeronautical capacity. They also do not accommodate projected aeronautical demand. Finally, these alternatives do not assist in complying with existing FAA safety guidelines and regulations and to correct existing airfield MOS. Therefore, the Use of Alternative Technologies was dismissed from further consideration. II.4 – Alternatives Considered for Further Examination II.4.1 – No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative analysis is required pursuant to FAA Orders 1050.1E; Environmental Impact: Policies and Procedures, CEQ Regulations and the FAA’s Order 5050.4A, Airport Environmental Handbook. These orders prescribe the need to analyze and compare the No Action Alternative and other alternatives to the Sponsor’s Proposed Action. The No Action Alternative will be studied further in Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences of this EA. II.4.2 – Sponsor’s Proposed Action The impacts of the Sponsor’s Proposed Action are discussed further in Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences of this EA. Chapter Two – Alternatives Page 13 Affected Environment Chapter Three Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 III.1 – Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to describe the character of the environment in which the alternatives to be evaluated would occur. Characteristics of the surrounding area are described to familiarize the reader with the geography, land use, demographics and general environmental conditions that could potentially be affected by the alternatives considered. The description of the affected environment is presented in the following sections: 



Airport and Project Location Land Use and Zoning Demographics and Socioeconomic Profile Inventory of Natural Environment To minimize any duplication of information within this document, the affected environment inventory for the environmental resource impact categories listed in FAA Order 5050.4B (Noise, Land Use, Social, Induced Socioeconomic, Air Quality, Water Quality, Historic and Cultural Resources, Biotic Communities, Threatened and Endangered Species, Wetlands, Floodplain, DOT 4(f), Natural Resources, Energy Supply, Light Emissions, Construction Impacts, Solid and Hazardous Waste, Cumulative Impacts, and Environmental Justice) are discussed in Chapter Four – Environmental Consequences. There are no Coastal Zone Management Areas, Coastal Barriers, Farmland or Wild and Scenic Rivers in the project impact area so they are not addressed in this chapter or in Chapter 4. III.2 – Airport and Project Location The Airport is located in Section 18 of DuPage Township, northwestern Will County. The existing airport land and facilities are located in the west‐central corporate limits of the Village, and the land to be acquired for the development as part of the Sponsor’s Proposed Action is also located in the Village. The Airport Project Area is the entirely within the boundaries of the Village of Bolingbrook. The Village owns and operates the Airport. The cost of the Airport capital improvements, operations, and maintenance is the responsibility of the Village. The Airport is located approximately 30 miles southwest of the City of Chicago, as shown in Exhibit III‐1 – Project Location Map. Existing Airport facilities include a single paved Runway 18‐36 that is 3,362 feet long and 50 feet wide. The east side of the runway is served by a non‐standard parallel taxiway. A transient aircraft parking apron is located east of the parallel taxiway adjacent to the terminal building. The apron is approximately 1,100 feet long by 130 feet wide. The east hangar facilities are composed of 13 separate hangar buildings. Also, sixteen individual hangars are located along the west property line. Aircraft are also stored on private property adjacent to the airport. III.3 – Land Use and Zoning The land uses in the vicinity of the Airport are retail (Meijer, Home Depot) and residential as illustrated in Exhibit III‐2 ‐ Village of Bolingbrook Zoning Map. The adjacent land to the west and south of the Airport is residential. Boughton Road is the northern boundary of the Airport, and the eastern edge of the Airport is lined with commercial properties. Chapter Three – Affected Environment Page 14 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 The southern and western side of the Airport is currently zoned as Residential and the northern and eastern side of the Airport is currently zoned as Community Retail. Exhibit III‐2 illustrates the associated zoning information for the Village. The land to the east and north of the Airport is zoned Community Retail and the land to the west and south is zoned single family residential. The area around the Airport is fully developed, so no future construction is planned for the area around the Airport. The City of Naperville, located just north of the Airport is also fully developed as shown in Exhibit III‐3 ‐ City of Naperville Existing Land Use Map. III.4. – Demographic and Socioeconomic Overview The population of Will County and the Airport Project Area is projected to increase as the urbanization of metropolitan Chicago continues to expand. The population of Will County has increased from 357,313 in 1990 to 502,266 in 2000, an increase of 40.6% as shown in Table III‐1 ‐ Population Growth Trends and Projections. Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC) projected the 2030 population of Will County to be 1,076,446, an increase of 114.3%. The population of the Village has increased 37.4% from 35,256 in 1990 to 56,321 in 2000. In 2006, the population of the Village was determined to be 70,453. The NIPC, now known as Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP), estimated the Village’s population to increase 50.4% to 84,733 by the year 2030. Jobs in the Village have increased by approximately 26,000 since 1986 to adjust with the population increases. This trend is expected to continue with the increased commercial and office space throughout the Village2. Table III‐1 ‐ Population Growth Trends and Projections Jurisdiction 1990 2000 % Change 2030 % Change Will County 357,313 502,266 40.6% 1,076,446 114.3% Bolingbrook 40,843 56,321 37.9% 84,733 50.4% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2030 Projections by NIPC, endorsed September 2006. In the future, forecasts will be the responsibility of CMAP, in accordance with the Regional Planning Act of 2005. III.5. – Inventory of Natural Environment This section contains information relating to topography, ecological communities, and water resources. Additional environmental information can be found in Chapter IV – Environmental Consequences. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Will County has a total area of 837 square miles of land. The county is located in the northeastern part of the state. The airport environs are not unique in comparison to natural resources in the county. III.5.1 ‐ Ecological Communities The Airport is located in an urbanized section of the southwestern portion of the Chicago metropolitan area. The Sponsor’s Proposed Action is almost entirely located on existing airport property. Existing habitat in the project area is comprised mainly of existing apron and parking areas that supports only limited vegetative and wildlife species, including eastern cottontail rabbits, eastern fox squirrel, and feral cats. There are open water retention ponds and mowed turf adjacent to the runway and taxiway 2
http://www.bolingbrook.com/index.php?page_id=132 Chapter Three – Affected Environment Page 15 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 that can attract wildlife to the site, including several species of swallows, doves, sparrows, gulls, and hawks. There are eight federally listed endangered, threatened or candidate species known to occur in Will County. These include the Hine’s Emerald Dragonfly, Leafy Prairie Clover, Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid, and the Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake. The project area does not contain habitat for the listed threatened, endangered or candidate species. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) stated that they do not believe that any threatened or endangered species occur on the project site. In addition, the IDNR concluded that adverse effects to protected resources are not likely and terminated consultation. A complete list of federal and state listed species can be found in Appendix C. A copy of correspondence from USFWS and IDNR is included in Appendix A. III.5.2 – Water Resources The runoff from the Airport is collected and conveyed offsite by a system of inlets. The runoff is then discharged through a series underground storm water sewers, open ditches, and sheet flow to surrounding natural drainage courses. The eastern and southern portion of the Airport property drains southward into a retention basin on the southeastern edge of the property. The basin flows west into a tributary of Lily Cache Creek. The north portion of the Airport drains into the East Branch of the DuPage River. Lily Cache Creek and the East Branch of the DuPage River are both tributaries to the Des Plaines River. Further information regarding floodplains is presented in Section 4.11, Floodplains. According to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s 2008 Illinois Integrated Water Quality Report and Section 303(d) List3, Lily Cache Creek and the East Branch of the DuPage River are listed as impaired waters of the state. The East Branch of the DuPage River and Lily Cache Creek are listed as “Not Supporting” aquatic life and fish consumption. The cause of these impairments are listed as dissolved oxygen, sedimentation/siltation, total suspended solids, total phosphorus, polychlorinated biphenyls, and other flow regime alterations. The listed source of these causes are channelization, impacts from hydro‐structure flow regulation/modification, municipal point source discharges, site clearance, urban runoff, and other unknown sources. The only known source on the Airport is urban runoff. The USFWS has mapped potential wetland areas based on high altitude aerial photography. This mapping has been termed the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). The National Wetlands Inventory Map for the Normantown, Illinois topographic quadrangle depicts no wetland areas located within the Airport Project Area shown in Exhibit IV‐13, Appendix A. In a letter dated November 17, 2006 and in June, 2010 personal conversation with Mr. Ron Abrant of the U.S Department of the Army, Chicago District (Corps) it was determined that a Section 404 Permit will not be required for the Sponsor’s Proposed Action. See Exhibit IV‐14, Section 404 Coordination in Appendix A. No construction activities, including the removal of trees, are proposed under the Sponsor’s Proposed Action that would impact any wetlands or Waters of the United States that require Corps authorization. See Section 11 Wetland Impacts for further discussion. However, new storm water outflows will be directed from drainage structures into the existing storm sewer system that flows into the retention basins. There are no non‐jurisdictional wetlands that could be impacted by the Sponsor’s Proposed Action. 3
http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/tmdl/303d‐list.html#2008 Chapter Three – Affected Environment Page 16 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 III.5.3 ‐ Climate Change/Greenhouse Gases Of growing concern is the impact of proposed projects on climate change. Greenhouse gases (GHG) are those gases that trap heat in the earth's atmosphere. Both naturally occurring and man‐made, GHG include water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3). Research has shown that there is a link between fuel combustion and GHG emission levels. Sources that require fuel or power at an airport are the primary sources that would generate GHG. For instance, aircraft jet engines, like many other vehicle engines, produce CO2, H2O, NOx, carbon monoxide CO, SOx, unburned or partially combusted hydrocarbons (also known as volatile organic compounds (VOCs)), particulates, and other trace compounds. According to most international reviews, aviation emissions comprise a small but potentially important percentage of human‐made GHG and other emissions that contribute to global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that global aircraft emissions account for about 3.5 percent of the total quantity of GHG from human activities.4 In terms of U.S. contribution, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) reports that aviation accounts “for about 3 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human sources” compared with other industrial sources, including the remainder of the transportation sector (23 percent) and industry (41 percent).5 Further study is underway to assist researchers in more precisely estimating aviation's effect on the global atmosphere. The FAA is currently leading and/or participating in several efforts intended to clarify the role that commercial aviation plays in GHG and climate change. The most comprehensive and multi‐year program geared towards quantifying climate change effects of aviation is the Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative (ACCRI) funded by FAA and NASA. ACCRI will reduce key scientific uncertainties in quantifying aviation‐related climate impacts and provide timely scientific input to inform policy‐making decisions. FAA also funds Project 12 of the Partnership for Air Transportation Noise & Emissions Reduction (PARTNER) Center of Excellence research initiative to quantify the effects of aircraft exhaust and contrails on global and U.S. climate and atmospheric composition. Finally, the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) project 02‐06 is preparing a guidebook on preparing airport GHG emission inventories. The results of this effort were published in 2009. 4
IPCC Report as referenced in U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) Environment: Aviation’s Effects on the Global Atmosphere Are Potentially Significant and Expected to Grow; GAO/RCED‐00‐57, February 2000, p. 4. 5
Ibid, p. 14; GAO cites available EPA data from 1997.
Chapter Three – Affected Environment Page 17 Environmental Consequences Chapter Four Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 IV.1 Noise IV.1.1 – General Discussion Aircraft operations generate sound with resulting effects on the environment. This sound is often referred to as aircraft noise. Noise is usually the most noticeable human impact that an airport may have on its surrounding environment. People are sensitive to the noise emissions resulting from aircraft operations at airports. All aircraft types generate noise, but the noise emissions from multi‐engine propeller and corporate business jet aircraft may be slightly more noticeable. Night activity at general aviation airports must also be considered when studying the Airport’s daily effects on surrounding environs. Specific types of human activity, such as resting or sleeping, may be incompatible with certain levels of noise. For this reason, the aviation community carefully studies the influences of aircraft noise on surrounding areas. Noise emissions around airports are directly dependant upon the type of aircraft and the frequency and time of exposure (operations counts and time of day). The FAA’s Order 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Action, states “A noise analysis is needed for proposals.... which individually or cumulatively involve airport location, runway location, major runway extension, or runway strengthening...” This order further states that the Day/Night Average Sound Level (DNL) methodology of quantifying noise will be used with the FAA’s Integrated Noise Model (INM) to perform the noise analysis. INM is a noise analysis program widely used by the civilian aviation community for evaluating aircraft noise impacts at and near airports. Version 7.0b, released September 30, 2009, was used in the Airport analysis to determine noise exposure related to aircraft operations (arrivals and departures) at the Airport. The INM is a computerized over flight noise prediction model which, during the annually averaged 24‐hour period at an airport, accounts for separate aircraft flying along flight tracks defined as straight‐line or curved segments. These flight tracks are coupled with separate data tables in the computer program’s database relating to the noise, velocity, distance, and engine thrust for each distinct aircraft type selected. The DNL is a descriptor of community noise, equal to the 24‐hour average sound level, where the level for each nighttime noise event occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. are increased ten decibels (dBs) before the average is calculated. The nighttime noise events are given this additional weight because aircraft operations are normally considered more objectionable at night when most people are sleeping. Based on the flight tracks depicted in Exhibit IV‐1 ‐ Aircraft Flight Tracks, Existing Condition and 2014 Without Action and Exhibit IV‐2 ‐ Aircraft Flight Tracks 2014 With Action, individual analyses were prepared for each of three scenarios:  Existing Conditions, as defined in Section I.5 – Aircraft Activity  2014 Without Action, as defined in Section I.5 – Aircraft Activity  2014 With Action, as defined in Section I.5 – Aircraft Activity It is relatively simple to describe and measure noise, which occurs at any given time (single‐event) that may be read from a meter. However, the long‐range effects of prolonged exposure to noise appear to best correlate with cumulative metrics. These cumulative metrics provide a single number, which are Chapter Four – Environmental Consequences Page 18 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 equivalent to the total noise exposure over a specified time period. For aircraft noise, the average annual DNL is required by the FAA for determining noise compatibility. A variety of user‐supplied input data is required for INM. These include a mathematical definition of the Airport runway relative to a base reference point, the mathematical description of ground tracks above which aircraft fly, and the assignment of specific aircraft to individual flight tracks. Optionally, the user may adjust standard data base information to more accurately reflect departure and approach profiles, noise curves, aircraft weights, and velocities when such data is available and known to accurately reflect existing conditions. A discussion of the input data used to prepare the noise exposure contours for the Airport is provided in the following sections. For each scenario under study, the INM requires the input of information specific to the Airport, including: the length and location of the Airport runway; the number and location of the flight paths or tracks used by aircraft arriving at, departing from, or circling the Airport; and the types of aircraft and number of operations performed at the Airport. This data is presented below for the three scenarios. Airport Runways. The designation and length of the runway(s) employed in each analysis is contained in Table IV‐1 – Runway Data. The runway location for the Existing Conditions and the 2014 Without Action scenarios are as it exists today. For the 2014 with Action scenario, the runway data is as depicted in Exhibit I‐1 – Sponsor’s Proposed Action. Noise Scenario Existing Conditions 2014 Without Action 2014 With Action Table IV‐1 – Runway Data Runway Runway Length Runway 18‐36
Runway 18‐36
Runway 18‐36
3,362 feet long and 50 feet wide
3,362 feet long and 50 feet wide
3,360 feet long and 100 feet wide
Flight Tracks, Runway End Use, and Day‐Night Operational Percentages. Flight tracks represent the path of arriving and departing aircraft projected on the earth’s surface. The tracks represent the three‐
dimensional road map of the aircraft’s trajectory across the earth. The flight paths used in the existing activity and 2014 without proposed action analyses were determined from a review of current typical operating patterns, observations of actual operating situations, and by reviewing typical Airport operating patterns with the Airport Manager. The flight tracks used in the existing and 2014 activity without proposed action analyses are shown in Exhibit IV‐1 ‐ Aircraft Flight Tracks ‐ Existing Conditions and 2014 Without Action. Flight tracks for the 2014 activity with proposed action analysis were determined from a review of FAA standard operating procedures stated in Advisory Circular 90‐66A, Recommended Standard Traffic Patterns and Practices for Aeronautical Operations at Airports without Control Towers, and from the modification of the existing patterns now in use on Runway 18‐36. Aircraft Flight Tracks 2014 With Action are shown in Exhibit IV‐2. Standard INM approach and departure procedures and noise curve and aircraft performance profiles are used in the three noise analyses. The standard procedures represent an average condition in modeling these factors. When and how often each runway end is used at the Airport is primarily influenced by the speed and direction of the wind at the time of arrivals or departures. The pilot of the aircraft is responsible for the selection of the runway end used based upon wind, weather conditions, and needed Chapter Four – Environmental Consequences Page 19 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 runway length and width. The Runway End Use for each analysis is summarized in Table IV‐2 and the Day‐Night Operation Percentages are shown in Table IV‐3. Scenario Table IV‐2 – Runway End Use Runway End Use Runway 18
Runway 36
Total
Runway 18
Runway 36
Total
Runway 18
Runway 36
Total
46% 54% 100% 46% 54% 100% 46% 54% 100% Existing Conditions 2014 Without Action 2014 With Action Note: Estimated by Hanson Professional Services Inc. Table IV‐3 – Day/Night Operational Percentages Scenario and Aircraft Type Existing Conditions Single Engine Piston Multi‐Engine Piston Turboprop Very Light Jet Ultra Light 2014 Without Action Single Engine Piston Multi‐Engine Piston Turboprop Very Light Jet Ultra Light 2014 With Action Single Engine Piston Multi‐Engine Piston Turboprop Very Light Jet Ultra Light Day
Night 97%
97%
97%
97%
100%
3% 3% 3% 3% 0% 97%
97%
97%
97%
100%
3% 3% 3% 3% 0% 97%
97%
97%
97%
100%
3% 3% 3% 3% 0% Note: Estimated by Hanson Professional Services Inc. Aircraft Types and Operations. The specific aircraft types used in the noise analysis for the Airport are determined from the investigation of the Airport based and transient aircraft characteristics and from a review of information on the individual aircraft that are in the INM modeling database. Not all aircraft that operate at the Airport are specifically included in the INM database. To allow for the modeling of situations where the using aircraft may not actually be in the database, the INM includes a listing of approved substituted aircraft. Annual Operations by Aircraft Type is shown in Table IV‐4. Annual Operations are averaged over 365 days to produce the daily Airport operations used in the INM. Chapter Four – Environmental Consequences Page 20 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 The INM produces contour lines of equivalent, cumulative noise exposure. FAA Order 5050.4B (Chapter 1, paragraph 9.I(1)) states FAA’s threshold of significance has been determined to be a 1.5 DNL increase in noise over any noise sensitive area, located within the 65 DNL contour. Table IV‐4 – Annual Operations by Aircraft Type Aircraft Type (INM Modeled Aircraft) Single‐Engine Piston (BEC58P, CNA172, CNA206, GASEPF, PA28) Multi‐Engine Piston (PA30, PA31) Turboprop (CNA441, DHC6) Very Light Jet (CNA510) Rotorcraft (B222, R22B) Ultra Light (GASEPV) Total Existing
Conditions 2014
Without Action 2014
With Action 35,625 36,500 36,000 4,500 1,000 125 5,000 3,750 50,000 5,500 1,500 250 5,500 3,750 53,000 6,000 2,000 500 5,500 3,750 53,750 Source: Hanson Professional Services Inc. INM Aircraft (BEC58P‐Baron 58P, CNA172 ‐ Cessna 172 ; CNA206‐Cessna 206 ; GASEPF‐Fixed Pitch Propeller ; PA28‐Piper Warrior PA‐28 ; PA30‐
Piper Twin Comanche PA‐30 ; PA31 –Piper Navajo Chieftain PA‐31 ; CNA441‐Conquest II ; DHC6‐Dash 6 ; CNA510‐Cessna Mustang Model 510 ; B222‐Bell 222 ; R22‐Robinson R22B ; GASEPV‐Variable Pitch Propeller) IV.1.2 – Existing Conditions The INM generated noise contours are depicted on Exhibit IV‐3 ‐ Existing Conditions Noise Contours. The contours overlay an aerial photograph that depicts the local land uses that are on and surround the Airport. There are no residences or other sensitive land uses within the 65DNL contour. Table IV‐5 INM Contour Area Analysis depicts the area of noise by the DNL contours. IV.1.3 – 2014 Without Action The INM generated noise contours for 2014 Without Action alternative are shown in Exhibit IV‐4 – 2014 Without Action. The 2014 Without Action Noise Contour map assumes that there will be no construction at the Airport to address the established purpose and need. Examination of the DNL noise levels shows that the 65 DNL and greater noise exposure for the 2014 Without Action is mostly contained within the existing Airport boundary. A portion of the 65 DNL contour falls outside the existing Airport property limits, which includes commercial and non‐residential areas. Table IV‐5 INM Contour Area Analysis depicts the area of noise by the DNL contours IV.1.4 – 2014 With Action (Sponsor’s Proposed Action) Exhibit IV‐5 depicts the DNL noise contours in the 2014 With Action (Sponsor’s Proposed Action). Examination of the DNL noise levels for the With Action Conditions Noise Contours (2014) map shows that the 65 DNL and greater noise exposure for the proposed action is mostly contained within the existing and proposed Airport boundary. Table IV‐5 INM Contour Area Analysis depicts the area of noise by the DNL contour. The Sponsor’s Proposed Action shows growth in the area of aircraft noise over the 2014 No Action Conditions. This contour expansion, compared to the No‐Action Alternative, is based on additional operational growth due to the Sponsor’s Proposed Action. Part of the 65 DNL contour lies over two private airplane hangars west of the airfield. The Sponsor’s Proposed Action shifts Chapter Four – Environmental Consequences Page 21 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 the runway 75 feet to the west, which results in the 65 DNL contour encompassing the above mentioned structures. There are no residences that would experience a 65 DNL or greater noise exposure. Table IV‐5 – INM Contour Area Analysis DNL Area Square Miles (Acres) 65 DNL Contour Area 70 DNL Contour Area 75 DNL Contour Area Existing
Conditions 0.08 (51.3) 0.03 (19.2) 0.008 (5.0) 2014
Without Action 0.085 (54.5) 0.033 (21.1) 0.009 (5.7) 2014
With Action 0.087 (55.9) 0.033 (21.3) 0.009 (5.9) IV.1.5 ‐ Summary A grid point and location point analysis was also prepared for each of the three noise cases for non‐
compatible land uses. Examination of the grid and location point analysis helps in identifying changes in noise exposure among the three noise conditions. Exhibit IV‐6 ‐ DNL Grid and Location Point Analysis, depicts the DNL noise for specific locations around the Airport. There are no non‐compatible land uses within the 65 DNL noise contours that experience a 1.5 DNL or greater increase. Therefore, the Sponsor’s Proposed Action is not anticipated to have a significant adverse noise impact. IV.1.6 ‐ Mitigation Based on the previous analysis the Sponsor’s Proposed Action is not anticipated to create significant adverse noise impact. Therefore, no mitigation measures for noise impacts are required. IV.2 – Land Use Impacts IV.2.1 – General Discussion Land use is the term used to describe the study of existing urban settlement and development patterns. The study of existing land use focuses on the determination of the specific use to which an individual parcel or tract of land is being put, and an analysis which includes the summation and delineation of all existing activities and establishments which are assigned to categories such as residential, commercial, industrial, public and quasi‐public, institutional, agricultural, and vacant. The arrangement of a community’s land use and/or other existing conditions may have a significant bearing on future land use proposals or the placement or expansion of certain community facilities. This is particularly true when transportation facilities, including airports, are the subject projects under consideration. Whenever possible, identifiable public policy, in the form of published and adopted studies, reports, or legislative intent, should be used to provide the necessary frame of reference for the assessment of the project. When public policy has not been articulated, a land use context should be developed, in the form of an assumption, which includes consideration of existing conditions and other proposed programs. In the same way, a future land use plan would be developed, and the process and findings would be coordinated with appropriate local and/or regional agencies. Long‐range planning processes should promote compatibility between various land uses as a central objective. The implementation of long‐range plans and improvement programs should be concerned Chapter Four – Environmental Consequences Page 22 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 with the impact or influence that a particular project will have on the community. This certainly includes the direct effects of the implementation of a future land use plan or individual improvement project or facility, as well as secondary or intended outcomes, which may be generated as a result of the implementation activities. Special studies, which, if directly related to specific public improvement projects or programs, should be comprehensive, yet as concise as possible to insure that the results of the implementation have been anticipated and have been found to be within generally acceptable limits. Studies which relate to unique improvement programs, including those which deal either with the location of a new airport or the expansion of an existing facility, should be undertaken within a future land use context. The Airport is located in northwestern Will County, in an area that is adjacent to residential, commercial and retail land. As noted in Exhibit III‐2, Zoning Map, most of the adjacent land to the west and south of the Airport is residential. Land to the east and north of the Airport across Boughton Road is commercial and retail. The Airport (administration building and hangars), are located a few minutes from Interstate 55. The Village of Bolingbrook is comprised of residences, public facilities, and commercial, business districts commonly found in other communities in the surrounding area of similar population. IV.2.2 – No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative assumes that there will be no construction of any facilities to address the established purpose and need. No impacts to land use are expected under this alternative. IV.2.3 – Sponsor’s Proposed Action Impacts The Sponsor’s Proposed Action includes land acquisition to provide for the controlling interests in lands within Runway Safety Area and Object Free Area, construction of a new parallel taxiway, increased runway safety areas and protection of the 14 CFR Part 77 Surfaces. Land uses in the immediate vicinity of the Airport are primarily residential and retail developments. The Sponsor’s Proposed Action identifies acquisition of 1.2 acres of fee simple vacant, commercially‐zoned property and approximately 48 acres of avigation easements, most of which is zoned residential. These acquisitions, which are depicted on Exhibit I‐1, Appendix A, provide rights for airplanes to fly over the property, allow for the marking and lighting of an existing objects determined by the FAA as hazards to flight, and limit the height of new structures on the property to protect the aviating public using the airport. . The fee simple acquisition is located upland to a stormwater detention basin and is not considered developable. The Sponsor’s Proposed Action also consists of ancillary developments that include aircraft hangars, aprons, supplemental wind indicators, signage, lighting, obstruction removal, marking, grading and drainage, and turfing improvements. Although the construction of new airfield facilities could result in increased commercial development in the area, the changes in the area would be consistent with existing economic growth and development plans developed by the Village. As noted in Chapter IV‐1, Noise, no significant adverse noise impacts will occur to adjacent non‐
compatible areas under the Sponsor’s Proposed Action. Chapter Four – Environmental Consequences Page 23 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 IV.2.4 – Mitigation Neither the No Action Alternative nor the Sponsor’s Proposed Action are anticipated to create any adverse land use impacts. Therefore, no mitigation measures for land use impacts will be required. IV.3 – Social Impacts IV.3.1 – General Discussion The character of a community is largely due to the people that live or work there. Associated factors that contribute to the character of a community are business and labor markets, transportation systems, and utilities. The geography, geology, and climate of an area are also contributing factors. Any development that significantly affects individuals within a community is defined herein as a social impact. FAA Order 1050.1E states in Section 16.2c, “The principal social impacts to be considered are those associated with relocation or other community disruption, transportation, planned development, and employment.” Factors to be considered in determining the impact thresholds include:  Extensive relocation of residents is required, but sufficient replacement housing is unavailable.  Extensive relocation of community businesses that would create severe economic hardship for the affected communities.  Disruptions of local traffic patterns that substantially reduce the levels of service of the roads serving the airport and its surrounding communities.  A substantial loss in community tax base. IV.3.2 – No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative assumes that there will be no construction of any facilities at the Airport to address the established purpose and need. In addition, the No Action Alternative will not adversely alter any surface transportation systems; will not divide or disrupt any established communities; will not disrupt orderly, planned development; nor will it create an appreciable change in employment or substantial loss in community tax base. No social impacts are expected under this alternative. IV.3.3 – Sponsor’s Proposed Action The Sponsor’s Proposed Action includes reimbursing the Village of Bolingbrook for the original purchase of the privately‐owned airfield known as Clow International. This action includes the previous acquisition of approximately 80 acres and existing associated airfield improvements. The Sponsor’s Proposed Action also includes purchasing approximately 1.2 acres of commercial land in fee simple title and approximately 48 acres of avigation easements for airspace protection. Chapter Four – Environmental Consequences Page 24 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 The Sponsor’s Proposed Action will not adversely alter any public surface transportation patterns; will not divide or disrupt any established communities; will not disrupt orderly, planned development; nor will it create an appreciable change in employment or substantial loss in community tax base. The purchase of the airport by the Village preserved an existing transportation asset within the context of the area’s existing land use structure. The use of Federal funds for the reimbursement and purchase of fee simple title land and aviation easements must be done to the standards outlined in the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. The acquisition of 1.2 acres of land is unlikely to cause a social impact because this will not cause a substantial loss in the community tax base or have a negative effect on the local economy. Also since the property is vacant, no relocation assistance is anticipated. No additional social impacts are anticipated under the Sponsor's Proposed Action. IV.3.4 ‐ Mitigation The No Action Alternative does not propose the acquisition of property, the construction of any Airport facilities, or the altering or disruption of any surface transportation systems. No social impacts are expected under the No Action Alternative. Therefore, no mitigation measures for social impacts will be required. The Sponsor’s Proposed Action does include the acquisition of property in fee simple title and avigation easements. The Sponsor’s Proposed Action will not adversely alter any public surface transportation patterns; will not divide or disrupt any established communities; will not disrupt orderly, planned development; nor will it create an appreciable change in employment. Therefore, no mitigation is required. However, the purchase of fee simple title land and aviation easements must be done in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. IV.4 – Induced Socioeconomic Impacts IV.4.1 – General Discussion The implementation of improvement projects may induce social or economic impacts on a community or region. The development of a major economic development project may start with a public entity providing the essential public services as an incentive for subsequent private development, or the underwriting of land to encourage the development of a particular parcel or development project. Improvements at public sponsored general aviation Airports may enable the community to recruit industrial and/or commercial companies or retain and/or enlarge existing ones, as part of their efforts to generate new economic development. IV.4.2 – No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative assumes that there will be no construction of any facilities at the Airport to address the established purpose and need. No significant socio‐economic impacts are expected under the No Action Alternative. IV.4.3 – Sponsor’s Proposed Action Chapter Four – Environmental Consequences Page 25 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 The Airport is an existing component of the Village’s economic development. The availability of adequate transportation is of importance in a commercial and industrialized area, which must be able to reach markets elsewhere. However, the Sponsor’s Proposed Action will not significantly alter the capabilities of the existing airport. The Proposed Action is not expected to substantially accelerate change in existing or future economic conditions. The proposed improvements are geared to accommodate existing user needs and will enable the Airport to serve the air transportation needs of Bolingbrook and the surrounding communities, by providing a safer level of service to its users. The acquisition of 1.2 acres of land is unlikely to cause any socioeconomic impacts because this will not cause a substantial loss in the community tax base, loss of jobs, or have a negative effect on the local economy. Immediate benefits of the proposed improvements include a temporary increase in employment in the construction sector proportionate to the manpower needs for the airfield development. This increased employment results in a temporary boost to local merchants/professionals from the sale of goods and services and will result in a positive growth for a time period equivalent to the construction phase of development. No adverse induced socio‐economic impacts are expected under the Sponsor’s Proposed Action. IV.4.4 – Mitigation No adverse induced socio‐economic impacts are expected under the No Action Alternative. No adverse induced socio‐economic impacts are anticipated under the Sponsor's Proposed Action, therefore no mitigation actions are required. IV.5 – Air Quality IV.5.1 – General Discussion Air Quality Standards establish limits for various pollutants in the air. With the passage of the Clean Air Act (CAA) in 1970 and amendments thereto, the Federal Government began adopting standards for the entire country. Federal Air Quality Standards are divided into the following two categories: Primary standards which are designed to protect against adverse health effects and Secondary standards which are designed to protect against adverse welfare effects such as plant and material damage, odors or reduction in visibility. On November 15, 1990, Congress passed amendments to the CAA to address the problem that many areas across the United States were in violation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and/or carbon monoxide. These amendments, referred to as the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA), were aimed at correcting weaknesses in the CAA provisions and tightening up the control requirements for states to implement in order to better ensure attainment of the NAAQS for ozone. The CAAA require states to develop new air quality designations, state implementation plans, and air quality strategies for those areas not meeting the NAAQS. The FAA is required under NEPA to prepare an environmental review document for Federal actions that have the potential to affect the quality of the human environment including air quality. The CAAA established NAAQS for six pollutants, termed “criteria pollutants.” The six pollutants are carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). The CAAA requires each state to adopt a plan approval by the EPA (State Implementation Plan or SIP), to achieve the NAAQS for each criteria pollutant. The proposed action’s Chapter Four – Environmental Consequences Page 26 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 impact on air quality in a NEPA document is assessed by evaluating the impact of the proposed action on the NAAQS. FAA’s Order 5050.4B, “National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions” states that “The Federal Aviation Administration has the responsibility to assure that Federal airport actions conform to State Plans for controlling area wide air pollution impacts. If the proposed Federal action involves airport location, runway development or other physical airside and/or landside improvements which increase airport capacity, paragraph (c) below (FAA Order 5050.4B) shall be reviewed to determine if an air quality analysis needs to be done for the Environmental Assessment. If the proposed Federal action is in a state (i.e., Illinois) which does not have applicable indirect source review (ISR) requirements, then the projected airport activity levels are examined. No air quality analysis is needed if the levels of activity forecast in the time frame of the proposed action are below those in either a or b below: a) If it is a commercial service airport and has less than 1.3 million passengers and less that 180,000 general aviation operations forecast annually; and b) If it is a general aviation airport and has less than 180,000 operations forecast annually.” On March 6, 1997, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) adopted Part 255 General Conformity: Criteria and Procedures in Title 35 of the Illinois Administrative Code (IAC). This Part establishes criteria and procedures similar to 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart W that requires Federal agencies to make conformity determinations of Federal actions. Under 35 IAC Part 255, the IEPA is responsible for consultation and coordination regarding air quality implementation plan conformity with Illinois actions. As of August 15, 2008 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated Will County in an area of non‐attainment for the eight‐hour ozone criteria (moderate) and in an area of non‐attainment for the Particulate Matter (PM)2.5 criteria. This designation is contained in the EPA’s Green Book. Finally, as stated in FAA’s Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures; The General Conformity Rule covers direct and indirect emissions of criteria pollutants or their precursors from Federal actions that meet the following criteria: 1. Reasonably foreseeable; and 2. Can be practicably be controlled and maintained by the Federal agency through continuing program responsibility. “A conformity determination is not required if the emissions caused by the proposed Federal action”...“If the action is listed as exempt or presumed to conform; or if the action is below the emission threshold (de minimus) levels.” If the project’s emissions are below annual threshold levels (de minimus levels) and are not regionally significant, then the requirements of the general conformity regulation do not apply to the action or project. IV.5.2 – No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative assumes that there will be no construction of any facilities at the Airport to address the established purpose and need. No increase in air quality emission impacts are expected under this alternative. Chapter Four – Environmental Consequences Page 27 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 IV.5.3 – Sponsor’s Proposed Action The Airport is a general aviation facility and is projected to have approximately 53,750 annual operations in 2014. The existing operations at the Airport are approximately 50,000. These levels of activity do not warrant the need for an air quality analysis as indicated through FAA guidance in Order 1050.1E, Section 2.4b, which states procedures for air quality analyses are provided in the FAA report “Air Quality Procedures for Civilian Airports and Air Force Bases.” Figure 2 in that report states that a NAAQS assessment is required if a project is at a commercial service airport would have forecasted activity of more than 1.3 million annual passengers or more than 180,000 annual general aviation (GA) operations. Although Will County, Illinois is within a moderate nonattainment area for ozone and a nonattainment area for PM2.5, the number of existing and projected operations is well below the established de minimus threshold (Table IV‐7). The operational assessment of the proposed action resulted in determination that no air quality impacts are anticipated under the Sponsor’s Proposed Action. However, IDOT requested that an Aircraft Emissions Inventory be prepared to document the estimated pollutants resulting from existing and future conditions at the Airport. The Aircraft Emissions Inventory as shown in Table IV‐6 depicts existing and future emission estimations of ozone precursor pollutants for the Airport. These estimations were then compared to the de minimus thresholds as set forth in 40 CFR Part 51 § 51.853. In order to establish conformity with the State Implementation Plan, any change in ozone precursor pollutant (Volatile Organic Compounds and Nitrogen Oxides) levels from the existing condition to the future conditions must not exceed the levels listed in Table IV‐7, de minimus Thresholds. Table IV‐6 ‐ Aircraft Emissions Inventory Emission Amounts By Scenario Tons Per Day Existing Conditions 2014 Without Action 2014 With Action Tons Per Year Existing Conditions 2014 Without Action 2014 With Action VOC NOx (Volatile Organic Compounds) (Nitrogen Oxides) 0.019 0.021 0.022 0.004 0.003 0.004 6.907 7.511 7.979 1.289 1.113 1.334 Source: Hanson Professional Services Inc., 2010. The small difference in both VOC and NOx emissions from existing to future conditions are below “de minimus” levels (emission levels which do not exceed the 10% of a nonattainment or maintenance area’s total emissions inventory for a particular criteria pollutant threshold). Therefore, the Proposed Action will be in conformity with the State Implementation Plan and no additional air quality analysis is required. Chapter Four – Environmental Consequences Page 28 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 Projected aircraft operations at Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport represent less than 0.146 percent of U.S. aviation activity. Therefore, assuming that greenhouse gases occur in proportion to the level of activity, greenhouse gas emissions associated at Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport would be expected to represent less than 0.0047 percent of U.S.‐based greenhouse gases. Therefore, GHG emissions from this project are not significant and no further analysis is required. Construction equipment and operations would result in a temporary decrease in local air quality during construction of the proposed projects. Daily pollution loads produced by clearing and construction activities depend upon several factors. These include the type, number, and emission rates of various construction machines and trucks and the daily private vehicle traffic of construction personnel. Dust hazards are possible due to the presence of fine silts and sands, which are subject to wind erosion. The use of dust palliative treatments (i.e. dampening and stabilization) as included in the IDOT construction requirements manual, Supplemental Specifications and Recurring Special Provisions 15, should minimize these problems if they occur. Mulching of solid waste materials, such as trees and scrub vegetation, may be performed during construction, if necessary. In general, while construction activity could affect local air quality, any possible effects would be minimal and would terminate upon completion of the project. No adverse effects on human and animal life and plant life are expected as a result of either aircraft emissions or air contaminants produced as by‐products of the construction of the Sponsor’s Proposed Action. Table IV‐7 – “de minimus” Thresholds Pollutant Non‐Attainment Area Threshold
(tons per year)
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Particulate Matter (PM10) Moderate Non‐Attainment Area Serious Non‐Attainment Area Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)* Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)** Ozone (O3) Serious Non‐Attainment Area Severe Non‐Attainment Area Extreme Non‐Attainment Area Inside An Ozone Transport Region: Marginal Non‐Attainment Area Moderate Non‐Attainment Area Outside ozone transport region: Marginal Non‐Attainment Area Moderate Non‐Attainment Area Lead (Pb) 100 100 70 100 100 Maintenance Area Threshold
(tons per year) 100 100 100 100 100 Precursors are Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) / Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
50 / 50 25 / 25 10 / 10 50 / 100 50 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 25 50 / 100 100 / 100 25 *(95% of SOx are SO2) **(25% of NOx are NO2) Source: 40 CFR Part 51 Section 51.853. IV.5.4 – Mitigation 6
This percent is calculated by dividing 53,750 operations by the US total of 39,402,600 contained in Table 32 of FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years 2010‐2030. 7
This percent is calculated by dividing 0.14 by 0.03. The 0.03 is the aviation contribution to GHG Emissions as defined by the US General Accounting Office, Ibid, Page 14. Chapter Four – Environmental Consequences Page 29 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 The Sponsor’s Proposed Action is not anticipated to create any adverse impacts. Therefore, no mitigation measures for air quality impacts will be required. Chapter Four – Environmental Consequences Page 30 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 IV.6 – Water Quality IV.6.1 – General Discussion Surface water quality is affected by a number of factors, including concentration of atmospheric pollutants, chemical composition of surface soils and exposed bedrock, diversity and composition of ground cover, watershed land use, and point sources of pollutant discharge. Most of the Airport’s property is mown grass areas and areas of development with storm water collection facilities. The Airport is surrounded by residential and community retail developments with storm water collection facilities. Surface soils are neutral to slightly alkaline. The airport does not use any chemicals for winter weather conditions. Water pollution control programs are designed to protect the “Beneficial Uses” of the water resources of the state. Each state has the responsibility to set water quality standards that protect for these beneficial uses, also called designated uses (IEPA, 2004). Illinois waters are classified for a variety of designed uses and the two categories that the waters within the project area fall under include:  General use provides for the protection of indigenous aquatic life, primary (e.g., swimming) and secondary (e.g., boating) contact recreation, agricultural and industrial uses. Water quality standards designed to protect these general uses cover the majority of Illinois streams and lakes.  Public and food processing water supplies provides for the protection of potable water supplies and water used for food processing purposes. These waters have a somewhat stricter set of water quality standards that apply at any point from which water is withdrawn for these uses. The Illinois Water Quality Report (IEPA, 2004) describes water quality conditions in terms of the degree waters attain designated uses. For example:  Full Support – The water quality meets the needs of all designated uses protected by applicable water quality standards.  Full Threatened – Water quality is presently adequate to maintain designated uses, but if a declining trend continues, only partial support may be attained in the future.  Partial Support/Minor Impairment – Water quality has been impaired, but only to a minor degree. There may be minor exceedances in applicable water quality standards or criteria for assessing the designated use attainment.  Partial Support/Moderate Impairment – Water quality conditions are impaired to a greater degree, inhibiting the water body from meeting all the needs for that designated use.  Nonsupport – Water quality is severely impaired and not capable of supporting the designated use to any degree. IV.6.2 – No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative assumes that there will be no construction of any facilities at the Airport to address the established purpose and need. No water quality impacts are expected under this alternative. Chapter Four – Environmental Consequences Page 31 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 IV.6.3 – Sponsor’s Proposed Action The Airport’s water supply is from Lake Michigan and is provided by Illinois American Water. Capacity exists in the present system to handle existing and projected water demand. Sanitary waste is collected in gravity pipe system and processed at the Bolingbrook water treatment plant. Minimal increases in demand are expected with the Sponsor’s Proposed Action, so the proposed improvements will not adversely impact the capacity or purity of the Village’s water supply or sanitary collection and treatment capacity. Most of the Airport property is developed. The eastern and southern portion of the Airport property drains southward into a retention basin on the southeastern edge of the property. The basin flows west into a tributary of Lily Cache Creek. The north portion of the Airport drains into the Du Page River. Lily Cache Creek and the DuPage River are both tributaries to the Des Plaines River. According to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s 2008 Illinois Integrated Water Quality Report and Section 303(d) List8, Lily Cache Creek and the East Branch of the DuPage River are listed as impaired waters of the state. The East Branch of the DuPage River is listed as “Not Supporting” aquatic life and fish consumption. The cause of these impairments are listed as dissolved oxygen, sedimentation/siltation, total suspended solids, total phosphorus, polychlorinated biphenyls, and other flow regime alterations. The listed source of these causes are channelization, impacts from hydro‐structure flow regulation/modification, municipal point source discharges, site clearance, urban runoff, and other unknown sources. Lily Cache Creek is listed as “Not Supporting” aquatic life. The cause and source of this impairment is not known. The Airport contributes to the impairment due to urban runoff from the Airport which potentially contains sedimentation/siltation and/or total suspended solids. However, the Airport is only 0.17% of the total drainage area of the East Branch of the DuPage River. In addition, the Airport will incorporate measures (i.e. silt fence) into design to limit sedimentation and siltation during and after construction. Under the Sponsor’s Proposed Action alternative, about 13 acres of additional pavement areas, resulting from the width of the new runway, new apron areas, and additional auto parking lots will produce an estimated additional 1.6 ft3/sec of storm water runoff, based on the Rational Method with a 2‐yr, Type II storm. For impacts to Water Quality regarding construction activities, please Section IV.15.4 of the EA. The final calculations of the runoff amount will change subject to final plans and engineering. The Sponsor’s Proposed Action includes the installation of drainage structures, infiltration where applicable of appropriate, and swales to control and channel additional storm water runoff. Storm water management design will be in accordance with the FAA’s Advisory Circular 150/5200‐33A; Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or near Airport. The Sponsor’s Proposed Action is anticipated to increase the number of operations at the Airport and as a result more maintenance of aircraft is anticipated. The maintenance operations at the airport will be required to follow all local and state ordinances and laws regarding disposal of waste and prevention of decreasing water quality. These ordinances include use of triple basins and discharge to local sanitary sewer. Drainage improvements will be coordinated through the Village of Bolingbrook, acting as a reviewer of the drainage design on behalf of the Will County Stormwater Management Commission. The storm water runoff will be properly controlled to prevent flooding on adjacent properties. Storm water runoff 8
http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/tmdl/303d‐list.html#2008 Chapter Four – Environmental Consequences Page 32 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 that flows into an adjacent, off‐airport basin will not exceed the 17.68 ft3/sec allowed limit set during the design of the basin to prevent water levels from exceeding the high water elevation. All storm water runoff from the Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport must be discharged in compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). On November 19, 1993, USEPA published a draft model NPDES general permit for storm water discharges from vehicle maintenance areas, equipment‐cleaning areas, and de‐icing areas located at air transportation facilities. Since Illinois is an USEPA designated NPDES state, it uses the USEPA model permit and can modify requirements for concurrence with IEPA. At a minimum, the terms of storm water NPDES permit for the Airport requires development of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and quarterly monitoring of storm water discharges for biological oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), and total Kjeldahl nitrogen. Two NPDES permits will be required, one for construction at the airport, and one for airport operation. A storm water pollution prevention plan/NPDES General Permit for the Airport will be prepared prior to construction of the proposed improvements. Potential water pollution from aviation fuels can occur from leaks or spills at the Airport’s above ground fuel farm, leaks or spills from aircraft fueling from tank trucks. The potential for these problems to occur can be reduced through proper design and construction of control systems, such as containment liners and levees at the fuel farm, monitoring systems at the fuel farm and along the hydrant system, and close supervision of fueling operations. Accurate and timely record keeping of fuel deliveries versus fuel distribution also allows for one method of detection of leaks within the system. IV.6.4 – Mitigation The No Action Alternative does not propose any construction of airfield facilities, and is not anticipated to create any Water Quality impacts. Construction of the Sponsor’s Proposed Action will require an approved NPDES Permit for construction at and operation of the airport, and completion of a SPCC Plan. Approved NPDES Permits must be submitted to IDOT, prior to placement of this project on a State letting. A copy of IEPA’s letter of no objection for this project is contained in Appendix A, Exhibit IV‐7. IV.7 – Department of Transportation Act, Section 4(f) [Recodified at 49 U.S.C., Subtitle 1, §303c] and Related Lands IV.7.1 – General Discussion Section 4(f)/303c of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 provides that the Secretary shall not approve any program or project which requires the use of any land from a public park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site, unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land and such a program includes all possible planning to minimize harm to such areas. In addition to lands identified under Section 4(f) of the DOT Act of 1966, other lands funded by the LAWCON9 Section 6(f), Pittman‐Robertson, and Dingell‐Johnson moneys must be considered. When proposed improvements affect lands purchased or developed using LAWCON funds, as administered by the United States Department of Interior (USDOI), changes in use to other than public outdoor recreation at assisted sites may only be made with the prior approval of the Secretary of the Interior. Also, converted properties must be replaced by substitute properties of at least equal fair market value and of reasonably equivalent location and usefulness. 9
Land and Water Conservation Fund Chapter Four – Environmental Consequences Page 33 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 IV.7.2 – No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative assumes that there will be no construction of any facilities at the Airport to address the established purpose and need. No impacts to Section 4(f) or 6(f) lands will occur under this alternative. IV.7.3 – Sponsor’s Proposed Action The Sponsor’s Proposed Action includes the acquisition of 1.2 acres of land in fee simple title and approximately 48 acres of avigation easements. The proposed fee simple acquisition property is privately owned and is zoned as community retail. The proposed 48 acres of avigation easements are primarily zoned residential. The Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Illinois Nature Preserves commission maintains an online database at http://dnr.state.il.us/INPC/NPdir.htm. The database shows no public nature preserves within or adjacent to the project area. Vermont Cemetery Prairie Nature Preserve is a dry‐mesic prairie of the Grand Prairie Section of the Grand Prairie Natural Division. It is located approximately 5 miles west of the Airport. As previously noted in Section IV‐1, Noise of this EA, there are no non‐compatible land uses within the 65 DNL noise contours that experience a 1.5 DNL or greater increase. Therefore there are no constructive use impacts. The USDOI publishes a list of those areas that have received LAWCON Funding. The IDNR oversees the Open Space Land Acquisition and Development Program (OSLAD). This program funds projects, which will provide new recreational facilities such as parks and playgrounds that receive federal funds. No parks or playgrounds using OSLAD funds, and no Pittman‐Robertson, and Dingell‐Johnson lands (see Exhibit IV‐8, IDNR Coordination in Appendix A) would be impacted by the Sponsors Proposed Action. A public park, Indian Chase Meadows, is the closest public park is located approximately ½ mile southwest of the Airport. Almost all of the public parks in the Village of Bolingbrook are located within 5 miles of the Airport10 as shown in Exhibit IV‐9, Section 4(f) Lands. No impacts to parks or playgrounds would occur due to the Sponsor’s Proposed Action. IV.7.4 – Mitigation Neither the Sponsor’s Proposed Action nor the No Action Alternative would create any Section 4(f) or 6(f) impacts. Therefore, no mitigation measures for Section 4(f) or 6(f) lands would be required. IV.8 – Archaeological, Architectural, Historic and Cultural Resources IV.8.1 – General Discussion Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, requires every Federal agency to “take into account” the effects of it undertakings on properties that are listed in, or eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places. The National Register of Historic Places is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private effort to identify, evaluate, and protect historic and archaeological resources. Properties listed in the National Register include districts, sites, buildings, 10
http://www.bolingbrook.com/info/pdf/VillageMap01_28_09.pdf Chapter Four – Environmental Consequences Page 34 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. These resources contribute to an understanding of the historical and cultural foundations of the nation. The significance of potential resources and the determination for their eligibility for listing on the National Register is based on the quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture which is present in historic districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects, that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, felling, and association, and:  are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history;  are associated with the lives of significant persons in the past;  embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or  have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history of prehistory. IV.8.2 – No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative assumes that there will be no construction of any facilities at the Airport to address the established purpose and need. No impacts to historic or cultural resources would occur under this alternative. IV.8.3 – Sponsor’s Proposed Action No cultural resources were identified that would be adversely impacted from the Sponsor’s Proposed Action. A Section 106 approval by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) was issued on November 3, 2006 (re‐issued January 26, 2011) stating no further evaluation of Section 106 resources are required. A copy of the SHPO’s approval is in Appendix A, Exhibit IV‐10. IV.8.4 – Mitigation The No Action Alternative would not create any cultural resource impacts. No Section 106 resources would be impacted by the Sponsor’s Proposed Action. Therefore, no mitigation measures for Section 106 resources would be required. IV.9 – Biotic Communities IV.9.1 – General Discussion The Airport Environmental Handbook (Federal Aviation Administration Order 5050.4B), Table 7‐1 (Significance Thresholds) states that a determination needs to be conducted to ensure the Airport improvements would result in only minor alteration of existing habitat of species commonly found in the affected area. The minor alterations are referred to as the removal of habitat, which support a limited number or variety of common wildlife species or the removal of a few acres that represents a small percentage of the area’s overall inventory. IV.9.2 – No Action Alternative Chapter Four – Environmental Consequences Page 35 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 The No Action Alternative assumes that there will be no construction of any facilities at the Airport to address the established purpose and need. No impacts to biotic communities would occur under this alternative. IV.9.3 – Sponsor’s Proposed Action Generally, the flora found in the area of the Sponsor’s Proposed Action is composed of lawn grasses and forbs, which have been planted for the purpose of ground cover that are periodically mowed. The relocation of the runway would remove some non‐native grasses and forbs that would likely displace some small mammals (rodents), snakes, birds, and insects. A wildlife survey was completed by the USDA in 2008. The USDA concluded that the Airport needs to install a perimeter fence to enclose the property, have a zero‐tolerance toward hazardous wildlife, train and designate personnel to monitor wildlife populations, manage the Airport turf, document wildlife strikes and obtain necessary wildlife removal permits11. Although, construction may displace some wildlife, the Sponsor’s Proposed Action would not have an adverse impact on the area’s ecosystem because the future land use and additional impervious area is consistent with the surrounding land uses. The impacts of this alternative are considered to be a minor alteration, and would not create any adverse impacts to biotic communities. IV.9.4 – Mitigation Neither the Sponsor’s Proposed Action nor the No Action Alternative would create any adverse impacts to biotic communities. Therefore, no mitigation measures for biotic community impacts are required. IV.10 – Endangered and Threatened Species of Flora and Fauna IV.10.1 – General Discussion Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended, requires each Federal agency to insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species which is determined by the Secretary, after consultation as appropriate with the affected states, to be critical, unless such agency has been granted an exemption for such action by the Committee (Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. §1531, et seq). Endangered and threatened species of plants and animals are defined as follows:  A Federally endangered species is any species, which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a major portion of its range;  A Federally threatened species is any species, which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a major portion of its range;  A state‐endangered species is any species, which is in danger of extinction as a breeding species in Illinois; and  A state‐threatened species is any breeding species, which is likely to become a state‐endangered species within the foreseeable future in Illinois. 11
Wildlife Hazard Assessment, Clow International Airport Chapter Four – Environmental Consequences Page 36 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 IV.10.2 – No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative assumes that there will be no construction of any facilities at the Airport to address the established purpose and need. No impacts to endangered and threatened species would occur under this alternative. IV.10.3 – Sponsor’s Proposed Action The IDNR, Division of Natural Resource Review and Coordination, was contacted to determine if threatened and endangered species or Illinois Natural Areas Inventory (INAI) sites are recorded on or near the project area. The IDNR Natural Heritage Database contains records of both State and Federally‐listed threatened and endangered species in Illinois. IDNR did not identify any known occurrences of listed threatened or endangered species, or INAI sites and Nature Preserves within or adjacent to the project area. A copy of correspondence regarding the Natural Heritage Database Review is contained in Exhibit IV‐11. The Sponsor’s Proposed Action would not impact any known threatened or endangered species. The USFWS was also contacted to determine if any threatened and/or endangered species are recorded within or near the project area. In their letter dated November 13, 2006 (revised July 31, 2008), shown in Exhibit IV‐12, the USFWS stated that no threatened or endangered species are known to occur in the vicinity of the site. Their letter also stated that the project does not appear to adversely affect any federally threatened or endangered species or adversely modify critical habitat. IV.10.4 – Mitigation Neither the Sponsor’s Proposed Action nor the No Action Alternative would create any adverse impacts. Therefore, no mitigation measures for endangered and threatened species impacts are required. IV.11 – Wetlands and Waters of the United States IV.11.1 – General Discussion The Corps and the EPA jointly define wetlands as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances, do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.” (Corps 33 CFR §328.3 and EPA 40 CFR §230.3) Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. According to the Corps Wetlands Delineation Manual, wetlands must possess the following diagnostic characteristics: a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology. Hydrology is the most independent variable among the three wetland criteria and its influence is extremely important. Hydrologic fluctuations not only affect soil formation, but also every wetland function. Wetland hydrology is described by the Corps as “inundation or saturation to the surface for at least 5 percent of the growing season in most years.” Saturation exists when the capillary fringe occurs within a major portion of the root zone. The growing season is defined as the portion of the year when soil temperature at 20 inches below the surface is above 41°F. Wetland hydrology results in soil anaerobiosis as biological and chemical processes deplete oxygen in the soil. Chapter Four – Environmental Consequences Page 37 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 Soils developed in anoxic conditions are called hydromorphic or hydric. The Natural Resources Conservation Service defines hydric soils as “saturated, flooded or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part of the soil” (Soil Conservation Service 1991). For most species of vegetation, oxygen deprivation is an extreme condition limiting survival. For certain adapted species, however, anoxic rooting conditions are an environmental condition allowing them the ecological advantage. The National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils defines hydrophytic vegetation as “plant life growing in water or on a saturated substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content”. The keystone to regulatory consideration of hydrophytic vegetation is inundation or saturation sufficient to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present. The Corps requires a predominance (greater than 50 percent) of hydrophytic species. The DOT Order 5660.1A, Preservation of the Nation’s Wetlands, which implements Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, and provides that Federal agencies avoid undertaking or providing assistance to projects requiring new construction in wetlands unless there is no practicable alternative and the project includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands. Waters of the United States is defined as “those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. A determination of navigability, once made, applies laterally over the entire surface of the water body, and is not extinguished by later actions or events which impede or destroy navigable capacity.” (Corps 33 §CFR 329) IV.11.2 – No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative assumes that there will be no construction of any facilities at the Airport to address the established purpose and need. No impacts to wetlands would occur under this alternative. IV.11.3 – Sponsor’s Proposed Action The Department of Transportation Order 5660.1A, Preservation of the Nation’s Wetlands, implements Federal Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, and provides that Federal agencies avoid undertaking or providing assistance to projects requiring new construction in wetlands unless there is no practicable alternative and the project includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands. The USFWS has mapped potential wetland areas based on high altitude aerial photography. This mapping has been termed the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). The National Wetlands Inventory Map for the Normantown Illinois topographic quadrangle depicts no jurisdictional and/or non‐
jurisdictional wetland areas located within the project area shown in Exhibit IV‐13, Appendix A. In a letter dated November 17, 2006 and the phone call in June 2010, the Chicago District of the Corps, determined that a Section 404 Permit will not be required for the Sponsor’s Proposed Action. See Exhibit IV‐14, Section 404 Coordination in Appendix A. No construction activities, including the removal of trees, are proposed under the Sponsor’s Proposed Action that would impact any wetlands or waters of the United States that require Corps authorization. Chapter Four – Environmental Consequences Page 38 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 IV.11.4 – Mitigation Neither the Sponsor’s Proposed Action nor the No Action Alternative would create any impacts to wetland areas and/or waters of the U.S. Therefore, no mitigation measures for wetland impacts would be required. IV.12 – Floodplains IV.12.1 – General Discussion Floodplains perform many important functions included in flood desynchronization, wildlife habitat, food chain support, nutrient retention and removal, and erosion control. Regulatory floodplains are those with a designated 100‐year floodplain that are mapped on National Flood Insurance Rate Maps by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Longitudinal encroachment of transportation projects on designated floodplains requires a formal review under Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management. Executive Order 11988 directs Federal agencies to “take actions to reduce the risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare and restore and preserve the natural and beneficial value served by floodplains”. United States Department of Transportation Order 5650.2, Floodplain Management and Protection contains procedures for implementing the Executive Order and establishes a policy of avoiding actions within the 100‐year floodplain. IV.12.2 – No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative assumes that there will be no construction of any facilities at the Airport to address the established purpose and need. No impacts to floodplains would occur under this alternative. IV.12.3 – Sponsor’s Proposed Action The Sponsor’s Proposed Action would require the acquisition of approximately 1.2 acres of land in fee simple title and the acquisition of approximately 48 acres of easements. Ancillary improvements would include constructing new hangars, parallel taxiway, aprons, installing taxiway and runway lighting, trimming any tops of trees penetrating the 14 CFR Part 77 Surfaces and removing any obstructions within the RSA’s, drainage and grading improvements. FEMA classifies and defines flood prone areas by “zone” based upon the probability and potential intensity of flooding. All existing and proposed Airport property to be owned in fee simple is within the area designated as Zone X (areas determined to be outside of the 500‐year floodplain). See Exhibit IV‐
15‐Flood Insurance Rate Map in Appendix A). There is no floodway on Airport property. In addition, all grading activities will be conducted on Airport property as to prevent the loss of flood storage volume. No construction activity, including the removal of trees, is to occur within the floodplain or floodway under the Sponsor’s Proposed Action. IV.12.4 – Mitigation Neither the Sponsor’s Proposed Action nor the No Action Alternative will create any impacts to floodplains or floodways. Therefore, no mitigation measures for floodplain impacts would be required. Chapter Four – Environmental Consequences Page 39 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 IV.13 – Energy Supply and Natural Resource Development IV.13.1 – General Discussion This section evaluates the impact of the Sponsor’s Proposed Action on the consumption of energy and natural resources. The proposed consumption is compared to the available resources in the region and the impacts of the proposed development are state herein. The evaluation focuses on four separate areas: 



Consumption of energy for stationary facilities such as buildings and lighting systems; Consumption of fuel by aircraft; Consumption of fuel by ground vehicles; and Use of natural resources, which are in short supply. The consumption of energy by the proposed stationary facilities, buildings, airfield lighting systems, apron lighting systems, parking lot lighting systems, and other facilities, will increase incrementally the amount of electricity and natural gas currently used by the Airport. The proposed facilities are not energy intensive design will be used in their development. Any incremental increase will be very small when compared to the entire system and will be easily incorporated. It is therefore determined that the Sponsor’s Proposed Action will not significantly impact the existing energy systems in the region. The consumption of aircraft fuel will increase and this increase in aviation fuel is related to the increase in the aircraft that will be using the Airport. It is anticipated that this increase in demand for aviation fuel in the region will be supplied through the private sector under normal free trade competition. The aircraft operators based upon cost and reliability of the supplier will determine the actual method of procuring the fuel. The resources and the facilities are required to provide this fuel for the Airport are not in short supply and their use should not adversely impact the existing energy systems in the region. The analysis of the energy and natural resources consumption impacts: 1) requires the study of the proposed alternatives to determine what were the anticipated energy uses by the facilities; and 2) the impacts of this consumption on the existing energy providers in the region. The facility requirements were analyzed based upon other similar facilities that are in operation today and the energy requirements provided by potential tenants. These requirements were then compared to the existing energy supply infrastructure to determine if the increases due to the development would exceed the ability of the existing system. The Sponsor’s Proposed Action will not utilize any natural resources, which are in short supply. Therefore, it is anticipated that there will be no significant impact on the existing natural resources. IV.13.2 – No Action Alternative The No Action alternative assumes that there will be no construction of any facilities at the Airport to address the established purpose and need. No impacts to energy supplies or natural resource development would occur under this alternative. Chapter Four – Environmental Consequences Page 40 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 IV.13.3 – Sponsor’s Proposed Action The Sponsor’s Proposed Action includes replacement runway construction, a new parallel taxiway, and associated lighting systems. During the construction of the Sponsor’s Proposed Action, items such as concrete, asphalt, crushed stone, fuel oil, gasoline, wire, glass, and paint would be used. All materials needed for construction are available and may be purchased from surrounding area firms or manufacturers who specialize in airport equipment. No significant impacts to energy generation or natural resources in short supply would occur under the Sponsor’s Proposed Action. The projected energy usage for the new facilities would not be an energy intensive operation. Neither the runway lights nor taxiway lights would substantially increase in electric demand over the present demand. The addition of runway and various runway approach aids are described in the Chapter IV‐18, Light Emissions section of this report. While the new lighting and replacement terminal area would increase the Airport’s energy demand, it would not result in any measurable adverse effect upon local energy supplies. The facility will utilize no natural resources, which are considered to be in short supply, either during the construction or the operation of the facility. Therefore, there would be no adverse impact on the natural resources of the region. Providing power, light, water, and other utilities and fuel to the facilities presented in the alternatives is a private, profit centered activity, it was determined through discussions with providers and procurement experts that the need would be supplied by the private sector (energy would be supplied by Commonwealth Edison, Illinois American Water would supply water, and Nicor Gas Company would supply natural gas) within its existing infrastructure capabilities and would result in no adverse impact on the overall system. IV.13.4 – Mitigation Neither the Sponsor’s Proposed Action nor the No Action Alternative would create any adverse impacts. Therefore, no mitigation for energy supplies or natural resource development impacts would be required. IV.14‐ Light Emissions IV.14.1 – General Discussion Aviation lighting required for the purpose of security, obstruction clearance, and aeronautical navigation, is the chief contributor to light emissions radiating from airports. These lights usually fall within the following categories: airfield lights (runway and taxiway), aircraft parking apron lights, building lights, auto parking lot lights and navigational lights (rotating beacon, approach lighting). Airport light emissions have a noticeable impact if light is directed towards a nearby residential area. The following section summarizes the existing and future lighting conditions and their potential impacts. IV.14.2 – No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative assumes that there will be no construction of any facilities at the Airport to address the established purpose and need. No light emission impacts would occur under this alternative. Chapter Four – Environmental Consequences Page 41 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 IV.14.3 – Sponsor’s Proposed Action The Sponsor’s Proposed Action includes the widening of the runway and corresponding lighting that are typically a straight line of lights of both sides of the runway and thresholds that outline the facility during darkness or low visibility weather conditions.  Runway lights are omni‐directional and are generally 30 inches above the ground. Runway lights are placed uniformly at about 200 feet intervals along the runway, within 10 feet of the full strength pavement edge. Runway lights are typically 30 watt lights.  Threshold lights are of similar size as runway lights and have split red and green lenses. Threshold lights are typically 45 watt lights.  Taxiway lights would also be installed on the proposed new taxiway. Taxiway lights are omnidirectional and emit blue light. Taxiway edge lights are spaced similar to runway edge lights at approximately 200 feet intervals and approximately 10 feet from the taxiway edge. Taxiway lights are typically 30 watt lights.  The Precision Approach Path Indicator Lights (PAPI‐4) are located about 500 feet from the end of each runway at 30 feet spacing at the same elevation, usually 3‐6 feet high.  The remaining runway lights are located on either side of the runway thresholds and are called Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL). REILs consist of two 150 watt synchronized flashing lights placed on both sides of each runway end.  A new Airport Rotating Beacon is also proposed as part of the Sponsor’s Proposed Action. The beacon provides an alternating green and white light and the light beam center must be field adjustable through vertical angles from 2‐10o above the horizontal plane to avoid impacts to adjacent surface vehicles. The beacon is proposed to be approximately 800 ft from the nearest residence. At this distance, the height of the light at 2o from the beacon will be 80 ft above the ground. The height of the light at 10o from the beacon is 191 ft above the ground. This will be well above the height of the nearby residences.  The Sponsor’s Proposed Action also includes the addition of lighted wind cones which will be located near each new runway threshold. The Airport is located in a highly urbanized area. Numerous lighting generators are located in and around the Airport including those associated with major food/convenience stores, home improvement stores, restaurants, residences and local highway/street lights. Due to the existing lighting regime, aircraft landing and departing at the airport can have issues in recognizing the airport location. The following visual navigational aids help pilots define the Airport’s facilities. PAPI are steady burning lights whose angle is up and away from the ground, at approximately 3.00 and toward the pilot on approach. Runway 18 PAPI will be facing commercial activities and the Runway 36 PAPI will be facing single‐family residential homes. PAPI’s, will appear as a series of dim indirect red lights, similar to a red traffic signal to persons on the ground, therefore, no annoyance is expected. REIL’s are two flashing lights aimed up and out from the runway end at a slope of 100. The Runway 18 REIL’s will be facing commercial land uses and Boughton Road to north. The Runway 36 REIL’s will be facing residences to south. If the standard settings of the REIL’s are found to be locally objectionable, optical baffles (per the manufactures instructions) can be added12.. The rotating beacon is a two color light beam rotating up and away from the airport, nearby residences, and roadways. Standards allow for 12
AC 150/5340‐30E, Design and Installation Details for Airport Visual Aids Chapter Four – Environmental Consequences Page 42 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 adjustment of the beam angle, from 2‐100 for pilot visibility. By their nature, rotating beacons are not normally visible from the ground and no annoyances are expected by this improvement. By comparison, a 36‐inch rotating beacon with a 400 watt metal halide lamp gives off approximately 20,000 lumens while a typical street light with a 400 watt halide lamp gives off approximately 22,000 to 30,000 average lumens. A 400 watt high pressure sodium street lamp will give off 37,000 to 45,000 average lumens. This information demonstrates that the beacon light emissions will be less than the emissions of a typical streetlight. IV.14.4 – Mitigation The No Action Alternative assumes that there will be no construction of any facilities at the Airport to address the established Purpose and Need for action. Light emissions from the Sponsor’s Proposed Action are not anticipated to have any adverse impacts. Therefore, no formal mitigation procedures will be required. Design of the runway lighting will be completed in such a way as to limit the light levels visible from residential areas and roadways so that there is no difference from what can be presently viewed. IV.15 – Construction Impacts IV.15.1 – General Discussion The impact of construction of a facility gives the appearance of levels of activity which are often quite different than those the facility will reflect after its completion. The impacts of the construction phase are relatively short in duration and do not reflect the impacts, if any, that the facility will have for a much larger time period on the environment. Construction impacts normally involve the movement of equipment, building materials, laborers, and related personnel to and from the construction site. In addition, noise levels, smoke, dust, and possible disruption of public services and other temporary undesirable conditions often accompany the construction phase. The movement of equipment and materials may have short‐term effects on normal traffic flows and cause temporary inconvenience to persons who normally reside or travel in the construction area. Many of the adverse temporary effects can be minimized through the careful scheduling of deliveries and the movement of equipment to avoid peak traffic conditions and other sensitive periods. Other on‐site precautions can be taken to reduce the adverse impacts caused by the construction activities. The construction impacts resulting from the proposed improvements include noise, air, and water impacts. FAA’s Advisory Circular 150/5370‐10A, Standards For Specifying Construction of Airports ‐ Item 156‐3.2 Schedule requires: prior to start of construction, the Contractor shall submit schedules for accomplishments of temporary and permanent erosion control work, as are applicable for clearing and grubbing, grading, construction, paving, and structures in watercourses. The Contractor shall also submit a proposed method of erosion and dust control on haul roads and borrow pits and a plan for disposal of waste materials. Work shall not be started until the erosion control schedules and methods of operation for the applicable construction have been accepted by the Resident Engineer. The various environmental factors affected by construction activities are evaluated below: Chapter Four – Environmental Consequences Page 43 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 IV.15.2 – Noise The major acoustic impacts, which are temporary in nature, will result from construction vehicles on site and material haul vehicles driving through local streets. Construction vehicles would sound similar to the residential and commercial development in the area. Haul vehicles would sound similar to existing commercial truck traffic (i.e. Home Depot and Meijer) and the increased number of trucks would not be significant enough to generate a noticeable increase in noise. No blasting will be necessary. All construction will take place during daylight hours. IV.15.3 – Air Quality Dust resulting from earth moving, grading and construction activities would likely be generated. Proper engineering measures would limit the impact on the Airport to a minimum, with no noticeable effects beyond the Airport property. Several methods of controlling dust and other air pollutants include: exposing the minimum area of erodible earth; applying temporary mulch with or without seeding; using water sprinkler truck; using covered haul trucks; using dust suppressors or penetration asphalt on haul roads; and using plastic sheet coverings and guidance is contained in the Illinois Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics’ Standard Specifications13. IV.15.4 – Water Quality During construction, some amount of erosion would occur. Engineering controls would be used to limit erosion and sedimentation. An erosion and sediment control program, including the possible use of silt fences, silt traps, retention basins and/or interim soil stabilization, will be developed during the design phase of the project. Any impacts would be of a short duration and would not be adverse. The impact of the construction at the Airport would be relatively minor as compared to the industrial operations in and around the Airport project area. IV.15.5 – No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative assumes that there will be no construction of any facilities at the Airport to address the established purpose and need. No construction impacts would occur under this alternative. IV.15.6 – Sponsor’s Proposed Action The Sponsor’s Proposed Action may cause temporary, localized air degradation from construction activities. Soil and aggregate hauling and placement and operation of heavy equipment would cause minor air quality degradation from increased dust and exhaust emissions. However, the short‐term impacts would be anticipated to be minimal. Heavy equipment operations during construction would temporarily increase noise levels; however, this would be minor, localized, and short‐term in duration. There may be minor direct impacts to water quality in the immediate vicinity of the airport and material source areas due to surface runoff of sediments during the construction activities associated with the Sponsor’s Proposed Action. Additionally, there could be minor indirect impacts on surface water runoff quality from increased sediment levels. These impacts would be temporary and short‐term in duration. 13
Standard Specifications for Construction of Airports (Consolidated Reprint), IDOT, November 2, 2009. Chapter Four – Environmental Consequences Page 44 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 IV.15.7 – Mitigation Neither the Sponsor’s Proposed Action nor the No Action Alternative would create any adverse impacts. Therefore, no mitigation measures for construction impacts would be required. IV.16 – Solid Waste IV.16.1 – General Discussion Environmental concerns relative to solid waste disposal range from adequate landfills for normal urban trash and garbage to the safe disposal of industrial waste. Waste disposal facilities have, on occasion, become the center of controversy since landfills and the truck traffic they generate are often perceived as not being compatible with residential areas. Traditionally, except for the open burning issue that reduced airport visibility, general aviation airports have not been heavily involved in solid waste conflicts since they generally do not contribute considerably to the problem. Unless an airport has related industry or a major paint and repair service facility, it does not generate appreciable amounts of solid waste. FAA’s Order 5050.4B states: “Airport actions which relate only to airfield development (runways, taxiways, and related items) will not normally include any direct relationship to solid waste collection, control, or disposal other than that associated with the construction itself (reference paragraphs 47e(20))”. Construction activities as part of pavement development generate varying amounts of solid waste. General disposal of these wastes must be monitored and processed properly. In regard to the location of landfills and their proximity to airports, the FAA’s Order 5200.33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports, provides the following comments: Landfills, garbage dumps, sewer or fish waste outfalls and other similarly licensed or tilted facilities used for operations to process, bury, store or otherwise dispose of waste, trash and refuse will attract rodents and birds. Where the dump is ignited and produces smoke, an additional attractant is created. All of the above are undesirable and potential hazards to aviation since they erode the safety of the airport environment. The FAA neither approves nor disapproves locations of facilities mentioned above. Such action is the responsibility of the Environmental Protection Agency and/or the appropriate state and local agencies. The role of the FAA is to ensure that airport owners and operators meet their contractual obligations to the United States government regarding compatible land uses in the vicinity of the Airport. While the chance of an unforeseeable, random bird strike in flight will always exist, it is nevertheless possible to define conditions within fairly narrow limits where the risk is increased. Those high‐risk conditions exist in the approach and departure patterns and landing areas on and in the vicinity of airports. The number of bird strikes reported on aircraft is a matter of continuing concern to the FAA and to airport management. Various observations support the conclusion that waste disposal sites are artificial attractants to birds. Accordingly, the disposal sites located in the vicinity of an airport are potentially incompatible with safe flight operations. Those sites that are not compatible need to be eliminated. Airport owners need guidance in making those decisions and the FAA must be in a position to assist. Some airports are not under the jurisdiction of the community of local governing body having control of land usage in the Chapter Four – Environmental Consequences Page 45 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 vicinity of the Airport. In these areas the airport owner should use its resources and exert its best efforts to close or control waste disposal operations within the general vicinity of the Airport. Criteria for determining incompatibility are contained in FAA Order 5200.5A: Disposal sites will be considered as incompatible if located within areas established for the airports through the application of the following criteria:  Hazardous wildlife attracting sites located within 10,000 feet of any runway end used or planned to be used by turbine powered aircraft.  Hazardous wildlife attracting sites located within 5,000 feet of any runway end used only by piston powered aircraft: and  Any hazardous wildlife attracting site located within a five mile radius of a runway end that attracts or sustains hazardous bird movements from feeding, water or roosting areas into, or across the runways and/or approach and departure patterns of aircraft. According to the IEPA, there are no permitted/active landfills within 10,000 feet of the proposed improvements. The Land & Lakes/Willow Ranch Transfer Station is approximately 4 miles to the Southeast of the Airport, and the Land & Lakes/Willow ranch Composting Facility is also located approximately 4 miles to the Southeast of the Airport. There are no known landfills or transfer stations in the approach/departure paths for the runway. Another potential impact to be considered is an increase in solid waste generated at the Airport. While the Sponsor’s Proposed Action would most likely cause an increase in solid waste generation, it is not likely to be a substantial amount. IV.16.2 – No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative assumes that there will be no construction of any facilities at the Airport to address the established purpose and need. No impacts to solid waste facilities would occur under this alternative. IV.16.3 – Sponsor’s Proposed Action The Sponsor’s Proposed Action does not include any improvements that will significantly increase the amount of solid waste generated at the Airport. Waste from the construction activities would either be recycled if possible or disposed of properly. IV.16.4 – Mitigation Neither the Sponsor’s Proposed Actions nor the No Action Alternatives would create any adverse impacts. Therefore, no mitigation measures for solid waste impacts would be required. IV.17 – Hazardous Waste IV.17.1 – General Discussion Hazardous Waste is an overall term that includes spills, dumping and releases of substances threatening to human and animal life. To identify these materials and protect the environment from harmful interaction of potential hazardous wastes, several Federal laws and regulation have been enacted including: the National Priorities List (Superfund Sites), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Chapter Four – Environmental Consequences Page 46 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). As a method of protection for the citizens of the State of Illinois, several state laws and reporting regulations have also been passed including: the IEPA, the State Priority List, Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) List and the Underground Storage Tank (UST) Facilities List. IV.17.2 – No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative assumes that there will be no construction of any facilities at the Airport to address the established purpose and need. No hazardous waste impacts would occur under this alternative. IV.17.3 – Sponsor’s Proposed Action The USEPA listing of potential, suspected, and known hazardous waste or hazardous substance sites in Illinois (i.e., CERCLA list) has been reviewed to ascertain whether the proposed project will involve any listed sites(s). As a result of this review, it has been determined that the Sponsor’s Proposed Action would not require any land purchased in fee simple title from a site included in the CERCLIS listing as of February 2010. According to the IEPA, there are no LUST sites in the immediate vicinity of the Airport. The Village of Bolingbrook does not contain any Superfund sites. The Airport has measures in place to control potential hazardous waste spills. The Airport has a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure plan in place to follow if a spill occurs at the Airport. To date, the Airport has had no hazardous waste spills occur. The Airport conducts a monthly fuel farm inspection recorded with pictures. Spill containment materials are located at the fuel farm for anything small and a complete spill kit in the adjacent hangar. The Airport’s policy requires anything to be reported to the Airport Manager and if there was a large spill to also call the Fire dept. To date the Airport has had no spills. Airport rules and regulations require that all hazardous waste be disposed of properly according to local laws. IV.17.4 – Mitigation Neither the Sponsor’s Proposed Action nor the No Action Alternative would create any adverse impacts. Phase I Environmental Site Assessments will be conducted prior to the transfer (sale) of properties. IV.18 ‐ Environmental Justice and Children’s Environmental Health Risks IV.18.1 – General Discussion Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low‐Income Populations, provides that each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low‐income populations. The Executive Order makes clear that its provisions apply fully to programs involving Native Americans. Chapter Four – Environmental Consequences Page 47 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 IV.18.2 – No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative assumes that there would be no acquisition of homes or businesses, no impacts to a disproportionately high number of minority or low income populations, and there would be no environmental health risks and safety risks that could disproportionately affect children at or near the Airport to address the established purpose and need. IV.18.3 – Sponsor’s Proposed Action The Sponsor’s Proposed Action does not include the acquisition of homes or businesses. No adverse impacts would occur to a disproportionately high number of minority or low income populations, and there would be no environmental health risks and safety risks that could disproportionately affect children at or near the Airport. No environmental justice mitigation would be needed under the Sponsor’s Proposed Action. IV.18.4 – Mitigation The No Action and the Sponsor’s Proposed Action do not include the acquisition of homes or businesses, adverse impacts to a disproportionately high number of minority or low income populations, and environmental health risks and safety risks that could disproportionately affect children at or near the Airport. Consequently, environmental justice impact mitigation would not be required. IV.19 ‐ Cumulative Impacts IV.19.1 ‐ General Discussion This section addresses the cumulative effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions in combination with the Sponsor’s Proposed Action. The reason for this analysis is that while impacts of many actions may be small, the cumulative (added) effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions on resources could be, in the aggregate, sizable. NEPA requires that cumulative effects be studied along with direct and indirect results of those actions. The No Action Alternative studied throughout the Environmental Consequences of this document serves as the litmus against which all cumulative impacts are measured. When reviewing the significance of cumulative impacts, the same thresholds used in judging alternatives are also implemented. The thresholds of significance are defined in FAA Orders 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, and 5050.4A, Airport Environmental Handbook. The following is additional CEQ guidance for assessing cumulative impacts:  CEQ § 1508.7 states that "'Cumulative impact' is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time."  CEQ § 1508.25 defines three types of actions to be considered in determining the scope of an EIS: (a) Actions (other than unconnected single actions) which may be: Chapter Four – Environmental Consequences Page 48 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 (1) Connected actions, which means that they are closely related and therefore should be discussed in the same impact statement. Actions are connected if they: (i) Automatically trigger other actions which may require environmental impact statements. (ii) Cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously. (iii) Are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification. (2) Cumulative actions, which when viewed with other proposed actions have cumulatively significant impacts and should therefore be discussed in the same impact statement. (3) Similar actions, which when viewed with other reasonably foreseeable or proposed agency actions, have similarities that provide a basis for evaluating their environmental consequences (sic) together, such as common timing or geography. An agency may wish to analyze these actions in the same impact statement. It should do so when the best way to assess adequately the combined impacts of similar actions or reasonable alternatives to such actions is to treat them in a single impact statement.  For airport actions, the effect of a number of decisions about a complex of projects can be individually limited to the extent that a finding of no significant impact or categorical exclusion would appear to be appropriate for each project; however, when considered together, the projects may exceed the threshold values. In both EA’s and environmental impact statements, the total proposal must be considered. In the context of the CEQ Regulations, the total proposal includes the Sponsor’s Proposed Action and all other actions reasonably related to it in time and probability. The following are some examples: o Land acquisition and a future runway extension. o Runway extension and road relocation, when the road needs to be moved to accommodate the extension. o Grading for an ILS and future installation of the ILS. o Apron work for terminal area relocation which necessitates highway rerouting which in turn involves housing relocation. Terminal area relocation is the principal action justifying the project, but the effect on community disruption or other impacts due to the highway or housing relocation must be included in assessing the total proposal. o An initial runway extension and a second phase extension which is part of a firm development program or reasonably foreseeable in the near future.  In determining when to consider the effects of actions by other agencies in the airport vicinity, the potential for combined significant impact shall be evaluated. For example, new highway construction and airport expansion in combination may create significant air quality impacts. Extensive earth moving from more than one project may combine to cause severe erosion or flooding. IV.19.2 ‐ Past Airport Projects Since public ownership, several Airport projects including construction of hangars, pavements, and utility extensions have been minor due to incorporated engineering controls to minimize cumulative impacts. Several airport development projects at the Airport have included the construction of water management facilities to restrict Airport generated flows off Airport property. Chapter Four – Environmental Consequences Page 49 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 IV.19.3 ‐ Current and Present Airport Projects In defining current and present airfield project, the term “current“ for purposes of this discussion are those improvements to be constructed during calendar year 2010 and 2011. These projects include the construction of a perimeter fence to prevent wildlife from entering Airport property, the construction of pavements to allow the relocation of taxiway hold lines to FAA criteria, and the removal of obstructions in the Runway Protection Zones. IV.19.4 ‐ Reasonably Foreseeable Future Airport Actions In defining the reasonably foreseeable future Airport actions, the term “future actions”, for purposes of this discussion, are those improvements depicted on the approved ALP but are not contained within the Sponsor’s Proposed Action of this environmental assessment. These projects include:  Improvements that are required due to changes in construction codes and laws.  Maintenance of existing facilities and obstruction removal. Chapter Four – Environmental Consequences Page 50 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 IV.19.5 ‐ Off‐Airport Projects A review of past, present and reasonably foreseeable conditions indicates that the Airport has had minimal impacts on the local environs. A number of past and present off‐airport projects have occurred in the area and this development is expected to continue in the future. Specifically, the road improvement projects described in the Will County 2009 – 2014 Proposed Highway Improvement Program should not have an impact on the surrounding environs. IV.19.6 ‐ Summary and Conclusion A review of past, present and reasonably foreseeable conditions indicate that the Airport has had minimal impacts on the local environs. Some past and present off‐airport projects have occurred in the area and others are expected to occur in the future. Local road projects proposed by the Will County Highway Department should not have a negative impact on surrounding environs. However, until specific off‐airport project plans are known, it is not possible to fully quantify specific cumulative impacts from the Sponsor’s Proposed Action and other non‐airport developments. Chapter Four – Environmental Consequences Page 51 Citizen Involvement and Agency Coordination Chapter Five Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 V.1 – Introduction FAA’s Order 5050.4B, Airport Environmental Handbook, states that:  While requests for Federal airport actions originate with a public agency, the involvement of the community at large is a necessary element in the decision‐making process. An effective opportunity to comment at appropriate stages in the decision‐making process shall be provided to communities, citizen groups, and other individuals affected by airport proposals submitted to the groups, and other individuals affected by airport proposals submitted to the FAA. They shall also be provided an opportunity to review and comment on draft and final statements.  In accordance with Section 509(b)(6) of the 1982 Airport Act, the opportunity for public hearings shall be offered on any action involving airport location, location of a new runway, or major extension of a runway. For other actions, a public hearing shall be considered in accordance with the guidelines contained in paragraph 49. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5050‐4, Citizen Participation in Airport Planning, has additional specific guidance on community involvement. Standard procedures for Federal agency public involvement are stated in CEQ 1506.6. The preparation of the EA has been coordinated with various city, county, township, state and Federal units of government. Many of these agencies will assist with the completion of this document through the review process. Upon receipt of all written review comments from those public agencies involve in the review process, a Final EA will be prepared and submitted to all parties involved. V.2. – Agency Coordination Coordination with public agencies insures that appropriate government units, local, state and Federal, have an opportunity to review the Sponsor’s Proposed Action for conformance with the requirements of their jurisdictions and programs and to make known any concerns they may have. Several agencies already have been contacted for their respective input for the preparation of the Draft EA. The following is a list of the agencies that were contacted to provide the consultant with any supplemental information or specific concerns or comments that they would have. 














Bolingbrook Park District Chicago Area Transportation Study, now known as CMAP City of Naperville DuPage Township Forest Preserve District of Will County Illinois Department of Agriculture Illinois State Historic Preservation Agency Illinois State Geological Survey Illinois Department of Natural Resources ‐ Federal Aid Coordinator Illinois Department of Natural Resources ‐ Natural Resources Review and Coordination Illinois Department of Transportation ‐ District 1 Illinois Department of Transportation ‐ Division of Aeronautics Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Natural Resource Conservation Service The Nature Conservancy of Illinois Chapter Five – Citizen Involvement and Agency Coordination Page 52 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA 



















June 08, 2011 Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission PACE Suburban Bus Regional Transportation Authority U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Agriculture ‐ Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development U.S. Department of the Interior – Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of Transportation ‐ Federal Aviation Administration ‐ Chicago ADO U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Village of Bolingbrook ‐ Village Administrator Village of Bolingbrook ‐ Department of Community Development Village of Bolingbrook ‐ Fire Marshall Village of Bolingbrook ‐ Police Department Village of Bolingbrook ‐ Department of Public Works Village of Plainfield Village of Romeoville Will County Department of Highways Will County Health Department Will/South Cook Soil and Water Conservation District As listed below and as shown in Appendix A many of these agencies have provided preliminary supplemental information, or their concerns and comments. This information was taken into account to minimize or eliminate significant impacts on the environment and surrounding communities. 








Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) Illinois Department of Agriculture Illinois Department of Natural Resources Illinois Department of Transportation ‐ Division of Aeronautics Illinois Historic Preservation Agency Illinois Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Department of the Interior – Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Environmental Protection Agency The following is a list of public agencies that will receive the Draft Environmental Assessment for review and comment. 







City of Naperville Illinois Department of Agriculture Illinois Department of Natural Resources ‐ Natural Resources Review and Coordination Illinois Department of Transportation ‐ District 1 Illinois Department of Transportation ‐ Division of Aeronautics Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Federal Aviation Administration – Chicago Airports District Office U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Chapter Five – Citizen Involvement and Agency Coordination Page 53 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA 







June 08, 2011 U.S. Department of Agriculture ‐ Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services U.S. Department of the Interior – Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Village of Bolingbrook ‐ Department of Community Development Village of Bolingbrook ‐ Department of Public Works Village of Plainfield Will County Department of Highways Will/South Cook Soil and Water Conservation District All comments received by these agencies will be incorporated where appropriate into the final Environmental Assessment. V.3 – Public Coordination Several methods will be utilized to inform the public and interested parties of proposed Airport development projects to receive comments with respect to potential environmental impacts and to respond thereto. A draft EA was forwarded to several Federal, State, and Local reviewing agencies as identified above in the 3rd list of agencies requesting their review and comment on the document. A notice for a public hearing using an open format for concerned citizens will be advertised in a secular newspaper of general circulation that is published daily for the southwest suburbs of Chicago. Individuals involved in the preparation and review of the draft EA will be available to respond to citizen’s questions through the public comment process. A copy of this Draft Environmental Assessment will be posted on the Village of Bolingbrook’s web site. V‐4 – Permits and Commitments A list all required permits and Sponsor Commitments for the development of the Sponsor’s Proposed Action are contained herein. It should be noted that even though the airport sponsor has/shall obtain one or more permits from the appropriate federal, state, and/or local agencies for the proposed project, initiation of such project shall NOT be approved until FAA and/or IDOT has issued its environmental determination.  Use of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 in the acquisition and reimbursement of fee simple title and avigation easement property interests.  Phase I Environmental Assessments will be conducted on all properties proposed for fee acquisition.  Two NPDES permits will be required, one for construction at the airport, and one for airport operation. A Storm water pollution prevention plan/NPDES General Permit for the Airport will be prepared prior to construction of the proposed improvements.  During the design phase of the project, FAA and State reference documents that would prescribe proper erosion and drainage protection measures should be followed.  Submittal of an application for Federal funds to develop the Airport involving the possibility of soil erosion, water and air pollution during the construction process, will include assurances that the sponsor will ensure that the contractor and the Resident Engineer will take all necessary precautions to prevent these types of pollution during the construction process. In particular, the methods for minimizing the effects upon the environment will be as follows: o Air pollution from dust will be kept to a minimum by watering the disturbed areas at whatever Chapter Five – Citizen Involvement and Agency Coordination Page 54 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA o
o
o
o
June 08, 2011 frequency is necessary to control the creation of airborne dust. Wherever necessary, siltation basins will be constructed in the natural drainage ways to control the build‐up of silt in existing ponds and creeks. The number, placement and design of such basins will be determined in the final design. Erosion of the disturbed soil after the construction season and during the winter and spring months will be controlled by the planting of temporary cover crops and ultimately after final earth shaping, the entire area will be fertilized, seeded or sodded as required by Federal and State laws. If there will be any interception of existing field tiles, they will be connected into a new system and integrated as a part of the overall drainage system. If necessary, any field tile in the area of a borrow pit will be intercepted, it will be drained into the excavated borrow area. Therefore, any areas adjacent to the borrow area or construction site will not be affected by the severed tile. With these considerations given to the drainage system whether existing or new, the design will take into consideration the elimination of any possibility of changing the existing water table. During the construction process when either asphalt or concrete batch plants may be operating, the control of these facilities will be regulated by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. Prior to the production of any concrete or asphalt, a permit will be obtained from the IEPA for the operation of these plants. Erosion controls prescribed by the Illinois Natural Resources Conservation Service to protect adjacent biotic areas, aquatic communities and adjacent farmland will be included as a part of the proposed construction projects. In addition to minimizing any environmental impacts, steps will be taken to ensure that undue hardship is not placed on adjoining landowners due to construction. All construction will take place during daylight hours. Engineering controls will be used to limit erosion and sedimentation. An erosion and sediment control program, including the possible use of silt fences, silt traps, retention basins and/or interim soil stabilization, will be developed during the design phase of the project. Chapter Five – Citizen Involvement and Agency Coordination Page 55 List of Preparers Chapter Six Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 VI.1 – List of Preparers The Airport’s EA was prepared by Hanson Professional Services, Inc., for the Village. Specifically, the preparation of this document was overseen by Ms. Amy Hanson, for the FAA, Great Lakes Region, Chicago Airports District Office (CHI‐ADO). Mr. Terrence Schaddel, Airport Planning Engineer and Environmental Officer for IDOT, Division of Aeronautics oversaw document coordination and text and exhibit review. The following individuals from the firm of Hanson Professional Services, Inc., prepared text and exhibits: Mr. Stephen J. McLaughlin (Principal Author), Mr. Rodger H. Anderson (Technical Editor) and Mr. Ronald M. Hudson (QC/QA Author). Chapter Six – List of Preparers Page 56 References Chapter Seven Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA June 08, 2011 VII.1 References DeLorme. Topo USAs. Yarmouth, ME. 1999. Federal Aviation Administration, 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions, April. 2006. Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Environment and Energy, Integrated Noise Model, Version 7.0 Users’ Guide. September 1999. Federal Aviation Administration, 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, June 2004. Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Aviation Policy and Plans. Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years 2008‐2025, February 2008. Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Aviation Policy and Plans. Terminal Area Forecasts, December 2008. Federal Emergency Management Agency. National Flood Insurance Program. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Will County, Village of Bolingbrook. 1995. Illinois Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, Illinois Airport Inventory Report 2004. Transportation, Engineering, and Development Business Group. Village of Naperville Existing Land Use Plan. January 2007. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Will County, Illinois. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. 2001. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services. Wildlife Hazard Assessment, Clow International Airport, Bolingbrook, Illinois. 2008. United States Department of the Interior. National Wetlands Inventory Map. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Green Book: Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. 2005. Village of Bolingbrook. Village 2007 Zoning Map. September 2007. Chapter Seven ‐ References Page 57 Exhibits Appendix A Applicable Regulatory Statutes Appendix B Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA May 12, 2011 B.1 – Applicable Regulatory Statutes B.1.1 – The Airport and Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1987 (P.L. 100‐223) The Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended by the Airport and Airway Safety Capacity Expansion Act of 1987 (Act), established the Airport Development Assistance Program. This Act states that a project may not be approved unless the Secretary of the DOT is satisfied that the project is reasonably consistent with objectives (existing at the time of approval of the project) of planning agencies for the development of the area in which the Airport is located. Each Airport development project must also “provide for the protection and enhancement of the natural resources and the quality of the environment of the nation”. B.1.2 – Federal Aviation Act of 1958, (P.L. 85‐726) now recodified as Subtitle VII, Title 49 U.S. Code – “Aviation Programs,” (Section 40101 et. Seq.) The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 did away with the Civil Aeronautics Administration and established the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In addition, the Act transferred the authority to set aviation regulations from the Civil Aeronautics Board to the FAA. This Act grants the FAA sole responsibility for the nation's civil‐military system of air navigation and air traffic control. Today, the aviation regulations are known as the FARs (Federal Aviation Regulations). Title 14, Chapter 1 – Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, provides a codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by FAA. The following parts establish regulations affecting the Airport, particularly airspace and navigation aids:  Part 77 Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace  Part 91 General Operating and Flight Rules  Part 157 Notice of Construction, Alteration, Activation and Deactivation of Airports Additionally, the following parts establish regulations affecting the Airport, with regard to funding airport development:  Part 151 Federal Aid to Airports  Part 152 Airport Aid Program B.1.3 – The National Environmental Policy Act 1969 (NEPA) Public Law 91‐190, U.S.C. 4321, et seq., established a broad national policy to improve the relationship between humans and the environment, and established policies and goals to insure that environmental considerations are given careful attention and appropriate weight in all decisions of the Federal Government. B.1.4 – Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Section 4(f), Recodified 49 U.S.C. 303c Section 4(f)/303c of the DOT Act provides that the secretary shall not approve any program or project which requires the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance or land of an historic site of national, state, or local significance as determined by the officials having jurisdiction thereof unless there is no feasible and Appendix B ‐ Applicable Regulatory Statutes Page B‐1 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA May 12, 2011 prudent alternative to the use of such land and such program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm resulting from the use. B.1.5 – The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981, 7 U.S.C. 4201, et seq. The Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act in part directs Federal agencies to take into account the adverse effects of proposed actions on the preservation of farmland, and to consider appropriate alternatives that could lessen adverse effects. B.1.6 – Interagency Wetland Policy Act of 1989, 20 Illinois Compiled Status (ILCS) 830/1‐1, et seq. This Act established a State goal of “no net loss” of wetlands acreage and their functional value due to State or State‐supported activities. It provides that State agencies shall preserve, enhance, and create wetlands where necessary to increase the quality and quantity of the State’s wetlands resource base. The Act establishes a State wetlands mitigation policy and requires designated State agencies to prepare Agency Action Plans for implementation procedures. The Act authorizes State agencies to establish wetlands compensation accounts, and it requires agencies to consider the avoidance and minimization of adverse impacts to wetlands and to provide compensation for unavoidable adverse impacts with a natural schedule of compensation ratios. The Act is administered by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. B.1.7 – Farmland Preservation Act of 1982, 505 ILCS 75/1, et. Seq. This Act requires designated State agencies to prepare policy statements and working agreements with the Illinois Department of Agriculture specifying the policy of the agencies toward farmland preservation and the administrative process used to implement that policy. It requires agencies to provide notice to the Illinois Department of Agriculture of projects that may lead to agricultural land conversion unless such projects are exempted from review by an agency’s cooperative working agreement. The Act provides that the Department of Agriculture shall determine whether an agency’s projects comply with its policy statement and cooperative working agreement and that the Department of Agriculture shall conduct a study of the agricultural impacts for any project that does not comply. B.1.8 – Endangered Species Protection Act of 1972, 520 ILCS 10/1, et seq. This Act protects State‐listed threatened and/or endangered animals and plants from unauthorized actions. It requires agencies of State and Local governments to evaluate, through a consultation process with the IDNR, whether actions authorized, funded, or implemented by them are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Illinois‐listed threatened or endangered species or are likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of the designated essential habitat of such species. When the agency has so consulted, it shall be deemed to have complied with its obligations under the Act, provided that the agency action shall not result in the killing or injuring of any Illinois‐listed animal species. B.1.9 – Clean Water Act of 1977 (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq. The CWA sets the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States. The law gave the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to set effluent standards on an industry basis (technology‐based) and continued the requirements to set water quality standards for all Appendix B ‐ Applicable Regulatory Statutes Page B‐2 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA May 12, 2011 contaminants in surface waters. The CWA makes it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters unless a NPDES Permit is obtained under the Act. The CWA also focuses on toxic substances, contains citizen suit provisions, and funds sewage treatment plants under the Construction Grants Program. The CWA provides for the delegation by EPA of many permitting, administrative, and enforcement aspects of the law to state governments. In states with the authority to implement CWA programs, EPA still retains oversight responsibilities. Section 404 of the CWA also prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States without a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). As defined by the CWA, waters of the United States include all waters and wetlands that could be important for interstate commerce purposes. Section 404 also has provisions that exempt certain activities from the permitting process. These activities including normal farming, ranching, and silviculture activities; maintenance and emergency reconstruction of damaged structures; construction of stock ponds, irrigation ditches, or temporary sedimentation basins; and construction of farm, forest, or temporary roads. Efforts may be regulated under the Section 404 provision include land clearing efforts, stream channelization, bridge piling operations, and discharges subject to other authorities. The ACOE administers the Section 404 permit program. B.1.10 – The Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 4701, et seq. The CAA is the comprehensive Federal law that regulates air emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources. The law authorizes the EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and the environment. The goal of the Act was to set and achieve NAAQS in every state by 1975. The setting of maximum pollutant standards was coupled with directing the states to develop state implementation plans applicable to appropriate industrial sources in the state. The Act was amended in 1977 primarily to set new goals (dates) for achieving attainment of NAAQS since many areas of the country had failed to meet the deadlines. The 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act, in large part, were intended to meet un‐addressed or insufficiently addressed problems such as acid rain, ground‐level ozone, stratospheric ozone depletion, and air toxins. B.1.11 – The Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq. The Endangered Species Act provides a program for the conservation of threatened and endangered plants and animals and the habitats in which they are found. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) of the Department of the Interior maintains the list of endangered and threatened species. Species include birds, insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, crustaceans, flowers, grasses, and trees. Anyone can petition USFWS to include a species list on this list. The law prohibits any action, administrative or real, that results in a “taking” of a listed species, or adversely affects critical habitats. Likewise, import, export, interstate, and foreign commerce of listed species are all prohibited. B.1.12 – The Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990, (P.L. 101‐508) The Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA), was enacted on November 5, 1990. ANCA required a phased elimination of operations of Stage 2 airplanes over 75,000 pounds by December 31, 1999, in the contiguous United States and the District of Columbia. It also contains provisions regarding noise and access restrictions by local airports, including those in U.S. controlled areas outside the contiguous United States and District of Columbia. ANCA also contains specific requirements for notice and approval of airport noise and access restrictions for aircraft, regardless of weight. The procedures and limitations Appendix B ‐ Applicable Regulatory Statutes Page B‐3 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA May 12, 2011 are designed to ensure that proposed restrictions receive adequate notice, opportunity for comment, and sufficient time for planning and implementation. B.1.13 – Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. 1451, et seq. The Coastal Zone Management Act establishes a voluntary national program within the Department of Commerce to encourage coastal States to develop and implement coastal zone management plans. Funds were authorized for cost‐sharing grants to states to develop their programs. Subsequent to Federal approval of their plans, grants would be awarded for implementation purposes. In order to be eligible for Federal approval, each state’s plan was required to define boundaries of the coastal zone, to identify uses of the area to be regulated by the state, the mechanism (criteria, standards, or regulations) for controlling such uses, and broad guidelines for priorities of uses within the coastal zone. In addition, the 1972 law established a system of criteria and standards for requiring that Federal actions be conducted in a manner consistent with the Federally‐approved plan. The standard for determining consistency varied depending on whether the Federal action involved a permit, license, financial assistance, or a Federally‐authorized activity. A national system of estuarine sanctuaries was also authorized to establish national field laboratories with 50/50 cost‐sharing grants for coastal States. B.1.14 – National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. 470, et seq. The NHPA provides for preservation of significant historical features (buildings, objects, and sites) through a grant‐in‐aid program to the states. It establishes a National Register of Historic Places and a program of matching grants under the existing national Trust for Historic Preservation. The Act establishes the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, which was made a permanent independent agency in Public Law. That Act also created the Historic Preservation Fund. Federal agencies are directed to take into account the effects of their actions on items or sites listed or eligible for listing in the National Register. B.1.15 – Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, 16 U.S.C. 1271, et seq. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act establishes a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and prescribes the methods and standards through which additional rivers may be identified and added to the system. The Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to project areas and submit proposals to the President and Congress for addition to the system. It describes procedures and limitations for control of lands in Federally administered components of the system and for dealing with disposition of lands and minerals under Federal ownership. Rivers are classified as wild, scenic, or recreational, and hunting and fishing are permitted in components of the system under applicable Federal and state laws. B.1.16 – Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, 16 U.S.C. 4600‐5, et seq. Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LAWCON) of 1965, defines these special lands as property, which has been purchased or developed with assistance from this fund. Properties acquired or developed with assistance under this section shall NOT, without approval from the Secretary of the Interior, be converted to other than public outdoor recreation uses. The Secretary of the Interior shall approve such conversion only if it is found to be in accordance with the then‐existing Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan and only upon such conditions as deemed necessary to assure Appendix B ‐ Applicable Regulatory Statutes Page B‐4 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA May 12, 2011 the substitution of other recreation properties of at least equal fair market value and of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location. The Authority to approve Section 6(f) land conversions has been delegated to the Regional Directors of the National Park Service. B.1.17 ‐ Coastal Barrier Resources Act, 16 U.S.C. §3501 et seq. The Coastal Barrier Resources Act designated various undeveloped coastal barrier islands, as depicted by specific maps, for inclusion in the Coastal Barrier Resources System (System). Areas so designated were made ineligible for direct and indirect Federal financial assistance that might support development, except for life saving activities. In 1990, the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act included in the System areas along the Great Lakes. B.1.18 ‐ National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. §4001 et seq. The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 identified the need for a nationwide flood insurance program to be administered by the Federal government with assistance of the private insurance industry. The Act also identified the need for the program to provide the public protection against future flood losses and encourage sound land use in flood prone areas. Specifically, the Act encourages State and local governments to make appropriate land use adjustment to constrict the development of land with is exposed to flood damage and authorize continuing studies of flood hazards in order to provide for a constant reappraisal of the flood insurance program and its effect on land use requirements. B.1.19 ‐ Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. §4002, et seq. The purpose of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 is to substantially increase the limits of coverage authorized under the national flood insurance program. The Act also provides for the expeditious identification of, and the dissemination of information concerning, flood‐prone areas. The Act requires State or local communities, as a condition of future Federal financial assistance, to participate in the flood insurance program and to adopt adequate flood plan ordinances with effective enforcement provisions consistent with Federal standards to reduce or avoid future flood losses; and requires the purchase of flood insurance by property owners who are being assisted by Federal programs or by federally supervised, regulated, or insured agencies or institutions in the acquisition or improvement of land or facilities located or to be located in identified areas having special flood hazards. Appendix B ‐ Applicable Regulatory Statutes Page B‐5 Threatened and Endangered Species Appendix C Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA May 12, 2011 C.1 – Federal Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species C.1.1 – Threatened Species The federal threatened species in Will County include the Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid (Platanthaera leucophaea), the Lakeside Daisy (Hymenopsis herbacea), and Mead’s Milkweed (Asclepias meadii). C.1.2 – Endangered Species The federal endangered species in Will County include the Hine’s Emerald Dragonfly (Somatochlora hineana), and the Leafy Prairie Clover (Dalea foliosa). C.1.3 – Candidate Species The federal candidate species in Will County include the Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus), the Sheepnose mussel (Plethobasus cyphyus), and the Spectaclecase mussel (Cumberlandia monodonta). C.2 – State Threatened and Endangered Species C.2.1 – Threatened Species The state threatened species in Will County include: 























Aflexia rubranura, (Redveined Prairie Leafhopper) Alasmidonta viridis, (Slippershell) Ammodramus henslowii, (Henslow's Sparrow) Aster furcatus, (Forked Aster) Carex viridula, (Little Green Sedge) Carex woodii, (Pretty Sedge) Clonophis kirtlandi, (Kirtland's Snake) Corallorhiza maculata, (Spotted Coral‐root Orchid) Cyclonaias tuberculata, (Purple Wartyback) Cypripedium candidum, (White Lady's Slipper) Drosera intermedia, (Narrow‐leaved Sundew) Eleocharis rostellata, (Spike Rush) Elliptio dilatata, (Spike) Emydoidea blandingii, (Blanding's Turtle) Etheostoma exile, (Iowa Darter) Fundulus dispar, (Starhead topminnow) Gallinula chloropus, (Common Moorhen) Haliaeetus leucocephalus, (Bald Eagle) Ixobrychus exilis, (Least Bittern) Lanius ludovicianus, (Loggerhead Shrike) Liatris scariosa var. nieuwlandii, (Blazing Star) Ligumia recta, (Black Sandshell) Minuartia patula, (Slender Sandwort) Moxostoma carinatum, (River Redhorse) Appendix C ‐ Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species Page C‐1 Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport Draft EA 





May 12, 2011 Rubus schneideri, (Bristly Blackberry) Spermophilus franklinii, (Franklin's Ground Squirrel) Tomanthera auriculata, (Ear‐leafed Foxglove) Trifolium reflexum, (Buffalo Clover) Triglochin palustris, (Slender Bog Arrow Grass) Veronica scutellata, (Marsh Speedwell) C.2.2 – Endangered Species The state endangered species in Will County include: 




























Ammocrypta clarum, (Western Sand Darter) Asclepias meadii, (Mead's Milkweed) Bartramia longicauda, (Upland Sandpiper) Beckmannia syzigachne, (American Slough Grass) Calopogon oklahomensis, (Oklahoma grass pink orchid) Calopogon tuberosus, (Grass Pink Orchid) Circus cyaneus, (Northern Harrier) Clemmys guttata, (Spotted Turtle) Dalea foliosa Leafy, (Prairie Clover) Hybopsis amnis, (Pallid Shiner) Hypericum adpressum, (Shore St. John's Wort) Isoetes butleri, (Quillwort) Lycopodium clavatum, (Running Pine) Malvastrum hispidum, (False Mallow) Nycticorax nycticorax, (Black‐crowned Night Heron) Papaipema eryngii, (Eryngium Stem Borer) Platanthera flava var. herbiola, (Tubercled Orchid) Platanthera leucophaea, (Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid) Plethobasus cyphyus, (Sheepnose) Rallus elegans, (King Rail) Sanguisorba Canadensis, (American Burnet) Sistrurus catenatus catenatus, (Eastern Massasauga) Somatochlora hineana, (Hine's Emerald Dragonfly) Tetraneuris herbacea, ( Lakeside Daisy) Tyto alba, (Barn Owl) Vaccinium macrocarpon, (Large Cranberry) Valerianella chenopodifolia, (Corn Salad) Viola Canadensis, (Canada Violet) Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus, (Yellow‐headed Blackbird) Appendix C ‐ Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species Page C‐2 Recommended Runway Width Memo Appendix D P
To:
Airport:
Project:
Project no.:
Reference:
Date:
Prepared by:
r
o
j
e
c
t
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
Project File (see Distribution)
Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport (1C5)
Airport Layout Plan
IDA Project No. 1C5-3094
Recommended Runway Width
07 June 2010
Ronald M. Hudson, AICP
Research, analysis, preparation and implementation of the Airport Layout Plan for Bolingbrook’s Clow
International Airport (1C5) was conducted in the period 2004 and 2007. Participants in the Plan
preparation included the Village of Bolingbrook, the Illinois Division of Aeronautics and the Chicago
Airports District Office of the FAA. Final approval of the Plan was issued on 14 December 2007.
Based upon study results, it was determined that the Airport, in the near-term (ten-year) planning
horizon, would serve demand as an Aircraft Approach Speed B, Airplane Design Group I (Small
Aircraft), or B-I (Small) facility. Minimum pavement width for this runway category, per FAA Advisory
Circular 150/5300-13, is 60 feet. However, because of three factors discussed below, a wider runway
pavement (100 feet) was submitted for review and approved for use in the Final ALP.
ì Substantial Use by Small Business Jet Aircraft
The Airport occasionally accommodates use by small business jet aircraft, a trend that is expected
to continue. Use by one particular aircraft does not rise to the 500 itinerant annual threshold, but
as a sum, this use by small Cessna and similar light jet aircraft is expected to be substantial. The
Purpose and Need Forecasts in the draft Environmental Assessment for the Fifth Year With
Development scenario predict 500 annual operations by Very Light Jet/Business Jet aircraft.
Although a VLJ aircraft may be expected to regularly base at the airport within the next ten years,
it is expected that much of the small jet activity will be from transient jets conducted when weather
conditions are appropriate. It is generally accepted that these larger, higher speed aircraft are
operated from a runway wider than 60 feet. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 (Change 15),
Airport Design, recommends a minimum width of 75 feet for these aircraft.
í Lack of Adequate Crosswind Coverage
Due to site constraints, as documented in the Draft Environmental Assessment (18 March 2010),
construction of a crosswind runway cannot be accommodated at the site. Accordingly, the Airport
users often (as much as 13.77 percent of the time, per the ALP Wind Rose) operate in higher
crosswind conditions. It is frequently recommended that a wider runway be available as the
crosswind component increases. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 contains no specific
guidance on an appropriate runway width where higher crosswind components must be
accommodated. We have reviewed available accident information for 1C5 and similar airport’s
in the Chicago area to gauge the appropriate runway width for high crosswind conditions.
Hanson Professional Services Inc.
815 Commerce Drive, Suite 200
Oak Brook, Illinois 60523
630.990.3800 voice
630.990.3801 facsimile
www.hanson-inc.com
I:\04jobs\00844\04A8002\Memorandums\M100607a.wpd
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
î High Level of Student Training
1C5 enjoys a reputation as an excellent location from which to learn to fly. The flight school offers
single-engine, retractable gear and multi-engine training from the Airport. These pilots use the
runway when arriving from and departing to their aerial practice area. Because of their developing
aircraft handling skills, these pilots benefit from a wider operating surface. Historically, the FAA
has recognized this factor as useful in establishing the preferred pavement width at an airport.
FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 contains no specific guidance on an appropriate runway width
where substantial student training activity is contemplated, however. We have reviewed available
accident information for 1C5 and similar airport’s in the Chicago area to gauge the appropriate
runway width for high student activity.
Additional Width Analysis Using Reported Accident Data
Publicly available accident details (by AOPA Aviation Safety Foundation) were reviewed for 1C5 and
similar area airports. By similar, the study was limited to Chicago area airports that have (or once had)
a single runway, that is (or was) 50 feet in width, that experience significant pilot training activity.
These airports, with accidents reported, were:
Airport
“
“
“
“
1C5 Bolingbrook’s Clow
3CK Lake in the Hills
LOT Lewis University (Romeoville)
06C Schaumburg Regional
Number of Accidents Reviewed
12
13
9
16
Of the 12 accidents at Clow, four (33%) involved student activity. All four accidents included the
aircraft veering off the runway edge, and wind gusts were the factor in two, and losing control were a
factor in the remaining two. During this analysis period, the single runway had a 50 foot width.
Of the 13 accidents at Lake in the Hills, four (31%) involved student activity, and an additional three
(23%) involved lost control and veering off the runway edge. Three accident reports specifically
mentioned the crosswind condition as a cause. During the analysis period, the single runway had (still
has) a 50 foot width.
Of the nine Lewis University Airport accidents, three (33%) involved training flights. These three
accidents, and a fourth non-training, accident included wind and loss of control/veering off the runway
as a contributing factor. The four wind/loss of control accidents account for 44% of the total of nine
accidents. During the analysis period, the airport had a single runway until 2004, and now has a
crosswind runway. When a single runway, the width was 48 feet and 75 feet (since 1992).
Of the 16 Schaumburg accidents, two (13%) involved student training, and both involved loss of
directional control.
It is recognized that this analysis is incomplete (unfortunately, not all deviations off the runway
pavement are reported) and may not be statistically complete or accurate. However, it is believed it
demonstrates that flying safety may benefit from a wider runway width when a significant crosswind
component and student activity are present.
Page 2
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
Anecdotally, I personally have witnessed a decrease in the number deviations off the runway at Lewis
University Airport as the runway width has increased. Our involvement with the airport began in 1985
when the runway width was 48 feet. Generally, the runway experienced deviations off the single
runway every 12 to 18 months. When the runway was widened in 1992, the deviations decreased, to
one every 24 to 36 months. A 100 foot wide crosswind runway was added in 2004; there have been
no deviations from the 100 foot wide runway, however, a contributing factor to this may also be the
greater crosswind component covered by the two intersecting runways.
Recommended Width
The FAA in Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 (Change 15) recognizes that in conditions for which greater
demands on pilots are imposed, namely Aircraft Approach Speed C and D (with lessened pilot reaction
time available), a minimum 100 foot runway width of 100 feet is suggested for all runways, including
Design Group I runways. Because activity at 1C5 will have all three of the “higher demand” factors
discussed above — significant use by business jet aircraft (lessened pilot reaction time available), high
crosswind component (heightened pilot input/involvement required, and significant student activity
(lessened pilot experience available) — the recommended width for the proposed single runway at
Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport is 100 feet.
This design width recommendation is consistent with similar windy, corporate use, high student traffic,
single runway locations in the metropolitan Chicago area that have recently or are currently undergoing
improvement, including Joliet Regional Airport (now 100 feet), Schaumburg Regional Airport (now
100 feet), and Lake in the Hills Airport (now 50 feet but planned at 100 feet).
Distribution:
Project File
Terrence Schaddel, IDOA
Page 3