20000846 Ver 1_Complete File_20060101 (8)

C
X ()
O Co
Q?
QQ

I
J
r
??

v
z
? c
y ? N
U
?
Q C
0 LL

a LL
N
d c?
Lnn
m €?
L P
J ?- N
°' L «
L
m N Vi
N E
4i
N N w
E° y
? N
e dd
a °m m
rr v
U)
0
0
d?
M N
O
p? ?
E P
RJ

M P
N?
? T
_Q
LL
?a
M
CM CD
E?
m?
LL
da
EE
a

CO
75

as

L
\
?
?? W
y
III
05
0
0

M N
t
m U')
p
?N d
0
0
4)
W
0 Z
runway/taxiway lighting is estimated to be minimal. Electrical demands for Alternative W2-A Phases 1
and 2 of the air cargo sorting and distribution facility are estimated to be approximately 1,250,000
kilowatts per month (FedEx, 2000).
Natural Resources - Implementation of Alternative W2-A would not impact any known natural supply of
mineral or energy resources. Construction of Alternative W2-A is expected to utilize common building
materials such as asphalt, concrete, steel, and base/sub base materials, none of which are of a unique
nature or in short supply in the Greensboro area. Therefore, the development of Alternative W2-A would
not result in Natural Resource Impacts.
5.16.3.3 Alternative W3-A
Energy - The results for Alternative W3-A are nearly identical to those of Alternative W2-A. Under this
alternative, 26.15 million kg/yr of fuel would be consumed. The small difference between Alternatives
W3-A and W2-A is because of slightly reduced taxi distances under this alternative. Electrical demand for
Alternative W3-A would be equal to Alternative W2-A.
Natural Resources - Implementation of Alternative W3-A would not impact any known natural supply of
mineral or energy resources. Construction of Alternative W3-A is expected to utilize common building
materials such as asphalt, concrete, steel, and base/sub base materials, none of which are of a unique
nature or in short supply in the Greensboro area. Therefore, the development of Alternative W3-A would
not result in Natural Resource Impacts.
5.16.3.4 Alternative N-D
Energy - Because Alternative N-D has the longest taxi distances among the alternatives, it is associated
with the greatest fuel consumption (28.03 million kg/yr). Electrical demand for Alternative N-D
runway/taxiway lighting would be slightly greater than Alternatives W2-A and W3-A, and electrical power
demand at the air cargo sorting and distribution would be equal to Alternative W2-A.
Natural Resources - Implementation of Alternative N-D would not impact any known natural supply of
mineral or energy resources. Construction of Alternative N-D is expected to utilize common building
materials such as asphalt, concrete, steel, and base/sub base materials, none of which are of a unique
nature or in short supply in the Greensboro area. Therefore, the development of Alternative N-D would
not result in Natural Resource Impacts.
5.16.3.5 Alternative W1-A1
Energy - Although Alternative W1-A1 is associated with increased fuel use when compared to the No-
Action Alternative, it has the lowest use among the Build Alternatives because of slightly reduced taxi
distances. Under this alternative, 26.10 million kg/yr of fuel would be consumed. Electrical demand for
Alternative W1-A1 runway/taxiway lighting would also be the lowest out of all the alternatives because of
W:\PIEDMOMIDEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-163 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
reduced taxiway lighting. Electrical demand at the air cargo sorting and distribution facility would be
equal to Alternative W2-A.
Natural Resources - Implementation of Alternative W1-A1 would not impact any known natural supply of
mineral or energy resources. Construction of Alternative W1-A1 is expected to utilize common building
materials such as asphalt, concrete, steel, and base/sub base materials, none of which are of a unique
nature or in short supply in the Greensboro area. Therefore, the development of Alternative W1-A1 would
not result in natural resource impacts.
5.16.3.6 Alternative N-E
Energy - Fuel consumption associated with Alternative WE (27.41 million kg/yr) would be higher, when
compared to the No-Action Alternative. This is primarily a result of an increase in the number of aircraft
operations and slight variations in taxi times. Electrical demand for Alternative WE runway taxiway
lighting would be slightly greater than Alternative W2-A, W3-A and W1-Ai, and the same as Alternative
N-D. Electrical demand at the air cargo facility would be equal to Alternative W2-A.
Natural Resources - Implementation of Alternative WE would not impact any known natural supply of
mineral or energy resources. Construction of Alternative N-E is expected to utilize common building
materials such as asphalt, concrete, steel, and base/sub base materials, none of which are of a unique
nature or in short supply in the Greensboro area. Therefore, the development of Alternative WE would
not result in Natural Resource Impacts.
5.16.4 PHASE 2 IMPACT POTENTIAL
Because of continued growth in operations, Phase 2 impacts would be greater than Phase 1 impacts.
The results are again shown in Figure 5.16.3-1. As with Phase 1, the relative differences among the
Build Alternatives (i.e., W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W 1-A1, and N-E) are not significant.
5.16.4.1 No Action Alternative
Energy - Because of an increase in the number of operations over Phase 1 levels, 26.89 million kg/yr of
fuel would be consumed under the No-Action Alternative.
Natural Resources - There are no airside, landside or surface transportation improvements associated
with the No-Action Alternative, Phase 2; therefore, no impacts would occur.
5.16.4.2 Alternative W2-A
Energy - Fuel consumption associated with Alternative W2-A (40.03 million kg/yr) would be higher when
compared to the No-Action Alternative. Because the fleet mix and times-in-mode would not change
significantly from Phase 1, the increase in fuel use is fundamentally a result of increased operations.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-164 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
Electrical demands for Alternative W2-A Phases 1 and 2 of the air cargo sorting and distribution facility
are estimated to be approximately 2,500,000 kilowatts per month (FedEx, 2000).
Natural Resources - Implementation of Phase 2 of Alternative W2-A would not impact any known
natural supply of mineral or energy resources. Construction of Alternative W2-A is expected to utilize
common building materials such as asphalt, concrete, steel, and base/sub base materials, none of which
are of a unique nature or in short supply in the Greensboro area. Therefore, the development of
Alternative W2-A would not result in natural resource impacts.
5.16.4.3 Alternative W3-A
Energy - The energy consumption rates for Alternatives W3-A and W2-A would be similar. Under this
alternative, 40.04 million kg/yr of fuel would be consumed. The small difference between Alternatives
W3-A and W2-A would be because of slightly reduced taxi distances under this alternative. Electrical
demands for Alternative W3-A Phases 1 and 2 of the air cargo sorting and distribution facility are
estimated to be approximately 2,500,000 kilowatts per month (FedEx, 2000).
Natural Resources - Phase 2 improvements of Alternative W3-A would be identical to those in Phase 2
of Alternative W2-A. Refer to Section 5.16.4.2 for natural resource impacts associated with Phase 2 of
Alternative W3-A.
5.16.4.4 Alternative N-D
Energy - Because Alternative N-D has the longest taxi distances among the Build Alternatives, it would
result in the use of more fuel than all other alternatives (43.27 million kg/yr). Electrical demands for
Alternative N-D Phases 1 and 2 of the air cargo sorting and distribution facility are estimated to be
approximately 2,500,000 kilowatts per month (FedEx, 2000).
Natural Resources - Implementation of Phase 2 of Alternative N-D would not impact any known natural
supply of mineral or energy resources. Construction of Alternative N-D is expected to utilize common
building materials such as asphalt, concrete, steel, and base/sub base materials, none of which are of a
unique nature or in short supply in the Greensboro area. Therefore, the development of Alternative
W1-A1 would not result in Natural Resource Impacts.
5.16.4.5 Alternative W1-A1
Energy - Among the Build Alternatives, Alternative W1-A1 would result in the lowest amount of fuel
consumption, a result of the reduced taxi time associated with this alternative. Under this alternative,
39.94 million kg/yr of fuel would be consumed, which is higher than the levels associated with the No-
Action Alternatives but would be lower than the other Build Alternatives. Electrical demands for
Alternative W1-A1 Phases 1 and 2 of the air cargo sorting and distribution facility are estimated to be
approximately 2,500,000 kilowatts per month (FedEx, 2000).
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-165 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
Natural Resources - Implementation of Phase 2 of Alternative W1-A1 would not impact any known
natural supply of mineral or energy resources. Construction of Alternative W1-A1 is expected to utilize
common building materials such as asphalt, concrete, steel, and base/sub base materials, none of which
are of a unique nature or in short supply in the Greensboro area. Therefore, the development of
Alternative W1-A1 would not result in natural resource impacts.
5.16.4.6 Alternative N-E
Energy - Fuel consumption associated with Alternative WE (41.80 million kg/yr) would be higher, when
compared to the No-Action Alternative. Because the fleet mix and times-in-mode do not change
significantly from Phase 1, the increase in fuel use is fundamentally a result of increased operations.
Electrical demand for Alternative WE Phases 1 and 2 of the air cargo facility are estimated to be
approximately 2,500,000 kilowatts per month (FedEx, 2000).
Natural Resources - Implementation of Phase 2 of Alternative N-E would not impact any known natural
supply of mineral or energy resources. Construction of Alternative N-E is expected to utilize common
building materials such as asphalt, concrete, steel, and base/sub base materials, none of which are of a
unique nature or in short supply in the Greensboro area. Therefore, the development of Alternative WE
would not result in Natural Resource impacts.
5.16.5 MITIGATION MEASURES
Since none of the alternatives would result in significant energy supply or natural resource impacts,
mitigation is not required.
5.17 LIGHT EMISSIONS
5.17.1 OVERVIEW OF IMPACTS
An evaluation of aviation-related, surface transportation and air cargo facility lighting systems
associated with the alternatives was conducted to determine potential adverse light emission
impacts to sensitive areas. Future light emission levels from airborne aircraft or aircraft operating
on the ground are not anticipated to adversely impact surrounding residential areas. Light
emissions from the surface transportation projects associated with the No-Action Alternative and
the airfield, landside and surface transportation improvements associated with Alternatives W2-A,
W3-A, N-D, W1-A1, and WE would all result in minor light emission impacts. However, through
shielding and screening techniques, light emission impacts would be minimized on surrounding
residential areas. These measures are discussed in Chapter 6.0, Mitigation, of this DEIS.
W:\PIEDMONTDEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-166 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
5.17.2 METHODOLOGY
Airport facilities are illuminated by various types of lighting that can impact light sensitive land uses in the
vicinity an airport. These lights can emanate from any of the following sources associated with the
proposed alternatives at PTIA:
• Airfield lighting,
• Apron lighting,
• Visual navigational aids,
• Air cargo facility lighting,
• Air cargo employee/customer parking lighting, and
• Roadway lighting.
Airport-related light emissions are considered to have a notable impact only if light is directed towards a
residential area. 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.
5.17.3 Existing Conditions
The area surrounding PTIA is diversely developed. East and south of the airport are
commercial/distribution and industrial areas. Residential areas are primarily located north of the airport
but some are located southwest of the airport between North Regional Road and S.R. 68 and others are
located along Pleasant Ridge Road, west of the airport. Existing off-airport light emissions from the
terminal, parking, airfield, aprons, and support facility lighting, is currently buffered by forested areas,
Bryan Boulevard, 1-40, and industrial and commercial businesses surrounding the airport.
Runway 32 is equipped with a localizer, Visual Approach Slope Indicators (VASI), Runway End Identifier
Lights (REIL), Touchdown Zone Lighting (TDZ) and Centerline Lighting (CL). Runway 14 is equipped
with a runway and taxiway edge lighting system.
Runway 5R is equipped with a localizer, Medium Approach Lighting System with Runway Alignment
Indicator Lights (MALSR), Glide Slope, and VASI. Existing Runway 23L is equipped with a localizer,
Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI), High Intensity Approach Light System with Sequence Flashers
(CAT-11) (ALSF-II), and Glide Slope Indicator (CAT-11).
A High Intensity Approach Lighting System with Sequence Flashers (ALSF-II) is a uni-directional, high
intensity stanchion mounted approached light system that starts 1,000 feet from the threshold and
sequentially flashes white lights along the angle of approach. The threshold lights of an ALSF-II have
green filters. These lights flash in sequence towards the threshold at the rate of twice per second.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-167 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
A Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System (MALSR) is a stanchion mounted, uni-directional, medium
intensity white approach light system, angled upward along the approach path of the runway.
A Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) System is a stanchion mounted, directional, high intensity
upward angled, two-color light system producing a bicolor split beam: white above and red below.
A localizer antenna array would be equipped with two, continuously burning, omni-directional, red
obstacle lights and located on airport property.
Touchdown Zone Lighting (TDZ) consists of two rows of transverse light bars located symmetrically about
the runway centerline. Each light bar consists of three unidirectional lights facing the landing threshold.
The rows of light bars extend to a distance of 3,000 feet, or one-half the runway length for runways less
than 6,000 feet. The spacing between bars is 100 feet.
Centerline Lighting (CL) consists of in-ground light fixtures along the runway centerline at 500-foot
intervals, offset either 2 feet to the left or right of the runway markings. The color of the lights is white,
except the last 3,000 feet. From 3,000 feet to 1,000 feet, the color code alternates between red and
white. The last 1,000 feet of the runway includes red lights only.
A Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI-4) consists of four upwardly angled light units, two light units in
each bar. Bars are located on a line perpendicular to the runway centerline. Bars are typically located on
5.17.4.2 Alternative W2-A
Alternative W2-A would result in the development of airfield lighting associated with the parallel runway
and taxiways and landside lighting associated with the taxiway bridges, Bryan Boulevard tunnel, and the
air cargo sorting and distribution facility. According to the ALP, proposed Runway 5L would be equipped
with a MALSR, Localizer, PAPI, Glide Slope, CL, and TDZ. The MALSR would be located approximately
500 feet west of the residential area between Lebanon Road and W. Market Street. The MALSR's
skyward lighting direction and perpendicular alignment to Runway 5L would create a minimal light
emission impact to this residential area. Proposed Runway 23R would be equipped with an ALSF-2,
Glide Slope CAT-III, PAPI, Localizer, CL, and TDZ. The ALSF-2 would be located approximately 600 feet
east of the residential area along Phillipsburg Court, and approximately 1,250 feet south of the residential
area along Lytham Court and, therefore, should result in minor impacts to these areas. A vegetation
buffer, currently located between the airport property and residential dwelling located along Phillipsburg
Court and Lytham Court, would diffuse light emissions generated by the proposed airfield lighting.
The air cargo sorting and distribution facility proposed east of Bryan Boulevard and south of Old Oak
Ridge Road would create potential light emission impacts. Mercury (white) and high-pressure sodium
(orange) lights would probably be used to illuminate various areas of the sort building. Forty-foot-high
poles mounted with mercury lights would potentially be used to illuminate the cargo aircraft parking apron
adjacent to the sort facility. High-pressure sodium lights would potentially be located on poles
approximately 18 to 24 feet in the air or on the side of the buildings and used to illuminate the customer
and employee parking areas, the outside of the sort facility, and truck parking areas adjacent to the sort
facility. The closest light sensitive land use to the air cargo facility is a residential area located
approximately 600 feet north along Western Trail. The buffer zone of Bryan Boulevard and its associated
vegetated area would diffuse and decrease light emission impacts to this area. If required, shielding can
be placed on the lighting fixtures to mitigate potential impacts.
Section 5.17.4.1 discusses the potential light emission impacts from the surface transportation
improvements associated with Alternative W2-A.
5.17.4.3 Alternative W3-A
Alternative W3-A is similar to Alternative W2-A. The only difference between the two alternatives is the
location of the ends of the proposed parallel runway. In Alternative W3-A, the end of the proposed
parallel Runway 5U23R would be shifted 1,032 feet to the southwest, relative to Alternative W2-A. The
ALSF-2 at the end of Runway 23R would be located approximately 400 feet south of homes along Old
Potential light emission impacts associated with the air cargo facility improvements would be identical to
those of Alternative W2-A, discussed in Section 5.17.4.2. Potential light emission impacts associated
with the surface transportation improvements would be the same as those for the No-Action Alternative
discussed in Section 5.17.4.1.
5.17.4.4 Alternative N-D
Alternative N-D would result in new airfield lighting associated with the parallel and extended runways
and taxiways and landside lighting associated with the taxiway bridges, Bryan Boulevard tunnel, and the
air cargo sorting and distribution facility. The extension of existing Runway 14 to the west would include a
MALSR, Localizer, PAPI, Glide Slope, Middle Marker, CL, and TDZ. Light emissions generated by the
extension of existing Runway 14 would not impact residential areas. The end of new parallel Runway
14L would be equipped with a MALSR, Localizer, PAPI, Glide Slope, Middle Marker, CL, and TDZ. The
MALSR would be located approximately 1,750 feet south of a residential area along Pepperdine Road.
The MALSR's skyward lighting direction and perpendicular alignment to Runway 14L would create minor
impacts to this light sensitive residential area. The end of new parallel Runway 32R would be equipped
with an ALSF-2, Glide Slope, PAPI, Localizer, CL, and TDZ. The ALSF-2 would be located adjacent to
sensitive residential areas along Wagon Wheel Drive and Coach Hill Road. Light emissions generated by
the ALSF-2 for Runway 32R would result in minor impacts to this residential area.
The air cargo sorting and distribution facility located west of Bryan Boulevard and north of N. Regional
Road would result in minor light emission impacts. Mercury and sodium apron, parking, and building
lights identical to those described under Alternative W2-A would illuminate the facility. The closest
residential area would be located approximately 2,500 feet northwest of the facility. The existing
vegetative buffer zone as well as the distance between the facility and residential area would serve to
diffuse and decrease light impacts to this area.
Section 5.17.4.1 discusses the potential light emission impacts from the surface transportation
improvements associated with Alternative N-D.
5.17.4.5 Alternative W1 Al
Alternative W1-A1 closely resembles Alternative W3-A. In Alternative W1-Ai, the proposed parallel
Runway 5R/23L has been shifted 400 feet to the east. The ALSF-2 located at the end of Runway 23R
would be located approximately 1,500 feet southeast of the residential area along Phillipsburg Court,
approximately 2,375 feet south of the residential area along Lytham Court, and 1,750 feet southwest of
residential area along Western Trail. Airside light emissions generated by Runway 23R would potentially
impact these residential areas. A vegetation buffer located between the airport property and homes along
Phillipsburg Court and Lytham Court would decrease light emissions generated by the ALSF-2.
Residential light sensitive areas at the end of Runway 5L would be located 750 feet east of the MALSR,
along Drum Road. The MALSR's skyward lighting direction and perpendicular alignment to Runway 5L
would create minimal light emission impacts to this residential area.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-170 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
Potential light emission impacts associated with the landside air cargo improvements would be identical
to those discussed for Alternative W2-A, in Section 5.17.3.2. Surface transportation improvements
associated with Alternative W1-A1 would create minimal lighting impacts to surrounding residential
neighborhoods. Pole mounted streetlights approximately 24 to 30 feet high along the surface
transportation corridors of relocated Old Oak Ridge Road and Bryan Boulevard would potentially impact
light sensitive residential areas. These pole-mounted lights would be located approximately 300 feet from
homes along Phillipsburg Court and 125 feet from homes at the end of Western Trail. Vegetation along
relocated Old Oak Ridge Road would aid in decreasing the intensity of light emissions. The new Bryan
Boulevard/Old Oak Ridge Road interchange associated with the Alternative W1-A1 would also potentially
have pole mounted streetlights. The closest pole mounted street lighting would be located approximately
200 feet from homes along Mountain View Road. The natural vegetation along Mountain View Road
would aid in decreasing the intensity of light emissions.
5.17.4.6 Alternative N-E
Alternative WE would result in new airfield lighting associated with the parallel and extended runways and
taxiways and landside lighting associated with the taxiway bridges, Bryan Boulevard tunnel, and the air
cargo sorting and distribution facility. The extension to Runway 14 to the west would include a MALSR,
Localizer, PAPI, Glide Slope, Middle Marker, CL, and TDZ. Light emissions generated by the extension of
Runway 14 would not impact residential areas. The end of new parallel Runway 14L would be equipped
with a MALSR, Localizer, PAPI, Glide Slope, Middle Marker, CL, and TDZ. The MALSR would be located
approximately 1,750 feet south of a residential area along Pepperdine Road. The MALSR's skyward
lighting direction and perpendicular alignment to Runway 14L would create minor impacts to this light
sensitive residential area. The end of new parallel Runway 32R would be equipped with a ALSF-2, Glide
Slope, PAPI, Localizer, CL, and TDZ. The ALSF-2 would be located adjacent to sensitive residential
areas along Wagon Wheel Drive and Coach Hill Road. Light emissions generated by the ALSF-2 for
Runway 32R would result in minor impacts to this residential area.
The air cargo sorting and distribution facility located west of N. Chimney Rock and southwest of Stage
Coach Trail would result in minor light emission impacts. Mercury and sodium apron, parking, and
building lights identical to those described under Alternatives W2-A would illuminate the facility. The
closest residential area would be located approximately 2,800 feet east/northeast of the facility. The
existing vegetative buffer zone as well as the distance between the facility and residential area would
serve to diffuse and decrease light impacts to this area.
Section 5.17.4.1 discusses the potential light emission impacts from the surface transportation
improvements associated with Alternative N-E.
W:\PIEDMON-RDEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-171 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
5.17.5 PHASE 2 IMPACT POTENTIAL
5.17.5.1 No-Action Alternative
There are no airside, landside or surface transportation improvements associated with the No-Action
Alternative, Phase 2; therefore, no additional light emission impacts would occur.
5.17.5.2 Alternative W2-A
Phase 2 improvements associated with Alternative W2-A include additional air cargo sorting and
distribution facility employee/customer parking, sort building, and aircraft apron lighting. The types of
additional lighting added are the same as previously described in Section 5.17.4.2. The air cargo facility
would be approximately 3,600 feet south of the closest light-sensitive land use located along Western
Trail. The existing vegetative buffer zone and Bryan Boulevard would diffuse and decrease light emission
impacts generated by the facility. If needed, special shielding and screening could be placed on the
lighting fixtures to mitigate potential impacts. Therefore, minimal light emission impacts would result from
Alternative W2-A Phase 2 improvements.
5.17.5.3 Alternative W3-A
Phase 2 improvements associated with Alternative W3-A would be the same as those described for
Phase 2 of Alternative W2-A in Section 5.17.5.2.
5.17.5.4 Alternative N-D
Phase 2 improvements associated with Alternative N-D would be the same as those described for Phase
2 of Alternative W2-A in Section 5.17.5.2. Phase 2 improvements of Alternative N-D would be
approximately 5,200 feet southeast of the closest light sensitive residential area located adjacent to the
Pleasant Ridge Road and Regional Road intersection, and 5,400 feet southeast of homes located along
Pleasant Ridge Road. Because of the distance and intervening land uses located between the Mid-
Atlantic Hub facility and the closest light sensitive land use, minimal light emission impacts would result
from Phase 2 improvements of Alternative N-D. If needed, special shielding and screening could be
placed on the lighting fixtures to mitigate potential impacts.
5.17.5.5 Alternative W1-A1
Phase 2 improvements associated with Alternative W1-A1 would be identical to those discussed in
Section 5.17.5.2 Phase 2 of Alternative W2-A.
5.17.5.6 Alternative N-E
Phase 2 improvements associated with Alternative WE would be the same as those described for Phase
2 of Alternative W2-A in Section 5.17.5.2. Phase 2 of the air cargo sorting and distribution facility located
W:\PIEDMONTDEIS\Ch•2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-172 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
west of N. Chimney Rock and southwest of Stage Coach Trail would result in minor light emission
impacts. Mercury and sodium apron, parking, and building lights identical to those described under
Alternative N-E, Phase 1 would illuminate the facility. The closest residential area would be located
approximately 2,300 feet east/northeast of the facility. The existing vegetative buffer zone between the
facility and residential area would serve to diffuse and decrease light impacts to this area.
5.17.6 MITIGATION MEASURES
As described in this section, all of the alternatives would result in minor light emission impacts to light
sensitive land uses. Proposed mitigation measures are contained in Section 6.0, Mitigation, of this EIS.
5.18 SOLID WASTE IMPACTS
5.18.1 OVERVIEW OF IMPACTS
The No-Action Alternative and Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W1-A1, and WE were evaluated for
their potential to result in solid waste impacts associated with the potential for long-term
generation of municipal solid waste (MSW) as a result of the operation of the air cargo sorting and
distribution facility; the temporary generation of solid wastes due to demolition and construction
activities; the potential for runway facilities to be operated adjacent to active landfills that accept
putrifiable waste where a bird strike hazard may be present; and the airport's ability to comply
with the guidelines contained in FAA Order 5200.5A, "Waste Disposal Sites On or Near Airports."
The results of the analysis indicate that all alternatives would result in an increase in MSW and
construction and demolition waste generation at PTIA. However, these increases are not
considered to be significant and would not impact the ability of the City of Greensboro to
accommodate this increased demand. Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W1-A1, and WE would not
result in an increased bird strike potential at PTIA, and the location of the proposed runway ends
would be in compliance with the guidelines provided in FAA Order 5200.5A. Since Alternatives
W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W1-A1, and WE would not result in significant solid waste impacts, mitigation
measures are not warranted.
5.18.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Solid waste collection and disposal services for the PTAA are currently provided under contract with
Waste Industries, Inc. Waste Industries, Inc., operates a compaction container outside the PTIA
passenger terminal, and transports the compacted waste to the White Street Landfill, which is owned and
operated by the City of Greensboro and located approximately 11 miles east of PTIA. Waste Industries,
Inc., estimates that approximately 234 tons of MSW is transported from the PTIA to the landfill annually
(Waste Industries, August 12, 1999). It is estimated that there are 1,200 pounds of MSW per cubic yard
(cy). Therefore, approximately 390 cy of MSW are generated at PTIA annually.
The White Street Landfill accepts MSW, construction/demolition debris (C & D), and land clearing inert
debris (LCID) from the City of Greensboro and Guilford County (City of Greensboro Environmental
W.\PIEDMONMEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-173 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
Services: Landfill Operations, July 23, 1999). A private firm operates a compost facility at the landfill.
The City of Greensboro collects MSW from city residents and some commercial properties. Most
commercial properties in the city limits contract with private firms for MSW collection. Also, residences
and businesses outside the city limits in Guilford County use private firms to collect and deliver MSW to
the White Street Landfill.
According to the City of Greensboro Landfill (August 10, 1999), the White Street Landfill receives
approximately 310,000 tons, or 517,000 cy of MSW annually. White Street Landfill covers approximately
850 acres, 450 acres of which are designated to hold MSW. The first two phases of the landfill are
closed, totaling 220 acres. Phase III (52 acres) was opened in mid-December 1997 with an estimated life
of 7.25 years, or until March 2004. Future phases of the landfill have not yet been developed for the
remaining 188 acres of land designated to hold MSW.
The closest landfill to PTIA is the Kersey Valley Landfill, which is located approximately 8 miles south of
PTIA in the City of High Point. This landfill accepts MSW from High Point residences (collected by the
City) and private companies that collect from City of High Point and Guilford County apartment and
commercial properties. The city also owns and operates the Ingleside Composting Facility, located
approximately 8 miles southwest of PTIA, and the High Point Material Recovery Facility, located
approximately 9 miles south of PTIA (City of High Point Solid Waste Collection & Disposal Facilities, July
26, 1999).
As is the case with Guilford County, neighboring Forsyth County does not own or operate a landfill facility.
Instead, the county residences and businesses use the City of Winston-Salem's Hanes Mill Road Landfill
to dispose of MSW. The city also owns and operates the Old Salisbury Road Demolition Landfill for C &
D waste (City of Winston-Salem Sanitation Division, July 26, 1999). Both landfills are located over 30
miles west of PTIA.
5.18.3 METHODOLOGY
The potential impacts of the alternatives relative to solid waste were evaluated for four primary
considerations.
• The potential for long-term generation of solid waste as a result of the operation of
the air cargo sorting and distribution facility;
• The potential for temporary generation of solid wastes due to demolition and
construction activities;
• The potential of runway facilities to be operated adjacent to active landfills that
accept putrifiable wastes where a bird-strike hazard may be present; and
• The airport's ability to comply with the guidelines recommended in FAA Order
5200.5A, 'Waste Disposal Sites On or Near Airports."
W:\PIEDMONTDEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-174 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
To evaluate the potential impacts of the alternatives upon future solid waste generation rates, handling,
and disposal activities in the City of Greensboro area, a determination of typical airport solid waste
generation rates was made. An inventory of existing and proposed solid waste facilities was also
conducted. Future estimated airport solid waste generation rates were then measured against existing
and projected landfill capacities to estimate: 1) the airport's contribution to the city-wide solid waste
stream, and 2) the ability of City of Greensboro's facilities to accommodate the estimated solid waste
generation rates associated with the alternatives.
Using the maximum annual solid waste generation rate at PTIA of 390 cy and the number of enplaned
passengers at PTIA for 1998 (1,231,986), a ratio of solid waste to existing enplaned passenger was
calculated as a means to determine potential future impacts. Based on this calculation, it was estimated
that each enplaned passenger generates approximately 0.0003 cy of MSW per year at PTIA. In addition,
the air cargo sorting and distribution facility was estimated to produce approximately 12,960 cy of MSW at
Phase 1.of operation and 21,600 cy of MSW annually at Phase 2 of operation. Estimates of the air cargo
operators' (Fed Ex) annual waste output were calculated by comparing the size and capacity of the Mid-
Atlantic Hub with a similarly sized facility already in operation (FedEx, July 30, 1999). It is anticipated that
the waste from the operation of the air cargo facility would mainly be paper products.
The potential for temporary generation of solid wastes due to demolition and construction activities was
based on the type of construction activities associated with each phase of development of the
alternatives.
According to FAA Order 5200.5A, "Waste Disposal Sites On or Near Airports," waste disposal sites that
have the potential to attract birds are considered incompatible if located within 10,000 feet of any runway
end used or planned to be used by turbine-powered aircraft or located within a 5-mile radius of a runway
that attracts or sustains hazardous bird movements into or across the runways and/or approach and
departure patterns of aircraft. The potential of runway facilities to be operated adjacent to active landfills
where a bird-strike hazard may be present, and the airport's ability to comply with the guidance provided
in FAA Order 5200.5A, was evaluated for each alternative by measuring the distances from existing area
landfills to the existing and proposed runway ends at PTIA.
5.18.4 PHASE 1 IMPACT POTENTIAL
5.18.4.1 No Action Alternative
The No-Action Alternative assumes that the proposed Runway 5U23R and the air cargo sorting and
distribution facility would not be constructed. However, airport operations and passenger enplanements
are still projected to increase, and the PTAA would still implement certain safety, maintenance, and
infrastructure projects.
Based on increased passenger enplanement activity it was estimated that the Phase 1 No-Action
Alternative would generate approximately 85 cy more MSW per year when compared to the existing
conditions. Table 5.18.4-1 shows the estimated Phase 1 No-Action Alternative annual MSW generation
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-175 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
rate. This increase in MSW is capable of being accommodated at the White Street Landfill without
resulting in significant impacts to remaining landfill capacity.
Several surface transportation improvement projects are planned as part of this alternative that would
result in the generation of construction/demolition debris. The amount of construction/demolition debris
generated can not be quantified at this time. However, it is anticipated that the amount of debris
generated would be minimal and would be capable of being accommodated at the White Street Landfill
without resulting in significant impacts to the remaining landfill capacity. The generation of demolition
debris will be closely phased with construction activities and, therefore, will not occur at once. This would
allow the waste products to be disposed of in an orderly, planned fashion that would reduce the overall
impact to the White Street Landfill.
PTIA is not located adjacent to an existing or proposed active solid waste landfill. The nearest solid
waste landfill, Kersey Valley Landfill in the City of High Point, is located approximately 8 miles south of
the existing airport property. Therefore, the No-Action Alternative would not result in an increase in bird
strike potential.
Since the No-Action Alternative would not involve the construction of a new runway within 10,000 feet
(1.9 statute miles) of an active solid waste landfill, this alternative is consistent with guidance provided in
FAA Order 5200.5A, "Waste Disposal Sites On or Near Airports."
5.18.4.2 Alternative W2-A
When compared to the No-Action Alternative, Alternative W2-A would increase the amount of MSW
generated at PTIA because of the operation of the air cargo sorting and distribution facility. Phase 1
would construct approximately 736,000 square feet, or 60 percent, of the total proposed area of the
sorting/distribution facility. This would result in the generation of approximately 12,960 cy more MSW per
year when compared to the Phase 1 No-Action Alternative. This increase in MSW is capable of being
accommodated at the White Street Landfill without resulting in significant impacts to the remaining landfill
capacity (City of Greensboro Landfill, August 30, 1999). Because the size of the air cargo sorting and
distribution facility would be the same for Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W1-A1, and N-E, the amount of
MSW generated for the alternatives would be the same. Table 5.18.4-1 shows the estimated annual
MSW generation rates for each alternative.
Phase 1 of Alternative W2-A would result in the generation of demolition debris from the construction of
the proposed Runway 5U23R, taxiways, aircraft parking and cargo ramp, the air cargo facility, and
surface transportation improvements. The amount of construction or demolition debris generated can not
be quantified at this time. However, it is anticipated that the amount of debris generated would be
capable of being accommodated at the White Street Landfill without resulting in significant impacts to the
remaining landfill capacity. The generation of demolition debris would be closely phased with construction
activities and, therefore, would not occur at once. This would allow the waste products to be disposed of
in an orderly, planned fashion that would reduce the overall impact to the White Street Landfill.
W:\PIEDMONTDEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-176 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
TABLE 5.18.4-1
ESTIMATED ANNUAL MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE GENERATION RATES (cy)
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
Alternatives
Time Period No-Action W2-A W3-A N-D W1-A1 WE
1998 390 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Phase 1 475 13,415 13,415 13,415 13,415 13,415
Phase 2 550 22,150 22,150 22,150 22,150 22,150
Source: URS Greiner Woodward Clyde, Inc., 2000; Waste Management, Inc., 1999; FedEx, 1999.
N/A = Not Applicable.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\SEC 5\TBLS\T_518-1\3/22/00
PTIA is not located adjacent to an existing or proposed active solid waste landfill. The nearest solid
waste landfill, Kersey Valley Landfill in the City of High Point, is located approximately 8 miles south of
the existing airport property. Therefore, Alternative W2-A would not result in an increase in bird strike
potential.
Alternative W2-A would not include construction of the proposed Runway 5L/23R within 10,000 feet (1.9
statute miles) of an active solid waste landfill; therefore, this alternative is consistent with guidance
provided in FAA Order 5200.5A, "Waste Disposal Sites On or Near Airports."
Based on the above, it was concluded that although the level of MSW and construction and demolition
wastes generated at PTIA would increase for Alternative W2-A when compared to the No-Action
Alternative, no adverse impacts are anticipated. The White Street Landfill has sufficient capacity to
accommodate the projected increase.
5.18.4.3 Alternative W3-A
The Alternative W3-A air cargo sorting and distribution facility size, package handling rate, and
employment levels would be the same as for Alternatives W2-A, N-D, W1-A1, and N-E. Therefore, the
MSW generation rates would be the same. Table 5.18.4-1 shows the estimated annual MSW generation
rates of the alternatives. This increase in MSW is capable of being accommodated by the City of
Greensboro without resulting in significant impacts to the remaining landfill capacity (City of Greensboro
Landfill, August 30, 1999).
The Phase 1 generation of construction/demolition debris for Alternative W3-A would be similar to that
generated in Alternatives W2-A and W1-A1, and would, therefore, be capable of being accommodated at
the White Street Landfill without resulting in significant impacts to the remaining landfill capacity. The
generation of demolition debris would be closely phased with construction activities and, therefore, would
not occur at once. This would allow the waste products to be disposed of in an orderly, planned fashion
that would reduce the overall impact to the White Street Landfill.
The nearest solid waste landfill, the City of High Point's Kersey Valley Landfill, is located approximately 8
miles south of the existing airport property; therefore, Alternative W3-A would not result in an increase in
bird strike potential. Also, Alternative W3-A is consistent with guidance provided in FAA Order 5200.5A,
"Waste Disposal Sites On or Near Airports."
Based on the above, it was concluded that although the level of MSW and construction and demolition
wastes generated at PTIA would increase for Alternative W3-A when compared to the No-Action
Alternative, no adverse impacts are anticipated. The White Street Landfill has sufficient capacity to
accommodate the projected increase.
5.18.4.4 Alternative N-D
W:\PIEDMONTDEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-177 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
The Alternative N-D air cargo facility size, package handling rate, and employment levels would be the
same as for Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, W1-A1, and N-E. Therefore, the MSW generation rates would be
the same. Table 5.18.4-1 shows the estimated annual MSW generation rates of the alternatives. This
increase in MSW is capable of being accommodated by the City of Greensboro without resulting in
significant impacts to the remaining landfill capacity (City of Greensboro Landfill, August 30, 1999).
The Phase 1 generation of construction/demolition debris for Alternative N-D would be greater than that
generated in Alternatives W2-A and W3-A. However, construction/demolition debris for Alternative N-D
would be capable of being accommodated at the White Street Landfill without resulting in significant
impacts to the remaining landfill capacity. The generation of demolition debris would be closely phased
with construction activities and, therefore, would not occur at once. This would allow the waste products
to be disposed of in an orderly, planned fashion that would reduce the overall impact to the White Street
Landfill.
The nearest solid waste landfill, the City of High Point's Kersey Valley Landfill, is located approximately 8
miles south of the existing airport property; therefore, Alternative N-D would not result in an increase in
bird strike potential. Also, Alternative N-D is consistent with guidance provided in FAA Order 5200.5A,
'Waste Disposal Sites On or Near Airports."
Based on the above, it was concluded that although the level of MSW and construction and demolition
wastes generated at PTIA would increase for Alternative N-D when compared to the No-Action
Alternative, no adverse impacts are anticipated. The White Street Landfill has sufficient capacity to
accommodate the projected increase.
5.18.4.5 Alternative W7-A1
The Alternative W1-Ai air cargo facility size, package handling rate, and employment levels would be the
same as in Alternatives W2-A, MA N-D, and N-E. Therefore, the MSW generation rates would be the
same. Table 5.18.4-1 shows the estimated annual MSW generation rates of the alternatives. This
increase in MSW is capable of being accommodated by the City of Greensboro without resulting in
significant impacts to the remaining landfill capacity (City of Greensboro Landfill, Coggins, August 30,
1999).
The Phase 1 generation of construction/demolition debris for Alternative W1-A1 would be greater than
that generated in Alternatives W2-A and W3-A, because of the relocation of Bryan Boulevard and the
construction of the Bryan Boulevard/Old Oak Ridge Road interchange. However, coordination with the
City of Greensboro indicates that all demolition debris is capable of being accommodated at the White
Street Landfill without resulting in significant impacts to the remaining landfill capacity. The generation of
demolition debris would be closely phased with construction activities and, therefore, would not occur at
once. This would allow the waste products to be disposed of in an orderly, planned fashion that would
reduce the overall impact to the White Street Landfill.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-178 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
The nearest solid waste landfill, the City of High Point's Kersey Valley Landfill, is located approximately 8
miles south of the existing airport property; therefore, Alternative W1-A1 would not result in an increase in
bird strike potential. Also, Alternative W1-A1 would be consistent with guidance provided in FAA Order
5200.5A, "Waste Disposal Sites On or Near Airports."
Based on the above, it was concluded that although the level of MSW and construction and demolition
waste generated at PTIA would increase for Alternative W1-A1 when compared to the No-Action
Alternative, no adverse impacts are anticipated. The White Street Landfill has sufficient capacity to
accommodate the projected increase.
5.18.4.6 Alternative N-E
The Alternative WE air cargo sorting/distribution facility size, package handling rate, and employment
levels would be the same as in Alternatives W2-A, MA N-D, and W1-A1. Therefore, the MSW
generation rates would be the same. Table 5.18.4-1 shows the estimated annual MSW generation rates
of the alternatives. This increase in MSW is capable of being accommodated by the City of Greensboro
without resulting in significant impacts to the remaining landfill capacity (City of Greensboro Landfill,
Coggins, August 30, 1999).
The Phase 1 generation of construction/demolition debris for Alternative WE would be greater than all
other Build Alternatives. However, construction/demolition debris for Alternative WE would be capable of
being accommodated at the White Street Landfill without resulting in significant impacts to the remaining
landfill capacity. The generation of demolition debris will be closely phased with construction activities
and, therefore, will not occur at once. This will allow the waste products to be disposed of in an orderly,
planned fashion that will reduce the overall impact to the White Street Landfill.
The nearest solid waste landfill, the City of High Point's Kersey Valley Landfill, is located approximately 8
miles south of the existing airport property, therefore Alternative WE would not result in an increase in
bird strike potential. Also, Alternative WE is consistent with guidance provided in FAA Order 5200.5A,
"Waste Disposal Sites On or Near Airports."
Based on the above, it was concluded that although the level of MSW, construction and demolition waste
generated at PTIA would increase for Alternative WE when compared to the No-Action Alternative, no
adverse impacts are anticipated. The White Street Landfill has sufficient capacity to accommodate the
projected increase. However, measures to minimize the amount of MSW and other waste requiring
disposal should be implemented.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-179 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
5. 1&5 PHASE 2 IMPACT POTENTIAL
5.18.5.1 No-Action Alternative
The No-Action Alternative assumes that the proposed Runway 5U23R and air cargo sorting and
distribution facility would not be constructed; however, airport operations and passenger enplanements
are still projected to increase.
It was estimated that the Phase 2 No-Action Alternative would generate approximately 160 cy more MSW
annually when compared to the existing conditions and approximately 75 cy more MSW annually when
compared to the Phase 1 No-Action Alternative. This would constitute an approximate 16 percent
increase in MSW generation annually when compared to the Phase 1 No-Action Alternative annual
generation rate. Table 5.18.4-1 shows the estimated annual MSW generation rates for each alternative.
This increase is not considered to be a significant impact because the City of Greensboro's White Street
Landfill has sufficient capacity to accommodate this projected increase.
Since no construction activities are associated with the Phase 2 No-Action Alternative, its implementation
would not result in the generation of construction or demolition debris that would require disposal in a
landfill, with the exception of waste material from normal maintenance activities. It also would not result in
an increase in bird strike potential. Because the airport's existing runways are not located within 10,000
feet (1.9 statute miles) of an active solid waste landfill, this alternative is consistent with guidance
provided in FAA Order 5200.5A, "Waste Disposal Sites On or Near Airports."
5.18.5.2 Alternative W2-A
When compared to Phase 2 of the No-Action Alternative, Phase 2 of Alternative W2-A would increase the
amount of MSW generated at PTIA from increased operation of the air cargo sorting and distribution
facility.
It is estimated that Phase 2 of Alternative W2-A would generate approximately 8,715 cy more MSW
annually when compared to Phase 1 of Alternative W2-A. When compared to Phase 2 of the No-Action
Alternative, Phase 2 of Alternative W2-A would generate approximately 21,600 cy more MSW annually.
Annual MSW generation rates would be identical for Phase 2 of Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W1-A1,
and N-E. Table 5.18.4-1 shows estimated annual MSW generation rates for all alternatives. This
increase in MSW is capable of being accommodated at the existing landfill without resulting in significant
impacts to its capacity (City of Greensboro Landfill, August 30, 1999).
Phase 2 of Alternative W2-A would result in the generation of demolition debris from the construction of a
taxiway, aircraft parking and cargo ramp, and operation of the air cargo facility. The amount of
construction or demolition debris generated cannot be quantified at this time. It is anticipated that the
amount of debris generated would be minimal and would be capable of being accommodated at the
White Street Landfill without resulting in significant impacts to the remaining landfill capacity. The
generation of demolition debris would be closely phased with construction activities and would not occur
W.\PIEDMONnDEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-180 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
at once. This would allow the waste products to be disposed of in an orderly, planned fashion that would
reduce the overall impact to the White Street Landfill.
PTIA is not located adjacent to an existing or proposed solid waste landfill. The nearest solid waste
landfill, Kersey Valley Landfill, is located approximately 8 miles south of the existing airport property.
Therefore, this alternative would not result in an increase in bird strike potential. The development of the
air cargo sorting and distribution facility is consistent with guidance provided in FAA Order 5200.5A,
"Waste Disposal Sites On or Near Airports."
Based on the above, it was concluded that although the level of MSW and construction and demolition
wastes generated at PTIA would increase for Alternative W2-A when compared to the No-Action
Alternative, no adverse impacts are anticipated. The White Street Landfill has sufficient capacity to
accommodate the projected increase.
5.18.5.3 Alternative W3-A
The Alternative W3-A air cargo facility size, package handling rate, and employment levels would be the
same as for Alternatives W2-A, N-D, W1-A1, and N-E. Therefore, the MSW generation rates would be
the same - an increase of 21,600 cy more MSW generated annually over Phase 2 of the No-Action
Alternative. Table 5.18.4-1 shows the estimated annual MSW generation rates of all alternatives. This
increase in MSW is capable of being accommodated by the City of Greensboro without resulting in
significant impacts to the remaining landfill capacity (City of Greensboro Landfill, August 30, 1999).
The Phase 2 generation of construction/demolition debris for Alternative W3-A would be similar to that
generated in Alternatives W2-A and W1-A1, and would, therefore, be capable of being accommodated at
the White Street Landfill without resulting in significant impacts to the remaining landfill capacity. The
generation of demolition debris would be closely phased with construction activities and, therefore, would
not occur at once. This would allow the waste products to be disposed of in an orderly, planned fashion
that would reduce the overall impact to the White Street Landfill.
The nearest solid waste landfill, the City of High Point's Kersey Valley Landfill, is located approximately 8
miles south of the existing airport property; therefore, Alternative W3-A would not result in an increase in
bird strike potential. Also, Alternative W3-A is consistent with guidance provided in FAA Order 5200.5A,
"Waste Disposal Sites On or Near Airports."
Based on the above, it was concluded that although the level of MSW and construction and demolition
wastes generated at PTIA would increase for Alternative W3-A when compared to the No-Action
Alternative, no adverse impacts are anticipated. The White Street Landfill has sufficient capacity to
accommodate the projected increase.
W:\PIEDMOMIDEIS\Ch•2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-181 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
5.18.5.4 Alternative N-D
The Alternative N-D air cargo facility size, package handling rate, and employment levels would be the
same as for Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, W1-A1, and N-E. Therefore, the MSW generation rates would be
the same - an increase of 21,600 cy more MSW generated annually over Phase 2 of the No-Action
Alternative. Table 5.18.4-1 shows the estimated annual MSW generation rates for each alternative. This
increase in MSW is capable of being accommodated by the City of Greensboro without resulting in
significant impacts to the remaining landfill capacity (City of Greensboro Landfill, August 30, 1999) .
The Phase 2 generation of construction/demolition debris for Alternative N-D would be similar to
Alternative WE and slightly less than that generated for Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, and W1-A1, and would,
therefore, be capable of being accommodated at the White Street Landfill without resulting in significant
impacts to the remaining landfill capacity. The generation of demolition debris would be closely phased
with construction activities and, therefore, would not occur at once. This would allow the waste products
to be disposed of in an orderly, planned fashion that would reduce the overall impact to the White Street
Landfill.
The nearest solid waste landfill, the City of High Point's Kersey Valley Landfill, is located approximately 8
miles south of the existing airport property; therefore, Alternative N-D would not result in an increase in
bird strike potential. Also, Alternative. N-D is consistent with guidance provided in FAA Order 5200.5A,
'Waste Disposal Sites On or Near Airports."
Based on the above, it was concluded that although the level of MSW and construction and demolition
wastes generated at PTIA would increase for Alternative N-D when compared to the No-Action
Alternative, no adverse impacts are anticipated. The White Street Landfill has sufficient capacity to
accommodate the projected increase.
5.18.5.5 Alternative W1-A1
The Alternative W1-A1 air cargo facility size, package handling rate, and employment levels would be the
same as in Alternatives W2-A, MA N-D, and N-E. Therefore, the MSW generation rates would be the
same - an increase of 21,600 cy more MSW generated annually over Phase 2 of the No-Action
Alternative. Table 5.18.4-1 shows the estimated annual MSW generation rates of all alternatives. This
increase in MSW is capable of being accommodated by the City of Greensboro without resulting in
significant impacts to the remaining landfill capacity (City of Greensboro Landfill, Coggins, August 30,
1999).
The Phase 2 generation of construction/demolition debris for Alternative W1-A1 would be similar to that
generated in Alternatives W2-A and W3-A and would, therefore, be capable of being accommodated at
the White Street Landfill without resulting in significant impacts to the remaining landfill capacity. The
generation of demolition debris would be closely phased with construction activities and, therefore, would
W:\PIEDMONTWEIS\Ch•2\S_SCombined.doc\03125/00 5-182 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
not occur at once. This would allow the waste products to be disposed of in an orderly, planned fashion
that would reduce the overall impact to the White Street Landfill.
The nearest solid waste landfill, the City of High Point's Kersey Valley Landfill, is located approximately 8
miles south of the existing airport property; therefore, Alternative W1-A1 would not result in an increase in
bird strike potential. Also, Alternative W1-A1 would be consistent with guidance provided in FAA Order
5200.5A, "Waste Disposal Sites On or Near Airports."
Based on the above, it was concluded that although the level of MSW and construction and demolition
waste generated at PTIA would increase for Alternative W1-A1 when compared to the No-Action
Alternative, no adverse impacts are anticipated. The White Street Landfill has sufficient capacity to
accommodate the projected increase.
5.18.5.6 Alternative N-E
The Alternative WE sorting/distribution facility size, package handling rate and employment levels would
be the same as in Alternatives W2-A, MA N-D, and W1-A1. Therefore, the MSW generation rates
would be the same - an increase of 21,600 cy more MSW generated annually over Phase 2 of the No-
Action Alternative. Table 5.18.4-1 shows the estimated annual MSW generation rates of all alternatives.
This increase in MSW is capable of being accommodated by the City of Greensboro without resulting in
significant impacts to the remaining landfill capacity (City of Greensboro Landfill, Coggins, August 30,
1999).
The Phase 2 generation of construction/demolition debris in Alternative N-E would be similar to that
generated in Alternative N-D and would therefore be capable of being accommodated at the White Street
Landfill without resulting in significant impacts to the remaining landfill capacity. The generation of
demolition debris will be closely phased with construction activities and, therefore, will not occur at once.
This will allow the waste products to be disposed of in an orderly, planned fashion that will reduce the
overall impact to the White Street Landfill.
The nearest solid waste landfill, the City of High Point's Kersey Valley Landfill, is located approximately 8
miles south of the existing airport property, therefore Alternative N-E would not result in an increase in
bird strike potential. Also, Alternative WE is consistent with guidance provided in FAA Order 5200.5A,
"Waste Disposal Sites On or Near Airports."
Based on the above, it was concluded that although the level of MSW, construction and demolition waste
generated at PTIA would increase for Alternative N-E when compared to the No-Action Alternative, no
adverse impacts are anticipated. The White Street Landfill has sufficient capacity to accommodate the
projected increase. However, measures to minimize the amount of MSW and other waste requiring
disposal should be implemented.
W:\PIEDMOMIDEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-183 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
5. 1&6 MITIGATION MEASURES
The No-Action Alternative and Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W1-A1, and WE would result in an
increase in the amount of MSW and construction and demolition wastes generated at PTIA. These
increases would not result in significant impacts to the ability of the area to transport, store, and dispose
of solid waste materials. However, measures to minimize solid waste impacts are presented in Chapter
6.0, Mitigation.
5.19 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
5.19.1 OVERVIEW OF IMPACTS
Implementation of any of the six alternatives, including the No-Action Alternative, would result in
temporary construction impacts on air quality, noise, water quality, traffic flow, and visual
impacts. The No-Action Alternative includes a new interchange, relocation and realignment of
roadways, and a reconstructed airport entrance road and would cause less disruption and
impacts than the five Build Alternatives.
Four of the five Build Alternatives (W2-A, W3-A, N-D, and N-E) include similar surface
transportation improvement projects as the No-Action Alternative. Alternative W1-A1 includes
surface transportation projects that are different from the other four Build Alternatives. In
addition, all five of the Build Alternatives include the construction of a parallel runway and an air
cargo sorting and distribution facility. All five Build Alternatives would have greater Phase 1 and
Phase 2 construction impacts than the No-Action Alternative.
Development of all of the alternatives would result in wetland and floodplain impacts. Soil
erosion and sedimentation control would be required for Phase 1 of the No-Action Alternative, as
well as Phases 1 and 2 of Alternatives W2-A W3-A, N-D, W1-A1, and N-E.
Traffic delays, fugitive dust and increased emissions from construction vehicles, visual or
aesthetic impacts, and additional noise are expected as a result of all the alternatives. These
impacts would be temporary and would be minimized through the establishment and use of
environmental controls, such as Best Management Practices (BMPs), and Federal, state, and local
construction mitigation guidelines.
All on-airport construction activities should adhere to FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-10A,
Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports and North Carolina Department of
Transportation Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures. Mitigation measures for
construction impacts are presented in Chapter 6.0, Mitigation, of this DEIS.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch•2\S 5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-184 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
5.19.2 METHODOLOGY
Potential impacts from construction activities were evaluated by their potential to result in adverse impacts
to air quality, water quality, traffic flow, and ambient noise levels.
5.19.3 PHASE 1 IMPACT POTENTIAL
Much of the construction activity would occur during Phase 1 for all of the six alternatives. Phase 1
construction activity for each alternative is discussed in Section 3.4. The impacts associated with each
alternative are summarized below.
5.19.3.1 No-Action Alternative
Construction of the surface transportation improvements with the implementation of the No-Action
Alternative would include operations such as land clearing, grading, foundation work, excavation, paving,
landscaping, dredging, filling, and pile driving within approximately 89 acres in the Brush Creek Sub-
basin, 7 acres in the Horsepen Creek Sub-basin, and 2 acres in the East Fork Deep River Sub-Basin.
Therefore, water quality impacts from construction operations would primarily occur in the Brush Creek
Sub-basin and be minimal in the Horsepen Creek and East Fork Deep River sub-basins. Construction
operations would involve the disturbance and movement of large quantities of earth as well as the activity
of construction crews, which generate debris. The primary mechanism by which material may reach
Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek, and the East Fork Deep River is scouring of cleared areas from overland'
runoff during rainstorms, resulting in erosion and siltation. Turbid waters may result, which create
conditions for low dissolved oxygen concentrations by blocking sunlight and inhibiting plant growth.
Turbidity is considered a short-term impact because the elevated suspended solids creating turbid
conditions tend to dissipate soon after land disturbance commences. However, surface water impacts
from sediment-laden stormwater runoff during construction should be minimal because of the use of
BMPs as described in Chapter 6.0, Mitigation.
Water quality impacts during construction may also include long-term impacts such as the disturbance of
soils with heavy metals, nutrients, and pesticides. These pollutants are physically and/or chemically
bound in sediments and may be introduced to surface waters in sediment-laden runoff. However, this
long-term impact should be negligible because the existing land uses that would be disturbed by the
construction of the No-Action Alternative consist of woodlands, meadows, and grassed and impervious
areas associated with the airport entrance roads, Bryan Boulevard, Regional Road, and Old Oak Ridge
Road. These land uses typically do not accumulate large concentrations of pollutants such as those
found in agricultural and heavy industrial land uses.
Impacts to groundwater quality during construction would occur if excavations encroach into the saturated
lower regolith zone. This zone is located at depths ranging from 0 feet to 150 feet in recharge/discharge
areas (Daniel and Harned, 1998). Excavations may expose the water table to potential contamination
from existing hazardous materials or adjacent Transfer, Storage, and Disposal (TSD) facilities. However,
this potential harm to groundwater sources would be temporary because it would commence after the
W.\PIEDMONMEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/28/00 5-185 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
excavated area is filled. The implementation of temporary BMPs during construction would minimize this
impact (see Chapter 6.0, Mitigation).
Roadway construction projects have associated emissions from excavation and land clearing, open
burning, construction equipment, asphalt, and motor vehicles. Emitted pollutants include particulate
matter (PM), hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of sulfur (SOX), and oxides of nitrogen
(NO,,).
Particulate matter generated during land clearing and earthwork operations associated with construction
projects is generally re-deposited close to the source. Smaller particles, however, can become
suspended during certain meteorological conditions. A variety of control measures will be employed to
reduce impacts associated with fugitive dust. Furthermore, construction equipment will emit pollutants
that are typical of gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles: CO, HC, NOx, PM, and SOX. Air quality impacts
associated with construction equipment will vary with temporal and meteorological factors, but they will be
temporary and relatively small when compared to other emissions sources in the Greensboro area.
Construction in the No-Action Alternative is projected to occur in Phase 1, and impacts during this phase
are expected to be approximately 10 percent of the Build Alternative impacts, based on preliminary
construction activity estimates.
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) prepared baseline
and future-year air emission inventories for Guilford County for the 1994 Redesignation Demonstration
and Maintenance Plan. These emission inventories are inclusive of all construction equipment use in the
county including those associated with the proposed improvements at PITA.
Construction noise would increase ambient noise levels. Grading and scraping operations are the noisiest
activities, with equipment noise levels as high as 70 to 90 dBA within 50 feet of their operations. However,
distance would rapidly attenuate noise levels so area residences would experience only a slight increase
in ambient background levels.
5.19.3.2 Alternative W2 -A
Alternative W2-A includes all the Phase 1 surface transportation improvements as in the No-Action
Alternative. However, due to the addition of airfield and sorting/distribution facility construction associated
with this alternative, construction impacts would be greater.
Construction of Alternative W2-A Phase 1 would include operations such as land clearing, demolition
grading, foundation work, excavation, utility system installation, building construction, paving,
landscaping, dredging, filling, and pile driving within approximately 654 acres in the Brush Creek Sub-
basin and 28 acres in the Horsepen Creek Sub-basin. Construction within the East Fork Deep River Sub-
basin would be limited to the land clearing, demolition, grading and utility installation required for the
installation of runway approach lights within 77 acres of the RPZ. Therefore, water quality impacts from
construction operations would primarily occur in the Brush Creek Sub-basin and to lesser extents in the
Horsepen Creek and East Fork Deep River sub-basins.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03127/00 5-186 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
Construction operations would involve the disturbance and movement of large quantities of earth as well
as the activity of construction crews which generate debris. The primary mechanism by which material
and debris may reach Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek, and the East Fork Deep River is the scouring of
cleared areas from overland runoff during rainstorms, resulting in erosion and siltation. These turbid
waters may create conditions for low dissolved oxygen concentrations by blocking sunlight and inhibiting
plant growth. Turbidity is considered a short-term impact because the elevated suspended solids
creating turbid conditions tend to dissipate soon after land disturbance commences. However, surface
water impacts from sediment-laden stormwater runoff during construction should be minimal because of
the use of BMPs as described in Chapter 6.0, Mitigation.
Water quality impacts during construction may also include long-term impacts such as the disturbance of
soils with heavy metals, nutrients, and pesticides. These pollutants are physically and/or chemically
bound in sediments and may be introduced to surface waters in sediment-laden runoff. However, this
long-term impact should be negligible because the existing land uses that would be disturbed with the
construction of Alternative W2-A Phase 1 include woodlands, meadows, light commercial, and grassed
and imperious areas associated with airport development. These land uses do not accumulate large
concentrations of pollutants such as those found in agricultural and heavy industrial land uses.
Impacts to groundwater quality during construction would occur if excavations encroach into the saturated
lower regolith zone. This zone is located at depths ranging from 0 feet in recharge/discharge areas to
150 feet. Excavations may expose the water table to potential contamination from existing hazardous
materials or TSD facilities. However, this potential harm to groundwater sources would be temporary
because it would commence after the excavated area is filled. The implementation of temporary BMPs
during construction would minimize this impact.
Construction equipment emissions, fugitive dust pollution from excavated areas, and burning of
vegetative material can all result in temporary impacts to ambient air quality. However, these impacts can
be minimized by using methods that would minimize air quality impacts by treating excavated areas with
water, covering graded areas with fast-growing grasses, and not allowing open burning during
unfavorable weather conditions.
Land clearing and grading operations associated with the construction of the proposed airport
improvements will generate air emissions, with particulate matter (dust) having the greatest potential
impact. Most of this dust will be redeposited close to the source, since it is generated low to the ground.
However, some dust will be transported through the atmosphere away from the project site during windy
conditions. EPA standards dictate that dust (PM-10) levels must not exceed 150 micrograms per cubic
meter during the construction period.
Other potential sources of dust associated with the construction period are asphalt and concrete batch
plants. Potential emission points include: (1) wind erosion over storage piles, (2) loading/unloading
operations, (3) aggregate screening and drying, and (4) mixing of materials.
W:\PIEDMONrDEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-187 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
Heavy construction equipment used at the site will emit exhaust that contains CO, NOx, VOCs, and
particulate matter. Air quality impacts associated with these sources will vary depending on the local
weather conditions, level of construction activity, and the nature of the construction operation, but are not
expected to be significant. It is expected that the state air quality planning emissions inventories would
include this and all other projects within Guilford County.
Preliminary construction-related air quality analyses indicate that Alternative W2-A would have the lowest
impacts among the Build Alternatives during Phase 1 construction. Because of additional construction
activities associated with the Alternative W2-A airfield development projects, construction emissions from
Alternative W2-A would be 9.50 times higher than construction emissions from the No-Action Alternative.
The types of construction-related solid wastes generated by construction activities could include materials
such as excess concrete washed out from concrete mixer trucks, excess wiring, conduits and other
electrical materials, empty construction supply containers, etc.
Construction noise would increase ambient noise levels. Grading and scraping operations are the noisiest
activities, with equipment noise levels as high as 70 to 90 dBA within 50 feet of their operations. However,
distance would rapidly attenuate noise levels so area residences would experience only a slight increase
in ambient background levels.
5.19.3.3 Alternative W3-A
The amount of disturbed area from Alternative W3-A Phase 1 in the Horsepen Creek Sub-basin would be
equivalent to what would be disturbed in Alternative W2-A Phase 1. However, moving the proposed
Runway 5V23R approximately 1,032 feet to the southwest would result in shifting approximately 29 acres
of disturbed area from the Brush Creek Sub-basin to the East Fork Deep River Sub-basin. Therefore, the
areas disturbed by the construction and operation of Alternative W3-A Phase 1 include approximately
625, 28, and 106 acres within the Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek, and East Fork Deep River sub-basins,
respectively. Water quality construction impacts in the Horsepen Creek Sub-basin would be the same as
those described for Alternative W2-A Phase 1 in Section 5.6.3.2 because the disturbed area would
remain at approximately 28 acres. A minor reduction in water quality construction impacts is expected in
the Brush Creek Sub-basin because the disturbed area would be reduced by approximately 29 acres to
625 acres. Consequently, a minor increase in water quality construction impacts is expected in the East
Fork Deep River Sub-basin because the disturbed area would be increased to approximately 106 acres.
Groundwater impacts would be similar to Alternative W2-A.
Construction noise would increase ambient noise levels. Grading and scraping operations are the noisiest
activities, with equipment noise levels as high as 70 to 90 dBA within 50 feet of their operations. However,
distance would rapidly attenuate noise levels so area residences would experience only a slight increase
in ambient background levels.
Relative to air quality, Alternatives W2-A and W3-A are comparable, with the exception of the location of
the proposed parallel runway. Therefore, the construction impacts associated with these two alternatives
W.\PIEDMONMEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03125/00 5-188 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
in Phase 1 are expected to be nearly equivalent, with slightly (approximately 2 percent) higher emissions
under Alternative W3-A. Because of additional construction activities associated with the Alternative W3-
A airfield development projects, construction emissions from Alternative W3-A would be 9.67 times higher
than construction emissions from the No-Action Alternative.
5.19.3.4 Alternative N-D
The extension of the existing east/west Runway 14/32, development of a new parallel runway, relocation
of existing rental car service area and air cargo facilities, and locating the proposed air cargo sorting and
distribution facility northwest of Bryan Boulevard would result in approximately 1,332 acres of disturbed
area. This would increase the affected area from what would be impacted in Phase 1 of Alternatives
W2-A and W3-A by approximately 75 percent. The distribution of the disturbed area from Alternative N-D
Phase 1 would include approximately 828, 408, and 96 acres within the Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek,
and East Fork Deep River sub-basins, respectively. Construction impacts would be similar to, but
increased in magnitude to those described for Alternatives W2-A and W3-A because the amount of
disturbed area would be increased in all three sub-basins. Groundwater impacts would be similar to
Alternative W2-A, as discussed above.
Construction noise would increase ambient noise levels. Grading and scraping operations are the noisiest
activities, with equipment noise levels as high as 70 to 90 dBA within 50 feet of their operations. However,
distance would rapidly attenuate noise levels so area residences would experience only a slight increase
in ambient background levels.
Because Alternative N-D requires a larger amount of earthwork and a higher level of construction activity
than Alternative W2-A, air quality impacts would be greater. From preliminary estimates, emissions would
be approximately 8 percent higher under Alternative N-D when compared to Alternative W2-A. Because
of additional construction activities associated with the Alternative N-D airfield development projects,
construction emissions from Alternative N-D would be 10.30 times higher than construction emissions
from the No-Action Alternative.
5.19.3.5 Alternative W1-A1
The amount of disturbed area from Alternative W1-A1 Phase 1 in the Horsepen Creek and East Fork
Deep River sub-basins would be equivalent to what would be disturbed in Alternative W3-A Phase 1.
However, the surface transportation improvements in Alternative W1-A1 would increase the amount of
disturbed area in the Brush Creek Sub-basin by approximately 197 acres. Therefore, the area disturbed
by the construction and operation of Alternative W1-A1 Phase 1 would include approximately 822, 28,
and 106 acres within the Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek, and East Fork Deep River sub-basins,
respectively. Water quality construction impacts in the Horsepen Creek and East Fork Deep River sub-
basins would be the same as those described for Alternative W3-A Phase 1. A substantial increase in
water quality construction impacts would occur in the Brush Creek Sub-basin because of the large
increase in land disturbance from the surface transportation improvements.
WAPIEDMONTDEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-189 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
Groundwater impacts would be similar to Alternative W2-A and would occur if excavations encroach into
the saturated lower regolith zone. Excavations may expose the water table to potential contamination
from existing contamination or existing facilities. However, the potential for harm to the groundwater
sources is temporary. The implementation of temporary BMPs during construction would minimize this
impact.
Air quality impacts associated with the airside components of Alternative W1-A1 would be similar to the
impacts of Alternatives W2-A and W3-A. On the landside, however, Alternative W1-A1 has roadway
improvements that are unique to it: a new interchange for relocated Bryan Boulevard and Old Oak Ridge
Road and alterations in the design of airport access and egress roads. Because of the additional
roadway improvements associated with this alternative, the construction impacts to air quality are
expected to be approximately 8 percent higher when compared to Alternative W2-A. Because of
additional construction activities associated with the Alternative W1-Ai airfield development projects,
construction emissions from Alternative W1-A1 would be 10.30 times higher than construction emissions
from the No-Action Alternative.
Construction noise would increase ambient noise levels. Grading and scraping operations are the noisiest
activities, with equipment noise levels as high as 70 to 90 dBA within 50 feet of their operations. However,
distance would rapidly attenuate noise levels so area residences would experience only a slight increase
in ambient background levels.
5.19.3.6 Alternative N-E
The extension of the existing east/west Runway 14/32, development of a new parallel runway, relocation
of existing rental car service area and air cargo facilities, and locating the proposed air cargo sorting and
distribution facility east of PTIA would result in approximately 1,289 acres of disturbed area. This would
increase the affected area from what would be impacted in Phase 1 of Alternatives W2-A and W3-A by
approximately 70 percent. The distribution of the disturbed area from Alternative WE Phase 1 would
include approximately 618, 575, and 96 acres within the Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek, and East Fork
Deep River sub-basins, respectively. Construction impacts would be similar to those described for the
other alternatives. However, the magnitude of the impacts would be decreased in the Brush Creek Sub-
basin and increased in the Horsepen Creek and East Fork Deep River sub-basins because the amount of
disturbed area would decrease in the Brush Creek Sub-basin and increase in the Horsepen Creek and
East Fork Deep River sub-basins. There may also be a potential for releasing pollutants bound in
sediments during the demolition of the existing aviation and warehouse facilities east of the airport to
accommodate the construction of the air cargo facility in the Horsepen Creek Sub-basin. Best
Management Practices would be employed during demolition activities to avoid the transport of potentially
hazardous sediments to Horsepen Creek in stormwater runoff. Groundwater impacts would be similar to
Alternative W2-A, as discussed above.
Construction noise would temporarily increase ambient noise levels. Grading and scraping operations
are the noisiest activities, with equipment noise levels as high as 70 to 90 dBA within 50 feet of their
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-190 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
operations. However, distance would rapidly attenuate noise levels so area residences would experience
only a slight increase in ambient background levels.
Because Alternative N-E requires a larger amount of earthwork and a higher level of construction activity
than Alternative W2-A, air quality impacts would be greater. From preliminary estimates, emissions would
be approximately 24 percent higher under Alternative WE when compared to Alternative W2-A. Because
of additional construction activities associated with the Alternative WE airfield development projects,
construction emissions from Alternative WE would be 11.74 times higher than construction emissions
from the No-Action Alternative.
5.19.4 PHASE 2 IMPACT POTENTIAL
Phase 2 projects involve further airside improvements in Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W1-A1, and N-E.
Section 3.4 contains specific information concerning the stages of development for each of the
alternatives. There are no Phase 2 developments for the No-Action Alternative.
5.19.4.1 No-Action Alternative
No surface transportation improvements or airside improvements would be constructed in Phase 2.
Therefore, implementation of the No-Action Alternative would have no additional surface water,
groundwater, or air quality impacts related to construction.
5.19.4.2 Alternative W2-A
Construction of Alternative W2-A Phase 2 would disturb approximately 75 and 28 acres in the Brush
Creek and Horsepen Creek sub-basins. No construction activity would occur within the East Fork Deep
River Sub-basin. Therefore the cumulative amounts of disturbed area contributed by Alternative W2-A
Phase 1 and Phase 2 improvements within the Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek, and East Fork Deep River
sub-basins would be approximately 729, 56, and 77 acres, respectively. Increases in turbidity may result
in Brush Creek and Horsepen Creek and their tributaries, as described in Phase 1 for Alternative W2-A.
However, the potential severity of the turbidity may be reduced because less area would be disturbed in
Phase 2. Long-term water quality impacts from the disturbance of soils with heavy metals, nutrients, and
pesticides are not expected. BMPs would be implemented to minimize impacts from sediment-laden
stormwater runoff during construction. Impacts to groundwater quality during construction would be
similar to those described for Alternative W2-A Phase 1.
Construction air quality emissions and noise levels are expected to be similar in composition but lower in
magnitude than Alternative W2-A Phase 1 projects. Analysis based on preliminary construction estimates
indicates that Phase 2 impacts to air quality would be approximately 30 percent lower than Phase 1
impacts under this alternative.
W:\PIEDMONTDEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03125/00 5-191 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
5.19.4.3 Alternative W3-A
Approximately 75 and 28 acres would be disturbed within the Brush Creek and Horsepen Creek sub-
basins in Phase 2. No Phase 2 improvements would occur within the East Fork Deep River Sub-basin.
Therefore, the cumulative amounts of disturbed area contributed by Alternative W3-A Phase 1 and Phase
2 improvements within the Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek, and East Fork Deep River sub-basins would be
approximately 700, 56, and 106 acres, respectively. Water quality short-term construction impacts in the
Brush Creek and Horsepen Creek sub-basins would be the same as those described for Alternative W2-A
Phase 2 in Section 5.6.4.2 because the disturbed areas would be the same. However, cumulative
impacts would be greater in the East Fork Deep River Sub-basin and less in the Brush Creek Sub-basin
by approximately 29 acres, because Runway 5U23R would be shifted to the southwest in this alternative.
Air quality construction impacts from Phase 2 of Alternatives W2-A and W3-A would be essentially
equivalent, and Phase 2 air emissions under Alternative W3-A would be approximately 32 percent lower
than Phase 1 emissions.
5.19.4.4 Alternative N-D
Construction impacts would be similar to, but increased in magnitude to those described for Alternatives
W2-A and W3-A Phase 2 because the amount of disturbed area would be increased to 117 acres within
the Brush Creek Sub-basin. No impacts would occur within the Horsepen Creek and East Fork Deep
River sub-basins. Therefore, temporary increases in turbidity would only occur in Brush Creek and its
tributaries without mitigation measures.
The cumulative amounts of area disturbed within the Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek, and East Fork Deep
River sub-basins would be approximately 945, 408, and 96 acres, respectively. This equates to
approximately 1,449 acres, which is approximately 68 percent greater than the cumulative amount of
disturbed area in Alternatives W2-A and W3-A after Phase 2. Phase 2 air quality impacts and noise
levels for Alternative N-D would be similar in composition but lower in magnitude, when compared to
Phase 2 of Alternatives W2-A and W3-A because this alternative does not include construction of a
second connector taxiway bridge over Bryan Boulevard. Specifically, Phase 2 construction-related air
emissions are expected to be lowest for this alternative when compared to other Build Alternatives, and
they are projected to be 41 percent lower than Phase 1 emissions for Alternative N-D.
5.19.4.5 Alternative W1 Al
Approximately 75 and 28 acres would be disturbed within the Brush Creek and Horsepen Creek sub-
basins in Phase 2. No Phase 2 improvements would occur within the East Fork Deep River Sub-basin.
Therefore, the cumulative amount of disturbed area contributed by Alternative W1-A1 Phase 1 and
Phase 2 improvements within the Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek, and East Fork Deep River sub-basins
would be approximately 897, 56, and 106 acres, respectively. Water quality short-term construction
impacts in the Brush Creek and Horsepen Creek sub-basins would be the same as those described for
Alternative W3-A Phase 2 in Section 5.6.4.3 because the disturbed areas would be the same. However,
cumulative impacts would be greater in the Brush Creek Sub-basin because of the surface transportation
W:\PIEDMONTDEIS\Ch-2\S 5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-192 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
improvements constructed in Phase 1. For Alternative W1-A1, Phase 2 air emissions impacts are
expected to be approximately 41 percent lower than Phase 1 impacts and approximately equal to Phase
2 impacts from Alternatives W2-A and W3-A.
5.19.4.6 Alternative N-E
Construction impacts would be similar to, but increased in magnitude to those described for Alternatives
W2-A, W3-A Phase 2 because the amount of disturbed area would be approximately 135 acres within the
Horsepen Creek Sub-basin. No impacts would occur within the Brush Creek and East Fork Deep River
sub-basins. Therefore, the cumulative amount of disturbed area contributed by Alternative N-E Phase 1
and Phase 2 improvements with the Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek, and East Fork Deep River sub-basins
would be approximately 618, 710, and 96 acres, respectively. Therefore, temporary increases in turbidity
during Phase 2 construction activities would only occur in Horsepen Creek and its tributaries without
mitigation measures.
Phase 2 air quality impacts and noise levels for Alternative N-E would be lower than Phase 1 impacts.
Specifically, construction air emissions are projected to be 51 percent lower than Phase 1 emissions for
Alternative N-E.
5.19.5 MITIGATION MEASURES
Implementation of all of the alternatives would result in impacts that would warrant mitigation. Mitigation
measures have been identified in Chapter 6.0, Mitigation, of this DEIS.
5.20 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION
5.20.1 OVERVIEW OF IMPACTS
The planned locations of new Runway 51_123R and Phase 1 of the air cargo sorting and distribution
facility under Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, and W1-A1 are within areas that have remained largely
undeveloped and contain no reported sites of hazardous substance use or environmental
contamination. The Phase 2 continuation of the parallel connector taxiway and expansion of the
air cargo facility apron area under these alternatives would involve closing underground storage
tanks (USTs) associated with the existing PTIA rental car and air cargo facilities. However, no
significant impacts are anticipated. The area designated for new Runway 141./32R under Phase 2
of Alternative N-D contains these same PTIA rental car and air cargo facilities.
The planned roadway and airport access improvements scheduled for Bryan Boulevard, N. Triad
Boulevard, S. Triad Boulevard, Regional Road, and Old Oak Ridge Road under the No-Action and
Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W1-A1, and WE are not anticipated to have any significant
involvement with hazardous substances or sites containing environmental contamination.
However, Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be developed as a means to minimized
W:\PIEDMONTDEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-193 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
potential impacts should they occur. BMPs that could be employed are discussed in Chapter 6.0,
Mitigation.
5.20.2 METHODOLOGY
Information presented previously in Section 4.3.7 summarized what is known about sites on and around
PTIA that are reported (or have the potential) to contain hazardous substances (including hazardous
wastes, environmental contamination, and other regulated substances). This same section also generally
discussed the types and quantities of hazardous substances that are used at the airport. Using this
information, each of the alternatives were evaluated with respect to their potential to impact the identified
sites.
Typically, commercial airports (including PTIA) are not considered to be large generators of hazardous
substances. Jet fuel, avgas, and gasoline are the most common regulated substances at PTIA and are
stored in aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) and underground storage tanks (UST's). Other regulated
substances used at the airport include deicing agents, used oil and lubricants, pesticides, paints,
solvents, and other small amounts of similar chemicals.
This part of the assessment was based on the further evaluation of this information as it relates to the
planning, construction, and operation of the alternatives. Also relevant to this assessment was the
anticipated involvement with hazardous substances specifically associated with the proposed air cargo
sorting and distribution facility.
The findings obtained from this analysis are discussed separately below, by alternative and phases of
development, and address both the short- and long-term impacts. In addition, mitigation measures, to the
extent they are considered necessary, are discussed. Overall consistency with current FAA criteria for
evaluating the effects of hazardous substances under the environmental review process are also
addressed.
5.20.3 PHASE 1 IMPACT POTENTIAL
5.20.3.1 No Action Alternative
Since this alternative does not involve the construction of any new airfield facilities (including runways,
taxiways, navigation aids, etc.), or the development and operation of the proposed air cargo facility, nor
any other substantial changes to activities on the airport, there are no anticipated impacts, conflicts, or
modifications to sites or actions involving hazardous substances or environmental contamination. The
only minor exceptions are the increased use of fuel, deicing agents, and other similar substances
attributable to the corresponding increase in aircraft operations at the airport over time.
The planned surface transportation improvements scheduled for Bryan Boulevard, N. Triad Boulevard, S.
Triad Boulevard, Regional Road, and Old Oak Ridge Road under this alternative are not anticipated to
have significant involvement with hazardous substances or sites containing environmental contamination
W:\PIEDMOMIDEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-194 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
(see Figure 5.20.3-1). The on-site fueling and servicing of heavy equipment during the construction
period are the only activities that would involve regulated substances (e.g., gasoline, diesel, oil, etc.).
5.20.3.2 Alternative W2 -A
Under this alternative and phase, the planned location of new Runway 5L/23R (northwest of the main
terminal and parallel to Bryan Boulevard) is within an area of the airport that has remained largely
undeveloped and contains no reported sites of hazardous substances use or environmental
contamination (see Figure 5.20.3-2). The area southwest of the end of Runway 5L (including the glide
slope, runway protection zone, and MALSR), located between Bryan Boulevard and NC 68, presently
contains some commercial development and warehousing, but no incidents associated with hazardous
wastes or environmental contamination have been reported for this area. The area designated for the
parallel connector taxiways north of the main terminal is undeveloped, with no indication of the presence
of hazardous substances or environmental contamination.
The proposed air cargo sorting and distribution facility in the northeast quadrant of PTIA encompasses
the airport's existing airfield maintenance facility and the associated USTs but is otherwise mostly
undeveloped. There are no sites within this area that are known to contain any significant sources of
hazardous substances or environmental contamination.
The planned relocations of the existing PTIA air cargo and rental car service areas under this alternative
would require the removal of several USTs. These USTs contain gasoline and diesel and are not
expected to pose any significant environmental contamination problems.
The planned surface transportation improvements associated with this alternative are the same as those
described above for the No-Action Alternative. Therefore, Alternative W2-A would have no significant
involvement with hazardous substances or sites containing environmental contamination.
5.20.3.3 Alternative W3-A
Since the planned airside, landside, and surface transportation improvements to PTIA under this
alternative are similar to Alternative W-2A, the same findings regarding the potential impacts to sites
reported (or suspected) to involve hazardous substances, environmental contamination, and/or other
regulated substances are anticipated (see Figure 5.20.3-3). That is, there would be no significant impacts
associated with this alternative.
5.20.3.4 Alternative N-D
Under this alternative, the area designated for new Runway 14L/32R, located northeast of the main
terminal and perpendicular to existing Runway 5R/23L, currently contains the PTIA rental car and air
cargo facilities. These facilities include several USTs for the storage of fuel and oil, but none of them are
reported to have caused significant environmental contamination.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-195 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
The proposed air cargo sorting and distribution facility located west of Bryan Boulevard would encompass
several warehousing/commercial properties that may contain USTs or other storage tanks. These tanks,
and any residual environmental contamination can be relocated, removed, and/or mitigated following
standard techniques developed for petroleum storage and transfer facilities.
The planned relocations of the existing PTIA air cargo and rental car service areas under this alternative
would require the removal of several USTs. These USTs contain gasoline and diesel and are not
expected to pose any significant environmental contamination problems.
The areas north and west of Bryan Boulevard that would be affected by the new Runway 14L and the
north parallel taxiway connector are also largely undeveloped and unlikely to contain any potential
sources of hazardous substances, environmental contamination, or other regulated substances. The area
planned for the extension of existing Runway 14R/32L, located between Lebanon Road and Bryan
Boulevard, is also undeveloped and not expected to contain environmental contamination (see Figure
5.20.3-4).
The planned surface transportation improvements associated with Alternative N-D are the same as those
described above for the No-Action Alternative and Alternatives W2-A and MA with the exception of
relocated Regional Road. None of these projects are anticipated to result in significant involvement with
hazardous substances or sites containing environmental contamination.
5.20.3.5 Alternative W7-A1
Since the planned airside, landside, and surface transportation improvements to PTIA under this
alternative are similar to Alternatives W-2A and MA the same findings regarding the potential impacts
to sites reported (or suspected) to involve hazardous substances, environmental contamination, and/or
other regulated substances are anticipated. This includes the relocation of Bryan Boulevard and
construction of the Bryan Boulevard/Old Oak Ridge Road interchange (see Figure 5.20.3-5). That is,
there would be no significant impacts associated with this alternative.
5.20.3.6 Alternative N-E
Under this alternative, the area designated for new Runway 14L/32R, located northeast of the main
terminal and perpendicular to existing Runway 5R/23L, currently contains the PTIA rental car and air
cargo facilities. These facilities include several USTs for the storage of petroleum-based fuels and oils,
but none of them are reported to have caused significant environmental contamination (see Figure
5.20.3-6). As with the other alternatives, these tanks (and any residual soil/groundwater contamination,
should they exist) can be removed and the impacts mitigated following standard procedures developed
for petroleum-contaminated sites. The area west of Bryan Boulevard (planned for the location of runway
end 14L) is largely undeveloped and unlikely to contain and significant sites or sources of hazardous
materials, environmental contamination, or other regulated substances.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/27/00 5-196 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
F,
M
\tea LL N G�
m R
O O
�+ V m
O •Pb 40ON AGULU14o
C C
O N O m >
d N
C � m
�a` t CO 7
co
.b =or-�a
0
' 2 C 4)
v •C O � O
h LL + E d Z
s
rn 0
N W
f
ie® aao
//ip1)
C
~ M
O ++
N
cc v
- F°�' OQQ
� ���� •��� ���� woo =
o � ilia
5Q$ '�j '�j; J~
Nal
5aq� � l I N W
I'
1.9111111111H
i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1� U F F I m u V t¢ a CC� LrL E
O
"Pu leU0169N 4�ON ,p - - •�
K W
J c0i l c
c c o
c c
pU ` n
y gF-
a� U- c !L- amici O c d
f0 — d Vl v44
`tai �P Cc:
d Y @
= c V .r m 0 .
3 E d�c5 5 cmc rrm
a � w U. � c0

TABLE 5.20.4-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY, BY ALTERNATIVE, OF INVOLVEMENT WITH SITES REPORTED, OR WITH THE POTENTIAL,
TO CONTAIN HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES, ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION, AND/OR OTHER
REGULATED SUBSTANCES
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
Necessary or
Recommended
Preventative /
Alternative Impact Potential Comments Corrective Actions
W3-A Same as described for Same as described for Same as described
Phase 1 Alternative W2-A. Alternative W2-A. for Alternative W2-A.
Phase 2 Same as described for Same as described for Same as described
Alternative W2-A. Alternative W2-A. for Alternative W2-A.
N-D Area planned for new Runway Same as described for Same as described for
Phase 1 14V32R includes several USTs Alternatives W2-A and W3-A. Alternatives W2-A and
associated with PTIA rental car W3-A.
and air cargo facilities.
A likely increase in the use of Same as described for Same as described for
fuel and deicing agents and an Alternatives W2-A and W3-A. Alternatives W2-A and
increase in the transportation of W3-A.
hazardous materials (by air)
associated with the operation of
the air cargo sorting and
distribution facility.
Same as described for No- Same as described for
No expected impacts Action and Alternatives W2-A No-Action and
associated with the planned and W3-A. Alternatives W2-A and
access/egress roadway W3-A.
improvements on Bryan
Boulevard, N. Triad Boulevard,
S. Triad Boulevard, Regional
Road, and Old Oak Ridge Road.
Phase 2 Not applicable. Not applicable.
No expected impacts.
W1-A1 Same as described for Same as described for Same as described for
Phase 1 Alternatives W2-A and W3-A. Alternatives W2-A and W3-A. Alternatives W2-A and
W3-A.
Phase 2 No expected impacts. Not applicable. Not applicable.
WE Area planned for new runway Same as above as described Same as described for
Phase 1 14L/32R includes several USTs for the W2-A, W3-A and W1- Alternatives W2-A and
associated with the PTIA rental Al, and N-D alternatives W3-A.
car and air cargo facilities.
Area for new air cargo sorting Same as above. Same as described for
and distribution facility includes Alternatives W2-A and
USTs associated with existing W3-A.
hangar facilities and an
underground bulk fuel pipeline.
W:\PIEDMONTDEIS\CH-5\T 52041.doc\3/17/00
TABLE 5.20.4-1 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY, BY ALTERNATIVE, OF INVOLVEMENT WITH SITES REPORTED, OR WITH THE POTENTIAL,
TO CONTAIN HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES, ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION, AND/OR OTHER
REGULATED SUBSTANCES
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement

lternative -

impact Potential - -

Comments Necessary or
Recommended
Preventative /
Corrective Action(s)
No expected impacts Same as above for No-Action. Same as described for
associated with the planned Alternatives W2-A and
access/egress roadway W3-A.
improvements on Bryan
Boulevard, N. Triad Blvd., S.
Triad Boulevard, and Old Oak
Ridge Road.
A likely increase in the use of Same as above as described Same as described for
fuel and de-icing agents and an for the W2-A, W3-A and W1- Alternatives W2-A and
increase in the transportation of Al, and N-D alternatives W3-A.
hazardous materials (by air)
associated with the operation of
the air cargo sorting and
distribution facility.
Phase 2 Area for the expanded air cargo Same as above as described for Same as described for
sorting and distribution facility the W2-A, W3-A and W1-A1, Alternatives W2-A and
apron may contain USTs and an and N-D alternatives W3-A.
underground bulk fuel pipeline.
Source: URS Greiner, Inc. 1999.
W.\PIEDMONIIDEIS\CH-5\T 5204-1.doc\3/17/00
5.20.6 CONSISTENCY WITH FAA REQUIREMENTS
As previously stated in Section 4.3.7, current FAA Order 5050.4A does not specifically call for a separate
assessment in the EIS of hazardous substances or sites containing environmental contamination.
However, the FAA Office of Environment and Energy recommends that several important issues be
addressed during the environmental review process. These issues are stated in Table 5.20.6-1, which
also includes brief explanations of how they are addressed in connection with the PTIA proposed project
alternatives.
5.21 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
5.21.1 OVERVIEW OF IMPACTS
All of the alternatives would affect surface transportation facilities in the Detailed Study Area and
result in impacts to environmental resources. The surface transportation improvements
associated with the No-Action Alternative would generally improve the overall transportation
system in the vicinity of PTIA and would result in impacts to 40.5 acres of upland biotic
communities, 9.8 acres of wetlands, and 23.1 acres of 100-year floodplains. Alternatives W2-A
and W3-A would consist of the same surface transportation improvements as the No-Action
Alternative, with the addition of a tunnel to carry Bryan Boulevard under the proposed parallel
runway and two bridges over Bryan Boulevard for the parallel runway taxiway connectors.
Surface transportation improvements associated with Alternatives W2-A and W3-A would improve
the overall transportation system in the vicinity of PTIA and would result in impacts to 40.5 acres
of upland biotic communities, 9.8 acres of wetlands, and 23.1 acres of 100-year floodplains.
Alternative N-D would result in impacts to 45.1 acres of upland biotic communities, 9.8 acres of
wetlands, and 23.1 acres of 100-year floodplains. Alternative W1-A1 would have the greatest effect
on the local PTIA roadway system because it involves the relocation of a portion of Bryan
Boulevard and the development of a new interchange at Bryan Boulevard and proposed Airport
Road. This alternative would result in the greatest improvement to the overall transportation
system in the vicinity of PTIA and would result in impacts to 105.4 acres of upland biotic
communities, 7.1 acres of wetlands, 9.1 acres of 100-year floodplains, and require the relocation
of 36 households (84 people). Alternative WE would result in impacts to 45.1 acres of upland
biotic communities 9.8 acres of wetlands, and 23.1 acres of 100-year floodplains. Impacts
associated with the surface transportation improvements have been cumulatively assessed with
the proposed airport improvement projects, and mitigation measures for individual impact
categories are presented in Chapter 6.0, Mitigation, of this DEIS.
5.21.2 METHODOLOGY
Information contained in this section is derived from the Surface Transportation Technical Memorandum
included in Appendix I. The Technical Memorandum has been prepared to address surface
transportation issues associated with the proposed improvements to PTIA.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/27/00 5-199 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
TABLE 5.21.3-2
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES W2-A AND W3-A SURFACE TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS'
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
Phase 1 Phase '2 Total
Social
- Population relocated
1
0
1
- Households relocated 1 0 1
Section 303(c) sites 0 0 0
Section 106 sites
- Historic architectural
0
0
0
- Archaeological TBD TBD TBD
Biotic Communities acres 40.3 0.2 40.5
Wetlands acres 9.79 0.04 9.8
100-Year Flood plains acres 23.1 0 23.1
Source: URS Greiner Woodward Clyde, 1999.
' Includes No-Action cumulative impacts.
2 Number rounded to nearest tenth.
TBD = To be determined based on completion of archaeological surveys conducted between
Draft and Final EIS.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch 5\Tbls\T 5213.2.doc\03/21/00
TABLE 5.21.3-3
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE N-D SURFACE TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS'
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
Phase 1 Phase 2 Total
Social
- Population relocated
1
0
1
- Households relocated 1 0 1
Section 303(c) sites 0 0 0
Section 106 sites
- Historic architectural
0
0
0
- Archaeological TBD TBD TBD
Biotic Communities acres 45.1 0 45.1
Wetlands acres 9.8 0 9.8
100-Year Flood plains acres 23.1 0 23.1
Source: URS Greiner Woodward Clyde, 1999.
' Includes No-Action cumulative impacts.
TBD = To be determined based on completion of archaeological surveys conducted between Draft
and Final EIS.
W APIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_5\Tbls\T_5213.3.doc\03/16/00
5.21.3.5 Alternative W1-A1
Alternative W1-A1 would involve the relocation of Bryan Boulevard approximately 0.5-mile to the
northwest of existing Bryan Boulevard, the construction of a new airport access road (Airport Road), the
construction of a new interchange at Bryan Boulevard and proposed Airport Road, the construction of a
bridge to carry the connector taxiway over the proposed Airport Road, and the modification of existing
North Triad Boulevard and South Triad Boulevard to accommodate one-way traffic to and from the
airport.
These surface transportation improvements, including the relocation of a portion of Old Oak Ridge Road
and portion of Regional Road would result in impacts to 9.1 acres of floodplains, 105.2 acres of biotic
communities, and 7.08 acres of wetlands. Table 5.21.3-4 summarizes the impacts under Alternative W1-
Ai. This alternative would also require the relocation of 36 homes (84 people) due to the development of
the Bryan Boulevard proposed Airport Road interchange. Additional information regarding impacts
associated with Alternative W1-A1 is provided in Section 5 of the Surface Transportation Technical
Memorandum contained in Appendix I.
With regard to traffic and travel patterns, Alternative W1-A1 would have a similar effect as Alternatives
W2-A, W3-A, and N-D. The relocation of Bryan Boulevard approximately 0.5 mile to the northwest of
existing Bryan Boulevard would maintain existing traffic along Bryan Boulevard. Access to PTIA would
remain off of Bryan Boulevard, as in the other alternatives. However, the construction of a new airport
access road (Airport Road) off of Bryan Boulevard would be necessary to provide access to and from the
airport. The proposed interchange at Bryan Boulevard and proposed Airport Road would facilitate access
to and from the airport. The proposed Airport Road is anticipated to tie into Old Oak Ridge Road at an at-
grade intersection. However, this could have an adverse impact on residential areas in terms of
increased traffic on neighborhood roads, as the additional interchange at the relocated Bryan Boulevard
and the proposed Airport Road would make Old Oak Ridge Road more accessible to nearby
communities, particularly those northwest of existing Bryan Boulevard. Under this alternative, North Triad
Boulevard and South Triad Boulevard would be modified to accommodate one-way traffic in order to
enhance access to and from the airport. The effects of the relocation of Old Oak Ridge Road would not
result in any change from existing conditions.
5.21.3.6 Alternative N-E
The proposed surface transportation improvements and impacts for Alternative N-E would be the same
as those discussed for Alternative N-D. In addition, Alternative N-E includes improvements to the
Friendly Avenue/Old Friendly Road intersection. These surface transportation improvements combined
with the No-Action cumulative projects would result in impacts to 23.1 acres of floodplains, 45.1 acres of
biotic communities, and 9.8 acres of wetlands. Table 5.21.3-5 summarizes the impacts under Alternative
N-E. Additional information regarding impacts associated with Alternative N-E is provided in Section 5 of
the Surface Transportation Technical Memorandum contained in Appendix I.
W:\PIEDMONrDEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-203 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
With regard to traffic and travel patterns, Alternative N-E would have the same effect as Alternatives W2-
A, W3-A, and N-D. The surface transportation improvements to the Friendly Avenue/Old Friendly Road
intersection are expected to facilitate access to and from the airport and are not expected to affect travel
or traffic patterns.
5.21.4 PHASE 2 IMPACT POTENTIAL
5.21.4.1 No-Action Alternative
Land development and population growth within the Detailed Study Area are expected to steadily
increase through the year 2019. With or without the PTIA improvements or air cargo activities,
development of similar types and rates is expected to occur. The proposed transportation improvements
described under the Phase 1 No-Action Alternative would have already occurred; therefore, no additional
impacts would occur in Phase 2.
5.21.4.2 Alternative W2-A
The only surface transportation improvement that would occur in Phase 2 of Alternative W-2A is the
construction of a second taxiway connector bridge over Bryan Boulevard. Impacts from this development
are listed in Table 5.21.3-2 and would consist of 0.2 acres of biotic communities and 0.04 acre of
wetlands. Traffic is expected to increase during Phase 2 as a result of increases in air cargo related
activities. However, these increases would be proportional to increases expected under the No-Action
Alternative and are not expected to be substantial.
5.21.4.3 Alternative W3-A
Phase 2 projects and impacts associated with Alternative W3-A would be the same as impacts described
under Alternative W2-A and listed in Table 5.21.3-2.
5.21.4.4 Alternative N-D
All surface transportation improvements associated with Alternative N-D would occur in Phase 1;
therefore, implementation of this alternative would have no additional impacts to resources under Phase
2. Traffic is expected to increase during Phase 2 as a result of increases in air cargo related activities.
However, these increases would be proportional to increases expected under the No-Action Alternative
and are not expected to be substantial.
5.21.4.5 Alternative W1-A1
The only surface transportation improvement that would occur in Phase 2 of Alternative W1-A1 is the
construction of a second taxiway connector bridge over Bryan Boulevard. Impacts from this project would
be the same as described for Alternative W2-A. No additional impacts to resources under Phase 2 are
anticipated with implementation of this alternative. Traffic is expected to increase during Phase 2 as a
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch-2\S_SCombined.doc\03/25100 5-204 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
TABLE 5.21.3-4
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE W1-A1 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
Phase 1 Phase 2 Total , -
Social
- Population relocated
84
0
84
- Households relocated 36 0 36
Section 303(c) sites 0 0 0
Section 106 sites
- Historic architectural
0
0
0
- Archaeological TBD TBD TBD
Biotic Communities acres 105.2 0.2 105.4
Wetlands acres 7.08 0.04 7.1
100-Year Flood plains acres 9.1 0 9.1
Source: URS Greiner Woodward Clyde, 1999.
' Number rounded to nearest tenth.
TBD = To be determined based on completion of archaeological surveys conducted between
Draft and Final EIS.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEI S\Ch_5\Tbl s\T_5213.4. doc
TABLE 5.21.3-5
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE WE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS'
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
Phase 1 Phase 2 Total
Social
- Population relocated
1
0
1
- Households relocated 1 0 1
Section 303(c) sites 0 0 0
Section 106 sites
- Historic architectural
0
0
0
- Archaeological TBD TBD TBD
Biotic Communities acres 45.1 0 45.1
Wetlands acres 9.8 0 9.8
100-Year Flood plains acres 23.1 0 23.1
Source: URS Greiner Woodward Clyde, 1999.
1 Includes No-Action cumulative impacts.
TBD = To be determined based on completion of archaeological surreys conducted between Draft
and Final EIS.
\\clnt01\wp_wpro\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ct_5\Tbls\T 5213-5.doc\03/27/00
result of increases in air cargo activities. However, these increases would be proportional to increases
expected under the No-Action Alternative and are not expected to be substantial.
5.21.4.6 Alternative N-E
All surface transportation improvements associated with Alternative WE would occur in Phase 1;
therefore, implementation of this alternative would have no additional impacts to resources under Phase
2. Traffic is expected to increase during Phase 2 as a result of increases in air cargo related activities.
However, these increases would be proportional to increases expected under the No-Action Alternative
and are not expected to be substantial.
5.21.5 MITIGATION MEASURES
Due to the potential for some degree of increased traffic as a result of proposed development activities,
levels of service throughout the transportation network may degrade slightly. However, such changes are
expected to be negligible, and the roadway improvements associated with all of the alternatives would
generally improve traffic conditions in the vicinity of PTIA.
Construction of the tunnel and bridges would result in temporary impacts during construction. Permanent
impacts would occur with regard to biotic communities, wetlands, and floodplains. Impacts from the
surface transportation improvements have been cumulatively assessed with the proposed airport
improvements and mitigation measures for impacts are discussed in Chapter 6.0, Mitigation, of this DEIS.
5.22 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
5.22.1 CONSISTENCY WITH PLANS, GOALS, AND POLICIES
Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W1-A1, and WE do not conflict with the objectives of Federal, regional,
state, or local land use plans, policies, or controls for the Greensboro area. Piedmont Triad International
Airport is an unincorporated entity of Guilford County, and most of the airside, landside, and surface
transportation improvements would be constructed on land owned by the PTAA. Chapter 818 of the 1985
Session Laws of the North Carolina General Assembly exempts the airport property within its state-
defined perimeter from annexation. Based on past practice, Guilford County would rescind its zoning
authority over county properties acquired by the PTAA as a result of implementation of any of the
alternatives. In that instance, the City of Greensboro and the PTAA would petition the North Carolina
General Assembly to revise the airport annexation exemption boundary established in 1985 to include the
acquired parcels. Local governments are supportive of the proposed project and are striving to ensure
that the potential acquisition of properties and conversion to the airport use would be consistent with local
land use planning and zoning.
W:\PIEDMONnDEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-205 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
5.22.2 INCONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL PLANS AND LAWS
All of the build alternatives are consistent with the existing Airport Layout Plan and the intent of local
municipal planners. Guilford County, the PTAA, and the cities of High Point and Greensboro adopted the
Airport Area Land Use Plan in 1986. This 14-year-old plan is now being updated and is scheduled for
completion by January 2001. The revised plan would recommend a development pattern for the airport
area that would be compatible with proposed airport improvements and would mitigate the impact of
these improvements to the surrounding area. The preferred alternative resulting from the environmental
review process would need to be incorporated into the revised Airport Area Land Use Plan before its
adoption.
5.22.3 MITIGATIOWCONTROVERSY
5.22.3.1 Mitigation
Potential mitigation measures for direct and indirect impacts is summarized in Chapter 6.0, Mitigation.
5.22.3.2 Degree of Controversy
To date, there has been local controversy concerning the implementation of the proposed project. This
controversy has been centered on the potential environmental impacts associated with the development
of a parallel runway and the establishment of an air cargo sorting and distribution facility (Mid-Atlantic
Hub) at PTIA, particularly with regard to noise, air quality, water quality, and quality of life issues. 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 due to its potential positive economic impacts.
5.22.4 DESIGN, ART, ARCHITECTURE
5.22.4.1 Airside and Landside
Potential visual impacts of the alternatives were considered in accordance with FAA Order 5050.4A par
41(c). The primary areas of consideration were:
• Extent of earthmoving required to construct the proposed alternatives,
• Design of facilities, and
• Aesthetic integrity of the area
The extent of the earthmoving process during construction of all alternatives would create visual
disturbance of the landscape to passersby. However, this impact would be temporary and would not
result in significant impacts. Control of erosion during this time would be in compliance with FAA AC
150/5370-10A, Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports.
W:\PIEDMONnDEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25100 5-206 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
FAA guidelines (5050.4A) state that design factors should be employed that would complement and
support establishment of functional, efficient, and safe airport facilities while reflecting local, cultural, and
architectural heritage considerations. The proposed air cargo sorting and distribution facility and runway
and associated taxiways would be designed in accordance with state building codes and FAA
requirements, respectively. Although no specific design plans are currently available, the PTAA would
encourage the proposed air cargo sorting and distribution facility to be designed in a manner that is
compatible with the existing airport environs. Landscaping would be accomplished with native vegetation
and the inclusion of architectural treatments such as coloring of structural elements, buffer areas, and
screening landscaping into the development's design would minimize the visual impacts of the proposed
sorting and distribution facility associated with each of the alternatives.
All of the proposed alternatives would create a temporary visual disturbance during construction and long-
term impacts to the visual aesthetic integrity of the area. Airside improvements associated with
Alternatives W2-A and W3-A would visually impact persons traveling along Old Oak Ridge Road and
Lebanon Road. Residential areas located adjacent to the south end of proposed Runway 5L would
experience visual impacts due to clearing of existing vegetation to established runway safety areas.
Alternatives N-D and WE would visually impact persons traveling along Ballinger Road. Alternative W1-
A1 would result in visual impacts to residential areas south and west of PTIA. FAA requirements dictate
specific operational areas that must be cleared and maintained for aviation safety purposes. Few
measures to mitigate an airfield's visual impact can be accomplished. However, PTAA would work with
the local communities to minimize visual impacts to the extent possible while not compromising aviation
safety. Landside improvements associated with all of the Build Alternatives would impact the aesthetic
integrity of the area; however, vegetation and design factors would be employed to complement the
proposed air cargo facility.
5.22.4.2 Surface Transportation
PTAA plans several surface transportation infrastructure projects that would be initiated whether or not
the Mid-Atlantic Hub were to locate at PTIA. Surface transportation improvements associated with the
No-Action Alternative would have a visual impact on adjacent areas. The relocated portion of Regional
Road and the relocated portion of Old Oak Ridge Road are anticipated to be designed similarly in
appearance to their existing conditions. However, traffic analyses may warrant that the relocated portion
of Old Oak Ridge Road be constructed wider than the existing roadway. This would be determined
during the final design phase. The interchange at Old Oak Ridge Road and Bryan Boulevard is proposed
as a partial cloverleaf. This interchange would be designed to provide sufficient right-of-way to comply
with design criteria while disrupting the surrounding area as little as possible. The construction and
operation of new and modified airport entrance interchanges off Bryan Boulevard are proposed as
trumpet interchanges at North Triad Boulevard and South Triad Boulevard. These interchanges would
also be designed to disrupt the surrounding area as little as possible. The area around North Triad
Boulevard and South Triad Boulevard is undeveloped; therefore, these projects are not anticipated to
result in visual impacts to surrounding land uses.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/27/00 5-207 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
Guilford County is in the Piedmont physiographic area and is located on a plateau that ranges in elevation
from 600 feet to 1,000 feet. The PTIA is at elevation 926 feet mean sea level. The landform is generally
undulating with hilly slopes along the drainageways. The design of the surface transportation
improvements, including interchanges, and crossings of wetlands, precludes depressed or below grade
construction. As a result of elevated grade separations, the surface transportation improvements would
be seen as a subtle undulation of road surface across the landscape. The proposed interchanges would
require grade separations. At grade separations, the roadway would be highly visible to people in areas
off the roadway, which would be an adverse impact.
In general, visual quality would be enhanced or improved for those using the interchanges and degraded
for those viewing the interchanges from off the road. Numerous opportunities for views across grassy
fields and at the tops of bridges would exist for motorists using the new interchange, which would be a
positive effect. The majority of the surface transportation improvements associated with the No-Action
Alternative is located in unpopulated areas. The new interchange at Old Oak Ridge Road and Bryan
Boulevard would be located is an area of sparse population. This alternative would create visual impacts
as it passes through developed residential and business communities. Overall, the No-Action Alternative
would not result in significant aesthetic visual impacts.
Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D, and WE would include the same roadway improvements and associated
impacts as for the No-Action Alternative. However, Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D, and WE also include
a tunnel to be constructed for Bryan Boulevard under the proposed runway. The tunnel would be located
at the Regional Road and Bryan Boulevard intersection for Alternatives W2-A and W3-A and along Bryan
Boulevard and under proposed Runway 14U32R for Alternatives N-D and N-E. These areas are
currently undeveloped; therefore, the tunnel would not result in visual impacts to residential areas. It
would, however, result in changed views for vehicles traveling on both Regional Road and Bryan
Boulevard. Construction of connector taxiway bridges over Bryan Boulevard would also occur under
Alternatives W2-A, MA and N-D. The proposed bridges would require grade separations. The area
affected by the taxiway bridge is currently undeveloped; therefore, the bridges would not result in visual
impacts to residential areas. It would, however, result in changed views for vehicles traveling on Bryan
Boulevard.
Alternative W1-A1 surface transportation improvements include the relocation of a 2-mile segment of
Bryan Boulevard and construction of a cloverleaf intersection at Bryan Boulevard and Old Oak Ridge
Road. The relocation of a section of Bryan Boulevard is anticipated to be designed such that it would be
similar in appearance to existing Bryan Boulevard in the Detailed Study Area. Again, traffic analyses may
warrant that the relocated portion of Bryan Boulevard be constructed wider than the existing roadway.
This would be determined during the final design phase. This relocation would occur mostly on airport
property and would be designed to provide sufficient right-of-way to comply with design criteria while
disrupting the surrounding area as little as possible. The construction of a new interchange at relocated
Bryan Boulevard and the proposed Airport Road is proposed as a full cloverleaf. A portion of the
proposed new interchange would be situated in a populated area adjacent to Old Oak Ridge Road.
Existing North Triad Boulevard and South Triad Boulevard would be modified to accommodate one-way
traffic to and from the airport. Construction of connector taxiway bridges over the proposed Airport Road
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch•2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-208 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
would also occur under this alternative. The elevated grade separations associated with Alternative
W1-A1 would have the same impacts as described for Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D, and N-E.
In general, visual quality would be enhanced or improved for those using the interchanges and degraded
for those viewing the interchanges from off the road. Numerous opportunities for views at the tops of
bridges would exist for motorists using the new interchange, which would be a positive effect. Several of
the surface transportation improvements associated with Alternative W1-A1 would be located in
populated areas, specifically a portion of the relocated Bryan Boulevard and the proposed new
interchange. This alternative would, therefore, create visual impacts to nearby developed residential and
business communities.
5.22.4.3 Mitigation Measures
If mitigation is required for the No-Action Alternative or any of the five Build Alternatives, the following
measures would be considered to be incorporated in the airside, landside, and roadway designs in order
to create an aesthetically acceptable and functional alternative and to minimize visual impacts:
• Integrate landscaping into the project design to promote visual continuity of the
airside, landside, and surface transportation improvements and to blend it into the
natural landscape as much as possible.
• Minimize the loss of vegetation, especially during construction when equipment and.
material access, storage, and staging is required.
• Design noise attenuation features, if needed, to be compatible with surrounding
natural features and development.
Future development, unrelated to the proposed action, which may be constructed adjacent to any of the
alternatives, would be designed to reduce the visual impacts. The inclusion of treatments such as
coloring of structural elements, buffer areas, and screening landscaping into a new development's design
would lessen the impacts of any of the alternatives.
5.23 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines, this DEIS was prepared to
consider the overall cumulative impact of the proposed project and the consequences of subsequent
related actions. According to CEQ, cumulative impacts represent the "impact on the environment which
results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes
such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individual minor but collectively significant actions
taking place over a period of time."
This DEIS was specifically designed to meet the above requirements regarding cumulative impacts. The
study considered, to the extent reasonable and practical, the possible impacts of the proposed project
and other developments, both on and off the airport which are related in terms of time or proximity.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/27/00 5-209 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
The FAA prepared this DEIS to consider those improvements proposed in the 1994 Master Plan and
depicted on the PTIA ALP that are considered "ripe" for evaluation. Although there are many individual
improvements proposed, only a few represent most of the work, cost, and potential for impact. The
proposed airport development actions were consolidated into the following five major development
categories:
• New runway and associated taxiway system,
• Overnight express air cargo sorting and distribution facility,
• Surface transportation improvements,
• Property acquisition, and
• Relocation of on-airport facilities.
This DEIS highlights these major projects, where applicable, and their alternatives and evaluates them
both individually and cumulatively. Many of the other proposed improvement recommendations were
evaluated cumulatively as "connected actions" to the major development actions. Many of these actions
would not normally require environmental analysis on an individual basis. This DEIS also considers the
cumulative impacts of other (FAA and non-FAA) actions together with the proposed improvements at
PTIA to the extent reasonable.
Developments not connected to this DEIS include the Categorical Exclusion for the Runway 14 Safety
Area for PTIA (dated: May 7, 1998) and the FEIS for the Greensboro Western Urban Loop (dated:
February 28, 1995).
The Categorical Exclusion for the Runway 14 Safety Area for PTIA analyzed the potential environmental
impacts of extending the runway safety area on Runway 14, as shown on the PTIA ALP. The project
would provide a grassed surface suitable for reducing the risk of damage to airplanes in the event of
missing the runway. The study concluded that the extension of the Runway 14 safety area would not
result in significant impacts to the environment.
The FEIS for the Western Greensboro Urban Loop (WGUL) analyzed the need for, feasibility of, and
potential environmental impact of surface transportation improvements in western Greensboro. The
WGUL would help fulfill the goals of the 1989 Greensboro Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan by connecting
the Interstate 85 Campground Road interchange northward of, east of, and parallel to PTIA, then
northeasterly ending at Lawndale Drive between Cottage Place and Lake Brandt Road. A Record of
Decision (ROD) was issued by the Federal Highway Administration on August 17, 1995. Currently, the
WGUL is in the preliminary design stage.
Coordination with the cities of Greensboro, High Point, and Winston-Salem as well as Guilford County
indicate that there are no other known major planned developments in the PTIA area that need to be
considered on a cumulative basis.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-210 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
5.23.1 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS AND IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF
RESOURCES
The construction and operation of the proposed improvements would result in the use of resources and
environmental impacts that are unavoidable. The impacts associated with the proposed improvements
are disclosed for specific impact categories in Sections 5.1 through 5.22 of this DEIS. Proposed
mitigation measures for impacts associated with those categories significantly affected by the alternatives
are summarized in Chapter 6.0, Mitigation.
5.23.2 MAN'S RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF HIS ENVIRONMENT AND
MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
All of the proposed alternatives would require use of man's environment during construction to achieve
the long-term goals of improved aviation capacity, economic vitality, and traffic flows.
Traffic delays, fugitive dust, and increased emissions from construction vehicles; visual and aesthetic
impacts; and additional construction noise are expected as a result of all the alternatives. These impacts
would be short-term in nature, and temporary, and would be minimized through the establishment and
use of environmental controls, such as Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Federal, state, and local
construction mitigation guidelines. Refer to Section 5.19, Construction impacts, for additional information
associated with short-term use of man's environment and Section 6.2.8, Possible Construction Impacts
Mitigation Measures, for information concerning mitigation measures during construction.
As discussed in Chapter 2.0, Purpose and Need, it was determined that to efficiently operate an air cargo
facility at PTIA, both a widely spaced Transport-Category parallel runway and a facility located between
the parallel runways are needed. These improvements would meet the short-term needs of the air cargo
operator and achieve the long-term operational goals and needs of the PTIA. Long-term benefits of all of
the Build Alternatives would ultimately be increase air capacity for PTIA, the region, and the national
airspace system.
The FAA is charged with the implementation of Federal policies under its statutory authorities. The
National Transportation Policy was established by §502(b) of the 1990 amendments to the Airport and
Airway Improvement Act of 1982 and is codified at 49 U.S.C. § 47101(b). It is within the framework of
NEPA and the Airport and Airway Improvement Act, as amended, that the FAA is responding to the
PTAA's proposal. The language of 49 U.S.C. § 40101(b) further directs the Secretary of Transportation to
consider the following to be in the public interest in regard to air cargo transportation:
(1) Encouraging and developing an expedited all-cargo air transportation system provided by
private enterprise and responsive to:
(A) The present and future needs of shippers;
(B) The commerce of the United States;
(C) The national defense.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-211 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
(2) Encouraging and developing an integrated transportation system relying on competitive
market forces to decide the extent, variety, quality, and price of services provided.
(3) Providing services without unreasonable discrimination, unfair or deceptive practices, or
predatory pricing.
The potential development of an overnight, express air cargo hub at PTIA is consistent with FAA's
responsibility to support locally-sponsored projects that fulfill the above referenced public policy
objectives.
The majority of the roadways in the vicinity of PTIA are currently operating at acceptable Levels of
Service (LOS). These Levels of Service would decrease in the future as traffic volumes increase and
high levels of congestion would occur in the peak travel hours. All of the alternatives would implement
infrastructure projects, which would improve long-term traffic flows in the PTIA area. Refer to Appendix I
for additional information concerning surface transportation improvements.
W:\PIEDMONrDEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-212 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
41,
3
E
.?
- _..? __

__
- ;,, -
..,, ? ;;_
,,

z ::
k?
CHAPTER 6.0
MITIGATION
6.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents mitigation measures to reduce the environmental impacts associated with the
proposed improvements at PTIA. A recommended mitigation program will be developed following public
and agency review of the DEIS.
All of the alternatives considered in this DEIS would result in environmental impacts to several impact
categories that may warrant mitigation. The analysis of moderate and significant impacts indicates the
following categories may warrant mitigation:
• Noise
• Compatible Land Use/Social
• Air Quality
• Water Quality
• Historic and Archaeological Resources (Section 106)
• Wetlands
• Floodplains
• Construction
• Hazardous Materials
• Light Emissions
• Solid Waste
Section 6.2 describes possible mitigation measures and concepts for all of the Build Alternatives.
Section 6.3, which will describe the proposed mitigation program for the preferred alternative for the
development of PTIA, will be included in the Final EIS.
6.2 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR BUILD ALTERNATIVES
6.2.1 POSSIBLE NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES
Each of the five development alternatives would result in significant increases in aircraft noise at noise-
sensitive land uses and increase the number of sites which would be incompatible with the operation of
the improved airport when considering FAA's land use compatibility guidelines contained in FAR Part
150, Appendix A, Table 1. Possible methods to mitigate these impacts and incompatibilities include:
WAPIEDM0N'RDEIS\Ch-6\S_6\03/24/00 6-1 Chapter 6.0 Mitigation
• Operational measures to change the size and/or shape of the noise contours to result
in fewer impacts,
• Land use measures to modify or improve the affected areas, and
• Program management measures to implement, monitor, and manage the noise
mitigation program.
Land use and program management measures are discussed in Section 6.2.2. Operational measures
are discussed below.
One set of strategies to reduce aircraft noise impacts includes the consideration of operational measures
that would change the size and/or shape of the noise contours to result in fewer impacts to noise-sensitive
land uses. These would primarily involve changing how and where aircraft fly. Examples of such
measures include:
• Preferential Runway Use System;
• Noise Mitigation Flight Tracks;
• Aircraft Fleet Mix Modifications;
• Airport access restrictions (such as curfews);
• Aircraft engine run-up procedures;
• Implementation of nighttime flight corridors;
• Noise abatement departure profiles for jet aircraft, and
• Noise abatement arrival procedures for jet aircraft (i.e. minimize reverse thrust).
Further details regarding these types of operational mitigation measures are discussed below:
Preferential Runway Use- The following sections present the Phase 1 Build Alternatives noise exposure
contours, with runway use mitigation, as developed from the information contained in Section 5.1.
Runway use mitigation for Phase 1 was achieved by limiting the number of air cargo operations on the
new runway. Although the optimum capacity for air cargo (FedEx) operations was achieved by having
approximately equal numbers of jet operations on the existing runway and the new runway (called
"balanced use" of the two runways), it is possible to have a higher percentage of the operations be on the
existing runway and a lesser percentage on the new runway. For this analysis, 25 percent of the
operations that would be on the new runway with balanced operations were placed on the old runway in
the year 2005 (Phase 1). Mitigated runway use in Phase 1 is presented in Tables 6.2.1-1, 6.2.1-2, and
6.2.1-3. By Phase 2, the number of air cargo (FedEx) operations prohibits any operational restrictions on
the new runway. The impacts identified for the various alternatives by analysis of the noise exposure
contours, noise-sensitive specific points, population, housing units, and other noise-sensitive receptors
within the noise contours are discussed in the following sections. The results of the runway use
WAPIEDM0NT\DEIS\Ch-6\ S_ 6.doc\03/22/00 6-2 Chapter 6.0 Mitigation
TABLE 6.2.1-1
MITIGATED PHASE 1 RUNWAY USE PERCENTAGES FOR
ALTERNATIVES W2-A, W3-A, AND W1-A1
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
Percent Runwa Utilization
Departures Arrivals
Runway Day r Night Da Ni ht
All Non-FedEx Aircraft
05R 15% 5% 15% 5%
05L 0% 0% 0% 0%
23L 75% 95% 75% 95%
23R 0% 0% 0% 0%
14 9% 0% 9% 0%
32 1 % 0% 1 % 0%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100%
Fed Ex Jets
05R 0% -3.1% 0% 59.4%
05L 0% 1.9% 0% 35.6%
23L 0% 59.4% 0% 3.1%
23R 0% 35.6% 0% 1.9%
14 0% 0% 0% 0%
32 0% 0% 0% 0%
TOTAL 0% 100% 0% 100%
FedEx Props
05R 0% 3.1% 0% 59.4%
05L 0% 1.9% 15% 35.6%
23L 0% 59.4% 0% 3.1%
23R 0% 35.6% 75% 1.9%
14 0% 0% 9% 0%
32 0% 0% 1% 0%
TOTAL 0% 100% 100% 102L.-Ji
Source: HMMH And FedEx, 1999.
Day = 0700 - 2200.
Night = 2200 - 0700.
W.\PEIDM0NnDEIS\Ch_6\Tb1\T_621-1.doc \03/16/00
TABLE 6.2.1-2
MITIGATED PHASE 1 RUNWAY USE PERCENTAGES FOR ALTERNATIVE N-D
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
Percent Runway Utilization
Departures Arrivals T Departures Arrivals
_Day_ Night Day Night Day Night D" T Night
All Non-FedEx Aircraft
Runwa Air Carrier General Aviation
14L 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0%
32R 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
14R 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% 60.0%
32L 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0%
5 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
23 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
FedEx Aircraft
Jets Props
14L 0% 35.6% 0% 1.9% 0% 45.1% 2.4% 2.4%
32R 0% 1.9% 0% 35.6% 0% 2.4% 45.1% 45.1%
14R 0% 59.4% 0% 3.1% 0% 45.1% 2.4% 2.4%
32L 0% 3.1% 0% 59.4% 0% 2.4% 45.1% 45.1%
5 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%
23 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
TOTAL 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100% 100%
Source: HMMH And FedEx, 1999.
Day = 0700 - 2200.
Night = 2200 - 0700.
W.\PIEDMONT\DEIS\CH 6\TBLS\T_621-2.doc\3/16/00
TABLE 6.2.1-3
MITIGATED PHASE 1 RUNWAY USE PERCENTAGES FOR ALTERNATIVE N-E
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
Departures
Arrivals
De artures
Arrivals
Da Night Day I Night Day I Night Day ? Ni ht
All Non-FedEx Aircraft
Runwa Air Carrier General Aviation
14L 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0%
32R 12.0% 12.00/. 12.0% 12.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
14R 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% 60.0%
32L 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 12.00/. 12.0% 12.0% 12.0%
5 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
23 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
FedEx Aircraft
Jets Props
14L 0% 1.9% 0% 35.6% 0% 2.4% 45.1 % 45.1%
32R 0% 35.6% 0% 1.9% 0% 45.1% 2.4% 2.4%
14R 0% 3.1% 0% 59.4% 0% 2.4% 45.1% 45.1%
32L 0% 59.40/. 0% 3.1% 0% 45.1% 2.4% 2.4%
5 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%
23 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
TOTAL 09/. 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100% 1000/0
Source: HMMH and FedEx, 2000.
Day = 0700 - 2200.
Night = 2200 - 0700.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch_6\Tbls\T_621-3.doc\3124100
mitigation analysis indicates that a modest reduction in noise exposure would occur for each of the Build
Alternatives. This reduction would only be achievable for Phase 1 of the proposed project. The runway
use mitigation plan could not be applied to Phase 2 operational levels without significant impacts to air
cargo operator's (FedEx) operational strategies.
6.2.1.1 No-Action Alternative
No mitigation is proposed for Phase 1 of the No-Action Alternative.
6.2.1.2 Alternative W2-A
Figure 6.2.1-1 presents the runway use mitigated noise exposure contours for Phase 1. Tables 6.2.1-4
and 6.2.1-5 present the specific point analysis and the land use impacts for all Phase 1 Build Alternatives
including Alternative W2-A. Tables 6.2.1-6 and 6.2.1-7 list all population, housing, and noise-sensitive
receptor impacts. Table 6.2.1-8 lists the significant noise impacts for all population and housing within the
DNL 65 dB and DNL 60 dB noise contours.
Between the Phase 1 No-Action and the Phase 1 Alternative W2-A with mitigation, changes in noise
levels at the specific points range from a decrease of DNL 6.1 dB to an increase of DNL 10.9 dB. Noise
levels at the six measurement sites range from a decrease of DNL 0.7 dB to an increase of DNL 9.2 dB.
Noise levels at 49 specific points experience an increase in the noise levels over Phase 1 of the No-
Action Alternative. A total of 7 specific points (Sites 2, 7, and 10 to 15) experience increases of DNL 1.5
dB or greater (DNL 1.8 to 9.3 dB) within the DNL 65 dB contour. The FAA's "Threshold of Significance" is
exceeded at these points. An additional 7 specific points (Sites 1, 3 to 6, 8, and 9) experience increases
of DNL 3.0 dB or greater (DNL 3.0 to 4.7 dB) within the DNL 60 dB contour.
A total of 4,565.4 acres of land would be located within the DNL 65 dB noise contours for Phase 1 of
Alternative W2-A (with mitigation). Of that, 2,074.9 acres are airport property. Of the remaining 2,490.5
acres of land within the contours and outside of airport property, 282.3 acres would be noise-sensitive
single-family residential land use. This compares to 291.6 acres under the non-mitigated Alternative
W2-A (a net decrease of 9.3 acres).
Under Phase 1 of Alternative W2-A (with mitigation), the number of people and households within the
DNL 65 dB noise contour would increase to 406 and 172, respectively, a decrease of 8 people and 3
households over the non-mitigated Alternative W2-A. A total of 368 people and 156 households would
experience significant noise impacts with increases of DNL 1.5 dB or greater. This would be a decrease
of 9 people and 4 households over the non-mitigated Alternative W2-A. One juvenile detention center
would still be located within the DNL 65 noise contour for Phase 1 of Alternative W2-A (with mitigation).
Further analysis reveals that a total of 1,003 people and 414 households would experience increases of
DNL 3.0 dB or greater within the DNL 60 dB noise contours. This is a decrease of 73 people and 30
households over the non-mitigated Alternative W2-A.
WAPIEDM0Nl1DEIS\Ch•6\S_6.doc\03/22100 6-3 Chapter 6.0 Mitigation
6.2.1.3 Alternative W3-A
Figure 6.2.1-2 presents the mitigated noise exposure contours for Phase 1 of Alternative W3-A. Tables
6.2.1-4 and 6.2.1-5 present the specific point analysis and the land use impacts for all year Phase 1 Build
Alternatives including Alternative W3-A. Tables 6.2.1-6 and 6.2.1-7 list all population, housing, and noise-
sensitive receptor impacts. Table 6.2.1.8 lists the significant noise impacts for all population and housing
within the DNL 65 dB and DNL 60 dB noise contours.
Between the Phase 1 No-Action and the Phase 1 Alternative W3-A with mitigation, changes in noise
levels at the specific points range from a decrease of DNL 6.1 dB to an increase of DNL 10.3 dB. Noise
levels at the six measurement sites range from a decrease of DNL 0.7 dB to an increase of DNL 8.3 dB.
Noise levels at 49 specific points experience an increase in the noise levels over the Phase 1 No-Action
Alternative. A total of 7 specific points (Sites 2, 7, and 10 to 15) experience increases of DNL 1.5 dB or
greater (DNL 1.8 to 10.3 dB) within the DNL 65 dB contour. The FAA's "Threshold of Significance" is
exceeded at these points. An additional 7 specific points (Sites 1, 3 to 6, 8, and 9) experience increases
of DNL 3.0 dB or greater (DNL 3.0 to 5.6 dB) within the DNL 60 dB contour.
A total of 4,616.0 acres of land would be located within the DNL 65 dB noise contours for Phase 1 of
Alternative W3-A (with mitigation). Of that, 2,033.4 acres are airport property. Of the remaining 2,582.6
acres of land within the contours and outside of airport property, 289.1 acres would be noise-sensitive
single-family residential land use. This compares to 310.1 acres under the non-mitigated Alternative
W3-A (a net decrease of 21.0 acres).
Under Phase 1 of Alternative W3-A (with mitigation), the number of people and households within the
DNL 65 dB noise contour would increase to 426 and 180; respectively, a decrease of 7 people and 3
households over the non-mitigated Alternative W3-A. A total of 387 people and 164 households would
experience significant noise impacts with increases of DNL 1.5 dB or greater. This is a decrease of 8
people and 3 household over the non-mitigated Alternative W3-A. One juvenile detention center would
still be located within the DNL 65 dB noise contour for Phase 1 Alternative W3-A (with mitigation). A total
of 987 people and 408 households would experience increases of DNL 3.0 dB or greater within the DNL
60 dB noise contours. This is a decrease of 45 people and 18 households when compared to the non-
mitigated Alternative W3-A.
6.2.1.4 Alternative N-D
Figure 6.2.1-3 presents the noise exposure contours, with mitigation, for Alternative N-D Phase 1. Tables
6.2.1-4 and 6.2.1-5 present the specific point analysis and the land use impacts for all Build Alternatives
including Alternative N-D. Tables 6.2.1-6 and 6.2.1-7 list all population, housing, and noise-sensitive
receptor impacts. Table 6.2.1-8 lists the significant noise impacts for all population and housing within the
DNL 65 dB and DNL 60 dB noise contours.
Between the Phase 1 No-Action and the Phase 1 Alternative N-D with mitigation, changes in noise levels
at the specific points range from a decrease of DNL 9.9 dB to an increase of DNL 26.5 dB. Noise levels
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch-6\S_6.doc\03122/00 6-4 Chapter 6.0 Mitigation
1-40
?AE
U?T
?1 ?; ?' ?•, y lei
?'. ??' ? ? •\, ?/? °''? s t .?, `:• _-. ?. ?/fir 1. :?
C
? I rr-. 5 1 ??'' /r ?
o 1LV ,'. V. .f.
L
•l ?I? ?c ??©°;,. ?" ??? a n? "??C ?CS ^?^ ?,?,. V'?. ?r I'? j?t ?' ?C r?'l ?i 'Jr1`.dl jzl??.f;?
?lx

O
LK
_./dd iE1 I ,.
S I g't II 1144
° 6 a/lr;l ra SL!
i f

0
0
0
r
7? M
01 C-j O
cc
m
L
7
0
0
4)
Z
Q
N
3
coo
E
M
M
d
L
w
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PIEDMONT TRIAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
CHAPTER 9
REFERENCES
CHAPTER 9.0
REFERENCES
The following reference materials were used in the preparation of the DEIS. These materials are not
included in Volumes 1, 2, or 3 of the DEIS but are available for inspection at the FAA Southern Region
Airport Division office in Atlanta, Georgia. Many of these materials will also be available at the PTAA
Administrative Office at 6415 Airport Parkway, Greensboro, North Carolina.
1. Allen, Carolyn S., Mayor of City of Greensboro, NC. January 27, 1999. Letter to Mr. Tony
DiGirolama - Manager of Airport Relations and Development, FedEx.
2. AI-Shenbaz, I. 1988. Cardamine dissecta, a New Combination Replacing Dentaria multifida
(Cruciferae), Journal of Arnold Arboretum. Volume 69.
3. Baker and Associates. March 1999. Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan.
Piedmont Triad Airport Authority, Greensboro, North Carolina.
4. Baker and Associates. 1999. Draft Piedmont Triad International Airport Stormwater
Management Plan.
5. Bostic, Joe E., Chairman of Guilford County, NC Board of Commissioners and Mr. Walter C.
Cocherman, Vice Chairman. January 26, 1999. Letter to Mr. Tony DiGirolama -
Manager of Airport Relations and Development, FedEx.
6. Brunstetter, Peter. Forsyth County Chairman of Board of Commissioners. January 28, 1999.
Letter to Mr. Tony DiGirolama - Manager of Airport Relations and Development,
FedEx.
7. Bureau of the Census. November 1998. County Business Patterns. Register Analysis Branch.
8. Carlucci, Richard. Town of Plainfield, Indiana Town Manager. March 26, 1999. Telephone
Interview with Hayes & Associates.
9. Cavanagh, Jack. Mayor of City of Winston Salem, NC. January 29, 1999. Letter to Mr. Tony
DiGirolama - Manager of Airport Relations and Development, FedEx. City of
Greensboro. August 17, 1999 [Online]. City of Greensboro Code of Ordinances
Chapter 30 Zoning, Planning, and Development Ordinance.
www.ci.greensboro.nc.us.planning.
10. City of Greensboro. Local Water Supply Plan for Calendar Year 1997.
11. City of Greensboro. May 1999. Stormwater Best Management Practices Guidance Manual
Review Draft.
12. City of Greensboro Chamber of Commerce. April 1998. The Economic Impact of the FedEx
Mid-Atlantic Hub on the Piedmont Triad. Prepared by D.G. Jud. University of North
Carolina at Greensboro, North Carolina.
13. City of Greensboro, Environmental Services: Landfill Operations. July 23, 1999 [Online].
222.ci.greensboro. nc.us/env%5fsvcs/sold%20waste/landfil.htm.
14. City of Greensboro, Landfill. August 10, 1999. Telephone interview with Frank Coggins.
W:\PIEDMON-RDEIS\Ch-9\Ch_9.doc\03129/00 9-1 Chapter 9.0 References
15. City of Greensboro, Landfill. August 30, 1999. Telephone interview with Frank Coggins.
16. City of Greensboro, Parks and Recreation Department. April 20, 1999. Personal
Communication. Telephone Conversation with Dan Maxson.
17. City of Greensboro, Parks and Recreation Department. June 8, 1999 [Online].
www.ci.greensboro.nc.us/leisure/recenter.
18. City of Greensboro, Parks and Recreation Department. July 10, 1999. Personal
Communication. Telephone Conversation with Bernadette White.
19. City of Greensboro, Parks and Recreation Department. July 20, 1999. Personal
Communication. Telephone Conversation with Bernadette White [Fax].
20. City of Greensboro, Parks and Recreation Department. August 31, 1999 [Online].
www.ci.greensboro.ns.us/leisure/parks.
21. City of Greensboro, Water Supply Division. January 1999 through February 1999. Water
Quality Reports. Water Treatment Processes.
22. City of High Point. June 1995. West Wendover Avenue/Guilford College Road Corridor Plan
23. City of High Point. August 1998. Draft Land Use Plan for the High Point Planning Area.
Recommended by the High Point Planning and Zoning Commission.
24. City of High Point. October 1998. Draft Johnson Street/Sandy Ridge Road Area Plan, U.S. 311
to Interstate 40.
25. City of High Point. September 14, 1999 [Online]. The GIS Data Clearinghouse.
http://comment2.ci.high-point.ne.us/clearinghouse/City of High Point Solid Waste
Collection and Disposal Facilities. July 26, 1999 [Online].
www.highpoint.neVdept/pubsrv/envfac.htm.
26. City of High Point, Parks and Recreation Department. August 31, 1999 [Online]. www.high-
point.net/dept/pr/p&rfacil.
27. City of Winston-Salem, Sanitation Division. July 26, 1999 [Online]. 222.ci.winston-
salem.nc.us/sanitation/sanit.html.
28. Coles, Kevin. FedEx correspondence of March 23, 1999, February 19, 1999, and July 23,
1999.
29. Colins, H.L., Jr. (Assembled by). 1981. Harper and Row's Complete Field Guide to North
American Wildlife, Eastern Edition. Harper & Row, Publisher's Inc., New York.
30. Daniel, C. C., III and Harned, D.A. 1998. Groundwater Recharge to and Storage in the
Rego Iith-Fractured Crystalline Rock Aquifer System, Guilford County, North Carolina:
U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4140.
31. Division of Coastal Management (NCDEHNR). 1999 [Online]. North Carolina Coastal
Management Program. http://www.nos.noaa.gov/ocrm/czm/Czm.northcarolina.
32. Dorwin, J. 1977. Archeological Survey of the Greensboro/High Point Airport Expansion.
Guilford County, North Carolina. Soil Systems, Inc., Marietta, Georgia.
W.\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch-9\Ch_9.doc\03/29/00 9-2 Chapter 9.0 References