SANFRANCISCOPUBLICLIBRARY 3 1223 09320 1979 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROPOSED RUNWAY SAFETY AREA PROGRAM San Francisco International Airport San Francisco, San Mateo County, California Preparedfor CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCOAIRPORT COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION U.S. FEDERALAVIATION ADMINISTRATION AsleadFederalAgencypursuanttotheNational Environmental PolicyActof1969 Preparedby: GOVERNMENT URS Corporation DOCUMENTS DEFT November 2011 SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY This environmental assessment becomes a Federal document when evaluated, signed and dated )onsible FAA Official. D snsibie FAAOfficial Date REF 387.736 Sa529f GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT WHAT'S IN THIS DOCUMENT? This document contains a Final Environmental Assessment (EA) for the City and County of San Francisco's (CCSF) proposed Runway Safety Area Program, which involves both runway complexes at San Francisco International Airport (SFO or the Airport). This document discloses the analysis and findings of the potential impacts of the City and County of San Francisco's Proposed Action, the No Action and other reasonable alternatives. BACKGROUND. The Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, The Judiciary, The District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-1 15), requires completion of Runway Safety Area improvements by airports in the United States that hold a certificate issued by the FAA under Title 49 of the Unites States Code, Section 44706 to meet FAA design standards for Runway Safety Areas required by Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 139 by December 31, 2015. The City and County of San Francisco, as owner and operator of San Francisco International Airport, has developed its proposed action to meet the requirements of Public Law 109-1 15. SFO staff and FAA staff conducted project briefings to regulatory agencies at the Interagency Meeting in October 2010. Between October and November 2010, SFO and the consultant team conducted briefings to local cities and regulatory agencies to introduce the proposed project, purpose and need of the project, potential alternatives, environmental resource categories, to provide an overview of the EA process. The Draft EA was released on June 24, 2011. The notice of availability of the Draft EA, public workshop, and public hearing were advertised in three local newspapers to inform the general public and other interested parties. A public workshop and public hearing was conducted on July 28, 201 1 at the Millbrae City Hall. The document presented herein represent the Final EA for the federal decision-making process, in fulfillment of FAA's policies and procedures relative to NEPA and other related federal requirements. Copies of the document are available for inspection at various libraries in the San Francisco Bay Area, San Francisco International Airport, FAA Western-Pacific Region Office in Hawthorne, and the FAA San Francisco Airports District Office in Brisbane. The addresses for these locations are provided in Chapter 5.0 of this Final EA. WHAT SHOULD YOU DO? Read the Final Environmental Assessment to understand the actions that CCSF and FAA intend to take relative to the proposed Runway Safety Area Program at SFO. WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THIS? The FAA will decide to prepare and issue a Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision (FONSI/ROD) or decide to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. 1 us, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WESTERN-PACIFIC REGION I FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND RECORD OF DECISION ly Safety Area Improvement Program andsco International Airport San FranciscoPublicLibrary CO, San Mateo County, California Government Information Center San Francisco Public Library 100 Larkin Street, 5"'^ Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 REFERENCE BOOK Nottobetakenfromthelibrary Forfurfh«rinformaiDn DaMdB Kesaler AlCP U.S. DapartmantofTrarvssonalian F«d«n«AviMbn Adfninii.u^Ofi Wwtsm-PacAcRegno P.O Box92007 LMAn^ttlM.CA 60000-2007 310.725-3613 December 201 9, 1 I GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT WHAT'S IN THIS DOCUMENT? This document is the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Record of Decision (ROD) for the proposed Runway Safety Area Improvement Program at San Francisco International Airport located in San Mateo County, California. This document includes the agency determinations and approvals for those proposed Federal actions described in the Final Environmental Assessment dated December 201 1 . This document discusses all alternatives considered by FAA in reaching its decision, summarizes the analysis used to evaluate the alternatives, and briefly summarizes the potential environmental consequences of the Proposed Action and the No Action alternative, which are evaluated in detail in this FONSI and ROD. This document also identifies the environmentally preferred alternative and the agency preferred alternative. This document identifies applicable and required mitigation. BACKGROUND. In June 2011, the City and County of San Francisco prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA). The DEA addressed the potential environmental effects of the proposed Runway Safety Area Improvement Program including various reasonable alternatives to that proposal. The DEA was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [Public Law 91-190, 42 USC 4321-4347], the implementing regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEO) [40 CFR Parts 1500-1508], and FAA Orders 1050.IE, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures and 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions. The City and County of San Francisco published the Notice of Availability for the DEA on June 24, 2011. The City and County of San Francisco received comments on the draft between June 24, 2011 and July 29. 2011. FAA approved the Final EA on December 5, 2011. WHAT SHOULD YOU DO? Read the Finding of No Significant Impact and Record of Decision to understand the actions that FAA intends to take relative to the proposed Runway Safety Area Improvement Program at San Francisco International Airport. WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THIS? The City and County of San Francisco may begin to implement the Proposed Action. SanFranciscoInternationalAirport RunwaySafetyAreaImprovementProgramFONSI/ROD December2011 3 1223 09320 1979 DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION U.S. FEDERALAVIATION ADMINISTRATION FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANTIMPACT AND RECORD OF DECISION PROPOSED RUNWAYSAFETYAREAIMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONALAIRPORT SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 1. Introduction. This document is a Finding of No Significant Impact (PONS!) on the environmentand Record of Decision (ROD) (FONSI/ROD) as a resultofproposed Runway SafetyArea Improvement Program at San Francisco International Airport (SFO), San Mateo County, Califomia. The City and County ofSan Francisco (CCSF) is the sponsorfor San Francisco InternationalAirport. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) mustcomplywith the National Environmental PolicyActof 1969 (NEPA) before being able to take the federal actions ofapproval ofthose portions oftheAirport Layout Plan (ALP) that depictthe proposed projects. Approval ofthe ALP is authorized bytheAirportand Airway ImprovementActof 1982, as amended (Public Laws 97-248 and 100-223). 2. Purpose and Need ofthe Proposed Action. The proposed action isforthe CCSF to meet FAAAirport Design Standards forthe Runway SafetyAreasforeach ofthefour runways at San Francisco International Airporttothe extent practicable. The San Francisco International Airport is a commercial service airportthataccommodates both aircarrieraircraftaswell as general aviation. The existing Runway SafetyAreas forall four runwayends do not meetcurrent FAA airportdesign standards as described in FAAAdvisory Circular 150/5300-13, AirportDesign. The proposed action would partially correctthis design standard deficiency to the extent practicable consistentwith FAA Order 5200.8. FAA recognizesthe RSAdesign standard length beyond theend ofthe each runway will not be fully met by this proposed action, butcan be improved to enhance safety atthe airport. The FAA's statutory mission is to ensure the safe and efficient use ofnavigable airspace in the United States. Pursuantto Title49 United States Code (USC), SubtitleVll, as amended, FAA must ensure the proposed projectdoes notderogate the safety ofaircraftand airportoperations at San Francisco International Airport. Legislation under The Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, The DistrictofColumbia, and IndependentAgenciesAppropriationsAct 2006 (Public Law 109-115), November 30, 2005, requires completion of Runway Safety Area improvements at all airports certificated underTitle 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 139, to meet FAA design standards by December 31, 2015. 3. Proposed Project and Federal Actions. The proposed action includes site preparation, grading, as needed, installation ofdrainage structures, paving, installation of Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS), and marking and lighting ofvarious airfield pavements the (See Figures1-6. 1-7. 1-8 and 1-9 of the Final Environmental Assessment (EA). The proposed action evaluated in this FONSI/ROD includes the following actions grouped by runway pair; SanFranciscoInternationalAirport RunwaySafetyAreaImprovementProgramFOt\ISI/ROD December2011 3 Runways 1L-19R and 1R-19L Runway Shifts: • Shift Runway 1R-19L end by about200 feetto the south by extending the runway pavement at the south end ofthe runway by 205 feetand reducing the north end ofthe runway by a similar distance, thus maintaining the existing runway length. • Shift Runway 1L-19R by about450 feetto the south byextending the runway pavementatthe south end ofthe runway by450 feetand reducing the north end ofthe runway by a simitar distance, thus maintaining the existing runway length. North End Runways 19R/19L: • Constructa nonstandard EMAS bed approximately 550 feet long and 220 feetwide north ofthe Runway 19R threshold, with a 50-foot setbackfrom the runway end. • Constructa nonstandard EMAS bed approximately410 feet long and 220 feetwide north ofthe Runway 19L threshold, with a 35-footsetback from the runway end. • Decommission or demolish the existing pavementofTaxiways E and L and replace/realign the taxiways to provide access to the relocated threshold of Runways 19L and 19R. • Relocate portions ofthe approach lighting system for Runway 19L to accommodate the relocated landing threshold. • Install Runway Status Lights. South End Runways 1R/1L: • Constructa nonstandard EMAS bed approximately 500feet long and 220 feetwide south ofthe Runway 1L threshold, with a 35-foot setback from the runway end. • Constructa nonstandard EMAS bed approximately 380 feet long and 220 feetwide south ofthe Runway 1R threshold, with a 35-foot setback from the runway end. • Decommission the majorityofexisting Taxiway A and A-1 pavement and construct a realigned Taxiway Aextending between Taxiway B and Taxiway Laround the south side ofthe new EMAS installations at the south end ofthe runways. • Constructa newtaxiway between Taxiway B, Runway 1L threshold, Runway 1R threshold, and Taxiway L, with a mid-field connection to the relocated Taxiway A. • Realign the airport operating area fence and blastfenceto an area south of Realigned Taxiway A. • Relocate an existing electrical substation. • Relocate the existing vehicle service road and blastfence south ofrelocated TaxiwayAand Runways 1R-19L and 1L-19R adjacentto Interstate 101. • Constructa new box culvert overthe Millbrae Highline Canal fora taxiway shoulderand realigned vehicle service road, blastfence, and airport operating area fence. • Fill and/or reconfigure the South Oxidation Pond, Bird Ball Ditch, and associated storm water ponds forconstruction ofthe newtaxiway^ relocation ofthe vehicle service road, and installation ofa new pump station. • Install Runway Status Lights. SanFranciscoInternationalAirport RunwaySafetyAreaImprovementProgramFONSI/ROD December2011 4 1 Runways 10L-28R and 10R-28L East End Runways 28L/28R • Displace the landing thresholds for Runways 28L and 28R by 300 feetto the west. • Relocate Glide Slope navigation aids, associated 600-galion underground fuel tank forthe Glide slope antennas. • Implement declared distances for Runways 10L-28R and 10R-28L • Relocate portions ofthe approach lighting installations for Runways 28L and 28R • Install Runway Status Lights West End Runways 10L/10R • Relocate the west end of Runway 10R-28L pavement by 781 feet west to preserve the existing Runway 10R takeoffcapability and staggerof parallel runway thresholds. • Relocate the existing localizer antenna for Runvi'ay 28L. • Construct a new taxiway connection between Taxiway S, the relocated threshold of Runway 10R, and Taxiway Z, • install Runway Status Lights The federal actions necessary to carry out the proposed projects include: • Unconditional approval oftheAirport Layout Plan (ALP) to depict the proposed runway safety area improvements pursuant to 49 USC §§ 40103(b) and 47107(a)(16). • Deierrninaiion ofihe effecls ofUie proposed ruriway safety area improvement project upon the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace pursuant to 14 CFR Part77, ObjectsAffecting Navigable Airspace The FAA mustdetermine ifthe proposed improvements, as proposed by the City and County of San Francisco are consistentwith the existing airspace utilization and procedures. • Determination under49 USC § 44502(b) thatthe airport development is reasonably necessary for use in air commerce or in the interests of national defense. • Approval of construction of new airport pavements and installation of EMAS runway, taxiway pavements, and relocated vehicle sen/ice road and other associated development that meets FAA Airport Design Standards. (14 CFR § 139.309) • Approval ofthe construction, installation, relocation and/or upgrade of various electronic and visual navigational aids including but not limited to Glide Slope; Medium Intensity Approach Lights with RunwayAlignment Indicator Lights (MALSR); Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI); and runway threshold lights, runway end identifier lights. Installation of Approach Lighting System with Sequenced Flashers (ALSF- II). This equipment is necessary to ensure the safety ofair navigation for aircraft operations at the new airport. • Development of airtraffic control and airspace management procedures designed to ensure the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace including the establishment of new Standard Instrument Departure (SID) and Standard Terminal Arrival Route (STAR) procedures. • Approval changes to the airport certification manual pursuant to 14 CFR Part 139, (49 USC § 44706). San FranciscoInternationalAirport RunwaySafetyAreaImprovementProgramFONSI/ROD December201 5 1 • Approval ofchanges to the airport certification manual, to maintain aviation and airfield safety during construction pursuantto 14 CFR Part 139 (49 USC § 44706). • Determinations under 49 U.S.C § 47106 and 47107 relating to ofthe proposed project for Federal funding assistance underthe Airport Improvement Program (AlP) under49 USC § 40117, as implemented by 14 CFR § 158.25, to impose and use passengerfacility charges (PFCs) forthe proposed project'. • Determination ofeligibility forfederal assistance forthe near-term development projects under the Federal grant-in-aid program authorized bythe Airportand Ainway ImprovementAct of 1982, as amended (49 USC § 47101 et seq.). • Approval offurther processing ofan application forfederal assistance for near-term eligible projects using federal funds from the Airport Improvement Program, as shown on the ALP. • Continued close coordination with the City and County of San Francisco and appropriate FAA program offices, as required, to maintain aviation and airfield safety during construction pursuantto49 USC § 44706. • Appropriate amendments to aircarrieroperations specifications pursuantto49 USC § 44705. 4. Reasonable Alternatives Considered. Chapter2 ofthe Final EA, used a three step alternatives analysis screening process including: Step 1 -Would the Proposed Alternatives enhance theairport's Runway SafetyAreas consistent with FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design? Step 2 - Would the Alternative be practicable and consistentwith FAA Order5200.8, Runway Safety Area Program, considering existing technology and logistics in light ofoverall proiect purpose, including implementation and completion bv December 31, 2015, as specified in Public Law 109-115? Step 3-Would the Alternative result in a safe and efficient use of navigable airspace and minimize airfield operational impacts? The EA evaluated three off-airport and 27 on-airport alternatives, along with the No Action Alternative to the proposed action. Analysis ofthe No Action Alternative is required pursuantto Title40, CFR § 1502.14(d). Section 2.3 ofthe Final EA, evaluated each ofthe three off-airport alternatives of"Use other Alternative Modes ofTransportation;" "Use ofotherArea PublicAirports"; and"Use ofAlternative Aircraft." There are no feasible off-Airport alternatives for the location ofthe Runway SafetyArea improvements because compliance with PL 109-115 requires the Airport sponsor meetthe RSA standards. Therefore, off-airport locations were eliminated from consideration. Paragraph 405(d) of FAA Order 1050.IE states in part: "An EA mustconsidertheproposedaction anda discussion ofthe consequences oftaking no action, andmaylimitthe range ofalternatives to action andno action when there are no unresolvedconflicts concerningalternative uses ofavailable resources." Therefore, all off-airport alternatives were eliminated for further review because theywould not meet the purpose and need ofthe proposed action. ' Certain requirementsforAlP funding overlapwith environmental reviewrequirements forapproval ofthe ALP and so are addressed as part ofthe EAfortheALP. These determinations are a prerequisitetofunding butdo notcompletethe determinationsthat are necessaryforfunding. The decisionto approve AlP and PFC funding are completed in separate processes. SanFranciscoInternationalAirport RunwaySafetyArea ImprovementProgramFONSI/ROD December201 6 The primary considerations forthe FAA in selection ofa preferred alternative include the Purpose and Need for the project and the environmental impacts ofthe project In its consideration ofalternatives, the FAA is mindful of its statutory charterto encourage the developmentand safety ofcivil aeronautics in the United States (49 USC § 40104). The NoAction alternative has fewer environmental effectsthan the Proposed Action alternative; howeverthe NoAction alternative does not meetthe Purpose and Need forthe proposed project and CCSFwould notcomplywith Public Law 109-115. Sections 2.4 and 2.5 ofthe Final EA describe and evaluates the27 various runway safety area improvement alternatives forall four runway ends at SFO. Table 2-3 summarizesthe results ofthe Alternatives Screening Process. Ofthe 27 on-airportalternatives, three build alternatives and the no action alternative were carried forward fordetailed impactanalysis. The proposed action by CCSF is a combination ofseveral ofthe various alternatives. Therefore the proposed action for Runway 10L/28R isto include declared distances, as defined in paragraph 2, Definitions, ofFAAAdvisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design as "The distancesthe airportowner declares available forthe airplane's takeoffrun, takeoffdistance, accelerate-stop distance, andlanding distance requirements." Runway 10R/28L includes using declared distances along with an extension of the runway to thewestto maintain the existing relative distance separation between the two runway thresholds. Appendix 14 of FAAAdvisory Circular 150/5300-13, describesthe application and use of declared distances atan airport. For Runway 1L/19R and Runway 1R/19L, Refined Alternative 6A Underthis alternative the runways would be shifted to the south along with the installation of non-standard EMAS beds on both ends of each runway. Under this alternative an additional taxiwayconnectorwould be constructed between and parallel to the south ends ofthe two runways. The FAAconcludes that CCSF's Proposed Action is the alternative that meets the Purpose and Need of the proposed projectwith minimum adverse environmental effects and promotes increased aviation safety through meeting FAAAirport Design Standards, to the extent practicable pursuantto Public Law 109-115. 5. Assessment. The potential environmental impacts and possible adverse effects were identified and evaluated in a Final EA prepared in December2011. The Final EA has been reviewed by the FAA and found to be adequate forthe purpose ofthe proposed Federal action. The FAA determined that the Final EA forthe proposed projectadequately describes the potential impacts ofthe proposed action. No newissues surfaced as a resultofthe public review process. The Final EA examined the following environmental impact categories: Noise; Compatible Land Use; DepartmentofTransportation Act Section 4(f) and Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, Section 6(f) Resources, Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental Justice and Children's Health and Safety Risks; Secondary Induced Impacts; Air Quality; WaterQuality; Fish, Wildlife and Plants, Wetlands, Floodplains. Coastal Resources, Historic, Architectural, Archeological and Cultural Resources; Light Emissions and Visual Impacts; Natural Resources and Energy Supply; Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention and Solid Waste; and Cumulative Impacts. Theenvironmental impactcategories of Farmlands; Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Coastal Barriers were notevaluated further because the proposed action at SFO would not pose an impact to these environmental resources. A. Noise. Section 4.2 ofthe Final EA describes noise impacts resulting from the proposed action and the No Action alternatives. Sections 4.2.2.3 notes the same number of aircraft operations (takeoffs and landings) were used to evaluate both the proposed action and no action alternatives The proposed runway safety area improvements will not induce or change the overall number of aircraft operations into and out ofSFO. Section 4.2.3 ofthe Final EA compares the noise impacts ofthe No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives. The Proposed Action would result in 30 houses exposed to an increase of 1.5 decibels (dB) using the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) within the 65 dB CNEL noise SanFrancisco InternationalAirport RunwaySafetyAreaImprovementProgramFONSI/ROD December2011 7 • All sheet pile driving activities v^^ill be accomplished from the existing vehicle service road and no construction equipment enterthe tidal marsh. • A siltfencev^^ill be installed to minimize degradation ofwater quality, and preventcontaminants and debris from entering the vjater. • All work in the tidal marsh will be conducted during lowtides when the mudflat is exposed and the potential for sedimentdischarge is minimized. The following measures are to be implemented forshoreline construction associated with the replacementofthe storm waterdrainage outfall pipes: • Outfall pipe replacementwork will notoccurwhen the tidal marsh plain is inundated. Thiswill require work to avoid periods within 2 hours before orafterextreme high tides (6.5 feet or above, as measured atthe Golden Gate Bridge). • The work area perimeterwill be staked and fenced with siltfencing. • All vehicle and equipmentstaging and refueling areas will be located in uplands outside ofthe tidal marsh. • Disturbed areas will be hydroseeded orcovered with mulch. • No construction equipmentwill enter the tidal marsh area. The FAAwill require the CGSF implementthe measures identified in the NMFS Endangered Species Act, Section 7 consultation, and Essential Fish Habitat consultations through a special condition in an Airport Improvement Program grantoffer, orapproval of use of Passenger Facility Charges or similar requirements to ensure that these measures are implemented. With implementation ofthese measures, the proposed action's impacts on fisherieswould be less than significant. To compensate forthe loss of0.04 acres oftidal marsh, SFO will purchase and apply 0.20 acres of constructed tidal wetland mitigation habitatfrom the Deepwater Slough Island Wetland Mitigation Project in Redwood City, California as in-kind mitigation. The U S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), provided its Biological Opinion, dated November28, 2011 to the FAA for the proposed RSA program The USFWS included the following three Reasonable and Prudent Measures in their Biological Opinion: 1. The project proponent shall implementthe proposed action, including proposed conservation measures, as deschbed in the Description ofthe ProposedAction, ofthis biological opinion, unless modified by terms and conditions contained in the biological opinion. 2. The project proponent shall minimize adverse effects to the California clapper rail. 3. The project proponent shall ensure theircompliance with this biological opinion. The November28, 2011, Biological Opinion included the following terms and conditions to implement the firsttwo Reasonable and Prudent measures; 1. The FAA shall minimize the potential for harm or harassment ofthe California clapper rail resulting from the proposed action by implementing the proposed action, including proposed conservation measures, as described in Description ofthe ProposedAction ofthis biological opinion, with the SanFranciscoInternationalAirport RunwaySafetyArea ImprovementProgramFONSI/ROD December2011 10