dca cw rsa fea iii alternatives 040512...material found to date is a lightweight, crushable...

Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport

Final Environmental Assessment III-1 March 2012 Runway 4-22 and Runway 15-33 RSA Enhancements Alternatives

III. Alternatives

3.1 Introduction FAA Orders 1050.1E and 5050.4B establish the Federal policies and procedures for compliance with NEPA and the implementing regulations issued by the CEQ (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508). These Orders and regulations require a thorough and objective assessment of the Proposed Action, the No Action alternative, and all “reasonable” alternatives that would achieve the stated purpose of and need for the Proposed Action. The alternatives analysis in this EA is consistent with the requirements of FAA Orders 1050.1E and 5050.4B.

The process used to identify the range of initial alternatives to be considered and the screening process used to determine which alternatives would reasonably satisfy the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action and thus be carried forward for analysis of environmental consequences are described in Appendix D, “Alternatives.” A preliminary list of permits and approvals needed for the Proposed Action is included in Section 3.5 and lists of applicable laws and regulations considered during the analysis are included in Section 3.6.

3.1.1 RSA Design Standards

FAA Order 5200.8 requires that all RSAs at Federally obligated airports and airports certificated under 14 CFR Part 139 conform to the standards defined in FAA AC 150/5300-13 to the extent practicable. The AC provides dimensional requirements for RSAs based on the physical and operating characteristics of the critical design aircraft operating at an airport. Direction for determining whether a specific RSA improvement is practicable is provided in FAA Order 5200.9.

The FAA’s RSA design standards establish the width of the RSA, the length of the RSA prior to the landing threshold to accommodate undershoots (i.e., landing aircraft that touch down prior to the landing threshold), and the length beyond the runway end to accommodate overruns (i.e., aircraft traveling beyond the end of the runway). The ALP1 for the Airport identifies the Airbus A-319, an Airport Reference Code (ARC C-III) aircraft, as the critical design aircraft for the purposes of determining runway length and RSA design standards for the existing and ultimate Runway 4-22 and Runway 15-33. The current RSA design standards for Runways 4-22 and 15-33 are:2

Width: 500 feet Length prior to the landing threshold to accommodate undershoots: 600 feet Length beyond the runway end to accommodate overruns: 1,000 feet

Exhibit III-1 depicts the standard RSA dimensions for ARC C-III aircraft. For more information on the RSA design standards, please refer to Appendix D, Section D.1. Table III-1 presents a comparison of the RSA standards to the findings of the FAA’s 2007 Runway Safety Area Determination3 for the Airport, which concluded that the RSAs for Runways 4-22 and 15-33 did not meet the design standards beyond the ends of each runway for ARC C-III aircraft in effect at that time, and that it would be practicable to meet the RSA design standards.

1 Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, Airport Layout

Plan, May 20, 2010. 2 Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design, Change 8, September 30,

2004. 3 Federal Aviation Administration, Runway Safety Area Determination: Ronald Reagan-Washington National

Airport, February 21, 2007.



THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Prel

imin

ary

Dra

ft - F

or D

iscu

ssio

n Pu

rpos

es O

nly

Ron

ald

Rea

gan

Was

hing

ton

Nat

iona

l Air

port

Sou

rce:

Fede

ral A

viat

ion

Adm

inis

tratio

n, A

dvis

ory

Circ

ular

150

/530

0-13

, Airp

ort D

esig

n, T

able

3-3

. Run

way

des

ign

stan

dard

s fo

r airc

raft

appr

oach

cat

egor

ies

C &

D.

.Pre

pare

d by

: Ric

ondo

& A

ssoc

iate

s, In

c., M

ay 2

010.

north

Exh

ibit

III-1

RSA

Des

ign

Dim

ensi

ons

for A

RC

C-II

I Airc

raft

10

00

FT

RUN

WA

Y EN

D

RUN

WA

Y EN

D

RUN

WA

Y EN

D

RUN

WA

Y EN

D

FLO

W

RUN

WA

Y

RUN

WA

Y

FLO

W

60

0 F

T

60

0 F

T

10

00

FT

50

0 F

T50

0 F

T

Fina

l Env

ironm

enta

l Ass

essm

ent

Run

way

4-2

2 an

d R

unw

ay 1

5-33

RS

A E

nhan

cem

ents

A

ltern

ativ

es

Mar

ch 2

012

III-3



Table III-1 Comparison of FAA RSA Determination and FAA RSA Design Standards

RSA Determination Design Standard

Runway 4 Departure 500 feet wide by 200 feet long a/ 500 feet wide by 1,000 feet long

Runway 22 Departure 500 feet wide by 950 feet long 500 feet wide by 1,000 feet long

Runway 15 Departure 500 feet wide by 120 feet long b/ 500 feet wide by 1,000 feet long

Runway 33 Departure 500 feet wide by 170 feet long 500 feet wide by 1,000 feet long Notes: a/ The runway meets the Potomac riverbank at an angle, and does not meet RSA standards for the entire

width of the RSA. The 200-foot RSA length was measured along the extended runway centerline. b/ The runway meets the Potomac riverbank at an angle, and does not meet RSA standards for the entire

width of the RSA. The 120-foot RSA length was measured along the extended runway centerline.

Source: Federal Aviation Administration, Runway Safety Area Determination: Ronald Reagan-Washington National Airport, Virginia (DCA), February 21, 2007.

Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., April 2011.

3.2 Alternatives Identification

3.2.1 Alternatives Included in FAA Order 5200.8

Pursuant to FAA Order 5200.8, “the first alternative to be considered in every case is constructing the traditional graded area surrounding the runway. Where it is not practicable to obtain the entire safety area in this manner, as much as possible should be obtained.”4 If the traditional graded RSA – referred to in this EA as a standard RSA – cannot be obtained, the Order then directs that the other alternatives be considered, including: relocation, shifting, or realignment of the runway; reduction in runway length where the existing runway length exceeds that required for the existing or projected design aircraft; a combination of runway relocation, shifting, grading, realignment, or reduction; use of declared distances (declared distances are the distances an airport operator declares available for an aircraft’s takeoff run, takeoff distance, accelerate-stop distance and landing distance requirements5); and use of EMAS, which is a system of materials of closely controlled strength and density at the end of a runway to stop or greatly slow an aircraft that overruns the runway. The best material found to date is a lightweight, crushable concrete. When an aircraft rolls into an EMAS arrestor bed, the tires of the aircraft sink into the lightweight concrete and the aircraft is decelerated by having to roll through the material.6

With the exception of relocating or realigning the runways, each RSA alternative developed and evaluated by the Authority included one or more of the alternatives identified in FAA Order 5200.8. Insufficient land area is available to relocate or realign either Runway 4-22 or Runway 15-33 while maintaining the existing runway length and providing graded RSAs without affecting the George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), existing passenger terminal buildings, passenger aircraft aprons, or ancillary Airport facilities. Further, the operational issues associated with realigning or relocating the runways would be considerable.

4 Federal Aviation Administration, Order 5200.8, Runway Safety Area Program, Appendix 2, "Supporting

Documentation for RSA Determinations," October 1, 1999. 5 Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design, Paragraph 2. 6 Federal Aviation Administration, Fact Sheet – Engineered Material Arresting System, August 11, 2008.



Additional information on the alternatives identified in FAA Order 5200.8 and evaluated in this EA is included in Appendix D, Section D.2.1. A detailed summary of the history of the alternatives development process is included in Appendix D, Section D.2.2.

3.2.2 Identification of Alternatives

The RSA alternatives considered in this EA were developed and evaluated in three phases:

3.2.2.1 Phase I Alternatives

The Authority first evaluated whether standard RSAs could be provided for all runways on Airport property without affecting the service road, the Potomac River, the blast fence for Runway 15, or the GWMP. Avoiding impacts to the service road precluded the use of Airport property on the other side of the service road from the runways and resulted in greater reductions in runway length. The first evaluation, commonly referred to as the Phase I Study7, described alternatives for the RSA prior to the landing threshold of each runway. The Phase I alternatives are discussed in more detail in Appendix D, Section D.2.2.1.

The Phase I Study alternatives for the northeast end of Runway 4-22 and the northwest and southeast ends of Runway 15-33 included: 1) displacing the landing thresholds for landings on Runways 15, 22 and 33; 2) using sections of the runway pavement as part of the RSA alternative; and, 3) using declared distances to limit the length of runway available for landings or takeoffs.

In developing the Phase I Study alternatives for ARC C-III aircraft, the Authority used the previous FAA RSA design standard (i.e., 1,000-foot by 1,000-foot RSAs at the runway ends for undershoots and overruns). The EA modified the descriptions of the displaced thresholds in the Phase I Study alternatives to compare the Phase I Study alternatives to the current FAA design standard (i.e., 600-foot by 1,000-foot) for undershoots.

The Phase I Study developed alternatives for each runway end without combining the runway end alternatives into one combined runway alternative. Where the Phase I Study considered three alternatives for the RSA at the southwest end Runway 4-22 (identified in Section D.2.2.1 as Alternatives 4, 4A and 4B) and four alternatives for the RSA at the northeast end Runway 4-22 (identified in Section D.2.2.1 as Alternatives 22A, 22B, 22C, and 22D), the EA considered twelve combinations of the runway end alternatives for Runway 4-22. The dimensions of these twelve combinations are reported in Table D-7. Similarly, where the Phase I Study considered five alternatives for the RSA at the northwest end Runway 15-33 (identified in Section D.2.2.1 as Alternatives 15A, 15B, 145C, 15D and 15E) and two alternatives for the RSA at the southeast end Runway 15-33 (identified in Section D.2.2.1 as Alternatives 33a and 33B), the EA considered ten combinations of the runway end alternatives for Runway 15-33. The dimensions of these ten combinations are reported in Table D-8.

The key features of the Phase I alternatives for Runway 4-22 and Runway 15-33 and a comparison of the alternatives to FAA RSA design standards are reported in Table III-2 and Table III-3, respectively.

7 Ricondo & Associates, Inc., First Draft, Runway Safety Area Study, Phase I-Operational Alternatives, Ronald

Reagan Washington National Airport, March 1999.

Ron

ald

Rea

gan

Was

hin

gton

Nat

ion

al A

irpo

rt

Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal A

sses

smen

t III

-7

Mar

ch 2

012

Run

wa

y 4-

22

and

Ru

nw

ay

15-3

3 R

SA

Enh

ance

men

ts

Alte

rnat

ives

Tab

le II

I-2

Key

Fea

ture

s of

Run

way

4-2

2 P

hase

I A

ltern

ativ

es a

nd C

onfo

rmity

with

Cur

rent

FA

A R

SA

Des

ign

Sta

ndar

ds

Pha

se I

Alte

rnat

ive

Com

bina

tions

Rel

ocat

e R

unw

ay

End

(f

eet)

Dis

plac

e La

ndin

g T

hres

hold

(f

eet)

Ava

ilabl

e R

unw

ay

Leng

ths

a/, b

/ (fe

et)

Con

form

s w

ith F

AA

Run

wa

y S

afe

ty A

rea

Des

ign

Sta

ndar

d

Run

wa

y 4

R

unw

ay

22

Run

wa

y 4c/

R

unw

ay

22

Und

ersh

oots

O

verr

uns

U

nder

shoo

ts

Ove

rru

ns

Run

wa

y 4

R

unw

ay

4

Run

wa

y 22

T

akeo

ffs

Land

ings

T

akeo

ffs

Land

ings

W

idth

Le

ngth

W

idth

Le

ngth

W

idth

Le

ngth

W

idth

Le

ngth

4 22

A

0 0

771

d/

3,74

0

3,74

0

4,91

1

4,14

0

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

4 22

B

0 0

501

4,41

0

4,41

0

4,91

1

4,41

0

Yes

Y

es

Yes

N

o Y

es

No

Yes

Y

es

4 22

C

0 0

400

4,51

1

4,51

1

4,91

1

4,51

1

Yes

Y

es

Yes

N

o Y

es

No

Yes

Y

es

4 22

D

0 0

330

4,58

1

4,58

1

4,91

1

4,58

1

Yes

Y

es

Yes

N

o Y

es

No

Yes

Y

es

4A

22A

40

0 0

771

d/

4,14

0

4,14

0

5,31

1

4,54

0

No

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

No

4A

22B

40

0 0

501

4,81

0

4,81

0

5,31

1

4,81

0

No

Yes

Y

es

No

Yes

N

o Y

es

No

4A

22C

40

0 0

400

4,91

1

4,91

1

5,31

1

4,91

1

No

Yes

Y

es

No

Yes

N

o Y

es

No

4A

22D

40

0 0

330

4,98

1

4,98

1

5,31

1

4,98

1

No

Yes

Y

es

No

Yes

N

o Y

es

No

4B

22A

33

0 0

771

d/

4,07

0

4,07

0

5,24

1

4,47

0

No

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

No

4B

22B

33

0 0

501

4,74

0

4,74

0

5,24

1

4,74

0

No

Yes

Y

es

No

Yes

N

o Y

es

No

4B

22C

33

0 0

400

4,84

1

4,84

1

5,24

1

4,84

1

No

Yes

Y

es

No

Yes

N

o Y

es

No

4B

22D

33

0 0

330

4,91

1

4,91

1

5,24

1

4,91

1

No

Yes

Y

es

No

Yes

N

o Y

es

No

Not

es:

a/

Cur

rent

ava

ilab

le le

ngth

for

take

offs

from

and

lan

din

gs o

n R

unw

ay

4-2

2 is

4,9

11 fe

et in

bot

h di

rect

ions

. The

ava

ilabl

e ru

nw

ay

len

gths

for

land

ings

on

and

take

offs

from

Run

wa

y 4

and

land

ings

on

Run

wa

y 22

are

dec

lare

d di

stan

ces.

b/

A

void

ance

of i

mpa

cts

on th

e se

rvic

e ro

ad w

as o

ne o

f the

con

stra

ints

in th

e P

hase

I S

tud

y. T

his

cons

trai

nt r

esul

ted

in g

reat

er r

educ

tions

in r

unw

ay

leng

ths.

c/

T

he a

vaila

ble

run

wa

y le

ngt

hs f

or la

ndin

gs o

n a

nd ta

ke-o

ffs fr

om R

unw

ay

4 w

ere

ca

lcul

ate

d to

pro

duce

a 5

00-f

oot

by

1,0

00-f

oot R

SA

at

the

nort

heas

t end

of

the

Run

wa

y fo

r A

RC

C-I

II ai

rcra

ft th

at o

verr

un R

unw

ay 4

. Alte

rnat

ives

4, 4

A a

nd 4

B w

ould

use

1,0

00 f

eet

of t

he r

unw

ay p

avem

ent a

t the

nor

the

ast e

nd

of th

e R

unw

ay

as p

art o

f the

RS

A. T

o av

oid

impa

cts

to th

e se

rvic

e ro

ad, t

he n

orth

east

end

of t

he R

SA

at t

he n

orth

eas

t en

d of

the

Ru

nw

ay

wo

uld

star

t 171

fe

et s

outh

we

st o

f the

exi

stin

g ru

nw

ay

end.

The

refo

re, 1

,171

feet

of r

unw

ay

pave

men

t at t

he n

orth

eas

t en

d of

the

Run

wa

y w

oul

d be

una

vaila

ble

for

lan

din

gs o

n or

tak

eoffs

from

Run

wa

y 4.

d/

T

he P

hase

I S

tud

y ca

lled

for

a d

ispl

acem

ent

of 1

,171

feet

but

onl

y 77

1 fe

et

is n

eede

d to

pro

vide

a 6

00-f

oot b

y 50

0-fo

ot R

SA

that

mee

ts th

e cu

rren

t FA

A

desi

gn s

tand

ard

for

unde

rsho

ots

by A

RC

C-I

II A

ircra

ft.

Sou

rce:

Ric

ondo

& A

ssoc

iate

s, I

nc.,

Fir

st D

raft

, Run

way

Saf

ety

Are

a St

udy,

Pha

se I

-Ope

rati

onal

Alt

erna

tive

s, R

onal

d R

agan

Was

hing

ton

Nat

iona

l Air

port

, Mar

ch 1

999.

P

repa

red

by: R

icon

do &

Ass

ocia

tes,

Inc

., D

ecem

ber

2011

.

Ron

ald

Rea

gan

Was

hin

gton

Nat

ion

al A

irpo

rt

Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal A

sses

smen

t III

-8

Mar

ch 2

012

Run

wa

y 4-

22

and

Ru

nw

ay

15-3

3 R

SA

Enh

ance

men

ts

Alte

rnat

ives

Tab

le II

I-3

Key

Fea

ture

s of

Run

way

15-

33 P

hase

I A

ltern

ativ

es a

nd C

onfo

rmity

with

Cur

rent

FA

A R

SA

Des

ign

Sta

ndar

ds

Pha

se I

Alte

rnat

ive

Com

bina

tions

Dis

plac

e La

ndin

g T

hres

hold

(f

eet)

Ava

ilabl

e R

unw

ay

Leng

ths

a/, b

/ (fe

et)

Con

form

s w

ith F

AA

Run

wa

y S

afe

ty A

rea

Des

ign

Sta

ndar

d

Run

wa

y 15

R

unw

ay

33

Run

wa

y 15

c/

Run

wa

y 33

U

nder

shoo

ts

Ove

rru

ns

Und

ersh

oots

O

verr

uns

Run

wa

y 15

R

unw

ay

33

Tak

eoffs

La

ndin

gs

Tak

eoffs

La

ndin

gs

Wid

th

Leng

th

Wid

th

Leng

th

Wid

th

Leng

th

Wid

th

Leng

th

15A

33

A

78

600

4,60

4

4,52

6

5,12

6

4,52

6

Yes

N

o Y

es

No

Yes

N

o Y

es

NO

15A

33

B

78

724

d/

4,08

0

4,00

2

5,12

6

4,40

2

Yes

N

o Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

No

15B

33

A

408

600

4,60

4

4,19

6

4,79

6

4,19

6

Yes

N

o Y

es

No

Yes

N

o Y

es

No

15B

33

B

408

724

d/

4,08

0

3,67

2

4,79

6

4,07

2

Yes

N

o Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

No

15C

33

A

463

600

4,60

4

4,14

1

4,74

1

4,14

1

No

No

Yes

N

o Y

es

No

Yes

N

o

15C

33

B

463

724d/

4,

080

3,

617

4,

741

4,

017

N

o N

o Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

No

15D

33

A

503

600

4,60

4

4,10

1

4,39

6

3,79

6

No

Yes

Y

es

No

Yes

N

o Y

es

No

15D

33

B

503

724d/

4,

080

3,

577

4,

396

3,

672

N

o Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

N

o

15E

33

A

503

600

4,60

4

4,10

1

4,30

1

3,70

1

No

Yes

Y

es

No

Yes

N

o Y

es

Yes

15E

33

B

503

724

d/

4,08

0

3,57

7

4,30

1

3,57

7

No

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Not

es:

a/

Cur

rent

ava

ilab

le le

ngth

for

take

offs

from

and

lan

din

gs o

n R

unw

ay

15-3

3 is

5,2

04 fe

et in

bot

h di

rect

ions

. The

ava

ilabl

e ru

nw

ay

len

gths

rep

orte

d in

Tab

le

D-8

are

dec

lare

d di

sta

nces

. b/

A

void

ance

of i

mpa

cts

on th

e se

rvic

e ro

ad w

as o

ne o

f the

con

stra

ints

in th

e P

hase

I S

tud

y. T

his

cons

trai

nt r

esul

ted

in g

reat

er r

educ

tions

in r

unw

ay

leng

ths.

c/

T

he a

vaila

ble

run

wa

y le

ngt

hs f

or la

ndin

gs o

n a

nd ta

ke-o

ffs fr

om R

unw

ay

15

we

re c

alc

ulat

ed to

pro

duc

e a

500-

foot

by

1,0

00-f

oot R

SA

at t

he s

outh

ea

st

end

of t

he R

unw

ay

for

AR

C C

-III

airc

raft

that

ove

rrun

Run

wa

y 15

. A

ltern

ativ

es 3

3B w

oul

d us

e 1,

000

feet

of t

he r

unw

ay p

avem

ent a

t the

sou

the

ast e

nd

of

the

Run

wa

y as

par

t of t

he R

SA

. To

avoi

d im

pact

s to

the

serv

ice

roa

d, th

e so

uthe

ast e

nd o

f the

RS

A a

t the

sou

thea

st e

nd o

f the

Ru

nw

ay

wo

uld

sta

rt 1

24

feet

nor

thw

est

of th

e ex

istin

g ru

nw

ay

end.

The

refo

re, 1

,124

feet

of r

unw

ay

pave

men

t at t

he s

outh

eas

t en

d of

the

Run

wa

y w

oul

d be

una

vaila

ble

for

lan

din

gs o

n or

tak

eoffs

from

Run

wa

y 15

. d/

T

he P

hase

I S

tud

y ca

lled

for

a d

ispl

acem

ent

of 1

,124

feet

but

onl

y 72

4 fe

et

is n

eede

d to

pro

vide

a 6

00-f

oot b

y 50

0-fo

ot R

SA

that

mee

ts th

e cu

rren

t FA

A

desi

gn s

tand

ard

for

unde

rsho

ots

by A

RC

C-I

II A

ircra

ft.

Sou

rce:

Ric

ondo

& A

ssoc

iate

s, I

nc.,

Fir

st D

raft

, Run

way

Saf

ety

Are

a St

udy,

Pha

se I

-Ope

rati

onal

Alt

erna

tive

s, R

onal

d R

agan

Was

hing

ton

Nat

iona

l Air

port

, Mar

ch 1

999.

P

repa

red

by: R

icon

do &

Ass

ocia

tes,

Inc

., D

ecem

ber

2011

.



Runway 4-22

Alternatives Retained for Further Consideration

None of the alternatives for Runway 4-22 were endorsed in the Phase I Study. However, one combination of alternatives – Alternatives 4 and 22A, (depicted on Exhibit III-2 as Preliminary EA Action Alternative 0422-1) – would fulfill the stated purpose of and need for the Proposed Action by:

Providing an RSA at the southwest end that would conform to FAA design standards for ARC C-III aircraft that undershoot Runway 4 or overrun Runway 22.

Reducing the available runway length for landings on Runway 22 from 4,911 feet to 4,140 feet because the Runway 22 landing threshold would be displaced 771 feet southwest to provide a 500-foot wide and 600-foot-long RSA for undershoots that would avoid impacts to the service road.8 If the landing threshold were displaced only 600 feet, the service road would run through the RSA.

Reducing the available runway length for takeoffs from and landings on Runway 4 from 4,911 feet to 3,740 feet using declared distances to provide a 500-foot wide and 1,000-foot-long RSA for overruns that would avoid impacts to the service road. A 1,000-foot section of the runway at the Runway 22 end would be designated as part of the RSA for overruns. To avoid impacts to the service road, the northeast end of the RSA at the northeast end of the Runway would start 171 feet southwest of the existing runway end. Therefore, 1,171 feet of runway pavement at the northeast end of the Runway would be unavailable for landings on or takeoffs from Runway 4.

As reported in the Phase I Study, the combination of Alternatives 4 and 22A would cause undesirable airfield operational impacts because the reductions in available runway length would cause approximately 10 percent of the landings on and approximately 27 percent of the takeoffs from Runway 4 to be diverted to Runway 1. However, because the combination of Alternatives 4 and 22A would fulfill the stated purpose of and need for the Proposed Action, this combination of Phase I alternatives was retained for further consideration as Preliminary EA Action Alternative 0422-1 and is discussed in more detail in Section 3.2.2.5 and Section D.3.

Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration

Eleven of the twelve Phase I combination alternatives would not fulfill the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action because: 1) the width of the RSA at one or both of the runway ends was shorter than the 500-foot design standard; and/or, 2) the length of the RSA before one or both of the runway ends was shorter than the 600-foot design standard for undershoots; and/or, 3) the length of the RSA beyond one or both of the runway ends was shorter than the 1,000-foot design standard for overruns. These eleven alternatives were eliminated from further consideration.

8 A threshold located at a point on a runway other than the designated runway end is referred to as a displaced

landing threshold. In this alternative, the displaced area is available for aircraft takeoff from Runway 22 and takeoffs from or landings on Runway 4, but not for landings on Runway 22. A displaced landing threshold does not mark the end of a runway.

Fina

l Env

ironm

enta

l Ass

essm

ent

Run

way

4-2

2 an

d R

unw

ay 1

5-33

RS

A E

nhan

cem

ents

A

ltern

ativ

es

Mar

ch 2

012

III-1

1



Runway 15-33

Phase I Alternatives Retained for Further Consideration

None of the alternatives were endorsed in the Phase I Study because all of the alternatives would have major implications for airfield capacity. However, one combination of alternatives – Alternatives 15E and 33B (depicted on Exhibit III-3 (1 of 2) as Preliminary EA Action Alternative 1533-1) – would fulfill the stated purpose of and need for of the Proposed Action by:

Displacing the Runway 15 landing threshold 503 feet southeast.

Displacing the Runway 33 landing threshold 724 feet northwest.

Using declared distances, resulting in:

- A reduction in the available runway length for takeoffs from Runway 15 from 5,204 feet to 4,080 feet.

- A reduction in the available runway length for landings on Runway 15 from 5,204 feet to 3,577 feet.

- A reduction in the available runway length for takeoffs from Runway 33 from 5,204 feet to 4,301 feet.

- A reduction in the available runway length for landings on Runway 33 from 5,204 feet to 3,577 feet.

Maintaining the length of Runway 15-33 is essential to accommodate ARC C-III aircraft when Runway 1-19 is unavailable. The reduced available runway lengths that would result from the combination of Alternatives 15E and 33B would increase weight penalties and have an adverse impact on Airport operations. However, because the combination of Alternatives 15E and 33B would fulfill the stated purpose of and need for the Proposed Action, this combination of Phase I alternatives was retained for further consideration as Preliminary EA Action Alternative 1533-1 and is discussed in more detail in Section 3.2.2.4 and Section D.3.

Phase I Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration

Nine of the ten Phase I combined alternatives would not fulfill the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action because: 1) the width of the RSA at one or both of the runway ends was shorter than the 500-foot design standard; and/or, 2) the length of the RSA before one or both of the runway ends was shorter than the 600-foot design standard for undershoots; and/or, 3) the length of the RSA beyond one or both of the runway ends was shorter than the 1,000-foot design standard for overruns. These nine alternatives were eliminated from further consideration.

3.2.2.2 Phase II Alternatives

The Phase I Study, the Phase II Study developed alternatives that considered both runway ends in a single alternative. The Phase II Study alternatives considered: 1) relocating runway ends; 2) displacing the landing thresholds for landings on Runways 15 and 33; and, 3) using sections of the runway pavement as part of the RSA alternative. In developing the Phase II Study alternatives for ARC C-III aircraft, the Authority used the previous FAA RSA design standard. The EA modified the descriptions of the displaced thresholds in the Phase I Study alternatives to reflect the current FAA design standard (i.e., 600-foot by 1,000-foot) for undershoots.

Fina

l Env

ironm

enta

l Ass

essm

ent

Run

way

4-2

2 an

d R

unw

ay 1

5-33

RS

A E

nhan

cem

ents

A

ltern

ativ

es

Mar

ch 2

012

III-1

5

Fina

l Env

ironm

enta

l Ass

essm

ent

Run

way

4-2

2 an

d R

unw

ay 1

5-33

RS

A E

nhan

cem

ents

A

ltern

ativ

es

Mar

ch 2

012

III-1

7



The key features of the Phase II alternatives for Runway 4-22 and Runway 15-33 and a comparison of the alternatives to FAA RSA design standards are reported in Table III-4 and Table III-5, respectively.

Runway 4-22

Phase II Alternatives Retained for Further Consideration

None of the alternatives for Runway 4-22 were endorsed in the Phase II Study. However, one alternative - Alternative 0422-A (the first alternative reported in Section 4.3.1, "Primary Alternatives," of the Phase II Study and depicted on Exhibit III-2 as Preliminary EA Action Alternative 0422-2) – would fulfill the stated purpose of and need for the Proposed Action by:

Shifting the Runway 100 feet northeast Placing approximately 13.8 acres of fill in the Potomac River for the RSA at the northeast

end of the Runway Constructing a standard RSA

Alternative 0422-A was not endorsed in the Phase II Study because of its anticipated impact to the Potomac River (approximately 13.8 acres), constructability, and cost. However, because this alternative would fulfill the stated purpose of and need for the Proposed Action, this alternative was retained for further consideration as Preliminary EA Action Alternative 0422-2 and is discussed in more detail in Section 3.2.2.4 and Section D.3.

Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration

Alternatives 0422-B through 0422-E would not fulfill the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action because: 1) the width of the RSA at one or both of the runway ends was shorter than the 500-foot design standard; and/or, 2) the length of the RSA before one or both of the runway ends was shorter than the 600-foot design standard for undershoots; and/or, 3) the length of the RSA beyond one or both of the runway ends was shorter than the 1,000-foot design standard for overruns.

Runway 15-33

Phase II Alternatives Retained for Further Consideration

None of the alternatives for Runway 15-33 were endorsed in the Phase II Study. One alternative - Alternative 1533-A (the first alternative for Runway 15-33 reported in Section 4.3.1, "Primary Alternatives," of the Phase II Study and depicted in Exhibit III-3 [page 1 of 2] as Preliminary EA Action Alternative 1533-2) would fulfill the stated purpose of and need for the Proposed Action by:

Shifting the Runway 890 feet southeast Constructing a standard RSA Placing approximately 38.5 acres of fill in the Potomac River for the RSA at the southeast

end of the Runway.

This alternative was not endorsed in the Phase II Study because of its anticipated impact to the Potomac River (approximately 38.5 acres), constructability, and cost. However, because this alternative would fulfill the stated purpose of and need for the Proposed Action, this alternative was retained for further consideration as Preliminary EA Action Alternative 1533-2 and is discussed in more detail in Section 3.2.2.4 and Section D.3.

Ron

ald

Rea

gan

Was

hin

gton

Nat

ion

al A

irpo

rt

Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal A

sses

smen

t III

-20

Mar

ch 2

012

Run

wa

y 4-

22

and

Ru

nw

ay

15-3

3 R

SA

Enh

ance

men

ts

Alte

rnat

ives

Tab

le II

I-4

Key

Fea

ture

s of

Run

way

4-2

2 P

hase

II A

ltern

ativ

es a

nd C

onfo

rmity

with

Cur

rent

FA

A R

SA

Des

ign

Sta

ndar

ds

Con

form

s w

ith F

AA

Run

wa

y S

afe

ty A

rea

Des

ign

Sta

ndar

d

Rel

ocat

e R

unw

ay

End

s N

orth

east

(f

eet)

Rel

ocat

e R

unw

ay

End

s S

outh

wes

t (f

eet)

Ava

ilabl

e R

unw

ay

Leng

ths

a/

(fee

t)

Run

wa

y 4

R

unw

ay

22

R

unw

ay

End

R

unw

ay

End

Tak

eoffs

an

d La

ndin

gs

Tak

eoffs

an

d La

ndin

gs

Und

ersh

oots

O

verr

uns

U

nder

shoo

ts

Ove

rru

ns

Alte

rnat

ive

SW

N

E

SW

N

E

Run

wa

y 4

R

unw

ay

22

Wid

th

Leng

th

Wid

th

Leng

th

Wid

th

Leng

th

Wid

th

Leng

th

0422

-A

100

100

NA

N

A

4,91

1

4,91

1

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

0422

-B

NA

N

A

NA

N

A

4,91

1

4,91

1

No

Yes

N

o N

o N

o Y

es

No

No

0422

-C

NA

N

A

360

690

4,58

1

4,58

1

No

Yes

N

o N

o N

o Y

es

No

No

0422

-D

NA

N

A

200

200

4,91

1

4,91

1

No

Yes

N

o N

o N

o N

o N

o N

o

0422

-E

NA

N

A

NA

50

0 4,

411

4,

411

N

o Y

es

No

No

No

Yes

N

o N

o

Not

es:

NA

N

ot A

pplic

able

N

E

Nor

the

ast

SW

S

outh

wes

t a/

C

urre

nt a

vaila

ble

leng

th fo

r ta

keof

fs fr

om a

nd la

ndi

ngs

on R

unw

ay

4-2

2 is

4,9

11 fe

et in

bot

h di

rect

ions

.

Sou

rce:

Ric

ondo

& A

ssoc

iate

s, I

nc.,

Fir

st D

raft

, Run

way

Saf

ety

Are

a St

udy,

Pha

se I

-Ope

rati

onal

Alt

erna

tive

s, R

onal

d R

agan

Was

hing

ton

Nat

iona

l Air

port

, Mar

ch 1

999.

P

repa

red

by: R

icon

do &

Ass

ocia

tes,

Inc

., D

ecem

ber

2011

.

Ron

ald

Rea

gan

Was

hin

gton

Nat

ion

al A

irpo

rt

Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal A

sses

smen

t III

-21

Mar

ch 2

012

Run

wa

y 4-

22

and

Ru

nw

ay

15-3

3 R

SA

Enh

ance

men

ts

Alte

rnat

ives

Tab

le II

I-5

Key

Fea

ture

s of

Run

way

15-

33 P

hase

II A

ltern

ativ

es a

nd C

onfo

rmity

with

Cur

rent

FA

A R

SA

Des

ign

Sta

ndar

ds

Pha

se II

A

ltern

ativ

e C

ombi

natio

ns

Rel

ocat

e R

unw

ay

End

s (f

eet)

Ava

ilabl

e R

unw

ay

Leng

ths

a/, b

/ (fe

et)

Con

form

s w

ith F

AA

Run

wa

y S

afe

ty A

rea

Des

ign

Sta

ndar

d

Nor

thw

est

Run

wa

y E

nd

Sou

thea

st

Run

wa

y E

nd

Run

wa

y 15

R

unw

ay

33

Dire

ctio

n D

irect

ion

Run

wa

y 15

c/

Run

wa

y 33

U

nder

shoo

ts

Ove

rru

ns

Und

ersh

oots

O

verr

uns

NW

S

E

NW

S

E

Tak

eoffs

La

ndin

gs

Tak

eoffs

La

ndin

gs

Wid

th

Leng

th

Wid

th

Leng

th

Wid

th

Leng

th

Wid

th

Leng

th

1533

-A

NA

89

0 N

A

890

5,20

4

5,20

4

5,20

4

5,20

4

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

1533

-B

NA

64

0 N

A

640

5,20

4

5,20

4

5,20

4

5,20

4

Yes

Y

es

Yes

N

o Y

es

Yes

Y

es

No

1533

-C

NA

43

0 N

A

430

5,20

4

5,20

4

5,20

4

5,20

4

Yes

N

ob/

Yes

N

o Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Noc/

1533

-D

NA

N

A

NA

N

A

5,20

4

5,20

4

5,20

4

5,20

4

Yes

N

o Y

es

No

Yes

N

o Y

es

No

1533

-F

NA

14

0 N

A

140

5,20

4

5,20

4

5,20

4

5,20

4

Yes

N

o Y

es

No

Yes

Y

es

Yes

N

oc/

1533

-G

NA

39

0 N

A

390

5,20

4

5,20

4

5,20

4

5,20

4

Yes

N

ob/

Yes

N

o Y

es

No

Yes

N

oc/

1533

-H

NA

N

A

NA

N

A

5,20

4

5,20

4

5,20

4

5,20

4

Yes

N

ob/

Yes

N

o Y

es

No

Yes

N

oc/

D

ispl

ace

Land

ing

Thr

esho

ld

(fee

t)

N

orth

wes

t E

nd E

nd

Sou

thea

st

End

1533

-E

400

480

4,72

4

4324

48

04

4324

Y

es

No

Yes

N

o Y

es

Yes

Y

es

No

c/

Not

es:

a/

Cur

rent

ava

ilab

le le

ngth

for

take

offs

from

and

lan

ding

s on

Run

wa

y 15

-33

is 5

,204

feet

in b

oth

dire

ctio

ns.

b/

The

EM

AS

inst

alla

tion

at th

e n

orth

wes

t en

d o

f th

e R

unw

ay

doe

s no

t pro

vid

e ad

equ

ate

pro

tect

ion

beca

use

the

len

gth

fro

m th

e en

d of

the

Run

wa

y to

the

edg

e of

the

EM

AS

bed

fart

hest

from

the

phys

ical

end

of

the

run

wa

y is

less

tha

n th

e F

AA

sta

ndar

d of

600

fee

t. c/

T

he E

MA

S in

stal

latio

n at

the

nor

thw

est e

nd

of

the

Run

wa

y is

sho

rter

than

req

uire

d to

sto

p th

e cr

itica

l des

ign

airc

raft

exiti

ng R

un

wa

y 33

at s

peed

s up

to 7

0 kn

ots.

Sou

rce:

Ric

ondo

& A

ssoc

iate

s, I

nc.,

Fir

st D

raft

, Run

way

Saf

ety

Are

a St

udy,

Pha

se I

-Ope

rati

onal

Alt

erna

tive

s, R

onal

d R

agan

Was

hing

ton

Nat

iona

l Air

port

, Mar

ch 1

999.

P

repa

red

by: R

icon

do &

Ass

ocia

tes,

Inc

., D

ecem

ber

2011

.



Phase II Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration

Alternative 1533-H (the last alternative for Runway 15-33 reported in Section 4.2.2, "Discontinued Alternatives," of the Phase II Study) would fulfill the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action by:

Constructing a standard RSA Placing a pier over the George Washington Memorial Parkway and a tunnel for the GWMP

under the pier for the RSA at the northwest end of the Runway Placing fill in the Potomac River for the RSA at the southeast end of the Runway.

Alternative 1533-H was eliminated from further consideration because of its extreme impacts and probable costs.

Alternative 1533-B would not fulfill the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action and was eliminated from further consideration because the length of the RSA beyond both of the runway ends were shorter than the 1,000-foot design standard for overruns. Alternative 1533-B would also result in placing approximately 21.6 acres of fill in the Potomac River.

Alternatives 1533-C, 1533-E, 1533-F and 1533-G would not fulfill the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action and were eliminated from further consideration because: 1) the length of the RSA before one or both of the runway ends was shorter than the 600-foot design standard for undershoots; and/or, 2) the EMAS installation at the northwest end of the Runway would not stop the critical design aircraft exiting Runway 33 at speeds up to 70 knots and would not provide adequate protection for undershoots to Runway 15.9

The remaining six Phase II alternatives were eliminated for the reasons discussed below.

Alternative 1533-B would not fulfill the stated purpose of and need for the Proposed Action and would result in impacts on up to 21.6 acres of the Potomac River.

The dimensions of the EMAS installations for Alternatives 1533-C, 1533-D, 1533-E, 1533-F and 1533-G were based on stopping the McDonnell Douglas DC-9 exiting the runway at speeds up to 70 knots. As discussed in Section D.2.1.5, using updated fleet mix and runway utilization data based on operations in 2009, the Authority selected: 1) an EMAS installation for the northwest end of the Runway that would stop the Airbus A-319 with a weight of 144,500 pounds (adjusted Maximum Takeoff Weight based on obstructions northwest of the Airport) exiting the Runway at speeds up to 70 knots; and 2) an EMAS installation for the southeast end of the Runway that would stop the Embraer EMB-145 with a weight of 34,000 pounds (80 percent of the Maximum Landing Weight) exiting the Runway at speeds up to 40 knots.

Alternative 1533-D would not fulfill the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action because it would not change or improve the existing RSAs. This alternative included adding a new high-speed exit taxiway with an EMAS installation to provide a level of safety for aircraft that overrun Runway 33.

9 Adequate protection would be provided if the length from the end of the runway to the edge of the EMAS bed

farthest from the physical end of the runway is at least 600 feet. (FAA Order 5200.9, Section 6, "Standard EMAS Installation," March 15, 2004.



3.2.2.3 Post-Phase II Alternatives

Each Post-Phase II Study alternative was comprised of an alternative for each runway end.

The key features of the Phase I alternatives for Runway 4-22 and Runway 15-33 and a comparison of the alternatives to FAA RSA design standards are reported in Table III-6 and Table III-7, respectively.

Runway 4-22

The Authority developed ten Post-Phase II alternatives for Runway 4-22. The dimensions of the key features of the Post-Phase II alternatives are reported in Table D-11.

As discussed in Section D.2.1.5, with the exception of Alternative 0422-O, the Authority used the Airbus A-319 with an A-MTOW of 118,000 pounds as the critical design aircraft for operations on Runway 4 to model the EMAS installations included in the Post-Phase II alternatives. The Airbus A-319 with an A-MTOW of 144,500 pounds was used as the critical design aircraft for operations on Runway 4.

Post-Phase II Alternatives Retained for Further Consideration

Only one alternative — Alternative 0422-O (depicted on Exhibit III-2 as Preliminary EA Action Alternative 0422-3) — would fulfill the stated purpose of and need for the Proposed Action by:

Relocating the southwest end of the Runway 460 feet southeast Relocating the northeast end of the Runway 371 feet southeast Displacing the Runway 4 landing threshold 200 feet Reducing the runway length10 available for landings on Runway 4 from 4,911 feet to 4,800

feet Increasing the runway length available for takeoffs from Runway 4 from 4,911 feet to 5,000

feet Using declared distances, resulting in reductions of runway lengths available for takeoffs

from and landings on Runway 22 from 4,911 feet to 4,400 feet Installing a 170 feet wide by 336 feet long EMAS bed capable of stopping the critical design

aircraft (the Airbus A-319 with an A-MTOW of 144,500 pounds11 ) exiting the runway at 70 knots at the northeast end of the Runway (the EMAS bed would start at the end of the required 35-foot setback from the runway end).

Extending Taxiway B to the new Runway 4 end and constructing a new taxiway connector to the relocated Runway 22 end.

Alternative 0422-O was retained as Preliminary EA Action Alternative 0422-3 for further consideration and is discussed in more detail in Section 3.2.2.4 and Section D.3.

10 Although 460 feet of new pavement would be installed at the southeast end of the Runway, shifting the

northeast end of the Runway 371 feet southwest and displacing the Runway 4 landing threshold 200 feet results in a reduction of 111 feet of runway length available for landings on Runway 4.

11 Michael Pulaski, “FW: DCA RSA IMPROVEMENTS”, email to Mike Hines, September 13, 2010.

Ron

ald

Rea

gan

Was

hin

gton

Nat

ion

al A

irpo

rt

Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal A

sses

smen

t III

-24

Mar

ch 2

012

Run

wa

y 4-

22

and

Ru

nw

ay

15-3

3 R

SA

Enh

ance

men

ts

Alte

rnat

ives

Tab

le II

I-6

Com

paris

on o

f Run

way

4-2

2 P

ost-

Pha

se II

Alte

rnat

ives

to C

urre

nt F

AA

RS

A D

esig

n S

tand

ards

A

vaila

ble

Run

wa

y Le

ngth

s a/

Mee

ts F

AA

Run

wa

y S

afet

y A

rea

Des

ign

Sta

ndar

d

Rel

ocat

e R

unw

ay

End

s S

outh

wes

t (f

eet)

Run

wa

y 4

R

unw

ay

22

Run

wa

y 4

R

unw

ay

22

R

unw

ay

End

Dis

plac

e R

unw

ay

4 La

ndin

g T

hres

hold

(f

eet)

T

akeo

ffs

Land

ings

T

akeo

ffs

Land

ings

U

nder

shoo

ts

Ove

rru

ns

Und

ersh

oots

O

verr

uns

Alte

rnat

ive

SW

N

E

NA

W

idth

Le

ngth

W

idth

Le

ngth

W

idth

Le

ngth

W

idth

Le

ngth

0422

-F

276

NA

N

A

4,91

1b/

4,91

1b/

4,91

1b

4,91

1b/

Yes

Y

es

Yes

N

o Y

es

No

Yes

N

o

0422

-G

276

NA

N

A

4,91

1

4,91

1

4,91

1

4,91

1

Yes

Y

es

Yes

N

oc/

Yes

N

SE

-Uf/

Yes

N

o

0422

-H

276

NA

N

A

4,91

1

4,91

1

4,91

1

4,91

1

Yes

Y

es

Yes

N

od/

Yes

N

SE

-Uf/

Yes

N

o

0422

-I

NA

N

A

NA

4,

315

4,

315

4,

315

4,

315

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

No

Yes

Y

es

Yes

N

o

0422

-J

304

596

NA

4,

619

4,

619

4,

619

4,

619

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

No

Yes

Y

es

Yes

N

o

0422

-K

680

600

240

5,00

0

4,56

1

4,56

1

4,56

1

Yes

Y

es

Yes

N

oc/

Yes

S

E-U

f/

Yes

N

o

0422

-L

420

600

240

5,00

0

4,56

1

4,82

0

4,56

1

Yes

Y

es

Yes

N

oc/

Yes

S

E-U

f/

Yes

N

o

0422

-M

282

600

240

5,00

0

4,56

1

4,95

8

4,56

1

Yes

Y

es

Yes

N

od/

Yes

S

E-U

f/

Yes

N

o

0422

-N

282

600

240

5,00

0

4,56

1

4,94

8

4,56

1

Yes

Y

es

Yes

N

od/

Yes

S

E-U

f/

Yes

N

o

0422

-O

460

371

200

5,00

0

4,80

0

4,40

0

4,40

0

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

ese

/ Y

es

NS

E-U

Y

es

Yes

Not

es:

NA

N

ot A

pplic

able

N

E

Nor

the

ast

NS

E-U

N

onst

and

ard

EM

AS

inst

alla

tion

for

unde

rsho

ots

(less

than

600

feet

pro

vide

d be

twe

en th

e en

d of

the

EM

AS

bed

and

the

Run

wa

y th

resh

old)

S

W

Sou

thw

est

a/

Cur

rent

ava

ilab

le le

ngth

for

take

offs

from

and

lan

ding

s on

Run

wa

y 4-

22

is 4

,911

feet

in b

oth

dire

ctio

ns.

b/

Dec

lare

d di

stan

ces.

c/

B

ecau

se th

e cr

itica

l des

ign

airc

raft

chan

ged

afte

r th

is A

ltern

ativ

e w

as d

eve

lop

ed, t

he le

ngth

of t

he E

MA

S in

stal

latio

n at

the

nort

hea

st e

nd o

f the

Ru

nw

ay

is s

hort

er th

an r

equ

ired

to p

rovi

de a

sta

nda

rd E

MA

S in

stal

latio

n fo

r R

un

wa

y 4

over

runs

. d/

B

ecau

se th

e cr

itica

l des

ign

airc

raft

and

exi

t spe

ed

cha

nge

d af

ter

this

Alte

rnat

ive

was

dev

elo

ped

, the

leng

th o

f the

EM

AS

inst

alla

tion

at th

e no

rth

east

end

of

the

Run

wa

y is

sho

rter

than

req

uire

d to

pro

vide

a s

tan

dard

EM

AS

inst

alla

tion

for

Ru

nw

ay

4 ov

erru

ns.

e/

The

EM

AS

inst

alla

tion

at th

e n

orth

east

en

d of

the

Run

wa

y w

ould

sto

p th

e cr

itica

l des

ign

airc

raft

exiti

ng

Run

wa

y 4

at s

peed

s up

to 7

0 kn

ots.

f/

The

crit

ical

des

ign

airc

raft

for

the

EM

AS

inst

alla

tion

at th

e no

rthe

ast e

nd o

f the

Ru

nw

ay

wa

s no

t the

A-3

19 w

ith a

n A

-MT

OW

0f 1

44,5

00 p

oun

ds.

Sou

rce:

Ric

ondo

& A

ssoc

iate

s, I

nc.,

Fir

st D

raft

, Run

way

Saf

ety

Are

a St

udy,

Pha

se I

-Ope

rati

onal

Alt

erna

tive

s, R

onal

d R

agan

Was

hing

ton

Nat

iona

l Air

port

, Mar

ch 1

999.

P

repa

red

by: R

icon

do &

Ass

ocia

tes,

Inc

., D

ecem

ber

2011

.

Ron

ald

Rea

gan

Was

hin

gton

Nat

ion

al A

irpo

rt

Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal A

sses

smen

t III

-25

Mar

ch 2

012

Run

wa

y 4-

22

and

Ru

nw

ay

15-3

3 R

SA

Enh

ance

men

ts

Alte

rnat

ives

Tab

le II

I-7

Dim

ensi

ons

of th

e K

ey F

eatu

res

of R

unw

ay 1

5-33

Pos

t-P

hase

II A

ltern

ativ

es

Pos

t-P

hase

II

Alte

rnat

ive

Com

bina

tions

Rel

ocat

e B

oth

Run

wa

y E

nds

Sou

thea

st

(fee

t)

Ava

ilabl

e R

unw

ay

Leng

ths

a/ (

fee

t)

Mee

ts F

AA

Run

wa

y S

afet

y A

rea

Des

ign

Sta

ndar

d

Run

wa

y 15

R

unw

ay

33

Run

wa

y 15

c/

Run

wa

y 33

U

nder

shoo

ts

Ove

rru

ns

Und

ersh

oots

O

verr

uns

Tak

eoffs

La

ndin

gs

Tak

eoffs

La

ndin

gs

Wid

th

Leng

th

Wid

th

Leng

th

Wid

th

Leng

th

Wid

th

Leng

th

1533

-I

193

5,20

4

5,20

4

5,20

4

5,20

4

Yes

N

SE

-U

Yes

Y

esb/

Yes

N

SE

-U

Yes

N

oe/

1533

-J

193

5,20

4

5,20

4

5,20

4

5,20

4

Yes

N

SE

-U

Yes

Y

esc/

Yes

N

SE

-U

Yes

N

oe/

1533

-K

55

5,20

4

5,20

4

5,20

4

5,20

4

Yes

N

SE

-U

Yes

Y

esc/

Yes

N

SE

-U

Yes

N

of/

1533

-L

193

5,00

0

5,00

0

5,00

0

5,00

0

Yes

N

SE

-U

Yes

Y

esb/

Yes

N

SE

-U

Yes

N

oe/

1533

-M

270

5,20

4

5,20

4

5,20

4

5,20

4

Yes

N

SE

-U

Yes

Y

esd/

Yes

N

SE

-U

Yes

Y

esg/

Not

es:

NS

E-U

N

onst

and

ard

EM

AS

inst

alla

tion

(pro

vide

s le

ss th

an 6

00

feet

bet

wee

n th

e fa

rthe

st e

dge

of th

e E

MA

S b

ed fr

om th

e ru

nw

ay

and

the

run

wa

y en

d)

a/

Cur

rent

ava

ilab

le le

ngth

for

take

offs

from

and

lan

ding

s on

Run

wa

y 15

-33

is 5

,204

feet

in b

oth

dire

ctio

ns.

b/

Bec

ause

the

criti

cal d

esig

n ai

rcra

ft an

d de

sig

n e

xit s

pee

d ch

ang

ed a

fter

this

Alte

rnat

ive

was

dev

elo

ped,

the

leng

th o

f th

e E

MA

S in

stal

latio

n at

the

sout

heas

t end

of t

he R

unw

ay

is lo

nge

r th

an

requ

ired

to s

top

the

criti

cal d

esig

n a

ircra

ft ex

iting

Ru

nw

ay

15 a

t spe

eds

up to

40

knot

s.

c/

Bec

ause

the

criti

cal d

esig

n ai

rcra

ft ch

ange

d af

ter

this

Alte

rnat

ive

was

dev

elo

ped

, the

leng

th o

f the

EM

AS

inst

alla

tion

at th

e so

uth

east

end

of t

he R

un

wa

y is

lon

ger

tha

n re

quire

d to

sto

p th

e cu

rren

t crit

ical

des

ign

airc

raft

exiti

ng R

un

wa

y 15

at s

pee

ds u

p to

40

knot

s.

d/

The

EM

AS

inst

alla

tion

at th

e so

uthe

ast e

nd o

f th

e ru

nw

ay

is c

apa

ble

of s

topp

ing

the

curr

en

t cr

itica

l des

ign

airc

raft

exiti

ng R

unw

ay

15 a

t spe

eds

up

to 4

0 kn

ots.

e/

B

ecau

se th

e cr

itica

l des

ign

airc

raft

chan

ged

afte

r th

is A

ltern

ativ

e w

as d

eve

lop

ed, t

he le

ngth

of t

he E

MA

S in

stal

latio

n at

the

nort

hea

st e

nd o

f the

Ru

nw

ay

is s

hort

er th

an r

equ

ired

to s

top

the

curr

ent c

ritic

al d

esig

n ai

rcra

ft ex

iting

Ru

nw

ay

33

at s

peed

s up

to 7

0 kn

ots.

f/

Bec

ause

the

criti

cal d

esig

n ai

rcra

ft an

d de

sig

n e

xit s

pee

d ch

ang

ed a

fter

this

Alte

rnat

ive

was

dev

elo

ped,

the

leng

th o

f th

e E

MA

S in

stal

latio

n at

the

sout

heas

t end

of t

he R

unw

ay

is s

hort

er th

an r

equ

ired

to s

top

the

criti

cal d

esi

gn a

ircra

ft ex

iting

Ru

nw

ay

33

at s

pee

ds u

p to

70

knot

s.

g/

The

EM

AS

inst

alla

tion

at th

e n

orth

east

en

d of

the

run

wa

y is

cap

abl

e of

sto

ppin

g th

e cu

rre

nt

criti

cal d

esig

n a

ircra

ft ex

iting

Run

wa

y 33

at s

pee

ds u

p to

70

knot

s.

Sou

rce:

Ric

ondo

& A

ssoc

iate

s, I

nc.,

Fir

st D

raft

, Run

way

Saf

ety

Are

a St

udy,

Pha

se I

-Ope

rati

onal

Alt

erna

tive

s, R

onal

d R

agan

Was

hing

ton

Nat

iona

l Air

port

, Mar

ch 1

999.

P

repa

red

by: R

icon

do &

Ass

ocia

tes,

Inc

., D

ecem

ber

2011

.



Post-Phase II Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration

Nine Post-Phase II alternatives (i.e., Alternatives 0422-F through 0422-N) would not fulfill the stated purpose of and need for the Proposed Action for the reasons discussed below:

Alternative 0422-F: The length of the RSA before Runway 22 is shorter than the 600-foot design standard for undershoots and the lengths of the RSA beyond both runway ends are shorter than the 1,000-foot design standard for overruns.

Alternatives 0422-G, 0422-K, 0422-L, 0422-M and 0422-N: The EMAS installation at the northeast end of the Runway would not stop the critical design aircraft (Airbus A-319 with an A-MTOW of 144,500 pounds) exiting Runway 4 at speeds up to 70 knots.

Alternatives 0422-I and 0422-J: The lengths of the RSA beyond both runway ends are shorter than the 1,000-foot design standard for overruns.

Runway 15-33

Post-Phase II Alternatives Retained for Further Consideration

The Authority developed five Post-Phase II alternatives for Runway 15-33. The dimensions of the key features of the Post-Phase II alternatives are reported in Table D-12. Each Post-Phase II alternative: 1) includes an EMAS installation at both ends of the Runway; 2) provides nonstandard protection for ARC C-III aircraft that undershoot the Runway ends because less than 600 feet is provided between the end of the EMAS bed and the runway threshold; and, 3) includes the placement of fill in the Potomac River to support the RSA at the southeast end of the Runway. The dimensions of the key features of the five RSA alternatives are reported in Table D-12.

The critical design aircraft and exit speeds for the EMAS installations included in the Post-Phase II alternatives are reported in Table III-8.

Table III-8 Critical Design Aircraft and Exits Speeds used to Model EMAS Installations

Alternative EMAS Installation at Northwest End of Runway EMAS Installation at Southeast End of Runway

Aircraft Weighta/ Exit Speed Aircraft Weighta/ Exit Speed

(pounds) (knots) (pounds) (knots)

1533-I A-319 118,000 70 A-319 118,000 70

1533-J A-319 118,000 70 A-319 118,000 40

1533-K A-319 118,000 40 A-319 118,000 40

1533-L A-319 118,000 70 A-319 118,000 70

1533-M A-319 138,000 70 EMB-145 34,000 40 Notes: A-319 Airbus A-319 EMB-145 Embraer EMB-145 .

Source: Appendix D, Section D.2.1.5 Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, December 2011.



The location of the EMAS bed at the northwest end of the Runway is controlled by the location of the service road. At present, the service road crosses through the RSA at the northwest end of the Runway. The service road cannot cross through the EMAS bed because the vehicle traffic would sink into the EMAS material. Therefore, the service road must be relocated around the end of the EMAS bed and the 10-foot step-down. The EMAS bed at the northwest end of the Runway 33 end begins at the end of the required 35-foot setback from the runway end.

Only one alternative - Alternative 1533-M (depicted on Exhibit III-2 [page 2 of 2] as Preliminary EA Action Alternative 1533-7) — would fulfill the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action by providing EMAS installations that would safely decelerate and stop the Airbus A-319 with an A-MTOW of 138,000 pounds exiting Runway 33 at speeds up to 70 knots and the EMB-145 with a weight of 34,000 pounds exiting Runway 15 at speeds up to 40 knots. However, all five of the Post-Phase II alternatives were retained for further consideration and are discussed in more detail in Section 3.2.2.4 and Section D.3.

Post-Phase II Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration

None of the Post-Phase II Alternatives were eliminated from further consideration.

3.2.2.4 Preliminary EA Action Alternatives

The Preliminary EA Action Alternatives evaluated in this EA are intended to enhance the RSAs and achieve compliance with FAA Orders 5200.8 and 5200.9. The enhancements at the Runway 4 end would comply with FAA AC 150/5300-13 and the enhancements at Runway ends 15, 22 and 33 would comply with FAA AC 150/5220-22A and, where practicable, FAA AC 150/5300-13.

The existing conditions for Runway 4-22 and Alternatives 0422-1, 0422-2 and 0422-3 are depicted in Exhibit III-2. The existing conditions for Runway 15-33 and Alternatives 1533-1, 1533-2 and 1533-3 are depicted in Exhibit III-3 (page 1 of 2). Alternatives 1533-4, 1533-5, 1533-6 and 1533-7 are depicted in Exhibit III-3 (page 2 of 2).

The key features of each Preliminary EA Action Alternative for Runway 4-22 are reported in Table III-9 and the key features of each Preliminary EA Action alternative for Runway 15-33 are reported in Table III-10. A detailed description of each action alternative is included in Appendix D, Sections D.2.2.1, D.2.2.2 and D.2.2.3.

3.2.2.5 Alternatives Not Within FAA Jurisdiction

3.2.3.2 CEQ regulations and FAA Orders 1050.1E and 5050.4B require consideration in an EA of all reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Action that fulfill the stated purpose and need. Alternatives not within FAA jurisdiction would not meet the stated purpose of and need for the Proposed Action.

3.2.2.6 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action alternative, the RSA deficiencies would not be corrected, the runway ends and the landing thresholds would not change, none of the related improvements to the taxiways or service roads would occur, and the grading of the RSAs would remain the same.



Table III-9 Preliminary EA Action Alternatives for Runway 4-22

Features Dimension by Alternative

0422-1 0422-2 0422-3

Relocate runway end (feet)

Runway 4 northeast - 100 -

Runway 4 southwest - - 460

Runway 22 northeast - 100 -

Runway 22 southwest - - 371

Displace landing threshold (feet)

Runway 4 - - 200

Runway 22 771 - -

Available runway lengths (feet)

Current Runways 4 and 22 4,911 4,911 4,911

Runway 4 takeoffs 3,740 a/ 4,911 5,000 d/

Runway 4 landings 3,740 a/ 4,911 4,800 e/

Runway 22 takeoffs 4,740 b/ 4,911 4,400 f/

Runway 22 landings 4,140 c/ 4,911 4,400 f/

RSA dimensions (feet)

Width 500 500 500

Lengths for Runway 4 overruns 1,000 1,000 SE-O

Lengths for Runway 4 undershoots 600 600 600

Lengths for Runway 22 overruns 1,000 1,000 1,000

Lengths for Runway 22 undershoots 600 600 NSE-U

Length of EMAS bed at Runway 22 end (feet) - - 336

Estimated Impact on Potomac River (acres)

Waters of the United States 0.0 NR 0.0

Riverbed 0.0 13.8 0.0

Estimated construction cost (millions of dollars) NR 14.6 15.2 Notes:

- Not applicable. NR Not reported. NSE-U Nonstandard EMAS installation for undershoots (less than 600 feet provided between the end of the EMAS

bed and the runway threshold) SE-O Standard EMAS installation for overruns (capable of stopping the critical design aircraft exiting the runway at

70 knots) a/ Declared distance; represents a reduction of 1,171 feet of available runway length. b/ Represents a reduction of 171 feet of available runway length. c/ Represents a reduction of 771 feet of available runway length. d/ Represents an increase of 89 feet of available runway length. e/ Represents a reduction of 111 feet of available runway length. f/ Declared distance; represents a reduction of 511 feet of available runway length.

Sources: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., First Draft, Runway Safety Area Study, Phase I – Operational Alternatives, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, March 1999; HNTB Corporation, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, Runway Safety Area Study, Phase II, March 25, 2003; Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, Runway Safety Area Preferred Alternatives, Runways 15-33 and 4-22, November 4, 2009.




Table III-10 Preliminary EA Action Alternatives for Runway 15-33

Features

Dimension by Alternative

1533-1 1533-2 1533-3 1533-4 1533-5 1533-6 1533-7

Relocate runway end (feet)

Runway 15 southeast - 890 193 193 55 193 270

Runway 33 southeast - 890 193 193 55 a/ 270

Displace landing threshold (feet)

Runway 15 503 - - - - - -

Runway 33 724 - - - - - -

Available runway lengths (feet)

Current Runways 15 and 33 5,204 5,204 5,204 5,204 5,204 5,204 5,204

Runway 15 takeoffs 4,080 a/ 5,204 5,204 5,204 5,204 5,000 d/ 5,204

Runway 15 landings 3,577 b/ 5,204 5,204 5,204 5,204 5,000 d/ 5,204

Runway 33 takeoffs 4,177 c/ 5,204 5,204 5,204 5,204 5,000 d/ 5,204

Runway 33 landings 3,577 b/ 5,204 5,204 5,204 5,204 5.000 d/ 5,204

RSA dimensions (feet)

Width 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Lengths for Runway 15 overruns 1,000 1,000 SE-O NSE-O NSE-O SE-O NSE-O

Lengths for Runway 15 undershoots 600 600 NSE-U NSE-U NSE-U NSE-U NSE-U

Lengths for Runway 33 overruns 1,000 1,000 NSE-O NSE-O NSE-O NSE-O SE-O

Lengths for Runway 33 undershoots 600 600 NSE-U NSE-U NSE-U NSE-U NSE-U

Length of EMAS bed (feet)

At Runway 15 end - - 296 296 158 296 353

At Runway 33 end - - 296 158 158 296 140

Estimated impact on Potomac River ( )

Waters of the United States 0.0 NR NR NR NR NR 3.8

Riverbed 0.0 38.5 5.1 3.3 1.9 2.9 5.3

Estimated construction cost (millions of dollars) e/

NR 45.2 48.2 34.0 19.7 26.9 29.3

Notes:

- Not applicable. NR Not reported. NSE-U Nonstandard EMAS installation for undershoots (less than 600 feet provided between the end of the EMAS

bed and the runway threshold) SE-O Standard EMAS installation for overruns (capable of stopping the critical design aircraft exiting the runway at

70 knots) a/ Represents a reduction of 1,124 feet of available runway length. b/ Represents a reduction of 1,627 feet of available runway length. c/ Represents a reduction of 1,027 feet of available runway length. d/ Represents a reduction of 204 feet of available runway length. e/ The estimated construction costs are in 2008 dollars for all alternatives except Alternative 1533-7, which is

in 2010 dollars.

Sources: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., First Draft, Runway Safety Area Study, Phase I – Operational Alternatives, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, March 1999; HNTB Corporation, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, Runway Safety Area Study, Phase II, March 25, 2003; Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, Runway Safety Area Preferred Alternatives, Runways 15-33 and 4-22, November 4, 2009.




3.3 Screening of Alternatives

3.3.1 Screening Criteria

The screening criteria used in this EA are discussed in the following sections. Additional screening criteria information is included in Appendix D, Sections D.3.1.1 and D.3.2.1.

3.3.1.1 Fulfill the Purpose Of and Need For the Proposed Action

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to bring the RSAs for Runways 4-22 and 15-33 into compliance with FAA Orders 5200.8 and 5200.9 for Aircraft Approach Category C aircraft. The RSA enhancements would comply with FAA AC 150/5300-13 where practicable. This criterion was used to identify those alternatives that would fulfill the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action and to eliminate any alternative that would not fulfill the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action.

3.3.1.2 Stopping Capacity of EMAS

As reported in Appendix D, Sections D.2.1.5 and D.2.2.3, based on consultation with the FAA, the EMAS manufacturer, and airlines, the Authority selected the A-319 with an adjusted Maximum Takeoff Weight (A-MTOW) of 144,500 pounds as the critical design aircraft for Runway 4 overruns, the EMB-145 with an 80 percent Maximum Landing Weight (MLW) of 34,000 pounds as the critical design aircraft for Runway 15 overruns, and the A-319 with an A-MTOW of 138,000 pounds as the critical design aircraft for Runway 33 overruns. The Authority and the FAA agreed that: a) the EMAS installation for overruns of Runway 4 must be capable of stopping the critical design aircraft exiting the runway at speeds up to 70 knots (an EMAS bed that is 336 feet long would meet this requirement); b) the EMAS installation for overruns of Runway 15 must be capable of stopping the critical design aircraft exiting the runway at speeds up to 40 knots (an EMAS bed that is 140 feet long would meet this requirement; and c) the EMAS installation for overruns of Runway 33 must be capable of stopping the critical design aircraft exiting the runway at speeds up to 70 knots (an EMAS bed that is 353 feet long would meet this requirement).

3.3.1.3 Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts on Waters of the United States and Wetlands

An alternative must avoid potentially significant impacts on environmental resources or, where avoidance is not possible, minimize or negate the impacts by means of mitigation. The potential impacts of the Proposed Action on all environmental resource categories identified in FAA Order 10501.E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Appendix A. “Analysis of Environmental Impact Categories” are discussed in detail in Section V. “Environmental Consequences.” Based on previous environmental studies, the Authority is well-informed of the environmental resources in the vicinity of the proposed RSA enhancements. Having been involved since 1999 in various planning efforts to identify and evaluate alternatives for bringing the RSAs into compliance with FAA design standards, the Authority has an understanding of the types of construction or use activities that could impact those environmental resources. With the exceptions of the Waters of the United States and wetlands, floodplains, coastal resources and architectural resources, the Authority considered it reasonable to assume that the impacts, if any, on each other environmental impact category identified in this Order would not reach the threshold for significance defined in the Order.



The Authority used avoidance or minimization of impacts on the Waters of the United States and wetlands as a screening criterion to evaluate the alternatives. To meet this criterion, an alternative must avoid, minimize or mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts on the Waters of the United States and wetlands. Alternatives that would adversely affect the Waters of the United States and wetlands would be eliminated from further consideration unless no feasible alternative exists that would avoid or minimize impacts to the resource. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, implemented by U.S. DOT Order 5660.1A, Preservation of the Nation’s Wetlands, requires Federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the adverse impacts associated with the destruction, degradation, or modification of wetlands whenever there is a practicable alternative. The Preliminary EA Action Alternatives for Runway 4-22 are not expected to cause impacts on the Waters of the United States and wetlands. The seven Preliminary EA Action Alternatives for Runway 15-33 would impact the Potomac River, a Water of the United States and wetland. Therefore, the Preliminary EA Action Alternative for Runway 15-33 were compared in terms of their respective capacity to avoid impacts (measured in acres) to the Potomac River. For the reasons discussed in Section D.3.1.1, impacts on other resources (e.g., floodplains, coastal resources and historic properties) in the vicinity of the Proposed Action were not used as screening criteria.

3.3.1.4 Effect on Runway Length

Reductions in runway length usually result in airlines taking weight penalties, i.e., carrying fewer passengers and/or less cargo per operation. For Runway 15-33, any alternative that would shorten the effective runway length was considered unacceptable because maintaining the existing runway length is essential to accommodate ARC C-III aircraft when Runway 1-19, the primary runway, is unavailable. For Runway 4-22, reductions in effective runway length for landings on Runway 4 and takeoffs and landings on Runway 22 were considered because: (a) surveys completed during the Phase I Study and since the ALP was updated indicate that a higher number of Category A/B-III aircraft are using Runway 4-22 today; (b) Runways 1-19 and 15-33 provide longer runway lengths than Runway 4-22; and (c) Runway 4-22 accommodates a small percentage (approximately 2 percent) of the total aircraft operations at the Airport.

3.3.1.5 Practicability

The Authority established the limit of practicability at $38 million in construction cost, twice the estimated cost of the initial investment for an EMAS system for Runway 1-19. Any alternative with an estimated construction cost greater than $38 million would be considered impracticable.12

3.3.2 Results of Screening

3.3.2.1 Runway 4-22

Alternative 0422-1 would: a) fulfill the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action by providing a standard graded RSA; b) avoid impacts to the Potomac River; and, c) cost less than $38 million (the limit of practicability) to construct. This alternative was not retained for further environmental analysis because the reductions in available runway lengths would have an adverse impact on airport operations, particularly operations on Runway 4 with reductions of 1,171 feet for landings and takeoffs.

12 The construction costs compared in this EA do not include the costs to remove/dispose of contaminated soils,

additional testing and other requirements related to work within the South Investigation Site.



Alternative 0422-2 would: a) fulfill the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action by providing a standard graded RSA; b) maintain runway length; and, c) cost less than $38 million to construct. This alternative was not retained for further environmental analysis because it would result in adverse impacts on 13.8 acres of the riverbed in the Potomac River.

Alternative 0422-3 would: a) fulfill the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action by providing a standard graded RSA at the Runway 4 end and a standard EMAS installation at the Runway 22 end capable of stopping the critical design aircraft (A-319 with an A-MTOW of 144,500 pounds) that overruns Runway 4 and exits the runway at speeds up to 70 knots; b) avoid impacts to the Potomac River; and, c) cost less than $38 million to construct. This alternative would increase the available runway length for takeoffs from Runway 4 from 4,911 feet to 5,000 feet, which would enable the A-319 to depart to the northeast from Runway 4. The reductions in available runway lengths for landings on Runway 4 and landings on and takeoffs from Runway 22 would not have an adverse impact on Airport operations. This alternative was retained for further environmental analysis.

3.3.2.2 Runway 15-33

Alternative 1533-1 would: a) fulfill the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action by providing a standard graded RSA: b) avoid impacts to the Potomac River; and, c) cost less than $38 million to construct. This alternative was not retained for further environmental analysis because the reductions in available runway lengths (1,124 feet for takeoffs from Runway 15, 1,027 feet for takeoffs from Runway 33, and 1,627 feet for landings on both runways) would have an adverse impact on Airport operations.

Alternative 1533-2 would fulfill the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action by providing a standard graded RSA and would maintain runway length. This alternative was not retained for further environmental analysis because it would result in the largest area of impacts on the Potomac River riverbed (38.5 acres) and the cost to construct this alternative would exceed the limit practicability by $7.2 million.

Alternatives 1533-3, 1533-4, 1533-5 and 1533-6 did not include an EMAS installation at the Runway 15 end that would stop the critical design aircraft (A-319 with an A-MTOW of 138,000 pounds) that overruns Runway 33 and exits the runway at speeds up to 70 knots. Therefore, these alternatives would not fulfill the purpose of or need for the Proposed Action and were not retained for further environmental analysis. Because these alternatives would not fulfill the purpose of or need for the Proposed Action, the additional findings discussed below are provided for information purposes only.

The lengths of the EMAS installation at the Runway 33 end would exceed the length of EMAS required to stop the critical design aircraft (EMB-145 with an 80 percent MLW of 34,000 pounds) that overruns Runway 15 and exits the runway at speeds up to 40 knots.

The impacts on the riverbed ranged from 1.9 acres to 5.1 acres.

Alternatives 1533-3, 1533-4, and 1533-5 would have no impact on runway length, but Alternative 1533-6 would reduce runway length by 204 feet.

The cost to construct Alternative 1533-3 exceeds the limit of practicability by $10.2 million. The costs to construct Alternatives 1533-4, 1533-5 and 1533-6 were less than the limit of practicability.



Alternative 1533-7 would fulfill the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action by including an EMAS installation at the Runway 15 end that would stop the critical design aircraft (A-319 with an A-MTOW of 138,000 pounds) that overruns Runway 33 and exits the runway at speeds up to 70 knots and an EMAS installation at the Runway 33 end that would stop the critical design aircraft (EMB-145 with an 80 percent MLW of 34,000 pounds) that overruns Runway 15 and exits the runway at speeds up to 40 knots. The area of riverbed impacts would be 5.3 acres; approximately 3.8 acres of the Potomac River, a Water of the United States, would be lost. This alternative maintains the runway length and the cost to construct this alternative is less than the limit of practicability. This alternative was retained for further environmental analysis.

3.3.2.3 Alternatives Not Within FAA Jurisdiction

As noted in Section 3.2.3.2, no off-Airport alternatives or alternatives outside the jurisdiction of the FAA were identified during previous planning studies, consultation with regulatory agencies during the scoping process, or the public workshops.

3.4 Alternatives Carried Forward for Analysis of Environmental Consequences

3.4.1 The Proposed Action

3.4.1.1 Runway 4-22

As depicted in Exhibit III-4, the Authority’s Proposed Action to bring the RSA on the south end of Runway 4-22 into compliance with FAA Orders 5200.8 and 5200.9 and FAA AC 150/5300-13 design standards for ARC C-III aircraft and on the north end of Runway 4-22 into compliance with FAA Orders 5200.8 and 5200.9 and, where practicable, FAA AC 150/5300-13 for ARC C-III aircraft includes:

Extending the Runway 4 end 460 feet to the southwest. The runway pavement would be extended 460 feet to the southwest at the same width as the current Runway 4-22 pavement. Runway edge lighting would be added along the extended runway pavement.

Relocating the Runway 4 landing threshold 260 feet to the southwest. A runway threshold should be located at the beginning of the full-strength runway pavement. A threshold located at a point on a runway other than the designated runway end is referred to as a displaced landing threshold. The displaced area is available for aircraft takeoff or rollout, but not for landing. A displaced landing threshold does not mark the end of a runway. The threshold for landings on Runway 4 would be displaced 200 feet from the edge of the extended Runway 4 pavement, thereby relocating the threshold for landings 260 feet southwest of its current location. The displacement is required to provide a 600-foot-long RSA prior to the displaced landing threshold. The displaced landing threshold would include new in-pavement lights. The runway length available for landing on Runway 4 would be reduced from 4,911 feet to 4,800 feet.

Designating declared distances of 4,400 feet for takeoffs from and landings on Runway 22. Declared distances would enable the Authority to establish the runway length at a specific distance regardless of the length of pavement available to establish the beginning and ending of the RSA. These declared distances represent a reduction of 511 feet of runway length available for landings on and takeoffs from Runway 22.

Final Environmental Assessment Runway 4-22 and Runway 15-33 RSA Enhancements Alternatives

March 2012III-35



Extending Taxiway B to the relocated Runway 4 end. Taxiway B would be extended to the new Runway 4 end. New taxiway edge lights would be installed along the length of the extended pavement.

Installing EMAS (170 feet wide by 336 feet long) at the existing Runway 22 end. The EMAS would begin at the existing Runway 22 end and extend 336 feet to the southwest. The EMAS would be capable of stopping the design aircraft (A-319 with an A-MTOW of 144,500 pounds) that overruns Runway 4 and exits the runway at speeds up to 70 knots.

Relocating the Runway 22 end 371 feet to the southwest. Takeoffs from Runway 22 would begin 35 feet southwest of the EMAS bed.

Constructing a new taxiway connector to the relocated Runway 22 end. A new taxiway connector would connect the relocated Runway 22 end to Taxiway M. New taxiway edge lights would be installed along the length of the new pavement.

3.4.1.2 Runway 15-33

As depicted in Exhibit III-5, the Authority's Proposed Action to bring the RSA deficiencies on both ends of Runway 15-33 into compliance with FAA Orders 5200.8 and 5200.9 and, where practicable, with FAA AC 150/5300-13 design standards for ARC C-III aircraft includes:

Shifting Runway 15-33 270 feet to the southeast. To avoid impacts to the George Washington Memorial Parkway and the bike path adjacent to the existing Runway 15 end, the Proposed Action includes shifting Runway 15-33 270 feet to the southeast along its centerline. The runway pavement would be extended 270 feet to the south at the same width as the current Runway 15-33 pavement. Runway edge lighting would be added along the extended runway pavement. The runway length for landings on and takeoffs from Runway 15-33 would remain at 5,204 feet.

Installing EMAS (170 feet wide by 353 feet long) at the relocated Runway 15 end. The EMAS would be capable of stopping the critical design aircraft (A-319 with an A-MTOW of 138,000 pounds) that overruns Runway 33 and exits the runway at speeds up to 70 knots.

Installing EMAS (170 feet wide by 140 feet long) at the relocated Runway 33 end. The EMAS would be capable of stopping the critical design aircraft (EMB-145 with an 80 percent MLW of 34,000 pounds) that overruns Runway 15 and exits the runway at speeds up to 40 knots.

Constructing new taxiway connectors to the relocated runway ends. One new taxiway connector would connect the relocated Runway 15 end to Taxiway N and another taxiway connector would connect the relocated Runway 33 end to the Runway 33 hold apron. New taxiway edge lights would be installed along the length of the new pavement.

Placing fill in the Potomac River to support the Runway 33 EMAS. Riverbed material at the Runway 33 end that is structurally unsuitable to support the RSA must either be compressed before placing structurally suitable material or removed and replaced with structurally suitable materials. The area to be disturbed and filled consists of approximately 5.3 acres. The area would be larger than the footprint of the RSA because the placed material would slope away from the RSA. Approximately 3.8 acres of the Potomac River, a Water of the United States, would be lost.

Final Environmental Assessment Runway 4-22 and Runway 15-33 RSA Enhancements Alternatives

March 2012III-39



3.4.1.3 Approach Aids

A visual glide slope indicator (VGSI) is a system of lights on the side of a runway threshold that provides visual descent guidance information to pilots during the approach to a runway. A pilot using VGSIs for navigation expects to land safely at the touchdown point on a runway. The VGSIs for Runways 22, 15, and 33 would be relocated as a result of the new locations of the Runway 22 threshold and the Runway 15 and 33 ends. A new VGSI would be installed to the Runway 4 end.

3.4.1.4 Other Elements

The Proposed Action also includes:

Rerouting existing service roads. Existing service roads would be rerouted in the vicinity of the RSA enhancements at runway ends 4, 15, and 33.

Grading and stabilizing soil in the RSA. At this time, grading and soil stabilization are expected to be limited to the areas of new runway and taxiway pavement. The Authority is awaiting further engineering design and analysis to determine whether any unpaved RSA locations would require grading or stabilizing soil. No significant impact would be anticipated with the placement and grading of clean fill as needed, and seeding would be accomplished in accordance with an approved erosion and sediment control plan.

3.4.2 No Action

Under the No Action alternative:

None of the RSA deficiencies would be corrected The runway ends would not be relocated and the landing thresholds would not be displaced The new runway and taxiway pavement would not be constructed The runway and taxiway lighting would not be installed The service roads would not be rerouted Grading and soil stabilization would not occur

The No Action alternative would not meet the stated Purpose and Need; however, it was retained for analysis in this EA to fulfill CEQ regulations implementing NEPA and to comply with FAA Orders 1050.1E and 5050.4B.

3.5 Permits, Approvals, Certifications and Determinations Required

As required under FAA Order 1050.1E, paragraph 405(d)(4), the permits, approvals, certifications and determinations that would be required for implementation of the Proposed Action are listed in Table III-11. The list of applicable permits is preliminary because detailed design and construction-related planning are ongoing.



Table III-11 Preliminary List of Permits, Approvals, Certifications and Determinations Required

Issuing Agency Permit/Approval/Certification/Determination

Federal

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Permit

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit for industrial activities

National Marine fisheries Service Concurrence with FAA Determination of No Adverse Affect on Essential Fish Habitat (provided adequate compensatory mitigation is provided for impacts to subtidal waters of the Potomac River)

National Marine Fisheries Service Concurrence with FAA Determination of No Adverse Effect on Threatened and Endangered Species

National Park Service Special Use Permit

Commonwealth of Virginia and/or District of Columbia

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality The Virginia Water Protection Permit including completion of Water Quaslity Impact Assessment (serves as Virginia’s Section 401 certification program for Federal Section 404 permits issued under the Clean Water Act)

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Storm Water Permit for Construction

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Determination that no State Natural Area Preserves under DCR jurisdiction are in the vicinity of the Proposed Action

Virginia Marine Resources Commission Subaqueous Beds, Encroachments Channelward of Ordinary High Water along the Potomac River

D.C. Department of the Environment, Water Quality Division Water Quality Certification

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program Consistency Concurrence

Virginia Department of Historic Resources Concurrence on Historic, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources

D.C. Historic Preservation Office Concurrence on Historic, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources

Source: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., May 2010. Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., December 2011.

3.6 Federal Laws and Regulations Considered

In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, paragraph 405(d)(4), the relevant Federal laws and statutes, Executive Orders, and other regulations considered during preparation of this EA are listed in Table III-12, Table III-13,and Table III-14, respectively.

Table III-12 (1 of 2) Federal Laws and Statutes Considered

Federal Law or Statute Citation

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 Public Law (PL) 91-190, 42 USC 4321-4370(d), effective January 1, 1970, as last amended by PL 94-83

Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended PL 91-604, 42 USC 7401-7661

Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Section 4(f) 49 USC 303©

Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 14 CFR Part 150

Federal Aviation Act of 1958 49 USC 40101

Endangered Species Act of 1973 PL 93-205, 16 USC 1531

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 16 USC 661-666c

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 16 USC. 668-668c

Lacey Act of 1900 16 USC 3371-3378



Table III-12 (2 of 2) Federal Laws and Statutes Considered

Federal Law or Statute Citation

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 16 USC 703-712

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended by the Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act of 1992

42 USC 6901-9675

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended by the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1980

42 USC 6901-6992(k)

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended 16 USC 470

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, as amended 16 USC 469

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended (commonly referred as the Clean Water Act)

33 USC 1251

Clean Water Act, Section 404 33 USC 1344

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Section 10 33 U.S.C. 403

Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties 36 CFR 800

Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 7 USC 4201-4209

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 42 USC 4601

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 16 USC 1271-1287

Source: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., May 2010. Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., April 2011.

Table III-13 Executive Orders Considered

Executive Order Citation

11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment 36 Federal Register (FR) 8921

11988, Floodplain Management 43 FR 6030

11990, Protection of Wetlands 42 FR 26961

12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

59 FR 7629

13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 62 FR 19883

13112, Invasive Species 64 FR 6183




Table III-14 FAA Orders, Advisory Circulars, Federal Aviation Regulations, and Other Guidance Considered

FAA Order 1050.1E: Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, March 20, 2006.

FAA Order 5050.4B: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions, April 28, 2006.

U.S. DOT Order 5680.1: Final Order to Address Environmental Justice in Low-Income and Minority Populations, April 14, 1997.

FAA Advisory Circular 150/5020-1: Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports, August 5, 1983.

U.S. DOT Order 5650.2: Floodplain Management and Protection, May 24, 1977.

FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B: Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or near Airports, August 28, 2007.

FAA Advisory Circular 36-3H: Estimated Airplane Noise Levels in A-Weighted Decibels, April 25, 2002.

Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 71: Designation of Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D, and Class E Airspace Areas; Airways; Routes; and Reporting Points, December 17, 1991.

FAR Part 135: Operating Requirements: Commuter and On-Demand Operations and Rules Governing Persons on Board Such Aircraft, December 1, 1978.

FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13: Airport Design, September 29, 1989.

FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-10E: Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports, September 30, 2009.

U.S. DOT Order 5660.1A: Preservation of the Nation’s Wetlands, August 24, 1978.

FAA Environmental Desk Reference for Airport Actions, October 2007


3.7 Other State and Local Laws and Regulations Considered

Relevant state and local laws and regulations considered during preparation of this EA are listed in Table III-15 and Table III-16.

Table III-15 (1 of 2) State Laws and Regulations Considered

Virginia Code

Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act 10.1-2100 through 2114

Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and Management Regulations 9VAC 10-20 et seq.

Coastal Zone Management Program (VCP)

Air Pollution Control 10.1-1300 through 1320

Coastal Lands Management 10.1-2100 through 2114 and 9VAC10-20 et seq.

Dunes Management 28.2-1400 through 1420

Fisheries Management 28.2-200 through 713

Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law and Regulations 10.1-560 et seq.

Point Source Pollution Control 62.1-44.15

Shoreline Sanitation 32.1-164 through 165

Subaqueous Lands Management 28.2-1200 through 1213

Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law 10.1-560 et seq.

Virginia Water Protection Permit Program 62.1-44.15:5

Wetlands Management (tidal) 28.2-1301 through 1320

Virginia Endangered or Threatened Species 29.1

Virginia Endangered Plant and Insect Species Act of 1979, Chapter 3 3.1-1020

Virginia Hazardous Waste Management Regulations 9VAC 20-60

Virginia Lead Based Paint Regulations 9VAC 20-60-261

Virginia Natural Area Preserve Act 10.1-209 through 217

Virginia Regulations for the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution 9VAC 5-40-5490; 9VAC 5-50-60 et seq.; 9VAC 5-130



Table III-15 (2 of 2) State Laws and Regulations Considered

Virginia Code

Virginia Regulations for the Transportation of Hazardous Materials 9VAC 20-110

Virginia Solid Waste Management Regulations 9VAC 20-80

Virginia Stormwater Management Law & Regulations 10.1-603.15

Virginia Waste Management Act 10.1-1400 et seq.

Notes: Although the

Source: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., December 2010. Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., December 2011.

Table III-16 Local Planning Polices Considered

Local Entity

City of Alexandria Coordinated Development District (approved June 12, 2010)

City of Alexandria Master Plan, 1992 (updated 2008)

City of Alexandria North Potomac Yard Small Area Plan (May 15, 2010)

City of Alexandria North Potomac Yard Design Standards (May 24, 2010)

City of Alexandria Potomac Yard/Potomac Green Small Area Plan (updated 2008)

City of Alexandria Zoning Documents (Docket 12A-F, Rezoning #2009-0001)

Source: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., December 2010. Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., December 2011.