D.1 Introduction. Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport

Transcription

1 Appendix D. Alternatives D.1 Introduction Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Orders E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, and B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions, establish the Federal policies and procedures for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the implementing regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 1. 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 E and B and CEQ s regulations implementing NEPA. 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 this Appendix. Planning guidelines presented in FAA AC 150/5325-4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design, and FAA Order C, Field Formulation of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), define a substantial use threshold of 500 or more annual itinerant operations (landings and takeoffs) to identify the critical design aircraft for runway design at an airport. The critical design aircraft may be a single aircraft type or a composite of the most demanding characteristics of several aircraft types. FAA Order , Runway Safety Area Program, requires that all Runway Safety Areas (RSAs) at Federally obligated airports and airports certificated under 14 CFR Part 139 conform to the standards defined in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/ , Airport Design, 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 , Financial Feasibility and Equivalency of Runway Safety Area Improvements and Engineered Material Arresting Systems. RSA design criteria are dependent upon the Airport Reference Code (ARC) for a runway. The ARC consists of two components the Aircraft Approach Category and the Airplane Design Group (ADG). The Aircraft Approach Category is based on an aircraft reference speed of 1.3 times its stall speed 2 in its landing configuration at the certificated maximum flap setting 3 and maximum landing weight 4 at standard atmospheric conditions. 5 The categories are as follows: Category A: Reference speed less than 91 knots Category B: Reference speed of 91 knots or more, but less than 121 knots Category C: Reference speed of 121 knots or more, but less than 141 knots Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 40 Protection of Environment. Parts 1500 to Stall speed is the minimum speed at which an aircraft can remain airborne. Bringing an aircraft s flaps down reduces the stall speed of the aircraft, thereby allowing the aircraft to slow down further upon landing and reach air speed more quickly upon takeoff. This weight is based on aircraft design or operational limitations. For this Airport, standard atmospheric conditions are 59 degrees Fahrenheit and an elevation at sea level. Final Environmental Assessment D-1 March 2012

2 Category D: Reference speed of 141 knots or more, but less than 166 knots Category E: Reference speed of 166 knots or more The ADG, as reported in Table D-1, is based on aircraft tail height and wingspan. If an aircraft falls into more than one ADG, the more demanding ADG is used for design purposes. Table D-1 Airplane Design Groups ADG Number Tail Height (feet) Wingspan (feet) Greater Than Less Than Greater Than Less Than I II III IV V VI Source: Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 150/ , Airport Design, Chapter 1, "Regulatory Requirements and Definitions of Terms," Table 1-1, "Airplane Design Groups (ADG)," September 29, Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., April The Airport Layout Plan (ALP) 6 for the Airport identifies the Airbus A-319, an ARC C-III aircraft, as the critical design aircraft for the purposes of determining runway length for the existing and ultimate Runway 4-22 and Runway 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 RSA design standard for the length of the RSA prior to the landing threshold for undershoots by ARC C-III aircraft was revised from 1,000 feet to 600 feet on September 30, The September 30, 2004 revision did not affect the standards for the width of the RSA (500 feet) or the length of the RSA beyond the runway end for overruns by ARC C-III aircraft (1,000 feet). The standards that were in effect before September 30, 2004 were used when the Phase I (see Section D.2.2.1) and Phase II alternatives (see Section D.2.2.2) were developed. The standards that became effective on September 30, 2004 were used when the Post-Phase II (see Section D.2.2.3) alternatives were developed. Exhibit D-1 depicts the standard RSA dimensions for ARC C-III aircraft. The FAA, in its 2007 Runway Safety Area Determination for the Airport, concluded that the RSAs for Runways 4-22 and 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. Table D-2 presents a comparison of the findings of the FAA s Runway Safety Area Determination and FAA RSA design standards. 6 7 Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, Airport Layout Plan, May 20, Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 150/ , Airport Design, Change 8, September 30, Final Environmental Assessment D-2 March 2012

3 Preliminary Draft - For Discussion Purposes Only Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport 500 FT 500 FT Exhibit D-1 FLOW 600 FT 1000 FT RUNWAY RUNWAY END RUNWAY END FLOW 1000 FT 600 FT RUNWAY RUNWAY END RUNWAY END Source: Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 150/ , Airport Design, Table 3-3. Runway design standards for aircraft approach categories C & D..Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., May north Final Environmental Assessment RSA Design Dimensions for ARC C-III Aircraft D-3 March 2012

4 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK Final Environmental Assessment D-4 March 2012

5 Table D-2 Comparison of FAA RSA Determination and FAA RSA Design Standards Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport 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, Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., April D.2 Alternatives Identification D.2.1 Alternatives Included in FAA Order Pursuant to FAA Order , 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. 8 If the traditional graded RSA referred to in this EA as a standard RSA cannot be obtained, the Order then directs that the following alternatives be considered: 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, which are the distances an airport operator declares available for an aircraft s takeoff run, takeoff distance, accelerate-stop distance and landing distance requirements; 9 Use of Engineered Material Arresting Systems, which use 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. 10 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 Insufficient land area is available to relocate or realign either Runway 4-22 or Runway while Federal Aviation Administration, Order , Runway Safety Area Program, Appendix 2, "Supporting Documentation for RSA Determinations," October 1, Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 150/ , Airport Design, Paragraph 2. Federal Aviation Administration, Fact Sheet Engineered Material Arresting System, August 11, Final Environmental Assessment D-5 March 2012

6 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. D Reduction in Runway Length As reported in Section D.1 of this Appendix, the Airbus A-319, an ARC C-III aircraft, is the critical design aircraft for the purposes of determining runway length for the existing and ultimate Runway 4-22 and Runway At a standard day temperature of 59 degrees Fahrenheit and an elevation at sea level, 11 the A-319 could require a runway length of up to 7,400 feet at its maximum takeoff weight, depending on the engine and model type. 12 Runway 4-22 is currently 4,911 feet long and Runway is currently 5,204 feet long. Reductions in the length of Runway 4-22 or Runway would increase weight penalties (i.e., carrying fewer passengers and/or less cargo per operation) and would have an adverse impact on Airport operations. D Declared Distances At DCA, a declared distance for takeoff would be calculated by subtracting the length of a runway section declared by the Authority to be unavailable for takeoff from the full length of the paved runway. Similarly, a declared distance for landing would be calculated by subtracting the length of a runway section declared by the Authority to be unavailable for landing from the full length of the paved runway. 13 The use of declared distances represents a reduction in runway length made available for takeoffs or landings. D Engineered Material Arresting Systems Types of EMAS Installations A standard EMAS installation provides a level of safety that is generally equivalent to a full RSA constructed to the standards of AC 150/ for overruns. It also provides an acceptable level of safety for undershoots. A standard EMAS installation must: (a) be constructed in accordance with FAA AC 150/ A, Engineered Materials Arresting Systems (EMAS) for Aircraft Overruns, dated September 30, 2005; (b) be capable of safely stopping the critical design aircraft exiting the runway at 70 knots; and (c) provide adequate protection for aircraft that touch down prior to the runway threshold (undershoot). 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. 14 Because of the proximity of the Runway 15 end to the GWMP and the proximity of the Runway 22 and Runway 33 ends to the Potomac River, a standard EMAS installation could result in greater impacts to the GWMP and the Potomac River than the nonstandard EMAS installations described in the Post-Phase II Alternatives in Section The official Airport elevation (i.e., the highest point of the Airport s useable runways) is 15 feet above mean sea level. Airbus Aircraft Characteristics Manual. Federal Aviation Administration, Aeronautical Information Manual, Section 3. Airport Operations, Subsection Use of Runways/Declared Distances, paragraph c., February 11, Federal Aviation Administration, Order , Financial Feasibility and Equivalency of Runway Safety Area Improvements and Engineered Material Arresting Systems, Section 6, "Standard EMAS Installation," March 15, Final Environmental Assessment D-6 March 2012

7 A nonstandard EMAS installation is permitted if it is not practicable to provide either a standard RSA or a standard EMAS installation, either because the cost of either would be above the maximum feasible cost, or because displacing the landing threshold or reducing the runway length would adversely affect operations. For the purposes of this EA, any EMAS installation that does not meet the requirements for a standard EMAS installation as defined in this section is treated as a nonstandard EMAS installation. For overruns, an EMAS installation that is not capable of stopping the critical design aircraft exiting the runway at 70 knots is considered a nonstandard EMAS installation. Runway 22, 15 and 33 are equipped with visual glide slope indicators that provide vertical guidance. Therefore, for undershoots to these three runways, an EMAS installation that does not provide 600 feet between the end of the EMAS bed and the runway threshold would not provide adequate protection for undershoots and is considered a nonstandard EMAS installation. A nonstandard EMAS that would stop the critical design aircraft traveling at speeds of 40 knots is considered acceptable by the FAA when neither a standard RSA nor a standard EMAS installation can be provided within maximum feasible costs. 15 An EMAS that cannot provide at least this minimum performance is not considered a cost-effective safety enhancement. Protection against overruns may be more valuable than protection against undershoots because undershoots are less common and usually occur close to the runway threshold. Therefore, for a nonstandard EMAS installation, the goal would be to provide protection for undershoots to the extent feasible up to the maximum feasible improvement cost. 16 EMAS can be the appropriate safety enhancement even when protection for undershoots cannot be provided if a solution that provides a standard RSA is not available. 17 Critical Design Aircraft for Designing EMAS Installations FAA AC 150/ A provides detailed planning, design, and installation requirements for EMAS and guidance on the selection of the critical design aircraft to be used in the design of the EMAS installation. 18 To the extent practicable, the AC requires that the EMAS design consider both the aircraft that imposes the greatest demand upon the EMAS and the range of aircraft expected to operate on the runway. In some instances, a composite design aircraft may be preferable to optimizing the EMAS for a single design aircraft. The AC encourages consultation among the airport sponsor, EMAS manufacturer, and the appropriate FAA Regional Airports Division/Airports District Office (ADO) regarding the selection of the design aircraft that will optimize the EMAS for a specific airport Federal Aviation Administration, Order , Financial Feasibility and Equivalency of Runway Safety Area Improvements and Engineered Material Arresting Systems, Section 7, "Non-Standard EMAS Installation," subparagraph a., March 15, Federal Aviation Administration, Order , Financial Feasibility and Equivalency of Runway Safety Area Improvements and Engineered Material Arresting Systems, Section 7, "Non-Standard EMAS Installation," March 15, Federal Aviation Administration, Order , Financial Feasibility and Equivalency of Runway Safety Area Improvements and Engineered Material Arresting Systems, Section 5, "Background," March 15, Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 150/ A, Engineered Materials Arresting Systems (EMAS) for Aircraft Overruns, Section 8 System Design Requirements, Subsection c., Design Method, September 30, Final Environmental Assessment D-7 March 2012

8 Although not a design standard, FAA Order provides additional guidance on the selection of the critical design aircraft to be used in the design of the EMAS bed. 19 The Order states that the design (or critical) aircraft for EMAS purposes is the aircraft that regularly uses the runway that places the greatest demand on the EMAS. This is usually, but not always, the heaviest or largest aircraft that regularly uses the runway. The Order recommends that the airport sponsor should consult with the EMAS manufacturer if there is any doubt as to the design aircraft. As noted in the Order, regular use" is normally considered to be 500 or more annual operations on a runway. The Authority consulted with the FAA Washington Airports District Office (WADO) and Engineered Arresting Systems Corporation, a manufacturer of EMAS, during the planning process that preceded this EA and during the preparation of this EA. The FAA advised the Authority that aircraft with less than 500 annual itinerant operations should be considered in the screening process to select the critical EMAS design aircraft because aircraft which would require increased arrestment capability beyond that required for aircraft with 500 or more annual itinerant operations utilize the Runways 4-22 and The FAA also advised the Authority that the EMAS bed should be designed assuming the longest required arrestment length associated with the aircraft type which is performing routine scheduled operations on or from the runways. The aircraft fleet mix data used in this EA was developed by analyzing 12 months of flight plan data provided by the FAA s Enhanced Terminal Management System (ETMS) database for 2007 and updating that data for Commercial and Regional air carriers using 2009 OAG flight schedule data to reflect 2009 conditions. The runway use data included in this EA built upon the same runway use data developed for 2007 conditions for use in the noise analyses conducted in support of the Runway 1-19 RSA improvements EA by updating this data to represent 2009 conditions based on input from Authority staff. Runway use data was developed for each unique aircraft type and remained the same for 2009, 2016, and With the exception of approximately 1,200 departures annually by the Airbus A319 from Runway 4, there are no other routine scheduled operations (arrivals or departures) by Commercial or Regional jet aircraft using Runway 4 or Runway 22. The estimated arrivals and departures by Commercial and Regional jet aircraft using Runways 15 and 33 are reported in Table D-3 on the following page. Additional information on the development of the fleet mix and runway use data is included in Appendix E. The stopping capacity of EMAS is dependent in large part upon the length, strength and density of the EMAS material and the speed, weight, and gear configuration of the aircraft being stopped. Lighter weight aircraft can have lower predicted performance (speed reduction) than heavier aircraft. Heavier weight aircraft with wider/larger tires can sometimes perform worse than lighter weight aircraft with narrower tires. When an airport s fleet mix includes light, medium and heavy weight aircraft, it is necessary to consider more than one EMAS strength; such is the case at the Airport. FAA AC 150/ A states In general use the maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) for the design aircraft. However, there may be instances where less than the MTOW will require a longer EMAS Federal Aviation Administration, Order , Financial Feasibility and Equivalency of Runway Safety Area Improvements and Engineered Material Arresting Systems, Section 9. Evaluation Process, subsection a. What is the EMAS design aircraft?, March 15, 2004, Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 150/ A, Engineered Materials Arresting Systems (EMAS) for Aircraft Overruns, Section 8 System Design Requirements, Subsection c., Design Method, September 30, Final Environmental Assessment D-8 March 2012

9 Table D-3 Estimated 2009 Category C and D Aircraft Arrivals and Departures for Runways 15 and 33 Aircraft Type Runway 15 Runway 33 Arrivals Departures Total Arrivals Departures Total Airbus A CJ , ,778 Airbus A CJ , ,463 Boeing CJ Boeing CJ Boeing CJ Boeing CJ Boeing CJ Boeing CJ Boeing 757PW CJ Boeing DC95HW b/ CJ Boeing MD83 b/ CJ Canadair CLREGJ a/ RJ , ,431 Canadair CRJ701 RJ Canadair CRJ900 CJ Embraer EMB-145 RJ ,026 2,053 Embraer EMB-170 CJ ,756 Embraer EMB-190 CJ Notes: a/ Canadair CLREGJ does not include Canadair Regional Jet 700 or Canadair Regional Jet 900. b/ Aircraft was originally manufactured by McDonnell Douglas; Boeing acquired McDonnell Douglas. CJ Commercial Jet RJ Regional Jet Source: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., based on Wyle Laboratories, Washington National Airport (DCA) 2004 DNL Contours, May 4, 2005 (individual aircraft type runway use), 2005/2006 GEMS data (adjustments to reflect use of Runway 4 and 22 by jet carriers) and FAA 2007 ETMS flight data (2007 aircraft type operations). Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., April Based on consultation with United Airlines, the Authority used the A-319 with an adjusted maximum takeoff weight (A-MTOW) of 118,000 pounds to model the EMAS installations included in the Phase II alternatives for Runway Based on subsequent consultation with US Airways, the Authority determined that the A-MTOWs for the A-319 needed to be increased. Following consultation with Engineered Arresting Systems Corporation, the Authority identified the following aircraft types and weights for each runway to model EMAS installation requirements under various scenarios to develop the Proposed Action: a) the Airbus A-319 with an A-MTOW of 144,500 pounds as the critical design aircraft for Runway 4; b) the Embraer EMB-145 with an 80 percent maximum landing weight (MLW) of 34,000 pounds as the critical design aircraft for Runway 15; and, the Airbus A-319 with an A-MTOW of 138,000 pounds as the critical design aircraft for Runway 33. The critical design aircraft used to model EMAS installations are reported in Table D-4. Final Environmental Assessment D-9 March 2012

10 Table D-4 Critical Design Aircraft Used to Model EMAS Installations Phase Alternative Number Aircraft Weight Preliminary Appendix D a/ EA b/ Aircraft (basis) (pounds) Runway II 1533-C A-319 A-MTOW 118, II 1533-E A-319 A-MTOW 118, II 1533-F A-319 A-MTOW 118, II 1533-G A-319 A-MTOW 118, PPII 0422-G A-319 A-MTOW 118,000 4 PPII 0422-H A-319 A-MTOW 118,000 4 PPII 0422-K A-319 A-MTOW 118,000 4 PPII 0422-L A-319 A-MTOW 118,000 4 PPII 0422-M A-319 A-MTOW 118,000 4 PPII 0422-N A-319 A-MTOW 118,000 4 PPII 0422-O A-319 A-MTOW 144,500 4 PPII 1533-I A-319 A-MTOW 118, and 33 PPII 1533-J A-319 A-MTOW 118, and 33 PPII 1533-K A-319 A-MTOW 118, and 33 PPII 1533-L A-319 A-MTOW 118, and 33 PPII 1533-M EMB percent MLW 34, A-319 A-MTOW 138, Notes: A-319 Airbus A-319 EMB-145 Embraer EMB-145 A-MTOW Adjusted Maximum Takeoff Weight MLW Maximum Landing Weight PPII Post-Phase II a/ The prefix of the Appendix D alternative numbers represent the runway (i.e., an alternative beginning with 0422 is an alternative for Runway 4-22 and an alternative starting with 1533 is an alternative for Runway The letter in the suffix of the alternative number is used as a naming convention only and has no specific technical meaning. b/ The prefix of the Appendix D alternative numbers represent the runway (i.e., an alternative beginning with 0422 is an alternative for Runway 4-22 and an alternative starting with 1533 is an alternative for Runway The number in the suffix of the alternative number is used as a naming convention only and has no specific technical meaning. Sources: Engineered Arresting Systems Corporation, Preliminary Performance & Cost Estimates for Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA), February 12, 2009; Michael Pulaski, RE: DCA RSA IMPROVEMENTS, s to Mike Hines, September 1, 2010 and September 13, Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., December The length of EMAS required to stop the A-319 that overruns the runway during takeoffs is longer than the length of EMAS required to stop the A-319 that overruns the runway during landings; the opposite is true for the EMB-145. Off-Airport airspace obstructions limit the takeoff weight for A- 319 operations departing from Runway 33 to the northwest to 138,000 pounds. 21 The proposed available runway length for takeoffs from Runway 4 (i.e., 5,000 feet) limits the takeoff weight of the 21 Michael Pulaski, FW: DCA RSA IMPROVEMENTS, to Mike Hines, September 1, 2010 Final Environmental Assessment D-10 March 2012

11 A-319 to 144,500 pounds. 22 The weight used to model EMAS Solutions using the EMB-145 as the critical design aircraft was based on 80 percent of the EMB-145 MLW, or 34,000 pounds. 23 The EMAS installations for the critical design aircraft evaluated by the Authority in this EA are reported in Table D-5. Table D-5 Estimated Arrestment Lengths by Aircraft Type, Exit Speed and EMAS Strength Aircraft Exit Speed Weight Used in EMAS Model 50 psi Strength EMAS 60 psi Strength EMAS EMAS Setback Total EMAS Setback Total (knots) (basis) (pounds) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) A A-MTOW 144, A A-MTOW 138, EMB % MLW 34, A A-MTOW a/ 149, A A-MTOW 144,500 Scenario was not modeled. A A-MTOW 138,000 Scenario was not modeled. EMB % MLW 34, Notes: A-319 Airbus A-319 EMB-145 Embraer EMB-145 A-MTOW Adjusted Maximum Takeoff Weight EMAS Engineered Materials Arresting System MLW Maximum Landing Weight psi Pounds per square inch a/ Adjusted Maximum Takeoff Weight (A-MTOW) provided by US Airways based on a dry runway 5,204 feet long, no winds and 40 degrees Fahrenheit taking off from Runway 15. (Michael Pulaski, RE: DCA RSA IMPROVEMENTS, to Mike Hines, September 1, Source: David Heald (Engineered Arresting Systems Corporation), DCA Washington National, RWY 33, to Stephen R. Muench, September 11, 2010; David Heald, ESCO -DCA RW 04 Departure End (North end), to Stephen R. Muench, September 22, 2010; David Heald, DCA Runway 4 Departures EMAS Solutions, to Stephen R, Muench, September 23, Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., April D.2.2 History of Alternatives Development The Authority s development and evaluations of RSA alternatives are reported in this EA in three categories: Phase I. 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 would preclude the use of Airport property on the other side of the service road from the runway and result in greater reductions in runway length. The first evaluation, commonly referred to as the Phase I Michael Pulaski, FW: DCA RSA IMPROVEMENTS, to Mike Hines, September 1, 2010 The EMB-145 LR typically used at the Airport would need a runway more than 7,400 feet long to takeoff at full MTOW, which is approximately 48,500 pounds. The EMB-145 is not expected to have routine scheduled operations landing on or taking off from Runway 4-22, but is expected to have routine scheduled operations landing on or taking off from Runway 15-33, which is 5,204 feet long now and would remain 5,204 feet long in the Proposed Action. An estimated MLW of 42,600 pounds was considered acceptable as an adjusted MLW for the EMB-145 landings on Runway Final Environmental Assessment D-11 March 2012

12 Study, described alternatives for the RSA prior to the landing threshold of each runway. In the Phase I Study, alternatives for each of the three runways were identified and evaluated. Phase II. Following completion of the Phase I Study, the Authority initiated the Phase II Study to evaluate alternatives in which a nonstandard EMAS installation capable of stopping the critical design aircraft (at that time the Airbus A-319 with an A-MTOW of 118,000 pounds) exiting the runway at 70 knots was combined with one or more of the following actions: (a) relocating one or both runway ends; (b) shifting a runway along its axis; or (c) reducing a runway s length. In the Phase II Study, alternatives for each of the three runways were identified and evaluated. Post-Phase II. Following completion of the Phase II Study, the Authority continued its planning efforts and further refined the Phase II alternatives in a phase referred to as Post- Phase II. - The Authority recognized that the operational, environmental, effectiveness, and feasibility issues associated with bringing the RSAs for Runways 4-22 and into compliance were considerably more challenging than those associated with bringing the RSA for Runway 1-19 into compliance. Because Runway 1-19 accommodates approximately 92 percent of the aircraft operations at the Airport, the Authority commissioned the Phase III Study 24 to evaluate the feasibility of the preferred alternatives for the Runway 1-19 RSA, following which, the Authority initiated the required NEPA review process. The FAA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Record of Decision (ROD). - Concurrent with the NEPA review of the Runway 1-19 RSA enhancements ( ), the Authority used an iterative planning process to develop and evaluate RSA alternatives for Runways 4-22 and The planning process involved meetings and/or discussions with representatives of the FAA, other governmental agencies, airlines, and the Authority s consultants. The Post-Phase II analysis introduced the use of nonstandard EMAS installations capable of stopping the critical design aircraft exiting the runway at 40 knots or more at one or both runway ends. With the exception of Alternative , which used the critical design aircraft reported in Table III-6, the Post-Phase II alternatives for Runway used the Airbus A-319 to estimate the lengths of the EMAS beds. A discussion of the action alternatives is included in Sections D (Phase I alternatives), D (Phase II alternatives) and D (Post-Phase II alternatives). The three Preliminary EA Action Alternatives for Runway 4-22 and seven Preliminary EA Action Alternatives for Runway are discussed in Section D.3. Table D-6 provides a cross reference between each Preliminary EA Action Alternative number and its respective study Phase. 24 HNTB Corporation, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, Runway 1-19 Safety Area Study Phase III, August Final Environmental Assessment D-12 March 2012

13 Table D-6 Preliminary EA Action Alternatives by Study Phase Runway/Alternative Number Phase I Study Phase II Study Post-Phase II Study Runway Runway Source: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Prepared By: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., April The Authority s development and evaluation of RSA alternatives are discussed in the following sections. The alternatives evaluated in this EA are intended to enhance the RSAs and achieve compliance with FAA Orders and The enhancements at the Runway 4 end would comply with FAA AC 150/ and the enhancements at Runway ends 15, 22 and 33 would comply with FAA AC 150/ A and, where practicable, FAA AC 150/ As noted in Section D.1, the FAA s design standards for ARC C-III aircraft were revised on September 30, 2004 (the standard dimension for the length of the RSA prior to the runway end for undershoots was reduced from 1,000 feet to 600 feet). To compare the degree to which each alternative complies with the FAA s RSA design standards, the Authority must use the design standards in effect at the time this EA is prepared. Because the findings and recommendations of the Phase I and Phase II Studies were based on previous FAA RSA design standards, the findings or recommendations of those two earlier studies were not relied upon. The Phase I and Phase II Studies are cited in this EA to document the Authority s early planning efforts to develop compliant RSAs. For the sake of completeness, the physical attributes of the alternatives described in the Phase I and Phase II Studies were compared in this Appendix to the existing FAA RSA design standards and FAA Orders and D Phase I Study Alternatives For the Phase I Study, an inventory of aircraft operations was conducted over a 4-day period (August 11, 12, 13 and 16, 1998) to determine activity on Runways 4-22 and During the inventory period, the assigned runway, aircraft identification, and aircraft type were recorded for all arrivals and departures at the Airport. Using the collected information, an analysis was conducted to attempt to quantify the levels of activity by the types of aircraft operating on Runways 4-22 and During the survey period, the Airport was operated in the two primary traffic flows (north and south). The August 1998 inventory revealed that more than 80 percent of the aircraft operating on Final Environmental Assessment D-13 March 2012

14 Runways and were Aircraft Approach Category A/B and Airplane Design Group I, II, or III. 26 The Purpose of the Proposed Action, i.e. to bring the Runway 4-22 and Runway RSAs into compliance with FAA Order and FAA AC 150/ for ARC C-III aircraft, where practicable, was established by the Authority after the Phase I Study was completed. The following sections of this Appendix summarize the Phase I Study RSA alternatives that would fulfill the stated purpose of and need for the Proposed Action. Runway 4-22 The dimensions of the key features of the three Phase I RSA alternatives for the southwest end of Runway 4-22 and the four Phase I RSA alternatives for the northeast end of the Runway are reported in Table D-7. None of the three alternatives for the RSA at the southwest end of the Runway nor any of the four alternatives for the RSA at the northeast end of the Runway were endorsed in the Phase I Study. However, as depicted on Exhibit D-2 as Preliminary EA Action Alternative , one combination of alternatives Alternatives 4 and 22A in the Phase I Study 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. 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 from Runway 22 or landings on Runway 4, but not for landings on Runway 22. A displaced landing threshold does not mark the end of a runway. 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-footlong 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 At the time the Phase I Study was prepared (in ), Runway 4-22 was designated as Runway The location of Runway 4-22 did not change, but a change in the magnetic declination resulted in Runway 3-21 being redesignated as Runway The information pertaining to Runway 3-21 in the Phase I Report is reported for Runway 4-22 in this EA. Runway numbers indicate a runway's heading. The runway number is intended to represent one tenth of the runway centerline's magnetic azimuth, the angle measured clockwise from the magnetic declination, which is the angle between magnetic north and true north. Runway designations can change over time; as magnetic poles shift on the earth's surface, the magnetic bearing will change. Depending on an airport s location and how much shift takes place, it may be necessary over time to change a runway s designation. Ricondo & Associates, Inc., First Draft, Runway Safety Area Study, Phase I-Operational Alternatives, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, Table 2, "Representative Design Day Intersecting Runway Use," and Exhibit 6, "Representative (observed) Runway Use," March Final Environmental Assessment D-14 March 2012

15 Table D-7 Dimensions of the Key Features of Runway 4-22 Phase I Alternatives Phase I Alternative Combinations Relocate Runway End (feet) Displace Landing Threshold (feet) Available Runway Lengths a/, b/ (feet) Runway Safety Area Dimensions (feet) Runway 4 Runway 22 Runway 4 c/ Runway 22 Undershoots Overruns Undershoots Overruns Runway 4 Runway 4 Runway 22 Takeoffs Landings Takeoffs Landings Width Length Width Length Width Length Width Length 4 22A d/ 3,740 3,740 4,911 4, , , B ,410 4,410 4,911 4, , C ,511 4,511 4,911 4, , D ,581 4,581 4,911 4, ,000 4A 22A d/ 4,140 4,140 5,311 4, , A 22B ,810 4,810 5,311 4, A 22C ,911 4,911 5,311 4, A 22D ,981 4,981 5,311 4, B 22A d/ 4,070 4,070 5,241 4, , B 22B ,740 4,740 5,241 4, B 22C ,841 4,841 5,241 4, B 22D ,911 4,911 5,241 4, Notes: a/ Current available length for takeoffs from and landings on Runway 4-22 is 4,911 feet in both directions. The available runway lengths for landings on and takeoffs from Runway 4 and landings on Runway 22 are declared distances. b/ Avoidance of impacts on the service road was one of the constraints in the Phase I Study. This constraint resulted in greater reductions in runway lengths. c/ The available runway lengths for landings on and take-offs from Runway 4 were calculated to produce a 500-foot by 1,000-foot RSA at the northeast end of the Runway for ARC C-III aircraft that overrun Runway 4. Alternatives 4, 4A and 4B would use 1,000 feet of the runway pavement at the northeast end of the Runway as part of the RSA. 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. d/ The Phase I Study called for a displacement of 1,171 feet but only 771 feet is needed to provide a 600-foot by 500-foot RSA that meets the current FAA design standard for undershoots by ARC C-III Aircraft. Source: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., First Draft, Runway Safety Area Study, Phase I-Operational Alternatives, Ronald Ragan Washington National Airport, March Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., December Final Environmental Assessment D-15 March 2012

16 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK Final Environmental Assessment D-16 March 2012

17 Final Environmental Assessment D-17 March 2012

18 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK Final Environmental Assessment D-18 March 2012

19 Because the existing FAA design standard for RSA length prior to the runway end for undershoots was used in this EA, the displacements of the landing thresholds were adjusted for this EA to reflect the 600-foot design standard for undershoots rather than the 1,000-foot standard used in the Phase I Study. 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 However, because the combination of Alternatives 4 and 22A would provide an RSA that 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 and is discussed in more detail in Section D.3. All of the other combinations of Phase I Study alternatives for Runway 4-22 were eliminated from further consideration because none would fulfill the stated purpose of and need for the Proposed Action, Runway The dimensions of the key features of the five Phase I RSA alternatives for the northwest end of the Runway and the two Phase I RSA alternatives for the southeast end of the Runway are reported in Table D-8. The Phase I Study did not endorse any of the alternatives because all of the alternatives would have major implications for airfield capacity. However, one combination of alternatives Alternatives 15E and 33B (depicted on Exhibit D-3 (page 1 of 2) as Preliminary EA Action Alternative ) would provide an RSA that 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. Because the existing FAA design standard for RSA length prior to the runway end for undershoots was used in this EA, the displacements of the landing thresholds were adjusted for this EA to reflect the 600-foot design standard for undershoots rather than the 1,000-foot standard used in the Phase I Study. 27 Ricondo & Associates, Inc., First Draft, Runway Safety Area Study, Phase I-Operational Alternatives, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, Table 5, "Preliminary Runway Use Assessment," March Final Environmental Assessment D-19 March 2012

20 Table D-8 Dimensions of the Key Features of Runway Phase I Alternatives Phase I Alternative Combinations Displace Landing Threshold (feet) Available Runway Lengths a/, b/ (feet) Runway Safety Area Dimensions (feet) Runway 15 Runway 33 Runway 15 c/ Runway 33 Undershoots Overruns Undershoots Overruns Runway 15 Runway 33 Takeoffs Landings Takeoffs Landings Width Length Width Length Width Length Width Length 15A 33A ,604 4,526 5,126 4, A 33B ,080 4,002 5,126 4, , B 33A ,604 4,196 4,796 4, B 33B ,080 3,672 4,796 4, , C 33A ,604 4,141 4,741 4, C 33B ,080 3,617 4,741 4, , D 33A ,604 4,101 4,396 3, D 33B ,080 3,577 4,396 3, , E 33A ,604 4,101 4,301 3, ,000 15E 33B ,080 3,577 4,301 3, , ,000 Notes: a/ Current available length for takeoffs from and landings on Runway is 5,204 feet in both directions. The available runway lengths reported in Table D-8 are declared distances. b/ Avoidance of impacts on the service road was one of the constraints in the Phase I Study. This constraint resulted in greater reductions in runway lengths. c/ The available runway lengths for landings on and take-offs from Runway 15 were calculated to produce a 500-foot by 1,000-foot RSA at the southeast end of the Runway for ARC C-III aircraft that overrun Runway 15. Alternatives 33B would use 1,000 feet of the runway pavement at the southeast end of the Runway as part of the RSA. To avoid impacts to the service road, the southeast end of the RSA at the southeast end of the Runway would start 124 feet northwest of the existing runway end. Therefore, 1,124 feet of runway pavement at the southeast end of the Runway would be unavailable for landings on or takeoffs from Runway 15. d/ The Phase I Study called for a displacement of 1,124 feet but only 724 feet is needed to provide a 600-foot by 500-foot RSA that meets the current FAA design standard for undershoots by ARC C-III Aircraft. Source: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., First Draft, Runway Safety Area Study, Phase I-Operational Alternatives, Ronald Ragan Washington National Airport, March Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., December Final Environmental Assessment D-20 March 2012

21 Final Environmental Assessment D-21 March 2012

22 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK Final Environmental Assessment D-22 March 2012

23 Final Environmental Assessment D-23 March 2012

24 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK Final Environmental Assessment D-24 March 2012

25 Maintaining the length of Runway 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 provide an RSA that 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 and is discussed in more detail in Section D.3. All of the other combinations of Phase I Study alternatives for Runway were eliminated from further consideration because none would fulfill the stated purpose of and need for the Proposed Action. D Phase II Study Alternatives The following sections summarize the Phase II Study RSA alternatives. Runway 4-22 The dimensions of the key features of the five RSA alternatives are reported in Table D-9. Table D-9 Dimensions of the Key Features of Runway 4-22 Phase II Alternatives Alternative Feature 0422-A a/ 0422-B b/ 0422-C c/ 0422-D d/ 0422-E e/ Relocate Runway Ends (feet) Southwest Runway End Northeast 100 Southwest Runway End Southwest Northeast Runway End Northeast 100 Northeast Runway End Southwest Available Runway Lengths (feet) f/ Runway 4 Takeoffs 4,911 4,911 4,581 4,911 4,411 Runway 4 Landings 4,911 4,911 4,581 4,911 4,411 Runway 22 Takeoffs 4,911 4,911 4,581 4,911 4,411 Runway 22 Landings 4,911 4,911 4,581 4,911 4,411 RSA Dimensions (feet) Width Length Prior to Southwest Runway End 1, Length Prior to Northeast Runway End g/ 1, Estimated Impact on Potomac River (acres) Notes: Not applicable a/ First alternative discussed in Section Primary Alternatives of the Phase II Study; depicted in Exhibit D-2 as Alternative b/ Second alternative discussed in Section Primary Alternatives of the Phase II Study. c/ Third alternative discussed in Section Primary Alternatives of the Phase II Study. d/ First alternative discussed in Section Discontinued Alternatives of the Phase II Study. e/ Second alternative discussed in Section Discontinued Alternatives of the Phase II Study. f/ Current available length for takeoffs from and landings on Runway 4-22 is 4,911 feet in both directions. g/ Estimated lengths of trapezoidal RSAs were based upon the length from the runway end to the end of RSA along the extended runway centerline. Alternatives 0422-D and 0422-E do not provide 600 feet along the full width of the RSA. Source: HNTB Corporation, Final Report, Runway Safety Area Study, Phase II, Section 4.3 Runway 4-22, March 25, Prepared By: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., December Final Environmental Assessment D-25 March 2012