Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20000846 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20060101 (7) 0 M M h M M M 7 M M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION In Cooperation with the: FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION Final Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Runway 5L/23R, Proposed New Overnight Express Air Cargo Sorting and Distribution Facility, and Associated Developments PIEDMONT TRIAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT City of Greensboro, Guilford County, North Carolina This FEIS is submitted for review pursuant to the following public law requirements: Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; 49 USC 47106; Section 303(c) of the US Code, Subtitle I; Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act; and E.O. 11990, E.O. 11998, E.O. 12898, and other applicable laws. A Notice of Intent to prepare this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was published in the Federal Register on April 30, 1998. This FEIS addresses the environmental impacts anticipated by the proposed projects identified in the 1994 Master Plan for Piedmont Triad International Airport. Specifically, this FEIS includes the evaluation of the following projects and associated developments proposed by the Piedmont Triad Airport Authority. Acquisition of land, new runway, taxiways, lighting, navigational aids, air traffic procedures, associated grading, drainage, utility relocations, air cargo sort/distribution facility, tunneling and bridging of Bryan Boulevard, relocation of a portion of Old Oak Ridge Road, and a new interchange for Old Oak Ridge Road and Bryan Boulevard. The Federal Highway Administration is a cooperating agency for this FEIS. VOLUME 5: APPENDIX O NOVEMBER 2001 (PART 2OF2) For further information: PIEDMONT TRIAD Ms. Donna M. Meyer Department of Transportation INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT`' Federal Aviation Administration 1701 Columbia Ave, Suite 2-260 College Park, GA 30337-2747 1 404/305-7150 10 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION In Cooperation with the: FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION Final Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Runway 5L/23R, Proposed New Overnight Express Air Cargo Sorting and Distribution Facility, and Associated Developments PIEDMONT TRIAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT City of Greensboro, Guilford County, North Carolina r This FEIS is submitted for review pursuant to the following public law requirements: Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; 49 USC 47106; Section 303(c) of the US Code, Subtitle I; Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act; and E.O. 11990, E.O. 11998, E.O. 12898, and other applicable laws. A Notice of Intent to prepare this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was published in the Federal Register on April 30, 1998. This FEIS addresses the environmental impacts anticipated by the proposed projects identified in the 1994 Master Plan for Piedmont Triad International Airport. Specifically, this FEIS includes the evaluation of the following projects and associated developments proposed by the Piedmont Triad Airport Authority. Acquisition of land, new runway, taxiways, lighting, navigational aids, air traffic procedures, associated grading, drainage, utility relocations, air cargo sort/distribution facility, tunneling and bridging of Bryan Boulevard, relocation of a portion of Old Oak Ridge Road, and a new interchange for Old Oak Ridge Road and Bryan Boulevard. The Federal Highway Administration is a cooperating agency for this FEIS. VOLUME 5: APPENDIX O (PART 2 OF 2) NOVEMBER 2001 PIEDMONT `w TRIAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT For further information: Ms. Donna M. Meyer = Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration 1701 Columbia Ave, Suite 2-260 College Park, GA 30337-2747 404/305-7150 1 0 1 LIST OF APPENDICES Volume 2 A Agency Correspondence B Noise Measurement Program/Supplemental Metrics C Flight Tracks D Aircraft Noise Overview E Socioeconomic Data F Air Quality Assessment Supporting Material Volume 3 G Historic and Archaeological Resources Supporting Material H Hazardous Substances Data I Surface Transportation Technical Memorandum Volume 4 J Land Use Assurance K Water Quality L Scoping Meeting Information M Public Workshop Information N Public Hearing Information Volume 5 (Parts 1 and 2) O Consolidated Comment Database W:\PIEDMONT\FEIS\SEC_1 Voa.doc.doc\09/18/01 A A Y GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT ON EIS Piedmont Triad International Airport Environmental Impact Statement This portion fo the appendix lists all general public comentators that provided written and oral comments on the EIS. General public comentators are organized by last name, then first name. The associated Letter Code and Comment Codes follow each name. Due to the volume of comments received, copies of these letters and the transcripts have been complied into supplemental documents that are available at the FAA offices in Atlanta and PTIA offices in Greensboro. Supplemental Document, Volume 1 +"' Letter Codes: SP0001 - SP0459, PP0001 - PP0571, PE0001 - PE0003, PN0001 - PN0005, and DP0001 - DP1005. Supplemental Document, Volume 2 Letter Codes: DP1006 - DP2383 and DN0001 - DN0005 r A Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Abbott Willa M. DP0183 Abbruzzi Anthony J. DPO592 Abee Dean DP0843 Adams Alfred G. DPO168 Adams Allan R. PP0032 Adams Cynthia D. DP0307 Adcock III W. Eugene DP0114 Addertion Addertion James Jimmy S. G. DPO741 DP0704 Addetion Edna S. DP1744 Affeltranger John DP1869 I Agans Gary DP2070 Air Linda DP0659 Akins Jennifer DP1082 Alderson Anne W. DP1546 Alderson Anne DP1762 Alderson Raymond D. DP1412 Alexander James DP2223 Alexander K. PP0030 Allan Peter DP0363 Allen Charles DP2299 Allen Nancy S. DPO668 Allen Peter DP0004 Allgood Phyllis DPO103 Allison John DP0573 Allred David SP0054 Allred Don DP2292 Almon Jack DP2108 Almond Rob DP0279 Alt P. DP1696 Amato Carl S. DPO699 Amato Carl S. DP0699 Amburgey III Jimmy DP0513 Amendola Peter DP1018 Ames Jerry SP0365 Anderson Chris DP2220 Anderson David DP1361 Anderson Gayle N. DP0359 } Anderson Gayle SP0350 Anderson Karen DP1507 Anderson Karen PP0387 Anderson Phillip SP0326 Andersson Arne DP1104 Andrew H. Allen DP0212 Andrew H. Allen DP2252 Andrew H. Allen SP0402 Andronica Grace M DP0902 Angel Irvin G. DP1745 Angle Patricia DP0611 Anselmi Jim DP0690 Comment Codes 2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 6-26 2-2, 29-16, 27-4, 6-32, 6-14 2-2, 6-32, 6-14, 6-6, 5-7 2-2, 6-19,6-14,6-32,6-12 2-2.6-12,6-6,5-8 2-2,6-12,29-16 2-2,6-15,6-6 2-2, 6-72,6-12 6-72,2-2 2-2,6-12 2-2,6-6 3-2, 3-36, 3-90, 3-138, 3-16, 6-45 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 2-2, 6-12,6-6, 5-8 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 3-7, 6-45, 6-86, 23-22, 6-59 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 29-56 5-2, 29-7, 23-5, 3-7, 3-1, 6-35, 9-6, 9-3, 6-43 29-112 2-2,6-6 2-2, 6-6, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 29-112 6-12, 6-15,6-14,6-32 6-6, 6-14, 6-12, 5-15 2-2,1-3, 5-9 2-2,6-6 2-2,6-12 2-2,29-16 5-2, 6-43, 2-3, 29-56 2-2 5-8,6-6 2-2, 6-19, 6-12, 6-32 6-15,5-7 2-6, 30-1, 3-1, 5-2, 5-5 2-3,24-1 6-15,6-6 2-2, 6-14, 5-7, 6-12, 29-16, 6-6 2-2,6-12,6-6, 5-8 7-4, 7-1, 9-31, 3-2, 5-21, 6-4, 1-2 2-3, 22-2, 1-2, 7-4, 7-6, 9-6, 30-1, 29-37 3-1, 3-7,30-1, 5-3,5-2 2-3,27-1 6-6,6-32,5-8 6-26,6-6 2-2,27-4 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 2-2,6-6,6-26 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 3-16,21-1,21-36 public names_091701.xls Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Comment Codes Last Name First Name Middle Code Anselmi Jim PP0166 21-13,23-16,21-13 Antonas Liza PP0179 21-6, 23-16, 2-2, 6-12, 6-32 Arhurte Fred PP0107 29-66,3-41,3-40 Arnold Dale DPO591 21-1 Arnold Dale DP1847 2-3, 24-1, 3-1, 7-3, 17-1, 6-45, 3-36, 3-7 Arnold Dale SP0020 7-1, 24-1, 3-1, 1-1, 22-3, 24-1 Arnold Dale SP0102 2-3,21-1,24-1,'2-11 Arnold Dale SP0103 2-3, 24-1, 5-2, 21-3, 5-2, 1-4, 1-1 Arnold Herb R. DPO953 2-2, 6-15, 6-12, 6-32, 6-6 Arnold Leigh Anna SP0219 5-22,2-3 Arrington Harvey DP1737 2-2,6-15 - Arrington Phil DP1796 2-2,6-6 Ashby Carl PP0165 2-2, 6-15, 6-32, 29-11, 29-24, 24-3, 23-1, 6-6 Ashby Tracy DPO544 2-2,6-17,6-32, 5-15,6-6 Ashworth Fred DP1975 3-36, 3-7, 3-2, 3-61, 20-6 Ashworth Stephen DP0094 2-2,5-8,6-12 Atkins Sue DP0828 2-2,6-26 Atkinson G Douglas DP0035 2-2 Auls John V. DP1310 29-86, 3-1, 29-87, 7-1, 7-4 Austell Edward C. DP0726 2-2, 6-75, 6-14 Austin D. Bryan DP2004 2-3, 24-1, 22-4, 6-4, 27-1, 3-1, 1-2 Austin James PP0208 2-3,5-5,6-1 Astir, James PP0311 2-3,9-6 Austin James PP0312 27-8,2-3 Austin James PP0313 7-2,2-3 Austin James PP0314 2-3,24-1 Austin Kimberly PP0315 2-3,24-1 Austin Kimberly PP0316 7-2,2-3 Austin Kimberly PP0317 27-8,2-3 Austin Kimberly PP0318 2-3,9-6 Austin _ Pauline H. DP0636 2-3,21-1 Austin Pauline H. DP0771 2-3.21-39. 29-56. 21-40- 21-41 Austin Pauline DP2122 2-3,24-1,5-22 Austin Pauline PP0159 2-3,13-1 Austin Pauline PP0207 2-3,22-2,29-1,5-5 Austin Pauline PP0319 2-3, 5-1, 6-9, 21-17, 6-16 Austin Pauline SP0406 2-3,5-1 Austin Pauline DN0003 2-3 Austin Tammy DP1244 2-2,6-12 Avram G.A. DP2349 2-2,26-2,6-6 Ayers Lee Anne DPO903 2-2,5-9,5-7 Azarova Nadezhda DP1286 2-2,6-32,6-12,6-14 Badgett Dale DP1022 2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 5-8, 6-32, 5-7 Badgett Richard G. DP1415 2-2,6-6 Baggett William C. DP1548 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 6-14, 5-8 Bain Elizabeth E. DP0898 29-60,2-10 Bain Nancy R. PP0167 2-2 Baisden Daniel E. DP0235 2-2, 5-7, 6-15, 29-17, 6-32 Baise J. Mitchell DPO147 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 29-17 Bakane John L. DPO442 2-2, 6-12, 5-8 Baker Angie DP1321 2-2 public names_091701.As Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Comment Codes Last Name First Name Middle Code Baker John D. DP1905 3-36,3-7,3-122,5-5 Baldwin Charles DP1485 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Baldwin Elva H. DP1486 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73, 3-74, 9-6 Baldwin Fred DPO653 2-2,6-6,6-32 Baldwin Marie L. DP1465 2-2,6-12,6-6 Baldwin Todd DPO571 2-2, 6-77, 6-32, 26-2 Balevic Adam H. DP1554 20-6, 6-4, 9-6, 9-8, 7-4, 6-16, 3-2, 7-1, 27-1, 24-1 Balevic Adam DP2164 2-3, 7-2,6-57 Ball Art SP0400 2-3, 24-2, 21-4, 21-1, 5-5, 21-3, 21-9, 5-17, 21-8, 4-10 Ball Linda M. DP1179 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Ball Toni DP1389 2-2, 6-32, 6-12,6-15 Ball Jr. M. J. DPI 178 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Balsley Tom DP2336 6-12,6-32,2-2 Bangham Russ SP0026 6-2, 6-3, 3-1,21-1, 3-4 Banner Allan C. DP1041 2-2,6-6 Barber James DP2240 2-2, 6-6,6-14,6-78 Barbour Bardsley W. Scott Earl DPI 163 DP2274 6-4, 3-7, 3-1, 3-83, 24-2 2-3, 3-7, 3-1, 7-1, 27-1, 6-22, 5-2 Barefoot Miles DP1304 2-3, 5-5, 6-45, 2-23, 6-4, 27-1, 1-1, 22-1, 7-1, 5-2, 4-17 Barger David K. DP1901 2-2, 6-14,6-15,24-3 Barker William SP0062 24-1,2-10 Barnes Larry PP0173 2-2 Barnes Lois DP1596 2-2, 6-6,26-2,5-7 Barnes Steven DP1861 2-2, 6-32, 6-6 Barnett J.L. PP0174 2-2, 6-12,6-6 Barney Mattie H. DP0264 2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 6-14 Barnhill Jr. H. Grady DP0129 6-6, 6-12,6-32, 6-15 Barnwell Brant DP2134 6-12,6-32,2-2 Barnwell Brant PP0193 6-15,5-7 Barnwell Joyce Marsh DPO410 24-3,6-14 Barnwell Joyce DP2133 2-2, 6-6, 6-12 Barnwell Jr. R. Brant DP0516 2-2,6-14,5-9,6-6 Barone Catherine S. DP2418 5-5, 3-7, 2-3, 24-2, 2-6, 2-3, 3-96, 14-14 Barr Beth DP1350 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Barr Beth DP2247 2-3,64 Barrett James L. DPO696 24-5,2-2 Barrett James PP0175 2-2, 6-6, 6-12,5-8 Barrett Thomas DP0086 2-2,6-6 Barrow Ralph DP0127 29-24, 6-19, 6-14, 6-6, 6-32, 2-2, 6-12 Barry Dennis R. DP0601 2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 5-8, 5-7 Barry Barry Dennis Dennis R. DP1807 SP0078 2-2, 6-12, 6-6 2-2,6-6 Barton L. DP0853 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Basinger Donald PP0007 3-207,3-31 Bass Elizabeth DP1758 7-3, 3-1,24-1 Bastow Bonnie L. DP0900 2-2, 6-6,5-7 public names 091701.xis Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Bates Owen PP0188 Bateski P.K. DP2029 Bateski Patricia K. DP1107 Bateski Patricia K. DP1109 Bateski Patricia K. DP1110 Bateski Patricia K. DP1111 Bateski Patricia K. DP1991 Bateski Patricia PP0010 Bateski Patricia PP0132 Bateski Patricia PP0241 Bateski Patty DP1225 Bateski Patty PP0004 Battle Richard DP1219 Battle Richard DP2094 Bauer F. Scott DP0831 Bauguess Phil DP2162 Baxter Lawrence G. DPO882 Baynes Robert G. DP0522 Baynes Robert G. DP0581 Beal Gertrude DPO640 Beane Shane PP0308 Beard Richard DPO100 Beard Richard DP2098 Beard Richard PP0303 Beard Thomas R. DPO515 Beard Thomas SP0348 Beard Jr. T. Richard DP0725 Beard Jr. T. Richard DP0725 Beasley Jr. Robert SP0025 Beaston G. Davis DPO425 Beaston G. Davis DPO439 Becher Jr. F. James DP1756 RPrk Pones no+?`? Becker David C. DP1429 Beers David SP0379 Befus Gerry DP0829 Behel Kevin DP2019 Beier Greg DP0627 Bell Alice T. DP2346 Bell Barbara PP0057 Bell Barbara PP0218 Bell David DP1633 Bell Frank DP0068 Bell Ranlet S. DP1742 Bell Stephan D. DPO838 Bell Vicki DPO423 Bell Jr. Frank M. SP0111 Belton Barbara Claybrook DP0365 Belton Naomi DP0267 Bennett Graham DPO245 Bennett Lorrie V. DP0333 public-names-091701.4s Comment Codes 3-1, 30-1, 2-18 27-28, 29-63 3-7,3-1 5-17,1-2 2-3, 9-6, 7-4, 27-1 5-2, 7-4,29-7 7-4,7-1 9-6,7-2 2-23, 21-4, 2-3 2-3,5-2 2-18, 3-7, 3-1, 7-4, 27-1, 5-2 9-6,7-4 7-1, 7-2, 7-31, 7-32, 7-4 20-10,7-32 6-15, 6-12, 6-6, 6-32, 2-2 2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 29-16, 6-12 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 29-10, 5-7 2-2, 6-6, 6-19, 5-7 2-2, 6-19, 5-7 2-3, 22-24, 29-56, 5-2 2-2,6-6 29-24, 6-19, 6-14, 6-6, 6-32, 2-2, 6-12 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32.6-14, 6-15, 5-9 2-2, 6-12, 6-32, 6-6, 5-7, 6-31 2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 6-12, 6-32, 29-16, 27-4, 29-90 2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 5-15, 6-20, 5-8, 29-17 6-90 2-2, 6-75,.6-32, 29-32 2-3, 3-1, 6-2 2-2 2-2 2-2, 5-8, 6-6, 6-32, 6-14, 6-15 L o e n 2-2, 6-15, 6-64, 6-14 2-17, 30-1, 5-44 2-2, 6-14, 29-12, 5-8 2-3, 1-22, 3-2, 7-1, 1-4, 3-36, 7-2, 9-6, 9-37, 2-89, 29-56, 29- 60 2-2, 6-15, 6-6, 6-32, 29-17 2-2,6-6 2-3, 1-2, 2-9, 5-27, 24-1, 22-2, 22-4, 29-63 23-16, 22-2, 17-1, 3-33, 27-8, 9-6, 21-13 3-2,17-1, 7-1,1-2 2-2,4-24,6-12,6-14 2-2, 5-8, 6-6 6-15,2-2 2-2,6-81 2-2,6-6 2-2,6-32 6-12 29-17,6-6, 2-2 2-2,6-6,6-12,6-26 D 1 1 i E, 1 1 1 1 Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Comment Codes Last Name First Name Middle Code Benninger Paul DP0822 2-2,6-26 Bennington Richard DP0767 2-3,5-34,25-91,1-2 Berlin Stephen R. DP0243 2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 6-12, 6-6 Berry Lynn DP1181 2-2,6-32, 6-14 Berry Margaret DP2368 3-1, 29-122, 2-3 Berry Ray D. DP0938 2-2, 6-6, 6-15 Berry Thomas DP2118 7-4, 9-6, 20-6 Berry Tom DP2257 7-4,9-6,4-21 Betts Charles SP0116 5-8, 24-2, 6-25, 1-6, 29-32 Betts Jim SP0108 2-2,6-6, 5-8 Betts Rachel SP0455 2-2,6-32 Biggerstaff Frank L. SP0133 6-13,29-12 Biggs Larry DP0697 2-2,6-6 Billheimer Tom DP2289 2-3,19-1, 24-1,19-6,19-7 Bingham Robert DP2245 2-2,6-12 Bircher Joseph P. DP1291 2-2,6-32,6-12 Bird Ami DP0287 2-2,6-12 Birkel J. Damian DPO433 2-2, 6-6, 26-2, 5-15 Bischoff Heather DP2169 2-2, 5-7,6-12 Bischoff Heather PP0309 2-2, 23-15, 5-7 Black Bill DP2190 2-2,6-6,6-32 Black David G. DP0380 2-2, 5-8, 6-77, 24-3 Black J. Richard DP1607 29-60, 29-56 Black J. Richard DP2001 3-10, 3-96, 6-1 Black J. Richard DP2003 5-5, 3-96,2-89 Black J. Richard PP0322 2-3, 21-13, 22-2 Black J. Richard SP0109 21-20, 21-22 Black J. Richard SP0447 4-5, 5-4, 5-44,2-3 Black J. Richard SP0448 21-1,21-4,23-8 Black J. Richard SP0449 2-52,11-1 Black J. Richard SP0450 2-1, 2-53, 30-1, 2-3, 2-45 Black J. Richard SP0451 3-16, 3-9, 3-1, 2-1, 2-6, 3-10, 3-3 Black Janice DPO945 2-2, 6-12, 6-32, 26-2, 5-15, 5-8, 6-26 Black Jean M. DP0811 3-189,3-92,3-190 Black Jean M. DP1303 3-2,3-1, 3-91, 3-92 Black Jean M. DP1961 25-1,14-1,1-22 Black Jean M. DP2022 30-1, 4-22, 30-2, 3-1, 3-2 Black Jean M. DP2044 3-135, 3-10, 1-1, 3-8, 3-92, 2-89 Black Jean M. SP0399 2-3, 5-3, 5-5, 5-44, 4-10, 5-4, 4-5, 29-7 Black Jean M. SP0444 30-1, 30-8, 6-1, 22-1, 1-1 Black Jean DP1382 3-32 Black Jean DP2391 4-5, 4-8, 4-22, 21-3, 2-23, 4-3 Black Jean PP0025 1-13, 1-1, 22-1, 22-2, 1-2, 21-10, 21-18, 5-1 Black Jean PP0320 2-3, 30-1, 21-23, 5-5, 5-44 Black Jean PP0321 2-3, 3-32, 3-16 Black Jean SP0023 2-3, 5-3, 5-5, 5-1, 5-4, 5-5 Black John W. PP0323 2-2, 6-12, 6-6,1-6 Black John DP0923 2-2, 6-14, 6-15 Black John PP0203 2-2,6-12 Black Lynn SP0232 2-2,6-6,6-10 Black III William H. DP0756 2-2,6-14 public names_091701.xis Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Blackburn Dale PP0185 Blackburn Richard DPO440 Blackburn Walt DP2259 Blackman Charles K. PP0324 Blackwell Bill DPO849 Blackwell William D. DP0206 Blackwood Dianne K. DP1542 Blackwood Dianne SP0253 Blackwood Pam SP0298 Blair Lawanda DP1313 Blair Michael DP1237 Blair Thomas SP0083 Blair Tom SP0397 Blake Asia DP1775 Blakley Jr. Bobby G. DP0706 Blakley Jr. Bobby G. DP1354 Bland Daniel A. DPO142 Bloss Eden DPO927 Bloxdorf Jerome J. DPO475 Bodenheimer Mary Fay DP0369 Boehme John M. DP0248 Bogenberger James R. DP1256 Boggs Kenneth K. SP0099 Boggs Mike DPO187 Bohen Michael PN0005 Boissonneau Debbie DP1124 Boles Katy DP0273 Boles Mickey W. DPO149 Boles Steven W. DP1526 Bolin' Karen M. DP0886 Bond Lloyd DP1272 Bond Lloyd PP0325 Bond Lloyd PP0326 Bond Lloyd PP0327 Bond Lloyd PP0328 Bondurant John B. DP0803 Bonner Douglas J. DP1911 Booher Candy DP1574 Booke Henry M. DPO524 Booth Tom PP0170 Borden T. Michael DP0372 Borenstein Cyndy DP1348 Borenstein Herb DP1349 Borugian Dennis DP0921 Comment Codes 6-51,23-16 2-2,5-8 2-3, 6-4, 6-16, 1-2, 27-1 2-2,6-6,6-12, 5-8 6-6,6-15, 2-2 2-2,6-6,6-12,6-32, 5-7 2-2,6-6 2-2,6-33,6-6, 5-7 2-3, 21-1, 30-4, 27-1, 3-1, 24-1 6-15,6-12,6-6 6-6, 6-12,2-2 2-2,6-6 6-12, 6-6, 6-26, 6-14, 6-18, 6-15 2-3 2-2,6-10 2-2, 6-32,6-6,6-12 2-2,6-6,6-12, 5-7 6-12, 6-6, 3-14 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-2,29-19 2-2, 6-6,6-12 2-2, 6-32, 6-12 2-2,6-6 2-2, 6-19, 6-14, 6-32, 6-12, 26-2, 6-26 2-3, 21-1, 7-2, 7-3, 9-6, 9-3, 3-33, 3-1, 27-1, 27-8, 24-1 6-15,6-26, 6-12,6-14,2-2 2-2,6-6,6-81 2-2,6-6 2-2,6-32,6-6,6-14, 6-12 2-2,6-6 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73.3-74 2-2,1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 5-5, 30-1, 3-1, 9-6, 22-2,29-56, 6- 4 2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 7-2, 27-1, 27-8, 7-3 2-3, 1-1, 2-1, 27-13, 6-45, 22-2, 29-56, 10-1, 24-1, 29-7 2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 22-2, 29-56, 6-4 2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 26-2, 5-15, 29-16, 5-7, 5-8 2-3,24-1,3-7,3-2 6-32, 6-12, 6-6 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 29-24, 5-9 2-2,6-6, 6-32, 5-7 2-2,6-19,6-14, 6-77 2-3,5-1,1-4,3-2,1-2 2-3,5-1,1-4, 3-2,1-2 2-3, 9-15, 14-19, 14-20, 14-21, 9-8, 7-5, 7-46, 7-54, 9-37, 9- 49, 9-50, 14-22, 7-54, 9-51, 9-52, 9-53, 9-55, 9-56, 9-57, 9-58, 13-13,13-14,13-15,13-16,13-17,3-1, 3-159,3-160,3-161, 29-85, 7-4, 7-2, 29-122, 7-18, 7-53, 3-36, 3-16, 4-22 h L 11-1 A 1 public names_091701.As 117 11 J 1 1 1 Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Comment Codes Last Name First Name Middle Code Borugian Dennis DP1999 2-3, 9-15, 14-19, 14-20, 14-21, 9-8, 7-5, 7-46, 7-54, 9-37, 9- 49, 9-50, 14-22, 7-54, 9-51, 9-52, 9-53, 9-55, 9-56, 9-57, 9-58, 13-13, 13-14, 13-15, 13-16, 13-17, 3-1, 3-159, 3=160, 3-161, 29-85, 7-4, 7-2, 29-122, 7-18, 7-53, 3-36, 3-16, 4-22 Borugian Dennis SP0185 2-21, 21-61, 3-1, 5-2, 8-1, 3-22, 2-1, 2-20 Bouillard Dennis DP2229 2-3, 3-97, 6-74, 5-5, 20-6, 1-4 Bowden Ruth DP1718 6-12,2-2 Bowers Tracy PP0080 7-2, 29-63, 7-4, 6-4, 1-1, 5-2, 21-3 Bowes Major H. DP0851 2-2, 6-12,6-32, 29-16, 5-15, 29-118 Boyd Denman SP0043 19-1, 3-1, 30-1 Boyd Denman SP0165 5-2, 21-1, 2-22, 2-9 Boyd John PP0329 27-8, 6-9,10-1 Boyd Margie DP1490 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Boyle Hal DP0029 2-2,6-15 Brabo Tim SP0011 5-12,30-1,2-6 Bracey J Stephen DP0078 2-2, 5-7,5-8 Bradley Cindy DP1709 5-7,5-9 Bradley David DP2238 2-2,6-14,6-6 Brady Don SP0151 2-2,29-19,29-16 Brady Donald J. DP1731 2-2,6-14,29-10,6-6 Brady Sarah PP0330 2-2 Brady Jr. John R. DP0530 3-36 Brady Jr. John R. DP2187 3-36, 3-7, 9-54, 7-1 Braiton Marilyn PP0013 5-2,1-1, 22-1 Bralley Terry DP2242 2-2,6-15,6-6, 6-14, 27-9 Brame Jean SP0191 2-2, 2-25, 6-10, 6-14, 6-16, 29-13 Brame Michael T. DPO844 2-2, 2-87, 2-101, 6-12, 6-32, 6-6 Branch Steve PP0219 2-2, 22-7, 6-12, 6-32, 6-26, 6-6 Brandon John PP0331 2-2,6-6 Brannigan William and Wendi DP0761 3-15,6-96,7-1 Branson Jean PP0332 2-2,29-76 Branson Nancy SP0008 3-1,6-2 Braxton M.C. PP0014 9-6, 6-4,5-24 Braxton Marilyn PP0060 21-15, 30-1, 9-6, 27-8, 23-14, 2-23, 2-42, 22-2, 21-4, 5-5, 22-1 Braxton Marilyn SP0001 5-5, 21-1, 5-2, 3-3, 3-1, 30-1, 7-1, 1-1, 6-1, 12-6, 17-1, 1-1, 2- 1,2-7,21-1 Bray Charles DP2071 3-2,5-8,29-17 Bray Dean DP2334 2-2, 6-6, 6-12 Bray L. DP0607 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 Braygoad Charelle PP0400 2-2 Brazda Barbara SP0028 2-3, 1-1, 5-5, 3-1, 3-2, 6-1, 30-1, 21-3 Brazda Barbara SP0353 2-3, 5-5, 3-1, 2-18, 3-7, 3-2, 30-1, 22-1, 6-2, 6-3, 2-9 Brenner Richard A. DP0325 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32 Brice Judith PP0333 2-3,1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 7-3, 3-1, 7-2, 27-1, 27-8, 9-6, 5-21, 22-2,29-56 Brice Judith PP0334 2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 22-2, 29-56, 10-1, 24-1, 29-7 Brice Judy DP1265 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Briggs Paul SP0419 5-8, 6-15, 6-12, 6-6, 5-9 public names_091701.xis Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Briggs William L. DPO119 Bright Kelly DPO344 Bright Kitty C. DPO413 Bright Jr. Charles M. DPO419 Brigman Dianne SP0254 Briley Randy DP0508 Brinkley Bill DP1738 Brisotti Douglas A. DPO901 Britton Randy DP2181 Broaddus Ashton G. DP0683 Broaddus Ashton G. DPI 173 Broaddus Carolyn DP1175 Broadley Peter DP0003 Broadwell Rich DP1842 Brodsky David PP0257 Brodsky David SP0309 Brody Don SP0452 Broeker Cathi PP0099 Broeker Cathi SP0094 Broeker Raven DP1227 Broeker Raven PP0149 Broker Raven SP0377 Bromley Edmund SP0325 Brookby Robert G. DP1019 Brooke Sam L. DP1918 Brooks J Bryan DP0992 Brooks Richard DP2303 Browder Leslie DP0028 Brown Asia DP0997 Brown Blake Milner DPO874 Brown Chester SP0225 Brown Clarence PP0183 Brown Cynthia SP0098 Brown Dorothy SP0357 Brown Gale PP0086 Brown Jeff DP1771 Brown Jeff DP2232 Brown John E. DP1535 Brown Kyle DP1034 Brown Laura DP1347 Brown Lorna Milner DP1658 Brown Lynn J. DPO883 Brown P. David DP0812 Brown Rick DP2251 Brown Robert J. DP0485 Brown Thomas T. DP1430 Brown III Chester H. DP0881 Brown III Chester H. PP0335 Brown Jr. Charles H. DP0732 Comment Codes 2-2, 6-12, 6-32, 6-6 2-2,6-6, 6-12,29-16 2-2,6-12 2-2,6-12 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-10, 5-9, 5-45 2-2.6-14 2-2,6-6 2-2.6-32,6-6 6-15, 6-6, 5-8, 29-24, 29-118, 2-2, 24-3 3-84, 3-86, 3-87, 3-88 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 1-2,5-2 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-15 1-5, 3-7, 3-1, 2-45, 3-4 2-3, 5-5, 5-2, 2-1 2-2,29-24,6-6 2-3 27-1, 29-1, 5-2, 2-3 2-3 2-3 29-1,4-10,27-8 1-1,1-8 2-2,5-8 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 29-24, 5-9 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-14, 6-32 2-2,6-6 2-2,6-15 2-3,3-2 2-3, 7-4, 5-2 2-2. 6-6. 5-9. 29-19 29-12 a-17 21-13, 21-16 2-9,5-5 6-6, 6-12, 6-20 21-6, 2-2, 6-6, 3-14 6-21,1-2 6-4,6-100 2-2, 6-32, 6-6 2-3 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 7-17, 21-31, 21-32, 3-2, 7-1 2-2,6-6 2-2, 6-12,6-6,6-14 2-2, 6-6,6-12 2-2, 6-6, 6-15, 5-8, 6-17, 6-32, 6-14 2-2, 6-6, 6-72 2-2, 5-7, 6-6, 6-12, 6-14, 24-3 2-2 2-2, 5-8,6-32 public names 091701.As t 1 f 1 1 J A 1 1 F E A 1 Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Brown Jr. Chester H. DP1818 Brown Jr. Chester H. PP0336 Brown Jr. Royall R. DP0867 Brubaker Bill PP0337 Bruce Carole PP0172 Bruck Peter PP0338 Brugh Julianne DP1534 Brumbaugh R. Gary DPO211 Brunette Bryan L. DPO943 Bryan James W. DP0520 Bryan Kaye DP2296 Bryant Tonya DP 1185 Buccini Robert V. DP1128 Buccini Robert SP0302 Buck Andrea PP0561 Bucklen W. K. DPO448 Buehler Jennifer G. DP1814 Buffington Ann W. PP0339 Bull Stephen A. DP1858 Bullard Rod SP0290 Bullins E. Spencer DP0392 Bullock Julian S. DP0753 Bumpass Michael F. DP1739 Bumpass Mike DP2248 Bumpass Mike SP0404 Bunce Bruce DP1850 Bunch Thomas E. DP0252 Burch Louis E. DP1491 Burick Donna DP1951 Burick Donna DP1986 Burick Donna DP2363 Burke Mike DP1007 Burkette Wayne DPO455 Burkholder Alice PP0340 Burleson Teri L. DP1081 Burnet Timothy SP0340 Burnett Tim DP2269 Burnett Tim PP0237 Burnett Timothy B. DP1133 Burnett Timothy B. SP0117 Burns John DP2271 Burns Joseph V. DP0191 Burns Patrick J. DPO171 Burr Allen DP1437 Burr Allen PP0143 Burr Sandi SP0351 Burre Joyce H. PP0341 Burress III John W. DPO125 Burris James SP0194 Burton J. Frank DP1003 Comment Codes 6-76, 5-7, 6-75, 5-8, 29-16, 2-2 2-2, 5-7, 6-31, 29-24, 6-6, 29-12, 6-15, 3-59 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 5-20 1-6,5-9 2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 6-32, 23-3, 5-7 24-1, 6-3, 6-36 2-2, 29-17, 5-8 5-8, 6-12, 6-6, 6-32, 2-2 2-2, 6-32, 6-6, 5-7 2-2,6-6 2-2,6-6 2-2,6-6, 6-14, 6-32 2-3, 3-1, 24-1, 6-45, 3-75, 3-76, 20-6 5-5, 3-1, 2-21 2-2 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-2, 6-32, 6-12 2-2, 6-6,1-6 6-15 2-2, 5-8, 5-7 2-2,6-19 2-2, 6-12, 3-129 2-2,26-2,6-14,29-16, 6-32 2-2, 26-2, 5-15, 6-14, 6-32, 29-16, 3-104, 6-72 2-2, 6-6, 9-7, 5-8, 6-12, 29-17 2-3, 24-1, 20-6, 29-56 2-2,5-7., 5-8,5-9 6-15,6-6, 29-90, 6-14 6-9, 2-3, 5-5, 3-2, 7-1 6-9, 2-3, 5-5, 3-2, 7-1 6-9, 2-3, 5-5, 3-2, 7-1 2-2, 6-14, 29-16 2-2, 6-15, 5-35 2-1, 2-9, 5-5 2-3,29-80 6-6, 6-12, 6-14, 29-32 2-2, 6-6, 6-15, 5-9 2-2, 6-12, 6-32 2-2,6-12,6-14,6-6 6-10 2-3,5-21,6-100 2-2, 6-19, 6-14, 6-32, 6-12 2-2,6-14,6-32 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21- 32 2-3, 5-2, 6-45, 17-1, 30-1, 5-17, 6-48 6-28, 6-2, 5-46, 5-17, 21-1 2-2 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32 2-2, 6-14, 6-12, 6-6, 5-8, 29-17 2-2, 6-15,6-12,6-32 public names_091701.x1s Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Busby Ann M. DP0337 Busby Ann M. PP0342 Bush Marc R. DP1777 Bush Marc PP0281 Bush Marc SP0104 Bush Marc SP0405 Bush Mark DP2285 Bussey Bob DPO582 Butcher Vickie PP0343 Byerly Kathy DP1279 Byrd Angel DP0300 Byrum Jerry H. DP2035 Cail Julie DP0356 Calabrese Melissa DP2156 Calhoun Eric R. DP1015 Calkinay Sandra SP0027 Call James H. DP0001 Callaghan E.J. PP0084 Callaghan E.J. SP0329 Callahan Cheryl M. SP0114 Callahan Pete T. SP0158 Callahan Rance DP1288 Callcut Sue DP1215 Cameron Donald W. DP1536 Cameron Helene SP0294 Cameron Jeff PP0082 Cameron Veronica PP0344 Campbell Angela DP1115 Campbell Dennis DP0789 Canino Rev. Louis DP1271 Canner Bob PP0038 Canner raylo DpiS93 Canner Gayle PP0259 Canner Gayle SP0049 Canner Joyce PP0036 Carcaury Jr. Claude DP1281 Cardwell Garnett DP1653 Cardwell Linda DP1403 Carlson Ken DP2219 Carlson Jr. Kenneth P. DP1368 Carlton Elizabeth DP0070 Carney Laurin PP0345 Carpenter G. Scott DPO459 Carpenter Kenneth B. DPO160 Carpenter Tim DP0890 Carraway Jeanette R. DP1295 Carrick Gina SP0002 Carroll Cynatha DP2212 Comment Codes 2-2, 6-32, 6-6, 29-16, 5-7 2-2,6-12,6-6 2-2,6-6,29-90 2-2,6-32,5-8,29-11 2-2,5-9 2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 6-32, 29-24 2-2, 5-7, 29-90, 6-12, 6-6 2-2, 6-19, 29-16, 27-4, 27-1, 24-2 2-2,29-76 2-2,6-32,6-12 2-2,29-16 2-3, 3-36, 24-1, 7-4, 9-6, 1-2, 21-17, 2-96 2-2,6-6 6-6,3-14 6-10 21-1, 2-7,5-5,6-2 21-29,24-1, 3-123 3-7, 3-224, 3-206, 2-6, 22-1, 2-45, 3-39 2-6, 3-206, 3-224 2-2,29-15, 6-17, 5-8,6-12,6-15 2-2, 3-13, 6-10, 29-16, 29-17, 1-6, 29-20, 29-21, 5-9 2-2,6-32,6-12, 6-6 3-36; 3-7, 3-85; 3-1; 6-45 6- 9-3 2-2,6-12,6-6,6-14 2-2,29-16,2-2,5-8 2-3, 5-2, 1-1, 1-2, 1-4, 3-1, 3-7, 3-2, 3-16, 2-4, 6-2 2-2 2-2,5-8,29-17 6-15, 6-6, 2-2 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 - 2-3, 22-2, 29-7, 6-4, 5-2 `-3 v o ?c n ne nn , v- v, I -L, L I -JJ 22-1, 22-2, 29-7, 21-4, 21-17 3-4,29-3 2-3,1-1, 3-33, 6-4, 21-1, 6-23, 22-2 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-2,6-6, 6-32 2-2,6-6 6-12, 6-32, 6-15, 5-9, 2-2 2-2,6-6 2-2 2-2 2-2,6-12,5-8 2-2,6-12,6-6,29-17 2-2, 6-32, 6-12 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 5-1, 29-1, 21-1, 6-2, 29-2 2-2,6-6,6-12,6-15 1 1 1 r 1 A 1 public names_091701.As I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 Last Name Carroll Carroll Carroll III Carson Carter Carter Carter Carter Carter Carter Caruth Carver Cary Jr. Casacchia Case Cash Cashion Cashion Cashion Cashion Casstevens Cataldo Cataldo Cauble Cauble Jr. Caudle Caughron Cauthen Cavanaugh Cavanaugh Cavanaugh Cavanaugh Cavanaugh Cavanaugh Cavanaugh Cawood Cayton Cayton Cecil Cecil Cecil Cecil public names_091701.xis Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Comment Codes First Name Middle Code Hodges C. DP1636 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21- 32 Joseph F. DP1635 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Eugene DP0014 2-2 Jo Ellen DP0845 2-2,6-14,6-6,6-32 Anne H. DP1384 2-23,9-6,3-1, 5-5, 7-13,5-1 Connie DP1400 2-2 Joan DP2243 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-17 Leon DP2243 2-2,6-26 Peggy DP1540 2-2, 6-14,6-6,6-32 Ronald M. DP1095 2-3,1-2,5-5 Carmen DP2217 2-2,6-6 Mike DP0322 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 5-8 Randolph J. DP0800 2-2, 6-6, 5-7 Alleta DP1969 3-7, 1-22, 29-60, 7-4, 29-56, 3-61 Ron PP0346 2-2,6-6 Clyde R. DPO343 2-2,6-26,6-15,6-12 Audie DP0994 2-2,5-8,6-12 Audie DP2284 29-17,6-15,6-14,2-37 Coleman L. DP1230 2-3, 29-63, 9-25, 27-1, 22-4, 6-16, 6-4 Margie DPO669 2-2, 6-6, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 Randy S. DP1598 2-2, 6-14, 6-32 Gaetano De DP0702 24-6,6-10 Gaetano De DP0702 2-2 Karen DP1036 7-4, 7-1, 9-6, 9-3, 7-20, 7-19, 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6- 73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-32, 21-1, 2-35, 6-45, 3-36, 3- 1, 5-32,3-101, 2-3 John DP2059 2-3, 3-7, 3-223, 24-1, 3-1, 3-36, 7-4, 7-1, 27-1, 5-5, 1-2, 3-135, 3-10,29-56 David A. DP0194 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32 David DP2298 2-2,6-6 Jody DPO491 2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 6-32 Karin DP1893 2-3, 5-5, 29-56, 5-22 Kathleen DP1263 2-3,1-2,3-7,3-10 Kathleen DP1352 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73, 3-74, 3-7, 3-37 Kathleen DP1593 3-105,3-36, 3-97, 3-7 Michael J DP1195 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Michael DP2014 3-7, 3-36, 3-109, 3-1, 24-1, 2-79 William DP2009 3-16,3-1 Hobart G. DP0429 2-2 Brenda DP1654 2-2, 6-6, 6-32 Randall DP1583 2-2,6-12 Bob DP2027 2-3,1-22,3-7,1-2 Mark R. DP2036 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Mark R. DP2037 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21- 32 Wendy W. DP2026 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21- 32 Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Cecil Wendy W. DP2031 Chadwick Judy PP0053 Chadwick Tom PP0347 Chalk Ken DP0784 Chamberlin Andrew S. PP0348 Chambers Ken DP1216 Chanley Navin DP0713 Charbonneau Raymond V. DP1126 Chase Greg DPO966 Chase L. Sue PP0349 Chase Phyllis PP0350 Chasson Jeff DP0639 Cheek Rodney S. DP0931 Cheney Gay E. DP1305 Cheney Gay DP0685 Cheney Gay DP0765 Cheney Gay DP2038 Cheney Gay DP2416 Cheney Gay PP0109 Cheney Gay PP0244 Cheney Winifred N. DP1378 Chesson S. M. DP0807 Chesson S.M. DP0772 Chesson S.M. DP0773 Chesson S.M. DP1704 Chesson S.M. DP2386 Chesson Shelba J. DP0806 Chesson Shelba J. DP0808 Chesson Shelba J. DP1639 Chesson Shelba J. DP1702 Chesson Shelba J. DP1703 Chesson Shelba J. DP1821 Chesson Shelba DP1328 Chick Sr, Charles F. DP1746 Chickillo Catherine PP0151 Chickillo Catherine SP0017 Childers Don DP2182 Childress Dana DP2277 Christopher R.P. DP1553 Christopher R.P. DP2308 Chrysson Jennifer DP0963 Chudoba C. Alan DP1125 Church Gerald SP0259 Church Nancy H. DP0848 Claiborne Robert SP0156 Clapp Bernie DP0968 Clapp Harry P. DP1656 Clapp Harry PP0148 Clapp Harry SP0152 public names_091701.xis Comment Codes I 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 23-16, 2-23, 21-13, 2-3, 22-2 21-13, 23-16, 21-23, 2-23, 22-2, 2-3 2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 6-15 6-15, 6-6, 6-31, 1-6, 5-9 5-2,1-2 29-99,4-18 2-2, 6-32,6-6 5-15, 26-2, 5-8, 6-15, 6-6, 2-2 2-2 2-2 3-36, 3-76, 3-157, 2-3 2-2, 6-15, 6-6 21-73, 21-33, 21-71, 21-26, 9-28, 19-1, 9-3, 3-76, 3-36, 3-42, 3- 7, 20-6, 27-1, 7-1, 7-22, 7-4, 7-21, 2-23 7-21, 9-28, 3-49, 21-73 2-3, 3-130, 29-100, 7-4 21-1, 22-24, 22-2, 5-5, 1-2, 27-1, 7-4, 7-1, 72, 20-6, 2-3 7-4, 29-85, 20-6 23-16, 6-9, 5-2, 22-3, 2-3 2-3, 7-2, 9-6, 22-1, 22-3, 29-56 21-73, 21-33, 21-26, 7-17, 9-28, 19-1, 9-3, 3-76, 3-36, 3-42, 3- 7, 20-6, 27-1, 7-1, 7-22, 7-4, 7-21, 2-23 2-3, 7-5, 7-4, 7-3, 29-7 2-3, 21-42, 21-37, 21-43 2-3, 6-70, 6-97 2-3, 23-5, 23-23 3-81, 3-16, 3-157,2-3 3-15, 3-64, 3-162, 3-157, 3-49, 2-3 9-36, 9-22, 9-6, 9-23, 19-1, 9-54, 9-15, 8-1, 2-3 2-3, 7-1, 7-4, 5-5, 7-3, 29-7 2-3.6-70 2-3,21-37,21-1 ' 2-3, 23-5, 23-4 2-3,7-1,7-4,5-5,7-3 2-2,6-15 2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 3-7, 5-5, 6-45 3-1, 24-1,27-1 2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 6-32, 29-16, 5-8, 5-9 2-2,6-32 3-7, 7-4,7-1,27-1, 2-3 20-6,5-5,2-3 2-2, 6-6,6-12,26-2, 5-15,5-7 5-7,26-2 6-6,2-2 2-2, 6-32, 6-12 2-2, 5-9, 6-15, 6-6, 29-16, 29-17 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 1-22, 5-2,1-2, 3-36 22-2, 1-1, 1-23, 2-47, 30-9, 1-12, 22-1, 22-5, 4-4, 2-1 22-1, 1-1, 1-4, 22-5, 4-4 1 1 1 ?7 1 1 11 Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Clark Jeff T. DPO404 Clark Jimmy D. DP0751 Clark Robert DP0082 Clark Susan S. DP0379 Clarke Brian S. DPO645 Clayton Douglas M. DP0207 Clayton Ivan G. DP1728 Clegg Ann DP1011 Cleghom Michelle DP1247 Coan Mary B. DP0672 Coates Wayne G. DP1449 Coats Gerald SP0018 Cobb Bryan DP2021 Cobb Bryan SP0164 Cochran Jr. James B DP0999 Cockrell Tonya DP1069 Cole Howard SP0072 Cole Julie B. DPO460 Cole Maxine DP2195 Cole Sue Ann DP1966 Cole Sue W. OP0790 Cole Sue SP0287 Cole Tommy DP2194 Coleman Gail PP0051 Collins Barbara SP0330 Collins Dennis DP2270 Collins George R. DPO980 Collins George DP1611 Collins George DP2273 Collins George PP0228 Collins- Mary SP0086 Collson Laura S. DP2056 Colson Dorthy DP2235 Coltrane Shannon K. PP0351 Combs Jr. James A. DP0430 Comer Bob DP2085 Comer Bob SP0424 Comfort Stuart C. DP0934 Commerson Robert L. DP0775 Commerson Robert L. DPO956 Commerson Robert L. DPO957 Commerson Robert L. DP2325 Commerson Robert DP2087 Compton Paula DP1829 Connell Scott J. DP0866 Connell Scott Jerome DP2184 Connell Victoria L. DP0815 Connelly Sr. Roland L. DP1039 Conner Bob PP0215 Conner Gayle DP0650 Comment Codes 2-2,6-12 2-2, 6-14, 6-32, 6-77, 5-7 2-2,6-12 2-2,6-77 2-2, 6-32, 6-12, 6-6, 6-14, 5-7 2-2,6-12,5-9,6-15 2-2, 6-15, 6-14, 5-7, 6-32 2-2,6-6 2-2,6-12 2-2, 6-6, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 2-2, 5-7, 6-14, 6-6, 6-32, 5-8 1-1,2-1 2-3, 20-6, 29-7, 7-1, 9-6, 3-2, 27-8, 1-2, 5-5, 6-4, 6-31 2-3, 24-1, 1-1, 1-23, 29-22 2-3,9-6 2-2,6-12 6-6,2-2 2-2 2-2, 6-15, 6-12 7-4, 7-21, 7-1, 7-20, 2-3 2-2, 5-8, 29-16, 6-32 9-6,23-10 2-2,6-12 21-16, 3-34, 3-35 2-23, 1-4, 6-4, 1-2, 7-1, 6-1, 3-7, 27-1, 2-3 2-2, 6-14, 6-6, 6-32, 6-26, 6-15 3-101,7-70 23-30 3-101 2-3, 3-33, 23-16, 3-43, 30-1, 9-6, 27-8, 22-3 30-1, 5-5, 5-10 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-2, 29-16, 6-12, 6-6, 5-20 2-2,6-6 2-2,6-77 6-6, 6-14, 6-32, 2-2 6-6, 6-12, 6-32 2-2, 6-12.5-15,6-14 2-92, 23-34, 21-44, 8-6 2-3, 3-1, 24-1, 11-5, 11-6, 11-7 2-3, 13-15, 13-3, 13-13, 12-6, 2-89 2-92,21-44,1-2 20-6, 3-1, 3-36, 7-5, 7-4, 9-23, 27-1, 6-43, 6-45, 1-2 2-2,6-6 2-2, 6-6,6-32 6-32, 6-12,2-2,1-3 2-2, 6-6,6-12 2-2,6-15,29-32 2-3, 5-5, 7-2, 3-15, 27-8, 9-3, 21-28 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 public names_091701.xis Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Conner Gayle DP1229 Conner Laura DP1845 Connery Libby Katheryn DP1945 Connor Ron DP1440 Cook Brian DPO641 Cook Brian DPI 950 Cook Brian DP1956 Cook Brian DP1957 Cook Brian DP1982 Cook Brian DP1983 Cook Brian DP1985 Cook Brian DP2385 Cook Brian DP2398 Cook Dixon DP1248 Cook Dixon PP0186 Cook Joseph SP0214 Cook Lee DP0096 Cooke Caroline PP0140 Cooke Lisa PP0065 Cooke R. Cameron SP0393 Cooke Ruth W. DP2396 Cvomes James A. DPl6l2 Cooper Colleen DPI 113 Cooper Malcolm DP1264 Cooper Mimi DP2302 Copeland J. Joseph PP0352 Coram Sherri DP1661 Coran Donna C. DP0670 C' or '.. VI?/lll 1 V. 0.... ROX nnni AA L I VTTI Cordell A. Robert DPI 132 Coreen Carl M. DP1425 Corkman Mary PP0062 Corley Rennie DPO505 Corpening Julius DP0366 Corvey Ted DP0624 Coston Abby PP0562 Cothren Judy DP1625 Couch Betty F. DP0226 Coughlin Mike DP1166 Council Taylor SP0257 Couts Nula SP0032 Coulter Mary E. DP1547 Coviello Jim DPO748 Covington Ned SP0192 Covitz Sharon DP0055 Cowell Betty DP1421 Cox Mary DP0041 Comment Codes 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 2-79, 21-31, 21-32, 2- 3 2-2 5-22,29-63 2-2,6-15 9-36, 9-22, 9-6, 9-23,19-1, 9-54, 9-15, 8-1, 2-3 2-3, 7-3, 7-4, 7-21, 5-2 9-36, 9-22, 9-6, 9-23,19-1, 9-54, 9-15, 8-1, 2-3 3-36, 3-15, 3-86, 5-1, 2-3 9-36, 9-22, 9-6, 9-23, 19-1, 9-54, 9-15, 8-1, 2-3 3-36, 3-15, 3-86, 5-1, 2-3 2-3, 7-3, 7-4, 7-21, 5-2 2-3, 7-3, 7-4, 7-21, 5-2 3-36, 3-15, 3-86, 5-1, 2-3 3-7, 3-1, 3-16, 7-16, 2-3 7-2 6-22, 20-6, 7-2, 6-35, 3-1, 30-2, 24-2 2-2,6-14 7-2, 7-6,2-3,24-1 2-3, 1-2, 24-1, 6-4, 29-64 2-2, 29-38, 29-10,1-3 24-1,24-7 2-2, 6-6,6-i2 3-7, 2-3,3-1,1-2 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-2,6-6 2-2, 6-15, 6-6 2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 6-15 2-2, 6-6, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 c-c 2-2,6-6 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-3, 3-7, 9-6, 6-43, 27-8, 2-23, 21-4, 6-1, 1-2 2-2, 6-6,3-14 2-2,6-12 2-2, 5-7,6-12,6-32,29-24, 5-9, 6-15 2-2 2-2,6-6,6-12 2-2,6-6 6-69,5-2,1-2,1-14 6-22, 22-4, 24-1, 5-2, 29-39, 3-1, 30-4 6-4,27-1, 5-2,1-2 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-2,6-77 2-2, 6-10, 6-12, 6-20, 5-8, 6-15 2-2,6-6,6-15 2-2,6-32 2-2, 6-12, 6-14 LEI 11 r LLI 1 1 public names_09170I.As I Last Name Cox 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Craft Craft Craig Cramer Cramer Crate Craven Craver Craver Craver Crawford Crews Crews Crews Crews Crisco Crocker Cronin Crosby Crosby Crosby Crosby Crosby Crosby Crosby Crosby Crosby Crosby Crosby Crosby Crosby Crosby Crosby Crosby Crouch Crsico Cude Cude Cude Cude Cude Cude First Name Scott Daniel David Mark J. Rod G.E. Christine B. C. Vicki Shirley Edna Edna S. William J. Joseph Barry Jerry Jerry Jerry Jerry Jerry Jerry Jerry Jerry Margaret Margaret Margaret Margaret Margaret Peggy Peggy Peggy Erin Bramley Deen Deen Deen Deen Deen Lisa Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Middle R. Scott Scott Penn F. H. H. E. Keith D. G. G. G. W. W. Letter Code DP1492 SP0446 PP0002 DN0004 DP1799 PP0353 SP0189 DP0044 DP0362 DP0172 DP0317 PP0156 DP0126 DPO131 DPO407 DP2052 DP1538 DP1152 DP0064 DP1978 DP2384 DP2392 DP1921 DP1929 DP1930 DP1931 DP1932 DP0764 DP0766 DP1640 DP1701 DP1922 DP1908 DP1977 DP2143 DP0385 DP1417 DP0718 DP1854 Comment Codes 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-2, 6-32,6-12,29-11 2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 6-12, 1-6 2-2 2-2,6-14,6-6 2-2 2-2,2-25,6-10, 6-14, 6-16,29-13 2-2,5-8,6-12 6-6,6-12, 2-2 2-2,6-19, 6-14, 6-32, 6-12 2-2,6-6,6-12,6-26 2-11, 3-1, 24-1, 6-45, 5-1, 2-9 29-16,2-2 29-16,2-2 6-77, 6-32, 5-8, 2-2 3-7, 3-2, 3-1, 7-4, 7-21, 5-2, 9-6, 7-1, 27-1 2-2, 6-14, 6-32, 6-12, 6-6 2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 6-32, 26-2 2-2, 5-8, 6-12 2-3, 3-69, 3-1, 7-4, 7-1, 9-6, 6-45, 6-16, 5-34 2-3, 3-69, 3-1, 7-4, 7-1, 9-6, 6-45, 6-16, 5-34 2-3, 3-69, 3-1, 7-4, 7-1, 9-6, 6-45, 6-16, 5-34 9-36, 9-22, 9-6, 9-23, 19-1, 9-54, 9-15, 8-1, 2-3 3-36, 3-15, 3-86, 5-1, 2-3 2-3, 7-5, 7-4, 7-3, 29-7 2-3, 23-22, 23-33, 23-5 2-3,6-70 _ 3-109, 3-22, 3-63, 3-49, 2-3 2-3, 6-70, 6-97 9-22, 9-21, 9-4, 9-23, 19-1, 9-3, 9-15, 8-1, 2-3 2-3, 23-5, 23-23 2-3,7-5,7-4,7-3,29-7 29-98, 27-1, 7-1, 9-6, 3-2, 8-1, 29-63, 30-1, 6-4, 29-56, 2-3 29-98, 27-1, 7-1, 9-6, 3-2, 8-1, 29-63, 30-1, 6-4, 29-56, 2-3 29-98, 27-1, 7-1, 9-6, 3-2, 8-1, 29-63, 30-1, 6-4, 29-56, 2-3 6-12,29-16 2-2,6-26 3-16 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 3-33, 23-16, 2-23, 21-4 2-3, 1-1, 21-1, 5-2, 17-1, 3-33, 27-1, 3-9, 6-43, 6-45, 30-1, 30- 4, 7-2, 9-6, 5-44, 21-1, 24-1, 2-7, 2-1, 2-19,1-2, 24-2 5-5, 22-1, 21-1, 17-1, 3-2, 5-2, 3-3, 3-75, 6-1, 29-1, 30-1, 21-1, 5-1,2-1, 5-2 2-3, 24-1, 6-45, 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21- 32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-73, 3-74 21-3, 2-23, 2-19, 5-23, 23-5, 3-15 2-2,6-14 2-2, 5-8,6-32 21-13,23-16,5-2 PP0254 PP0354 SP0009 W. DPO560 Cude Lisa PP0255 Cullen Stephen D. DP1802 Culler Stephen D. DP0120 Cummings Harold PP0355 public names_091701 xls Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Comment Codes Last Name First Name Middle Code Cundiff Pamela J. DP2290 2-2,6-12.6-14,6-6 Cundiff Pamela DP0076 2-2,6-14,6-32 Curri Mark S. DP0558 20-6,5-22 Currin Amanda DP1020 6-32,2-2 Curry Curtis Eileen Philip DP1879 DP2230 3-2,7-1,9-6,2-3,20-6 29-60, 6-45, 29-85, 2-18, 3-2 Curtis Phillip SP0369 22-2,29-1.1-2, 5-2 Curtis Jr. L. Wesley DP1276 2-2,6-6,6-12,6-32 Curtiss Philip DP1772 5-1, 5-2, 3-1, 6-45, 29-60, 2-23 Curtiss Philip PP0130 2-3, 22-4, 22-1, 29-63, 9-6, 22-2, 1-4 Curtiss Philip PP0283 22-4, 22-2, 6-53, 6-43, 6-3 Cutroneo Anthony DP1249 7-4, 7-3, 2-23 Dagenhad Kevin L. DP0145 6-19,6-6,5-9 Dahl Jr. Tyrus V. DP0657 2-2,6-6 Dallas J. S. PP0357 2-2,5-8,1-6,6-12 Dallas Keith PP0356 2-2 Dallas III John Sanders DPO199 2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 6-32 Dalton Carolyn D. DP0315 2-2,6-6,6-12,6-26 Dalton Janet DP0330 2-2,6-6,6-12,6-26 Danahy J. Patrick SP0317 2-2,6-26,6-15, 6-12, 5-8 Daniel Marcia A. DP0995 2-2,29-16 Daniel Megan DP1455 2-2,6-6 Dappen Richard DP0048 2-2,6-6 DArcy Teresa DP2377 5-2,2-92 Davenport Rick DPO955 2-2, 6-15, 6-12, 6-6, 6-25, 29-12 Davis Doris M. DP1044 2-2,6-32 Davis Farah S. DP0595 2-2,6-14 Davis Gay DP1630 2-3, 3-1, 7-3, 27-1, 29-85, 29-7 Davis Gay PP0358 24-1, 23-29, 7-6, 9-3, 30-1, 6-9, 23-1 Davis Gay SP0170 24-1, 3-10, 3-1, 12-6, 21-1, 7-2, 7-3, 7-4, 6-1 Davis Hazel PP0360 2-2,29-76 Davis Jean E. DPO124 2-2, 6-6,29-17 Davis Linwood DP0037 2-2,6-12,6-14, 24-3 Davis Lisa DP1841 2-2,6-6,6-12,6-15 ' Davis Martin B. DP1532 2-2,6-6 Davis Mary Jo DP1226 20-6, 3-7, 7-21, 12-6, 21-4 Davis Paula DP0859 29-37,5-44 Davis Ronald R. DP0387 2-2, 6-14,3-13 Davis Tommy PP0359 2-2,6-15 Davis III John SP0231 . 6-13,3-30,2-13, 6-10 Davis Jr. James E. DP1131 2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 5-8, 29-17 Davison Jr. D. Ralph DP1787 2-2, 6-6,6-12,6-14 Dawkins Jennifer Mauldin DP1541 2-2,6-6 Dawson Bill SP0314 5-5, 3-21, 21-1, 3-223, 5-2, 3-1, 6-1, 6-9, 2-3, 6-4, 2-22 Day James A. DP1004 2-2,5-7 Dean Richard H. DP0406 2-2,6-77 , Dean William M. DP1724 2-2,6-26 Dean III Mills DP1972 3-2 DeBottis John DP1196 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Decamp Richard SP0208 3-14,21-6,6-13 DeHart Teresa DPO241 2-2,6-14,6-12,6-32 public names_09170I.As 1 1 1 1 Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code DeLoatch Fernell DP0912 Deloatch Femell SP0305 Deloca Paul PP0361 Deloca Paul PP0362 Deloca Paul PP0363 Deloca Paul PP0364 DeLoca Penny DP1943 Deloutch Femell PP0078 Demetriades Penny SP0085 Dennis Dave DP1308 Dennis Dave DP1835 Dennis Dave PP0289 Dennis Dave PP0366 Dennis Dave SP0426 Dennis June DP1169 Dennis June DP1259 Dennis June PP0187 Dennis June PP0365 Denton Edgar PP0367 DeNuccio Ron DP1478 Depoe Theresa SP0035 Derrico Miki SP0210 Desbien Elizabeth DP1770 Dicarlo Andrew SP0034 Dickens Jr. Arthur P. PP0368 Dickie Donna M. DP1754 Dickie Thomas DP1464 DiDonato Ron DP1029 Diering Norma PP0058 Dietrich Dietrich, PP0369 Dietrich Jody DP1280 Dietrich Jody PP0224 Dietrich Jody PP0263 Dietrich Jody PP0373 Dietrich Jody PP0374 Dietrich Jody PP0375 Dietrich Jody PP0376 Dietrich Jody SP0246 Dietrich Walt PP0370 Dietrich Walt PP0371 Dietrich Walt PP0372 Dietrich Walter DP1197 Comment Codes 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 29-12, 6-17 2-2,6-10,6-30 2-3, 9-6, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 22-2, 29-56 2-3,1-1, 29-56, 22-1, 9-6, 27-13, 6-45, 23-22, 23-5 2-3, 5-5, 30-1, 3-1, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45 2-3, 6-4,1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 21-4, 22-2, 29-56 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 6-6,2-2 3-4 7-4, 7-1, 7-25, 7-26, 7-27, 7-28, 7-29, 7-30 7-4, 7-1, 7-25, 7-26, 7-27, 7-28, 7-29, 7-30 7-1, 7-11, 6-54, 7-2, 7-6, 7-3, 9-3, 2-42, 2-62, 3-50, 3-209, 2- 65, 30-11,13-1,12-1 3-3, 8-1, 6-4, 7-2, 3-16,1-1, 9-6, 22-2, 5-2, 5-44, 30-11, 30-1, 5-5, 27-8, 29-56 5-44, 2-17, 3-28, 3-1, 6-1, 7-6, 9-6,13-1 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 6-12, 6-32, 6-4, 7-2, 9-6, 29-1, 13-1, 3-1, 6-9, 5-21, 21-1, 2-23, 2-17 3-1, 3-16, 7-2,1-1, 5-2, 22-2, 5-44,13-1, 30-11, 30-1, 5-5, 27- 8,29-56 2-3, 3-15, 7-2, 27-1, 24-2, 6-45 2-3,1-22 1-1,22-1 3-1, 1-4,4-5, 5-2, 21-1, 24-1, 30-1 5-2, 6-9, 20-6 5-2, 2-4, 30-1 2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 5-8, 6-30 2-2, 6-12,6-6 2-2, 6-12, 24-3 2-2, 6-14, 29-16, 6-12, 6-6, 26-2, 6-32 1-2,2-3 2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 7-2, 7-3 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-3, 29-7, 7-2, 9-6, 9-3, 14-1, 22-2, 29-56, 29-35, 6-4, 7-1 2-3, 5-2, 22-2, 29-56, 27-1, 6-4 2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 5-5, 30-1, 3-1, 9-6, 9-3, 22-2, 29- 56,6-4 2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 7-2, 27-1, 7-3, 24-1, 3-9 2-3, 21-13, 23-22, 2-72, 6-67, 29-56 2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 9-6, 9-3, 22-2, 29-56 2-3, 9-2, 7-5, 7-4, 7-3, 24-1, 6-4, 27-1, 3-3, 3-1, 3-18, 30-1, 5- 2,21-1,22-1, 29-52 2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 21-4, 22-2, 29-56, 6-4 2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 3-9, 24-1, 7-3 2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 9-6, 9-3, 22-2, 29-56 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 public-names-091 701.xis Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Dietterick Anne PP0092 Dietterick Anne PP0300 Dietterick Lanny PP0073 Dietterick Lanny PP0265 Dieugenio Louis PP0377 Dieugenio Louis PP0378 DiFalco Fay DP0538 Difalco Nick DP1889 DiFalco Nick DP2209 Digh Michael DP0836 Dillingham Josh DP0701 Dillingham Josh DP0701 Dixon Donald L. DPO834 Dixon John C. DP0496 Dixon Renee PP0379 Dixon Sam W. DP1668 Dixon Jr. Clarence N. DP1662 Dodson James C. DP1582 Donahey Kelly DP0282 Donohoe Charles DP1992 Dorchester Wendy PP0380 Dorchester Wnedy K. DP0950 Dorr Neil A. DP1761 Dorr Neil PP0069 Dorr Neil SP0293 Dorr Susan SP0291 Doub Julia DP0058 Doucette Holly SP0016 Dougan Tim DP1033 Dougherty Becky DP2236 Dougherty Rebecca M. DP0993 Dougherty Rebecca M. DP1597 Dougherty Rebecca SP0201 Doughton S. Mark DP1899 Doughton Thomas J. DP0378 Douglas Annette S. DP1105 Douglas III Thomas S. DP0390 Douglass Donald P. DPO346 Dowdle Hugh John DP0220 Doyal Colleen SP0212 Doyal Jim PP0158 Doyal Nickie PP0045 Doyle Cynthia SP0162 Drake Richard DP0045 Drew III Ellis B. DP0339 Druce Dianne L. DP2006 Druce Dianne L. DP2008 Druce Dianne L. DP2015 Druce Dianne L. DP2060 Druce Dianne L. DP2069 Druce Dianne PP0268 public names_091701.As Comment Codes 2-3, 30-1,17-1, 30-8 2-3, 30-1, 3-7,17-1 2-3 2-3 2-3, 22-2, 29-56, 5-21, 9-6,11-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 3-1, 7-2, 7- 1,27-8 2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 3-1, 22-2, 5-21, 24-1 21-48, 3-109, 22-24, 21-48, 6-4, 6-106, 3-49 29-56 3-149, 3-36, 29-85 2-2, 6-6, 6-14 6-14,24-3 2-2 6-12, 6-6, 6-25, 27-9, 5-9 6-12, 6-14, 5-9, 6-15 7-2,14-1,13-1, 3-33 2-2, 5-7, 6-6 2-2, 5-7, 29-19, 29-90 2-2, 5-7, 6-14 2-2,6-6, 6-12, 5-7 7-4, 7-1, 2-3, 20-6 2-2 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-14, 6-32, 5-7 3-36, 3-93, 2-18, 5-2 2-3, 3-33, 5-2,21-4,21-1, 6-9,1-2 5-5,1-1, 2-7,6-1,21-1 22-1, 5-3,3-1,24-1 2-2, 5-7, 6-6,6-12,6-14 3-1, 17-1, 30-1, 6-2, 27-1 2-3 2-2, 6-6, 29-17, 5-8 2-2,6-6,5-8 29-17, 6-6, 29-17, 5-8, 2-2 5-8, 2-2, 29-37, 5-8, 6-6 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 5-8 2-2, 6-77, 6-14, 5-15 5-2,6-9 2-2,6-77 2-2,5-9 29-24, 6-19, 6-14, 6-6, 6-32, 2-2, 5-9 2-3, 3-15, 22-1, 2-1, 24-1 22-2, 6-50, 3-16, 3-44, 5-17 2-3,1-1, 5-25,23-5,4-13 27-4,5-16,6-6, 5-9 2-2,6-6,6-12,6-14 2-2,6-26,6-15, 6-12 2-3,6-70 3-36, 3-15, 3-86, 5-1, 2-3 2-3, 23-22, 23-23 2-3, 7-5, 7-4, 7-3, 29-7 9-36, 9-22, 9-6, 9-23, 19-1, 9-54, 9-15, 8-1, 2-3 21-1, 2-23, 2-3, 5-5, 3-28, 2-3 ?J 1 1 f1 L? 1 I? JII' [1 L -j Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Druce Walt PP0093 Dry Mickey W. DP1025 Duggins Joyce B. DP0335 Duke Chirs DP0302 Duncan William H. DP0232 Dunlap Kay DP2227 Dunn Jane DP0634 Dunn Nancy W. DPO490 Dunn III John O. PN0004 Durant Paul DP2138 Durgin Wentworth SP0053 Durham Brenda DP2335 Duvall Ron DP1503 Earles S. Thomas SP0161 Early Jr. A. Doyle DP0270 Early Jr. A. Doyle PP0381 Earthman Dan DP0213 Easterling Doug DP2383 Eaton Jay DP1606 Eaton P. Diane DP1282 Eaton Sandy DP1595 Eaton W. Thomas DP2020 Eblin Steve DP2295 Edden Christopher K. DP1436 Edwards Carol DPO590 Edwards Pat DP1174 Edwards Ray W. SP0140 Edwards W. Derek DP0842 Egleston Amy M. DPO130 Egloff Fran DP1077 Elder Sherrill DP0184 Elliott Helen PP0061 Elliott Jessica DP1708 Elliott John V. DP1518 Elliott Kathy DP1719 Elliott Michle D. DP1713 Ellis Janice DP1831 Ellis Kris PP0382 Ellison Lisa DP1433 Ellison Lisa PP0383 Ellisor Elisabeth DP0293 Elluis E. DP1572 Elster J Robert DP0017 Elster Jr. John R. DPO105 Elz Lora DP0327 Emken Robert A. DP0930 Enders Jr. Robert A. DPO416 Enry Steve PP0384 Epes C. Richard SP0281 Erath George S. DPO438 Erickson Ronald W. DP1037 public names 091701.As Comment Codes 2-3, 27-10, 2-44, 2-23, 13-1, 23-16 6-6, 29-17, 26-2, 2-2 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-26 29-24,6-15 2-2, 6-15, 6-6, 5-8, 6-32, 24-3 3-36,3-204 1-22 2-2,6-14,6-12, 6-6 2-2 2-3, 5-2,24-1 2-2,24-2, 5-8 2-2,6-14,6-6 6-77, 6-12, 6-32, 2-2 3-14,2-2,29-19 2-2,6-6,6-32,6-12, 6-15 2-2,6-6 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32 6-141, 6-142, 6-131, 3-113, 24-1 29-89, 1-22, 6-43, 9-31, 3-1, 2-3, 6-85 2-2, 6-32, 6-12 2-3,20-6,3-1, 7-1 2-3, 9-6, 7-4, 27-1, 7-3, 29-56 2-2,6-6 2-2, 6-12, 6-32, 6-6, 5-8, 6-15 2-3,20-6 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-2,6-6 2-2, 6-14, 6-32, 6-6, 5-7 6-6, 6-14, 6-12, 6-26, 2-2 2-3, 3-1, 7-1, 9-3, 9-6, 29-1, 6-4, 24-1, 27-1 2-3, 5-2, 6-85 21-13,23-16 29-116,2-2 2-2, 6-15, 6-6 2-2, 6-6, 5-8 2-2, 6-12, 6-26 20-6,3-2,7-1,2-3 2-2 2-2, 6-12, 29-16, 6-32, 6-6 2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 6-15, 1-6, 3-14 2-2, 24-3, 6-15 6-6,6-12,2-2 2-2,6-12 2-2,6-6,6-12 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-26 2-2,6-6 2-2,6-14 2-2,6-12 7-76,9-8 5-8,6-14 2-2,6-6,6-14 Piedmont Triad International Airport ' General Public Letter Comment Codes Last Name First Name Middle Code , Erwin John T. DP1517 2-2, 6-15, 6-12, 29-16, 6-32, 6-14, 6-6, 3-104 Evans Allison DP0754 2-2,6-14,6-32 Evans David S. DP2322 6-4, 20-6, 3-2, 6-45, 2-3 Evans Leslie SP0004 2-3,5-5, 3-1,1-1 Evans W. P. DP0826 2-2,6-6, 5-7 Evens Cynthia G. DP0833 6-32,2-2,6-15,6-6 , Fadely Lewis DP0527 2-2,6-15,6-6 Faircloth John DP2151 6-6,2-2 Faircloth Linda DP2265 2-2,6-6 Faifield Donna R. DP0708 2-2,6-77 Falk Richard SP0289 2-2,6-10, 5-8 Falstreau Jay DP0261 6-6,2-2 Farmen P. DP0559 3-150,2-3,22-24 Farmer Peggy PP0104 29-66, 29-56, 21-68 Farmer Peggy PP0568 6-21, 6-4, 9-6, 22-2 Farmer Peggy SP0030 22-1, 29-1, 24-1, 3-1 Farthing Glenn DP1990 3-36, 3-76, 3-1, 6-48 Farthing Glenn PP0160 3-1, 24-1, 3-9, 7-2, 9-6, 22-2 , Farthing Glenn PP0191 2-3, 24-1, 3-1, 7-2, 27-8, 9-6, 9-10, 22-1, 22-2 Farthing Glenn PP0230 2-3,3-9, 3-33,22-1 Farthing Martha PP0229 2-3,22-3 Faucette Jerry DP1753 6-6, 6-12, 2-2 Fenn Jr. O. William DP0210 2-2, 6-12, 6-26 Ferrell K. P. DP0643 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Ferrell W. D. DP1355 5-5, 3-76,3-7,5-22 Festerman Fezento James Chi Sarah DP2204 DP1501 2-2,6-12 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- ' 73,3-74 Fick-Cooper Lynn DP0835 2-2,6-6, 6-12, 6-32,29-10,6-15 Fici Chris DPO299 6-15, 6-12,2-2 , Fields Alan R. DP1422 2-2,6-12,5-7,29-90 Fields J. Carson DP1643 2-2, 6-32, 6-12 Fields Joann M. DP0360 6-6, 5-8, 2-2 Finch Bobbie DP1329 6-12, 6-6,2-2 Finch Cody DP1314 6-15,6-12,6-6 Finch Dakus J. DP1315 6-15,6-12,6-6 Finch Darlinda DP1360 2-2,6-12,6-6 Finch Jame DP1669 2-2, 6-12,6-6 Finch Kimberly J. DP1576 2-2, 6-12, 6-32 Finch Robert L. DP0197 2-2,6-6,6-12,5-7 Finley Gerald DP0067 2-2, 6-12, 6-32 Fisher Jamaal DP0631 2-2,29-16,5-15, 6-12 Fisher Lori DP2013 7-4, 7-1, 9-6, 9-3, 7-20, 7-21, 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6- 73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-32, 21-1, 2-35, 6-45, 3-36, 3- 1, 5-32, 3-101, 2-3 Fisher Marilyn PP0095 20-6, 9-6, 5-2, 5-10 Fisher Tracy DP2048 29-60, 2-103, 6-104, 6-27, 6-113, 5-39, 26-8, 2-23, 21-52, 3- 162, 21-53, 21-54, 21-55, 21-56, 21-57 21-58 Fisher Tracy PP0385 , 21-70, 6-24, 1-18, 2-73, 2-68, 1-15 , Fitzgibbon Susan H. DP1519 2-2, 29-24, 6-19, 6-14, 6-32, 6-12, 6-6 Flagagan John P. DP1504 2-2, 6-6, 24-3 ' public names 091701.x1s Last Name Flanagan Flanigan Flannigan Flannigan Flannigan Flannigan Flannigan Flannigan Fleming Jr Fleming Jr Flow Floyd Flynt Flynt Flynt Flynt Flynt Flynt Folds Folds Folds Folk Follo Foote Forbis Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Forester Forrester Fortune Fortune Foster public names 091701.x1s Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Comment Codes First Name Middle Code Lori DP1613 5-8, 2-2, 6-6, 6-32 Steve DP2258 2-3, 29-60, 2-23 Stephen A. DP0326 7-17, 7-18,.7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70,21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-73, 3- 74 Stephen A. DPO468 3-96, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-32 Stephen A. DPO534 2-3,21-17, 21-3, 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21- 32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-73, 3-74 Stephen A. DP1302 8-2, 8-3, 8-4, 8-5, 8-6, 8-7, 8-8, 8-9, 8-10, 8-11, 8-12, 9-30, 8- 13, 8-14, 9-54 Trish L. DPO444 2-3, 21-23, 29-92, 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21- 32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-73, 3-74 Trish L. DP0687 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Howard W. DP2016 2-3,4-22, 3-111, 2-89, 6-5, 3-10, 3-226, 3-164, 3-7, 3-2, 3-91, 6-110, 2-18, 3-36, 22-2, 6-69,1-14, 7-4, 7-43, 20-6, 2-89 Howard W. DP2366 2-3,4-22, 3-111, 2-89, 6-5, 3-10, 3-226, 3-164, 3-7, 3-2, 3-91, 6-110, 2-18, 3-36, 22-2, 6-69, 1-14, 7-4, 7-43, 20-6, 2-89 Donald E. DP0314 2-2, 6-14, 6-6, 6-32, 6-12, 5-7 Marlene DP0032 6-3, 7-3,19-12 Kenneth E. DP2203 2-2, 5-20, 6-6, 6-12, 24-3 Tommy DP2267 6-14, 6-6,6-32, 2-2 W. Thomas DP0258 29-24, 6-19, 6-14, 6-6, 6-32, 2-2, 5-9 W. Thomas DP1030 6-14,6-12,2-2 W. Thomas DP1363 6-14, 6-12, 6-6, 29-24, 2-2 Will PP0386 2-2,6-6,6-12 C. Dean DPO409 2-2, 5-20,5-15 Charles DPO922 2-2,6-14,29-16 Charles DP2186 2-2.6-14.6-6 Rene and Tom DP2394 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21,-3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Marie SP0033 3-1,30-1 Andrew DP0292 2-2,6-12,6-6 John W. DP1463 2-2,5-8 Greg DP2286 3-16, 3-90, 3-2, 6-16, 9-6, 7-1 Jill DP1962 3-101, 3-2, 17-3, 3-211, 29-89, 6-3 Kenneth H. DP2005 3-7, 2-23, 3-36, 29-60, 29-100, 5-5, 5-34, 3-76, 1-1, 3-157, 3- 166, 3-167, 3-168, 3-169, 3-170, 3-171, 3-172, 3-214, 3-230, 3- 215, 3-173, 3-174, 3-175, 3-211, 3-176, 3-177, 3-101, 3-178, 3- 179, 3-180, 3-181, 3-182, 3-183, 1-4, 3-216, 3-184, 7-4, 19-8, 19-9, 19-10, 19-11, 19-12, 3-185, 27-39, 27-40, 17-3, 17-5, 17- 6 Kenneth H. DP2326 3-231,3-2 Kenneth SP0226 2-2, 6-6,2-17, 6-2, 6-1, 23-1, 2-35, 6-36, 3-1, 5-2, 3-2,17-1, 30-1, 22-1, 5-5,6-3, 6-31, 23-12, 21-17, 29-35 Kenneth SP0343 5-2,5-5,6-3,6-2 Gordon DP0862 7-1, 3-1,25-1, 24-1 Chuck DP1916 2-2,6-15 Chuck DP1010 2-2, 6-12,29-17 Chuck SP0247 6-14,5-8,2-2 Bill DP1617 2-3,3-69,6-45, 24-1 Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Foster Mary Ann DP2033 Foster Mary Ann DP2032 Foster Melvin G. DP1785 Foster Ron DP1098 Foster Ron PP0128 Foster Ron PP0299 Foster Sally PP0067 Foster Sally PP0227 Fouts Daniel W. DP0525 Fowler Mike PP0573 Fowler Mike SP0248 Fowler Mike SP0422 Fowler Steve DP1533 Fox John C. DP0308 Fox Lisa DPO944 Fox Wayne SP0295 Fox Wayne and Marilou DP2380 Francisco Denise PP0251 Franco Valene K. DP0227 Frank Stanley SP0297 Franklin Lindsay DP1284 Frayer Mark H. DP1795 Frazier Donald R. PP0572 Freels Ed DP0311 Freeman Charles L. DP0397 Freeman John Bryan DP1837 Freeman Ladd DP0015 Freeman Michael L. DPO151 French Paige DPO463 Fricke Robert DP0633 Fricke Robert DPO642 Fricke Robert DP0810 Frind Maura DP0296 Froelich Jr. J. H. DPO962 Frost Diane DP2294 Fry Erin DP0819 Fry Erin DP2116 Frye LaVohn DP2263 Frye W E DPO998 Fuhrmann Audrey DP1664 Fulk Elizabeth DP0283 Fuller Winn W. DP0265 Fulp Matthew DP0280 Fus Elliot DP0040 Futch Nat DP1366 Gaffney Thomas G. DP0428 Gaffney Thomas DP2256 Gaffney Tom PP0163 Gaffney Tom SP0368 public names_091701.xis Comment Codes 1 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21- 32 6-15, 6-14,24-3 5-5, 3-1, 3-76, 4-6 ' 5-5, 2-6, 6-48, 2-10, 3-15, 21-4 2-3, 5-5,1-2, 2-9 2-3 ' 2-3,29-56, 21-4 2-2,29-16, 6-6, 5-7 2-2,6-6 ' 2-2, 29-20, 27-4, 5-14, 5-9, 29-19, 2-34 5-14, 6-12, 6-26, 6-32 2-2, 5-7, 5-9, 24-3, 6-6 ' 2-2, 6-14, 6-32, 6-6, 5-8 2-2,6-32, 6-6, 5-7 3-1, 2-31, 30-1 3-7,3-232 , 2-3,24-1 2-2,6-6, 6-14, 6-12, 6-32 2-2 2-2,6-32,6-12 2-2,6-32,6-6,6-14 2-3, 3-1, 3-81 ' 2-2,6-6, 6-15 2-2 3-1,9-6,2-3,1-22 ' 2-2,24-6 2-2,6-26,6-32,26-2 a 2-2,5-8 , 14-18,3-36, 7-1, 30-19, 30-20,27-8,30-21 2-3, 2-92, 27-30, 30-22, 3-163, 3-229 14-23, 3-187, 3-163, 3-188, 7-11, 30-19, 30-20, 27-8, ' 7-59, 6- 108, 30 21 6-15, 29-16, 6-12 2-2,3-14 ' 2-2,6-6 6-12, 29-16,2-2 2-2,29-16, 6-32 ' 2-3, 3-1, 3-7, 9-6, 7-1, 27-1, 29-60, 22-2, 6-16 2-3,3-2 2-2,6-32, 6-14 2-2,6-15,6-12,6-32 ' 2-2,6-6, 6-32, 6-14 2-2,6-12,6-6 2-2,6-6, 6-14,6-32 6-14,2-2 2-2, 6-77, 5-8 2-2 , 2-2,29-11, 5-7 24-2,29-17, 6-15 ' Last Name Gainey Gale Gale Gale Gale ' Gale ' Gale Gale Gale Gale I Gale ' Gale Gale Gale ' Gale ' Gale Gallaher Gallimon Galloway Gann Gann Gann Gann Gantt Gantt Gantt Garber Gardner Garisky Garner Garner Garner Garner Garner public names_091701.As Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Comment Codes First Name Middle Code Robert DP1716 2-2, 6-32, 6-12, 6-15 Jack DP2110 29-60, 2-35, 6-45, 3-36, 5-5 Jack DP2176 3-101, 3-36, 3-2 Jack SP0403 2-3, 5-4, 5-17, 21-3, 6-2, 5-1 John C. DP1563 7-4, 7-1, 9-6, 9-3, 7-20, 7-19, 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6- 73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-32, 21-1, 2-35, 6-45, 3-36, 3- 1,5-32.3-101,2-3 John C. PP0389 2-3, 29-56, 21-1, 21-14, 21-23, 4-8, 7-1, 7-4, 7-2, 29-63, 9-3, 9- 6, 3-75,4-8, 3-33, 6-1, 2-17, 2-35,21-17, 1- John E. DPO958 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21- 32, 21-1, 2-35, 6-45, 3-36, 3-1, 21-33, 7-4, 7-1, 9-6, 9-3, 2-3 John E. PP0390 2-3, 21-13, 21-14, 21-1, 29-56, 6-50, 21-23, 22-8, 1-1, 21-17, 23-27, 21-26, 23-28, 29-54,4-13, 23-17, 23-26, 23-5, 30-1, 29- 7, 7-12, 23-4, 23-6, 7-4, 7-2, 29-63, 9-3, 9-6, 3-75, 4-8, 3-33, 6- 1, 2-17, 2-35, 21-17, 6-45, 1-14, 1-2, 1-15, 2-68, 21-13, 23-5, 5- 5 John DP1482 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21- 32, 21-1, 2-35, 6-45, 3-36, 3-1, 7-4, 7-1, 9-6, 9-3, 2-3 Kathleen DP0959 21-1, 24-1, 2-19, 21-4, 2-23, 21-3, 2-35, 5-5, 6-2, 5-4, 6-3, 5-7, 4-6,5-2 Kathleen DP1406 21-1, 24-1, 2-19, 21-4, 2-23, 21-3, 2-35, 5-5, 6-2, 5-4, 6-3, 5-7, 4-6,5-2 Kathleen SP0227 21-1, 24-1, 2-19, 21-4, 2-23, 21-3, 2-35, 5-5, 6-2, 5-4, 6-3, 5- 17,4-6,5-2 Kathy DP2175 2-3, 29-89, 29-56, 3-1, 3-91 Kathy PP0288 2-3,29-64, 3-16 Thomas C. DP1706 7-4, 7-1, 9-6, 9-3, 7-20, 7-19, 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6- 73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-32, 21-1, 2-35, 6-45, 3-36, 3- 1, 5-32,3-101,2-3 Thomas C. PP0391 2-3,5-1,22-2 Peggy DP1072 2-2,6-32 Jan DP1143 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Marilyn DP1228 7-4,5-2,1-2 Dawn DP1461 2-2, 6-6, 6-32 Patrick F. DP1651 2-2,6-6,6-32 Phillip F. DP1359 2-2,6-6 Tangle DP1645 2-2, 6-6, 6-32 Melvin DP2131 6-15, 6-12,6-6 R. Scott DP0499 2-2,29-90 R. Scott SP0445 2-2,6-6,6-15 Ken DP1996 6-85, 6-4, 24-1, 2-3 Barry W. DPO106 2-2,6-6,6-32,6-12 Peggy DP0969 2-2,6-6,6-12, 26-2, 5-15,5-7 Charles DP0896 3-118,3-76,7-1,24-1 Jennings C. PP0392 2-3, 30-1, 29-7, 5-5, 22-2 Mark A. DP1231 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21- 32 Mark DP0911 2-3, 5-5, 3-101, 3-176, 3-7, 29-89 Mark DP1838 3-7, 9-6, 7-4, 5-5, 29-109, 2-3 Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Comment Codes Last Name First Name Middle Code ' Garner Mark PP0394 2-3, 5-5,1-6,2-17,21-17,6-45,22-1, 5-5,1-2, 3-1, 3-60,29- Garner Mark SP0174 63, 6-4, 21-1, 2-23, 4-13, 23-14, 21-67, 12-6, 9-6 1-1, 3-17, 12-1, 9-3, 9-4, 3-1, 7-1, 30-1, 4-5, 2-3 ' Garner Mary PP0393 2-3, 5-5, 22-1, 30-1, 3-1, 2-9 Garner Patricia PP0395 2-3, 5-5,1-6, 2-17, 21-17, 6-45,22-1, 5-5,1-2, 3-1, 3-60, 29- 63, 6-4, 21-1, 2-23, 4-13, 23-14, 21-67 Garren Robert E. DP1484 7-17,7-18,7-19,7-20, 7-21, 3-70,21-31, 21-32,3-71,,3-72,,3- 73,3-74 Garrett Greg DP0817 2-2, 6-6,6-14, 5-7 ' Garrou John L.W. DP1537 2-2,6-6 Gassen Gail DP2174 5-5, 7-1, 7-3, 6-45 Gassen Gail PP0047 9-6 Gassen Gail PP0249 3-33, 3-1, 7-4, 7-2, 24-1, 9-15 ' Gassen Gail SP0013 3-1, 21-1, 24-1 Gassen Richard PP0048 21-6, 29-63, 2-23 Gassen Richard PP0216 2-3,9-1, 9-6, 29-63 ' Gates Susan S. DP0208 2-2,5-8,6-12,6-6 Gatten Florence F. DP0583 2-2, 5-7,6-14 Gegick Charles G. DP1079 2-3, 3-1,7-1 ' Gegick Charles DP2415 2-3, 24-1, 3-1, 9-3, 9-23, 7-1, 6-9 Gels Genetti Douglas Wanda P. PP0277 PP0396 21-6,6-6 2-3, 22-1, 5-44, 30-1, 3-1, 1-2, 24-2 Gennett Stephen P. DP1441 2-2, 6-12,29-17, 5-8, 6-14 George George Jr. Paul John G. H. DPO132 DP0377 6-6,2-2 2-2,6-14 ' Geraci Betty DP1325 6-14, 6-32, 24-3, 2-2, 29-88 Geraci Betty PP0397 2-2 Gibbs Ed PP0247 7-2,7-10 ' Gibbs Natalie PP0094 6-47, 2-3, 6-9, 2-9 Gibbs Raymond J. DPO521 2-2,6-12, 6-6,6-32, 5-7 Gibei An DP1293 2-2, 6-6,6-15,6-32,6-12 , Gibson Pamela B. DP0626 2-2,6-12, 6-6,6-32,29-17 Gieser Henry DP0071 2-2,4-24, 6-12,6-14 Gilbert Donna DP1798 2-2,6-32,6-6,6-14 Gilbert Mark S. DP0112 2-2,6-14,6-6 Gildea Larry PP0275 2-2, 6-12, 6-6 Gildea Lawrence D. PP0398 2-2,6-6 ' Gildea Lawrence D. SP0106 2-2,6-6 Gildea Lawrence G. DP0728 2-2, 6-32, 5-8, 5-3, 6-14, 24-3 Gill Earl SP0217 2-2,6-6,26-2 Gillespie Ed PP0236 6-45, 6-2, 7-2 ' Gillespie Thomas DP1021 2-2, 6-32, 6-12 Gillespie Jr. Donald SP0006 2-2,1-3 Gillis Mark PP0399 2-2, 5-8,6-6 Gilmer Sr. Paul G. DP1602 2-2, 6-12, 6-14, 29-17, 26-2, 6-32, 3-104 Gladwell Nancy DP2191 21-1, 22-2, 6-4, 6-85, 3-1, 2-3, 29-56, 7-4, 9-6, 5-5 Gladwell Nancy PP0222 2-3, 22-2, 21-1, 22-3, 24-1, 30-1, 3-33, 23-5, 1-5, 1-4, 21-23, 1- ' 2 Glander Glascoe Nancy Dannie F. DP0133 DP0487 2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 6-12, 26-2 2-2, 6-15, 6-6, 6-14, 5-9 ' Glass Dennis R. DP0456 2-2, 6-75 Gleason Tom SP0427 5-2 ' public-names-091701 xls Ir--i u u Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Glen Mark Dulaney DP1432 Glenn J. Kirk DP1370 Glenn J. Kirk SP0239 Gletycherl John DP0665 Glover Barbara DP1973 Glover Barbara PP0027 Glover Barbara SP0046 Glover Joe DP1971 Glover Joe SP0407 Glynn Joan DP0621 Gmach John DP2233 Gmach Mary Lin DPI 157 Godfrey Brant H. DP0688 Godfus Beverly DP1815 Godwin Pamela H. DPO167 Goga Ron DP2121 Goga Ron DP2173 Goga Ronald M. DP2023 Gold Howard DP1201 Gold Howard PP0240 Gold Mary PP0205 Goldberg Jami DPO489 Goldberg Jami DP0914 Goldberg Jami SP0454 Goldman Austin D. PP0401 Goldschmidi James SP0003 Goldschmidi Jamie SP0005 Gongeli Patricia DP0937 Goodson Craig M. PP0402 Goodson Craig SP0196 Goodson Graig DP0025 Gordon Christine DP1396 Gordon Jean DP0679 Gordon Jean DP1375 Gordon Jim DP2034 Gordon Margery DP1876 Gordon Mary Jane PP0301 Gordon Thomas DP2378 Gosselin Stephan J. DP1086 Gosselin Steve SP0421 Gottlieb Richard DP0021 Gough Peg DP0022 Grady Joe SP0052 Grady Woodrow E. DP2011 Graham B. DP1881 Graham Barry PP0310 Graham Barry PP0404 Graham Barry PP0566 Graham Dorothy DPO484 Graham Douglas DPO107 Graham Emma DP0272 public names_09170I.As Comment Codes 2-2,6-14, 5-7 2-2,6-12, 6-6,6-32 2-2,6-6,5-20 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 2-3,3-1, 5-5,3-76,1-2 2-3, 5-2, 22-1, 22-2, 13-1, 9-6, 5-21 1-1,2-7 2-3, 3-1, 5-5, 3-76,1-2 2-1,2-19,29-35,9-2 2-2,5-8,29-16 2-2,6-6.6-15, 29-24 29-24.6-14.2-2 27-18,7-23 2-2,6-6 2-2,6-12, 6-6 2-23, 21-1, 6-104, 21-3, 6-105 5-2, 2-23, 21-1, 6-104, 21-3, 6-105, 21-33, 3-36, 3-212 27-31, 27-32, 27-33, 27-34, 27-35, 27-36, 27-37, 27-38, 29- 100 2-3,5-2,27-1,24-1 2-3, 5-2, 9-3 2-3,5-2, 20-6 2-2,6-12,29-16 2-2, 6-12, 26-2, 29-16 2-2, 6-12, 29-16, 6-15, 29-12, 29-10 3-36, 3-61, 21-17, 21-13 2-3, 2-1, 6-2 30-2 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 5-9, 2-2, 6-6 29-11, 29-19, 5-9, 5-8, 6-10, 29-19, 6-6 2-2, 6-12, 24-3 2-2 5-17, 7-22, 9-26, 9-27, 30-14, 29-56 2-3, 5-5, 5-17, 7-4, 7-1, 9-26, 9-6, 27-1, 27-8, 29-56 7-4,20-6,27-1, 3-2 29-111 2-3, 5-1, 29-7, 22-3, 1-2 3-7, 3-2, 2-232, 2-235 6-15,2-2 2-2.5-18, 6-12, 6-6 2-2,6-12 2-2,6-12 6-6,2-10,3-5, 5-7 29-60, 1-2, 1-1, 22-2, 3-7 2-3,1-22, 20-6, 3-36 2-22, 27-1, 9-6, 5-21, 2-3 1-2, 22-1, 1-1, 3-225, 2-10 22-2, 27-1, 9-6, 5-21, 2-3 2-2,6-26 2-2 2-2,6-15 Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Comment Codes Last Name First Name Middle Code Graham Emma SP0128 6-13,29-19,5-8 Grane Sr. W. Pearson DP2039 3-12, 6-32, 6-6, 6-14, 2-2 Graves Richard D. DP0309 2-2,6-12,6-6 Gray Patricia PP0037 2-2,23-15 Gray Sidney DPO858 2-3,2-122 Gray Sidney DP1954 2-3,24-1,1-2 Gray Sidney DP1980 2-3,24-1,1-2 Gray Sidney DP2374 2-3,24-1,1-2 Gray Tim W. DPO146 6-15,6-6, 2-2 Graz Jerry DP0662 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 Greason Murray C. DPO451 5-8, 5-15, 6-94 Greason Jr. Murray DP0077 5-8,6-12, 6-14 Greason Jr. Murry C. SP0131 2-2,6-12, 5-8,29-19 Green Debbie PP0184 23-16, 23-21 Green Eddie DP2420 6-14, 6-32,5-9 Green Margarette SP0100 2-10, 5-7, 29-5, 1-1, 2-9 Green O. Eddie DPO497 6-14, 6-6, 6-12, 29-24, 5-9 Greene C. A. DP0698 6-6,2-2 Greene C.A. PP0405 2-2, 27-5, 6-6 Greene Chuck DP2237 2-2, 6-6, 5-8, 6-32, 6-12, 29-90, 6-37, 6-15 Greene David P. SP0155 2-2, 29-12, 29-16, 5-14, 6-13, 29-17, 24-3, 6-17 Greene Davis P. DPO743 2-2, 5-8, 6-12, 6-32, 6-75, 6-90 Greene Robert E. DPO196 6-14,6-12,6-6,2-2 Greenstein Blake J. DP1723 2-2, 6-12, 6-32, 6-6, 5-8 Greenwood Jr. Thomas J. DP0395 2-2,5-8 Greeson Evelyn DP1712 2-2 Greeson Kelly DP1552 6-6,2-2 Greeson Myrtle C. DP1562 2-3 Greeson Roy DP1714 2-2,5-9 Gregory Johnny PP0125 21-6, 3-1, 3-26,2-3 Gregory Johnny PP0272 2-3, 3-33, 3-1, 3-26, 29-7 Grene Darcy Helga DP2275 3-2, 21-48, 6-3, 5-22 Gresalfi Ann DP2063 2-3, 24-1, 3-7, 3-2, 7-4, 7-11, 7-1, 9-6, 9-3 Gresalfi Ann DP2350 2-3, 24-1, 3-7, 3-2, 7-4, 7-11, 7-1, 9-6, 9-3 Griffen Lee DP0005 6-22,22-23 Griffin Beth DPI 168 2-3,5-5,7-1,9-6,29-7 Griffin C. Ron DP1028 2-2,5-7,6-14 Griffin Dexter DP1085 6-26, 6-6, 6-12, 2-2 Griffin Keith DP0216 29-24, 6-19, 6-14, 6-6, 6-32, 2-2, 5-9 Griffin Robert G. DP0635 2-3, 24-7, 6-81 Griffin Teresa D. DP1998 2-3, 29-7, 24-1, 29-60, 20-6 Grissom Randy DP0749 2-2 Grogan John E. PP0406 2-2 Grogan John DP2091 2-37 Grogan John PP0198 6-6,6-12 Grogan Sylvia S. DP1043 2-2,6-32 Grotsky Ernest L. DP0277 2-2, 6-32, 6-6 Grubb Marykay PP0407 2-3, 22-2, 7-2, 12-1, 3-9 Gruchow H. W. DP0561 3-36,20-6 Gsell Keith PP0106 3-7, 27-8, 5-2, 9-6, 2-3, 5-10 Gulledge Charles PP0276 21-70, 30-10, 27-14 Li I? public names 091701.x1s 0 11 0 Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Comment Codes Last Name First Name Middle Code Gurcne Dallas DP1688 2-2,6-14, 6-12,6-32 Gusler Jr. George W. DP2310 2-2,6-6 Gussey Maria DP1900 2-2, 6-14, 6-12, 6-6, 6-32 Gwaz Paul DP0873 2-3,24-1, 7-1 Gwyn Allen Holt DPO905 2-2,6-6,6-14, 5-20 Gwynn Leigh DPO509 2-2,6-14 Haack John B. DP1632 21-1,2-3,5-34 Habegger Elizabeth C. DP0550 2-2,5-15 Hagan Chip DP0915 2-2, 5-7, 5-9, 29-24, 3-104 Hagan R. K. DP1364 2-2,6-12 Hagan III Charles T. DP0584 2-2,29-16,6-6, 5-7 Haim Geoffry DP1833 1-22,5-2,24-1 Haim Linda DP0908 2-3, 21-3, 3-76, 3-52, 5-41, 5-42, 3-193, 6-35, 29-133, 3-194 Hall Charles DP1496 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Hall Elizabeth DP1514 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Hall Jeff DP1211 3-1, 6-45, 7-1, 6-4, 24-4, 27-1, 2-3, 24-1 Hall John. Howland DP1944 5-1,3-15,7-1,1-2 Hall Kristin DP1258 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Hall Mac DP1210 3-36, 3-7, 29-28, 3-53, 24-1, 6-45, 2-3 Hall Nevolk PP0408 2-2 Hall S. Todd DP0254 2-2,29-12 Halsey Hardin G. DP1092 2-2,6-6, 6-32 Hamel Kim Paul DP1776 2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 6-12 Hamel Kim Paul PP0409 2-2,6-15,6-6, 6-12 Hamilton Rheba SP0202 2-2, 6-10, 5-9, 3-1, 6-6, 5-20 Hamlin Donna DP0506 2-2,6-14,6-12,6-6 Hammett-Wegman Janice PP0217 2-3, 5-2, 21-13, 23-24 Hammett-Wegman Janis SP0091 3-218, 21-1, 2-7, 3-7, 5-2, 2-3 Hammond J. Hyatt DP0939 2-2,6-12, 6-32,26-2, 5-15, 6-14, 6-6, 29-16,3-104, 29-88, 29- 118,24-3,29-90, 5-9 Hammond Jackie DP0780 14-15, 9-46, 9-47, 29-122, 7-5, 3-68, 6-107, 6-108, 29-129, 21- 51, 23-38 29-130 Hammond Jackie DP2082 7-42, 7-4, 7-21, 7-43 Hammond Jackie DP2307 14-15, 9-46, 9-47, 29-122, 7-5, 3-68, 6-107, 6-108, 29-129, 21- 51, 23-38 29-130 Hammond Jackie PP0410 23-14, 9-6, 7-2, 9-8, 9-5, 21-69, 3-33 Hammond Jacqueline D. DP1948 6-91, 6-92, 7-42, 7-21 Hampton David M. DP1418 2-2, 6-15, 24-3, 6-14, 6-12, 6-6, 5-8 Hampton Kelly DP1032 7-4, 7-1, 9-6, 9-3, 7-20, 7-19, 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6- 73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-32, 21-1, 2-35, 6-45, 3-36, 3- 1,5-32,3-101, 2-3 Hampton Lee DP2112 2-2, 29-16,5-9,26-2 Hampton Lee SP0409 2-2, 6-6, 6-12 Hampton Lisa DP0038 2-2,6-6,6-14 Hampton Worth DPO412 6-19,2-2 Hancock Drew SP0312 2-2, 6-14,6-13 Hancock J Andrews DP0088 2-2,6-14 Hancock John C. PP0411 3-34, 6-45, 23-16, 6-45 public names 091701.As Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Hancock John C. SP0095 Hand Rosemary SP0346 Hanover Jean PP0412 Hansen Charles DPO461 Hansen Charles DPO519 Hansen Kara DP1080 Hansen Laura M. DP1078 Hansen Vagn DP2096 Happel Gil SP0416 Happel Gil and Libby PP0017 Happel Paige DP1223 Happer William C. DP1327 Harbin Shirley SP0097 Hardee Roui DP1481 Hardeirch Mary DPO606 Hardison Mark C. DPO445 Hardison Patricia DPO473 Hardwick Mary DPO877 Hardy Karen DP0310 Harper Kesha DP0278 Harrell E.W. DPO625 Harrington Carole C. DP1967 Harris Annie PP0168 Harris Cece PP0169 Harris Elizabeth C. DP2314 Harris Elizabeth DP2185 Harris Frank Hams DP0846 Harris Jimm DPO742 Harris Kathy W. PP0003 Harris Liz SP0344 Harris Palmer DPO740 Harrison Brently PP0413 Harrison Brently PP0414 Harshman Scott SP0059 Harton Marie DP0604 Hartsell Mark E. DP2355 Hasenmyer Carl SP0438 Hastings Linda DP0034 Hauser Theresa A. DPO417 Hauser Timothy T. DP0703 Hawkins Darrell G. DP1316 Hawkins Kimberly DP1362 Hawley Charles DP2166 Haworth John DP0350 Hayden Meredith DP1828 Hayes Damion DP1442 Comment Codes 3-4,3-7 6-28,5-17 2-2 ' 2-3,21-1 21-45, 21-46, 21-33, 9-42, 23-36, 6-101, 6-102, 29-122 3-1, 7-1, 24-1, 5-1, 2-3, 1-2 ' 9-24,9-25,9-21.2-3 6-15,6-12,29-16,6-6, 5-7 2-3, 22-1, 1-4, 22-6, 5-8, 29-17, 3-1, 17-1, 30-1, 29-5, 5-2, 2- ' 19,27 6-1, 22-12, 5-1, 21-17, 6-24 5-10,3-36, 3-90 2-2, 6-15, 6-14, 6-12, 26-2, 6-6, 29-16, 3-104, 29-88, 6-32 2-9, 2-10, 1-7, 2-6, 30-1, 1-1 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 ' 2-2,6-6, 6-15 2-2,29-16 2-2, 5-7, 6-12, 6-32, 29-24, 6-15 ' 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-2,6-12 ' 2-2,6-15, 29-11 6-14, 6-12, 6-32, 6-26, 2-2 - 6-32,2-2 , 2-2, 5-7, 29-24 2-2,6-32 6-12, 29-16, 5-8, 6-6, 2-2 2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 6-12, 6-20, 1-6 ' 6-12,2-2 2-3, 22-2, 29-56, 5-21, 9-6, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 3-1, 7-2, 27- 1,27-8,7-3 2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 22-2, 5-21, 7-3, 24-1 23-2 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 ' 2-2,6-32, 6-66,29-32 2-35,6-1, 2-1 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32 2-2,6-12 2-2 2-2,6-6,6-12 ' 6-12,6-6,2-2 7-1, 9-6,6-43 2-2, 5-9,29-24 ' 2-2 2-2,6-15, 24-3 public names_09170I.As Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter ' Last Name First Name Middle Code Hayes John DP2075 Hayes I I I John G. DP1048 ' Hayes III John G. DP1050 Hayes III John G. DP1051 ' Hayes III Hayes III John John G. G. DP1052 DP1053 Hayes III John G. DP1054 Hayes III John G. DP1055 Hayes III John G. DP1056 Hayes 111 John G. DP1057 Hayes III John G. DP1058 ' Hayes III John G. DP1059 Hayes III John G. DP1060 Hayes III John G. DP1061 ' Hayes III John G. DP1062 Hayes III John G. DP1065 Hayes III John G. DP1164 Hayes 111 John G. DP1165 Hayes I I I John G. DP1167 Hayes III John G. DP1188 Hayes III John G. DP1189 ' Hayes III John G. DP1190 Hayes III John G. DP1191 Hayes III John G. DPI 192 ' Hayes 111 John G. DPI 193 Hayes III John G. DP1207 Hayes III John G. DP1208 ' Hayes III John G. DP2410 Haygood Glenn DP1565 Haynes Don DP1094 ' Haynes Jerry L. PP0574 Haynes Jerry SP0147 Haynes Jerry SP0163 Hearn Jr. Thomas K. DP1319 Hearon William S. DP2282 Hearon William PP0292 Heath Patsy DP0414 Heath Spencer R. DPO402 ' Hedgecock Rebecca PP0415 Hedgpeth W DP0016 Heding Terry R. DP0755 Heelan Brian DPO347 Hege Rosemary DPO547 Helmick Suzanne Kincaiid DP1374 Helms Robert E. DP1603 Helms Robert E. SP0115 Helms Victoria F. DPO960 Helsabeck Linda DP0907 Henderson George DP1153 Hennings J. Barry DP1014 ' Hennings Joe B. DPO141 public names 091701.x1s -- Comment Codes 3-36, 3-76, 3-1, 3-2, 7-1, 7-21, 9-6 22-2,6-68 5-1, 3-7, 3-1, 7-3 5-1, 3-7, 3-1, 7-3 1-21 7-21 3-1, 7-3, 9-3 2-14 30-13 3-36-3-16 27-16 8-1, 7-6, 9-6 3-36 9-21 29-72,9-21 18-1,29-72 3-7, 3-81, 3-36 29-81 30-2 27-17 29-82 2-3 2-78 3-36,3-42 21-35 8-1,30-2 29-83 3-7,3-1 2-2, 6-32, 6-6 2-3, 3-15, 27-1, 9-6, 6-4 9-6, 21-4, 21-10, 5-2, 7-1, 1-1, 6-1, 22-1, 23-14, 21-11, 6-9, 23- 4 2-6, 30-1, 3-1, 5-2, 5-5 22-1, 30-1, 21-1, 5-2, 21-6 2-2, 6-32, 6-6 2-3, 20-6, 6-1, 29-60, 3-1, 7-1, 9-6, 6-101 2-3, 29-7, 6-9 2-2,6-12 2-2,6-12 2-2 2-2,6-12 2-2, 26-2, 5-7 2-2, 6-6,6-12 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-14, 6-32 2-2, 6-15, 6-6 2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 5-15, 6-15 5-8,2-2 2-2,6-32 2-2, 6-6,6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 2-2, 6-6, 5-7 2-2, 6-12, 6-10 2-2, 6-14, 6-12 Piedmont Triad International Airport ' General Public Letter Comment Codes Last Name First Name Middle Code ' Herman Todd L. DP1088 2-2,6-15, 5-9 Herring Herrmann Kimberly Shirley S. DP0825 DP1407 2-2,6-6 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- , 73,3-74 Hershman Jay R. DPO193 29-24, 6-19, 6-14, 6-6, 6-32, 2-2, 5-9 Hertweck Donald DP0778 7-43,7-46 ' Hess Kathleen DP0247 6-32, 6-12, 2-2 Hess Richard DP0009 2-2 Hester Marylee B. DPO615 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 ' Hewett Ann PP0076 2-2,6-6,6-46 Heyge Loma PP0006 5-2, 24-1, 6-9 Hiatt Patricia DP0074 2-2,6-14 - ' Hickey E. G. DPO452 7-41, 3-124, 3-125, 9-37,1-4 Hickey Ed G. DP1512 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Hickey Tina DP1257 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- , 73,3-74 Higgins Jennifer C. DPO971 2-2, 6-12, 29-16, 29-17, 6-26 Higgins Jr. John T. DP0891 2-2, 29-88, 5-7, 6-32, 6-14 ' Highsmith Charles DP1676 22-1, 3-2, 7-1, 5-2, 20-6, 2-3 Highsmith Hill Ethel Joseph L. DP1677 DP1627 2-3,3-2,7-1,20-6 2-2, 24-3, 6-12 , Hill Julie DP1476 2-3 Hill Loren DP0983 5-7, 6-6, 6-12 Hill Loren SP0337 6-6, 6-12, 2-2 ' Hill Ruby M. DP1644 2-2,5-8,29-16 Hill Skip PP0273 2-2,6-6,6-15 Hill Terry W. DP1475 2-3 ' Hill III Thomas S. PP0416 2-2,6-6 Hiller Judy P. DP1217 6-45,27-1, 6-16,3-53 Hillman Robert L. DP2316 2-2,6-6, 6-32 , Hilman Bob DP2337 6-12, 6-32, 2-2, 6-6 Hinds Martha Ann PP0055 2-3, 6-9, 3-37, 20-7 Hindson Renee SP0021 2-11,11-1, 3-220,5-5 ' Hinshaw Julian A. DP2054 7-4,7-1,29-89 Hinshaw Julian A. DP2061 7-4, 7-1, 29-89 Hinshaw Julian A. DP2062 7-4,7-1,29-89 ' Hinshaw Julian A. DP2417 7-4,7-1, 29-89 Hinson Doug DP0098 2-2,5-8,6-12,6-32 Hiser Dale DP1522 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 3-74 73,3-74 Hiser Wilma DP1528 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Hixon Alice G. D131 108 2-3,5-2,1-2,21-34 Hixon Alice PP0054 3-36,3-33 Hixon Alice PP0262 2-3 Hixon Jane DPO801 2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 6-12, 29-118 Hixon Wesley F. DP1358 29-7, 24-1, 7-21, 3-2, 3-1, 1-2, 9-6, 6-21, 22-2, 1-4 Hixon Wesley F. PP0226 2-3, 3-33, 3-9, 7-2, 9-6, 27-8, 23-16, 2-46 Hixon Wesley F. SP0145 2-3,22-1,24-1 Hixon Wesley PP0056 22-1,22-10,2-45,2-46 Hoard David DP2113 2-2,6-12, 6-6, 29-16,6-15 ' public names 091701.xis Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter ' Last Name First Name Middle Code Hobbs Charles E. DP0376 Hobson Hobson Frank Jim W. DP1046 DP1114 Hodge Claude SP0216 Hodges Cathie DP0503 ' Hodges Jr. Glenn O. DPO904 Hodgson Daryl DP1489 ' Hodgson Margaret PP0417 Hodgson Margaret PP0418 Hodgson Margaret PP0419 ' Hodman Doris DPO967 Hoffman Harol DP1765 Holbrook Clark SP0304 Holbrook Clark and Shari DPO769 ' Holbrook Shari PP0063 Holcomb Larry PP0239 Holden Gerald E. DP1075 ' Holden Gerald P120101 Holden Wilbur H. DP0358 Holder Julie Abercrombie DP0332 Holder Sam DPO178 Holland Julie DP0884 Holland Martha DPO403 ' Hollingsworth Tom DP1660 Hollingsworth Tom PP0035 Hollingsworth Tom PP0042 ' Hollis Linda DP2340 Holmes Sharon DP1549 Holn Gary E. DP1710 ' Holt James R. DP0763 Holt Julie Anna DP0768 Holt Myratted PP0420 ' Holton David L. DP0224 Homes Harold DP2305 Hondras Karen G. DP0328 ' Hooper Deborah L. DPO500 Hoppe Carol DP1377 Hoppe Carol DP2266 Hoppe Carol PP0145 Hoppe Michael H. DP1679 Hoppe Michael DP0651 ' Hoppe Michael DP2218 Hoppe Michael SP0456 Hoppe R.H. PP0146 Hopper Chris DP1460 ' Hopper Cindy DP1459 Hopper Erika DP1569 Hopper Ingrid DP1581 ' Hopper Laura DP1626 Hopper Ron D131009 ' Hopper 111 C.W. DP1567 public names 091701.x1s Comment Codes 2-2,6-12,5-8 2-2,6-32 27-1,5-5 21-1,2-3, 6-22,27-1 2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 6-12, 29-16 2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 6-12 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 9-6, 9-3, 22-2, 29-56 2-3, 1-1, 29-56, 22-1, 9-6, 27-13, 6-45, 23-22, 23-5 2-3, 6-4, 22-2, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 22-2, 29-56 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 29-60,23-5,5-2,27-1, 7-1, 29-108 21-1, 5-4, 5-5, 5-2, 3-1, 2-7, 1-1 2-3, 24-7, 22-24, 6-22, 3-131 2-3 23-16, 3-7, 24-1, 22-2, 30-1 3-76, 3-1, 3-77 3-36, 3-16, 24-1, 6-9, 6-16 2-2, 5-7, 6-32 - 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-26 2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 29-24, 6-19 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 24-3,6-14 7-4, 7-1, 3-7, 3-1, 24-1, 29-7 2-3, 3-33, 22-1, 29-60 2-3,3-1, 3-7,7-1, 7-4 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 5-8, 5-15, 6-20, 6-14, 6-15 6-6,6-15,2-2 2-2,6-12 3-7,7-1, 27-1 7-21,7-3 3-9, 3-1, 7-2, 5-44, 21-15, 9-6, 27-8, 30-1 2-2, 6-32,6-6,5-8 2-2,6-6 2-2, 6-26,6-15, 6-12 2-2, 26-2, 6-6, 6-12, 29-32 3-1, 5-2, 7-4, 3-7, 24-1, 2-11 3-1, 7-1, 6-16, 3-2, 27-1, 24-1 3-7, 3-33, 1-4, 21-1, 21-66, 3-1 21-1, 29-56, 23-5, 3-2, 7-1, 3-36 3-165 3-7,3-2 21-4, 2-9, 3-1, 2-6, 30-1, 4-5, 5-44, 3-2, 5-2, 24-1, 21-1 21-13, 23-22, 23-23, 21-68, 3-7, 3-1, 29-56, 1-4 2-2,6-6,6-32 2-2, 6-6, 6-32 2-2,6-6 2-2,5-7 2-2,6-32 2-2,6-6 2-2,5-7 Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Hopper IV Cuff W. DP1405 Horn Dillon DPO446 Horn Dillon DP1447 Horn Melissa DPO443 Horn Melissa DP1428 Horn Mike DP2155 Horn Mike SP0373 Horn Ramsay DPO449 Horn Ramsay DP1438 Horn Tom DPO447 Horn Tom DP1493 Homey Jeff DPO420 Homey Jeff PP0421 Horton Alan DP2088 Hott John L. SP0121 Hough C. Royce DPO465 House Elaine PP0096 House Elaine PP0296 House Elaine PP0422 House Elaine PP0423 House Elaine PP0424 Houser Timothy T. DP0703 Houston Debbie PP0075 Howell Rosemary DP1797 Howes Bradford PP0192 Howington Richard DP0065 Hoyt George DP0268 Hubbard Bruce DP1816 Hubbard Catherine L. DP1690 Hubbard Diane PP0182 Hubbard Diane PP0260 Hubbard Diane SP0223 Hubbard Lewis DP2159 Hubbard Maury A. SP0169 Hubbard Sandra PP0425 Huber Jerry PP0388 Hubert Tom DP2072 Hudgins David PP0426 Hudgins Maribeth PP0427 Hudson Carol DP2207 Hudson David C. DP0709 Hudspeth Johnsie DP0089 Huey E.C. DP2068 public names_091701.xls Comment Codes ' 2-2,6-6 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 3-74 73,3-74 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21- 32 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 3-74 73,3-74 3-96, 3-97, 3-70; 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21- 32 ' 6-26,6-25,6-6 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-25, 29-10 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 3-74 73,3-74 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21- 32 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21- 32 ' 2-2, 6-12, 5-8 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 5-9 9-43, 9-44, 9-23, 9-3 ' 3-221, 26-1, 3-1 2-2.6-32 5-2,17-2, 9-6, 5-21, 29-56 ' 3-33,5-22 7-2, 6-9, 9-6, 7-7 1-14.2-3 ' . 3-1,3-9 6-72 2-3, 22-2, 21-1, 29-63, 9-6, 5-21, 3-16, 3-38 ' 2-2, 6-32,6-6,6-14 2-2, 22-1,1-1,2-1 ' 2-2,6-6,6-14,6-32 2-2,5-8,6-15 6-15 2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 6-26 3-16, 9-6, 20-1, 5-2, 6-43 ' 5-2,6-9,3-15,3-9 19-2, 6-1, 3-16, 3-26, 7-5, 30-1, 28-1, 29-48, 192-, 9-6, 1-1, 12- ' 6,5-1 2-2,6-15 5-2, 29-24, 5-2, 5-14, 29-25, 5-2, 24-1, 21-1, 1-1, 3-9, 29-26, 29-27 2-2 24-2,22-12,6-9,2-3 ' 6-15,6-14 2-2 2-2 ' 2-2,6-6,29-16 2-2, 6-15, 6-84, 6-78, 5-33 2-2,6-12,6-14,6-32 2-2,6-12,6-6 Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter ' Last Name First Name Middle Code Huffman Trusy A. DPO494 Huger Ray DP1699 ' Hughes Bob DP1480 Huitt Parker DP0217 ' Hull Charles DP1266 Hull Patricia B. DPO598 Humes Mary Nell DP1647 Humphrey Dudley DP0092 Humphrey Hubert DP0080 Humpley T. DP0304 ' Hunell Audrey DP0301 Hunsucker Donald B. DP1783 Hunsucker G. Bradley DP1782 ' Hunt Dennis C. DPO426 Hunt Dennis SP0149 Hunt Pansy DP0570 Hunt Pansy SP0288 ' Hunt Randall DP1725 Hunter R. Craig DP0118 ' Hurley Keith PP0567 Hurley Richard K. DP1155 ' Husted James E. DPO539 Hutchens Sylvia DP0511 Hutchins Angela W. DP0170 ' Hutchins Julie DP1392 Hyatt Ricky DP1123 Hymes Addle DPO421 ' lanorone Marianne DP1856 lavarone Dennis P. DP0978 ' lavarone Dennis P. DPO979 lavarone Dennis P. DP1887 lavarone Dennis P. PP0155 ' lavarone Dennis P. SP0177 lavarone Marianne PP0428 Ihrig Alfred PP0264 Ilsley Linda DP1118 Ingold Sharon E. DP1830 Inman Melissa PP0429 Irvin David DP0027 ' Jackson Phyllis B. DP0398 Jackson Stella S. DP1159 Jackson Steve DP2317 ' Jacobs Tom DP2168 Jafroodi Scot DP0542 Jakubsen Brad DP1678 ' James Marcia DP1628 James Marcia DP2000 ' James Marsha DP2283 public-names-091701 xls Comment Codes 2-2,6-14 9-6, 9-35, 29-107, 29-91 27-1, 3-2, 30-14, 1-2, 29-98, 1-4 2-2, 6-12, 6-26, 6-15 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-2,6-14 2-2, 6-32, 5-15, 26-2, 5-7 2-2, 5-7, 24-3 2-2, 4-24, 6-15 2-2 2-2,6-12 5-7, 5-8, 29-17, 6-14, 2-2 5-7, 5-8, 29-17, 6-14, 2-2 2-2 2-2, 6-6, 27-5 2-2, 6-15, 6-32 2-2, 6-6, 6-30 2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 6-32 2-2,6-6 2-2, 5-9, 6-12, 2-74, 2-75, 2-76, 30-12, 6-34, 29-36, 6-14, 6- 12, 6-6, 6-10, 22-21, 29-51, 2-77, 1-20, 6-12, 29-10, 20-8, 20- 9,2-2,6-31,2-10,5-9 2-2,29-17, 6-12,6-32 2-3, 9-3, 9-61, 7-58, 27-8 2-2,6-14 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 26-2, 24-3, 2-2 2-2 2-2,6-12,29-16 2-2,6-80 21-33, 3-36, 17-1, 7-1, 9-3, 20-6, 2-9 3-214, 3-217, 3-149, 3-198, 9-70, 7-73, 17-7, 17-8, 4-7, 3-121, 3-199,7-53, 9-3 3-214, 3-217, 3-149, 3-198, 9-70, 7-73, 17-7, 17-8 4-7,3-121 2-3,3-38,3-1, 6-4, 3-16,5-29 3-19, 3-222, 3-20, 3-21, 3-22, 4-7, 3-23, 6-24 6-65, 3-16, 2-18, 3-219, 2-3, 5-2, 5-5, 6-4, 6-61, 6-24 2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 21-4, 21-23 2-2,6-14 2-2,5-7 5-2,9-6,30-1,2-1,2-3 2-2,6-12 2-2,6-12 2-2,6-32,6-14 6-15,6-32, 24-3, 5-7, 6-14,2-2 2-2,6-6 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-14, 3-104 3-97, 3-7,24-1, 6-45,1-2 2-3, 3-1, 7-1, 9-6, 27-1, 6-45, 29-7, 7-3, 6-4, 2-89, 1-2 29-89,2-89, 6-48 24-1, 6-101, 3-1, 7-2, 7-21, 1-2, 5-5, 9-6, 2-89 Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Comment Codes Last Name First Name Middle Code Jameson J. David DP2330 6-12,6-6,5-20 Janeway Richard DP0381 2-2,6-77, 6-32, 5-8 Janeway Richard SP0255 2-2,27-4,6-12,6-10 Jarman Leslie PP0284 2-3, 21-1, 3-33, 9-6, 22-2 Jarrett Tony PP0430 2-2 Jenkins Gordon W. DPO341 2-2,6-26,6-15,6-12 Jennings Kenyatta SP0318 2-2,29-32,6-12,6-20, 6-15 Jerman Alex PP0131 2-3, 22-1, 1-1, 2-9, 9-6, 6-4 Jessup Gregory M. DP0162 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 5-9 Jeswilkowski Amy DP1121 2-2,6-12,6-6 Jialer Carol M. DP1527 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Jobe Jonathan C. DP2344 6-32.6-6,6-14, 6-15, 29-16,2-2 Johansson Len PP0202 3-43, 3-33,1-5, 3-16 Johansson Len SP0327 2-23, 5-5, 1-2, 3-27, 3-7, 3-224, 5-1 Johnson A. Patricia DPO101 2-2,6-6,6-32 Johnson Barry L. DP1289 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Johnson Catherine R. DP0110 2-2,6-6, 5-8 Johnson Charlene A. DP1543 2-2, 6-6, 5-8, 6-15 Johnson Connie R. DPO483 2-2, 6-12, 5-7 Johnson Dale H. DPO163 2-2, 6-6, 6-14 Johnson Diane DP0204 2-2,6-14,6-12,6-6 Johnson Duffy DP2293 2-2,6-6 Johnson Emiley S. PP0018 6-42, 6-41, 5-2, 2-3, 1-2 Johnson Emiley PP0031 3-15,6-44,2-3,1-2 Johnson Emily PP0214 3-7,24-1, 2-3 Johnson Estella PP0049 2-2,6-10,5-9,6-6 Johnson Garcia DP2154 2-2,6-6 Johnson George DP1042 2-2,6-32 Johnson Harold PP0044 1-5,2-9 Johnson Harold PP0248 2-3,24-1 Johnson Heather PP0431 2-2,6-6 Johnson Jeff DP1091 2-2,6-6 Johnson Jeff SP0434 5-17,6-12 Johnson Kevin PP0195 6-6, 5-23, 2-2 Johnson Kevin SP0383 5-9,6-25 Johnson Nelson SP0389 2-2.6-6,6-12 Johnson Peggy B. DP1687 2-3, 6-4, 3-2, 7-1, 24-1, 7-3 Johnson Peggy DP1270 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Johnson Ronald DP0824 2-2,6-32 Johnson Sammy DP0242 5-34,2-3 Johnson Steve DP1205 2-3 Johnson Steven DP0012 2-2 Johnson William DP0737 2-2, 6-14, 6-32,6-90 Johnston Alice R. DP1715 2-2,5-9, 5-7 Johnston Mary DP1250 3-1, 7-3,6-59,2-3 Johnston Mary SP0301 5-2,1-2 Johnston Paul E. DP1721 2-2 Jones Alan DP1194 2-2,6-63 Jones Billy Keith DP0667 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 public names_091701.xis 0 1 1 r w Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Comment Codes Last Name First Name Middle Code Jones Del DP1631 2-3,3-1, 3-7,3-2 Jones Halbert M. DP1292 2-2, 6-32, 6-12, 29-17 Jones Joyce A. PP0432 2-2 Jones Lillie PP0153 2-3,1-1,21-1, 24-1 Jones Lillie PP0245 2-3,1-1, 2-9 Jones Nancy SP0088 3-4 Jones Peggy DP0514 2-2,6-6, 6-15 Jones Robert L. DP0599 2-2,6-6,6-14 Jones Stella DP0043 2-2,6-6,6-14 Jones Tommy PP0117 21-6, 2-3, 6-45, 3-33, 30-1 Jones Tommy PP0210 2-3, 6-2, 2-62, 24-1 Jordan Annette DP2304 2-2,6-6 Jordan Barry DP1198 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Joyce Donald DP2338 6-15,6-6,6-12 Joyner Diane PP0433 2-2 Jr. L.M. Baker DP0239 2-2,6-14,6-6 Jud Donald DP0007 2-2 Jud G. Donald SP0064 6-7 Julian Jim DP1621 29-24, 6-12, 29-12 Juren Jerry Jay DP2025 3-2, 3-7, 7-1, 24-1, 1-2, 29-60, 2-3 Juren Jerry Jay DP2049 3-2, 3-7, 7-1, 24-1, 6-4, 1-2, 29-60, 2-3 Jurney Jr. Wade Gilmer DP2216 2-2, 6-6, 29-24, 6-12 Kalish Michael J. DP1618 20-6, 3-36, 3-7, 29-60 Kalish Mike DP2268 3-7, 24-1, 3-2, 5-22, 2-3, 29-60, 6-22, 20-6 Kane Audrey DP1937 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73, 3-74, 1-24, 1-25, 6-22 Kane Audrey DP2327 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73, 3-74, 1-24, 1-25, 6-22 Kantor A.C. SP0197 2-2, 6-12,5-8,6-6 Kaper Kim DPO139 2-2, 6-32, 6-14 Katzenstein Alex DPO546 2-3, 18-2, 3-36, 22-26, 22-27, 18-3, 3-147, 18-4, 18-5, 7-48, 3- 28, 29-125, 3-18, 3-148, 5-37, 7-50, 7-21, 22-2, 9-3, 27-8, 5- 12, 2-100, 7-51, 24-1, 22-28 Katzenstein Alex PP0260 29-35, 3-204, 22-1 Katzenstein Alex SP0180 2-23, 3-204, 7-1, 7-6, 5-2, 3-5, 27-1, 22-1, 29-9, 22-8, 1-1, 2- 27,1-2,2-3 Kavanagh John DP0839 5-7,6-14 Kearns Johm DP1780 2-2, 6-32, 6-12, 6-6 Keesee-Forrester Maggie DP1917 2-2,6-6 Kellett Sherry A. DPO744 2-2, 6-32,6-14, 6-12 Kelley Jim DP0793 2-2, 6-6, 5-9, 27-9, 6-14 Kelley Jim SP0179 2-2, 27-4, 5-8, 6-6 Kelley John W. DP0143 2-2, 6-6,27-4, 5-9 Kelly D.P. SP0362 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 29-12, 5-8, 6-20 Kelly Fay DP1269 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74,3-1,27-1,1-2 Kelly R. Eugene DP1268 7-17, 7-18, 7-19,7-20, 7-21, 3-70,21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72,3- 73,3-74 Kelly Robert L. DP2018 2-89, 1-22, 22-3, 7-1, 9-6, 6-4, 6-16, 6-100, 20-6, 7-4, 7-2, 7-3, 9-6,2-3 Kelly Sherry A. SP0183 9-4,9-5,9-6 public names_091701.xis Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Kelly Stanhope A. DPO177 Kelly William DP1262 Kemp Jon DP0368 Kenan Renee DPO720 Kennedy Pat Wilson DPO977 Kennedy Pat DP0075 Kennedy Steven B. DP0174 Kenton Gary DP1594 Kenton Gary DP2412 Keogh Mike DPO486 Kern H. Max DP1667 Keshian Richard DP0083 Kester Bill DP0256 Key Melinda T. DPO482 Keyes Bruce A. DP2040 Keyes Bruce A. DP2042 Keys Robert C. DPO988 Keziah Jr. Richard C. DP2178 Kiger Bill DP1337 Kiger Robin DP1333 Kilgore Jr. Tony W. DP1539 Killian Douglas R. DP1848 Kincaid Amy H. PP0435 King Arnold G. DP0820 King Arnold G. DP2202 King Coella A. DP0117 King Eileen PP0436 King Josie L. DPO400 King Kelly S. DPO427 King Michael A. DP1127 King William R. DP1609 Kinnarney J.H. DP2356 Kinnarney Joe DP2137 Kirby Barbara C DP0006 Kirby Evan L. DP0361 Kirby Laura E. DPO181 Kirby Linda DP0355 Kirby T Brent DP0063 Kirk Mary P. DPO913 Kirkman Don DP2170 Kirkman Donald A. DP0353 Kirs Maureen DP1952 Kirs Maureen DP1987 Kirs Maureen DP2354 Kirven Dupont DPO563 Kiser Doris PP0133 Kitchin Hal PP0306 Kivett Lucelle M. DP1160 Comment Codes 2-2,6-6,24-3,5-8 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-2,29-17,3-13 24-1,2-3,6-16 2-2,6-6,6-14 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-14 6-32 2-2,6-12 3-100 6-9,7-4,7-1, 20-6 2-2,6-15 2-2,6-6 2-2, 6-12,6-14,6-15, 6-32 2-2, 6-32, 6-12, 5-8, 29-17, 6-6 2-2,6-15 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-3, 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21- 31,21-32 2-2, 6-6, 29-16 2-2 2-2,6-6,6-12,6-15 2-2,6-6, 6-12,6-15 2-2,6-6 5-34,29-110,5-1 2-2 2-2,6-6,5-7,6-14 2-2,6-14,6-6,5-9 2-2,6-6 6-12,6-6 2-2,6-6 2-2 2-2, 29-17, 26-2, 5-7, 6-12, 6-6 29-100 6-66, 6-14,4-23 2-2, 6-32, 6-6 2-2,24-6 2-2, 6-12, 6-32 2-2,6-12 2-2,5-8 2-2, 5-8, 6-12 2-2, 6-32,6-6, 5-15 2-2,6-104, 5-7,6-31, 29-88, 6-6,6-14 6-6, 6-12, 29-16, 6-32, 2-2, 6-19, 27-4, 29-90, 29-88, 5-7 2-3, 6-70, 9-22, 9-6, 9-23, 9-3 2-3, 6-70, 9-22, 9-6, 9-23, 9-3 2-3, 6-70, 9-22, 9-6, 9-23, 9-3 3-151,3-152 21-13, 21-16, 24-1, 6-45, 2-3, 7-2 2-2,5-7,2-34 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 pub1ic_names_091701.x1s u r r t i I I 1 1 H Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Comment Codes Last Name First Name Middle Code Klaum Thomas DP1914 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Klecka Bill SP0431 6-22,30-1,1-1,29-1 Klein Kurt PP0064 6-4, 29-7, 30-7, 2-3 Kleinman John DP1255 2-3, 24-1, 27-1, 3-2, 22-1 Klopiman William A. DP1993 7-4,7-1, 2-3 Klosterman Paul J. DP0872 2-3, 24-3, 27-8, 5-2, 3-122 Knott William DP0081 2-2,6-14 Knox Diana DP1875 29-110, 9-3, 5-5, 3-1, 7-1, 29-100, 13-1, 29-56, 24-1 Knox William E. DP1877 29-110, 29-7, 24-1, 20-6, 3-1, 7-4, 7-1, 9-6 Koch James A. DP2051 2-3, 7-4, 3-2 Kooken Ruth D. DP1846 2-2,5-7,6-6,6-12 Kopf Vicki DP0203 2-2,6-14,6-12, 6-6,29-17 Kornegay T.L. DP1473 3-7,3-1, 3-2,20-6 Kosak Philip H. DP1515 6-4, 27-1, 7-4, 5-22, 1-2, 20-6 Kowalske Connie DPO551 2-2 Kropf Arnold N. DP1700 3-2, 5-5, 5-2, 30-1, 27-1 Kropf Arnold N. DP1891 3-118,21-33, 3-36 Kropf Arnold PP0246 2-3, 24-1, 5-2, 27-8, 6-4, 3-33, 6-9 Kropf Dee DPO565 3-153, 21-33 Kropf Dee PP0285 2-17, 2-3, 21-1, 3-33, 4-2, 5-17, 8-1, 7-2, 9-6, 13-1, 2-23 Kropf Dee PP0437 2-3, 21-1, 5-5, 5-2, 2-6, 9-6, 27-8, 1-2, 23-5 Kropf Dolores D. DP1641 21-1, 6-4, 21-33, 2-18, 3-118, 9-36 Kroupa Ann Elizabeth DP0781 2-2,6-32,6-6,6-15, 29-17, 6-64, 6-17, 6-14 Kroupa Ann SP0087 6-6 Kuehn Hildegard DP1685 27-20, 9-34, 5-2, 6-4 Kuehn Hildegard PP0235 2-3, 9-3, 29-56 Kuehn Hildegard PP0307 24-1, 3-33, 3-1, 21-1, 4-2, 7-5, 7-3, 9-6, 9-3, 9-9, 27-1, 27-8, 24-1, 5-2,2-3 Kuehn Konrad W. DP1064 2-23, 6-23, 20-6, 3-42, 3-72, 3-15, 7-4, 7-5, 7-1, 9-3, 9-6, 9-22, 9-23, 24-1, 2-3 Kuehn Kristina DP2371 2-3, 5-2,27-1, 5-5 Kuhn Edward M. DP1448 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Kuhn Kris DP1144 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Kuhn Samantha DP1162 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 3-73, 3- 74 Kuhn Wilian DP1140 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 3-73, 3- 74 Kulka Francis P. PP0570 21-29 Kunkel Conrad DP2148 2-2,6-26, 6-32,6-6 Kurland Susan PP0576 13-1 Kuzmak Carol SP0015 5-2, 7-1, 3-1, 6-2 Kwan Mildred DP2215 3-7, 27-1, 7-1, 9-6, 6-101 Kyger David L. PP0438 6-6, 6-12, 5-8, 29-76 Lachauce Michael DP1245 2-2 Lackey Strupe DP2260 27-1, 6-4, 6-53, 3-2, 3-7 Laili Teodora DP1246 2-2,6-12 Lamar Terry K. DP1968 24-1 Lamb George L. DP1047 2-2,6-15, 6-14,5-8 Lambeth Daniel DP2381 1-22, 9-15,7-21 public names 09170I.As Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Lambeth Donny C. DPO109 Lambie James T. DPO518 Landau Joel DPO649 Landers Hazel F. DP0893 Landing Joe PP0266 Landing Joesph PP0090 Landing Joseph M. SP0367 Landing Joseph SP0038 Landon James PP0085 Lang Jonathan DP0850 Lang Linda SP0058 Lang Norman SP0159 Lapping Anne DP1176 LaRue Robert DP0079 Lassiter Bart DP2171 Lassiter C. Barton DP2352 Lassiter C. Barton PP0439 Lassiter Jeanne DP1488 Latham II William E. DP1729 Latimer Sue DP1101 Lauer Chuck DP0711 Lavasque Bill DPO589 Lawrence B. L. DPO528 Lawrence B.L. DPO575 Lawrence B.L. DP0576 Lawrence B.L. DP0578 Lawrence B.L. DP1555 Lawrence B.L. DP1556 Lawrence Barbara DP0474 Lawrence Barbara DP0529 Lawrence Barbara DP0586 Lawrence Barbara DP0587 Lawrence Barbara DP0588 Lawrence Barbara DP0652 Lawrence Barbara DPO682 Lawrence Barbara PP0110 Lawrence Barbara PP0111 Lawrence Barbara PP0112 Lawrence Barbara PP0113 Lawrence Barbara PP0114 Lawrence Barbara PP0115 Lawrence Barbara PP0211 Lawrence R. J. DP0566 Lawrence R. J. DP0567 Lawrence R.J. DP0680 Lawrence R.J. DP0681 Lawrence R.J. DP1561 Lawrence R.J. DP1634 Comment Codes 2-2, 6-12, 6-32, 26-2, 6-6, 6-26 6-6, 6-32, 6-12, 6-14, 2-2 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-3, 7-1, 9-10, 9-54, 3-91 2-3, 22-2,1-1, 24-1 1-1, 22-1, 24-1 2-3,4-3, 9-2, 5-5, 21-1, 5-2 23-3,4-2,4-3,23-3 2-3, 22-2, 2-9, 3-33, 21-6 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 5-8 1-5,1-1 3-9, 3-1, 5-2, 3-24 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-2, 5-8, 6-12 2-2, 6-15, 6-12, 5-20 2-2, 5-8, 6-32, 24-6 2-2,6-6 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-2,6-6 5-2 2-2,6-14 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-3,21-37 2-3,3-36 2-3,23-35 2-3, 9-28, 9-41 2-3,6-70 _ 2-3, 7-1, 7-2, 7-4 2-3, 7-1, 9-27, 9-41, 3-42, 3-76, 6-21, 21-42, 23-35 2-3,7-1, 7-2, 7-4 2-3,21-42 2-3,23-35 2-3,9-28 2-3,3-36 2-3,6-70 2-3,8-1, 30-3 2-3,17-1 2-3,9-6 2-3,3-9, 3-1, 24-1 2-3,74, 7-5, 7-2 2-3,19-1 2-3, 5-2,17-1, 22-2 2-3,21-42 2-3,3-36 2-3,6-70 2-3,7-5 2-3, 9-6, 9-28, 9-22 2-3,23-5 public names_091701.x1s 1 w t 1 I r n 1 1 t Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Lawrence R.J. PP0118 Lawrence R.J. PP0119 Lawrence R.J. PP0120 Lawrence R.J. PP0121 Lawrence R.J. PP0122 Lawrence R.J. PP0123 Lawrence Rodney J. PP0212 Lawrence Rodney DP0577 Lawrence Rodney DPO677 Lawrence Rodney DP1427 Lawrence Rodney DP1557 Lawrence Rodney DP1558 Lawrence Rodney DP1559 Lawrence Rodney DP1560 Lawson Carla DPO493 Leadbetter Tim DP0069 Leak Bob SP0352 Leak Karen H. DP1732 Leak Margaret DP0929 Leak Robert DP2150 Leak Robert PP0231 Leak Jr. Robert E. DPO906 Leak Jr. Robert SP0199 Leckie Douglas E. DP0276 Ledbetter Sally DP2050 Lederhos Gilbert DP1426 Lee Bunn H. DP1502 Lee David DP0629 Lee Jerry D. DP2043 Lee Melinda DP1525 Lee Mike DP2297 Lee Myron D. DP0102 Lee Richard C. DP0770 Lee Terry L. SP0132 Lee William PP0137 Lee William PP0243 Leeds Jo Alice DPO532 Leeds Jo Alice DP1947 Leeds Jo Alice DP2319 Leeds Jo Alice DP0857 Leeds Jo Alice DP2189 Leeds Jo Alice DP2328 Lejeune Linda PP0267 Lejeune Theodore PP0291 Lejeune Theodore SP0186 Lemons Pam O. DP1254 Leonard Dianne J. DP1743 Leonard Dorothy S. DP1013 LePoint Raymond DPO854 Levenson M.J. SP0244 Comment Codes 2-3,27-8 2-3,8-1, 8-15 2-3,3-9,3-1 2-3,6-48 2-3,9-6 2-3,7-2 2-3 2-3,9-28 2-3,23-5 2-3, 7-1, 7-4, 9-6, 9-25, 3-36, 3-76, 6-4, 21-37, 23-5 2-3,21-37 2-3, 3-36, 3-76 2-3,6-70 2-3, 7-1, 7-2, 7-4 2-2,6-6 2-2,6-32 2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 6-25 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-14 2-2 2-2, 6-25, 6-12, 6-26, 6-32, 6-6, 29-12 2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 6-15 2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 6-25 2-2, 6-6, 6-23, 6-16, 5-9 6-6,6-14 9-6, 9-23, 6-4, 3-137 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-2,6-12,6-32,6-14 2-3, 3-69, 24-4, 9-62 6-59, 7-4, 7-1, 3-2, 5-21, 6-4, 9-6, 3-1, 20-6 2-2,6-6,6-32, 6-15 - 2-2,6-6 2-2, 6-15, 6-32, 6-14, 5-9, 5-7 2-3, 24-7, 3-49, 29-119 2-3, 6-15, 22-4, 2-3 2-3 29-7, 5-2,1-2 2-3, 3-81, 7-1, 9-27, 27-10 2-3, 3-1, 7-4, 7-2, 9-6, 9-23, 27-1, 29-56 2-3, 3-1, 7-4, 7-2, 9-6, 9-23, 27-1, 29-56 3-84, 3-1, 7-1, 9-6, 29-56, 29-37 4-21, 7-4, 9-6, 3-2, 7-1, 29-56, 20-6 2-3, 3-1, 7-4, 7-2, 9-6, 9-23, 27-1, 29-56 21-19,13-1 3-51, 3-34, 3-52, 3-53, 3-54, 4-15 2-3, 30-3, 30-2, 30-4, 3-1, 7-3, 12-1 5-2 6-6, 6-32, 2-2 2-2,6-10 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21- 32 2-3, 5-1, 6-9, 9-6, 9-8, 9-4, 9-1, 7-1, 7-2, 7-4, 5-2 public names_091701.xis Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Levenson Mazie J. DP1100 Levenson Mazie DP2083 Levenson Mazie PP0440 Levine Heue PP0129 Levine Steve DP0863 Levine Steve SP0048 Lewis Bill DP2261 Lewis D. Slade DP1843 Lewis Darren SP0361 Lewis Gail DP1580 Lewis Gene DP2012 Lewis Hal SP0333 Lewis Rick DP2351 Lewis William R. DPO941 Lewkowicz Melissa W. DP0383 Libreri Joe DP0776 Libreri Joe PP0087 Libreri Joe PP0441 Libreri Joe PP0442 Libreri Joe SP0090 Licata John PP0443 Licata John SP0200 Ligon David T. DP1399 Ligon Jr. Roddey M. DP1691 Lincoln David DP0399 Lindley Barbara PP0052 Lindley Barbara PP0298 Lindsey Claire DP1457 Lindsley Richard SP0220 Lindsley Richard SP0457 Lineback Patsy DP0887 Lineberger Stephen L. DP1642 Lineberry Keith H. DP0899 Lineberry Jr. Al DP1008 Lineberry Jr. Al DP2253 Lineberry Jr. Al SP0110 Lingerfelt James Gary DP0869 Lingerfelt James DP2231 Link J. Jason DPO249 Linton Marie C. DP1866 Linville Mark V. DP0257 Lipscomb T. Simone DP1974 Little George DP0008 Little George DP2074 Little George DP2180 Little Michael DP1784 Little Milton DP1786 public names_091701 xls Comment Codes 9-3, 9-6,19-4, 5-2, 7-1, 5-2 5-2, 9-6,19-1, 9-23, 9-3, 9-28 9-6, 9-15,19-4, 9-3,19-1, 6-21, 9-6 2-3,1-5 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 24-1, 2-1, 2-6, 1-1, 30-1, 2-10 2-2,6-6, 29-24, 6-32 2-2,6-12 6-2,21-1,6-3,5-5 2-2,6-32, 6-6 21-1, 29-60, 5-4, 22-2, 5-5, 5-2, 7-4, 7-1, 22-1, 29-89, 6-85, 1- 1, 1-4 9-6 2-2,6-14,5-8 2-2,6-6 2-2 3-86, 3-133, 3-134, 29-121 2-3, 5-2, 22-2, 21-13, 21-1 3-36, 3-1, 3-38, 3-62, 3-63, 3-10, 3-37, 3-16 22-6, 1-19, 6-34, 3-33, 23-16 21-1, 21-7, 23-7, 23-8, 22-6, 4-8, 4-5, 21-1, 4-6, 3-15, 3-16, 7- 5, 7-6, 8-1, 17-2, 6-22, 6-23 2-3, 3-9, 3-15, 3-1, 3-63, 3-64, 5-10, 3-58, 3-65, 3-16, 3-62, 3- 33 21-1, 22-1, 5-2, 8-15, 3-9, 3-1 2-2,6-12,6-14,6-15 2-2,6-15,5-8 2-2,6-79, 22-22,6-6 2-3,6-45 2-3,6-45 2-2,6-6,6-12, 6-15 3-4, 2-18, 29-50, 29-49 2-54,2-55 2-2,15-6 2-2, 6-14, 6-12, 6-6, 6-26 2-2, 6-12, 6-6 2-2, 6-32, 29-16, 24-3 2-2, 6-6, 6-15 2-2, 6-6, 5-8, 29-12 29-115, 29-56, 22-1, 7-4, 7-, 6-45, 29-60 3-7, 5-22, 7-4, 7-2, 27-1, 24-1, 29-56, 22-2, 2-3, 5-1 2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 6-32, 6-12 2-2,6-32, 6-12, 6-6 2-2,6-6 2-3, 7-4, 7-1, 12-4, 9-6, 29-63, 4-21, 27-13, 22-1, 29-56, 1-2, 3- 2,7-1,9-6 2-2 6-14, 6-12, 6-32, 6-6, 2-2 2-2,6-6 29-16,2-2 29-16,2-2 it 1 1 Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Little Jr. George SP0154 Littlejohn Brian DPO541 Littlejohn Linda PP0225 Lockhart Judy DP1619 Loflin Rudy DP2028 Lomax John PP0233 Long Edith DP0215 Long G DP0010 Long Harold DP2288 Long Harold PP0108 Long Howard L. DP1615 Long William H. DP2193 Longmire Holly Doucette DP1063 Lough Catherine W. DP0176 Love Andrew DP0710 Lovell Mary Kay DP2388 Low Peggy S. DPO405 Low Robbie N. DP0373 Low Sara Heaton DPO345 Lowder Betsy B. DP1510 Lowder Nellie DP1511 Lowder William R. DP1402 Lowdermilk Tammy PP0274 Lowe Susan H. D131 122 Lower Larry DP1913 Loxein Ruby DP1817 Luecht Richard M. DPO466 Luehn Kristina I. DP1170 Lufit Larry DP1373 Luimll Dennis DP1564 Luper Kimberly F. DPI 151 Luper Sherry DP0553 Lutz Donna DP1336 Lutz Kim PP0102 Lydick Keith DP1472 Lydick Keith DP1675 Lydick Keith PP0444 Lynch Dan PP0162 Lynch Dan PP0445 Lynch Dan DN0002 Lynch Dan PN0002 Lynch Jennifer PP0161 Lynch Mitchell D. DPO180 Lynham Diane PP0446 Maas Brian E. DP0885 Mabe Marie M. DP0263 Macintosh Jeff DPO348 Mackey Robert PP0197 Macon Richard B. DP1017 Maddox Cynthia DP2103 Madison J. Charles DP0989 public names_09170I.As Comment Codes 2-2, 6-6, 29-12 2-2,6-12,6-6.6-14.6-15 2-3,5-2,7-2,8-1 6-21, 3-2,27-1 7-21,2-3 2-2, 2-63, 6-12, 6-32, 9-19 2-2,6-15 2-2 3-154, 7-52, 3-155, 6-109, 5-38 23-16,21-14,21-13 21-74,21-75, 3-106 2-2, 24-3, 5-20, 6-6 2-3,27-8,7-4, 9-6,2-9 2-2,6-6,6-12 2-2,6-75,5-8 1-5,3-76,3-1,1-2 2-2,6-14 2-2,6-6 2-2, 6-12, 6-14, 6-32, 6-6 2-2, 29-16, 24-3 2-2,6-12, 6-6 2-2,6-32,6-12 2-2, 6-12, 6-32 2-2,6-14,6-12 2-3, 5-5, 3-2, 3-7, 3-36, 3-86, 3-26, 7-4, 7-1, 7-26, 1-2 7-21, 3-1, 2-3 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-3,5-2,5-5 6-6,2-2 2-2,6-12,6-6 2-2,6-6,6-14,6-32 2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 26-2, 6-12, 5-7 2-2, 6-6,6-12, 6-15 5-2, 27-8, 21-3,1-2 9-3, 7-33, 7-34 6-45, 30-1, 3-1, 7-1, 3-107,1-2 3-62 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-15, 29-11 2-2,6-6,5-9 2-2 2-2 21-6,2-2 2-2, 3-104,29-16,6-14, 6-32,6-6 2-3,3-33,14-1,13-1 2-2,2-87,2-101,6-6 2-2,6-12 2-2, 6-6,6-12 2-2,1-6 2-2, 6-15, 5-8 7-15,7-47,1-2 6-14,6-114, 26-2, 6-12, 6-32,6-15,2-2 Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Comment Codes Last Name First Name Middle Code Madison T.E. DP0597 2-2,6-6 Maggio Elemes A. DP1500 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Magich Kent DP1806 6-6, 6-12, 6-32 Mahorney James DP0297 2-2,29-16 Mahovlich Sahdra A. DP0919 6-12,6-32,2-2 Mahovlich Stephan L. DP0231 2-2, 6-14, 6-12,6-32, 5-7 Mahovlich Malone Steve Drew DP0984 SP0435 6-14,5-15,2-2 5-5,2-3,3-1, 21-4 Mandicle Edward DP1411 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Maney Robert L. DPO498 2-2,5-7 Mann Kim Kelly DP0797 2-2,6-6,5-8 Mann William C. DP1183 2-2,6-6,6-14,6-32 Mansfield Kim H. DPO471 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Mansfield Linda Simmons DPO469 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73, 3-74, 21-38, 3-139, 2-20 Manuel Barbara SP0345 6-12,6-18 Manuel George SP0370 2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 5-14, 6-25 Marbert Suzanne DP1220 21-1, 2-23, 29-56, 3-103, 3-36, 3-1, 3-17, 29-89, 6-4, 6-82, 6- 83, 2-3, 23-5, 29-93, 29-94, 29-95, 29-96 Markey Patricia DP1912 2-3, 3-7,7-1 Marks III Marsh R. Billie Harrison DP1524 PP0447 2-2, 6-14, 6-12, 6-32, 29-17, 5-8 2-2,5-7 Marsh Carol DP1851 5-2,2-3,3-7,3-1 Marsh Carolyn DP0855 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Marsh Chester DP0695 7-17, 7-18; 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72,,3- 73,3-74 Marsh Chester DP1852 2-3, 24-1,6-4,27-1 Marsh Tina DP2213 6-15,2-2 Marshall Deborah S. DP0274 2-2,6-6, 6-32,6-14 Marshall Robert SP0081 6-6,2-2,23-2 Marshall Robert SP0375 21-1, 6-15, 6-6 Marshall W. Bowen DP1119 2-2,6-6, 6-12 Marshall Walter DP0630 2-2, 6-17, 6-14, 6-12, 26-2 Martin Damien PP0448 2-2,6-6 Martin Denise SP0012 6-2,24-1,3-1,1-2 Martin Denise SP0433 3-7, 29-1,1-4 Martin Forrest SP0241 3-1, 5-2, 29-5, 5-23 Martin Joann PP0103 4-2, 2-23,21-3,21-4 Martin Phillip DP0066 2-2,6-14 Martin Tom SP0066 3-1,30-1 Martin Tommy PP0449 2-2,6-6 Martin III O.C. DP1740 6-6,2-2 Martino Philip SP0175 5-2, 21-1, 3-1, 3-3, 3-75, 3-18, 3-17, 21-1, 7-5, 30-1, 6-22, 1-1 Mascia Frank R. DP1318 2-2,6-6, 6-12 Mascia Michael C. PP0450 5-9 Masen Dwayne PP0138 21-65, 4-14, 3-33, 6-5 Mason Steven DP0052 2-2 public names_091701 xls J 1 Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Comment Codes Last Name First Name Middle Code Massey Diane DP1344 2-2,6-6,6-12 Mather Julianne L. DP0329 2-2, 6-6,6-12.6-26 Matney Carol DP1439 2-2,29-16,6-32, 5-9 Matthews Ellen W. DP0878 2-2, 6-12,6-25 Matthews Gloria DP1663 2-2, 6-6,6-32,6-15 Matthews Julia DP0042 2-2,6-14.6-32 Matthieu Donald SP0193 24-1, 3-224, 2-6, 3-7 Matthieu Jr. Donald E. PP0451 4-3, 4-5, 3-10, 23-1, 3-16, 3-36, 3-67, 3-68, 7-14, 7-15, 7-16, 21-69,21-12 Mattinson David DP0717 6-59,5-2, 9-6,24-4 Mattinson Linda DP0716 5-34, 29-105 Mauler James D. DP1404 2-2,6-12 Maupin Levi SP0230 5-2,27-1,6-14,22-1 Mayer Ken PP0196 2-2,6-15, 6-6,5-7 Mayer Ken SP0347 2-2,6-6,5-9 Mayer Jr. Kenneth C. DP1792 6-6,6-32 Mayward Peggy DP1566 3-33,3-7 McAdams Kenneth L. DP1589 2-2,6-32,29-16 McAdams Sabrina DP1393 2-2,6-6, 6-12 Mcalister Bonnie SP0324 2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 6-20, 6-15, 5-7 McCall G. Emmett DP0378 2-2,6-77, 6-14,5-15 McCarthy Sally H. DP0852 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 McCaslin Randy DP2255 6-6,6-12, 2-2 McCollum Stephen M. DPO976 29-136, 22-31, 20-13, 20-12, 5-43 McCombs Jr. Charles A. DPO182 2-2, 6-14, 6-12, 29-16, 26-2, 6-15 McConnell Carol S. DP1495 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21- 32 McConnell Robert E. DP1494 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21- 32 McCormick James R. DPO987 2-2, 6-14, 5-20, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 6-32 McCoy Glenn D. DP0154 2-2,5-8, 6-6 McCoy Jr. Robert S. DPO935 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 6-15 McCraw Jerry W. DP0656 2-2, 6-14, 6-6, 29-90, 5-7, 6-12, 6-32 Mccraw Jerry PP0204 2-2 Mccraw Jerry SP0316 5-9,2-2,2-26,2-1, 29-19 McCulloch Delano D. DP1398 2-2, 6-6, 5-8 McCulloch Jeanne O. DP0432 2-2,6-14, 5-8 McDaniel Jack DP1578 2-2,6-12 McDaniel Ken DP1274 2-2, 6-32, 6-12 McDaniel Jr. Thomas R. DP2192 2-2,6-6 McDavid Allen DP0233 2-2,5-7 McDermott Donna DP2010 7-4, 7-1, 9-6, 9-3, 7-20, 7-21, 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6- 73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-32, 21-1, 2-35, 6-45, 3-36, 3- 1, 5-32,3-101,2-3 Mcdermott Donna PP0463 2-3, 5-2, 9-6,22-2,1-4 McDermott Michael DP0259 2-2,6-32 Mcdermott Paul PP0464 2-3, 29-56, 21-1, 21-14, 21-23, 4-8, 7-11, 7-4, 7-2, 29-63, 9-3, 9-6, 3-75, 4-8, 3-33, 6-1, 2-17, 2-35, 21-17, 1-14, 1-2, 1-15, 5- 5 Mcdonald Davis PP0466 2-2, 6-32, 5-8, 6-12, 3-13 McDonald Janice DP0925 2-2, 6-12,29-24,5-8 public names_091701.As Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Comment Codes Last Name First Name Middle Code Mcdonald Janice SP0079 2-2,6-6 McDonald Patricia SP0061 2-10,6-6 Mcdougal Rosa PP0465 2-2 McDowell Faye O. DP0157 2-2,6-12,29-16 McDowell J. Walter DP0244 2-2,6-14, 6-6, 5-8 Mcdowell J. Walter SP0233 6-6, 6-12, 6-14, 26-2, 5-20, 6-10, 29-11, 6-17 McDowell Walter DP2250 6-6,5-8,2-2 McEachern D. Hector DP0234 2-2,6-6,6-14,6-12 Mceachran A. Gib SP0112 2-37 McElvogue Mary DP2249 2-2, 6-12, 29-16, 26-2, 5-8, 29-17, 6-6, 6-32, 5-7 Mcelvogue Mary PP0467 2-2,6-32,6-26 6-6 Mcelvogue Mary SP0310 , 2-2, 5-8, 6-10, 5-18, 24-3 McElvogue Mike DP1419 6-53,29-24 McGee Lawrence U. DP0729 2-2,6-14, 6-32,5-20 McGhin Renee DP1233 6-6,6-12 Mcgraw Sandra PP0200 2-2,2-61 Mcgroarty James M. SP0428 2-2,20-5, 6-12,6-15 McGuinn Fuller K. DPO628 27-8,6-21 Mcguinn J. William SP0205 6-6,6-10, 6-12,5-8 McHenry Russ DP1988 3-1,29-98 Mchenry Russ PP0091 21-1, 3-1, 5-17,6-16,1-5,21-4 Mclrvin Patricia DP1763 22-1,3-2, 5-2,20-6 Mclrvin Patty DP1474 3-7,20-6 McIver John J. DP0638 5-2,2-3 McKaughan William M. DP1277 2-2,6-32,6-12 McKelvy Steve DP2408 3-7,2-92 Mckenzie John L. PP0008 2-2,6-26,6-6 McLean David K. DP1251 2-3, 6-16, 7-4, 7-21, 3-2, 27-1, 7-1, 9-6, 1-2, 5-1 McLeod Jr. Harold M. DPO952 2-2,5-9,6-6 Mcleod Jr. Harold M. SP0139 2-2, 6-6, 29-12, 5-8, 6-13 McMillan Preston DP0218 29-24, 6-19, 6-14, 6-6, 6-32, 2-2, 5-9 McMillian Donald C. DP0501 2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 6-12, 6-32 McMillin Dan DPO975 3-76, 3-200, 7-72, 9-3, 9-6,11-8, 29-136 McMillin Dan DP1680 9-8, 7-4, 3-76, 3-16, 23-22 McMillin Daniel DP2421 7-13, 7-32, 7-4, 29-35, 3-36, 3-16, 29-60 McNair John DP0093 2-2,6-14 McNamara Elizabeth S. DP1910 3-36, 3-15, 3-86, 5-1, 2-3 McNamara Elizabeth S. DP2390 3-36, 3-15, 3-86, 5-1, 2-3 McNamara McNamara Elizabeth James J. DP1958 DP1909 3-36, 3-15, 3-86, 5-1, 2-3 2-3, 23-22, 23-23 McNamara Jr. James DP1976 2-3, 23-22, 23-23 McNamara Jr. James DP2373 2-3,23-22, 23-23 McNeil Dennis DP0783 2-2,6-6,6-17 McNeill Coy PP0026 21-13, 1-11, 2-9, 22-2, 29-56, 24-1 McPeak Charles E. DPO169 6-6,6-12,6-15,2-2 McPeak Duane E. DPO175 2-2,6-12,6-6 McPeak Edith D. DP0173 6-15, 6-12,2-2 McPeak Shelly K. DP0214 2-2,6-12,6-6 McQueary Charles E. DPO552 2-2, 6-15, 6-6, 6-12, 29-17, 5-7, 6-14 McQueary Charles E. DP1810 6-6,6-32 Mcqueary Charles PP0011 2-2,6-12, 6-6, 5-8, 29-17, 29-32 public names 091701.xis 11 7 1I 1 Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Mcqueary Charles PP0180 McQueary Cheryl DP1809 McVicker Thomas DP1218 Mears Jodi DP0303 Meehi Mark DP1312 Meisner Gerald W. DP0974 Meisner Jerry DP2161 Melhem Rob DPO531 Mellis J.P. SP0338 Mellis James P. SP0107 Mellon Frank DPO122 Mellon Frank DP2211 Melson Tomi DP0382 Melvin Charles DP2278 Melvin Charles PP0234 Melvin E.S. DP0364 Melvin Jim SP0120 Melvin III J. Taylor SP0118 Melvin Jr. Charles E. DP1751 Melvin Jr. Charles E. SP0376 Memory Katherine DP0033 Menefee Chris PP0452 Meredith Fred E. DP2347 Merrell Eddie F. DPO481 Merritt Garry DP0394 Messick Mark DP0477 Messick Mark DP1857 Messick Matthew DP1278 Messick Norma S. DP0616 Metcalfe Thomas J. DP0946 Metcalfe Thomas PP0453 Meunier Jeff DP2403 Meunier Jeff DP2404 Meunier Jeff DP2405 Meyer Arlene DP1890 Meyer Todd DP1764 Meyers Sally DP0870 Michaels Tony SP0172 Mickey David DP2066 Midler J. DP1925 Midler J. DP1926 Midler J. DP1927 Midler J. DP1928 Miles Robert F. DP1414 Miller Brenda DP1878 Miller Brenda DP2281 Miller David S. DP0271 Miller David S. PP0454 Miller David S. SP0335 Miller Don DP2222 Comment Codes 5-45,6-6 6-12,6-6,29-90, 2-2 2-3,1-2, 24-1 2-2, 6-12, 6-6 6-15,6-6 29-127, 7-6, 7-51, 7-42, 7-26, 29-128,29-87 7-42, 9-3, 29-127, 29-128, 7-21, 6-110, 3-46, 3-158 3-27,21-47 29-12,2-2 29-12, 6-6, 2-2 2-2, 6-14, 6-32 2-2,6-15 2-2, 6-15, 6-78, 26-2, 29-17 6-12, 6-15, 6-6, 29-90,2-2 6-15, 6-31, 5-9 29-113 2-2,6-12, 6-14, 5-9 2-2, 6-13, 6-12, 29-16, 29-17, 5-9 2-2,6-6 2-2 2-2,6-12 2-2,29-76 2-2, 29-32, 6-6, 6-66 2-2, 6-15, 24-3 6-19,2-2 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73, 3-74, 3-42, 1-1, 22-2 3-7, 3-36, 3-90, 5-5, 1-1, 1-4, 6-4, 3-69 2-2,6-32,6-12,5-9 2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 6-15 2-2,5-7,3-10,2-119 23-15, 2-71, 21-72, 5-9, 2-2 27-1, 5-2, 24-1, 22-4, 6-104, 6-100, 2-3 27-1, 5-2, 24-1, 22-4, 6-104, 6-100, 2-3 27-1, 5-2, 24-1, 22-4, 6-104, 6-100, 2-3 5-5, 3-1, 3-52, 7-13, 30-2 23-31,20-6,2-9 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 29-28 7-1,7-6 2-3,7-5,7-4, 7-3,29-7 2-3, 23-22, 23-33, 23-5 9-36, 9-22, 9-6, 9-23, 19-1, 9-54, 9-15, 8-1, 2-3 2-3,6-70 2-2,6-12,6-14, 5-7 2-3, 9-6, 6-4, 27-1, 3-2, 7-1, 24-1 2-3,24-1,6-16,9-6 2-2,6-32 2-2, 29-12, 6-6 6-14,6-12,6-6,2-2 3-2, 27-1, 7-1, 6-86, 6-102, 6-69 public names_09170I.As Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Miller G. Bruce DP0370 Miller G. Bruce SP0143 Miller Helen PP0455 Miller Helen PP0456 Miller Helen SP0176 Miller Mark S. DP0920 Miller Mark S. PP0575 Miller Mark S. SP0092 Miller Mark DP2367 Miller Mark PP0294 Miller Mark PP0457 Miller Mark PP0458 Miller Mark SP0040 Miller Mark SP0178 Miller Mark SP0339 Miller Mark SP0396 Miller Mary C. PP0459 Miller Mary PP0269 Miller Mary SP0443 Miller Richard E. DP1778 Miller Richard DP2140 Miller Ron PP0171 Miller Sidney DP1573 Miller Tammy PP0077 Miller Tammy PP0460 Miller Tammy SP0024 Miller Tammy SP0076 Miller Teresa DP2225 Miller Theresa W. PP0461 Miller Theresa DPO982 Miller Tiffany DP1575 Miller Wade C. SP0144 Millican John DP0495 Mills Robert D. DP0205 Milner-Brown Lorna DP2234 Minor Darla DP1863 Minutolo Vince DP0219 public names_091701.xis Comment Codes I 2-2,6-32 2-2,6-6 2-3, 21-13,2-68, 7-3, 29-64,1-1, 22-1, 22-2, 5-5, 23-26, 23- 14, 23-5, 4-13, 29-54, 21-1, 21-26, 21-11, 21-4, 2 2-3, 21-13, 23-22, 2-72, 6-7 2-17, 5-2, 4-8, 5-13, 5-11, 3-25, 2-18, 3-1, 3-26, 4-1, 4-9, 5-4, 6-4, 6-27, 6-9, 21-4, 2-19, 21-1, 21-3, 2-3, 1-2 2-3, 29-100, 29-102, 21-3, 21-51, 21-60, 21-13, 21-31 6-50, 6- 55, 21-26,21-27,21-71, 21-37, 23-27,23-28, 29-60, 5-31, 23- 26, 23-33, 2-23, 23-14, 21-17, 21-1, 29-7, 9-6, 7-2, 20-6, 7-12, 7-67, 7-71, 7-72, 7-21, 7-3, 23-4, 23-6, 23-4, 29-36, 29-121, 27- 1, 9-3, 1-15, 1-13, 2-68, 9-41, 6-118, 23-5, 3-86, 3-91, 3-195, 5- 5, 5-31, 30-25, 3-197, 9-4, 9-34, 7-1, 6-110 2-3, 21-13, 21-3, 6-50, 6-55, 21-26, 21-71, 21-37, 23-27, 23- 28, 5-31, 23-26, 2-23, 23-14, 21-17, 29-7, 9-6, 7-2, 20-6, 7-12, 23-4, 23-6, 23-4, 29-36, 27-1, 9-3,1-15, 2-68, 23-5, 5-5 23-4, 23-5, 23-6 21-29,29-112 2-3, 21-67, 23-6, 23-26, 21-17, 29-35, 29-64, 21-13 2-23, 1-1, 23-17, 3-16, 3-36 2-3, 21-13, 21-14, 21-1, 6-50, 21-23, 21-17, 23-27, 21-26, 23- 28, 23-14, 29-54, 4-13, 23-26, 23-14, 23-5, 30-1, 29-7, 7-12, 23-4, 23-6, 29-63, 9-3, 9-6, 1-14, 1-2, 1-15, 2-68, 21-13, 23-5, 5-5 4-1 29-7, 5-2, 3-1, 7-2, 7-4, 30-1, 27-1, 3-2, 17-1, 3-17, 9-1, 21-1, 20-4 3-1 29-7, 5-2, 23-5, 3-16, 3-1, 30-1, 7-2, 7-1, 23-5, 20-4 29-56, 2-23, 3-28, 3-9, 9-6, 7-2, 27-8, 6-9, 1-2 2-3, 21-13, 23-16, 5-2, 27-8 23-3,2-23 2-2,6-12,6-32,6-14 2-2,6-6 2-2, 6-12, 6-32, 2-50, 6-15 6-12, 6-32, 6-6 4-13, 2-23, 5-5, 6-31, 6-3 21-13, 23-5, 3-9, 3-36, 3-16 21-2 21-1, 3-1, 5-2, 30-1, 5-5 2-2, 6-32, 5-9 2-2, 6-32, 6-12, 29-17, 3-13 6-6,6-12 2-2,6-12,6-32 29-12,6-6,29-19 2-2, 6-6, 6-12,6-14 2-2, 6-6, 6-32 2-3, 20-6, 7-1, 3-2, 7-17, 24-1, 21-31, 6-4, 1-2 2-2,6-32,6-12 29-24, 6-19, 6-14, 6-6, 6-32, 2-2, 5-9 11 Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Mitchell Don DPI 147 Mitchell Edward C. DP1005 Mitchell Kathy DP2030 Mitchell Mabelline DP0664 Mitchell Nikkita DP2114 Mitchell Ron DP1933 Mitchell Ron DP1934 Mitchell Ron DP1935 Mitchell Ron DP1940 Mitchell Ron DP1946 Mitchell Jr. Nick W. DP1670 Moffitt Sylvia Ann DP1311 Moleska Denise SP0363 Mollison Mike DP2152 Monk Douglas T. DP0860 Monk Douglas SP0322 Monk Jean DP1000 Montgomery Catherine SP0384 Montgomery Millard DP1073 Montgomery Stephen L. DP0705 Moore Beverly SP0063 Moore E Glenn DP0062 Moore Kenny SP0410 Moore Lindsey DP1883 Moore Louis DP2135 Moore Mary Allyson DP1587 Moore Vernon DP0357 Moore W. Colon DP0179 Moores Robert SP0432 Moran Mike DP2101 Morgan Bess DP1471 Morgan James F. SP0388 Morphis Crystal DP2084 Morris Noah D. DP1865 Morris Ronnie D. DP2201 Morris Ronnie DP0774 Comment Codes 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-2,6-14 7-4,7-21,2-3,6-4,1-2 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 6-15, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 6-32, 24-3, 2-2 9-36, 9-22, 9-6, 9-23, 19-1, 9-54, 9-15, 8-1, 2-3 3-36, 3-15, 3-86, 5-1, 2-3 2-3, 23-22, 23-33, 23-5 2-3, 7-5, 7-4, 7-3, 29-7 2-3,6-70 2-2,6-14, 6-6 29-24,6-15 2-2,24-3,6-12 2-2, 6-6, 6-15, 5-8 7-1, 7-19, 7-61, 6-116 5-2, 30-1, 5-3,1-1, 22-1, 6-35, 6-1, 21-3, 6-23 2-3, 3-2,7-1, 9-6,24-1 2-2,6-12,6-6,6-15 2-2,6-6 2-2,6-10 1-5, 1-1, 30-1, 21-1, 5-5 2-2, 5-8,6-12 6-25, 6-12, 6-6, 6-32 30-1, 3-2, 7-1, 27-1, 9-6, 3-1 2-2,6-12,5-20 2-2 29-24, 6-19, 6-14, 6-6, 6-32, 2-2, 5-9 2-2, 6-12, 6-32 1-1,29-41 2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 6-12, 6-32, 6-15 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 6-12, 6-6, 6-32, 29-32 29-12, 6-32, 6-12, 6-14, 6-26, 6-15, 6-6 2-2,6-32,6-12,6-15 2-3, 7-1, 9-6, 3-2, 24-1, 22-14, 7-49, 9-45, 5-1 3-76, 29-120, 7-43, 22-25,13-3, 7-45, 3-132, 7-44, 6-98, 6-99 Moser Clay DP1477 3-7,2-3 Moser Janet DP0061 2-2, 5-8, 6-12 Moser Kenneth DP0047 2-2, 5-8, 6-12 Moser Margaret M. DP0895 9-49, 9-37, 7-1,13-3 Moser Peter PP0290 2-3, 3-33, 7-2, 21-1 Moskowitz Jay DP2291 2-2, 6-6,29-16, 6-32 Moskowitz Jay SP0136 2-2, 6-6, 29-12 Moss Deborah DP1886 2-2, 3-1, 6-45 Moss Don DP2090 6-6, 6-12, 6-14 Moss Don SP0381 2-2,6-15 Moyer R. Charles DPO140 2-2, 6-14, 6-6, 6-12, 5-7 Mueller Glen PP0126 2-3, 6-49, 6-45 Mundy Faye DP1820 2-2 public names_091701.x1s Piedmont Triad International Airport , General Public Letter Comment Codes Last Name First Name Middle Code Mundy Tom DP1819 2-2 Muratone Margaret PP0462 3-33, 6-45, 24-2 Murdash Thurman DP1989 7-21, 7-4,2-3 Murdock Steve DP0723 2-2,6-6, 6-15 Murfee Jr. Donald G. DP0236 2-2, 6-14, 5-9, 29-24, 6-15 Musci Maureen DP1694 2-3, 29-56, 3-36, 9-25, 9-34 Myatt Kevin A. DP0134 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32 Myers Sally DP2365 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Nadelman Martin H. DPO981 2-2,6-15 Nagy Bill DPO648 3-152 Nail Eugene DP0609 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 Nash Steven L. DPO156 2-2,6-15 Natkin Gerald DP0686 5-2 Natl La SP0071 6-3 Neal Ralph DP2160 6-6,6-15,5-8 Neas Steve DPO928 6-15 Needham Margaret DP0537 1-22 Needham Margaret SP0203 27-1, 3-227, 2-1, 1-2, 21-1 Neill David DP1623 2-2,6-6 Neiman John DP2199 5-7,2-2, 6-6,24-3 Nelles Barbara PP0164 5-1,6-31 Nelson Beverly DP2357 6-6,6-66,6-15,2-2, 6-72 Nelson Deborah Suzan DP1682 2-3, 7-4, 3-2, 27-1, 6-41, 5-2 Nelson Howell D. DP2343 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 29-17, 24-6 Nelson Nancy PP0144 21-6, 21-62, 6-6, 6-45, 1-5, 2-9 Nelson Vaughn Pascal DP1681 2-3, 5-2, 1-22, 3-2, 27-1, 7-1 Nesbit Susan DP1084 2-2,6-26, 5-8 Netruis Chet DP1747 2-2,6-12,6-6 Newell W. Robert DP0228 2-2, 5-8, 29-17, 26-2, 6-14, 6-12, 6-6 Newman Harold DPO200 29-24, 6-19, 6-14, 6-6, 6-32, 2-2, 5-9 Newman Ronald DPO823 2-2, 6-12,6-64 Newman Ronald SP0069 6-6, 29-14, 5-3, 1-6, 29-11 Newman Timothy SP0157 2-2,6-13, 5-9 Newsome Angela D. DP1301 2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 6-15 Newsome Jason DP1650 2-2,6-12,5-15 Newsome Jr. Jerry W. DP1275 2-2, 5-9,6-12,6-6,6-15 Newton T. Lawson DPO342 2-2,6-26,6-15,6-12 Nichols Yvonne H. DPO492 2-2, 6-14, 6-32 Nickelston Roni DP1579 6-15,6-6 Nicks Ricky B. DPO166 2-2, 6-6, 27-4 Nite Mildred DP1290 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73.3-74 Noah Lloyd DP2057 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Noll Richard A. DP1446 2-2, 6-14, 6-6, 6-12, 6-26, 6-32 Norm Janet Lee DPO646 2-3, 7-55, 3-76, 22-24, 6-16 Norman Heather DP0024 2-2, 6-24 Norman W. Lee SP0250 2-3, 5-21, 6-4, 22-1, 4-8, 29-42 Norwood Jr. Glenn J. DP1942 7-17,7-18,7-19,7-20,7-21,3-70,21-31,21-32,3-71,3-72,3- 73,3-74 Nrosen Pitie PP0041 21-1, 2-3,1-1 public-names-091 701.xis 77 C Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Comment Codes Last Name First Name Middle Code Nunn Stuart DPO135 2-2, 6-14, 6-12, 6-32, 6-10 Nussbaum Patty DP2172 2-3, 20-6, 29-7 Nussbaum Jr. V. M. DP0880 2-2, 6-6, 6-26, 29-16 Nussbaum Jr. V. M. SP0134 2-2, 29-16, 29-12 Nyswonger Fonda DP0954 6-6, 29-24, 5-20 Oakes Kristen DP2361 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 O'Brien Fred S. DP1285 2-2, 6-32, 6-12 O'Bryan Patrick SP0029 5-6,6-2 O'Conner Sandra DP2141 6-32,6-12, 5-15,5-8,29-17 O'Connor Rachelle DP1824 2-2 O'flanagan Barbarajean SP0037 30-1, 5-11,1-2, 29-5 O'Flanagan Brian DPO535 3-43,6-21, 22-24 O'Flanagan Brian DP1873 29-100 Oldenburg Betsy S. DP2320 2-3 Olson Carl W. DP0562 29-56,24-7 Olson Jean DP0556 24-7,2-9 Oma Doug DP1695 29-56,1-2,2-3 O'Neal Debroah W. DP1297 2-2,6-6,6-32,6-15 O'Neal Scott DP1154 2-2,5-7 O'Neil William DP1752 5-7,2-2 Oreilly Rick PP0468 29-56, 6-44, 7-2, 3-33, 24-2 O'Reilly Sandi DP2125 3-72, 7-26, 7-1, 9-3, 9-6, 3-95, 29-85, 6-71, 1-2, 2-3, 5-2, 3-2, 29-87,7-4 O'Reilly Sandra DP1309 7-4, 7-1, 6-45, 3-72, 7-26, 9-3, 9-6, 3-95, 29-85, 6-71, 1-2, 29- 86,2-3 Oren Carrie DP0861 2-3, 7-1, 7-61, 7-4, 9-3, 29-132 Orr Laney DP2073 2-2, 6-15, 6-12, 6-6, 5-9 Orr Laney DP2179 2-2,6-15,6-12,6-6, 5-9 Orr III Laney G. DP0152 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 5-7 Orthel Frank DP0637 7-11,7-53 Orthel Frank DP1066 7-17 - Orthel Frank DP2246 7-1, 7-42, 7-4, 27-28, 7-6 Orthel Frank DP2409 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21- 32 Orthel S. DP0689 7-24,9-29 Osguthorpe Barbara DP1759 29-7, 3-1, 3-114, 7-3 Osguthorpe Barbara DP2167 3-1, 29-123, 29-85 Osguthorpe Barbara PP0134 2-3, 29-7, 5-2, 3-1, 1-2, 30-1 Osguthorpe Barbara PP0282 3-1, 7-4,9-6,1-2,29-7 Osguthorpe Barbara SP0007 3-1,2-1 Osguthorpe Barbara SP0341 3-1,11-2,29-7 O'Shea Bob DP1099 5-2, 2-3,30-1 Osmus Rich DP2136 6-12, 6-32, 6-14, 26-2, 5-15, 6-6, 29-16, 3-104, 29-24, 29-88, 29-118 Often Sarah E. DP0752 6-75, 6-32, 6-94, 2-2 Overcash Janice DP1299 2-2, 6-6,6-32, 6-15 Owen H. James DPO990 2-2, 29-16, 6-32 Owens Dave DP1860 2-2, 6-32, 6-12 Oxendine Debbie DP1508 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Pachasa Edward S. DP1521 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 public names 091701.xis Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Pachasa Virginia A. DP1520 Padgett Donna L. DP1106 Padgett Donna SP0153 Padgett J. Ronald DP0352 Palmer Charles SP0279 Palmer Martha H. DPO593 Palmer Roger PP0029 Palmer III Charles J. DP0354 Parchel William DP1320 Parker Charlotte DP1882 Parker Charlotte DP1895 Parker Charlotte DP2254 Parker Robert S. DP0209 Parker Ron PP0469 Parker Stan DP1897 Parker Zane PP0253 Parks Ann DP1604 Parks Ann SP0356 Parks Chariton DP1343 Parks Ruby DP1342 Parmele Jr. Russell B. DPO865 Paroue Keith E. DP1885 Parries Rebecca DP0073 Parrish James R. DP1735 Parrish Mary Ann DP2358 Parsons Lynne DP1825 Partners LLC Wrenn Place DP0002 Partridge Richard A. DPO454 Partridge Richard DP1853 Parus Collyn DP1717 Pashayan Annette G. DP0554 Patterson Alice Conger DP1434 Patterson James G. SP0166 Patterson John DP1306 Patterson John SP0209 Paul Richard DP1592 Pavlansky Mark DP2079 Paxale Jeremy PP0558 Payne Bill PP0238 Payne J. Stanley DPO545 Payne J. Stanley DP2379 Payne J. Stanley PP0001 Payne J. Stanley PP0016 Payne J. Stanley PP0141 Payne J. Stanley PP0470 Payne J. Stanley PP0471 Payne J. Stanley SP0148 Payne N.C. PP0142 Comment Codes 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 5-2,2-3 24-4, 9-1, 22-4, 6-16, 22-3, 5-1 2-2,6-6,6-15 2-2,5-8 2-2,6-14,6-32 2-3, 6-5, 1-2, 6-4, 21-1, 2-9 6-6, 5-8,2-2 2-2,24-3,6-12,6-32 5-5,1-2,29-98 9-6,3-2, 7-1,14-1 1-2, 7-4, 7-2, 3-2, 9-6, 27-1, 6-4, 14-1 2-2,6-26 2-3, 5-5, 30-1, 24-2, 1-2, 22-2, 3-33, 1-2 2-2, 6-12, 6-32 2-23,21-1 29-83, 3-7, 3-1, 7-21, 7-4 3-7,2-4,4-10,2-6 2-2,5-8 6-15,2-2 2-2,6-14, 5-7 7-4, 7-41, 3-36, 9-6, 2-88, 5-1, 22-2 2-2,6-14 2-2, 6-32, 5-15, 26-2, 5-7 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 2-2 11-4 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 3-36, 7-4, 7-1, 9-6, 5-5, 24-1 2-2,6-15 2-2,6-12,6-32,6-6 2-2,6-15 2-2, 29-19, 5-15, 29-12, 6-13 3-10, 3-36, 3-39, 3-94, 3-36, 3-228, 21-33, 21-1, 5-5, 6-16, 5- 2,22-2 2-3,30-1,2-21, 2-7 29-97 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 6-15, 29-12 2-2,29-76 2-3, 9-6, 9-15, 7-1, 7-4, 22-2, 3-33, 5-5, 5-1 3-142, 3-143, 3-213, 3-144, 3-145, 21-124, 3-146, 2-18 3-167, 3-47, 23-2 3-10, 3-55, 3-56, 3-10, 24-1, 21-25, 2-10 2-67, 2-6, 3-10, 3-57, 30-1, 24-1, 3-18 3-208, 5-5, 21-1, 2-18, 3-10, 3-48, 5-30, 3-47, 1-14, 3-46 3-208, 3-205, 3-7, 21-1, 2-18, 2-6, 3-10, 3-56, 5-30, 3-47, 1- 14, 3-46, 5-5 3-51, 21-14, 3-56, 2-18, 3-33 29-19, 3-10, 3-75, 2-6, 3-7 2-3, 9-6, 9-3, 7-2, 3-9, 22-2, 4-5 public names 091701.xis 1 1 1 1 Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Payne Stan SP0394 Payton Bebe DPO614 Peacock Jr. Clyde PP0472 Peane J. Scott DP1812 Peanie J. Scott SP0060 Pearce Chris DP0788 Pearce J. Scott DP1443 Peddycord John W. DP0155 Peddycord Milton DPO415 Peek Joe DP1684 Peek Pat DP1657 Peele Charles DP1450 Peele Charles SP0150 Peeler Chris DP2105 Peeler Chris DP2126 Peeler Christine L. DPO123 Peeler Christine L. DP0909 Peeler Christine L. DPO916 Peeler Christine L. DN0001 Peeler Christine L. PN0001 Peeler Christine L. PN0003 Peeler Christine DP2362 Peeler Christine PP0256 Peeler Christine SP0181 Peeler Christine SP0430 Peeler Christine L. DN0006 Peeler Christine DN0007 Peeler Christine DN0009 Pegram Saloman DP1516 Pegram William DP1804 Pegram Willie PP0074 Pelch Dexter DP1243 Pelligra Sam DP1213 Pelny Peter L. DP1652 Pendegraph Kathy DP1326 Pengelly Bob DP1451 Pennell G. Clifton DP0782 Pennie Michael DPO579 Pennie Michael DP1896 Pennie Michael DP1959 Pennie Michael DP1960 Pentz Jack SP0245 Perala Theresa M. DP1283 Peraldo Betty DP1356 Peraldo Betty SP0010 Peraldo Jeffery K. PP0021 Perez Arturo DP1970 Perkins Mary T. DP0251 Comment Codes 3-7, 3-205, 3-10, 3-31 2-2,6-6, 6-12,26-2, 5-15, 5-7 2-2,26-2 2-2 2-2 2-2, 26-2, 6-6, 6-32, 27-9 2-2,6-6, 6-32 2-2, 6-6, 5-7 2-2,6-14 2-3, 24-1, 6-45, 29-56 3-36, 5-2, 3-2, 7-1, 6-45, 29-56 3-14,6-12.6-6,2-2 2-2,3-12,3-11, 5-9 3-1, 7-6, 7-14,29-7,1-2 2-92, 24-1, 3-2, 7-1, 27-1, 9-6, 29-7, 6-4, 1-2 29-112 29-112,21-51, 21-33, 21-59 29-134,3-195, 3-196, 3-197, 3-76, 29-135, 7-46, 7-67, 7-68, 7- 69 2-3 2-3 2-3 2-92, 24-1, 27-1, 9-23, 2-123, 2-124 2-3,5-5,6-28 5-2, 24-1, 21-1, 21-3, 2-17, 5-17, 5-4, 6-16, 6-22, 3-204, 7-1, 7- 3, 5-5, 30-1, 22-1, 24-1, 21-4, 29-5 5-1, 5-2, 24-1, 2-17, 5-17, 5-4, 6-4, 7-1, 7-3, 30-1, 8-15, 22-1, 24-1,29-5 2-3 2-3 2-3 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 6-15,2-10 2-2,6-18 6-15,6-6 2-3, 6-4, 29-1, 7-4 2-2, 6-6,6-32 2-2,6-6,6-12 2-2, 5-7, 29-24, 5-8, 6-6, 6-12, 6-14 2-2, 6-32, 5-7, 6-12, 6-6 2-3,3-1 27-27,27-1, 3-2 2-3, 3-2, 3-7, 3-16, 3-1, 3-126, 3-127, 3-128 2-3, 3-2,3-7,3-1 1-5,1-1,2-1, 2-15, 2-7,22-9 2-2, 6-32, 6-12 3-2, 24-1, 29-7, 6-4, 27-1, 9-6 3-1, 7-1, 5-1, 6-2, 2-1, 29-1 21-63 2-2,6-6,3-10 2-2,6-12 public names_091701.x1s Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Perkinson Debra PP0081 Perkinson Debra PP0271 Perkinson Debra SP0436 Perkinson Elizabeth DP1672 Perkinson Elizabeth PP0015 Perry Cathleen PP0473 Perry Nell DPO510 Perry Timothy DP0738 Peters Donna R. DP1453 Peters Tim DP0620 Peterson Bonnie L. DP1880 Petrinitz Jeffery A. DP1949 Petrinitz Jeffery A. DP1984 Petrinitz Jeffery A. DP2419 Phanthalack Laddavanh DP2306 Phelps Dave SP0014 Phifer Nancy DP0779 Philips Christine DP1146 Phillip Stephan J. DP0223 Phillips Becky DP0262 Phillips Dayle DP0085 Phillips Judy DP2047 Phillips Richard L. DP1923 Phillips Steven W. DP1307 Phillips Steven DP2372 Phipps Pauline R. PP0474 Phoenix Thomas H. DP1793 Piazza John DP1444 Picardo Judy DP0608 Pickard Deborah W. DP1391 Pickard Tom PP0475 Pickens Lavonne DPO991 Pickering Ann A. PP0476 Pickering Ann PP0213 Pickering Ann SP0313 Pickering Arthur PP0559 Pickett Michele Carrera DP0787 Pickett Michele Carrera DP1822 Pickl Linda R. DP1697 Pieny Lisa B. DP1467 Pierce Brian D. DP1531 Pierce Daniel G. DPO549 Pileggi Maureen PP0477 Pileggi Maureen PP0478 Pileggi Maureen PP0479 Pileggi Maureen PP0480 Pinedo Margaret DP1136 Pinnix Joe DP1601 Pinnix Joseph SP0105 Comment Codes 2-3, 1-1, 21-1, 22-2, 29-1, 21-68, 6-4, 3-2, 24-4, 3-15, 17-1, 6- 9 6-23, 21-66, 2-3, 20-6 2-3, 6-23, 24-1, 29-1 2-2, 6-32, 5-15, 26-2, 5-7 2-2,1-6,6-6 2-3, 6-45, 3-33, 9-6, 22-1, 2-9, 29-64 2-2,6-14 2-2,5-9 2-2,6-6 2-2, 6-14, 6-12 2-3, 9-6, 27-1, 24-4, 6-4,1-2, 6-1, 7-4, 7-1 2-3, 5-34, 1-4, 5-5, 24-1, 5-1, 3-36, 3-16, 7-21, 1-2 2-3, 5-34, 1-4, 5-5, 24-1, 5-1, 3-36, 3-16, 7-21, 1-2 2-3, 5-34, 1-4, 5-5, 24-1, 5-1, 3-36, 3-16, 7-21, 1-2 2-2, 6-12, 6-15 1-4, 3-1, 24-4 29-122, 7-21 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 5-7 2-2, 29-10, 6-32, 6-12, 6-6 2-2, 6-6, 6-14 24-1, 3-7, 7-13, 9-8, 7-4, 1-4, 6-28 9-38, 9-39, 9-40 27-1, 1-4, 5-11, 5-5, 7-4, 7-1, 1-2, 20-6, 2-3 27-1, 1-4, 5-11, 5-5, 7-4, 7-1, 1-2, 20-6, 2-3 2-3, 3-7, 7-4 6-32,6-6,29-17 2-2, 6-14, 6-6, 6-12, 6-26, 6-32 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 2-2 2-2 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-17, 6-32 2-2,29-76 2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 29-17, 5-8 2-2,6-6 2-2,29-76 2-2,6-6,5-9 2-2,5-9 3-36, 3-7, 29-56 2-2, 6-32, 6-6 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 24-3, 6-32, 6-15 2-2, 6-12, 6-32 2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 22-2, 29-56, 10-1, 24-1, 29-7 5-5, 30-1, 3-1, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45 1-1, 22-1, 27-13.6-45,22-2,29-56, 6-4 2-3, 1-1, 29-56, 22-1, 9-6, 27-13, 6-45, 23-22, 23-5 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-2, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 6-6,5-8,2-2 public names_091701.xis t 1 1 1 1 1 f! D L Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Comment Codes Last Name First Name Middle Code Pinnix Kay DP1184 2-2,6-32,6-14 Pinsker Jerrold B. DP0622 6-6, 6-12,6-32,2-2 Pinto Richard L. DP0786 2-2, 5-9.6-6, 6-12 Piper Bee DP1334 2-2, 6-6, 6-12,6-15 Piper Emily DP1345 2-2, 6-6,6-12,6-15 Pittman Anna B. DP1867 2-3,3-1, 3-2, 3-36,1-2 Pittman Anna B. PP0481 2-3, 7-2, 14-1, 13-1, 3-33 Pitts William DP1605 3-36, 3-90, 3-95 Placentino Peter DP1431 2-2, 6-12, 29-16, 6-32, 6-6 Pleasants C. Edward DP0623 2-2, 6-14, 6-32, 6-6, 29-24 Pleasants Graydon O. SP0113 2-2,6-6,6-26 Pleasants Graydon DP0039 2-2, 6-12, 6-32 Pleasants Nancy T. DP2342 2-2, 6-6, 29-24, 5-7 Plummer Lillian DP2287 2-2,6-12, 5-15,6-32 Plyer David DP2109 2-2,6-6, 6-12,6-32,6-14, 6-15 Poer O.E. DP0719 29-89,1-2 Poindexter Bonnie SP0129 2-2,5-8, 29-17 Poindexter Brad DP1083 2-2,15-12, 6-6 Poleshuk Edward S. DP1659 3-7,2-3 Polishark Edward S. PP0482 5-5, 3-3,24-2 Pollak Laura DP0663 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Pollak Laura DP1953 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Pollak Laura DP1979 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Pollak Laura DP2119 24-1, 7-1, 3-2, 3-7 Pollak Laura DP2369 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Pomper Robert and Kim DPO746 29-118,2-2 Poole Caroyln DP2058 2-3, 21-33, 21-73, 23-17, 27-29, 7-1, 7-25, 9-3, 19-1, 3-36, 3- 7, 3-1, 20-6, 27-1, 7-2, 7-4, 7-21, 2-97, 2-23 Pooley Sherry DP0312 2-2,6-6,6-15 Poore Jimmy DP1779 2-2,6-6 Popalicha Dianna DP1768 2-3, 27-1, 3-2, 6-43, 29-63, 7-3 Pope Vickie DP1826 2-2 Porter Elaine PP0483 2-2 Porter Leon DP0030 2-2,6-14, 6-15 Post Sandy DP1585 2-2,6-12, 6-14 Poston Michael DP0050 2-2,4-23,6-15,24-3 Potter Norman D. DP0275 2-2,6-6,6-32,6-14 Poucke Margaret Van PP0304 2-3, 7-4, 3-7, 27-10, 21-1, 4-9, 4-16 Poucke Margaret Van PP0543 5-5, 2-23, 21-1, 2-9, 27-1, 3-66, 3-7, 3-1, 7-4, 22-1, 24-1, 1-2, 7-2 Poucke Margaret Van PP0544 23-16, 3-66, 3-7, 2-3, 14-1, 7-2, 3-33, 1-2 Powell Carol H. DP0153 2-2,6-26,6-14,6-12 Powell Carol DP0019 2-2,6-12 Powell Mildred SP0349 2-2,6-12,24-3, 5-9 Powell Robbie DP0940 2-2, 6-6,6-32, 5-7 Powers William PP0189 7-2, 7-7, 7-8, 2-51, 29-70, 3-33, 3-16, 3-45, 3-2, 3-17, 29-70, 2- 51, 9-10, 9-11, 9-12, 9-13, 9-6, 9-14, 9-15, 9-16 Pratt William J. DP1727 6-6,2-2 public names_091701.x1s Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Pratto Marlene DP1919 Preslar Jr. Len B. DPO548 Preslar Jr. Len B. PP0484 Preslar Jr. Len B. SP0135 Preuss Charles DP1584 Preyer Fred L. DP1087 Preyer Fred L. SP0366 Preyer Fred SP0249 Preyer W. L. DP2129 Price Betsy DP1469 Price Edward N. DP1468 Price Gaines PP0486 Price Gaines PP0487 Price John K. SP0184 Price Leah DP0371 Price Marinanne B. DPO164 Price Rebecca S. DP0305 Price Jr. Robert E. DP1027 Pridgen Jimmy R. DP0502 Priester Ken DP0097 Prim Billy D. DP0238 Pritchard Gale DP1648 Pritchard Natlie DP1646 Probst Nancy Y. DP1067 Prongay Ruth DP0658 Provo J.W. PP0136 Provo James W. DP2064 Provo Judy PP0100 Prufer Paxton SP0096 Pruitt Donna P. PP0488 Prutan Joann PP0485 Prybylski Mark DP0026 Pryor W. L. DP1367 Puckett Monica DP0334 Pugh Alan V. DP1741 Pugh Ronnie DP0201 Pulitzer Jr. Michael DP1240 Punger Douglas S. DP1801 Purdie Barbara DP1260 Purdy John SP0387 Purser Allan W. PP0489 Purser Allen W. DP2315 Puterbaugh Helen DP1994 Pysher Lynette DP1096 Quade Jennifer DP0288 Queen Larry T. DP0714 Queen Larry T. DP2115 Queen Larry T. DP2262 Queen Larry T. PP0221 Queen Lawrence DP2323 Quinn Marjorie DP1840 public names_091701.As Comment Codes 7-4, 7-14, 7-6, 7-30, 9-6, 9-23 2-2,6-32,6-15,6-6 2-2, 5-9, 5-8, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32 2-2, 27-4, 6-10, 6-12, 6-6, 5-8, 29-17, 2-10 6-15.6-12,6-6 6-14, 6-12, 6-6, 29-24, 2-2 29-12,1-3 2-2, 29-11, 29-40, 27-9, 29-16, 6-12, 5-20 6-14,6-32,6-12 2-3, 3-7, 3-2, 6-45 3-33,1-1, 5-2 2-2, 6-12, 6-32, 26-2, 6-6, 29-16, 3-6, 6-32, 24-3 6-12, 26-2, 6-32, 6-6, 29-16, 2-2 21-1, 23-3, 24-4, 23-7, 2-3, 29-1, 29-32, 21-8, 23-5, 9-4 2-2, 3-102,6-76,6-77, 29-17 2-2,6-15 2-2,6-6,6-12, 29-24 2-2,6-15, 6-6 6-15, 6-6, 24-3, 2-2 2-2,6-12, 6-14 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32 2-2, 6-32, 5-15, 26-2, 5-7 2-2, 6-32, 5-15, 26-2, 5-7 2-3, 3-7, 3-1, 3-61, 27-1, 29-56, 6-4, 1-2, 5-22 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 1-2, 4-2, 21-1, 6-43, 24-1 3-36, 3-2, 3-61, 3-109, 7-1 1-2,23-18 21-4, 21-3,1-1, 3-8, 3-218,17-1 2-2,6-6 2-2 2-2,6-12 6-6, 6-12, 6-14, 6-32, 2-2 2-2,6-26, 6-15, 6-12 6-6,6-14, 6-15,2-2 2-2,6-15,6-6 2-2,6-15,29-17,6-12, 6-6 29-24,5-9 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 29-11,6-15,2-2 2-2, 2-37, 6-6, 24-3, 29-17, 5-9 2-2,6-6 2-3, 9-6, 7-4, 7-1, 5-5, 3-2 2-3, 24-1, 5-2, 5-22, 3-1, 7-3 2-2,6-15 2-23, 29-56, 3-15, 7-4, 24-1, 6-22 20-6, 3-2, 7-4, 7-1, 6-16, 2-23, 21-23 29-60, 6-16, 7-21, 7-4, 7-1, 3-36, 29-56, 20-6, 21-3 23-25, 1-14, 2-10, 3-10, 3-75, 22-3, 6-9, 21-4 3-2, 7-1, 2-3, 20-6, 22-2, 29-60, 21-31, 21-52, 6-16 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-15 r 1 1 n J Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Qureshi Paul DP1339 Qureshi Paula DP1674 Ragland George DP0054 Raker Ann DP1346 Raker Ann DP1530 Raker Ann DP1836 Raker Don DP1834 Raker Don DP1997 Rakestraw Charles DP2183 Raley Bill DP1335 Ralston-Asmendi Andy and Jo DP2393 Rampmeier John DP1148 Rampmein John SP0320 Rankin Diane DP2017 Ranson Glen A. DP0115 Raper Ann Trueblood DP0892 Ravenel Katharine SP0307 Ray David DP1353 Ray Robin DP0049 Rayt Haywood W. DP0655 Reagan Bob DP0837 Reep Jeff SP0458 Reep Jeffrey SP0300 Reep Tammy SP0213 Rees Donald SP0453 Regan Karen L. DP1870 Rego Joseph DP2095 Rego Joseph and Joyce DP2400 Rego Joseph and Joyce DP2401 Rego Joseph and Joyce DP2402 Reichard James P. DP0313 Reichert Chadwick J. DP1864 Reichert Ronald J. DP0188 Reid Charles M. DP1416 Reid John PP0490 Reid Steve DP1939 Reid Tereasa DP1298 Rendleman Cindy DP1907 Renfro Bonnie R. DP1523 Renfro Bonnie DP2142 Resui A. Paul DP1261 Reubl Stan A. DP1202 Comment Codes 2-2,29-17,6-14,6-6 2-2,29-17,6-32,6-14 2-2,6-12.6-14 5-1, 3-1, 3-69, 3-7, 7-3, 9-8, 7-4, 7-1, 27-1, 21-1, 2-3 5-1, 3-1, 3-69, 3-7, 7-3, 9-8, 7-4, 7-1, 27-1, 21-1, 2-3 2-3, 24-1, 3-2, 7-1, 27-1, 3-69, 3-7, 7-3, 21-31 2-3, 3-2, 3-36, 3-1, 6-87, 9-6, 7-4, 7-1 2-3,74, 9-6,7-1, 7-2 2-2, 6-32, 6-14 2-2 1-1, 7-1, 9-6, 3-76, 6-105, 4-2 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-23, 3-18, 5-2, 3-1 3-2, 7-1, 3-7, 29-63, 20-6 2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 5-8 2-3, 24-1, 29-99 2-2, 5-8, 5-15, 6-6, 29-19 2-2,6-6 2-2, 5-7, 6-6 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 2-2,6-6 2-8,2-56 3-6,2-8,2-30,2-3 3-1, 30-4,28-1, 3-27 24-1,2-1,1-5,3-1, 5-5 2-2,5-7 24-1, 27-1, 3-2.6-22, 22-25, 29-63 27-1, 5-2, 24-1, 22-4, 6-104, 6-100, 2-3 27-1, 5-2, 24-1, 22-4, 6-104, 6-100, 2-3 27-1, 5-2, 24-1, 22-4, 6-104, 6-100, 2-3 2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 26-2, 5-8, 5-9 2-2, 6-32, 6-12 2-2,6-19,6-12, 6-6 2-2,6-6 2-2 3-16, 5-5, 3-7, 3-15, 7-1 2-2, 6-6,6-32, 6-15 2-2, 5-7,6-6 2-2, 27-4, 6-12, 6-6, 6-32, 5-9 2-2,6-6,6-14,6-9, 29-118 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-2, 6-12, 5-8, 5-15, 29-16, 6-26, 6-15 2-2,6-12, 5-8,6-6 3-7, 7-13, 9-6, 24-4, 27-1, 6-4, 24-1, 2-3 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Rewld Diane DP1201 Reynolds Royce O. DP0813 Reynolds Royce O. SP0146 Rice C.T. DP1212 Rice Helen T. DP1177 ' public names_091701.x1s Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Rice R. Timothy DP0759 Rich Anita SP0382 Rich Charles PP0278 Rich Charles SP0358 Richardson David DP2382 Richardson Joyce H. SP0101 Rignel Barbara DPO613 Riley John PP0020 Riley John PP0280 Riley John SP0354 Rippey Steve PP0491 Ritchie Linda DPO965 Ritter Alexander S. DP1089 Rives Jefferson H. DP0388 Roach James SP0211 Roach Jiim DP1902 Robb Frank D. DP0724 Robbins Chuck DP0758 Robbs C. Laurence DP0805 Roberson Danny W. DP1722 Roberts Jane Blair DP1568 Roberts Sandra DP1300 Roberts Stephanie DP1748 Robertshaw Ronna DP0760 Robertshore Harry DPO936 Robertson Burke DP1789 Robertson Burke PP0009 Robertson Buster DP0888 Robinson Allan PP0492 Robinson Euphrobia DP1182 Robinson Gertrude PP0493 Robinson Karl H. DP2099 Robinson Karl PP0494 Robinson Phil DP1209 Rodman Shirley DP1995 Rodwell Eleanor DP0796 Roeber William SP0204 Roeber William and Irene PP0565 Rogers Carol PP0495 Rogers Carol SP0328 Rogers Jack DP2120 Rogers Jack DP2214 Rogers John J. PP0496 Rogers Nikki DP1586 Rogers Robert SP0047 Rogers William R. DPO951 Roland Donna PP0497 Rolandell Karen PP0154 Rolandelli Karen DP0868 Rolandelli Karen SP0089 Rose Sherry DP0564 Comment Codes 2-2, 3-48, 2-37 3-7,3-1 3-33, 6-32,.3-7, 3-1, 2-6 3-7, 3-1, 24-1, 29-35 2-3, 20-6, 27-8, 7-3 12-6,2-3 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 4-6,5-5 5-2,2-23,21-4 2-3, 2-6, 21-1, 5-17, 30-1, 5-2 2-2 2-2,6-6,6-12,26-2, 5-15, 5-7 2-2,6-14,6-6, 5-23 6-15,29-17,29-19 2-2,6-14,29-21,29-10 2-2,6-6 2-2,6-75 2-2,6-32, 6-25, 6-95 2-2, 6-32, 6-12 2-2, 6-12, 6-32 2-2 2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 6-15 2-2, 5-7, 6-15 5-7 2-2,6-15 2-2, 6-15, 6-14 6-6, 6-12, 29-16, 2-2 6-6, 6-25, 6-12, 3-104, 29-118, 2-2 2-2, 6-12, 6-32 2-2,6-6,6-14,6-32 2-2,6-12 - 2-2,6-12, 6-6,29-16,6-15 2-2, 6-32, 6-12 1-2,24-1, 5-2 5-2,24-1, 2-3 6-6,2-2 9-5,21-1,2-8,2-7 23-25, 2-23, 21-1, 5-5, 24-2 7-13, 12-1, 3-9, 3-1, 3-7, 2-23 5-5, 3-1, 5-3, 2-17, 6-31, 5-2, 30-5, 23-1 6-45, 1-22, 3-2, 7-1, 1-2 7-1, 3-2, 5-22, 29-60 2-1, 3-210, 7-2, 3-16, 2-3 2-2,6-12 6-9,6-6 2-2,5-7 2-2,6-6 2-17, 3-1, 5-2, 27-8, 21-1, 5-44, 1-1, 22-1, 22-2, 29-1 1-1, 22-1, 3-36, 3-76, 6-45, 3-1, 1-2 5-2,5-5,3-75,22-1, 1-1 20-6,29-56 public-names-091701 xls 1 1 t f1 Ll 1 1 1 !i Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Rose Stanley DP1803 Rose William C. SP0138 Rosenberg Ron DP0832 Rosenblatt Dave DP0396 Rosenblot Lori DPO676 Roslund C.L. DP1076 Ross David A. DP1871 Ross Jack H. DP0736 Rothrock Ron DP0319 Rothrock Ron DP0947 Rothrock Ron DP1622 Routh Thomas S. DP1239 Rowan Joan F. SP0160 Rowe Michael DP1340 Rowe Susan K. PP0498 Rowell Bob SP0206 Royster Barbara PP0499 Rudd Paul DP2301 Rudisill Ty DP0673 Ruffin John L. DPO165 Ruffler Ana DP0602 Rui Linda DP2370 Ruil Mark DP1332 Ruitze Jean K. DP1711 Rushing Mark DP1462 Russ Jr. Henry DP0111 Russell Bob PP0105 Rutledge Beth DP0323 Ryan Kathy DP1655 Ryan Kathy DP1767 Ryan Kathy DP1769 Ryan Kathy DP1773 Ryan Kathy DP1774 Ryan Kathy DP2197 Ryan Kathy PP0220 Ryan Kathy PP0500 Ryan Kathy PP0501 Ryan Kathy PP0502 Ryan Michael F. DP0375 Ryan Patrick J. DPO436 S. David DP0694 Saffer Christian G. PP0503 Saintsing Kay K. DP1371 Sale Kenneth SP0042 Samet Norman G. DP0970 Samet Norman G. PP0504 Samet Norman DPO972 Samet Norman DP2329 Sanchak Elisha Carol DP0295 Comment Codes 6-6, 9-6, 3-7, 3-2, 7-4, 7-1, 24-1, 20-6 6-6,29-16 2-2, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 2-2,6-12 2-2, 6-6, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 3-78, 3-7, 2-3 2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 6-15 2-2,5-8 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 5-7 2-2, 6-6, 5-7,6-12, 5-20 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 5-7 2-2 29-19,5-14, 6-18, 2-2 2-2,6-15 2-2 2-3, 24-1, 3-1, 24-2 23-16, 3-33, 7-2, 9-6, 9-3, 3-17, 24-2, 2-1 2-2,6-6 2-2, 6-6, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 5-7 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 2-2, 6-26, 6-12, 26-2, 5-7 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21- 32 29-24,2-2 6-6, 6-12, 6-32,2-2 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 6-26 21-1,2-23,2-3,1-1 2-2,6-6,6-15 6-45,29-25 27-1, 7-1, 7-4, 7-35 9-6,9-15 29-89, 6-85,1-2 3-36, 3-109, 3-33 2-3, 27-1, 7-4, 7-2, 7-35, 9-6, 9-23, 3-36, 3-76, 29-60, 6-45, 6- 4,1-1 2-3, 22-2, 1-1, 22-1, 5-2, 6-4, 29-1 1-2 23-5, 2-23, 22-2, 1-1, 9-6, 9-1 29-13,5-5,30-1,4-8 6-12,2-2 2-2 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-3, 3-1, 3-9, 6-48, 6-31 6-10,2-2 7-1,29-1 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 29-7, 2-2 21-6, 6-19, 6-32, 6-12, 1-6, 3-13 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-14, 29-16, 5-20, 6-32, 3-104, 6-15 2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 6-12, 6-15, 29-16 2-2, 6-12, 6-32, 6-6 public_nam es_091701.xis Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Sanders Richard D. DPO479 Sandin Emilie and Tom DP0856 Sandin Tom PP0505 Sanford Beverly S. DPO269 Sanford Beverly S. PP0005 Sanford Marlene DP2117 Sanford Wally DP2089 SanGeorge Warren DPO285 Santuccio John PP0181 Sarnoconsty Ed PP0135 Sasser L. Alan DP0731 Sattari Pari DP1760 Sawyer Teri DP1071 Saxton Tresa M. DPO942 Sayles Andy DP0830 Schane Demian A. DP2397 Schartherge Wendy DP1766 Scheer Heidi A. DP1380 Scheer Heidi A. DP2055 Scheer Heidi DP2276 Schesny Frank J. DP1638 Schexnayder Meg PP0033 Schexnider Alvin J. DP0250 Schiffman Jr. Arnold A. DP0734 Schiftan Michael PP0506 Schiller Ernest L. DP0897 Schlaeppi F. DP1964 Schlaeppi F. DP2002 Schlaeppi F. DP2045 Schlaeppi F. DP2046 Schlaeppi Fernand DP2097 Schlaeppi Femand DN0005 Schline Barry C. DP2111 Schmider Sandra DPI 186 Schneider Thomas C. DPO128 Schroder Cindy DP2311 Schue Ron DP0480 Schultz Lynn DP2104 Schultz Roger DP1006 Schwarz Ira N. DP0523 Sciandra Leslie DP1823 Scott Charles SP0074 Scott Diane DP1172 Scott John G. DP0411 Scott Lindsay PP0177 Scott Mike DP1171 Scroggins Jobe D. DP1800 Scroggins Jobe DP0255 Scroggins Jobe DP2147 Searcy Margot DP0099 public names_091701.As Comment Codes 6-19, 6-6, 6-14, 2-2 7-60 7-2, 3-7, 3-15, 9-6, 9-3, 6-4, 6-9 6-6, 5-8, 6-12, 6-32, 2-2 2-2,1-6, 6-6, 5-8 6-6, 2-2, 5-20 6-12,6-6 2-2.6-6 2-2, 5-9, 6-12, 6-15 2-3, 2-1,29-68 6-15, 6-14, 6-32, 5-8 5-5, 6-45, 23-22, 5-2, 2-3 2-2, 6-12, 6-6 6-6, 2-2, 6-14, 29-16, 26-2 2-2, 5-20, 6-14, 6-32 21-29, 29-112 2-3, 7-1, 9-6, 3-2, 27-1, 6-16 2-3, 27-1, 7-4, 29-56, 24-1 24-1, 5-19, 5-36, 9-6, 29-120 2-3,20-6 2-3, 3-7, 3-2, 7-1, 24-1 21-64, 3-208, 2-21 2-2,6-14, 6-15, 24-3, 5-8 2-2,6-90 2-2,5-9 6-117, 3-2, 9-6, 7-1, 3-1, 9-26, 9-15, 7-4, 7-2, 2-3 6-2 3-36, 3-16, 29-66 30-18 3-136 29-63, 6-22, 3-2, 3-36, 3-16, 5-5, 1-2 2-3 2-2, 29-16, 6-94, 6-31, 5-9, 5-8 2-2, 6-32, 6-14 2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 5-8, 6-15 2-2,6-6 2-2, 6-12, 5-8, 5-7 2-2, 6-12, 6-6 2-2,6-15 2-2, 6-15, 5-7, 5-9 6-6 6-6,2-2 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-2,6-14,5-8 6-6,29-11,2-2,23-2 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-2, 5-7, 24-3, 6-32 29-24, 6-19, 6-14, 6-6, 6-32, 2-2, 5-9 2-2,6-12,6-6,5-7 2-2,6-6, 6-12 1i 1 1 1 1 t Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Comment Codes Last Name First Name Middle Code Searcy Phillip E. DPO340 2-2, 6-26,6-15,6-12 Seawell Jr. William D. DP0619 2-2,5-7 Seawell Jr. William SP0334 2-2, 6-6, 5-8 Seckar Donna J. DP1394 6-12,6-32,6-6, 2-2 See D.R. DP1413 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Seeber Sandra F. DPO464 2-2,6-6 Segall Sharon DP1955 2-3, 7-5, 7-4, 7-3, 29-7 Segall Sharon DP1981 2-3, 7-5, 7-4, 7-3, 29-7 Segall Sharon DP2375 2-3,7-5, 7-4, 7-3,29-7 Segeus Austin DP1324 2-2 Selar Jan PP0557 2-2,29-76 Selbea Eileen PP0517 2-3, 22-2, 9-3 Sell Becki DP1827 2-2,6-6 Sellen Dana K. DP1161 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Sellen Jeff DP1145 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Sellen Lib DP1142 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Sellers John DP1963 3-7, 3-2, 5-22, 5-1, 30-1, 30-2, 29-7, 7-1, 3-37 Sellers Jr. John DP1884 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73, 3-74, 30-2 Sells Frank DP2086 2-2, 6-32, 6-14, 6-12, 6-6 Semones Renee DP0507 2-2,6-14 Sentelle Bill SP0080 2-2,6-6 Sewell Ernest J. DP2092 6-14,6-15,6-6 Seymour William DP1466 24-3, 6-19,6-14, 6-32, 2-2, 6-6 Shackel James J. DPO692 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Shackel Karen M. DP0693 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Shackelford Nicolette N. DP0818 2-2,29-16,6-15 Shane John DPO875 2-3, 3-1, 24-14, 4-26, 7-1, 6-31 Shane John DP2127 6-4, 3-1,6-45,1-2 Shane John PP0097 2-3, 3-7, 2-9 Shane John PP0258 3-7, 3-1,6-45,2-3 Shankle Alan PP0507 2-2,29-76 Shankle Lisa PP0508 2-2,29-76 Sharpless Frederick SP0251 2-2, 29-32,5-2,21-5 Sharrard _ Jim PP0509 2-2,6-32 Shaver Fran SP0215 2-2,5-8 Shaw Linda SP0423 21-1, 1-5, 5-5, 2-7, 21-4 Shaw Mary Ellen DP1805 2-87 Shaw Mary Ellen SP0073 4-1,23-3 Sheeran Gordon H.T. DP0266 2-2,6-6,6-32, 6-14 Sheffield Jr. C. Jack DP2348 6-6, 6-32, 2-2 Shellman David W. DP0158. 2-2,6-6 Shelman Palmer PP0039 21-13,2-42, 29-61 Shelton Peggy DP1296 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Shelton Peggy DP1487 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 public names_09170I.As Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Shelton Peggy PP0510 Shelton Peggy PP0511 Shelton Peggy PP0569 Shelton Randy DPO674 Shelton Tammy DP0792 Sheonz Peter DP1408 Sheppard Jerry T. DP1341 Sherrill Bill PP0512 Shikenjarski Robert J. DP0678 Shikenjarski Robert J. DP0678 Shippard Brenda H. DP1590 Shirley Neil D. DP2341 Shoemaker Bill DP2149 Shoemaker W. R. DP2076 Shoemaker William R. DP1924 Shoemaker William R. PP0513 Shoemaker Wm. PP0176 Shore Marcus DP1369 Shore William A. SP0342 Shore Jr. Richard E. DP0785 Shough H. Conway DPO108 Showfety Bill DP0926 Showfety Drew DP0144 Showfety Drew DP2210 Showfety Drew PP0514 Showfety Drew SP0075 Shugart Kate DP2100 Shugart Kay B. DPO596 Shuskey Greg DP0056 Shutt Rickie DP0057 Siceloff Mark S. DP1385 Sigman Kenneth E. PP0223 Sigmon Stephanie DP1629 Sikes Mary Ann DP1287 Sikes Mary Ann PP0295 Sikes Mary Ann PP0516 Sikes Mary Ann PP0516 Sikorsky David C. DP0841 Simcox Minerva PP0518 Simeon Jim DP2339 Simmons Bill PP0209 Simmons Linda PP0116 Simmons Linda PP0199 Simmons Linda SP0319 Simmons Linda SP0372 Simmons Mignon PP0242 public names 091701.x1s Comment Codes I 2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 5-5, 30-1, 3-1, 9-6, 9-3, 22-2, 29- 56,64 2-3,1-1,22-1,27-13,6-45,7-2,27-1,27-8,7-3,10-1,24-1,29- 7 2-3, 3-7, 3-1, 7-2, 9-6, 22-2, 6-4 2-2, 6-6, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 2-2 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 ' 2-2 2-2,6-12, 6-32,6-64 3-80 3-80, 3-81, 3-82 2-2, 6-12, 29-16 2-2 6-32, 6-12, 6-6, 6-14, 29-12, 29-118, 2-2 6-6, 6-32, 27-9 2-2, 6-32, 6-6, 6-14, 29-24, 6-63, 29-16 2-2, 1-6, 6-6, 6-32, 6-25 2-2, 22-11, 6-37, 3-12, 3-13, 6-6 2-2, 6-6, 27-4, 6-12, 6-14, 29-90 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-20, 6-15, 5-8, 2-2 ' 2-2,6-12, 6-6 2-2, 26-2, 5-8, 29-17, 6-14, 6-12, 29-24 6-15,2-2 ' 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 5-7 2-2, 6-6,29-118 2-2, 24-3 2-2 2-2,29-16 2-2, 6-14, 6-12 ' 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-14, 6-32 2-2, 6-12, 6-14 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 3-3, 5-2, 7-2 2-3, 24-1, 3-2, 7-1, 27-1, 9-6, 20-6, 3-1 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-3, 21-3, 22-2, 6-4, 3-33, 9-6, 1-2 2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 5-5, 30-1, 3-1, 9-6, 9-3, 22-2, 29- 56,6-4 2-3, 21-13, 23-22, 2-72, 6-67, 29-56 2-2,6-14,6-32,5-7 ' 2-2,6-12 6-6,6-12, 6-17,26-2, 29-17,2-2 2-3, 29-28, 27-8, 24-4, 29-56 , 2-3,3-7,3-9, 22-1 2-3, 3-7, 6-4, 22-2 3-7, 3-24, 3-224, 3-4, 6-28, 5-2, 6-35 3-7, 2-4, 3-1 2-3, 21-24, 5-2, 29-63, 2-9 ' Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter ' Last Name First Name Middle Code Simmons Migran PP0150 Simmons Sally DP2153 ' Simmons Steve DP2208 Simmons Jr. Alton W. DPO594 Simone Simone Anthony Anthony PP0040 SP0299 Sims Charles G. DP1074 ' Sims Charles G. DP2321 Sims Charles DP2132 Sims Mac DP2123 Sinclair Bill SP0051 Sinclair III T.E. DP1479 Sintich Maureen E. DPO185 Sizemore Chastiny DP0059 Skeen H.J. DP1529 ' Skelly Janice DP2364 Skenes Mary W. DP1232 Skinner Anne W. PP0519 Slane Michael PP0252 ' Slane Michael SP0243 Slazyk Deborah SP0429 Slazyk Joel PP0066 Slua Mark DPI 129 Smelgrove Joyce M. DP0654 Smith Beth PP0520 Smith Betty A. DP2188 Smith Brad DP1241 ' Smith Claire PP0305 Smith D. Joan DP0600 Smith Dana G. DP0986 Smith Dana G. SP0125 Smith Dixon DP0985 Smith Gary H. SP0127 Smith Jackie DP1550 Smith Jeff DP1070 Smith Jeffery DP2107 Smith Joanne DPO647 Smith Kathleen SP0391 ' Smith Smith Kellie Ken DP0286 PP0521 Smith Kenneth SP0198 Smith Mark DP0087 ' Smith Melissa and Bill DP1206 Smith Michael S. DP0318 Smith Peggy DP1294 ' public names_091701.x1s Comment Codes 2-3, 29-69, 2-23, 27-8, 9-6, 21-68 2-3, 3-36, 3-2, 27-1, 3-1, 7-1, 9-6 3-7,29-85 2-2,6-14 3-16, 3-1, 2-43 2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 2-7, 4-4, 5-5, 5-3, 30-4, 7-1, 3-1, 6-1, 22-4, 6- 10, 5-2, 24-2, 29-37 7-13,1-2 5-2,1-2, 30-1 3-2,29-60 2-2, 6-32, 5-20, 6-6, 6-12, 6-15, 5-8 6-2,2-10 2-3, 4-8, 3-1, 5-2 6-6,2-2 6-6,6-14 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 29-60, 6-103, 6-125, 6-126, 6-127, 5-47, 6-128, 6-129, 6-130, 6-131, 6-132, 6-133, 6-134, 6-135, 6-136, 6-137, 6-138, 6-139, 6-140,6-104 6-12,6-6 6-19,6-32 2-3, 5-5, 5-2, 22-2,1-1, 22-1 1-4, 22-2, 30-1, 1-1, 2-15, 1-10, 2-7, 22-7, 21-17, 22-1, 1-2, 29- 7, 24-1, 29-47, 2-23, 23-1, 23-11 22-2, 29-1, 3-1, 5-2, 3-75 21-1, 29-56, 23-17, 6-45 7-4, 7-1, 9-6, 9-3, 7-20, 7-19, 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6- 73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-32, 21-1, 2-35, 6-45, 3-36, 3- 1, 5-32,3-101, 2-3 5-8 2-2,29-76 2-2, 6-6,6-14, 3-10,19-1 2-2, 6-12, 6-15 2-3, 21-1, 24-1, 21-3 2-2, 6-14, 6-6 2-2, 6-14, 5-20, 6-12, 6-6, 26-2, 5-15, 6-32 2-2, 6-13, 6-11, 6-6 2-2, 6-6,6-32, 29-16, 5-20, 6-15 2-2, 6-26, 5-8, 23-3 2-2,6-15 6-12,6-6 2-2, 6-12, 6-32, 29-16, 6-6 1-26, 2-37, 6-75, 6-32 2-2,6-6 2-2, 6-6, 6-32 2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 3-13, 6-32 2-2, 6-32, 6-10, 6-6 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-14, 6-32 6-45,6-112,6-111 2-2, 5-8, 29-17, 6-15, 24-3 2-2,6-6,6-32, 6-15 Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Smith Rogene C. DP1023 Smith Rolf V. DP1637 Smith Rose Marie DP1372 Smith Sandra B. PP0571 Smith Sandra DPO517 Smith III George SP0228 Smits Tony DPO804 Smotherman Steve DP2224 Smotherman Steve PP0270 Smotherman Steve SP0374 Smothers Frederick W. DP0791 Snelgrove Steven C. DPO148 Sneyaer Ellen PP0523 Snider Anna Blake PP0522 Snider J. Franklin DP1242 Snipes Diane DP2241 Snipes Dianne E. DP0504 Snyder Randy DP0324 Sobh Walid M. DP0864 Somers Ann Berry DP0910 Somers Ann DP2067 Somers Ann DP2264 Somerville Jr. A Wilson DP1001 Southard Wayne D. SP0167 Southern Jerry DP1267 Spainhour James G. DPO401 Sparks Rose DP0605 Sparks Wendy C. DP2053 Spears A.W. DP1024 Spears Alex DP2145 Spears Maria DP1390 Spears Shirley DP2144 Speight Donald DP0230 Spencer Elizabeth PP0524 Spicer Brandy DP0291 Spidell Sue DP1338 Spinder Jim DP1749 Spinder Jim DP1904 Spinner Cynthia PP0525 Spring Chris DP0691 Sprock H.M. PP0526 Sreen David DP1138 Stafford Elizabeth SP0218 Stafford Mark A. DP0159 Stagg Carolyn PP0527 Stagg Geoff PP0059 Stagg Geoff PP0261 Comment Codes 2-2,6-12 2-3,3-1,3-2 2-2,6-6 21-29 6-14, 6-6, 29-88, 3-104, 2-2 2-2, 2-25, 29-38, 6-10, 6-12, 29-11 2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 6-32, 6-15 2-101,6-6,5-7,29-90 23-15 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 2-6, 26-3 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 29-16, 3-104, 29-88 2-2,6-26,6-6,6-14 1-6 2-3, 3-33, 7-2, 7-3, 27-8, 7-1, 6-22, 14-1, 9-6 6-15,6-6 2-2, 6-15,6-14 2-2,6-6,6-32, 6-12 2-2,6-32,6-14 2-2,2-87,2-101,6-6 13-4, 13-5, 13-8, 13-18, 13-7, 13-9, 13-1113-10, 13-19, 13-20, 13-21,13-22,13-12 3-2,27-1, 7-1, 7-4 13-4, 13-5, 13-6, 13-7, 13-8, 13-9, 13-10, 13-11, 13-12, 13-13, 29-100 2-3,7-1,24-1 1-1,1-8, 5-2 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-2,6-14,26-2 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 29-60, 6-4, 6-16, 7-4, 7-1, 7-21, 9-6, 3-36, 3-7, 3-1, 17-1, 24-1, 20-6,11-2, 2-3, 5-22 2-2,6-15 2-2,29-118 2-2,6-12 2-2, 29-118, 6-14, 6-32, 6-81 6-32, 6-6, 2-2 2-2 2-2, 6-12, 6-26 2-2,6-6 2-2, 6-6,6-12,6-15 2-2,6-6,6-12,6-15 2-2 24-1, 27-8,6-16,29-91 2-2, 6-12, 6-32 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-3,3-1 2-2, 6-19, 6-14, 6-32, 6-12 2-2,6-32 2-2,15-6 2-2,6-12,6-45 public names_091701.xis 1 n u' 1 f i J h7 Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Comment Codes Last Name First Name Middle Code Stagg Geoffrey PP0528 2-2,6-32 Stanfield Dennis K. DP0253 2-2, 6-14, 6-6 Stantlift Betty DP0762 3-7, 7-2, 5-2 Staples Christian DP2407 2-236, 2-237, 3-238, 3-239, 3-240 Stapleton Tom SP0364 2-2, 6-12, 6-6,1-3, 6-26, 9-7 Starkey Kelly SP0126 2-2,6-13 Starling Larry E. DP2065 2-3, 3-2, 24-1, 3-7 Starmer Jr. James E. SP0130 2-2, 6-12, 5-9, 24-3 Starner Van PP0034 21-14,2-40, 2-41, 2-3 Starner Van PP0043 2-3, 5-10, 6-24, 5-2, 21-1, 29-56 Starner Van PP0286 2-3,1-2, 5-1, 3-33 Starner Van SP0323 3-7, 21-1, 21-3, 5-2, 1-1, 2-15, 2-1, 5-5, 5-3, 6-1, 6-22, 6-35, 3- 1, 29-1, 4-3, 5-1 Staurt Suzanne DP1214 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70,21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Steele Joan and Richard DP0777 3-61, 29-56, 2-95 Steele Richard DP1112 3-1 Steele W. Fletcher DP0393 2-2,6-14 Steele W. Fletcher SP0240 6-6, 6-14, 6-12 Stefani George PP0529 9-3, 9-20, 23-16, 7-2, 22-1, 27-15, 1-1, 22-6, 4-6, 1-2, 3-16, 3- 1, 3-63, 3-23, 3-36, 5-10 Steinert Richard DP0747 2-2, 6-93, 6-6, 6-15 Stepansky Leo DP0435 2-2,6-14 Stephens Michael H. DP1424 2-2,6-6 Stephens Richard DP1224 2-3 Sterling Kay SP0380 2-3, 3-7, 2-4, 24-1, 22-1 Stern Katherine DP1591 2-2,6-6 Sternberg Meg DP1454 2-2, 6-14, 6-12, 6-32, 6-6 Sterner Phil DPO949 2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 6-12, 29-17, 26-2, 6-25 Stewart Noral D. DP2078 29-126,3-36, 3-16, 3-133, 3-153, 22-29, 3-156, 3-157 Stewart Noral D. DP2359 3-76, 3-16, 3-242, 2-104, 2-105, 3-243, 3-244, 3-245, 3-246, 3- 247, 3-248, 3-249, 3-250, 3-251, 4-20, 3-252, 3-253, 3-25, 3- 254, 3-255, 3-256, 3-1, 6-144, 3-257, 3-258, 3-259, 3-260, 29- 33, 29-34, 6-145 Stewart R.H. DP1849 2-3 Stewart Rita DP2387 1-5, 3-76, 3-1, 1-2 Stewart Rita PP0530 2-3, 22-2, 7-2, 14-1, 13-1, 3-33, 24-2, 9-6 Stewart Rue Nell DP2205 2-2,6-32 Stewart Yvonne DP1733 2-2,6-12 Stober Paula J. DPO453 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Stober Paula J. DP1203 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21- 32 Stober Paula J. DP1888 6-16, 5-2, 22-1 Stober Paula J. DP2389 7-1, 3-1, 20-6 Stober Paula PP0531 1-1, 3-15, 7-2, 24-1, 6-22, 8-1 Stockard Joel PP0071 2-44,2-9 Stockard Pam PP0068 2-44, 21-1, 2-9, 2-10 Stockton Terri L. DP0795 29-16,6-6 Stockton Jr. Ralph M. DP0434 2-2,6-77 Stogner Kimberly H. DP0222 2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 6-32, 6-12 Stokes Henry S. DP1726 2-2, 6-12, 6-32, 6-14,6-15 public names_091707.As ' Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Stone Tom DP0924 Stone William DP1420 Stonecipher David A. DP1045 Stout Kim DP1903 Stover Joe DP1130 Stover Nelson PP0532 Stover Richard DPO457 Strand Andy DP2333 Stratton John DPO418 Strawsburg Stephen R. DP0932 Strawsburg Steve DP2221 Strayhorn Ralph DP0072 Street Penny DPI 135 Strickland Elizabeth PP0098 Strong Prudence DP1855 Strong Prudence DP2157 Stroud Jennifer DP1665 Stroup Donald E. DP1544 Sturhei Martha DP1571 Sturkie Martha DP0603 Styers Ella D. DP0617 Sukyi Ji DP0316 Sullin III John L. DP1141 Sullivan Kathleen PP0533 Sullivan Patricia A. DP0424 Supple Bev DP1757 Surber Jim DP2279 Surber Linda DP2280 Sutherlin Carolyn DP1180 Sutton Bill DP1505 Swanson Timothy L. DP1038 Swindle Dean DP0730 Swing Frances D. DP1090 Sydell Ron SP0188 Sykes Marti DP0917 Syno Matt DP1570 Talantis Jenine C. DP1357 Talantis Jenine DP0476 Talantis Jenine DP0536 Talantis Kristen DP0467 Talantis Nic DP0472 Tambuir Henry DP0684 Tamburin Henry DP0533 Tamburin Henry SP0222 Taney Jim DP0557 Taney Jim PP0089 Tarnok Stephen M. DP0700 public_names_091701. As 1 Comment Codes 6-6, 6-12, 6-14, 6-32, 29-24 2-2,6-6 2-2,6-14, 6-12, 5-15, 29-16, 6-15 2-2,6-12 2-2, 6-14, 6-26, 6-12 29-56, 3-9, 27-1, 7-2, 9-6, 5-21, 22-2 ' 2-2,6-32 6-12, 6-6, 6-32, 6-14 2-2 , 6-12, 6-14, 6-32, 6-6, 29-118, 29-88, 2-2 2-101, 6-15, 5-20, 29-90 2-2, 6-14, 6-15, 6-32 , 2-2,6-32,6-14 2-3, 7-2, 9-6, 1-1, 6-43, 1-2 2-3, 24-1, 5-2, 3-2, 7-1, 1-2 1-22, 6-4, 29-56, 21-3, 7-1, 9-6, 24-4 2-2,6-6, 6-32,6-15 6-12, 6-32,6-6,2-2 2-2,6-6, 26-2, 5-7 2-2,6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 ' 2-2,6-26,6-15,6-12 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-2 , 2-2,29-16 2-2,6-32,6-14 2-3,24-1 , 2-3,24-1 2-2, 6-32, 6-14 2-2, 6-6, 6-32 ' 2-2, 6-14, 6-6, 5-7 2-2, 6-14, 6-32, 5-20 6-32, 5-15, 26-2, 6-6 ' 2-2, 2-25, 6-10, 6-14, 6-16, 29-13 6-15, 24-3, 6-12, 6-32, 6-14, 3-104, 29-118 2-2,6-12 ' 29-89,2-3 717, 718, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 23,21 17,21 3,717,718,719,720,721,370,21 31,21- 32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-73, 3-74 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 3-7,3-89 ' 3-140 3-1, 1-1, 22-1, 3-7, 3-24, 3-4, 3-16, 5-2, 21-4 23-37,2-3 ' 2-3, 5-44, 4-2, 21-1, 22-2, 7-2, 9-6, 29-1, 2-49, 6-119, 6-44 6-6,5-8 u Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Comment Codes Last Name First Name Middle Code Tarnok Stephen M. DP0700 2-2 Tart Johnny SP0142 2-2, 6-6, 5-9 Tate Chuck PP0083 2-3,1-2, 22-1 Tate Chuck PP0297 2-3, 30-1, 1-2 Tate David Kirk DP0757 2-2, 6-14, 6-32, 26-2 Tate Jodi DP2196 2-2,6-15 Tate LaToya DP0298 2-2,29-16 Tavernise Linda DP2414 7-3, 7-4, 7-21, 21-1, 6-9 Taylor Clif DP1734 2-2 Taylor David C. DP0192 2-2, 6-12, 6-32, 6-6, 5-9 Taylor Evelyn DP1351 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Taylor J. Thomas DP0618 6-64, 6-12, 6-32, 6-6, 2-2 Taylor J. Thomas SP0123 6-13, 5-13,6-10 Taylor Jeffery DP1736 2-2,6-6 Taylor Jim A. SP0171 6-6, 6-12,2-2 Taylor John DP1252 2-3, 3-7, 3-36, 7-3, 5-2, 7-4, 1-2 Taylor Lary PP0072 2-3, 2-23, 6-16, 6-4, 5-1, 22-1 Taylor Larry SP0036 22-2, 24-1,1-1 Taylor Nat SP0386 6-6, 6-25, 6-32 Taylor Ron PP0079 2-2, 2-47, 3-6, 6-12 Taylor Ronal L. DP0202 2-2,6-6 Taylor Jr. Daniel R. DP0189 2-2, 6-19, 6-14, 6-32, 6-12 Teague Lee SP0360 5-9, 6-15, 23-1 Tedder Dewey R. DP0847 2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 3-104, 29-88, 6-15 Teichman Alan DPO540 4-25, 21-49, 3-1, 17-4, 21-50, 3-141, 7-2 Teichman Alan DP1102 3-22, 3-36, 3-16 Teichman Alan DP1103 3-36, 3-76, 3-1, 3-16 Tellman Kelli PP0537 2-2 Templin Dan PP0534 2-3, 5-1, 3-7, 3-1, 5-5, 8-1, 30-1, 7-1, 29-7, 7-4, 9-6, 9-3, 22-2, 21-1, 29-56,1-2 Templin Dan PP0535 7-7, 21-13, 2-3, 3-7, 3-1, 3-15, 8-1, 5-3, 7-2, 7-1, 7-4, 9-6, 9-3, 22-2,21-1,1-2 Templin Dan PP0563 2-3, 5-1, 3-7, 3-1, 5-5, 8-1, 30-1, 7-1, 29-7, 7-4, 9-6, 9-3, 22-2, 21-1, 29-56,1-2 Templin Don PP0124 2-3, 5-1, 3-7, 3-1, 5-5, 8-1, 30-1, 7-1, 29-7, 7-4, 9-6, 9-3, 22-2, 21-1,29-56,1-2 Templin Kathryn DP0666 9-22, 9-59,14-8, 9-48, 9-36, 2-3 Templin Kathryn DP0809 18-7,18-8 Templin Kathy DP1068 2-3,21-1,21-33 Templin Kathy DP2077 9-41, 9-6, 9-34, 9-23, 19-1 Tennille Catherine Poag DP2413 2-3, 5-34, 3-1, 7-1, 27-1 Tergliafera Turk DPO814 6-6, 6-12, 6-25, 3-104, 29-118, 2-2 Terhune Andrew DP1673 2-2, 6-6, 6-72 Terrell Tom PP0536 2-2, 5-7, 5-9 Tester Jody SP0022 6-9, 6-2, 5-2, 2-1 Tharpe Jr. Frank M. DP0478 2-2,6-6,6-12 Theisen George PP0293 2-3 Thomas Kristin DP1409 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Thomas Lina DP1410 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 public names_09170I.As Piedmont Triad International Airport , General Public Letter Comment Codes Last Name First Name Middle Code , Thomas Martha DP0023 2-2,6-12 Thomas Ray J. DP0391 2-2,6-26 Thomas III John DP0827 2-2, 6-32, 5-8, 24-3 ' Thompson Christina SP0056 5-2, 5-5, 3-5, 12-1, 29-7 Thompson David DP1395 2-2,6-6 Thompson Deborah DP0018 2-2,6-12 ' Thompson Mark DP0060 2-2,5-8,6-12 Thorpe Tonya DP1317 2-2 Thrift Ashley PP0139 21-6,23-15,21-19 , Thrift Julianne DP1117 2-2,5-15,6-6,29-16, 6-15 Tice Tilley Liz Michele SP0437 DP1397 6-2,29-1,2-3 2-2 ' Tilley Ray DP1577 2-2, 6-6,6-12 Tilley Ruby DP1234 2-2,6-6, 6-12 Tillman Jr. W. Eugene DPO879 2-2,6-12,6-6, 5-7 ' Timper Fred H. DPO161 2-2, 29-24, 24-3, 6-14, 6-6, 6-32, 5-9 Tipton Dan DP0351 2-2, 6-6,6-15 Tobin Susan E. DP0225 2-2, 6-6,6-14,6-12, 6-15 ' Todd Bobby DP2272 2-2 Todd Bobby SP0359 2-2 Toomey Dick DP0450 29-117, 6-89, 24-1, 6-88, 29-116, 30-1, 27-8, 2-3 ' Tosr Mike DP0289 6-15,5-7 Tourtellot Peter L. PP0012 2-2, 6-6, 6-26, 27-5, 6-12 Towery Scott L. DP1139 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Townsend Charlie DP0555 6-12, 6-6, 29-12, 6-26, 24-3 Traevi Raphael M DP1545 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Travis Jr. Edward A. DP1920 3-7, 3-36,3-2,7-2, 7-1 Trexler Rachel DP1498 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 3-74 Trexler Robert E. DP1497 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Triplett John DP2041 7-4, 14-1, 22-1, 29-56, 1-2, 24-1, 29-63, 4-21, 21-1, 27-28 ' Triplett Kay S. DP0707 2-2, 6-10,5-8 Trogdon Joey DP2300 2-2,6-6 Trogdon Nancy DP1706 6-6, 6-14,6-12,2-2 ' Trone III Oliver S. DP1445 2-2,6-14,6-12,6-6 Trore Lee PP0538 2-2, 6-12, 6-32, 5-8, 24-3, 6-6, 21-11 Troxler T. Wayne DP0580 6-6,6-14,2-2 ' Truman Jim M. DP1137 27-1, 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3- 72, 3-73, 3-74, 3-1, 3-7 Truslow Donald K. DP0384 2-2,6-10 Tuck Michael Ryan PP0539 6-12, 3-13, 2-2 ' Tucker Joel E. DP1452 2-2, 6-32, 6-6 Tucker Shawn M. DPO933 2-2, 2-101, 2-87, 6-6, 5-7 Tuffin Diana C. DPO186 2-2,6-19,6-14, 6-32,6-12 Tuggle Kelly DP1388 6-12,6-6 Tuggle Sarah DP1330 6-15,6-6 Turmary Jack DP1149 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- ' 73,3-74 Turnbull George DP1381 3-2,21-1, 6-45,2-3 ' public-names-091 701.xis J I? I? rl i Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Turner C.K. PP0540 Turner John C. PP0541 Turner Mary E. DP1383 Turner Mary E. DP2143 Turner Remus S. DP1376 Turner Remus DP2200 Turner Remus PP0194 Turner Remus SP0311 Turner Robin DP1040 Turner III W. Harrison DP1811 Tuttle Bonnie DPO422 Tuttle Margaret DP1844 Tuttle Ronnie DP1235 Tyler Robin DPI 120 Ueland Linda DP1221 Ulp Steven R. DP1862 Unknown Daniel C. SP0190 Unknown David S. DP2395 Unknown J.C. DP1499 Unknown Kershock PP0434 Unknown Orman DP1686 Unknown Unknown DP0246 Unknown Unknown DP1236 Unknown Unknown DP1608 Unknown Unknown DP1620 Unknown Unknown DP1808 Unknown Unknown DP2318 Unknown Unknown DP2399 Unknown Unknown PP0022 Unknown Unknown PP0560 Unknown Unknown SP0031 Unknown Unknown SP0044 Unknown Unknown SP0045 Unknown Unknown SP0068 Unknown Unknown SP0242 Unknown Unknown SP0282 Unknown Unknown SP0283 Unknown, Unknown SP0284 Unknown Unknown SP0285 Unknown Unknown SP0286 Unknown Unknown SP0306 Unknown Unknown SP0331 Unknown Unknown DP1894 Unknown Unknown SP0303 Urbanski Bret A. DP0240 Urlson Julie DP1150 Urquhart Margaret M. DP0816 Vaden Barbara F. DP1649 Vader Walter L. DP1614 Comment Codes 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 1-6 2-2, 6-12,6-32 2-3, 27-1, 7-2, 3-2, 9-6, 5-5, 1-2, 6-4 2-3, 5-5, 7-1, 9-6, 27-1, 3-76, 1-2, 6-4 2-3, 24-1, 29-63, 7-4 27-1, 7-4, 24-4, 6-4, 1-2, 3-2, 7-1 6-12, 1-14, 6-9, 9-6, 29-72 29-37, 6-4, 6-16, 27-7, 22-8, 7-1, 6-29, 24-1 2-2,6-32 2-2, 6-6, 6-32 6-19,2-2 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-15 6-15,6-6 2-2, 6-15, 6-14, 6-6, 6-12, 5-9 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-2, 6-32, 6-12 2-2, 2-25,6-10, 6-14, 6-16,29-13 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-3,7-2 3-36, 3-1, 5-2 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 5-8, 29-17 6-15, 6-12,6-6 2-3, 3-2, 29-56, 6-4 3-36, 7-4, 7-1, 5-5 6-14, 6-12, 29-16 22-1 23-17,23-5.1-2, 22-2 _ 2-3, 24-1, 3-33, 3-10, 2-23, 21-1, 6-1 2-3, 3-33, 24-1, 23-15, 7-2, 7-3, 9-6 1-1,2-8 6-2 5-2 6-6,29-10,1-6,2-2 21-4, 2-7, 2-23, 5-5, 24-2, 2-8 2-3 2-3 2-3 2-3 2-3 3-4 29-45, 29-46, 23-8, 6-40, 2-8 2-89,7-4,7-1, 5-5 2-3 6-12,6-6 2-2,6-6 2-2, 5-20, 6-12, 5-8, 6-32 2-2, 6-32, 6-12 2-2,6-6,6-12 public_names_091701. xls Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Vail Ellen W. PP0542 Vail Norma DP0610 Vale E. Merritt DP0802 Van Pouke Margaret B. DP1941 Vance Martha DP2239 Vance Martha DP2313 Vann Eugene H. SP0258 Vann Eugene DP0715 Vann Eugene DP1097 Vann Eugene PP0279 Vann Eugene PP0545 Varner William DP0727 Vaughan Michael G. DP0116 Vaughn Ann L. DP1600 Vaughn Bob DP1898 Vaughn C. Richard DP0237 Vaughn Cindy PP0546 Vaughn Cindy PP0547 Vaughn Cynthia DP1483 Vaughn Danielle DP0284 Vaughn Jon DPO918 Vaughn Jr. C. Richard DPO138 Vaughn Jr. Robert C. DP0260 Vavalides Philip SP0039 Vavalides Philip SP0071 Vavalides Philip SP0442 Veach R.S. SP0292 Venable Monty DP0036 Venters Judy O. DPO104 Venters R Vance DP0095 Verdery J.H. SP0321 Vernon Dan DP0053 Vernon James G. PP0548 Vick Frank SP0332 von Isenburg Carl DP0051 Vontsolos Betty Lou DP1588 Wade Homer S. DP0794 Wainright Lori PP0549 Wakeman Mary K. DP1915 Wakins Cathie DPO612 Walker Jim DPO113 Walker Jim DP2331 Walker Mickey DP1002 Walker Randall DP2353 Wall David DPO973 Wall Douglas DP0374 Comment Codes 2-2 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 2-2, 6-6, 6-25, 6-32, 29-17 7-4, 7-21, 14-14, 3-37, 5-5, 3-1, 30-1, 30-14, 7-1, 27-1, 9-6, 9- 23, 29-56, 22-1, 21-1, 2-3 2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 6-32 2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 6-114, 6-32 2-3, 5-17, 5-2, 30-2, 30-1 29-101, 6-5,11-2, 3-36 3-79, 1-4, 30-1, 6-52, 4-2 2-3,3-33 21-13, 1-15, 22-2, 5-2, 2-3 2-2,6-6,6-32 2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 6-32, 6-12 2-2 2-2, 6-12, 6-32, 6-14 2-2, 6-12, 6-14 2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 3-1, 7-1, 7-4, 7-3, 27-8, 9-6, 5-21, 22-2,29-56 2-3, 21-13, 23-22,2-72, 6-67, 29-56 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-2,6-12, 6-6 2-2,6-12 27-4,6-14, 5-7 2-2,6-12,6-32,6-6 29-7, 1-1, 21-1, 6-1, 2-9, 2-5, 6-4 21-1, 6-3, 3-95 6-6, 5-5, 6-1, 22-1 2-2, 6-10, 6-14 2-2, 6-12, 6-14 2-2, 6-15, 6-6, 6-32 2-2, 6-15, 6-32 5-2, 5-5, 3-7, 3-27, 3-18, 2-1, 2-17 2-2,6-6,6-12, 6-14 2-3,5-5,24-1 27-53,27-6 2-2 2-2,5-16, 29-17,6-6 2-2,6-6,27-9,6-14 2-2,5-8,6-32,6-12 29-100, 21-33, 21-73, 2-42, 27-1, 7-1, 7-4, 9-6, 9-36, 19-2, 2- 90,3-2,3-1, 7-4, 7-1 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 2-2,6-15 2-2,5-20, 6-15 7-4, 7-1, 9-6, 9-3, 7-20, 7-21, 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6- 73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-32, 21-1, 2-35, 6-45, 3-36, 3- 1, 5-32,3-101,2-3 2-2, 6-66, 6-32, 29-32 7-14 2-2, 6-6, 29-17 public names_091701.xis 0 I LJ ,7 1 1 fl Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Comment Codes Last Name First Name Middle Code Wall Jim DP0840 5-7, 6-6, 2-2 Wallace Larry E. DP0889 2-2,6-15 Wallace Vicki DP0721 29-100,29-114,29-115 Waller Angela DP0281 2-2,6-15,6-12 Waller Teresa DP1134 2-2,6-32,6-14 Wallin Desna L. DP0735 2-2,6-32 Wallin Desna SP0256 2-2, 6-6,6-12,23-10 Walls Andrea W. SP0425 2-3, 29-5, 5-5, 5-19, 21-4 Walls Thurman SP0224 29-7, 2-35, 6-2, 19-2, 6-36, 2-17, 4-5, 24-1, 3-1, 6-3 Walls III Thurman H. DPO470 19-13,7-56,19-12, 7-57,19-14, 6-115,19-15 Walser Jae P. DPO745 2-2, 6-14, 6-12, 6-32, 29-17, 5-7 Walsh Al PP0206 2-66 Walter Laure DP0290 2-2,6-12 Walter Lloyd PP0232 6-32, 6-6, 6-25, 6-26, 2-2 Walter Jr. Lloyd G. SP0401 2-2, 6-13, 29-12, 6-12, 6-6, 6-15 Walters David DP0011 2-2 Walton Doris DP2102 7-21, 7-3,7-1, 7-2 Walton Doris DP2360 7-21,7-26 Walton Steve DP1322 2-2 Wanders Hans W. DPO526 2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 5-8, 6-15 Wannemacher Carey DPO543 2-2, 26-2, 5-15, 6-32, 24-3 Ward B. Thomas DP1788 2-2,6-6 Ware Margaret J. DPO876 3-63, 7-1, 3-128, 29-63, 22-24 Warm Stan SP0296 3-1, 30-4, 5-5, 2-1, 22-4, 1-2, 24-1 Warner Lisa J. DPO574 2-2,6-6, 6-12 Warner William J. DP0710 2-2,6-6,6-10, 6-12 Warol Linda DP1035 5-6,3-33,9-6,3-9 Warol Stan DP1031 7-4, 7-1, 9-6, 9-3, 7-20, 7-19, 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6- 73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-32, 21-1, 2-35, 6-45, 3-36, 3- 1,5-32,3-101, 2-3 Warren Diane B. PP0550 2-3, 23-14, 1-1, 24-1, 1-4 Warren Diane DP1872 2-3, 29-60, 3-96, 6-73, 5-34, 3-2, 17-1, 7-1, 9-6, 6-16 Warren Diane SP0417 3-1, 5-1, 3-27, 23-1, 5-2 Warren Don DP2130 2-2, 6-12, 6-14 Warren L. Don DP1093 6-14,6-32 Warren Mark L. DP0568 2-109, 2-110, 2-111, 2-112, 2-113, 2-114, 2-115, 2-116, 2-117, 3-187, 6-23, 22-30, 22-2, 23-5, 23-39 Warren Mark L. DP2324 2-17, 4-18, 3-189, 3-112, 2-111, 2-114, 2-115, 2-112, 23-14 Warren Mark L. DP2411 2-35,23-5 Warren Mark L. PP0019 29-54,4-13,23-14 Warren Mark L. PP0023 22-14, 22-15, 22-16, 22-17, 6-56, 6-57, 6-4, 6-58, 6-59, 6-60, 6- 61, 6-62,.22-18,22-19,1-16,22-1,1-17,22-20,2-69 Warren Mark L. PP0024 6-63, 22-12, 3-58, 6-1, 22-2, 6-43 Warren Mark L. PP0403 2-57, 2-19, 23-5, 21-30 Warren Mark L. PP0564 2-19, 2-57, 2-60, 2-58, 2-59, 22-13, 27-13, 22-2, 23-14, 23-5, 2- 3,2-1 Warren Mark DP2106 29-100, 6-103, 6-50, 6-23 Warren Mark DP2376 2-57,2-111,29-31 Warren Mark PP0190 2-19, 2-57, 2-60, 2-58, 2-59, 22-13, 27-13, 22-2, 23-14, 23-5, 2- 3,2-1 Warren Mark SP0093 2-7, 2-1, 2-15, 2-16, 22-6 public names_091701.xis Piedmont Triad International Airport ' General Public Letter Comment Codes Last Name First Name Middle Code Warren Mark SP0195 2-7, 3-1, 9-6, 9-4, 2-1, 3-23 Warren Mark SP0418 1-9, 22-9, 22-1, 1-4, 1-1, 1-10, 22-3 Warren Mary P. DP0894 2-3,5-34,29-120,6-85 ' Warren Sydney Jordan DP1730 2-2, 6-6, 5-7 Washburn Betty SP0050 5-10 Watkins Mary DP1720 2-2, 5-8, 6-12 ' Watkins Thomas C. DP1755 2-2, 6-12, 6-32, 6-15, 5-8, 5-9 Watterson Watterson Wayne Wayne SP0084 SP0439 2-2,6-6, 5-7 2-3, 6-15, 24-3, 29-12, 6-12, 6-6 ' Watts Anthony H. DP0221 2-2, 6-6,6-14,6-32 Watts Katherine Knapp DP0750 2-2, 6-90, 6-77 Watts Thurman DPO431 2-2,6-77 ' Watts Thurman DP2332 2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 6-32, 6-17 Waufle Alan SP0355 2-2, 5-8, 29-17, 6-6 Waugh Jr. Philip R.S. DP0739 2-2, 24-3, 6-12, 5-8, 6-32 , Weatherby Betty SP0229 14-1, 9-9,9-4 Weatherly Joseph E. SP0141 5-8,6-10 Weaver Harold C. DP0661 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 ' Weaver Mike DP1906 2-2,6-15 Webb Tom DP0437 2-2 Webster Edwina W. DP0408 2-2,5-20 , Webster Michael T. DPO198 2-2, 6-15, 5-9 Webster Mike DP2139 2-2,6-6 Weeks James K. DP0229 2-2, 6-14, 6-12, 6-6, 6-32 ' Weeks James SP0252 2-2, 5-9, 29-19, 24-2, 6-6, 26-2, 5-8 Weeks Nancy SP0065 2-2,1-3, 6-6, 5-7 Weeks Sally S. DPO961 2-2, 6-15, 6-14, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32 Weeks Sally S. SP0119 2-2, 6-13.24-3, 5-8 ' Wege David DP1892 3-36, 2-4, 3-10 Wegman Charlie PP0046 2-3, 5-26, 2-44, 21-15, 21-67 Wegman Charlie PP0287 2-3, 22-3, 21-67, 21-66 , Wegman Janis PP0152 2-3, 3-9, 3-7, 3-43, 5-28 Weir John DP2080 2-3.6-100 Welch Don DP1832 2-45,3-116,3-36, 3-117 ' Welch Jack DP1791 2-2, 6-32,6-14 Welch Jody H. DP0336 2-2,6-26,6-15,6-12 Welch Randy D. DP1868 6-12, 6-14, 6-32, 2-2, 6-15, 6-6 Welch Jr. Edwin L. DP1666 2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 5-8 Welker Wells Flora Beverly B. DP0996 DP0386 2-125, 3-7, 7-1, 9-6, 24-1, 27-1, 3-223 2-2 ' Wells R. Michael DP0338 2-2,6-26,6-15,6-12 Wells R. Michael SP0124 2-2, 6-13, 5-8 Wells Richard SP0067 2-2, 6-6, 3-6 ' Welsh Tom DP0320 3-36, 2-3, 6-45, 7-1, 27-1, 3-2 Welsh Tom DP0632 20-6 Welsh Tom DP1610 29-102,5-1 , Welsh Tom DP2124 3-2, 7-1,22-2,5-19 Welsh Tom DP2158 29-102, 5-19, 3-2 Wennberg Roxanna DP1698 5-2, 2-3,21-61 ' Werz Kathryn DP1238 6-15,6-12,6-6 West Amy M. DP1859 2-2, 6-32, 6-12 public names 091701.xis 1 F 11 n fl L Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Westmoreland Jeffery H. DP1423 Whitaker Barbara DP0084 Whitaker Lisa DP2345 Whitaker Jr. John C. DP0569 Whitaker Jr. John C. SP0137 White Jody DP1458 White Richard PP0070 White Sue D. DP1012 White Tom DP2309 White Tracy P. DPO488 Whitehead Joanne PP0147 Whiteheart Penny SP0057 Whitehouse Mark SP0082 Whitfield Tom PP0028 Whitfield Varerie PP0088 Whitley Lydia SP0070 Whitlock Phil SP0041 Whitlock Phil SP0371 Whitmine Melissa DP1323 Whitt C. Grayson DP0389 Whittington Greg DP1599 Whrig Ann DP1456 Wicker Robert A. DP1794 Wickizer Bob DP1049 Wickizer Joan DP1199 Wickizer Rebecca DP1200 Wiggs Steve DP0195 Wilburn William DP2177 Wilcox Phyllis DP0675 Wiles Paul M. DP0733 Wiles Paul M. SP0187 Wiley Richard SP0055 Wiley Steven J. DP1506 Willard Dianne DP0091 Willard Myrtle S. DP1331 Williams Ann DP2165 Williams Beth DP1551 Williams Bob DPO136 Williams Charlotte DP1158 Williams Darrly DP1689 Williams Glenn DP0013 Williams Jimmi DP1671 Williams Mark DP2163 Williams Roger DP1874 Williams Ronnie DP0585 Williams Russell H. DPO462 Williams Russell SP0221 Williams Jr. A. Tab DP0321 Williams Jr. Ralph C. DP0948 Williams Sr. Stephen T. DPO349 Comment Codes 2-2,6-6 2-2,6-32 2-2,6-14, 5-7 2-2, 6-26, 6-32, 6-6 2-2,29-12 6-6,2-2 2-3, 6-4, 5-1, 29-63, 9-6, 2-9, 21-17, 21-1 2-2,6-12 2-2,6-6 2-2, 6-15,6-14 2-3, 21-1, 21-3, 23-16, 3-36, 3-28, 3-16, 3-1, 3-42 6-6 2-2, 6-6, 5-7 22-2, 2-23, 29-56, 29-35, 3-7, 3-1, 6-9 21-1, 24-1, 2-23, 23-16, 3-16 2-2 6-8 1-5,5-5,5-2,6-3 2-2,6-12,6-14 6-14 2-2, 6-6, 6-12 2-2 2-2,6-6 3-7, 3-4, 3-1, 24-2 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 3-7,2-3,3-1 2-2,6-12, 6-6 2-2 2-2, 6-6, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 2-2, 6-14, 6-32, 5-8, 29-17 2-2, 6-6, 29-12, 29-16, 5-12 2-2, 5-8,11-3,29-9 2-2,6-6, 6-12,6-15 2-2, 6-14,4-23, 6-32 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 2-3, 3-2, 7-1, 9-6, 5-2, 6-101, 3-1 2-2,5-9 2-2,6-10, 5-8,6-14 2-2,6-32,6-14 2-2,6-12, 6-32 2-2 2-2,6-6, 5-8, 5-7 6-22, 6-4, 6-57, 20-6, 21-1, 29-56, 1-2, 5-5 6-48,1-22 2-2, 6-32, 6-6, 6-26, 29-24 2-2 6-6,29-12 2-2,6-6,6-15 2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 6-32 2-2, 6-6,6-15 public names_091701.xis Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Last Name First Name Middle Code Williamson Jr. Henry G. DPO512 Williard Coy DP1790 Williard Coy PP0551 Willis Jr. Ben S. DP1116 Willoughby-Ray Sean DP2406 Wilson David SP0315 Wilson Glenda PP0552 Wilson Hellen PP0553 Wilson Hellen PP0554 Wilson Maryu Lou DPO964 Wilson Ms. DP 1156 Wilson Nidra DP0294 Wilson Robin Kent DP1692 Wilson Stacie SP0207 Wilson Teresa DP0306 Wilson William DP0020 Wilson Jr. Geoff DP0660 Wilson-Oyelaran Eileen B. DP1016 Wriesett Steven D. DP1435 Winston Jerry SP0168 Witherspoon Debbie DP1401 Witherspoon Jon SP0173 Woempner Ella M. DP2206 Wolf Netta DP0046 Woly D.E. DP1707 Womble Ralph H. DP0137 Womble W. P. DP0798 Wood Martha Swain DP0671 Woodie Mary DP1750 Woodie Quincy C. DP1624 Woodruff Sarah S. DP2312 Woods Terry DP1253 Woody C. Donald DP1386 Woody Jo S. DP1387 Wooten Ruth DP1616 Worgan Steve DP0722 Worsley Calvin R. DPO190 Wozniak Brooke M. DP0821 Wright Bonnie PP0302 Wright Bonnie SP0440 Wright Karen DP1513 Wright Kenan C. DP1365 Wright William DP0031 Wysochansky Robert PP0157 Wysochansky Robert SP0019 Wysoche Joseph C. DP1509 public names_091701.x1s 0 Comment Codes 1 6-6,6-14,5-7 2-2 2-2, 6-6, 5-8, 6-32, 6-6, 24-3 ' 2-2, 6-14, 5-9, 29-11 21-29 2-3,1-5, 21-1 ' 2-3, 3-2, 27-1, 9-6, 21-4 2-3, 22-2, 29-56, 5-21, 9-6, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 3-1, 7-2, 27- 1, 7-1, 27-8, 7-3 2-3,1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 22-2, 29-56,10-1, 24-1, 29-7 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 1-5 ' 2-2, 6-15, 29-16, 6-12 2-2, 6-6, 6-26 2-3, 5-5, 2-7, 4-5, 3-25, 3-1, 5-2, 30-1, 27-1, 12-6, 2-8, 22-5, 1- 1,6-3 2-2,6-6 2-2,6-12 , 2-2,6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 6-15, 6-12,29-16, 2-2 2-2 5-9, 1-6, 29-19, 6-13, 5-2, 2-2, 6-6 2-2 2-2, 29-12, 5-8 2-2,6-12 ' 2-2,5-8,6-12 5-8, 29-17, 2-2 2-2,6-6,6-12 ' 2-2,6-15 2-2 2-2,6-6 ' 2-2,6-12,5-8 2-2,6-6 2-3,5-2 ' 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 21-1, 6-9, 7-4, 3-91, 9-6, 1-2 23-32 ' 2-2, 6-12, 6-32, 6-6, 29-17 6-6, 6-32, 6-12, 6-14, 2-2 21-1, 2-3, 29-7, 29-56, 29-1, 3-1, 21-1, 21-3 6-8,24-2,29-1, 3-1 ' 2-3 2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 6-64, 24-3, 6-15 2-2,6-12,6-14,6-15 2-23, 2-9, 2-1, 1-1, 1-23 29-13,2-1,22-1 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- ' 73,3-74 Last Name Wysochi Yarbrough Yeakel Yeakel Yeatts Yenrick York Young Young Young Young Young Young Young Young Young Young Youngblood Youngdahl Zimmer Zimmer Zimmer Zimmer Zimmer Zollner Zurcher 0 I? public names 091701.xis Piedmont Triad International Airport General Public Letter Comment Codes First Name Middle Code Mary DPI 187 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- 73,3-74 Julie DP0331 2-2,6-26,6-15,6-12 Skip DP1683 24-1, 3-2, 6-45, 27-1, 1-2, 9-6, 7-1, 27-1, 3-36 Skip DP2081 24-1, 5-2, 3-2, 6-45, 27-1, 1-2, 9-6, 7-1, 3-1, 3-36 Teresa D. DP1026 2-2,6-14,6-32 Christopher S. DPO458 2-2, 6-32, 6-15 Gary T. DPO572 6-14, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 3-104, 29-88 Charlotte DP2093 6-12,6-6,24-3,6-15 Christina SP0459 1-5, 2-9, 3-33, 6-31, 6-52, 2-10 Christine DP1839 2-2,6-6,6-12,6-15 Connie PP0555 2-2 Gary PP0127 5-5, 6-27, 1-2, 23-1, 21-69, 21-62, 2-10 Henry A.F. DP2024 21-1, 21-3, 5.40, 20-6, 6-45, 6-48, 3-2, 5-2, 29-102 Jack DP2128 3-14, 29-16, 29-88, 3-14 Robert L. DP0150 6-6, 6-17, 6-32, 2-2 Robin PP0050 2-3,1-1, 7-6, 3-33 Tanya DP0090 2-2 S. Curtis DP1936 3-7, 3-1, 3-2, 27-1, 6-16, 5-2 Bea PP0556 2-2 Patric S. DPO121 29-24, 6-19, 6-12, 6-14, 6-6, 6-32, 2-2 Patric DP1813 2-2, 5-7, 6-6 Patric PP0178 21-6,5-7,2-2 Patric PP0201 2-2, 6-12, 5-7 Patrick DP2146 2-2, 5-7,6-6 Michelle M. DP1965 2-3, 6-4, 6-16, 22-3, 3-2, 3-7, 3-1, 6-45, 5-6, 1-1 Peter DP1938 27-1, 3-2, 7-1, 9-6, 14-1, 9-3, 6-4, 3-63, 3-1, 22-1, 2-3 ' International Piedmont Triad Airport 1. Purpose and Need 1-1 Comment Expansion is unnecessary since PTIA is not operating near its capacity. ' Response As discussed in Section 2.2.3 of the FEIS, the need for the proposed new parallel runway is not solely based on FAA's standard methodology of calculating airfield capacity. The purpose of the proposed new ' parallel runway is to meet the operational requirements of an overnight, express air cargo hub at PTIA. Specifically, the parallel runway is needed to provide runway redundancy in the case of adverse weather or ' runway closure due to maintenance or incident. In addition, the parallel runway is needed to allow for the ability to conduct dual simultaneous independent operations and efficient head-to-head operations on widely spaced parallel runways to meet the operational needs of the air cargo hub. 1-2 Comment FedEx should go to another city, airport or less remote area. ' Response FedEx undertook a detailed site selection study before making the determination to develop the proposed air cargo sorting/distribution facility at PTIA. Section 2.2.2.2 of the FEIS describes the process undertaken by FedEx (to the extent revealed to the FAA) in selecting PTIA as the proposed site of its Mid-Atlantic Hub. 1-3 Comment The new runway at PTIA will increase overall capacity, safety margins, and benefit the region. Response Please see response to Comment 1-1. ' 1-4 Comment A third runway and roadway improvements should not be added for the sole benefit of a single private ' industry. Response The need for the proposed parallel runway is described in the response to Comment 1-1. In terms of the roadway improvements, although they are being implemented as a result of the proposed project at PTIA, they will provide benefits users, not just a single private industry. See Chapter 2.0, Purpose and Need, for further information. ' 1-5 Comment I do not oppose FedEx coming to Greensboro, I oppose the location of the third runway and the FedEx hub. ' Response Comment noted. The FEIS undertook a detailed evaluation of runway location alternatives. Please see Section 3.3.2.2 of the FEIS. 1-6 Comment ' Plans for the third runway have been in the works well before FedEx considered moving to the area, even before development of most residential areas surrounding PTIA. Response A widely-spaced parallel runway located on the west side of the existing airport facilities has been depicted on PTIA's Airport Layout Plan (ALP) since 1968. 1-7 Comment ' There is no guarantee that FedEx will be here 10 years from today. database 101801.xis Response I Comment noted. While there is no guarantee that FedEx will be at PTIA in 10 years, the long-term commitment that they will make to the development of resources at PTIA in terms of capitol investment, operational logistics and manpower would indicate that the company plans to operate at PTIA well into the future. 1-8 Comment 1 What additional capacity would be provided by extending the existing second runway and when would that capacity be exceeded? Response ' Extending the existing cross-wind runway, Runway 14/32, would not add any additional operational capacity to PTIA. 1-9 Comment ' The Purpose and Need prepared by the residents far exceeds that of PTIA. Response Review of the alternative proposal submitted by an interested citizens group during Scoping entitled "A Common Sense Alternative Proposal for Airport Expansion at Piedmont Triad International Airport" indicates that the purpose and need presented by the interested citizens and that stated by the PTAA are , essentially the same. That is, the purpose and need for the proposed project is to provide the operational capacity required to support the development of an air cargo sorting/distribution facility at PTIA. 1-10 Comment Does PTIA need a third runway or is PTIA using this as an excuse to get, "that money in Washington"? Response Please see response to Comment 1-1. 1-11 Comment You can tell me how much pollution I swallowed in 1998 but cannot tell me if the runway is necessary? Response Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 of the FEIS provide a detailed discussion of the purpose and need for the proposed project at PTIA. 1-12 Comment I It seems totally unreasonable for FedEx to demand a third parallel runway as a condition for coming to Greensboro. Response ' The reasons for needing a widely-spaced parallel runway at PTIA are discussed in detail in Section 2.2.3 of the FEIS. In addition, see response to Comment 1-1. 1-13 Comment Mr. Brill stated that "..there is a need to expand the existing airport." It is my understanding that "need" or "no need" will be shown as a result of the FAA EIS study currently being conducted by the consultant. Are you saying that the FAA has already evaluated "need"? Response - After the issuance of a Notice of Intent and Scoping, the identification of a project's purpose and need is one the first steps undertaken by the FAA in the development of an EIS document. Therefore, at the time of the first Public Workshop for the EIS, the FAA had already determined that there was a justified need for the Airport Sponsor's proposed project. Once the "need" for the proposed project was established, the FAA proceeded with the next step in the EIS process, which was the development and evaluation of alternatives ' to the Airport Sponsor's proposed project. 1-14 Comment ' What is the purpose and need of the proposed project? ' database_101801.xis n J C'? I? 1? Response Please see response to Comment 1-1. 1-15 Comment Mr. Brill has stated that, "Now that FedEx has selected Greensboro, for its planned hub there is a need to expand the existing airport". It is obvious that the FAA has already decided that its clients, PTIA and FedEx, want this cargo hub and they are merely going to find a way to justify it. Response Please see response to Comment 1-13. 1-16 Comment PTAA reported that PTIA currently averages 75 flights per day and the maximum number of operations for a runway is 28.5 operations per hour. For two runways, that means that PTIA is currently being utilized at 11 % capacity. Response The analysis of existing PTIA capacity contained in the FEIS was conducted using FAA Advisory Circular 150/5060-5, Airport Capacity and Delay. As described in Section 2.2.3.2 of the FEIS and shown on Table 2.2-3 of the FEIS, PTIA was operating at approximately 54% capacity in 1998, not 11 %. 1-17 Comment With the excess capacity of the existing runways, why would a passenger airline need to use the new runway? Response It is not anticipated in the FEIS that passenger airliners would make significant use of the proposed new parallel runway because of its distance from the existing terminal facilities. However, there may be instances when the new parallel runway would need to be used by all aircraft, such as when the existing runway is closed for maintenance, weather considerations or aircraft incidents. 1-18 Comment Is there no minimum threshold for activity an airport has to meet before the FAA allows the EIS process to begin? Response As described in Section 2.2.3.2 of the FEIS, FAA planning guidelines for airports specify that when annual airport operations reach 60 percent of ASV capacity, the Airport Sponsor should initiate planning studies to evaluate means of increasing capacity. (FAA AC 5090.313, Table 3-2). Since PTIA is nearing this 60 percent threshold (see Table 2.2-3 of the FEIS), it has initiated one of the first steps in the planning process, which is the Federal environmental review process. In this case, the Federal environmental review has taken the form of an EIS. The EIS process begins when the sponsor has identified a problem or when there is a request for FAA to approve a revision to an ALP or request Federal funding assistance. 1-19 Comment Please provide a more specific reference to the Airport and Airway Improvement Act than 49 U.S.C. Section 47101(b). Response The citation as provided in the FEIS accurately directs the reader to the information summarized in Section 2.2.2.1 of the FEIS. 1-20 Comment PQLC has calculated that currently PTIA is only used to 11 % of capacity. What they fail to tell you is that if you apply their mach to other larger airports, you find that those airports also are not operating at capacity. Response Comment noted. Please see response to Comments 1-16 and 1-18. ' database 101801.x1s 1-21 Comment For whom was this EIS produced? Response The EIS document was prepared by the FAA with the assistance of a team of independent, environmental , consultants for use by the FAA to determine the potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project to aid in agency decisionmaking. In addition, the document is produced to disclose to the public and other Federal, state, and local government agencies any potential environmental impacts ' resulting from the proposed project. 1-22 Comment The FedEx hub and third runway is not needed. Response Please see response to Comment 1-1. 1-23 Comment FedEx could operate with existing runways. Response Please see response to Comment 1-16 and 1-18. 1-24 Comment N What happens if FedEx global business in Europe and South America decides to use PTIA as a departure point with additional and larger aircraft? Response ' If FedEx changes their operational plan to the extent that additional airfield improvements are needed at PTIA, such as runway strengthening or lengthening to accommodate larger aircraft on longer stage-length trips, the PTAA would have to revise their ALP, submit it to the FAA for conditional approval, and undergo additional Federal environmental evaluation. If FedEx increases the number of flights significantly beyond that which was analyzed in the FEIS and which will be analyzed in PTAA's upcoming FAR Part 150 study, then possibly another EIS and FAR Part 150 Update would need to be conducted. 1 1-25 Comment I What happens if FedEx executes its present business plan to compete with UPS and more planes arrive and depart? Also, will the ground staging area expand? Response I Please see the response to Comment 1-24 for a response to the first part of this comment. In terms of the ground staging area, it is likely that the air cargo apron area would need to be expanded if additional aircraft were to operate at the FedEx facility. However, the FAA cannot determine how much expansion would need to occur without the availability of specific aircraft numbers and types. 1-26 Comment We should all be grateful that FedEx is going to give PTIA and the region the shot in the arm that it needs, and is long overdue. Response Comment noted. database 101801.xls Piedmont Triad International Airport 2. Alternatives 2-1 Comment Existing runways should be extended and the sort facility should be located at the south end of PTIA. Response This alternative is the same as Alternative X-C and/or the Citizens Scoping Alternative, which are both evaluated in Section 3.3.3.2 of the FEIS. 2-2 Comment I support FedEx at Piedmont Triad International Airport. Response Comment noted. 2-3 Comment I am opposed to the FedEx facility at PTIA. Response Comment noted. 2-4 Comment I do not want to have flights over my home or operation of a cargo facility during late evening and early morning hours. Response Comment noted. 2-5 Comment Proposed location of the runway is going to cover more space than other international airports (Atlanta, Dallas/Ft. Worth, and Los Angeles). Response PTAA currently owns 3,100-acres. Total property that would be under PTAA ownership with the "ultimate" development depicted on the ALP is 3,370 acres. This amount of property is comparable to other air carrier airports across the nation. Numerous airports such as Atlanta, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Denver, Pittsburgh and others exceed the acreage owned by the PTAA by as much as four times. 2-6 Comment Location of the runway should take into consideration the flight paths not effecting existing neighborhoods ' or schools. Response The FAA evaluated 42 runway and sorting/distribution facility alternatives in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. The flight paths and the number of noise sensitive sites such as residences, churches, schools and nursing homes as well as the total number of people impacted by aircraft noise is evaluated in Section 5.1 of the FEIS. 2-7 Comment FAA should consider the development alternatives submitted by the citizens of Greensboro. Response The FAA performed a detailed evaluation of the alternative submitted by the citizens of Greensboro in Section 3.3.2 of the FEIS. This alternative did not meet all of the Level 1 alternatives screening criteria and ' therefore was not retained for further consideration by the FAA in subsequent chapters of the EIS. 2-8 Comment ' The new runway should be located along W. Market Street (parallel to Runway 14/32). database-101801AS Response The FAA evaluated five runway and sorting/distribution facility alternatives that placed the proposed runway along West Market Street, parallel to existing Runway 14/32. None of these five alternatives met all of the Level 1 alternatives screening criteria and therefore they were not retained for further consideration by the FAA in subsequent chapters of the EIS. 2-9 Comment PTIA should look at other alternatives beside the one they are proposing. Response The FAA evaluated 42 runway and sorting/distribution facility alternatives in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. Of these 42 alternatives, five build alternatives and the No-Action Alternative were retained for detailed evaluation in the FEIS. n J 2-10 Comment We need an alternative that will be a win-win situation for the community, the environment, and PTIA. Response The NEPA process under which the EIS was conducted was developed to help Federal agencies identify alternatives to a proposed development program that would fulfill the purpose and need of the project while at the same time avoiding and/or minimizing impacts on the environment. 2-11 Comment I am upset to see the public, members of various committees, including the Greensboro mayor, supporting expansion, when none of them live anywhere near PTIA and will not be effected. Response. The purpose of the EIS Public Involvement process was to receive comments from all parties that have an interest in the proposed project that is under FAA consideration. 2-12 Comment Simultaneous approaches and departures from the proposed project will allow uninterrupted operations, minimized taxi times, and decrease delays. Response The operational implications of the proposed project are described in Sections 3.2.1.2 and 3.2.1.3 of the FEIS. 2-13 Comment Without the proposed project, FedEx operations would be delayed one and a half hours each day. Response Please see response to Comment 2-12. 2-14 Comment Why is Table 3.2.1-1, "Comparison of FedEx operations cost" included in your EIS. Including a consideration of FedEx's costs is inappropriate. ri Response Air carrier and air cargo delay is typically measured in terms of time and manifested in terms of the cost associated with the delay. While Table 3.2.1-1 presents data in terms of cost, Table 3.2.1-2 presents the data in terms time and its associated cost. 2-15 Comment PTAA states that the citizen's of Greensboro plan is unsafe'due to perpendicular runways; however, Dayton, Ohio airport operates a cargo sort facility with intersecting perpendicular runways. Response The FAA conducted an independent evaluation of the Citizens Scoping Alternative in Section 3.3.2 of the FEIS. This alternative did not meet all of the Level 1 alternatives screening criteria and therefore was not retained for further consideration by the FAA in subsequent chapters of the EIS. The alternative was not eliminated from further consideration because it was considered "unsafe". H database 101801.xis ' 2-16 Comment FedEx will only use the proposed third runway occasionally and other aircraft will rarely use the runway at all. Response It is not anticipated in the FEIS that passenger airliners would make significant use of the proposed new parallel runway because of its distance from the existing terminal facilities. However, FedEx will utilize the new runway for both arrivals and departures on a daily basis. In addition, as FedEx operations increase from Phase 1 to Phase 2 levels, the need for the widely spaced parallel runways will be increased. In addition, there may be instances when the new parallel runway would need to be used by all aircraft, such as when the existing runway is closed for maintenance, weather considerations or aircraft incidents. 2-17 Comment PTIA's Master Plan from 1968 called for a small runway to handle private planes and not a 9,000 to 10,000 foot runway for commercial use. Response FAA acknowledges that the length of the parallel runway proposed by PTAA in its' previous Master Plan documents and associated Airport Layout Plans (ALP's) have varied over the years. This variation was dependent on PTIA's forecasts of aviation activity, its market share, and the PTAA's plans for future growth and development. However, the new parallel runway depicted on the PTIA ALP that was submitted to the FAA for environmental consideration in the EIS was a 10,000 Transport Category runway. 2-18 Comment Variations in wind and weather conditions will result in more flights landing and departing over residential r areas. Response Based on the wind analysis conducted for the Master Plan and incorporated in the FEIS in Section 5. 1, the air cargo planes are anticipated to be able to operate in a head-to-head configuration, from the southwest- to-the-southwest, for approximately 95 percent of FedEx operations. This would result in operations being directed away from the more heavily populated noise sensitive areas to the north of PTIA. 2-19 Comment PTAA received PGLC's plan, changed it, and submitted it to their consultants for consideration. Not surprisingly, the consultants found it too expensive and not keeping with FedEx's mandates. Response PTAA did change the PQLC's plan for its evaluation because it felt it would not work as submitted. However, FAA conducted its own independent evaluation of the Citizens Scoping Alternative, as submitted by the concerned citizens. The FAA did not change the PQLC's plan for its evaluation in the EIS. M 2-20 Comment If aircraft must be routed over residences, then they should gain sufficient altitude prior to flying over residences. Response ' Aircraft gain altitude at a rate that is based on varying factors such as takeoff weight, engine type, thrust and flap setting, and departure heading as directed by Air Traffic Control. However, in all cases, the rate of climb is a safety consideration determined by the pilots flying the individual aircraft. It is true that achieving greater height over noise sensitive residential areas would result in less noise impact perceived on the ground. Wherever possible, PTAA would implement measures to minimize noise impacts to noise sensitive land uses. ' 2-21 Comment Please provide residents with exact flight paths that FedEx aircraft will take. ' database_101801.xis Response I Flight tracks for the existing condition at PTIA are provided on Figure 4.2.5-1 in Section 4.2.5.3 of the FEIS. Proposed flight tracks for the five build alternatives and the future No-Action Alternative are provided on Figures C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5 and C-6 in Appendix "C of the FEIS. 2-22 Comment Relocate the distribution facility to the south. Response The FAA evaluated nine runway and sorting/distribution facility alternatives (including the Citizens Scoping Alternative) that placed the proposed sorting/distribution facility to the south of PTIA, along West Market Street. None of these nine alternatives met all of the Level 1 alternatives screening criteria and therefore they were not retained for further consideration by the FAA in subsequent chapters of the EIS. 2-23 Comment It is believed that the proposed project is a "done deal" where big money, secret meetings, and influential people have brought pressure behind the scenes and negate legitimate objections. Response The FAA has completed a fair and independent analysis of the proposed project and the reasonable alternatives in the EIS process. 2-24 Comment RESERVED Response r 2-25 Comment PTIA could better utilize existing facilities. Response The PTAA utilizes the existing facilities to their optimal capacity. However, the existing perpendicular runway configuration at PTIA does not provide the sufficient facilities for the efficient operation of the proposed air cargo hub of for future anticipated operational activity levels without resulting in significant delay. 2-26 Comment _ Hush kits on all jets and locating the hub on the north end of PTIA property is what real estate brokers suggest. Response Certain aircraft operating in the United States are subject to Federal requirements regarding noise emissions levels. Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations CFR Part 36, Noise Standards: Aircraft Type and Airworthiness Certification prescribes the noise standards for aircraft certification in the United States. An aircraft is categorized under this regulation by one of three noise standards called stages. Stage 1 is the loudest category and Stage 3 is currently the quietest category. Title 14 CFR Part 91 § 91.873 states that "Except as provided in § 91.873, after December 31, 1999, no person shall operate to or from any airport in the contiguous United States any airport subject to § 91.801(c) of the subpart, unless that airplane has been shown to comply with Stage 3 noise levels, To that end, all FedEx aircraft having maximum operating weights in excess of 75,000 comply with this subpart. 2-27 Comment Will they later be demanding a 4th runway? Response The FAA has no knowledge of any PTAA plans for a fourth runway at PTIA. 2-28 Comment RESERVED Response ' database 101801.x1s 2-29 Comment RESERVED Response 1 11 7 L n LJII 2-30 Comment Runways should be used equally to prevent the aircraft from flying over the same area constantly. Response Runway assignment is based on numerous factors and is at the sole discretion of the FAA ATCT. Estimated runway use percentages for each of the alternatives is discussed in Section 5.1.2.3 of the FEIS. Regardless of the runway usage, aircraft will follow established flight tracks off each end of the runways based on direction provided by the FAA ATCT. 2-31 Comment Please find another viable alternative to not impact the residents in and around the James Landing Peninsula. Response The FAA evaluated 42 runway and sorting/distribution facility alternatives in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. Of these 42 alternatives, five build alternatives and the No-Action Alternative were retained for detailed evaluation in the FEIS. 2-32 Comment RESERVED Response 2-33 Comment RESERVED Response 2-34 Comment Without the parallel runway, FedEx will not come to the Triad. Response Comment noted. 2-35 Comment The 10,000 foot runway was shortened to 9,000 feet to reduce the number of homes that would have to be purchased. Response As described in Section 2.2.3.1 of the FEIS, the FAA determined that at this time, a 9,000 foot long runway at PTIA was justified based on the runway length requirements and number of operations of the "critical" aircraft (DC-10) anticipated to operate at PTIA. The reduction in length from 10,000 feet to 9,000 feet was not based on the number of homes that would have to be purchased. 2-36 Comment RESERVED Response 2-37 Comment The silent majority welcomes FedEx. Response Comment noted. database_101801.As 2-38 Comment RESERVED Response 2-39 Comment RESERVED Response 2-40 Comment At the workshop, Alternative 2 indicated only 6 residential properties impacted, when clearly the mandatory "safety" cone shown encompasses a majority of the Edinburgh community. Response The six residential properties were those that would have to be acquired to construct the alternative, and did not include those that would have to be acquired within the Runway Protection Zone. 2-41 Comment At the workshop, Alternative West 1 indicated 65 residential properties impacted, but the only area clearly impacted is nearly all commercial property. Response Alternative West 1 is the alternative submitted by a group of interested citizens during Scoping for the EIS. The number of residential properties impacted was calculated by the citizens, not FAA. 2-42 Comment How many planes and trucks are FedEx considering? Response FedEx anticipates 24 aircraft (48 operations) in Phase 1 and 63 aircraft (126 ti i Ph 2 opera ons) n ase . In terms of trucks, FedEx anticipates 100 to 150 trucks per day on weekends and 125 trucks per day on week days in Phase 1 and 150 to 225 trucks per day on weekends and 188 trucks per day on week days in Phase 2. 2-43 Comment Serious considerations should be given to alternate locations which place the third runway at a right angle to the existing. Response The FAA evaluated 42 runway and sorting/distribution facility alternatives in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. Of these 42 alternatives, ten consisted of a new runway perpendicular to existing Runway 5/23. Out of these ten alternatives, two (Alternatives N-D and N-E) were retained for detailed consideration by the FAA in the FEIS. 2-44 Comment Runway options are clearly fabricated to present the false impression that other options are under consideration. Response The runway alternatives were developed by the FAA to explore all feasible, practicable, prudent and reasonable alternatives to the proposed project at PTIA. 2-45 Comment Extend the crossing runway and forget the third runway. Response The FAA evaluated six runway and sorting/distribution facility alternatives (including the Citizens Scoping Alternative) that extended the existing crosswind runway. None of these six alternatives met all of the , Level 1 alternatives screening criteria and therefore they were not retained for further consideration by the FAA in subsequent chapters of the EIS. _101801x database 1 11 2-46 Comment After FedEx gets their third runway, taxpayer's will be asked to extend the crossing runway. Response The extension of Runway 14/32 and existing Runway 5/23 are both included on PTAA's conditionally approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP). However, the PTAA has not submitted an application to the FAA at this time to extend either of these runways. It is possible that sometime in the future, the PTAA may determine that an extension of one or both of these runways is warranted. 2-47 Comment Increased number of flights still will be less than what we had when Continental Airlines had a base here. Response FedEx anticipates 24 aircraft in Phase 1 and 63 aircraft in Phase 2. When Continental Airlines was operating at its peak in 1995, they had a total of 84 aircraft. 2-48 Comment RESERVED Response 2-49 Comment What is in the Master Plan for PTIA? Response The most recent Master Plan for PTIA, which was published in 1994, is available for review at the PTAA office. It contains updated forecasts of aviation activity, a discussion of facility requirements, and an updated Airport Layout Plan (ALP), which depicts a 10,000 foot long parallel runway to the west of the airport, an extension of Runway 14/32, and an extension of Runway 5/23. 2-50 Comment Alternatives other than the proposed project will impact more homes, businesses, transportation corridors, and a cemetery. Response A summary of the impacts associated with each of the alternatives retained for detailed analysis is contained in Table 3.4-1 of the FEIS. 2-51 Comment Any airport expansions or additional flight services should be suspended until jets are designed to work in a more efficient manner. Response Comment noted. Suspension of all flights until such technology is available would result is significant social and economic impacts on a world-wide basis. 2-52 Comment Improve ground flow of aircraft and reduce delay and congestion during peak hours. Response The parallel runway associated with the proposed project is the best way to allow PTIA to improve ground flow, and reduce delay and congestion during peak hours. 1 2-53 Comment PTIA showed its ability for good arrival/departure operations on perpendicular runways by handling more than double the number of daily flights of today when PTIA had the Continental hub. I database 101801.x1s Response I The Continental Airlines flights in 1995 were spread out over a much greater time frame than the flights proposed for the air cargo hub operation. Although air cargo arrivals will be spread out over a several hour period, the critical time frame is associated with air cargo aircraft departures, which must occur within a set time frame of approximately 70 minutes in order to meet next day delivery schedules. 2-54 Comment Will there be a glide path for arriving and departing aircraft? Response The glide slope is associated with arriving aircraft. The glide slope for the proposed parallel runway is ' anticipated to be 3 degrees on both ends. 2-55 Comment I A horizontal cone effect from the end of the runway should allow planes to arrive/depart in various directions and not in a straight line. Response I Aircraft generally follow a straight-in approach to a runway for safety reasons. When no set departure profiles are established by the airport users and the Air Traffic Control Tower, departing aircraft follow a path determined by Air Traffic Control and the individual aircraft pilot based on weather conditions and destination of the aircraft. When established departure profiles are set at an airport, they must be followed by the pilots. 2-56 Comment Have planes fly over Greensboro and not High Point. Response Based on the wind analysis conducted for the Master Plan and incorporated in the FEIS in Section 5. 1, the FedEx air cargo planes are anticipated to be able to operate in a head-to-head configuration, from the south-to-the-south, for approximately 95 percent of their operations. This operational scenario allows FedEx to maximize its operational efficiency at the proposed hub and would result in operations being directed away from the more heavily populated areas of Greensboro to the north of PTIA. The alignment of existing Runway 5/23 and proposed Runway 5U23R are such that any aircraft on these runways would overfly High Point. 2-57 Comment The consultant has purposely misrepresented the West 1 Alternative plan, submitted by Gil Happel and Mark Warren, in order to discredit it. Response The West 1 Alternative presented at the first Public Workshop for the EIS presented the Citizens Scoping Alternative as understood by the FAA at the time of the meeting. 2-58 Comment Alternative West 1 does allow staggered IFR operations which is perfectly safe air traffic control and increases the work of air traffic controllers only minimally. Response lternative West 1 does allow for staggered arrival and departure operations. However, to meet the operational requirements of the air cargo sorting/distribution facility, dual simultaneous independent arrival and departure operations and efficient head-to-head operations are required, as discussed in Sections 2.2.3.2 and 3.2.1.3 of the FEIS. 2-59 Comment Under Alternative West 1, the City of Greensboro fire station at the corner of Burgess Road and West Market Street should remain intact, not taken as the consultant states, in its evaluation. The fire station would be an asset to the FedEx facilities. database_101801.xls I n Response The Citizens Scoping Alternative states that the City of Greensboro Fire Station could remain in place. However, FAA's evaluation of this alternative indicates that in order to provide a contiguous 300 acres for development of the proposed air cargo sorting/distribution facility, the City of Greensboro Fire Station and the 1.4 acre cemetery would have to be relocated. 2-60 Comment Evaluations of taxiing distances of Alternative West 1 by the consultant are false. Response As presented in the first public information meeting, Alternative West 1 represented the Citizen's Scoping Alternative. At the time of this meeting, this alternative had only been reviewed and assessed on a preliminary basis. Taxi distances were based on the best available information at the time, and were subsequently re-evaluated prior to the issuance of the DEIS. 2-61 Comment I do not support any alternative that lengthens the shorter runway. Response Comment noted. 2-62 Comment What happens when another company wants to come here and bring even more flights because PTIA has a new runway? Does the EIS include permission for other companies to come here without doing another environmental study? Response The EIS addresseJ the PTIA's desire to initiate airport improvements in support of the development of an overnight, express air cargo facility and to provide airside, landside and surface transportation facilities that allow both the airport and the hub to be operated in an efficient manner. The purpose and need, alternatives, and potential environmental impact analysis was limited to the proposed phased development of the air cargo facility, air cargo aircraft operations, associated ground-based operations, and cumulative .effects of all other projected rion-FedEx aircraft operations through the year 2019. Therefore, FAA's unconditional approval of the proposed project evaluated in this EIS does not include approval of a significant increase in operations beyond that considered and evaluated in this FEIS. Additional aircraft operations created by other companies relocating to Greensboro as a result of the new runway were not considered in the EIS. Additional aircraft operations at PTIA that result from the development of the new runway may or may not require environmental assessment. At the time such a scenario occurs, the FAA will determine the appropriate environmental processing based on the potential for environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. 2-63 Comment The third runway is inevitable and would have a less environmental impact today than 10 to 20 years from now. Response Comment noted. 2-64 Comment RESERVED Response I database_101801.xls 2-65 Comment I Have the alternatives been presented to FedEx and what was their reply? Response The PTAA provided FedEx a copy of the DEIS after it was made available to the reviewing agencies and the general public. FedEx's comments on the DEIS were provided to the FAA by the PTAA. In terms of alternatives, FedEx expressed concern over the selection of either Alternative N-D or WE as the preferred alternative because these alternatives would require cross wind operating conditions the majority of the time. As expressed by FedEx, this could result in "potential restricted payloads, safety concerns and even preclude operations entirely". No other comments with regard to alternatives were received from FedEx. 2-66 Comment It is reassuring to see so many alternatives being evaluated and no conclusions have been made as of yet. Response Comment noted. 2-67 Comment It is my understanding that the proposed runway is for emergency use only and the existing runway will be primary focus of FedEx operations. Response The proposed. runway is needed to support the efficient ingress and egress of FedEx aircraft on a daily basis. It is not anticipated in the FEIS that passenger airliners would make significant use of the proposed new parallel runway because of its distance from the existing terminal facilities. However, as overall operations at PTIA increase from Phase 1 to Phase 2 levels, the need for all operators, including FedEx, to use the widely-spaced parallel runways will be increased. In addition, there may be instances when the new parallel runway would need to be used by all aircraft, such as when either of the two existing runway are closed for maintenance, weather considerations or aircraft incidents. 2-68 Comment Mr. Brill made it quite clear to the people he was addressing that the cargo hub was "definitely going to be built" and that all the community could do was "have some input into how we mitigate" the situation , , , . Response Comment noted. The FAA has completed an independent analysis of the proposed project and the reasonable alternatives to it in the EIS process. 2-69 Comment Has the FAA or the consultant asked FedEx if they will still come to Greensboro if they do not get the third runway? Response FedEx has publicly stated that the ability to develop a widely-spaced parallel runway was a factor in its decision to locate the Mid-Atlantic Hub at PTIA. Further to that end, FedEx has stated that in order to meet its operational and package delivery service goals, the use of widely-spaced parallel runways is required, particularly during post-sort departures to the destination cities. 2-70 Comment RESERVED Response 2-71 Comment One of the identified alternatives should be chosen; any except North 2 or North 3. . Response , Comment noted. database_101801.xis I ' 2-72 Comment What PTAA proposes constitutes a radical shift in the nature of PTIA - from a passenger airport with daytime traffic to a cargo hub with nighttime flights as well. Response Comment noted. 2-73 Comment Which other airports are being reviewed as alternative sites, Global Trans Park in Kinston or Z. Smith Reynolds in Winston-Salem? Response As part of the alternatives evaluation process, the FAA examined several off-site alternatives for their potential to meet the purpose and need criteria for the proposed project. These alternative concepts 1 included the examination of seven existing general aviation and five air carrier airports. Both Global TransPark in Kinston, NC and Smith Reynolds in Winston Salem NC were considered. For varying reasons, none of the 12 existing airports were found to fully satisfy the stated purpose and need for the proposed project, therefore they were not retained for further consideration by the FAA. 2-74 Comment I vigorously oppose the proposed alternative plan put forth by the coalition [PQLC plan]on the grounds of safety, the probable loss of significant tax dollars, the probable loss of thousands of jobs, numerous inconveniences imposed by the alternative plan, and the loss of a major attribute (i.e. parallel runway). Response Comment Noted. 2-75 Comment It is not clear whether this arrangement [PQLC plan] will actually result in a more expeditious entrance and egress into the traffic pattern since no one at this point knows precisely which routes will be flown and at which times aircraft will converge at PTIA. Response The feasibility, benefits, or drawbacks of PQLC's plan to provide more expeditious ingress/egress of the airport's traffic pattern was not analyzed in the DEIS because the alternative did not fully satisfy the stated purpose and need for the proposed project. Therefore, the alternative was not retained for further analysis beyond the Level 1 screening process. 2-76 Comment Minimizing approach and departure times to and from PTIA traffic pattern does not translate into an equivalent or better time savings scenario for FedEx because this alternative plan (PQLC plan] will clearly result in significantly increased taxi times when compared to the original plan supported by PTAA and FedEx. Response See response to Comment 2-75. 2-77 Comment ' PQLC has suggested in their literature that the FedEx facility can be built around the existing cemetery. Encasing a cemetery around an aircraft ramp is simply unacceptable. Response FedEx has stated that the successful development and efficient operation of its proposed Mid-Atlantic sorting hub would require approximately 300+/- contiguous acres within which complimentary airside, landside and sort building facilities would be developed. Beyond the issue of developing a commercial facility around a cemetery, the proximity, size, and shape of the cemetery would preclude the optimal layout of facilities and reduce the overall operational efficiency of the overnight-express cargo operations. In addition, enclosing the cemetery within the Airport Operational Area (AOA), which is a restricted area with airfield access, would effectively isolate the cemetery such that it could not be accessed by persons wishing to visit the cemetery. database 101801.xis 2-78 Comment Your differences between the alternatives are insignificant. The alternatives just shift the areas of more pronounced negative environmental effect from one group of homes to others. Response Using a systematic process, the FAA evaluated and assessed a total of five potential hub development sites, eight potential runway locations, the No-Action and the citizens scoping alternatives yielding a total of 42 unique on-airport development scenarios. By evaluating the ability -of each alternative to fully satisfy all of the stated purpose and need criteria, five build alternatives and the No-Action Alternative were retained for detailed evaluation in the FEIS. Each of the five retained build alternatives generated unique and pronounced affects on the operational capacity of the airport, efficiency of FedEx operations, and environmental impacts. 2-79 Comment Why locate the hub at PTIA when FedEx has failed in Indianapolis where neighborhoods 4.5 miles away have planes screaming and smoking through their backyards? Response Demand for the cargo hub is driven by existing and projected demand for express overnight air cargo movements within the eastern United States. The development of such a facility at the airport is congruent with that of the PTAA's stated interests. Favorable attributes of the airport, local area, and region as considered by FedEx in its selection of the airport as a potential site for the development of a sort/hub facility to serve the eastern United States is explained in Section 2.2.2.2 of the FEIS. 2-80 Comment EPA has environmental objections with the Sponsor's proposal (W2-A) as well as all of the other presented action alternatives for the FedEx Hub. We therefore prefer the No-Action Alternative which proposes some airport improvements but no cargo hub at PTIA. Specifically, we base our environmental objections on the fact that we do not believe that the DEIS fully describes the proposed air cargo operations and the associated potential noise impacts, nor the mitigation of those impacts. Response In response to EPA's comments, the FAA has expanded Sections 2.2, 3.2 and 5.1 of the FEIS to contain a more detailed description of Fed Ex' anticipated operational characteristics. In addition, FAA has expanded the evaluation contained in Section 5.1 of the FEIS to include supplemental noise analyses in terms of Leq 9, SEL sleep disturbance, highway noise, and ground noise analysis. The FAA has also provided a recommended Mitigation Program in Section 6.3 of the FEIS which will be implemented by the PTAA to address environmental impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative. 2-81 Comment FAA's preferred alternative will need to be identified in the FEIS and the FAA selected alternative will need to be identified in the Record of Decision. Response Comment noted. 2-82 Comment We (EPA) suggest that the Sponsor's proposed Alternative W2-A be so designated (i.e. as the Sponsor's proposal) in tables comparing the various alternatives and also be identified earlier in the document as the Sponsor's selection. Response The Sponsor's original proposed action is described and graphically depicted in Chapter 1, Introduction, of the DEIS and FEIS. In Chapter 3, Alternatives, of the DEIS and FEIS, the Airport Sponsor's proposed action is clearly identified by the FAA as Alternative W2-A. After review of the DEIS, PTAA indicated that Alternative W1-A1 was its Preferred Alternative because it resulted in less impacts to wetlands and 100- year floodplains than its' originally proposed project (Alternative W2-A). Section 3.5 of the FEIS clearly identifies Alternative W1-A1 as PTAA's Preferred Alternative. FAA believes that this information is presented early enough in the document to let readers know what the original proposed action was, and what the Sponsor's Preferred Alternative is. database 101801.xis ' 2-83 Comment We (EPA) believe that the proposed addition of an overnight cargo operation, which introduces a new overnight noise, is substantially different from a general expansion of an airport for capacity, safety or other reasons. EPA further believes that in order for an overnight air express operation to be reasonable environmentally, it would need to be removed from areas of public development--particularly residential communities--where the airport is surrounded by compatible land uses with minimal sensitive noise receptors. Response The FAA does not completely agree that the proposed project is significantly different than other proposed capacity enhancement projects (ie. new runways) that have been and are being implemented at other airports across the country. FAA further does not agree with EPA's statement that in order for an overnight express air cargo operation to be reasonable environmentally, it would need to be removed from areas of public development. This statement by the EPA might be true if the only impacts of concern were noise related. However, this is not the case. As discussed in Chapter 3, Alternatives, development of a new airport or "greenfield" site poses many significant environmental concerns in terms of wetlands, biotics, floodplains, Section 303(c) and 106 resources, farmlands and noise than those associated with the development of an existing facility. In terms of noise impacts associated with the proposed project, the PTAA will 1) implement a noise mitigation plan that will remove non-compatible land uses from those areas that would be highly impacted; 2) provide acoustical treatment for those houses that are not included in the acquisition program 3) work with local municipalities that have land use and zoning jurisdiction to prevent the development of additional non-compatible land uses and 4) participate in the FAR Part 150 process to determine ways to reduce future aircraft generated noise impacts to nose sensitive land uses. 2-84 Comment If the Sponsor's proposed Alternative W2-A is pursued at PTIA, additional mitigation would be needed to relieve the aircraft noise impacts for all residences within the DNL 65+ dBA contours. This would include ' federal purchase ("buyouts") of impacted residences and acoustical treatment for remaining affected residences. Response The FAA has an established policy of using the DNL 65 dBA as the "Threshold of Significance" for aircraft- generated noise impacts. The FAA considers noise levels below this threshold as being normally compatible with nc'se-sensitive residential land use. The PTAA has committed to the development of a noise mitigation plan to reduce noise impacts to the area surrounding PTIA. This program includes acquisition of residential parcels within the DNL 70 and 75 dBA noise contours as well as acoustical treatment for residences within the DNL 65 dBA noise contour. Please see Section 6.3 of the FEIS for further information. 2-85 Comment ' Runway alternatives that are oriented in a general north-south (technically northeast-southwest) direction, i.e. the fifteen X, N and S series alternatives in Figure S-3 including N-D and N-E, should probably be rejected unless the Greensboro area has dramatically shifting wind directions. Response Based on the wind analysis conducted for the Master Plan and incorporated in the FEIS in Section 5. 1, winds at PTIA favor the use of Runway 5/23, which has a generally north-south orientation. This orientation would allow for the ability to operate in a head-to-head configuration, from the south-to-the-south, for approximately 95 percent of FedEx operations. As suggested by the comment, the selection of either Alternative N-D or WE as the preferred alternative would require cross wind operating conditions for the majority of aircraft operations. This could result in potential restricted payloads, safety concerns and even preclude operations entirely on the runways during certain weather conditions. 2-86 Comment Of the five action alternatives evaluated, EPA believes that Alternative W1-A1, although not without impacts, has some environmental merit. database_101801.xls Response Comment noted. Alternative W1-A1 is FAA's Preferred Alternative. A Mitigation Program to reduce impacts associated with Alternative W1-A1 is presented in Section 6.3 of the FEIS. 2-87 Comment After reviewing the EIS, Alternative W2-A appears to be the best alternative for the airport and FedEx both from a cost standpoint and efficiency standpoint. Response Each of the "W' alternatives were found to be relatively similar with Alternative W2-A having the lowest cost of the five build alternatives. However, Alternative W1-A1 provides greater aviation operational efficiencies, highway improvements, and less wetland impacts than all other "W" alternatives. 2-88 Comment What other plans did the Airport Authority give to the FAA to justify spending $200 million? Response Demand for the cargo hub is driven by existing and projected demand for express overnight air cargo movements within the eastern United States. The development of an overnight-express air cargo hub at PTIA responds to the PTAA's expectation that traditional air cargo traffic is increasing and, most importantly, that overnight express cargo demand would continue to increase. The development of such a facility at the airport is congruent with that of the PTAA's stated interests in on-going airport development and expansion to meet the air service needs of the Triad and to remain a major economic generator. No other plans beside that being evaluated in the EIS were submitted to the FAA by the PTAA. 2-89 Comment Please choose the No Action Alternative for PTIA. Response Comment noted. The No-Action Alternative does not meet the Purpose and Need or goals of the proposed project nor rectify the problem of not being able to provide facilities to accommodate an air cargo , sort/distribution facility. 2-90 Comment , FedEx plans to increase the number of planes using PTIA. When do you plan on including the effects of this planned increase in the air traffic in the DEIS document? Response The evaluation of impacts in the FEIS is based on operational information provided to FAA by the PTAA. This information indicates that FedEx anticipates 24 daily aircraft departures (48 operations) in Phase 1 and 63 daily aircraft departures (126 operations) in Phase 2. As far as FAA is aware at this time, there are no plans by FedEx to increase the number of operations at the proposed Mid-Atlantic Hub. If, after the issuance of FAA's ROD, FedEx increases its operations at PTIA such that additional noise impacts beyond those accounted for in the FEIS occur, the PTAA would be required to conduct additional , environmental anF-K sis and potentially modify their proposed mitigation program to include additionally impacted areas. 2-91 Comment The location of the airport is not conducive to such a facility. Response Demand for the cargo hub is driven by existing and projected demand for express overnight air cargo movements within the eastern United States. The development of such a facility at PTIA is congruent with that of the PTAA's stated interests. Favorable attributes of PTIA, the local area, and the region as considered by FedEx in its selection of PTIA as a potential site for the development of a sort/hub facility to serve the eastern United States is explained in Section 2.2.2.2 of the FEIS. database 101801.xls F L [J 2-92 Comment Why was the current Global TransPark located in Kinston, NC, not listed in the EIS? This facility was built for such a purpose in the eastern part of NC. By using the existing Kinston Airport for the FedEx hub, the FAA could save $200 million in Federal funds. Is FAA interested in saving American taxpayers' funds? Response As part of the alternatives evaluation process, the FAA examined several off-site alternatives for their potential to meet the purpose and need criteria for the proposed project. These alternatives concepts included the evalL-.:tion of seven existing general aviation and five air carrier airports. Global TransPark in Kinston, NC was included as one of five air carrier airports evaluated. As an alternative to the proposed project at PTIA, the Global TransPark did not meet the purpose and need criteria. As such, the Global TransPark was not considered by the FAA as a reasonable alternative and therefore, was not retained for further consideration in the EIS. 2-93 Comment RESERVED Response 2-94 Comment RESERVED Response 2-95 Comment Combine with other communities in finding a new site well out in the country side, building new facilities, and sharing cost and assumed benefits -- if there are such. Response Please see response to Comment 2-88. 2-96 Comment Has the FAA conducted research on airports with existing FedEx or other aviation sorting facilities? The DEIS results are just speculation unless there is a valid follow-up on what happened historically at those other airports. Response The FAA has conducted a case study analysis of FedEx facilities located in Indianapolis and Memphis. Please see Appendix E in the FEIS for further information. 2-97 Comment FedEx states that they will have 60 flights a night at first, but then increase to day and weekend flights soon after. Thus, the DEIS noise, air, and water reports must be updated to include this promised increase in flights. Response Please see response to Comment 2-90. 2-98 Comment RESERVED Response database 101801AS 2-99 Comment RESERVED Response 2-100 Comment As for the farcical representation on one of your charts that your review would include other airports or , consider creating a new airport, there seems to have been no substance to that whatsoever. Response As part of the alternatives evaluation process, the FAA examined several off-site alternatives for their potential to meet the purpose and need criteria for the proposed project. These alternatives concepts included the examination of seven existing general aviation and five air carrier airports. For varying reasons, none of the 12 existing airports were found to fully satisfy the stated purpose and need for the proposed project. Detailed explanations of the FAA's evaluation of potential off-site alternatives is provided in Section 3.3 of the FEIS. 2-101 Comment I support Alternative W1-A1. Response Comment Noted 2-102 Comment The discussion of alternative airport locations in the FEIS should clearly document the rationale for removing those alternative airports from further consideration (i.e. why they were not deemed to be reasonable alternatives), and include sufficient information to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with all reasonable alternatives. These alternative airport locations should continue to be r considered and evaluated until sufficient justification is provided for eliminating them from further review. Response As part of the alternatives evaluation process, the FAA examined several off-site alternatives for their potential to meet the purpose and need criteria for the proposed project. These alternatives concepts included the examination of seven existing general aviation and five air carrier airports. For varying reasons, none of the 12 existing airports were found to fully satisfy the stated purpose and need for the proposed project. The fact that they do not meet the Purpose and Need for the proposed project is sufficient for the FAA to not retain these alternatives for further consideration. Please see Section 3.3 of the FEIS for more detailed information concerning FAA's treatment of these alternatives. 2-103 Comment One would think that some consistent and objective criteria such as current airport utilization being at some , percentage of capacity or some percentage of air traffic being disrupted by the current runway configuration would have to be met before any airport expansion could even be considered. Response As noted by the commentor, the FAA does apply consistent and objective criteria to measure airport capacity and determine when capacity enhancing improvements are needed. As described in Section 2.2.3.2 of the FEIS, FAA planning guidelines for airports specify that when annual airport operations reach 60 percent of ASV capacity, the Airport Sponsor should initiate planning studies to evaluate means of increasing capacity, and when they reach 80 percent of ASV capacity, construction of improvements should begin (FAA AC 5090.313, table 3-2). Since PTIA is nearing this 60 percent threshold (see Table 2.2- 3 of the FEIS), it has initiated one of the first steps in the planning process, which is the Federal environmental review process. In this case, the Federal environmental review has taken the form of an EIS. database 10180I.As I 1 n LF I 11 The EIS process begins when the sponsor has identified a problem or when there is a request for FAA to approve a revision to an ALP or request Federal funding assistance. Also as discussed in Section 2.2.3.2 of the FEIS, PTAA is anticipated to reach the 80 percent threshold by approximately 2015 without the introduction of the air cargo sorting/distribution facility and by approximately 2008 with the introduction of the air cargo sorting/distribution facility. 2-104 Comment Will pilots agree to 'and and takeoff at times with a tailwind? Is it safe not only for the pilots but for the people on the ground? Does it subject the community to extra risk? Response Based on the wind analysis conducted for the Master Plan and incorporated in the FEIS in Section 5. 1, the air cargo planes are anticipated to be able to operate in a head-to-head configuration, from the southwest- to-the-southwest, for approximately 95 percent of FedEx operations. For the other 5 percent of FedEx operations, aircraft would either arrive from the south and depart to the north or arrive from the north and depart to the south. Air Traffic Control personnel would route air traffic such that arrival or departure operations would not result in a safety problem. All aircraft operations are conducted in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations that prescribe the safe operations to and from the airport terminal airspace. 2-105 Comment Will the airport actually operate during the FedEx landing period with planes going in both directions, or will the other cargo planes takeoff during that period to the northeast? Response Based on the wind analysis conducted for the Master Plan and incorporated in the FEIS in Section 5.1, the air cargo planes are anticipated to be able to operate in a head-to-head configuration, from the southwest- to-the-southwest, for approximately 95 percent of FedEx operations. For the other 5 percent of FedEx operations, aircraft would either arrive from the south and depart to the north or arrive from the north and depart to the south. Air Traffic Control personnel would route air traffic such that arrival or departure operations would i'.ot result in a safety problem. It is anticipated that if the airport is operating in a head-to- head scenario, Air Traffic Control would direct all aircraft in the arrival or departure stream to operate under the same scenario as FedEx air cargo aircraft. In all instances, operations currently are, and would continue to be, conducted in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations that prescribe the safe operations to and from the airport terminal airspace. 2-106 Comment RESERVED Response 2-107 Comment RESERVED Response 2-108 Comment RESERVED Response 2-109 Comment The decision to eliminate the Citizens Scoping Alternative is both arbitrary and capricious, under Title 49 USC 47106(c)(1)(c). Response As an alternative to the proposed project at PTIA, the Citizen's Scoping Alternative did not meet all of the Level 1 screening criteria and therefore, was not retained for further analysis in the EIS in accordance with CEQ regulations, 40, CFR Parts 1500-1508. database 101801.xis 2-110 Comment Title 49 USC 47106(c)(1)(c) requires as a condition to granting Federal funds, an analysis of "possible and prudent" alternatives for a new runway where significant impacts will occur. By URS Greiner, Inc.'s own admission at the Public Hearing on May 23, 2000, it eliminated the Citizens' Plan solely based on the criteria of FedEx and not whether it was "possible and prudent". Therefore, the "Sponsor's Purpose and Need" of the DEIS is based on specific criteria to benefit a private entity, and not for the public good. Title 49 USC 47107(a)(4)(a) requires a company providing services to the public not be given an exclusive right to use the airport if "the right would be unreasonably costly, burdensome, or impractical". Response The two level alternatives screening process that was utilized in the FEIS first evaluated each alternative for its ability to meet the purpose and need for the proposed project. The use of the two-level alternatives screening evaluation fulfilled FAA's obligations under the referenced statute in that it was used to develop a range of alternatives that are considered "possible" (can it be done) prudent (should it be done) and reasonable. In the case of the Citizens Scoping Alternative, yes it could be done, but no, it should not be done because it does not meet the purpose and need for the proposed project. The Citizen's Scoping Alternative did not meet two of the 1st level screening criteria. That is, it did not provide the ability to conduct dual-simultaneous independent operations (or efficient head-to-head operations) and it did not meet the operational requirements of the sorting/distribution facility. Therefore, it was not retained for further analysis. If the project goes forward, the PTAA is obligated under Federal statute to ensure that all airport facilities are available to all users. 2-111 Comment By URS Greiner, Inc.'s own admission, they never read the Citizens Scoping Alternative, much less any fair evaluation. Response The FAA and its' consultants thoroughly reviewed and considered the Citizen's Scoping Alternative in the EIS process. Please see Section 3.3. of the FEIS. 2-112 Comment The Citizens Scoping Alternative would cost $120 million less than the sponsor's plan and would require less site preparation than other alternatives because of its relatively level terrain and nearby utilities. Thereby, elimination of full evaluation of this plan will violate Title 49 USC 40101 and Title 42 USC 4332(2)(E). Response Please see response to Comment 2-109. 2-113 Comment The elimination of the Citizens Scoping Alternative is a violation of Title 49 USC 40101 give the highest priority to the public interest; it does not enhance safety and security. Response Please see response to Comment 2-109. 2-114 Comment because it does not The configuration of the runways in the Citizens Scoping Alternative is identical to the ALP and Master Plan that PTAA adopted in 1990 and consistent with development plans that were part of the 1994 ALP and Master Plan. There was no public hearing for either the 1994 ALP or 1999 ALP, which is a violation of North Carolina state statutes. Therefore, it may be argued that the current PTIA ALP is actually the 1990 plan. A database_101801.xis i Response The Citizen's Scoping Alternative is not consistent with the 1994 FAA-conditionally approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP) because the Citizen's Scoping Alternative depicts a 7,000-foot widely-spaced parallel runway. The 1994 ALP depicts a 10,000-foot widely-spaced parallel runway. The 1999/2000 ALP also depicts a 10,000 foot widely spaced parallel runway (initial 9,000 foot runway with a potential 1,000 foot extension). There is no State of North Carolina requirement for public hearings of the Airport Sponsor's (PTAA) Master Plan or ALP, or the FAA's conditional acceptance of an ALP. 2-115 Comment The proposed cargo facility in the Citizens Scoping Alternative will not be in the RPZ of the third runway. Response PTIA's 1994 Airport Master Plan Update and FAA-conditionally approved Airport Layout Plan depict a new parallel runway designated as Runway 5U23R which has a runway centerline-to-runway centerline separation distance of 5,487.5 feet. The new runway is proposed as a transport-category runway, having a length of 10,000 feet and a width of 150 feet. The Runway Protection Zones (RPZs) associated with the approach to Runway 5L would be trapezoidal in shape, and starting 200 feet beyond the runway end, have an inner width of 1,000 feet, a length of 2,500 feet, and an outer width of 1,750 feet. The RPZ would encompass approximately 90 percent of the land area proposed for the air cargo sorting/distribution facility in the Citizen's Scoping Alternative. As such, the proposed development of a sorting/distribution facility within the bounds of an RPZ would not meet the FAA standards and recommendations for airport design as prescribed in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Change 5, Airport Design. Other proximity, development, and operational issues related to the geometric design standards of the associated Runway Safety Area (RSA), Runway Object Free Area ROFA), TERPS, and the FAR Part 77 Inner-most Approach Surface to Runway 5L would serve to further reduce the available sorting/distribution facility development area as proposed in the Citizens Alternative to less than 300 contiguous acres. 2-116 Comment Any lost time in staggered landing operations will be recaptured in the shortened taxi times of the Citizens Scoping Alternative. Response An analysis of staggered landing and departure intervals and taxi times associated with the Citizens Scoping Alternative was not provided to the FAA by the citizens for evaluation purposes as part of either the Scoping process or the comment process on the DEIS. Therefore, the FAA could not conduct an evaluation of the validity of the statement made in this comment. 2-117 Comment I Title 49 USC 47107 (a)(1) states, "The airport will be available for public use on reasonable conditions and without unjust discrimination." Placement of a parallel runway in a position that will make it uneconomical for other commercial and private aircraft to use is not reasonable and discriminatory. Response As a Federally funned Public Use Air Carrier Airport, all runways are available for use without discrimination. The proposed use of widely-space parallel runways will serve to increase airport capacity, reduce delay and provide greater airside access for certain existing and future developed areas of the airport. Beyond the potential for additional taxi times to and from the new parallel runway for non-FedEx aircraft identified by the TAAM analysis, no adverse economic impacts to any non-FedEx operator are ' evident or projected in the EIS. 2-118 Comment ' The proposed project at PTIA will benefit a few people at the expense of their neighbors. Response The economic benefits and cost of the proposed project are discussed in Section 5.4 of the FEIS. database 101801.xls 2-119 Comment I support Alternative N-E. Response Comment noted. i LJ L?_ 2-120 Comment The Summary Table S-1 (same as Alternatives Table 3.3.3.1) should include the missing information listed as "TBD". Response Information listed in Tables S-1 and 3.3.3.1 of the DEIS as "TBD" has been finalized and included in the FEIS. 2-121 Comment In Figure S-3 in the Summary Section, Alternative WE should include runway length and separation dimensions. Response Comment noted. Figure S-3 in the FEIS has been modified to reflect both runway length and separation for Alternative N-E. r 2-122 Comment The location of FedEx will NOT be positive for Greensboro. It should be located in Goldsboro, NC which the Governor and State Legislature designated as a "legitimate" cargo hub. Response Comment noted. 2-123 Comment Isn't it your responsibility to recommend the alternative with the least amount of human and environmental damage? By rejecting Kinston, you have neglected that responsibility. Response ' The role of the FAA in the EIS process is to consider and evaluate an airport sponsors' proposed project in terms of potential impacts to the human environment and to render an environmental determination in the form of a Record of Decision. It is ultimately up to the airport sponsor and local communities whether to construct and operate the proposed improvements. The FAA's objective in this process is to enhance environmental quality and avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts that might result from a proposed Federal :action. The FAA considers numerous factors in the initial evaluation of alternatives for a proposed project and when recommending a Preferred Alternative in the ROD. These factors include, but are not limited to factors such as long-term operational benefit, environmental impact, and cost. The FAA .strives to select an alternative that provides the most long-term operational benefit with the least environmental impact and cost. Please see Chapter 3, Alternatives, of the FEIS for more information. For informational purposes, the FAA evaluated the Global TransPark at Kinston, North Carolina for its abilities to fully meet the stated purpose and need for the proposed project. Because the Global TransPark did not meet the purpose and need for the proposed project, it was not retained for further consideration in the EIS. 2-124 Comment Your rejection of the Kinston alternative is arbitrary and capricious. It demands an in-depth consideration and should receive your support. Response , See response to Comment 2-92. H database_101801.xis I 2-125 Comment If it is determined ±'iat the FedEx Hub is suitable for our area, the airport should be moved to a lesser ' populated area and more convenient to the population it serves. Response During the calendar year 1999, PTIA served as one of the nations 70 Small Hub airport and enplaned between 0.05 and 0.25 percent of the total enplaned passengers in the United States. Within North Carolina, the airport serves as one of the State's 14 primary/Commercial Service Airports and was served by eight commercial air carriers and six cargo carriers. Throughout the history of the airport, it has successfully served to meet the growing transportation needs of travelers of scheduled air service, general ' aviation, and air cargo operators within the Triad. The FEIS did not examine existing or potential future changes in air travel demand, aeronautical role of the airport, or the potential need to relocate PTIA. i LJ i! r database_101801.xis Piedmont Triad International Airport 3. Noise 3-1 Comment Noise from the airplanes will interfere with sleep, telephone and general conversations, television, children's ability to learn, and other adverse physical and psychological effects. Response ' The EIS uses FAA's approved DNL noise metric as well as other supplemental noise metrics such as single event noise levels (Sound Exposure Levels or SEL's) and average noise levels (Leq noise levels at .night- 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. or Leq(9) ) to evaluate noise impacts from the proposed project. SEL's were used to evaluate sleep disturbance impacts, while the Leq(9) were used to represent noise impact at night since the time would be typical of the air cargo operations at night. Please see Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 in the EIS for further information. 3-2 Comment Excessive number of trucks and added aircraft operations will add additional noise to areas in and around ' PTIA. Response Section 5.1.3 through 5.1.6 of the FEIS addresses noise impacts that result from aircraft and non-aircraft operations at PTIA. The additional nighttime air cargo flights will result in more people living within the DNL 65+ dBA noise contours. In addition, the increased number of trucks and automobiles associated with the new air cargo facility will slightly increase noise levels on roads leading to the air cargo sorting/distribution facility. However, these noise impacts will be mitigated by the PTAA as described in Section 6.3 of the FEIS. 3-3 Comment ' EPA's and HUD's noise goal of 55 decibels in residential areas is much lower than FAA's goal of 65 decibels. Response The FAA has an established policy of using the DNL 65 dBA as the "Threshold of Significance" for aircraft generated noise impacts. FAA considers noise levels below this threshold as being normally compatible with noise-sensitive residential land use. ' 3-4 Comment Please have noise monitored at my house for impacts. Response Prior to the start of the noise analysis for the EIS, monitoring of the existing noise environment around PTIA was undertaken. Measurements were undertaken at representative locations and cannot be undertaken at all requested locations (See Section 4.2.5.2 and Appendix B of the EIS for further information). 3-5 Comment Potential growth in use of PTIA should be considered in assessing noise impacts. Response Forecasted growth in all aircraft activity at PTIA up to the year 2019 is accounted for in the EIS analysis (see Section 5.1.2.2 of the FEIS for further information). 3-6 Comment 1 Aircraft noise will not effect the local homeowners north of PTIA since the addition of the third runway will allow aircraft to take off in a southerly direction. I database 101801.xis Response Since operations will occur to the south for 95% of FedEx operations, homeowners to the north of the airport will receive overflights only 5% of FedEx operations on an annual basis. During this 5% of FedEx operations, areas to the north of the airport will receive noise impacts similar to those experienced by areas to the south. 3-7 Comment Noise levels are currently unacceptable. Response Comment noted. 3-8 Comment Noise complaints to PTIA will increase if the third runway is in operation. Response Comment noted. 3-9 Comment Noise from planes departing PTIA at 3-5 am will be directly over our homes, which are only a few thousand feet away. Response Comment noted. 3-10 Comment A Noise Abatement Policy needs to be put into action in the surrounding area. Response The PTAA has committed to implementing a noise mitigation plan to reduce noise impacts to the areas , surrounding PTIA. For aircraft operations, this program includes the voluntary acquisition of residential parcels within the DNL 70 to 75 dBA noise contours as well as the voluntary acoustical treatment of residences within the DNL 65 to 70 dBA noise contour. For increased truck traffic noise, roadway noise , barriers were considered in several analysis areas to mitigate noise impacts. Two noise barriers were initially considered feasible as discussed in Section 6.2 of the FEIS. However, both of these noise barriers ' " exceed NCDOT s cost criterion for reasonableness". During the final design phase of the proposed roadway improvements, the reasonableness of these two barriers should be re-evaluated weighing the relative benefits against the adverse effects. Please see Section 6.3 of the FEIS for further information . 3-11 Comment Noise associated with PTIA is no different than freight railroad lines. , Response Comment noted. 3-12 Comment Noise can be blocked out of the resident's mind just as they do with anything else they want to ignore. Response Comment noted. 3-13 Comment A little more noise generated by PTIA should not prevent the FedEx hub from coming to Greensboro. Response Comment noted. 3-14 Comment Residents will get use to the noise generated from the FedEx planes. Response Comment noted. database 101801.xis 3-15 Comment Noise is a major concern associated with the proposed project because it is concentrated into 2-one-hour ' periods in the middle of the night. Response Noise associated with the FedEx facility would be spread out over a several hour period during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.). Please see Section 5.1 of the FEIS for a detailed description of proposed FedEx operations at PTIA. 3-16 Comment ' Single event noise levels or peak noise need to be used in deciding whether the proposed project is compatible with existing land use in the vicinity of PTIA. Response The FEIS uses supplemental noise metrics such as single event noise levels (Sound Exposure Levels or SEL's) and average noise levels (Leq noise levels at night - 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. or Leq(9) ) to evaluate additional noise impacts from the proposed project. SEL's are used to evaluate sleep disturbance impacts, while the Leq(9) are used to represent the FedEx impact at night since the time would be typical of operations at night (See Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 in the FEIS for further information). 3-17 Comment Destroying heavily wooded areas will lessen the natural noise buffer we now have from PTIA. Response Extensive, heavily-wooded areas may reduce noise levels from aircraft on the ground, but only if the wooded areas are sufficiently dense. The current standard for outdoor sound propagation, published by the International Standards Organization (ISO), allows for a small amount of sound attenuation caused by dense foliage, "but only if it is sufficiently dense to completely block the view along the propagation path" (ISO, Acoustics - Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors - Part 2: A General Method of Calculation, International Standard ISO 9613-2, Geneva, 1996). At typical speech-communication ' frequencies, the standard allows for approximately 1 dBA of attenuation for trees 10 to 20 meters thick, up to a maximum of about 12 dBA for 200 meters of dense trees. 3-18 Comment FedEx's hush-kilted aircraft still produce more noise than aircraft originally equipped with noise controls. Response Older technology aircraft are hush-kitted to meet the Stage 3 noise standards. These aircraft are typically noisier (especially on departure) than newer technology aircraft originally built to Stage 3 standards. It should also be noted that numerous other air cargo and air carrier operators at PTIA also use older technology hush-kitted aircraft. 3-19 Comment Will the EIS include noise monitoring of existing conditions? Response Prior to the start of the noise analysis for the EIS, noise monitoring of the existing environment was 1 undertaken (See Section 4.2.5.2 and Appendix B of the FEIS for further information). 3-20 Comment Is it true that take-off thrust noise is louder behind the plane, rather than the direction it is heading to on take-off? Response Noise from turbine-powered jet aircraft is noisiest at an angle of 45 degrees off the tail of the aircraft and is somewhat less directly behind the aircraft. 3-21 Comment Can PTAA be required to install noise measuring equipment near the subdivision so that changing conditions can be monitored? database 101801.xls Response ' The PTAA cannot be required to measure noise levels. However, the PTAA has committed to a plan of installing noise monitoring equipment to measure noise levels around PTIA as part of the PTANs noise mitigation program (See Section 6.3 of the FEIS for further information). ' 3-22 Comment Since most of FedEx's takeoffs will be from 3-5 a.m. when 95% of the residents will be sleeping, will special accommodations be made to more heavily weight the noise factor? Response The INM already assigns a 10 dB penalty for nighttime operations, therefore, special accommodations to more heavily weigh the DNL analysis in the EIS was not performed. FAA did provide supplemental metrics analysis in the FEIS to more fully disclose the impacts of nighttime noise. 3-23 Comment Did PTIA comply with the provision of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 and the 1982 Airport Act when it changed its ALP to depict a 9,000-foot parallel runway instead of a 4,000-foot runway? Response PTAA complied with all required Federal guidelines in the development of their ALP and Master Plan document. The Acts referenced by the commentor do not come into affect until such time that the airport sponsor wishes to implement a project depicted on its ALP. The undertaking of this EIS is one of the first steps that the airport sponsor is taking to comply with said acts. 3-24 Comment Are noise complaint calls reviewed by the FAA and who will I be able to call about the noise generated by FedEx? Response Noise complaints are not reviewed by the FAA for a particular airport. However, the PTAA has committed to the development of a noise mitigation plan as part of the EIS for PTIA (See Section 6.3 of the FEIS for i further information). This mitigation plan could result in the establishment of an noise abatement office to receive, record, and respond to noise complaints. The airport sponsor should be called to report noise complaints . 3-25 Comment Why does the Raleigh/Durham Airport operate under 55dBA guidelines and PTIA is allowed to use 65dBA as the norm? Response Raleigh-Durham International Airport uses the DNL 55 dBA noise contour to document noise levels further ' out from the airport, although there is no requirement to do so. The DNL 55 dBA contour is also used as a basis for its real estate disclosure ordinance and is provided to local municipalities for land use planning purposes. Raleigh-Durham does not represent the DNL 55 dBA noise contour as a level that defines noise impact, which is still the DNL 65 dBA noise contour. Upon completion of the FEIS and issuance of a Record of Decision, local planning departments in the PTIA area have indicated to the FAA that they intend to use the DNL 60 or 55 dBA noise contour for future land use planning in the airport area. 3-26 Comment How will you mitigate when the FAA recognizes that 40-50dBA causes interference with sleep? Response The PTAA has committed to a mitigation plan that includes the sound insulation of residences within the ' DNL 65 to 70 dBA noise contours. Sound insulating homes will help minimize sleep disruption impacts. 3-27 Comment I Southwesterly take-offs of cargo jets will create large amounts of noise for residential areas north-northeast of the proposed runway. database 101801.xls I Response The noise contours presented in the FEIS result in higher noise levels to the southwest of the airport. ' However, start-of-takeoff roll noise would be noticeable in the areas to the northeast of the airport. 3-28 Comment Noise studies conducted at other FedEx locations should be taken into consideration. Response Studies that are conducted at another airport would reflect different assumptions including fleet mix, runway use, flight tracks, operational levels, operating times, etc. and would not result in information that would directly correlate with future conditions at PTIA. 3-29 Comment Every effort should be made to maintain the existing 65 DNL contour line and to establish a new 65 DNL contour line for the new runway consistent with current and projected operations. Response The 65 DNL noise contours are presented for both existing and future conditions using current and 3-30 Comment . Other than increased noise, this is not a business that will increase pollution or greatly utilize water resources. Response Potential impacts to other environmental categories are documented and disclosed in Chapter 5 of the FEIS. ' 3-31 Comment The FedEx project should be viewed as an opportunity to develop a noise minimization plan for the entire area while accommodating FedEx within that framework. Response Comment Noted. Please see response to Comment 3-10. 3-32 Comment A study should be completed on noise levels of 60 aircraft arriving and/or departing an hour at 3:00 a.m. Response By the year 2019 it is projected that FedEx would have 63 aircraft arriving and departing from PTIA. These arrivals and departures would occur over an eight hour period between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. It should also be noted that 18 of these aircraft are projected to be single-engine turboprop aircraft that generate significantly less noise than the larger air carrier type aircraft. 3-33 Comment I am concerned about noise factors so close to residential areas. Response The EIS uses FAA's approved DNL noise metric as well as other supplemental noise metrics such as single event noise levels (Sound Exposure Levels or SEL's) and average noise levels (Leq noise levels at night - 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. or Leq(9)) to evaluate the noise impacts from the proposed project. SEL's were used to evaluate sleep disturbance impacts, while the Leq(9) were used to represent noise impact at 1 night since the time would be typical of the air cargo operations at night. The FEIS addresses the fact that a small percentage of the population has the potential to experience sleep disturbance. The study also addresses the proposed mitigation plan for PTIA. The airport has committed to the voluntary acquisition of ' all noise sensitive properties within the DNL 70 and 75 dBA noise contours, the voluntary sound insulation of all property between the DNL 65 and 70 dBA noise contour, the installation of a noise and operations monitoring system, and the development of a FAR Part 150 noise compatibility study. Please see Sections 5.1.3, 5.1.4, and 6.3 in the FEIS for further information. projected operations. Please see Sections 4.2.5 and 5.1 respectively of the FEIS. I database 101801.x1s 3-34 Comment Noise monitoring locations: Why wasn't the study made to the east of PTIA? Response Noise monitoring locations were selected to represent specific noise-sensitive areas along the extended runway for evaluation of the existing noise conditions in the PTIA area. No noise measurements were undertaken in the areas to the east of the airport because the primary flow of operations at PTIA is in the North and South directions. 3-35 Comment Is the "high-speed taxiway" proposed East/West? If so, noise levels to the east will be unbearable for nearby residents. Response The high-speed taxiway is proposed for existing Runway 5R. A normal taxiway is built 90 degrees to the runway. Aircraft must almost stop on the runway before they can turn off onto the taxiway. A high-speed taxiway is built at an angle less than 90 degrees to the runway. This type of taxiway allows aircraft to depart the runway at a much higher speed reducing time on the runway and reducing arrival delays. In reality, an aircraft that can use a high-speed taxiway would not have to use reverse thrust as long to slow to an acceptable speed and therefore, such an arrival would result in lower noise levels in the community. 3-36 Comment Noise models and results in the EIS study are flawed. Response The noise model used in the FEIS is the current accepted methodology for FAA airport noise studies. The results as presented in the FEIS meet all current FAA environmental guidelines. 3-37 3-38 3-39 3-40 Comment North Carolina and/or PTIA should pass a law/curfew for no air traffic between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. to reduce noise. Response A curfew at PTIA between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. would not fit into the operational plan for an overnight air cargo sorting facility at PTIA. Comment What will be the noise level during the estimated 5% of flights to takeoff to the northeast? Response Maximum noise levels at specific points to the northeast are presented in Appendix B-2 in the FEIS. Figure 5.1.3-1 presents the location of the specific points. The maximum noise levels at the specific points would result from aircraft departures. Comment FedEx must have the latest quiet engines. _ IL I Ll 1 Response All FedEx aircraft and all other air carrier or air cargo aircraft operating at PTIA meet the latest FAA Stage 3 noise standards. All aircraft are using either the latest technology engines or are hush-kitted to meet the standards. Comment Use both sound measurements and comments to evaluate impacts of noise. Response Noise measurements were taken and were used to help evaluate the noise impacts of the alternatives for the proposed project. The FAA has reviewed all comments received during the EIS process and will use them in the development of the agency's Record of Decision. database_101801.xis , 3-41 Comment Have a phone operate as closely as possible to expected conditions for a whole shift to measure noise impacts. Response It is not possible to develop or monitor a test for future impacts. 3-42 Comment The noise cone maps are useless and do not reflect reality. Response ' Please see response to Comment 3-36. 3-43 Comment It is ground movement noise that is problematic in my neighborhood. Response Impacts of roadway noise, aircraft taxi, and non-aircraft (GPU) ground operations are presented in Sections 5.1.5 and 5.1.6 respectively of the FEIS. Mitigation for the Preferred Alternative is presented in Section 6.3 of the FEIS. 3-44 Comment Trucks are federally regulated for noise. They have to pass a maximum reading of 80dba. Response ' Comment noted. An evaluation of highway noise is included in the FEIS in Section 5.1.5. 3-45 Comment ' No provision is made to calculate echo and re-echo effects in and around residential buildings. Response The FAA's Integrated Noise Model used in the analysis does not account for the echo or reflections encountered around large, flat, solid structures. 3-46 Comment Noise contours should show the entire Triad area along with the decibel levels FedEx aircraft will generate. ' Response FAA orders that guide the preparation of EIS's dictate that the DNL 65 dBA noise contour be presented to show areas that could be impacted by noise. For areas outside of the DNL 65 dBA noise contours, the specific points presented in Figure 5.1.3-1 could be used with the Lmax noise levels (See Appendix B-2) and the SEL noise levels (See Section 5.1.3 and 5.1.4) to represent noise levels in other areas. 3-47 Comment Shifting the location of the sorting facility and lengthening the crosswind runway is based on the concept of simply shifting the burden of aircraft noise onto others without due consideration of that impact. Response ' The alternatives evaluated in the EIS included possible combinations of runway and sorting/distribution facility scenarios which had the potential to fulfill the purpose and need for the proposed project. (See Section 3.2 of the FEIS for further information) 3-48 Comment There are changes in simple departure procedures and departure routes that can be applied to PTIA to lessen the impact of aircraft noise. Response The PTAA has committed in the FEIS to developing a noise mitigation program for PTIA. The mitigation plan includes undertaking a FAR Part 150 Study, which would include a detailed evaluation of the departure procedures and departure routes (See Section 6.2.1 and 6.3 of the FEIS for further information). ' database 101801.xts 3-49 Comment I Your noise information strategy should include and acknowledge that noise will affect people outside the noise contours but that mitigation of those impacts will not normally be available to them. Response I Some people residing outside of the 65 DNL noise contours have the potential to experience sleep disturbance as a result of the proposed project. Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 of the FEIS discuss these potential impacts. At this time, the PTAA has committed to a Mitigation Program (see Section 6.3 of the FEIS) that offers mitigation only to homeowners within the 65 DNL noise contours. 3-50 Comment What is an acceptable noise level for residential areas? Response FAA considers noise levels below DNL 65 dBA to be acceptable for noise-sensitive areas such as I residences (See Appendix D in the FEIS for further information). 3-51 Comment Noise monitoring for only nine days in the middle of January when airport activity is low is not adequate for baseline modeling. Response Short-term noise measurements on the order of a few days to a few weeks are typically not representative of average noise levels on an annual basis. However, it should be noted that the noise measurements were used to establish baseline noise levels in selected areas, and were not used for noise modeling , purposes. 3-52 Comment ' Please explain how you determine noise contours and what DNL means? Response Detailed explanation of the noise contour development and DNL metric are provided in Sections 5.1.2, 5.1.3, and 5.1.4 of the FEIS. 3-53 Comment Have the removal of trees affected the noise modeling? ' Response Noise modeling is unaffected by the removal of trees. The noise model assumes soft flat ground. 3-54 Comment The increased noise from the TIMCO facility should be known about, forecasted, and used in modeling noise from PTIA? ' Response Existing ground noise from the TIMCO facility was not specifically modeled in the EIS. Information provided to the FAA indicates that FedEx is not projected to use the TIMCO facility, therefore noise emanating from this facility would be the same regardless of whether the proposed project were implemented or not. 3-55 Comment Why is PTAA working with residents from the Johnson Street area and their attorneys on noise matters? Response PTAA staff are providing guidance for the development of the Johnson Street area. This work is not related to the FEIS. 3-56 Comment Why would FedEx participate in such a mammoth project without due consideration to noise abatement or not take the initiative in seekin communit acce tance? g y p database_10180I.As I f Response The FAA cannot speak on why FedEx did or did not take specific actions in the site selection process or operational configuration of their proposed Mid-Atlantic Hub. However, the FAA has provided several opportunities for public input during the EIS process and the PTAA has committed to the development of a noise mitigation program for PTIA as a result of implementing the Preferred Alternative. 3-57 Comment There are several corridors of industrial, commercial, and agricultural development more suitable for late night overflight and that the "95% agreement" itself arbitrarily diverts aircraft noise from one area to another. Response The 95% from the south-to the south operational scenario proposed by FedEx provides maximum efficiency for FedEx operations based on the prevailing winds, the orientation of the runways and the location of the sorting/distribution facility. The 95% operational scenario is allowed due to the low or calm winds that tend to occur during the nighttime hours. The PTAA has committed in this EIS to the development of a noise mitigation plan for PTIA which includes the preparation of a FAR Part 150 noise compatibility study. This plan will evaluate the possibility of placing aircraft flight corridors over non-noise sensitive land use. See Section 6.3 of the FEIS for further information. 3-58 Comment There are many examples of other airports with cargo hubs that have implemented noise mitigation measures including the purchase of homes similar to the corridor used in this EIS. Response Comment noted. ' 3-59 Comment By the time the FedEx Hub opens, technology will enable operations to be much quieter and less noxious to our environment. Response Although there may be advanced technology in the future that provides for quieter aircraft, the analysis in the FEIS is based on current technology and aircraft types that are forecast to be in operation during the time period evaluated within the FEIS. 3-60 Comment I was told there is a 10 DNL penalty for night flights. Does that mean only an average of 55 DNL is The DNL noise metric applies a 10 dBA penalty to all aircraft generated noise that occurs between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. DNL levels below 65 DNL are considered acceptable for noise-sensitive ' residential areas. Ground noise issues for the Preferred Alternative are evaluated in Section 5.1.6 of the FEIS. ' 3-61 Comment Use FedEx loaded planes during the nighttime operating hours for a valid test. Response The FAA has not received any indication from either the PTAA or FedEx that actual tests of fully loaded aircraft would be conducted. 3-62 Comment Why do your 1998 Noise Contours differ from the Guilford County Land Use Planners Noise Cone? acceptable? Response What about noise from the facility where the planes will be sitting all night with loud engines? database 101801.x1s Response The noise contours presented in the Guilford County Comprehensive Land Use Plan reflect noise contours based upon 1986 data. This information could include many different assumptions that would result in different noise contours, the most important being that the majority of aircraft in 1986 were the older and noisier Stage 2 aircraft. The noise contours in the FEIS for 1998 reflect the latest data and assumptions for PTIA and are representative of actual conditions. 3-63 Comment Noise events that will be generated by the proposed project are definitely not continuous or repetitive and call for SEL rather than LDN analysis. Response The FEIS provides an analysis of supplemental noise metrics including single event noise levels (Sound Exposure Levels or SEL's) to evaluate potential sleep disturbance noise impacts from the proposed project. See Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 in the FEIS for further information. 3-64 Comment , What is the significance of a 1-hour DNL vs. Nighttime average? Would it be better to have two concentrated periods of landings and takeoffs vs. operations spread out over a greater period of time? Response DNL is a 24-hour noise metric which is the accepted noise metric for use in FAA Environmental Impact Statements. It is not possible to determine a 1 hour DNL. Because FedEx operations are anticipated to occur between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., the nighttime average noise is presented in the FEIS , as Leq(9), which represents the average noise for the 9-hour time period during which FedEx would conduct its operations. 3-65 Comment Why would the EIS not survey to determine the percentage of populations experiencing sleep disturbance at a given DNL at existing installations adjacent to residential areas? Response ' See response to Comment 3-63. 3-66 Comment I PTIA held up the development of Fraizer Downs (residential area) at the corner of Gallimore Dairy Road and Sandy Ridge Road because it would be in the noise cone. Now they are proceeding to build homes. Response I Comment noted. PTIA has provided information to homeowners and developers regarding its noise contours whenever asked. The PTAA had no authority to prevent the development of Fraizer Downs, nor I the construction of homes in the area. 3-67 Comment The FAA should develop non-A weighted contour maps to compare with FAA's typical A-weighted maps. Response , DNL noise contours are A-weighted and are the accepted noise metric used by the FAA in airport noise studies. 3-68 Comment ' FAA's noise maps should include the 55-dBA LDN contour. The additional noise contour map will disclose areas impacted by 55-65 dBA LDN noise levels that are not currently addressed by standard FAA policy. database_101801.xls I 11 7 1 Response The EIS depicts the 65 DNL noise contour because it is the FAA's Threshold of Significance with compatible land use. FAA environmental guidelines do not require the development and presentation of 55 or 60 DNL noise exposure contours in its' environmental documents. However, after the ROD is issued by the FAA, the PTAA can provide local planning departments with the 60 and 55 DNL noise exposure contours for use in establishing local land use controls and zoning ordinances. 3-69 Comment People living outside the noise contour will be impacted by noise too. Response Some people living outside the 65 DNL noise exposure contour would experience increased noise. However, the increase would be below FAA's threshold of significance. 3-70 Comment Does the FAA really believe that their first, computer generated noise study of the proposed PTIA FedEx hub will pinpoint the full extent of the noise problems that would be created by the FedEx hub or is the Triad destined to relive the noise problems that the families and communities in Indianapolis were forced to live through and still do on a daily basis? Response FAA has undertaken a thorough analysis of anticipated noise impacts at PTIA through the year 2019 in the FEIS. The disclosure of potential noise impacts in the FEIS is based on the best available information at the time the document was prepared. If operational conditions unforeseen in the FEIS occur at PTIA, then the noise environment in the PTIA area would have to be reevaluated by the PTAA. 3-71 Comment Since the FAA has indicated that, "all of the alternatives would result in exceedances of the Threshold of Significance, and mitigation would be considered," how does the FAA intend to deal with the noise impact to households and communities? Response Please see response to Comment 3-10. 3-72 Comment Since the noise problems in Indianapolis extend at least 5 1/2 miles southwest from the end of that airport's runways, how does the FAA suggest that the Triad's problems will end about 3 miles from PTIA's runways? Response PTIA's noise contours are based on runway use, daily operations, aircraft types, and other factors that would be present at PTIA when the FedEx facility is operating. The FedEx facility in Indianapolis has different operating characteristics therefore the noise contours are different. 3-73 Comment What percentage of the FedEx cargo planes, that would be destined to land at the proposed FedEx hub at PTIA, are still the old 737s, DC-9s and 727s that have been retrofitted with hushkits? Response In the year 2005, a total of 24 FedEx aircraft would be operating at PTIA. Out of the 24 aircraft, 5 are expected to be single-engine turboprop aircraft. Of the remaining 19 jet aircraft, 10 are projected to be larger, newer technology A-310 or DC10 aircraft and 9 would be the older technology hush-kitted 8727 aircraft. By the year 2019, a total of 63 FedEx aircraft would be operating at PTIA. Out of the 63 aircraft, 18 are expected to be single-engine turboprop aircraft. Of the remaining 45 jet aircraft, 25 are projected to be larger newer technology A-310 or DC10 aircraft and 20 would be a combination of either the older technology hush-kitted B727 aircraft or some newer technology aircraft represented by the B737. database_101801.xls 3-74 Comment Fed Ex is both a major user and seller of the hushkits, with the mufflers on 25 percent of its planes. Even though these hushkits meet the noise laws enacted in 1990, the European Union has banned them citing noise and air pollution, Did the FAA consider these types of FedEx cargo planes, retrofitted with inappropriate hushkits, when determining the noise cones for the proposed FedEx hub at PTIA? Response All hush-kitted FedEx aircraft and all other hush-kilted air carrier or air cargo aircraft operating at PTIA meet the latest FAA Stage 3 noise standards. These aircraft are in the fleet mix that was used in developing the noise contours at PTIA. 3-75 Comment Many airports across the country impose restrictions on aircraft operations, but PTIA has no restrictions. PTIA needs to have noise restrictions to be compatible with surrounding landuse. Response The PTAA has committed in the FEIS to the development of a noise mitigation program for PTIA. Although operating restrictions would not be compatible with operation of a late night air cargo sorting facility, this type of mitigation will be evaluated in the proposed FAR Part 150 Study. Please see Section 6.3 of the FEIS for further information. 11 3-76 Comment The use of average noise levels (DNQ does not sufficiently take into account the environmental impact of I instantaneous noise levels that the operational mode of FedEx will create in the early hours of the day. Response ' Please see response to Comment 3-1. 3-77 Comment FedEx should be required to minimize the noise impact on the surrounding neighborhood. If FedEx is not ' willing to abate nighttime noise then they should not be allowed to come to Greensboro. Response ' Please see response to Comment 3-10. 3-78 Comment The noise analysis is inaccurate and a broader problem because this area is hilly and there is nothing to absorb the sound. Response The noise analysis in the FEIS was undertaken using accepted FAA methodologies. However, the INM ' assumed soft, flat ground in the calculation of noise contours, which presents a worse case scenario of noise exposure. 3-79 Comment Were noise monitors placed in strategic locations to fit your study? Response , Noise measurements were undertaken at locations in the PTIA environs that represent major flight track corridors off existing and proposed runways (See Section 4.2.5.2 and Appendix B of the FEIS for further information). ' 3-80 Comment What will be the noise level at the time of take off and landing of several planes during late night hours? ' database_101801.xis I r ?7 1 1 Response The analysis in the FEIS used FAA's approved DNL noise metric as well as other supplemental noise metrics such as single event noise levels (Sound Exposure Levels or SEL's) and average noise levels (Leq noise levels at night -10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. or Leq(9) ) to evaluate noise impacts from the proposed project. SEL's were used to evaluate sleep disturbance impacts, while the Leq(9) were used to represent noise impact at night since the time would be typical of the air cargo operations at night. Please see Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 in the FEIS for further information. 3-81 Comment Wouldn't the noise levels at [night] be more disruptive to a persons life especially in respect to sleep time? Response Nighttime noise is generally more disruptive than daytime noise because ambient noise levels are typically lower at night. All noise affects different people in different ways. Some people are not bothered or only slightly bothered by noise levels that are considered excessive by someone else. The FEIS contains an analysis of potential Sleep Disturbance impacts in Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4. 3-82 Comment Has it been taken into account that noise levels from cargo planes is very high at take off? Response Noise levels from air cargo aircraft during all stages of operation have been factored into the noise model used in the FEIS. 3-83 Comment I propose decimal (decibel) testing that will verify the noise level in High Point during the day and night. Response Please see response to Comments 3-61 and 3-79. In addition, it is not possible to monitor a condition that does not exist yet. 3-84 Comment It was reported in the High Point Enterprise newspaper dated May 12, 2000 that 972 homes (generally a 4- 5 mile distance from the airport) have been purchased by the Indianapolis airport authority since the Fed Ex hub began operation. What was the initial FAA EIS estimate of homes in the 4-5 mile range that would be unsuitable for occupancy and require purchasing? What was the initial estimate of homes that would require soundproofing? What was the original cost estimate for both of these items and the actual amount spent? Response The initial estimates of homes eligible for participation in the Noise Mitigation Program for Indianapolis International Airport were as follows: 1) Fee Simple Acquisition - 130 homes; 2) Purchase Assurance/Sound Insulation - 359 homes, 3) Sales Assistance - 963 homes. The total cost was estimated to be approximately $80 million. The actual cost of the program has not been determined yet because the program is still on-going. 3-85 Comment The DEIS does not address aircraft noise on pets. Response Comment noted. The FEIS addresses noise impacts on humans only. 3-86 Comment Why doesn't the FAA also consider individual aircraft noise levels instead of an average level over a 24 hour period since it takes a single loud noise to wake people who are sleeping? It is requested that the FAA conduct single jet aircraft noise level measurements in all the residential areas effected by the proposed hub and consider this data in the final decision. Response See response to Comments 3-1, 3-6 and 3-81. I database 101801.xls 3-87 Comment Since the same type of aircraft used by Fed Ex in Indianapolis today will still be in operation when the PTIA hub opens, please explain logically how the PTIA noise contours can be smaller than Indy? If hushkits and phase three aircraft are really reducing the noise level shouldn't the noise contours be getting smaller? Response PTIA's noise contours are based on runway use, daily operations, aircraft types, and other factors that will be present at PTIA when the FedEx facility is operating. The FedEx facility in Indianapolis has different operating characteristics therefore the noise contours are different. 3-88 Comment Is it feasible to require all FedEx early morning aircraft heading south to turn west on take-off following Highway 40? Maintain this heading until they are at a suitable altitude before turning south. This would greatly reduce the engine noise for most residents in northern High Point. Response The PTAA has committed in this FEIS to the development and implementation of a noise mitigation program. Possible mitigation measures are addressed in Section 6.2.1 of the FEIS and the recommended mitigation program for the Preferred Alternative is discussed in Section 6.3 of the FEIS. In addition, PTAA has committed in this FEIS to undertake a FAR Part 150 Study after FAA publishes its ROD. This study will look at other means of mitigation such as early turns and noise berms. 3-89 Comment Are there plans to build a berm (or wall) at north end of airport to minimize ground noise? Response. . Please see response to Comment 3-88 and Section 5.1.6 of the FEIS. 3-90 Comment Engines facing northeast, on a southwest takeoff, will result in a majority of the noise heard by residential neighborhoods. Why is the EIS not showing a more accurate representation of noise impacts? 3-91 3-92 Response Southwest departures would result in noticeable noise in areas to the northeast of PTIA. However, the noise contours and associated analyses contained in the FEIS for each of the alternatives accurately represent the noise exposure that would be experienced by residents to the north of the airport because it includes noise from both arriving and departing aircraft. Comment Loss of sleep as a human cost is not dealt with in the DEIS. Response The EIS uses supplemental noise metrics such as single event noise levels (Sound Exposure Levels or SEL's) to evaluate sleep disruption impacts from the proposed facility (See Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 in the FEIS for further information). Comment The DEIS does not show any projection of total cost for noise mitigation. Response The PTAA has committed to a noise mitigation plan for PTIA. It is anticipated that the acquisition of up to 53 residences within the DNL 70 and 75 dBA contours would cost on the order of $4,548,531. The sound insulation of 209 homes would cost approximately $6,300,000. A noise and operations monitoring system would cost approximately $500,000, and a Part 150 Study would cost approximately $300,000. Therefore, the total projected : ost of the noise mitigation program would be approximately $11,648,531. These costs are based on impacts associated with Phase 2 of Alternative W1-A1. After completion of the Part 150 Study, additional measures may be implemented. Please see Section 6.3 in the FEIS for further information. 1 7 IL C database_101801.xls ' 3-93 Comment The study used computer modeling for the noise contours instead of actually measuring noise from existing runways. Response In the FEIS, noise measurements were used primarily to establish baseline noise levels in the PTIA environs. Noise modeling and the associated noise exposure contours were developed using the FAA's Integrated Noise Model (INM), which is the approved model for calculating aircraft generated noise impacts. 3-94 Comment Limited actual noise measurements were taken in January, when noise from airplanes are at their lowest. Noise increases significantly during the summer months. Response Short-term noise measurements on the order of a few days to a few weeks are typically not representative of average noise levels on an annual basis. Noise measurements were taken over a period of nine days in the PTIA environs and were used to establish baseline noise levels in selected areas. The results were not used for noise modeling purposes or to predict future noise levels. 3-95 Comment Residents that are within at least the 55-decibel contour should be acquired at full market value that existed before the announcement of expansion occurred. ' Response Please see response to Comments 3-3, 3-10 and 3-68. 3-96 Comment Will the Triad face the same extensive noise problems that have plagued Indianapolis? Response ' Noise impacts from the proposed FedEx facility at PTIA are clearly documented in the FEIS. Some residences are proposed for acquisition, while others would be offered sound insulation. Additional mitigation will be studied. It is likely that these are many of the same issues facing Indianapolis. ' 3-97 Comment The noise contours at Indianapolis have been revised on three separate occasions. Will the noise contours at PTIA keep changing further and further into surrounding areas until the entire community is ' destroyed, as in Indianapolis? Response The noise contours at PTIA were developed for the year 2005 and 2019 using the best available ' projections of operations and aircraft fleet mixes by airport operators, including FedEx. Although it is possible, it is unlikely that the noise levels would change within the 20-year planning period, unless the airport or FedEx substantially change the number of operations occurring at PTIA. 3-98 Comment In Indianapolis, why have the majority of homeowners opted for buyout rather than insulation in the ' Neighborhood Compatibility Programs? Response Information provided to the FAA indicates that out of the 50 homes included in the pilot program, 13 participated in the sound insulation program. Homeowners in the affected area were faced with a water supply issue in which new water lines needed to be laid, at the cost of $5,000 per home. Indications are that homeowners chose to participate in the purchase assurance program so as not to incur the $5,000 expense of the new water lines. The airport has since offered to pay $4,000 of the $5,000 cost per home to provide the new water lines. Since this program was implemented, indications are that more homeowners are interested in and participating in the Sound Insulation Program. ' 3-99 Comment Why do neighborhoods approximately 4.5 miles from Indianapolis International Airport have a pending noise lawsuit? This is the same distance northern High Point is from PTIA. database ,o,so,X Response I Homeowners who have filed suit against the Indianapolis International Airport live in an area that is not included in either the Purchase Assurance or Sound Insulation Noise Mitigation programs. Neither FAA nor PTAA can speculate on why a lawsuit has been filed. Regarding the implied comparison between IND and PTIA, noise impacts are affected by a number of variables (such as operations, type of aircraft, topography, etc.) which differ from airport to airport. Thus, noise analyses must be airport specific, and comparisons such as this one are not pertinent. 3-100 Comment How do you compensate for the impact on a resident's quality of life when their home must remain sealed ' to avoid noise? How do you propose to soundproof yards and parks? Response Homes located between the DNL 65 dBA and 70 dBA noise contours would be offered sound insulation as part of PTIA's noise mitigation program. This mitigation measure would reduce interior levels of aircraft noise, although it would require the doors and windows to be closed. Sound insulation of outside spaces such as backyards and parks is not possible. ' 3-101 Comment Planes taxiing to and from the sorting facility and waiting to be unloaded and loaded should be a part of the ' noise analysis. Response Impacts of aircraft taxi and non-aircraft (GPU) ground operations are presented in Section 5.1.6 of the FEIS. ' 3-102 Comment Based on the EIS, .the noise impact is limited. Response Comment noted. 3-103 Comment Who did you survey to determine 65 decibels is "tolerable"? Tolerable for how long? What age group? Day or nighttime conditions? Under what weather conditions? , Response It has long been accepted by the scientific community that the DNL metric correlates well with community annoyance from aircraft noise. Studies show that at DNL 65 dBA, approximately 13% of the population , would be highly annoyed at this level of noise. DNL 65 dBA has been set and accepted by the FAA as the level for land use compatibility. ' 3-104 Comment Jets are to be routed over commercial, industrial, and agricultural areas therefore minimizing the impact on residential neighborhoods. Response Comment noted. As part of the FAR Part 150 Study that will be undertaken by the PTAA after the FAA's ROD is issued, detailed analysis of operational measures that have a potential to minimize overflight noise ' on noise-sensitive residential areas will be accomplished. Please see Sections 6.2.1 and 6.3 in the FEIS for further information. 3-105 Comment Can the EPA confirm that there will be no sleep disturbance? Response The FEIS contains an evaluation of potential sleep disturbance impacts in Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4. Also, please see responses to Comments 3-80 and 3-81. 3-106 Comment ' Please inform me of the recourses available to me because of sleep depravation now and in the future. database_10180 1.xls u 11 11 it J Response Sound insulation would be offered to homeowners between the DNL 65 dBA and 70 dBA noise contours. Sound insulation typically reduces interior noise levels by between 20 and 25 dBA allowing residents more tolerable living conditions and helping to minimize sleep disruption impacts. Homeowners living outside of the 65 DNL noise contours will not be offered sound insulation or any other type of compensation. 3-107 Comment PTIA and local authorities have not seen fit to adopt what the FAA call the "1998 Existing Condition Noise Contours". This would give us immediate relief to restrictions on our Fleming Road property. Response The 1998 existing noise contours presented in the EIS have not yet been approved. As part of the Part 150 Study that will be developed after completion of the FEIS and the issuance of FAA's ROD, the existing noise contours would be formally accepted by the FAA and would at that point be able to be adopted by the airport and local land use planning agencies. 3-108 Comment In regard to noise documentation, we (EPA) believe that the DEIS does not provide a detailed description of the proposed air cargo facility and its potential impacts, particularly from a day-to-day operational point of view. The FEIS should disclose this operational information such as when FedEx air cargo flights would be arriving, how long they are on the ground, and when they depart. Specific time frames should be provided for each operation. Response The FEIS provides a detailed description of the proposed FedEx operation at PTIA, a schedule of proposed flight operations, an analysis to support the 95% runway use, and a general description of the noise contours that would result from the 95% FedEx runway use. Please see Sections 2.2, 3.2 and 5.1 of the FEIS for further information. 3-109 Comment The additional noise situation of noisy takeoff and landing events during the sensitive nighttime period of operation should also be better characterized. A metric more specific to this relatively short four-to-five hour time frame should be used for this analysis to supplement the averaged metrics (DNL and Leq(9) descriptors) used in the DEIS. Response The Leq(9) metric was used in the FEIS as opposed to an Leq(4) or Leq(5) because it is considered to be more representative of the actual time that FedEx aircraft would be operational at PTIA. For both Phase 1 and Phase 2, it was determined that arrivals and departures would generally occur over an eight to nine hour period between approximately 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 - 7:00 a.m. 3-110 Comment EPA is concerned that the parallel runway proposal would not only increase overall airport noise, but that new intrusive noise would be introduced almost daily due to the proposed air cargo express flight operations during sensitive late-night and early morning periods. ' Response The introduction of the air cargo hub at PTIA would increase the number of people in the PTIA area impacted by aircraft noise. These impacts are fully disclosed in Section 5.1 of the FEIS. A program to mitigate these impacts is presented in Section 6.3 of the FEIS. 3-111 Comment EPA believes that noise mitigation was not adequately addressed in the DEIS. The proposed action does not include adequate non-operational (land use) noise mitigation that is needed to reduce/remove non- compatible residential land uses in the projected DNL>65dBA contours. I database 101801.xls Response The PTAA has committed to the development and implementation of a noise mitigation program that includes acquisition, acoustical treatment and undertaking a FAR Part 150 Study for PTIA. The FAR Part 150 Study will allow the PTIA to work with surrounding municipalities to establish more compatible land ' use planning and zoning in the PTIA area. 3-112 Comment We (EPA) strongly encourage the PTAA to participate in the Part 150 Program. Response Please see response to Comment 3-111. ' 3-113 Comment The Sponsor's airport selection criteria listed on page S-5, which were apparently best satisfied by PTIA, include a "no unexpected or unresolvable environmental problems" criterion. The FEIS should further discuss this concept since the overnight hub operations would result in significant noise during late-night and early-morning hours. How do the Sponsor and Airport Authority plan to resolve the noise elevations for residents living within the DNL>65dBA contours (or even outside the DNL 65 contour where noise impacts ' also exist)? Response The referenced selection criteria was a FedEx criteria, not one of either the FAA or the airport sponsor (PTAA). Both the FAA and the PTAA acknowledge that the introduction of the air cargo sorting and distribution facility would introduce new noise impacts to the PTIA area. However, the PTAA has committed to implementation of a noise mitigation program that would significantly reduce impacts to , incompatible land uses. Homeowners living within the 70 and 75 DNL noise contours would be offered a buyout to move out of the high noise area. Sound insulation would be offered to homeowners between the 65 and 70 DNL noise contours. Homeowners living outside of the 65 DNL noise contours will not be offered , direct noise mitigation such as acquisition or sound insulation. However, additional mitigation techniques to be studied in the FAR Part 150 process may reduce impacts on areas outside the 65 DNL noise contour. 3-114 Comment What happens if I accept an avigation easement to compensate for lowered property values and in 10 years my child has signs and symptoms of the FedEx noise impact? Where will my family turn for help? Response I If a homeowner accepts sound insulation, an avigational easement is usually attached to the deed of the property that basically gives the airport a right to fly over the property and make noise. Usually this right to make noise is limited to a maximum dBA increase which would protect the homeowner in case of major operational changes at an airport. If a residence is located within the 65 to 70 DNL noise contour it would be offered sound insulation. If at a later time the noise levels increase such that the residence would be located within the 70 DNL noise contour, it would be likely that the homeowner would be offered acquisition by PTAA. 3-115 Comment ' We (EPA) also note that while the SEL supplemental data (Appendix B) is very useful, an explanation of the metric does not appear until Appendix C. This section should highlight the fact that the SEL is 5-to-10 dBA above the Maximum A-weighted sound level. Response The FEIS uses supplemental noise metrics such as single event noise levels (Sound Exposure Levels or SEL's) to evaluate sleep disturbance impacts from the proposed facility. The SEL values in Appendix B have been moved to the main body of the FEIS document and appropriate discussion of this metric has been added to the FEIS. Please see Sections 5.1.2, 5.1.3, and 5.1.4 in the FEIS for further information. 3-116 Comment What criteria must be met to qualify for condemnation of homes or sound proofing of homes? database-101801-xis I L7 1 7- L E database 101801AS Response The PTAA has committed in this FEIS to a noise mitigation program that would detail what areas would be eligible for acquisition or sound insulation. Homes located within the 70 to 75 dBA DNL noise contour would be eligible for acquisition, while homes between the 65 and 70 dBA DNL noise contour would be eligible for sound insulation. Acquisition or sound insulation would be entirely voluntary on the part of the homeowners, although acquisition would be encouraged for homes located within the 70 to 75 dBA DNL noise contour. Please see Section 6.3 of the FEIS for further information. 3-117 Comment Please advise what dBA level inside a home would have to be met to be condemn or sound proof? Response Eligibility for mitigation under PTAA's mitigation program is based on the noise levels outside of a residence. Homes located within the 70 and 75 DNL noise contour would be eligible for acquisition, while homes between the 65 and 70 DNL noise contour would be eligible for sound insulation. Interior noise levels should be 45 dBA or less after sound insulating. Please see Section 6.3 of the FEIS for further information. 3-118 Comment We (EPA) believe that the FEIS should provide wind information with a discussion to support that FedEx can operate in this manner 95% of the time (95% of operations from the south-to the south). Response Section 5.1 of the FEIS provides a detailed wind analysis to support the proposed 95% runway use. 3-119 Comment We (EPA) recommend that the FEIS discuss/develop a process that the PTAA and FAA air traffic control will use to include the public into the decision process when future runway use increases beyond those stated in the DEIS (2.5% to 5%). Response The PTAA has committed to a plan of installing noise monitoring equipment to measure noise levels around PTIA as part of the PTAA's noise mitigation program. This system could be expanded to include operations monitoring that would track annual runway use. As part of the Part 150 process, the public would be able to provide input on runway use increases, changes in flight tracks, etc. Please see Section 6.2.1 of the FEIS for further information. 3-120 Comment EPA believes that an aggressive federal buyout program is needed to compensate for noise impacts within the DNL 65+ contours. However, we recognize that complete residential buyouts within these contours is expensive and that current Congressional allocations may not suffice. We also recognize that worst-case contours should be mitigated first (DNL 75 and DNL 70 contours) followed by the DNL 65. The previously suggested participation by the airport authority (PTAA) in the FAA Part 150 Program could perhaps supplement such federal funding limitations and allow for more complete compensation. Response The PTAA has committed to a noise mitigation program. This program includes undertaking a Part 150 Study, installation of monitoring equipment, property acquisition, and residential sound insulation. Homes located within the 70 and 75 DNL noise contours would be eligible for acquisition, while homes between the 65 and 70 DNL noise contour would be eligible for sound insulation. Please see Section 6.3 of the FEIS for further information. 3-121 Comment As stated in Chapter 5, Section 41(b) Sponsor's Planning Process, of the Airport Environmental Handbook (October 8, 1985) did the Airport Authority seek a grant to develop maps and programs for submission of noise exposure maps and noise compatibility programs to carry out the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979? Response No. These grants will be used to undertake the Part 150 Study after completion of the FEIS. Please see Section 6.2.1 in the FEIS for further information. , 3-122 Comment The concentration of noise over High Point is not acceptable and is not fair to the residents of High Point. Response With the head-to-head operational scenario proposed by FedEx, a majority of noise impacts would be experienced by areas to the southwest of PTIA. However, PTAA has committed to the implementation of a noise mitigation program that would greatly reduce these impacts. Please see Section 6.3 of the FEIS for more details. 3-123 Comment The proposed project at°Sandy Ridge is approximately 3.5 miles from the runway and it would be interesting to learn the altitude of takeoffs and landings at this distance. Is there information on this ' available? Response Aircraft altitudes would vary depending upon the type of aircraft operation (arrival/departure), the weather conditions, aircraft loading, and aircraft type. The FEIS did not conduct an evaluation of aircraft flyover ' altitudes at specific communities in the Triad area. However, the FAA Air Traffic Control Tower personnel could give a reasonable estimate of aircraft altitude at that location. , 3-124 Comment How many people will be affected by aircraft noise? Response The summaries of people affected by aircraft noise are presented in the FEIS. Please see Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 in the FEIS for further information. 3-125 Comment Serious noise will affect a lot more than a few hundred people. Response Please see response to Comment 3-124. 3-126 Comment To determine how much the noise will be a problem, please review the airport's historical records for the past few years and simulate where FedEx planes would have flown had the hub been in existence during that period. _ Response PTIA's existing condition and proposed future noise contours are based on runway use, daily operations, aircraft types, and other factors that have been operating at PTIA in the past as well as those that would be present at PTIA when the FedEx facility is operating. Had the hub been operational a few years ago, it would have, in all likelihood, operated in the same manner as is analyzed in the FEIS. 3-127 Comment The FedEx planes are supposed to have noise containment system. If the planes do not have this system, they should not be allowed to land or take off. Response All FedEx aircraft and all other air carrier or air cargo aircraft operating at PTIA meet the latest FAA Stage 3 noise standards. All aircraft are using either the latest technology engines or are hush-kitted to meet the standards. 3-128 Comment One thing the hub will generate is more air traffic over and above the FedEx planes. Has this been taken into account in the study? When and where will the added planes be flying? Will they be subject to the same restrictions as FedEx? 1 database_101801.xis Response Increases in non-FedEx operational levels at PTIA were included in the FEIS noise analysis. This increase is due to normal traffic growth at the airport and is not directly related to the proposed air cargo facility. In terms of restrictions, non-FedEx aircraft will not fly the 95% from the south to the south operational scenario. Also, these aircraft are all required to be Stage 3 compliant. 3-129 Comment The noise problems as indicated by some living near the airport would only affect a minimum number residences. Response The summaries of people affected by aircraft noise are presented in the FEIS. Please see Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 in the FEIS for further information. ' 3-130 Comment Having heard the testimony of the "Noise Expert" at the Greensboro hearing on the DEIS for the proposed ' FedEx hub at the Piedmont International Airport, I am thoroughly dismayed at the evidence of really shoddy work by the experts hired by your administration. The real "expert" reported that he knew the people who had written the Noise Section of the DEIS, and that he was shocked and embarrassed by the quality of their work, what it was they tried to pull off as well researched findings. Response The noise analysis in the FEIS was conducted using FAA approved methodologies and accurate, timely ' data provided by FAA Air Traffic Control personnel, and representatives of the PTAA and FedEx. 3-131 Comment We question the "Noise Cone" impact on the Cardinal Neighborhood as suggested in Plans W2-A or ' similar plans. How can the current main runway "noise contour" extend to Horsepen Creek Rd and not the proposed runway. Response Operations to the northeast on the existing runway (Runway 5R-23L) would occur during both the daytime and nighttime hours as they presently do. Operations on the proposed runway (Runway 5L-23R) to the northeast would be limited to only 5% of the operations at night on an annual basis. The noise contours to the northeast would be dramatically different between runways. The FEIS provides a detailed description of the proposed FedEx operation at PTIA and a general description of the noise contours that would result from the 95% FedEx runway use. Please see Section 5.1 in the FEIS for further information. 3-132 Comment ' The proposal to mitigate noise effects by changing runways is ludicrous. Moving jet engine noise from one runway to another a few hundred yards away is doing nothing to solve the problem. Response The results of the analysis in the FEIS shows that moving some of the operations off of the proposed new parallel runway and onto the existing runway would reduce the overall number of people within the 65 DNL noise contour in the year 2005. However, this measure would not be effective after 2009 because of the increased number of FedEx flights. A Part 150 study would examine potential measures to reduce noise impacts for the potential FedEx operations. 3-133 Comment Two field studies of noise-induced sleep disturbance conducted in residents' homes near two major airports (Los Angeles and Denver) in 1995 (Fidel) et al.) concluded the LDN shows no useful association with sleep disturbance. The research referred to above was documented in the Draft EIS for Charlotte- Douglas International Airport two years ago. Why did the FAA exclude it from the DEIS for PTIA? The same noise consultant prepared both studies! It is arbitrary and capricious of the FAA to exclude research it had already deemed relevant in a previous DEIS, especially since noise-induced sleep disturbance is such a critical issue. database 101801.xls Response The DEIS presented SEL values as well as other supplemental metrics in Appendix B. For the FEIS, the SEL data have been moved up to the main body of the document in Section 5.1, and additional discussion on sleep disturbance has been added. Please see Sections 5.1.2, 5.1.3, and 5.1.4 in the FEIS for further information. 3-134 Comment It is interesting to iote that the FAA measures airport capacity as a one-hour peak. This is the only way it can justify an additional runway at an airport operating substantially below capacity. Logic and fairness require consistency in that the FAA should also measure nighttime noise as a one-hour peak. But this DEIS sacrifices logic and fairness to arrive at a preconceived conclusion. Response It is accepted FAA policy to measure airport capacity in terms of Annual Service Volume (ASV) and peak- ' hour capacity. Likewise, it is standard FAA policy to evaluate noise impacts using the Integrated Noise Model (INM) and the DNL noise metric. The DNL noise metric has also been accepted and approved by the EPA and other Federal agencies as the best metric for determining noise impact. The FAA has undertaken additional efforts in this EIS to disclose the potential noise impacts associated with the proposed project by adding detailed discussions of potential sleep disturbance, ground noise and roadway noise impacts. , 3-135 Comment I want to see noise mitigation measures for movement of aircraft including: noise mitigation flight tracks, aircraft fleet mix modification, airport access restrictions / Part 161 issues, aircraft engine run-up , procedures, and implementation of nighttime flight corridors. Response Please see response to Comment 3-111 ' . 3-136 Comment The European Union adopted a curfew for all night flights in their 15 member-countries. The welfare of the people of Europe takes priority over the welfare of the tax-paying citizens in the United States. Response Comment noted. ' 3-137 Comment How effective will the insulation or new windows be in reducing noise? ' Response The sound insulation of residences will typically reduce interior noise levels between 20 and 25 dB. , 3-138 Comment What will be the noise effects of simultaneous takeoffs? Do any of your models take this into effect? Response The noise model accounts for aircraft operations whether they occur individually or simultaneously. Supplemental SEL analysis contained in the FEIS evaluates simultaneous arrival and departure noise impacts in terms of the potential for sleep disturbance in the area surrounding PTIA. ' 3-139 Comment In reading the report, it indicated that only 6 data points were used to correlate to the computer noise modeling. This seems statistically low. Response The six data points refer to noise measurement sites selected as part of the monitoring program that was undertaken at the beginning of the DEIS. The average measured noise levels were compared to the modeled levels at the same location for informational purposes. There is no FAA requirement to undertake noise measurements or to correlate the measured levels to modeled levels. 3-140 Comment _,o,eo,.x,y doesn't the PTAA have a written SOP to address noise complaints from the community? databe5e ' ' Response Noise complaints are presently not reviewed by the PTAA. However, the PTAA has committed to the development of a noise mitigation program as part of the FEIS. This mitigation program will most likely result in the establishment of a noise abatement office to receive, record, and respond to noise complaints. Please see Sections 6.2.1 and 6.3 of the FEIS for further information. 3-141 Comment I assert that an additional development category should be specifically named for FAA cumulative (noise) impact consideration. This would be the land area lying under the final approach glide paths, extending about 8 miles from the ends of each runway. Response Comment noted. 3-142 Comment Is it possible that t.vo northeast-bound aircraft will use the parallel runways simultaneously, blanketing ' north High Point, Adams Farm, Jamestown, Sedgefield, etc., with a double dose of overflight noise? Response FedEx's operational scenario does include two aircraft arriving from the south simultaneously during the ' arrival "push", and two aircraft departing to the south simultaneously, during the departure "push". This scenario is anticipated to occur for 95% of FedEx operations at PTIA. For the other 5% of FedEx operations, aircraft would arrive and depart either end of the existing and proposed parallel runways. ' Depending on numerous criteria such as wind, weather, and operational conditions at the sorting/distribution facility, two aircraft could foreseeably depart to the northeast simultaneously on the parallel runways at PTIA. In this case however, it is likely that air traffic control would diverge simultaneous departing aircraft a minimum of 10 degrees and therefore the departure noise would not be concentrated in a single area for long. 3-143 Comment Will existing Runway 5/23 continue to be used exclusively for northeast-bound flights, with a flight path taking Fed Ex aircraft across one of the fastest growing, most densely populated residential areas in this region? ' Response Please see response to Comment 3-131. ' 3-144 Comment How far from the airport do current jet aircraft begin making turns? Turns now are more likely made based on altitude, not distance, and no analysis has been done on current operations to produce any sort of ' standard for comparison. This lack of analysis of current flight tracks renders the Noise Mitigation Flight Tracks evaluation of little value. The early turn mitigation measure was dismissed without even a semblance of an analysis of the flight paths that would result from the early turn. Response Aircraft begin turns at varying distance from the airport depending upon weather conditions, aircraft destination, aircraft type, aircraft load, air traffic control, pilot technique, etc. The initial early turn analysis ' was used to try and increase capacity and was eliminated after being considered ineffective in providing the needed additional capacity. The PTAA is committed to the development of a noise mitigation plan for PTIA. A detailed analysis of noise mitigation flight tracks will be considered in the Part 150 Study that the PTAA will undertake after the FAA's ROD is issued. See Section 6.3 in the FEIS for further information. 3-145 Comment There apparently is a 14-year discrepancy in Fed Ex fleet plans involving the noisiest aircraft in its fleet, the hush-kitted B727. database-101801.xls Response During the planning and development of operational input for the DEIS analysis, FedEx was unable at the time to state that their B727 fleet would be completely phased out by the year 2019. Therefore, it was ' assumed that by the year 2019, FedEx would continue to operate a mix of their hushkitted B727 aircraft and some newer, quieter aircraft that are represented for noise modeling purposes as the B737. 3-146 Comment ' There is no consideration of Noise Abatement Departure Profiles, which can be critical elements of a comprehensive noise mitigation scheme, in the DEIS. Response ' The PTAA has committed in the FEIS to a noise mitigation program including undertaking a FAR Part 150 Study for PTIA. The FAR Part 150 Study will address noise abatement departure profiles. Please see Sections 6.2.1 and 6.3 of the FEIS for further information. 3-147 Comment The peak level of noise (119 dB) would be possibly 2,200% of the Average Noise Level of 75 dBA or, even if not quite that much but very nearly so, still a tremendously higher figure than that of the so modestly reported and artificially produced figure of a 75 dBA Average Noise Level. Response Comment noted. ' 3-148 Comment It is my belief that q spite of many hundreds of millions of dollars worth of nearby homes PTIA has come ' up with far too. conservative forecasts that would indicate only about $10,000,000 worth of Noise mitigation needed. Response Please see response to Comment 3-92. 3-149 Comment Why are the "W" Alternatives show a shorter noise contour at one end while "N-D" and "WE" Alternatives show a more balanced noise contour? I am concerned that the FAA is holding back on the fact that the , noise will extend further than it is now. Response The "W" Alternatives show a shorter noise contour at the north end of the proposed runway (5U23R) because FedEx aircraft operations will primarily occur from the south and to the south during nighttime ' operations, thereby making the noise contour " longer" to the south and "shorter "to the north.. This runway assumes that 95% of the operations occur to the southwest away from the residential areas located to the northeast. The existing runway (5R/23L) assumes that 95% of the FedEx operations would occur at night ' to the southeast, but that normal flight operations would occur during the daytime including operations to the northeast. The "N" Alternatives assume that 95% runway use would occur at night on both runways and that normal runway use would occur on both runways during the daytime. The FEIS provides a ' general description of the noise contours that would result from the 95% FedEx runway use in Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4. 3-150 Comment ' If the FAA had measured the decibels of East-West landings and takeoffs, they would know that as far as Holden and eastward the noise will be "disruptive" to say the least. ' Response The FAA measured noise levels at six sites over a period of ten days as part of the monitoring program that was undertaken at the beginning of the DEIS. The average measured noise levels were compared to the modeled levels at the same location for informational purposes. There is no FAA requirement to undertake noise measurements or to correlate the measured levels to modeled levels. 3-151 Comment ' The noise contours do not take into account the "real" impact of noise as a plane flies overhead. database 101801.x1s ' Response Please see response to Comment 3-22. ' 3-152 Comment Noise will become unacceptable when there are 60 to 120 flights each night. ' Response Comment noted. 3-153 Comment The noise cone on the second runway assumes all landings to the north and takeoffs to the south, impacting High Point and areas to the southwest of PTIA. It seems unlikely that weather and wind conditions would allow the-traffic depicted by the noise cones as shown. Response Section 5.1 of the FEIS provides a wind analysis that supports the premise that the runways at PTIA can be operated under the 95% from the south to the south scenario during FedEx's operational periods. 3-154 Comment What models were used to predict noise pollution and how were the noise contours created? Response The FAA's Integrated Noise Model (INM) was used to develop the noise contours around PTIA. A detailed description of the methodology to produce the noise contours is presented in Section 5.1.2 of the FEIS. 3-155 Comment What will be the elevation of the runway? Will the elevation of the runway effect the noise contours? How? ' Response For the existing configuration and No-Action Alternative, runway end elevation varies between approximately 886 and 926 feet mean sea level (MSL). The runway end elevations for the build ' alternatives are as follows: Alternative W1-A1 (847 to 926 feet), Alternative W-2 (849 to 926 feet), Alternative W-3 (849 to 926 feet, and Alternatives N-D and WE (863 to 944 feet). Runway gradient could affect noise levels. Runways with an uphill gradient would require more power on takeoff. Runway gradient was factored into the noise model. 3-156 Comment The EIS provides a totally invalid noise analysis if the new runway will be used by the public and other airlines, since it simply assumes that no other users will use it other than FedEx in the next 20 years. Response Due to the location of the passenger terminal and general aviation terminal it is unlikely that non-FedEx aircraft would use the new runway under the "W' Alternatives due to the distant location of these facilities from the new runway. See Section 5.1 of the FEIS for further information. 3-157 Comment The EIS fails to consider noise mitigation outside the 65 DNL contour even when increases are substantial and short duration noise increase are extreme which is a factor in mitigation costs. Response Based on FAA guidelines, FAA participation in funding for noise mitigation is limited to noise impacted noise-sensitive areas that are within the 65 DNL noise contours. However, once PTIA undertakes a Part t 150 study, areas below and/or outside the 65 DNL may be considered for mitigation as areas receiving higher levels of noise (>65 DNL) are given higher priority for receiving Federal funds. It should be noted that Federal fundir. j may not be available. ' 3-158 Comment The EIS should analyze appropriate temperature layer inversions which would focus noise levels at certain levels, depending on the take-off attack angle of the planes. database-101801.xls Response Noise modeling is undertaken using standard weather conditions. Unique weather conditions such as temperature inversion layers cannot be analyzed using the Integrated Noise Model and were not included in this study , . 3-159 Comment When planes are allowed to fly at their minimum allowable altitudes over residential areas, what will be the ' noise level of the planes used by FedEx? Response Although the FAA sets minimum allowable altitudes for aircraft over developed areas, aircraft on approach or departure do not have minimum altitudes. However, readers of the FEIS could use the specific points analysis presented in Figure 5.1.3-1, along with the Lmax noise levels in Appendix B-2 and the SEL noise levels in Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 of the FEIS to determine noise levels in specific areas around the airport. 3-160 Comment What will be the specific flight paths and minimum allowable altitudes for FedEx planes over North High Point residential areas? Response Although the FAA sets minimum allowable altitudes for aircraft over developed areas, aircraft on approach or departure do not have minimum altitudes. Representative flight tracks for the existing condition is presented in Figure 4.2.5-1 of the FEIS. Flight tracks for the build alternatives are presented in Appendix C of the FEIS. 3-161 Comment What will be the single event noise levels measured in the residential areas impacted? Response Single event noise levels in residential areas can be determined by reviewing the specific points analysis locations presented in Figure 5.1.3-1 of the FEIS, along with the Lmax noise levels contained in Appendix 13- 2 of the FEIS and the SEL noise level analysis in Sections 5.1.3 and 5. 1.4 of the FEIS. 3-162 Comment Will the FAA explain why it continues to use the standard noise impact calculations after the calculation has been shown to underestimate the noise impact of nighttime flight operations? Response Please see response to Comment 3-1. 3-163 Comment ICAO Stage 4 operations and FAR Part 161 noise rules have not been accounted for. I expect less noise not more. Response ' Presently no Stage 4 standard exists for aircraft noise, although ICAO is presently discussing Stage 4 standards for new production aircraft. In addition, there is no proposal for the phase-out of Stage 3 aircraft. The PTAA has committed in this FEIS to the development of a noise mitigation plan including undertaking a Part 150 Study for PTIA. The Part 150 Study will address the issues of a Part 161 Study at PTIA. However, a Part 161 Study would not necessarily be compatible with the operations of a major nighttime air cargo operation. Please see Section 6.2.1 of the FEIS for further information. ' 3-164 Comment Has extending the length of Runway 51J23R been considered as a noise mitigation measure? It would minimize the use, reducing noise impacts to the surrounding communities. ' database 101801.xis I H r e d i Response The FEIS has not considered the extension of existing Runway 5U23R. The runway length is adequate for the purposes of an air cargo hub. Extensions of the runways for noise mitigation purposes will be considered in the Part 150 noise compatibility study. The FEIS provides a detailed description of the proposed FedEx operation at PTIA and the need for parallel runways. Please see Section 5.1.2.1 of the FEIS for further information. 3-165 Comment If I can hear the pl,,nes now 2.5 miles away, wouldn't I hear 20-60 planes coming and going in the middle of the night - despite what the noise contours show? Response The noise contours represent the area of high noise levels within which noise-sensitive residential areas are considered impacted. It does not represent the area outside of which aircraft would not be audible. 3-166 Comment Is the use of DNL, as the sole criteria for home purchases, a realistic measure of the "actual" impact on quality of life for homes only 3,500 feet from the end of the new runway? Response Please see response to Comments 3-3 and 3-22. 3-167 Comment What specific noise abatement measures will be used by the airport to protect us from the "actual" noise created by the runway? Response The PTAA has committed in the FEIS to the development of a noise mitigation plan which will include specific noise abatement measures such as acquisition of homes, acoustical treatment of homes and undertaking a Part 150 Study. Please see Section 6.3 of the FEIS for further information. 3-168 Comment Given that the FA.'; recognizes that sleep is disturbed within the 45dBA DNL, how far does the 45dBA DNL noise contour extend on the northern side of the new runway? Response The FAA guidelines recommend 45 DNL as an acceptable interior noise level goal. The noise reduction capabilities of a residence are subtracted from the exterior DNL noise levels to arrive at the interior levels. Typical residences without sound insulation provide 20 to 25 dBA of noise reduction allowing a residence to be in a 65 to 70 DNL noise contour area and still meet the interior 45 dBA goal. 3-169 Comment What is the FAA's projected DNL for the Cardinal Commons? Response Based on the DNL noise contour analysis, the DNL in the Cardinal Commons area would be less than DNL 65 dB. Single event noise levels in residential areas can be determined by reviewing the specific points analysis locations presented in Figure 5.1.3-1 of the FEIS, along with the Lmax noise levels contained in Appendix B-2 of the FEIS and the SEL noise level analysis in Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 of the FEIS. 3-170 Comment What is the FAA's actual decibel level in the Cardinal Commons, between 11:00 p.m. and 1:30 a.m., when the FedEx fleet arrives from the south and when they arrive from the north? Response The FEIS presents the Leq(9) or the average noise level at night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Modeled noise level data specifically from 11:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. is not available. FedEx could not provide specific hourly aircraft movements, only total aircraft arrivals or departures per night. In addition, SEL data on aircraft arriving or departing from each runway end is presented. For specific areas, please review the specific points presented in Figure 5.1.3-1 and the SEL and Leq(9) values in Section 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 of the FEIS. database 101801.xls 3-171 Comment What is the FAA's actual decibel level in the Cardinal Commons, between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m., when the FedEx fleet departs to the south and when they depart to the north? Response Please see response to Comment 3-170. 3-172 Comment ' Was the noise vibration created at the rear of a departing aircraft and its impact on local homeowners, considered in the FAA noise models? How will this vibration be attenuated by FedEx and the airport so that the homes in the Cardinal Commons are not shaken apart? Response Noise-induced vibration was not analyzed as part of the FEIS because previous studies have shown that noise-induced vibration from aircraft overflights do not create significant noise impacts. 3-173 Comment I Was the 95/5 departure procedure used during the FAA noise monitoring conducted in January 1999? Response The 95% from the south-to the south runway use that will be used by FedEx at night was not used during the noise measurements conducted in January 1999. 3-174 Comment Given the 63dBA average DNL reading at the M4 monitoring station, what is the FAA's projected DNL at this monitoring station with a 400% increase in the "late evening northbound departure window"? Response The FAA's analysis did not specifically address a 400% increase in operations. However, nighttime ' operations would increase as a result of the FedEx facility, and noise levels in the general vicinity of site M4 would also increase. Also, please see response to Comment 3-170. ' 3-175 Comment What would be the northern 65 dBA average DNL contour look like if the departure ratio actually ended up being 90/10? Or even 80/20? Response A runway use assumption of 90/10 or 80/20 by FedEx at night would increase noise levels to the northeast of the airport, while decreasing levels to the southwest. However, these operational scenarios were not analyzed in the FEIS. The FEIS provides an analysis supporting the 95% runway use in Section 5.1. 3-176 Comment I How often will noise monitoring be conducted after the hub is operational to validate the northern 65dBA DNL contour? Response The PTAA has committed to a plan of installing noise monitoring equipment to measure noise levels around PTIA as part of the PTAA's noise mitigation plan. However, no specific plan to measure noise has been developed at this point. Please see Section 6.3 of the FEIS for further information. 3-177 Comment ' What specific noise abatement techniques will be used by FedEx and the airport to protect the Cardinal Commons when the FedEx fleet is required to depart to the north? What specific noise abatement techniques will be used by FedEx and the airport to safeguard the Cardinal Commons from rear jet blast noise and vibration when the FedEx fleet departs to the south? Response The PTAA has committed in the FEIS to the development of a noise mitigation plan including undertaking a ' Part 150 Study for PTIA. The Part 150 Study will evaluate means of mitigating the operational scenarios mentioned including operational, land use, and program management measures. Please see Sections _101801 X6.2.1 and 6.3 of the FEIS for further information. database ' 3-178 Comment Is the noise generated from reverse thrusters upon landing included in the 65dBA average DNL i calculations? ¦ Response Noise from aircraft reversing thrust upon landing is not included in the DNL noise contours. 3-179 Comment Is the volume and duration of the noise generated by the rear jet-blasts of departing aircraft accounted for in the northern 65dBA average DNL calculations? Response The FAA's INM noise model does account for the "rear jet-.blasts" or the start-of-takeoff-roll noise from departing aircraft. This noise is included in the 65 dBA DNL noise contours. 3-180 Comment I was told by one of the representatives that this monitoring station (M4) produced an unreliable reading. The representative also said that the 63dBA reading could easily be related to a kid standing near the monitoring station and yelling into the recording device. Frankly, this is insane. How could the readings from the M4 monitoring station be so easily dismissed? Response This site was not directly influenced by noise levels from aircraft overflights, although many of the noise events that were measured at this site were due to aircraft start-of-takeoff roll from the existing runway. This site was chosen to reflect an area that could potentially be influenced by aircraft overflights from the new proposed runway that would be aligned with the existing runways. The measured results were not necessarily comparable to the modeled levels due to the short-term nature of the measurements and the ' rolling terrain and vegetation that would influence measurement of the actual aircraft events. 3-181 Comment Located only one mile from the current runway on a residential cul-de-sac, what other noise event's could produce a 63dBA average DNL reading at the M4 monitoring station? Response Almost any noise could produce a DNL of 63 dBA. As an example, a single noisy event of approximately 112 dBA SEL could create a DNL of 63 dBA. Similarly, a total of 100 quieter daytime events (92 dBA SEL each) could also create a DNL 63 dBA. 3-182 Comment How would construction and use of a runway only a few thousand feet from this monitoring station not produce a 65dBA contour when the current DNL is already 63dBA? Response The DNL 63 dBA refer to for site M4 is the average measured noise level during short-term noise monitoring conducted in January 1999. The average measured noise levels over a 10-day period may not be representative of the noise levels on an annual average basis. Please refer to Comment 3-51 or 3-94. 3-183 Comment What is the projected increase in average DNL at the M4 monitoring station when 1 - taxiway noise, 2 - ' terminal noise, 3 - reverse thruster noise, 4 - rear jet-blast noise, 5 - a 300% more aircraft per night, and 6 - a 400% increase in the number of nights that flights take-off to the north between 11:00 p.m. and 1:30 a.m., were added to the equation? Response The FEIS presents DNL noise levels at site M4 for the proposed alternatives. The modeled DNL noise levels include all flight operations and start-of-takeoff roll noise. The Leq(9) or the average noise levels at ' night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. can be used to evaluate nighttime noise levels. Data specifically from 11:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. was not generated in the FEIS and is not available. database 101801.xis 3-184 Comment Did the DEIS noise and environmental analysis address the impact to disabled local residents covered by the American with Disabilities Act? Response The FEIS addresses noise impacts to all residents within the environs of PTIA, but did not specifically address the impacts to disabled residents. 3-185 Comment Since the noise generated from the relocation of Bryan Blvd. and construction of the single airport interchange are not included in the FAA's DEIS noise contours, how will this additional noise be accounted for? Response Roadway noise impacts and noise impacts from non-aircraft ground operations are presented in the FEIS. I Please see Sections 5.1.5 and 5.1.6 respectively in the FEIS for further information. 3-186 Comment Please monitor and protect those residential communities of North High Point by adopting comprehensive noise remediation procedures during night hours and compensation measures to protect homes impacted by noise levels beyond the noise contours. Response Please see response to Comment 3-111. 3-187 Comment Because only the noise effects of FedEx planes were studied and that early turns were not considered in the study, it can be concluded that the noise cones in the study are inaccurate, making all of the noise mitigation effects and data invalid in the study. Response The noise contours in the FEIS accounted for all aircraft operations and typical arrival/departure tracks as determined with input from the FAA ATCT, PTAA and FedEx. The analysis in the FEIS did not account for random events such as early turns. 3-188 Comment I The (noise) study does not take into account different altitudes, airspeeds, and plane configurations these FedEx jets may fly-at. Response The noise analysis in the FEIS takes into account standard aircraft arrival and departure profiles for the various aircraft that FedEx is projected to fly. The departure profiles assume varying altitudes that reflect an aircraft's weight. The aircraft performance data also reflects varying aircraft speed depending upon the flight configuration. 3-189 Comment ' I recommend and request that a Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study shall be done for full comprehensive noise abatement measures as a condition for final approval of the Environmental Impact Statement. Response The PTAA has committed to undertaking a Part 150 Noise and Land Use Compatibility Study after completion of the FEIS as part of the PTAA's noise mitigation plan (See Section 6.3 of the FEIS for further information). 3-190 Comment In order for the FAA Administrator to make a final approval decision, all the facts must be disclosed including total noise mitigation costs. Response Please see respor:,e to Comment 3-92. 0 u database_101801.xls i? L_ ?I 0 3-191 Comment The preparation of the noise exposure contours for all of the alternatives considered in detail is based on a 24-hour Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) measurement. The Final EIS should evaluate in detail the effect of the nighttime (10 p.m. - 7 a.m.) component of the DNL and the noise exposure contours resulting from nighttime operations for all of the considered alternatives. Response The FEIS uses supplemental noise metrics such as peak noise levels (Leq noise levels at night - 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. or 9 hours) to evaluate additional noise impacts from the proposed project. The Leq(9) would represent the FedEx impact at night since the time would be typical of operations at night. Please see Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 in the FEIS for further information. 3-192 Comment The Area of Potential Effect (APE) should include the 55 DNL contour as well as the 65 DNL and 75 DNL noise contours. The existing noise contour that is within the Guilford County Airport Overlay Zone does not extend below the 65 DNL. Extending the APE to the 55 DNL will identify the area where sound mitigation measures may achieve 40 DNL for affected residences or acquisition of limited avigation easements may be necessary. Response The FAA recognizes the DNL 65 dBA as the threshold of compatibility for noise sensitive land uses. Therefore, this information has been presented in the EIS document as well as to the general public through numerous:'public meetings and opportunities for public comment. After the Record of Decision is published and the noise contours for the Preferred Alternative have been accepted, the PTAA can provide the 60 dBA and 55 dBA DNL noise contours to local municipalities if that is the noise level they wish to use as the threshold for establishing local land use policies and zoning regulations. 3-193 Comment What noise mitigation is done or available for the 65 decibel range? Response Please see response to Comment 3-111. 3-194 Comment What is the current noise decibel for my area (Galimore Dairy Road and Sandy Ridge Road)? Response Existing (1998) noise levels in the Galimore Dairy Road and Sandy Ridge Road area were approximately 63 dB. 3-195 Comment By failing to include a careful examination of the potential threat of noise to health, the FAA is obviously in violation of the Noise Control Act of 1972 which was written to protect Americans from the dangers of noise. Furthermore, the FAA is mandated to treat environmental impact seriously in evaluating proposed projects. People live in the surrounding areas or the environment of the present proposal and the FAA should be reminded that the word "impact' in DEIS is referring to the impact on these people. Response The FAA followed Federal guidelines in the preparation of the FEIS for the analysis of noise impacts associated with aircraft generated noise levels as per FAA Orders 5050.4A and 1050.1. A list of laws, regulations, and orders can be found in Section 3.6 of the FEIS. 3-196 Comment The DEIS demonstrates a serious lack of understanding how people respond to noise in general and is written without presenting tables and figures that are clear and comprehensive. For example, in Appendix D, Aircraft Noise Review, there is a table identifying common sounds and their sound levels. Next to the sound levels are these terms "just audible, quiet, moderate, very loud, uncomfortable," terms that appear to describe human reactions. "Uncomfortable" is listed as falling between 110 and 130 decibels. Even if one were to accept this muddled listing, it should be noted that most research clearly recognizes that humans are discomforted by sounds far less than 110 decibels. database_101801.xis Response The FAA has followed all Federal guidelines in the preparation of the FEIS for the analysis of noise impacts associated with aircraft generated noise levels. Also, the FEIS presents additional data either in the body of the document or in the technical appendices in a clear and concise manner as recommended in Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines. The EIS uses FAA's approved DNL noise metric as well as other supplemental noise metrics such as single event noise levels (Sound Exposure Levels or SEL's) and average noise levels (Leq noise levels at night -10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. or Leq(9)) to evaluate , the noise impacts from the proposed project. SEL's were used to evaluate sleep disturbance impacts, while the Leq(9) were used to represent noise impact at night since the time would be typical of the air cargo operations at night. The information referenced in the comment presents generalized reactions to noise levels. Different people react differently to noise such the 110 decibels may bother some people while it does not bother others. 3-197 Comment Using tables and figures from resource materials published in the 1970s may not address the noise levels as they exist in the year 2000. For example, one could ask the following questions from Figure 7: Is that apartment in Harlem on the second floor as noisy today as it was in 1975? Similarly, does the touch down at the Los Angeles airport generate as much, less or more noise in a home 3/4 of a mile away today as it did in 1974? Furthermore, when trying to explain noise levels to residents in the Piedmont area, might it not be better to cite comparative levels of noise from sources more familiar to these residents? Response The figure referred to is meant to present sample DNL noise levels and is not expected to present exact noise levels for specific areas. 3-198 Comment ' Why did the area NW of the Alternatives W1-A1, W2-A, and W3-A, which has the heaviest concentration of residential property, have the fewest "specific point analysis locations", almost half as many as the other areas? Response Specific points were selected to represent noise-sensitive areas in the PTIA environs. Approximately 11 specific points are acated on the approach end to the proposed Runway 23R. Out of the 81 specific points ' analyzed, this represents almost 14% of the total points selected for this study. In addition, this area has a higher density of specific points then other areas around PTIA. 3-199 Comment Alternative W1-A1 will increase traffic noise because of raising the elevation of the Bryan Boulevard interchange. Response Roadway noise impacts and noise impacts from ground operations (taxi and GPU) are presented in Sections 5.1.5 and 5.1.6 of the FEIS. The Preferred Alternative (W1-A1) will increase traffic noise levels in ' the vicinity of the Bryan Blvd/Old Oak Ridge Road Interchange because of: 1. the proximity of the new interchange to noise-sensitive land use, 2. the proximity of relocated Bryan Boulevard to noise-sensitive land uses, 3.and projected increase in traffic volumes for the design-year Build alternatives. 3-200 Comment The study says that, "arrivals are generally toward the air cargo". If that is true and the cargo terminal is on the north side of PTIA, doesn't that mean that the published noise contours are reversed since the arrivals will be from the SW and departures toward the NE? Response Under the "W' Alternatives, the runway use would be head-to-head for 95% of FedEx operations. That is, arrivals would be from the southwest towards the air cargo ramp area and departures would be to the southwest away from the air cargo ramp area. The noise contours in the FEIS correctly depict this operational scenario. Please see Section 5.1 in the FEIS for further information. database 101801.xis F_ L 1 I 7u 3-201 Comment FAA is requested to reexamine in greater detail all eight Operational Measures enumerated in the DEIS as recommended mitigation measures to determine if some of these techniques may in actuality prove beneficial in mitigating the anticipated noise increases, which are bound to impact northern High Point, especially the residential areas south of Interstate 40 between the Guilford County line and N.C. Highway 68. Of particular interest would be the adaptability of the Noise Mitigation Flight Tracks, Aircraft Fleet Mix Modifications, and Noise Abatement Departure Profiles for Jet Aircraft measures. Response Please see response to Comment 3-111. 3-202 Comment To assist the City of High Point with the implementation of Land Use Measures enumerated in the DEIS, and specifically the Compatible Land Use Planning measure pertaining to the coordination of "compatible use zoning/rezoning...", FAA is requested to provide the City with the locations of the DNL 60 dBA and DNL 55 dBA contours with respect to the W2-A, W3-A and W1-A1 Phase 2 Alternatives so the City can better decide upon appropriate buffer areas with regard to future land use designations and preventive non- residential zoning. Response Please see resporse to Comment 3-192. 3-203 Comment The City (High Point) heartily endorses all of the Land Use Measures and Program Management Measures enumerated in the DEIS as recommended mitigation measures. FAA is requested to insure that all of these measures are fully implemented by PTIA. Response The land use and program management measures enumerated in the DEIS will be thoroughly reviewed and implemented as necessary through the FAR Part 150 process, which the PTAA will undertake upon completion of the FEIS and the publication of the FAA's Record of Decision. 3-204 Comment Nighttime circling patterns of FedEx planes at PTIA in bad weather while awaiting clearance to land needs to be disclosed. More specifically, radius of the pattern, location of the pattern, elevations or range of elevations, and nighttime disruptions due to this circling need to be analyzed. Response Circling patterns were not analyzed in the FEIS because they are not typical of airport operations. Bad weather conditions at PTIA would typically hold aircraft at their originating airport. In the event that circling is required, aircraft are usually kept at a high enough altitude so as to not impact residents on the ground. 3-205 Comment I am concerned that aircraft will divert noise onto neighborhoods in the Skeet Club area and those south of Wendover Avenue. Response Comment noted. Neighborhoods south of Wendover Avenue and Skeet Club Road are not within the 65 DNL. See Section 5.1 of the FEIS for further information. H 3-206 Comment Ground control should vector all aircraft either taking-off to the southwest or landing to the northeast to a point over Highway 311 straight out from the runway before any turns are allowed. Response The PTAA has committed in the FEIS to developing a noise mitigation plan for PTIA. The mitigation plan includes undertaking a Part 150 Study which will include a detailed evaluation of the arrival and departure routes. Please see Sections 6.2.1 and 6.3 of the FEIS for further information. database 101801.xls 3-207 Comment What specific controls will be enforced to assure that FedEx will only use the third runway when absolutely necessary? Response The third or new parallel runway is required at all times for the efficient operation of the FedEx hub. The FEIS provides a detailed description of the proposed FedEx operation at PTIA in Section 5.1. ' 3-208 Comment Who can I talk to about regulations regarding existing and future arrival/departure flight patterns? Response There are no specific Federal regulations that govern arrival or departure flight tracks. The establishment of specific flight tracks will be included in the FAR Part 150 study undertaken by the PTAA after the completion of the FEIS and the publication of the ROD. The Part 150 may recommend specific flight tracks be flown by FedEx aircraft and this recommendation, if approved by the FAA will be manifest in a Tower Order that will be followed by all Air Traffic Control personnel and aircraft pilots. 3-209 Comment Are there any legal provisions in the EIS to stop FedEx from running all flight paths in the other direction if they choose to do so after the runway is built and will commercial airlines be able to use the new runway? Response There are no legal provisions in the FEIS to prohibit FedEx from using any of the runways in a manner that is different from that proposed in the FEIS. FAA may include FedEx's adherence to the 95 percent operational scenario as a provision in the ROD. However, FedEx operational requirements would encourage the 95% runway use as much as- possible for operational efficiency purposes. The FEIS provides a detailed description of the proposed FedEx operation at PTIA and an analysis to support the 95% runway use in Section 5.1. Although other airport operators would not be prohibited from using the new runway, the location of the passenger and general aviation facilities would encourage the use of the existing runway by these operators. 3-210 Comment Did you compare 1997 flight patterns with 1998 data? It seemed that 1997 was a much less disruptive year for airport noise. Response The FAA did not compare 1997 data with 1998 data. The existing baseline conditions in the FEIS are based on 1998 data. In 1998 noise measurements were undertaken and representative of the initiation of the overall study. 3-211 Comment What happens if FedEx does not meet the 95/5 rule? Who will monitor their operations once flights begin? How often? What recourse do homeowners have if they do not meet these guidelines, and we are more , severely impacted than originally estimated? Response FedEx has indicated that they will use the 95% from the south-to the south operational scenario as indicated in the FEIS because this procedure would provide them the greatest degree of operational efficiency. The FAA would not be required to monitor FedEx runway use. However, in the FEIS, the PTAA has committed to a noise monitoring program and an operations monitoring program that would track daily runway use. Pleas: see Section 6.3 in the FEIS for further information. If FedEx operations vary significantly from what is described and evaluated in the FEIS such that additional noise sensitive areas are impacted, supplemental environmental studies would have to be undertaken and the mitigation program revised to mitigate for any additional impacts. 3-212 Comment , Can FedEx change the number of planes per night and/or the flight tracks they arrive and depart without any consideration for the adjacent neighborhoods? database_101801.xis I II u t r 0 Response FedEx could change the number of aircraft that they fly on any given night, although the number would not be expected to change dramatically unless a major operational change is announced. Arrival and departure flight tracks are usually set by the FAA Air Traffic Control Tower and further environmental analysis would be required if any major changes were implemented by FedEx. 3-213 Comment Will the choice of runways to use for departure be geographically determined by destination or determined by aircraft type? And who will be making that decision - the FAA, PTAA, or Fed Ex? Response Runway use would be to and from the southwest for 95% of FedEx operations and is based on FedEx operational requirements. - This runway use would be determined by local weather conditions and not by destination or type of aircraft. However, whether an aircraft would arrive or depart on a left (5L/23L) runway versus a right (5R/23R) runway would probably be determined by an aircraft's arrival or departure destination. 3-214 Comment Is the 95/5 departure procedure actually achievable? What did you base your historical weather patterns on the 95% of the flights going in a SW direction? Response The FEIS provides a detailed description of the proposed FedEx operation at PTIA and an analysis to support the 95% runway use. Flight operations that would occur for 95% of FedEx operations to the southwest would minimize the overflights on the denser residential areas to the northeast of the airport and ultimately reduce noise impacts. Please see Section 5.1 of the FEIS for further information. 3-215 Comment Is it possible or safe for non-FedEx flights to take-off to the south while the FedEx fleet is landing from the south? Response FedEx arrivals are expected to occur in the late evening and early morning hours when other air carrier activity is at a minimum. During times of FedEx activity, Air Traffic Control personnel would route non- FedEx traffic such that arrival or departure operations would not result in a safety problem due to converging flights. 3-216 Comment Is it normal practice for the FAA, through a formal legal agreement with local homeowners, to restrict the use of a new runway in the manner modeled by the FAA for a period of 20 years? Response The FAA does not enter into a formal legal agreement with local homeowners to restrict runway use. It is in FedEx's best interest to adhere to the 95/5% operational scenario to maximize its operational efficiency and save costs. However, the FAR Part 150 process, which the PTAA will undertake upon completion of the FEIS and the publication of the ROD, can be used by the FAA, PTAA and local municipalities to monitor significant changes in aircraft activity and operational characteristics. If significant changes do occur, the Part 150 study can be updated and mitigation measures and commitments can be reevaluated. 3-217 Comment Can the airport authority require FedEx to takeoff in a SW direction? Response Please see response to Comment 3-209 and 3-211. 3-218 Comment Where will the 3-4 mile buffer zone for noise and overflight safety come from? database 101801.xls Response The FAA does not require that a 3-4 mile buffer zone be established for PTIA or any other airport. If the comment is referring to the existing Airport Overlay Zone, the Overlay Zone will need to be updated by local municipalities with land use and zoning jurisdiction after the publication of the FEIS and ROD. At that ' point, the PTAA will provide the appropriate municipalities with the 60 and 55 DNL noise contours for use in establishing land use and zoning controls. , 3-219 Comment If FedEx and PTAA change their mind and only do 60% in a southern direction as it is now, the noise contour will be decided and we will have no recourse. Is it true that if we accept sound proofing of our homes and the noise contour gets extended in the future to an area where purchase is allowed that PTAA will not have to buy my home,because it is sound proofed? Response ' If a homeowner accepts sound insulation, an avigational easement is attached to the deed of the property that gives the airport a right to fly over the property and make noise. Usually this right to make noise is limited to a maximum dBA increase which would protect the homeowner in case of major operational changes at an airport. If a residence is located within the 65 to 70 DNL noise contour it would be offered sound insulation. If at a later time the noise levels increase such that the residence would be located within the 70 DNL or greater noise contour, it would be likely that the homeowner would be offered acquisition. 3-220 Comment Since the removal of trees on the north side of PTIA, we have noticed an increase in noise. Response. . Comment noted. 3-221 Comment Re-routing air traffic may be detrimental to those residents neighboring PTIA. Response Significant changes in flight tracks beyond those analyzed in the HIS would result in the PTAA having to undergo supplemental environmental analysis. 3-222 Comment The current runway typically operates with 60% departures to the SW and 40% to the NE. Wouldn't 40% of the takeoffs from the new parallel runway therefore be passing over the subdivisions to the NE of PTIA? Response The 60/40% runway use reflects use by existing airport operators. This runway use is used during the daytime and early nighttime hours by non-FedEx operators and would occur primarily on the existing runway. FedEx operations at night would operate a 95/5% runway use that reflects mostly operations to and from the southwest, thereby minimizing overflights to the northeast. The FEIS provides an analysis to ' support the 95/5% runway use at night. Please see Section 5.1 of the FEIS for further information. 3-223 Comment Considerable testing of jet engines at the east end maintenance facility can be quite disturbing. Response Comment noted. 3-224 Comment Who has control and jurisdiction over plane altitudes and do airports have minimum altitude levels as they fly over residential areas? ' database-1 01 801AS II u Response Although the FAA sets minimum allowable altitudes for aircraft over developed areas, aircraft on approach or departure do not have minimum altitudes. However, readers of the FEIS could use the specific points analysis presented in Figure 5.1.3-1, along with the Lmax noise levels in Appendix B-2 and the SEL noise levels in Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 of the FEIS to determine noise levels in specific areas around the airport. 3-225 Comment Why aren't nighttime landings and takeoffs restricted? Response Restrictions on nighttime arrivals and departures at PTIA would not be conducive to the operation of an air cargo hub facility. If restrictions are contemplated, the airport would have to go through the FAA Part 161 process before they could be implemented. 3-226 Comment Stiff fines should be put on aircraft that do not adhere to the flight tracks and those monies returned to the public or be used to monitor and/or force compliance with mitigation measures and/or acquire impacted properties. Response The- PTAA has committed in the FEIS to developing a noise mitigation plan for PTIA. The mitigation plan includes installation of a noise and operations monitoring system that could be used to monitor aircraft flight tracks. However, it is not likely that fines would be assessed if aircraft do not adhere to established flight corridors. Please see Section 6.2.1 of the FEIS for further information. 3-227 Comment Over 50 planes flying over head will impact workers working the third shift. Response Section 5.1 of the FEIS provides a description of the noise impacts associated with the alternatives. 3-228 Comment Taking off and landing over High Point constitutes harassment by the FAA and PTIA and a serious safety issue. Take offs and landings should be shared equally. Response Comment noted. 3-229 Comment I'll never subscribe to unsafe tailwind landing/takeoffs just for FedEx. Response Comment noted. The 95/5% runway use would occur only at night when winds tend to be calm or light. Please see Section 5.1 of the FEIS for further information. 3-230 Comment Is it safe for PTIA to operate the runways 95% of the time without regard to wind direction? Response The FEIS provides a detailed description of the proposed FedEx operation at PTIA and an analysis to support the 95/5% runway use. Please see Section 5.1 of the FEIS for further information. ' 3-231 Comment FedEx's dedication can be seen in its research and development of "hush-kits" to make planes quieter. Response Comment noted. 3-232 Comment Alternatives N-D a^d WE would expose flyover noise issues to a new set of people living near the airport that did not expect to be directly impacted since the existing PTIA runways are oriented in a general east- west direction. database 101801.xls Response r Aircraft noise impacts associated with Alternatives N-D or WE would expose new residents to aircraft overflights. All other alternatives would be aligned with the existing runway and the existing flight paths and expose residents already experiencing aircraft overflights. 3-233 Comment We (EPA) believe the potential is great for operational expansion on the new parallel runway beyond the proposed 48 daily operations, which would then generate even more noise during the nighttime period. Response The FEIS contains an analysis of FedEx's proposed 48 daily operations in 2005 and 126 in the 2009 - 2019 timeframe. This is based-on the best-available information provided to the FAA by FedEx and the PTAA. FAA understands that this information came from FedEx's proposed business plan for the proposed air cargo sorting/distribution hub at PTIA. The majority of nighttime operations would be by FedEx. Although other operators could use the new runway at night, very few operations by other operators would occur during this time period. In addition, although other airport operators (air carrier, air cargo, and general aviation) would not be prohibited from using the new runway, the location of the passenger, general aviation, and other cargo facilities would encourage the use of the existing runway by these operators. r 3-234 Comment As capacity eventually grows at PTIA and use of the cargo runway for FedEx as well as other commercial airlines increases, we anticipate that the single family residences in the northeastern section of Greensboro could receive greater noise impacts and ultimately be included in the DNL 65 dBA contour. Response The noise contours at PTIA were developed out to the year 2019 using projected operations and aircraft fleet mixes by airport operators including FedEx. Although it is true that a new runway may eventually encourage additional growth at the airport and could eventually create additional noise impacts, it is unlikely that the noise levels would change substantially within the 20-year planning period. 3-235 Comment Does the airport have any guidelines they are required to follow to reduce noise levels? Response See response to Comment 3-196. 3-236 Comment Why is the DNL 65 dBA contour used in evaluating population impacts and what does DNL stand for? Response DNL is an acronym for day-night level. See response to Comment 3-157 for further information on the DNL 65 dBA contour. . 3-237 Comment At what noise level is noise compensation due? Response Compensation is not required at any specific noise level. However, FAA guidelines consider noise- sensitive property within the DNL 65 dBA noise contours as non-compatible land use. Noise-sensitive property within this area may be offered mitigation such as sound insulation, acquisition, or purchase of an avigation easement. 3-238 Comment At what noise level is a house condemned? [l Response Noise-sensitive property such as residences are never condemned based upon noise levels. However, as mentioned in Comment 3-237, these properties may be offered some form of mitigation. database 101801.xis r 1 I? 3-239 Comment How do you measure the noise level? An average? Response Noise levels at an airport are measured using many different noise metrics. These could be single-event noise metrics such as maximum sound levels (Lmax) or sound exposure levels (SEL), or cumulative noise metrics such as equivalent sound levels (Leq) or day-night average sound levels (Ldn or DNL). See Section 5.1.2 for further information on these various noise metrics. 3-240 Comment At what level affects sleep? Response General research has provided information on what percentage of people might be awakened by different levels of aircraft noise. For the purposes of this study it is assumed that an aircraft arrival or departure event that creates outdoor noise levels equal to 100 dBA SEL would awaken no more than 10 percent of the adults sleeping indoors with windows closed. See Section 5.1.2 for further information. 3-241 Comment Have other air cargo companies taking advantage of the increased cargo facilities been factored into noise calculations? Do the projected noise contours reflect this calculation? How many of these non-FedEx cargo flights will be daytime flights? How many will be overnight? Response Increased air operations as a result of the new runway have been factored into the future operations for PTIA. The noise contours reflect these additional operations. Tables 5.1.2-2, 5.1.2-3, 5.1.2-4, and 5.1.2-5 present the future air cargo operations (FedEx and non-FedEx) at PTIA for both daytime and nighttime hours. 3-242 Comment The DEIS assumes the truck traffic noise will be minimal compared with aircraft noise. However, trucks could impact different people not impacted by aircraft noise. The EIS needs to answer these questions in a detailed manner. Response Section 5.1.5 addresses the roadway noise impacts including truck traffic in detail. 3-243 Comment The DEIS does provide data for selected locations outside the DNL 65 contour. While this is helpful, it does not provide the ease of a graphical representation to show change. It also inadequately describes the conditions in large areas that will see changes. Response The FAA recognizes the DNL 65 dBA noise contour as the threshold of compatibility with noise sensitive land uses. FAA also considers an increase of DNL 1.5 dBA within the DNL 65 dBA noise contour to be a significant impact. These are areas on which FAA concentrated the analysis contained in this FEIS. The document does disclose impacts to noise sensitive sites outside the DNL 65 dBA noise contour as recommended in FICAN. Please see Section 5.1 of the FEIS for more information. 3-244 Comment A plot of hourly average level at locations southwest of each runway would be particularly useful to illustrate the variation of hub noise. database-101801.xls Response ' It would be particularly difficult to determine an hour-by-hour schedule of operations required to predict hourly average or Leq(1) noise levels at PTIA. The FEIS does, however, present maximum sound levels (Lmax), maximum sound exposure levels (SEL), average noise levels for the 24-hour day (Leq(24)), average noise levels at night (Leq(9)), and day-night average noise levels (DNL) at a total of 81 specific points around the airport. 3-245 Comment The DEIS mentions the ability of the INM to provide contours of the SEL's. However, none are presented. Response Sound exposure level (SEL) contours are presented in Section 5.1.3 for various aircraft under both arrival and departure scenarios and for all alternatives. 3-246 Comment The INM does not consider atmospheric refraction properly? Response INM does not have the ability to predict atmospheric refraction (i.e. temperature inversions). However, the INM model used in this analysis does factor in atmospheric temperature and pressure factors. 3-247 Comment Since the results are so strongly influenced by night operations and an intentional effort exists to avoid the normal practice of all operations into the wind, the actual expected wind conditions must be included in the , model. Nothing in the DEIS indicates any consideration of this. Response Section 5.1.2.1 presents a detailed discussion of the proposed FedEx operations at PTIA including a summary of the detailed wind analysis that was undertaken to support the proposed operational scenario. r 3-248 Comment Where in the EIS is the provision that allows the use of the proposed runway to be restricted? If it is not restricted, then the noise analysis of the EIS is totally invalid because it assumes no activity on the new 5/23 runway except by FedEx. Response The EIS does not contain any provision to restrict use of the proposed runway by non-FedEx aircraft. , Although other operators could use the new runway, the location of the passenger terminal, general aviation facilities, and maintenance facilities strongly encourages the use of the existing runway by all other operators. 3-249 Comment The psychological effect of new noise imposed on people who did not expect to have it also has to be ' considered. Response The EIS considers change in noise level as a measure of impact on people exposed to aircraft noise. Increases of 1.5 dBA or greater in the DNL at noise-sensitive areas within the 65 dBA DNL noise contours are considered significant. The EIS also addresses sleep disturbance issues at PTIA as a result of aircraft overflights. r 3-250 Comment The EIS fails to recognize that noise less than DNL 65 can be incompatible with some residential uses. Noise more than DNL 55 can be incompatible with the residential quality and activities expected in some areas. Response DNL is the metric commonly used to determine noise impact from aircraft operations. The DNL 65 dBA noise level is used by the FAA in determining the area of potential significant noise impacts from an airport. database 101801.xls r ' 3-251 Comment The national standard on the use of DNL to evaluate compatibility recognizes that single-family homes are 1 only marginally compatible in the range of DNL 55-65, and even multi-family housing is only marginally compatible in the range of DNL 60-65. Response Comment noted. However, the FAA guidelines set the DNL 65 dBA noise level as the determining factor for significant noise impact and the area of non-compatible land use. 3-252 Comment Compatibility planning and proper decisions by the community require the open sharing of information about noise. The PTIA historically has not demonstrated an effort to share information on existing and ' expected noise with the community as evident in that the 1990 and 1994 Master Plan updates do not include noise contours. Response The EIS presents a full disclosure of the existing noise environment around PTIA as well as the noise environment as a result of the proposed runway alternatives. 3-253 Comment A noise impact analysis should clearly explain what is changing and provide an indication of the amount of change. There should be a clear verbal description of what will change in terms of physical facilities and operations. The analysis should consider actual existing conditions and impacts of the noise change on those conditions. Response, The noise analysis clearly presents data that explains the change in the runway alternatives, including runway layout, runway use, and daily operations (see Section 5.1.2). Changes in noise levels are presented in the noise contours, the changes in noise levels at specific point locations, and the changes in land area, noise-sensitive receptors, and population exposed to various noise levels (see Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4). The EIS also presents a detailed description of the FedEx operations (see Section 5.1.2). 3-254 Comment Special "busy day", one-directional, or unusual-day DNL contours should be provided as supplementary information. These should be supplemented with single-event contours of either maximum level or sound. exposure level for a few different aircraft with differing noise outputs. If the time distribution of the sound is changing significantly, this should be explained. Response The EIS presents single-event sound exposure level (SEL) noise contours for two different aircraft under both an arrival and a departure scenario. This information is presented in Section 5.1.3. Busy-day DNL noise contours were not produced. 1 3-255 Comment The DEIS says that difference contours were computed, but these are not shown. Response Difference contours were developed and used as an analytical tool to determine areas that would experience an increase of DNL 1.5 dBA for the purposes of identifying areas that would be significantly ' impacted and to establish areas eligible for mitigation. Because the PTAA has committed to mitigate all impacts within the DNL 65 dBA noise contour, not just those that would experience an increase of DNL 1.5 dBA, it was decided to not depict the difference contours which are smaller than the DNL 65 dBA noise contour. 3-256 Comment ' Most of the FedEx planes will likely takeoff in about a one-hour period, most likely between about 3:00 and 4:00 a.m. What will be the average sound level during that hour? What will the maximum levels and the SEL's be? What will levels inside bedrooms be? How will it affect sleep? database_101801.xls Response Generally, FedEx arrival operations will begin starting at approximately 10:00 p.m. and will end around 2`00 a.m. FedEx departures will begin around 4:00 a.m. and will end around 7:00 a.m. An exact FedEx operating schedule is difficult to determine at this time, which would prohibit the determination of an hour- by-hour average noise level. However, the EIS presents the nighttime average sound level (Leq(9)) between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. when all FedEx operations are expected to occur (see Sections 5.1.2.1, 5.1.3, and 5.1.4). Sleep disturbance impacts are discussed in Sections 5.1.2 and 5.1.3. 3-257 Comment A mitigation plan should consider the essential elements of the project causing impact: the new runway, the night operations, and the use of noisy aircraft. The primary concern is the noise reaching indoors and the effect on sleep. Response The PTAA has proposed a detailed mitigation plan to all homes exposed to noise levels greater than DNL 65 dB. This mitigation plan is outlined in Section 6.3 of this FEIS. 3-258 Comment A unique aspect of the project is the dedication of the new runway to a single user, and the corresponding control of the aircraft that use that runway by a single user. These factors in combination provide opportunities for meaningful abatement. Response Comment noted. 3-259 Comment An effective mitigation measure is the control of the aircraft types involved in the operation and especially the types of aircraft using the new runway. Response Comment noted. 3-260 Comment There should be no hush-kitted 727s in the fleet assigned to this facility. Response The 8727 aircraft used by FedEx is the mainstay of its existing narrow-body cargo fleet. FedEx has no plans to replace the B727 through the 2005 planning period. However, by 2019 FedEx expects to begin replacement of the B727 aircraft, although a number of these aircraft will remain in the fleet at PTIA. 3-261 Comment On page 1-5 (third paragraph), it states that the goal is to have two widely-spaced parallel runways to support 48 daily FedEx air cargo operations (24 departures and 24 landings) by 2005. Table 5.1.2-4 shows only 17.1 FedEx departures projected for 2005, although there are 9.6 other operations projected to occur. The same is true for data. contained in Table 5.2.1-5. database_101801.xls Response Phase 1 of the proposed project anticipates 48 daily FedEx operations (24 arrivals and 24 departures) and ' Phase 2 anticipates 126 daily FedEx operations (63 arrivals and 63 departures). FedEx also anticipates that air cargo operations at the proposed Mid-Atlantic Hub will occur five nights per week (Monday through Friday). The Integrated Noise Model (INM) is the model that was used by the FAA to evaluate nose ' impacts for the EIS. The INM is a model that uses "average annual day" operations to calculate noise exposure in terms of the Day-Night metric (DNQ. To calculate the "average annual day" operations for the proposed project, the number of total annual operations is divided by 365. In the case of Phase 1 operations, the equation to calculate "average annual day" FedEx arrivals and departures for INM purposes is as follows: 24 daily arrivals or departures, times 260 FedEx operational days per year (5 nights per year x 52 weeks per year), divided by 365 days per year. ' The resultant "average annual day" arrival or departure operations by FedEx equals 17.1. For Phase 2 operations, the "average annual day" arrival or departure operations by FedEx equals 44.9. Therefore the FedEx operations numbers listed in Tables 5.1.2.4 and 5.1.2.5 that were used for the INM analysis are 1 correct. In terms of other air cargo operators, their operations are fully accounted for in the INM analysis, as shown on the previously referenced tables. t I database_101801.xis I? 1 1,--l i Piedmont Triad International Airport 4. Land Use 4-1 Comment Residents of Edinburgh and LandsDown subdivisions and along Phillipsburg Court are not on your maps. Response These subdivisions are included in the EIS GIS system and are shown on the maps. 4-2 Comment Why were areas allowed to be developed for residential use if PTIA was planning to expand? Response The local governments have initiated overlay noise contour Airport District zoning and restricted residential development within this overlay district since the 1986 Airport Land Use Plan was adopted as discussed in Section 4.2.1.4 of the FEIS. Prior to 1986 the local governing bodies did not plan land use or zoning surrounding PTIA. The FAA and PTAA do not have the authority to regulate land use or zoning surrounding PTIA. 4-3 Comment PTIA has not planned for this expansion properly. Response Comment noted. The PTIA has planned since 1968 to build a parallel runway as stated in their Master Plan and ALP. 4-4 Comment PTIA may own the land but there is probably a better use of the airport owned land than running runways and taxiways all over the landscape. Response Comment noted. 4-5 Comment Neither State nor Local Governments and Planning Agencies have conducted planning measures to accommodate a cargo hub operating at night on a new runway that would bring PTIA a mile closer to a densely populated area. Response Guilford County, the Cities of Greensboro and High Point and other local jurisdictions that would be minimally affected by the sponsor's proposal initiated a process in 1999 to update the 1986 Airport Area Use Plan. As of the FEIS issue date, that process is underway; the FAA has been advised that the update is scheduled for completion in 2002. In its present state, the updated Plan proposes to revise land use measures to achieve compatibility with a new west-side parallel Transport Category runway at PTIA and the associated changes in noise (see Appendix A, Agency Correspondence). The Plan will not be completed or issued until the impacts described in the FEIS and the determinations contained in the ROD can be incorporated into that planning process. 4-6 Comment The project is not eligible for federal aid because it is not "reasonably" consistent with existing plans of public agencies for the development of the area in which PTIA is located", and "fair consideration has [not] been given to the interest of all communities in or near which the project is located". Response All of the "W' build alternatives are consistent with PTAA's existing Airport Layout Plan (ALP), however, Alternatives N-D and WE are inconsistent with PTIA's ALP. Under all of the build alternatives, the noise contours would expand, and local land use planning documents would have to be revised to address new land use compatibility requirements. database_101801.xis As of the FEIS issue date, local government land use planning is addressed in the following existing ' documents: 1986 Airport Area Use Plan (adopted by Guilford County, cities of Greensboro and High Point, and PTAA); the 1986 Greensboro/High Point/Guilford County Airport Overlay district boundaries; the High Point 2000 updated Land Use Plan; the High Point Johnson Street/Sandy Ridge Area Plan, the High Point , West Wendover Avenue/Guilford College Road Corridor Plan, and the Guilford County Northwest Area Plan. While various individual revisions to the above referenced plans are in progress, Guilford County, the Cities of Greensboro and High Point and other local jurisdictions that would be minimally affected by the sponsor's proposal initiated a process in 1999 to update the 1986 Airport Area Use Plan. As of the FEIS issue date, that process is underway; the FAA has been advised that the update is scheduled for ' completion in 2002. In its present state, the updated Plan proposes to revise land use measures to achieve compatibility with a , new west-side parallel Transport Category runway at PTIA and the associated changes in noise (see Appendix A, Agency Correspondence). The Plan will not be completed or issued until the impacts described in the FEIS and the determinations contained in the ROD can be incorporated into that planning process. 4-7 Comment Did PTAA notify FAA of purchasing the land for the parallel runway and can you assure us that we will not be prejudicial because they have already bought the land without looking at our alternative? Response ' Since 1968 , a parallel runway has been part of the PTIA Master Plan and ALP, which has had the concurrence of the FAA. Chapter 3 of the FEIS states that 42 alternatives were examined during the EIS process, including the alternative submitted by the local citizens. FAA did not participate, financially in the land or concur in its purchase. Such unilateral local decisions will not prejudice the FAA's decision. 4-8 Comment ' Over the past 25 years, there is no evidence that the PTAA or the FAA, although "required, as a minimum, to use their best effort to assure proper zoning or other land use controls near PTIA", have done anything to encourage development of appropriate compatible land use controls in connection with possible , construction of a r. rallel runway. Response PTAA and FAA have no zoning authority to regulate local land use. The PTIA cooperated with the Cities of ' High Point and Greensboro and Guilford County with the preparation of the 1986 Airport Land Use Plan and is now working with the local governments with updating the existing plan as noted in Section 4.2.1.4 of the FEIS. 4-9 Comment PTAA's future land use maps show current residential areas as agriculture or wooded, undeveloped sites. Be sure to obtain accurate maps. Response GIS data was obtained from the local governments and updated by conducting land use surveys. Several land use surveys were conducted in order to develop the most accurate mapping. The last update was conducted in October 1999. 4-10 Comment We are concerned that with the proposed project that our residential area will be re-zoned and destroy our community. Response , The Cities of High Point and Greensboro and Guilford County have indicated that they will be revising the 1986 Airport Area Land Use Plan based on the noise contours associated with the FEIS Preferred Alternative. The goal of the Plan will be to prevent the development of non-compatible land use. Some , existing residential areas may be rezoned in order to develop more compatible land use patterns with airport operations. database 10180I As . ' Response Comment noted. See response to Comment 4-3. Local governments have restricted residential land use in ' the vicinity of the airport since the Airport Land Use Plan was adopted in 1986. 4-24 Comment We realize that a small, but very vocal group of people have opposed the location of the FedEx hub. They ' seem to ignore the fact that the developers were told not to locate the housing development in the area in question. Response ' Comment noted. See response to 4-3 and 4-23. 4-25 Comment ' The DEIS executive summary speculates on the contents of the revised Airport Layout Plan, expected by January of 2001. 1 assert that a reasonable evaluation by the FAA would require comparison of the proposed Fed Ex development to the actual revised ALP (with updated land use), when released. 1 Response The FEIS contains the July 2000 ALP developed by PTIA and it is this plan which is evaluated in the FEIS. The local governments plan to revise their land use plans and zoning in accordance with changes in airport operations that result in revised noise contours as discussed in Section 4.1.2.4 of the FEIS. 4-26 Comment ' At the same time leaders are promoting a night-time cargo hub, they are re-zoning effected areas for home construction. Response. See response to Comment 4-18. 4-27 Comment Once a preferred alternative has been selected, remedial land use measures identified in the DEIS must be undertaken by the PTAA to mitigate adverse noise impacts. These measures should be part of a comprehensive noise mitigation program that would be implemented by PTAA using FAA FAR Part 150 ' funds. Response As discussed in Section 6.3 of the FEIS, the PTAA would implement a noise mitigation program for the Preferred Alternative W1-A1. After the FAA issues its Record of Decision, the PTAA will implement a FAR Part 150 study, which will include an evaluation of remedial land use measures. 4-28 Comment ' Guilford County is currently in the process of updating the 1986 Airport Area Plan. The update of this plan will include the new noise contours resulting from the selection of a preferred alternative in the Final EIS. As noted, the 55 DNL contour should be included in the preferred alternative to insure compatible and ' consistent land use planning within the airport area. Response The Final EIS will depict the 65 DNL contour because this is the standard FAA threshold of significance. Under the FAA's guidelines contained in FAA Order 5050.4A, the FAA is not required to utilize the 55 DNL noise contours in its evaluation of noise impacts. However, after the issuance of the FAA Record of Decision, the PTAA could release the 60 and 55 DNL noise contours at the request of local governments. database 101801.x15 ' 4-11 Comment ' The new contour line should minimize negative effects of airport noise by maintaining very low residential densities within the 65 DNL contour. Response The Guilford County Board of Commissioners adopted an Airport Area Plan in 1986. The purpose of the plan was to recommend a general pattern of land use, utility provision, and environmental protection in the area surrounding the airport that would permit continued development without adversely affecting airport operations. In July 1999, Guilford County, in cooperation with Forsyth County, Greensboro, High Point, ' and Kernersville, initiated a citizen based planning process to examine land use, transportation, facilities/utilities, and environmental factors in the PTIA area. The citizen based planning process will update the 1986 Airport Area Plan with the completion of the EIS and the selection of a Preferred ' Alternative. 4-12 Comment ' Acquisition of avigational rights may be necessary for properties made nonconforming by airport overlay zoning or otherwise affected by increased noise levels. Response As discussed in Section 6.3.1 of the FEIS, the PTAA would voluntarily acquire all houses within the 75 and ' 70 DNL noise contours and offer acoustical treatment for all homes in the DNL 65 dBA noise contour. The PTAA would receive an avigational easement as part of the acoustical treatment mitigation. 4-13 Comment PTAA is currently acquiring and condemning properties for the project under study through imminent domain. This is a violation of FAA policy. Response ' The PTAA has a long-standing program of property acquisition related not only to lands that are needed for proposed future developments but also for any lands in proximity to PTIA that become available for purchase. These acquisition plans include properties related to developments depicted on the FAA- conditionally approved ALP and described in the 1994 Master Plan Update. At the time condemnation proceedings began for the parcel of land associated with the relocation of Oak Ridge Road, this project was considered an airport-related development project that had independent utility from the proposed runway and sorting/distribution facility project. Therefore its' acquisition was in keeping with FAA policy. 4-14 Comment ' Where is PTIA property boundary located? Response The PTIA's property boundary is shown on Figure 4.2.1-1 of the FEIS. 4-15 Comment What is a PUD? If it is a large residential area, shouldn't be labeled residential? Response See Section 4.2.1.3 of the FEIS. PUD is an acronym for Planned Unit Development, which is a mixed use zoning classification that includes residential use. The Cardinal is zoned as a PUD. ' 4-16 Comment How many homes have been built and are projected to be built southwest of PTIA? Response ' Frazier Downs is the latest subdivision to be approved in the area southwest of the PTIA. This subdivision was approved prior to the announcement of the proposed cargo hub in April 1998. The local governments are discouraging major subdivisions from being built in the prospective noise contours. 4-17 Comment database_101801AS The hub will turn residential areas of Guilford College, Oak Ridge, Summerfield, Colfax, northwest , Greensboro, and north High Point into an industrial, warehouse, transportation area in which few will want to live. Response ' Comment noted. See response to Comment 4-10. 4-18 Comment ' Land use that was zoned residential was done so even though knowledge was readily available on the impact of airport expansion. Response ' The Cities of High Point and Greensboro and Guilford County have only allowed minor subdivisions to be built within the airport noise contours since the Airport Land Use Plan was enacted in 1986. The Cardinal subdivision was allowed to be developed prior to the implementation of the 1986 Airport Land Use Plan. ' 4-19 Comment We (EPA) suggest that the City of Greensboro carefully consider zoning potential impact areas accordingly and make realtors aware of potential or planned airport expansions in order to advise home buyers of potential land use conflicts. Response , According to the City of Greensboro, High Point and Guilford County, careful restriction of new development within the prospective noise contours will occur after the ROD is issued and new land use plans are enacted based on the noise contours associated with the FAA's Preferred Alternative. , Coordination with the Greensboro Regional Realtors Association indicates that it recommends that its members inform prospective buyers of the proposed airport improvements. 4-20 Comment There is nothing in the Land Use Assurance Letter indicating any commitment to keeping the airport noise compatible with the existing development. , Response Because the PTAA does not have zoning or land use jurisdictions outside of its property boundaries, it cannot dictate local land use designations. However, as part of the mitigation program presented in ' Section 6.3 of the FEIS, the PTAA has committed to undertaking an FAA Part 150 Study, which will allow the PTAA to work with local jurisdictions that do have land use and zoning authority to ensure that non- compatible land uses are not develo ed in the air ort area - , p p . 4-21 Comment Since Greensboro does not have a plan for growth, we are unprepared for such a facility. ' Response Comment noted. The City of Greensboro began preparing a comprehensive plan in September of 2000, which should be completed by 2003. 4-22 Comment The proposed development is not compatible with the surrounding land uses and should not proceed. Response Comment noted. 4-23 Comment It seems rather limited and narrow that people who have built houses in and around the airport knew well ahead of time of where they were building those houses and the potential for the expansion of the airport , would exist. Their lack of vision and understanding that potential growth always existed, I do not understand. It is my firm belief that they must accept reality and move on. Therefore, to negatively effect the bulk of the population for a few people who knew very well that their homes were jeopardized by building so close to the airport, I have no sympathy. ' database_10180I.As Piedmont Triad International Airport ' 5. Social Impacts 5-1 Comment The runway will cause negative impacts on residential communities. Response Chapter 5 of the FEIS discusses the impacts of the proposed project and Build Alternatives to residential areas. 5-2 Comment ' The third runway will result in declining property values, safety concerns, air, water, and noise pollution, and destroy the quality of life of nearby communities. Response Appendix E, Section 7.0 of the FEIS presents an evaluation of potential effects on property values in the PTIA area. Sections 5.1, 5.5 and 5.6 of the FEIS discuss potential impacts in terms of noise, air quality and water quality. 5-3 Comment PTIA should provide adequate safety areas or buffer zones for residents neighboring the airport. Response The PTAA and loc-31 governments are now revising the 1986 Airport Plan in order to ensure the compatibility of future land uses and to minimize the impacts to existing residential areas as discussed in Section 4.1.2.4 of the FEIS. 5-4 Comment Why did the county allow homes to be built and continue to issue building permits around the area of this ' proposed runway? Response Since 1986 Guilford County as well as the Cities of Greensboro and High Point have restricted ' subdivisions and the provision of sewer from being built on land within the noise contours as discussed in Section 4.1.2.4 of the FEIS. 5-5 Comment The proposed runway is located too close to residential neighborhoods. Response ' Comment noted. The density of residential uses within the PTIA noise contour was regulated with the adoption of the 1986 Airport Land Use Plan. Some residential areas were built prior to the local enforcement of the Airport Overlay District. See Section 4.1.2.4 of the FEIS. ' 5-6 Comment With the proposed third runway at PTIA we will not be able to sell our home. ' Response Sale of individual homes is a function of a complex set of marketing factors that can not always be predicted based on past experience. The impact of the proposed project and Build Alternatives on residential property values is discussed in Section 5.3 as well as Section 7 of Appendix E of the FEIS. 5-7 Comment I believe the overall good to the larger community will outweigh negative impacts. Response Comment noted. 5-8 Comment FedEx is a proven high quality corporate citizen. It will strengthen the community. database_101801.x1s Response ' Comment noted. 5-9 Comment A small part of Guilford County should not hold back the growth potential of the entire county. Response Comment noted. 5-10 Comment I think it would be useful to know what impacts, for example property values of existing neighborhoods and ' future residential development, have occurred at areas near a similar FedEx facility (Memphis, Indianapolis). Response ' The FAA has not conducted a property value study for areas surrounding other FedEx facilities as part of this EIS. 5-11 Comment Greensboro and Guilford County gave up their rights to build this runway when these political jurisdictions allowed the building of a community next to PTIA. I Response Comment noted. See responses to Comments 4-3 and 5-4. 5-12 Comment ' Greensboro. is.an uncontrolled sprawling city that will share the heartaches of other urban centers such as L.A. Response Comment noted. See response to Comment 4-21. The City of Greensboro is now preparing its first comprehensive plan, which should be completed by 2003 as discussed in Section 4.1.2.4 of the FEIS. 5-13 Comment It is my opinion that to concurrently promote both residential and industrial development in the same area is unethical. Response Comment noted. See responses to Comments 4-19 and 5-11. ' 5-14 Comment Proposed FedEx facility will positively impact the real estate market in the area. Response , Comment noted. The impact of the proposed project and Build Alternatives on residential property values is discussed in Section 5.3 as well as Section 7.0 of Appendix E of the FEIS. 5-15 Comment FedEx will provide strong employee benefits for those employees working at the new sorting hub, even for part-time employees. Response Comment noted. 5-16 Comment ' This type of industrial development is what the residents have been hoping for. Response Comment noted. . 5-17 Comment ' Homebuyers were not warned of PTIA expansion because this crucial information was not disclosed. database 101801.x1s r, ?I u Response Since 1968 , a parallel runway has been part of the PTIA Master Plan and ALP, which has had the concurrence of the FAA and has been a matter of the public record. The 1994 ALP also shows portions of the airport being developed for future air cargo facilities. This expansion of cargo facilities would have occurred with or without the proposed project. 5-18 Comment Residents and businesses have moved to the Piedmont Triad Area because of apparent growth in the area. Response Comment noted. 5-19 Comment Purchasing thousands of homes and forcing people to relocate is wrong. Response Comment noted. As discussed in Section 6.3.1 of the FEIS, acquisitions for the Preferred Alternative W1- A1 would result in the purchase of 18 residences from construction activities as noted in Table 5.3.3-1. An additional 53 houses that are located in the 70-75 and >75 DNL for Phase 2 would be acquired for noise mitigation as stated in Table 5.2.4-3. A total of 71 residences would be acquired. 5-20 Comment Implementation of FedEx in the Triad will generate opportunities in the Triad for young people that will potentially make them stay in the area. Response Comment noted. 5-21 Comment Tax dollars should be used to build and refurbish Triad Schools, not for an additional runway that won't be used. Response Comment noted. 5-22 Comment The proposed project at PTIA will cause me (or my company) to move. Response Comment noted. ' 5-23 Comment Please consider residents in the area when reviewing the alternatives. Response Comment noted. The FAA considered social impacts when evaluating the five reasonable alternatives as discussed in Chapter 5 of the FEIS. The FAA will also consider potential social impacts in the development of the Record of Decision. ' 5-24 Comment The proposed project will be devastating to a vast area of the county's population. Response Comment noted. 5-25 Comment I cannot fathom any reasonable person saying that impacts on homes and people within 4 miles of this new runway will not be more than adversely affected. ' Response Comment noted. The noise impacts are fully disclosed in Section 5.1 of the FEIS. database_101801.x1s 5-26 Comment ' The study claims to predict economic impact yet claims it cannot predict community impact. Response Comment noted. See Section 5.3 and Appendix E of the FEIS for the disclosure of social impacts. 5-27 Comment With the FedEx project, you are punishing us for moving to the best school district in the county. ' Response Comment noted. See response to Comment 4-3. 5-28 Comment A study should be done to determine the level of disruption of people living near a facility like a FedEx. Response ' Comment noted. See Section 5.3 and Appendix E of the FEIS for the disclosure of social impacts. 5-29 Comment ' Has the FAA allowed a new runway to be built as close to a residential area as this one? Response The FAA evaluates proposed new runway projects using multiple environmental and social impact criteria. I In some instances, new runways have been built in proximity to residential areas. 5-30 Comment ' If you build an airport close to a major population, business areas, and transportation corridors, how can you reasonably expect that residential areas won't build up in close proximity? Response Comment noted.' ?ie FAA does not have the authority to administer land use controls. Since 1986 the local governments have been restricting land uses in the vicinity of the airport as discussed in Section 4.1.2.4 of the FEIS. 5-31 Comment FAA takes no action to ensure that airports would plan for future expansion away from residential areas. Response ' Comment noted. The FAA is responsible to review an airport sponsor's Master Plan and ultimately approve the airports Airport Layout Plan (ALP). It is the responsibility of the local governments to develop and ' administer land use controls. 5-32 Comment -How many homes will need to be purchased due to noise? ' Response See response to Comment 5-19. 5-33 Comment I am very pleased to learn of the excellent FedEx reputation as a quality employer. An employer which champions minority employees and commits to its local community through volunteerism, United Way ' campaigns and school enrichment programs. Response Comment noted. 5-34 Comment The negative impact to our community outweighs the dubiously positive outcomes of FedEx locating in our area. Response Comment noted. The impacts of the proposed project and Build Alternatives are discussed in Chapter 5 of , the FEIS. database_101801.xis ' 5-35 Comment I am pleased to know that FedEx, through their Adopt-A-School program, has become a national model for a successful initiative to improve education in the communities where FedEx employees live. Response Comment noted. ' 5-36 Comment Where will we relocate if the FAA approves the hub in Guilford County? Response ' According to the Greensboro Regional Realtors Association, there is an ample supply of available housing in the Triad as discussed in Section 5.3 of the FEIS. ' 5-37 Comment In view of the very substantial camouflage of peak noise levels and in place of open revelation of what those may be not only in noise cone areas, but in lateral flanking areas also near the airport, to simply blandly claim the lack of significant division or disruption of established communities, (or) disruption of ' information in the DEIS has been supplemented with SEL sleep disturbance, ground noise, and highway noise analysis in order to further evaluate the impacts to the surrounding communities. 5-38 Comment If homes are staying in the areas without retribution to the owners, what will the FAA mitigate for small t children that are currently in those areas as to ramifications on their schooling and to their health? Response ' All houses within the 70 and 75 DNL noise contours would be purchased because of potential impacts to the occupants. The houses within the 65 to 70 DNL noise contours will be acoustically treated in order to achieve indoor noise levels that meet the standards established by the EPA, HUD, and the FAA guidelines. ' 5-39 Comment Will the FAA pleas.? provide some details regarding social impacts? Response See Section 5.3 of the FEIS. 5-40 Comment The proposed FedEx hub and third runway violate the 5th Amendment, public confiscation without adequate compensation? ' Response Comment noted. All acquisitions and relocations associated with the airport improvements would be conducted in conformance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. 5-41 Comment What guidelines will PTIA offer to buy my house? Response See response to Comment 5-40. ' 5-42 Comment How does PTIA calculate purchase prices and when will this take place? r orderly Response planned Comment noted. The noise development is, in impacts my are fully humble view, disclosed in nothing Section short 5. of 1 of the straining FEIS. the The limits of human credulity! database 101801.x1s Response See response to Comment 5-40. Real estate appraisals conducted for property acquisitions as the result of the proposed project will incorporate standard accepted appraisal methods as mandated by the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. These methods take into account significant capital improvements that affect marketability for that property. In terms of timing, acquisitions would take place based upon the availability of funding from the FAA. 5-43 Comment The Summary states that "All of the alternatives would result in social impacts..." and then later states, "None of the alternatives would result in significant division or disruption of established communities...". ' How does the FAA propose to resolve these conflicting statements? Response All of the alternatives would require some acquisition of existing housing and the disruption of neighborhoods. A total of 71 houses would be acquired because of construction and noise mitigation for the Preferred Alternative W1-A1 as discussed in Sections 5.3 and 6.3.1 (Noise Mitigation) of the FEIS. r 5-44 Comment There is no accountability by government officials that allow homes to be built in an area where the third parallel runway will impact. ' Response See response to Comment 4-2. ' 5-45 Comment Airports provide service to a community and with a continuing urbanization you have to deal with unpleasant side effects of that urbanization and that growth and progress. Response Comment noted. ' 5-46 Comment PTAA is unwilling to put anything in writing that can publicly be given to people to assure them that the project will not hurt neighborhoods. ' Response Comment noted. The objective of the EIS process to disclose the impacts of the proposed project and Build Alternatives to the public is presented in the DEIS and the FEIS. 5-47 Comment Population and demographic statistics appear to be too heavily based upon 1990 census numbers. Any review of the Triad area with any sense of the locality would take into account the vast changes in growth patterns, population densities, and traffic patterns which have occurred since 1990. This data is too old to serve for calculations which allegedly predict the growth of the region through 2016. Response The North Carolina Office of State Planning population estimates and projections as reported by the Piedmont. Council of Governments PR.IN database were used to assess population growth since the 1990 Census. These are the same population estimates and projections used by the local governments. The US Census is the only reliable source to obtain demographic information such as racial and income characteristics and these figures are reported in the FEIS as warranted. database_101801.xis I Piedmont Triad International Airport ' 6. Induced Socioeconomic Impacts 6-1 Comment Purchasing of numerous homes adjacent to PTIA would cost the project and taxpayers millions. Response See response to Comment 5-19. As presented in Section 6.3.1 and Appendix E Section 7 of the FEIS, the purchase of the 53 home included within the affected noise contours (> 70 DNL) could range from approximately $2.1 to $3.4 million for both Phases 1 and 2. These values are based on current assessed and recent sales values for properties in the affected areas as derived from current county-wide tax ' assessment data. It is estimated that an additional $1.2 million would be needed to pay for costs associated with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970. The total costs could range from $3.3 to $4.5 million dollars. ' 6-2 Comment We are concerned we will suffer an economic loss if this runway is built. Response As discussed in Section 5.4.4 and Appendix E of the FEIS, the proposed project would produce a regional benefit based on potential employment growth on the order of 16,300 additional employees, generating increased wages and salaries over the period 2004 to 2019 on the order of $4.4 billion. Fiscal benefits, discussed in Section 5.4.5 and Appendix E Section 6.0 of the FEIS, could reach a total of nearly $15.4 million for the six counties making up the Socioeconomic Study Area. Individual homes within the immediate vicinity of the airport could experience a decrease in value however this affect is not measurable at this time (see Section 5.3 and Section 7 of Appendix E of the FEIS). Studies indicate that, over longer periods of time, a decrease in residential property value is often offset by an increase in overall property value in proximity to airports and elsewhere in the region as land uses change to accommodate more desirable and compatible uses. The detailed property value analysis is contained in Section 7 of Appendix E in the FEIS. ' 6-3 Comment Buy us out, give us fair market value for our homes soon, and let us get on with our lives. Response Comment noted. See response to Comment 5-19. As discussed in Section 6.3.1, all property owners whose property is acquired because of the proposed project would receive fair market value as mandated by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. r 6-4 Comment There is no one to work the low paying jobs when the unemployment rate is so low. Response In general, the FEIS shows that the replacement theory of employment takes effect in areas experiencing economic growth and development. There is sufficient labor pool availability within the region to meet the demands of increased production if the economy continues to growth at rates similar to those experienced over the past ten years (Section 5.4.4 of the FEIS). 6-5 Comment The proposed project should be stopped or prepare to purchase thousands of homes. Response Comment noted. See response to Comment 6-1. ' 6-6 Comment There are economic benefits of the proposed runway and cargo facility, both directly and indirectly, that benefits the whole community. Response Comment noted. See Section 5.4 and Appendix E of the FEIS. database_101801.xis , 6-7 Comment I conducted an economic impact study for the FedEx project at PTIA for the Greensboro Chamber of Commerce. If I can answer any questions about the study, please feel free to call or write anytime. Response Comment noted. ' 6-8 Comment No EIS study concerning economic impact should take place without both input and evaluation of the effected homeowners. In addition, similar judgements made in cases involving property should be made available to the public. Response Comment noted. The public has had the opportunity to voice their concerns throughout the EIS process. The DEIS and FEIS have been made available for public review. All comments submitted during the EIS process have been reviewed and responded to by the FAA in this FEIS. 6-9 Comment r Economic benefits should never endanger a community's quality of life or impact the environment. Response Comment noted. 6-10 Comment FedEx will be bringing not only investment and jobs to our state, they will bring with them a wave of ' customers and suppliers who will also create investment in our state's economy and our citizens. Response Comment noted. The economic impacts of the proposed project are discussed in Section 5.4 and Appendix E of the FEIS. 6-11 Comment Benefits of the project will favorably impact the City of Lexington and help us in our local economic development efforts. Response ' Comment noted. See response to Comment 6-10. 6-12 Comment New jobs will be created (directly and indirectly) as a result of the FedEx facility. Response Comment noted. See response to Comment 6-2. 6-13 Comment Proposed development at PTIA would represent an economy unlike any that has been seen for some time. Response Comment noted. See response to Comment 6-2. 6-14 Comment FedEx will employ those workers whose jobs have been phased out (textile, tobacco, etc), supplementing the employment base of the Piedmont Triad area and the State of North Carolina. Response Comment noted. See response to Comment 6-2. ' 6-15 Comment FedEx will have a positive impact and benefits the entire community. Response Comment noted. See response to Comment 6-2. database_10180I.As I ' 6-16 Comment Part time jobs will not have an incredible impact to the working class in and around Greensboro. Response The economic impact analysis is based on conversion of "part-time" numbers to full-time equivalents. Input-output multipliers generate long-term results as a function of wages and salaries estimated for both full- and part-time employment (Section 5.4 and Appendix E. of the FEIS). ' 6-17 Comment FedEx will add to the area's tax base, which will help to fund vital services for the area. ' Response Comment noted. See response to Comment 6-10. As discussed in Section 5.4.5 of the FEIS and Section 6 of Appendix E of the FEIS, 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. 6-18 Comment ' There is a need for jobs in the Triad due to increases in the labor market. Response Comment noted. See response to Comment 6-10. 6-19 Comment Benefits of the project will favorably impact the Piedmont Area, North Carolina, and Southern Virginia. Response Comment noted. See response to Comment 6-2. 6-20 Comment FedEx has had the willingness to employ those who may have had difficulties, historically, in finding employment. Response Comment noted. ' 6-21 Comment Greensboro's economy does not need a boost. Response Comment noted. Please see the discussion and analysis of Greensboro's economy contains in Section 4 and Appendix E of FEIS. ' 6-22 Comment Adding 1,500 mostly part-time jobs will not have a huge economic impact that proponents of PTIA expansion are suggesting. Response The economic impact analysis takes into account both the full- and part-time employment projections (Section 5.4 and Appendix E of the FEIS). r 6-23 Comment It would be useful to conduct a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether tax incentives being given to FedEx would not be more beneficial in the long term if used to improve Greensboro's infrastructure. Response The fiscal impact -..nalysis discussed in Section 5.4.5 of the FEIS and Section 6 of Appendix E of the FEIS concludes that 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. ' database_10180 1.xis 6-24 Comment If you are looking at potential economic benefits of FedEx coming, will you look at other similar examples (i.e. UPS at Louisville) to see potential economic costs after they come and can't find people to work at the facility that has no public transportation and no available skilled workers for hire? Response The FEIS discusses the population and employment growth of the Indianapolis and Memphis MSA in Appendix E Section 3.3 of the FEIS. The FEIS did not examine the UPS operations in Louisville or ' conduct detailed economic analysis of the FedEx hubs in other cities. 6-25 Comment Every business in our county and triad region is looking forward to FedEx expanding our region and aid our economic transition to higher technology in the future. Response Comment noted. 6-26 Comment With a quicker way to do business, productivity levels would increase, improving companies as a whole, thereby giving them a competitive edge. Response ' Comment noted. 6-27 Comment Will a comparison of economic impacts for the short and long term as well as with and without FedEx be ' conducted? Response The economic impact analysis addresses both the No-Action and the Build Alternativ i ll h f h e n a p ases o t e study, and includes both short- and long-term estimates of benefits and costs attributed to the proposed project (Section 5.4 of the FEIS). 6-28 Comment I do not want my home to be bought or force me to relocate elsewhere. Response , Only homes within the DNL 70 and 75 dBA noise contours and the construction areas would be offered the option of being acquired by the PTAA as Federal funding becomes available. Those residents who do not participate in this aspect of the noise mitigation program would be offered the opportunity to be included in the acoustical treatment program. The PTAA would receive an avigation easement as part of the acoustical treatment mitigation. 6-29 Comment Beneficiaries of the proposed project will be the contractors, people selling their homes, and PTIA. Response Comment noted. See Section 5.4 and Appendix E of the FEIS. 6-30 Comment I wish FedEx was coming to town a lot sooner than five years. Response Comment noted. 6-31 Comment Residents adversely impacted by the proposed project should be compensated and included in the EIS. Response See response to Comment 5-40. database 10180 1 i , _ .x s ICI n L_ 7 L 6-32 Comment The proposed project will attract businesses too not only adjacent to PTIA but to surrounding communities and rural areas as well. Response Comment noted. See Section 5.4 and Appendix E of the FEIS. 6-33 Comment FedEx has been rewarded by the Governor of Tennessee for employing those on welfare thereby reducing the amount of taxpayers dollars supporting. Response Comment noted. 6-34 Comment The loss of jobs as a result of an aircraft disaster over the tank farm would damage surrounding businesses and would create additional long lasting burdens on the region. Response Comment noted. 6-35 Comment . If my property is devalued by aircraft noise, existing and future, what legal recourse do I have? Response See response to Comment 5-6. 6-36 Comment I have suffered a large degree of personal financial loss, daily emotional stress, and the lack of ability to plan for my family's future. Response Comment noted. 6-37 Comment Homeowner's property will not be devalued. Response Appendix E Section 7.0 of the FEIS reports on the potential effects on property values, indicating a potential decrease in property values for those households located within the noise contours. Actual change in value, however, requires a long-term study of effects of actual implementation. Studies also indicate that, over longer periods of time, a decrease in residential property value is often offset by an increase in overall property value in proximity to airports and elsewhere in the region as land uses change to accommodate more desirable and compatible uses. The detailed analysis is contained in Section 5.4.6 of the FEIS and Section 7 in Appendix E of the FEIS. 6-38 Comment FedEx locating its Mid-Atlantic hub at PTIA should be considered an important investment for the area. Response Comment noted. The fiscal impact analysis discussed in Section 5.4.5 of the FEIS and Section 6 of Appendix E of the FEIS concludes that 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. See response to Comment 6-2. 6-39 Comment North Carolina General Assembly has passed legislation authorizing tax exemptions for FedEx and other companies may qualify. Response Comment noted. I database 101801.xls 6-40 Comment ' Are the homes in the Cardinal being bought to create a "crash zone" so close to residential and commercial areas? Response No homes in the Cardinal are proposed to be acquired because of construction or noise mitigation. See response to Comment 5-19. 6-41 Comment The proposed project will only attract some residual businesses to the area. Response The FEIS indicates a regional benefit based on potential employment growth on the order of 16,300 additional employees, generating increased wages and salaries over the period 2004 to 2019 on the order of $4.4 billion. These conclusions indicate a long-range potential for attracting significant new ' manufacturing businesses to the region as a function of improved location factors (Section 5.4 and Appendix E of the FEIS). 6-42 Comment ' I have read that the airport commission had to grant permission initially to the developer [of the Cardinal] to build this area. Response On October 10, 1973, Guilford County Commissioners approved the Cardinal Corporation rezoning R-PUD request. The planning staff report to the Planning Board discusses that, "One of the most significant problems affecting the proposed Cardinal development is the proximity of the Greensboro-High Point- Winston-Salem Regional Airport and the relationship of the Cardinal property to the future development plans." On December 17, 1973 the Guilford County Commissioners conducted a public hearing on the rezoning case. Mr. Stanley Frank, Chairman of the Greensboro-High Point Airport Authority, expressed doubt that the Cardinal development would be compatible with the airport operations during the Public Hearing concerning the rezoning to allow the Cardinal project to be built. Mr. Frank believed that the air traffic could affect Cardinal residents. The Guilford County Board of Commissioners approved the ' rezoning request by a vote of 3 to 2. 6-43 Comment ' Tax incentives being offered to FedEx and a loss of property taxes will mean higher taxes for the public. Response Over the period 2004 through 2019, the fiscal impact analysis indicates a potential benefit to the Six- County Socioeconomic Study Area on the order of $15.4 million with a net present value of nearly $8.6 million (See Section 5.4.5 as well as Appendix E Section 6.0 of the FEIS). The acquisition of homes as part of the noise mitigation program would create a short-term, temporary loss in municipal property taxes. However, recovery of this lost tax base would occur in the mid-term with the development of new compatible land uses (businesses and industry) surrounding PTIA. 6-44 Comment Perhaps FedEx will bring in jobs, but I do not think anyone will want to live in Greensboro or near PTIA. Response ' The FEIS projects additional population growth on the order of 25,000 by 2019 with additional employment of approximately 16,300, above that predicated under the No-Action Alternative (Section 5.4 of the FEIS). 6-45 Comment Homes have declined in value since the FedEx announcement and no one will buy them. database_101801.xls ' Response The FEIS property value analysis indicates that changes in noise contours resulting from changes in airport operations may have an affect on residential property values in the PTIA area. However, conclusive evidence has not been developed to-date because of the limited time-frame (two years) since the announcement of the potential hub and because no noise impacts from the operation of the hub have been ' realized yet. Over longer periods of time, a decrease in residential property value is often offset by an increase in overall property value in proximity to airports and elsewhere in the region as land uses change to accommodate more desirable and compatible uses. A detailed evaluation of potential property value impacts is contained in Section 5.4.6 of the FEIS and Section 7 of Appendix E in the FEIS. 6-46 Comment With so many homes for sale in the Cardinal community, residents are the ones bringing down the value of their homes. Response ' Comment noted. See Section 5.3 as well as Appendix E Section 7.0 of the FEIS. 6-47 Comment I will not buy a home in the Cardinal because the risk of it losing value. Response Comment noted. See response to Comment 6-45. 6-48 Comment Injustices accompany this type of expansion when carried out so close to a large town. Many people are ' forced to sue the authorities to obtain just remuneration for property loss or decline in value. Response Comment noted. ' 6-49 Comment The most reliable index as to the economic effects of the proposed FedEx facility would be to use market valuation techniques employed by certified appraisers. This approach uses comparable home sales and ' reduces the value to a per square foot value. This information should be reviewed for the last 2 years and incorporated into the EIS document. Response The property value analysis in the FEIS assessed home sales data provided by the Guilford County Tax Department available through July 2000. More detailed assessments would be necessary as part of any property acquisition program. Long-term effects would required analysis over a period of time following implementation of the program rather than only on a period of time following the announcement of possible location. Studies also indicate that, over longer periods of time, a decrease in residential property value is often offset by an increase in overall property value in proximity to airports and elsewhere in the region as land uses change to accommodate more desirable and compatible uses. See Section 5.4.5 of the FEIS and Appendix E Section 7.0 of the FEIS. 6-50 Comment To quote Chamber of Commerce figures when it comes to businesses that will move in is biased and not credible. ' Response Market analysis used as the basis for the economic impact study was based entirely on independent studies from sources such as the PTCOG and using employment and population data from fully independent sources. See Section 5.4 and Appendix E of the FEIS. 6-51 Comment t Will local or imported talent fill the high tech jobs brought by FedEx? Will we educate our own citizens to database_101801AS fill these positions? Have plans been made with local colleges to train for these jobs? Response ' It is up to local and regional institutions to respond to changing market and development conditions, including design of educational programs responsive to changing needs. Local community colleges have expressed interest in developing training courses to meet the needs of FedEx and other new businesses. 6-52 Comment , Government should allocate money to homeowners within a 3-mile radius surrounding the existing and proposed runways to assist in moving or any other reasonable request. Response Comment noted. All acquisitions and relocations associated with the airport improvements and noise impacts would be conducted in conformance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. The Act provides for moving expenses as well as closing and realtor costs. 6-53 Comment , FedEx will hurt businesses by taking existing employees. Response Economic growth and development always incorporates a re-allocation of labor supply. Over time, this reallocation helps to turn "growth" into "development." In addition, more employees and residents would be attracted to the Triad area, thereby resulting in an increase in the employment base. 6-54 Comment Will the project effect gasoline prices? Response Generally, gasoline prices are determined by economic forces and policies established on the national and ' international market level, rather than by local markets. 6-55 Comment Your facts regarding the number of homes in the area are not correct and you refuse to confirm them with the public. Response ' The housing and population figures are based upon the US Census and the EIS GIS system database. Numerous field surveys were conducted and information obtained from the local governments in order to obtain the most accurate and best possible information available at the time the analysis was conducted. 6-56 Comment ' The Greensboro News & Record reported that FedEx in Ft. Worth, Texas promised 1,500 jobs, but in thee. 15 months since opening only an approximate 500 people have been hired. Response t The FedEx Hub located at the Alliance Airport near Fort Worth Texas employed 900 full and part-time workers as of October 2000. 6-57 Comment 1 In order for a job to be created, there must be a net gain in total employment for the area. Given low wages, short hours, strenuous work, and night shifts, it is likely that few people will actually move to the area to take the type of jobs offered by FedEx. Response The FEIS indicates a potential growth in employment on the order of 16,300 by 2019--and this growth represents a net increase over that already predicted by regional and state planning agencies (Section 5.4 and Appendix E of the FEIS). database_101801.xis ' 6-58 Comment The study conducted by the Chamber of Commerce is flawed because it includes funds spent on ' construction and the assumption that those dollars would return directly to the Triad. It is likely that these construction contracts will be awarded to out of state contractors and workers, thereby nullifying any positive economic impact. Response ' Comment noted. See response to Comment 6-50. The status of who would obtain the contracts is not known at this time. 6-59 Comment Economic benefits will not exceed the costs. Response The FEIS indicates a potential increase in benefits as a function of new employment on the order of 16,300. Input-output models predict a long-term benefit in value-added for the region exceeding $7.4 billion over the 16--year period from 2004 through 2019 (Section 5.4 and Appendix E of the FEIS). 6-60 Comment Worker state taxes will not reimburse the $115 million in tax incentives. Response Comment noted. The FEIS did not examine the tax incentive issue; however, it did calculate the accumulated total state tax revenues on the order of $633 million through 2019 for the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area as stated in Table 5.4.3-16 of the FEIS. 6-61 Comment It is likely that most of the workers FedEx hires will move from existing jobs within the Triad. Thus FedEx will generate very little net gain of jobs. Response ' Net gain to regional employment is expected to reach over 16,300 by 2019. See Section 5.4 and Appendix E of the FEIS. 6-62 Comment With FedEx's shrinking profit margin, it is improbable that FedEx will be willing to pay more than the $8 per hour that it has predicted. Response Comment noted. FedEx reported that the average hourly wages at Memphis, Indianapolis, and at Alliance/Fort Wortn hubs were on the order of $10.00 per hour by the end of 1998. ' 6-63 Comment Many homes will have to be purchased outright or the homeowners compensated for damages with federal and local funds. ' Response See responses to Comments 5-19 and 5-40. 6-64 Comment Property values will be enhanced by the added industry. Response Overall fiscal impacts for the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area are expected to exceed $15.4 million over the 16-year period. The fiscal impact analysis includes the results of possible changes in property values for the six-county region as well as other annual sources of revenues and expenditures as ' discussed in detail in Section 5.4.5 and Appendix E Section 6.0 in the FEIS. 6-65 Comment Can the FAA require PTAA to purchase homes it does not wish to purchase? database_101801.xis Response The FAA has historically only provided Federal funding for approved mitigation programs that provide for the mitigation of noise impacts within the 65 DNL noise contour. If mitigation were to occur outside the 65 DNL noise contour, the full cost would have to be borne by the PTAA, unless the PTAA participated in a f FAR Part 150 Study and the Authority adopted a standard less than the DNL 65 dBA as the mitigation standard. The FAA cannot at this time, require the PTAA to purchase homes outside the 65 DNL noise contour. 6-66 Comment The Triad has suffered in recent years from job losses due to displacement of employees particularly in the tobacco and textile industries. Response - Comment noted. See Section 5.4 and Appendix E of the FEIS. 6-67 Comment Proponents of FedEx are counting on the extensive commercial development of the entire northwest of Greensboro. Is that PTAA's decision to make? Response Rezoning of land would be the responsibility of the local governments, not the PTAA or the FAA, as discussed in Section 5.2.3.2 of the FEIS. 6-68 6-69 Comment Why was FedEx chosen to get a taxpayer subsidy? u Response The provision of tax subsidies to FedEx was a decision made solely by the state and local governments, not the FAA. I Comment What benefit does FedEx bring to the people, community, and environment of Greensboro? Response The potential economic benefits would result from a net increase in employment and the wages and salaries which that employment generates. Total wages and salaries over the 16-year period could exceed $.4 billion with associated value added on the order of $7.5 billion. Fiscal impacts during the same period could exceed $15.4 million for the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area (Section 5.4.3 and Appendix E of the FEIS). 6-70 Comment I oppose the building of a third runway, and the development of a FedEx cargo hub at PTIA for the following reason: Employment - Piedmont Triad Business Index shows unemployment in the Triad at 2.8 percent, well below the national rate of 4.1 percent (accepted standard for full employment is 5 percent). Therefore the professed "need for jobs" is highly inflated and inaccurate. Response Comment noted. Need for jobs as opposed to maintaining a viable rate of economic growth and development withi,. a region are two different issues. Maintaining existing employment levels within the context of declining manufacturing and conversion to retail and service economy will, in the long run, result in a measurable decline in the economic vitality of the region. 6-71 Comment Can you promise the quality of jobs without warehouses, trucks, and more traffic coming here as a result of FedEx? Response Marketing for new development is substantially different than market analysis. It is up to local development agencies to build on the opportunities presented by any investment in infrastructure within the region. The FAA cannot determine what type or extent of jobs will become available as a result of FedEx establishing their hub at PTIA. I I 0 E k 7 database 101801.xls ' 6-72 Comment Our region needs a company of this caliber to enhance the opportunities of our area. Response Comment noted. 6-73 Comment Have benefits to communities surrounding Indianapolis outweighed the cost in incentives, talent drain from folks moving out, as well as increased infrastructure costs? Response ' Section 3 of Technical Appendix E of the FEIS contains a Case Study analysis of the socioeconomic impacts of the Fec+cx Hub at Indianapolis. It is important to remember however, that different communities will experience different benefits and impacts based on specific local conditions, and the results at Memphis, Indianapolis and Ft. Worth may not be directly applicable to the Triad. 6-74 Comment ' Why is Indianapolis International Airport trying to stop the destruction of fringe communities by compensating the homeowners approximately 10% when they sell their homes? Residents in these subdivisions say they lose more like 25% when they sell. 1 Response The Sales Assistance Program established as part of the Indianapolis International Airport's noise mitigation program was intended to help stabilize neighborhoods. This program compensates homeowners 10 percent of the sellers asking price when a home is sold. This program was established for areas that are not eligible for the Purchase Assurance, Sound Insulation or Acquisition noise mitigation programs. To date, approximately 108 homeowners have participated in the program. The FAA has no information verifying the commentators reference to a 25 percent loss in home value in the Indianapolis area. ' 6-75 Comment Our regional economy is in urgent need of this new development. Response Comment noted. Please see Section 4.2 of the FEIS and Appendix E of the FEIS for a discussion of the regional economy . 6-76 Comment ' Assuming the individuals whose property values may be affected are compensated fairly, the benefits of the FedEx hub far outweigh any detrimental effects. Response ' Comment noted. 6-77 Comment ' The jobs to be created by FedEx and related industries will be a big boost to the local economy. Response Comment noted. See responses to Comments 6-2 and 6-69. 6-78 Comment The impact of the proposed FedEx Hub is already being experienced here as small industries, attracted to the area because of the proposed Hub are beginning to locate here. Response Comment noted. ' 6-79 Comment FedEx is saying Wth their corporate vote that Greensboro and the Piedmont Triad is the Best place to do business. Response Comment noted. database 101801.xis 6-80 Comment ' With a proposed employment of about 750 initial employees and increasing to approximately 1,500 by the time the hub is fully operational lends "hope" to our community. Response Comment noted. Recent employment figures provided by FedEx indicate a total of 996 employees by 2005 and 2,650 by the year 2019. 6-81 Comment If the FedEx facility is not constructed, home values in the neighborhood opposed to the project will eventually be devalued by lack of growth in our community. Response Comment noted. Long-term economic growth and development within the region is essential to maintaining the value of homes and commercial property in any region. 6-82 Comment Did the FAA study take into account the impact to other employers in the area who will have to recruit, hire, and train new employees to replace the ones who go to work for FedEx? Response See response to Comment 6-53. 6-83 Comment Did the consultants or anyone else disclose to FedEx the employee turnover rates for the types of jobs they are offering? Response. . See response to Comment 6-53. 6-84 Comment A FedEx Hub will enable the Triad Region to keep pace with the rest of North Carolinian terms of new employment opportunities. ' Response Comment noted. 6-85 Comment Guilford County will pay the tax exemptions while surrounding counties, who will not have to pay taxes, will benefit from the jobs produced. This is unfair to the people of Guilford County. , Response Comment noted. The FEIS indicates that approximately 60 percent of the new employment and population resulting from the Build Alternative will locate within Guilford County (See Section 5.4.5 and Appendix E t Section 6.0 of the FEIS). 6-86 Comment ' FedEx's own personnel will fill the higher paying jobs. The lesser paying jobs will go to the locals. Response Comment noted. 6-87 Comment The tax break I have seen ranges from $70-120 million. Did Memphis or Indianapolis give this tax break? Response The FEIS did not examine the tax subsidy issue. The decision was made by state and local governments ' to offer tax incentives. 6-88 Comment Will the fact that FedEx is located here further this area (High Point) as a destination point for travelers and visitors? database-101801.xis I H J Response The number of business travelers and visitors would increase as the result of the expansion of the local economy. 6-89 Comment No one has come forward to reveal what companies and what jobs have located to cities expressly because Fed Ex was located there. Response Appendix E Section 3.4 discusses the employment and population growth of the Memphis and Indianapolis areas as the result of the FedEx hubs in those cities. 6-90 Comment The Triad needs to retain our young people and we must have high-tech jobs for employment. Response Comment noted. 6-91 Comment The multiplier effect of the FedEx jobs, especially in the out years, does not match even FedEx's proposed employment figures. This should be recalculated. Response The multiplier effect measures the impact of direct employment on the total employment that would result, including indirect and induced employment. FedEx employment projections were used in the FEIS as the direct employment projection. 6-92 Comment The number of jobs created by industries locating in the area just to be near FedEx is very conjectural. Coming up with a '6tal of 16,308 is very misleading in its implied precision. A range of such effects would be more believable and would reflect better on the reliability of such projections. Response The analytical approach generates numbers which appear to be specific but which are, in fact, estimates. There is a choice in the study approach to round off the numerous calculations. The rounded totals are often used in the text; however, when rounded numbers are used in the tables it becomes difficult to track the conclusions through what is a series of complex analytical steps. If the numbers were shown as rounded totals in the tables, it would be difficult to follow each step of the analysis through the employment generation as well as in the fiscal analysis. The estimated change in employment is viewed as an order-of- magnitude estimate. It is important to see that change as one approaching 2 percent of overall regional employment by 2019 rather than as an over-specified number. 6-93 Comment The economic growth in this area can only be sustained with development of the infrastructure including the expansion of the airport with the FedEx hub. Response Comment noted. 6-94 Comment The FedEx hub is the catalyst we need to secure our economic future. Response Comment noted. 6-95 Comment FedEx will be a superb long-term economic engine for the Triad. Response Comment noted. The economic impacts of the proposed project are discussed in Section 5.4 and Appendix E of the FEIS. I database 101801x15 6-96 Comment Condemned homes nearby our home may cause property values to decrease. Response Comment noted. Studies actually indicate that, over longer periods of time, any decrease in residential property value is often offset by an increase in overall property value in proximity to airports and elsewhere in the region as land uses change to accommodate more desirable and compatible uses. The detailed analysis is contained in Section 5.3 of the FEIS and Section 7: Property Value Analysis in Appendix E. 6-97 Comment Although the Draft EIS does mention certain companies downsizing, there is no mention of the many companies who have chosen to-locate; or expand here. I would suggest that the Draft EIS be amended to reflect the addition of numerous jobs with employers such as RF Micro, Sealy, VF and United HealthCare...to ne.,ne only a few. Response The economic impact analysis discusses long-term impacts on overall regional employment and not on the specific changes in particular business located within the region (Section 5.4 and Appendix E of the FEIS). 6-98 Comment ' The economic analysis of the benefits is flawed when it does not consider all the costs associated with the project. Only the positive figures were used and the added costs ignored. This one-sided analysis, as well as the controversy over whether the benefits were estimated properly, does not help the credibility of the rest of the report. Response The fiscal impact analysis examines both the costs and revenues that local jurisdictions may experience as , a function of increased growth and development (Section 5.4.5 and Appendix E- Section 6.0 of the FEIS). 6-99 Comment The DEIS (economic analysis) did not deal with the variability in the estimates used or foreseeable range estimates. Any analysis over this long a period needs to deal with the potential range of outcomes, not just the optimistic upside. Response The growth and development projections are based on past trends. All estimates are assumed to be order- of magnitude best applications. Also see response to comment 6-92. 6-100 Comment The EIS should have considered alternative job-promoting schemes and attract high-tech businesses instead of the FedEx project. Response ' The EIS considers the impact of the proposed project. Local area economic development agencies have the responsibility of examining alternative growth and development market opportunities. 6-101 Comment Do you realize that the hub may also cause many businesses to avoid relocating in the area? Response , The FEIS examines the net impact of the proposed project and discussed it in detail in Section 5.4 of the FEIS and Section 4 of Appendix E of the FEIS. As reported, net changes in growth and development indicate a potential increase of approximately 16,300 employees within the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area by 2019 along with all of the corresponding wages and salaries, state and local taxes, and ' value added associated with that potential increase. 6-102 Comment Can you please tell me what financial impact more migrant workers moving to the area without insurance will have on local health care resources and who will absorb these costs? database_101801AS Response Full and part-time workers employed by FedEx receive health care insurance and other benefits. The FEIS did not examine migrant workers and health care impacts. 6-103 Comment Page 4-15 of Appendix E states that in Indianapolis, it appears that cargo shipment capacity has not yet emerged as an important location factor in attracting new industry or had a major impact on the total employment. There is no evidence that new businesses or jobs will come to the area because of FedEx? Response The potential effects at PTIA are based on projections using only local-area population and employment information. Information from other FedEx locations is used only to discuss general experience in other locales. Appendix E Section 3.4 of the FEIS discusses business recruitment impacts as the result of the Memphis and Indianapolis FedEx hubs. 6-104 Comment A cost-benefit analysis needs to be completed on this project. Response Comment noted. The FEIS discusses the fiscal impacts of the Proposed Project in Section 5.4.5 and Appendix E Section 6.0 of the FEIS. In addition, the PTAA completed a cost benefit analysis that has been submitted to the FAA. 17 U 1 6-105 Comment Using state economic models, there will be a million jobs in the same time frame even if FedEx does not come. Response The analysis generates a net change in employment beyond that predicted by state population growth estimates and No-Action employment projections. As indicated in Table 5.4.3-2 of the FEIS, total regional employment by 2019 is estimated at 872,313. This represents an additional 174,515 jobs in the Six- County Socioeconomic Study Area since 2000. The change in employment on the order of 16,300 measured as the basis for economic impact as the result of any of the Build Alternatives is a net change and, therefore, an addition to the already projected regional employment growth. 6-106 Comment Are the money/jobs that are projected calculated after what is spent by the houses, roads, etc.? Response Impact measures include wages and salaries, value added, and net fiscal benefits. 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. This fiscal impact is discussed in detail in Section 5.4.5 of the FEIS and Section 6 of Appendix E of the FEIS. 6-107 Comment The study does not adequately demonstrate the effect the facility would have on the local economy. The projected economic benefits are largely conjecture. Response Comment noted. Both Section 5.4 of the FEIS and Appendix E of the FEIS contain detailed analysis of projected regional as well as local economic impacts. As in the case with any study of projects considered for the future, all impacts are only projections. In this case these projections are based on sound analytical methodologies described in detail within the FEIS documents. Areas covered include impacts associated with the expanded cargo facility itself, impacts associated with possible regional growth and development stimulated by improvements at the airport, fiscal impacts associated with each of the six counties within the defined impact study area, and estimates of potential changes in residential land value for properties located within close proximity to the airport. database_101801.xls 6-108 Comment ' The projected tax revenue gains were emphasized, but the cost of additional infrastructure and service was not included in the report. Without this additional cost information, there is no way to tell if this would be a net gain or loss in local and state revenues. Response The DEIS did not contain such analysis. A fiscal impact analysis was completed for the FEIS and shows a potential net benefit or loss for each of the affected counties within the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area. These estimates are based on average per-capita revenues and expenses as reported by each of the affected jurisdictions, but do not include special bond issues that are incorporated to meet the needs of capital expenditures (Section 5.4.5 and Appendix E Section 6.0 of the FEIS). 6-109 Comment How is the real estate value of my home estimated? Does it include recent improvements, such as landscaping? Response Real estate appraisals conducted for property acquisition for the proposed project will incorporate standard accepted appraisal methods. These methods take into account significant capital improvements that affect marketability for that property. 6-110 Comment I request that an economic analysis be done to translate the adverse health effects into financial loss by the community due to the incurred health expenses, related job losses, vacations, away from the job, etc. , Response Comment noted. The FAA did not conduct an evaluation of the costs of any health effects as part of this EIS. 6-111 Comment Is the negative impact on our property values addressed in any way in the EIS? Response The DEIS did not contain such analysis. A supplemental study was conducted for the FEIS and indicates a possible decline in residential value for properties affected by increased noise. The detailed analysis is contained in Section 5.4.5 in the FEIS and in Section 6 of Appendix E of the FEIS. 6-112 Comment When will homes in the "buy-out" areas be purchased? I hope before the construction. Response Acquisitions for construction would occur early in project development, prior to the commencement of construction activities. Acquisition for noise mitigation would occur based upon the significance of impact. Houses within the 75 DNL would generally be acquired prior to the acquisition of houses within the 70 ' DNL. Acquisitions would occur as Federal funding becomes available from the FAA. It is a goal of the PTAA to begin mitigation acquisitions as soon as possible after the issuance of FAA's ROD. 6-113 Comment Analysis of actual economic data post-FedEx coming to those cities would be helpful in evaluating the reasonableness of the benefits projected in the EIS. Response Comment noted. 6-114 Comment I Resolution - North Carolina General Assembly has passed legislation authorizing a total tax incentive package of $141.2 million for a one-million square-foot facility on 175-acres reflecting an initial capital investment of between $230 and $300 million at PTIA. Response Comment noted. database-101801-As ' 1 7 L r 6-115 Comment Where in the EIS study do they document the financial losses to the people of our neighborhood? We would like to see in the EIS study the financial effect of the people in the Cardinal Commons. Response A detailed analysis of potential impacts to property values is contained in Section 5.3 of the FEIS and in Appendix E, Section 7 of the FEIS. 6-116 Comment The proponents of the FedEx hub think it will attract technology companies with high paying jobs, however, I think you will find these companies are looking for a better quality of life than can be offered at a cargo hub. While these companies may build a warehouse here offering low paying jobs, the higher paying, executive-type positions will be in locations offering better air quality and an outstanding education system. Response Comment noted. 6-117 Comment What will be the monetary bottom line on income for the community versus expenses and costs of this project for the community? Response The FEIS examines the long-term potential effects of projected related growth and development on the estimated revenues and expenditures for each of the six counties included in the defined study area. The detailed analysis is in Section 5.4.5 of the FEIS and in Appendix E Section 6.0 of the FEIS. 6-118 Comment While claiming that the cargo hub project will provide much economic growth in the Piedmont area on the one hand, the FAA then claims that there will be so much new growth with the No-Action Alternative that the differences in pollution and water problems will be minimal. If this is the case, then obviously the economic impact would be minimal as well. So, which analysis is correct? Response The economic impact analysis of the FEIS looks at the "net" change in growth attributed to the Build Alternatives. That impact is estimated at a less than 2 percent increase in the overall employment growth projected for the region by 2019 (Section 5.4.3 and Appendix E of the FEIS). 6-119 Comment What other air cargo companies will be recruited to this area? Response Recruiting new businesses into the area is a responsibility of local economic development agencies and the counties they represent, not the FAA. It is difficult to determine what other air cargo companies would be recruited. it is dependent on local marketing, programs, activities, and specific/individual business decisions. 6-120 Comment We (U.S. Congressmen) strongly believe this project has the potential to increase business development and bring an infusion of steady jobs as a result of airport expansion. Response Comment noted. See response to Comment 6-2. 6-121 Comment North Carolina will reap tremendous dividends from this investment in our economic future. Response ' Comment noted. See Section 5.4 of the FEIS for further information. database_101801.xls 6-122 Comment The facility will support all industries for whom timely delivery is a critical factor. Response Comment noted. 6-123 Comment The incentive package under consideration will be more that offset by the investments to be made by r FedEx in locating the hub at PTIA. Response Comment noted. 6-124 Comment We request the General Assembly of the State of North Carolina approve the incentive package offered by the North Carolina Department of Commerce in due order. Response Comment noted. 6-125 Comment The Piedmont Triad experienced equal or greater growth without FedEx than did in those areas where FedEx has located. From this statistic, using extrapolations only marginally less scientific than those in the FAA's study, it can be said that location of a FedEx hub impedes the economic development of a given city. Please explain this discrepancy. Response Economic growth and development is a complicated process which takes into account numerous factors. The process of forecasting change is a function of trends resulting from an historic evaluation of these factors. As indicated in the analysis, the location of FedEx is only one of the factors considered and evaluated. As a rc.!;ult, the trends described and reviewed in the analysis are strictly characteristic of the Piedmont Triad. This analysis clearly demonstrates the potential positive impact of the future operations associated with the FedEx hub. In some cities it may be possible that location would impede economic development-that is not the case in the Piedmont Triad. 6-126 Comment The DEIS reads, " It was assumed that there would be one new household for every 1.5 new jobs and that the average household size would be 2.3 persons." What is the basis of this assumption? Response These assumptions are based on the latest information available from the local jurisdictions. Local planning departments were contacted to determine the average household size for their jurisdictions. The average household size was determined to be 2.3 persons per household and there was an average of 1.5 , employees per household. 6-127 Comment To what extent does the study contemplate that the jobs it predicts will not be filled by "new employees" or "new households" but will instead be filled by pirating workers from existing firms? Does the resulting negative effect on the expansion of those industries factor into your equation? Response All changes in employment are regarded as net new employment. In a growth economy, jobs vacated by employees moving to new positions are filled by new employees migrating into the region. 6-128 Comment The study states that the Triad regional economy is strong in all economic sectors except Government (Table 2.3). Please explain how this project will ameliorate that deficiency. What governmental employment will come from this project? database 101801.xis , Response The discussion summarized in Table 2.3 is about economic base conditions in the region. This analysis is a review of relative strengths and weaknesses within the region, not absolutes. Within the region, certain economic sectors exhibit relative strength; others exhibit growth; and still others exhibit relative weaknesses. There is no specific indication that this project will have any unusual impact on government sector employment other than that associated with state and local services necessary to support continued population growth. 6-129 Comment The one county identified as weak in transportation and wholesale trade, sectors which admittedly will be positively impacted by this project, is Montgomery County. The Uwharrie National Forest is located in this county and is obvious that this situation limits development potential and transportation options. How will this study aid Montgomery County in overcoming the fact that over half the county belongs to the Federal government? Response The EIS does not address this issue but, rather, indicates a potential for capturing a component of growth and development that could have a positive impact on the local and regional economy. It is up to individual jurisdictions to formulate a policy for capturing that growth potential in a manner consistent with local policy concerns. 6-130 Comment Upon what valid statistical and empirical basis does the report base its prediction of the lower job growth under the No-Action Alternative? Response . The economic impact analysis process is described in detail in Section 4.0 of Appendix E. The No-Action Alternative is based on projected population projections provided by the North Carolina Office of State Planning supplemented by regression analysis to project future employment based on 20 years of historic data. That analysis uses established procedures for deriving regression models to assimilate that historic data. The analysis was expanded to include cargo shipment activity within the region as one of the independent variables. The process illustrates not that growth is less under the No-Action Alternative, but that increased cargo capacity at the airport can have a positive impact on future growth in excess of that predicted under the No-Action Alternative. 6-131 Comment The EIS adopts dc-;pressed numbers and uses them as a baseline against which to measure the effect of the build alternatives through 2016. This approach fails to consider both the increasing level of development in the area and any negative economic effect of the hub, such as overstimulation of labor demand, adverse impacts on quality of life, increased traffic pressures, which would lower the net increase. Response This description of the methodology is discussed in Section 5.4.2 of the EIS. The impact analysis procedure first establishes forecasts based on nearly 20 years of existing data. Those forecasts are compared to incorporate forecasts prepared by the North Carolina Office of State Planning as the baseline for the No-Action Alternative. Forecasts for change in future employment and personal income are based on a statistical analysis of the potential effects of increased cargo capacity at the airport. These population and employment effects are relatively small as described within the analysis. The analysis continues with estimates of potential fiscal impacts on individual jurisdictions based on an estimated distribution of future change in population. When jurisdictions consider how to accommodate future growth and development, it will be appropriate to consider specific small-scale impacts on traffic capacity. This analysis is outside the scope of the economic impact component. 6-132 Comment What would be the effect of dislocation of entire neighborhoods, such as those reported in Plainfield on the economic health of the City of High Point? database 101801.xls Response ' There are no High Point neighborhoods that would be acquired as the result construction or noise mitigation for any of the Build Alternatives. 6-133 Comment On page 5-68 of the DEIS, it is stated, "As evident in the Memphis and Indianapolis case studies, businesses are attracted to metropolitan regions where FedEx hubs operate." What case studies are referred to here? Response The case study referred to in the text is discussed in Section 3.0 of Appendix E. References to additional studies and discussions appear in Section 4.0 of the Appendix E. 6-134 Comment Nearly every assumption of future growth or measurement of employment growth or business recruitment in other hubs is based on what the study terms "anecdotal" information. This approach is unscientific, untestable, and improvable. Response All techniques applied and discussed are based on sound econometric forecasting procedures, supplemented with reviews of other studies and with discussions with professionals with direct local experience. 6-135 Comment The EIS fails to present the model used by the preparer in estimating the "cargo-component" effect on employment in. language which can be easily comprehended by the general public. Response The methods used are discussed in Section 5.4.2 of the FEIS and presented in detail in Section 4.0 of Appendix E. Procedures applied include input-output multipliers for estimated indirect and induced impacts, multivariable regression models to forecast trends, and comparison with similar applications in comparable situations where possible. The capacity utilization approach to transportation impact analysis applied by the analysis team has been used in other airport applications as well as other transportation system evaluations. Although the procedures are standardized, the outputs are always characteristic of the regions for which they are developed. 6-136 Comment Has the "cargo-component" model ever been empirically tested in other hub locations to determine its accuracy? Have the multipliers used been applied to any other project and resulted in accurate predictions of economic effect? Has it been applied in the case of expansions of other cargo facilities not related to FedEx? If so, please include the data and results of such tests. If not, please so state in the Final EIS. Response See response to Comment 6-135. Although the procedures are standardized, the results are always characteristic only of the specific economic regions for which they are derived. There is no "black box" model used in thiE ;analysis--only standard econometric forecasting techniques based on existing trends and statistical modeling. This process has been used in numerous transportation system evaluations including airports, highways, and transit system development proposals. In this study, the model is specifically tested against experience in Memphis and Indianapolis. Results are discussed and compared with studies by others. 6-137 Comment To what extent is the cargo-component model based upon the anecdotal research done by telephone? Response The results are reviewed in the context of discussions with professionals from other areas as well as in comparison to studies prepared by others. See response to Comment 6-133. , database_101801.xis - 1 L 6-138 Comment To what extent does the economic model of the "cargo-generated component" reflect an expectation that air cargo companies other than FedEx will take advantage of the increased cargo facilities at the airport? Response Since the analysis is based on potential changes in overall regional employment trends, it includes potential utilization by other air cargo companies as well as by companies requiring increased cargo shipment capacity and accessibility. 6-139 Comment Please explain how adding FedEx into PTIA, focusing so many jobs in and around the airport, combats the increasing centralization of our employment base. Does it not promote such centralization? If not, why not? Response Jobs associated directly with FedEx would be located at the airport-based facility. Other jobs resulting from indirect and induced employment associated with FedEx as well as with potential regional growth would locate as a function of existing and proposed transportation systems and land use availability. That possible distribution is discussed in the Impact Analysis section of the EIS. Centralization will continue to occur as long as the forces driving growth and development are centralized, including availability of land and infrastructure supporting change. 6-140 Comment The FedEx project would drive residential development out and away from the central area and away from the new job base, pulling cities apart, and increasing the burden on our roadways. The DEIS fails to address the long-term costs of such a fundamental shift in development. Response Growth and development, in terms of both population and employment, is a function of numerous factors. These include existing land use and zoning policies, infrastructure availability and cost, market factors resulting from supply and demand, educational practices, and others. The issues associated with these factors are considcrably broader than those associated with the proposed improvement at PTIA and must be addressed by all of the jurisdictions involved. 6-141 Comment The estimate of extensive economic impacts (approximately 16,000 new jobs) rests on very strong assumptions about the location decisions of other firms. These assumptions are not sufficiently justified within the analysis. Response The total estimated potential change in regional employment is on the order of 2.0%. Although the change in employment is a relatively small number, the change in total value added for the region is a relatively large value--on the order of $7.5 billion over sixteen years for the six counties within the study area. Location decisions by individual companies are complex, but the trends that result from their decisions are demonstrated in the twenty years of data used in the analysis. Both the statistical models and the input- output models reflect these location decisions. Context discussions indicate that access to airports with cargo shipment capacity are important to both service and manufacturing companies. The level of importance is reflected by the forecasting process. 6-142 Comment It seems misleading to represent economic forecasts as point estimates rather than confidence intervals. A number of scenarios are reasonable. At the very least, include pessimistic, optimistic and base case scenarios, with the associated assumptions clearly articulated. Response Forecasts are never fixed as the commenter indicates and are only as good as the original data used in the trend evaluations. This analysis relies on nearly twenty years of historic data and generates output primarily as a function of relative predicted change in total employment and income. As a result, adding intervals for absolute data would result in different high and low estimates for actual employment but not change significantly the relative intervals between "with" and "without" alternatives. database 101801.xls 6-143 Comment There is no attempt to estimate the foregone economic growth that will be lost as a result of making the Triad's economy much more strongly oriented to transportation, warehousing and logistics. It is likely to dissuade some firms from locating in the Triad. Response Forecasted regional growth represents strengths as weaknesses characteristic of the past historic trends:in the regional economy. The existence, for example, of a strong but declining manufacturing based is indicative of the ability of the region to offer attractions to manufacturing and distribution companies if basic needs are met. Basic needs include but are not limited to labor force characteristics and access to transportation infrastructure. Other changes in regional characteristics would generate different impacts. These alternatives are outside the scope of the economic impact analysis component of the EIS. 6-144 Comment The effect on the market values of the impacted communities must be examined carefully. Response Additional material prepared for the FEIS included an analysis of possible fiscal impacts affecting jurisdictions within the study area. 6-145 Comment An impact does exist and cost of mitigating that impact must be a part of the overall economic analysis and decisions. Response Section 6.3 of the FEIS presents the mitigation program for the Preferred Alternative along with the approximate costs of implementing the mitigation program. r] database 101801.xis I ?1 Piedmont Triad International Airport 7. Air Quality 7-1 Comment Increase in flights and additional truck traffic due to the third runway will increase air pollution. Response Comment noted. The FEIS and the Final Draft General Conformity Determination analysis indicates that the increase in criteria pollutants will be de minimis except for volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides, the precursors of ozone. The increase in these two pollutants is accounted for in the North Carolina State Air Quality Implementation Plan. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative for development of PTIA will not interfere with the ability of the region to achieve the national ambient air quality standards for ozone. 7-2 Comment Proposed development at PTIA will add to the already declining air quality. Response See response to Comment 7-1, above. 7-3 Comment FedEx will increase health problems due to excessive toxic emissions from planes and trucks. Response Based on information available in the scientific literature, there is no known "cause-and-effect" between toxic air emissions from planes and health problems around airports. Some studies are underway to better identify the potential contribution of aircraft emissions to overall air quality conditions in airport vicinities, but they are incomplete at this time. Diesel emissions from trucks and other heavy duty vehicles have been identified by the EPA as a source of toxic air emissions. As a result, new emission standards are being developed and implemented on new trucks to help reduce the potential impacts to health from these pollutants. Similar standards have not been imposed on aircraft engines. 7-4 Comment Residents currently experience days of poor air quality; even Orange Days. Response The greater Piedmont - Triad region, including Guilford County, has experienced several air quality alert days over the past several months. Based on the data, these elevated levels of pollutants (ozone in particular) are region-wide and not confined to one area, municipality or county, nor are they peculiar to the airport area. 7-5 Comment The 60 nightly cargo flights and 120 trucks will add 60 tons/year of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and 200 tons/year of nitrogen oxide (NOx). Response Based on the data contained in Table 5.5.4-1 of the FEIS, the estimated increase in emissions associated with the planned project are approximately these values in Phase 2 (2019). database_101801.x1s 7-6 Comment ' An air quality analysis of direct and indirect emissions is needed as part of the environmental study. Response Comment noted. The air quality analysis in the EIS and General Conformity Determination considered both direct and indirect emissions. The U.S. EPA defines "direct emissions" as those that are caused or initiated by the Federal action and occur in.the same place and timeframe as the project. Examples include aircraft and motor vehicle emissions that occur on the airport site. By comparison, "indirect emissions" are defined as those that are caused by and may occur later in time and/or may be further removed in distance from the action but are reasonably foreseeable and the Federal agency can practicably control and will maintain control due to a continuing program responsibility. Examples include motor vehicles that are airport bound, but are off the airport site. Direct and indirect emission sources are accounted for in the EIS, the Transportation Improvement Program, the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) for the Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point area and the SIP. 7-7 Comment Hub operations should be in compliance with the Clean Air Act. Response Comment noted. The mechanism for demonstrating compliance with the Clean Air Act is the General Conformity process which is the responsibility of the FAA. This insures that the FAA does not approve, fund, or permit any project or action that is not consistent with the State Implementation Plan (SIP); a plan developed by the state to attain and maintain the ambient Air Quality Standards. This General Conformity process has been completed for this project and is described in greater detail in Section 5.5 of the FEIS and in the Final General Conformity Determination, which is included in Appendix F of the FEIS. , 7-8 Comment Some of the pollutants for jet exhaust have been determined to be highly carcinogenic. Response All internal combustion engines that burn hydrocarbon-based fuel (including jet aircraft engines) emit exhaust by-products, some of which are classifiable as potentially carcinogenic. However, there has been no direct correlation made by the scientific or medical communities between the release of aircraft exhaust and an incidence of cancer. This is partially because most of aircraft emissions are released at altitude and are widely dispersed, or diluted, before they reach ground-level. It is also true that aircraft engines are very efficient at burning fuel and the exhaust products of combustion are minimal; especially with the newer fleet of aircraft. Finally, because airports are surrounded by vast tracks of restricted areas, public exposures to jet exhaust are very limited or even non-occurring. 7-9 Comment I If the modifications include installation of air emissions sources such as emergency generators or paint spray booths, an air quality permit may be required. Response I Emergency generators, spray paint booths, and other similar "stationary sources" are required, by law, to obtain both construction and operational permits from the North Carolina Department of Environmental & Natural Resources. Any such facilities that arise as a result of this project, will be permitted in accordance with these requirements. 7-10 Comment Where is the air pollution going to go and how far away from PTIA will it effect people who have respiratory problems? Response ' The distance and direction air pollutants travel from a source (including PTIA), depends to a large extent on the specific air emission (e.g. CO, NOx, particulates); it's physical form and mass (e.g. gas, liquid or solid); the temperature of the exhaust and the surrounding air; the altitude, or height, at which the pollutant is emitted; and the meteorological conditions (e.g. wind speed and direction, humidity, precipitation) occurring at the time of the release. For an explanation of human exposures to aircraft exhaust and health- elated issues, see responses to Comments 7-3 and 7-8. database ,0,8o,.xs 1 n 7-11 Comment What effect will the added emissions from additional aircraft and trucks have on the requirement for using oxygenated gasoline in the fuel stations in the area? Response As discussed in tha response to Comment 7-7, the proposed project must be shown to be consistent with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Greensboro area as part of the Clean Air Act General Conformity Requirements. The SIP is also the mechanism for determining whether or not the use of oxygenated gasoline is necessary for the area to meet its attainment goals. Therefore, any relationship between the proposed project and the continued use of oxygenated fuels in the Piedmont Triad area is resolved in the SIP as part of the overall strategy for managing air emissions throughout the area. 7-12 Comment EPA officials have stated that airports actually act like "mini-cities" and contribute as much as 5% of the total fossil fuel emissions to our environment. If this is the case on the national level, what happens at the local levels to those cities adjacent to PTIA? Response When comparing the total amounts of emissions associated with PTIA to the county or regional totals, the airport represents approximately 1 to 3 percent of the total, depending on the pollutant. When making a similar comparison of total PTIA emissions to the total of those emitted directly adjacent to the airport, the contribution is higher. However, most airports (including PTIA) are surrounded by large tracts of restricted vacant land. Therefore, the human exposure to airport related emissions is minimized significantly. 7-13 Comment I routinely have to clean the accumulation of black jet fuel/pollution off of patio furniture and we often have to go inside because of the burning jet fuel fumes in the air. What are the effects of dumped jet fuel on our residential roofs? Response Unburned fuel from jet aircraft is not dumped unless there is an eminent emergency that endangers the passengers or people on the ground. If possible, and only on these irregular occasions, the pilots eject the fuel at altitude and away from inhabited areas. This minimizes the environmental impact and allows the crew to better prepare for an emergency landing. In short, fuel dumping is not a common practice and only conducted when the aircraft is in eminent danger. Citizen complaints and concerns about black deposits on outdoor furniture is shared by both those people that live near airports and those who do not. The atmosphere in an urban area is affected by many and varied sources of pollution that collectively contribute to the problem. As such, it is difficult, if not impossible, to differentiate those deposits that originate from aircraft from those that originate from motor vehicles, power plants, factories, etc. Air quality monitoring studies conducted at several major metropolitan airports across the U.S. have demonstrated this occurrence. 7-14 Comment FAA should provide quantitative dispersion analysis data so that specific areas affected by the additional emissions are identified. Response Because the greatest potential impact on air quality associated with the proposed project is on regional ozone precursors (e.g. NOx and VOC) and because these impacts are not amenable to dispersion modeling, it would be inappropriate in this case to conduct this analysis. 7-15 Comment FAA should provide in their air quality analysis projections describing the long term effects of the combined emissions from the expanded airport operations, commuter and truck traffic, Duke Energy's coal fired generation facility, Dynegy's proposed 800 MW dual fueled plant, and other large point source emitters. database_101801.xis Response I The FEIS provides an assessment of the long term effects of the emissions associated with the airport and the planned improvements. This data and information is taken together with all the other sources of air emissions in the Piedmont - Triad area and analyzed by NCDENR in the SIP. In this way, the combined effects of the emissions associated with PTIA and these other sources are taken into account. 7-16 Comment What additional costs will the area bear if growth stimulated by a FedEx hub causes the US EPA to implement more strict air quality standards for the Piedmont area? Who will pay the costs? Response As stated in the responses to Comments 7-7 and 7-15, emissions associated with the proposed project, PTIA as a whole and all the other sources in the Piedmont - Triad area are accounted for, and assessed together, in the SIP. In this way, the growth, or increase, in emissions throughout the region is properly managed and the area achieves attainment of the air quality standards. Should the area not achieve attainment within the SIP-prescribed timeframe, then emission reduction measures are developed and implemented region-wide. The costs of these measures are borne by the sources of the emissions that are identified in the SIP, or its amendments, as subject to these necessary controls. 7-17 Comment The Clean Air Act, Section 110 provides that each state implementation plan must contain provisions preventing sources within the state from contributing significantly to nonattainment problems or interfering with maintenance. In addition, increasing concern about the adverse health effects of ground level ozone has led the EPA and North Carolina to propose and implement a tightened national ambient air quality standard of 0.08 ppm. The current 8-hour value for ozone in the Triad is 0.097. With the addition of the . proposed 126 FedEx cargo flight operations per evening, how will the Triad ever reach attainment? ? Response As discussed in response to Comment 7-7, the mechanism for demonstrating compliance with the Clean Air Act is the General Conformity process. This insures that the FAA does not approve, fund, or permit any project or action that is not consistent with the State Implementation Plan (SIP); a plan developed by the state to attain and maintain the Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone. This General Conformity process has been completed for this project and is described in greater detail in Section 5.5 of the FEIS and in the Final General Cor`armity Determination, which is included in Appendix F of the FEIS. 7-18 Comment .How will the State of North Carolina address their implementation plan since the Triad is already in nonattainment and the addition of FedEx flights will only compound the already existing ozone problem. Response Please see response to Comment 7-17. 7-19 Comment If sanctions are imposed for nonattainment, will it not cost the State of North Carolina federal money for road and other improvements? r database_101801.xis 11 C? 11 Response Should the State of North Carolina fail to demonstrate attainment of the national Ambient Air Quality Standards, sanctions could be applied by the Federal government that would limit the amounts of available funds for roadway construction and other infrastructure projects. As discussed in the response to Comment 7-7, the mechanism for demonstrating that the PTIA improvements are in compliance with the Clean Air Act is the General Conformity process. This insures that the FAA does not approve, fund, or permit any project or action that is not consistent with the State Implementation Plan (SIP); a plan developed by the state to attain and maintain the Ambient Air Quality Standards and thereby avoid these sanctions. This General Conformity process is underway for this project and is described in greater detail in the Draft General Conformity Determination Report, which is being published separately from the FEIS. 7-20 Comment Is the FAA's intent to shift the burden or reaching attainment for ozone on other industries or the public to compensate for the pollution created by bringing FedEx to the Triad? Response As stated in the responses to Comments 7-7 and 7-15, emissions associated with the proposed project, PTIA as a whole and all the other sources in the Piedmont - Triad area are accounted for, and assessed together, in the SIP. In this way, the growth, or increase, in emissions through-out the region is properly managed and the area achieves attainment of the air quality standards. Should the area not achieve attainment within the SIP-prescribed timeframe, then emission reduction measures are developed and implemented region-wide. The costs, or burden, of these measures are borne by the sources of the emissions that are identified in the SIP, or its amendments, as subject to these necessary controls. 7-21 Comment With the proposed addition of 126 FedEx cargo flight operations per night over the Triad, will the air pollution emitted from these planes not aggravate existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease, damage lung tissue and weaken immune systems of active, young children, older adults and adults with respiratory disease, such as asthma? Response The causative agents that contribute to respiratory problems are multifaceted and, generally speaking not. fully understood. Ambient (e.g. outdoor) air pollution, indoor air quality and lifestyle are but a few of the potential contributors. In an urban environment, outdoor air quality is also influenced by a wide array of factors including climate and meteorology, vegetation and seasonal factors, as well as both regional and local air pollution sources. These sources consist of motor vehicles, industry and the natural degradation of earthen materials. Aircraft also contribute, but in comparatively small quantities (e.g. less than 1 to 3 percent of the total). As a consequence, the relationship between aircraft emissions and respiratory problems is not defined nor documented. See responses to Comments 7-3, 7-8, and 7-10 for further explanation of what is known about aircraft emissions and the potential effects on human health. 7-22 Comment Greensboro, a city in a state with the 3rd worst air quality in the country, already has sufficient bad air problems. Fed Ex would compound this. Response As stated in the responses to Comments 7-7 and 7-15, emissions associated with the proposed project, PTIA as a whole and all the other sources in the Piedmont - Triad area are accounted for, and assessed together, in the SIP; a plan developed by the state to attain and maintain the Ambient Air Quality Standards. In this way, the growth, or increase, in emissions through-out the region is properly managed and the area achieves attainment of the air quality standards. The mechanism for demonstrating compliance with the SIP is the General Conformity process. This insures that the FAA does not approve, fund, or permit any projector action that is not consistent with the SIP; This General Conformity process is underway for this project and is described in greater detail in Section 5.5 of the FEIS and the Final General Conformity Determination, which is included in Appendix F of the FEIS. database_101801.xls 7-23 Comment Some more detailed explanation of the particulate emissions would be helpful. Response Particulate matter emissions are comprised of dust, dirt, unburned and partially burned hydrocarbons and other non-gaseous emissions from motor vehicles, power plants, industry and the natural environment. Unlike gaseous emissions, particulate matter has mass and is more subject to the effects gravitational settling. From a regulatory standpoint, particulate matter is sub-divided into three size classifications: coarse, fine and very fine. Aircraft, aircraft service vehicles, and motor vehicles traveling to, from and moving about the airport are also sources of particulate matter. Most of this material is deposited back to the ground before it leaves the airport site. That material that is transported off the airport site or released at altitude eventually settles out from the atmosphere. The contribution of airport-related emissions to particulate matter is not well known or understood, but it is not viewed to be a large contributor to ambient pollution levels. 7-24 Comment Air pollution average based on 24 hour normalized average. The air is more still at night when the most air pollution from emissions will occur. This will cause more pollution. The DEIS should not normalize these issues. Response A number of factors and variables play important roles in the formation and dispersal of air emissions. These include the specific type of air emission (e.g. CO, NOx, particulates); it's physical form and mass (e.g. gas, liquid or solid); the temperature of the exhaust and the surrounding air; the altitude, or height, at which the pollutant is emitted; and the meteorological conditions (e.g. wind speed and direction, humidity, precipitation, and solar radiation) occurring at the time of the release. At night, some of the influencing meteorological conditions will moderate e.g. wind speed and solar radiation; two factors that have opposite effects. 7-25 Comment What are the accurate numbers for pollutants from the added aircraft operations and the associated trucking operations? This should include all the emitted pollutants: VOCs, NOx, CO, particulates, S02, sulfates, and any r±her identified toxics. , Response Tables 5.5.3-1 and 5.5.4-1 in Chapter 5.0 (Environmental Consequences) of the FEIS summarize the total amounts of pollutants emitted by aircraft, motor vehicles and other airport-related sources. These data are provided for the pollutants VOCs, CO, and NOx. Particulates (as PM-10) are also emitted but emission factors for aircraft are unavailable. Airports and aircraft are not significant sources of S02 or sulfates, and therefore, these emissions are not included. Most toxic air pollutants are a subset of a group of compounds called volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Therefore, although toxic air pollutants are not specifically addressed as part of the emissions inventory in the FEIS, they can be considered part of the VOC estimates. As such, because VOC emissions are anticipated to decline in the future with the proposed project, toxic air pollutants are similarly expected to decrease. 7-26 Comment How will this increase in pollutants affect the area's ozone levels in the future? Specifically, how many additional days will the level go over 100, how much higher will it be on those days where it already exceeds 100, and how may days can be expected where it will go over 200? database_10180I.As I r?1 LJ L I 17 LJ Response As stated in the responses to Comments 7-7 and 7-15, emissions associated with this project, PTIA as a whole and all the other sources in the Piedmont - Triad area are accounted for, and assessed together, in the SIP. In this way, the growth, or increase, in emissions through-out the region is properly managed and the area is better prepared to achieve attainment of the National Air Quality Standards for ozone. Because ozone formation involves a complex series of atmospheric reactions, contributions of emissions from a wide array of sources, and is highly dependent of both local and regional meteorological conditions, it is difficult, if not impossible, to predict the impact of one single source,such as the improvements to PTIA. For this reason, the Clean Air Act requires that FAA not approve, fund,or permit any project or action that does not conform the goals and timetables of the SIP. The FAA has determined that the Preferred Alternative conforms with the current 2004 SIP for the GreensboroWnston-Salem/High Point area. The Draft General Conformity Determination was distributed in May 2001. A Revised Draft General Conformity Determination was distributed in July 2001 to address construction-related emissions associated with the Preferred Alternative. The Second Revised Draft General Conformity Determination, distributed in October 2001, was prepared to reflect more accurate ground service equipment operational data, use the most-up-to-date version of EDMS and to address conformity in 2009. A copy of the Final General Conformity Determination is included in Appendix F of the FEIS. 7-27 Comment What is the correlation between increased pollutants such as NOx and CO and increased premature deaths? What can be expected in the Triad after FedEx is at maximum capacity? Response As explained in Section 4.3.6.1, under the Clean Air Act the U.S. EPA has established primary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) to protect public health from the detrimental effects of CO, ozone, and four other criteria air pollutants. Each area in a state is classified according to whether it meets the primary national ambient air quality standards for each of these criteria pollutants. States must develop plans, called State Implementation Plans or SIPs, to insure that areas that do not meet the standards attain them. The FAA may not approve, fund or permit any project or action that does not conform to the goals and timeframes of a SIP. The Preferred Alternative W1-A1 would increase emissions of CO by 764 tons per year (56%) and 744 tons per year (46%), when compared to the 2009 and the 2019 No-Action Alternative, respectively. See Tables 5.5.4-1 and 5.5.5-1 of the FEIS. However, as Guilford County has air quality that is better than the NAAQS for CO, the increased CO emissions associated with the FedEx hub are not expected to cause violations of the NAAQS and adversely affect public health in the Triad area. The Preferred Alternative W1- A1 would increase emissions of NOx by 251 tons per year (87%) when compared to the 2009 No-Action Alternative and by 242 tons per year (69%) when compared to the 2019 No-Action Alternative. See Tables 5.5.4-1 and 5.5.5-1 of the FEIS. Because Guilford County, two other counties, and a portion of a third county have air quality that only marginally complies with the primary national ozone standard, FAA has conducted a detailed analysis which demonstrates that the increases in NOx emissions associated with the proposed FedEx hub would conform with the goals and objectives of the NC SIP. In this respect as well, the proposed action, which is consistent with the state's plans to achieve the ozone NAAQS, should not adversely affect public health or cause premature deaths in the Triad area. A copy of this Final General Conformity determination is included in Appendix F of the FEIS. 7-28 Comment What is the effect on air quality of the high altitude overflights which are apparent by numerous contrails that can be seen in this area? I database-1 01 801.x1s Response I The effect on air quality of the contrails cause by high altitude aircraft overflights is subject to an ongoing investigation by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Thus far, the findings of these investigations are inconclusive and the research continues. 7-29 Comment The EPA has just recently proposed new rules on emissions limits for diesel trucks that should reduce the sulfur content of fuels used. Will this apply to the FedEx trucks currently in use or is it only for new trucks? What is the anticipated implementation date for this and how will it affect the Triad? , Response This multistate clean diesel initiative, includes North Carolina, and takes effect in 2007. Essentially, the program calls for stricter emissions standards for new trucks than those already in place. This should have a positive affect in the Triad area. 7-30 Comment Are there any programs coming to reduce aircraft emissions similar to the new rules on emissions limits for diesel trucks? Response The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has promulgated aircraft engine emission standards on a schedule that gets progressively more strict. The U.S. EPA has adopted these same standards. Therefore, aircraft engine emissions will in the future will be less, when compared to today's engines. 7-31 Comment Of the fuel burned at night, how much of it, in pounds, is Carbon Monoxide, Volatile Organics, Nitrogen Oxide, and Particu ar Matter? Response Tables 5.5.3-1 and 5.5.4-1 in Chapter 5.0 (Environmental Consequences) of the FEIS summarize the total amounts of pollutants emitted by aircraft, motor vehicles and other airport-related sources. These data are provided for the pollutants, CO, VOCs, and NOx. The daytime/nighttime temporal distribution of these emissions follows the airport activity diurnal profile discussed in Section 5.1 of the FEIS. 7-32 Comment On a humid night less efficient engines would cause unburned fuel not to evaporate until it reaches the ground, coating the trees, people, birds, houses, and swimming pools. This has been reported as a problem, but not addressed in the DEIS. Response A number of factors and variables play important roles in the formation and dispersal of air emissions. These include the specific type of air emission (e.g. CO, NOx, VOCs); it's physical form and mass (e.g. gas, liquid or solid); the temperature of the exhaust and the surrounding air; the altitude, or height, at which the pollutant is emitted; and the meteorological conditions (e.g. wind speed and direction, humidity, precipitation, and solar radiation) occurring at the time of the release. At night, some of the influencing meteorological conditions will moderate e.g. wind speed and solar radiation; two factors that have opposite effects. 7-33 Comment Is there a possible mistake in the graphs for total carbon monoxide and total volatile organic compound emissions? Both graphs appear to be identical on the air quality page. Response Tables 5.5.3-1 and 5.5.4-1 in Chapter 5.0 (Environmental Consequences) of the FEIS summarize the total amounts of pollutants emitted by aircraft, motor vehicles and other airport-related sources. These data are provided for the pollutants, CO, VOCs, and NOX. As shown, the total amounts of CO are an order-of- magnitude greater than VOCs. database_101801.xis 7-34 Comment Why is there an increase in the No-Action bar graph from Phase 1 to Phase 2? It appears an arbitrary standard factor may have been applied to create a result. Response Tables 5.5.3-1 and 5.5.4-1 in Chapter 5.0 (Environmental Consequences) of the FEIS summarize the total amounts of pollutants emitted by aircraft, motor vehicles and other airport-related sources for the No-Action and Build Alternatives. In all cases, these estimates are based on aircraft operational levels and other airport operational characteristics that are unique to that scenario and timeframe. The differences in total emissions between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 No-Action conditions are largely attributable to the differences in the number of aircraft operations and the changes in the fleet mix that are expected to occur within this timeframe. ' 7-35 Comment Would FedEx and the airport be required to mitigate aircraft emissions or would this be up to the Guilford County taxpayer? Response Mitigation measures would be the responsibility of the PTAA, the airlines and FedEx. These mitigation measures, should they be required, can be applied to aircraft, ground service vehicles, and/or motor vehicles associated with the airport, the cost of which is borne by the airport and airlines serving the airport. 7-36 Comment In order to give a more accurate assessment of the current state of air quality in Guilford County, the FEIS should note that the county will likely be designated nonattainment under the eight-hour ozone standard. Response Unless and until the 8-hour standard is enforced by the EPA, Guilford County may be designated as nonattainment for the ozone eight-hour standard. Recently, North Carolina submitted a list of areas that would be nonattainment under the 8-hour standard. EPA has not communicated with North Carolina at this time on the status of the designations. An area may be maintenance for one standard (i.e. 1-hour) and ' nonattainment for another (i.e. 8-hour), as the 8-hour standard is more stringent. At this time, neither the EPA nor the State of North Carolina are enforcing the 8-hour ozone standard. 7-37 Comment The details of the analysis for ground transportation emissions (e.g. MOBILE input files, VMT, speeds) are not contained in the DEIS. These should be contained in Appendix I. Response The details of the ground transportation emissions analysis were added to Appendix F of the FEIS. 7-38 Comment ' CO2 should be added to the list of exhaust gas emissions from aircraft engines. It is a major aircraft exhaust gas and a greenhouse gas. Response Comment noted. CO2 has been added to the list of exhaust gas emissions from aircraft engines. 7-39 Comment "Off the airport, the emissions inventory includes all motor vehicles traveling to, from and around the airport on..." The emissions impacts of off-airport motor vehicles should include the emissions over the entire trip to/from the airport from/to the trip origin/destination, not just in the vicinity of the airport. This can be estimated by using the Piedmont Triad Regional travel demand model. This requirement is satisfied if the proposed airport and runway improvements and the associated effects on trip-making in the region are included in the currently conforming transportation plan/TIP. database_101801.xis Response The off-airport motor vehicle emissions are accounted for in the regional travel demand model and the 2002-2008 TIP. The on-site motor vehicle emissions are included in the FEIS air quality analysis for the purpose of showing the effects of the various project alternatives on these emissions. These on-site r emissions are based on the vehicle miles traveled, average operating speeds, and EPA emission factors. 7-40 Comment In addition to infrastructure that helps reduce emissions by reducing the probability of on-site congestion and idling, the possible mitigation measures should include strategies to reduce single-occupancy vehicle , travel, increase high-occupancy vehicle travel, and encourage transit ridership to/from the airport (if transit is available). Response Because the majority of the trip to or from the airport occurs on public roadways, PTIA has little influence on how, and by what means, the trip is made. Once on the airport, shuttle buses are available for rental car, hotel and remote parking facility users. To the extent practicable, the airport would 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. See Section 6.3 of the FEIS for the Mitigation Program for the Preferred Alternative. 7-41 Comment Will Fed Ex be using treated jet fuel? Response ' FedEx will not be using specially treated jet fuel other than that which is used in most commercial carrier jets. 7-42 Comment The data does not clearly delineate the extent of the operations of the project on ambient air quality because no attempt is made to use seasonal effects. Response Section 5.5.2 of the FEIS describes the methodology that was used to prepare the air quality impact analysis. As discussed, the assessment was based on average daily or annual conditions. Seasonal ' variations were not taken into account. 7-43 Comment How many more ozone alert days will (the project) cause? What are the public health costs of this added burden? Response As stated in the responses to Comments 7-7 and 7-15 above, emissions associated with this project, PTIA as a whole and all the other sources in the Piedmont - Triad area are accounted for, and assessed together, in the SIP. In this way, the growth, or increase, in ozone-forming emissions through-out the , region is properly managed and the area is better prepared to achieve attainment of the National Air Quality Standards for ozone. It is not known how many more ozone alert days the proposed project would directly cause or what costs would be attributable to potential additional ozone alert days. 7-44 Comment Much more effort needs to be devoted to methods of reducing and eliminating pollution so that the public ' can make informed judgements on what is needed on this project. A consultant presenting the air pollution section at the public forum commented that they were studying the use of electric vehicles for other airports to mitigate ground vehicle generated emissions yet nothing was mentioned of this in the DEIS. What other feasible, economical, easily accomplished mitigation ideas were not covered? database_101801.xls Response As the comment suggests, mitigation measures for air quality must be effective, feasible and cost-effective to have any meaningful benefits. At some large airports where the number of fleet vehicles or ground ' service equipment is greater than at PTIA, electric and/or alternate-fueled vehicles become an attractive option. This is largely because the cost. for the infrastructure needed to support this equipment is shared by a number of users. At small and medium-sized airports, the effectiveness diminishes and the benefits to air quality are reduced. 7-45 Comment I attended the public forum 5/23. 1 was astounded when one of the presenters, when challenged from the audience about air pollution, made the comment that the air is already polluted and a little more really isn't going to hurt. This seems like the attitude with which the whole study was assembled. ' Response Any suggestion by a presenter that an increase of air emissions is unimportant or otherwise inconsequential is incorrect and inappropriate. As a safe-guard against this approach, the Clean Air Act requires that any Federal agency (including FAA) must demonstrate that the project or action be shown to conform to the State Implementation Plan - a plan intended to keep the area in attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This demonstration, called the General Conformity process, has been completed for this project and the results are contained in the Final General Conformity Determination, which is contained in Appendix F of the FEIS. 7-46 Comment I have been informed that the report on air pollutants does not include any information on toxic pollutants such as benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and other toxins known to occur in association with jet aircraft operations. Since humans should not be exposed to these chemical toxins, I would like to know why the FAA has neglected to include this information. Do you have reference data that show how these chemicals relate to human health (association to known diseases, "safe" exposure levels, etc.) and can you please share this information with me? Response Toxic air contamir=.nts (TACs) differ from criteria air pollutants in that there are no established ambient standards and a risk assessment approach is typically used instead to evaluate potential impacts. Health risk assessment procedures are not well developed for mobile sources. TACs typically are evaluated in a health risk assessment prepared in connection with the application of a permit for stationary emissions sources from the local air district. Such permits are not typically required for mobile sources, which constitute the vast majority of emissions sources at the airport. TACs from mobile sources traditionally have been regulated through promulgation of standards limiting emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from on-road motor vehicles enforced on vehicle manufacturers and through specifications on gasoline and diesel fuel. In addition, based on information from the scientific and medical communities there is no known "cause- and-effect" between toxic air pollutants from jet aircraft and harmful health effects on humans. Moreover, there are no Federal or state regulations on toxic air emissions from aircraft nor are there any requirements that call for such an assessment in an EIS. 7-47 Comment The EIS should consider the potent xenoestrogens that are in the airplane fuels. Xenoestrogens are ' extremely potent endocrine disrupters. Response See response to Comment 7-46, above. 7-48 Comment I have not seen any provision for buying homes from owners where one or more family members in the home suffers from asthma or emphysema or other breathing disorders and where Fed Ex nighttime air pollution on top of what already exists in the daytime from this nearby airport may also render their homes intolerable! database 101801.xls Response , See response to Comment 7-21, above. 7-49 Comment What is the air quality mitigation plan to reduce pollution? Response Potential air quality mitigation measures are discussed in Section 6.2.3 of the FEIS. The mitigation program for the Preferred Alternative is presented in Section 6.3 of the FEIS. 7-50 Comment I The air contaminants charts shown during the public meeting at Guilford High School showed a yearly average, and do not show the addition of FedEx's 20 nightly operations (and 40 operations in the future). This is inadequate. Response Tables 5.5.3-1 and 5.5.4-1 in Chapter 5.0 (Environmental Consequences) of the FEIS summarize the total amounts of pollutants emitted by aircraft, motor vehicles and other airport-related sources for the No-Action and Build Alternatives. The differences between the No-Action and five Build Alternatives are essentially attributable to the addition of the FedEx operations. 7-51 Comment I Air pollution will be far worse than predicted, especially during unfavorable weather and temperature conditions that may slow its dissipation or when mixed in with night-time fogs. Response See responses to Comments 7-10, 7-24 and 7-32. 7-52 Comment I What is the quantified amount of pollution estimated to be generated and released by air and ground vehicles which will be associated with the proposed project and others using that facility? Response See response to Comment 7-50. 7-53 Comment , Will the increase in truck and automobile emissions directly and indirectly associated with the FedEx operation also have an effect on our air quality which could also exacerbate the risk of losing our Federal Highway matching funds? This analysis should be included in the EIS. Response The motor vehicle emissions included in the FEIS also include those associated with the FedEx operation. Those motor vehicle emissions that occur off the airport site are accounted for as part of the region-wide emission totals for the Piedmont-Triad roadway network. These emissions are evaluated as a whole under the Transportation Conformity provisions of the Federal Clean Air Act. In this region, motor vehicle emissions are managed by the Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Planning Organization and the as part of the overall Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). These transportation agencies insure that the TIP remains in conformance with the State Implementation Plan, thereby avoiding sanctions of Federal Highway funds for air quality noncompliance. 7-54 Comment It was not clear in the EIS if the emissions and contaminant dispersion estimates were based upon new state of the art Stage III airplanes or the older planes equipped with hush kits used by FedEx? Response The emission estimates were based on all Stage III compliant aircraft fleet mixes that are forecasted to be in place corresponding to the time (or year) the inventory is chosen to represent (e.g. Phase 1 - 2005 and Phase 2 - 2009 to 2019). The extent the two types of Stage III compliant aircraft types would be used is contained in Tables 5.1.2-2 through 5.1.2-5 of the FEIS. database 101801AS 1 7-55 Comment How much air pollution will the Fed Ex planes create in our city? Response See response to Comment 7-50. 7-56 Comment Where in the EIS study do you mention how the air pollution affects the children in the Cardinal Commons? Response The FEIS air quality impact assessment addresses the affects of the proposed project at PTIA on the entire airshed surrounding the airport. The effects on individual communities, like Cardinal Commons, are implicitly included in this analysis. See responses to Comments 7-3, 7-8, 7-10 and 7-46. 7-57 Comment Where in the EIS study does it mention what type of toxins will be emitted into the air from the intense construction and how children will be affected verses adults? Does the exposure our children and our neighbors children violate the "Children's Environmental Protection Act of 19977' Response See responses to Comments 7-3, 7-8, 7-10 and 746, above in connection with toxic air pollutants. The covenants of the Children's Environmental Protection Act are also covered under the Federal Clean Air Act; appropriate sections of which dictate how the FEIS air quality analysis is conducted and the results interpreted. 7-58 Comment The airport expan,>ion proposal utilizes projections based on the area being in attainment for ozone by 2003. This will not happen. Response The most recently approved SIP, dated 1994 and called the Maintence-Redesig nation Plan, contains area- wide emission projections to the year 2004. NCDENR is currently working on an update to this plan and expects to have it completed sometime in 2002. The emissions associated with the airport and the proposed project will be included in the update. 7-59 Comment More air pollution will result from motor vehicles stopped, idling, and creating unnecessary air pollution. Response Tables 5.5.3-1 and 5.5.4-1 in Chapter 5.0 (Environmental Consequences) of the FEIS summarize the total amounts of pollutants emitted by aircraft, motor vehicles and other airport-related sources for the No-Action and Build Alternatives. The differences between the No-Action and five Build Alternatives are essentially attributable to the addition of the FedEx operations. The planned roadway improvements associated with the build alternatives are designed to provide efficient access and egress traveling to and from the airport. These design elements include limited access roadways, grade separated interchanges, and high speed ramps; all conducive to eliminating stop-and-go driving or extended idling periods and excess, or unnecessary, air pollution. 7-60 Comment We leave our windows open at night and let Mother Nature cool our homes in order to save electricity and fight the air pollution problem. If FedEx comes, we'll have to add to the pollution problem by turning the air conditioner. Please consider this. Response Nearly all air conditioners are powered by electricity which, in the cases of fossil-fueled energy plants, is regulated for the amount of air pollution generated. As a result, any increase in these emissions, should it occur, must be permitted by the NCDENR before they are allowed. database 101801.xis 7-61 Comment ' It is my understanding that there are no pollution standards for aircraft and that their expulsion of pollution is far greater than any other vehicle. If the FedEx hub is approved, the increase in pollutants from its 120 flights (60 landings and 60 takeoffs), along with 155 trucks which will be parked at the hub, will create a dangerous situation with our air quality. Response The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has developed emission standards for jet engine t aircraft. Moreover, under the Clean Air Act, the FAA cannot not approve, fund, or permit any project or action that is not consistent with the State Implementation Plan (SIP); a plan developed by the state to attain and maintain the Ambient Air Quality Standards. This approval process, called the General Conformity process, has been completed for this project. A copy of the Final General Conformity Determination is contained in Appendix F of the FEIS. 7-62 Comment Based on the proposed annual aircraft operations, PTIA is required to apply for and obtain a Transportation Facility Permit (TF) prior to constructing or modifying the airport. Response The application for a Transportation Facility Permit has been prepared by the PTAA and the proposed project meets all of the requirements. The permit will be obtained from NCDENR before construction begins. 7-63 Comment In accordance with 15A NCAC 2D.1603, a General Conformity determination will need to be made for the,. proposed Runway 5/23, proposed new overnight express air cargo sorting and distribution facility and associated development at PTIA. Response A Draft General Conformity Determination has been prepared for the proposed project and was published and reviewed by appropriate resource agencies and the public. A copy of the Final General Conformity Determination is contained in Appendix F of the FEIS. 7-64 Comment In accordance with 15A NCAC 2D.1503, a Transportation Conformity determination is required for this ' project. Response Transportation Conformity requirements are under the jurisdiction of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). As such, NCDOT will provide the necessary assurances that the roadway improvements associated with the Preferred Alternative are included in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and that the TIP is in conformance with the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Because the roadway improvements meet this criteria, the affirmative determination of Transportation Conformity will be recorded as part of the Record of Decision for this project. 7-65 Comment The document addresses fugitive dust emissions during construction activities. I Response Comment noted. Fugitive dust emissions will be addressed during construction activities by the adherence to wind and water erosion control measures both at the construction site and on the haul routes used by construction vehicles. 7-66 Comment ' Alternative W1-A1 does more to separate airport traffic from interstate traffic than any other choice. This alternative includes elimination of a tunnel and significant (50%) reduction of on-site traffic volumes. The air quality analysis does not, however, reflect these savings. There is concern that the air quality analysis may not have considered these differences. database 101801.xls ' Response The beneficial effects of the surface transportation system improvements associated with Alternative W1- Al are accounted for in the Transportation Improvement Program and Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) for the Triad area. Because of this, they are not accounted for in the EIS air quality analysis to avoid double counting the benefits. 7-67 Comment The applicant's analysis is flawed and provides little information to assess the project's potential to degrade local air quality and impact the health of those who live throughout the surrounding community. ' Response The air quality analysis was conducted in full accordance with FAA and NCDENR guidelines. See responses to Comments 7-3, 7-8, 7-10, and 7-46 for further explanation of health effects. 7-68 Comment Without providing the reader with supporting documentation to validate such deviations or refinements to existing guidance, the applicant's assumptions and resulting values cannot be confirmed and are without merit. Response The air quality impact assessment methodology is discussed in Section 5.5.2 of the FEIS. Appendix F contains additionai information developed or used in support of the analysis. 7-69 Comment In Appendix F which is identified as the source of "supporting" documentation for the air quality assessment, only aircraft type, engine, operational timeliness and annual LTO's are reported. No emission inventory data is identified. As such, no examination of the applicant's assumptions and model assignments can be made to validate the emission inventory values presented in the DEIS. Response Appendix F of the FEIS contains the key supporting documentation for the air quality analysis. The remaining documentation of the analysis, including a complete description of all inputs and computer files, was too voluminous and technical to include in the EIS. However this supporting documentation has been made available upon request from the FAA since the comment period on the Draft EIS. 7-70 Comment Stationary pollution generated by parked aircraft should be part of the air quality analysis. Response Section 5.5.2.2 (Aircraft) of the FEIS discusses the assumptions used to develop the aircraft component of the emissions inventory. It describes the taxi/idle mode to include all the time the aircraft in on an airport taxiway or terminal area apron with its engines running. Therefore, air emissions generated when the aircraft are stationary, or parked, are included in the analysis. ' 7-71 Comment With the introduction of this much trucking and airplane traffic, how could the FAA possibly come to the conclusion that the difference between the No-Action Alternative and Alternative W2-A will result in minimal ' increases in noxious chemicals, in the area of only 8%? Response Tables 5.5.3-1 and 5.5.4-1 in Chapter 5.0 (Environmental Consequences) of the FEIS summarize the total amounts of pollutants emitted by aircraft, motor vehicles and other airport-related sources for the No-Action and Build Alternatives. The differences between the No-Action and five Build Alternatives are essentially attributable to the addition of the FedEx operations. 7-72 Comment North Carolina is the second worst state in terms of air quality in the entire nation, and while this area may be in attainment now, it is likely that the EPA will tighten the standards over the next 5 years. This project runs the risk of increasing our pollution problems to the point where our county could be in violation of new EPA standards. How will the FAA mitigate that problem? database_101801.xis Response , See response to Comment 7-35. 7-73 Comment How is EPA approval obtained with respect to air quality? Response The U.S. EPA is one of the primary Federal agencies that reviewed the air quality analysis contained in the , DEIS as well as the General Conformity Determination. EPA has reviewed and commented on each version of the Draft General Conformity documents prepared for this project. EPA's comments on the Second Revised Draft of the General Conformity Determination indicates that all of their issues have been , addresses and that the Preferred Alternative conforms to the current approved SIP for the GreensboioWnston-Salem/High Point area. Correspondence from the EPA, in reference to the General Conformity Determination is contained in Appendix A of this FEIS. In addition, in accordance with the ' Federal Clean Air Act, the FAA has made a determination that the Preferred Alternative conforms to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) through the General Conformity process. A copy of the Final General Conformity Determination is contained in Appendix F of the FEIS. 7-74 Comment The DEIS states that ozone levels will increase in Guilford County with or without the PTIA expansion. The , DEIS states that Guilford County is expected to be in attainment with Federal ozone levels by 2003. We (ABEQ) question how ozone levels can increase while we move from maintenance to attainment status. Response I The air quality impact analysis does not claim that ozone levels will increase with or without the proposed project at PTIA. The analysis does indicate that emissions of NOx and VOCs (two pollutants considered to be precursors to the formation of ozone) will increase somewhat in the future due largely to the forecasted increase in operations at the airport over time. 7-75 Comment ' Indirect emissions should cover the emissions from when the runway is anticipated to be at full capacity. Response I All of the emission sources (eg. aircraft, ground service equipment, fuel facilities) are accounted for in the EIS Air Emissions Inventory or, in the case of motor vehicles, included in the Transportation Improvement Plan and Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) for the Greensboro/VVinston-Salem/High Point area. In this way, both the direct (eg. on-site) and indirect (eg. off-site) emissions and their sources are covered. 7-76 Comment , My concern is whether adequate attention and discussion is being given to air and specifically water pollution from complex hydrocarbons and other pollutants emitted from jet exhaust. ' Response See response to Comments 7-1, 7-7, and 7-8. n database_101801.xis 1 I Li u 1 u Piedmont Triad International Airport 8. Hazardous Materials 8-1 Comment EIS needs to include a study of the various hazardous materials that FedEx will be handling and how they may impact the safety of the community. Response FedEx has established a set of guidelines, based on the Federal Department of Transportation requirements, that regulate the types of substances that can be shipped in aircraft and on public roadways. These guidelines also dictate the quantities of materials that can be transported and the packaging, or containment, requirements. 8-2 Comment Are the existing USTs and appended plumbing double walled, with interstitial monitoring devices? Response The FEIS documents all known (registered) UST's on PTAA property. The U.S. EPA and the NCDENR have developed guidelines and timetables for the installation and retrofitting of USTs and their associated piping; including the monitoring requirements. In order to be registered, all USTs must meet these minimum standards. 8-3 Comment Have core samples been taken as prescribed under Federal and state law, to address any possible existing soil contamination in the vicinity of the USTs and appended plumbing? Response No field sampling of the soil or groundwater in the vicinities of the USTs at PTIA were undertaken by the FAA as part of this FEIS. Rather, this level of analysis is intended to identify and locate these USTs as well as above ground storage tanks, pipelines, landfills, etc. or any other source of potentially significant environmental contamination. In this way, any significant sites of contamination can be avoided, if possible. No such sites were identified in the vicinities of the proposed project at PTIA. Should core sampling and other forms of testing be required to verify the presence or delineate the extent of contamination at any of the sites identified as having the potential to contain environmental contamination, it will be accomplished before the construction process begins. 8-4 Comment Does PTIA have any existing groundwater monitoring wells and if so, have they noted any groundwater contamination over the last 5-year period? Response PTIA does not have any groundwater monitoring wells under it's direct control. 8-5 Comment Does PTIA intend to remove or abandon the USTs and appended plumbing? Response Section 4.3.7 of the FEIS summarizes what is known about the locations and conditions of the USTs in the vicinities of the proposed project at PTIA. Section 5.20 provides information pertaining to which of these USTs may be potentially impacted, by alternative. Should any of these tanks be removed, this will be accomplished in accordance with tank removal and abandonment guidelines developed by the NCDENR. 8-6 Comment In Section 5.20.3.2, what does the FAA mean by the term "significant sources?" 1 database_101801AS Response The primary purpose of the investigation into sites potentially containing hazardous materials or environmental contamination is to locate any sites that portend to pose a problem to the planning, design and construction of the proposed project at PTIA. Another purpose is to insure that the planned improvements do not inadvertently spread contamination or inhibit the clean-up of contaminated sites. Any sites that meet this criteria are deemed to be "significant sources". 8-7 Comment Will all new USTs and appended plumbing be double walled with interstitial monitoring devices? Who will be responsible for developing a written monitoring program to address the frequency of monitoring equipment used, location, responsible parties, reporting format, maintenance schedules, training, and response plans to a release? Response Any new USTs or ASTs will be designed and constructed in accordance with Federal and state codes including those established by the U.S. EPA, NCDENR, the American Petroleum Institute and the National Fire Protection Association. The owner, or operator of the tank will be responsible for developing, documenting, and fulfilling the monitoring and spill response requirements, also in accordance with Federal and State regulations. 8-8 Comment Has PTIA ever been found to be in noncompliance with either the Federal or state tank storage regulatory compliance program? If so, what was the outcome? Response Spills have occurred from time to time at PTIA. PTAA is unaware of any findings of noncompliance of Federal or state compliance programs. PTAA strives to comply with all requirements regarding the storage of any materials. Records indicate that there have been no past hydrocarbon spill events that migrated beyond airport property boundaries since January 1974, the effective date of 49 CFR regulations. In addition, to ensure compliance, PTAA has from time to time removed UST's from newly acquired properties. 8-9 Comment Has PTIA ever reported an unplanned release from an existing UST? If so, what was the outcome? ' Response As with any airport, minor spills occur from time to time at PTIA. In all cases, efforts to contain and remove contaminants are begun immediately. As a further measure of protection against spill contamination, ' PTAA has developed a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan. This plan specifically identifies all known storage tanks, drainage systems and outfalls, and provides contact persons for every tenant on the airport, as well as emergency response and HAZMAT teams. 8-10 Comment Will all remaining solvents in the USTs be treated as hazardous waste prior to removal or ' decommissioning? Response Under the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA), the U.S. EPA has established parameters by ' which waste materials are classifiable as hazardous. Should solvents or other residues left in the tanks at the time of abandonment or removal meet these criteria, they will be disposed of as such and in an environmental and lawful manner. ' 8-11 Comment Does FedEx adhere to and comply with not only the Federal regulations (49 CFR), but also the Dangerous Goods Regulations set forth by the International Air Transport Association? How many violations or ' notices has FedEx received during the last 5-year period concerning the transport of dangerous goods? Response , Please see response to Comment 8-1. database 101801.As 8-12 Comment Does PTIA or FedEx comply with the EPA's Audit Policy? If so, how many audits were completed during 1999 and what were the major findings? Response PTAA is unaware of the EPA's audit policy and has no recollection of any audit conducted in 1999 by the EPA. However, the PTAA states that EPA is welcome at any time on the airport property if an audit should be required . 8-13 Comment Based on FedEx's poor compliance history, will additional scrutiny be given to section 304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act to protect the local community? Response ' The transportation-by-air industry, including air freight, is not included in the family of industries that report under the requirements of Section 304 of EPRCA. 8-14 Comment During cold weather, will PTIA continue to use only acetate-based deicers or will they try to economize and also rely on urea pellets? ' Response There are no anticipated changes to PTIA's policies or practices on de-icing as a result of the planned improvements to the airport. ' 8-15 Comment We have serious concerns in reference to the transportation of hazardous wastes by FedEx and the safety of the third parallel runway. Response Please see response to Comment 8-1. ' 8-16 Comment Table S-1 relates that all action alternatives are predicted to conflict with six potentially hazardous material sites. However, review of Section 5.20 suggests that although old UST sites exist, other sites may only be ' suspected sites of ;ontamination. Coordination with EPA Region 4 and/or the State should nevertheless be pursued to determine appropriate action. These sites should either be avoided, suitably cleaned-up, or ' suitably capped to allow unrestricted or designated use of the area. Response The six sites that are identified as having potential contamination from underground storage tanks (USTs) are associated with the existing rental car and cargo facilities at PTIA. These sites were identified from an ' electronic database of Federal and state regulatory files. The intent, and the level, of this investigation is to identify those sites that are known, or have the potential, to contain soil and/or groundwater contamination so that any conflicts between these sites and the planned improvements to the airport can be avoided or otherwise resolved. Because these sites are UST sites, should contamination be present, the problems and remedies can be addressed following routine tank removal, closure and clean-up procedures. To the extent this becomes necessary will be determined during the design phase of the project. database 101801.xis 1 ,I] I Piedmont Triad International Airport 9. Water Quality 9-1 Comment Once FedEx is in Greensboro, residents will be asked to reduce the usage of water due to a potential strain on the sewage disposal system. Response Personnel with the City of Greensboro employed at the T.Z. Osborne Wastewater Treatment Plant and in water supply management in Greensboro, North Carolina have not indicted water restrictions would be placed on residents if the FedEx Mid-Atlantic Hub is constructed based on FAA's correspondences with them. The PTIA is expected to discharge approximately 0.049 mgd and 0.074 mgd of waste water effluent to the T.Z. Osborne Waste Water Treatment in Greensboro, North Carolina after the completion of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the FedEx Hub, respectively. The T.Z. Osborne Wastewater Treatment Plant will have a treatment capacity of approximately 30 mgd after upgrades are complete in 2001. Therefore, the PTIA would account for approximately 0.16 % and 0.25 % of the plants total treatment capacity after Phase 1 and Phase 2, respectively. This does not appear to warrant water restrictions on residents by the City of Greensboro. 9-2 Comment City Council authorized the extension of water and sewer lines and waiver of certain connections to prepare for FedEx's arrival to Greensboro. Response Comment noted. The City of Greensboro currently provides water to the PTIA. The City of Greensboro will provide water and sewer service to the FedEx facility. 9-3 Comment Runoff from added impervious surfaces will pollute the scarce water supply of Greensboro. How will this be impacted and prevented? Response Refer to Section 5.6 of the FEIS for impacts to Water Quality. Please refer to Section 6.2.4 of the FEIS for local and state regulations pertaining to the treatment of stormwater runoff from new development. Wet detention ponds and/or dry detention ponds can be designed and constructed to collect and treat polluted storm water runoff from the developed site. Further discussion on wet and dry detention ponds can be found in Sections 6.2.4.1 and 6.2.4.2 of the FEIS, respectively. A proposed mitigation program for water quality impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative is presented in Section 6.3.4 of the FEIS. ' 9-4 Comment ' Additional manufacturing and pharmaceutical facilities will add to our growing problem of polluted water and water shortages. Response Additional industrial and commercial development in the greater Greensboro area will most likely result with the development of the Mid-Atlantic Hub at the Piedmont Triad International Airport (PTIA). All new development is required to abide by the development ordinances in the jurisdictions in which they reside. The jurisdictions in the vicinity of the PTIA include; Guilford County, City of Greensboro and City of High Point. These three jurisdictions include environmental regulations in their ordinances to protect surface and groundwater. The environmental regulations are located in Article VII of the Guilford County and City of Greensboro development ordinances and Chapter 7 of the City of High Points development ordinances. A summary of these ordinances with respect to water quality protection is included Sections 4.3.3.1 and 6.2.4 of the FEIS. The environmental regulations within the ordinances of these three jurisdictions are mandated by Federal Clean Water Act, as amended in 1987, and state mandates in the North Carolina ' Administrative Code. I database 101801.xis Additional Federal regulations require point source dischargers such as manufacturing facilities to operate under an National Pollution Discharge Elimination system (NPDES) permit from the Sate of North Carolina. The NPDES permit contains effluent limits for specific pollutants, requires water quality data to be submitted to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality (NCDENR DWQ) monthly and the implementation of best management practices to minimize water pollution (see Section 4.3.3 of the FEIS). , 9-5 Comment The LWVGC has lobbied for the protection of both the quality and quantity of water; and suggests a detailed study be performed. ' Response The existing conditions study of the Generalized Study Area for water quality and water supply is located in Section 4.3.3, Water Resources, of the FEIS. Water quality and water supply impacts for the No-Action Alternative and Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the five Build Alternatives are addressed in Section 5.6, Water Quality, of the FEIS. Measures to mitigate water quality and water supply impacts are located in Section 6.3 of the FEIS. Detailed data such as stormwater calculations, water supply calculations water quality data, and other background material utilized in the water quality and water supply study is located in Appendix K. The existing conditions study, impacts study and mitigation strategy for floodplains are located in Section 4.3.4 Floodplains, 5.12 Floodplains, and 6.3.6 of the FEIS. ' 9-6 Comment ' We already have water shortages. The proposed project will have an adverse effect on the quality and quantity of water and the physical environment. This should not happen. Response As discussed in Section 5.6 of the FEIS, implementation of any of the Build Alternatives would not result in significant impacts in terms of water quality and water supply in the Triad area. Detailed discussion on the existing water supply, water supply impacts and water supply mitigation is located in Section 4.3.3.3, Water Supply, Section 5.6, Water Quality and Section 6.3 of the FEIS, respectively. 9-7 Comment ' Historically low water and commercial sewer users have been associated with similar projects. Response The City of Greensboro's largest water users are listed in Section 4.3.3.3, Water Supply, under the subheading Water Usage. The PTIA is expected to demand less than these existing facilities (see Table 5.6.3-5 in the FEIS). 9-8 Comment Aircraft flying over the Greensboro watershed may affect the quality of drinking water produced by the watershed. Response , The FEIS discusses surface water quality impacts from polluted stormwater runoff, deicing and accidental spills of hazardous materials because these are the primary causes of surface water degradation. Additionally, Federal state and local regulations require surface waters to be protected from these impacts. ' See response to Comment 7-13. 9-9 Comment While the Randleman Dam is being planned, how will the proposed airport construction impact the Dam construction? Response ' The FAA does not know if the proposed project at PTIA was looked at specifically in the planning of this reservoir. However, the PTIA currently accounts for approximately 0.13 % of the City of Greensboro's water demand (see Section 4.3.3.3 Water Supply of the FEIS) and is expected to grow to approximately ' 0.19 and 0.27 % after Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed project is complete. See Section 4.3.3.3 of the FEIS for discussion on the Randleman Reservoir. database_101801.xis I r] 11 n 1 9-10 Comment It is my understanding that PTIA/airline sector is exempt from many water pollution rules, and that fuel, wind deicer and other lubricants can be discharged directly and legally into watersheds. Response That is not correct The airport must comply with all Federal, state and local regulations pertaining to water quality. The PTIA is currently developing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan which will incorporate pertinent regulations and be utilized in subsequent development projects on airport property. These regulations are outlined in Sections 4.3.3.1 and 6.2.4 in the FEIS. 9-11 Comment PTIA is at the head of the Greensboro Horsepen Creek watershed and any untreated pollutant will go directly into the creek and directly into city reservoirs. Response The PTIA drains to Horsepen Creek as well as Brush Creek and the East Fork Deep River. Stormwater runoff from the proposed project will be treated and attenuated within dry detention ponds prior to discharging into these three waterways. The detention ponds will be designed according to standards mandated by state and local regulations pertaining to water quality. These regulations are outlined in sections 4.3.3.1 and 6.2.4 of the FEIS. The design standards for the dry detention ponds and their effectiveness as stormwater treatment facilities are discussed in Sections 6.2.4.1 and 6.2.4.2 of the FEIS. 9-12 Comment Will the cost of removing pollutants from the water be determined and documented, as well as determining who will pay to clean up the pollution? Response Water quality mitigation measures are based on the concept of providing quality and quantity treatment ponds to accommodate the additional runoff as a result of the proposed project. These costs are included in the construction costs of the proposed project and reasonable alternatives and are detailed in Section 6.3 of the FEIS. 9-13 Comment An assessment of water pollution based on the current artificial on-airport standards is a sham. Failure to consider their known effects due to an artificial technicality is criminal. Response Surface and groundwaters the PTIA discharge to are monitored by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality (NCDENR-DWQ) as part of their water quality management program. The NCDENR-DWQ collects, monitors and evaluates water quality data from these surface waters to check if they meet state standards with respect to their intended use. The NCDENR-DWQ imposes remedies and strategies to improve water quality for waters that do not meet standards. No industries or particular land owners are exempt from Federal, state and local regulations pertaining to water quality. These regulations require the PTIA to obtain permits from appropriate Federal, state and local agencies. These permits generally require the implementation of temporary and permanent best management practices in preventing water quality degradation. Discussion on Water quality regulations are located in Section 4.3.3, Water Resources, of the FEIS and Section 6.2.4, Possible Water Quality Mitigation Measures, of the FEIS. 9-14 Comment Water that had mostly gone to ground recharge will now be directed into sewers and rush into Horsepen Creek. It is certain this project will lower the water table around PTIA or be diverted into another watershed not serving Greensboro. database_101801.xis Response , The additional impervious surface from the proposed project will increase surface water runoff volumes and decrease the amount of water percolating to groundwater in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. However, this surface water runoff will remain within the following three sub-basins on PTIA , property; Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek and the East Fork Deep River. The surface water runoff generated from the new development will be collected in stormsewers, which will discharge to stormwater detention ponds for treatment and attenuation. Ground water recharge will occur within these detention ' ponds. These ponds will then discharge to either Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek or the East Fork Deep River. Brush Creek and Horsepen Creek drain to the City of Greensboro's water supply reservoirs, Lake Higgins and Lake Brandt, respectively. The East Fork Deep River drains to the City of High Point's water ' supply reservoir, High Point Lake. Therefore, the City of Greensboro's and City of High Point's potential water supply from rainfall will not be diminished by re-directing surface water runoff to other watersheds. 9-15 Comment The FedEx project must not be allowed to endanger lives by destroying the watershed. ' Response All new development within Guilford County must abide by state and local regulations pertaining to water quality. These regulations are outlined in Sections 4.3.3.1 and 6.2.4 in the FEIS. ' 9-16 Comment Provisions must be made for water systems that will recharge the aquifer, not create flash floods, or ' retention ponds that dissipate water by evaporation rather than recharge. Response Detention ponds are recommended as a possible mitigation measure because they treat as well as attenuate excess surface water runoff. Injecting stormwater runoff into the aquifer is a good idea but Federal, state and local permitting agencies require treatment of the stormwater prior to discharge. Treatment is typically accomplished with open water systems such as detention ponds, grass swales, filter strips and stormwater wetlands. Therefore, groundwater recharge does not necessarily eliminate the , usage of detention ponds or other open water stormwater treatment facilities. The detention ponds are designed to prevent flash floods by attenuating stormwater runoff and gradually releasing at pre- development flow rates. See Section 6.2.4, Possible Water Quality Mitigation Measures, and 6.2.7.2, , Stormwater Detention, for discussion on wet and dry detention ponds. 9-17 Comment I Final design should include sufficient storm water ponds to treat water from the entire site and upstream drainage. Ponds and best management practices should be designed to reduce pollutants and dissipate energy so that down stream riparian and wetland habitat and water quality are not degraded. ' Response Detention ponds are recommended and are discussed in Section 6.2.4, Water Quality Mitigation Measures, and Section 6.2.7.2, Stormwater Detention, of the FEIS. 9-18 Comment ' Bioengineering techniques and stream design criteria should be utilized for stream protection, relocations, and restorations as per fluvial morphology and restoration principles. Response The proposed plan to mitigate water quality impacts and protect the adjacent streams, Horsepen Creek, Brush Creek and the East Fork Deep River are discussed in Section 6.3 of the FEIS. 9-19 Comment 1 Upgrading of the storm water management system and the new storm water management system for the third runway will be a positive impact. database_101801.xls ' Response The modified storm sewer system associated with the proposed project will include stormwater ' management systems designed to treat and attenuate stormwater runoff (see Sections 6.2.4 and 6.3 of the FEIS). The PTIA is currently developing a Stormwater Master Plan which incorporates the stormwater management identified in the FEIS in Section 6.2.4 for the proposed project and subsequent development and improvements to the existing storm sewer system to treat and attenuate existing areas within the PTIA. 9-20 Comment Monitoring wells should be placed at several points next to PTIA property to monitor discharge. An assessment of current discharge should be done before approving this project. Response ' There are no new monitoring wells planned for installation associated with the development of the proposed project. However the NCDENR-DWQ currently monitors water quality in Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek and the East Fork Deep River as part of their statewide water quality monitoring program ' (see Section 4.3 3 in the FEIS for details). 9-21 Comment ' Does the water demand include the additional 16,308 new households projected by your EIS? Response The estimated water demand in the FEIS includes the water usage from the proposed project, and at the PTIA terminal (see water supply subheading in Sections 5.6.3.1, No Action Alternative, and 5.6.3.2, Alternative W2-A and Tables 5.6.3-4 and 5.6.3-5 in the FEIS). 9-22 Comment The DEIS states that the Randleman Dam will come on-line in 2002, yet 2007 is now considered the earliest date it will be operational. The FEIS should address this new information. Response The Randleman Dam project received a permit from the USACE in April, 2001. Construction is estimated to take 2 to 3 years, indicating that it is now expected to come on-line in 2004-2005 according to the Piedmont Triad Water Authority (see Section 5.6. of the FEIS). 9-23 Comment How will the addition of impervious surface, impact the water supply? Response New impervious surfaces cover up existing pervious areas where water historically infiltrated to the underlying aquifer. This water becomes stormwater runoff, which has the potential to create downstream flooding as well as transport hazardous pollutants to surface water. However, these impacts can be minimized with the use of Best Management Practices designed to treat and attenuate stormwater runoff (see Section 5.6, Water Resources for impacts and Section 6.3 of the FEIS). 9-24 Comment Why is a water shortage only discussed in relationship to a drought? Response The FEIS indicates the City of Greensboro has water supply problems due to its location in the upstream end of the watershed, therefore, the City is dependent on rainfall for its water supply. There are no major rivers bringing water to the region from other areas. Therefore, during droughts the water supply becomes critical. However the FEIS also indicates the water supply is critical at all times with the following statement in Section 4.3.3.3, Water Supply: "The City of Greensboro is approaching the limits of its available water supply and has placed a priority on securing additional sources and encouraging water conservation" . ' 9-25 Comment What will happen in the event of a real drought and given the real likelihood that Randleman Dam is not completed on schedule? I database 101801.xis Response ' The City of Greensboro's Water Department can better answer what the type of measures would be taken in the event of a drought. However, the proposed project is expected to demand approximately 0.19 % and 0.27 % of the available water supply after Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed project. Operation of the ' proposed project is therefore not considered to constitute a major water use in the area. Also please see response to Comment 9-22. 9-26 Comment The huge sorting facility plus the new runway will pave over the city's prime watershed renewal area. Response ' The amount of impervious area added to the impacted watersheds for each alternative can be found in Section 5.6, Water Quality of the FEIS. Detention ponds will be designed to collect runoff from these new impervious surfaces for treatment and attenuation (see Sections 6.2 and 6.3 of the FEIS). 9-27 Comment Now the replenishing of ground water will be restricted and what does flow into the aquifer will be polluted ' with airplane emissions. Response Impacts to groundwater recharge are located in the subheading "Groundwater Recharge/Discharge" for each alternative in Section 5.6, Water Quality in the FEIS. 9-28 Comment ' Extensive increase in pollutants, toxins, going into Brush Creek, therefore into our drinking water not only from ice treatments but from the toxins of engines, acids which drain onto impervious surface, then into the groundwater. The DEIS states these toxins may be filtered out? Response These pollutants have the potential of entering Brush Creek in stormwater runoff. However, the stormwater runoff will be collected in detention ponds for treatment and attenuation. These ponds treat stormwater with nutrient uptake by plants, chemical decomposition, and settlement. See Sections 6.2.4 and 6.3 of the FEIS for more information. 9-29 Comment r The DEIS doesn't adequately address the increase in impervious surface and the impacts to groundwater recharge. Response Impacts to groundwater recharge are located in the subheading "Groundwater Recharge/Discharge" for each alternative in Section 5.6, Water Quality in the FEIS. ' 9-30 Comment Does PTIA or FedEx maintain a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan or Facility Response Plan in agreement with section 311 of the Clean Water Act? If so, who is responsible for enforcement? ' Have there been any noted violations during the last 5 years by either PTIA or FedEx? Response The PTIA has a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan. This plan provides the most ' current information available concerning the storage and use of oils, fuel and hazardous substances at PTIA. This plan was prepared in accordance with the Federal Oil Pollution Prevention Act. The SPCC serves as a master plan for the majority of both PTAA owned and tenant operated facilities that are located on airport property (the SPCC is identified in Section 4.3.7.2 in FEIS. The PTAA is responsible for the plans' enforcement. There have been no noted violations in the last five years. 9-31 Comment Our leaders had a plan to evacuate the city if the water shortage got any worse. Certainly a loss of groundwater and added industry can only make this problem worse and possibly critical. ' database 101801.x1s d !J 7 Response Comment noted. The PTIA is expected to demand approximately 0.19 % and 0.27 % of the city's water supply after implementation of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed project (see Section 5.6, Water Quality of the FEIS. Water supply mitigation measures are discussed in Section 6.2.4 of the FEIS. 9-32 Comment The possible water-related impacts of the proposed construction have been discussed in the EIS. However, much of the discussion is qualitative in nature ...To the extent possible, additional quantitative information regarding the possible water-related impacts should be included in the Draft EIS, to allow for their more definitive identification. Response The concentrations and types of pollutants expected from the operation of the proposed project and reasonable alternatives are in Tables 5.6.3-5 and 5.6.3-6 in the FEIS. 9-33 Comment Clearing areas of vegetation during construction would result in short-term turbidity impacts to surface waters of all three sub-basins in the proposed project area, and mitigation measures are proposed to minimize these impacts. However, because the proposed construction will take a number of years to complete, the turbidity impacts might be more than short-term in their effects. Response Comment noted. However, land disturbance takes place in the early steps of the proposed project. The contractor will be required to abide by the terms of an NPDES permit, which requires the on-site containment of sediments from the construction site with use of Best Management Practices (BMPs). These BMPs are discussed in Section 6.2.4 of the FEIS. 9-34 Comment FedEx's major benefit for Greensboro is supposed to be its ability to attract other companies, yet the water consumption estimates are only for FedEx, not any other companies. Response Section 5.23 discusses potential water quality impacts from the cumulative projects. 9-35 Comment Would our reservoirs be fuller or emptier as a result of FedEx? Response PTIA, with the proposed project is expected to demand approximately 0.19 % and 0.27 % of the City of Greensboro's Water Supply after Phase 1 and Phase 2 is complete. Water demand has actually decreased in the City despite growth due to the implementation of conservation measures (see Section 6.2.4 of the FEIS). 9-36 Comment The DEIS does not adequately address issues on pollution and water. Response The existing conditions (pre-development) with regards to water quality and floodplains are located in Sections 4.3.3 and 4.3.4, respectively, of the DEIS and FEIS. Section 4.3.3 discusses existing surface water hydrology, existing surface water classifications and standards, existing surface water quality data, existing water pollution sources, existing groundwater quality, existing groundwater classifications and standards, existing water supply and sanitary wastewater treatment. Section 4.3.4 discusses existing floodplains, floodplain regulations and existing flooding problems. The expected impacts to water quality and floodplains is discussed in Sections 5.6 and 5.12, respectively, for each alternative. Mitigation measures for water quality and floodplain impacts are discussed in Sections 6.2. and 6.3 of the FEIS. 1 database_101801.xis 9-37 Comment ' The EIS did not adequately address the fact that the flight path of the new runway is directly over our primary drinking water supply. Increased flights and associated ground transportation pollutants will have ' serious affects on our drinking water. Response The FEIS addressed the collection and transfer of pollutants in stormwater runoff. The origins of the pollutants can be from land operations as well as aircraft operations. Most aircraft air emissions evaporate, dissipate, or are oiherwise dispersed while they remain airborne. As a result, only minute quantities of even the visible plumes emanating from aircraft engines ever reach the ground surface or bodies of water (including lakes). Air quality monitoring studies at other airport locations have helped to document this occurrence. For example, these findings have shown no significant differences between ambient particulate concentrations at or near airports and areas located away from the airport. Deicing chemicals are similarly dispersed and diluted during the take-off, climb-out, and landing operations. The dumping of fuel during take-off or landing is also not conducted, unless under extreme emergencies involving mechanical or operational failures. In summary, the potential impact from aircraft air emissions ' on terrestrial or aquatic systems that are located off airport property is considered to be negligible. 9-38 Comment The post-development peak discharge should not exceed the 25 year pre-developed peak discharge (not the 10-year as shown). Further, the 25 year high-water should establish the emergency spillway crest. ' Response Current Guilford County regulations require that the 10-year post development peak discharge rate shall not exceed the 10-year pre-development discharge rate and the 10-year post development peak maximum water surface elevation equals the crest of the emergency spillway. These regulations are similar to the City of Greensboro's. For further information see Section 6.2.7.2 of the FEIS and the City of Greensboro's Stormwater Best Management Practices Guidance Manual, May 1999. This manual is available at City of I Greensboro Stormwater Services, 401 Patton Avenue Greensboro, North Carolina 27406 (336) 373-2812. The Stormwater Master Plan for the Piedmont Triad International Airport is adopting Guilford County and City of Greensboro stormwater regulations. 9-39 Comment I strongly recommend that the angle for graded slopes and fills should be 3:1 to provide for proper establishment, mowing, and maintenance. If the slopes cannot be obtained reasonably, then retaining walls should be used to allow flatter slopes. ' Response All efforts will be made to grade and stabilize slopes and fills in a fashion that minimizes erosion and such that maintenance activities such as mowing are not impeded. Retaining walls will be considered in floodplain areas to minimize floodplain encroachment. ' 9-40 Comment I recommend the use of extended detention wetlands, (or semi-dry detention basins) which would incorporate flood control and water quality. These basins would be a combination of wet and dry detention ponds and a constructed wetland and would permanently impound from 1-3 feet of water and be planted with emergent aquatics. Response Comment noted. Extended dry detention ponds and wet detention ponds are proposed by the PTAA to treat and attenuate stormwater runoff. Please see Section 6.0 of the FEIS. 9-41 Comment The DEIS asserts "water will be available from the project (Randleman Dam) in 2002." If Randleman Dam ' construction began tomorrow, it would not be on line until 2004 at the earliest. Greensboro has experienced drought conditions for the past five years. Fed Ex's use of more than 10 million gallons per year and the loss of ground water, will result in significant hardship to the population. 01801z database-1 1 Response The statement in the DEIS has been corrected and the FEIS now states that the Randleman Reservoir will be on-line in 2004-2005. 9-42 Comment How many new homes will be built in the County (in areas without city water) by new residents working at Fed Ex or associated businesses, and will the FAA take advantage of the well volume and well depth data available to strengthen estimates of the impact of these new houses on the County's groundwater? Response The induced socioeconomic impacts of the proposed project are discussed in Section 5.4 and Appendix E of the FEIS. As indicated in these sections, the majority of FedEx employees would be part-time employees who would already live in the Triad. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project would result in a significant increase in the construction of new homes for FedEx employees. 9-43 Comment What will be the impacts of each alternative on the increased nutrient loading into Greensboro's drinking water supply? Response Increased nutrients can adversely affect aquatic life by lowering dissolved oxygen concentrations with increases in the Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD). The greatest threat to increased nutrient loadings ' from airports is deicing wastewater because of the glycol content. Strategy for the treatment of glycol- laden runoff is discussed in Sections 5.6, 6.2 and 6.3 of the FEIS. 9-44 Comment What will be the cumulative impacts of not only increasing the demand of Greensboro's very limited drinking water supplies and what will be the cumulative impacts on increased wastewater discharge on water quality? Response The water and wastewater demands at the PTIA after Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed project are shown in Tables 5.6.3-2 and 5.6.3-3, respectively in the FEIS. Projected water demands based on growth at PTIA without the addition of the Mid-Atlantic Hub were considered (see Section 5.6, Water Quality in the FEIS). Cumulative impacts in the Generalized Study Area are disclosed in Section 5.23 of the FEIS. As discussed in this section, it is the responsibility of local municipal jurisdictions and planning agencies to plan for growth and development and the subsequent public service demands that accompany such growth. 9-45 Comment What is the mitigation plan to reduce water pollution? Response Please see Section 6.3 of the FEIS. 9-46 Comment The runoff from over 300 acres of added impervious surfaces should be thoroughly mitigated to the utmost extent possible, so that there is not a diminishment in our water quality. Response Detention ponds will be designed to treat and attenuate runoff from the added impervious areas (see Sections 6.2.4 and 6.3 of the FEIS). 9-47 Comment A dedicated deicing agent collection system MUST be required for the proposed air cargo facility. Response ' Strategy for the treatment of glycol-laden runoff is discussed in Sections 5.6, 6.2 and 6.3 of the FEIS. I database-101801.xis 9-48 Comment I In October 1999, a FedEx cargo plane overshot the runway and plunged into the ocean in the Philippines. Containment measures were required for the resulting fuel leak. What if it had occurred here, in Guilford County, in our watershed area? Response The PTIA has a Spill Prevention and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan which outlines countermeasures to contain, cleanup, and mitigate the effect of a spill that impacts jurisdictional waters. 9-49 Comment Figure 4.3.3-2 of the DEIS shows water quality measurement locations that appear to be too far East to ' adequately assess the impact on the main water supply for the City of High Point. The contaminant levels should be measured due south of the runway or directly from the Deep River itself. It was not clear at what level of incremental contamination the expansion to accommodate FedEx would be rejected. Response These water quality stations are part of the USGS or NCDENR water quality network. They were not chosen specifically for this project. Data from these stations was reported in the FEIS because they were nearest the proposed project. However, additional data on Brush Creek and Horsepen Creeks was also obtained from NCDENR and is shown in Appendix K of the FEIS. 9-50 Comment What are the incremental levels of contamination caused by the FedEx airplanes to the water supply? , Response Contaminates from specific sources were not quantified. The FEIS describes the qualitative impact from all potential pollution sources (see Section 5.6, Water Resources in the FEIS). 9-51 Comment What will be the health impact on residents drinking contaminated water? Response The FAA did not evaluate the potential health impact on residents drinking contaminated water in this EIS. However, mitigation measures to protect surface waters from stormwater runoff were identified. Mitigation measures will be designed to meet state water quality standards. Additionally, the receiving waters and ' drinking water reservoirs are monitored by Federal, state and local agencies to ensure the water is safe for human consumption. ' 9-52 Comment What will be the increased cost to the City of High Point to minimize the impact of this increased level of pollution to their main water supply reservoirs? Response The proposed project will have minimal water quality impact to the East Fork Deep River Watershed, which contributes flow to the City of Highpoint's reservoir, Highpoint Lake (see Section 5.6, Water Quality of the FEIS). Therefore, no costs are anticipated. 9-53 Comment Does the City of High Point measure for the contaminants and do they have the ability to remove them? (VOC's, Nitrogen Oxides, Benzene and formaldehyde). Response The FAA is not aware if the City of Highpoint tests for these pollutants. However, the NCDENR has a testing program, which includes the drinking water reservoirs for the City of Highpoint, Oak Hollow Lake and Highpoint Lake as well as the East and West Fork Deep Rivers. 9-54 Comment Based on the proposed increase number of aircraft, how does PTIA propose to control the glycol runoff ' from de-icing procedures? Response Strategy for the treatment of glycol-laden runoff is discussed in Sections 5.6, 6.2 and 6.3 of the FEIS. database -1 01 so,X 1 1 I 1 9-55 Comment At what level of contamination to our water resources would the expansion to accommodate FedEx be rejected? Response The FAA would require that water quality impacts be addressed and mitigated to a level that satisfies the requirements of Federal, state and local jurisdictional and regulatory agencies prior to issuing a Record of Decision. 9-56 Comment If a FedEx plane carrying hazardous material should go down in the wetlands, watershed area near the airport, High Point's water supply, watershed, or reservoirs, what is the FAA's emergency plan for the contaminant and clean-up. How effective could the containment and clean up? Response The PTIA has a Spill Prevention and Countermeasures (SPCC) plan that outlines countermeasures to contain, cleanup, and mitigate the effect of a spill that impacts jurisdictional waters. 9-57 Comment Will the incremental levels of pollution make the Benthic macro-invertebrates rating in the Deep River worse, indicating the water is no longer for any elements measured or was this an oversight? Response Quantitative estimates were not determined in the study. However, macroinvertebrate samples by the NCDENR-DWQ from 1993 indicate "fair" water quality in the East Fork Deep River. The "fair" water quality status is most likely attributable from the urbanized land uses at the headwaters of the East Fork Deep River and agricultural land through out it's reach. The East Fork Deep River has approximately 10 small point dischargers near Interstate 40, mostly associated with oil storage facilities. The East Fork Deep River should expect little or no increase in pollution from the proposed project due to the small impact to the East Fork Deep River Sub-basin and the use of BMPs to treat stormwater runoff (see subheading Benthic Macro-invertebrates in Section 4.3.3.1, Water Resources in the FEIS. 9-58 Comment Why were water quality measurements not taken in the West fork of the Deep River and Oak Hollow Lake for review in Table-, K-4 and K-7? Are you implying that they do not exceed acceptable limits of contamination for any of the elements measured or was this an oversight? Response No stormwater runoff from the PTIA drains to the West Fork Deep River, which ultimately drains to Oak Hollow Lake. Therefore, existing water quality data was not summarized and impacts from the proposed project were not documented in the FEIS for the West Fork Deep River and Oak Hollow Lake. 9-59 Comment With regards to demand and conservation, the DEIS gives the misleading impression that demand has remained constant, despite increased population. Again, this is not entirely true. Response The City of Greensboro's. 1997 Water Supply Plan indicates water consumption has remained relatively constant due to conservation efforts. (see Appendix K of the FEIS for the 1997 Water Supply Plan). 9-60 Comment I urge the FAA to measure very carefully, the effect of air pollution on High Point's water supply. I database_101801.xls Response Most aircraft air emissions evaporate, dissipate, or are otherwise dispersed while they remain airborne. As a result, only minute quantities of even the visible plumes emanating from aircraft engines ever reach the ground surface or bodies of water (including lakes). Air quality monitoring studies at other airport locations have helped to document this occurrence. For example, these findings have shown no significant differences between ambient particulate concentrations at or near airports and areas located away from the airport. Deicing chemicals are similarly dispersed and diluted during the take-off, climb-out, and landing operations. The dumping of fuel during take-off or landing is also not conducted, unless under extreme emergencies involving mechanical or operational failures. In summary, the potential impact from aircraft air emissions on terrestrial or aquatic systems that are located off airport property is considered to be negligible. 9-61 Comment The issues of stormwater runoff management have not been adequately addressed. The airport does not have a NPDES stormwater permit. Stormwater runoff sampling data is missing. The amount of chemical contaminant in the stormwater runoff from impervious surface areas is not known. Response See Section 4.3.3.1 of the FEIS for the status of the PTIA's NPDES permit. Typical concentrations and the types of pollutants expected in stormwater runoff at the airport are shown on Tables 5.6.3-5 and 5.6.3-6 in the FEIS. C 9-62 Comment , The City of Greensboro will not be able to handle the increased demand on water supply if FedEx comes here. Response ' The water supply available to the City of Greensboro will grow approximately 75 % with the addition of the Randleman Reservoir in 2004-2005. The City of Greensboro water consumption has declined in recent years due to the City of Greensboro's water conservation program (see Section 6.2.4 of the FEIS for more details). 9-63 Comment The DEIS does a good job of describing water quality mitigation measures that will minimize impacts by the ' proposed project, but does not address what measures Greensboro, High Point or Guilford County plan to implement to improve water quality in each of these streams (North and South Buffalo Creek, Horsepen Creek, Brush Creek, East Fork Deep River, and Richland Creek). We (NCWRC) request that the Final EIS address these water quality issues and include what measures are proposed to improve water quality in each of these streams. Response ' Cumulative impacts from future residential, commercial and industrial development following the construction of the Preferred Alternative are discussed in Section 5.23 of the FEIS. See Appendix A, Agency Correspondence, for the Governor's Air and Water Quality Assurance Letter. 9-64 Comment We (NCWRC) request that the Water Quality Mitigation section of the Final EIS provide clarification on , specific vegetative requirements in the 100-foot vegetative buffer for all new development activities along perennial streams. Response Specific vegetative requirements within any established buffer zone will be determined at the time the ' proposed improvements are designed and will be coordinated closely with the Wetland and Stream Mitigation Plan described in Section 6.3 of the FEIS. It would be premature to specify particular plant types at this point in the process. ' n database_101801.As 1 II'? 9-65 Comment We (NCWRC) request that the Final EIS address what measures will be implemented to minimize impacts to intermittent stream corridors as a result of project and secondary development. Typically, we recommend that minimum 35-foot vegetated buffers, preferably forested, be maintained along intermittent stream corridors. Response Please see response to Comment 9-64. Regulations for stream corridor buffers are described in Section 6.2.4 of the FEIS. 9-66 Comment The Final EIS should address what measures will be taken to provide water to the project and to support secondary development in the event that Randleman Lake is not constructed and operational when the proposed project is completed. Response The FEIS indicates that current and future tenants at the PTIA use surface water supplied by the City of Greensboro (see Section 4.3.3.3 Water Supply). As discussed in Section 5.6 of the FEIS, the proposed project and reasonable alternatives will not result in significant impacts to local water supplies. The USACE issued a permit for the Randleman Reservoir in April 2001. Construction is slated to begin late 2001 and be completed by 2004 to 2005. Therefore, the FAA concludes that the water supply demands of the proposed project will be met. The FAA is not aware of any "contingency plans" that have been developed by the City of Greensboro if the reservoir does not come on-line as anticipated. The FAA recommends the proposed project be designed with water conservation in mind with the use of water saving plumbing fixtures, little irrigation requirements for landscape areas and good habits by employees to reduce the overall demand for water supply. Please refer to Section 6.2.4.6 of the FEIS for discussion on erosion and sedimentation control to be implemented during construction. 9-67 Comment Secondary development resulting from the proposed project will increase the potential for degradation to aquatic and fisheries resources in the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area due to increased wastewater and stormwater discharges... We (NCWRC) request that the Final EIS address these water quality issues and include what measures are proposed to improve water quality in the affected streams and what measures are proposed to prevent degradation of streams that are unimpaired. Response Secondary impacts resulting from development of the proposed project are discussed in Section 5.23 of the FEIS All future development in the vicinity is required to abide by the stormwater development ordinance's for the City of High Point, City of Greensboro and Guilford County, which incorporate state guidelines to protect water quality. 9-68 Comment Any construction activity including land clearing, grading and excavation activities resulting in the disturbance of five (5) or more acres of total land are required to obtain a NPDES Stormwater Permit prior to beginning these activities. Response An NPDES permit will be obtained for the project as discussed in the FEIS in Section 6.3, Element 4.2. 9-69 Comment To mitigate both the construction (short-term) and secondary (long-term) impacts to surface water quality within these subbasins, PTAA must prepare and implement a Stormwater Master Plan (SWMP) Response The PTIA is currently preparing a Stormwater Master Plan (SWMP) that incorporates Best Management Practices for existing development, the proposed project and other future development. database_101801.xis 9-70 Comment , How is EPA approval obtained with respect to water quality? Response EPA does not have direct jurisdiction in terms of water quality. As long as all state water quality standards ' are met and all appropriate Federal (NPDES), state and local permits are obtained, the EPA requirements should be satisfied. It is ultimately up to the state, particularly the Governors Office (or designee) to assure that water quality standards will be met by the proposed project. ' 9-71 Comment The authors of the DEIS seem to confuse groundwater recharge and discharge areas. The DEIS defines ' groundwater discharge areas using the same definition for groundwater recharge areas. Response The definitions in the DEIS have been revised as suggested. See Section 5.6 of the FEIS. 9-72 Comment We (ABEQ) strongly support the proposed development of the Horsepen Creek floodplain on the ' southeastern side of PTIA as a wetland. We recommend that as much stormwater as possible be diverted to this location, particularly from the impervious areas on the airside of the facility. Response Comment noted. 9-73 Comment FAA is requested in its response to these comments to officially confirm what appears to be stated in the , DEIS that none of the six alternatives considered during the Level 2 screening process will have any adverse environmental impact on High Point's public water supply or upon the East Fork Deep River Sub- basin either during the Phase 1 or Phase 2 construction periods, or thereafter when the proposed FedEx Air Cargo Facility, new runway, and any other PTIA improvements included in the DEIS are operational. Furthermore, FAA is requested to see to it that the above official confirmation is strongly stated in the FEIS. ' Response Impacts to the East Fork Deep River could potentially have an affect on the City of Highpoint's water supply. However, these impacts would be minimal because little disturbance would occur within the ' watershed draining to the East Fork Deep River. This statement has been clarified in the FEIS. 9-74 Comment FAA is requested to insure that PTIA will be required to fully comply with all State and local regulations pertaining to the provision and continuing maintenance of riparian buffers and any other applicable watershed protection provisions. FAA is also requested to see to it that the above referenced regulations concerning riparian buffers as required under the approved Randleman Lake Watershed Rules are appropriately noted in the FEIS. Response The PTAA will be required to comply with all State and local regulations pertaining to the provision and continuing maintenance of riparian buffers and any other applicable watershed protection provisions. 9-75 Comment ' With regard to the allegation of "fuel dumping", in the vicinity of an airport prior to aircraft landings, FAA is requested to provide clarification as to what extent the periodic dumping of jet fuel is currently an operational practice of the airline industry. If such fuel dumping is currently occurring, FAA is further ' requested to provide a complete assessment as to the environmental impacts of such an operational practice. Response , database_101801.x1s H J J 1 i 0 Unburned fuel from jet aircraft is not dumped unless there is an eminent emergency that endangers the passengers or people on the ground. If possible, and only on these irregular occasions, the pilots eject the fuel at altitude and away from inhabited areas. This minimizes the environmental impact and allows the crew to better prepare for an emergency landing. In short, fuel dumping is not a common practice and only conducted when the aircraft is in eminent danger. FAA has no formal regulation pertaining to fuel dumping or documented instances of fuel dumping at PTIA. 9-76 Comment The proposed site is adjacent to the existing airport facilities and Bryan Blvd. Approximately 14,500-feet of Brush Creek flow through this site. Brush Creek is a protected watershed and is classified as WS-III-NSW and flow to Lake Higgins, a water supply reservoir for the City of Greensboro. Response Stormwater treatment facilities would be constructed to treat and attenuate stormwater runoff prior to discharging into Brush Creek such that all state water quality standards are met. Please see Chapter 6.0 of the FEIS for further information. 9-77 Comment Stormwater and water supply issues will require due diligence and buffer protection. Variances and/or mitigation requirements and/or other actions may be necessary for both. Maximizing mitigation efforts within the same subbasin where the impacts occur will be paramount. Response The three sub-basins impacted by this project are Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek and East Fork Deep River Sub-basins. Stormwater treatment facilities would be constructed to treat and attenuate stormwater runoff prior to discharging into Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek and the East Fork Deep River such that all state water quality requirements are met. Please see Sections 5.6 (Water Quality) and Chapter 6.0 (Mitigation) of the FEIS for further details. 9-78 Comment Identify the streams potentially impacted by the proposed project. The current stream classifications and use support ratings should be included. Response Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek and East Fork Deep River are streams impacted by the proposed project. Stream classifications and user support ratings are identified in Section 4.3.3 Water Quality in the FEIS. 9-79 Comment Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DWQ requests that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance. Response The final design for the stormwater attenuation ponds will comply with all state water quality requirements. This will include Best Management Practices (BMP's) such as spill catch basins and oil-water separators as needed. Please refer to Section 6.3 of the FEIS for further information regarding mitigation measures for the Preferred Alternative. 9-80 Comment Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to be employed. Response Permanent stormwater controls include wet and dry detention ponds and oil-water separators. Temporary stormwater controis include sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices to be implemented during construction and shortly there after until the site stabilizes. Refer to Chapter 6.3 of the FEIS for more details. 9-81 Comment Please ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in wetlands. 1 database 101801.xis Response 1 Sediment and erosion control methods would not be placed in wetlands. Sediment and erosion control methods would be installed according to state guidelines during construction, and be located outside of wetland areas to protect them from sediment deposition (see Section 6.3 in the FEIS for Water Quality Mitigation Measures. 9-82 Comment Reedy Fork subbasin area will be deprived of approximately 696 gallons per day of groundwater recharge. This translates to approximately 83,000,000 gallons of water annual loss to the Greensboro water supply. Response Groundwater recharge loss calculations were conducted as part of this FEIS and represent a worst case scenario assuming no infiltration/recharge within areas of impact. The calculated loss of recharge area and volume, by alternative, is contained in Section 5.6 of the FEIS, Water Quality. fl 9-83 Comment We view the with concern the possible detrimental effects of this project on sedimentation, water quality, and increased flooding. Response Mitigation measures are proposed to minimize water quality and floodplain impacts (see Chapter 6.0, Mitigation, in the FEIS for further information). 1 1 u database_101801.xis ' u n H u u Piedmont Triad International Airport 10. DOT Section 303 10-1 Comment Conserve the parks and natural areas. Response Comment noted. Section 303(c) sites would not be impacted by Alternatives W2-A, W3-A or W1-A1. Alternatives N-D and WE would indirectly impact Section 303(c) sites from aircraft noise. Refer to Section 5.7 of the FEIS for further information. 10-2 Comment In the absence of a Section 4(f) Evaluation and a selected alternative, we (DOI) reserve our comments until a preferred alternative has been selected and a Section 4(f) Evaluation has been prepared. It appears that several historic properties are within this project area and may be affected by at least increased noise pollution. Response As stated in Chapter 3, Alternatives, of the FEIS, the FAA has selected Alternative W1-A1 as the Preferred Alternative for the proposed project at PTIA. This alternative would not have a direct or indirect impact to Section 303(c) resources. This alternative will have an indirect adverse impact from noise to one (1) historic architectural property covered under Section 106, the Campbell-Gray Farm, which is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The FAA, in consultation with the NCSHPO, has determined that this property would be adversely affected by Alternative W1-A1, and a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) (Appendix G of this EIS) has been entered into by the FAA, SHPO and PTAA to mitigate the adverse noise impacts. The FAA and SHPO have also concurred that the adverse effect to this property under Section 106 does not constitute a constructive use under Section 303(c) because it does not substantially impair the historic integrity of the site under which it was listed (Criterion C). Therefore Section 303(c) does not apply, and Alternative W1-A1 would not result in indirect Section 303(c) impacts, and a separate Section 303(c) Evaluation is not warranted. 10-3 Comment We (DOI) are opposed to environmental approval of this project until a Section 4(f) Evaluation has been prepared and reviewed by the U.S. Department of the Interior. Response Comment noted. Please see responses to Comment 10-2. database-1 01 801.xis Piedmont Triad International Airport ' 11. Historic Architectural and Archeological 11-1 Comment ' Campbell-Gray Farm, southwest corner of junction NC 68 and US 421 has been determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Response This statement is correct, as noted at Section 4.2.4.4 of the FEIS. 11-2 Comment There are seventeen recorded archeological sites located within the project study area, sixteen in the area of Brush Creek and one in the Horsepen Creek vicinity. Response These are previously recorded sites. Additional archaeological studies within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the preferred alternative, as previously agreed upon by the FAA and the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), were conducted after the publication of the DEIS. The FAA has consulted with the SHPO concerning the findings of these studies. The SHPO has concurred with FAA's findings that none of the sites identified within the archaeological APE require further investigation, or are eligible for listing in the National Register. See Appendix A for agency coordination. 11-3 Comment There are no recorded sites within the Deep River area, but this area has never been surveyed for archaeological resources and is expected to contain such sites. Response No further archaeological survey is being conducted in the Deep River area, as this area has previously been disturbed by construction. 11-4 Comment The structures at 2308 Fleming Road include a log house comprised of two log houses (one of which may be late 18th or ear;y 19th century) which were pushed together possibly c. 1870s) and 2 log outbuildings... The just released EIS impact statement does not include these structures although they stand next to the proposed 65 DNL noise contour. Further, they were within the proposed 65 DNL noise contour last year at a public exhibition hosted by the FAA in Greensboro. Response The structures at 2308 Fleming Road have not been listed in or determined eligible for listing in the National Register. This resource is not located with the Area of Potential Effect of the undertaking. 11-5 Comment If the hub opens in 2005, a major decline in the student enrollment at Guilford College will occur. This will seriously jeopardize the future well-being of this historic academic institution listed on the National Register. The adverse effect caused by the cargo hub would cause permanent damage to this historic site and sound insulation would affect the integrity of the structures. Response The noise at the Guilford College Historic District would exceed 65 DNL only under Phases 1 and 2 of 1 Alternative N-D. Further, the noise would exceed 65 dB for Alternative N-D only at the southwestern corner of the approximately 280-acre historic district. This corner is open lawn flanked by West Market Street and New Garden Road. The increase of noise at this edge of the campus would not constitute a use or constructive use of the historic district. The 1990 National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) nomination for the historic district found it to be of statewide religious, educational, and college campus design significancy under NRHP Criteria A and C. The increase in noise under Alternative N-D would not substantially diminish protected activities, features, or attributes of the historic district. A quiet setting.at its ' southwestern corner, which is adjacent to a busy intersection, is not a generally recognized feature or attribute of the historic district's architectural or historic significance. Further, the noise will not exceed 65 dBA under the preferred alternative (W1-A1) or the other three alternatives. database_101801.xls 11-6 Comment How will the public be able to review the archeological survey before the release of the FEIS? Response In order to protect archaeological sites, North Carolina law prohibits the release of site location information to the general public. However, the archaeological survey was reviewed and assessed by professional I archaeologists at the North Carolina SHPO and its findings are summarized in the FEIS. 11-7 Comment The Knight Barn on the east side of SR 2137, 0.1 mile south of SR 2278 is not listed or mentioned in the DEIS. This resource needs to be reviewed to determine its eligibility for listing in the National Register. Response The Knight Barn has not been listed in or determined eligible for listing in the National Register. This resource is not located with the Area of Potential Effect of the undertaking. 11-8 Comment 0 Campbell-Gray Farm has been determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and is within the 65 DNL contour. How do you mitigate the sound burden? Response The FAA has determined that the undertaking would have an indirect adverse effect upon the Campbell- Gray Farm due to significant increases in noise, and the North Carolina SHPO has concurred with this ' determination. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) has been executed by the FAA, SHPO and PTAA to address the adverse noise impact on this resource. Please see Chapter 6.0, Mitigation, of the FEIS and the MCA in Appendix G of the FEIS. 1 database-1 01 801.xis rl t 1 Piedmont Triad International Airport 12. Biotic Communities 12-1 Comment What are the impacts on wildlife and their habitat? Response Please refer to Sections 5.9.3.1 through 5.9.4.6 of the FEIS for details on primary and secondary impacts to wildlife and their habitat. Also refer to Section 5.10 for details on primary and secondary impacts to state and Federal protected species and Section 5.11 for wetland impacts. 12-2 Comment North Carolina Division of Forest Resources requests the following information be included in the EIS:a.The total forest land acreage by type;b. The production of the forest soils impacted by the proposed project; c. The provisions the contractor will take to utilize merchantable timber;d. Methods to comply with open burning regulations;e. The provisions the contractor will take to prevent erosion; and f. The impact upon existing greenways. Response a. The total forest land acreage by type within the entire Detailed Study Area is shown in Table 4.4.1-1 and by Alternative in Table 5.9.4-1. b. Determining the production of forest soils was deemed unnecessary for this project (pers. Comm. with Bill Pickens, 10/29/2000 - See phone record (Appendix A). c. d. e. PTAA is committed to insuring the lumber contractor will sell merchantable timber and comply with appropriate laws and regulations regarding woodland burning, and implement proper provision for the prevention of erosion and damage to forestland outside the impact area. f. There are no greenways in the Generalized or Detailed Study Areas. 12-3 Comment U.S. Department of Commerce - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - National Fisheries Service has stated that the proposed project will not impact fishery resources for which the National Marine Fisheries is responsible. Response Comment noted. 12-4 Comment The proposed action would likely degrade or eliminate important habitat for many ecologically valuable aquatic, terrestrial, and avian species. Response Please refer to sections 5.9, 5.10, and 5.11 of the FEIS for details on potential impacts to wildlife habitats and animal species. 12-5 Comment Any development in or around the preferred project site is likely to permanently affect the local fauna by habitat loss, fragmentation or degradation. Response Please refer to Sections 5.9, 5. 10, and 5.11 in the FEIS for details on what the projected impacts to local fauna and habitat will be. 12-6 Comment The proposed runway would mean cutting vast amounts of trees and the destruction of many animal habitats. Response Details of the acreages of impact to wildlife habitat is found in Section 5.9 of the FEIS. Also, Table 5.9.2-1 summarizes the acreage of impact by each existing habitat type. database_101801.x1s 12-7 Comment I Provide a description and a cover type map showing acreage of upland wildlife habitat impacted. Response The requested information is provided in Sections 5.9, 5.10, and 5.11 of the FEIS. 1 database 101801.xis 1 F11 D 1 s Piedmont Triad International Airport 13. Endangered and Threatened Species 13-1 Comment Bald eagle nests in the area should be a part of the EIS. Response The locations of one active and one inactive bald eagle's nest are discussed in Section 4.4.3.2 and shown in Figure 4.4.3-1 of the FEIS. Eagle habitat located within the FEIS Study Area is discussed in Sections 5.10.3 and 5.10.4. 13-2 Comment Based on information provided in the DEIS, the Fish and Wildlife Service concurs that this project 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. We believe that the requirements of Section 7 of the Act have been satisfied. Response Comment noted. Please refer to Appendix A for agency coordination. 13-3 Comment We (the Sierra Club Piedmont Plateau Group) do not believe the conclusion that this added activity (increased aircraft operations) would not affect the bald eagles nesting in the area. This much noise has to impact them as well as the humans living here. I would hate to see this project drive out this nesting pair when we have worked so long to bring them back. We believe additional expert, unbiased study of the impact on the eagles is needed. Response The Department of Interior "concurs with the FAA's findings that this project is not likely to adversely affect any Federally listed species, their formally designated critical habitat, or species currently proposed for Federal listing under the Act" (See Appendix A of the FEIS). 13-4 Comment The EIS states that there is potential for red wolves in our region, but the red wolf has been extinct here since colonial times. The red wolf presently occurring in North Carolina have been reintroduced into Hyde County, which is the easternmost county of our state. There is no potential of the red wolf occurring in this area. Response References to the Red Wolf and other Federal species that are located more than two counties away from the FEIS Study Area have been removed from the FEIS. 13-5 Comment The EIS mentions a record of a red wolf occurrence in Harnett County. Neither the State Museum of Natural Sciences nor the Natural Heritage Program have any knowledge of this record. There is no reference cited. Response Please see response to Comment 13-4. Information on Red Wold sitings in Harnett County was downloaded from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency site at www.epa.gov/espp/database.htm. 13-6 Comment American chaff seed is listed as another species, but it occurs in the sandhills and savannahs and pinelands with high fire frequency. The detailed study area does not support savannah or sandhill pineland habitat. Response Reference to the American chaff seed has been removed from the FEIS. database_101801.xis 13-7 Comment Missing from the EIS is the bog turtle, Clemes mulenburgi, a Federally listed species that occurs within 30 miles of the site. Response Reference to the Bog Turtle (Clemes mulenburgi) has been added to the FEIS in Section 4.4.3.2 and Section 5.10.3.1. 13-8 Comment The source used for the wildlife section largely depends on a 1981 work titled, "Field Guide to North American Wildlife, Eastern Edition." Such a reference has no place in a document of this type since there are many, many more specific references readily available from a wide variety of places, including the web. Response Comment noted. The "Field Guide to North American Wildlife, Eastern Edition" was used to obtain background information on wildlife habitats for the DEIS. An EIS can include general information about wildlife habitat, therefore this reference was considered acceptable for use. More site specific information obtained through direct correspondence with the Natural Heritage Program and Fish and Wildlife Service and their web sites have been cited in the FEIS (Please see FEIS Section 4.4.3). 13-9 Comment The EIS omits the four-toe salamander, which has a high potential of occurring in the area. Response State listed species, such as the four-toed salamander, that have not been documented within Guilford County were not included in the FEIS. 13-10 Comment A figure in the EIS shows the existing bald eagle nest outside of the study area, when it actually occurs inside the boundary shown in the figure. Response Figure 4.4.3-1 of the FEIS shows the locations of the active (Latitude 36 degrees 09'38" N and Longitude 79 degrees 51'05" W) and inactive (Latitude 36 degrees 11' 55" N and Longitude 79 degrees 53'32" W) eagle's nests. This information was provided by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program and NC Wildlife Resources Commission (Please see Appendix A of the FEIS). 13-11 Comment Grouse is mentioned as a common species for the area, but grouse do not even occur here. They are found in far western Piedmont counties and mountains. Response Reference to the grouse has been removed from the FEIS. 13-12 Comment The potential for ephemeral pools is not addressed. Apparently, the site was visited in February, 1999. Average rainfall in February, 1999, was 1.5 inches, but the 48-year average for February is 3.3 inches. Under these conditions, it would be very difficult to assess the presence of ephemeral pools or ephemeral pool species. Our region has already lost 90 percent of our ephemeral pools. Response ' An impermeable substrate such as a hardpan of clay or rock located in a flattened upland area is necessary to form an upland ephemeral pool (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). The project area substrate is inappropriate for this type of system to form. Additionally, wetlands within the Airport property were surveyed in March and April, 1999, by LAW Engineering Services. Adjacent upland areas were also traversed by LAW Engineering during the wetland survey. A field reconnaissance of the study area wetlands was also conducted by staff of the USACE, who verified the wetland boundaries (Please see USACE correspondence in Appendix A). No ephemeral pools were observed. database_101801.xis I 13-13 Comment What steps have been taken to identify the potential harm that night time noise and light will have on the breeding habitats of the Bald Eagle and possible adverse affects on the young hatchlings? Response After reviewing the DEIS, the Department of Interior has concurred with the FAA's findings that the project alternatives are na; likely to result in any adverse affects to Federally listed species. Please see Appendix A of the FEIS. 13-14 Comment Were the studies conducted when the birds could have been expected to be in the area? Response The analysis of noise impacts was based on computer modeling using the INM and not on noise monitoring data. Noise monitoring studies were not conducted at the eagles nest locations or for any other species located within or near the Generalized Study Area. Section 5.10.3.1 of the FEIS discusses the potential for noise related impacts to the Bald Eagle. Also, please see response to Comment 13-13. 13-15 Comment Do you honestly believe that eagles with a nest within 2.5 miles of the runway will not venture into the study area which is only a quarter-mile away? Response The active eagle's nest is located approximately 3.9 miles off the end of existing Runway 5/23, and 3.8-4.1 miles off the end of the proposed runway. The DEIS states that there is a "moderate potential" for the bald eagle to occur within the Detailed Study Area. "Moderate Potential" is defined as preferred habitat available with no record of documentation nor observation on site (see Section 4.4.3.2 of the FEIS). There are no large lakes or open rivers within the Detailed Study Area which would provide a more attractive foraging area and preferre6 nabitat than that which is available outside the limits of the Study Area. However, due to the proximity of the active nest, the bald eagle was rated as "moderate potential of occurrence" (See Section 5.10.3.1 of the FEIS). Section 5.10.3.1- Birds, states the "bald eagle has the potential to occasionally forage or migrate through the Detailed Study Area". It was concluded in the DEIS that bald eagles will move through the "Detailed Study Area" to access additional feeding areas and that the proposed project and reasonable alternatives would not have a significant impact on them. 13-16 Comment Will the DEIS be revised to accurately state the proximity of the eagle's nest to the end of the runway? Response The active eagle's nest is located approximately 3.9 miles off the end of existing Runway 5/23 (see Section 4.4.3.2 and Figure 4.4.3-1 in the FEIS) and approximately 3.8-4.1 miles off the end of the proposed runway. The FEIS states the proximity of the active bald eagle's nest (Latitude 36 degrees 9.38 minutes N and Longitude 79 degrees 51. 05 minutes W) to the Detailed Study Area, not the end of the runway. The nest location information was derived from the FWS, NC Natural Heritage Program and NC Wildlife Resource Commission. Please see Appendix A of the FEIS. 13-17 Comment Will you continue with this expansion of the airport and the formation of the cargo hub with nighttime operation if it pose6 a threat to the Bald Eagle, which is an endangered species? Response Please see Section 5.10.3.1 of the FEIS for a discussion of the anticipated noise levels at the bald eagle nest location. Additionally, the Department of Interior has concurred with the FAA's findings that the proposed project and reasonable alternatives are not likely to result in any adverse affects to Federally listed species. Please see Appendix A of the FEIS. The bald eagle was downgraded to threatened in July 1995. database 101801.xis 13-18 Comment Works by Weakly (1998) and Schafale and Weakly (1990) are missing from the DEIS. Response Habitat descriptions in the DEIS were based on field observations of specific vegetation compositions in the Detailed Study Area. While specific classifications found within Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina (Third Approximation) (Schaflae and Weakley 1990) were not used, information contained in this document was utilized in the assessment of the various community types found within the Detailed Study Area. 13-19 Comment I Outdated scientific names are used (ground cedar clubmoss described as Lycopodium flavbelliforne, should be updated to Diphasiastrum digitatum). Response I The scientific name for cedar clubmoss (Diphasiastrum digitatum) has been updated in the FEIS. Please see Section 4.4.1.1 of the FEIS. 13-20 Comment The DEIS contains an inaccurate assessment of potential habitat for American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana). This habitat occurs in the Sandhills in savannahs and pinelands with high fire frequency. Response Reference to the American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) has been removed from the FEIS. 13-21 Comment ?. The mole salamander and the purple fringless orchid are listed as having only moderate potential of occurrence. These species may have a high potential of occurring in the study area. Response "Moderate potential of occurrence" is defined as preferred habitat available, but no documentation or observation of the species within the study area (see Section 4.4.3.2 of the FEIS) as is the case with the mole salamander (Ambystoma talpoideum) and the purple fringeless orchid (Platanthera peromoena). 13-22 Comment I Pheasants are also mentioned as a common species for the area (see Section 4.4.1.2), but they are an Asian species that are released for game hunting and are not part of the native fauna of the area. Response I Reference to Pheasants have been removed from the FEIS. 13-23 Comment J Lake Higgins provides habitat for the Federally threatened bald eagle. Response While Lake Higgins may provide feeding habitat for the Federally threatened bald eagle, it is located more than 2.5 miles from proposed airport improvements. The Department of Interior has concurred with the FAA's findings that the proposed project and reasonable alternatives are not likely to result in any adverse affects to Federally listed species. Please see Appendix A of the FEIS. 13-24 Comment Include descriptions of fish and wildlife resources within the project area and a listing of Federally or state designated threatened, endangered or special concern species. When practicable, potential borrow area to be used for project construction should be included in the inventories. Response Based on information provided in the DEIS, the Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concurred with FAA's determination 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. The USFWS further has stated that the requirements of Section 7 of the Act have been satisfied based on the information contained in the DEIS. database 101801.xis Piedmont Triad International Airport 14. Wetlands 14-1 Comment Please pay close attention and do not destroy wetlands in the area. Response Comment noted. Federal and state regulations require avoidance, minimization or compensation of impacts and mitigation measures for those impacts that are unavoidable. The FEIS contains a discussion of potential impacts to wetlands in Section 5.11, and a mitigation plan for unavoidable impacts to wetlands in Section 6.3. 14-2 Comment Water quality permits from appropriate agencies will be required for disturbance and loss of wetlands by the proposed project. Response The FAA acknowledges that a Federal USACE 404 permit and state Section 401 Water Quality Certification will be required for the proposed project. These requests are currently under review by appropriate resource agencies. 14-3 Comment Examine additional design and/or site alternatives that would eliminate the need to impact Brush Creek and a 100-foot undisturbed vegetated riparian buffer along the creek or associated wetlands. Response There are no practicable alternatives to the proposed project that do not affect Brush Creek wetlands. Please see Section 3.2 and 3.3 of the FEIS which discusses why other alternatives are not practicable, and Section 6.3 which discusses measures to mitigate impacts. 14-4 Comment The EIS should mitigate for development impacts on wetlands. Response A Wetland and Stream Mitigation Plan has been developed and submitted as part of the Section 404/401 process to the USACE, EPA and NCDENR. This plan includes both on-site and off-site mitigation. A summary of this plan is contained in Section 6.3. of the FEIS. 14-5 Comment Include descriptions, maps and project activities, such as fill or channel alteration of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. Also, identify the Federal manual used for identifying and delineating jurisdictional wetlands. Response Sections 5.9 and 5.11 of the FEIS disclose the types of impacts that would occur to Biotic Communities and Wetlands with the implementation of each of the alternatives. Figures 5.9.2-1 through 5.9.2-6 of the FEIS depict the impact areas for each alternative. Tables 5.9.2-1 and 5.11.2-1 summarize the impacted acres by land cover type. The 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y- 87-1) was used to identify and delineate jurisdictional wetlands. 14-6 Comment The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission offers several generalized recommendations. Utility lines should be placed in or adjacent to upland areas. It is recommended that a minimum 100-foot buffer of natural vegetation be left between construction corridors and the banks of perennial streams. Trees and shrubs should be retained or established as buffers. Buffers should also be left along intermittent drains or streams. I database 101801.xls Response During the final design stage of the preferred alternative, the PTAA will, to the extent practicable, minimize impacts to natural areas located adjacent to the construction corridors along the banks of perennial streams. However, the project must also be designed to meet FAA safety standards (AC 150/5200-33) which may prohibit the use of or planting of certain trees and other vegetation in applicable areas located adjacent to the construction corridor and active aircraft movement areas because of their potential to act as a wildlife attractant and/or hazard to aviation. 14-7 Comment Disturbed wetland areas should be returned to original soils and contours, reseeded, and be allowed to revert to natural wetland vegetation. Response Please see response to Comment 14-4. 14-8 Comment The wetlands potentially impacted by the proposed project include a permanently flooded stream and floodplain system of Brush Creek and its' associated tributaries. The functions of these wetland areas include groundwater purification and recharge, flood and stormwater abatement, sediment retention and wildlife habitat.....These wetlands serve as a valuable storage area for storm and flood waters by holding the water temporarily and releasing it slowly, as well as serving as important habitat for wildlife. The proposed activities will likely reduce or eliminate these significant biological functions. Response Please see response to Comment 14-4. 14-9 Comment The USDO1 strongly recommend mitigating on-site within the project area for the impacted wetlands, including establishing vegetated buffer zones and replanting native woodland vegetation. In addition, we recommend the acreage of converted riparian habitat be mitigated at an appropriate ratio: 2:1 restoration, 4:1 enhancement, and 10:1 preservation. Response Comment noted. Please see Section 6.3 of the FEIS which contains a summary of the Wetland and Stream Mitigation Plan for wetland impacts that has been submitted to the USACE, EPA and NCDENR. This plan includes both on-site and off-site mitigation. 14-10 Comment Total wetland acreages do not include stream relocation impacts (although pond acreages were included). Total wetland acreages should reflect all three categories (floodplain, wetlands, streams and ponds), since waterways are also considered wetlands. The FEIS should show both dissected (individual) and lumped (total) values for these wetland categories and report totals (or individuals and totals) in summary tables such as Table S-2. Response The FEIS contains estimates of wetland impacts in terms of total acreage, linear feet of streams and floodplains in Table S-2. 14-11 Comment The quality of the wetlands directly and indirectly impacted should be better documented... Also, the specific functions of the wetlands (water quality, habitat, ground-water recharge, etc.) should be provided in the FEIS. Response The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural resources (NCDENR) Division of Water Quality (DWQ) rankings for each wetland/stream, by alternative, has been summarized in Table 5.11.2-2 of the FEIS. database_101801.xls 1 I 1 14-24 Comment Within the DEIS, the discussion of potential stream and wetland mitigation sites is severely limited.... the DEIS does not provide enough detail for us (NCDENR) to endorse any of the DEIS's potential mitigation sites at this time. Response Section 6.2.6 of the DEIS discussed possible mitigation measures which could be implemented to mitigate wetland impacts. These measures were common for all of the reasonable alternatives. Section 6.3 of the FEIS contains a detailed mitigation plan that is specific to the Preferred Alternative which is under review by appropriate resource agencies. 14-25 Comment Based upon the description provided in the DEIS, an Individual 401 Water Quality Certification will be required for this project. Response Section 401 Water Quality Certification has been requested and submitted by the PTAA and is under review by Division of Water Quality (designated DWQ Project No. 00-0846). The PTAA has also prepared and submitted a Section 404 permit application which is currently under review by the USACE. 14-26 Comment The delineation of the wetland/waters impacts accomplished should be verified by the USACOE for both acres of jurisdictional wetlands and jurisdictional linear footage of waters during this review. Response The wetland jurisdictional delineation used for the purposes of impact evaluation in the DEIS and FEIS was verified by the USACE on January 19, 1999 for both acres of jurisdictional wetlands and jurisdictional linear footage. Please see Appendix A of the FEIS. 14-27 Comment NWI data indicate wetland resources within the proposed site development area. Response Section 4.4.2, Wetlands, of the FEIS provides a description of the existing wetland and open water resources found within the Generalized Study Area. 14-28 Comment The EIS should include a detailed assessment of existing natural resources within areas of potential development and should discuss the potential of mitigating development to wetlands, waters, and high quality upland habitat. Response Section 4.4, Natural Environment, of the FEIS provides a detailed description of the existing natural resources within the Detailed Study Area. Sections 5.9, Biotic Communities, 5.10, Threatened and Endangered Species, and 5.11, Wetlands, provide detailed descriptions of the projected impacts to the various natural resources from each of the alternatives. Section 6.3. of the FEIS provides a detailed description of the proposed mitigation for impacts to wetlands resulting from the construction and operation of the Preferred Alternative. 14-29 Comment Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be revegetated. Response Section 4.4.2, Wetlands, of the FEIS provides detailed descriptions of the existing wetlands and streams within the Detailed Study Area. Included within this section of the FEIS are tabulations of linear feet of streams. Section 5.11, Wetlands, of the FEIS provides a detailed description of the projected impacts to wetlands resulting from the various alternatives evaluated in detail as part of the FEIS. Section 6.3 of the FEIS provides a detailed description of the proposed mitigation program for impacts to wetlands resulting from the construction and operation of the Preferred Alternative. database_101801xts 1 Piedmont Triad International Airport 15. Farmlands 15-1 Comment The correct agency name referenced in Appendix A, Agency Correspondence, letters dated 9/11/99 and 8/27/99 should be Natural Resources Conservation Service. Response Comment noted. This edit has been made in the FEIS. 1, I database 101801AS L-1 Piedmont Triad International Airport 16. Energy and Natural Resources 16-1 Comment NO COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED OR ARE RECORDED UNDER THIS CATEGORY. Response r 1 I database_101801.xis 1 u 1 Piedmont Triad International Airport 17. Light Emissions 17-1 Comment The runway and cargo hub will result in significant lighting impacts to nearby residential communities. Response Future light emission levels from airborne aircraft, airfield, landside, and surface transportation improvements associated with the build alternatives would result in minor light emission impacts. Shielding and screening techniques and the surrounding vegetation will decrease light emissions impacts to residential areas. See Sections 5.17 and 6.3 of the FEIS for further information. 17-2 Comment Impacts from light emissions are sufficient to warrant special study. Response According to FAA Order 5050.4A, "Only in unusual circumstances, as for example when high intensity strobe lights would shine directly into people's homes will the impact of light emissions be considered sufficient to warrant special study." Airfield lighting associated with proposed project at PTIA would not directly illuminate into people's homes. A vegetation buffer, located between the airport property and residential dwellings located along Phillipsburg Court and Lytham Court would diffuse light emissions generated by the proposed lightning. 17-3 Comment How does the FAA factor in light emissions as a detriment to nearby homeowners? Not just light from the hub facility, but also light emissions from the new cloverleaf interchange. Response The FEIS detailed the site location, description and mitigation measures of lights and lighting systems associated with the airfield, landside, and surface transportation improvements. See Sections 5.17.4, 5.17.5 and 6.3 of the FEIS for further information. 17-4 Comment Included among these long term visual impacts would be the ongoing onslaught of air freighter headlights along the whole length of the final approach glide paths between 10 p.m. and 4 a.m. During this period the night sky would become a Coney Island display of floating headlights, intruding on what was once a scene of natural peace, while the landing aircraft would illuminate the properties below. Response Aircraft landing lights are designed to illuminate the area in front of the aircraft. This is to aid air traffic controllers and other aircraft in the vicinity with their visual reference of the aircraft. As aircraft fly over residential areas that are on the centerline of the runway, it can be anticipated that the lights from the aircraft will illuminate the sky; however, direct illumination downward is not anticipated. 17-5 Comment Was light from the 1,500+ vehicle FedEx parking lot, nighttime lights around the facility, and normal operating runway lights included in the DEIS? Response Evaluations of Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W1-A1, and WE included light emission impacts associated with the sorting facility building, customer and employee parking lots, and airfield lighting. See Section 5.17.4 and 5.17.5 of the FEIS for further information. 17-6 Comment Was the light impact analysis conducted with the understanding that most all of the trees will be removed between the Cardinal Commons and the expanded airport? 11 database 101801.xis Response I Impacts from lighting associated with the various alternatives were determined by evaluating the individual lighting systems to be developed at PTIA and measuring distance, light angle, and intensity as they relate to the surrounding light-sensitive land uses. Each alternative's intensity of light emissions described vegetative buffers adjacent to residential areas as part of potential light emission impacts. See Section 5.17 of the FEIS for further information. 17-7 Comment W How can a 330 acre sorting facility result in a "minor light emission impact'? Response I As described in Section 5.17 of the FEIS, all alternatives would result in minor light emission impacts. None of the alternatives would shine directly into people's homes due to the distance, vegetation, and shielding and screening of lights to reduce light emission impacts. 17-8 Comment How do shielding and screening techniques minimize light emissions impact on surrounding residential areas? Response Shielding and screening of lights are designed and placed so that light is directed downward or away from light-sensitive areas. See Section 5.17 of the FEIS for further information. 1 t 1 database 101801.xis 11 1 t LI 1 1 Piedmont Triad International Airport 18. Solid Waste Impacts 18-1 Comment On Page S-31, what is included in the insignificant solid waste impact conclusion? Are the 16,308 new households on Page S-24 included? Response Page S-24 refers to "16,308 new jobs in the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area by 2019" as a result of each of the Build Alternatives. The Solid Waste Impact analysis used estimates from the City of Greensboro Municipal Solid Waste division. The City's estimates of life spans of landfill phases take into account population growth in the City of Greensboro and County of Guilford. See Section 5.18.2 of the FEIS for more information. 18-2 Comment I did not get the impression that any demolition solid waste collection and transport would be put out for competitive bids but that the same private waste carrier would be used. Response Waste Industries, Inc. currently provides municipal solid waste (MSW) collection for the PTAA. It is outside the scope of this FEIS and is a local responsibility to outline the procurement process of future MSW collection contracts. 18-3 Comment What amount of solid waste would be projected from such demolition in this artificially restricted area and from an artificially narrowed group of homes? Response The amount of construction and demolition debris from existing homes can not be quantified at this time. However it is anticipated that the amount of debris generated could be accommodated at the White Street Landfill without resulting in significant impacts to the remaining landfill capacity. See Section 5.18.4 of the FEIS for more information. 18-4 Comment I am a bit skeptical of a uniform 13,415 cubic yards of Solid Waste for Phase 1 in all 5 alternative plans as if the C&D Solid Waste portion of the 13,415 cubic yards would be absolutely identical regardless of which of these 5 Alternatives might be accepted. Response The amount of municipal solid waste (MSW) generated in each alternative was estimated based on the monthly MSW generated by a FedEx facility of similar size and capacity as that planned for the Mid- Atlantic Hub (FedEx, July 30, 1999). In addition, each alternative plans for the completion of approximately 60 percent of the proposed FedEx facility in Phase 1. Therefore, Phasel of each alternative includes the airport's generation of MSW and 60 percent of the estimated MSW generated by the built-out Fed Ex Mid- Atlantic Hub. See Section 5.18.2 of the FEIS for more details. As noted in the FEIS, the amounts of construction and demolition debris generated by the alternatives would vary. 18-5 Comment On page 5-174, there should be 178 acres in undeveloped landfill at the White Street Landfill instead of 188. Response Comment noted. The last sentence of the third paragraph in Section 5.18.2 of the FEIS has been revised to read - "Future phases of the landfill have not yet been developed for the remaining 178 acres of land designated to hold MSW." database 101801.xis 18-6 Comment No mention is made in the DEIS concerning the fact at the White Street Landfill that only a designated area is available to C&D Solid Waste and that a private C&D permit issued as of January 1998 for 5 years expires in January 2003. Response Comment noted. This information has been included in the FEIS . 18-7 Comment It needs to be highlighted that landfill capacity is indeed an issue for the Piedmont Triad. Our area has experienced a population boom, and it is projected that the Greensboro landfill will be full by the year 2008. Some have projected that the landfill will be full by 2005. It is misleading to indicate that the landfill has adequate capacity. Response According to the City of Greensboro, the White Street Landfill's Phase III will have a life span of 7.25 years, or until March 2004. Future phases of the landfill have not yet been developed for the remaining 178 acres of land designated to hold MSW. See Section 5.18.2 of the FEIS for more information. According to the City of Greensboro, the White Street Landfill has adequate capacity until 2007 to accommodate the increase in MSW as a result of the proposed project. The City of Greensboro does not predict landfill capacity past the year 2007 for customers outside the city limits. 18-8 Comment The Final EIS should provide a more realistic picture of existing and projected landfill capacity to accommodate this project. Response Information regarding the existing and projected landfill capacity was obtained from the City of Greensboro, owner and operator of the White Street Landfill. All estimates were based on the best available information. See Section 5.18 of the FEIS for more information. 1 n database_101801.xis I Piedmont Triad International Airport ' 19. Construction Impacts 19-1 Comment I am concerned about construction impacts, such as water runoff, associated with the proposed project. Response Construction impacts from surface water runoff are discussed in Section 5.19 of the FEIS. Construction impact mitigation measures are discussed in Section 6.3 of the FEIS. 19-2 Comment We are concerned about the proximity and negative health and environmental effects associated of the intense construction with the proposed project. Response The contractors will be required to adopt and implement a number and variety of mitigation measures that are intended to minimize the potential impacts to the environment and the neighboring communities. See Section 6.3 of this EIS for further information. 19-3 Comment Contractors should comply with open burning provisions during land clearing. Adequate wetting, reseeding, and covering of disturbed areas should be utilized during earth moving operations to mitigate any adverse impact from fugitive dust emissions. Response The PTAA does not anticipate the open burning of debris during the land clearing or construction processes. However, if open burning is required, the PTAA and/or the selected contractor will obtain all required local and state regulatory authority permits prior to the initiation of open burning activities. Other Best Management Practices (BMP's) and mitigation measures such as wetting of erosive surfaces and covering of disturbed areas will be used throughout the construction period to help minimize the impacts associated with fugitive dust. 19-4 Comment This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation control plan. Response An erosion and sediment control plan will be developed by the contractor prior to the initiation of construction activity. 19-5 Comment During construction phases, a possible mitigation measure would be to give special consideration to contractors that use equipment that produce lower emissions through diesel retrofit or other technologies. Response PTAA will consider the use of low-emitting construction equipment, methods and techniques and a means of encouraging contractors to help minimize the potential environmental impact. 19-6 Comment I am concerned about the construction noise and dust and the steady stream of trucks damaging our roads and causing congestion, basically making life miserable. Response See response to Comment 19-2. I database_101801.x1s 19-7 Comment I Traffic delays from construction will be a major loss of time and ultimately a loss of money in the economy. Response The vast majority of the construction activities will occur on airport property except for roadway improvements off-;airport. Employees and raw materials traveling to and from the construction site will use public roadways, but this impact will be temporary. Construction impacts associated with off-airport roadway improvements will be minimized by the development and implementation of a Traffic Maintenance Plan. 19-8 Comment If our homes are not purchased prior to construction, will there be any requirement for the construction companies and/or airport to clean our windows and wash our houses and cars periodically throughout construction? Response Presently, there are no plans for the construction companies or the airport to clean the outside of houses, windows or cars during the construction process. Rather, the control of dust and other construction-related emissions through the use of BMP's is expected to make this unnecessary. 19-9 Comment I Will there be any restrictions on the hours that construction can take place during the construction phase of the operation? Response The PTAA will work with local municipalities and the individual contractors to establish and meet construction schedules and any work restriction provisions that are made part of the construction permits. 19-10 Comment Was noise generated by construction factored into the DEIS noise contour? Response Construction-related noise was not factored into the noise contours shown in the EIS. 19-11 Comment Are there any economic penalties to the airport or contractor if construction limitations are not observed? Response The contractors that work on the project are contractually bound to perform in full accordance with the contract documents. Payment for these services can be withheld should the work not be completed satisfactorily, on-time, or in ways that contravene the contracts. 19-12 Comment Will air quality, because of dust and diesel exhaust, be monitored and reported during construction? Response Presently, there are no specific plans to monitor dust or diesel exhaust levels during the construction process. Rather, the control of dust and other construction-related emissions through the use of BMP's is expected to make this unnecessary. 19-13 Comment Where in the EIS study do you mention the impact of construction on Phillipsburg Ct.? Response Construction impacts to specific communities is not included in the EIS. database_101801.xis I 19-14 Comment How will all aspects of the construction (disruption of roads, congestion, high dust levels, pollution, health for children and adults, noise, etc.) that affects the extremely close street of Phillipsburg Ct. be addressed in the EIS? Response Please see response to Comment 19-2. 19-15 Comment It is our firm belief that we cannot continue to safely live in our home through the construction of this project. How can the FAA expedite the purchase of our home? Response The PTAA plans to purchase homes that would need to be acquired to construct the proposed project and those homes that are within the 70 DNL noise contour of the Preferred Alternative. If the commentator's home meets either of these qualifications, they can let their intentions to quickly sell their home be known to the PTAA. PTAA will determine when and how soon the purchase of homes will occur. 19-16 Comment If an environmental document is required to satisfy National Environmental Policy Act requirements, the document must be submitted as part of the erosion and sedimentation control plan. Response Comment noted. See response to Comment 19-4. 1 1 I database 101801.xis Piedmont Triad International Airport 20. Other Environmental Considerations 20-1 Comment Can the EIS truly measure the amount of noise and air pollution as well as impacts to property values? Response The FEIS uses "state-of-the-art" analyses prepared by qualified technical professionals to evaluate the impacts of the proposed project and reasonable alternatives. Although not in the DEIS, the impacts to 20-2 Comment RESERVED Response 20-3 Comment RESERVED Response 20-4 Comment How many times has the FAA or the consultant found a proposed airport expansion environmentally unsound and insisted on significant modifications? Response The FAA treats each project individually and performs individual environmental evaluation reviews to them. The purpose of the EIS process is to evaluate and disclose the environmental impacts associated with a proposed qualifying airport development project and to render an environmental determination in the form of a ROD. Due to FAA's obligation to comply with special Federal protective environmental laws that require the avoidance and minimization of environmental impacts, many projects that are proposed in the initial stages of the EIS process undergo some form of modification in order to minimize impacts to the human and natural environment. 20-5 Comment FedEx is an environmentally sound company with some of the strongest standards in the industry today. Response Comment noted. 20-6 Comment Environmental considerations outweigh the economic benefits. Response The FAA considers both environmental and socioeconomic impacts to the human environment in the evaluation of alternatives and in the decision making process that leads to its Record of Decision. 20-7 Comment Every time a tree is cut down, a tree must be planted. Response Comment noted. The proposed mitigation program for the Preferred Alternative is presented in Section 6.3 of the FEIS. t property values have been included in Section 5.3 and Appendix E of the FEIS. database_101801.x1s 20-8 Comment It seems unrealistic that no substantive projects are planned within the foreseeable future for the greater Greensboro area. The FEIS should revisit this and further discuss the potential Federal or non-Federal projects and their specific impacts (particularly those impacts similar to the proposed action) within a 10-15 year horizon. Response Section 5.23 of the FEIS has been expanded to include a discussion of Federal and non-Federal surface transportation, land development and public works improvements within the FEIS Generalized Study Area. Projects that are c :sclosed and discussed in this revised section consist of projects that are included in an approved growth management plan for the area. 20-9 Comment We (EPA) appreciate that at least two projects were referenced regarding cumulative impacts (pg. 5-210). These were the completed FAA Categorical Exclusion (CE) regarding the Runway 14 Safety Area and the Western Greensboro Urban Loop highway project. Although descriptive, these summaries did not provide environmental impact information that may be cumulative to the proposed action such as noise, water quality and wetland impacts. The FEIS should discuss these potential cumulative impacts. Response A discussion of the environmental impacts associated with the Runway 14 Safety Area project and the Western Greensboro Urban Loop highway project have been added to Section 5.23 of the FEIS. 20-10 Comment North Carolina State Constitution, Article 14, Section 5 states we must conserve and protect land, water, air, and parks for the people of North Carolina. The state seems to have given this responsibility to the FAA and they (FAA) do not live up to the constitutional mandate of this state. Response In accordance with NEPA and CEQ regulations, it is the FAA's responsibility to evaluate and disclose any potential environmental impacts associated with a proposed qualifying airport development project, and to render an environmental determination in the form of a Record of Decision (ROD). The ultimate responsibility for constructing and operating a proposed project however'lies with the sponsoring entity (Authority, Board, City, County, etc.), and not the FAA. 20-11 Comment Housing for FedEx's employees would only lead to more destruction of wooded areas. Response a The induced socioeconomic impacts of the proposed project are discussed in Section 5.4 and Appendix E of the FEIS. As indicated in these sections, the majority of FedEx employees would be part-time employees who would already live in the Triad. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project would result in a significant increase in the construction of new homes for FedEx employees. 20-12 Comment The EIS should give the best possible estimate of cumulative effect on the environment of all facets of the proposed project (water supply, hazardous waste management, air quality, etc.). Response Please see response to Comment 20-8. 20-13 Comment The environmental impact is based on general guidelines from the NCDENR and is not site-specific to this project. How can the FAA make a recommendation on a project of this magnitude without establishing site- specific data? Response The evaluation of environmental impacts in the FEIS is based on CEQ regulations, FAA guidelines contained in FAA Orders 5050.4A and 1050.1 D, coordination with the FHWA and NCDENR, and input from Federal, state, and local agencies as well as the interested public during the EIS scoping process. database 101801.xis I t 1 n fl D_j Piedmont Triad International Airport 21. Public Involvement 21-1 Comment Citizens were never informed through public hearings, community notification or community input of any airport development plans until the announcement of the expansion was made. Response The decision to bring FedEx to PTIA was made by the PTAA. Since PTIA's request for environmental approval in connection with its intent to seek Federal funds to implement the proposed development, the FAA has issued a Notice of Intent to prepare and EIS, advertised and held a Scoping Meeting, two Public Information Workshops, a Public Hearing, and has had an open 60-day comment period. 21-2 Comment The scoping meeting room for public comments was too small for citizens to hear what was being said. Response The scoping meeting room was anticipated to adequately supply enough square-footage to support the first public meeting. Due to the large number of attendees, subsequent public meetings were held at larger locations. For instance, Guilford High School was the location for the Public Information Workshop and Greensboro Coliseum held the second Workshop and Public Hearing. 21-3 Comment I am upset that I was not part of any decision making process for something that affects me so directly. Response Federal, state, and local agencies as well as the general public have been given opportunities to express comments and concerns on the proposed development at PTIA since the EIS process was started. All letters, e-mails, and petitions have been read by the FAA, are a part of the EIS, and have been incorporated into this Comment/Response Database. Decision making is reserved to the Federal agency involved with input from interested parties. 21-4 Comment Public involvement and comments are important to represent the community's best interests. Response Public involvement and comments are an important part of representing the community's best interests. FAA has advertised and conducted 3 public meetings as part of the EIS. The Scoping Meeting in August 1998, Public Information Workshop in April 1999, and Public Workshop/Hearing in May 2000 as well as allowing an open 60-day comment period on the EIS. 21-5 Comment The Greensboro Chamber of Commerce has informed the citizens about the happenings at PTIA. Response Comment noted. 21-6 Comment The Scoping Meeting and Public Information Workshop were very informative to the residents of the Triad. Response Comment noted. 21-7 Comment The Piedmont Quality of Life Coalition, a recognized organization with members from 20 neighborhoods, was not put on the distribution list for the Early Notification Package and Scoping Meeting Invitations. database_101801.xls Response I Federal, state, or local governmental agencies were the only representatives who received letters on the announcement of the Agency Scoping Meeting. Advertisements were place in local papers prior to the Public Scoping Meeting held in August 1998 for the general public and citizens organizations to attend. Those in attendance was incorporated into a master mailing list for future information regarding the proposed project. See Chapter 7 of the FEIS for further information on Coordination and Public Involvement. 21-8 Comment The Greensboro Chamber of Commerce has not informed the citizens about the happenings at PTIA. Response The FAA has advertised all public meetings, allowed agencies and the general public to comment on the project, and met in open forums to best communicate information with the public. 21-9 Comment How can you have citizen participation when there are no public records of what PTAA has planned? Response The proposed parallel runway has been included in PTIA's Master Plan and ALP and has been public record since 1968. The general public has been able to review this document at the PTAA Administrative Office upon request. 21-10 Comment Since the workshop for November (1998) was not held, someone from the FAA should come here and discuss our concerns? Response FAA advertised and conducted 3 public meetings as part of the EIS public involvement plan. The Scoping Meeting in August 1998, Public Information Workshop in April 1999, and Public Workshop/Hearing in May 2000 as well as the open comment period on the EIS were all part of FAA's public involvement process. 21-11 Comment FAA should keep the communities adequately informed. Response The FAA's public involvement plan has included open public meetings including advertisements and handouts, newsletters, a world wide web page, and ongoing comment periods to keep the community informed regarding the environmental evaluation process. 21-12 Comment I FAA should allow the public a minimum of 60 days to review the Draft EIS and the Final EIS before the FAA takes action or hold a public hearing. Response. FAA has complied with the time requirements set forth in both CEQ and FAA Order 5050.4A. The DEIS was published on April 6, 2000, and the original comment period was scheduled to end on June 7, 2000, a period of 45 days. A 15-day extension was requested by NCDENR was granted by the FAA which extended the comment period by 15 days to June 22, 2000, for a total DEIS comment period of 60 days. 21-13 Comment I Information at the workshop (4/26/99) was too general, unhelpful, misleading, and biased. Response Information presented at the 4/26/99 workshop was preliminary in nature and was meant to show the public the progress of the study to date. The public was informed at the meeting which information was still considered to be preliminary. database_101801.xis I 7 t r J 1 21-14 Comment Information shown at the workshop has serious discrepancies. Response Please see response to Comment 21-13. 21-15 Comment Members of the study agency conducting the EIS admit that the issues of concern to residents of NW Greensboro are not a part of the study. Response The FAA has considered issues of concern from interested parties. FAA officials have read all letters, e- mails, oral transcripts, and petitions regarding comments and concerns related to proposed project at PTIA and have included this information as part of the EIS study. 21-16 Comment It was difficult to hear the person by the boards. 1 expected individual presentations in a group setting. Response The format of the Public Information Workshops was selected to allow the attendees to view the materials at their leisure and talk to study team members. In addition, the format allowed for the attendees to talk among themselves and study team members in an open forum. The Public Hearing was conducted in a format that allowed for a public forum during which all speakers' comments could be clearly heard by all. 21-17 Comment I do not trust the FAA, PTIA, or the consultant. Response Comment noted. 21-18 Comment I do not feel that one public workshop supports all of the FAA claims of public involvement for a project of this magnitude. Response FAA advertised and conducted 3 public meetings as part of a public involvement plan for the EIS. The Scoping Meeting in August 1998, Public Information Workshop in April 1999, and Public Workshop/Hearing in May 2000 as well the open comment period on the EIS were all part of the EIS public involvement plan. 21-19 Comment Comments made on the proposed actions at PTIA should be a part of the EIS. Response All comments from Federal, state, and local governmental agencies as well as the public are considered and treated equally by the FAA. All comments have been read, coded, and included into this Comment/Response Database. All comment letters will be made available in supplemental documents to the FEIS and distributed to local libraries and PTAA for public review. 21-20 Comment Public notice of the Scoping Meeting for August 17, 1998 was not in compliance with the instructions stated in Preliminary Scope of Services: Task 1.5 Preparation of Pre-Scoping Materials. The notice was placed in the Business section under 430. Auctions and 510. Pet Supplies/Services. In addition, the Greensboro News & Record does not reach all the general public - the High Point Enterprise is the paper for High Point. Response The public notice of the Scoping meeting for August 1998 was published in the Greensboro News and Record, High Point Enterprise, and Winston-Salem Journal. See Appendix L of the EIS for further information. database_101801.xls 21-21 Comment Public involvement procedures, under 40 CFR Part 93.156, include making available the draft conformity determination with supporting documentation available for review, must make public its conformity determination in a daily newspaper for circulation in the area affected by action, and provide 30 days for comments prior to taking any formal action on the draft conformity determination. Response The mechanism for demonstrating compliance with the Clean Air Act is the General Conformity process which is the responsibility of the FAA. This insures that the FAA does not approve, fund, or permit any project or action that is not consistent with the State Implementation Plan (SIP); a plan developed by the state to attain and maintain the ambient Air Quality Standards. The General Conformity process has been completed for this project. Several versions of the Draft General Conformity Report have been published and reviewed by appropriate resource agencies and the public. A copy of the Final General Conformity Determination is contained in Appendix F of the FEIS. 21-22 Comment Members of PTAA are comprised of appointees from the City of Greensboro, City of High Point, City of Winston-Salem and include Guilford County and Forsyth County. Therefore, this is the general public which the FAA is required to notify. Response See response to Comment 21-20. 21-23 Comment Our public officials and the FAA are not listening to us. Response See response to Comment 21-3. 21-24 Comment PTIA has a way of treating people very unfairly, intimidating them, and harassing them too, after de-valuing their home. Response Comment noted. 21-25 Comment Residents of north High Point are due the same time and consideration that PTAA has given to civic groups from other areas impacted. Response Comment noted. FAA has given equal consideration to all parties involved in this project. 21-26 Comment You claimed that community concerns would be addressed at this meeting (4/26/99), but you have not directly answered any of the more important problems the public has raised. You are ignoring the public. Response FAA's Public Information Workshop held on April 26, 1999 included information on the affected environment or existing conditions. Questions posed by the attendees relating to the impacts of the alternatives were unable to be answered at that time. In addition, the FAA was not that far into the analysis at that point of the EIS process. 21-27 Comment Mr. Brill's arrogant and contemptuous treatment of the people who asked him questions regarding this project were a clear indication of the lack of respect and concern your agency has for the citizens. Response Comment noted. 21-28 Comment There is not an opportunity for people to speak in a public forum. _101801X database Response The format of the Public Information Workshops was selected to allow the attendees to view the materials at their leisure and talk to study team members. In addition, the format allowed for the attendees to talk among themselves and study team members in an open forum. The Public Hearing on the DEIS was held in a format that allowed interested parties to speak in a public forum. 21-29 Comment Please add me to your mailing list to receive future newsletters. Response All persons who signed in at the Scoping Meeting, Public Information Workshop, or Public Hearing or who have otherwise indicated a wish to be added to the mailing list have been added. 21-30 Comment Why has a Citizen's Advisory Committee never been established? Response The FAA is not required to establish a Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) for an EIS project. CAC's are more typically part of a Master Plan or FAR Part 150 noise study. 21-31 Comment Since the Triad has collected over 6,000 signatures opposing the FedEx hub to PTIA, why won't the FAA acknowledge their concern and opposition to this hub instead of writing grossly inaccurate statements like, much of the Triad area appears supportive of the proposed development due to its potential positive economic impacts"? Response The Degree of Controversy section of the EIS does disclose local concern and opposition by stating that, "there has been local controversy concerning the implementation of the proposed project." The FAA does recognize that there have been many comments "for' and "against" the proposed development at PTIA. However, the FAA seeks specificity of comments regarding either the adequacy of the EIS or the merits of the alternatives discussed or both. The statements made in the DEIS regarding public controversy reflects FAA's interpretation of comments that had been received as of the publication of the DEIS. It is FAA's mission to disclose all available information concerning the proposed project so that an informed decision can be made. 21-32 Comment How many signatures would the FAA require to stop this proposed FedEx hub at PTIA? Response All comment submittals have been reviewed and considered equally by the FAA. See response to ' Comment 21-31. 21-33 Comment Why weren't letters from the public put in Volume 3 of the DEIS and politicians letters placed in prominent positions, presenting an illusion of support for the project? All letters should be included in the FEIS. Response Due to the numerous amount of letters received by the FAA on the proposed project at PTIA, public letters were not included in the three main volumes of the DEIS. Only Federal, state, and local governmental agency letters were included in Volume 3 of the DEIS. However, all comment letters were reviewed by the FAA. All comments received on the DEIS will be made available for public and agency review in a supplemental volume to the FEIS. r 21-34 Comment Residents and taxpayers most affected by this project should be allowed to meet with FedEx officials for a question and answer meeting. Response This comment has been passed on to the PTAA for consideration. database 101801.xis 21-35 Comment You should be required to speak to someone in every household within 20 miles of the airport. Response FAA's NEPA Public Involvement Plan allows the public opportunities to voice their comments regarding the environmental impacts that might result from the proposed project at PTIA. A comment period has been open from the start of the project, open meetings such as the Scoping Meeting, Public Information Workshop, and Public Hearing have all informed the FAA on a variety of comments and concerns of the public. 21-36 Comment Questions I submitted previously were not answered. Response Comment letters, e-mail, petitions, and oral transcripts received by the FAA over the course of the EIS study have been cataloged, summarized, and responded to in this Comment/Response Database. 21-37 Comment The FAA has not fulfilled its mandate to hold open workshops. Response Please see response to Comment 21-28. 21-38 Comment Why was my letter and my friends' letters to Tommy Roberts not in the draft? Response Please see response to Comment 21-33. 21-39 Comment There was no public involvement before the April 13, 1998 announcement. Federal Express requested complete secrecy from the public and this a civil rights violation of the public's right-to-know. Response See response to Comment 21-1. 21-40 Comment The people most affected by the Federal Express hub were kept in the dark, surrounding communities had no voice as to location of the hub and runway. Response Please see response to Comment 21-3. 21-41 Comment The Piedmont Triad Authority Board continues to deny public comment at their monthly board meetings. Response Since the May 23, 2000 PTAA board meeting, the public has been allowed to voice their concerns at monthly PTAA board meetings. 21-42 Comment URSGreiner and the FAA have paid no more than lip service to public involvement. There has been NO exchange of information with the FAA, and citizens have experienced difficulty obtaining public documents from your office. Response The public has been involved in the EIS process from the beginning. Three public meetings and ongoing comment periods have allowed the FAA to interact and exchange information with the public. The Executive Summary is available on the web at www.ptia.org and copies of the EIS are located in local libraries. database 101801.xls I 21-43 Comment There were no public hearings prior to the announcement of this proposed project. Response Please see response to Comment 21-1. 21-44 Comment Why were numerous speakers from outside of Guilford County allowed to tout solely the economic benefits for their counties that the Hub might bring? These people never mentioned anything about the environmental impact of the project. They took up a great deal of time in which many residents could have voiced their public comments about the dire environmental consequences to Guilford County. Was this normal procedure in EIS public hearings to allow various parties to make public comments that do not pertain to environmental impacts? Response The EIS documents many subjects from noise, socioeconomic and other environmental impacts. The public hearing allowed any person to speak on his/her own concerns. All persons who completed speaker registration cards at the public hearing on May 23, 2000 were given the opportunity to speak on the DEIS. Court reporters and written comment forms were also available at the hearing to comment on the DEIS. 9 21-45 Comment When the EIS says "that the larger Triad area appears supportive...", you are obviously referring to people in the "larger Triad area" who hold opinions about the project. Can you please reference the data to support your statement? I am not aware of any public opinion polls or surveys regarding FedEx. Response Please see response to Comment 21-31. 21-46 Comment Does the FAA plan to conduct a survey to actually determine residents' opinions? Response No, the FAA does not plan on conducting a surrey as part of this EIS. The FAA welcomes comments from interested parties on either the adequacy of the EIS or the merits of the alternatives discussed or both. 21-47 Comment You ought to be fair, up front and not require these people fight you - we are not, necessarily, opposed to Fed Ex coming to the Triad. But if you do not provide fairness in your plan, you automatically acquire many vocal opponants. Response The FAA has conducted a broad, exhaustive, technically accurate fair evaluation of the proposed project in the DEIS and FEIS documents, and has fully considered all information submitted by agencies and the general public. 21-48 Comment Stop treating the people as idiots or sheep to be led around. We are not stupid! Our money is what is paying for this mess! Response Comment noted. 21-49 Comment It is my assertion that the degree of controversy has been understated by the DEIS and that the effected population has not been fairly or adequately enumerated or represented by the public agencies involved. Among these agencies are the Greensboro and High Point City Councils, the local Chambers of Commerce, the PTAA and State government officials in Raleigh. I database 101801.xis Response The statements made in the DEIS regarding public controversy reflects FAA's interpretation of comments that had been received as of the publication of the DEIS. It is FAA's mission to disclose all available information concerning the proposed project so that an informed decision can be made. 21-50 Comment The property owners who have chosen to make their residence in the area under the glide-paths had no knowledge or warning about the proposed Fed Ex development. I therefore assert that they should have the greater voice in deciding any mitigation efforts, which should include the limitation of nighttime landings and take-offs. Response Please see response to Comment 21-1. Also, Section 6.3 of the FEIS presents the proposed Mitigation Program for the Preferred Alternative, which include a proposed noise abatement plan. The feasibility of using nighttime operational restrictions as a noise abatement measure are discussed in Section 6.2.1 of the FEIS. 21-51 Comment Volume 43-Appendix L of the DEIS, noting support and non-support of this project, tends to show bias strongly in favor of airport expansion. Whereas letters of support are printed fully, comments of non- support are laboriously cross-coded. Preferential treatment was given to the 17 identical form letters from citizens to Walt Cockerham dated June 11, 1998. The handling of this situation makes us wonder about the credibility of the study. We would prefer that the methods used by URS Greiner in presenting information were not so seemingly biased and more independent. Response Appendix L of the DEIS contains Scoping meeting information held on August 17, 1998. Only comment letters from Federal, state and local government agencies were included into the DEIS. Comment letters attached to Mr. Cockerham's letter (SL0024) were not coded nor include into the Comment/Response Database. All comment letters received were summarized and included in the Comment/Response Database. Copies of all letters received over the course of the EIS study are included in a supplemental reference volume to the FEIS. 21-52 Comment , Will the FAA please explain why it thinks much of the Triad supports this project when voters indicated otherwise for a similar project? Please provide data to support the opinion presented in "Degree of " Controversy. Response The statements made in the DEIS regarding public controversy reflects FAA's interpretation of comments that had been received as of the publication of the DEIS. It is FAA's mission to disclose all available information concerning the proposed project so that an informed decision can be made. The data supporting this statement is contained in the Comment Database in Appendix O of the FEIS. 21-53 Comment Will the FAA please require the consultants to notify the public, or at least those on the FAA's mailing list for this project, whenever meetings are to be held with one stakeholder group (PTIA, FedEx, etc.)? Response FAA allows its consultants to meet with the PTAA and other parties in order to obtain information relevant to the EIS analysis. Since this is an ongoing process, with most interaction taking place on the telephone and via E-Mail, it would be impractical to notify everyone on the mailing list whenever a meeting or other form of interaction was to take place. 21-54 Comment Will the FAA require the consultants to meet with representatives of the stakeholder groups which were not given the opportunity to meet with the consultants during the EIS draft preparation? Response , Individual stakeholder meetings are not part of the FAA Public Involvement Plan for this EIS. database 101801.xis 21-55 Comment Will the FAA publish in the FEIS a list of dates, attendees, and topics for the unpublicized meetings that took place between the consultants, FedEx, and PTIA representatives during the preparation of the EIS? Response This information will not be included in the FEIS. ' 21-56 Comment Why does the FAA accept comments from speakers who are not residents of the area negatively impacted by the proposed airport expansion? Response Please see resporse to Comment 21-44. 21-57 Comment Are comments from non-residents given the same weight as those from residents? Response All comments from Federal, state, and local governmental agencies as well as the public are treated equally by the FAA. 21-58 Comment Will the FAA provide a breakdown between non-resident and resident responses when it gives its count of "for" and "against" responses? Response The FAA has chosen this Comment/Response Database system to record and respond to comments made on the proposed project. The database will not provide a breakdown of "residents" and "non-residents" or "for" or "against" comments. The FAA is interested in comments regarding the adequacy of the EIS and/or the merits of the alternatives discussed. 21-59 Comment The citizens' letters have been reduced to a confusing list of names with numbers pointing to generic statements. You completely destroyed the meaning and the impact of the letters by coding them this way. Response The FAA has received over 3,500 letters, petitions, and oral comments since the start of the project. Due to the large number of comments submitted, all comments received by the FAA have been consolidated, summarized and responded to in this Comment/Response Database. This method provides concise responses and reduces duplicative efforts. In accordance with CEQ regulations, FAA must assess and consider comments both individually or collectively. In addition, all substantive comments received on the draft statement or summaries therefore where the response has been exceptionally voluminous are to be attached to the Final EIS. i 21-60 Comment After the FAA public workshop on April 26th, 1999, several members of this community who stayed until the very end of the Public Information Workshop saw FAA officials and members of URS Greiner leave with members of the Greensboro Chamber of Commerce and the Airport Authority. Why is one select group of wealthy people given preferential treatment and access to Federal officials? Response Members of the EIS Team consisting of the FAA, URS and PTAA left the April 26th, 1999 meeting together to conduct a "debriefing" meeting. Issues discussed during this meeting included the attendance, the major issues of public concern, the appropriateness of the meeting venue, and a discussion of the next steps in the EIS process. 21-61 Comment Had residents been informed by PTAA regarding the project and its flight paths, attendance at the public meetings would have been greater. I database 101801.xis Response I FAA used newspaper advertisements, newsletters and the internet to inform the general public as to what was going to be presented at the public meetings. 21-62 Comment Information provided at the workshop (4/26/99) can be distributed in other ways. Response ' Comment noted. 21-63 Comment The web site is not being updated monthly as indicated in the newsletter. Response The web site was updated when pertinent information became available. It was updated after the Public i Information Workshop and then updated with the Executive Summary in April 2000. The web site is one i part of the FAA's Public Involvement Plan. The public was also kept informed through newsletters announcing the Public Hearing and advertisements of the Public Hearing published in local newspapers. 21-64 Comment I would like graphics be mailed to me. Response The EIS has been distributed to local public libraries and the PTAA Administrative Office for public review. In addition, any person who wishes to receive a copy of the DEIS has been given the opportunity to purchase the document. The FAA does not typically send out individual copies of graphics. 21-65 Comment Please show the comment/response statistics by zip code or county. Response Comment letters have been categorized by name, whether it was a public or agency letter and whether it was received as part of Scoping, between Scoping and the Draft EIS, or after the Draft EIS was published, not by zip code or county. 21-66 Comment Comment/response statistics at the Workshop (4/26/99) did not show the thousands of petition signatures and the true emotion of the community. Response Comment/response statistics displayed at the Public Information Workshop (4/26/99) included comment letters received during the scoping process (August 17, 1998 to August 31, 1998). Petitions "for' or "against" the project were not submitted to the FAA until after the scoping process had ended. All petitions have been included into DEIS and FEIS Comment/Response Database. 21-67 Comment A comment blasting FedEx that never mentioned specifically that the author was opposed to FedEx was not recorded as a comment opposed to FedEx. This is not reasonable. Response The coding of letters did not record the intent of the text. The comment codes documented the stated comments and concerns submitted to the FAA. 21-68 Comment Comment/response charts do not represent the feeling of the community. Response Please see response to Comment 21-66. database 101801.xis I 21-69 Comment Put FAA information out for evaluation/comment on the Internet. Response The Executive Summary of the EIS has been placed on the internet on the PTIA web page (www.ptia.org). Due to the voluminous nature of the text and the complexity of the graphics putting the entire DEIS on the ' internet was considered impracticable. 21-70 Comment The information packet does not contain all of the boards at the workshop. Please send me this information so that I may critique it on my own time. Response The FAA made a decision to only put key issue information in the Workshop Handout. The requested supplemental board material was not converted to handout format and is not available for distribution. 21-71 Comment Your staff refused to respond to specific questions and often gave evasive, misleading and untruthful answers. Response Comment noted. 21-72 Comment Someone should verify that comments are from legitimate persons. Response Checking persons names would not allow the FAA to carefully consider comments related to the project in a timely manner. 21-73 Comment Inadequate reporting of last round of responses Cockerham's letter appears 12 times, all the negative responses are on a list of names and numbers rather than letters included. Why? Response Please see response to Comment 21-51. 21-74 Comment Provide the dates used in determining the values in each of the displays at the Public Hearing. Response Data used for the displays at the Public Hearing was collected and analyzed from July 1998 to March 2000. All reference materials are documented in Chapter 9 of the FEIS. 21-75 Comment Were any of the charts at the Public Hearing the same displays at the Public Information Workshop? Response The information provided at the Public Hearing updated and improved upon the information provided at the Public Workshop. I database 101801.xis Piedmont Triad International Airport 22. Cost Considerations 22-1 Comment The FedEx hub ar-d third runway at PTIA are an excessive and wasteful cost to taxpayers. Response Comment noted. 22-2 Comment It's unlawful and wrong to use federal tax money to supplement private enterprise. Response The proposed improvements to the PTIA will be funded through numerous sources and will result in benefits to all airport users. 22-3 Comment The project will not provide enough economic benefit to warrant the expense of the third runway. Response The PTAA has prepared a Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) for the proposed project and has submitted the report to the FAA. A copy of this report is available at the Administrative Office of the PTAA and at the Atlanta Office of the FAA. 22-4 Comment Proposed development at PTIA would generate animosity between local businesses because FedEx will receive tax breaks that other local businesses did not receive. Response FAA's review of the comments received during the EIS process indicates that the business community in the Triad supports the proposed project at PTIA. 22-5 Comment Tunneling under and bridging over existing roadways will be an excessive cost to taxpayers. Response Comment noted. The tunnel and taxiway connector bridges associated with Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D and WE are necessary to not disrupt traffic flows along Bryan Blvd. Alternative W1-A1 does not contain a tunnel due to the relocation of Bryan Blvd. and taxiway connector bridges are necessary to not disrupt traffic entering and exiting the airport; however, Alternative W1-A1 surface transportation construction costs of approximately $38 million are nearly identical to Alternative's W2-A and W3-A. 22-6 Comment A runway for the convenience of a specific company is for private, not public purposes, and therefore does not qualify for [AAP] funds. Response Please see response to Comment 22-2. 22-7 Comment The FedEx mid-Atlantic hub at PTIA will invest nearly $300 million and employ up to 1,500 persons over a 5-year period. Response Comment noted. 22-8 Comment It is hard to believe that a $300 million project that includes a 9,000-foot runway and 1,000,000 sq. foot facility is needed for an additional 20 to 24 flights. database 10180 1.xls Response The $300 million cost estimate is for the development of the sorting/distribution facility and other improvements. The cost for the new runway, taxiways, roadway improvements and other associated PTIA improvements would be an additional expense that would vary from $221 million to $414 million depending, on the alternative. The need for the proposed project is fully described in Chapter 2, Purpose and Need, of the FEIS. 22-9 Comment The alternative submitted by the citizens of Greensboro would have a higher benefit-to-cost ratio than the proposed project? Response A Benefit-Cost Analysis for the citizens alternative that followed FAA approved guidelines was not submitted to the FAA for comparative purposes either during Scoping or after publication of the DEIS. 22-10 Comment Why isn't the less costly alternative a better use of tax dollars? Response The FAA considers numerous factors in the evaluation of alternatives for a proposed project. Although an alternative may cost less to construct, it may also result in greater environmental and/or social impacts. The FAA strives to reach a balance. However, this combination of factors is not always available. Please see Chapter 3, Alternatives, of the FEIS for more information. 22-11 Comment t Public transportation must have extensive government subsidy: Response Comment noted. 22-12 Comment Based on a study we have completed, the proposed project will buy 4,884 homes at a cost of $755,955,498. These figures were compiled by using a list of tax values and a Guilford County map where lines were drawn to 1, 2, 3, and 4 miles from the end of the proposed runway. From the centerline of the third runway, lines were drawn one mile on either side, out to the four-mile markers. Response As presented in Snotion 6.3.1 and Appendix E, Section 7 of the FEIS, the PTAA would offer to purchase all homes within the 70 DNL noise contour of the Preferred Alternative. This would constitute a total of 53 homes offered to be purchased due to noise created by the Preferred Alternative. The cost of acquiring these homes would range from approximately $2.1 to $3.4 million for both Phases 1 and 2. These values are based on current assessed and recent sales values for properties in the affected areas as derived from current county-wide tax assessment data. It is estimated that an additional $1.2 million would be needed to pay for costs associated with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970. FAA estimates the total costs for acquisition would range from $3.3 to $4.5 million dollars. 22-13 Comment Alternative West 1 is less than just the cost of the runway alone in Alternative North 3. Response Comment noted. 22-14 Comment It is important to consider whether the economic benefits outweigh the costs. Another criterion is operational efficiency including cost per flight. Response Please see response to Comment 22-3. database 10180I.As I II t i r t 1 Pi 22-15 Comment The proposed third runway will be used almost exclusively for FedEx thereby not meeting the criteria of BCR and cost per flight. Response Please see response to Comments 22-2 and 22-3. 22-16 Comment A study paid for by the Greensboro Chamber of Commerce projected an economic impact of $2.4 billion over the next ten years. FedEx has projected an economic impact of only $1.4 billion over ten years. Response As discussed in Section 5.4.4 and Appendix E of the FEIS, the proposed project would produce a regional benefit based on potential employment growth on the order of 16,300 additional employees, generating increased wages and salaries over the period 2004 to 2019 on the order of $4.4 billion. Fiscal benefits, discussed in Section 5.4.5 and Appendix E, Section 6.0 of the FEIS, could reach a total of nearly $15.4 million for the six counties making up the Socioeconomic Study Area. 22-17 Comment Total cost of the project is climbing and will likely approach $1 billion. That equates to $666,666.67 per job if indeed 1,500 are created. Response The cost for the new runway, taxiways, roadway improvements and other associated PTIA improvements would cost between $221 million and $414 million depending on the alternative selected. The development of the sorting/distribution facility and other FedEx improvements is estimated to be approximately $300 million. 22-18 Comment If the FAA approves the project, it will fund 90% of the cost. The other 10% will come from state, local, and airport authority budgets, thus raising the cost of FedEx jobs and the payback period. Response FAA may provide 90 percent of the funding for the eligible improvements including the runway, taxiways, lighting and NAVAI DS. The PTAA will pay for the remaining 10 percent of these projects. It is expected that FHWA and NCDOT would provide funding for the surface transportation improvements associated with the proposed project. Development of the FedEx sort/distribution facility will be paid for by FedEx. 22-19 Comment FAA will supply $171 million of the construction cost. This money comes from the Aviation Trust Fund. This fund is generated through a $3 use tax collected from airline tickets. It would take 58 years to repay this fund. Response Please see response to Comment 22-18. FAA has not made a commitment to fund the proposed project, plus the trust fund receives more than just a use tax. 22-20 Comment If FedEx does have 10 flights per night, five nights a week on the proposed runway, the cost per flight over a ten-year period will be $23,269 per flight if the cost is $605 million. If the cost becomes $1 billion, then the cost will be $38,462 per flight. Response FedEx is projected to operate 48 operations per night in Phase 1, and 126 per night in Phase 2. The cost on a per flight basis has not been broken down. database 101801.xls 22-21 Comment I The actual cost to the taxpayer will be nominal, especially since incentives can not be directly equated to taxpayer costs. Response Comment noted. 22-22 Comment I Dollars not committed from the aviation trust fund for Greensboro will be committed to another community, for another project and will be lost forever to PTI. Response Comment noted. 22-23 Comment Identifying the total cost in public funds has not been done or if it has it is a well guarded secret. Our local newspaper writes about FedEx building a $300,000,000 hub. In the next sentence they write about PTIA building a $300,000,000 hub with airport funds. Where is the money coming from? How much money is going to be spent? Response Please see responses to Comments 22-17 and 22-18. 22-24 Comment We do not support public tax dollars to solicit private business. Response Comment noted. 22-25 Comment How much more will the added roads, sewers, water, and other infrastructure needed for the forecast ripple effect cost the taxpayer? Response Appendix E, Sectinn 6, Fiscal Impact Analysis, of the FEIS contains an analysis of the future revenues/expenditures in the Six County Socioeconomic Study Area as a result of implementation of the proposed project. This analysis considers the costs of infrastructure improvements as a function of population growth and is based on historical records for the study area. The analysis includes impacts from induced population growth as a result of the introduction of the air cargo sorting/distribution facility at PTIA. 22-26 Comment What would be directly allowed for same to an artificially narrowed group of homeowners in overall cost projections built into the DEIS for acquisition of their homes? Response The PTAA has developed a noise mitigation program that proposes to voluntarily acquire all homes (53) within the 70 DNL noise contour of the Preferred Alternative. The cost to acquire these 53 homes is estimated to be between $3.4 and $4.5 million. 22-27 Comment What would be directly projected in the costs of demolition and clearing of the sites, hauling away of rubble, and fees connected to use of a qualified dump to receive same from an artificially narrowed group of homes as well as other costs associated with soundproofing some other homes within an artificially restricted area, and whether such separate category costs will be even clearly estimated and separately shown, which I am not aware they were in this DEIS and wonder if they even will be in the FEIS? i] dalabase_101801.xis I Response The cost to demolish the 53 homes that would be acquired for noise mitigation purposes is included in the $3.4 to $4.5 million cost estimate (see response to Comment 22-26). The sound insulation program proposed by the PTAA would include 209 homes and have a cost of approximately $6.3 million. Costs for the individual alternatives is included in Chapter 3, Alternatives of the FEIS. Costs for the proposed PTAA Mitigation Program are included in Section 6.3 of the FEIS. 22-28 Comment I think if such a hub is forced upon so many of us taxpayers who are opposed to it, a large Performance Bond against its obligations under this 20 year proposed lease should be required of FedEx. Absent of a Performance Bond, is the FAA prepared to back up any recommendations you have made in favor of this hub by then stepping in and guaranteeing the balance of the unpaid 20 year lease to protect the solvency of this airport? Response The financial solvency of the proposed air cargo sorting/distribution facility is the responsibility of FedEx. The role of the FAA in the EIS process is to evaluate an airport sponsors' proposed project in terms of potential environmental and social impacts and render an environmental determination in the form of a Record of Decision. It is ultimately up to the airport sponsor whether to construct and operate the proposed improvements. The FAA will not be a party to a Performance Bond or other financing regarding the PTAA/FedEx lease arrangements. 22-29 Comment The EIS does not question whether the project is truly a public facility qualifying for public federal funding and for evaluation based on criteria for public transportation facilities. Response The new runway, taxiways, and NAVAID portion of the proposed project, which are eligible for Federal funding, will be available for use by all airport users, and will not be for the exclusive use of FedEx. Please see Chapter 2, Purpose and Need, of the FEIS for more information. 22-30 Comment The sorting facility is being funded by a revenue bond and not Federal funds. Therefore, the inclusion, analysis, and evaluation of a sorting facility funded with private funds and leased to a private corporation in the EIS is improper. Response Although the proposed sorting/distribution facility is being privately funded, it is considered by the FAA to be a "connected action" to the proposed new runway project in terms of timing and proximity, and FAA is obligated, under Federal regulations, to evaluate the environmental and social impacts associated with it. 22-31 Comment In the FEIS, the FAA should be obligated to note whether the PTAA has sufficient financial resources to execute a mitigation program of this magnitude. Response It has been PTAA's position that with sufficient Federal participation through the AIP program and other Federal sources, as well as with participation from the NCDOT and FHWA for roadway projects, the proposed mitigation program described in FEIS Section 6.3 is financially feasible. PJ I database_101801.x1s Piedmont Triad International Airport 23. EIS Process and Scope 23-1 Comment Please let factual information rule this process, not emotional distortions. Response Information documented in the EIS is based on factual information collected by the FAA from Federal, state, and local agencies as well as the PTAA. 23-2 Comment The EIS should be done in a timely fashion. Response FAA is responsible for complying with the NEPA process which includes and exhaustive analysis of alternatives and impacts using the most up-to-date analytical tools and data. While it is a goal of the FAA to complete a project such as this EIS in a timely manner, the FAA does not sacrifice quality work for a speedy turn-around. ' 23-3 Comment The EIS study should consider the impacts this project will have on the residents of nearby communities. Response The EIS used three study areas, the Socioeconomic Study Area, the Generalized Study Area and the Detailed Study Area to determine potential impacts on nearby communities. The Socioeconomic Study Area encompassed a six-county area and was established to evaluate potential social and economic impacts. The Generalized Study Area encompassed approximately 80 square miles around the PTIA, was established based on the extent of the future DNL 65 dBA noise contours of the reasonable alternatives, and was primarily used for the noise and land-use impact analysis. The Detailed Study Area encompassed the areas that would be physically disturbed by the reasonable alternatives and was established for environmental considerations that dealt with more specific, direct impact issues such as wetlands, floodplains, biotic communities, and farmlands. Please see Sections 4.2.1.2, 4.2.1.3, and 4.2.1.4 for further information on these three study areas. 23-4 Comment The FAA, in my opinion, does not have the expertise to conduct and assess effects of environmental agents on human health, nor do they have the personnel with qualifications to oversee and assure its ' quality of the analysis conducted by the consultant, an aeronautical engineering company with limited expertise in the biological sciences. There are other Federal agencies that would be better suited for this role. Response The FAA is the lead Federal agency for any proposed project that occurs at an airport that receives or is requesting Federal funding. The FAA has Environmental Program Specialists and other environmental professionals who are fully trained and qualified to manage the NEPA process, oversee technical consultants and assure that quality work is prepared. In addition, the FAA distributes the EIS to a variety of Federal, state, and local agencies such as the EPA, Department of Interior, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ' FHWA, and NCDENR for review comments in their area of expertise. The qualifications of the individuals participating in the EIS are listed in Chapter 8 of this FEIS. 23-5 Comment The consultant has a conflict of interest and not the expertise or quality control to assure fair, independent, and unbiased revi :w that needs to be done. I database_101801.xis Response I The FAA required each of the consultants assisting in the EIS preparation to sign Disclosure Statements revealing any potential conflicts of interest associated with the PTIA EIS. FAA reviewed these Disclosure Statements and found that none of the consultants have a conflict of interest for this project. The FAA and the consultant team have fully complied with the NEPA process, FAA Orders 5050.4A and 1050.1 D, as well as applicable Federal, state, and local laws to produce a technically competent, fair and unbiased document. 23-6 Comment Could you please document the expertise of the individuals who will be conducting this analysis and indicate their experience and research credentials in regards to the toxicology of environmental agents on human health? Response I A complete list of preparers and their credentials are provided in Chapter 8 of the FEIS. 23-7 Comment The fact that a detailed project schedule has already been prepared and published is concerning. Their time limits have been set without input from the people who will be negatively impacted by the proposed action. Response Both the FAA and the consultant team routinely prepare and update detailed project schedules for complicated projects such as this EIS. The schedule for this EIS includes several opportunities for public input and comment, including during Scoping, two Public Workshops, a Public Hearing, and opportunity to comment on the FEIS. 23-8 Comment Deadline for submission of public comments in the scoping phase should be extended. Response Public comment periods are a part of the FAA Public Involvement Plan. All comment letters, petitions, oral transcripts and a-mails received by the FAA have been consolidated into this Comment/Response Database. 23-9 Comment The Greensboro Urban Metropolitan Planning Organization will monitor the EIS Process. Response Comment noted. 23-10 Comment , An EIS should be performed as a result of the proposed action. Response FAA is currently conducting an EIS for the proposed developments at PTIA. 23-11 Comment Agencies who present their views in the Agency Meeting should not be permitted to have their officials or members present the same views of the agency in the Public Meeting. This practice gives them double representation and is unfair. Response ' FAA's Public Involvement Plan has encouraged agency and general public participation throughout the EIS process. Any individual is allowed to comment on the project as many times he/she desires. The FAA treats all comments on the proposed project equally. 23-12 Comment PTAA is holding us hostage by not providing residents with immediate action. Response PTAA is adhering to the FAA's direction and the NEPA process and is not able to proceed with any of the alternatives until after the FAA's Record of Decision is published. , ,o,ao database , x ' 23-13 Comment Scope of the EIS must be expanded to include those on/off airport actions shown on the Airport Layout Plan which will result from the proposed project. Response The EIS includes an evaluation of potential impacts associated with the direct, connected and cumulative projects, both on and off-airport property, that are associated with the proposed project in terms of both timing and proximity. ' 23-14 Comment FedEx is a major customer of the consultant which represents a conflict of interest to do the EIS. Please explain the process for selection of the consultant. Response The FAA worked with the PTAA to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP), which was circulated in national trade publications. Consultants with expertise in conducting FAA EIS projects responded to the RFP with a Statement of Qualifications (SOQ), which included a description of the consultants' experience in similar type projects and qualifications of individuals who would be involved in the project. The FAA and the PTAA reviewed the SOQ's that were submitted and developed a "Short-List' of firms which were thought to be qualified to undertake the project. The FAA and PTAA then conducted interviews of the Short-Listed firms. After the interviews, the FAA ranked the firms in order of the most qualified to assist them in the preparation of the EIS, and directed the PTAA to begin contract negotiations with the highest ranked firm. In terms of potential conflicts of interest, the selected consultant had done some previous work for FedEx (over 10 years ago), but had never worked for or with the PTAA before. The FAA reviewed the consultants Disclosure Statement (see response to Comment 23-5) and determined that the selected consultant did not have a conflict of interest for this project. 23-15 Comment This process includes a lot of research and evaluation which seems to be done very well and thoroughly. Response Comment noted. 23-16 Comment Information presented at the workshop (4/26/99) was outdated and did not relate to the new runway and its environmental consequences. Response Please see response to Comment 21-26. 23-17 Comment County Commissioner Walt Cockerham has a seat on the Airport Board and represents a conflict of interest. Response The FAA considers all comments received during the EIS process on an equal basis. FAA's environmental determination on the proposed project will be issued in the form of a Record of Decision (ROD) after the issuance of the Final EIS. County commissioners and airport board members are not a part of the Federal ' decision making process. database 101801.xis 23-18 Comment , What difference does an Environmental Impact Statement make? Response ' The FAA reviewed PTIA s 1994 ALP and determined that an EIS would be the most appropriate document for the agency to prepare to fulfill its obligations under NEPA and FAA Orders 1050.1 D and 5050.4A. The EIS process provides officials and decision-makers, as well as members of the public, with an opportunity to participate in the EIS process and to understand the potential environmental impacts associated with a proposed project. It also insures that other Federal, state and local agencies with specific expertise are involved in the evaluation of impacts, that potential impacts are avoided if possible or minimized to the greatest extent, and that a mitigation program would be implemented by the airport sponsor, if unavoidable , impacts are found and a decision were made to proceed with the project. 23-19 Comment RESERVED Response , 23-20 Comment RESERVED Response 23-21 Comment The study area should be extended to 10-12 miles from PTIA. Response The EIS used three study areas, the Socioeconomic Study Area, the Generalized Study Area and the Detailed Study Area. The Socioeconomic Study Area encompassed a six-county area and was established to evaluate potential social and economic impacts. The Generalized Study Area encompassed , approximately 80 square miles around the PTIA, was established based on the extent of the future 65 DNL noise contours of the reasonable alternatives, and was primarily used for the noise and land-use impact analysis. The Detailed Study Area encompassed the areas that would be physically disturbed by the reasonable alternatives and was established for environmental considerations that dealt with more specific, direct impact issues such as wetlands, floodplains, biotic communities, and farmlands. Please see Sections 4.2.1.2, 1.2.1.3, and 4.2.1.4 for further information on these three study areas. 23-22 Comment FAA, PTAA, local officials and the consulting firm are interested in making the expansion happen. This is a conflict of interest and misrepresentation of the citizens of Greensboro. Response I The PTAA, as the sponsor of the proposed project, is interested in making the expansion happen. FAA's review of the comments received during the EIS process indicates that local officials have expressed mixed feelings on the proposed project. The FAA's interest lies in complying with the provisions of NEPA whenever an airport sponsor seeks Federal funding to implement projects depicted on an approved ALP. It is both the FAA's and the consultant's interest to objectively evaluate the proposed project and to disclose g prep S have a conflict of interest for this project. ?J all potential environmental and social impacts. The FAA has reviewed the consultant's Disclosure I Statements and found that none of the consultants assisting the FAA in the preparation of the EI database_101801.xls I ' 23-23 Comment • Where are the independent parties and democratic processes to assess the Environmental Impact Statement? Response The FAA utilized ti ie services of an independent consultant who does not have an interest in the outcome of the project to assist in the preparation of the EIS. Chapter 8 of the FEIS provides a listing of all Federal, state, and local government agencies and representatives who were sent copies of the DEIS and FEIS for their review and comment. Also, please see response to Comment 29-56. 23-24 Comment Consultants have told us that there have never been studies which will represent the quality of life living close to a cargo complex like this, which make the whole EIS process a sham. ' Response Quality of life is measured in many different ways based on individual priorities. The consultants may have indicated that there is not a specific impact category contained in FAA Orders 5050.4A or 1050.1 D that is ' titled "Quality of Life". However, by looking at the overall impacts of a proposed project through the EIS process, an individual can understand the impacts to specific impact categories that may be of particular interest in the gauging of his/her Quality of Life issues. 23-25 Comment Federal authorities who are doing an analysis of the proposed project should leave no stone unturned to be certain that it is established what exactly will be effected with the FedEx facility here in terms of the environment. Response The NEPA process and FAA's data collection and impact analysis in the EIS over the past two years fully discloses impacts associated with the proposed alternatives. The analyses contained in the EIS along with comments and concerns from agencies and the public will assist the FAA in preparing a Record of Decision for the proposed project. 23-26 Comment ' The consultant had been on the distribution list of the 1990 Master Plan, and I'd like [to know] what role they played in drafting that Master Plan? Response The FAA's consultant did not participate in any way in the preparation of the 1990 Master Plan. ' 23-27 Comment Your Scoping process does not represent the community's interests and violates your own statutes. ' Response The Scoping process conducted by the FAA followed Federal regulatory guidelines as described in CEQ. Opportunity was provided to both governmental/regulatory agencies and the general public to determine ' the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to the proposed project. The public involvement plan established by the FAA has encouraged the public to participate in the EIS process and to submit comments throughout the course of the study. All comments received were ' treated equally by the FAA. 23-28 Comment Explain how your Scoping process served community interest in Memphis and Indianapolis, where people as far as 5 miles out have successfully sued over noise issues, nor have you explained how your Scoping process served the needs of the community in Louisville, Kentucky where an entire town had to be moved. I database 101801.xis Response ' As described in the response to Comment 23-27, the purpose of the Scoping process is to determine the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to the proposed project. In addition, scoping invites the participation of affected Federal, state, and local agencies and other interested persons as well as other criteria set forth in CEQ 1501.7. The Scoping process, as conducted by the FAA for the PTIA EIS, is not applicable to the individual situations in Memphis, Indianapolis and Louisville. 23-29 Comment Why does the EIS not include all.aspects of dangers? Must the public request them? Response The EIS was prepared to disclose any potential environmental impacts associated with improvements to PTIA that are depicted on the airports' approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP). FAA safety criteria were taken ' into account during the development of the ALP and the proposed improvements as depicted meet these criteria. Safety, or "aspect of danger' referenced by the commentator is not a specific category included in FAA Orders 5050.4A and 1050.1 D on which the EIS document was based. The public can request that this issue be considered in the EIS during the Scoping process. 23-30 Comment I want the FAA to agree to further study the impact of this expansion on our community. Response The FAA has conducted a detailed analysis of the impacts of the proposed project in the EIS document in accordance with CEQ and FAA Orders 5050.4A and 1050.1 D guidelines. 23-31 Comment I would like to see the EIS contain a comparison of an existing hub that has been in operation for a period of 5 to 10 years (of environmental, economic, transportation, etc.) to what it was prior to the hub's existence. Response Appendix "E" of the FEIS contains a Case Study Analysis of other FedEx air cargo hubs that have been in operation for several years. This analysis discusses potential impacts and trends in terms of social and socioeconomic factors. Because potential environmental impacts are so site specific, a comparison of potential impacts associated with the proposed project at PTIA to other locations was not considered to be relevant by the FAA and was not prepared for this EIS. 23-32 Comment How many projects have been declined since 1980? Total proposed? Total declined? How many projects were declined as a result of the public comment phase? Response The FAA does not maintain statistics on how many proposed airport projects have been proposed, declined or significantly modified since 1980. 23-33 Comment An outside agency, such as the EPA, would provide a more objective analysis of the EIS. Response The FAA is the lead Federal agency for any proposed project that occurs at an airport that receives or is requesting Federal funding. Federal, state, and local governmental agencies, including the EPA, participated in Scoping and have received and commented on the DEIS. Their comments and concerns are addressed in the FEIS. 23-34 Comment ' Who is calling the shots on this study? is the FAA in charge, or is the Piedmont Triad International Airport Authority (PTAA) in charge? ' database_101801.xis I t 1 F 1 J 1 L Response The FAA is the lead Federal agency for the EIS and as such is fully responsible for its scope and content. The DEIS, FEIS and subsequent Record of Decision are all developed by the FAA. The PTAA is the project sponsor who has submitted the new runway portion of its ALP to the FAA for environmental approval in connection with its intent to seek Federal funds to implement the proposed developments. The EIS is conducted under what is referred to as a "Third-Party Agreement" wherein the FAA is in charge of the study, the consultant assists the FAA in the preparation of the EIS and the Airport Sponsor provides input to the FAA as needed. In most instances, the Airport Sponsor receives a grant from the FAA to pay for the study. In some instances, the Airport Sponsor initially pays for the study itself and then requests reimbursement from the FAA after the study is complete. The latter method is being used in this EIS. 23-35 Comment URS Greiner has worked closely with FedEx and the FAA on other projects; is paid by the PTAA and is therefore not in a position to make unbiased judgments with regard to effects of this development. Response URS does regularly work with the FAA on airport NEPA projects across the country. URS last worked directly for FedEx over ten years ago. The EIS is conducted under what is referred to as a "Third-Party Agreement" wherein the FAA is in charge of the study, the consultant assists the FAA in the preparation of the EIS and the Airport Sponsor provides input and assistance to the FAA as needed. For this EIS, the PTAA is paying for the study itself and will request reimbursement from the FAA after the study is complete. So essentially, it is the FAA who is paying for the study. 23-36 Comment What is the FAA's position in regard to a level "playing field" for both sides? Response The FAA retains an unbiased position with regard to the evaluation of alternatives and analysis of potential environmental impacts throughout the EIS process. FAA considers all comments received during the EIS process equally. 23-37 Comment The EIS statement is flawed when inaccurate sound, water and social issues are not fully explained in laymen's terms to the public. Response The FAA makes every attempt to present the information in the EIS in a manner such that it can be fully comprehended by all readers. However, due to the nature of the technology used in some of the analyses, this goal is not always achieved. One of the reasons that the FAA conducted public Scoping as well as Information Workshops and a Public Hearing was to provide the public an opportunity to ask questions and clarify any information contained in the EIS document that was unclear or hard to understand. 23-38 Comment The LWVPT request that another EIS be done by the Environmental Protection Agency before further action is taken. Response Please see response to Comment 23-33. 23-39 Comment I request that URS Greiner, Inc. be dismissed and the study be voided and began again. Response Please see response to Comment 23-5. database_101601.xls h Piedmont Triad International Airport 24. Quality of Life 24-1 Comment ' The proposed Fed Ex facility and third parallel runway will destroy the quality of life in the area adjacent to PTIA and the Triad area. Response The environmental and social impacts associated with the proposed project and reasonable alternatives are presented in Chapter 5 of the FEIS. ' 24-2 Comment We are concerned of the potential impacts to the quality of life in neighborhoods near PTIA. Response Chapter 5, Environmental Consequences, of the FEIS discloses the environmental and social impacts associated with the proposed project and reasonable alternatives. In addition, Chapter 6, Mitigation, of the FEIS outlines the mitigation program proposed by the PTAA to mitigate impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative. 24-3 Comment The FedEx sorting facility will maintain and/or improve the quality of life in the Triad. Response Comment noted. 24-4 Comment FedEx means overcrowded schools. Response Direct and indirect social and socioeconomic impacts associated with the alternatives were analyzed for a six county study area in the FEIS. Impacts to specific school systems were not identified in the EIS. However, the FAA has coordinated with local government officials regarding potential infrastructure impacts from induced development attributed to the introduction of the Mid-Atlantic Hub at PTIA. Sections 5.3 and 5.4 as well as Appendix "E" of the FEIS provide further information. ' 24-5 Comment The Greater Kerne sville area will be a better place to live because of FedEx's presence here. Response Comment noted. 24-6 Comment I firmly believe that a regional hub at our Greensboro airport will have a positive impact on future growth and the quality of life of our community in variety of ways. Response Comment noted. 24-7 Comment Nighttime jet flight tracks and noise, traffic congestion, and air pollution will have a negative impact on our quality of life. Response Comment noted. The FEIS identifies the noise contours and proposed flight tracks associated with each alternative in Section 5.1 and Appendix C, respectively. Surface transportation impacts can be found in Section 5.21 of the FEIS. database 101801.xis nl u Piedmont Triad International Airport 25. Floodplains 25-1 Comment Construction of the FedEx hub will increase the flooding situation for homes and golf course of the Cardinal. Response Increased runoff volumes generated from the new impervious surfaces will be stored in detention ponds where discharge can be controlled such that it will be equal to, or less than, pre-development flow rates. Please see Section 6.3 of the FEIS for more information on mitigation measures. ' 25-2 Comment The EIS should include possible impacts to floodplains in the area. Response Floodplain impacts were evaluated and are discussed in Section 5.12, Floodplains, in the FEIS. Measures to mitigate unavoidable floodplain impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative are presented in ' Section 6.3 of the !FEIS. 25-3 Comment In accordance with Executive Order 11988, we (DOI) recommend making strong efforts to protect the floodplain community and the associated wildlife from degradation by avoiding or minimizing wetland impacts. Response The initial development and evaluation of alternatives to the proposed project took into account the avoidance and minimization of floodplain impacts. However, all of the reasonable alternatives would result in unavoidable impacts to 100-year floodplain areas. PTAA's proposed Mitigation Program for the Preferred Alternative, contained in Section 6.3 of the FEIS, has identified mitigation measures to protect beneficial floodplain values. ' 25-4 Comment An essential component of the detailed hydraulic analysis (discussed in Section 6.2.7.1 of the DEIS) is a baseline flood study of Brush Creek between Old Oak Ridge Road and Fleming Road to determine existing ' conditions and the impact of post development conditions on the Brush Creek 100 year base flood elevation (BFE). Every effort must be made to insure that peak flows from post development conditions will not cause any rise in the BFE. ' Response The FEIS identified detention ponds, floodplain compensation and culverts as appropriate mitigation measures to ensure peak flows from post development conditions will not cause any rise in the BFE. A detailed hydraulic analysis of Brush Creek will be conducted during the design phase of the project. 25-5 Comment Include specific measures that will be used to address stormwater at the source and include specific measures that will be used to protect stream corridors, riparian habitat and a minimum of a 100-year floodplain. Response Specific stormwater controls for the Preferred Alternative are discussed in Section 6.3 of the FEIS. 7- L? I database_101801.As Piedmont Triad International Airport 26. Environmental Justice 26-1 Comment Re-routing air traffic is social and environmental injustice. Response Comment noted. The effects of rerouting air traffic are disclosed in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of the FEIS. 11 11 26-2 Comment FedEx is one of the top fifteen companies in the nation hiring, promoting, and retaining minorities. Response Comment noted. 26-3 Comment The proposed project will not effect any lower socioeconomic areas. Response Comment noted. Please see the Environmental Justice discussions in Section 5.3 and of Appendix "E", Section 8.0 of the FEIS. 26-4 Comment The EJ analysis should insure that affected minority and low-income populations in the area are not disproportionately impacted through alternative selection, runway orientation, flight paths, hours of operation and other operational and land use considerations. Response The FAA conducted land use surveys and interviewed local public officials to determine whether there were any concentrations of minorities and low-income households that would be affected. No pockets of minorities or low-income households were found. See Section 8 of Appendix E of the FEIS. 26-5 Comment The DEIS does not appear to contain site specific demographic U.S. Census data i.e. demographic percentages for the specific Census Block Group and its possible Sub-Groups containing the project site. The FEIS should provide such information for all minorities. Response The FAA used U.S. Census Block Group data from the 1990 census supplemented with land use surveys and consultation with local public officials to determine minority and low income populations in the Generalized Study Area. Please see Appendix E, Section 8 of the FEIS for details on the Environmental Justice analysis. 26-6 Comment Consistent with Executive Order 12898, another component of Environmental Justice are low-income populations. As in the case for minorities, the percentage of low-income populations of the site should be compared to percentages of nearby areas using Census data for area designations such as Block Groups, etc. Response Please see response to Comments 26-4 and 26-5. 26-7 Comment The FEIS should provide a low-income percentage for Guilford County (see Table 4.2.2-11). Response Table 5.3.3-2 of the FEIS states that 9.7 percent of the Guilford County 1990 population was below poverty. I database 101801.xls 26-8 Comment Under the Environmental Justice section, will the FAA explain why and how the skin color and income of those affected by an airport expansion influence the FAA's decisions regarding mitigating measures? Response I Section 8.0 of Appendix E of the FEIS explains environmental justice and how the analysis was conducted. Federal agencies are mandated by Executive Order 12898 to conduct environmental justice analysis and determine whether minorities or low-income households would be disproportionately and adversely ' affected by a proposed project that would receive Federal funding. 26-9 Comment I Revise the last sentence of the third paragraph on page 4-6 to read "Study Area has a larger percentage of white and a smaller minority population than the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area". Response The suggested edit has been made in the FEIS. 26-10 Comment A FedEx hub would have a major impact to such programs such as Workforce Development, Business Development, and Minority and Women Business Enterprise. Response Comment noted. database_101801.xis 11 1 u Piedmont Triad International Airport 27. Surface Transportation 27-1 Comment I am concerned about the additional truck traffic that will congest the highways that already cannot handle ' the traffic today. Response The air cargo sorting and distribution facility is estimated to generate 100 to 150 trucks per day during the ' weekend and 125 trucks per day during the weekday in Phase 1 (year 2005). The air cargo sorting and distribution facility is estimated to generate 150 to 225 trucks per day during the weekend and 188 trucks per day during the weekday in Phase 2 (year 2009). When compared to the average daily traffic volumes projected along roadways in the vicinity of PTIA, the additional trucks associated with the air cargo sorting and distribution facility comprise a small percentage (less than 5%) of these volumes. In addition, package ' processing at the air cargo sorting and distribution facility would occur between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m. the following morning; therefore, the additional truck traffic in the vicinity of PTIA would not be operating during peak hours, or the most congested times of the day. It is important to note that the NCDOT Statewide Planning Branch traffic projections anticipated substantial future growth for the airport area and that the total, overall traffic on the area roadways in the future is predicted to be relatively the same, with or without the proposed air cargo hub. 27-2 Comment The NCDOT is working closely with officials of the PTIA on this project. Response Comment noted. ' 27-3 Comment NCDOT is extremely pleased to be a part of this project and we remain supportive of the authoritative ' efforts. We are confident that the current communication between state transportation officials, airport authority officials, and other interested parties will continue and we look forward to actively participating. Response Comment noted. 27-4 Comment The superb highway infrastructure surrounding PTIA can handle the introduction of additional traffic ' generated by FedEx. Response Comment noted. Section 5.21 and Technical Appendix I of the FEIS contain an analysis of the affects of the proposed project on the local roadway system. Based on this analysis, it was concluded that the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse affect on the capacity of the roadway network in the airport area. 27-5 Comment Improved commercial shipping services are expected to and from PTIA with area businesses. Response Comment noted. ' 27-6 Comment The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) needs to adopt this environmental document so coordination with FHWA is important. I database 101801.x1s Response The FHWA was invited to participate as a cooperating agency and accepted that responsibility with respect to the preparation of this environmental evaluation in accordance with CEQ regulations. The FAA has coordinated with and FHWA has been involved with the development and review of both the DEIS and the FEIS. 27-7 Comment , Residents from the east side of town will not be able to afford the transportation cost associated with traveling to and from work. Response , The surface transportation improvements, such as construction of a new interchange for Bryan Boulevard and Old Oak Ridge Road, expected to occur under the Build Alternatives would generally improve the overall transportation system in the vicinity of PTIA. In addition, the surface transportation improvements under the Build Alternatives are anticipated to improve travel patterns from those under the No-Action Alternative. (Refer to Section 5.21 of the FEIS for further information.) The proposed project is not expected to change the cost of traveling to and from work. , 27-8 Comment I am concerned about the additional traffic caused by the proposed project and the possible congestion, delays, and increase in traffic accidents. Response It is anticipated that land development and population growth would continue to increase in the project ' study area under the No-Action Alternative, which assumes that the air cargo facility would not be developed at PTIA. Under the No-Action Alternative, industrial, manufacturing and commercial development would occur within and around PTIA. As a result, traffic volumes would continue to increase. (See Section 5.21 and Appendix I of the FEIS) The projected buildout estimate of the air cargo facility site includes 996 total employees by the year 2005 and 2,650 total air cargo facility employees by the year 2019. While the overall regional growth estimated for the Greensboro Urban Area may not have assumed that such a major activity center, such as the Mid-Atlantic Hub, would develop at PTIA, the overall regional growth estimate does assume that growth would occur in the Greensboro Urban Area and at PTIA. (See Section 2.2 of the FEIS Appendix I.) Phase 1 (year 2005) of the air cargo sorting and distribution facility is estimated to generate 100 to 150 trucks per day during the weekend and 125 trucks per day during the wee , Phase 2 (year 2009) of the air cargo sorting and distribution facility is estimated to generate 150 to 225 trucks per day during the weekend and 188 trucks per day during the weekday. Package processing at the air cargo facility would occur between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m. the following morning; therefore, the truck traffic associated with the proposed project is not expected to operate during peak ' hours, or the most congested times of the day. In addition, the surface transportation improvements under the Build Alternatives are anticipated to improve travel patterns from those under the No-Action Alternative. (Refer to Section 5.21 of the FEIS for further information.) With the expected growth in traffic volumes, the possibility of an increase in the accident rate will also increase. By providing improvements to the existing surface transportation network such that it is more capable of handling the projected traffic increases, the traffic accident rate should be maintained at the lowest level comparable with roadway design and traffic volume. The PTIA cooperated with the Cities of High Point and Greensboro and Guilford County with the preparation of the 1986 Airport Land Use Plan and is now working with the local governments to update the existing plan as noted in Section 4.2.1.4 of the FEIS. 27-9 Comment ' The Triad has been blessed with the existing road infrastructure that will handle the proposed Fed Ex traffic and the proposed major interstate will be beneficial to the Triad upcoming plans. ' Response Please see response to Comment 27-4. database_101801.x1s I 27-10 Comment The EIS should include impacts of road closings, traffic, and circulation. Response Section 5.21 and Technical Appendix I of the FEIS addresses surface transportation, including road closings, traffic, and circulation, associated with the proposed project. 27-11 Comment Coordination with the NCDOT is important in order to avoid costly mistakes. Response Current communication between the FAA, FHWA, state transportation officials, airport authority officials, and other interested parties will continue throughout the EIS development and review process in an effort to proactively coordinate efforts of all parties involved in transportation development. 27-12 Comment Construction of the western portion of the Greensboro Urban Loop (Western Loop) between 1-40 and Bryan ' Blvd. will be accelerated to serve the new FedEx facility. Response The portion of the Greensboro Western Urban Loop between 1-40 and Bryan Boulevard has been accelerated as an incentive for FedEx to locate in the Triad area. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2002 with a 2005 completion date. 27-13 Comment Roadway improvements for FedEx puts Guilford County over budget for roadway construction over the next ten years and is preventing other improvements that are considered more critical. ' Response The PTAA included several development projects on the PTIA ALP in anticipation of the long-term capacity needs of PTIA, without the introduction of FedEx at the airport. (Refer to Section 2.2 of the FEIS Appendix I for further information.) The PTAA's proposed improvements in the Master Plan Update (MPU) were designed to provide airside, landside and surface transportation facilities that allow the airport to be operated in an efficient manner. Surface transportation improvements in the vicinity of PTIA would provide ' improved access to the airport as a result of the new airport expansion. The development of an air cargo sorting and distribution facility at PTIA is accelerating the proposed surface transportation improvements included on the PTIA ALP. Roadway improvements for Guilford County are determined based on a needs ' assessment for the county. Priorities for roadway improvements are then adjusted accordingly. 27-14 Comment The only presentation that was made on surface transportation issues at the public information workshop was with the proposed project. Response The surface transportation graphics shown at the Public Information Workshop held on April 26, 1999 were representative of the surface transportation improvements associated with each alternative, including the No-Action Alternative. The Build Alternative shown at the Public Information Workshop was the alternative ' depicted in the PTIA's 1994 Airport Layout Plan. At the time of the Public Information Workshop, a preferred alternative had not been selected by the FAA. 27-15 Comment Your proposal provides for FedEx truck traffic to enter PTIA area only; it does not address the general road needs as recommended by Mr. Wyman of the county transportation department. Response As recommended by Mr. Wyman, discussion regarding off-airport surface transportation improvements has been included in Appendix I of the FEIS. ' 27-16 Comment Appendix I does not include the impact of the 16,308 new households described in the document. This must be included in the final version of the EIS. database ,0,80,x' Response The DEIS indicated that the employment generated by the Build Alternatives would create 16,308 new jobs in the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area by 2019. This induced employment would result in 10,872 new households within the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area by 2019. The evaluation of surface transportation impacts in the FEIS was limited to roadways within the Generalized Study Area, and did not include the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area . The impacts associated with the roadway projects are disclosed in Sections 5.21, 5.23 and Appendix I of the FEIS. 27-17 Comment What is the purpose of Appendix I, Surface Transportation Impact Analysis? Response As a cooperating agency for the EIS, the FHWA is responsible for reviewing the surface transportation components of the proposed project. Appendix I of the EIS contains technical material, documentation and analysis relevant to the proposed surface transportation improvements that were too voluminous to put in the main volume of the DEIS and FEIS. 27-18 Comment Comparison of existing traffic count with projected would have been helpful - only projected was available here today. Response The surface transportation graphics shown at the Public Hearing held on May 24, 2000 included Future No- Action Alternative and Future Build Alternative traffic volumes. The existing traffic volumes were not shown on a large graphic because these volumes included initial assumptions that had changed since the DEIS; however, a copy of the DEIS, including a map depicting the existing traffic volumes, was made available at the Public Hearing. Updated traffic volumes, including existing, have been obtained and are included in the FEIS. 27-19 Comment Since roadway projects are associated with the PTIA proposal and since FHWA is a cooperating agency to the FAA for the DEIS, the FEIS should substantiate the decision that transportation conformity does not apply for this proposed project. Response Although not required, Section 5.5 of the EIS and the second revised Draft Conformity Determination have been revised to clarify that transportation conformity does not apply to the relocation of a portion of Old Oak Ridge Road and modification of existing N. and S. Triad Boulevards because the projects are not regionally significant. Transportation conformity requirements are satisfied for the other two roadway projects associated with Alternative W1-A1, relocation of Bryan Boulevard and the new Bryan Boulevard/Old Oak Ridge Road interchange because these projects are included in the 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program for Guilford County. 1 27-20 Comment I If the third runway was always planned as the airport authority claims, why was Bryan Blvd. built where it is? Response A widely-spaced parallel runway located on the west side of the existing airport facilities has been depicted on PTIA's Airport Layout Plan (ALP) since 1968. The location of the proposed runway associated with Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D and WE does not have an impact on Bryan Boulevard, with the exception of having to construct bridges for the connector taxiways and a tunnel near Regional Road. Bryan Boulevard would have to be relocated under Alternative W1-A1, which is only one of the alternatives under consideration by the FAA. 27-21 Comment What is the basis for directing mixed use growth around various nodes throughout the Triad from years ' 2006 through 2025 for purposes of transportation modeling? Is this growth strategy or merely an aspiration? database_101801.As 0 t 0 L Response The basis for directing mixed use growth around various centroids throughout the Triad from years 2006 through 2025 for purposes of transportation modeling is to direct growth in a manner that minimizes congested vehicle miles traveled and resulting emission problems while leaving transit a viable option. (Refer to Section 2.2 of the FEIS Appendix I for further information.) 27-22 Comment The FEIS should contain the updated traffic forecast for the No-Action Alternative, including the new interchanges at Bryan Blvd. and Old Oak Ridge Rd. and the relocation of Regional Road. Furthermore, the report should make it clear that the No-Action ground transportation improvements have been included in the areas' approved transportation plan (and TIP, if applicable). Response Initially, the updated traffic forecast for the FEIS No-Action Alternative included the new interchange at Bryan Boulevard and Old Oak Ridge Road, as well as the relocation of Regional Road. However, the No- Action Alternative has been re-evaluated and.no longer includes surface transportation improvements. (Refer to Section 2.2 of the FEIS Appendix I for information regarding the surface transportation improvements included in area transportation plans.) 27-23 Comment The discrepancies between build-out employment numbers among the alternatives should be resolved and a consistent set of numbers should be used for the FEIS analysis. Response The FEIS includes consistent buildout employment numbers for the build alternatives, including 996 total air cargo facility employees by the year 2005 and 2,650 total air cargo facility employees by the year 2019. (Refer to Section 2.2 of the FEIS Appendix I for further information.) 27-24 Comment The FEIS should explain how the 2019 traffic projections were adjusted upward using the 2025 projections with the projected air cargo facility employment. Response The updated traffic volumes obtained for the FEIS did not require the 2019 traffic projections to be adjusted upward using the 2025 projections with the air cargo facility employment. Instead, a growth rate between the 2005 and 2019 projected buildout estimate of the air cargo facility employment was utilized to project air cargo facility employment by the year 2025. Straight line interpolation was utilized for the base year 1994 and the future year 2025, with air cargo facility employment, to determine the traffic projections for the horizon year 2005 and the future year 2019 for each of the build alternatives. (See Section 2.2 of the FEIS Appendix I.) 27-25 Comment The FEIS should explain why it is expected that interpolating between the 2019 adjusted traffic projections and the 1994 base year traffic to project horizon year 2005 traffic would provide a more accurate prediction? More accurate than what? Response The updated traffic volumes obtained for the FEIS did not require the 2019 traffic projections to be adjusted upward using the 2025 projections with the air cargo facility employment. Instead, a growth rate was utilized to project air cargo facility employment by the year 2025. Applying the air cargo facility employment growth rate to the future year 2025 traffic projections prior to the use of straight line interpolation to determine the traffic projections for the horizon year 2005 and the future year 2019 would insure that the traffic projections for the years 2005 and 2019 would include enough trips on local roadways to accommodate the projected buildout estimate of the air cargo facility anticipated for each year. (Refer to Section 2.2 of the FEIS Appendix I for further information.) database 101801.xls 27-26 Comment ' It is not necessarily true that "any provisions for or enhancements to roadway or intersection projects that permit free flow and high-speed travel would have corresponding benefits to air quality". The MOBILE 5 emission factors for NOx and VOC's have minima in the intermediate speed ranges and increase at higher ' speeds. Response According to the MOBILE emissions model, VOC emissions diminish with increased vehicle speed and maneuverability. NOx emissions likewise follow this trend, but the benefits level off at speeds above 40 mph. Notwithstanding these relationships, improved traffic operating conditions generally improve air quality conditions. ' 27-27 Comment Traffic projections for the No-Action and Build Alternatives are the same. How can this be? , Response Because of substantial growth that is projected to occur in the PTIA area, it was initially assumed by Statewide Planning that the No-Action Alternative would include the same increased traffic projections for the airport area as those projected with the introduction of the air cargo sorting and distribution facility. This was based on the assumption that even if the FedEx did not come to the Triad, some other development would occur that would generate comparable levels of traffic. Therefore, the traffic projections prepared for the No-Action Alternative as it relates to the build alternative vary only slightly. This was due to the location of the proposed air cargo sorting and distribution facility site and the way in which traffic is anticipated to access this site. (Refer to Appendix I of the FEIS for further information.) However, the No- ' Action Alternative traffic projections have been re-analyzed by Statewide Planning since the issuance of the DEIS. The revised traffic projections are presented in Appendix I of the FEIS. 27-28 Comment I The EPA leverages highway funds to ensure clean air. Guilford County will lose those Federal funds if the FedEx project is built. ' Response See response to Comment 7-20. 27-29 Comment Why did the DEIS have no information on the projected increase in the number of trucks which FedEx would bring to the area? Response Since the DEIS, the projected number of trucks which FedEx would bring to the area has been updated. The air cargo sorting and distribution facility is estimated to generate 100 to 150 trucks per day during the weekend and 125 trucks per day during the weekday in Phase 1 (year 2005). The air cargo sorting and distribution facility is estimated to generate 150 to 225 trucks per day during the weekend and 188 trucks per day during the weekday in Phase 2 (year 2009). (See Section 2.2 of the FEIS Appendix I.) 27-30 Comment Roads will increase my miles to work. Are you going to pay me for this with all the choices except W1-A1? Response See response to Comment 27-7. ' 27-31 Comment Why does the ALP not include the roadway improvements associated with the EIS? Response ' The 1994 conditionally approved ALP depicts the closure of a portion of Old Oak Ridge Road, and the improvements at North Triad Boulevard and South Triad Boulevard. The new interchange at Old Oak Ridge Road and Bryan Boulevard was added to subsequent versions of the PTIA ALP that were developed ' by the PTAA. database 101801.xis I ' 27-32 Comment Both the relocation of Old Oak Ridge Road and construction of a new interchange at Old Oak Ridge Road ' and Bryan Blvd. are unnecessary for the existing safe operation of the airport and should not be included in the No-Action Alternative. Response ' Comment noted. Since the DEIS, the No-Action Alternative has been re-evaluated and no longer includes surface transportation improvements. Therefore, the No-Action Alternative in the FEIS will not include any surface transportation improvements. 27-33 Comment In Section 2.2 of the Surface Transportation Technical Memorandum, it is stated that it is the mission of the PTAA to continue to allow PTIA to be a major employment center and economic generator in the Triad. ' However, state legislation does not mention the purported "mission" either directly or implicitly in any of the appropriate legislation that sets forth and defines the PTAA's authority. This brings the question of technical accuracy to this technical memorandum. ' Response The statement made in Section 2.2 of the Surface Transportation Technical Memorandum of the DEIS is intended to mean that allowing PTIA to be a major employment center and economic generator in the Triad is a goal, purpose or responsibility of the PTAA. This should not necessarily be associated with the legislation establishing the PTAA as an "Authority" in North Carolina. 27-34 Comment Why were future year traffic estimates for Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, and N-D based on 1,500 employees while Alternative W1-A1 were based on 2,400 employees and Alternative WE was based on 4,300 trips? Response The future year traffic estimates for Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, and N-D, Alternative W1-A1, and Alternative WE were obtained at different stages during the planning phase. When traffic data was obtained for an alternative, the most current air cargo facility employment numbers were utilized. Future year traffic estimates for the alternatives were obtained at three different stages during the planning phase, resulting in three different estimates of air cargo facility employment. However, Appendix 1 of the FEIS includes one ' estimate of the air cargo facility employment for the build alternatives. (Refer to Section 2.2 of the FEIS Appendix I for further information.) 27-35 Comment Why does the No-Action Alternative include the projected air cargo sorting/distribution facility employment? ' Response Please see response to Comment 27-27. 27-36 Comment Why do figures such as 2.2-5 not include the existing section of Regional Road between Bryan Blvd. and Market Street? Response When traffic forecasts were originally obtained for the No-Action Scenario in the DEIS Appendix I, it was assumed that the closure of a portion of Regional Road from U.S. 421 (West Market Street) to Bryan Boulevard would occur in the near future. Therefore, the closure of this portion of Regional Road was considered an existing condition and was not included on the traffic figures, such as Figure 2.2-5. (See Section 1.2.4.1 of the DEIS Appendix I.) However, the closure and relocation of a portion of Regional Road from Lebanon Road to Bryan Boulevard is nearly complete; therefore, the future year traffic forecasts (and figures) in the FEIS Appendix I will include the closure and relocation of a portion of Regional Road between Lebanon Road and Bryan Boulevard. However, the existing year (1998) traffic forecast (and ' figure) included in the FEIS Appendix I will include the existing section of Regional Road between Bryan Boulevard and U.S. 421 (West Market Street). (See Figure 2.2-1 in the FEIS Appendix I.) I database 101801.xis 27-37 Comment , The Surface Transportation Technical Memorandum should analyze the safety factor of added tractor trailers because North Carolina is the fourth worst state when it comes to the number of fatal and non-fatal truck accidents. ' Response See response to Comment 27-1. , 27-38 Comment There are no supporting facts or figures to support the claim that land uses and development activities in the vicinity of PTIA under Alternative W2-A are expected to be similar in type and magnitude. Response The PTAA indicated that had the PTIA not become the site for the Mid-Atlantic Hub, the PTAA anticipated that another hub of some sort would have developed at PTIA; thus creating similar land uses and development activities in the vicinity of PTIA. (See Section 5.21 of the FEIS and Section 2.2 of the FEIS Appendix I.) ' 27-39 Comment Will the NCDOT be required to conduct a separate EIS for the relocation of Bryan Blvd. and construction of a single airport interchange? Response ' The FEIS has been structured such that each of the build alternatives has associated or "connected" roadway improven gents that are considered part of the proposed alternative. Under Alternatives W2-A, W3- A, N-D and N-E, these projects consist of the relocation of a portion of Old Oak Ridge Road and the 1 development of a new interchange at Bryan Boulevard and Old Oak Ridge Road. Under Alternative W1- A1, the connected roadway projects include the relocation of approximately 2 miles of Bryan Boulevard and the construction of an interchange at Bryan Boulevard and Old Oak Ridge Road. The impacts associated with the roadway projects for each of the alternatives have been fully evaluated and addressed in the FEIS. Therefore, a separate NEPA document for these surface transportation improvements will not be required. In addition, the FHWA will adopt the FAA's EIS and issue their own Record of Decision based on the impacts disclosed in the FEIS. 27-40 Comment ' Given the single airport interchange is inside the new runway's RPZ and next to the runoff zone, what is the plan to provide airport access if the interchange becomes blocked or destroyed by an aircraft runoff event? Response The proposed new interchange for Bryan Boulevard and Old Oak Ridge Road is within the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) for Alternative W2-A and partially within the RPZ for Alternative W1-A1. According ' to FAA design and safety guidelines, roadways are an acceptable land use within an RPZ. The FAA is not aware of any definitive "plan" to provide an alternate airport access route in the event of an incident involving the new interchange. Alternate access would be determined on a case by case basis, depending ' on the nature of the incident. The interchange is not within the RPZ for Alternatives W3-A, N-D or N-E. 27-41 Comment I Cost estimates for roadway improvements under each alternative should be provided in the Final EIS. Response The cost estimates for roadway improvements are included in the total costs disclosed for the individual alternatives. Please see Chapter 3, Alternatives, of the FEIS. 27-42 Comment I Alternatives N-D and WE call for the closure of local streets. The closing of Ballinger Road would alter traffic patterns east of the Urban Loop between Ballinger Road and Friendly Road. I Response Discussions regarding the closure of local streets associated with Alternatives N-D and WE are provided in Section 5.21 of the FEIS. database_101801AS ' 27-43 Comment ' The DEIS does not state whether or not Alternatives N-D and WE impact (1) the proposed northern extension of Chimney Rock Road to be constructed in the conjunction with the Western Urban Loop ; and (2) the Western Urban Loop. Response Construction of Alternative N-D and Alternative WE would impact the proposed northern extension of Chimney Rock Road and the Greensboro Western Urban Loop. If Alternative N-D or Alternative WE were selected as the preferred alternative, design modifications would be necessary in order to locate the Greensboro Western Urban Loop and the extension of Chimney Rock Road out of the runway protection zone associated with the proposed runway. (See Section 5.21 and Appendix I of the FEIS.) ' 27-44 Comment In Appendix 1, Page 1-2, include the status of the Inman Road Interchange (i.e. this interchange will be eliminated). ' Response The No-Action Alternative includes the closure of the interchange at Bryan Boulevard and Inman Road. Refer to Section 2.2 of the FEIS Appendix I for further information. 27-45 Comment All traffic assumptions as they relate to the air cargo facility should be similar for all of the alternatives, so ' we (FHWA) can identify which roadway improvements will serve better the anticipated surface transportation needs. Response ' The updated traffic volumes prepared for the FEIS include similar traffic assumptions as they relate to the air cargo facility, including one estimate of the air cargo facility employment for all of the build alternatives. (Refer to Section 2.2 of the FEIS Appendix I for further information.) 27-46 Comment We (FHWA) need to have a clear understanding of which interchanges will be modified, added or deleted in order to make appropriate traffic distribution assumptions. Response The No-Action Alternative does not include surface transportation improvements associated with the proposed project at PTIA. However, the No-Action Alternative, as well as the build alternatives, include the ' closure of the interchange at Bryan Boulevard and Inman Road. The elimination of the Bryan Boulevard/Inman Road interchange is associated with the proposed Greensboro Western Urban Loop (TIP Project No. U-2524) and is due to the close proximity of the Bryan Boulevard/Inman Road interchange to the proposed Greensboro Western Urban Loop/Bryan Boulevard interchange. In addition, the build alternatives include various connected actions detailed in Section 5.21 and Appendix I of the FEIS. 27-47 Comment For the purposes of the surface transportation technical memorandum it will be useful to compare between an absolute no action alternative, a no FedEx action alternative and the direct actions alternative. Response Initially, in previous meetings with the FHWA, PTAA, and FAA representatives, it was agreed that a comparison between a no FedEx action alternative and the direct action alternatives would be evaluated for purposes of this document. An absolute No Action Alternative would not be addressed in Appendix I; however, the Purpose and Need in the document would reflect that the surface transportation improvements proposed as a part of the No-Action Alternative would provide improved access to the airport as a result - the new airport expansion. However, since the DEIS, the No-Action Alternative has been re-evaluated and no longer includes surface transportation improvements. Therefore, the No-Action Alternative is truly a "No-Build" Alternative. 1 database 101801 S 27-48 Comment I Page 1-3, under Section 1.2.4, add to the third sentence from the bottom "...PTAA whether or not the proposed direct actions were implemented to accommodate the present and future traffic needs of the PTIA." Response Text has been eliminated due to restructuring of the Surface Transportation Technical Memorandum (Appendix 1). 27-49 Comment It is our (FHWA) understanding that although the April 2000 DEIS only considers airport-related noise (does not address highway related noise), this analysis of the Highway related noise will be completed before the Final EIS and the results will be included in the Final document. Response The highway related noise analysis has been completed and is provided in Sections 5.1 and 5.21 of the FEIS. , 27-50 Comment It is our (FHWA) understanding that a capacity analysis technical memorandum is being prepared and it will be submitted to NCDOT and FHWA for review. Response A capacity analysis technical memorandum, or support documentation for the highway capacity analyses in Appendix I, was submitted to the NCDOT and FHWA for review on January 17, 2001. This support documentation is referenced in Appendix I and includes a memo to file with the computer generated , capacity analyses runs attached. The computer generated capacity analyses runs include the mainlines and intersections analyzed for the No-Action and Build Alternatives under existing (1998), horizon (2005), and future (2019) conditions. A capacity analysis of the proposed interchanges would be conducted during the preliminary design phase of the project. 27-51 Comment ' The DEIS evaluates those on and off-airport impacts directly related to the proposed project and the actions necessary to mitigate those short and long-term impacts. A "connected action" not considered in the DEIS are those off-airport surface transportation improvements shown on the 1994 Airport Layout Plan (ALP) and other roadway improvements and enhancements currently being reviewed by the Greensboro MPO and High Point MPO for possible inclusion in their respective Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTP). These projects should be evaluated in the FEIS. ' Response - The FEIS Appendix I discusses the on and off-airport surface transportation improvements shown on the 1994 ALP. The FEIS Appendix I also discusses other roadway improvements included on the Airport Area , Traffic and Circulation Plan prepared by the Guilford County Planning & Development Department. (Refer to Section 2.2 of the FEIS Appendix I for further information.) Other roadway projects included in the 2000 TIP that are not related to the proposed project at PTIA are considered cumulative actions and are discussed in Section 5.23, Cumulative Impacts. 27-52 Comment FAA is requested to provide additional information on local and regional transportation impacts, particularly those impacts brought about by spin-off employment growth and related population increases that the DEIS projects to occur by 2019 as a result of the development of the proposed Fed Ex Air Cargo Hub. This information should emphasize the impacts of such employment and population growth on High Point's existing highway network and public transit system. J database_101801.xis Response As stated in Section 2.2 of the FEIS Appendix I, the DEIS assumes that 90 percent of the total employment generated by the Build Alternatives and predicted for the Piedmont Triad Region would occur within the Six- ' County Socioeconomic Study Area. Guilford County is projected to capture 58 to 60 percent of the induced population and employment as discussed in Section 5.4.5.1 of the FEIS. It is not possible to ' forecast the exact location within Guilford County of this induced residential and industrial development. Similarly, it is not possible to forecast the exact location within Guilford County of the local and regional transportation impacts. However, it is expected that the transportation impacts on the highway network in the vicinity of PTIA and Greensboro would increase due to the development of the proposed FedEx Air Cargo Hub at PTIA. Consequently, the transportation impacts on the highway network are expected to decrease as you move ' further away from the PTIA and Greensboro. Changes to the existing highway network and public transit, in terms of utilization and ridership, are expected to vary proportionately with anticipated population increases. Effects on local and regional transportation are expected to vary proportionately with spin-off employment growth and related population increases projected to occur by 2019. 27-53 Comment ' The document should address mitigation measure due to the highway portion as well as PTIA-produced noise. Response ' Mitigation measures with regard to highway noise impacts associated with the proposed project are addressed in Section 6.3 of the FEIS. ' 27-54 Comment The concern is we've got a very limited area, and I think to make any road improvements in the development out hore needs planning. ' Response Comment noted. 27-55 Comment The Greensboro Department of Transportation looks forward to being a willing and active participant throughout the entire EIS process. Response ' Comment noted. u r database-101801.xis Piedmont Triad International Airport ' 28. Design Art and Architecture 28-1 Comment NO COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED OR ARE RECORDED UNDER THIS CATEGORY. Response u I database 101801.x1s ?u 1 ri II Piedmont Triad International Airport 29. Other 29-1 Comment Improving the city and county's infrastructure and public services should take precedence over expanding PTIA. Response Comment noted. 29-2 Comment Senator Fairchild, who is on the appropriations committee for FAA funding should be required to abstain from voting for this funding. Response Funding for a proposed project such as the one at PTIA is determined at the Regional level of the FAA and is not the subject of a Senate vote. 29-3 Comment Pollution levels should be studied at my home. Response Impacts to specific residential dwellings are not a part of this EIS. The EIS includes analysis of Noise (Section 5.1), Air Quality (Section 5.5), and Water Quality (Section 5.6) impacts within the Generalized and Detailed Study Areas. Refer to the sections above for information on pollution associated with all alternatives. 29-4 Comment During the EIS review, we (U.S. Congressmen) know that you will hear many of these same concerns and we are hopeful that every effort will be made to resolve these differences. Response All written comment letters and oral transcripts have been reviewed by the FAA over the course of the EIS. The FAA has made every effort to comply with Federal, state and local laws and regulations that apply to the proposed project. 29-5 Comment People are just as important as other natural resources. Response Comment noted. 29-6 Comment Please be sure that these comments are included as part of the record for the EIS study. If you could inform our office (U.S. Congressmen) upon completion of this study and FAA's decision we would be most grateful. Response All written comment letters and oral transcripts are part of the FEIS. See supplemental documentation for all public letters and transcripts. An executive summary of the FEIS will be sent to North Carolina Congressmen. 29-7 Comment The EIS needs to be concerned with the health and safety of citizens. Response Comment noted. database 101801.x1s 29-8 Comment I I would greatly appreciate any assistance the FAA may provide in making the new FedEx facility a reality. Response Comment noted. 29-9 Comment , I trust your organization will support the necessary infrastructure to allow this project to move forward. Response The FAA supports and funds the development of aviation infrastructure as needed and as funding becomes available. Development of off-airport infrastructure is the responsibility of other Federal, state and local governments. 29-10 Comment The proposed project should appeal to other airlines and in turn positively impact the availability of flights and fares. Response Please see response to Comment 29-20. r 29-11 Comment Expansion of PTIA has been public knowledge for many years. Response Please see responses to Comment 29-13 and 29-24. 29-12 Comment Infrastructure improvements associated with the Hub will bring great benefits to PTIA and to the region for many years to come. These improvements will enhance transportation facilities for existing companies and assist our region in attracting new investment. Response Comment noted. 29-13 Comment I PTIA's 30-year old Master Plan is invalid and should be re-done to account for the changed conditions in the airport area. Response PTAA's Master Plan Update (MPU) published in December 1994 supplemented information in the previous 1990 MPU. The 1994 MPU is the current 20-year plan for the Piedmont Triad International Airport and includes an Airport Layout Plan. See Chapter 2.0, Purpose and Need, of the EIS for further information. i 29-14 Comment PTIA has always taken a reasonable approach to growth and I am confident that this plan has been well thought out. Response Comment noted. 29-15 Comment Infrastructure improvements associated with the Hub will bring great educational benefits to the communities in Guilford County. Response Comment noted. 29-16 Comment Implementation of the FedEx facility will generate opportunities for local college students both in school and after graduation and colleges will provide an ample opportunity to train for the skills needed. database_101801AS , 1 Response The proposed project at PTIA would create jobs within Guilford County and surrounding counties. See Section 5.4, Induced Socioeconomic Impacts, of the FEIS for further information. 29-17 Comment Local charities will benefit from addition of a great corporate citizen. Response Comment noted. 29-18 Comment It is recognized that there will be those who do not agree, but I would urge you and your associates at the FAA to look at the broader view for what is and will be the common good generated by this new runway. Response The FEIS discloses the benefits and impacts associated with the proposed project and reasonable alternatives. 29-19 Comment Those neighboring PTIA property should have known that living close to an airport would eventually become a problem with future airport development. Response ' Please see responses to Comments 29-13 and 29-24. 29-20 Comment Proposed construction will hopefully increase passenger service in the Triad. Response It is not known at this time whether the proposed project would have the potential of increased passenger service, generate more direct flights, or positively impact the availability of flights and fares. 29-21 Comment Proposed construction will hopefully generate more direct flights out of the Triad. Response Please see response to Comment 29-20. 29-22 Comment Triad residents will acquire legal services to recoup any personal loss. Response Comment noted. 29-23 Comment ' I understand and sympathize with those whose homes will be affected by locating a third runway at PTIA, but I also realize that the airport was located there years ago and that the benefits of this project will help all the citizens of the Triad. ' Response Comment noted. 29-24 Comment Residents neighboring PTIA knew in advance the potential of future airport development affecting the residents. ' Response The development of a new runway parallel to existing Runway 5/23 has been included in PTIA's Master Plan and depicted in various forms on the PTIA ALP since 1968. Both the ALP and PTIA Master Plans ' have been available for public review at the Airport Administration Office. database 101801.xis 29-25 Comment Employers have been discouraging relocating personnel from buying property in the northwest. Response Comment noted. 29-26 Comment PTIA wants to give off the appearance that they are a large entity when in fact they are no where near that designation. Response Comment noted. 29-27 Comment Why is PTIA considered an International Airport? How many international flights leave this airport? Response An international airport is defined as an airport with U.S. Customs facilities. Because PTIA has several charter flights a year and maintains a Customs Facility, it is designated as an International Airport. 29-28 Comment Residents living within the "window rattling zone" do not want PTIA development to continue Response Comment noted. 29-29 Comment FedEx will the create the ability to ship daily. Response Comment noted. 29-30 Comment The City of Greensboro will participate financially in the development of a certain private and/or infrastructure improvements to promote economic development. Response Comment noted. 29-31 Comment I trust that the FAA will correct their mistakes prior to the release of the Draft EIS. Response Comment noted. 29-32 Comment To ignore all the benefits that FedEx can offer this region in order to satisfy a small group of people is a mistake and costly to our future. Response The FEIS discloses the benefits and impacts associated with the proposed project and reasonable alternatives. The FAA will take these factors into account in its Record of Decision after the FEIS is published. 29-33 Comment If this project is approved, it should be contingent upon orders being placed immediately for new aircraft comparable in size to the 727, for use upon the opening of the facility. Response FAA cannot require a private company to purchase newer aircraft as a stipulation of opening the proposed air cargo hub facility at PTIA. database_101801.xls L J 1 J 1 29-34 Comment A policy of true Stage 3 aircraft and using the smallest aircraft on the runway could go a long way toward reducing the impact of the operation. This should be a part of the business negotiations between the airport authority and FedEx, not necessarily a regulation that might violate Federal law. Response 29-35 Comment The public has been given a massive amount of misinformation and somebody needs to collate and deliver accurate information in a way the general public can understand. Response The FAA has compiled accurate information on the impacts associated with the proposed project and reasonable alternatives in the DEIS and FEIS documents. The FAA makes every attempt to present the information in the EIS in a manner such that it can be fully comprehended by all readers. However, due to" the nature of the technology used in some of the analyses, this goal is not always achieved. One of the reasons that the FAA conducted public Scoping as well as Information Workshops and a Public Hearing was to provide the public an opportunity to ask questions and clarify any information contained in the EIS document that was unclear or hard to understand. 29-36 Comment If the bulk of operations are shifted to 14/32, aircraft using this runway will be subject to a significantly higher number of days to cross winds and possible wind shear conditions. Response Comment noted. 29-37 Comment Long-term effects of locating FedEx will have a negative impact on the quality of life and it will not promote growth in the Triad. Response Comment noted. The proposed project would create additional employment, new households, and increased population. See Section 5.4, Induced Socioeconomic Impacts, of the FEIS for further information. 29-38 Comment The third parallel runway will increase the attractiveness of PTIA for increased flight operations which will enable the area to attract more conventions and other events. Response Please see response to Comment 21-20. 29-39 Comment Residents in the Triad are required to use special gasoline. Response The FAA is not aware of any regulations requiring special gasoline to be used in the Triad. 29-40 Comment Residents should not complain because when Continental had its mini hub at PTIA there were no complaints. Response Comment noted. 29-41 Comment The only way to stop the proposed project is by raising money for litigation. Response Comment noted. I database-1 01 801.x1s 29-42 Comment , If the proposed project is carried out, the FAA will constantly be reminded of what a bad decision they made to bring FedEx to the Triad. Response It was not FAA's decision to bring FedEx to the Triad. This was a decision made by the PTAA. The role of the FAA in the EIS process is to evaluate an airport sponsors' proposed project in terms of potential environmental and social impacts and render an environmental determination in the form of a Record of , Decision. It is ultimately up to the airport sponsor and local communities whether to construct and operate the proposed improvements. 29-43 Comment RESERVED Response 29-44 Comment RESERVED Response 29-45 Comment Has FedEx agreed to pay for any lawsuits that arise due to noise? ' Response The FAA is not aware of any agreements to pay for lawsuits that arise due to the proposed project at PTIA. 29-46 Comment Have concessions been made to any residents? Response The FAA is not aware of any concessions that the PTAA has made to homeowners. 29-47 Comment RESERVED Response 29-48 Comment Has the FAA successfully gotten FedEx to cut the weight of the cargo crates to an acceptable weight? Response The weight of cargo carried by FedEx aircraft is the responsibility of FedEx and not the FAA. 29-49 Comment Is daylight flying time between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.? Response The INM model considers 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. as daytime and 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. as nighttime. Please see Section 5. 1, Noise, of the FEIS for further information. 29-50 Comment The tower chief gets stuck when attempting to land aircraft efficiently. I sometimes get 4 - 5 aircraft within 5 minutes of each other landing over my home. Response The FAA ATCT directs aircraft in an efficient manner as possible. The proposed project at PTIA would provide the ATCT with greater flexibility in terms of handling arrival and departure flows of aircraft. H 1 1 database 101801.xis I 29-51 Comment While the noble PQLC tells us they are trying to save us from additional taxes with their right hand, their left hand is reaching into our back pocket and grabbing our tax dollars to buy their houses and save themselves from their decision to purchase a home near an airport. Response Comment noted. 29-52 Comment FAA should carefully consider the human, environmental, and financial aspects of FedEx locating its Mid- Atlantic hub in Greensboro. Response FAA has carefully documented the affects of implementing the proposed project in the DEIS and FEIS documents. One of the purposes of the environmental impact statement and consultation process is to provide officials and decision-makers, as well as members of the public, with an understanding of the potential environmental impacts of a proposed project. Environmental impacts are evaluated as fully and as fairly as non-environmental considerations. The FAA's objective is to enhance environmental quality and avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts that might result from implementing a proposed Federal action. 29-53 Comment Proposed improvements to the Piedmont Triad International Airport has been assigned State Application Number 99-E-0000-0111. Response Comment noted. 29-54 Comment Construction of the third runway and roads necessary for FedEx has already begun. PTIA is currently moving and adding large amounts of fill dirt in the area that the proposed runway is to be constructed. This area is located at the southwestern quadrant where Bryan Blvd. and Regional Road intersect and is adjacent to Brush Creek. This is a violation of FAA and DOT regulations. Response Construction of the proposed third runway and roadway projects has not started. The construction activities referenced are associated with the extension of the Runway 14 RSA. This project is not related to the proposed parallel runway and was previously approved by the FAA in a document entitled " Piedmont Triad International Airport: Categorical Exclusion, Runway 14 Safety Area" dated May 7, 1998. See Section 5.23, Cumulative Impacts, and Appendix A of the FEIS for further information. 29-55 Comment RESERVED Response 29-56 Comment Citizens should be able to vote on this project. Response The decision to hold a public vote on the proposed project is one that is not within the FAA's jurisdiction. It would be the responsibility of the PTAA and surrounding municipalities, as well as the State of North Carolina to determine whether a vote should be held. 29-57 Comment RESERVED ' Response database_101801.xis 29-58 Comment ' RESERVED Response 29-59 Comment RESERVED ' Response 29-60 Comment FAA, PTAA, local government, etc. are profit driven, biased representatives that have not taken the environmental impact into proper consideration. Response The FAA is a Federal agency and is not a "for profit" organization. FAA has conducted a complete and unbiased evaluation of the proposed project in the DEIS and FEIS documents and has complied with its' , responsibilities under CEQ, NEPA and FAA Orders 5050.4A and 1050.1 D to disclose potential environmental impacts and provide mitigation measures to mitigate for unavoidable impacts. 29-61 Comment I am opposed to the greater industrial development in this area. Response Comment noted. 29-62 Comment RESERVED Response 29-63 Comment The FedEx proposed development will cause long term infrastructure problems. Response , Appendix E, Section 6, Fiscal Impact Analysis, of the FEIS contains an analysis of the future revenues/expenditures in the Six County Socioeconomic Study Area as a result of implementation of the proposed project. This analysis considers the costs of infrastructure improvements as a function of population growth and is based on historical records for the study area. The analysis includes impacts from induced population growth as a result of the introduction of the air cargo sorting/distribution facility at PTIA . 29-64 Comment More'street names should be added to your maps. Response FAA has added more street names to figures within the FEIS to assist readers in their understanding of the document. 29-65 Comment RESERVED Response 29-66 Comment j It would only be fair to fly the number of flights in at the times they will be flown. Response The FAA has not received any indication from either the PTAA or FedEx that actual tests of fully loaded aircraft would be conducted, nor can the FAA require that these tests be performed. database 10180I.As 29-67 Comment RESERVED Response ' 29-68 Comment It is unfortunate that the profiteering and larger ego of FedEx and PTAA are putting families through this predicament. Response Comment noted. 29-69 Comment ' Airport officials are given authority to do as they please regarding the community's welfare without having to answer to anyone. Response The PTAAs' responsibility is to ensure that the airport is operated in an efficient manner and to decide when and what type of improvements to the facility are needed to meet the air service needs of the travelling public. Whenever appropriate, the PTAA coordinates their actions closely with local governments ' and the public. 29-70 Comment Airports must be equipped with energy efficient catapults to accelerate jets to take off speeds, so jets do not operate in their least effective mode as often. Response Catapult technology is not utilized by commercial airports or airlines at this time and will not be used in the foreseeable future. 29-71 Comment The proposed project has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse Intergovernmental Review Process and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. More specific comments will be provided during the environmental review process. Response Comment noted. 29-72 Comment The EIS should include all infrastructure impacts associated with the proposed development. Response ' Chapter 5 of the FEIS includes an evaluation of impacts from the direct, connected, and cumulative projects proposed at PTIA. Infrastructure impacts associated with the direct and connected actions are discussed in Sections 5.1 through 5.22. Infrastructure impacts associated with the cumulative actions are discussed in Section 5.23. 29-73 Comment ' This project will impact 1 geodetic survey marker. The N.C. Geodetic Survey should be contacted. Response FAA has contacted the N.C. Geodetic Survey concerning the geodetic survey marker. Neither the proposed project nor the reasonable alternatives would impact the geodetic survey marker located on PTIA property. Please see Appendix A of the FEIS for further information. ' 29-74 Comment RESERVED Response database_101801.xis 29-75 Comment RESERVED Response 29-76 Comment The Environmental Impact Statement's position is not a negative if FedEx addresses the issues as they state they will. Response The FAA will require that the PTAA implement the Mitigation Program outlined in Section 6.3 of the FEIS by including this program in its' Record of Decision, when issued. It will then be the responsibility of the PTAA to implement and maintain the mitigation program. 29-77 Comment RESERVED Response 29-78 Comment RESERVED , Response 29-79 Comment The Boeing 727 was not designed to be a cargo aircraft plane. Response The 8727 has numerous design configurations and is commonly used as a cargo aircraft throughout the world. , 29-80 Comment I am concerned about having a cargo hub here altering the wartime targeting status of the Triad. Will the hub place us all at a greater risk in a wartime environment? ' Response The FAA did not conduct an analysis of the potential change in wartime targeting status of the PTIA with the implementation of the proposed project. This is outside the scope of the EIS. 29-81 Comment What is the cost of the study and who pays for it? I Response The cost of the EIS study to-date is $2.1 million. The study has been paid for by the PTAA. However, after the FAA issues its' Record of Decision, the PTAA will request reimbursement from the FAA for the costs I associated with the EIS study. 29-82 Comment The "Degree of Controversy" paragraph on Page S34 trivializes the impact to people. Why? Is the intent of this document to cover up the fact that many people think this hub is wrong? Response The statements made in the DEIS regarding public controversy reflects FAA's interpretation of comments that had been received as of the publication of the DEIS. It is FAA's mission to disclose all available information concerning the proposed project so that an informed decision can be made. 29-83 Comment The summary of the DEIS is unbelievably simplistic and does not address the full environmental impacts. , database_101801.xls -- ' Response The Executive Summary is designed to concisely summarize the main points and key issues that are ' presented in the EIS document. Please refer to Volume 1: Documentation, of the FEIS for more detailed information concerning Purpose and Need, Alternatives, Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation measures. ' 29-84 Comment RESERVED Response 29-85 Comment ' Are you ready for the lawsuits that are going to happen here from health problems related to noise, air, and water pollution? Response Comment noted. 29-86 Comment ' Who is going to be accountable for all of the major problems that will come to Greensboro with FedEx? the City, County, State government or the FAA? Response ' Please see response to Comment 2942. 29-87 Comment Who is going to pay for the medical bills caused by the added pollution by FedEx? Response 1 Please see response to Comment 29-42. 29-88 Comment People impacted by the hub's operations will receive mitigating funds. Response A Mitigation Program for the Preferred Alternative is presented in Section 6.3.1 of the FEIS. 29-89 Comment People living outside the area effected by the project should not be able to voice their opinion on the project. Response The FAA accepts and considers all comments received on the proposed project or the EIS process on an equal basis. 29-90 Comment Many negative effects can be reduced or avoided through implementation of a mitigation program. Response FAA's initial development of alternatives to the proposed action considered the avoidance and minimization of environmental impacts. For those impacts that are unavoidable, a Mitigation Program for the Preferred Alternative has been developed and is presented in Section 6.3 of the FEIS. 29-91 Comment ' FedEx guarantees overnight delivery, what difference will a local hub make? Response FedEx has proposed the Mid-Atlantic Hub at PTIA to serve as its new east coast sorting and distribution facility. This facility would handle small packages being shipped between Maine and Puerto Rico that are currently being routed through the Memphis FedEx Hub. This will free-up some capacity at Memphis and allow FedEx to increase its market share. ' database 101801.As 29-92 Comment ' We don't want FedEx sending 126 cargo flights over our home every night. Response Comment noted. , 29-93 Comment The FAA should postpone any decision on the FedEx hub until all concerns, issues, and questions regarding the EIS can be resolved, the public has a full understanding of the noise and pollution impacts and the solutions in writing on the options, and an explanation of the methodology used for decision making processes in a manner the general public can understand. Response FAA's environmental determination on the proposed project, which will take the form of a Record of Decision (ROD), will not be made until the FEIS has been published, and a 30-day review period for agency, government and the public has been provided. 29-94 Comment All correspondence between the FAA, PTIA, and FedEx should be made public and the citizens of the ' community have the opportunity to hold their leaders accountable. Response , All information pertinent to FAA's decision making process for this EIS is being maintained in a project file in the Atlanta Office of the FAA and may be subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. After the conclusion of the EIS process, this documentation will take the form of an Administrative Record. , 29-95 Comment The FAA should have intervened when the Airport Authority denied a seat to a qualified citizen with a contrary opinion. Response The FAA has no authorit over the ele ti f b t th PTAA ' y c on o mem ers o e . 29-96 Comment A public statement should be made by FedEx that they will not be given any exemptions or special , considerations by the FAA or the local governments with respect to noise and air pollution. Response The FAA will not give any exemptions or special considerations to FedEx with respect to noise and air pollution. The Mitigation Program presented in Section 6.3 of the FEIS will be implemented by the PTAA and will apply to all users of the airport. , 29-97 Comment If the cargo planes were to fly directly over your house (FAA) from 2:00 am to 5:00 am everyday, would you be for or against the FedEx hub? ' Response Comment noted. 29-98 Comment I do not want planes flying over my home at all hours of the night. Response Comment noted. 29-99 Comment I believe that the DEIS is heavily weighted to the advantage of PTAA without sound, realistic , measurements of the noise contours, pollution and environmental impact. Response Please see response to Comment 29-60. database_101801.x1s I 29-100 Comment The DEIS is a shoddy piece of work with biased and scientifically weak results. Maps are incorrect, projected models are subjective and the overall tone reveals a heart of corruption. Response Please see response to Comment 29-60. 29-101 Comment On September 1999 at the Memphis Hub of FedEx, a wing flap fell off a FedEx plane and landed in a nearby resident's yard. This is but an example of why the hub should not be built at P.T.I. Response Comment noted. 29-102 Comment Mitigation is not the answer in achieving an end by unjust means. Response Please see response to Comment 29-90. 29-103 Comment RESERVED Response 29-104 Comment RESERVED Response 29-105 Comment The noise, pollution, and numerous other negative characteristics of this industry makes FedEx an unwelcome neighbor. Response Comment noted. Chapter 5, Environmental Consequences, describes various environmental and non- environmental impacts associated with the proposed project at PTIA. 29-106 Comment National Geodetic Survey information should be reviewed for identifying the location and designation of any geodetic control monuments that maybe affected by the planning process. If there are any planned activities which will disturb or destroy these monuments, NGS requires not less than 90 days notification in advance of such activities in order to plan for their relocation. NGS recommends that funding for this project includes the cost of any relocation(s) required. Response Please see response to Comment 29-73. ' 29-107 Comment Does increased drug trafficking come with FedEx? Response The FAA did not conduct an analysis of the potential for increases in drug trafficking associated with the proposed project. This is outside the scope of the EIS. 29-108 Comment Has the FAA looked into the personal gain to Airport Authority members in this? Response The FAA did not conduct an analysis of the potential for personal gain to Airport Authority members associated with the proposed project. This is outside the scope of the EIS. database 101801.xis 29-109 Comment ' What guarantee do we have that we won't be effected as everyone keeps telling us. How can I live 0.5 mile from the end of a runway and not be affected? Response The FAA cannot guarantee whether or not someone would be adversely affected by the proposed project. The FAA has established "Thresholds of Significance" for various environmental impact categories which set guidelines against which impacts are measured. The impacts disclosed in the DEIS and FEIS documents are based on these thresholds. In the case of the noise analysis, if a home has been determined to be outside the 65 DNL noise contour, it is not considered to be significantly impacted by the FAA. However, this does not mean the there could not be a perceived affect of increased noise. , 29-110 Comment Once the FedEx hub is operational, those estimates in the EIS will show to be fiction rather than fact, causing the community to pay more as a whole. Response , The evaluation of impacts contained in the FEIS is based on the best information and latest technical analytical tools available to the FAA. The impacts as disclosed in the FEIS should accurately represent the actual impacts that take place after the proposed project is operational, unless significant changes in the , proposed project occur after the ROD is issued. 29-111 Comment PTAA should have a member on the board who lives near the airport and would represent the interests of residents who live near the airport. Response FAA has communicated this comment to PTIA for their consideration. It is not the responsibility of the FAA to appoint or vote on current or potential PTAA members. 29-112 Comment i Please send me a copy of the PTIA DEIS, FEIS and the Record of Decision. It is my understanding that the FAA must send me a copy upon request. Response Federal guidelines state that the FAA can provide interested parties copies of the DEIS at a nominal cost. The commentator can contact the FAA Environmental Program Specialist in the Atlanta Office of the FAA to obtain details as to cost and availability of the DEIS documents. The FAA has placed public review copies of the DEIS and FEIS in local libraries including the Greensboro Public Library, High Point Public Library, Forsyth County Library, and Guilford College Branch Library as well as in the PTAA administrative offices. The Record of Decision will be placed at these same locations for public review. 29-113 Comment Include the study titled "Federal Express in the Piedmont Triad - Economic Impact and Opportunities" in the record for the DEIS. Response , Comment noted. The study, "Federal Express in the Piedmont Triad - Economic Impact and Opportunities" is in the record for the FEIS. Please refer to Chapter 9 of the FEIS. 29-114 Comment We do not need more jobs, traffic, carpetbaggers. Response Comment noted. ' database 101801.xis Ll ?J F 29-115 Comment Noise, water, air iF:_ ues are very troubling. Response Comment noted. See Sections 5.1 (Noise), 5.5 (Air Quality), and 5.6 (Water Quality) of the FEIS for more information. Also, refer to Chapter 6, Section 6.3 for mitigation measures that will be implemented to reduce environmental impacts associated with the proposed project at PTIA. 29-116 Comment We should not have the attitude that we need the Fed Ex's of the world to make us a great place. Response Comment noted. 29-117 Comment Fed Ex is an intrusive business. Response Comment noted. 29-118 Comment The DEIS does not raise any air, noise or water concerns that cannot be mitigated by conscientious planning by the airport, government agencies and FedEx. Response A Mitigation Program for the Preferred Alternative is presented in Section 6.3 of the FEIS. This program, when implemented by the PTAA, will greatly reduce the impacts associated with the proposed project. 29-119 Comment I have children that I do not want to be damaged by the increased air and water pollution that the FedEx expansion would cause. Response Comment noted. Please refer to Sections 5.5 and 5.6, respectively, for Air Quality and Water Quality impacts. 29-120 Comment The DEIS does not address the consequences of the added air and water pollution from the project and its ripple effects. Sprawl impacts, water and sewer consumption from the ripple effect, loss of wetlands, the economic cost of the ripple effect and the tax burden that (the project) will bring are not addressed. Response Section 5.23 of the FEIS discloses the environmental impacts associated with the cumulative projects. Appendix E, Section 6, Fiscal Impact Analysis, of the FEIS contains an analysis of the future revenues/expenditures in the Six County Socioeconomic Study Area as a result of implementation of the proposed project and its associated induced development or "ripple effects". This analysis considers the costs of infrastructure improvements as a function of population growth and is based on historical records for the study area.. 29-121 Comment The FAA is directed by Congress to "encourage development of All-Cargo Transportation Systems provided by private enterprise." Given such a mandate, the FAA cannot conduct an impartial environmental study. The FAA is clearly motivated to ignore, hide, and downplay any problems that may hinder it in promoting cargo hubs. Acting as judge in its own case, the FAA has violated a fundamental principle of justice and has denied due process. Response Please see responses to Comments 29-60, 23-36 and 23-5. database 101801.xls 29-122 Comment ' There is no mention of the health effects on area residents of either the increased noise or the increased levels of pollutants from the proposed additional aircraft traffic. It is well known that ozone and other pollutants are associated with respiratory ailments and other diseases in humans. Similarly, noise has ' been shown to have negative effects on humans. Response The FAA has an established policy of using the DNL 65 dBA as the "Threshold of Significance" for aircraft- , generated noise impacts. The FAA considers noise levels below this threshold as being normally compatible with noise-sensitive residential land use. The PTAA has committed to the development of a noise mitigation pl-n to reduce noise impacts to the area surrounding PTIA. This program includes ' acquisition of residential parcels within the 70 and 75 DNL noise contours as well as soundproofing residences within the 65 DNL noise contour. In terms of air quality, the proposed project was found by the FAA to be in conformity with the SIP, therefore it would not result in significant air quality impacts. Please ' see Section 6.3 of the FEIS for further information. 29-123 Comment ' What will be the impact on our children in 10 years? Response Please see response to Comment 29-122. ' 29-124 Comment Harm is defined very narrowly while benefit is defined broadly, which not only makes the entire project seem more attractive than it likely is but also greatly diminishes the projected positive impact of any mitigation measures. Response Comment noted.. 29-125 Comment If Fed Ex is planning an International Hub for PTIA then many of the basic calculations in the DEIS would be obsolete. Response FedEx has proposed the Mid-Atlantic Hub at PTIA to serve as its new east coast sorting and distribution facility. This facility would handle small packages being shipped between Maine and Puerto Rico that are currently being routed through the Memphis FedEx Hub. The FAA has not received any information indicating the FedEx facility at PTIA would be used for international service. 29-126 Comment The EIS does not provide valid discussion and information the Airport Authority and others need to make an informed decision. Response Please see response to Comment 29-52. ' 29-127 Comment I request that the EIS include a discussion of the fact that results can only be confident at the 95 percent level out to two standard deviations away on either from the calculated value. Response The evaluation of impacts contained in the FEIS is based on the best information and latest technical ' analytical tools available to the FAA in accordance with regulations (CEQ 1502.24). The impacts as disclosed in the FEIS accurately represent the anticipated impacts that take place after the proposed project is operational, unless significant changes in the proposed project occur after the ROD is issued. , 29-128 Comment I would like medical experts to review the EIS in terms of the adverse effects of the project on various ' segments of the population. database_101801.xls 1 Response FAA has distributed the EIS to local libraries and copies are available at the PTAA Administrative Office for public review. In addition, the FAA has an ongoing comment period that has given agencies and any individual in the general public the opportunity to comment on the EIS. 29-129 Comment Throughout the report data are given and outcomes determined without explanation of how the data were gathered or what statistical models were used to interpret these data. Response Each section within Chapter 5, Environmental Consequences, of the EIS contains a methodology that describes how data was obtained and used in analyzing the impacts of the alternatives. Additional information is provided as necessary in the EIS Technical Appendices. 29-130 Comment We believe that the cost of the full documentation should be affordable and/or readily available on the Internet. In addition, we would like to point out that the Executive Summary did not include the full "picture" of the "On-Site Runway and..." (following page S-8) nor the legend that would explain the diagrams. Response Comment noted. The complete EIS documentation is available at local libraries as well as the Administrative Office of the PTAA for public review. The PTIA web site (www.gsoair.org) does contain a link to the Executive Summary of the EIS. Figure S-2 on the web site displays the existing layout of the airport and various combinations of runway alternatives and air cargo facility locations that were part of the alternatives evaluation process. The legend for Figure S-2 is located in the lower right-hand corner of the page. The DEIS was available for $201.17 (without shipping costs), while the Executive Summary was available for $10 (without shipping costs). The voluminous nature of the text and complexity of the graphics did not allow putting the entire EIS on the internet. 29-131 Comment RESERVED Response 29-132 Comment Given the serious negative impacts associated with the type of expansion proposed for the FedEx hub, particularly with respect to air quality, the Conservation Council urges you to make the health of the citizens of Greensboro and the quality of North Carolina's natural resources a priority by not approving the project. Response Comment noted. 29-133 Comment Can anyone "overrule" our decision that mitigation or abatement is unacceptable? Response The FAA has worked in conjunction with the PTAA to develop the proposed Mitigation Program for the Preferred Alternative, which is contained in Section 6.3 of the FEIS. Implementation of this program by the PTAA will satisfy the mitigation requirements of the FAA, EPA, USACE and NCDENR, which are the Federal and state jurisdictional agencies responsible for ensuring the mitigation of adverse affects that would occur at PTIA as a result of the proposed project. 29-134 Comment Both of these well-qualified experts (Dr. Bronzaft - noise, Mr. Piazza - air quality) have found serious deficiencies with the DEIS. Please direct your responses to their comments to me. database 10180I.As Response I The FAA has set-up this Comment/Response Database to respond to comments from agencies and the general public in an accurate and efficient manner. Responses to comments are not directed to one individual but to any person reading the document. Please use the index of general public names to search ' for the comment letter and associated comment codes and responses. 29-135 Comment The entire DEIS dismisses the impacts on people. The following statements are supportive of this conclusion. Under Degree of Controversy (p. 34 of Executive summary), it is noted that : "Many of these concerns have been voiced by the communities closest to PTIA. However, much of the larger Triad area appears supportive of the proposed development..." Yes, indeed, it is customary that people believe they will be losing a decent'quality of life," and possibly their health, will fight to protect themselves. Response The statements made in the DEIS regarding public controversy reflects FAA's interpretation of comments that had been received as of the publication of the nFIS It is FAA'c miccinn to Hict-irmin oil woihhlc