U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration DRAFT Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Redevelopment and Extension of Runway 9R/27L March 30, 2007 Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL) Page 1
Agenda Welcome and Introductions Overview of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) Question & Answer Session Closing Remarks Page 2
Draft EIS Organization Volumes 1 and 2 contain an Executive Summary and eight main document chapters Executive Summary One - History, Background, and Public Involvement Two - The Proposal Three - Purpose and Need Four - Alternatives Five - Affected Environment Six - Environmental Consequences Seven - Cumulative Impacts Eight - List of Preparers and List of Agencies and Persons to Whom Copies are Sent Page 3
Draft EIS Organization Volumes 3 through 5 contain 15 appendices A - Agency Streamlining B - Public Involvement C - FAA/Airport Sponsor s Correspondence D - Purpose and Need E - Airfield Planning, Design, & Constructability Review F - Net Benefits Analysis G - Air Quality H - Noise I - Interlocal Agreements and Development Orders J - Land Use GIS Methodology K - Public Resources L - Water Resources M - Biological and Natural Resources N - Hazardous and Waste Materials O - Surface Transportation and Natural Resources and Energy Page 4
Role of the FAA FAA is the lead Federal agency responsible for preparation and content of the Draft EIS Draft EIS was prepared pursuant to a proposal presented to the FAA by Broward County, the owner and operator of FLL The Draft EIS was prepared in compliance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures FAA Order 5050.4B, NEPA Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions FAA selected a third party contractor, the Landrum & Brown Team, to assist in preparation of the Draft EIS. Page 5
Airport Sponsor s Identified Goals and Objectives Enhance capacity to accommodate forecast operations through through 2020 with average annual delay at or below 6 to 10 minutes Decommission use of Runway 13/31 (crosswind) Avoid using Runway 13/31 to address forecast increases in aircraft delays Mitigate noise exposure attributable to proposed improvements by implementing a runway use plan and residential noise mitigation processes Implement residential noise mitigation initiatives in areas not currently eligible under the Airport Improvement Program Page 6
Airport Sponsor s Proposed Project - EIS Alternative B1c Expand and elevate Runway 9R/27L to 8,000 feet by150 feet wide Construct new full-length parallel taxiway 75 feet wide on the north side of Runway 9R/27L with separation of 400 feet from 9R/27L Construct an outer dual parallel taxiway separated from the proposed north side parallel taxiway by 276 feet Construct connecting taxiways from the proposed fulllength parallel taxiway to existing taxiways Construct an Instrument Landing System for landings on Runways 9R and 27L Decommission Runway 13/31 Redevelop terminal gates Page 7
Connected Actions Close Airport Perimeter Road within the approach to Runway 9R Relocate ASR-9 Acquire all, or a portion of the Wyndham Fort Lauderdale Airport Hotel to the extent a portion of the existing structure is in the RPZ for extended Runway 9R/27L Partial displacement of Jet Center facilities - taxiway is a temporary runway during construction Full displacement of Gulfstream Airways aircraft maintenance facilities - taxiway is a temporary runway during construction Page 8
Airport Sponsor s Proposed Project - EIS Alternative B1c Page 9
Capacity and Delay Issues at FLL Throughput of the existing airfield is 84 operations per hour The delay threshold for establishing the capacity of FLL is six minutes per operation Airfield capacity needs to accommodate 101 to 107 operations per hour to maintain average delays at 6 minutes or less per operation Page 10
Federal Need and Purpose for the Project FAA considered the deficiencies at FLL and their impact on the FAA s purpose of enhancing safety, efficiency, and capacity at both the regional and national level and identified the following needs at FLL: Sufficient airfield capacity to the extent practicable, to accommodate existing and projected air carrier demand at an acceptable level of delay Enhanced and balanced airfield Adequate terminal gate facilities For an alternative to be carried forward for detailed evaluation in the Draft EIS, it must address one or more of these needs. Page 11
Range of Alternatives All reasonable, feasible, prudent, and practicable alternatives that might accomplish the objectives of a proposed project must be evaluated. Off-Site Alternatives - Use of Other Airports/Regional Management Alternatives - Development of New Off-Site Airport to Replace FLL - Other Modes of Transportation and/or Telecommunications On-Site Alternatives - Non-Runway Development Alternatives - Other Technologies - Activity or Demand-Management Alternatives - Runway Development Alternatives No Action Alternative Page 12 (always considered under NEPA)
Alternatives Screening Analysis Off-site and on-site alternatives that could reasonably increase capacity and reduce delay at FLL were qualitatively assessed Runway development alternatives that could reasonably increase capacity and reduce delay were further evaluated to consider runway length, airfield throughput capacity, constructability, and possible fatal flaws The analysis resulted in a range of reasonable alternatives that could substantially meet the stated purposes and needs for the project at FLL Page 13
Alternatives Assessed for Environmental Impacts Alternative A: Existing Airfield (No Action) Alternative B1: Redevelop and Extend Runway 9R/27L (extend 9R/27L to east / 8,600 feet) Alternative B1b: Redevelop and Extend Runway 9R/27L (extend 9R/27L to east / 8,000 feet) Alternative B1c: Airport Sponsor s Proposed Project (extend 9R/27L to east / 8,000 feet) Alternative B4: New Runway 9R/27L (north of existing 9R/27L / 6,001 feet) Alternative B5: New Runway 9R/27L (south of existing 9R/27L / 7,800 feet) Alternative C1: New Runway 8/26 (north of existing 9L/27R / 7,721 feet) Alternative D1: New Runways 8/26 and 9R/27L (Combination of Alternatives B1b and C1) Alternative D2: New Runways 8/26 and 9R/27L (Combination Alternatives B4 and C1) Page 14
Existing Airfield Page 15
Alternative A (No Action) Page 16
Alternative B1 Page 17
Alternative B1b/B1c Alternative B1c - Airport Sponsor s Proposed Project Page 18
Alternative B4 Page 19
Alternative B5 Page 20
Alternative C1 Page 21
Alternative D1 Page 22
Alternative D2 Page 23
Alternatives Analysis (Engineered Materials Arrested System) Alternatives Use of EMAS A (No Action) N/A B1 (extend 9R/27L east / 8,600 ft) No B1b (extend 9R/27L east / 8,000 ft) Yes B1c (extend 9R/27L east / 8,000 ft) Yes B4 (north of existing 9R/27L/ 6,001 ft) Yes B5 (south of existing 9R/27L / 7,800 ft) Yes C1 (north of existing 9L/27R/ 7,721 ft) No D1 (combination of B1b and C1) Yes D2 (combination of B4 and C1) Yes All EMAS beds would be designed to FAA standards in consultation with the Engineered Arresting Systems Corporation, the only manufacturer of EMAS currently approved by FAA. Page 24
Preliminary Airspace Analysis Alternatives TERPS Penetration A (No Action) N/A B1 (extend 9R/27L east / 8,600 ft) Yes B1b (extend 9R/27L east / 8,000 ft) Yes B1c (extend 9R/27L east / 8,000 ft) Yes B4 (north of existing 9R/27L/ 6,001 ft) Yes B5 (south of existing 9R/27L / 7,800 ft) Yes C1 (north of existing 9L/27R/ 7,721 ft) Yes D1 (combination of B1b and C1) Yes D2 (combination of B4 and C1) Yes The Wyndham Hotel would penetrate the standard TERPS for Alternative B1 and B5. The Wyndham Hotel and the Gulfstream hangar would penetrate the standard TERPS for Alternative B1b, B1c, and D1. Interstate I-595 and the fuel tank storage facilities would penetrate the TERPS for Alternatives C1, D1, and D2. None of the these penetrations would affect runway length, but could affect approach minimums. Page 25
Affected Environment A description of existing environmental conditions in and around FLL Provides a basis of comparison to determine the environmental consequences of the Proposed Project and alternatives Overall Study Area encompasses the communities surrounding FLL and was developed using a composite of projected future 60 Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) noise contours Detailed Study Area includes the current FLL land envelope and adjacent areas that may be physically disturbed by construction activities Page 26
Environmental Consequences 2012 and 2020 used for analysis years because 2012 is the projected implementation year of the Airport Sponsor s Proposed Project and 2020 represents a future condition after full implementation of the Airport Sponsor s Proposed Project. Analysis of environmental impacts compares the effects of the runway development alternatives to the No Action Alternative for the two analysis years. The Draft EIS analysis is summarized in Table ES-1. This summary of analysis provides operational data, cost benefit information, and potential environmental impacts for the runway development and No Action alternatives. Page 27
Summary of Analysis (Operational Benefits) Alternatives Hourly Capacity Delay 2012 Delay 2020 10.7 26.2 A (No Action) 84 B1 (extend 9R/27L east / 8,600 ft) 107 1.2 3.1 B1b (extend 9R/27L east / 8,000 ft) 107 1.2 3.1 B1c (extend 9R/27L east / 8,000 ft) 107 3.9 3.1 2.2 3.1 4.7 10.2 B4 B4 (north of existing 9R/27L/ 6,001 ft) (low case) 107 107 B5 (south of existing 9R/27L / 7,800 ft) 107 1.2 3.1 C1 (north of existing 9L/27R/ 7,721 ft) 101 1.9 5.0 D1 (combination of B1b and C1) 128 N/A 1.2 D2 (combination of B4 and C1) 128 N/A 1.5 Hourly capacity takes into consideration actual demand able to use available runways according to aircraft types and runway length characteristics of each alternative. Delay is calculated as average minutes of delay per operation. Alternatives D1 and D2 would not be fully operational by 2012. Page 28
Summary of Analysis (Benefits / Costs) Alternatives A (No Action) B1 (extend 9R/27L east / 8,600 ft) B1b B1c Total Costs N/A Benefit/Cost Ratio 2020 2030 N/A N/A $688,862,333 2.17 4.35 (extend 9R/27L east / 8,000 ft) $694,827,979 2.16 4.34 (extend 9R/27L east / 8,000 ft) $694,827,979 2.06 4.24 3.55 2.82 5.63 4.40 B4 B4 (north of existing 9R/27L/ 6,001 ft) (low case) $523,473,675 $523,473,675 B5 (south of existing 9R/27L / 7,800 ft) $707,044,230 2.12 4.26 C1 (north of existing 9L/27R/ 7,721 ft) $462,689,207 2.93 4.99 D1 (combination of B1b and C1) $1,195,138,700 1.43 3.44 D2 (combination of B4 and C1) $995,078,170 2.20 4.22 Cost estimates for all alternatives including B1c, the Airport Sponsor s Proposed Project, are in 2006 dollars. Page 29
Summary of Analysis (Demand vs. Capacity) FLL Demand vs Capacity @ 6 min Delay 525,000 Alternative D1 500,000 Alternative D2 Annual Aircraft Operations 475,000 Alternatives B1/B1b/B1c/B5 450,000 Alternatives B4/C1 425,000 400,000 Alternative B4 Low Case 375,000 350,000 325,000 300,000 Existing Airfield 275,000 2030 2029 2028 2027 2026 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 250,000 Years Note: B4 Low Case corresponds to the B4 Runway Sensitivity Analysis capacity numbers. Page 30
Summary of Analysis (Noise Impacts) Alternatives 2012 2020 Residential Dwelling Units (Population) A (No Action) 12 (33) 696 (1,772) B1 (extend 9R/27L east / 8,600 ft) 632 (1,538) 1,046 (2,447) B1b (extend 9R/27L east / 8,000 ft) 652 (1,593) 1,051 (2,472) B1c (extend 9R/27L east / 8,000 ft) 118 (285) 1,051 (2,472) B4 (north of existing 9R/27L/ 6,001 ft) 372 (973) 477 (1,492) B5 (south of existing 9R/27L / 7,800 ft) 840 (1,928) 1,260 (4,235) C1 (north of existing 9L/27R/ 7,721 ft) 28 (71) 285 (717) D1 (combination of B1b and C1) N/A 801 (1,926) D2 (combination of B4 and C1) N/A 303 (789) Only B1c, Airport Sponsors Proposed Project, includes noise abatement operational procedures provided by Broward County as specified in Interlocal Agreements. Noise mitigation will be discussed in the Final EIS for the FAA s Preferred Alternative. Alternatives D1 and D2 would not be fully operational by 2012. Page 31
Summary of Analysis (Compatible Land Uses) Page 32 Direct Property Impacts Alternatives B1, B1b, B1c, B4, B5, D1, and D2 would require the acquisition of all or a portion of the Wyndham Fort Lauderdale Airport Hotel. No other off-airport property would be directly impacted by these alternatives. Acquisitions or relocations would be conducted in compliance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act. Land Use / Zoning Changes - Existing comprehensive plans for jurisdictions within the Study Area were reviewed to determine reasonable consistency with land use plans of public agencies responsible for development in the area. None of the runway development alternatives would require land use or zoning changes and all would be considered consistent with land use and comprehensive plans.
Summary of Analysis (No Significant Impacts) There are no significant environmental impacts for the following categories for all alternatives: Noise Sensitive Facilities (includes schools, churches, nursing homes, and libraries within 65+ DNL noise contour) Historic, Architectural, Archeological, Cultural Resources Section 4(f) Lands Hazardous and Solid Waste Coastal Resources Socioeconomic, Environmental Justice, and Children s Health and Safety Issues Secondary (Induced) and Infrastructure Light Emissions and Visual Impacts Natural Resources and Energy Construction Page 33
Summary of Analysis (Impacts Would Not Exceed FAA Thresholds) Impacts would not exceed FAA thresholds of significance for the following categories for all alternatives: Air Quality - Impacts would not exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Water Quality Impacts would not exceed regulatory standards because Best Management Practices (BMPs) in place at the airport are considered to be sufficient to ensure that concentrations of pollutants of concern would not exceed applicable regulatory criteria Page 34
Summary of Analysis (Wetlands, Floodplains) Wetlands - Unavoidable impacts to wetlands would occur with any of the runway development alternatives. Impacts would vary by alternative and be mitigated in accordance with regulatory requirements. Floodplains - The 100-year floodplain would be encroached upon by any of the runway development alternatives, but this would not result in a loss of natural or beneficial floodplain values. Any loss of floodplain storage would be compensated for through airfield stormwater management system design. Page 35
Summary of Analysis (Fish, Wildlife, and Plants) Federally-Listed Species and Critical Habitants None of the runway development alternatives are likely to adversely affect Federally-listed endangered or threatened species, or species of special concern. State-Listed Species - None of the runway development alternatives are likely to adversely affect state-listed endangered or threatened species, or species of special concern. Essential Fish Habitat None of the runway development alternatives would significantly impact Essential Fish Habitat. Page 36
Next Steps Page 37 FAA Public Hearing May 1, 2007 on Draft EIS FAA reviews comments on Draft EIS and prepares responses for inclusion in the Final EIS FAA issues Final EIS which identifies FAA s Preferred Alternative and any potential mitigation FAA issues findings in a Record of Decision (ROD)
FAA Public Workshop & Hearing May 1st 2007 - Tuesday Greater Fort Lauderdale/Broward County Convention Center 1950 Eisenhower Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale Workshop: Ballroom D 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. -Court Reporter will be available at the Workshop from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. to accept individual oral comments Hearing: Ballroom A 6:00 p.m. -Full transcripts will be taken at the Hearing for the Administrative Record Page 38
Submit Written Comments to: Virginia Lane FAA Environmental Specialist Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport EIS FAA Orlando Airports District Office 5950 Hazeltine National Drive Orlando, FL 32822-5024 PHONE: 407-812-6331 FAX: 407-812-6978 FLL-EIScomments@landrum-brown.com Page 39