20061632 Ver 1_More Info Received_20070713

DWQ Project No. 06-1632; PTIA Runway SR Safety Area, Guilford...
Subject: DWQ Project No. 06-1632; PTIA Runway SR Safety Area, Guilford County
From: "Richard Darling" <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:30:16 -0400
To: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
CC: "Chris Arrington" <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Daryl/Ian:
Regarding the Individual Permit (IP) Application submitted in October last year by
the Piedmont Triad Airport Authority (PTAA) for the Runway 5R Safety Area and
related improvements at Piedmont Triad International Airport (PTIA): The Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) has finalized the Environmental Assessment (EA) for
this proposed project and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI,
attached). Further, the Stormwater Management and Drainage Report has been 99%
completed and hardcopy will be provided to DWQ next week. Please let me know as
soon as possible if you require any additional information in order to issue the
requested Certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Thanks for your
patience and understanding while these documents were completed.
Richard
Richard Darling
Baker Engineering NY, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Direct: 919-459-9009
Main: 919-463-5488
Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
l``~ lJ e
WET QENR • WATER~ArER
~ANasaNOSra~
BRANCH
Content-Type: application/pdf
FONSI.pdf
Content-Encoding: base64
1 of 1 7/13/2007 2:57 PM

Apr=05-2007 04:16pm From-FAA ATL-ADO 4043057155 T-907 P.004/012 F-430
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION•
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
PROPOSED RELOCATION OF THE RUNWAY 5R THRESHOLD BY 1,134 FEET TO
PROVIDE FOR A STANDARD RSA, CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,474-FOOT
EXTENSION OF RUNWAY 5R/23L TO MAINTAIN A TOTAL RUNWAY LENGTH OF
10,341 FEET (NET 340'), CONSTRUCTION OF AN ENTRANCE TAXIWAY FROM
TAXIWAY K, RELOCATION OF A PORTION OF OLD OAK RIDGE ROAD AND THE
AIRPORT PERIMETER ROAD, RELOCATION OF VARIOUS NAVAIDS,
INSTALLATION OF AIRFIELD LIGHTING, INSTALLATION OF FENCING, AND
CONSTRUCTION OF DRAINAGE FACILITIES
PIEDMONT TRIAD INTERNATIONAL AlRPOF~T
GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA
I have carefully and thoroughly considered the facts contained in the attached EA.
Based on that information, I find the proposed Federal action is consistent with existing
national environmental policies and objectives of Section 101(a) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). I also find the proposed Federal action (with
the required mitigation) will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment
or include any condition requiring any consultation pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of
NEPA. As a result, FAA will not prepare an EIS for this actian.
APPROVED: ~ DATE: April 4, 2007
DISAPPROVED: _ DATE:

Apr-05-2007 04:16pm From-FAA ATL-ADO 4043057155 T-907 P.005/012 F-430
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINESTRATION
' RECORD OF DECISION
PROPOSED RELOCATION OF THE RUNWAY 5R THRESHOLD BY 1,134 FEET TO
PROVIDE FOR A STANDARD RSA, CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,474-FOOT
EXTENSION OF RUNWAY 5R/23L TO MAINTAIN A TOTAL RUNWAY LENGTH OF
10,341 FEET (NET 340'), CONSTRUCTION OF AN ENTRANCE TAXIWAY FROM
TAXIWAY K, RELOCATION OF A PORTION OF OLD OAK RIDGE ROAD AND THE
AIRPORT PERIMETER ROAD, RELOCATION OF VARIOUS NAVAIDS,
INSTALLATION OF AIRFIELD LIGHTING, INSTALLATION OF FENCING, AND
' CONSTRUCTION OF QRAINAGE FACILITIES
PIEDMONT TRIAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA
PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION: The proposed project includes relocation of the
Runway 5R threshold by '1,134 feet to provide for a standard runway safety area (RSA),
construction of a 1,474-foot extension of Runway 5R/23L to maintain a total runway
length of 10,341 feet (net 340'), construction of an entrance taxiway from Taxiway K,
relocation of a portion of Old Oak Ridge Road and the airport perimeter road, reioca#ion
of various NAVAIDs, installation of airfield lighting, ins#allation of fencing, and
construction of drainage facilities, at the Piedmont Triad International Airport. The
proposed project is to meet airport design standards to provide for a standard Runway
Safety Area. Relocation of the Runway S threshold would also eliminate the need for
aircraft departing an Runway 5R to cross Runway 14/32 to get to the Runway 5R
threshold. Decoupling Runways 5R/23L and 14/32 would reduce the po#ential for
runway incursions and increase the level of operational safety at the airport. The
extension of runway 5R/23L would align the threshold with the end of Taxiway K and
would compensate for the shortening of the runway at the opposite end to allow for the
continued operations with no new takeoff restrictions. This project will provide
additiona{ safety for aircraft operating at the airport and improve the operational
flexibility and reliability of the airfield system. The proposed Federal Action includes
FAA's approval of construction and opeT'ation of the proposed development and
possible future approval of Federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding for this
project.
Piedmont Triad Airport Authority (the Airport Sponsor) has submitted an Environmental
Assessment (EA) of the work described above. The Environmental Assessment, with
its appendices, is hereby made a part of this document. As indicated above, the
proposed project may be accomplished partially with Federal funding. The FAA

Apr-05-2007 04:16pm From-FAA ATL-ADO 4043057155 T-907 P.006/012 F-430
supports the objectives of the proposed project to provide necessary airport safety and
flexibility to meet the current and forecast needs at Piedmont Triad International Airport..
I~asis of Pindin
Although the FAA was presented with the Sponsor Preferred Altemative, ten on-airport
and off-airport operational alternatives, including the No Action altemative, were
evaluated. The No Action alternative would not satisfy the purpose and need for the
runway extension. (page 3-14) Only one alternative (Altemative 1) would meet the
necessary airport standards.
The use of other nearby airports would nofi fully meet the Purpose and Need for th[s EA
or would require substantial modification before they could effectively accommodate the
transfer of operations from PTIA, so they were not considered as a reasonable
alternative and not evaluated further.
The use of smaller aircraft was considered. This alternative consists of limiting aircraft
operations on Runway 5R/23L to smaller aircraft to redu~o the size of the required
RSA. This altemative would significantly reduce the ai~eld capacity and efficiency of
aircraft operations. With this restriction, most of the air carrier aircraft could not operate
at the airport and so this alternative was not evaluated further.
Build Alternative 1 is considered acceptable to accommodate all of the aircraft currently
operating at the airport by relocating the threshold by 1,134' and extending the runway
at the other end by 1,474', While providing the required RSA, this alternative also
eliminates the necessity to cross another runway by shifting the location of the runway,
but retains the necessary length to accommodate the existing and forecast demand for
the airport. This altemative was selected as the Sponsor Preferred Alternative.
Build Alternative 2 proposes to relocate the threshold by 400' to allow for the required
RSA length, but does not eliminate the runway crossing and would reduce the runway
length. This alternative was not evaluated further.
Build Alternative 3 includes the proposed construct(on of a standard RSA to meet the
design standards by relocating the threshold by 400' with a 400' extension at the other
end. This alternative does not eliminated crossing the runway to get to the threshold so
was not evaluated further
Build Altemative 4 includes relocation of the Runway b threshold by 1,134' and
extension of the runway by 1,134'. While this alternative provides the separation of
Runways 5R/23l_ and 14/32, the Runway 23L threshold would not match the extended
Taxiway K and aircraft would be required to taxi behind the Runway 23L threshold.
Therefore, this altemative was eliminated from further study.

Apr-05-2007 04:16pm From-FAA ATL-ADO 4043057155 T-907 P.007/012 F-430
Build Alternative 5 consists of extending Runway 5R/23L by 1,6fi0 feet with a displaced
threshold to eliminate the runway crossing. The Runway 23 threshold Would not align.
with the connector taxiway for Taxiway K and so, was eliminated from further study.
Build Alternative 6 includes installation of EMAS in the current 600-foot RSA. Runway
23 would not be extended under this alternative. This alternative would provide an
adequate RSA and would maintain the current utility of the airport. Since the threshold
would not be relocated, the runway crossing issue would still exist and the threshold for
Runway 23 would not align with the Taxiway K connector, causing aircraft to have to
taxi behind the threshold. This altema#ive was not carried forward for further
consideration.
The FAA determined that the Sponsor Preferred Alternative would not significantly
impact the human environment. This Finding of No Significant Impact is based on the
attached EA which was independently evaluated by the FAA and determined to
adequately discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project. It
provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an Environmental Impact
Statement (EISj is not required. The FAA takes full responsibility for the accuracy,
scope and contents of the attached EA.
No significant air uali impacts are expected as a result of the proposed project. PTIA
is located in Guilford County, North Carolina which has currently been designated as an
attainment area for a[I criteria pollutants with the exception of 8-hour ozone and PM2.5.
The total project-related emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) (two of the primary precursors to ozone), along with PM2.5, are
below the Clean air Act (CAA) General conformity Rule de minimis levels. This signifies
that the proposed improvements to PTIA conform to the State Implementation Plan
(SIP). The results also show that construction-related emissions would not-exceed de
minimis thresholds, and that the operational emissions are not regionally significant.
Therefore the General conformity Rule does not apply and no furthEr demonstration is
required to show that the proposed project conforms to the SIP. (pages 4-10 thru 4-12,
5-4 thru 5-14)
pursuant to the Coastal Zone Managemen# Act of 1972, 15 CFR 930, it has been
determined that the proposed project is consistent with the State of North Carolina
Coastal Zone Management Program. The result of review indicates Guilford County is
outside the zone of influence of Coastal Zone Management and Coastal Barriers. No
impacts to any coastal resource will occur as a result of the proposed project. This
project will have no effect on the objectives, goals, or policies of the Coastal Zone
Management Program. (page 5-2)
The surrounding land uses will remain compatible with the airport. The improvements
being proposed are confined to the existing airport property. (pages 5-11 thru 512)

Apf-P5-2007 04:18pm From-FAA ATL-ADO 4043057155 7-907 P.008/012 F-430
The proposed project will not cause signifcan# cons#ruc#ion impacts. Measures will be
taken to minimize any potential temporary adverse effects from .construction. {pages 5-
12 thru 5-14)
A noise analysis was conducted for the Sponsor Preferred Altemative and the No
Action Alternative. Analysis of the noise exposure with and without the proposed project
shows that the proposed project would reduce the population exposed to aircraft noise
in excess of DNL 65 by 32 residents. The annual value of DNL to the southwest of the
runway would decrease by less that 1-dB and increase by less than 1-dB to the
northeast of the runway. The Sponsor Preferred Altemative will not cause noise
sensitive areas to experience an increase in noise of pNL 1.5 dB or more at or above
pNL 65 dB noise exposure when compared to the no action alternative. No significant
noise impacts on noise sensitive areas will occur within a national park, national wildlife
refuge or historic site, including traditional cultural properties. (pages 5-27 thru 5-32)
The FAA has determined that no parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl
refuges, or any historical sites will be impacted by the proposed project. Therefore,
Section does not apply. (pages 5-15 thru 5-17)
The proposed construe#fon will not have an impact on Ind identified as prime or
statewide important fa ands according to NRCS. Therefore, the provisions of the
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) as they pertain to the protection of prime
farmlands and soils of statewide importance are not applicable. (page 5-2)
No federally or s#ate-listed threatened, endangered, or otherwise _si nificant species
was found on the construction site. The project site does not contain any formally
designated critical habitat. (pages 5-7 thru 5-19)
A review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance rate
maps (FIRM) was pertormed. No portion of the proposed project area is within the
limits of a base floodplain, therefore, there will be no impacts to floodplains. (pages 5-
20 thru 5-21)
The proposed project would not include a direct relationship to solid waste collection,
control, or disposal, other than that associated with construction. The proposed project
Could have the potential for hazardous substances contamination if previously unknown
hazardous materials are discovered during construction. The proposed project will not
affect the quantity or type of solid waste generated or method of collection or disposal
except for the temporary effects of cons#ruction. (pages 5-21 thru 5-26)
The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurs with the determination that no
historic properties or resources eligible for lis#ing in the National Register of Historic
Places are located within the project's area of potential effects. Should any cultural
resources be discovered at any point during project implementation, construction wiU
stop and the SHPO will be notified Immediately. The FAA, in compliance with Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, has determined that the proposed project

Apr-05-1007 04:1Tpm From-FAA ATL-ADO 4043057155 7-907 P.O10/012 F-430
will have no significant impacts to historic, architectural, archaeological or cultural
resources. (pages 5-26 thru 5-27)
There will be no adverse Impacts from light emissions from the proposed project.
(page 5-2) .
The proposed project will not have a measurable effect on local sul,nlies of energy_ or
natural resources. (page 5-2J
There will be no potential for negative: secondary impacts as a result of the proposed
project. (pages 5-32 thru 5-34)
No residential areas will be impacted by the proposed project. Therefore, there will be
no impacts associated with the relocation of residents or issues involving environmental
justice or children's environmental health and safety risks. (pages 5-34 thru 5-37)
Ali water quality standards and any Federal, state, or local permit requirements will be
met through the U. S. Corps of Engineers, and the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. The construction and operation of the proposed
project w-II not result in violations of water quality standards and will not degrade
ambient water quality. The stormwater management system will be designed to meet
or exceed the required criteria. The potential for short-teml water quality impacts
resulting from the construction wil! be mitigated through the implementation of an
erosion and sedimentation control plan that includes the use of construction controls to
prevent degradation of water quality and associated impacts on aquatic ecology.
Based on information in the EA, the FAA has determined there will be no significant
impacts to water quality as a result of the project. (pages 5-37 thru 5-39, and 6-4)
Approximately 0.09 acres of wetlands and 674 linear feet of intermittent and perennial
stream will be impacted as a result of the proposed project. Mitigation for the impacts
will be vn-site creation of wetlands and off-site stream restoration. (pages 5-39 thru 5-
43, 6-9 thru 6-2, and Appendix B)
No State or Federal designated wild and scenic rivers are located near the airport.
(page 5-2)
A public involvement program was can-led out during the project development. The EA
also included a review and coordination process involving applicable Federal, state
and local government agencies. All comments received as a result of various public
input have been addressed in the EA. A public hearing was not required. The
proposed project is reasonably consistent with existing plans of public agencies for
development of the area and fair consideration has been given to the interest of
communities near the airport.

Apr-05-2007 04:1Tpm From-FAA ATL-ADO 4043057155 T-90T P.O11/012 F-430
The approved F~- addresses all of the viable alternatives that were studied during
project development. The environmental effects of the alternatives under consideration.
were evaluated when preparing the EA.
Following the submittal of the draft environmental assessment, the FAA conducted an
independent review of the document. The March 27, 2007 Environmental Assessment
represents the federally accepted environmental document. The Airport Sponsor's
Preferred Alternative is the environmentally preferred alternative and so becomes the
FAA's preferred alternative.
Miti„_ potion Measures: This finding is contingent upon the Airport Sponsor's
implementation of the following mitigation measures:
1. The Airport Sponsor shall obtain all permits required by Federal, state and local
laws and regulations.
2. The wetland/stream mitigation plan included In the EA and in the application for
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit she!{ be required as part
of this appro~ral, and a plan for implementation mus; be approved prior to start
of construction. The mitigation will consis# of on-site creation of wetlands and
off-site s#ream restoration. The proposed on-site mitigation will result in 100%
canopy coverage and be maintained to ensure total canopy coverage to reduce
the likelihood of the site becoming a hazardous wildlife attractant. Stream
modification will be done in accordance with FAA guidelines to minimize any
wildlife attractants to the extent possible. A hnal mitigation plan will be
developed, filed and approved, during the design phase, and prior to any land-
disturbing activity.
3. An erosion and sedimentation control plan that includes the use of construction
controls to prevent degradation of water quality and associated impacts on
aquatic ecology shall be approved by the appropriate agency and shall be
implemented during construction.
~. The project shall comply with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water permit(s)
as applicable,
5. Construction activity shall conform- to requirements of FAA Advisory Circular
'150/5370-10A, Standards for Soeci~yina Construction of Airports and FAA
Advisory Circular 150/5200-33 Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near
Air orts.
6. Should archaeological artifacts or historic properties be discovered at any point
during project implementation, work will stop and the SHPO shall be notified
immediately.

Apt-05-2007 04:1Tpm From-FAA ATL-ADO 4043057155 T-907 P.012/012 F-430
This Record of Decision is a decision document and it is an order subject to the
exclusive judicial review under 49 USC 46110 by: the U. S. Circuit Courts of Appeals for
the District of Columbia, or the U. S. Circuit Courts of Appeal for the circuit in which the
person contesting the decision lives or has a principal place of business.
FEDERAI. FINDING: Having carefully considered the project need, and being properly
advised as to the anticipated environmental impacts of the proposal, I find the project is
reasonably supported and should be processed for the Federal action to approve the
proposed relocation of the Runway 5R threshold by 1,134 feet to provide for a standard
RSA, construction of a '1,474-foot extension of Runway 5R/23L to maintain a total
runway length of 10,34'1 feet (net 340'), 'construction of an entrance taxiway from
Taxiway K, relocation of a portion of Old Oak Ridge Road and the airport perimeter
road, relocation of various NAVAIDs, installation of airfeld lighting, installation of
fencing, and construction of drainage facilities, at the Piedmont Triad International
Airport, Greensboro, Guilford County, North Carolina.
Federal Aviation Administration Date: April 4, 2007
U.S. Department of Transportation