Note: This is the HTML format for easy reading on line. It is identical to the original except it has been reformatted for viewing on the web. We have not corrected any errors, misstatements, or spelling/grammar mistakes. If you wish to download the actual, printable document, you may do so by right-clicking on this link and saving the file. Note it is a MS-Word 97 format file that has been stored in .zip format. You will need to unzip it to read it. Please note also the electronic version we were able to obtain did not contain either the list of acronyms nor any of the appendices, including the FEIS comment letters from the citizens, and the responses. These will be added as we are able to obtain them and convert them to electronic format.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Southern Region
Atlanta, GA
For
Proposed Runway 5L/23R, Proposed Overnight Express Air Cargo Sorting and Distribution Facility and Associated Development
Greensboro, North Carolina
December 31, 2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RECORD OF DECISION
| I. Introduction |
| II. Background |
| III. Proposed Federal Actions Requested to Support the Preferred Alternative |
| IV. Project Purpose and Need |
| V. Alternatives Analysis |
| VI. The Selected Alternative |
| VII. Public Involvement |
| VIII. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures |
| IX. Mitigation Summary |
| X. Agency Findings |
| XI. Decision and Order |
| XII. List of Acronyms (Note - this part was left out of the electronically published document) |
| Appendix A FEIS Comment Letters and Responses (Note - this part was left out of the electronically published document) |
| Appendix A-1 FEIS Letters Received after the FEIS Review Period (Note - this part was left out of the electronically published document) |
| Appendix B Air and Water Quality Certifications and Local Land Use Consistency (Note - this part was left out of the electronically published document) |
| Appendix C Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement (Note - this part was left out of the electronically published document) |
| Appendix D Summary of Mitigation Program (Note - this part was left out of the electronically published document) |
I. INTRODUCTION
This Record of Decision (ROD) announces final agency determinations and approvals for those Federal actions requested of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) by the Piedmont Triad Airport Authority (PTAA), the Airport Sponsor. These actions are necessary to support the proposed construction and operation of a new parallel 9,000-foot runway 5L/23R; development of an overnight, express air cargo sorting and distribution facility; roadway improvements; navigational aids for the new runway 5L/23R; property acquisition; and relocation of several airport tenant operations at Piedmont Triad International Airport. The Federal Actions are considered in ROD Section III. This ROD completes a thorough and careful environmental and decisionmaking process, including the FAA's public disclosure and review by the FAA decisionmaker of the analyses and impacts described in the November, 2001 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
This ROD has been prepared and issued by the FAA in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. Sections 4321 et.seq.], the implementing regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) [40 CFR Parts 1500-1508] and FAA Orders 1050.1D and 5050.4A. This ROD demonstrates and documents FAA compliance with the several procedural and substantive requirements of aeronautical, environmental, programmatic, and related statutes and regulations that apply to FAA's decision and actions on proposed runway development and airport expansion projects.
The FAA arrived at these determinations and approvals by reviewing the environmental analysis in the FEIS and all other relevant documents that comprise the Administrative Record. The FEIS discloses and evaluates all reasonably foreseeable actions; it does not present or analyze purely hypothetical or speculative situations.
It is the FAA's final determination that the revised 1994 PTIA Airport Layout Plan (ALP) that shows construction of a new 9,000-foot air carrier runway 5L/23R, an air cargo processing facility, and related items is now unconditionally approved (relevant portions of the ALP had previously been conditionally approved). This approval is for a 9,000 foot parallel runway only, and does not approve the 10,000 foot runway depicted on the 1994 ALP. Extension of the approved runway by 1,000 feet, if justified and needed at a later time to meet the runway length requirements of future critical aircraft, would require PTAA to present a new proposal to the FAA. A new Environmental Assessment (EA) or EIS and environmental evaluation would then be required.
The proposed project, which includes the above-described runway as well as associated improvements, is envisioned for construction in two phases. The phases of the project are approved as follows (those portions of the revised ALP that do not relate to this project and that are not mentioned here are not approved):
Phase 1: Phase 1 construction is anticipated to occur between the years 2001 and 2005 and be fully operational in the year 2005. Phase I projects are:
· Construction of a new parallel 9,000-foot by 150-foot Transport-Category runway capable of accommodating Airplane Design Group D-V air carrier aircraft (DC-10). The airfield system complex consists of the runway and taxiway as described FEIS Section 1.2.1; parallel and connecting taxiways; lighting; CAT I/III NAVAIDS; runway safety areas and protection zones, and associated grading, drainage, and utility relocations;
· Extension of Taxiway D;
· Construction of a high speed exit taxiway for Runway 5/23;
· Construction of a 1,450-foot extension of Taxiway K;
· Construction and operation of Phase 1 of the air cargo sorting/distribution facility (including approximately 736,000 square feet of air cargo sorting/distribution building and parking);
· Construction and operation of Phase 1 of the air cargo aircraft parking and cargo ramp (approximately 174,000 square yards);
· Closure and relocation of a 2-mile section of Bryan Boulevard, between Airport Center Road and Old Oak Ridge Road;
· Construction of a new interchange for relocated Bryan Boulevard and Old Oak Ridge Road;
· Construction of one connector taxiway bridge and taxiway over Bryan Boulevard;
· Implementation of air traffic procedures below 3,000 feet above ground level (AGL), and
· Acquisition of approximately 141.29 acres of land.
Phase 2: Phase 2 construction is projected to occur between the years 2005 and 2009 and be fully operational in the year 2009. Phase 2 projects are:
· Construction and operation of Phase 2 of the air cargo sorting/distribution facility (expand the Phase 1 by approximately 509,000 square feet);
· Construction and operation of Phase 2 of the air cargo aircraft parking and air cargo ramp (expansion of the Phase 1 parking/ramp area by approximately 281,000 square yards);
· Extension of the north connector taxiway to the Phase 2 apron area;
· Construction of a second connector taxiway bridge and connector taxiway over Bryan Boulevard;
· Relocation of on-airport rental car service lots; and
· Relocation of two existing on-airport air cargo buildings.
Although future projects other than these are depicted on the conditionally approved ALP, such as a 1,000 foot extension of the new air carrier runway, PTAA has only requested requesting final environmental approval for the projects described above. Potential projects that were not analyzed in this EIS and were not subject to decision in this ROD would require additional environmental analysis if and when the sponsor proposed them for implementation to the FAA.
The aeronautical findings, determinations, and approvals necessary for the FAA to support the proposed project are summarized below:
· Determination of project eligibility for Federal grant-in-aid funds (49 U.S.C. Section 47101, et. seq.) for land acquisition and relocation (49 CFR Part 24), site preparation, runway, taxiway, runway safety area, and other airfield construction, cargo processing facility and related landside development, navigational and landing aids, roadway improvements and environmental mitigation.
· Determination that air quality impacts associated with the proposed new runway and associated development conform to applicable air quality standards under the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. Section 7506, Section 176 (c)(1), and 40 CFR Part 93). (The FAA issued a Final General Conformity Determination on November 16, 2001, which is included in the FEIS, Appendix F).
· Determination that the potential impacts to approximately 23.8 acres of wetlands can be mitigated, and that there would be no undue burden or unusual circumstances barring the Sponsor from obtaining a Section 404 permit for the filling of wetlands.
· Determination that there would be no undue burden or unusual circumstances barring the Sponsor from obtaining a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for stormwater and wastewater discharges (Clean Water Act, Section 402(p), as amended).
· Determination that the proposed new runway conforms to FAA design criteria.
· Approval of protocols for maintaining coordination among sponsor offices, construction personnel, and appropriate FAA program offices, as required, to ensure safety during construction.
· Decisions to develop air traffic control and airspace management procedures to affect the safe and efficient movement of air traffic to and from the proposed new runway. This includes the development of a system for routing arriving and departing traffic and the design, establishment, and publication of standardized flight operations procedures, including instrument approach procedures, standard instrument departure procedures, and new flight procedures into and out of the airport and specifically for the new runway (49 U.S.C. Sections 40103(b) and 44701, and 14 CFR Part 95).
· Approvals for establishment of new instrument landing systems (ILS) and associated approach lighting systems and navigational aids, as appropriate, for the new runway, the existing runways, and the airport as a whole (49 U.S.C. Section 44502(a)(1)).
· Determinations through the aeronautical study process (49 U.S.C. Section 44718 and 14 CFR Part 77), regarding any off-airport obstacles that might obstruct the navigable airspace under established standards and criteria (49 U.S.C. Section 40103(b) and 40113).
· Approval to provide air traffic controller training and updated position responsibilities for new simultaneous approach/departure procedures and head-to-head operations.
· Approval to develop air traffic facility procedures for departure headings, simultaneous approaches, airspace procedures, and position responsibilities.
· Approval to develop a new video map for the new runway and associated airspace.
· Designation of controlled airspace and revised routing (14 CFR Parts 71 and 75).
· Determinations that the proposed project is in conformance, for environmental purposes only, with Federal grant eligibility and other requirements, pursuant to 14 CFR Parts 77, 150, 152, 157, and 169.
· Review and approval of amended Airport Certification Manual (14 CFR Part 139).
· Determinations under 14 CFR Part 157 as to whether the FAA objects to the airport development proposal from an airspace perspective, based on aeronautical studies (49 U.S.C. Section 40113(a)).
· Certification that the proposed facility is reasonably necessary for use in air commerce or for the national defense (49 U.S.C. Section 44502(b)).
· Determinations under 49 U.S.C. Sections 47106 and 47107 pertaining to FAA funding of airport development (including approval of a revised ALP, 49 U.S.C. Section 47107(a)(16), environmental approval (42 U.S.C. Sections 4321-4347, and 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and approvals under various Executive Orders discussed in the ROD.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) was invited by the FAA to participate as a cooperating agency for the FEIS, because PTAA is proposing several roadway projects in its development program that are connected to the proposed runway and associated development projects being constructed and implemented by PTIA.
These connected actions include:
· Closure and relocation of a 2-mile section of Bryan Boulevard, between Airport Center Road and Old Oak Ridge Road;
· Relocation of a portion of Old Oak Ridge Road;
· Construction of a new interchange for relocated Bryan Boulevard and Old Oak Ridge Road;
· Modification of existing North Triad Boulevard and South Triad Boulevard to accommodate one-way traffic to and from the airport, and
· Construction of two bridges over Bryan Boulevard for the connector taxiways.
The FHWA plans to adopt the FAA's FEIS and issue its own ROD, in compliance with NEPA regulations. Specific elements of the FHWA approval actions include:
· FHWA approval of the surface transportation developments which would include interchange and arterial roadway improvements to provide increased vehicular capacity, improve the Level of Service and safety as well improve system linkage within the area surrounding PTIA.
· FHWA Federal environmental approval necessary to proceed with the processing of an application for Federal funding for those development proposals qualifying under 42 USC 433 (2)(c) and 23 CFR 771. If approved through the environmental review process, the proposed surface transportation projects would be eligible for and receive (if available) both Federal and NCDOT funding.
· FHWA determination that the proposed surface transportation projects would meet the Clean Air Act and Transportation Conformity requirements. (The FAA issued a Final General Conformity Determination on November 16, 2001, which is included in the FEIS, Appendix F, and which contains the FHWA's Transportation Conformity Determination).
II. BACKGROUND
Piedmont Triad International Airport (PTIA), Greensboro, North Carolina, is designated as a small airport hub in the Triad region. The airport accounts for less than 0.25 percent of total revenue passengers enplaned by U.S. air carriers. In 1999, five commercial air carriers, six regional airlines, and four air cargo airlines served the airport.
Over the years, the PTAA has developed numerous plans regarding the expansion of PTIA and how to best meet the aviation needs of the Triad area. Although the development plan shown on the 1994 PTIA ALP (and examined in the FEIS) is the culmination of the most recent planning effort accomplished by PTAA, the proposed parallel runway and land area for cargo facility development have been depicted on the PTIA ALP in the currently proposed locations since the publication of the 1968 Master Plan.
In 1994, the PTAA approved an update to the PTIA's Master Plan. The study consisted of an examination of aviation forecasts, demand capacity analysis and facility requirements. Development projects were recommended to meet the future landside, and airside needs of PTIA. These recommendations included:
· An extension of Runway 14/32 to a length of 9,000 feet;
· The addition of high speed taxiways to Runway 5/23;
· Land acquisition in connection with runway extensions;
· The extension of Runway 5/23 to a length of 13,000 feet;
· The development of a new 10,000 foot runway parallel to existing Runway 5/23, and
· Air carrier terminal/ramp expansions.
The 1994 Master Plan Update was adopted by the PTAA in 1995 and subsequently conditionally approved by the FAA. Of the above listed projects, only land acquisition activities have been accomplished to-date.
In 1997, the PTAA initiated a study to update the 1994 Master Plan Update and ALP. That study has not been completed. In November 1997, FedEx issued its request for proposals for the development of its proposed Mid-Atlantic Hub. In April 1998, FedEx selected PTIA as the site of its proposed new Air Cargo Mid-Atlantic Hub. As part of its proposal package, the PTAA proposed to implement airside, landside and surface transportation improvements to PTIA intended to enable the airport to effectively meet the estimated levels of activity associated with the operational requirements of the proposed air cargo facility.
PTAA has proposed to update its ALP to depict future projects in addition to those associated with the proposed air cargo facility. The current PTIA ALP resulting from this effort depicts a new 10,000-foot runway, which consists of an initial 9,000-foot runway with a potential future 1,000-foot extension. The PTAA is requesting FAA unconditional approval of only the 9,000-foot transport category runway at this time. Construction of the 1,000-foot extension, if justified and needed at a later time to meet the runway length requirements of future critical aircraft, would require a new proposal to the FAA, and environmental evaluation. PTAA has told the FAA that it does not currently envision a need for a runway extension within the timeframe evaluated in this EIS.
III. PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTIONS REQUESTED TO SUPPORT THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The Airport Sponsor has requested certain Federal actions to be taken to support the Preferred Alternative, which is Alternative W1-A1 (see FEIS Section 3.5 and FEIS Figure 3.4-5). FEIS Section 2.3 summarizes the actions requested to support the Preferred Alternative. Other than the FAA actions approved in this ROD, separate FHWA and other Federal or state actions and associated determinations will be made by the appropriate agencies in accordance with established procedures (see below).
The Federal actions required of the FAA are:
· The approval of revisions to the ALP for construction and operation of the proposed Runway 5L/23R and associated improvements, listed in full in FEIS Section 3.4.5;
· The federal environmental approval necessary to proceed with processing of an application for Federal funding for those development items qualifying under the former Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended and recodified at 49 U.S.C. 47101 et seq.; and
· The approval of associated safety actions.
Several Federal permits would be required to implement the proposed project. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is responsible for permitting processes under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (PTAA has begun this permitting process). The State of North Carolina is responsible for permitting processes under 33 U.S.C. Section 1342, the federal statute which governs the National Pollutant Discharge System (NPDES) permit program for stormwater and wastewater discharges (PTAA has also begun this permitting process).
The Federal Highway Administration, a cooperating agency for the FEIS, will prepare a separate ROD for the relocation and construction of roads associated with this project.
IV. PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED
The identification of a proposed project's purpose and the need to fulfill that purpose in a particular way are a necessary prerequisite to federal decisionmaking and to the identification of reasonable alternatives. The purpose of the project, from the federal perspective, is to support growth and development of PTIA as a cargo hub, as articulated below.
The FAA is charged with implementing Federal policies under its statutory authorities. National transportation policy was established by section 502(b) of the 1990 amendments to the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, codified at 49 U.S.C. section 47101(b). Specific portions of 49 U.S.C. section 47101(a) are consistent with the proposed project at PTIA:
Section (4): That appropriate provisions should be made to make the development and enhancement of cargo hubs easier;
Section (5): To encourage the development of intermodal connections on airport property between aeronautical and other transportation modes and systems to serve air transportation passengers and cargo efficiently and effectively and promote economic development; and
Section (7): That airport construction and improvement projects that increase the capacity of facilities to accommodate passenger and cargo traffic be undertaken to the maximum feasible extent so that safety and efficiency increase and delays decrease.
Specific to air cargo, 49 U.S.C. Section 40101(b) further directs the Secretary of Transportation to consider the following to be in the public interest as to air cargo transportation:
(1) Encouraging and developing an expedited all-cargo air transportation system provided by private enterprise an responsive to: (A) The present and future needs of shippers; (B) The commerce of the United States; and (C) the national defense.
(2) Encouraging and developing an integrated transportation system relying on competitive market forces to decide the extent, variety, quality, and price of services provided.
Existing and projected demand for express overnight air cargo service within the eastern United States are at the heart of the proposed air cargo hub. The development of such a hub at PTIA is consistent with industry and PTAA expectations that traditional air cargo traffic is increasing, and that overnight express air cargo demand will continue to increase. This expectation has not changed in light of the recent national emergency (see "Conclusion" below for further discussion).
To meet its delivery demands, FedEx uses a specific pattern. As FedEx describes it, each of its air cargo hubs receives, sorts, and consolidates parcels for redistribution to other airport destinations. This process is completed within an established timeframe, called "the sort". To guarantee delivery to its customers, FedEx uses minimum departure times from its hubs, during which each cargo aircraft departure sequence must be completed (push back from gate, ground taxi, runway departure, or "push-back-to-wheels- up"). There is a very short window of time in which this must occur: at PTIA, the "push-back-to-wheels-up" time ranges from five to fifteen minutes, varying with aircraft type. According to FedEx, when the timeframe is exceeded, by even a single aircraft delayed at the gate or held up on the runway, up to 10,000 packages may be delayed. The results are failed on-time delivery schedules, increased package delivery costs, and unserved customers.
In 1997, FedEx announced its intent to locate an overnight air cargo hub in the southeast, for its eastern overnight cargo market. PTAA decided to compete for the hub, in keeping with its stated interest in meeting the air transportation needs of the Piedmont Triad region and becoming a major economic generator there.
PTAA was one of several airports that responded to FedEx's Request for Proposal (RFP), issued in November 1997 to air carrier certificated airports in North and South Carolina. (Raleigh Durham International Airport, Charlotte International Airport, North Carolina Global Transpark, Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport, and Columbia Metropolitan Airport also responded to the FedEx RFP). After a detailed evaluation of potential locations, FedEx selected PTIA as its development site, in 1998.
FedEx stated that PTIA was its choice because PTIA outranked the other airports in what was most important to FedEx: airport operations (e.g., potential for parallel runway airfield configuration with head-to-head operational capability, lack of competitive air carrier traffic during peak runway use periods); available site (e.g., adequate space, site topography, environmental profile, compatibility with required infrastructure support services, including easy interstate access); and financial assessment (facility, salary, and other expenses, as well as tax or other incentives) (see FEIS Section 2.2.2.2, Purpose and Need, which describes the FedEx selection process in more detail).
Once FedEx made its choice, PTAA proposed to the FAA a series of elements needed to site an overnight air cargo hub at PTIA, chief among them a new air carrier runway (see below). PTAA asked the FAA to take the federal actions necessary to support the proposal. PTAA identified airside and landside features, not yet in existence at PTIA, that would be needed to fulfill the requirements of the air cargo hub described by FedEx. These features, which resulted in the specific proposal PTAA presented to the FAA, are described next.
· Elements Needed for Hub Operation
PTAA's proposal was designed to accommodate the unique additional demand presented by an overnight express air cargo hub. The proposal draws on industry expectations that demand for overnight express air cargo service will continue to increase. This premise has not changed in light of recent national events, as discussed in more detail in the "Conclusion" of this section.
The proposed improvements affected airside, landside, and surface transportation facilities. The nighttime cargo hub capacity needed by a major air cargo carrier does not now exist at PTIA. Therefore, the improvements were devised to provide the capacity needed for an efficient nighttime hub, without impeding, and perhaps assisting, existing operations.
With the FedEx RFP and other information provided to it, PTAA determined that these were the minimum airside and landside facility requirements:
· Lack of competition for runway use during nighttime cargo aircraft arrival and departure times
· Parallel air-carrier length runways
· Ability to accommodate head-to-head aircraft operation (arrivals from and departures to the same direction)
· Space sufficient for a large cargo processing facility and aircraft apron
· Ideal cargo processing facility site between parallel runways
· Good interstate highway access
· No major environmental problems
To meet these requirements, PTAA established that the following elements would be necessary:
· An airfield with a redundant transport category runway system, to include an additional minimum 9,000 foot runway, with back up capability as to the existing 10,000 foot runway
· A parallel location for the new runway, to facilitate dual simultaneous independent and efficient head-to-head operations
· A 300-contiguous acre landside site, of sufficient size, geometry, and location relative to the runways, to allow package processing in a flexible and efficient manner.
Through these improvements, PTAA seeks to support 48 daily operations (24 daily arrivals and 24 daily departures) within Phase 1 and 126 daily operations (63 daily arrivals and 63 departures) within Phase 2. Through the associated landside development, PTAA seeks to support a capacity to process approximately 86,000 packages per night by 2005; 104,000 packages by 2009; and 268,380 by 2019, all between 10:00p.m and 7:00a.m the following morning.
The following sections explain how and why the three proposed improvements would specifically support the operating requirements of an air cargo hub.
· Provide a Redundant 9,000-foot Transport-Category Runway System
(1) Runway Length and Critical Aircraft
As described in FEIS Section 1.2.3, PTIA currently has two runways in a perpendicular orientation. Runway 5/23, 10,001-feet long and 150-wide, is primarily used by air carrier aircraft and is PTIA's primary runway. Runway 14/32 is 6,380-feet long and 150-feet wide, and is used primarily by regional air carrier and general aviation aircraft. The majority of anticipated cargo hub operations are expected to occur on a primary runway, to and from destinations between 500 and 1,000 nautical miles distant.
FAA's guidelines for runway length requirements (FAA AC 5090.3B, Paragraph 306) are based on the designated critical aircraft and load factors (weight of the cargo component of the aircraft) operating at or forecast to operate at an airport facility. The number of aircraft operations designated by FAA for runway length requirements is 250 annual departures and/or 500 total annual operations by the critical aircraft. With the introduction of the overnight air cargo hub at PTIA, the critical aircraft for any future runway design would be the DC-10, or similar type aircraft, because this aircraft type requires a longer take-off run (longer runway) to reach its destination city with a maximum payload capacity and this is the largest aircraft an air cargo carrier would currently anticipate using.
Coordination with the air cargo operator indicated that, based on its anticipated air cargo load factor, a runway length of 9,000 feet would accommodate the runway length requirements of its DC-10, loaded for the PTIA to San Juan delivery route. Based on proposed aircraft and load requirements, FAA runway length requirement guidelines were applied. PTAA determined that the under those guidelines, the critical aircraft would be accommodated by a 9,000 foot runway.
PTAA therefore determined that 9,000 feet was the necessary length, and that a shorter runway would not support a major cargo operation.
(2) Redundancy, or Back-Up Runway
Because of the nature of the air transportation industry, air carrier aircraft must be able to arrive and depart an airport facility without unnecessary interruption or delay. To prevent unnecessary breaks in commercial service, PTAA proposed a new runway to complement the existing airfield configuration. The new runway would be fully capable of accommodating the required runway length and instrumentation requirements of the Category I/III Instrument Landing Systems (CAT I/CAT III) for the existing and future air carrier/air cargo aircraft fleet at PTIA, including the critical aircraft described above.
A backup air carrier runway, or "redundancy", was identified as a requirement for an air cargo hub because without a second runway of the same minimum required length, PTAA could not assure a cargo carrier of runway availability for short turnaround time operations. With only one air carrier runway, potential on-runway maintenance, aircraft incidents, bad weather, or other causes could cause temporary closure of that runway, preventing cargo deliveries from going forward.
This capability would be particularly important during periods of adverse weather conditions (Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC), which occur approximately 15 percent of the year at PTIA). This would also be critical to providing redundant back-up capabilities for all airport users requiring a 9,000-foot-long runway when the parallel runway was closed due to maintenance and/or incidents.
Therefore, a second 9,000-foot transport category runway at PTIA was proposed, to provide back-up for all aircraft during scheduled runway maintenance operations on existing Runway 5/23 (overlays, repairs, aircraft rescue and fire fighting exercises, snow removal, etc.) and unforeseen emergencies (incidents). With a redundant runway, closures could occur without hindering or shutting down overall airport operations.
· Provide the Ability to Conduct Dual Simultaneous Independent Operations and Efficient Head-to-Head Operations to Meet Operational Requirements in Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) or Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC)
PTAA assumed a specific number of nighttime hub operations: 24 nightly arrivals and 24 nightly departures by 2005; and 63 nightly arrivals and 63 nightly departures by 2009, with short turnaround times. The estimation of the number of operations per phase was provided to PTAA by FedEx, based on FedEx's business plan and anticipated sorting/distribution capacity for the proposed Mid-Atlantic Hub.
The existing two-runway layout at PTIA could not accommodate these numbers, because a perpendicular layout precludes both dual simultaneous independent runway use and a head-to-head operational scenario that could be safely and efficiently managed by FAA Air Traffic Control (ATC). In addition, the perpendicular runway layout would require increased taxi times to and from the proposed air cargo sorting/distribution facility located in the northeast quadrant of PTIA. Without the ability to support dual simultaneous independent operations and efficient head-to-head operations, PTAA concluded that it could not provide the airfield capacity to satisfy air cargo hub requirements.
Two analytical tools supported this conclusion: "Annual Service Volume" (ASV) analysis and "Total Airport and Airspace Modeling" (TAAM). Each of these tools models airfield capacity, and each was used in connection with this EIS to evaluate existing, short-term (2005) and long-term (2019) capacity at PTIA. Each analysis was conducted to determine capacity with and without an air cargo hub. Details of the analyses are contained in the FEIS Sections 2.2.3 and 3.2.1.3.
The FAA determined that ASV was not an appropriate measure of required airfield capacity for an overnight air cargo hub situation, because it did not account for the time-critical arrival and departure stream characteristics of an overnight, air cargo hub operation. An alternative method of assessing airfield capacity was required. It was decided to use the TAAM instead, which is a commercially available, non-proprietary, simulation software package, to compare the existing (perpendicular) and proposed (parallel) runway configurations at PTIA.
The results favored the parallel runway configuration, for several reasons. First, the air cargo carrier would be able to meet the quick turnaround requirements (a stated minimum "push-back-to-wheels-up" departure time) over the existing perpendicular runway orientation. This is because the proximity of the proposed hub facility to the runway ends in a parallel runway configuration greatly improves taxi-time efficiency (i.e. on arrival, aircraft land on the Runway 5R and 5L ends, decelerate, and taxi directly into the sorting/distribution facility; on departure, aircraft taxi out of the sorting/distribution facility directly to the ends of Runways 23R and 23L and can then begin their take-off roll). Second, the parallel runway system would accommodate a centrally located hub facility, which would facilitate very efficient head-to-head operations. Third, the availability of parallel runways would permit conduct dual, simultaneous independent all-weather arrivals and dual simultaneous departures during peak departure periods. The latter would allow the projected number of flights to operate in and out of PTIA in the shortest possible time.
Results from the TAAMS analysis indicated that without the use of the midfield hub and parallel runway system, the air cargo operator would not meet most of its time critical operational requirements at PTIA.
· Provide a Development Site Meeting the Operational Needs of an Air Cargo Sorting and Distribution Facility (Mid-Atlantic Hub)
In addition to meeting the airside needs of the air cargo carrier discussed above, an air cargo hub facility site itself must be able to accommodate the air cargo carrier's operational needs. The background information on facility specifications and site requirements for the sorting/distribution facility proposed by PTAA was provided by FedEx. FedEx determined that meeting its operational goals entails the careful integration of airside, landside, and sorting facilities that, by the unique nature of hub requirements, has limited flexibility in the variation of layout, orientation, and proximity to airside and surface transportation facilities. To meet its requirements, FedEx proposed to PTAA, at minimum, an on-airport development site having the following characteristics:
· Approximately 300 contiguous acres;
· Rectangular shape to accommodate airside, landside, air cargo sorting/distribution facility and surface transportation integration requirements;
· Close to existing and future planned airside, landside and surface transportation systems;
· Located between parallel runways to provide optimal operational efficiency for aircraft arrival and departure operations; and
· Constructable such that the first phase of the facility would be operational by the year 2004.
The development of an air cargo hub facility at PTIA would require ample on-airport land areas that could be co-located with existing and future air and surface transportation infrastructure. FedEx has indicated that simultaneous operations by numerous cargo aircraft, ground support, loading, and surface vehicles must occur in a highly orchestrated manner within pre-defined time periods that are predicated on national and international next-day delivery schedules at the various distribution centers.
Because of this logistical dependency, the first outbound departure to a destination city cannot occur until the last parcels aboard the last inbound aircraft have been unloaded, sorted, and reloaded aboard other outbound aircraft destined for various distribution stations. Therefore, the PTAA states that there is a critical need for the particular location, size and orientation of the air cargo sorting/distribution site that meets the air cargo carrier's operational requirements.
Based on its business plan for the development of the proposed air cargo hub at PTIA, FedEx determined that the first phase of the sorting and distribution facility must be constructed and fully operational by early 2005. To meet this goal, the sorting and distribution facility must be fully constructed by mid-2004, which would allow for a six-month personnel training and equipment "break-in" period.
PTAA submitted a location and specification for a package processing facility that it believed would meet the specific needs FedEx presented.
· Conclusion
The events of September 11, 2001 have affected our nation in many ways. All U.S. airlines and airports were prevented from operating for three days, as the FAA and other government agencies addressed the need for immediate increases in airport and airline security. In an unprecedented measure, the U.S. government authorized a $15 billion recovery program to ensure the ongoing viability of our airlines and national transportation network.
As a result of the FAA-mandated national groundstop and in the aftermath of the tragedies in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania, the FAA reevaluated PTAA's proposal. It was agreed that while the events of September 11th have created new priorities, these events should not lead to the suspension of planning efforts to further national transportation goals. It is useful to recall that our air transportation system has dealt with serious disruptions in the past, due to events such as economic recessions and threats of terrorism caused by the Gulf War and the destruction of Pan Am 103. In all previous cases, the U.S. air transportation industry has rebounded, and long-term growth in air traffic has resumed.
In considering the proposed project at PTIA and in light of the aftermath of September 11th, the FAA reviewed the purpose and need for the proposed project presented in the FEIS. The FAA concluded that in light of national air cargo transportation policy, the sponsor's request to go forward retains its vitality. The FAA also concluded that the assumptions and analyses pertaining to air cargo operations are essentially unchanged. The proposal for a new runway to support an air cargo hub remains viable, even in light of our national challenges.
The FAA has therefore determined that the purpose of the proposed project is consistent with FAA's statutory mission. It is consistent with FAA objectives to support cargo hubs specifically, as well as to support locally sponsored projects generally, as long as they fulfill national transportation public policy and are otherwise acceptable and consistent with other FAA mandates.
As described below, the PTAA's proposal represents one potential alternative toward meeting the operational requirements of an air cargo hub. The FAA identified and evaluated the potential of other reasonable alternatives to supporting the project. These alternatives, which were investigated, disclosed and analyzed in the FEIS, Chapter 3, are discussed in the following section.
V. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
In addition to its responsibility to ensure environmental integrity through compliance with NEPA and other applicable environmental statutes, the FAA is responsible for meeting its statutory charter. By statute, the FAA is charged with encouraging the development of civil aeronautics and safety of air commerce in the United States (49 U.S.C. 40104). The FAA is also charged with following the congressional policy declaration that airport construction and improvement projects that increase the capacity of facilities to accommodate passenger and cargo traffic should be undertaken to the maximum feasible extent, so that safety and efficiency increase and delays decrease (49 U.S.C. 47101(a)(7). The FAA considered all of the above responsibilities and charters when it selected and evaluated the project alternatives described in the EIS.
Various alternatives were evaluated and compared for potential impacts, to determine whether there was an alternative superior to that proposed by the PTAA. Alternatives, including PTAA's, were also evaluated to determine whether impacts would result that warranted disapproval of the Federal actions, including potential eligibility for federal funds for the project, discussed in this ROD.
During the development of the EIS, the FAA independently evaluated project recommendations from previous and ongoing PTIA Master Plan studies. Additionally, in determining the best way to meet the needs identified in FEIS Section 2.2, the FAA also identified off-site and on-site alternatives to the sponsor's proposal.
Off-Site Alternatives
· Use of other transportation modes,
· Development of a new airport, and
· Use of other existing airports within the Air Cargo Service Region.
On-Site Alternatives
· No Action,
· PTAA's proposed project,
· Citizen's Scoping Alternative, an alternative plan submitted by interested citizens during the Public Scoping process; and,
· Various parallel runway configurations and sorting/distribution facility locations.
During this exploration, all reasonable, feasible, practicable and prudent alternatives were carefully examined. These alternatives ranged from the "No Action Alternative", to the Airport Sponsor's proposed project, to an alternative submitted by interested citizens during Public Scoping, to on-site development alternatives that included eight runway and five sorting/distribution facility development configurations.
After analysis of all of the alternatives, the FAA determined that there were six viable alternatives to the proposed project. These alternatives needed to be subjected to detailed environmental analysis in the FEIS. These included the "No Action Alternative", and five new parallel runway development alternatives. The following further describes both the off- and on-site alternatives that were evaluated in the FEIS.
Off-Site Alternative: Use of Other Modes of Transportation
Other modes of transportation were considered early in the EIS process but were not retained for further consideration. Other modes of transportation include the use of roadway, conventional rail, and high-speed rail as an alternative to the proposed project. FAA determined that other modes of transportation do not provide a reasonable fit with the proposed project objectives.
As presented to the FAA, the proposed air cargo hub requires fast, efficient movement of goods over a broad geographic region. While another mode might provide desirable surface transportation services, the only mode of transportation that can best meet the combined need for range and speed is air transportation. Therefore, other modes were eliminated because they could not provide the facilities and delivery times required for overnight cargo/package operations.
Off-Site Alternative: Development of a New Airport
This alternative was not considered to be practicable because it would not meet the requirements of the proposed project. Development of a new airport would require substantial investment and time to provide the infrastructure required supporting a major airport needed for an air cargo hub. Construction of a new airport could not be accomplished in the time frame needed for a overnight air cargo sorting/distribution facility to become operational. The issues associated with development of a new airport include:
· Operational authority to move aircraft operations;
· The development cost of the new facility;
· Development cost of new infrastructure;
· Accessibility to highways and mass transit facilities;
· Availability of a sponsoring entity (such as a local government or airport authority);
· Community acceptance;
· Financial feasibility;
· Potential environmental impact;
· Potential airspace conflicts; and
· Willingness of the hub operator to locate there.
Additionally, the air cargo hub operator has not expressed an interest in developing the overnight, express air cargo hub at a new airport site. FAA has determined that construction/development of a new airport, as an alternative to the proposed project at PTIA, is not a reasonable alternative and therefore has not retained this alternative for further analysis in the EIS.
Off-Site Alternative: Use of Other Airports
With the FedEx announcement that PTIA was its choice for development of a mid-Atlantic air cargo hub, no other airport was expected to present a proposal to the FAA to construct or operate a facility. The FAA would have considered proposals from other airport sponsors under NEPA, had they been presented, but PTAA was the only airport sponsor in the region who submitted a proposal to develop an air cargo hub at its airport. FAA authority does not extend to directing either a cargo operator or an airport sponsor to locate or propose a project at a particular site. The FAA was therefore unable to conclude that the purpose of the project was to locate an air cargo hub at a random location in the southeast.
In light of these and other considerations discussed in FEIS Section 2.2, including applicable Congressional policy (e.g., 49 U.S.C. § 47101(a)(4), (5), and (7)), the FAA concluded that the purpose and need for the proposed project had to include a designation of PTIA as the specific location for the cargo hub development. The FAA highlighted this criterion in the Level 1 alternatives screening process (described in detail in FEIS Section 3.2.1).
Although no airport other than PTIA could meet this key purpose and need criterion, the FAA conducted an analysis of several off-site alternatives. The analysis provided general information and allowed the FAA to refine its evaluation of how the on-site (PTIA) project alternatives might be able to meet the proposed project specifications. The off-site alternatives included the use of existing general aviation airports, and the use of other, existing air carrier airports that responded to FedEx's RFP to develop its Mid-Atlantic hub. The preliminary assessment of these alternatives showed that some of these airports could accommodate some of the physical requirements associated with the proposed project. The assessment also suggested that some of the airports would have to work through complicated construction, relocation, cost, and environmental problems, if they were to present proposals to the FAA that were similar in scope to what PTAA submitted (see FEIS Section 3.3.1.2).
Because none of the existing airports considered met the key Level 1 criterion, the FAA determined that there were no existing airports that represented reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. Therefore, existing airports were not retained for further consideration in the FEIS.
On-Site Alternative: No Action Alternative
The FAA considered the possibility of no airside, landside or surface transportation improvements at PTIA. Although the No Action Alternative would be the least disruptive in terms of development impacts, it would not provide redundant 9,000-foot transport category runways, or the ability to conduct dual simultaneous independent IFR operations or efficient head-to-head operations, or a sorting/distribution facility site that met the operational requirements of the air cargo hub.
As required by NEPA, this alternative was retained for detailed environmental analysis under all NEPA environmental impact categories, for baseline comparative purposes, and to disclose potential direct and cumulative impacts if the project were not built.
On-Site Alternative: Parallel Runway and Sorting/Distribution Facility Alternatives
Absent any practical way to use other modes of transportation, use of another existing airport or development of a new airport, the only remaining alternatives were limited to improving or not improving the airfield and landside facilities at PTIA.
There were more than 40 airfield/landside alternatives. The evaluation of these varying airfield alternatives was conducted using a two-level evaluation process. The two levels were formulated to focus on the purpose and need for the proposed project and the reasonableness of the alternatives. As the alternatives evaluation process proceeded through the first level, the alternatives that did not meet the initial purpose and need criteria were eliminated from further evaluation.
Level 1 Analysis
The first level analysis evaluated whether the various alternatives met the following purposes and need criteria for the proposed project:
· Support an air cargo hub at PTIA
· An airfield with a redundant transport category runway system, with a 9,000 foot runway, to back up the existing 10,000 foot runway
· A location for the new runway that would facilitate dual simultaneous independent IFR and efficient head-to-head operations, with backup runway capability
· A 300-contiguous acre sorting/distribution facility site, of sufficient size, geometry, and location relative to the runways, to allow package processing in a flexible and efficient manner.
Alternatives that were not retained because they did not meet the purpose and need criteria included the following:
· The development of a new airport;
· The use/expansion of other existing airports; and,
· A total of 36 runway/sorting and distribution facility site alternatives and one alternative submitted by interested citizens during the Public Scoping process (see FEIS Section 3.3.2 for a detailed evaluation of these alternatives).
The five on-site runway development alternatives that had the potential to satisfy the project purpose and need included the following:
Level 1 Retained Alternative: Alternative W2-A
This alternative consists of a new 9,000-foot Transport Category Runway located 5,488 feet west of and parallel to existing Runway 5/23; extension of Taxiway D; construction and operation of Phases 1 and 2 of the air cargo sorting and distribution facility (Mid- Atlantic hub) located in the northeast quadrant of the airport; construction of a tunnel for Bryan Boulevard under the proposed parallel runway; construction of two connector taxiway bridges over Bryan Boulevard; land acquisition; construction of a new interchange for Bryan Boulevard and Old Oak Ridge Road, and realignment of a portion of Old Oak Ridge Road.
Level 1 Retained Alternative: Alternative W3-A
This alternative consists of a new 9,000-foot Transport Category Runway located 5,488 feet west of and parallel to, existing, Runway 5/23; extension of Taxiway D; construction and operation of Phases 1 and 2 of the air cargo sorting and distribution facility; construction of a tunnel for Bryan Boulevard under the proposed parallel runway; construction of two connector taxiway bridges over Bryan Boulevard; land acquisition; construction of a new interchange for Bryan Boulevard and Old Oak Ridge Road, and realignment of a portion of Old Oak Ridge Road. Under this alternative, the runway/taxiway system is shifted 1,032 feet to the southwest along the runway centerline when compared to Alternative W2-A.
Level 1 Retained Alternative: Alternative N-D
Alternative N-D consists of the extension of existing Runway 14/32 by 2,620 feet; one new parallel Runway 14L/32R, 9,000 feet long and located 7,630 feet north of existing Runway 14/32; construction and operation of Phases 1 and 2 of the air cargo sorting and distribution facility west of PTIA; construction of a tunnel for Bryan Boulevard; construction of two connector taxiway bridges; land acquisition: construction of a new interchange for Bryan Boulevard and Old Oak Ridge Road, and realignment of a portion of Old Oak Ridge Road.
Level 1 Retained Alternative: Alternative W1-A1
This alternative consists of one new Transport Category Runway 5L/23R, 9,000 feet long and located 5,088 feet west and parallel of existing Runway 5R/23L; extension of Taxiway D; construction and operation of Phases 1 and 2 of an air cargo sorting and distribution facility; relocation of a 2 mile segment of Bryan Boulevard; land acquisition; a new interchange at Old Oak Ridge Road and relocated Bryan Boulevard, and the relocation of a portion of Old Oak Ridge Road.
Level 1 Retained Alternative: Alternative N-E
Alternative N-E consists of the extension of existing Runway 14/32 by 2,620 feet; one new parallel Runway 14L/32R, 9,000 feet long and located 7,630 feet north of existing Runway 14/32; construction and operation of Phases 1 and 2 of the air cargo sorting and distribution facility east of PTIA; construction of a tunnel for Bryan Boulevard; land acquisition; construction of a new interchange for Bryan Boulevard and Old Oak Ridge Road, and realignment of a portion of Old Oak Ridge Road.
Summary
Each of the above five development alternatives could meet the basic purpose and need criteria, including the capability to accommodate dual simultaneous independent IFR and efficient head to head operations.
Level 2 Analysis
All of the above runway development alternatives were evaluated in the second level of analysis. This level used the following criteria:
· Impacts on existing infrastructure;
· Property acquisition required;
· Number residential and business relocations;
· Comparative cost considerations associated with infrastructure impacts, property acquisition, induced relocations of residences and businesses; and
· Potential environmental impacts.
Summary
All five runway development alternatives would result in a similar magnitude of development impacts, with the exception of required property acquisition and relocations: Alternatives N-D and N-E would require more property acquisitions and relocations than Alternatives W2-A, W3-A and W1-A1, related to noise impacts. All five alternatives would also result in a similar magnitude of environmental impacts, with the exception of noise impacts: a larger percentage of the population would experience a DNL 1.5 dBA increase in noise levels under Alternatives N-D and N-E.
Conclusion
After the second level of analysis, all five alternatives were retained. Table 3.4-1 of the FEIS summarizes the factors applied to all the retained alternatives. The Table compares operational, construction, and financial feasibility criteria, as well as environmental consequences. These alternatives are also graphically depicted in FEIS Chapter 3. All were deemed reasonable alternatives and were candidates for detailed environmental impact analysis.
Each of these five alternatives was therefore analyzed in detail in the FEIS, in all NEPA impact categories, for both Phases 1 and 2 of the proposed project (see FEIS Chapter 4 for detailed discussion of the existing environment, and FEIS Chapter 5 for detailed presentation of the environmental impacts).
Agency's Preferred Alternative
As discussed in FEIS Section 3.5 and in more detail below, the FAA selected Alternative W1-A1 as its preferred alternative. This alternative consists of construction of a 9,000-foot transport category runway parallel to the existing Runway 5/23, which provides the ability to conduct dual simultaneous independent IFR operations and efficient head-to-head operations; and construction of the sorting and distribution facility in the northeast quadrant of PTIA, adjacent to Old Oak Ridge Road (see FEIS Figure 3.4-5).
VI. THE SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
Sponsor's Preferred Alternative
The Sponsor originally sought approval to construct Alternative W2-A. However, on further consideration following review of the DEIS, PTAA found that compared to Alternative W2-A, Alternative W1-A1 would fulfill the purpose and need for the proposed project and would result in fewer environmental impacts to wetlands and floodplains. Therefore, PTAA has determined that its Preferred Alternative for the development of PTIA is Alternative W1-A1.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
As required by the CEQ (40 CFR Part 1502.14(e)), a lead agency must identify its preferred alternative in the FEIS and must identify the environmentally preferable alternative (40 CFR Part 1505.2(b)) in its Record of Decision. The environmentally preferable alternative is the alternative which best promotes the national environmental policies incorporated in Section 101 of NEPA. In general, this would be the alternative resulting in the least adverse impacts to the human environment and which best protects natural and cultural resources.
As discussed in the FEIS, out of all of the alternatives evaluated by the FAA during the EIS process, the No Action Alternative, which involves no construction or development of facilities, would result in the least environmental impact. However, the No Action Alternative fails to meet the purpose and need for the proposed project at PTIA as identified in FEIS Chapter 2. Therefore, although the No Action Alternative results in fewer environmental impacts, it is not considered a reasonable alternative to the proposed project. The FAA did not select No Action as its Preferred Alternative. Detailed comparisons of other alternatives with the No Action Alternative are included throughout FEIS Chapter 5.
FAA's Selected Alternative
As summarized in the previous section and discussed in Chapter 3, Alternatives, of the FEIS, the FAA concluded that there were five reasonable alternatives, including the sponsor's preference, Alternative W1-A1. Each of these warranted detailed study. The FAA has now completed that detailed environmental review and all necessary steps under NEPA, including:
· Careful consideration of alternatives and their ability to satisfy the identified purpose and need for the proposed project;
· Evaluation of the potential impacts of each of the retained alternatives, and
· Review and consideration of public testimony, of comments submitted in response to the DEIS and FEIS, and of coordination with Federal, state, and local agencies.
In selecting its preferred alternative, the FAA considered the sponsor's preference but also evaluated each of the retained alternatives independent of that preference. During the FAA's review process, it became clear that of the five build alternatives that met the purpose and need for the project, Alternative W1-A1 would result in the least overall impacts to wetland resources.
For example, compared to the other "W" alternatives, W1-A1 overall and the new taxiway crossing associated with it were placed to cross the Brush Creek Tributary wetlands at their narrowest part. Compared to the other "W" alternatives, W1-A1 is also located further to the southwest, to minimize impacts on the Brush Creek wetlands north of Bryan Boulevard (see FEIS, page 3-10).
In addition, Alternative W1-A1 produces fewer floodplain impacts, compared to all alternatives except Alternative W3-A. The roadway improvements associated with Alternative W1-A1 would result in the greatest short- and long-term operational benefits to the PTIA area when compared to the other alternatives.
As to noise impacts, Alternative W2-A would affect a slightly smaller number of people than Alternative W1-A1, but with the significant advantage that Alternative W1-A1 provided as to wetlands and floodplains impact, the noise impact difference between these two alternatives was considered too slight to dislodge Alternative W1-A1 from its "Preferred Alternative" designation (see FEIS Sections 5.1 and 5.2).
In most of the other environmental impact categories, Alternative W1-A1 would result in impacts comparable to all of the "W" alternatives, but significantly lower than the "N" alternatives.
Both the FEIS Executive Summary and the FEIS document contain a table summarizing the comparison of alternatives (Table S-2 in the Executive Summary and Table 3.4-1 in the FEIS, Chapter 3).
Based on the comparison of environmental impacts, particularly in the critical wetlands category, as well as financial feasibility and operational considerations, the FAA selected Alternative W1-A1. The selection incorporates mitigation measures described in FEIS Chapter 6 and later sections of this ROD. As noted in the concluding sections of this ROD, the selection means that the FAA may take the Federal actions required to support this alternative, subject to the approval standards for the required Agency actions discussed in ROD Section II above and ROD Sections X and XI below.
VII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Based on discussions with the Airport Sponsor, the FAA determined that an environmental impact statement was required. The FAA issued a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and to conduct scoping, which was published in the Federal Register on May 13, 1998. The FAA held a scoping comment period between August 18, 1998 and April 26, 1999. Using preliminary information prepared by the consultant, the FAA then conducted Agency and Public Scoping meetings. FAA published a Notice announcing the Public Scoping Meetings in local newspapers on August 9, 1998 and August 16, 1998.
The Agency Scoping Meeting was held between the hours of 1:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on August 17, 1998 at the High Point Marriott Hotel. The Scoping meeting included a brief presentation by the FAA and the consultant team, after which a question and answer session was held. A total of 14 people signed in at the meeting.
A Public Scoping Meeting was then held between 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. on the same day at the same location. This meeting afforded the general public an opportunity to review and comment on the preliminary environmental investigations and selection of the Airport Sponsor's proposed project alternative. Representatives of the FAA, the PTAA and the EIS consultant team were present to discuss the materials displayed as well as to answer questions from the public. A court reporter was present to take a verbatim transcript of the meeting and recorded the comments of 54 speakers.
During the Scoping comment period, a total of 7 Federal, 18 state, 60 local agency, and 417 general public comment letters were received. Issues raised by the public during the Scoping comment period focused on the purpose and need, proposed alternatives, and potential noise, social, and socioeconomic impacts.
A Public Information Workshop was held on April 26, 1999, at the Western Guilford High School from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. The Workshop presented the results of the preliminary purpose and need analysis, preliminary development of the alternatives, and the affected environment. Workshop attendees were invited to review 41 display exhibits and boards. After reviewing the Workshop informational material, the public was encouraged to express its views on the EIS process, the proposed project, and the information presented. Comment sheets were made available for written comments, and court reporters were available to record oral comments. A total of 600 people signed in during the 3-hour workshop.
In November 1998, FAA distributed 550 copies of a newsletter designed to describe several key project issues. The newsletter focused on an overview of the EIS process, the background of the proposed project, the impact categories to be examined, and a summary of the public involvement program to keep the public informed and provide a better understanding of the project.
The FAA used the internet to inform the public on the progress of the EIS. The PTAA's web page (www.gsoair.org) contains updated FAA information on the following EIS areas of interest:
· EIS Process
· Environmental Impact Categories
· Public Involvement Process
· Project Description
· Newsletter
· EIS Comments
· Updates
Contents of the web page varied and included updates on the status of the EIS document, graphics depicting project-related materials, announcements of upcoming opportunities for public involvement, and comments on the EIS. Notification of the Public Information Workshop, and FAA notifications of the joint Public Information Workshop/Public Hearing were included on the web site.
Based on review of the comments received through the Scoping process, consultation, and environmental analysis, FAA prepared and issued a Draft EIS for public comment. The Notice of Availability of the DEIS was published in the Federal Register on April 14, 2000. The comment period, originally scheduled to end on June 7, 2000, was extended by 15-days to June 22, 2000. FAA held a joint Public Information Workshop/Public Hearing on May 23, 2000. A total of 680 people signed in during the Workshop/Hearing. Sixty-seven speakers gave oral testimony.
Between May 2000 and November 2001, the FAA received, reviewed, considered and processed approximately 3,787 comment letters (not including petition signatures) on the DEIS from Federal, state and local agencies as well as the public. Also during this timeframe, the FAA converted the DEIS into the FEIS based on the substantive comments received on the DEIS. The FAA carefully considered all comments received from the public as well as from Federal, state and local agencies in preparing the FEIS. The FEIS addresses the topics and issues of public concern raised on the DEIS and reflects modifications to its text.
The FAA approved the FEIS on November 7, 2001 and released it to the public on November 9, 2001. On November 16, 2001, a Notice of Availability of the FEIS was published in the Federal Register. The FAA received substantive comments on the FEIS since November 16th; those matters within its jurisdiction have been fully considered, and written responses are contained in Appendix A to this ROD.
To date, there has been a high degree of controversy concerning the implementation of the proposed project. This controversy has been centered on the potential environmental impacts associated with the development of a parallel runway and the establishment of an air cargo sorting/distribution facility (mid-Atlantic Hub) at PTIA, particularly with regard to noise, air quality, water quality, and quality of life issues. The following section of this ROD provides an overview of the environmental impacts associated with the No Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative, Alternative W1-A1, and the mitigation program to be implemented to offset the impacts.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
A detailed environmental analysis of the potential environmental impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the FAA's selected alternative was accomplished as part of the FEIS. Four study periods were examined: 1998 for the baseline conditions; 2005 as the first year the new runway (Phase 1, air cargo hub) and surface transportation developments would be fully operational; the year 2009 as the first year that Phase 2 of the air cargo facility would operational; and an additional study year of 2019, examined to assess future impacts for specific impact categories that were affected by operational considerations such as noise, land use and socioeconomics.
Next is a brief summary of the principal findings of the No Action Alternative and Preferred Alternative (Alternative W1-A1) relative to the environmental impact categories that have been examined by the FAA in the FEIS. A detailed explanation of the environmental impacts of the other reasonable alternatives is contained in FEIS Chapter 5.
Also provided is a summary of mitigation measures that will be implemented by the PTAA to reduce environmental impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative. In accordance with 40 CFR 1505.3, the FAA will take appropriate steps through Federal funding grant assurances and conditions, airport layout plan approvals and contract plans and specifications to ensure that the following mitigation measures are implemented by the PTAA during project development. The FAA will monitor the implementation of these mitigation measures as necessary. The approvals contained in this ROD are specifically conditioned upon full implementation of these mitigation measures by the PTAA.
The following impact discussion includes only the No Action and the Preferred Alternative as the other alternatives that were not selected as the preferred, were analyzed and evaluated in the FEIS.
NOISE IMPACTS
Under the No Action Alternative, a total of 178 people and 75 homes would be within the DNL 65 dBA noise contour for Phase 2 (which is inclusive of Phase 1). Under Alternative W1-A1, a total of 629 people and 262 homes would be within the DNL 65 dBA noise contour for Phase 2 (which is inclusive of Phase 1). Of these 629 people and 262 homes, a total of 126 people and 53 homes would be inside the DNL 70 dBA noise contour. A total of 549 people and 231 homes (of the total 629 people and 262 homes) would experience an increase of DNL 1.5 dBA within the DNL 65 dBA, which is the FAA's "Threshold of Significance" for noise impacts. Mitigation would be required, as described below (see also FEIS Section 5.1 for detailed discussion of noise impacts and FEIS Figure 5.1.4-5 for a depiction of Phase II Preferred Alternative noise contours).
Because of the unique characteristics of a nighttime air cargo operation, the FAA conducted a supplemental single-event noise analysis utilizing the Sound Exposure Level (SEL) metric to disclose the potential for sleep disturbance impacts from the Preferred Alternative. The results indicated that Alternative W1-A1 will have the potential to result in sleep disturbance to a small percentage of the population in the PTIA area under FedEx's anticipated normal operating conditions (approximately 0.3 percent of the total population of the Cities of Greensboro and High Point and Guilford County when FedEx operates under Flow-1 conditions, which they anticipate to be able to use for 95 percent of their operations).
An analysis of highway noise was conducted for the proposed roadway improvements associated with the Preferred Alternative in accordance with Federal Highway Administration and North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) guidelines. The results of this analysis indicated that some homes in the PTIA area will be impacted by roadway noise associated with Alternative W1-A1.
Finally, an analysis of ground operations at PTIA was conducted to disclose the potential for noise impacts resulting from taxiing aircraft and ground support equipment during nighttime hours. The results of this analysis indicated that no noise-sensitive land uses will be impacted by nighttime ground operations at PTIA with the implementation of the Preferred Alternative. An analysis of potential high altitude air traffic noise was also conducted for arrival operations between 3,000 feet and 7,000 feet and for departure operations between 3,000 feet and 10,000 feet. The results of this analysis indicated that the Preferred Alternative will not result in a DNL 5 dBA increase in community noise for aircraft operating above 3,000 feet.
Noise Mitigation
As part of the EIS process, the PTAA has committed to the development of a noise mitigation program for all properties located within the DNL 65 dBA noise contour for the Preferred Alternative. The following presents a summary of mitigation measures that the PTAA is committed to undertaking in an expeditious manner following the issuance of this ROD.
Land Acquisition Program - The PTAA has committed to the voluntary acquisition of all noise-sensitive land use located in the DNL 70 dBA noise contour and higher. For the outside planning year (2019) of the Preferred Alternative W1-A1, which includes homes and people from Phase 1, approximately 53 homes with 126 people will be located within the DNL +70 dBA noise contours. All relocations will be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970. The relocation program will also be consistent with FAA AC 150/5100-17, Land Acquisition and Relocation Assistance for Airport Improvement Program Assisted Projects. Participation in this acquisition program is voluntary. If an individual does not want to be acquired, they would be able to participate in the Sound Insulation and Avigation Easement Programs discussed below.
Sound Insulation Program - The PTAA is committed to sound insulating all noise-sensitive structures between the DNL 65 and 70 dBA noise contours. Approximately 209 homes with 503 people are located between the DNL 65 and 70 dBA noise contours for the Preferred Alternative. Homes and people totaled in Phase 2 are inclusive of Phase 1 homes and people.
Avigation Easement Program - In conjunction with the sound insulation program mentioned above, the PTAA is committed to acquiring avigation easements on the properties that they sound insulate for the Preferred Alternative between the DNL 65 and 70 dBA noise contours (approximately 209 homes). The avigational easement provides the right for aircraft overflight.
Noise and Operations Monitoring System - The PTAA is committed to the installation of a noise and operations monitoring system. Even though monitoring itself does not lower noise levels, this will allow the airport to more fully evaluate the noise environment around the airport before construction of the new runway and the initiation of air cargo operations.
FAR Part 150 Noise/Land Use Compatibility Program - In addition to the mitigation noted above for the Preferred Alternative, the PTAA has proposed to ensure ongoing coordination and long-term commitment to reducing future noise impacts to noise sensitive land uses as a result of the operation of PTIA. Following this ROD, the PTAA has committed to conducting a FAR Part 150 Noise/Land Use Compatibility Study at the airport to evaluate both existing and future noise conditions in the PTIA area. The Part 150 Study sets standards for airport operators to use in documenting noise exposure and establishes programs to minimize noise-related land use incompatibilities. Following completion of the Part 150 Study, the PTAA would become eligible for FAA funds for these mitigation measures.
Roadway Noise Barriers - Two noise barriers were found feasible to mitigate potential highway noise impacts associated with Alternative W1-A1. These noise barriers will be given further consideration by the PTAA, NCDOT, and FHWA during the design phase of the project. Both of the potential noise barriers that were evaluated to mitigate highway noise impacts with Alternative W1-A1 exceed NCDOT's cost-effectiveness criterion of $25,000 per benefited noise sensitive receptor. After final design, if both barriers still exceed the cost-effectiveness criterion, they may be installed provided a local government or sponsor assumes 100 percent of costs including preliminary engineering, construction, and maintenance. In addition, the local jurisdiction must ensure that if the barriers are constructed, that they meet NCDOT's specification for material, design, and construction. Finally, based on FHWA and NCDOT regulations, barrier construction would not occur without the input of the affected residents.
LAND USE IMPACTS
Several localities are affected by the proposed project. Primary among these are the Cities of Greensboro and High Point, and Guilford County. Properties bordering the airport to the south, east and west are within the City of Greensboro; properties adjacent to the airport on the north and northwest are within Guilford County. These jurisdictions are updating local plans to minimize incompatible land use in areas affected by the Alternative W1-A1.
No property acquisition will be required for the No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative will not impact residential land use or homes. In addition, the No Action Alternative will not result in adverse impacts to wetlands or 100-year floodplains.
Under Alternative W1-A1, most of the airside, landside and surface transportation construction is slated for land already owned by the PTAA. Although most development will thus occur on existing airport property, approximately 141.29 acres off-airport will need to be acquired. The Phase 1 and Phase 2 total land use impacts will include 486.2 acres of single-family residential land use with 263 homes and 629 people. (These are the same homes and people named above, in the "Noise Impacts" discussion.)
In addition, Alternative W1-A1 will result in adverse impacts to 23.8 acres of wetlands and 35.9 acres of 100-year floodplains (these impacts are discussed in the "Wetlands", Floodplains" and "Mitigation" sections below). Alternative W1-A1 will not result in direct impacts to Section 303(c) sites, Section 6(f) sites, or Section 106 resources (historic and archaeological resources)(also discussed below).
PTAA has provided assurance, as required under 49 U.S.C. 47107 (a) (10) (Airports and Airway Safety, Capacity, Noise Improvement, and Intermodal Transportation Act of 1992) that it has taken reasonable measures to maintain land use compatibility in the airport environs. A copy of PTAA's Assurance Letter is included in Appendix J of the FEIS.
Airport Area Land Use Plan
The Airport Area Land Use Plan must be updated in connection with the proposed project. There is no Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in place for this area, but there is a joint planning Airport Area Land Use Planning Group, which includes the Cities of Greensboro and High Point, Guilford County, and PTAA. This group produced the 1986 Airport Area Land Use Plan ("Plan"), which guided compatible use planning in areas affected by airport operations.
An updated revision of this Plan is in progress, directed by a citizens' committee from Greensboro, High Point, Kernersville, and portions of Guilford County, who are assisted by professional planners representing each jurisdiction. The update process, which began in 1999, is scheduled for completion after the FAA issues this ROD.
In its present form, the revised Plan proposes to recognize a northeast-southwest parallel air carrier runway at PTIA (the orientation of the Alternative W1-A1 runway), as well as the associated noise impacts and contours. The completed Plan is expected to promote compatibility with Alternative W1-A1 and include mitigation measures.
SOCIAL IMPACTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
The No Action Alternative will not result in the acquisition or relocation of any homes or businesses, or the alteration of surface transportation patterns. Alternative W1-A1 will result in social impacts, primarily in the form of relocation of homes and businesses and the disruption of surface transportation patterns. All relocations will comply with the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970.
The Preferred Alternative will result in permanent and temporary alteration of surface transportation patterns due to the relocation of existing roads, the development of new roadways and the improvement of existing roads. Alternative W1-A1 will result in the greatest long-term beneficial alteration in surface transportation patterns due to the relocation of Bryan Boulevard and will also result in the greatest long-term beneficial improvement to traffic flow in the area around PTIA.
Review of several national and international studies analyzing the impact of airport noise on residential property value indicates that changes in noise contours resulting from changes in airport operations could affect residential property, but the extent of that effect is uncertain at this time. These studies indicate that potential long-term impact on specific properties in the airport vicinity is a function of the number of households exposed to the change in noise levels and frequency of over flights. Potential impact can range from no change to as high as 10 percent when compared to similar properties in areas not experiencing airport noise. Over longer periods of time, a decrease in residential property value is often offset by an increase in overall property value in close proximity to airports as land uses change to accommodate compatible uses.
What is also apparent from these studies is that, because of the significant differences among airports and the complex characteristics of surrounding environments, it is not easy to transfer conclusions from one situation to another. In addition, a comparison of sales price trends for a nearby neighborhood with countywide trends indicates that, presently, there is no way of verifying whether local change in relative sales prices represents a short-term aberration or a longer-term change in relative values. In fact, the change in relative sales prices appears to have started 1 year prior to the announcement of the proposed project. As a result, subsequent changes may represent a continuation of a pattern of change in local and regional housing development characteristics rather than as a result of the announced airport improvement project (see FEIS Section 5.3 and Appendix E, Section 7).
Alternative W1-A1 will not result in significant division or disruption of established communities, disruption of orderly planned development, or environmental justice impacts from either physical displacement, noise, or other environmental factors. Changes in employment as a result of the alternatives are discussed in detail in FEIS Section 5.4, Socioeconomic Impacts.
Implementation of Alternative W1-A1 will not result in disproportionately high or adverse impacts on minority and low income populations in comparison to the No Action Alternative. For example, statistical data reveal that the racial breakdown of those within the DNL 65 dBA noise contour and the area of construction acquisition for the selected alternative is approximately 94% white as compared to approximately 6% minority for Phases 1 and 2.
For the No Action Alternative, the racial breakdown is approximately 87% white and 13% minority. Persons below the poverty line make up approximately 5% of the residents within the DNL 65 dBA noise contour and the area of construction acquisition; furthermore no community facilities, churches, nursing homes, or schools would be acquired as a result of construction and noise abatement programs for the selected alternatives. Thus, the vast majority of the noise and property acquisition impacts would occur for non-minority and higher income households.
Social Impacts Mitigation
The following presents a summary of Social Impact mitigation measures that the PTAA is committed to undertaking in an expeditious manner following the issuance of this ROD.
Acquisition and Relocation Program - Social impacts will occur from the relocation of 53 homes and 126 people that will be located within the DNL +70 dBA noise contour associated with Alternative W1-A1. This program will include measures to minimize the adverse impacts associated with the displacement of these households. Participation in this acquisition program is voluntary. If an individual does not want to be acquired, they would be able to participate in the Sound Insulation and Avigation Easement Programs discussed below. A planning survey of the characteristics and relocation needs of the displaced households will be undertaken. Relocation solutions such as determining the location of comparable housing will then be analyzed. Acquisitions and relocations will proceed in keeping with the following mitigation objectives:
· Comply with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970.
· Develop a detailed Relocation Plan that addresses the specific needs of relocated residents such as access to employment, access to social services, residency in existing school districts, and access to commercial facilities.
· Educate residents about the Uniform Relocation Act and the PTAA's Relocation Plan by holding community meetings prior to the actual acquisition process.
· Coordinate with the local housing authorities and non-profit housing agencies as well as the Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide access to housing assistance programs that meet the identified needs of the displaced households.
· Provide information to the real estate industry on the project displacements and acquisition and relocation process. Communicate with the real estate agents through the Greensboro Regional Realtors Association, the High Point Regional Realtors Association, and the Winston-Salem Board of Realtors to facilitate access to the real estate market for needed replacement properties.
INDUCED SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
The FEIS analysis evaluated two distinct and notable areas of potential economic impact as a result of the build alternatives. The first is related directly to the improvements associated with the air cargo sorting/distribution facility and the Mid-Atlantic Hub and its new employment. The second is the long-term impacts of expanding air freight capacity at the airport and FedEx operations and, therefore, for the region.
By 2019, economic projections suggest that the total number of employed persons working directly or indirectly as the result of the mid-Atlantic Hub operations in the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area will reach 16,308 persons. FAA anticipates that this full-time equivalent employment for 2019 would reach 15,479 persons. These totals include those jobs related directly to the proposed air cargo sorting/distribution facility as well as those associated with the cargo component and possible new industries attracted to the region. This total will represent a 1.9 percent increase over the No Action Alternative projection of 872,000 jobs in the Socioeconomic Study Area.
Employment growth generated by the air cargo sorting/distribution facility and PTIA improvements will further augment population growth forecasted for the No Action Alternative. For the FEIS, it was assumed, based on community patterns, that 90 percent of the total employment generated by Alternative W1-A1 and predicted for the Piedmont Triad Region will occur within the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area.
Analysis suggests that an air cargo hub will generate 16,308 new jobs in the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area by 2019, under the Preferred Alternative (see FEIS Section 5.4.4 and Appendix E). This induced employment could result in 10,872 new households living in the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area by 2019. The induced population for the Preferred Alternative could range from 7,037 persons in 2006, to 16,109 persons in 2010, to 25,006 persons in 2019. The Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area population for Alternative W1-A1 could range from 1,231,179 persons in 2006, to 1,276,004 persons in 2010 to 1,357,025 persons in 2019.
The fiscal impact analysis (see FEIS Section 5.4.5 and Appendix E) projects a potential benefit associated with Alternative W1-A1. This conclusion is based on an application of per capita averaging techniques, using historical financial reporting information for the years 1994 through 1999. Little significant impact occurs until the operating phase begins in 2010. The total fiscal benefits over the 16-year period from 2004 through 2019 could reach nearly $15.4 million with a net present value of nearly $8.6 million. The primary location of these benefits would be expected in Guilford County, with a capture rate of just over 70 percent. Together with Forsyth County, these two counties could realize nearly 90 percent of the estimated benefits.
The overall change in net revenues is estimated at $1.6 million by 2019, representing a 1.88 percent increase over the No Action Alternative. Projected additional employment and population growth within the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area has the potential to generate fiscal benefits for each of the counties included, reaching a total of nearly $15.4 million by 2019. Since adverse socioeconomic impacts are not expected as a result of the Preferred Alternative, mitigation measures are not warranted.
AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
PTIA is located in Guilford County, North Carolina, which is designated as an "attainment" area for all U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) criteria air pollutants, with the exception of ozone, for which it is part of the Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point attainment/maintenance area. This latter designation signifies that violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone have occurred in the past, but the area is in a transition period back to an attainment status for this pollutant.
When compared to existing conditions, future-year air emissions associated with PTIA from aircraft, ground support equipment, and motor vehicles are expected to increase. This is attributable to forecasted population and economic growth in the Piedmont Triad area, which is reflected in increased aircraft operations at PTIA expected even under the No Action Alternative. Alternative W1-A1 will result in further increases in these future-year emissions associated with PTIA when compared to the future No Action Alternative. This is attributable to (1) the additional aircraft operations and motor vehicles associated with the planned air cargo sorting/distribution facility, (2) the small changes in on-site motor vehicle trip distances, (3) the differences in aircraft taxi distances associated with the planned runway/taxiway improvements, and (4) the construction of the proposed projects.
The outcome of the air quality analysis conducted for the proposed improvements to PTIA show that total project-related emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (two of the primary precursors to the formation of ozone) are above the Clean Air Act (CAA) General Conformity Rule "de minimis" levels. Therefore, the FAA prepared and published, for public and agency review and comment, a Draft General Conformity Determination report (with two revisions) for the FAA's Preferred Alternative W1-A1. Responses to comments on the Draft General Conformity Determination were included in the Final General Conformity Determination (40 CFR 93.156(c)), which was included in the FEIS as Appendix F.
Both the EPA Region IV and NCDENR reviewed the draft determinations and based on the second Revised Draft General Conformity Determination, determined that all of the relevant issues have been addressed. The EPA and the NCDENR provided letters to the FAA indicating that the Preferred Alternative is consistent with the SIP (see FEIS Appendix A, and ROD Appendix B).
The CAA Transportation Conformity Rule requirements are also met for the planned roadway improvements associated with the Preferred Alternative since they are included in the current 2002-2008 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for Guilford County. The EPA and the FHWA provided letters to the FAA indicating that the Preferred Alternative meets Transportation Conformity requirements (see FEIS Appendix A and ROD Appendix B).
Certification from the Governor of the State of North Carolina is also required by 49 U.S.C. 47106(c)(1)(B) (1982 Airport and Airway Act); the Governor must certify that there is a reasonable assurance that the proposed project will be located, designed, constructed, and operated in compliance with applicable air quality standards. The Governor provided this certification to the FAA, and it is included in FEIS Appendix A and ROD Appendix B.
Finally, the requirements for obtaining a NCDENR Transportation Facility Permit for the Preferred Alternative will be addressed by the PTAA, who will submit a permit application package to NCDENR approximately 6 months prior to the start of construction activities. This permit will be obtained prior to the start of construction of the proposed improvements to the airport.
Air Quality Mitigation
Although not required, the following mitigation measures to reduce emissions will be implemented by the PTAA in an expeditious manner following the issuance of this ROD.
Use of Electric Ground Power Units - FedEx, in consultation with the PTAA, has committed to the installation and use of electric ground power (400 Hz) at the gates of the new air cargo sorting/distribution facility. This will obviate the need for diesel-powered auxiliary power units (APUs) and help reduce emissions during the on-loading, off-loading, and maintenance checks of aircraft.
Encourage High Occupancy Vehicle Travel - The PTAA will continue to encourage and support programs and strategies to help reduce single-occupancy vehicle travel, increase high-occupancy vehicle travel, and encourage transit ridership to and from the airport.
Use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) - During construction, the PTAA's contractor will comply with FAA guidelines as well as local ordinances governing the control of dust, construction equipment exhaust, and other similar nuisances. The open burning of debris and other waste materials will not be permitted.
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS
Since the No Action Alternative will not result in the development of any new facilities, it would not result in impacts to surface water or groundwater resources in terms of increased potential for pollution. Under the No Action Alternative, however, there will be an increase in water and wastewater demand due to increases in passenger enplanements at PTIA. Increases in water supply demand for the No Action Alternative are approximately 0.055 and 0.081 MGD in 2005 and 2009, respectively, and are a result of expected increases in commercial air traffic only. Increases in wastewater demand for the No Action Alternative would be approximately 0.042 and 0.062 MGD in 2005 and 2009, respectively, and are a result of expected increases in commercial air traffic only.
Under Alternative W1-A1, surface waters within the Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek, and East Fork Deep River sub-basins; groundwater; water supply; and wastewater treatment for the City of Greensboro will be affected with the implementation of Phase 1 and Phase 2. Impacts to surface water quality will primarily occur from stormwater runoff during construction and operation of the new transportation facilities. Surface water impacts will be greater in the Brush Creek Sub-basin, with impacts of a lesser degree occurring in the Horsepen Creek Sub-basin and the East Fork Deep River Sub-basin under Alternative W1-A1.
During construction, the majority of the disturbed area and the greatest amount of impervious area will be added to the Brush Creek Sub-basin, with moderate amounts added to the Horsepen Creek Sub-basin for Alternative W1-A1. The least impact will occur within the East Fork Deep River Sub-basin.
Short-term impacts from stormwater runoff from cleared areas void of vegetation during construction could result in temporary increases in turbidity within surface waters of all three sub-basins. However, Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented during construction to minimize erosion and sediment transport into surface waters. Some of the permanent BMPs implemented to minimize long-term impacts will include stormwater detention ponds and spill prevention procedures.
Under project implementation for Alternative W1-A1, groundwater discharge areas within the Brush Creek floodplain will be covered with additional impervious surfaces. Phase 1 will add approximately 17 acres of new impervious surface encroaching on groundwater discharge sites. Phase 2 will not encroach upon any groundwater discharge sites.
The proposed air cargo sorting/distribution facility and expected increases in air traffic from commercial and air cargo carriers will result in an increase in potable water demand, to approximately 0.077 and 0.117 million gallons per day (MGD) for Alternative W1-A1 after Phase 1 and Phase 2, respectively. This will be an increase of approximately 40 and 44 percent when compared to the No Action Alternative and approximately 0.19 and 0.27 percent of the City of Greensboro's expected total water demand in Phase 1 and Phase 2, respectively.
The proposed air cargo sorting/distribution facility and expected increase in air traffic from commercial and air cargo carriers will increase wastewater demand to approximately 0.049 and 0.074 MGD for Alternative W1-A1 after Phase 1 and Phase 2, respectively.
Documentation from the State of North Carolina in support of the Air and Water Quality Reasonable Assurance Certification required by 49 U.S.C. 47106(c) (1)(B) (1982 Airport and Airway Act) has been received from the NCDENR and is included in FEIS Appendix A and ROD Appendix B.
Water Quality Mitigation
The following mitigation measures to reduce water quality impacts will be implemented by the PTAA in an expeditious manner following the issuance of this ROD.
Create Stormwater Detention Areas for Attenuation of Stormwater Runoff - PTAA has developed and is committed to implementing a Storm Water Master Plan (SWMP) for PTIA that includes conceptual designs for 9 wet detention ponds and 3 dry detention ponds for the treatment and attenuation of runoff for the Preferred Alternative W1-A.1. The ponds will be designed according to FAA AC 150/5200-33 guidelines to minimize attracting wildlife considered to be hazardous to aviation (e.g., gulls, ducks).
The PTAA will construct these ponds in order to mitigate surface water quality and quantity impacts. These wet and dry detention ponds will treat non-point source water pollution by removing at least 85 percent of the Total Suspended Solids (TSS) as per NCDENR requirements.
Oil/Water Separators - Currently, there are no NPDES discharge limitations for airports. However, the NPDES limits as specified on the active permit at the time of the design of the proposed facilities will be the design criteria for any necessary oil/water separators. The oil/water separators will be designed to discharge no greater than 15 parts per million (ppm) of oil and grease. This system will be designed concurrently with the stormwater management system.
Glycol Runoff - Currently, there are no regulations in effect that are specific to the treatment of glycol that is released into the environment. In the event that regulations are established, the PTAA is committed to fully complying with the requirements established in the regulations. This system will be designed concurrently with the design of the apron, taxiways, and runway areas. The cost of this system would be determined during final design of the improvements.
Potable Water Conservation - PTAA will participate in a water conservation effort with regard to the Preferred Alternative by implementing the following:
· Educate air cargo employees on correcting wasteful habits.
· Install water efficient plumbing fixtures.
· Maintain plumbing fixtures and pipes to prevent leaks.
· Plant water efficient plants in landscape areas to avoid excessive irrigation.
· Reduce aircraft washing.
· Take advantage of the City of Greensboro's Technical Assistance Program with regards to water conservation.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECTION 303(C) AND DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR SECTION 6(F) IMPACTS
The FAA conducted an inventory of the EIS Generalized and Detailed Study Areas to determine if any Department of Transportation (DOT) Section 303(c) or Department of Interior (DOI) Land and Water Conservation Act 6(f) sites would be directly or indirectly impacted by the alternatives. A total of 63 public park and recreation sites that are designated Section 303(c) sites were identified in FEIS Section 4.2.3.3. No Section 6(f) sites were identified within the study areas.
The results of the analysis indicate that the Preferred Alternative in Phase 1 or Phase 2 will not result in direct impacts to Section 303(c) resources. Alternative W1-A1 will indirectly affect one (1) National Register-eligible historic property, the Campbell-Gray Farm, as a result of increased aircraft noise. The FAA has determined that the adverse effect under Section 106 to the Campbell-Gray Farm for the Preferred Alternative (Alternative W1-A1) does not constitute a constructive use of the property under Section 303(c). This determination was made based on the fact that the adverse effect would not substantially impair the historical integrity of the site. Therefore, Section 303(c) does not apply.
Further discussion regarding potential impacts on Section 106 resources and FAA's coordination with the SHPO is provided in the following section of this ROD and in FEIS Section 5.8. Since impacts to DOT Section 303(c) and DOI Section 6(f) resources will not occur with the implementation of the Preferred Alternative, mitigation measures are not warranted.
HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS
The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for historic architectural resources for the FEIS included the area between the existing (1998) DNL 65 dBA noise contour and the combined future DNL 65 dBA noise contours for all of the build alternatives. It also included property that would need to be acquired in order to implement any of the build alternatives.
The No Action Alternative will not result in impacts to any Section 106 resources. Phases 1 and 2 of Alternative W1-A1 will result in an increase within the DNL 65 dBA noise contour of greater than DNL 1.5 dB (when compared to the No Action Alternative) at the Campbell-Gray Farm, which is eligible for National Register listing. The resource is no longer a farm but has a residential function and is, therefore, considered noise-sensitive (FAA Airport Environmental Handbook 5050.4A, 1985). The site is currently incompatible with the operation of the airport and existing noise levels. Both phases of the Preferred Alternative will result in increased noise levels when compared to the No Action Alternative. Alternative W1-A1 will introduce increased audible elements to the house and would accordingly have an adverse effect upon this site as defined at 36 CFR 800.5.
The FAA has determined, through a study of the files of the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and new fieldwork, that no other historic architectural resources within the APE are eligible for listing in the National Register. The SHPO has concurred with this finding. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative W1-A1 will have no effect upon any other historic or cultural resource. The FAA has determined, and the SHPO has concurred, that Alternative W1-A1 will have an adverse effect upon one National-Register-eligible (Campbell-Gray Farm) resource within the APE.
Since Alternative W1-A1 is the Preferred Alternative, the FAA has executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the SHPO, PTAA and itself to address the adverse noise impact on this resource (see FEIS Appendix G and ROD Appendix C).
The FAA has completed archaeological surveys of the APE associated with the Preferred Alternative. The results of these efforts were coordinated with the SHPO. The SHPO concurred with the findings of these surveys and stipulated that there are no archaeological sites within the project area that are listed in or are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (see FEIS Appendix A).
Historic Resources Mitigation
Since impacts to archaeological resources will not occur, mitigation measures are not warranted. Mitigation measures for the impact to the Campbell-Gray Farm are discussed below.
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) - The FAA has entered into a MOA with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Piedmont Triad Airport Authority (PTAA) for the Preferred Alternative (Alternative W1-A1). This document specifies the measures to be implemented to mitigate any adverse effects that will result from the operation of the FAA's Preferred Alternative. Specifically, the acoustic treatment stipulations within the MOA ensure that:
· The PTAA will develop plans to acoustically treat the Campbell-Gray house, under its normal noise mitigation plan for residential structures with incompatible uses brought into the DNL 65 to 70 dBA noise contour of the Preferred Alternative, in a manner calculated to minimize disruption to the house's historic architectural character and fabric. The acoustical treatment plans shall be submitted to the North Carolina SHPO for review and comment when they are developed. The North Carolina SHPO shall review and provide comments on these plans within 30 days.
A copy of the MOA is contained in ROD Appendix C.
BIOTIC COMMUNITIES IMPACTS
Since no development activities will occur under the No Action Alternative, it will not result in impacts to biotic communities (i.e. natural vegetative communities and wildlife). Alternative W1-A1 will impact a total of 874.0 acres of land, including 442.1 acres of upland vegetative communities and 23.8 acres of wetlands. Primary impacts to biotic communities will be direct impacts from man-induced activities such as clearing vegetation, altering hydrology, filling wetlands, erosion, and grading for construction activities. Secondary impacts will include man-induced impacts that occur post-development such as changes in plant community dominants due to alteration of hydrology.
Although impacts to plant and animal communities would occur as a result of the Preferred Alternative, these impacts are considered to be less than significant at the regional level within the county, where sustainable amounts of natural areas are found, and mitigation measures are not warranted. There are no plant or animal species or rare upland communities located within the Alternative W1-A1 area of disturbance that are imperiled by extinction at the regional level. The PTAA is committed to providing compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands in a manner that is compatible with safe aviation (per FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports).
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES IMPACTS
Since no development activities will occur under the No Action Alternative, it will not result in impacts to threatened and endangered species.
Alternative W1-A1 will affect habitat types that have the potential to support Federal and state protected species. Alternative W1-A1 will impact approximately 469 acres of natural vegetative communities (upland and wetland) that have the potential to support listed species. However, coordination with the Department of the Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) indicates that the Preferred Alternative is not likely to adversely affect any Federally-listed species, their formally designated critical habitat, or species currently proposed for Federal listing under the Endangered Species Act (see FEIS Appendix A). The State of North Carolina has not indicated that Alternative W1-A1 will result in impacts to state-listed species. Therefore, mitigation measures are not warranted.
WETLAND IMPACTS
Since no development activities will occur under the No Action Alternative, it will not result in impacts to wetlands.
Alternative W1-A1 will result in unavoidable impacts to a total of 23.8 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 13,917 linear feet of streams. Primary impacts to wetlands will potentially include filling, erosion, sedimentation, alterations in hydrology, and clearing of vegetation. Secondary impacts will potentially result from alterations in hydrology. Avoidance and minimization measures that were implemented to avoid wetland impacts are discussed in FEIS Section 3.2.2.5.
The PTAA has initiated Section 404/401 coordination with the USACE and the State of North Carolina to obtain the required permit and certification and to implement a mitigation program for impacts to wetlands associated with the Preferred Alternative. Both the USACE and the state have indicated that their respective permit/certification will be considered further after the publication of the FEIS and FAA's issuance of the ROD.
Wetlands Mitigation
Wetland mitigation measures to be implemented by the PTAA include the following:
Create, Restore, Enhance, and Preserve Wetlands - Mitigation measures will be implemented by the PTAA to offset adverse wetland impacts when such impacts cannot be feasibly avoided. Mitigation measures have been developed by the PTAA and are included in the in the Wetland and Stream Mitigation Plan.
The FAA acknowledges that the USACE and the NCDWQ may require some changes to this preliminary mitigation plan prior to permit/certification approval, and is including this plan summary in the ROD for informational purposes. The final mitigation plan that the FAA will require the PTAA to commit to implementing will be the plan that is ultimately approved by the USACE and NCDWQ through the Section 404 permit/Section 401 Certification process.
The Wetland and Stream Mitigation Plan details the restoration, creation, enhancement, and preservation of on-site (within PTAA property boundaries) and off-site wetlands and strea