May 1, 2023

Via e-mail

FAA
c/o HVN-EA Public Comments
McFarland Johnson
49 Court Street,
Suite 240 Binghamton, NY 13901
hvn-ea@mjinc.com

Save the Sound is a nonprofit organization representing over 4,200 member households and
10,000 activists statewide. Our mission is to protect and improve the land, air, and water of
Connecticut and the entire Long Island Sound region. We use legal and scientific expertise and
bring citizens together to achieve results that benefit our environment for current and future
generations.

Save the Sound hereby submits the following comments regarding the Draft Environmental
Assessment (“DEA”) for Tweed New Haven Airport. We urge the FAA to conclude that the
project has reasonably foreseeable significant impacts and to require a full Environmental Impact
Statement (“EIS”). It should be obvious that the expansion of a runway in an airport that (1) is in
a residential environmental justice neighborhood, (2) is located 100% in a floodplain, (3)
contains significant wetlands, (4) supports extensive wildlife, and (5) borders Long Island Sound
will have a significant environmental and human impact. We are very concerned that the DEA
ignores or unjustifiably dismisses significant environmental and public health concerns without
meaningful analysis.

Summary

An EIS, as opposed to a less rigorous environmental assessment, is necessary because the DEA:

(1) Improperly segments the project in that it fails to consider the tidal wetlands filling
from constructing the extension of Taxiway B, a project that will be necessary because of
the runway expansion;
(2) Without proper justification or rigorous analysis, concludes that flights will decrease
– a conclusion that directly contradicts statements and conclusions made by the Airport,
regional planning agencies, airlines, and all others who have considered the issue;
(3) Wrongly concludes that air and climate pollution emissions will decrease based upon
the flawed conclusions about flight activity;
(4) Wrongly concludes that wildlife strikes will decrease rather than increase based upon
the flawed conclusions about flight activity;
(5) Fails to propose or study specific wetland mitigation projects in response to
significant wetland filling;
(6) Fails to document significant wildlife impacts for wetland filling and stormwater;

900 Chapel Street, Suite 2202 | New Haven, CT 06510-2600 | 203-787-0646

1385 Boston Post Road, 2nd Floor | Larchmont, NY 10538-3954 | 914-381-3140
savethesound.org
 (7) Fails to document and study significant floodplain impacts;
(8) Fails to meaningfully analyze significant impacts to water quality, wildlife, shellfish
and finfish from stormwater; and
(9) Does not include an up to date USFWS verification regarding the endangered Long-
Eared Bat.

Legal Standard to Require an EIS

Environmental impact analysis for airports is performed by the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) in accordance with NEPA, the Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions
of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 C.F.R. § 1500-1508), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) Order 5610.1C, Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, and
FAA Order 1050.1F Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures.

According to section 102(2)(C) of NEPA [40 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)], “major Federal actions
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment” require a detailed environmental
impact statement (EIS). The proposed runway extension and construction of a new terminal at
Tweed is a major federal action within the meaning of 40 C.F.R. § 1508.1(q)(3)(iv).

“Effects … means changes to the human environment from the proposed action … that are
reasonably foreseeable and have a reasonably close causal relationship to the proposed action …
including those effects that occur at the same time and place as the proposed action … and may
include effects that are later in time or farther removed in distance from the proposed action or
alternatives.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.1(g). This includes “ecological (such as the effects on natural
resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic,
historic, cultural, economic (such as the effects on employment), social, or health effects.” 40
C.F.R. § 1508.1(g)(1).

1. The DEA is Fundamentally Deficient without Assessing the Taxiway B Extension

Which Has No Independent Utility Apart from the Runway Expansion

A primary flaw in the DEA is its failure to analyze the impacts of the Taxiway B expansion into
tidal wetlands as set out in the Tweed-New Haven Airport Master Plan Update Final Report
from October 2021 (“Master Plan”). The Master Plan is the official FAA airport planning
document that outlines how the infrastructure at Tweed will be expanded. 1 The Master Plan
categorizes the needs of the airport into different phases. The first phase would include Runway
2-20 extension and the East Side Terminal construction. 2 A later phase would include Taxiway B
extension design and construction. The diagram on page 1-9 of the Master Plan, when looked at
in conjunction with the DEA wetlands delineation, shows quite clearly that the Taxiway B
extension would extend through significant tidal wetlands.

1
Tweed-New Haven Airport Master Plan Update – Final Report (October 2021), STS Attachment 7,
https://www.tweedmasterplan.com/master-plan-documents
2
Id., page 1-6.

2
Pursuant to NEPA, in considering whether the effects of the proposed actions are significant, the
agency should consider reasonably foreseeable connected actions and cumulative impacts. 3
Connected Actions, among other things, (1) trigger actions that may require environmental
impact statements, (2) cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or
simultaneously, or (3) are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action
for their justification. 4 Cumulative Actions are those that, when viewed with other proposed past,
present or future actions have cumulatively significant impacts. 5 In determining if a future action
is reasonably foreseeable, a significant factor is whether such actions are included in planning
documents in cases where such documents are available. 6

The Second Circuit has found the “‘Segmentation’ or ‘piecemealing’ occurs when an action is
divided into component parts, each involving action with less significant environmental effects.”
Town of Huntington v. Marsh, 859 F.2d 1134, 1142 (2d Cir. 1988). The proper test to determine
connectedness or segmentation is whether the project has independent utility. Id.

A parallel taxiway is a safety measure which would necessarily accompany the extension of the
runway. Tweed conducted their last Taxiway B expansion in 2002 at the same time that they
expanded Runway 2-20 safety areas. In the 2002 Record of Decision for the prior runway
project, the FAA was very explicit regarding the public safety need for a taxiway that serves the
full length of the runway.

The potential for runway incursions (more than one aircraft or ground vehicle operating
on the runway at the same time) is . . . . a safety concern where taxiways do not
extend to the runway end, such as Runway 2. Full-length parallel taxiways segregate
taxiing aircraft from aircraft landing and taking off. In the absence of a parallel taxiway
to the runway end, aircraft would be forced to back-taxi on the runway prior to takeoff
or after landing. This makes the runway unavailable for longer periods of time and
increases the risk of a runway incursion. Full-length parallel taxiways are basic
components for even the smallest of general aviation airports. 7

The fact that Tweed is expanding the runway to become a larger airport makes it all the more
necessary for the runway to have a full length taxiway. The FAA has accurately described one as
a basic component of the other. This is, of course, why it was quite explicitly and appropriately
included in the Master Plan. If FAA has changed this position (and to be clear, there is no reason
they should), and Tweed intends to exclude this basic component, the Master Plan should be
revised and reviewed by FAA for compliance with safety standards and best practices. Doing
otherwise threatens public and passenger safety in a reckless manner and one that the FAA and
public officials should be very concerned about.

3
40 CFR §§ 1501.3(b), 1501.9(e)(1).
4
Id.
5
40 CFR § 1508.1(g)(3).
6
FAA Order 1050.1F Desk Reference (2020), page 15-2.
7
FAA Record of Decision for an EIS (March 15, 2002), page 7 (emphasis added). STS Attachment 1.
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/airports/environmental/environmental_documents/rod_tweed.pdf

3
The extension of the Taxiway B into the tidal wetlands is, of course, wholly dependent upon the
extension of the runway. If the runway is not extended, Taxiway B will not be extended. Thus,
the Taxiway B extension through the tidal wetlands not only has no independent utility apart
from the runway extension, but it would not even make sense to discuss it but for the runway
expansion. Put another way, a taxiway has no independent utility, or reason to exist, apart from
the runway which it is built to serve. Moreover, a runway without a full length parallel taxiway is
missing a basic component and presents a public safety concern.

Thus, the Taxiway B extension is a “connected” action pursuant to 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.3(b) and
1501.9(e)(1) in that it (1) is triggered by the runway expansion, (2) won’t proceed unless the
action of extending the runway is taken previously or simultaneously, and (3) is an
interdependent part of the larger runway expansion and depends upon the runway expansion for
its justification.

The Taxiway B extension is a cumulative action pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 1508.1(g)(3) in that

when viewed with the runway 2-20 extension, it will have a cumulatively significant impact
through filling tidal wetlands.

The Taxiway B extension is a reasonably foreseeable future action as that term is used in FAA
Order 1050.1F in that it is not remote or speculative but is included in the Airport’s Master Plan
as an integral component of the runway 2-20 extension. Indeed, when items are included in
planning documents such as these, even if remote or speculative, the action, pursuant to FAA
Order 1050.1F, should at least be mentioned in the NEPA document with an indication that it is
not reasonably foreseeable. That has not been done. Indeed, it could not be done because it
would contradict the Airport’s own Master Plan and public statements that present the Taxiway
B expansion as an integral part of the Master Plan.

This is not a technical or insignificant matter in terms of environmental impact. According to

Figure 1-1 on page 1-9 of the Master Plan, the expanded taxiway would cause significant fill to
tidal wetlands. Critical functions of tidal wetlands are, of course, universally recognized and
include supporting wildlife, aquatic life, improving water quality by trapping sediments,
reducing turbidity, restricting the passage of chemical pollutants and heavy metals, trapping
nutrients, decreasing biological oxygen demand, and buffering storm and wave energy. This is
precisely the kind of significant impact for which NEPA requires agencies to prepare a full EIS.

Since the extended runway will reasonably foreseeably lead to an extended full-length parallel
Taxiway, the NEPA review must assess the impact of the runway and the taxiway extension in
conjunction. A piece-by-piece approach is inappropriate segmentation and prohibited by NEPA. 8
The full-length taxiway will cover additional surface and harm wetlands, and the full scope of
these impacts must be considered at this stage of the NEPA review.

8
See Huntington v. Marsh, supra.

4
 2. The Projection of Decreased Flights is Fundamentally Flawed, Unsupported, and
Self Contradictory

The projection of decreased flights due to the improvements is frankly incredible, defies basic
common sense, and is inconsistent with statements from the Airport as well as Avelo and other
airlines.

The sleight of hand is that the Airport assumes the number of passengers in the no action
scenario and the expansion scenario are the same. Yet the Airport and others are repeatedly on
the record stating that they are doing this is to grow enplanements at the Airport and therefore
benefit the airport and the economy. In fact, flights will increase because (1) not only will Avelo
increase the number and range of flights, but other airlines will come in to use the expanded
capacity, (2) the airport is economically attractive for freight flights, which will increase, and (3)
under the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990, even if they wanted to, the airport would be
powerless to prevent increased use of the airport. Thus, the increase in flights and enplanements
will be driven by market forces rather than the self-contradictory and self-serving statements and
analyses of the Airport.

In the DEA, the Airport itself explains the reasonably foreseeable, if not inevitable, expansion in
airlines and flights the runway extension will lead to: “airlines have expressed interest in serving
HVN; however, the existing 5,600 foot runway length has prevented them from doing so. For
example, in a February 2020 letter, Allegiant indicated interest in serving HVN but indicated a
runway “of approximately 6,000 feet” would be required.” 9 Thus, while claiming in one part of
the document that the expansion is necessary to attract additional airlines and increase
enplanements, with corresponding evidence, the Airport contradicts itself in the remainder of the
document where it claims that enplanements will not, in fact, increase.

Tweed also documented the obvious reality that an increased runway would increase
enplanements in a formal application to the Small Community Air Service Development
Program (SCASDP). In that document, in a section entitled “New Haven’s Air Service Needs
and Deficiencies,” the Airport Authority stated, “due to the runway limitations (current runway
length is at 5,600 feet), HVN has been unable to adequately serve the needs of the flying
population. Travelers are forced to make the long and tedious drive to one of the New York/New
Jersey airports, exacerbating congestion on the I-95 corridor.” 10 Those travelers, of course, would
represent additional enplanements.

The official application states in its conclusion,

Further, Tweed New Haven’s proposed 2021 Master Plan has been well received by the
community and has received serious interest from private investors, paving the way to

9
DEA page 1-5.
10
Application Under Small Community Air Service Development Program (SCASD), Docket DOT-OST-2020-
0231 (2020). STS Attachment 2. file:///C:/Users/rreynolds/Downloads/DOT-OST-2020-0231-
0050_attachment_1.pdf

5
 considerable airport expansion. Such expansion would provide a significant economic
improvement for southern Connecticut . . . . 11

If enplanements were to remain constant, the expansion would not, in fact, provide any economic
improvement to southern Connecticut.

In a recent interview, Avelo’s CEO said much the same thing about expansion of its own service
being related to the runway 2-20 extension.

As the runway gets extended, that certainly enables flying further distances to become
economically viable from an aircraft consideration. The runway being lengthened
certainly opens up to more aircraft and economic capability, and it’s possible we
would look something further out west – certainly Denver and Las Vegas are
markets where people would be quite interested, and then L.A. as well. 12

It has also been reported that the then Interim Executive Director at Tweed, Matt Hoey, stated in
2019 that Allegiant Air is “‘very, very serious’ about running planes from New Haven to Florida
and perhaps out west as well.” 13 The article further reported:

“The Greater New Haven market area is the largest underserved market in the country,”
Hoey said about the region’s access to air travel. Extending the runway and adding
a new carrier and new destinations would work towards filling that current void, he
said at the meeting . . . . 14

To state the obvious, filling a void in the most underserved market in the country means
increased enplanements. A spokesperson for Allegiant confirmed in the article that any deal
would hinge on the extension of the runway. 15

Save the Sound has searched statements made by the Airport and others regarding the expanded
runway and our research has uncovered no statements, outside of the current DEA, by the
Airport or others that would support a conclusion that a lengthened runway would not lead to an
increase in enplanements or flights. In fact, the DEA conclusion that enplanements will remain
constant is directly contradictory to every statement we have discovered and seems cynically
designed to defy the requirements of NEPA to fully study the impacts of the increased
enplanements and flights on human health and the environment.

11
Id. (emphasis added).
12
Fairfield County Business Journal, “Exclusive: Avelo Airlines CEO Andrew Levy on the reanimation of Tweed
Airport (March 27, 2023), STS Attachment 3. https://westfaironline.com/aviation/exclusive-avelo-airlines-ceo-
andrew-levy-on-the-reanimation-of-tweed-airport/ (emphasis added).
13
Meriden Record-Journal, “Tweed Boss: We’ll Get Allegiant Air, If . . . .” (Apr 4, 2019), STS Attachment 4.
https://www.newhavenindependent.org/article/tweed_cog_allegiant_air
14
Id.
15
Id.

6
Tweed’s expansion has also been clearly identified as an opportunity to use the airport for
freight. 16 As set out, infra, in determining if a future action is reasonably foreseeable, a
significant factor is whether such actions are included in local planning documents in cases
where such documents are available. 17 A South Central Region Council of Governments
(“SCRCOG”’) Board Agenda specifically calls this out and states, “The runway safety
improvements at Tweed New Haven Airport allow for improved freight utilization at the Airport.
SCRCOG staff will work with the Airport Authority, Town of East Haven and City of New
Haven to evaluate potential increased freight operations to reduce congestion on the region’s
interstates and provide timely delivery of goods and food products to the region.” 18 This, in and
of itself, makes it reasonably foreseeable the airport will be used for increased freight. Yet the
DEA simply ignores this possibility. This combined with the Supply chain pressure and
increasing warehouse capacity in Connecticut, 19 make it reasonably foreseeable, indeed all but
inevitable, that Tweed will use its increased capacity for freight traffic.

Additional passenger flights will result in additional ground passenger vehicles, and cargo
aircraft will result in trucks, which emit fine particulate matters, such as PM 2.5, and will add to
cumulative air pollution levels and adversely affect quality of life and public health. These
adverse impacts will disproportionately affect these nearby environmental justice communities.

The facially absurd and self-contradictory conclusion that flights will actually decrease as a
result of the runway expansion, if not modified or studied further, will result in significant
negative consequences for vulnerable populations and the environment.

3. The Flawed Flight Projections Have Resulted in a Flawed Analysis of Air Quality
Impacts on Environmental Justice Communities and Climate Change

The flawed conclusion that the runway expansion will lead to decreased, rather than increased,
flights and emissions, has led to a fundamentally flawed analysis of air quality impacts on
surrounding and nearby environmental justice communities. Once the DEA incorporates honest
projections about the difference in flights, it must incorporate those into a detailed study of how
those larger and more frequent flights will impact air quality. In addition to flooding, the
considerable impacts upon surrounding communities from increased emissions, traffic, and noise
merit heightened scrutiny due to environmental justice concerns. Due to economic conditions,
the Town of East Haven, within which the eastern half of the airport resides, has been named a
“distressed municipality” and is thereby an environmental justice community under Connecticut
law. 20 Individual census block groups within the City of New Haven are also identified as
environmental justice communities.

16
South Central Region Council of Governments, May 2021 Board Agenda, 53, STS Attachment 5.
https://scrcog.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/5_SCRCOG_May21.pdf.
17
FAA Order 1050.1F Desk Reference (2020), page 15-2.
18
Id.
19
Hartford Courant, “As warehouses rise and thrive across Connecticut, this town’s residents are pressing for a
moratorium on building” (Mar. 29, 2022), STS Attachment 6. https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-
hc-news-south-windsor-warehouses-20220329-6lg2ugzhlbei3mymeutnjk5axe-story.html.
20
https://portal.ct.gov/DEEP/Environmental-Justice/Environmental-Justice-Communities

7
Other imminent projects will change the conditions in these communities and contribute to
cumulative impacts. The area between Tweed Airport and the Port of New Haven is a
neighborhood called The Annex, which is one of the communities in Connecticut most
overburdened by pollution. Particularly concerning, New Haven Harbor is about to be dredged
and widened in an effort to increase the capacity of the Port of New Haven. Like the proposed
expansion of the airport, the expansion of the harbor can be expected to increase ship and truck
traffic, which will then increase cumulative pollution levels in the area and harm quality of life
and public health.

As outlined above, the expansion of Tweed serves the purpose of accommodating additional air
traffic. An increase in air traffic, and accompanying carbon-based ground traffic, will lead to an
increase in CO2 emissions which has not been addressed in the DEA. Every ton of CO2
emissions adds to global warming, and the potential consequences of facilitating climate change
are severe. 21 An increase in emissions runs contrary to the goal of the Paris Agreement to limit
global warming to 1.5°C, to which the United States has legally committed itself, and to the 2030
emissions reduction target set forth in the Nationally Determined Contribution of the United
States. 22 To mitigate climate change to acceptable levels, significant reductions of CO2
emissions have to occur across all sectors of the economy within the next few years. 23

Thus, the DEA must revisit and revise the sections on air quality and CO2 emissions to reflect
the reality of increased, rather than decreased, flights.

4. The Flawed Flight Projections Have Resulted in a Flawed and Incomplete Analysis
of Local and Migratory Wildlife Population Impacts

The flawed conclusion that the runway expansion will lead to decreased, rather than increased,
flights and emissions, has also led to a fundamentally flawed analysis on local and migratory
wildlife populations.

The Tweed-New Haven area is a vital corridor for avian migration. Lighthouse Point Park,
located just south of the airport, is the most significant reporting site northeast of Cape May for
counts of fall migrating raptors. 24 Local ornithological organizations gather at the park for an
annual migration festival. 25 An increase in passenger and freight aviation out of Tweed will
result in a greater number of strikes, which will affect migratory bird populations.

21
IPCC, Sixth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers, page 28,
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf
22
https://www.state.gov/the-united-states-officially-rejoins-the-paris-agreement/; United States of America,
Nationally Determined Contribution, Reducing Greenhouse Gases in the United States: A 2030 Emissions Target, 4,
https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/United%20States%20of%20America%20First/Unite
d%20States%20NDC%20April%2021%202021%20Final.pdf.
23
IPCC, Sixth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers, page 14,
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf
24
Audubon, Important Bird Areas, Lighthouse Point Park, https://www.audubon.org/important-bird-
areas/lighthouse-point-park.
25
New Haven Bird Club, Annual Migration Festival, Lighthouse Point Park, New Haven,
https://www.newhavenbirdclub.org/event/annual-migration-festival-lighthouse-point-park-new-haven/.

8
Possible impacts on avian habitat could also result from foreseeable deliberate action resulting
from the expansion. Under similar circumstances, i.e., the proximity of extensive wetlands and
avian populations, the FAA has recommended the elimination of avian habitat in the interest of
human safety. Furthermore, the salt marsh habitat found at the site is typically identified in
Connecticut’s Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB) as a state critical habitat because listed
species depend on it for life cycle stages such as breeding, migration, and foraging.

5. The DEA Fails to Specify Projects to Mitigate Significant Wetland Projects

The filling will impact 9.32 acres of inland wetlands and cannot be mitigated on-site. The
mitigation is not specifically identified and therefore there is no way to assess from the DEA
whether such mitigation would be adequate or not. A full discussion of potential mitigation
measures should be included in an EIS. Without mitigation, or with just a vague statement that
mitigation will be determined in the future, the filling of 9.32 acres of wetlands is clearly a
significant impact.

In the 2002 ROD, the FAA required significant and specific wetland mitigation for the project to
proceed. Without fully exploring the projects that may or may not be contemplated by the
Airport, there is no way for FAA to ensure their adequacy.

6. The DEA Fails to Study Significant Impacts to Wetland Wildlife Support Functions

The DEA’s characterization of the wetlands as “degraded” conflicts with their own reports. By
way of example, the treatment of the wetlands in the DA completely ignores the information
provided in the FHI Wetland Delineation Report (“WDR”), which identifies a state-threatened
plant species occurring in the inland wetlands at the airport property: Paspalum laeve (Field
Beadgrass). The WDR states,

Paspalum laeve, a characteristic wetland plant of the herbaceous layer in multiple PEM
wetlands on the site, is listed in the State of Connecticut Endangered Species Act as
Threatened. A “Threatened” designation is given to plants that have been documented by
research and scientific inventory to occur at only six to nine locations in the state. Field
Beadgrass is primarily restricted to sites within CT’s coastal zone such as Old Lyme, East
Haddam, Groton (W. Moorhead, personal communication), in undisclosed sites in New
Haven County (Magee and Ahles, 1999); and in a similar biogeographic zone in NY
(e.g., on Fisher’s Island and in various municipalities of Long Island, based upon FHI’s
review of New York State Museum specimen labels). The density and distribution of this
species on the Airport has not yet been determined.

The EA wholly omits any reference to this finding. Instead of addressing the fate of this
threatened species solely at the permitting stage, the status of this plant should be investigated
now with the results provided in an EIS on the proposed airport expansion.

9
More generally, there was no discussion of how the activity would impact tidal and inland
wetland species. Apart from the filling, noise, light, and stormwater pollution will all have
impacts. These need to be fully studied.

Similarly, the DEA neglected to meaningfully study the impacts of stormwater on fish and
shellfish other than an unsupported assertion that there would be no impacts. In light of the
significant amount of toxins, heavy metals and nutrients that the Airport stormwater will contain,
the impacts must be fully studied.

“Wetland Function – Value Evaluation Forms” in the WDR contain mistakes, leading to lower
final value scores, especially with regard to the existence of the state-threatened species,
Paspalum laeve. In some cases, although Paspalum laeve is listed on individual forms, the
“endangered species” check-list spot was marked improperly on several forms, leading to lower
overall value scores. In all cases, the value of the wetland for providing habitat for a state-
threatened species was ignored. The value of the inland wetlands in providing habitat for state-
endangered Paspalum laeve should be discussed in an EIS and adequate mitigation should be
provided for (a) destruction of that habitat and (b) direct extirpation of the species from the site.

Wetland descriptions and values ignore wildlife benefits, yet mallard ducks are shown in a
photograph in the WDR using an inland wetland. Although wildlife may be considered by airport
operators as a nuisance, the use of the property’s habitats by wildlife, particularly migratory
waterfowl, and their federal/state protected status, should be acknowledged and discussed in an
EIS.

There are numerous statements in the WDR that bird species with protected status (E, T, SC)
“may not have suitable habitat.” These statements are made without substantiation. The use of
the airport property by these species of conservation concern should be ground-truthed and
discussed in an EIS.

The EA provides no basis for describing the wetlands at Tweed airport as “degraded.” The WDR
instead describes inland wetlands as containing numerous native wetland species and therefore
proves them to be biodiverse. The WDR leaves open questions for further field research and
documentation (see above).

7. The DEA fails to Meaningfully Analyze Significant Wetland Floodplain Impacts

The DEA completely fails to acknowledge the flood flow alteration and nutrient removal and
retention functions of these wetlands. This is consistent with the DEA’s complete omission of
any analysis of how the filling and wetlands alteration will impact flooding in the neighborhood
and surrounding areas.

Tweed-New Haven Airport serves a vital function as a flood management zone. The airport and
its surrounding neighborhoods are shaped by New Haven Harbor to the west, the Farm River to
the east, and Long Island Sound to the south. The airport’s low elevation and extensive wetlands
retain stormwater and protect the surrounding community from flooding. The protected
communities include a state-designated environmental justice community along the east
boundary of the airport and the Morris Cove Historic District, a neighborhood listed on the

10
National Register of Historic Places, along the west boundary. Fewer wetlands and additional
impermeable surface area will reduce the retention capabilities of the airport and displace
floodwaters into the surrounding community.

The flood impacts of this expansion will be greatly amplified in the coming years by climate
change. Intensifying rainstorms and rising sea-levels increasingly encroach upon the airport and
imperil the surrounding community. Even now, the Morris Creek tide gate has only a limited
capability to protect the airport property. In 2021, the airport became so inundated in a rainstorm
that New Haven dispatched firefighters to pump out the terminal building. 26

The DEA completely fails to acknowledge the flood flow alteration and nutrient removal and
retention functions of these wetlands. This is consistent with the DEA’s complete omission of
any analysis of how the filling and wetlands alteration will impact flooding in the neighborhood
and surrounding areas. The discussion of floodplain issues is substantively limited to the
statement that anticipated fill is 61,300 CY while potential surface cut is 90,000 CY.

This formula is radically over-simplified and fails to account for how specific grading and filling
will impact flooding in specific areas and also fails to explain how the high water table will
influence this hydrology. It specifically leaves out how the filling of the parking lot will impact
the flood flow retention functions of wetlands 05, 04, 6A and 06B. Formerly filled areas continue
to have subsurface hydrological connection to the tidal wetlands, albeit modified; future filling
will disrupt subsurface hydrology potentially affecting groundwater circulation patterns as well
as tidal functions. It remains unexplored how additional filling will affect circulation patterns
within wetlands during deluge rains or flooding situations.

The effects of proposed filling of wetlands on subsurface and tidal circulation patterns should be
thoroughly discussed in an EIS.

8. The DEA Fails to Meaningfully Analyze Significant Impacts to Water Quality,

Shellfish and Finfish.

Surface water quality, and related coastal resources, are threatened by increased stormwater
runoff and pollutants. The increased capacity of the airport will result in increased traffic,
intensive land use, aircraft deicing, and vehicular activity, adding to the pollutant levels found on
the airport property that will be carried by stormwater into the nearby wetlands and
watercourses. The increase in impervious surfaces, combined with the loss of wetland resources,
will increase the amount of stormwater runoff carrying these pollutants into the nearby
watercourses.

Tweed-New Haven Airport Authority’s history of noncompliance with its water quality permits
raises particular concerns about water quality impacts. The EPA ECHO database indicates that
Tweed has been in significant violation of its Clean Water Act pretreatment permit, number
SP0002421 issued by CT DEEP, since October 1, 2020. 27 At the time that the permit was
26
New Haven Independent, “Storm Passes; Flooding Lessons Sought” (July 9, 2021),
https://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/article/storm/.
27
EPA, ECHO, Detailed Facility Report, Tweed-New Haven Regional Airport, https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-
facility-report?fid=110002497824.

11
reissued in 2020, CT DEEP’s records indicated that Tweed was already in violation of the permit
and was subject to an enforcement action. 28

The EA fails to explain the stormwater impacts to surface water quality and related coastal
resources or how those impacts will be addressed. The airport is in a highly sensitive area and
stormwater runoff will impact tidal wetlands, Morris Creek and Long Island Sound. These areas
serve as highly valuable habitat to an extensive number of species and stormwater impacts must
be considered in detail. The EA acknowledges the challenges of heavy flooding and high water
tables that don’t allow for infiltration but ignores how these challenges will be addressed and
how they will impact these resources including marsh vegetation, wildlife, fish and shellfish
habitat.

The effects of flooding at the airport property, either exacerbated by additional filling or
resulting from sea level rise, on resuspension of contaminants already existing in airport soils or
wetland sediments should be discussed in an EIS. These should include expected contaminants
such as degreasers and deicers, and potential contaminants per- and polyfluorinated alkyl
substances (PFAS) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid
(PFOA). It is important that aircraft hydraulic fluid and fire-fighting foam are potential sources
of PFAS.

9. The DEA Does not Include an Up-To-Date USFWS Verification on the Northern
Long-Eared Bat

The project will impact the habitat of the Northern Long-Eared Bat which has recently been re-
characterized from threatened to endangered. While the USFWS issued a verification letter, that was
before it was classified as endangered, and it is therefore no longer valid. This is obviously a significant
impact upon an endangered species that must be fully explored. Conclusion

For all of the reasons set forth above, Save the Sound urges the FAA to require a full EIS.

28
Fact Sheet for PERMIT No. SP0002421, https://portal.ct.gov/-
/media/DEEP/Public_Notice_Attachments/draft_permits/Tweed---Fact-Sheet-Draft-5.pdf.

12
Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Roger Reynolds May 1, 2023________

Roger Reynolds, Esq. DATE
Senior Legal Counsel
Save the Sound
127 Church Street
2nd Floor
New Haven, CT 06510
Ph: (203) 787-0646 x105
rreynolds@savethesound.org

Louise Harrison
Long Island Natural Areas Manager
Save the Sound
P.O. Box 1851, Southold, NY 11971
Ph: 631-428-1315
lharrison@savethesound.org

ATTACHMENTS

1. FAA Record of Decision for an EIS (March 15, 2002).

2. Application Under Small Community Air Service Development Program (SCASD),

Docket DOT-OST-2020-0231 (2020).

3. Fairfield County Business Journal, “Exclusive: Avelo Airlines CEO Andrew Levy on the
reanimation of Tweed Airport (March 27, 2023).

4. Meriden Record-Journal, “Tweed Boss: We’ll Get Allegiant Air, If . . . .” (Apr 4, 2019).

5. South Central Region Council of Governments, May 2021 Board Agenda, page 53.

6. Hartford Courant, “As warehouses rise and thrive across Connecticut, this town’s
residents are pressing for a moratorium on building” (Mar. 29, 2022).

7. Tweed-New Haven Airport Master Plan Update – Final Report (October 2021).

13