20151065 Ver 1_ Draft EA_20141201

December 4, 2014
URS Corporation Southern
7650 W. Courtney Campbell Causeway
Tampa, Florida 33607-1462
(P):813-286-1711 (F):813-636-2400
N.C.Pept. of ENR
DEC 0 5 2014
Sue Homewood ms's Wrjj �,r -oaiem
Environmental Specialist Regional office
North Carolina Dept. of Env. and Natural Resources
Winston-Salem Regional Office, Division of Water Resources — Water Quality Programs
585 Waughtown Street -
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
PROPOSEDIMPROVEMENTS
PIEDMONT TRIAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
GREENSBORO,NC
Dear Ms. Homewood:
On behalf of the Piedmont Triad Airport Authority, we are forwarding the Draft Environmental Assessment
for Cross -Field Taxiway and Site Development Projects at Piedmont Triad /ntemational -Airport
Greensboro, North Carolina for your review and comment. The Draft EA describes the purpose and need
for the Proposed Project; alternatives considered; and potential impacts associated with the Proposed
Project. -The Notice of Availability for the Draft EA and a Notice of a Public Hearing was published in local
newspapers on December 6, 2014. A combined Public Information Workshop / Public Hearing is
scheduled to be held on Wednesday, January 7, 2015. The list of federal, state, and local agencies
receiving -a copy of the Draft EA is provided in Chapter 6.0 of the Draft EA.
Please contact me at [phone] if you have any questions regarding the proposed development
project or Draft EA.
Sincerely,
URS CORPORATION
Russell P. Forrest, GISP
Project Coordinator
Enclosures 3
Copy: Piedmont Triad Airport- Authority

URS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
Date: December 4, 2014
To: GSO Draft Environmental Assessment
Recipient
RE: GSO Draft Environmental Assessment
The followina items are beina sent:
Job No: 12011299
From: Russell Forrest, GISP
Project Coordinator
URS CORPORATION
7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway
Tampa, Florida 33607-1462
[phone] (x6517)
[phone] (fax)
N C of ENR
DEC 0 5 2014
"inon-salem
Item Copies Date Description
1 1 12/4/2014 GSO Draft Environmental Assessment — Printed Documentation with
Appendices on CD-ROM
2 1 12/4/2014 GSO Draft Environmental Assessment— Electronic Copy on CD-ROM
3
4
5
❑ As Requested ❑ For Your Use ❑ For Your Approval
® For Review and Comment ❑ Make Corrections Noted ❑
Remarks: On behalf of the Piedmont Triad Airport Authority, we are forwarding the Draft Environmental Assessment
for Cross -Field Taxiway and Site Development Projects at Piedmont Triad International Airport Greensboro,
North Carolina for your review and comment.
Best Regards,
Russell Forrest
Copy:
If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once.
Russell P Forrest

Draft
Environmental Assessment
for
Cross -Field Taxiway
and Site Development Projects
at
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Greensboro, North Carolina
December 2014
PT/
PIEDMONT TRIAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Prepared bv:
Piedmont Triad Airport Authority
1000-A Ted Johnson Parkway
Greensboro, North Carolina 27409
„-A
URS
URS Corporation
7650 W. Courtney Campbell Causeway
Tampa, Florida 33607-1462
Federal Aviation Administration
Memphis Airports District Office
2600 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Suite 2250
Memphis, Tennessee 38118

DRAFT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Paqe
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED.................................................................................................................
1-1
1.1
Introduction......................................................................................................................1-1
1.2
Description of Proposed Action........................................................................................1-1
1.2.1 Proposed Improvements.....................................................................................1-1
1.2.2 ASR Relocation...................................................................................................
1-5
1.2.3 Rail Improvements..............................................................................................1-5
1.3
Purpose and Need...........................................................................................................1-6
1.3.1 Need....................................................................................................................1-6
1.3.2 Purpose...............................................................................................................1-9
1.4
Requested Federal Actions..............................................................................................1-9
1.5
Time Frame of the Proposed Project...............................................................................1-9
2.0 ALTERNATIVES
...........................................................................................................................
2-1
2.1
Introduction......................................................................................................................2-1
2.2
Alternatives Screening Process Overview.......................................................................2-1
2.2.1 Level 1 Analysis — Purpose and Need................................................................2-1
2.2.2 Level 2 Analysis — Operations and Constructability............................................2-2
2.2.3 Level 3 Analysis — Environmental Considerations..............................................2-3
2.3
Alternatives Considered...................................................................................................
2-3
2.3.1 Initial Alternative Site Identification.....................................................................2-3
2.3.2 Other Airport Sites...............................................................................................
2-4
2.3.3 Alternatives Evaluated........................................................................................2-5
2.4
Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration........................................................2-5
2.4.1 Alternative Site 1 (Southeast).............................................................................
2-5
2.4.2 Alternative Site 2 (South)..................................................................................2-12
2.4.3 Alternative Site 3 (Southwest)...........................................................................2-13
2.4.4 Alternative Site 4 (Combination/Non-Contiguous Sites)...................................2-15
2.5
Alternatives Retained for Detailed Analysis...................................................................2-16
2.5.1 Proposed Project...............................................................................................2-16
2.5.2 No -Action Alternative........................................................................................2-18
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.......................................................................................................3-1
3.1
Air Quality.........................................................................................................................
3-4
3.1.1 Regulatory Summary..........................................................................................3-4
3.1.2 Criteria Air Pollutants..........................................................................................
3-4
3.1.3 Air Monitoring Data.............................................................................................3-4
3.1.4 Attainment/Nonattainment Status.......................................................................
3-5
3.1.5 State Implementation Plans................................................................................
3-5
3.1.6 Transportation Improvement Program................................................................3-6
3.1.7 Sources of Airport Air Emissions........................................................................
3-6
3.2
Compatible Land Use.......................................................................................................3-7
3.2.1 Northern Portion of GSA.....................................................................................3-7
3.2.2 Central Portion of GSA.......................................................................................
3-7
3.2.3 Southern Portion of GSA....................................................................................
3-9
3.2.4 Land Use within the DSA ...... ..............................................................................
3-9
3.3
Department of Transportation Section 4(f) and Department of Interior Section 6(f)
Resources........................................................................................................................
3-9
3.4
Fish, Wildlife, and Plants................................................................................................3-13
3.4.1 Biotic Communities...........................................................................................3-13
3.4.2 Threatened and Endangered Species..............................................................3-13
3.5
Floodplains.....................................................................................................................3-17
3.6
Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste........................................................................3-17
3.6.1 Hazardous Materials.........................................................................................
3-19
S:\BD\Marketing\Wp_Wpro\12011299_ Piedmont EA\Draft EA\TOC.docx i Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section
DRAFT
Page
S:\BD\Marketing\Wp_Wpro\12011299_ Piedmont EA\Draft EA\TOC.docx Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment
3.6.2 Fuel Storage Sites............................................................................................3-19
3.6.3 Solid Waste.......................................................................................................3-19
3.7
Historic and Archaeological Resources.........................................................................3-22
3.7.1 Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act ...........
3-22
3.7.2 Historic, Architectural, and Archaeological Area of Potential Effect .................3-22
3.7.3 Historic and Archaeological Resources............................................................3-23
3.8
Noise..............................................................................................................................
3-24
3.9
Social Characteristics.....................................................................................................3-25
3.9.1 Population.........................................................................................................3-25
3.9.2 Racial Composition...........................................................................................3-26
3.9.3 Age Distribution.................................................................................................3-26
3.9.4 Income Distribution...........................................................................................3-26
3.9.5 Socioeconomics................................................................................................3-26
3.10
Water Quality.................................................................................................................
3-28
3.10.1 Potable Water...................................................................................................
3-28
3.10.2 Surface Water...................................................................................................3-28
3.10.3 Groundwater.....................................................................................................
3-31
3.11
Wetlands........................................................................................................................
3-31
3.11.1 Regulatory Background....................................................................................3-31
3.11.2 Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands in the DSA ...................................................
3-32
3.12
Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ...................................................
3-32
3.12.1 Airport Development Actions............................................................................3-32
3.12.2 Other Area Development Actions.....................................................................
3-34
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.......................................................................................4-1
4.1
Introduction......................................................................................................................4-1
4.1.1 Study Years.........................................................................................................4-1
4.1.2 Evaluation of Impacts..........................................................................................4-5
4.1.3 Resource Categories Not Affected.....................................................................4-5
4.2
Air Quality.........................................................................................................................4-5
4.2.1 Overview of Impacts...........................................................................................4-5
4.2.2 Methodology........................................................................................................4-6
4.2.3 Impacts................................................................................................................
4-7
4.2.4 Conformity Assessments and Permits..............................................................4-10
4.2.5 Comparison of Significant Impact Thresholds..................................................4-13
4.2.6 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................4-14
4.2.7 Mitigation...........................................................................................................4-14
4.3
Compatible Land Use.....................................................................................................4-15
4.3.1 Overview of Impacts.........................................................................................4-15
4.3.2 Methodology......................................................................................................4-15
4.3.3 Impacts ..............................................................................................................
4-15
4.3.4 Comparison of Significant Impact Thresholds..................................................4-18
4.3.5 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................4-19
4.3.6 Mitigation...........................................................................................................4-19
4.4
Construction Impacts.....................................................................................................4-19
4.4.1 Overview of Impacts.........................................................................................4-19
4.4.2 Methodology......................................................................................................4-20
4.4.3 Impacts ..............................................................................................................
4-20
4.4.4 Comparison of Significant Impact Thresholds..................................................4-24
4.4.5 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................4-24
4.4.6 Mitigation...........................................................................................................4-24
4.5
Department of Transportation Section 4(f) and Department of Interior Section 6(f)
Resources......................................................................................................................4-25
S:\BD\Marketing\Wp_Wpro\12011299_ Piedmont EA\Draft EA\TOC.docx Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

Section
4.6
4.7
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
DRAFT
Page
4.5.1
Overview of Impacts.........................................................................................4-25
4.5.2
Methodology......................................................................................................4-25
4.5.3
Impacts ..............................................................................................................
4-26
4.5.4
Comparison of Significant
Impact Thresholds..................................................4-27
4.5.5
Cumulative Effects............................................................................................4-27
4.5.6
Mitigation...........................................................................................................4-27
Fish, Wildlife, and Plants................................................................................................4-27
4.6.1
Overview of Impacts.........................................................................................4-27
4.6.2
Methodology......................................................................................................4-28
4.6.3
Impacts ..............................................................................................................
4-28
4.6.4
Comparison of Significant
Impact Thresholds..................................................4-30
4.6.5
Cumulative Effects............................................................................................4-30
4.6.6
Mitigation...........................................................................................................4-31
Floodplains.....................................................................................................................
4-31
4.7.1
Overview of Impacts.........................................................................................4-31
4.7.2
Methodology......................................................................................................4-31
4.7.3
Impacts ..............................................................................................................
4-32
4.7.4
Cumulative Effects............................................................................................4-35
4.7.5
Comparison of Significant
Impact Thresholds..................................................4-36
4.7.6
Mitigation...........................................................................................................4-36
Hazardous
Materials/Hazardous Waste........................................................................4-36
4.8.1
Overview of Impacts.........................................................................................4-36
4.8.2
Methodology......................................................................................................4-37
4.8.3
Impacts..............................................................................................................4-37
4.8.4
Cumulative Effects............................................................................................4-40
4.8.5
Comparison of Significant
Impact Thresholds..................................................4-41
4.8.6
Mitigation...........................................................................................................4-41
Historic and Archaeological Resources
.........................................................................4-41
4.9.1
Overview of Impacts.........................................................................................4-41
4.9.2
Methodology......................................................................................................4-41
4.9.3
Impacts ..............................................................................................................
4-42
4.9.4
Comparison of Significant
Impact Thresholds..................................................4-43
4.9.5
Cumulative Effects............................................................................................4-43
4.9.6
Mitigation...........................................................................................................4-43
Light Emissions
and Visual Impact
................................................................................4-43
4.10.1
Overview of Impacts.........................................................................................4-43
4.10.2
Methodology......................................................................................................4-44
4.10.3
Impacts ..............................................................................................................
4-44
4.10.4
Cumulative Effects............................................................................................4-46
4.10.5
Comparison of Significant
Impact Thresholds..................................................4-46
4.10.6
Mitigation...........................................................................................................4-46
Noise..............................................................................................................................4-47
4.11.1
Overview of Impacts.........................................................................................4-47
4.11.2
Methodology......................................................................................................4-47
4.11.3
Impacts ..............................................................................................................
4-47
4.11.4
Cumulative Effects............................................................................................4-48
4.11.5
Comparison of Significant
Impact Thresholds..................................................4-49
4.11.6
Mitigation...........................................................................................................4-49
Secondary (Induced) Impacts........................................................................................4-49
4.12.1
Overview of Impacts.........................................................................................4-49
4.12.2
Methodology......................................................................................................4-49
4.12.3
Impacts ..............................................................................................................
4-50
S:\BD\Marketing\Wp_Wpro\12011299_ Piedmont EA\Draft EA\TOC.docx Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

Section
5.0
7.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
DRAFT
Page
S:\BD\Marketing\Wp_Wpro\12011299_ Piedmont EA\Draft EA\TOC.docx iv Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment
4.12.4 Comparison of Significant Impact Thresholds..................................................4-55
4.12.5 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................4-56
4.12.6 Mitigation...........................................................................................................4-56
4.13
Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental Justice, and Children's Environmental Health
andSafety Risks............................................................................................................
4-56
4.13.1 Overview of Impacts.........................................................................................4-56
4.13.2 Methodology......................................................................................................4-56
4.13.3 Impacts ..............................................................................................................
4-57
4.13.4 Comparison of Significant Impact Thresholds..................................................4-61
4.13.5 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................4-61
4.13.6 Mitigation...........................................................................................................4-61
4.14
Water Quality.................................................................................................................4-62
4.14.1 Overview of Impacts.........................................................................................4-62
4.14.2 Methodology......................................................................................................4-63
4.14.3 Impacts ..............................................................................................................
4-63
4.14.4 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................4-71
4.14.5 Comparison of Significant Impact Thresholds..................................................4-71
4.14.6 Mitigation...........................................................................................................4-72
4.15
Wetlands........................................................................................................................4-72
4.15.1 Overview of Impacts.........................................................................................4-72
4.15.2 Methodology......................................................................................................4-72
4.15.3 Impacts ..............................................................................................................
4-72
4.15.4 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................4-74
4.15.5 Comparison to Significant Impact Thresholds..................................................4-74
4.15.6 Mitigation...........................................................................................................4-75
4.16
Natural Resources and Energy Supply..........................................................................4-75
4.16.1 Overview of Impacts.........................................................................................4-75
4.16.2 Methodology......................................................................................................4-75
4.16.3 Impacts ..............................................................................................................
4-76
4.16.4 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................4-77
4.16.5 Comparison to Significant Impact Thresholds..................................................4-77
4.16.6 Mitigation...........................................................................................................4-77
MITIGATION.................................................................................................................................
5-1
5.1
Introduction......................................................................................................................5-1
5.2
Mitigation for Unavoidable Wetland and Stream Impacts................................................5-1
5.3
Mitigation for Residential and Business Relocations.......................................................
5-2
5.4
Mitigation for Unavoidable Floodplain Impacts................................................................5-2
COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT........................................................................6-1
6.1
Introduction......................................................................................................................6-1
6.2
Early Agency Coordination..............................................................................................
6-1
6.3
Agency Coordination Meeting..........................................................................................6-1
6.4
Draft EA Availability for Review.......................................................................................
6-1
6.5
List of Agencies Receiving the Draft EA..........................................................................6-2
6.6
Opportunity for Public Hearing.........................................................................................6-4
6.7
Final EA Availability for Review.......................................................................................
6-5
LIST OF PREPARERS.................................................................................................................7-1
7.1
List of Preparers...............................................................................................................7-1
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................
8-1
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND GLOSSARY.....................................................9-1
9.1
List of Acronyms...............................................................................................................9-1
9.2
Glossary of Terms............................................................................................................
9-2
S:\BD\Marketing\Wp_Wpro\12011299_ Piedmont EA\Draft EA\TOC.docx iv Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Agency Consultation
Appendix B Air Quality
Appendix C Wetlands, Fish, Wildlife, and Plants
Appendix D Historic Resources/Section 106 Coordination
Appendix E Alternatives Analysis Cross Field Taxiway Alignment
LIST OF TABLES
Table
2.3-1 Alternatives Screening Evaluation Summary
3.2-1 Land Uses within the Generalized Study Area.........................................................................
3.2-2 Land Uses within the Detailed Study Area................................................................................
3.3-1 Potential Section 4(f) Resources within the GSA.....................................................................
3.4-1 Biotic Communities within the DSA...........................................................................................
3.4-2 Threatened and Endangered Species Listed for Guilford County ............................................
3.6-1 Sites Included in the EPA Hazardous Substances Databases within or Adjacent to the DSA.
3.8-1 Comparison of Aircraft Operations Levels - 2007 Part 150 Study and 2012 FAA ATADS.......
3.9-1 Community Characteristics (2011)............................................................................................
3.9-2 Top 10 Employers in Greensboro (2011)..................................................................................
4.2-1 Near -Term Construction Air Emissions Inventory.....................................................................
4.2-2 Long -Term Construction Air Emissions Inventory....................................................................
4.2-3 Operational Air Emissions Inventory for Aircraft.......................................................................
4.2-4 General Conformity de minimis Levels in the Greensboro Nonattainment Area ......................
4.2-5 Summary of Near -Term Project and Long -Term Project Air Emissions ...................................
4.3-1 Land Acquisition Needed for the Proposed Project..................................................................
4.6-1 Acres of Impacts to Land Use/Vegetative Cover Resulting from the Near -Term Project.........
4.6-2 Acres of Impacts to Land Use/Vegetative Cover Resulting from the Proposed Project...........
4.7-1 Potential Floodplain Impacts.....................................................................................................
4.8-1 Proposed Project RCRA Sites..................................................................................................
4.12-1 Examples of Aerospace Companies/Facilities..........................................................................
Page
2-11
..3-7
..3-9
3-11
3-15
3-16
3-21
3-24
3-25
3-27
..4-7
..4-8
..4-9
4-11
4-12
4-16
4-28
4-30
4-32
4-38
4-51
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\TOC.docx v Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Para e
1.2-1 Airport Location Map.....................................................................................................................1-2
1.2-2 Proposed Project Conceptual Development Plan.........................................................................1-3
2.3-1
Site Development Alternatives......................................................................................................2-6
2.3-2
Site Development Alternative 1.....................................................................................................
2-7
2.3-3
Site Development Alternative 2.....................................................................................................
2-8
2.3-4
Site Development Alternative 3.....................................................................................................
2-9
2.3-5
Site Development Alternative 4...................................................................................................2-10
3.0-1
Generalized and Detailed Study Areas.........................................................................................
3-2
3.0-2
Detailed Study Area......................................................................................................................
3-3
3.2-1
Existing Land Use within the Generalized Study Area.................................................................
3-8
3.2-2
Existing Land Use within the Detailed Study Area......................................................................3-10
3.3-1
Section 4(f) Resources within the Generalized Study Area........................................................3-12
3.4-1
Biotic Communities within the Detailed Study Area....................................................................3-14
3.5-1
Floodplains within the Detailed Study Area................................................................................3-18
3.6-1
Hazardous Substances within the Detailed Study Area.............................................................3-20
3.10-1
Water Resources........................................................................................................................3-29
3.11-1
Water of the U.S. Including Wetlands within the DSA................................................................3-33
4.1-1
Near -Term Project (2015) .............................................................................................................4-2
4.1-2
Long -Term Project (2020).............................................................................................................4-3
4.1.3
Proposed Project (Full Build-Out).................................................................................................4-4
4.3-1
Land Use Impacts within the Proposed Project (Full Build-Out).................................................4-17
4.7-1
Floodplain Impacts within the Proposed Project (Full Build-Out)...............................................4-33
S:\BD\Marketing\Wp_Wpro\12011299_ Piedmont EA\Draft EA\TOC.docx vi Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 1.0
PURPOSE AND NEED
1.1 INTRODUCTION
DRAFT
Piedmont Triad Airport Authority (referred to in this document as "PTAH" or "Airport Sponsor") proposes to
construct taxiways, develop approximately 972 acres of land, and undertake site preparation activities to
accommodate additional aviation -related development at the Piedmont Triad International Airport (GSO).
This chapter of the Environmental Assessment (EA) describes the proposed airfield and land
development improvements at GSO, describes the objectives of the PTAH, and states the need for and
purpose of the requested federal actions.
1.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
1.2.1 Proposed Improvements
The project proposed by PTAA would improve existing and previously disturbed and developed parcels of
land collectively located immediately adjacent to and northwest of the GSO airfield (see Figure 1.2-1).
These land areas would be improved to provide approximately 972 acres of land suitable to
accommodate existing and anticipated future demand for aviation -related and aviation -allied activities.
The use of the approximately 972 -acre development area is predicated upon the development of various
taxiway system and infrastructure improvements that would provide unrestricted aircraft operational
access to the airport's existing system of runways and supporting taxiways. The Proposed Project will
serve to preserve and protect the PTAA's ability to continue the on-going development of the airport for
aviation -related use.
The exact site layout, composition (number and size of tenants), and development schedule for the
aviation facilities cannot be determined at this time. The acreage and site development requirements of
each prospective tenant would be influenced by prevailing market conditions, the operational needs of
each tenant, and respective business decisions by prospective tenants and the PTAH. However, this EA
will evaluate a conceptual build -out of an approximately 900 -acre site that anticipates use of the property
by several large aircraft maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) facilities and aircraft manufacturing
facilities. This 900 -acre development site also includes construction of a rail transfer facility to support
development and operation of the proposed future aviation -related activities. The Proposed Project
would be accomplished in two phases, referred to in this EA as the Near -Term Project and Long -Term
Project. The remaining 72 acres of the 972 -acre development area will be designated for future aviation
use. This 72 -acre site is located between Runway 5R/23L and Highway 68 (Figure 1.2-2). There are no
immediate plans for development of this 72 -acre parcel. This area will be reserved for future aviation use
and developed when the need arises. However, in order to fully disclose any potential impacts resulting
from future development of this 72 -acre parcel, this area has been included as part of the environmental
analysis for the Near -Term Project. A conceptual development plan is depicted in Figure 1.2-2.
S:\BD\Marketing\Wp_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 1.docx 1 -1 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

,
f
Virginia
Piedmont Triad
International Airport
Greensboro
Winston-Salem Durham
Asheville Raleigh Greenville
North Carolina
Charlotte
Fayetteville
South Carolina
N
Miles
w+e Wilmington
s o so ,00 Atlantic
FORSYTH
COUNTY
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
1� L
DAVIDSONP
COUNTY
Ocean
or
t_
Project Site
0
ROCKINGHAM
COUNTY
"S—u,,,Rffi,ld
\ 1
Piedmont Triad 0
International Airport -?
GUILFORD
COUNTY
Q
a
0
�o
Legend
OPiedmont Triad
Project Site
International Airport
Airport Property
— Runway
Municipality
Interstate
i rJl
County
E U.S. Road
Water
State Road
Sources: N
- NCDOT, 2009; URS, 2009
W+ E
Miles
n
RA' \%
-ncONEmap, 2009 Q
- ESRI Streetmap, 2008 S
3

El
Legend
Conceptual Airport Site
Development Plan
Taxiway Development Area
Rail Development Area
Future Aviation Use
(72 -acre site)
0 Conceptual Buildings
Proposed Project
Airfield Pavement
Proposed Taxiway
Future 1-73 Connector
- - Existing Airport Boundary
+� Proposed Rail Line
Sources:
- ESRI, 2013
- URS Corp, 2013
Feet
s 0 2,000
1►rel 3
i
. f{,
�VI'e 1
L i a
N PIEDMONT TRIAD
PTS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PROPOSED PROJECT FIGURE
_Q CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1.2-2
Environmental Assessment
a

DRAFT
The Near -Term Project improvements evaluated in this EA are listed below.
• Acquisition of approximately 249 acres of land;
• Site preparation of approximately 553 acres of land for aviation development,
including clearing, grading, and excavation;
• Extension of utilities to the Near -Term development area, including electrical, natural
gas, water, sanitary sewer, communications, and other related infrastructure;
• Extension and/or installation of stormwater collection and treatment infrastructure
within the Near -Term development area;
• Construction of aircraft parking aprons and associated aviation -related facilities within
the Near -Term development area;
• Closure of a portion of Joseph M. Bryan Boulevard and other local road closures;
• Construction of a cross -field taxiway system linking the proposed Near -Term
development area to the existing airfield;
Development of aviation support and service facilities as needed to support aviation -
related activities associated with the Near -Term development;
• Construction of access roads;
• Development of a rail spur or a transfer facility connecting the proposed development
site to the Norfolk Southern Railroad tracks located to the southwest of GS02; and
• Implementation of mitigation measures for unavoidable wetland and stream impacts
associated with the Near -Term development.
The Long -Term GSO improvements evaluated in this EA (hereinafter referred to as the "Long -Term
Projects") include the following:
Acquisition of approximately 166 acres of additional land;
Site preparation of approximately 407 acres of additional land for aviation -related
development;
Extension of utilities to the Long -Term development area, including electrical, natural
gas, water, sanitary sewer, communications, and other related infrastructure;
The acreage figure for the land to be acquired includes the entire tract that PTAA will have to buy for a rail transfer station
(discussed below). However, the Proposed Project does not involve any development on that tract other than the transfer facility
itself so the remaining land is not included in this EA in the acreage to be developed.
2 Conceptual plans for providing railroad access to the development area are being considered by the PTAA and FAA. One option
is to provide direct rail access to the development area by constructing a spur from the existing Norfolk Southern Railroad line. If
a spur is determined to not be practicable or feasible, another option entails developing a rail transfer facility south of West
Market Street. At the transfer facility, material (i.e., aircraft components) would be off-loaded from rail cars onto vehicles that
would transport the material across the airfield to the development site. Because the final selection of a rail option requires
substantial planning and coordination, both rail options are consolidated in this EA for the purposes of evaluating and disclosing
impacts.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 1.docx 1-4 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
• Extension and/or installation of stormwater collection and treatment infrastructure
within the Long -Term development area;
• Construction of aircraft parking aprons and associated aviation -related facilities within
the Long -Term development area;
• Relocation of GSO's existing airport surveillance radar (ASR) facility from its current
location to a new location outside the proposed development area (see below);
• Construction of access roads within the Long -Term development area;
• Construction of a full-length parallel taxiway on the northwest side of Runway 5L/23R
to link the remainder of the new development area to the runway; and
• Implementation of mitigation measures for unavoidable wetland and stream impacts.
1.2.2 ASR Relocation
Although the relocation of the ASR has been included in the Long -Term Project, PTAA's ability to
complete the relocation within the time frame of the other Long -Term Projects is uncertain due to the
need for PTAA to secure adequate funding for the relocation and due to the length of time required for
PTAA to obtain the use of a temporary ASR tower during the transition from the existing to the new ASR
facility. There are only a few temporary ASR towers nationwide and a long lead time is needed before
they become available. The ASR would only be relocated for the purpose of constructing new aviation
facilities on the existing ASR site.
1.2.3 Rail Improvements
The Proposed Action provides for two mutually exclusive options for delivering aircraft components and
materials arriving by rail to the proposed development sites:
• A spur track that would run from the existing Norfolk Southern line that is south of W.
Market Street, cross W. Market Street at grade and then run to the proposed
development sites along a route roughly parallel to future Taxiway G as shown on
Figure 1.2-2.
• A rail transfer facility to be located south of W. Market Street at the location shown on
Figure 1.2-2. Rail cargo would be off-loaded from rail cars at the transfer facility onto
vehicles, which would then carry the cargo by roadway over W. Market Street across
the airfield to the proposed development sites along airfield pavements or the airport
perimeter road. The transfer station would include a short spur track, a platform
where the cargo would be unloaded, the access road to the airfield, and a bridge for
the road to cross W. Market Street.
The choice between the spur track and transfer station options depends on future developments,
including the needs of future aviation tenants and the availability of funding. For this reason, the
combined impacts of both choices are being evaluated in this EA, including the relocation, land
disturbance, flood plain, and stream and wetland impacts of both. The potential impacts on Section 106
Resources of both the spur track and transfer station have also been considered. Therefore, when the
SABD\Marketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 1.docx 1-5 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
future choice is made between the two options, their impacts will have been fully considered and
accounted for in this EA. Actual impacts of the selected option will be less since the impacts of the other
option will not occur.
The spur track alternative would cross the Runway 5L Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). At the current
time, FAA policy would not permit the crossing at grade and would require the construction of a tunnel for
the spur track to pass under the RPZ. The at grade crossing will remain under consideration in this EA in
case FAA policy changes to permit such development. Otherwise the spur track alternative contemplated
in this EA will be assumed to include the tunnel construction. There is no significant difference in the
environmental impacts between an at grade and tunnel crossing of the RPZ so a separate evaluation of
the impacts of these two designs is unnecessary.
1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED
1.3.1 Need
1.3.1.1 Provide Suitable Sites with Airfield Access for New Aviation -Related Development
For more than 30 years, PTAA has successfully attracted aviation and aviation -allied companies to GSO
and has developed a growing cluster of aviation -related facilities, including both aircraft maintenance and
aircraft manufacturing operations. In 1989, PTAA entered into a lease with Triad International
Maintenance Corporation (TIMCO) for the construction of an aircraft maintenance hangar. Since then,
TIMCO has constructed the initial hangar and two additional hangars, has leased a fourth hangar and is
now contemplating the construction of two more hangars at GSO for its growing third -party maintenance
business. In 1992, Cessna Aircraft Company leased a site for construction of a maintenance and repair
facility, which it now operates to service Cessna aircraft. In 2008, an expansion that effectively doubled
the Cessna aircraft parking ramp was completed and Cessna continues to consider a similar expansion to
the hangar facility. PTAA took another major step in aerospace development in 2007 by attracting Honda
Aircraft Company, which has built a research and development facility and aircraft manufacturing hangar
at GSO, followed in 2011 with its selection of GSO as the site for its first MRO facility and subsequent
construction of the facility.
GSO has numerous advantages that make it especially suitable for aviation -related development. GSO is
centered along the east coast of the United States (U.S.), with excellent highway access for parts and
materials through the convergence of two existing interstate highways and the ongoing construction of a
third. GSO is also located in an area that experiences few natural disasters, such as earthquakes and
hurricanes that affect airports in other regions of the country. Most importantly, GSO has relatively
uncongested airspace and airfield capacity, which enables companies such as aircraft manufacturers to
avoid competition from other aircraft traffic while arriving and departing from the airport and conducting
aircraft test flights.
Approximately 4,000 individuals are now employed in aviation -related industries at GSO, helping to
compensate for the loss of manufacturing employment that has occurred over the past few decades in the
Piedmont Triad region. Skilled jobs in this industry pay relatively high wages and benefits. In response to
the demand for technicians to support the aviation industry, Guilford Technical Community College
(GTCC) has enlarged an existing training program for aviation -related employment, now offering 2- and
SABD\Marketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 1.docx 1-6 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
4 -year degrees in this field. The GTCC program responds to the growing demand for such skills by
aircraft manufacturing and maintenance companies and creates the need for new employment
opportunities for GTCC graduates.
The existing aircraft development, manufacturing, and support sites at GSO are clustered on Taxiway M
on the southeast side of Runway 5R/23L. Most of the available space in this sector has now been
occupied and PTAA is rapidly exhausting the available sites for future development. Airport growth is
constrained on the northeast and southwest sides of the airfield by existing natural and man-made
features and facilities, and there are insufficient sites for aviation -related development in these sectors.
The size and configuration of important factors for aircraft manufacturing and aircraft maintenance
facilities. These type facilities routinely accommodate numerous aircraft and sometimes very large
aircraft. Therefore, hangar building and parking requirements for these type of companies often greatly
exceed what is necessary for traditional manufacturing facilities. It is not unusual for an aircraft
manufacturing company to occupy several hundred acres at an airport. In addition, manufacturing,
assembly, maintenance facilities, and other aviation -related development requires access to taxiways and
aircraft parking aprons. These taxiways and aprons have FAA -mandated design standards for separation
distances, clear areas [i.e., Taxiway Object Free Areas (TOFA)], and building setbacks that can
encumber large amounts of land. The configuration of the property is also a critical factor and must
provide sufficient depth and flexibility to accommodate the numerous design criteria for aerospace
development.
The demanding site requirements for aerospace facilities are illustrated by a number of examples from
around the country. The Savannah/Hilton Head International Airport (SAV) has approximately 440 acres
of land presently dedicated to commercial activity and aircraft manufacturing. Of the 440 acres,
approximately 280 acres (64 percent) is occupied by a single aircraft manufacturer. Brookley Aeroplex,
located in Mobile, Alabama, has approximately 827 acres of developable land dedicated for logistics and
manufacturing, research and training, and aerospace technology (Economic & Planning Systems, et al.,
2013). Brookley Aeroplex supports aircraft manufacturing, aircraft maintenance and repair, aircraft
engine testing, and air cargo operations. The new Airbus A320 assembly plant at Brookley will initially
comprise more than 50 acres of buildings, aprons, and roadways on a 116 -acre site (Airbus, 2012). The
JetPlex Industrial Park, an intermodal industrial park complex (air, rail, and truck) at Huntsville
International Airport encompasses approximately 4,000 acres (Port of Huntsville, 2013).
The importance of sufficient land area and access to airfield facilities and surface transportation systems
was demonstrated in a recent request for proposal (RFP) issued by a prospective aerospace tenant.
Requirements specified in this RFP include a site consisting of 300-400 contiguous acres, access to a
9,000 -foot runway, direct and rail service to and from the site, and a dedicated and direct rail spur into the
site for the movement of materials and equipment. PTAA submitted a proposed response to the RFP
along with competing airports. Although GSO was not selected as the site for the facility, this process
confirmed the need for PTAA to have sites of comparable size and utility available for prospective
aerospace tenants.
SABD\Marketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 1.docx 1-7 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
As revealed in PTAA's 2012 Airport Master Plan Update (the "Master Plan") approved by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), the open areas for GSO's future development lie northwest of the airfield,
in the vicinity of new Runway 5L/23R, where the Proposed Project would occur. Upcoming construction
of the Interstate 73 (1-73) Connector will allow closure of Joseph M. Bryan Boulevard in this area, and
further open this area to aviation -related use. Much of the land in this area is already owned by PTAH,
including approximately 170 acres on the airfield side of the new connector and approximately 345 acres
of the opposite side of the connector, which are available for the aviation sites shown on Figure 1.2-2.
This development area can be expanded to approximately 800 acres through the acquisition of adjacent
tracts, as called for in Phase I of the Master Plan Land Acquisition Program, and through the closure of
Joseph M. Bryan Boulevard and other public roads. The development of this area will prepare sites with
necessary infrastructure to accommodate future aviation needs at GSO.
1.3.1.2 Provide Development Opportunities for Use of Idle Land
As pointed out above, PTAA currently owns approximately 170 acres on the airfield side of the 1-73
Connector and approximately 345 acres on the opposite side. A considerable public investment has
been made in this acreage for future airport development. Much of this land is not immediately available
for aviation -related use due to its lack of airfield access and other site development. PTAA has
determined that an initial and necessary step for making this area suitable for and attractive to the types
of development for which it was acquired is to make it accessible to the existing airfield and to perform
basic site preparation, including installation of utilities necessary to support any future development
needs. In addition, PTAA needs the ability to offer rail access to potential sites to carry airframe and
aircraft components that are too large for highway transport. Due to the lack of the necessary
infrastructure and site development PTAA land is either idle or, in the case of the tract on the opposite
side of the connector, is currently being used as a golf course. The golf course was purchased by PTAA
from a private owner for airport expansion and the golf course has remained in operation solely on an
interim basis pending its closure by PTAA to develop the property for aviation use. The taxiways and
other development contemplated by the Proposed Project are necessary for this land to be used
productively to achieve its optimum use for PTAH.
1.3.1.3 Meet Schedule Needs of Potential Aviation Tenants
PTAA would not know in advance the acreage and facility needs of any particular tenant or the combined
demands of the aviation -related companies that it hopes to attract. Due to this uncertainty, PTAA must
be in a position to offer the entire area proposed for site development to one or more aviation -related
companies. Moreover, only a small portion of the land in the subject area has airfield access. Aviation -
related manufacturing and development would require such access for departure of newly -constructed
aircraft, for arrivals and departures from MRO facilities, and for test flights. To provide such access, a
parallel taxiway is needed on the northwest side of Runway 5L/23R, as well as a cross -field taxiway
across the 1-73 Connector.
Aircraft manufacturing and aviation -allied companies searching for available airport sites typically impose
short time frames for site development and construction of their facilities. "Ready to go" sites are in
demand as they allow companies to make site selection decisions and provide a higher level of
assurance that the company can build what they need in a certain time scenario (Livingston and
Alexander, 2013). To remain competitive in attracting aviation -related firms, an airport must prepare
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 1.docx 1-8 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
readily available sites in advance, with airfield access and other necessary infrastructure, for use by such
firms. Unfortunately, PTAA is currently not in a position to offer readily available sites due to the absence
of airfield access and other infrastructure and the long time frame that would be required for obtaining
permits and for site development. Therefore, one of the fundamental needs of the Proposed Project is to
provide the necessary sites, with the required infrastructure, so that PTAA can attract new aviation -
related companies and continue the on-going expansion of the airport as an aviation research,
development, and manufacturing center.
1.3.2 Purpose
The purpose of this National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) analysis is to allow the FAA to
approve an update to the Airport Sponsor's Airport Layout Plan (ALP) depicting the Airport Sponsor's
Proposed Project, as previously defined and depicted in this chapter. A finding by the FAA would allow
the Airport Sponsor to proceed with site development activities using non -FAA funding on approximately
972 acres of land as described, and seek federal funding participation for project components as
determined eligible by the FAA.
1.4 REQUESTED FEDERAL ACTIONS
The requested federal actions considered in this EA include the following:
• Memphis Airports District Office (MEM -ADO) intra -FAA coordination and approval of
an ALP update depicting the proposed future development not depicted on GSO's
previously approved ALP to include changes to PTAA's ALP that are needed for
conformity with the Proposed Project or other selected alternative, including taxiway
alignments and land use designations;
• FAA Eastern Service Area, Planning and Requirements for ASR facilities approval to
relocate GSO's existing ASR airport facility; and
• FAA acceptance of the NEPA analysis completed to support the proposed action and
issuance of an environmental finding necessary to allow federal funding for those
projects determined eligible.
FAA acceptance of a NEPA analysis document and issuance of a decision document or finding is only a
determination that the document satisfies applicable environmental statutes and regulations.
Similarly, FAA approval of an ALP does not indicate the FAA will participate in the cost of any
development proposed. ALP approval indicates that all existing and proposed airport development
shown on the plan meets current FAA Airport Design Standards or a current FAA -approved Modification
of Airport Design Standards and that the proposed development is useful and efficient.
1.5 TIME FRAME OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
If approved by the FAA, development of the Near -Term components of the Proposed Project including
construction of the cross -field taxiway system linking the Near -Term development area to the existing
SABD\Marketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 1.docx 1-9 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
airfield would begin during Calendar Year (CY) 2014. Future build -out of the Long -Term site would be
phased and contingent upon securing aviation -related tenants to occupy the development area. For
planning purposes, it is projected that development of the Long -Term Project would be completed in CY
2020.
S:\BD\Marketing\Wp_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 1.docx 1-10 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 2.0
ALTERNATIVES
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Scope of the Alternative Analysis
DRAFT
This chapter summarizes the screening process used to identify, compare, and evaluate a wide range of
alternatives to the Proposed Project. This chapter presents the following: an overview of the structure of
the alternatives screening process and analysis used in this Environmental Assessment (EA); a
description of reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Project, including the No -Action Alternative; a
concise statement explaining why some alternatives were eliminated from further evaluation in the EA;
and identification of reasonable alternatives retained for further evaluation in the EA.
The alternatives analysis was conducted in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
regulations [40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section (§) 1502.14] and Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) Order 1050.1 E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, which require that
federal agencies perform the following tasks:
• Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and, for
alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for
their having been eliminated.
• Devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail, including the
Proposed Project, so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits.
• Include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.
• Include the alternative of "no -action."
2.2 ALTERNATIVES SCREENING PROCESS OVERVIEW
The alternatives screening process for the proposed taxiway construction and site development project
used a three-level evaluation process. Level 1 of the screening identified those alternatives that would
meet the purpose of and need for the Proposed Project. Level 2 of the screening evaluated the
alternatives in terms of airfield accessibility, land acquisition requirements, development constraints such
as the impact of each alternative on the efficient future development and operation of the airport, the need
to relocate existing infrastructure, impacts to existing airport tenants, and constructability. The Level 3
evaluation focused on key environmental resource impacts.
2.2.1 Level 1 Analysis — Purpose and Need
As discussed in Section 1.3.1.1, airport aviation facilities vary in size, ranging from less than 100 acres to
thousands of acres. The preliminary identification of alternate sites for this EA was influenced by the
objective to provide an aviation development site approximately 700 to 800 acres in size. The amount of
available land is an important factor in determining a site's suitability to support aviation manufacturing,
assembly, and maintenance facilities, and provide access to taxiways, aircraft parking aprons, and other
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 2.docx 2-1 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
airfield facilities. These taxiways and aprons have FAA -mandated design standards for separation
distances, clear areas [i.e., Taxiway Object Free Areas (OFA)], and building setbacks that can encumber
large amounts of land. The size of developable land is also an important factor for aircraft manufacturing
and aircraft maintenance facilities. These type facilities routinely accommodate numerous aircraft and
sometimes very large aircraft.
For this reason, the Level 1 analysis evaluated whether an alternative would provide sites with sufficient
acreage and airfield access for new aviation -related tenants as required by the Purpose and Need for the
Proposed Project. Alternatives that failed to meet this test were not subject to further consideration in
Levels 2 or 3.
2.2.2 Level 2 Analysis — Operations and Constructability
This level of the alternatives screening analysis was designed to determine which alternatives were
considered to be feasible and prudent with respect to airport operations, difficulty of providing airfield
access, rail connectivity, and land acquisition and relocation issues. Alternatives with fewer impacts on
airport operations, more feasible means of providing airfield access, available rail access, and fewer land
acquisition impacts were considered more feasible and practical than other alternatives. Level 2 criteria
considered the following:
Accessibility and Operational Issues - This criterion considered requirements and issues
associated with providing taxiway access to each alternate site. This may include the impact of
taxiway development on existing airport facilities and tenants, complexity of access taxiway
development, potential taxi distances to each alternate site, and/or increased complexity of
aircraft ground operations. This criterion also evaluated an alternative's potential to provide rail
access to the site development area. Alternatives with fewer accessibility issues would be more
favorable than alternatives with more complex accessibility issues.
Land Acquisition Requirements - This criterion addressed the need to acquire land for the
development each alternative. Land acquisition comparisons were made for the total amount of
land to be acquired and the number of business structures and residential structures to be
acquired.
Potential Interference with Planned Airport Development - This criterion addressed the
potential impact of each alternative to directly conflict with planned development at the airport or
to reduce the efficient future use of airport lands for aviation -related uses as envisioned in the
2010 Master Plan Update.
Alternatives that had substantially higher access issues, substantially higher land acquisition and
relocation issues, and/or interfered with planned airport development were not retained for further
evaluation in Level 3.
SABD\Marketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 2.docx 2-2 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
2.2.3 Level 3 Analysis — Environmental Considerations
This level of the screening process focused on select environmental resource categories that have
regulatory requirements (i.e., avoidance and minimization of impacts) and those resources that are
protected under special purpose environmental laws. Alternatives that remained after the Level 3
evaluation are considered in detail in Chapter 4.0, Environmental Consequences, of this EA.
Floodplain involvement - This analysis evaluated each of the alternatives based on the 100 -year
floodplains that would be impacted. Alternatives that would result in no impacts or less net impacts to
floodplains were considered more prudent and feasible than those with greater impacts.
Wetlands - This analysis evaluated each of the alternatives retained for Level 3 evaluation based on the
approximate acreage of wetlands impacted by each alternative. Alternatives having lesser impacts were
considered more prudent and feasible than those generating greater impacts.
Historic and Archaeological Resources - The alternatives screening process evaluated each
alternative on its potential to result in direct impacts to historic and/or archaeological resources listed on,
or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Alternatives that resulted in
fewer impacts to listed resources were considered to be more feasible and practical than those
alternatives that resulted in a greater amount of impact(s).
Department of Transportation (DOT) Act Section 4(f) Resources - The alternatives screening
process evaluated alternatives based on their potential to result in direct impacts to properties protected
under Section 4(f) of the DOT Act. Alternatives that would have no direct impacts to Section 4(f)
resources were considered to be more practicable than alternatives that resulted in Section 4(f) resource
impacts.
Overall, alternatives having lesser environmental impacts were considered more prudent and feasible
than those generating greater impacts. At the conclusion of the Level 3 analysis, alternatives considered
feasible and prudent were retained for subsequent detailed analysis in this EA.
2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A wide range of alternatives and alternate sites were reviewed to identify those that were considered
reasonable and suitable for further consideration. The review of alternate sites included an analysis of
aerial photographs and maps to demarcate areas adjoining GSO that would provide feasible development
sites.
2.3.1 Initial Alternative Site Identification
Potential sites located northeast and east of GSO were not considered reasonable because they are
comprised almost entirely of dense residential subdivisions. In addition, potential sites east of GSO
generally have limited airfield access, which could result in operational issues and complexity based on
their distance from the GSO airfield. In general, these sites would be located 1 mile or more from the
airfield and require a taxiway bridge over the Interstate 73 (1-73) Connector. Rail access to potential
S:\BD\Marketing\Wp_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 2.docx 2-3 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
development sites located northeast and east of GSO would require construction of more than 2 -miles of
rail spur and crossing the 1-73 Connector.
Potential sites southeast and south of GSO have dense industrial development, but appeared to have
fewer accessibility issues. Although there are a large number of businesses located in these areas,
acquisition and redevelopment in these areas would affect fewer residential areas (when compared to
potential sites east of GSO). Rail access to these sites could be provided using the Norfolk Southern rail
line tracks which parallel West Market Street. Although taxiway access to potential sites in these areas is
not optimal and the number of displaced businesses would be high, these sites were analyzed in the
multi-level screening process discussed above.
Potential sites located to the southwest and west of GSO have moderately dense industrial development.
Sites located to the southwest of GSO have the potential to impact the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)
associated with Runway 5L/23R and the planned extension of this runway and its associated taxiways.
In addition to the consideration of individual sites which would provide a contiguous site of sufficient size
to support future development of aviation -related facilities, alternatives were considered which could
provide a combination of two or more relatively large sites (200 to 400 acres each in size) which, in total,
would provide sufficient acreage to support future aviation -related development. Development of non-
contiguous sites for aviation -related use would require construction of multiple taxiway access points to
the airfield at GSO and could limit the range of facilities which could be developed by future tenants.
2.3.2 Other Airport Sites
The identification and evaluation of non-contiguous sites also considered several undeveloped areas
within the existing airport boundaries, as alternatives to the Proposed Project. In many cases, parcels
were small in size, were at scattered locations, or it was apparent the land was associated with other
existing or future aviation -related land uses. It was easily determined that aggregating numerous small
parcels on the airfield would not contribute in a meaningful way to PTAA's need to provide large sites
suitable for development.
The GSO Airport Layout Plan designates four areas within the existing airport boundaries for "Future
Aviation -Related Development." These four parcels, which range in size from 14 to 105 acres, were not
of suitable size to accommodate the large-scale aerospace facilities contemplated in the Project's
Purpose or Need, and these parcels are better suited to accommodate expansion of existing facilities or
the development of facilities that serve other airport functions. For example, a 54 -acre parcel of land
designated in the Master Plan for future aviation -related development is located mid -field, in the vicinity of
the passenger terminal area, public parking lots, and general aviation support area. This parcel is better
suited to accommodate possible future expansion of these type facilities.
Due to the limited size of these sites and the need to retain these sites for other uses, none of them meet
the Purpose and Need of the Proposed Project either singly or in combination.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 2.docx 2-4 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
2.3.3 Alternatives Evaluated
In addition to the No -Action Alternative and the Proposed Project, the alternatives listed below and shown
on Figure 2.3-1 were evaluated using the multi-level screening process.
• Alternative Site 1 — Southeast (shown on Figure 2.3-2)
• Alternative Site 2 — South(shown on Figure 2.3-3)
• Alternative Site 3 — Southwest(shown on Figure 2.3-4)
• Alternative Site 4 — Combination of sites(shown on Figure 2.3-5)
The results of the evaluation of preliminary alternatives are summarized in Table 2.3-1.
2.4 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION
Alternatives that were considered, but eliminated from further detailed analysis in this EA are listed below.
The discussions summarize relevant issues and/or impacts for which an alternative was eliminated.
2.4.1 Alternative Site 1 (Southeast)
This alternative would require the acquisition of approximately 814 acres of land adjoining the southeast
side of GSO for aerospace and aviation -related industries (Figure 2.3-2). Airfield access for Alternative
Site 1 would be provided through a new access taxiway or taxiways connected to parallel Taxiway M,
which serves the southeast side of Runway 5R/23L, or Taxiway C on the northeast side of Runway 14/32.
Rail access would be provided via the Norfolk Southern rail line which parallels West Market Street. The
site is presently built -out with industrial, commercial, and residential land uses. This alternative includes
the acquisition of land, land clearing, and demolition of existing structures and facilities to allow
development of taxiways, aprons, and aerospace -related hangars, buildings, and associated facilities.
The location of Alternative Site 1 is depicted on Figures 2.3-1 and 2.3-2. The results of the screening
process for Alternative 1 are presented in Table 2.3-1.
2.4.1.1 Purpose and Need
Although not an optimum alternative in regard to taxiway development, Alternative Site 1 adjoins GSO
and could be developed for aviation -related use. Therefore, Alternative Site 1 was retained for Level 2
analysis.
2.4.1.2 Operations and Constructability Issues
Alternative Site 1 would require the modification of leases and possibly the removal/modification of
existing aviation -related facilities. Access taxiways from parallel Taxiway M to Alternative Site 1 could be
constructed between existing facilities; however, this would impact several major airfield drainage way
sections. Rail access would be available along the southern border of the site and an existing rail spur
which traverses the site.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 2.docx 2-5 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

w+.
;ii►
WI LL'ARD �
TuCKER.
GENEVA
a -� i
. CDAPdRA yi 1 � _ a _
4
FRA2IER DOWNS
_O
o � L
L4
FRIENDLY L
W HILLS U collogp
TUCKER
F O
Q,AKER ACRES
GENEVA
"4ndly
CDAPORATA)N
Are
f�7ePdly Ave
ti
Cid
ESTWIND AREA
�t...'
1 WESTWIND AREA
o
- . �.�
w Marie► St
TUCKER
F O
- �`
GENEVA
+
"FR2DOWNS
CDAPORATA)N
QUAKER ACRES
f�7ePdly Ave
A -4
lbI rnAcitn vQwry�k � r,
1
QUAKi
u
oc
€ J❑
w
FRIENDLY L
ll' 1 L
F O
rvV HILLS
GLN IFD(d
College
QUAKER ACRES
f�7ePdly Ave
`
Cid
ESTWIND AREA
�t...'
o
- . �.�

r•�
w
814 Total Acres
- 0Acres of Airport Property
= 814 Acres of Future Acqusition
USGS ©AND © 2013 Nokia
i
PriPIEDMONT TRIAD SITE DEVELOPMENT FIGURE
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 2 s-2
Environmental Assessment ALTERNATIVE 1
Legend
Site Alternative
Airport Property
—�.
Existing Rail Line
N
W+E
Feet
0 1,000
S
r•�
w
814 Total Acres
- 0Acres of Airport Property
= 814 Acres of Future Acqusition
USGS ©AND © 2013 Nokia
i
PriPIEDMONT TRIAD SITE DEVELOPMENT FIGURE
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 2 s-2
Environmental Assessment ALTERNATIVE 1

m
�i
NRHP
Eligible Site
767 Total Acres
- 0Acres of Airport Property
= 767 Acres of Future Acqusition
paiPe��
Service
U
z
Legend
Site Alternative
Airport Property
+� Existing Rail Line
N
Feet
W+
E 0 1,500
s

Legend
Site Alternative
Airport Property
+� Existing Rail Line
Master Plan Future
-- Runways and Taxiway
N
WE Feet
0 2,000
S
709 Total Acres
- 90 Acres of Airport90Acres of Airport Propert.
= 619 Acres of Future Acqusition
Layer
NRHP
Eligible Site
Corporation © 20
PIEDMONT TRIAD
Pri INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SITE DEVELOPMENT FIGURE
2.3-4
Environmental Assessment ALTERNATIVE 3
a
NX
000
r
NN
NRHP
Eligible Site
Corporation © 20
PIEDMONT TRIAD
Pri INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SITE DEVELOPMENT FIGURE
2.3-4
Environmental Assessment ALTERNATIVE 3
a

Legend
Site Alternative
Airport Property
+� Existing Rail Line
IN
E
W+Feet
0 2,500
S
r-11
6..J
NRHP
Eligible Site
373 Total Acres
- 32 Acres of Airport Property
= 341 Acres of Future Acqusition
Eir-
49
f 446 Total Acres
- 0Acres of Airport Property
' = 446 Acres of Future Acqusition
PriPIEDMONT TRIAD SITE DEVELOPMENT FIGURE
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 2.3-5
Environmental Assessment ALTERNATIVE 4

DRAFT
t Actual impacts would be dependent on final site layout for the Proposed Project and would be equal to or less than the total wetland acreage.
Note: "—" indicates that the evaluation of this criterion is not applicable as the alternative was eliminated in the prior screening level.
Source: URS Corporation, 2013.
TABLE 2.3-1
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING
EVALUATION SUMMARY
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 2.docx 2-11 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment
Site Development Alternatives
Alternative Site 3
Alternative Site 4
Screening
Level
Screening Criteria
No -Action Alternative
Alternative Site 1 (Southeast)
Alternative Site 2 (South)
(Southwest)
(Combination)
Proposed Project
The No -Action Alternative would
LEVEL 1
Provide suitable sites GSO with airfield
not satisfy the need for and
Not optimum in regard to
Not optimum in regard to
Not optimum in regard to
Not optimum in regard to
The Proposed Project would fully
Purpose and
p
n
access for new aviation -related tenants?
of the proposed land
purpose p p
accessibility, but would provide
y p
accessibility, but would provide
y p
accessibility, but would provide
y p
accessibility, but would provide
y p
meet Purpose and Need
Need
development and airfield
suitable sites.
suitable sites.
suitable sites.
suitable sites.
improvement actions.
Continue to Level 2 Evaluation?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Constructing access taxiways to
Constructing an access
Alternative Site 1 would require
Constructing an access
taxiway to Alternative Site 3
The Proposed Project requires the
the modification of existing
taxiway to Alternative Site 2
from Taxiway A would require
construction of a taxiway bridge over
leases, if possible, for several
would require construction of
construction of an elevated
Accessibility and operational
a new section of 1-73, which is under
Airfield operation practices,
large aircraft manufacturing and
an elevated taxiway bridge
over West Market Street and
taxiway bridge over West
issues would be much the
construction. The taxiway access
taxiway systems, and/or facility
repair facilities. The removal of
over an adjoining railroad line
Market Street and over an
same as those described for
necessary for the Proposed Project
changes associated with the
some buildings and facilities may
on the southwest side of West
adjoining railroad line on the
Alternative Sites 2 and 3.
would not affect airport tenants,
Accessibility and operational issues
Proposed Project would not
p �
be required.
q
Market Street. The
southwest side of West Market
Alternative Site 4 includes two
hangars, or aircraft parking apron.
occur if the No -Action Alternative
Construction of access taxiways
removal/modification of some
Street. Depending on the final
separate land development
The Proposed Project includes the
was implemented. There would
p
may be possible between
aviation -related buildings and
location and layout of the new
y
areas located on the southeast
possible relocation of an existing
p g
be no accessibility issues and no
several of the existing facilities;
facilities may be required.
access taxiways, the
and southwest sides of the
airport surveillance radar (ASR)
land would need to be acquired.
q
however, taxiways at these
Construction of a planned
removal/modification of some
airfield. Rail is available in
facilityfrom its current location to a
locations would impact several
parallel runway would be
aviation -related buildings and
close proximity to the site.
new location outside the proposed
segments of the airfield drainage
precluded. Rail is available in
facilities may be required. Rail
y q
development area. Rail is available in
p
LEVEL 2
way system. Rail is available in
close proximity to the site.
is available in close proximity
close proximity to the site.
Operations and
close proximityto the site.
to the site.
Constructability
Land uses affected
None
Land southeast side of Runway
Industrial and commercial land
Industrial and commercial land
Industrial and commercial land
Commercial, industrial, and interim
5R/23L is fully developed with
uses occupy most of the site.
uses occupy much of the site.
uses occupy most of the two
recreational land uses occupy a
aviation facilities and industrial
Some residential land use
Residential land use would be
development sites. Residential
portion of the site. Residential land
sites. Residential land use would
would be affected.
affected.
land use would be affected.
use would be affected.
be affected.
Acres of land to be acquired (approximate)
0
814
767
619
787
415
Number of business parcels acquired
0
140
174
67
118
19
Number of residential relocations
0
113
4
217
46
21
Community Facilities
0
0
1
2
2
1
The No -Action Alternative
The northern section of
precludes planned airport
Alternative 1 would not interfere
Alternative 2 would not
Alternative 3 encompasses
Alternative 4 would not
The Proposed Project site would not
Potential interference with planned airport
development that would meet the
with planned airport
interfere with planned airport
land on which the east end of
interfere with planned airport
interfere with planned airport
development
demand for suitable on -airport
development.
development.
future parallel runway would be
development.
development, as depicted on the
land for aerospace and aviation-
constructed.
Airport Layout Plan (ALP).
related development.
Continue to Level 3 Evaluation?
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Floodplain involvement
None
--
__
__
Floodplain encroachment
approximately 17.8 acres
Waters of the U.S.
None
--
--
--
--
10.4
LEVEL 3
Wetlands'
3.7
Environmental
One NRHP eligible property
Impacts
Historic and archaeological impacts
None
--
__
__
(Campbell -Gray House and Barn).
The potential to impact archaeological
resources is considered low.
DOT Section 4(f) impacts
None
--
--
--
--
None
Retain
for detailed analysis in EA?
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
t Actual impacts would be dependent on final site layout for the Proposed Project and would be equal to or less than the total wetland acreage.
Note: "—" indicates that the evaluation of this criterion is not applicable as the alternative was eliminated in the prior screening level.
Source: URS Corporation, 2013.
TABLE 2.3-1
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING
EVALUATION SUMMARY
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 2.docx 2-11 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
Alternative Site 1 would require the acquisition of approximately 814 acres of land with the following land
uses: industrial, commercial, and residential. This alternative would displace approximately 140 business
and 113 residential structures. The affected businesses include a wide range of entities, ranging from
large manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors to small light industrial shops. This area also includes
several commercial sites that include office space, retail shops, and a gas station. In addition to single-
family residences, this alternative would also displace residences associated with a large apartment
complex near the intersection of West Friendly Avenue and I-73 (Colonial Grand at Autumn Park).
Alternative Site 1 would have substantial land acquisition and relocation impacts. The impacts would
result from the acquisition of heavily developed land and the displacement of businesses and residential
units. The need for substantial land acquisition would increase project costs and the time within which
land could be made available to potential tenants who, as discussed in Chapter 1.0, typically need sites to
be provided in a short time frame. Therefore, this alternative was not subject to further review and was
eliminated from further consideration in this EA.
2.4.2 Alternative Site 2 (South)
Development of Alternative Site 2 (Figure 2.3-3) would require the acquisition of approximately 767 acres
of land adjoining the south side of GSO. This alternate site would be comparable in size to the Proposed
Project site. Industrial and commercial land uses presently occupy approximately 537 acres of
Alternative Site 2. The remaining Alternative Site 2 acreage consists of open, previously disturbed land.
Airfield access for Alternative Site 2 would be provided through an access taxiway or taxiway connector to
parallel Taxiway A serving the southwest side of Runway 4/32. Rail access to this site would be available
via a connection to the Norfolk Southern Rail Line that parallel West Market Street. This alternative
includes the acquisition of land, land clearing, and demolition of existing structures and facilities to allow
development of taxiways, aprons, and aerospace -related hangars, buildings, and associated facilities.
The location of Alternate Site 2 is depicted on Figures 2.3-1 and 2.3-3. The results of the screening
process for Alternative 2 are presented in Table 2.3-1.
2.4.2.1 Purpose and Need
Although not an optimum alternative with regard to airfield accessibility, Alternative Site 2 adjoins GSO
and could be developed for aviation -related use. Therefore, Alternative Site 2 was retained for Level 2
analysis.
2.4.2.2 Operations and Constructability Issues
Alternative Site 2 may require the removal/modification of existing aviation -related facilities. Development
of Alternative Site 2 would require construction of an elevated taxiway bridge over West Market Street
and an adjoining rail line. This same rail line could be utilized for development of a rail spur.
Alternative Site 2 would require the acquisition of approximately 767 acres of land with the following land
uses: industrial, commercial, and institutional land uses. This alternative would displace approximately
174 businesses. The businesses include a wide range of entities, ranging from large manufacturers,
suppliers, trucking, and distributing centers to small light industrial shops. This area also includes several
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 2.docx 2-12 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
commercial sites that include office space, retail shops, and a motel. The Guilford Juvenile Detention
Center is located within Alternative Site 2 and would be relocated. Four residential buildings would be
affected by the development of Alternative Site 2.
When compared to the Proposed Project, Alternative Site 2 would have much greater acquisition and
relocation impacts. The impacts would result from the acquisition of heavily developed industrial land and
the displacement of existing businesses. This impact far exceeds those associated with the Proposed
Project. Moreover, the need for substantially greater land acquisition would greatly increase the project
costs and the time within which land could be made available to potential tenants. Therefore, this
alternative was not subject to further review and was eliminated from further consideration in this EA.
2.4.3 Alternative Site 3 (Southwest)
Development of Alternative Site 3 would require the acquisition of approximately 619 acres of land
adjoining the south and west sides of GSO, which, when combined with land already owned by PTAH,
would yield a site of approximately 709 acres (Figure 2.3-4). This site would provide less acreage for
future development than the Proposed Project site. Industrial and commercial land uses on Alternative
Site 3 occupy approximately 395 acres. The remaining Alternative Site 3 acreage consists of open,
previously disturbed land. Airfield access for Alternative Site 3 would be provided through an access
taxiway or taxiway connector to parallel Taxiway A serving the southwest side of Runway 14/32, or
development of an access taxiway to the planned parallel taxiway on the northwest side of Runway
5L/23R. Rail access could be provided from the rail line located to the south of West Market Street.
Alternative Site 3 could impact the RPZ for Runway 5L/23R. This alternative includes the acquisition of
land, land clearing, and demolition of existing structures and facilities to allow development of taxiways,
aprons, and aerospace -related hangars, buildings, and associated facilities. The location of Alternative
Site 3 is depicted on Figures 2.3-1 and 2.3-4. The results of the screening process for Alternative 3 are
presented in Table 2.3-1.
2.4.3.1 Purpose and Need
Although not an optimum alternative in regard to accessibility, Alternative Site 3 adjoins GSO and could
be developed for aviation -related use. Therefore, Alternative Site 3 was retained for Level 2 analysis.
2.4.3.2 Operations and Constructability Issues
Alternative Site 3 provides a somewhat linear, irregularly-shaped development area, which is less efficient
and attractive to potential tenants when compared to the Proposed Project. The development of the site
would be further restricted by the planned extension of Runway 5L/23R and Taxiway H to the southwest
as called for in PTAA's Airport Layout Plan and as shown on Figure 2.3-4. These extensions would shift
the Runway Safety Area and instrument approach across the middle of the Alternative 3 site, which would
effectively divide this portion of the site into two separate areas without any interior connection for moving
aircraft between them. Due to these limitations, this alternative would have far less flexibility than the
Proposed Project in meeting site than size and layout needs of potential aviation -related and aviation -
allied tenants.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 2.docx 2-13 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
Alternative Site 3 may require the removal/modification of existing aviation -related facilities. Access to
Taxiway A would require construction of an elevated taxiway bridge over West Market Street and an
adjoining rail line.
Alternative Site 3 would require the acquisition of land with existing commercial and industrial use and
two community facilities (a fire station on W. Market Street and a regional transportation facility discussed
below). This alternative would displace approximately 67 businesses. The businesses include a wide
range of entities, ranging from large manufacturers, suppliers, trucking, and distributing centers to small
light industrial shops. This area also includes several commercial sites that include office space and retail
shops. A total of 217 residential structures would be affected by this alternative'. The Alternative 3 site
would not only cause extensive displacement of private development but of a major public facility of the
Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation (PART), which provides regional bus service for the
Piedmont Triad area. PART recently announced an $11 million project to construct an intermodal
transportation facility and vehicle maintenance facility along West Market Street (between Arrow and
Brush Roads), adjacent to PART's existing administration building. Construction of the facility will begin
shortly with funding from the Federal Transit Administration and the N.C. DOT, and the project is
scheduled from completion in late 2016. The PART facility is centrally located within Alternative 3, and the
entire PART facility would have to be acquired and relocated for PTAA to assemble the Alternative 3 site.
In addition to these displacements, Alternative 3 would disrupt a key component of PTAA's long-range
plans for the development of the Airport. The northern section of Alternative 3 encompasses land on the
east side of a future parallel runway, as contemplated by PTAA's current Airport Master Plan. The
location for the runway and connecting taxiway, as depicted in Master Plan, is shown on Figure 2.3-4.
The development of Alternative 3 would thereby prevent the fulfillment of the Master Plan and PTAA's
ability to meet its long-term needs.
As contrasted with the Proposed Project, the majority of which is now owned by PTAH, PTAA only owns
90 acres within the Alternative 3 site and would have to acquire the remaining 619 acres with a total tax
value of approximately $181,871,800. This amount greatly exceeds the tax value of the land that PTAA
still needs for the Proposed Project ($35,245,551).
When compared to the Proposed Project, Alternative Site 3 has substantial development and operational
issues, disadvantages, and restrictions. Alternative Site 3 would also have a much greater acquisition
and relocation impacts. The impacts would result from the acquisition of developed industrial and
commercial land and the displacement of residential buildings and businesses. This impact far exceeds
those associated with the Proposed Project. Moreover, the need for substantially greater land acquisition
would greatly increase the project costs and the time within which land could be made available to
potential tenants. Therefore, this alternative was not subject to further review and was eliminated from
further consideration in this EA.
This count includes 217 units within a large residential complex that is now being constructed along Regional Road. These units
have already been built and occupied as determined by a field survey. The approved plat for this development provides for
construction of additional units.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 2.docx 2-14 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
2.4.4 Alternative Site 4 (Combination/Non-Contiguous Sites)
Alternative Site 4 consists of two non-contiguous parcels of land (Parcels A and B) (See Figure 2.3-1 and
2.3-5). The land associated with Alternative Site 4 — Parcel A totals approximately 446 acres and is
located on the southeast side of Runway 5R/23L. Similar to Alternative Site 1, constructing access
taxiways to Alternative Site 4 — Parcel A would require the modification of lease areas, if possible, for
several large aircraft manufacturing and repair facilities. Depending on the final location and layout of the
new access taxiways, the removal of some buildings and facilities may be required. The location of
Alternative Site 4 — Parcels A and B are shown in Figures 2.3-1 and 2.3-5.
Land associated with Alternative Site 4 — Parcel B is located to the southwest of Runway 4/32 and
consists of approximately 373 acres. Of the 373 acres, 32 acres are already owned by the PTAA and
341 acres would be acquired for this alternative. Approximately 230 acres of Alternative Site 4 — Parcel B
consists of open, previously disturbed land. Similar to Alternative Site 3, airfield access for Alternative
Site 4 — Parcel B would be provided through an access taxiway or taxiway connector to parallel Taxiway
A serving the southwest side of Runway 14/32. Development of the two Site 4 parcels would require the
acquisition of approximately 787 acres of land.
2.4.4.1 Purpose and Need
Although not an optimum alternative in regard to site access and land development issues, Alternative
Site 4 — Parcels A and B could be developed to support future aviation -related tenants at GSO. However,
limitations would be imposed, when compared to other alternatives, as to the maximum size of available
site(s). Alternative Site 4 was retained for Level 2 analysis.
2.4.4.2 Operations and Constructability Issues
Development of Alternative Site 4 — Parcel A would require the modification of leases and possibly the
removal/modification of existing aviation -related facilities. Access taxiways could also impact airfield
drainage ways. Airfield access for Alternative Site 4 — Parcel B would be provided through an access
taxiway or taxiway connector to parallel Taxiway A serving the southwest side of Runway 14/32.
Constructing an access taxiway to Alternative Site 4 — Parcel B would require construction of an elevated
taxiway bridge over West Market Street and over an adjoining railroad line on the southwest side of West
Market Street. Both Parcels A and B have rail access from the Norfolk Southern rail line. Depending on
the final location and layout of the new access taxiways, the removal/modification of some aviation -
related buildings and facilities may be required.
As in the case of Alternative 3, Parcel B would be divided by the Runway Safety Area and instrument
approach for the planned Runway 5L/23R and taxiway extensions, which would cut off the northern part
of Parcel B from the rest of the site, thereby alternative Site 4 would require the acquisition of land with
the following land uses: industrial, commercial, and residential land uses. This alternative would displace
approximately 118 business and 46 residential structures (single-family residences and residential
apartment buildings located near the W. Friendly Avenue and 1-73) and two community facilities, the fire
station on W. Market Street and the PART facility discussed in Section 2.4.3.2). The businesses include
a wide range of entities, ranging from large manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors to small light
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 2.docx 2-15 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
industrial shops. This area also includes several commercial sites that include office space and retail
shops.
When compared to the Proposed Project, Alternative Site 4 would have much greater land acquisition
and relocation impacts. The impacts would result from the acquisition of heavily developed land and the
displacement of businesses and residential properties. Moreover, the need for substantially greater land
acquisition would greatly increase the project costs and the time within which land could be made
available to potential tenants who, as described in Chapter 1.0, typically need sites to be provided in a
short time frame. Therefore, this alternative was not subject to further review and was eliminated from
further consideration in this EA.
2.5 ALTERNATIVES RETAINED FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS
2.5.1 Proposed Project
The Proposed Project would improve previously disturbed and existing developed parcels of land
collectively located immediately adjacent to and northwest of the GSO airfield (see Figure 1.2-2). These
land areas would be improved to provide approximately 972 -acres of land suitable to accommodate
existing and anticipated future demand for aviation -related and aviation -allied activities. As a part of the
development detailed above, the Proposed Project would also prepare approximately 100 acres of land
located southeast of Runway 5L/23R for development of a rail spur or transfer facility. A detailed
description of the Proposed Project is provided in Section 1.2 of this EA. The results of the preliminary
screening evaluation for Proposed Project are presented in Table 2.3-1.
2.5.1.1 Purpose and Need
The Proposed Project would have airfield access from the proposed parallel Taxiway G that would serve
the northwest side of Runway 5L/23R. Access to a portion of the development area would be provided by
a proposed access taxiway and taxiway bridge over a new section of 1-73 (under construction). The
Proposed Project would provide suitable sites at GSO for new aviation -related development. Because
the Proposed Project met the Purpose and Need criteria, it was subjected to the Level 2 screening
evaluation.
2.5.1.2 Operations and Constructability Issues
The Proposed Project requires the construction of a taxiway bridge over a new section of 1-73, which is
under construction. The taxiway access necessary for the Proposed Project would not affect existing
airport tenants, hangars, or aircraft parking aprons. As part of the Proposed Project, a rail spur or transfer
station would be constructed that provides access to the Norfolk Southern Railroad tracks located to the
south of West Market Street. A rail spur would be constructed to provide access to the development site
northwest of Runway 5L/23R.The Proposed Project would require the relocation of an existing ASR
facility from its current location to a new location outside the proposed development area.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 2.docx 2-16 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
The Proposed Project would require the acquisition of 415 acres of land with the following land uses:
industrial, commercial, recreation, and residential land uses. This alternative would acquire
approximately 19 parcels of business property, 27 residential properties, and one community facility. The
businesses include a construction company, small light industrial shops, and several commercial sites
that include office space and retail shops.
The Proposed Project would not interfere or conflict with planned airport development projects. Overall,
site access could be provided to the north side of GSO with minimal impact on existing facilities and little
effect on airport operations. Although the Proposed Project would require the acquisition and
displacement of businesses and residences, the relatively low number of displacements, when compared
to the other alternatives evaluated, was not considered unreasonable. Further, the Proposed Project
would be compatible with GSO development plans. Therefore, the Proposed Project was retained for
Level 3 screening evaluation.
2.5.1.3 Environmental Impacts
Floodplain involvement — The Proposed Project would impact approximately 17.8 acres of floodplains
(Zone A-E).
Wetlands — The Proposed Project development site contains approximately 10.4 acres of Waters of the
U.S., of which approximately 3.7 acres are wetlands. The design of the site and subsequent aviation -
related facilities would seek to avoid wetlands to the greatest extent practicable2.
Historic and Archaeological Resources — No historic, cultural, or archaeological resources listed in the
NRHP are located within the Proposed Project development site. One NRHP eligible property, the
Campbell -Gray House and Barn, is located adjacent to the parcel of land designated for development of
the rail transfer station. This property is located south of West Market Street and west of Regional Road.
Because the property was considered eligible based on architecture and adjoins other industrial
properties, adverse effects on this property are not anticipated. Discussions with the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) indicate, based on other surveys in the vicinity of the Proposed Project, that
there is low potential to affect archaeological sites.
DOT Act Section 4(f) Resources — The Proposed Project will require closure of the Pleasant Ridge
Golf Course, located in the northwest corner of the development site. The golf course was purchased by
PTAA from a private owner for airport expansion and the golf course has remained in operation solely on
an interim basis pending its closure by PTAA to develop the property for its aviation use. Therefore, the
golf course is not a Section 4(f) resource and is not subject to the provisions of Section 4(f) of the DOT
Act. The Proposed Project would not directly impact any Section 4(f) resources.
2 Based on the final site layout developed by the PTAH, actual impacts may be less. Wetland impacts would also depend on site
development needs by tenants, reasonably available avoidance and minimization measures, and permit approvals.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 2.docx 2-17 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
2.5.2 No -Action Alternative
In accordance with the requirements of CEQ and NEPA, the No -Action Alternative was evaluated for a
basis of comparison with other alternatives. The No -Action Alternative would not involve any runway
development, taxiway, land clearing, or other construction activities associated with the Proposed Project
or its alternatives.
2.5.2.1 Purpose and Need
The No -Action Alternative would not provide sufficient land with airfield access for new aviation -related
development, would not provide development opportunities for use of idle land at GSO, and would not
expand the capabilities of the airport to meet future aviation -related needs. Therefore, this alternative
would not satisfy the Level 1 evaluation criteria. However, the No -Action Alternative was retained for
further consideration in Level 2 of the alternatives screening process.
2.5.2.2 Operations and Constructability Issues
Airfield operation practices, taxiway systems, and/or facility changes associated with the Proposed
Project would not occur if the No -Action Alternative was implemented. Therefore, there would be no
accessibility issues and no land would be acquired.
2.5.2.3 Environmental Impacts
The No -Action Alternative would not involve any construction and would have no impact on wetlands,
floodplains, historic and archaeological resources, DOT Act Section 4(f) resources, or protected species.
Although the No -Action Alternative did not satisfy the Purpose and Need for the project, the alternative
was retained for detailed evaluation in the EA to meet the FAA's NEPA requirements and CEQ
regulations.
S:\BD\Marketing\Wp_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 2.docx 2-18 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
CHAPTER 3.0
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This chapter provides a description of baseline physical and natural conditions and the human
environment within Guilford County and discrete study areas established for this Environmental
Assessment (EA). For the purposes of describing the baseline conditions, the following study areas were
developed.
For environmental considerations that deal with broad, indirect impacts and issues, a Generalized Study
Area (GSA) was established. The GSA includes a geographic area in which certain potential impacts
(e.g., socioeconomic and cumulative) may affect the surrounding community. The GSA is illustrated in
Figure 3.0-1.
A Detailed Study Area (DSA) was established for environmental considerations that deal with direct
impacts, such as land disturbance or construction. Direct impacts could affect stream channels,
floodplains, protected species, and biotic communities. The DSA includes an area of approximately
1,285 acres and is illustrated in Figure 3.0-2. The DSA does not include the right-of-way for the
proposed Interstate 73 (1-73) Connector planned for construction by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT). The environmental baseline characteristics and potential environmental
impacts associated with construction of this roadway were addressed in the 1-73 Connector EA (NCDOT,
2012).
In addition to the above, an Area of Potential Effect (APE) was established for the evaluation of
visual/viewshed impacts to listed or potentially eligible National Register of Historic Places (NRNP)
properties within the DSA. The APE encompasses an area extending approximately 0.5 mile from the
DSA boundary. The APE is shown on Figure 3.7-1.
Resource Cateqories Not Affected
All environmental impact categories in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 1050.1 E:
Environmental Impacts — Policies and Procedures, Appendix A and subcategories outlined in Airports
Environmental Desk Reference were considered for applicability in defining/establishing the affected
environment for the Proposed Project. The applicability evaluation revealed that some resource areas
are either not present or would not be measurably impacted by the Proposed Project. Those resources
that were determined not present or not measurably impacted by the Proposed Project are listed below
along with a brief explanation of the basis upon which this determination was made.
Coastal Zone Management/Coastal Barriers — No coastal zone resources occur within the GSA. The
Piedmont Triad International Airport (GSO) is located more than 150 miles from the North Carolina coast.
Farmlands — Coordination with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Greensboro
Service Center District Conservationist, confirmed that no prime or unique farmlands occur within the
DSA.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 3.docx 3-1 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

QURKF_R HuN
ppf £k' Rd
WOODLAND HII s
BRITISH WO
`� •
T
FRIENOI
•FiRENDEr
e
+
S dyes
•
_
y
a �4
l it i.w
ESTRIDGE
i}{E16H
OLD RI GE''
LS'
JEFiERSON
GARDENS
r .��
-
HA ILTON
u ', .Y
'
fid•"
FOREST
•{
QUAKER
RD - HAMILTON FOREST
• a
_
HAMILTON LIKES
yd,.,
-
MAa H
.. -
smn Ad �•'f
a r ♦ E ��
I -' a� .sr.
.+ .N'� L
WOODS' Harndmn
HAMILTON HMS
DOWNS
..
Parks TjTARn
� 7
W J,lyllK ST
R
- •
�
` f/R1�D5W000
-
$wDOrF BR� �
��
3
�
- 1
-r f
�.N
'1• 'HIGHLAND ARK
_
RIVER LANDING AT $AN'Y RIDGE 9
6
Ra. LEGACY AS SA NDT RID E
-
a Y•
a THE THIO KIT
_ r 71<.
. ' I .T rRRi COTTAA
_
�CEPOMONA
..
ALDFRIROON
! 1' w.Fe
/Le •� .:.Hewer, AREA 1
,LRLNjEAsk.� �" .-�NT.ia^peP
[]a'fi5 ASHTON
S}.tion Iv
V HD NTER HILLS
L]LLIEFTEL❑
1-„k UaKstt
�' C a7!
..
- II
WALNU
WALNUT CREEK.
T.
+ V R
Du ARES '•
I �LATHY
LATH
r
COVENTOAKSWEST
DENS AT DEEP RNER
FZAN DOM WOOS FRIRVIEI�
GkFVSTO NE
HIG LAN
_
TR
- HOMES -
RI - 'TkRPPE45 RUN VI
[EN PF r1T1Me4RI8 E PENINSULAAT J
SEECHC
_
•
ROFT �I
- M.ff"ADOW _." "-"
- SOIfFH ~ MORRIS FARM LANDING
•.
N
,M
VALLEY
$f •.�••.
to - $HnREwooD OAK HOLLOW
_
JAMESP wS
• •41
CAMOEY PARK 81 Wnl F H[Ef o
r HAMPTON' F De
R(] PARKSIDE AT s
M
nIV NOTTING NAM
9
OGeneralizedStudy
PAR.
iEERF1ELO M" LOW
r,ns�., g
ATES CA
�Pt.ANTATIDN - BAT
3
HICKSWObD F.vk N�
ODetailedStudy Area
- LIKE FOREST
FOREST
- THE C TTAGES -J[Ik •!c� ..y
ESTATES -^
MEAbOWRIDGE>�Sources
1 13
usnm DOWNS l.,r„�s tfn•,�,
. calk •,_ E Fo
�P
r Paik.r
TANT kD OAc .•.
1
WECT&ENO A 'y
_
- $ARRINGTON �rNr:1[x"4.
1
I 8,000
IOOpv SHORES E EST
`TES
lnrAwi„i•i•I.� •c'-_ a

DRAFT
Wild and Scenic Rivers — Five National Wild and Scenic Rivers are located within North Carolina
including the Chattooga River, Horsepasture River, Lumber River, New River, and Wilson Creek. Review
of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System Map (www.rivers.gov) confirms that none of these rivers
are located within the vicinity of GSO.
Since the above resources are either not present or not measurably affected by the Proposed Project,
they are not evaluated in detail in this EA.
3.1 AIR QUALITY
This section presents information on existing air quality conditions for the Piedmont Triad area, including
the GSA. Included is a brief summary of local air monitoring data; an explanation of the current
regulatory status of local air quality conditions with respect to federal air quality criteria; and a discussion
of state, regional, and local efforts to manage air quality in this area of North Carolina. Additional details
can be found in Appendix B, Air Quality.
3.1.1 Regulatory Summary
The regulation and management of ambient (outdoor) air quality conditions in the Piedmont Triad area
are shared by a variety of federal, state, regional, and local agencies. The United States (U.S.)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (NCDENR) have regulatory authority over air quality issues in North Carolina, the Piedmont
Triad area, and Guilford County, where GSO is located. The EPA sets the guidelines, policies, and
standards under the federal Clean Air Act for protecting air quality conditions across the country. On the
state level, the NCDENR Division of Air Quality (DAO) serves to ensure that these guiding principles are
met and carried out throughout North Carolina.
3.1.2 Criteria Air Pollutants
The EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health, the
environment, and the quality of life from the detrimental effects of air pollution. The standards have been
set for the following criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone
(03), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and sulfur oxides (SOx). The NAAQS primary standards
(designed to protect human health) and secondary standards (designed to limit environmental effects
such as damage to property, plants, visibility, etc.) are contained in Table B-2 of Appendix B. Exceeding
these standards would trigger reporting, mitigation, and other requirements established by the EPA and
NCDENR. The NCDENR has adopted these same standards and added its own standard for total
suspended particulates (TSP)
3.1.3 Air Monitoring Data
The NCDENR DAQ operates several ambient air monitoring sites in the Piedmont Triad area and Guilford
County as part of its state and local air monitoring programs. These stations are intended to sample and
record outdoor levels of the EPA criteria air pollutants discussed above. There are two air monitoring
stations located in Guilford County. Table B-3 of Appendix B contains the detailed information and data
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 3.docx 3-4 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
from these monitoring sites including the site locations, distance, and direction from GSO, the pollutants
measured, and the highest recorded levels in 2012. No air monitoring stations are located directly on, or
adjacent to, GSO.
Based on the monitoring data, the highest recorded 8 -hour 03 concentration in 2012 was 0.087 parts per
million (ppm) at the Willoughby Avenue site which is located approximately 7.7 miles east of GSO. This
value is above the NAAQS, as is the 3 -year design value for 2010-2012; however, EPA has not made
new non -attainment areas for Guilford County based on this information. The previous designation of
attainment was conducted using 2008-2010 data. All of the measured concentrations for other criteria
pollutants in the vicinity of GSO for 2012 were below the standards, including a maximum of 20.7
micrograms per cubic meter (pg/m3) for the 24-hour PM2.5 standard for the Willoughby Avenue location.
3.1.4 Attain ment/Nonattainment Status
Based on air monitoring data and in accordance with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, all areas
within the State of North Carolina are designated with respect to the NAAQS as attainment,
nonattainment, maintenance, or unclassifiable. The current attainment/nonattainment designations for
the Piedmont Triad area are summarized in Table B-4 of Appendix B.
Guilford County is currently designated as attainment for the criteria pollutants 03, CO, NO2, SOx, PM10,
and Pb and maintenance for PM2.5. In April 2004, the EPA designated Guilford as non -attainment for
8 -hour 03. However, the Greensboro Urban Area (GUA) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) had
previously entered into an agreement in 2002 with EPA, known as the Early Action Compact (EAC). The
compact pledged the County would meet the standard earlier than required by meeting certain criteria
and milestones. As a result the County's nonattainment status was deferred until December 31, 2007,
the date on which all milestones were to be met. On April 15, 2008, Guilford, along with other Piedmont
Triad counties, was designated as attainment for the 8 -hour 03 for successfully meeting all requirements.
Effective, April 15, 2009, the Triad area no longer had to demonstrate conformity for the 8 -hour 03
standard.
The County was also designated non -attainment for PM2.5 along with Davidson County on April 5, 2005
[EPA, 70 Federal Register (FR) 944]. Although, Guilford County air quality monitors were not exceeding
the federal standard, EPA still designated the area nonattainment. However, due to improved monitoring
data, this area was re -designated as maintenance for the PM2.5 standard on December 19, 2011.
As a result of the PM2.5 maintenance designation, the MPO must show that projects in the Metropolitan
Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) and Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) will not
exceed federal standards. The formal name for this process is known as Air Quality Conformity
Determination.
3.1.5 State Implementation Plans
Because portions of the Piedmont Triad area did not previously meet the 1 -hour 03 NAAQS, NCDENR
developed a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to help ensure that violations of the standards would no
longer occur. The SIP is the cumulative record of all air pollution control strategies, emission budgets,
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 3.docx 3-5 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
and timetables implemented or adopted by government agencies within North Carolina to bring
nonattainment areas into compliance with the NAAQS.
In support of the change in designation from nonattainment to attainment/maintenance for 1 -hour 03,
NCDENR prepared an emissions inventory for the GreensboroMinston-Salem/High Point nonattainment
area. This inventory, prepared for and approved by the EPA, called the SIP or Maintenance Plan,
projects emissions of NO,, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) through 2015. Since the Piedmont
Triad area met the EAC, it no longer requires a SIP for 03; however, it still needs a Maintenance SIP for
PM2.5-
On December 22, 2010, the DAQ submitted to the EPA a Supplement to the Hickory and Triad areas'
maintenance plan for PM2.5, revising the emission budgets for transportation conformity purposes using
the new EPA mobile model Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES). NCDENR is currently waiting on
EPA's review and approval of this new plan.
If NCDENR does not comply with the requirements and time frames of the SIP, this could result in federal
sanctions for roadway and other infrastructure projects in the Piedmont Triad area.
3.1.6 Transportation Improvement Program
Another requirement for nonattainment areas under the Clean Air Act is the formal demonstration that the
surface transportation networks, including the roadway and transit systems, conform to the goals and
objectives of the appropriate SIP. In the Greensboro area, the MPO is the agency responsible for making
this demonstration.
To meet this requirement, the MPO prepared, and has submitted for public comments, the 2008-2012
MTIP, which is part of the 2035 LRTP for the GUA. The conformity analysis concludes that the GUA
LRTP and 2008-2012 MTIP conforms to the North Carolina PM2.5 SIP. The MPO is developing the next
MTIP for years 2012 to 2018. The development includes an amendment to the LRTP and an updated Air
Quality Conformity Determination Report. The MPO's Transportation Advisory Committee approved the
2012-2018 MTIP at its August 24, 2013 meeting. Based on the latest population, employment, and traffic
assumptions and using computer modeling of traffic and air quality conditions, the MPO has
demonstrated that both the TIP and the LRTP for Guilford County conform to the North Carolina PM2.5
SIP.
3.1.7 Sources of Airport Air Emissions
Most airports (including GSO) generate air emissions from the following general source categories:
aircraft; ground service equipment (GSE); motor vehicles traveling to, from, and moving about the airport
site; fuel storage and transfer facilities; a variety of stationary sources (e.g., steam boilers, back-up
generators, etc.); an assortment of aircraft maintenance activities (e.g., painting, cleaning, and repair);
routine airfield, roadway, and building maintenance activities (e.g., cleaning, painting, and repair); and
periodic construction activities for new projects or improvements to existing facilities. Table B-5 of
Appendix B provides a summary listing of these sources of air emissions typically found at airports, the
pollutants they emit, and their characteristics.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 3.docx 3-6 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
3.2 COMPATIBLE LAND USE
An inventory of existing land use configurations and characteristics is necessary to assess compatibility
issues in the GSA associated with the Proposed Project. Existing land uses (by zoning categories) within
the GSA are illustrated on Figure 3.2-1. The area of each land use type was determined using recent
GIS data and is presented in Table 3.2-1. The GSA contains land within the City of Greensboro, the City
of High Point, as well as unincorporated area within Guilford County.
TABLE 3.2-1
LAND USES WITHIN THE GENERALIZED STUDY AREA
Land Use Category
Acres
Agricultural
2,025
Airport
3,632
Commercial
1,170
Industrial
4,339
Multi -Family Residential
530
Transient Residential
49
Single -Family Residential
10,403
Mobile Home
9
Recreational
248
Institutional/Community Facility
2,374
Vacant Land
312
Road Right -of -Way
2983
Total
28,074
Source: Guilford County Geographic Information System (GIS), 2013.
3.2.1 Northern Portion of GSA
The majority of the land use within the northeast portion of the GSA is single-family residential.
Recreational areas associated with the Lake Higgins reservoir and trails also are located northwest of
GSO. Single-family residential and agricultural land uses uses are most common in the northwest area
of the GSA.
3.2.2 Central Portion of GSA
The eastern portion of the GSA is within the City of Greensboro city limits. The City of Greensboro
boundary extends along the south side of 1-40 to the west. The City's boundary extends northward, east
of Pleasant Ridge Road, to approximately Caindale Drive, west of the recently completed Runway 5L/23R
at GSO. A variety of land uses are included within this area. Land use to the east of GSO is primarily
single-family and multi -family residential with scattered commercial and institutional/community facilities.
South of GSO and within the City of Greensboro limits, land use is predominantly industrial and
commercial. NC 68 bisects this section of the city. Some areas of single-family residential are also
located west of GSO within the city's limits, east of Pleasant Ridge Road and north of Market Street.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 3.docx 3-7 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

d ..1 ..
l
¢ F
�? 0 BRAN OT TRA
BRUISH WO(
3
FRIENDL
FRIENDLY ACijES
0�
r
HFEsrF �r
ri FO
�• GREEN VA
VALLEY
/J� E CARRIAGE HILLS
- � jurgA$ON 10
GARDENS � HkmILrON
FOREST
_Y •'� - - RO HxMI LrON FOREST
A GF
-- r- Iw. MAD.
IND AREA WOODS Harihon I
1 --`l� HAMILTON HILLS L"k- $
f
/ Pak r
St
FRI I-05WOOD Wµ wet St '
I' �//�• 3 vE I HIGHIAN❑�RRE I
RIVER ... -'R71 oJ"a 7: b' (
? THE THICKET y
2 .__ -7 '(�__ • TERRA CO"A�!
_-.
1.3 ■PL—
C ovE
�R
GARDENS RT D
6R I {i
"Oly 051'; TIM
R
CENTRE _
MERnow'
AN GROVE ' SOL H
VALLEY
JO
!//I
, CAMD6 PARK
HxN(p
E
'-• F
de -Riv PAR KSIDE AT
❑N
PARE
Lin. � ` E NOTEING HRM
EERFIELD
CREEKWOOD
g POINTE PETERS COVE
HOLLOW Li6eoi.
ESTATES CAROL
PLANTATION
yRJ WE FOREST
BRW HICKSWOOD Park
N
FOREST
•
OAKVIEW
THE COTTAGES
MEADOWRIOGE -
ESTATES
Uak Ha(Inn
` Q= AUSTIN Dtn nS
�' '
F
r
TANTRkD 6RE �
•,
-
�
ODDY SHORES
fl ESTATES 'v.
PIPERS AV B
ENRIDGE
(LLIAMSAURG
R ..,OFN.{
NORTH
EARESIOE _
ESTATES
1 ♦ .LIFY
-
5 PARk
F
Oak ENGus"
WOOD
H"ORW c�
L
THE ARBORS EIGHTS 6111
i F.ElA

DRAFT
3.2.3 Southern Portion of GSA
The GSA extends southward to the northeast portion of Oak Hollow Lake. The City of High Point, as well
as unincorporated area of Guilford County, are located within this area of the GSA, south of GSO and
1-40. The majority of land use within this area is agricultural and single-family residential. This area also
includes institutional/community facility, commercial, industrial, and road right-of-way land uses.
3.2.4 Land Use within the DSA
Approximately 67 percent of the land within the DSA is owned by the Piedmont Triad Airport Authority
(PTAH). Industrial land uses comprise the next largest portion, about 20 percent of the total area. As
shown on Figure 3.2-2 and according to GIS data available from Guilford County, the remaining land
within the DSA includes residential, road right-of-way, institutional/community facility, and commercial
land uses. A summary of the type and extent of land uses within the DSA is provided in Table 3.2-2.
TABLE 3.2-2
LAND USES WITHIN THE DETAILED STUDY AREA
Land Use Category
Acres*
Airport
867
Commercial
9
Industrial
261
Residential
69
Institutional/Community Facility
1
Road Right -of -Way
78
Total
1,285
Source: Guilford County GIS, 2013.
* Numbers may not add due to rounding.
3.3 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECTION 4(f) AND DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
SECTION 6(f) RESOURCES
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation (DOT) Act [codified at 49 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) Section
303(c)], provides protection for special properties, including publicly -owned parks, recreation areas,
wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or any significant historic sites. Protection also applies to cultural resource
sites listed in, or eligible for listing in the NRHP. Section 4(f) states that approval will not be granted for
any proposed federal action that requires the use of any these special properties unless there is no
feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such lands, and the project includes all possible planning to
minimize harm to the resource resulting from such use. The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act
(LWCF) provides monies to federal, state, and local governments to acquire land, water, and
conservation easements on land and water for the benefit of all Americans. The LWCF, as amended,
and 16 U.S.C., Section 460/-8(f)3, more commonly referred to as Section 6(f), requires that all properties
receiving LWCF assistance for planning, acquisition, or development be perpetually maintained for public
outdoor recreation use. The act requires, in part, that: "No property acquired or developed with
assistance under this section shall, without approval of the Secretary of the Interior, be converted to other
than public outdoor recreation uses."
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 3.docx 3-9 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

Ltd, PSMA © 201
E
is
Legend
0 Generalized Study Area
Q Detailed Study Area
Land Use
0 Airport
D Single Family Residential
IIM Commercial
0 Industrial
D Institutional/Community Facility
Utility/Right of Way
Sources:
Guilford County GIS, 2013
URS Corp, 2013
N
W Feet
+E
0 2,000
S
PIEDMONT TRIAD
PT/, INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT EXISTING LAND USE WITHIN FIGURE
THE DETAILED STUDY AREA 3.2-2
Environmental Assessment
a

DRAFT
There are no Section 4(f) or Section 6(f) resources located within the DSA. There are 14 potential
Section 4(f) resources located within the GSA. Section 4(f) resources were identified based on the review
of National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) documents prepared for previous GSO
development activities. City of Greensboro and Guilford County websites, and coordination with the North
Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO).
Table 3.3-1 provides a brief overview of each potential Section 4(f) site within the GSA. These sites are
depicted on Figure 3.3-1 by the corresponding numbers shown in Table 3.3-1.
TABLE 3.3-1
POTENTIAL SECTION 4(f) RESOURCES WITHIN THE GSA
Site
Maintained/
Number'
Name
Acres
Amenities
Operated By
Greensboro Trails:
7e
City of
1
Bald Eagle Trail, Beech Bluff
mille s
Hiking trails
Greensboro
Trail, Lake Higgins Trail
2
Lake Higgins Municipal
226
Fishing pier, marina,
City of
Reservoir and Marina
kayak/canoe rental
Greensboro
Carolyn S. Allen Community
Four softball/baseball
City of
3
Park & Athletic Complex
38
fields with
Greensboro
stands/concession
4
Leonard Recreation Center
29.25
Baseball, soccer, gym,
City of
playground
Greensboro
5
Western Guilford High School
n/a
Baseball, soccer,
Guilford County
football, open fields
15.1
Guilford County &
6
Bicentennial Greenway
Miles
Greenway
City of
Greensboro
7
Southwest Guilford Elementary
n/a
Gym, baseball, open
Guilford County
School
field
8
Southwest Guilford Middle
n/a
Gym, baseball, open
Guilford County
School
field
9
Southwest Guilford High School
n/a
Gym, track, baseball,
Guilford County
football
10
North Johnson Street Sports
26
Baseball, playground,
City of High Point
Complex
picnic
Shelters, game room,
11
Deep River Recreation Center
24
softball fields, athletic
City of High Point
field, baseball, indoor
gymnasium
12
Kernodle Middle School/Allen
36
Baseball/softball, picnic
Guilford County/
y of
Park
shelters, soccer
Greensboro
13
Guilford Elementary School
33
Open field
Guilford County
14
Campbell -Gray House and Barn
6
House and barn
Guilford County
Note: 1 Site number located on Figure 3.3-1.
Sources: City of Greensboro, 2012; City of Greensboro GIS, 2013; Guilford County, 2012a; and Guilford County
GIS, 2013.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 3.docx 3-11 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

o .. .... .... . o . 0 SAA
r#ield HI
. Oak-RKIpR .
v
QUAKER Ru- .
.
£�•
Rd
." WOO NO HII',
- 1C15Pph AIB �,i�"
OPLECREEK BRITISH WO
FRIENOI
T +
FRIENDLY S Ar ES
i U
- m[n[ �
ESYREDGE
HEIGXhj'
--�•
Airyprt
RI E
GA!!N V,
ALL ET
-
DGE CARRIAGE HI LS'
.
1EFiERSON
GARDiNS
.. ,m .,FOREST
-
']! •. w
RD HAMILTON FOREST
EG!
- -
■ r - - _ .. •
ryf -
j 'f HAMILT*N LAKES
R • I Aao• • i - �� dr.rr
Mari N
W000s'I� Haminnn
man im -
q �A
••,
HAMILTON HILLSLake
Parks STARn
FF(wkeR DOWNS .
Fol
f
G
•�� - $AbOIE BRO� � OF �
� �
a 1
.r _-
• •
r._
RIVER LANDING AT SANDY RIDGE
Rry LEGACY AT SANDY RI❑ EI r
f
•
ALDFRgROON t
_
•I
A5HTON LJLLIEFiELD {� r .� •'r3r
r
OAKS m
WALNUT CREEKe _ i-.._ r PAR AY: �: LE A[RF
9 VPL
• •
F P IER, COVENT r
GARDFrv' AY DEE. RIVER
A
ww CEP I HIG
. GRFvSTON� •� + 'w I
'TRAPPERS , ERD
RUN
• RI NIR[
PENINSULA A IANOiNG
-"_-- -
. .
-
MEADOW FOUn'. AIN GROVE SO—Hr MORRIS FARM
Fill VALLEY
SIinRFWDOO 4"K HOLLOW - 1MMEsSF'ORS
._
CAMOEY PARR i�iLIlF FS j PA
HA De Rig
N N
DEEREIiI❑ PARK
- KWOOD POI RTll CARDL �£
BAY HI
PLANTATION _.-OREST
���
16
LAKE FOREST
F
- � FOREST M'
1
THE COTTAGES OW MEADOWRIOG€�
Dow
OW 5 CIAKVILW
ESTATES
(?ak aallCx ', '• VSTIN DowNs _' {•III Palk n� E Fo
MIR
R.
"..
'ANY OA Park, WEST$EN0
p
SARRINGTON NI'i[v' 'i.4 . 7pV - a
�Y Of17v SNORES _ ESTATES '•' d
1
i
Ii•I•IIIi.i

DRAFT
A privately -owned golf course north of GSO was previously acquired by the PTAA with the intent to
develop the property for future airport expansion. The property is designated for future airport expansion
in the current Airport Layout Plan (ALP). The property is leased to a private operator to permit interim
operation as a golf course until the golf course is closed by PTAA to develop the land for its aviation use.
This lease may be terminated at any time by PTAA. There are no sites within the GSA that were
identified as Section 6(f) resources.
3.4 FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PLANTS
This section describes the biotic communities (general habitat types) within the DSA and discusses
threatened and endangered species.
3.4.1 Biotic Communities
Biotic communities within the DSA were evaluated through aerial photography and field observations.
The analysis of existing land cover identified four principal cover types within the DSA: urban and
developed land (commercial and residential development and associated paved roads), recreational (golf
course), open field, and disturbed forested communities. The following sections describe the land cover
within the DSA. Figure 3.4-1 illustrates the land cover type within the DSA and Table 3.4-1 identifies the
acreage of biotic communities with the DSA. Wetlands are described in Section 3.11 of this EA.
3.4.2 Threatened and Endangered Species
Previous NEPA studies performed at GSO as part of the 2001 Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) (FAA, 2001) and the Runway 5R Safety Area Improvements EA (FAA, 2007) provided a thorough
evaluation of threatened and endangered species on or in the vicinity of GSO. For this EA, data collected
in support of the previous NEPA documents were reviewed to identify any threatened, endangered,
special concern, or candidate species that might occur within the DSA, as well as a review of the current
county lists prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP) of the NCDENR, to determine if any species or their habitat have been documented
within the DSA. According to correspondence with the NCNHP, dated July 15, 2013, the project site does
not contain any records of rare species, natural communities, significant natural areas, or
conservation/managed areas (Appendix C).
Based on search of the FWS database, the project site does not contain any formally designated critical
habitat (FWS, 2013a). Table 3.4-2 identifies the federally -protected species listed for Guilford County.
Based on the review performed as part of this EA, it was determined that habitat for one federally -listed
species, Small whorled pogonia (Isotria meleucocephalus), may exist within the DSA. A brief description
of this species' habitat requirements follows. Correspondence from the FWS dated July 11, 2013 states
the project is not likely to affect any federally -listed or endangered species, their formally designated
critical habitat, or species currently being prepared for listing at these sites.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 3.docx 3-13 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

4 .
I
Legend
Q Detailed Study Area
Type
Developed -Com mercia I/
Industrial
Oak -Hickory Forest
Virginia Pine Forest
Yellow Poplar - Sweet
Gum Lowland Forest
Mixed Hardwood
Pine Sere Forest
Disturbed Open Field
Developed -Recreational
Developed -Residential
Developed -Paved Road
Forested Wetland
Open Water
Sources:
- ESRI, 2013
URS Corp, 2013
N
Feet
W+E 0 2,000
S
PIEDMONT TRIAD
PT! INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT BIOTIC COMMUNITIES WITHIN FIGURE
THE DETAILED STUDY AREA 3.4-1
Environmental Assessment
a

DRAFT
TABLE 3.4-1
BIOTIC COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE DSA
Biotic
Approximate
Community
Description
Acreage
This area is found in the western portions of the DSA, along
Developed
Caindale Drive and Regional Road North. This land consists
Commercial/
primarily of business offices, commercial warehouses, and paved
145
Industrial
parking areas. Some landscape trees, shrubs, and maintained
lawn occur in this area.
This area is found in the eastern portion of the DSA along Old Oak
Ridge Road, Pepperdine Road, Windy Hill Drive, College Lakes
Developed
Drive, and Valley Lake Drive; within the central portion of the DSA
Residential
along Caindale Drive, Hollandsworth Drive, and Calico Drive; and
84
along the northern portion of the DSA along Pleasant Ridge Road.
These residential areas consist of single-family homes with
maintained lawns and various landscape trees and shrubs.
This area is found within the northwest portion of the DSA and is
Developed
associated with the Pleasant Ridge Golf Club. The area consists of
108
Recreational
lawn specifically maintained for golf recreation and landscape trees
and shrubs.
Developed
This area is associated with the four -lane, median divided, Joseph
Paved Roads/
M. Bryan Boulevard and its maintained right-of-way. A portion of
44
Right -of -Way
Caindale Drive within the central portion of the DSA was also
delineated as paved road.
This area is found within the south-central portion of the DSA
adjacent to Joseph M. Bryan Boulevard. This area consists of
Disturbed
disturbed land that was cleared and graded and re -vegetated with
352
Open Field
stabilization grasses. Various successional grasses and shrubs
are recolonizing the area. A portion of this area is actively mowed
and maintained for the highway right-of-way.
This area is found throughout the undeveloped portions of the
DSA. The forest canopy is dominated by white oak (Quercus alba),
Disturbed
northern red oak (Quercus rubra), southern red oak (Quercus
Dry-Mesic
falcate), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), pignut hickory
Oak -Hickory
(Carya glabra), red maple (Acer rubrum), tuliptree (Liriodendron
465
Forest
tulipifera), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). Large areas of
(Piedmont
this natural community have been cut, and have re-established with
Subtype)
Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana) and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). In
addition, this community has been fragmented by the surrounding
development and numerous dirt roads, paths, and utilities.
This area is found in the southern portion of the DSA. Area
Disturbed Early
dominated by young trees. Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), red
Successional
cedar (Juniperus virginiana), red maple (Acer rubrum), and
9
Mixed Hardwood
sweetgum are common in the early successional seres. In addition,
- Pine Sere
this community has been fragmented by the surrounding
development and numerous dirt roads, paths, and utilities.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 3.docx 3-15 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
TABLE 3.4-1 (CONTINUED)
BIOTIC COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE DSA
Biotic
Common Name
Approximate
Community
Description
Acreage
Isotria medeoloides Small whorled pogonia T T Yes
This area is found in the southern portion of the DSA. The
Etheostoma collis
lepidinion
Carolina darter
occurrence of Virginia pine in the DSA is due to natural and man -
SC
Disturbed
made influences. Virginia pine is a common early successional
Villosa vaughaniana Carolina creekshell FSC E No
Virginia Pine
species in old fields. Since Virginia pine is suitable for planting and
45
Forest
hardier than most pines, it is used for ground cover in poor, dry
No
sites. Natural monocultures of Virginia pine also occur among
existing hardwood associations.
Yellow poplar -sweet gum lowland associations occur in ravines at
lower altitudes than the oak upland association. In the DSA, the
Disturbed Yellow
yellow poplar -sweet gum lowland association is found in the south
Poplar - Sweet
most portion of the DSA. Yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipfera),
13
Gum Lowland
sweet gum, and red maple dominate these areas. Sycamore
Forest
(Platanus occidentalis), American elm (Ulmus americana), and
various oak species are also present. In the DSA, these areas
have been previously disturbed.
Within the larger Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory Forest, described above,
Piedmont
jurisdictional forested and emergent wetlands have been identified
Alluvial Forest
(see Section 3.11) along riparian corridors. The dominate canopy
12
species include red maple, tuliptree, sweetgum, and American
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis).
Open Water
Several small open water ponds, primarily associated with the
water hazards that are within the Pleasant Ridge Golf Club.
Total Acreage of Biotic Communities
1,285
Sources: Schafale, 2012. Final EIS for Proposed Runway 5L/23R, Proposed New Overnight Express Air Cargo
Sorting and Distribution Facility, and Associated Developments, November 2001.
TABLE 3.4-2
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES LISTED FOR GUILFORD COUNTY
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal
Status
State
Status
Habitat Present
Plant
Isotria medeoloides Small whorled pogonia T T Yes
Fish
Etheostoma collis
lepidinion
Carolina darter
FSC
SC
No
Mollusk
Villosa vaughaniana Carolina creekshell FSC E No
Bird
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Bald eagle
BGPA
T
No
Notes: Federal Threatened (T); Federal Special of Concern (FSC); Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA);
Endangered (E); Threatened (T); Special Concern (SC)
Sources: FWS, 2013b and NCNHP, 2013.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 3.docx 3-16 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
Small whorled pogonia (Isotria meleucocephalus)
Small -whorled pogonia has a greenish -white stem that grows between 3 to 13 inches tall. It gets its
common name from the five or six grayish -green leaves that are displayed in a single whorl around the
stem. The flowers are yellowish -green with a greenish -white lip. Small whorled pogonia can be limited by
shade. The species seems to require small light gaps, or canopy breaks, and generally grows in areas
with sparse to moderate ground cover. It grows in mixed -deciduous or mixed-deciduous/coniferous
forests that are generally in second- or third -growth successional stages. The soils in which it lives are
usually acidic, moist, and have very few nutrients.
Habitat for small whorled pogonia exists within the DSA. However, no individuals were observed in a
plant -by -plant survey of the proposed cross -field taxiway location in August 2012.
3.5 FLOODPLAINS
Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, defines floodplains as the "lowland and relatively flat
areas adjoining inland and coastal waters, including flood prone areas of offshore islands, including at a
minimum, those that are subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year" (i.e.,
area inundated by a 100 -year flood). The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) manages
the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) based on maps showing floodplains and hazard areas. Up-
to-date maps allow risk premium rates and floodplain management requirements to be based on current
data. The 100 -year flood (one percent annual chance) has been adopted by FEMA as the base flood for
floodplain management purposes.
The 100 -year floodplain corresponds to the boundary of the areas of special flood hazards (Zone AE),
and the 500 -year floodplain boundary corresponds to the boundary of areas of moderate flood hazards
(Zone X). The floodplain boundaries for the 100 -year storm events, shown on Figure 3.5-1, were
obtained from Federal Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), panels 3710791600J, 3710782600J, and
3710781500J, published by FEMA for Guilford County and the City of Greensboro.
Based on data presented in the FIRM, approximately 28 acres of floodplains (Zone AE) are located within
the DSA.
3.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/HAZARDOUS WASTE
Facilities at GSO that handle, store, and use hazardous substances are typical of a commercial service
airport. Activities at these facilities involve servicing, refueling, and repair of aircraft; building
maintenance; airfield maintenance; vehicle and equipment repair and maintenance; rental car
maintenance and preparation; and aviation -related industries and commercial enterprises (i.e., aircraft
manufacturing). This section of the EA includes a discussion of known or potential sites within or adjacent
to the DSA that generate, transport, treat, or dispose of hazardous materials and wastes. This section
also provides an overview of solid waste facilities in the vicinity of GSO.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 3.docx 3-17 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

© AND © 2012 MapD ita Sciences Pty Ltd, PSMA © 201
:"Wdp
Legend
Detailed Study Area
FEMA Flood Zones
AE
AE, Floodway
Sources:
FEMA, 2007
URS Corp, 2013
N
Feet
W+E 0 2,000
S
PIEDMONT TRIAD FLOODPLAINS WITHIN FIGURE
Pr, INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Environmental Assessment
THE DETAILED STUDY AREA 3.5-1
a

DRAFT
3.6.1 Hazardous Materials
For the purposes of this EA, hazardous materials include the regulatory -defined terms of hazardous
wastes, hazardous substances, and dangerous goods; environmental contamination to soil, surface
waters, and groundwater; as well the range of similarly regulated substances such as fuel and other
petroleum-based products commonly associated with airports.
Hazardous materials data from PTAA's current Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC)
Plan and the November 2007 GSO EA were reviewed and incorporated into this EA (Baker, 2011 and
FAA, 2007). According to the SPCC, there are underground storage tanks (USTs), aboveground storage
tanks (ASTs), bulk storage, tanker trucks, etc. at GSO with a combined total storage capacity of 216,000
gallons. This includes numerous small tanks (less than 1,000 gallons) of petroleum products (e.g.,
lubricants and solvents), waste materials (e.g., used oils, cleaning residues, spent batteries), and other
chemicals (e.g., pesticides, paints, etc.) that are stored in various locations throughout the airport.
In addition to the SPCC Plan and EA, EPA's National Priorities Listing (NPL) and EnviroMapper
databases were reviewed for information on potential hazardous substances sites within the DSA. There
are 35 sites within or adjacent to the DSA that are listed in the EPA's EnviroMapper database (EPA,
2013). These sites are included in one or more of the EPA's hazardous materials regulation and tracking
programs, and are depicted in Figure 3.6-1 and detailed in Table 3.6-1.
The review of federal databases did not reveal any sites or facilities within or in the vicinity of the DSA
that are included on the National Priorities List (NPL). NPL sites, also referred to as "Superfund Sites"
are considered by EPA to have the most significant public health and environmental risks to neighboring
areas. Similarly, there are no reported landfills, large-scale industrial or chemical facilities, or sites of
widespread contamination in or adjacent to the DSA.
3.6.2 Fuel Storage Sites
There is one aboveground storage tank (AST) located within the DSA. The tank is associated with the
Federal Aviation Administration's airport surveillance radar (ARS) facility. The 2,000 -gallon tank is
reported to contain diesel fuel.
3.6.3 Solid Waste
Guilford County has one permitted municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal facility; the Kersey Valley
Landfill, located 8 miles south of GSO in the City of High Point in the southwestern part of the County
(Guilford County, 2012b). The Kersey Valley Landfill is owned and operated by the City of High Point.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 3.docx 3-19 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
TABLE 3.6-1
SITES INCLUDED IN THE EPA HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
DATABASES WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO THE DSA
Map ID'
Facility Name/Address
AIRS/AFS2
PCS/ICIS3
RCRA4
TRIS TSCA6
1
American Express TRS Co., Inc.
-
-
X
- -
2
Bombardier Services Corp.
-
-
X
- -
3
Epes Transport Systems, Inc.
-
X
X
- -
4
Etherington Conservation Ctr.
-
-
X
- -
5
Federal Express Corp.
-
-
X
- -
6
Federal Express Corp. Facility
X
-
-
- -
7
Head, Inc. **Inactive**
X
-
-
- -
8
Hilco Transport, Inc.
-
-
X
- -
9
Karastan-Bigelow
-
-
X
- -
10
Metal Craft of Mayville Southeast, Inc.
-
-
X
- -
11
Piedmont Triad International Airport
-
X
-
- -
12
PPG Industries Incorporated
X
-
X
- X
13
Santaro Industries Airport
X
-
-
- -
14
Sonoco Products Co.
-
-
-
X -
15
Mar -Tek Industries, Inc.
-
-
X
- -
16
Rollins Leasing Corporation
-
-
X
- -
17
Proctor & Gamble Mfg Co
-
-
X
- -
18
South Atlantic Warehouse
-
-
X
- -
19
TE Connectivity
-
-
X
- -
20
Fred Turner Racing, Inc.
-
-
X
- -
21
Modern Marble & Glass, Inc.
-
-
X
- -
22
Colonial Tin Works
-
-
X
- -
23
Comair, Inc.
-
-
X
- -
24
Federal Express Corporation
-
-
X
- -
24
United Parcel Service
-
-
X
- -
26
NC Equipment Company
-
-
X
- -
27
Southern Logistics and Environmental LLC
-
X
X
- -
28
Regional Auto Center
-
-
X
- -
29
Impact Enterprise
X
-
X
-
30
Larry Dorsett Enterprises
-
-
X
- -
31
Analog Devices
X
-
X
- -
32
New Home Building Supply Company
X
-
-
- -
33
Summit Molded Products
X
-
X
X -
34
TRW Incorporated
-
-
X
X -
35
Norton Company Coated Abrasives Division
-
-
X
--
36
Sharpe Bros
-
X
-
- -
Total by Category
8
4
29
3 1
Notes: The listing of a site or facility in this table does not necessarily mean that a spill or discharge has occurred. Rather, these
sites are listed because such incidents have been recorded or the facilities are known (or are expected) to contain materials
that are classifiable as hazardous or regulated materials.
See Figure 3.6-1 for locations.
2 AIRS/AFS — (Air Facility Subsystem) facilities regulated by the EPA that release pollutants into the air.
3 PCS/ICIS — (Permit Compliance System/Integrated Compliance Information System) Water Discharge facilities regulated by the
EPA that discharge to Waters of the U.S.
4 RCRA - Facilities regulated by the EPA under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) that handle materials
designated as hazardous waste.
5 TRI — (Toxic Release Inventory) Facilities regulated by the EPA that release toxic substances into the environment.
6 TSCA — (Toxic Substances Control Act) Facilities regulated by the EPA that produce, import, use, and dispose of specific toxic
substances including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos, radon, and lead-based paint.
Source: EPA, 2013.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 3.docx 3-21 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
The City of Greensboro owns and operates the White Street Landfill, which is located approximately 11
miles east of GSO. In September of 2006, the city opened a MSW transfer station. The transfer station
transports all MSW (approximately 225,000 tons per year) to the privately -owned and operated Uwharrie
Environmental Landfill, located in Montgomery County, North Carolina. Since the transfer station became
operational, the City of Greensboro eliminated MSW disposal at its White Street Landfill, and continues to
transport all of its MSW tonnage to the Uwharrie Environmental Landfill. Republic Services, the owner of
the Uwharrie Environmental Landfill, also owns and operates the Bishop Road Transfer Station, an
alternative MSW transfer station located just south of Greensboro. This facility currently receives over
11,000 tons of waste per month, or approximately 135,000 tons per year. The MSW collected at this
facility also transports to the Uwharrie Environmental Landfill. In June of 2012, and at the current rate of
disposal, the Uwharrie Environmental Landfill was estimated to have a remaining life expectancy of 12.5
years.
The City of Greensboro's White Street Landfill continues to accept construction/demolition (C&D) debris,
and land -clearing inert debris from the City of Greensboro and Guilford County. In addition to the White
Street Landfill, the WCA of High Point C&D Landfill and Processing and Treatment Facility and A-1
Sandrock C&D Landfill are additional disposal sites currently available for C&D material in Guilford
County. These facilities have adequate suitable area for C&D capacity to continue operations through the
duration of the current 10 -year planning period.
There are currently 14 active Land Clearing and Inert Debris (LCID) landfills in Guilford County. The
permitting process is not difficult for this type of landfill, and new facilities have been constructed as
necessary to meet the demands of development that might occur in the area.
3.7 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.7.1 Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
Historic and archaeological resources that are listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP are protected by
federal law, primarily the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, and its
implementing regulations, 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 800 (June 1999). Under the authority
of Section 106 of the NHPA, federal agencies must take into account the potential effects an undertaking
may have on properties listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP. As part of this EA, the PTAA initiated
coordination with the SHPO and initiated consultation regarding the identification, evaluation, and
treatment of historic architectural and archaeological resources.
3.7.2 Historic, Architectural, and Archaeological Area of Potential Effect
To determine the effect an undertaking may have on historic properties, an APE must be identified. A
historic property is any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or
eligible for inclusion in, the NRHP [36 CFR 800.16(1)]. The APE is the geographic area within which an
undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the characteristics of historic properties that make
them eligible for the NRHP [36 CFR 800.16(d)]. Such changes may include physical destruction,
damage, or alteration of a property; change of the character of the property's use or physical features
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 3.docx 3-22 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
within its setting that contribute to its historic significance; and introduction of visual, atmospheric, or
audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property's significant historic features [36 CFR
800.5(a)(2)].
The FAA determined that the undertaking's components would not substantially increase the number of
aircraft operations at GSO. In addition, the Proposed Project would not alter runways, flight tracks,
aircraft approach profiles, departure profiles, or instrument approach procedures at GSO. Because any
potential increase in aircraft operations resulting from the Proposed Project would be modest, the change
in noise exposure in the vicinity of GSO is expected to be modest and not result in a significant noise
impact. Consequently, there was no need to establish an APE to take into consideration additional
aircraft noise impacts that might affect NRHP-listed or -eligible historic properties whose listing or
eligibility would potentially be affected by noise.
An APE for the Proposed Project was initially established to include those areas proposed for conceptual
airport site development and taxiway development (Figure 3 in Appendix D). The APE was subsequently
expanded to include the potential development of a rail spur or a transfer facility connecting the proposed
development site to the Norfolk Southern Railroad tracks located to the southwest of GSO (Figure 4 in
Appendix D). The ultimate APE included the area encompassed by the undertaking and an additional
area within which the undertaking might cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties.
This additional area extended out approximately one-half mile beyond the footprint of the Proposed
Project.
The APE for archaeological resources for this EA is defined as all locations associated with the proposed
undertaking that will result in the alteration and disturbance of surface and subsurface soils that contain or
have the potential to contain archaeological sites. Therefore, the APE for archaeological resources is
consistent with the boundaries of the DSA and does not extend beyond them.
3.7.3 Historic and Archaeological Resources
Correspondence from SHPO dated July 19, 2013 stated that the SHPO was aware of no historic
resources that would be affected by the project (Appendix D). A field survey of the initial APE was
conducted in August 2013 to identify any previously unidentified historic architectural resources. Six
resources aged 50 years or older were newly identified during the course of this survey. Coordination
was undertaken with the SHPO for these resources, which included a presentation on October 21, 2013
and a Reconnaissance -Level Inventory of Potential Historic Resources (Appendix D). Based on the
results of the coordination process, the SHPO concurred in a letter of November 5, 2013 that these six
resources were not eligible for listing in the NRHP (Appendix D).
Within the ultimate APE as extended (Figure 4 in Appendix D), the SHPO GIS Web Service database
showed one previously inventoried historic resource, the Campbell -Gray House and Barn. It had
received an official Determination of Eligibility (DOE) for listing in the NRHP on December 20, 1995.
Fieldwork associated with the extended APE identified this property and four additional resources that
were 50 years old or older that had not been previously inventoried. Following the submittal of the
Addendum to Reconnaissance -Level Inventory report of May 23, 2014, the SHPO in a letter of June 17,
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 3.docx 3-23 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
2014 (Appendix D) concurred that the four newly inventoried resources were not eligible for NRHP listing
and that the Campbell -Gray House and Barn continued to be NRHP-eligible.
SHPO staff reviewed the project for potential effects on archaeological resources in June of 2013, and
they concluded that no archaeological studies were needed because the APE, which was plotted upon
the footprint of the undertaking, had low sensitivity and was probably previously disturbed. This
assessment was intended to be conveyed in their comment letter dated July 19, 2013 (Appendix D),
which stated that the SHPO was aware of no historic resources that would be affected by the project. In
a phone conversation of October 10, 2013, SHPO staff confirmed that the project had been reviewed for
potential effects on archaeological resources and they had concluded that no archaeological studies were
needed because the APE has low potential for containing significant archaeological resources and was
probably previously disturbed. On January 9, 2014, an additional consultation with SHPO staff was held
to confirm that this determination was also applicable to the added portion of the APE that extends to the
south of West Market Street.
3.8 NOISE
In 2007, GSO completed a Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study (Andrew S. Harris, Inc., 2007), which was
approved by the FAA in November 2008. This Part 150 Study included the development of future noise
contours representing operational characteristics at GSO for year 2014, including aircraft operations,
runway and flight track utilization, and aircraft fleet mix. These contours were based on a forecast of
aircraft operations that predicted approximately 174,000 annual operations by 2014. Other than a
decrease in the number of aircraft operations at GSO, no significant operational change has occurred
since the 2007 Part 150 was approved. A comparison of the actual 2012 aircraft operations to those
forecast for 2014 in the 2007 Part 150, as shown in Table 3.8-1, shows that the current level of aviation
activity at GSO is far less than that projected in the Part 150 Study for 2014. This indicates that the 2014
Part 150 noise contours more than adequately account for the noise resulting from the current operation
of GSO.
TABLE 3.8-1
COMPARISON OF AIRCRAFT OPERATION LEVELS —
2007 PART 150 STUDY AND 2012 FAA ATADS
User Group
2007 Part 150 Study
FAA ATADS
2006 2014
2012
Commercial
72,233
118,231
48,300
Itinerant General Aviation
39,916
44,917
28,751
Itinerant Military
1,000
1,000
1,297
Local General Aviation
8,537
9,414
9,363
Local Military
891
891
446
Total
122,577
174,453
88,157
Sources: Andrew S. Harris, Inc., 2007; FAA, 2013.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 3.docx 3-24 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
3.9 SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS
A Socioeconomic Study Area (SSA) was established to comparatively assess social and socioeconomic
data. The SSA includes 19 U.S. Census (2010) tracts within the GSA. To describe the social setting
population, race, age, income, and education data were summarized for the 19 U.S. Census tracts that
intersect the GSA and Guilford County. The State of North Carolina statistics are also included for
informational purposes.
The U.S. Census Tracts (2010) used to establish SSA include: 161.01, 160.03, 161.02, 162.01, 160.05,
160.09, 163.04, 160.06, 160.07, 160.08, 160.10, 160.11, 162.03, 162.04, 162.05, 163.05, 164.05, 164.06,
and 9801.
3.9.1 Population
Table 3.9-1 describes the 2007-2011 American Community Survey (ACS) estimate of the population
contained in the SSA and Guilford County. The population of the SSA for the year 2011 was 68,069 and
Guilford County was 483,081. In 2011, the ACS estimated that 87 percent of Guilford County adults had
a high school diploma or higher. Approximately 33 percent of Guilford County adults hold a bachelor's
degree or higher.
TABLE 3.9-1
COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS (2011)
Subject
Socioeconomic
Study Area
Guilford County
North Carolina
Number I Percent
Number
Percent
I Number
Percent
Total Population
68,069
n/a
483,081
n/a
9,418,736
n/a
Average Household Size
2.39
n/a
2.44
n/a
2.50
n/a
Race
White
51,069
75.0
281,403
58.3
6,560,948
69.7
Black or African American
9,974
14.7
156,148
32.3
2,016,228
21.4
American Indian
304
0.4
2,531
0.5
108,960
1.2
Asian
3,778
5.6
19,180
4.0
202,815
2.2
Native Hawaiian and
Other Pacific Island
4
0.0
73
0.0
4,725
0.1
Some Other Race
1,716
2.5
14,840
3.1
336,670
3.6
Two or More Races
1,224
1.8
8,906
1.8
188,390
2.0
Hispanic
I 3,745
5.5
33,266
6.9
764,707
8.1
Age
< 9 years
7,720
11.3
61,760
12.8
1,253,233
13.3
10 to 19 years
9,665
14.2
68,978
14.3
1,285,131
13.6
20 to 34 years
14,399
21.2
102,459
21.2
1,883,953
20.0
35 to 54 years
20,334
29.9
136,155
28.2
2,682,811
28.5
55 to 64 years
7,934
11.7
54,688
11.3
1,109,469
11.8
+65 years
8,017
11.8
59,041
12.2
1,204,139
12.8
Median Age
37.8
n/a
36.3
n/a
37.3
n/a
n/a = not applicable.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011.
SABD\Marketing\Wp_Wpro\12011299_ Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 3.docx 3-25 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
According to the ACS, there were 30,920 housing units in the SSA and 219,682 housing units within
Guilford County. Also based on the 2007-2011 ACS, the SSA and Guilford County have an average
household size of 2.39 and 2.44, respectively.
3.9.2 Racial Composition
The racial composition of the SSA and Guilford County is also shown in Table 3.9-1. The data for the
SSA reveals that the white population comprises approximately 75 percent of the SSA's total population;
the black or African American population 14.7 percent; and the combined percentage of American Indian,
Asian, and other races is 10.3 percent.
The data for Guilford County shows the white population comprising 58.3 percent of the County's total
population; the black or African American population 32.3 percent; and the combined percentage of
American Indian, Asian, and other races is 9.4 percent. In addition, according to the ACS, all listed races
include persons of Hispanic origin. There were 3,745 Hispanics reported living in the SSA and 33,266
living in Guilford County (ACS, 2011).
3.9.3 Age Distribution
Age distribution characteristics of the SSA's population are also shown in Table 3.9-1. The SSA has a
slightly older population than Guilford County with 25.5 percent of the SSA population under age 19 years
and 27.1 percent within the County younger than 19. Within both the SSA and Guilford County, 23.5
percent of the population is over 55 years of age. Approximately half of the population within both the
SSA and Guilford County is between the age of 20 and 64. The median age within the SSA is higher
than that present in Guilford County.
3.9.4 Income Distribution
According to the ACS, Guilford County's median household income is approximately $46,288. The
median household income in the SSA was $69,272 (ACS, 2007-2011). Approximately 7.2 percent of the
SSA's population is classified as below the poverty level as compared to approximately 16 percent of the
county's population.
3.9.5 Socioeconomics
The Triad area, as defined by the City of Greensboro Economic Development Partnership, includes 11
counties in addition to Guilford County. These include Alamance, Caswell, Davidson, Yadkin, Davie,
Forsyth, Montgomery, Randolph, Rockingham, Stokes, and Surry counties. According to the Piedmont
Triad Partnership, the current population of the Triad area includes 1.6 million residents. The annual
growth rate of 1.5 percent is anticipated to increase the population of the Triad area to more than 2 million
by 2030. Guilford and Forsyth counties are home to the largest concentrations of population. The
combined population of the Triad, Charlotte, and Research Triangle metro areas in North Carolina is
approximately 5.8 million, slightly below the population of metro Atlanta.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 3.docx 3-26 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
The Triad area has a labor force of approximately 826,000 persons (Greensboro Economic Development
Partnership, 2013). Greensboro is the largest urban center in the region; Greensboro and Guilford
County attract thousands of workers commuting from neighboring counties. In comparison, the labor
force for Guilford County in 2013 is approximately 258,000 and for the City of Greensboro it is estimated
to be 141,000. The average annual unemployment rate for the Triad area has decreased from
11.2 percent in 2009 to 9.6 percent in 2012, and is currently 9.8 percent (2013). The same trend is
reported for unemployment rates for the City of Greensboro which declined from 10.3 percent in 2010 to
9.1 percent in 2012. Currently, annual average unemployment in Greensboro is 9.4 percent.
The bulk of the current workforce in the Piedmont/Triad area is divided between manufacturing (16
percent); Professional Services and Management (15 percent); Health Care (13 percent); Transportation,
Warehousing, and Wholesale Trade (11 percent); Retail Trade (11 percent); and Art, Entertainment,
Accommodation, and Food (10 percent). According to the Center for Business and Economic Research,
Dixon Hughes Goodman Triad Business Index in July 2013, the number of jobs in the service providing
sector has risen only 0.2 percent, compared to a national gain of 1.6 percent. Employment in wholesale
and retail trade, transportation, education and health care, and leisure services was higher in this time
period. A decline was observed in information, finance, professional and business services, and
government.
According to the Greensboro Economic Development Alliance website, updated in 2013, six of the top 50
companies in the Fortune 500 have major operations in Greensboro. They include Citigroup, Procter &
Gamble, UPS, United Guaranty, AT&T, and United Health Group. The top 10 employers in the
Greensboro area are listed in Table 3.9-2.
TABLE 3.9-2
TOP 10 EMPLOYERS IN GREENSBORO (2011)
Company Name
Product/Service
Employment
Cone Health
Health Care
7,776
U.S. Postal Service
Mail Processing and Distribution
2,800
High Point Regional Health System
Health Care
2,400
Bank of America
Financial Services
2,000
UPS
Package, Freight & Logistics
2,000
Lorillard, Inc.
Tobacco Products
1,800
AT&T
Telecommunications
1,600
Citi
Credit Card Services
1,500
The Volvo Group
Volvo Truck Corp. Headquarters
1,414
VF Corporation
Branded Apparel
1,400
Source: ACS, 2007-2011
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 3.docx 3-27 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
3.10 WATER QUALITY
Data used for the characterization of water resources on and adjacent to the project area was based on
information contained in the 2001 Piedmont Triad International Airport FEIS (FAA, 2001), the Piedmont
Triad International Airport Stormwater Management Plan (Baker, 2001), and the NCDENR Division of
Water Resources (DWR) public information database. The discussion of water resources information
presented in this section focuses on the DSA, but also addresses the broader water resource
characteristics of the area. Water resources information, including surface water and ground water for
the DSA, is described within this section.
3.10.1 Potable Water
The Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority (PTRWA) provides potable water to GSO. PTRWA
operates the Randleman Regional Reservoir and the John Franklin Kime Water Treatment Plant (WTP) to
meet that purpose. The WTP is located on the shores of the Randleman Regional Reservoir in
Randleman, North Carolina. Randleman is located in the Piedmont area of North Carolina adjacent to the
Triad area (Greensboro, High Point, and Winston-Salem). The plant provides potable water to a
population of over 367,000. The Kime plant treats 10-12 million gallons per day (MGD) flow on average
and has a maximum day flow of 13 MGD.
The City of Greensboro depends upon three surface water sources to supply drinking water: Lake
Townsend, Lake Brandt, and Lake Higgins. These lakes are located in northern Guilford County in the
upper Cape Fear River Basin within a protected watershed. When full, Greensboro's three water
reservoirs hold about eight billion gallons of water. Water from Lake Brandt is treated at the Mitchell
Water Treatment Plant and water from Lake Townsend is treated at the Townsend Water Treatment
Plant. Lake Higgins is used to refill Lake Brandt as needed. Greensboro's municipal water system
serves approximately 275,000 people with an average daily water demand of more than 30 million gallons
per day in 2012. The City of Greensboro also purchases, from time to time, water from Reidsville,
Burlington, and PTRWA.
3.10.2 Surface Water
The airport is located within the Cape Fear River Basin. Most of GSO and much of the broader area
surrounding the airport are located in the Reedy Fork sub -basin which encompasses an area of
approximately 562 square miles. The total area occupied by water bodies in this sub -basin is
approximately 7 square miles. Surface water features associated with GSO include the main stem and
tributaries of Brush Creek and Horsepen Creek (see Figure 3.10-1). Brush Creek and Horsepen Creek
flow northeast and discharge into Lake Higgins and Lake Brandt, respectively, northeast of GSO.
Horsepen Creek and Brush Creek receive a large percentage of stormwater runoff from such varied
urbanized land uses as GSO, single-family and multi -family residential, public/institutional, light and heavy
industrial, and commercial land uses. Brush Creek and Horsepen Creek are the only primary tributaries
in the Reedy Fork Sub -basin (03-06-02) that drain areas occupied by GSO. The proposed rail transfer
facility site, south of West Market Street, is located within the East Fork sub -basin and drains to the south.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 3.docx 3-28 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

Service Layer Credits: Image courtesy of USGS ©AND @2013 Nokia ©AND
Reedy Fork Basin
Brush Creek
Sub -Basin
8.13 Sq. Mi.
_ C'
17
East Fork Basin
Deep River
Sub -Basin
17.50 Sq. Mi.
2
0
0/
r
a
Q
Reedy Fork Basin
Horsepen Creek
Sub -Basin
15.76 Sq. Mi.
Legend
Q Detailed Study Area
Reedy Fork Basin
East Fork Basin
Drainage Sub -Basin
Boundaries
Water Supply
Watersheds
WS -III NSW
WS -IV
Sources:
- Piedmont Triad International Airport FEIS, 2001
Neighboring Concepts, Inc., 2006
URS Corp, 2006
N
W+E Feet
0 3,000
S

DRAFT
Drainage Characteristics of GSO - There are approximately 2,071 and 1,267 acres of airport property
that drain to Brush Creek and Horsepen Creek, respectively. The remainder of the airport (320 acres) is
located in the Deep River drainage basin. Upon completion of the projects included in the 2001 Piedmont
Triad International Airport EIS Record of Decision (ROD), approximately 771 acres of GSO would be
covered by impervious surfaces such as runways, roofs, roads, and parking areas. Within the DSA, there
are approximately 129 acres of impervious surface. Most of the drainage from the DSA flows to Brush
Creek. The remainder flows into the East Fork of the Deep River. The drainage from the new DSA
development will be controlled and regulated by inclusion of the stormwater outfalls from the new DSA
development in PTAA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, as well as by
the stormwater control requirements of PTAA's Water Supply Watershed Management and Protection
Rules and its Stormwater Management Plan.
The Reedy Fork Sub -basin is classified as a Class WS -III Water Supply Watershed under the State's
Water Quality Regulations. The East Fork Sub -Basin is classified as Class WS -IV. In addition, Horsepen
Creek, Brush Creek, and East Fork of the Deep River are on the state's listing of impaired streams under
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.
Pollution Causes and Sources - There are two primary sources of pollutants which could contribute to
surface water contamination at GSO. These pollutant sources are characterized as non -point and point
sources. Non -point source pollutants include runoff from general airport areas such as grassed fields,
apron pavement, and roadways. Point source pollution is flow from a specific location such as a floor
drain or runoff that eventually leaves the property from a storm drain or outfall. Activities having the
potential to result in the generation of water pollutants at GSO include, but are not limited to, aircraft
repair, maintenance and operations, airfield grounds maintenance activities, and aircraft deicing activities.
All discharge of stormwater from GSO is regulated by the NCDENR, DWR in accordance with NPDES
Permit No: NCS000508, issued July 1, 2010. Discharges covered in the NPDES Permit address
stormwater discharges from the current airport operations, as well as additional stormwater discharge
points that may be created by further modification or expansion of airport operations. There are a total of
32 permitted discharge points currently included in the permit.
As a condition to the GSO NPDES Permit, PTAA has been required to develop a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan. PTAA has developed a Stormwater Management Plan for the airport which provides
guidelines and design criteria for stormwater management associated with current and future
development activities that may occur within land owned by the PTAA. The existing stormwater
management system at the airport consists of a combination of open channel and closed storm drains
discharging to Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek, and the East Fork of the Deep River. Most of the
stormwater runoff from the airport discharges directly from these outfalls to the receiving waters. As
needed, GSO has developed and utilizes both wet and dry detention ponds for the management of
stormwater. Detention ponds are designed to achieve at least an 85 percent removal of total suspended
solids, either alone or in combination with other BMPs, and a post -development peak discharge less than
or equal to the pre -developed peak discharge for each storm event up to and including the 10 -year storm
event (Baker, 2001). Under NCGS 143.214.7 NCDENR cannot require airports to use stormwater
detention ponds "that promote standing waters"; and runways, taxiways, and other airport areas that
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 3.docx 3-30 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
provide for overland stormwater flow are deemed to be permitted under the state's Stormwater Runoff
Rules if they "promote infiltration and treatment of stormwater into grassed buffers, shoulders and grass
swales."
3.10.3 Groundwater
The hydrogeological setting of GSO is defined by the relation between the streams that convey runoff and
the rock aquifer system that stores groundwater and functions as a conduit to route groundwater from
recharge areas to discharge areas (Daniel, et al., 1998). The aquifer beneath GSO is the Regolith
Fractured Bedrock Aquifer. The principal components of the groundwater system in the GSA consist of
the upper regolith and lower regolith (transition zone) zones underlain by fractured crystalline bedrock.
The upper regolith consists of an unsaturated zone underlain by a saturated zone. The saturated zone
generally contains the organic layers of the surface soil. The upper regolith provides the bulk of the water
storage because of its porosity. Thickness ranges from zero to more than 150 feet (Daniel, et al., 1998).
The lower regolith consists of partially weathered bedrock and lesser amounts of saprolite. The thickness
and texture of this zone depend a great deal on the texture and composition of the parent rock. Recharge
of the groundwater system varies from month to month and year to year, depending on amounts of
precipitation, seasonal distribution, evaporation, transpiration, land use, and other factors.
3.11 WETLANDS
3.11.1 Regulatory Background
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the discharges of dredged or fill material into Waters of the
U.S. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has primary responsibility for implementing, permitting,
and enforcing the provisions of Section 404. The 1987 USACE Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE,
1987) defines wetlands as:
"Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands
generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas (33 CFR 328.3(b) 1986)."
Three criteria are used to identify wetland systems: dominant hydrophitic wetland vegetation, hydrology,
and hydric soils. Areas with these three attributes are considered wetlands.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act delegates authority to the states to issue a Section 401 Water Quality
Certification for all projects that require a federal permit (such as a Section 404 Permit). Section 401 is
essentially verification by the state that a given project will not degrade Waters of the U.S. or otherwise
violate water quality standards. If the USACE determines that a Section 404 Permit is required because
a proposed project involves impacts to wetlands or waters, then a Section 401 Water Quality Certification
is also required. The USACE also determines which type of permit is applicable (e.g., Nationwide,
Regional, General, or Individual Permit). For each permit, a matching Section 401 Certification must be
issued by DWR in order for the Permit to be valid. An Individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification is
necessary if an Individual Section 404 Permit is required.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 3.docx 3-31 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
3.11.2 Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands in the DSA
Waters of the U.S., including wetlands, in the Proposed Project's primary development area were
delineated in 2012 and their jurisdictional status and boundaries were verified by the USACE in 2013
(USACE Action ID SAW -2012-01547) (see Appendix C). The area in which the jurisdictional
determination was conducted covers a majority, but not all, of the DSA. The portions of the DSA not
subject to the jurisdictional determination include the land associated with providing rail access to the
development site. This area was reviewed for the presence of jurisdictional waters and wetlands using
reasonably available information, including past environmental studies at GSO, aerial photographs, and
US Fish and Wildlife Service Nationwide Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps.
Based on the jurisdictional delineation and other available information reviewed for this EA, there are
approximately 26,991 linear feet of intermittent and perennial streams within the DSA. This includes
8,898 linear feet of intermittent streams and 18,093 feet of perennial streams. Approximately 6.7 acres of
open water and 12.95 acres of wetlands are located within the DSA. The wetlands are comprised of
12.79 acres of forested wetlands and 0.16 acre of emergent wetlands. The intermittent and perennial
streams are unnamed tributaries to Brush Creek and East Fork Deep River. The majority of the wetlands
are located within the riparian floodplain of tributaries to Brush Creek. Most of these wetlands are within
a conservation easement area and will not be developed. The identified open waters are primarily
associated with the ponds located within the Pleasant Ridge Golf Course. The location and extent of the
streams and wetlands are depicted on Figure 3.11-1.
3.12 PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE ACTIONS
This section describes past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions for the purpose of considering
potential cumulative impacts in Chapter 4.0, Environmental Consequences, of this EA. These projects
could be undertaken with or without implementation of the Proposed Project.
3.12.1 Airport Development Actions
PTAA maintains an Airport Development Program (ADP) that outlines proposed improvements to the
airport. The ADP identifies actions needed at GSO to provide modern and efficient airport facilities. The
major development projects listed below are identified in the ADP and would likely be implemented during
the study period defined for this EA. However, changes in demand and availability of funding could affect
the decision to proceed with a particular project and the timing for implementing a project.
2001 EIS Projects - These projects include a 9,000 -foot runway, FedEx Mid -Atlantic Hub facility,
relocation of Joseph M. Bryan Boulevard and Old Oak Ridge Road, and other connected actions.
Construction of Runway 5L/23R and Phase I of the FedEx Mid -Atlantic Hub have been completed.
Phase II of the Mid -Atlantic Hub and other associated developments have not been undertaken to date.
Other Airport Projects — PTAA has implemented a variety of other airport enhancements including
numerous taxiway improvements.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 3.docx 3-32 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
3.12.2 Other Area Development Actions
This section describes other area developments in the vicinity of GSO that have been identified within
state and local planning documents (e.g., NCDOT Piedmont Triad Airport Area Transportation Study in
2004).
1-40/NC 68/1-73 Connector - This connector is a proposed new six -lane divided freeway that is proposed
to start at the existing 1-40/1-40 Business interchange, cross Market Street, connect to NC 68 with an
interchange, and extend to the Joseph M. Bryan Boulevard Relocation/Old Oak Ridge Road interchange.
Construction of the segment from NC 68 to Joseph M. Bryan Boulevard (which bisects the DSA) is
scheduled to begin in late 2014. This route would provide travelers from the High Point or Winston Salem
areas a more direct route to the Greensboro Western Loop. This project is included on the Greensboro
Urban Thoroughfare Plan. According to NCDOT's website, right-of-way acquisition began in 2011 and
construction is scheduled to begin in 2014.
Airport Connector (from 1-40/NC 68 Connector to Forsyth County) — This project proposes a new
four -lane divided freeway constructed between NC 150 and the proposed 1-40/NC 68/1-73 Connector.
This route would provide travelers on Market Street and Winston-Salem access to the 1-40/NC 68/1-73
Connector, improve access to northern Greensboro, and provide a more direct route to GSO from eastern
Forsyth County. This project is included on the Greensboro Urban Thoroughfare Plan and the
Winston-Salem LRTP and Thoroughfare Plan. Currently, a schedule for construction and operation for
this project is not available.
Sandy Ridge Road (SR 1850) Extension - This project proposes a new four -lane divided roadway to be
constructed between Market Street and proposed 1-40/NC 68/1-73 Connector. This route would provide
travelers on Market Street and High Point access to the 1-40/NC 68/1-73 Connector in conjunction with the
Airport Connector. The proposed Sandy Ridge Road Extension would provide a direct route to GSO from
West Market Street and High Point. This plan is also included on the Greensboro Urban Thoroughfare
Plan (NCDOT, 2004). Currently, a schedule for construction and operation for this project is not
available.
Greensboro Urban Loop (NCDOT Prosect Numbers U-2524, U-2525)
The Greensboro Urban Loop is proposed to improve traffic flow within the City of Greensboro by allowing
traffic to bypass the city. The proposed improvements will reduce congestion on existing 1-40,
particularly in the area where 1-40, 1-85 Business and U.S. Routes 29, 70, 220, and 421 all run
concurrently. The loop provides a more direct route for traffic heading from south and east of Greensboro
to destinations north and west of the city.
There are four projects in various stages of the construction process which will complete the remaining 15
miles of the 44 -mile long loop around the city. According to the NCDOT website, starting at the western
end near GSO and working eastward to US 70, the status of the four projects is shown below.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 3.docx 3-34 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
1. Western Loop from north of Joseph M. Bryan Boulevard to US 220 (Battleground Avenue)
— NCDOT Project Number: U -2524C
NCDOT is currently acquiring right-of-way. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2013.
2. Western Loop from US 220 (Battleground Avenue) to Lawndale Drive - NCDOT Project
Number: U -2524D
NCDOT is currently acquiring right-of-way. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2017.
3. Eastern Loop from US 29 north of Greensboro to Lawndale Drive - NCDOT Project
Number: U -2525C
Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to begin in 2016. Construction is scheduled to begin in
2019.
4. Eastern Loop from US 70 Relocation to US 29 north of Greensboro - NCDOT Project
Number: U -2525B
Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to begin in 2012. Construction is scheduled to begin in
2014.
Commuter Rail System - The Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation (PART) has developed the
Piedmont Triad Region Mobility Major Investment Study that recommended long-range transit
improvements for the region to maintain its mobility. The report included a recommendation for a
commuter rail system to serve the City of Greensboro and other regional municipalities. The major
facilities of a commuter rail system would include approximately 110 miles of railroad; 80 railcars;
22 station locations and parking lots, bridges, signal improvements; and a yard and shop (PART, 2002).
The City of Greensboro Comprehensive Plan, Connections 2025 and PART Triad Intercity Rail Study also
have recommendations of a commuter rail system that includes a station or connection to GSO.
Currently, a schedule for construction and operation for this project is not available.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 3.docx 3-35 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4.1 INTRODUCTION
DRAFT
The potential environmental impacts resulting from construction and operation of the Proposed Project
and the No -Action Alternative are presented in this section. A detailed description of the Proposed
Project is provided in Chapter 1.0 of this EA.
4.1.1 Study Years
The study years of 2015 and 2020 were selected for analysis in this Environmental Assessment (EA).
The 2015 study year represents the initial opening year during which the Near -Term Projects including
the proposed cross -field taxiway, rail spur or transfer facility, and related infrastructure would be
substantially complete and operational. In addition, it was assumed that the opening year could be
accompanied by the development of aviation -related industries on approximately 553 acres of land
located in the north/northwest quadrant of the project site. The Near -Term Project also includes the
designation of a 72 -acre site located between Runway 5L/23R and Highway 68 for future aviation -related
use, and a 100 -acre site for development of a rail spur or transfer facility. As previously noted in Section
1.2 of this EA, there are no immediate plans for development on this 72 -acre parcel. However, this parcel
has been included as part of the environmental analysis for the Near -Term Project for full disclosure of
potential impacts. To facilitate this analysis, it was estimated that the density of future development on
this site would be equal to that projected for other areas included in the Near -Term Project. Potential
environmental impacts associated with this aviation -related development were also evaluated as part of
the Near -Term Project. Major elements of the 2015 Near -Term Project are depicted in Figure 4.1-1. A
detailed listing of activities to be completed as part of the Near -Term Project is provided in Chapter 1.0 of
this EA.
The Long -Term Project is projected to be developed and become operational by study year 2020. The
Long -Term Project includes site preparation and infrastructure development on approximately 407 -acres
of land located northwest of the airport and east of Regional Road, construction of a full-length parallel
taxiway on the northwest side of Runway 5L/23R, and development of aviation -related industries on the
Long -Term Project site (see Figure 4.1-2). A detailed listing of activities to be completed as part of the
Long -Term Project is provided in Chapter 1.0 of this EA.
As noted in Chapter 1.0 of this EA, the final site layout, composition (number and size of tenants), and
development schedule cannot be determined at this time. Development requirements and schedule
would be influenced by prevailing market conditions, the operational needs of each tenant, and respective
business decisions by prospective tenants and the PTAH). The full build -out of the development area
could occur before, or after, study year 2020 (see Figure 4.1-3). However, to disclose potential
environmental impacts of the Proposed Project, this EA also evaluated a conceptual full build -out of the
Proposed Project by the year 2020.
SABD\Marketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-1 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

X
�I
PIEDMONT TRIAD
NEAR-TERM PROJECT
PT/ FIGURE
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
(2015) 41-�
Environmental Assessment
a
Legend
0
Proposed Taxiway
Conceptual
Development
Potential Aviation
Related Development
+
Proposed Rail Line
X x
Road Removal
Sources:
- URS Corp, 2013
N
I�
Feet
w -E
0 2,000
S
�I
PIEDMONT TRIAD
NEAR-TERM PROJECT
PT/ FIGURE
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
(2015) 41-�
Environmental Assessment
a

courtesy
0.
b.
�►4 1 YW_
VBRIJDrGE X
V
VOVED
15
:.r
►u
LegendProposed Taxiway
d
------------
Development
Potential Aviation
Related Development
1k x Road Removal
�f.
URS Corp, 2013
q pw6
T ad cel f� S.
Feet474 W( 1 2,000
PIEDMONT TRIAD
PT/
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LONG-TERM PROJECT FIGURE
(2020) 4.1-2
Environmental Assessment
a

cage courtesy -of USGS
i
I -1
ow. 9
TA I _ A� BRIDG
PIEDMONT TRIAD
PROPOSED PROJECT
PTI FIGURE
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
(FULL BUILD -OUT) 4.1-3
Environmental Assessment
a
Legend
Proposed Taxiway
Conceptual
Development
Potential Aviation
Related Development
Proposed Rail Line
X x
Road Removal
Sources:
`4d
- URS Corp,
2013
N
I�
Feet
w—E
0 2,000
S
PIEDMONT TRIAD
PROPOSED PROJECT
PTI FIGURE
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
(FULL BUILD -OUT) 4.1-3
Environmental Assessment
a

DRAFT
4.1.2 Evaluation of Impacts
Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with the No -Action Alternative and the Proposed
Project are identified and disclosed for the environmental resource categories defined in Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) Order 1050.1E and FAA Order 5050.4B. The potential cumulative environmental
impacts of other airport and area projects are evaluated for each environmental resource category
evaluated in this EA. Specific mitigation measures, if necessary, are discussed in Chapter 5.0, Mitigation,
of this EA.
4.1.3 Resource Categories Not Affected
As discussed in Chapter 3.0, three environmental resource categories (Coastal Zone
Management/Coastal Barriers, Farmlands, and Wild and Scenic River) were considered for purposes of
potential environmental impacts; however, it was determined that further detailed analysis in this EA
would not be required.
4.2 AIR QUALITY
4.2.1 Overview of Impacts
GSO is located in Guilford County, North Carolina. This area is designated as an attainment area
for all of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) criteria air pollutant standards with the
exception of particulate matter (PM2.5), which is designated as maintenance for the 1997 Standard.
When compared to existing conditions, future year air emissions associated with GSO from all
sources are expected to increase. This is attributable to forecasted population and economic
growth in the Piedmont Triad area, which is reflected in increased aircraft operations at GSO
expected with the No -Action Alternative. The Proposed Project would result in further increases
in these future year emissions when compared to the future No -Action Alternative. This is mainly
attributable to the construction of the Proposed Project.
The outcome of the air quality analysis conducted for the proposed improvements to GSO show
that total project -related emissions are below the Clean Air Act General Conformity Rule de
minimis levels [100 tons per year (tpy)] for PM2.5 and its precursors, nitrogen oxide (NOX), and
sulfur dioxide (SO2). This signifies that the proposed improvements at GSO conform to the State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The results also show that construction -related emissions would not
exceed de minimis thresholds, and that the operational emissions are not regionally significant.
Therefore, the General Conformity Rule does not apply and no further demonstration is required
to show that the proposed project conforms to the SIP.
The Clean Air Act Transportation Conformity Rule requirements were also met for the planned
roadway improvements (1-73 Connector) concurrent with this project, as the planned
improvements are included in the current and updated Transportation Improvement Programs
(TIP) for Guilford County.
Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) have also been addressed qualitatively.
S:\BD\Marketing\Wp_Wpro\12011299_ Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-5 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
4.2.2 Methodology
Consistent with FAA guidelines, the air quality assessment was conducted following FAA Order 1050.1 E
Change 1 (FAA, 2006a), Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures (Section 2, Air Quality),
FAA Order 5050.413 (FAA, 2006b), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing
Instructions for Airport Actions, the FAA document Air Quality Procedures for Civilian Airports and Air
Force Bases (FAA, 1997) (the Air Quality Handbook) and its 2004 Addendum, and the requirements of
EPA Region 4
Construction Emissions Inventory
Estimated criteria pollutant emissions associated with construction activity, including fugitive dust due to
earthmoving activity, were estimated using various methods. Since the exact site layout, composition
(number and type of tenants), and development schedule for the aviation facilities to be constructed on
the proposed development site cannot be determined at this time, the methods used to estimate
construction emissions were based on conceptual designs and general emissions factors and equations,
and ratioed using similar projects at GSO and other airports. Since many of the emission factors and
data were developed using earlier years (i.e., before 2014), this analysis provides a reasonable
estimation of potential emissions because more stringent federal regulations relating to emissions from
construction vehicles and equipment and aircraft engines are now in effect.
The No -Action Alternative would not involve any of the construction activities connected with the
Proposed Project. However, there will continue to be construction activities on-going at the airport that
are not associated with the Proposed Project. To the extent these projects have been identified and
scheduled for construction, emissions for these projects have been included as part of the No -Action
Alternative baseline condition.
Fugitive Dust from Earthmoving Activity
Earthmoving activity associated with construction projects typically cause emissions of PM in the form of
fugitive dust. For this EA, the estimation of a PM emission rate considers the actual level of activity at the
site and the effect of construction mitigation measures and controls. For general construction activity, a
generally accepted estimate of controlled (50 percent)'. PM10 emissions are 0.11 tons/acre-month of total
PM (Countess Environmental, 2006). A more detailed estimate of controlling emissions, which was used
for this analysis, is 0.011 tons/acre-month plus 0.059 tons/1,000 cubic yards of cut/fill. A consistent
midpoint for construction PM2.5 emissions from PM10 is 10 percent (0.1) as indicated by Thompson Pace,
EPA, in the document Examination of the Multiplier Used to Estimate PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Emissions from
PM10. These emission and control factors were used to estimate the PM2.5 emissions resulting from
construction activity.
Further methodology information related to the construction air emissions inventory is located within
Appendix B of this EA.
1 The recommended control efficiency for PM emissions is 50 percent based on data presented in the AP -42 manual and the MRI
(1999) document. This correction parameter accounts for emission reductions afforded by dust control measures used at
construction sites, including watering.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-6 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
4.2.3 Impacts
4.2.3.1 No -Action Alternative
Under the No -Action Alternative, there would be no construction or development activities associated with
the Proposed Project. Therefore, there would be no impacts to air quality resulting from the No -Action
Alternative.
4.2.3.2 Near -Term Project (2015)
Construction Impacts
The Near -Term components of the Proposed Project which may impact air quality in the vicinity of GSO
consist of the following items: site preparation of approximately 553 acres of land for aviation -related
development; grading of an approximately 100 acre site for rail -related development; extension of utilities
to the Near -Term development area; extension and/or installation of stormwater collection and treatment
infrastructure; construction of aircraft parking aprons and associated aviation -related facilities;
construction of a 3,500 -foot cross -field taxiway (the total length of taxiway development used for the air
quality analysis was 4,640 feet which includes the taxiway connector with Runway 5L/23R); closure and
removal of a portion of Joseph M. Bryan Boulevard; construction of 20,403 linear feet (3.1 mi) of rail;
construction of 4,223 linear feet (0.8 mi) of roadway associated with the rail; and construction of 3.6
million square feet (SF) of buildings and related access roads.
The proposed construction schedule for projects included in the Near -Term Project is provided in
Appendix B. The construction -related emissions inventory for the Near -Term Project was developed in
accordance with this schedule, and is summarized in Table 4.2-1. The construction period for this
alternative is expected to occur over a 2 -year period extending from 2014 to 2015. The results represent
the maximum annual construction emissions associated with the project and include emissions from
heavy equipment, motor vehicles, paving, and fugitive dust operations. The results are expressed as tpy,
by pollutant.
TABLE 4.2-1
NEAR-TERM CONSTRUCTION AIR EMISSIONS INVENTORY
Year
Pollutants (tpy)
CO NO), VOC
PM10
PM2.5
SO2
Maximum Annual
296 82 32
455
52
21
Total 2014 - 2015
581 149 46
908
103
42
Source: Data derived by DW Environmental Consulting and URS, 2014.
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide, VOC = volatile organic compound. All values are in tpy. Construction Equipment
emissions were based on similar projects at another airport using AP -42 calculations and the EPA's
NONROAD Model. Fugitive dust emissions were calculated using the MRI fugitive dust equations. Paving
emissions were based on similar projects at other airports. PM2.5 emissions assumed to be 10 percent of
PM10 for fugitive dust calculations, but equal to PM10 emissions for other calculations.
As can be seen in Table 4.2-1, the total pollutant emissions (in tons) for PM2.5 and NOxforeach year are
less than 100 tpy. In Section 4.2.4, a detailed summary of conformity along with the importance of the
100 tpy threshold is explained.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-7 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
Operational Impacts
The 2015 Near -Term Project is not expected to result in a substantial increase in aircraft operations at
GSO. While the proposed project is expected to include aviation -related activities, it would not be
expected to produce large numbers of additional aircraft operations, particularly during the Near -Term
development phase when prospective tenant facilities and supporting infrastructure may still be under
construction of may be in early stages of operation. Over time, the primary users of the proposed site
development areas could include aircraft manufacturing, development, and repair facilities. Even if a
major maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) facility were to operate in the area of proposed
improvement, the level of operations would not begin to increase operations to a level which could result
in a substantial increased air quality emissions impacts.
4.2.3.3 Long -Term Project (2020)
Construction Impacts
The Proposed Project's Long -Term components which may impact air quality include the following
development items: grading and site preparation of approximately 407 acres of land for aviation -related
development, relocation of GSO's existing ASR facility, construction of access roads within the Long -
Term development area, construction of approximately 2.4 million sf of buildings and construction of a
full-length parallel taxiway (7,250 feet) on the northwest side of Runway 5L/23R.
The proposed construction schedule for actions included in the Long -Term Project is expected to occur
over a 5 -year period extending from 2016 to 2020 (see in Appendix B). The construction -related
emissions inventory for the Long -Term Project was developed in accordance with this schedule and is
summarized in Table 4.2-2. The results represent the maximum annual construction emissions
associated with the project and include emissions from heavy equipment, motor vehicles, paving, and
fugitive dust operations. The results are expressed as tpy, by pollutant. As with the Near -Term Project
constructions emissions are expected to be below 100 tpy for PM2.5 and NO, An explanation of this
threshold level is provided in Section 4.2.4. The worst case scenario year is included as the maximum
annual below in Table 4.2-2 with more information provided in Appendix B.
TABLE 4.2-2
LONG-TERM CONSTRUCTION AIR EMISSIONS INVENTORY
Year
Pollutants (tpy)
CO
NO),
VOC
PM10
PM2.5
SO2
Maximum Annual
91
57
19
118
18
7
Total 2016-2020
389
119
31
565
66
26
Source: Data derived by DW Environmental Consulting and URS Corporation, 2014.
Notes: All values are in tpy. Construction Equipment emissions were based on similar projects at another airport
using AP -42 calculations and the EPA's NONROAD Model. Fugitive dust emissions were calculated
using the MRI equations. Paving emissions were based on similar projects at other airports. PM2.5
emissions assumed to be 10% of PM10 for fugitive dust calculations, but equal to PM10 emissions for
other calculations.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-8 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
Operational Impacts - 2020
The 2020 Long -Term Project is not expected to result in a substantial increase in aircraft operations at
GSO. However, it is recognized that there may be a small increase in the number of aircraft operating at
GSA once the Proposed Project is completed. For purposes of this EA, a 10 percent increase in aircraft
operations in 2020 was used to test the effect that such an increase would have on air emission S2.
Based on FAA's 2013 TAF, operational activity at GSO in 2020 is projected to be 95,118 operations. A
10 percent increase would represent 9,512 additional operations per year and is well above the likely
increase resulting from the Prosed Project.
Based on the operational forecast presented in the 2013 TAF and a 10 percent increase in GSO
operations following implementation of the Long -Term Project, operational air pollutant inventories for
GSO are summarized in Table 4.2-3.
TABLE 4.2-3
OPERATIONAL AIR EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR AIRCRAFT
Source
Pollutant (tpy)
CO
NOx
PM10
PM2.5
VOC
SO2
No -Action Alternative
341
258
3.8
3.8
53
21
Proposed Project 2020
375
284
4.2
4.2
58
26
Net Increase Due to
Proposed Project 2020
34
29
0.4
0.6
5
5
1 Based on 95,118 operations as published in FAA's 2013 TAF (No -Action) and 1104,630 total operations based on
a 10% increase in operations upon completion of the Long -Term Project in 2020.
Source: URS, 2014.
Because the types of facilities and processes that future tenants may develop at GSO in the future are
unknown at this time, the types of air quality permits which may be required are also unknown.
Operational air permits will be obtained by the tenants for all proposed facilities and processes at GSO,
as appropriate.
4.2.3.5 Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants
Emissions of a number of substances, commonly called HAPs, are produced by a wide range of airport
sources, including (but not limited to) aircraft, ground support equipment, motor vehicles, and evaporating
fuel and paints. The term HAPs refers to pollutants that do not have established National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) but present potential adverse human health risks from short-term or
long-term exposures. VOCs and particulate emissions can be used as surrogates for measuring changes
in HAPs. HAPs effects and potential toxicity vary, and they have or are suspected to have impacts on
human health, including risks of cancer, respiratory conditions, and other health effects. The substances
referred to here include formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, benzene, and acrolein, among many others. A list
2 Based on the nature of the facilities, the Proposed Project is not expected to substantially increase the number of aircraft
operations at GSO, when compared to the No -Action Alternative. The primary tenants anticipated by PTAA include aviation -
related manufacturing, maintenance, and repair facilities. These type facilities typically generate a relatively small number of
aircraft operations when compared to other airport users, such as airlines, Fixed Base Operators, and cargo operators. Other
tenants may generate even fewer aircraft operations.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-9 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
of aircraft- and airport -related pollutants can be found in Table 1 of FAA's guidance document Select
Resource Materials and Annotated Bibliography on the Topic of Hazardous Air Pollutants Associated with
Aircraft, Airports, and Aviation (FAA, 2003).
In general, there are no federal or state reporting requirements applicable to airports for HAPs. Airport -
related HAP emissions are a very small portion of the HAPs emitted in the region around an airport.
Compared to the No -Action Alternative in 2014, overall project -related VOC and particulate emissions
from the Proposed Project are projected to only increase by about 1 to 3 percent; thus, project -related
emissions of HAPs in 2014 would not be significant with this project.
4.2.4 Conformity Assessments and Permits
4.2.4.1 General Conformity Rule
The metropolitan Greensboro area (including Guilford County and GSO) has been designated as a
maintenance area for PM2.5.
Under the Clean Air Act, each state is required to prepare an air quality management plan for those areas
within its borders that do not meet the NAAQS for any criteria air pollutant. Termed a SIP and subject to
approval by the EPA, this plan aims to reduce the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS within
a defined time frame. The strategies for achieving the goals and objectives of the SIP are also explicitly
outlined in this plan. The North Carolina Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ) has submitted a SIP for the
area; the goals and objectives of which are to manage the growth of the pollutants and bring the area into
attainment with the NAAQS.
The final "Redesignation Demonstration and Maintenance Plan for the Hickory and Greensboro/winston-
Salem/High Point Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment Areas" SIP package was submitted to the EPA
on December 18, 2009. On December 22, 2010, the NCDAQ submitted to the EPA a Supplement to the
Hickory and Triad areas' maintenance plan, revising the motor vehicle emission budgets for
transportation conformity purposes using the new EPA mobile model Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator
(MOVES). Additionally, the NCDAQ submitted an Errata document to make minor corrections or
changes, at the request of the EPA, to the redesignation demonstration and maintenance plan for the
fine.
Under the provisions of the Clean Air Act General Conformity Rule, federal agencies are prohibited from
approving, funding, or promoting any projects or actions that do not conform to the objectives and goals
of the SIP. As previously stated, the General Conformity Rule stipulates that federal actions or projects
will not cause or contribute to a new violation of the NAAQS, increase the frequency or severity of any
existing violation, and/or delay the timely attainment of the standards or other SIP milestones.
Applicability Criteria
As a means of determining whether or not the requirements of the General Conformity Rule apply, the
EPA has established de minimis levels for the nonattainment/maintenance air pollutants. As shown in
Table 4.2-4, the applicable de minimis values for the area are 100 tpy for PM2.5 direct particles and 100
tpy for the precursors NO, and SO2. That is, project -related emission levels below these de minimis
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-10 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
thresholds are presumed to conform to the SIP and the General Conformity Rule is not applicable. In
these cases, no further action is required and the federal agency is allowed to approve and/or fund the
project or action.
TABLE 4.2-4
GENERAL CONFORMITY de minimis LEVELS
IN THE GREENSBORO NONATTAINMENT AREA
Pollutant
de minimis Level (tpy)
NO,, (precursor)
100
P M 2.5
100
SO2
100
Sources: 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 6, 51, and 93, November 30, 1993;
40 CFR Part 52, April 19, 1995.
Also, because the area around GSO is designated as an attainment area for CO, PM10, sulfur dioxide
(SO2), and lead (Pb), no de minimis values apply to these criteria pollutants and no further discussion of
these pollutants is needed with respect to General Conformity. The area is also in attainment for NOx;
however, since it is a precursor pollutant for PM2.5, it has been included. Additionally, Guildford County
was designated as attainment for ozone in 2011 under the Early Action Compact (EAC) plan. VOC
emissions are included for informational purposes to show that they are also less than 100 tpy.
Under the applicability test for General Conformity, the sum of future "net project -related direct and
indirect emissions" must be evaluated. Net project -related direct and indirect emissions include only
those emissions that are explicitly created by the Proposed Project, that are reasonably foreseeable, and
are controllable by the federal agency. These emissions are determined by subtracting the future
No -Action Alternative emissions from the future Proposed Project emissions. Net project -related
emission levels below the de minimis thresholds are presumed to conform to the SIP and the General
Conformity Rule is not applicable. However, when the net project -related direct and indirect emissions
exceed the de minimis levels, the General Conformity Rule does apply. In these cases, further
demonstration must be made in a formal General Conformity Determination to demonstrate that the
proposed project conforms to the applicable SIP before the federal agency is allowed to approve and/or
fund the project or action. Based on this approach, the outcomes of the General Conformity Rule
applicability test for operational and construction -period emissions are treated separately and discussed
by alternative.
Conformity Assessment
The details of the future -year 2020 "operational' emissions for GSO were previously summarized in
Table 4.2-3. The construction related emissions associated with the proposed improvements to the
airport were presented in Tables 4.2-1 and 4.2-2. From these results, the "project -related" emissions
were determined as being the sum of the operational and construction emissions for the Near -Term
Project and the sum of the operation and construction emissions for the Long -Terms Project. (Note:
operational emissions are the difference between the "Proposed Project" and "No Action Alternative"
emissions, as described above.) The results of this analysis are provided in Table 4.2-5 and indicate that
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-11 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
neither operational nor construction emissions exceed the de minimis thresholds for any of the
nonattainment/maintenance pollutants for either the Near -Term Project or the Long -Term Project.
Therefore, because the operational emissions and the construction -related emissions are all below the
de minimis levels, and because the emissions from the Proposed Project are less than the General
Conformity Rule regionally significant test, a General Conformity Determination is not required.
TABLE 4.2-5
SUMMARY OF NEAR-TERM PROJECT AND LONG-TERM PROJECT AIR EMISSIONS
1 Maximum annual construction emissions during the construction period.
4.2.4.2 Transportation Conformity
Transportation Conformity requirements apply to highway and transit projects that involve the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) or the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and these requirements
differ from the General Conformity requirements discussed above (40 CFR Part 93). In North Carolina,
Transportation Conformity requirements are codified in the North Carolina Administrative Code
(NCAC 15A).
For surface transportation and transit projects (i.e., roadways, traffic management systems, and rail
facilities), conformity to the SIP may be demonstrated by ensuring that the proposed projects are included
in a conforming TIP (i.e., a TIP that has been shown to conform to the SIP). A TIP is a comprehensive,
region -wide plan that identifies the roadway, transit and other surface transportation improvements
proposed for an area in the foreseeable future.
For the Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point area, the most current TIP is dated December 2011. The
TIP is maintained by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and updated
approximately every 2 years.
Outside of the GSO proposed projects, is the NCDOT 1-73 Connector Project, for which an EA was
submitted in 2012. This connector will run through sections of the GSO property and this roadway
improvement is included in the most recent TIP. That is, NCDOT has made provisions for this roadway
improvement as part of their area -wide surface transportation system plan for the Greensboro/Winston-
Salem/High Point area. Because this roadway improvement is included in the TIP, the air emissions
associated with the motor vehicles traveling on it are accounted for in the SIP for the
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-12 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment
Pollutants (tpy)
NOx
PM2.5
SO2
Near -Term Project
(maximum annual)
Construction"
82
52
21
Aircraft Operations
<1
<1
<1
Total
82
52
21
Long -Term Project
(maximum annual)
Construction'
57
18 7
Aircraft Operations
26
0.4 5
Total
83
18.4 12
1 Maximum annual construction emissions during the construction period.
4.2.4.2 Transportation Conformity
Transportation Conformity requirements apply to highway and transit projects that involve the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) or the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and these requirements
differ from the General Conformity requirements discussed above (40 CFR Part 93). In North Carolina,
Transportation Conformity requirements are codified in the North Carolina Administrative Code
(NCAC 15A).
For surface transportation and transit projects (i.e., roadways, traffic management systems, and rail
facilities), conformity to the SIP may be demonstrated by ensuring that the proposed projects are included
in a conforming TIP (i.e., a TIP that has been shown to conform to the SIP). A TIP is a comprehensive,
region -wide plan that identifies the roadway, transit and other surface transportation improvements
proposed for an area in the foreseeable future.
For the Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point area, the most current TIP is dated December 2011. The
TIP is maintained by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and updated
approximately every 2 years.
Outside of the GSO proposed projects, is the NCDOT 1-73 Connector Project, for which an EA was
submitted in 2012. This connector will run through sections of the GSO property and this roadway
improvement is included in the most recent TIP. That is, NCDOT has made provisions for this roadway
improvement as part of their area -wide surface transportation system plan for the Greensboro/Winston-
Salem/High Point area. Because this roadway improvement is included in the TIP, the air emissions
associated with the motor vehicles traveling on it are accounted for in the SIP for the
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-12 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point area. Therefore, in accordance with the Transportation
Conformity Rule, this improvement to the surface transportation system conforms to the goals and
objectives of the SIP and a formal Transportation Conformity determination by the FHWA is not required,
since this project is not part of the GSO Proposed Project.
Conformity determinations are required for existing non -attainment or maintenance areas every 4 years
or whenever a Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) or TIP is updated (project scope, horizon year, or
termini change during project development — NEPA). This requirement goes away once an area is in
maintenance for 20 years.
Text taken from the 1-73 Connector EA (February 2012), says that the impacts of air quality conform to
the SIPs. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) made a conformity determination on the
Greensboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) LRTP on the High Point MPO LRTP on
December 16, 2011; the Burlington MPO LRTP on February 26, 2010; the Greensboro MPO TIP on
December 16, 2011; the High Point MPO TIP on December 16, 2011; and the Burlington Graham MPO
TIP on December 16, 2011. The current conformity determinations are consistent with the final
conformity rule found in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93. There are no significant changes in the project's design
concept or scope, as used in the conformity analyses. A full air quality assessment was conducted,
including a qualitative analysis of Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs), and appears in its entirety in the
document "Air Quality Analysis," dated October 14, 2011, referenced in the 1-73 Connector EA.
4.2.4.3 Transportation Facility Permit
The NCDAQ requirement for obtaining a Transportation Facility Permit does not apply to this project at
GSO, as they are phasing out this requirement. Therefore, no further action is needed.
4.2.4.4 Other Permits
Stationary sources of criteria or hazardous air pollutants (such as power generators, incinerators, paint
booths, etc.), if needed, would be installed and operated by the facility owner/operator (tenant). Should
these sources be added that require air pollution construction and operating permits from the NCDAQ,
these permits will be applied for by the contractor(s) and/or the facility owner/operator (tenant), whichever
is appropriate.
4.2.5 Comparison of Significant Impact Thresholds
As described in FAA Order 1050.1 E, Change 1, potentially significant air quality impacts associated with
an FAA project or action would occur if project -related emissions caused an exceedance of one or more
of the NAAQS for any of the time periods analyzed. In addition, the General Conformity Rule (40 CFR
Part 93.153) provides de minimis thresholds below which the Proposed Project is presumed to conform to
the SIP. The Proposed Project would not generate enough project -related emissions such that de
minimis thresholds would be exceeded during routine operations or during construction activities; nor
would project -related emissions cause or contribute to an exceedance of any NAAQS. Therefore, both
the Near -Term Project and the Long -Term Project would not exceed any threshold indicating a significant
impact.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-13 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
4.2.6 Cumulative Effects
Near -Term Project and Long -Term Project, along with the implementation of the other on -airport
development actions, such as the 2014 1,200 -foot Taxiway M Extension Project, and the off -airport
development projects, such as the 1-73 Connector Project, would result in both temporary and permanent
impacts to the air quality in the vicinity of GSO. Temporary impacts would result from construction
activities and would consist primarily of emissions from construction equipment and vehicles and fugitive
dust grading and filling activities. Permanent impacts would consist of the changes in air pollutant
emissions occurring during routine operation of the cumulative projects.
Impacts on air quality due to construction activities would be temporary and would be minimized through
the use of environmental controls in federal, state, and local construction mitigation guidelines. Moreover,
the increased emissions from the Proposed Project either involve pollutants of a type that are within the
applicable NAAQS for the GSO region and; therefore, fail to result in a significant impact either
individually or cumulatively; or in the case of NO, VOC, or PM2.5 involve project increases that are a
small fraction of the de minimis levels for the applicable pollutants under the applicable EPA regulations,
and are; therefore, not considered to contribute significantly to the cumulative pollutant load or to
nonattainment of the NAAQS. For these reasons, it does not appear that the Proposed Project would
have any significant cumulative effect on air quality.
4.2.7 Mitigation
As the analysis indicates the proposed projects would comply with the General and Transportation
Conformity requirements under the federal Clean Air Act, mitigation measures specifically designed to
meet these requirements should not be necessary.
Although required mitigation for air quality impacts is not anticipated, voluntary measures to minimize air
emissions would be implemented by the PTAA to reduce construction -related air emissions. Voluntary
minimization measures that are specific and appropriate to site conditions and planned construction
methods would be identified during the engineering design of the Near -Term and Long -Term components
of the Proposed Project. Examples of common emission minimization measures are listed below.
Minimize the amount of exposed soils at any one time by staging construction activities.
• Pave, seed, or mulch exposed soils as soon as possible to reduce wind erosion.
• Use covered haul trucks for transporting wind -erodible materials.
• Curtail excavation and earthmoving activities during periods of high wind conditions.
• Prohibit open -burning.
• Apply water to soil stock -piles and exposed soils as needed to reduce fugitive dust.
Require contractors to inform employees and subcontractors of fugitive -dust minimization
measures and ways to reduce equipment exhaust emissions.
S:\BD\Marketing\Wp_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-14 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
• Establish and post publicly a call-in number to report dust, odors, and other construction -
related nuisances.
• Discourage excess idling of construction equipment and delivery trucks during periods of
inactivity.
• Substitute low- and zero -emitting equipment whenever possible.
• Use electrical drops in place of temporary electrical generators wherever possible.
• Utilize vapor -recovery systems for temporary fuel -storage facilities.
4.3 COMPATIBLE LAND USE
4.3.1 Overview of Impacts
Under the No -Action Alternative, there would be no changes in off -airport land use within the
Detailed Study Area (DSA) other than those resulting from the continuation of routine airport
operations. Because the proposed improvements would not be constructed, there would be no
increase or change in the level of impacts to off -airport land use as a result of the No -Action
Alternative. The improvements associated with the Near -Term and Long -Term Projects would
require the acquisition of off -airport land which includes residential, commercial/industrial,
institutional/community facility, and road right-of-way land uses. Neither the Near- or Long -Term
Projects nor full build -out of the Proposed Project would result in significant noise impacts.
Therefore, the implementation of the Proposed Project is not anticipated to result in impacts to
land use compatibility due to aircraft noise.
4.3.2 Methodology
The land use analysis considered existing and future land use plans from jurisdictions within the DSA
along with the various environmental analyses conducted in conjunction with this EA. Parameters
evaluated include potential changes in land use due to factors such as noise, socioeconomic, and air
quality impacts. Details regarding the environmental analyses for these and other environmental
resource categories are provided in the applicable methodology discussion for each resource category.
4.3.3 Impacts
4.3.3.1 No -Action Alternative
Under the No -Action Alternative, development of the Proposed Project would not occur. Therefore, the
No -Action Alternative would not result in direct land use impacts.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-15 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
4.3.3.2 Near -Term Project (2015)
Noise
As discussed in Section 4.11, the Near -Term Project improvements would not involve a significant
increase in aircraft noise. Therefore, the implementation of the Near -Term Project is not anticipated to
result in impacts to land use compatibility due to aircraft noise.
Off -Airport Land Use
Figure 4.3-1 depicts the area within the DSA that would need to be acquired for the implementation of the
Near -Term Project. The Near -Term Project would result in the acquisition of approximately 249 acres of
off -airport land. This includes areas that are of residential, industrial, commercial, institutional/community
facility, and road right-of-way land use that are not currently within the existing airport property.
Table 4.3-1 lists the acreage by land use type that would be acquired due to implementation of the Near -
Term Project. Acquisition of these properties would convert these land uses to airport use. Given the
existing and planned land use patterns in the vicinity of the airport and across Guilford County,
conversion of this small amount of residential, industrial, and road right-of-way land uses to airport use
would not have a significant effect on land use patterns or create incompatible land use concerns in the
areas adjacent to the airport. Development patterns in the area are well established and would not be
adversely affected by the improvements. The Near -Term Project would not significantly affect surface
transportation patterns, result in community disruption, or long-term impacts to businesses (see Section
4.12 for further details).
TABLE 4.3-1
LAND ACQUISITION NEEDED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Land Use
Proposed Project
Near -Term Project
Acquisition Acreage
(2015)
Long -Term Project
Acquisition Acreage
(2020)
Full Build -Out of the
Proposed Project
Acquisition Acreage
Residential
36
32
68
Industrial
169
92
261
Commercial
0
9
9
Institutional/Community
Facilit
1
0
1
Road Right -of -Way
1 44
33
77
Total
1249
166
415
Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Sources: Guilford County GIS, 2013. URS, 2013.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-16 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

1
2014 Nokia ©AND
Legend
Near -Term Potential
Development Area
Long -Term Potential
Development Area
Land Use
D Airport
0 Single Family Residential
Commercial
Industrial
D Institutional/Community Facility
Right of Way
Sources:
Guilford County GIS, 2013
URS Corp, 2013
N
W n E Feet
4Vi' 0 2,000
S
PIEDMONT TRIAD LAND USE IMPACTS
Pri. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT WITHIN THE PROPOSED FIGURE
4.3-1
a Environmental Assessment PROJECT (FULL BUILD -OUT)
a

DRAFT
Neither the number of aircraft operations nor fleet mix for the 2015 planning period would differ
significantly from that forecast for the No -Action Alternative. Therefore, significant impacts to compatible
land use due to aircraft noise are not anticipated to occur as the result of the Near -Term Project.
4.3.3.3 Long -Term Project (2020)
Noise
As discussed in Section 4.3.3.2, neither the number of aircraft operations or fleet mix for the 2020
planning period associated with the Long -Term Project would differ significantly from that forecast for the
No -Action Alternative. Therefore, significant impacts to compatible land use due to aircraft noise are not
anticipated to occur as the result of the Long -Term Project.
Off -Airport Land Use
Figure 4.3-1 depicts the area within the DSA that would need to be acquired for the implementation of the
Long -Term Project. The Long -Term Project would result in the acquisition of approximately 166 acres.
This includes areas that are of residential, industrial, commercial, and road right-of-way land uses that are
not currently within the existing airport property. Table 4.3-1 lists the acreage by land use type that would
be acquired. The direct impact of acquiring these properties would convert these land use to airport use.
Conversion of this relatively small amount of residential, industrial, commercial, and road right-of-way land
uses to airport use would not have a significant effect on land use patterns or create incompatible land
concerns in the areas adjacent to the acquisition areas.
Development patterns in the area are well established and would not be adversely affected by the
improvements. The Long -Term Project would not significantly affect surface transportation patterns,
result in community disruption, or long-term impacts to businesses (see Section 4.12 for further details).
4.3.3.4 Proposed Project (Full Build -Out)
Upon completion of the Near -Term and Long -Term Projects, all site development associated with the
Proposed Project would be complete, and the site would either be occupied or would be available for
occupancy by aviation -related businesses and tenants. At full build -out, the Proposed Project does not
include any land development actions or improvements beyond those that have already been undertaken
in the Near -Term and Long -Term Projects. Figure 4.3-1 depicts all areas within the DSA that would need
to be acquired for the implementation of both the Near -Term and Long -Term Projects. Table 4.3-1 lists
the total acreage by land use type that would be acquired for implementation of the Near -Term and Long -
Term Projects. The Full Build -Out condition would not result in additional impacts to land use
compatibility in 2020 or beyond.
4.3.4 Comparison of Significant Impact Thresholds
A compatible land use threshold indicating a significant impact is not clearly defined in FAA Order
1050.1 E, Change 1; however, for this EA, it was determined that a significant impact would occur if the
project required the acquisition of residential properties or if noise sensitive sites were exposed to noise
levels of Day -Night Average Sound Level (DNL) 65 A -weighted decibels [dB(A)] or greater and
experienced a DNL noise increase of 1.5 dB or greater. Because there would be no significant aircraft
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-18 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
noise -related impacts due to the implementation of the Proposed Project (as discussed in Section 4.11),
land use compatibility impacts would be restricted to the acquisition of off -airport residential parcels. The
Proposed Project does include off -airport property acquisition that includes areas of residential land use.
However, land acquisition and relocation of the residential and business properties would be undertaken
in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970,
as amended (Uniform Act). Therefore, there would be no significant compatible land use impacts
associated with the Proposed Project.
4.3.5 Cumulative Effects
The discussion of noise impacts developed for this EA and discussed in Section 4.11, takes into account
all noise generated by aircraft operations at the airport and, therefore, reflects the full cumulative effect of
Proposed Project in combination with other factors affecting exposure to aircraft noise at GSO. Since the
assessment of future noise conditions fails to indicate any significant effect from the project reviewed on a
cumulative basis, there would be no cumulative land use impact resulting from the project. In summary,
the off -airport land use impacts associated with Proposed Project, when considered cumulatively with
other potential on- or off -airport projects, would not to lead to substantial land use impacts.
4.3.6 Mitigation
The Proposed Project would result in the conversion of off -airport residential, commercial, and industrial
land uses to airport use. To mitigate for the impacts to the residences, as well as the businesses that
would be affected, the properties would be purchased and relocation assistance would be provided. Land
acquisition and relocation of the residential and business properties would be undertaken in accordance
with the Uniform Act. For further discussion on the proposed mitigation, see Chapter 5.0, Mitigation, of
this EA.
4.4 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
4.4.1 Overview of Impacts
Under the No -Action Alternative, construction activities associated with the Airport Sponsor's
Proposed Project would not occur.
Construction of the Near -Term Project would generate temporary and unavoidable impacts related
to noise, air quality, water quality, and solid waste. Construction -related impacts associated with
the Near -Term Project would occur by 2015. Construction impacts associated with Long -Term
Project would be generated by 2020. Potential impacts associated with development of the Long -
Term Project would include temporary and unavoidable impacts related to noise, air quality, water
quality, and solid waste. There would also be unavoidable impacts to land use and biotic
resources within the proposed development site. Once development of the Long -Term Project is
complete the would be no further construction associated with the Proposed Project.
SABD\Marketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-19 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
Measures specified in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5370-10F, Standards for Specifying
Construction of Airports (FAA, 2011), and project -specific design criteria and best management
practices (BMPs) to minimize erosion and sedimentation will be specified by the Airport Sponsor
and implemented by the selected contractor to minimize potential construction -related impacts.
Therefore, significant, long-term construction -related impacts would not occur under either Near -
Term or Long -Term phases of the Proposed Project.
4.4.2 Methodology
Construction activities required for development of the Near -Term and Long -Term Projects were
evaluated to determine potential construction -related impacts. The following environmental resource
categories were evaluated to determine the potential to incur adverse impacts: noise, air quality, water
quality, traffic disruption, and construction -related wastes. Potential impacts are discussed in greater
detail in the appropriate environmental impact category in this chapter of the draft EA.
4.4.3 Impacts
4.4.3.1 No -Action Alternative
Under the No -Action Alternative, construction activities associated with neither the Near -Term or Long -
Term Projects would not occur. The No -Action Alternative does not include any land development
actions or improvements beyond those that have already been undertaken by the Airport Sponsor,
planned, environmentally reviewed, and/or that are needed for safety, security or maintenance reasons.
This alternative would not result in construction related impacts in 2015.
4.4.3.2 Near -Term Project (2015)
The Near -Term Project would include construction of the cross -field taxiway, site preparation and facility
development on approximately 553 acres of land for aviation -related use. The Near -Term Project would
also include development of a rail spur or transfer facility, access road improvements, site drainage
improvements, utility extensions, and construction of aircraft parking areas and associated aviation -
related facilities. In total, 725 acres of land would be developed as part of the Near -Term Project.
Construction could be accomplished over a period of approximately 2 years; however, the construction
schedule will be determined by the Airport Sponsor and airport tenant needs. It is assumed that
construction of the Near -Term Project would be completed by 2015.
Construction of the Near -Term Project would result in temporary, unavoidable impacts related to air
quality, noise levels, water quality, solid waste, and traffic. Construction activities would involve the use
of vehicles, heavy construction equipment, and machinery; the use and storage of fuels, solvents, paints,
and lubricants; and the use and storage of common construction materials. Construction methods would
employ common techniques, equipment, and materials, and would occur mostly during daylight hours,
although nighttime work may be required for certain construction elements. The following is a discussion
of the temporary construction -related impacts that would occur with the implementation of the Near -Term
Project.
SABD\Marketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-20 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
Noise
Temporary increases in noise associated with earthwork and construction would affect only the
immediate project area, which would be within GSO property and newly acquired property. Single-family
and multi -family residences located on the northwest side of Pleasant Ridge Road and single family
residences on the southwest side of Old Ok Ridge Road will be in close proximity to the boundary of the
Near -Term Project development area. At some locations, construction activities (i.e., land clearing,
grading) could occur within 200 feet of residences. Within the area designated for construction of the rail
spur or transfer station, residential land uses would be approximately 500 feet east of the construction
area. To the south and west, there are few residential land uses within 2,500 feet of the construction
area. Construction noise would temporarily increase ambient noise levels. Distance rapidly attenuates
noise levels, so noise experienced by area residents may include a slight and temporary increase in
ambient background conditions. The potential noise impact associated with earthwork and construction
may be noticeable, but is not expected to be substantial. To minimize noise impacts, construction
equipment would be maintained to meet manufacturers' operating specifications. Impacts related to the
delivery of materials may be minimized, to some extent, by requiring that the contractor use designated
haul routes to avoid, as much as possible, residential and other noise -sensitive receptors. Overall,
construction noise resulting from the Near -Term Project is expected to have a minor, temporary impact.
Air Quality
Temporary emissions of air pollutants are possible from a variety of sources such as material stockpiles
and exhaust from construction equipment and delivery trucks. Common measures can be implemented
during construction to control fugitive dust from the construction sites during grading and site -preparation
phases. Construction equipment would also be maintained to meet manufacturers' operating
specifications to minimize air emissions. A detailed discussion and analysis of construction -related air
emission impacts appears in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of this EA. No significant construction -related air
quality impacts would occur with the Near -Term Project.
Water Quality
Short-term and temporary water quality impacts may result from construction activities associated with the
Near -Term Project. Potential impacts may include increased sedimentation and turbidity in stormwater-
receiving bodies during rainfall events. However, project -specific BMPs; implementation of erosion -
control measures specified in FAA AC 150/5370-10E, Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports
(FAA, 2011); and the implementation of project -specific design criteria to minimize erosion and
sedimentation would prevent and/or minimize potential water quality impacts. The Airport Sponsor will be
required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for construction
activities, which requires measures to minimize the potential for exceeding applicable water quality
standards during construction activities. Construction -related water quality impacts are also discussed in
detail in Section 4.14, Water Quality, of this EA. Significant and long-term water quality impacts resulting
from construction activities associated with the Near -Term Project would not occur.
Solid Waste
Construction wastes associated with the Near -Term Project are expected to be comprised of waste
materials normally generated by demolition, earthwork, and paving projects. Construction contractors
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-21 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
and workers will generate what can be characterized as traditional municipal solid wastes (MSWs) during
construction. The volume of this waste stream is expected to be minor during construction. Recycling of
paper and plastic products could substantially reduce the amount of the construction -related MSWs.
Subject to project -design parameters and product specifications, some demolition materials and wastes
could be re -used or recycled into the construction materials for new construction. Potential for this exists
if existing concrete can be crushed and used as fill and/or aggregate or if existing asphalt can be recycled
into new asphalt mixes. It is anticipated that structural steel from demolished buildings and metals from
electrical systems would be recycled at local or regional facilities. Vegetation wastes are expected to be
minimal as the vegetated portions of the construction area is comprised of mostly grassed field. These
wastes could easily be processed for re -use by composting.
Construction waste not diverted, recycled, or re -used would be transported to and disposed of in local
permitted construction/demolition facilities or in local waste -to -energy plants in accordance
with applicable state and local requirements. Solid waste impacts are further considered in Section 4.8 of
this Draft EA. No significant construction -related solid waste impacts would occur.
7—ffi-
Haul routes for vehicles and trucks would be primarily on established multi -lane highways and commercial
thoroughfares in the vicinity of the airport (e.g., North Regional Road, Pleasant Ridge Road, Old Oak
Ridge Road, Regional Road, and W. Market Street). Use of streets in residential neighborhoods and
adjacent to noise -sensitive land uses is not anticipated. No road work or lane closures are anticipated to
be required. No significant or long-term traffic impacts are anticipated to occur from the construction
activities associated with the Near -Term Project.
4.4.3.3 Long -Term Project (2020)
The Long -Term Project would include construction of the parallel taxiway to Runway 5L/23R, site
preparation and aviation -related facility development on approximately 407 acres of land, access road
improvements, site drainage improvements, utility extensions, and construction of aircraft parking areas
and associated aviation -related facilities. Construction would be accomplished over a period of
approximately 5 years; however, the construction schedule will be determined by the Airport Sponsor
based on airport tenant needs. It is assumed that construction of the Long -Term components of the
Taxiway Extension and Site Development Project will be completed by 2020.
Construction of the Long -Term Project would result in temporary, unavoidable impacts related to air
quality, noise levels, water quality, solid waste, and traffic. Construction activities would involve the use
of vehicles, heavy construction equipment, and machinery; the use and storage of fuels, solvents, paints,
and lubricants; and the use and storage of common construction materials. Construction methods would
employ common techniques, equipment, and materials, and would occur mostly during daylight hours,
although nighttime work may be required for certain construction elements. The following is a discussion
of the temporary construction -related impacts that would occur with the implementation of the Long -Term
Project.
SABD\Marketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-22 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
Noise
Temporary increases in noise associated with earthwork and construction would affect only the
immediate project area, which would be within GSO property and newly acquired property. Construction
noise would temporarily increase ambient noise levels. Multi -family residences located on the west side
of N. Regional Road and single family residences on the southwest side of Old Ok Ridge Road will be in
close proximity to the boundary of the Near -Term Project development area. At some locations,
construction activities (i.e., land clearing, grading) could occur within 200 feet of residences. Distance
rapidly attenuates noise levels, so noise experienced by area residents may include a slight and
temporary increase in ambient background conditions. The potential noise impact associated with
earthwork and construction may be noticeable, but is not expected to be substantial. To minimize noise
impacts, construction equipment would be maintained to meet manufacturers' operating specifications.
Impacts related to the delivery of materials may be minimized, to some extent, by requiring that the
contractor use designated haul routes to avoid, as much as possible, residential and other noise -sensitive
receptors. Overall, construction noise resulting from the Long -Term Project is expected to have a minor,
temporary impact.
Air Quality
Temporary emissions of air pollutants are possible from a variety of sources such as material stockpiles
and exhaust from construction equipment and delivery trucks. Common measures can be implemented
during construction to control fugitive dust from the construction sites during grading and site -preparation
phases. Construction equipment would also be maintained to meet manufacturers' operating
specifications to minimize air emissions. A detailed discussion and analysis of construction -related air
emission impacts appears in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of this EA. No significant construction -related air
quality impacts would occur with the Long -Term Project.
Water Quality
Temporary water quality impacts may result from construction activities associated with the Long -Term
Project. Potential impacts may include increases in sedimentation and turbidity in stormwater-receiving
bodies during rainfall events. However, project -specific BMPs; implementation of erosion -control
measures specified in FAA AC 150/5370-10E, Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports (FAA,
2011); and the implementation of project -specific design criteria to minimize erosion and sedimentation
would prevent and/or minimize potential water quality impacts. The Airport Sponsor will be required to
obtain an NPDES Permit for construction activities, which requires measures to minimize the potential for
exceeding applicable water quality standards during construction activities. Construction -related water
quality impacts are also discussed in detail in Section 4.14, Water Quality, of this Draft EA. Significant
and long-term water quality impacts resulting from construction activities associated with the Long -Term
Project would not occur.
Solid Waste
Construction wastes associated with the Long -Term Project are expected to be comprised of waste
materials normally generated by demolition, earthwork, and paving projects. Construction contractors
and workers will generate what can be characterized as traditional MSWs during construction. The
volume of this waste stream is expected to be minor during construction. Recycling of paper and plastic
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-23 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
products could substantially reduce the amount of the construction -related MSWs. Construction waste
not diverted, recycled, or re -used would be transported to and disposed of in local permitted
construction/demolition facilities or in local waste -to -energy plants in accordance with applicable state
and local requirements. Solid waste impacts are further considered in Section 4.8 of this EA. No
significant construction -related solid waste impacts would occur.
Traffic
Haul routes for vehicles and trucks would be primarily on established multi -lane highways and commercial
thoroughfares in the vicinity of the airport. Use of streets in residential neighborhoods and adjacent to
noise -sensitive land uses is not anticipated. No road work or lane closures are anticipated to be required.
No significant or long-term traffic impacts are anticipated to occur from the construction activities
associated with the Long -Term Project.
4.4.3.4 Proposed Project (Full Build -Out)
At full build -out of the Proposed Project, construction activities associated with the Near -Term and Long -
Term Projects would be complete and aviation -related businesses and tenants would occupy the site.
The Proposed Project at full build -out does not include any land development actions or improvements
beyond those that have already been undertaken by the Airport Sponsor, planned, environmentally
reviewed, and/or that are needed for safety, security or maintenance reasons. This alternative would not
result in construction -related impacts in excess of those resulting from the Near -Term and Long -Term
Projects.
4.4.4 Comparison of Significant Impact Thresholds
A threshold indicating a significant impact is not clearly defined in FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1;
however, other environmental resource categories such as noise, air quality, water, fish, plants, wildlife,
and other relevant impact categories provide further guidance in assessing the significance of the
potential construction impacts. Potential impacts associated with noise, air quality, water quality, traffic,
and solid waste are not expected to be significant. Therefore, construction activities associated with the
Near -Term and Long -Term Projects are not anticipated to result in significant impacts.
4.4.5 Cumulative Effects
Development of off-site projects would also generate construction -related impacts, including noise, dust,
stormwater discharges, solid wastes, and potential traffic inconveniences. The cumulative impact of
construction activity of the Proposed Project and other off-site development actions is not expected to be
significant as each construction project will require approvals from federal, state, and local agencies.
When considered in conjunction with other development actions, substantial cumulative construction -
related impacts are not anticipated from the Proposed Project.
4.4.6 Mitigation
Because no significant impacts related to construction activities would occur with either the No -Action
Alternative or the Proposed Project (Near -Term, Long -Term, and Full Build -Out components), no formal
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-24 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
mitigation measures are warranted and none have been developed by the Airport Sponsor for inclusion in
this Draft EA.
4.5 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECTION 4(f) AND DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
SECTION 6(f) RESOURCES
4.5.1 Overview of Impacts
Under the No -Action Alternative, there would be no construction or development activities
associated with the Proposed Project. Accordingly, there would be no direct or indirect impacts
to Section 4(f) or Section 6(f) resources.
There are no potential lands subject to the provisions of Section 4(f) of the U.S. DOT Act of 1966
[codified at 49 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) Section 303(c)] or provisions in Section 6(f) of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCF) located within the DSA. Fourteen potential Section 4(f)
resources are located within the Generalized Study Area (GSA).
Implementation of the Proposed Project would not require the acquisition or taking of any Section
4(f) resource. In addition, the Proposed Project would not result in significant noise, air, or other
indirect impacts on Section 4(f) resources; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a
constructive use of Section 4(f) resources. Because neither direct nor indirect impacts to Section
4(f) resources would occur, a separate Section 4(f) analysis is not warranted and mitigation
measures have not been developed.
4.5.2 Methodology
A review was conducted to determine if any public parks and recreation resources would have the
potential to be directly or indirectly impacted by the Proposed Project or the No -Action Alternative with
regard to the protective provisions of Section 4(f) of the DOT Act [recently re -codified as Section 303(c)]
or provisions in Section 6(f) of the LWCF. Section 4(f) of the DOT Act provides that the Secretary of
Transportation will not approve any program or project that requires the use of publicly -owned land of a
public park, recreation area; or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance; or
land of an historic site of national, state, or local significance as determined by the officials having
jurisdiction thereof, unless:
1. There is no feasible and prudent alternative to use of such land and
2. The program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park,
recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use.
Land that meets the criteria for Section 4(f) protection includes publicly -owned parks, recreational areas,
wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and significant historic sites [properties listed on or eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)]. The term "Section 4(f) resource" in this evaluation refers to
any specific site or property meeting DOT Act criteria. Use of Section 4(f) land occurs when:
• Land is acquired from a Section 4(f) resource for a transportation project,
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-25 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
• There is a temporary occupancy of Section 4(f) land that is adverse, or
• The project's proximity impacts are so severe that the Section 4(f) property is
substantially impaired (referred to as "constructive use").
4.5.3 Impacts
4.5.3.1 No -Action Alternative
The No -Action Alternative assumes that the proposed airfield improvements would not be constructed.
Therefore, there would be no direct or indirect impacts to Section 4(f) resources.
4.5.3.2 Near -Term Project (2015)
Construction of the Near -Term Project would occur entirely within the DSA. No potential Section 4(f) or
Section 6(f) resources are located within the DSA. The nearest potential Section 4(f) resources are
located within the GSA and include the Campbell -Gray House and Barn (a NRHP-eligible resource) and
the open recreational field at Guilford Elementary School and the Greensboro Trails. These sites range
in distance from less than 1 mile to approximately 1.5 and 1.8 miles, respectively, from the proposed
development site (see Figure 3.3-1, Sites 1, 13, and 14). Accordingly, no direct or indirect impacts to any
Section 4(f) resources are anticipated from development of the Near -Term Project. There are no sites
within the GSA identified as Section 6(f) resources.
Pleasant Ridge Golf Club, a small privately -operated golf course located within the northwest quadrant of
the DSA, was previously acquired by GSO in anticipation of the proposed airport development. This area
is designated on PTAA's Master Plan as a site for future aviation -related use. The golf course land is
leased by PTAA to the golf course operator under a tenancy at will to preserve PTAA's flexibility to use
this property at such time when the need arises.
4.5.3.3 Long -Term Project (2020)
Construction of the proposed parallel taxiway, and site preparation and aviation -related development on
the approximately 407 acres of land designated for the Long -Term Project would occur entirely within the
DSA. As discussed above, there are no potential Section 4(f) or Section 6(f) resources located within the
DSA. The nearest potential Section 4(f) resources are the Campbell Gray house and barn, the open
recreational field at Guilford Elementary School, and the Greensboro Trails. These sites are located
within the GSA at distances ranging from less than 1 mile to approximately 1.8 miles, from the proposed
development site. Accordingly, no direct or indirect impacts to any Section 4(f) resources are anticipated
from the full development of the Long -Term Project. There are no sites within the GSA identified as
Section 6(f) resources.
4.5.3.4 Proposed Project (Full Build -Out)
As discussed above, there are no potential Section 4(f) or Section 6(f) resources located within the DSA.
Accordingly, no direct or indirect impacts to any Section 4(f) resources are anticipated from the
development and subsequent aviation -related tenant operations associated with the Proposed Project.
There are no sites within the GSA identified as Section 6(f) resources.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-26 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
4.5.4 Comparison of Significant Impact Thresholds
A significant impact would occur pursuant to NEPA when a proposed action, involves a physical use of a
Section 4(f) property or results in constructive use which substantially impairs the Section 4(f) property.
Construction of the Near -Term and Long -Term Projects at GSO will not physically impact any Section 4(f)
property or have indirect impacts, including noise and visual impacts, which would result in constructive
use of any Section 4(f) property located within the GSA. Similarly, operational activities conducted by
tenants upon full build -out of the Proposed Project would not result in noise or visual impacts to any
Section 4(f) resources. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not exceed the threshold for a significant
impact.
4.5.5 Cumulative Effects
Development of the Near -Term and Long -Term Projects at GSO, and facility operations associated with
the Proposed Project upon full build -out would not directly or indirectly impact Section 4(f) or Section 6(f)
resources within the GSA. Therefore, no cumulative impacts to Section 4(f) or Section 6(f) resources
would occur due to development of the Proposed Project when considered in conjunction with other
planned or proposed off -airport or on -airport actions.
4.5.6 Mitigation
The potential for significant impacts was not identified; therefore, no mitigation measures have been
identified.
4.6 FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PLANTS
4.6.1 Overview of Impacts
The No -Action Alternative would not result in construction or development activities associated
with the Proposed Project. Accordingly, there would be no impacts to biotic communities or
threatened and endangered species.
Development of the Proposed Project is anticipated to be completed in 2020. Upon completion,
the Proposed Project would have the potential to directly impact approximately 1,1323 acres of
land located within the DSA resulting from site preparation, and aviation -related development as
detailed in Section 1.2 of this EA. Approximately half of the land area within the DSA is
characterized as developed commercial/industrial, developed residential, and developed
recreational (see Section 3.4) within a greater urban setting. The remainder of the land cover is
disturbed upland and wetland forested areas, as well as open field areas. Several unnamed
intermittent and perennial streams are located in the DSA that are capable of supporting small
non -game fish species. Wildlife using the existing habitat would be those typical of the piedmont
region that is adapted to human disturbance and urban development. There are no known
threatened or endangered rare plants or animal species in the DSA. In addition, based on review
3 Based on the site development needs of potential future tenants, the actual amount of land affected by site development activities
may be less than 1,132 acres. For disclosure purposes, this EA evaluated a potential full build -out scenario.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-27 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
of site information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the project site does not contain
any formally designated critical habitat. Habitat for one federally -listed species known to occur in
Guilford County, small whorled pogonia (Isotria meleucocephalus), may exist within the DSA.
Correspondence from the FWS states the Proposed Project is "not likely to affect" any federally -
listed or endangered species, their formally designated critical habitat, or species currently being
prepared for listing at these sites.
4.6.2 Methodology
Potential impacts to fish, wildlife, and plants within the DSA resulting from the No -Action Alternative and
the Proposed Project were evaluated through an analysis of aerial photographs, literature and database
research, field observations, and coordination with federal and state resource agencies.
4.6.3 Impacts
4.6.3.1 No -Action Alternative
The No -Action Alternative would have no impacts on fish, wildlife, or plants since there would be no
construction or land disturbance activity associated with this alternative.
4.6.3.2 Near -Term Project (2015)
The Near -Term Project would include clearing, grading and site preparation on up to 725 acres of land
within the DSA for future taxiway, rail, and aviation -related development. These actions would have the
potential to result in impacts to the biotic communities described in Table 4.6-1.
TABLE 4.6-1
ACRES OF IMPACTS TO LAND USE/VEGETATIVE COVER
RESULTING FROM THE NEAR-TERM PROJECT
Vegetative Community/Land Use Description
Acres
Disturbed Open Field
205
Forested Wetlands
2
Oak Hickory Forest
242
Virginia Pine Forest
15
Yellow Poplar - Sweet Gum Lowland Forest
4
Early -Successional Mixed Hardwood — Pine Sere
5
Open Water
7
Developed — Commercial/Industrial
58
Developed — Recreational
108
Developed — Residential
59
Developed — Paved Road
20
Total
725
Source: URS, 2013.
S:\BD\Marketing\Wp_Wpro\12011299_ Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-28 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
There are no known threatened or endangered rare plants or animal species located within the area
impacted by activities proposed for the Near -Term Project. In addition, based on review of information
from the FWS, the project site does not contain any formally designated critical habitat. Habitat for one
federally -listed species known to occur in Guilford County, small whorled pogonia, may exist within the
DSA but no specimens were found in a 2012 field survey within the DSA. Correspondence from the
FWS, dated July 11, 2013, states the project is "not likely to affect' any federally -listed or endangered
species, their formally designated critical habitat, or species currently being prepared for listing.
4.6.3.3 Long -Term Project (2020)
The Long -Term Project would potentially impact up to 407 acres of land for site development within the
DSA. Site development activities include clearing, grading, stormwater infrastructure improvements,
access roadways, and extension of utilities. The project would also include relocation of the existing ASR
facility to an area outside of the proposed development site.
Approximately half of the DSA is characterized as developed urban/residential/recreational development
within a greater urban setting. The remainder of the land cover is disturbed upland and wetland forested
areas and open field areas. Several unnamed intermittent and perennial streams occur in the DSA that
are capable of supporting small non -game fish species and aquatic macroinvertebrates (see Section
4.15, Wetlands).
The majority of the land within the DSA has already been developed, or has been previously disturbed
and fragmented. Wildlife within the area designated for development of the Long -Term Project would be
typical of those in the Piedmont region that are adapted to human disturbance and urban development.
Accordingly, it is anticipated that construction of the Long -Term Project would not result in a significant
impact to biotic communities. The estimated areas of impact for the habitat types associated with the
implementation of the Long -Term Project are provided below in Table 4.6-2.
Threatened and Endangered Species - As discussed in Section 3.4 of this EA, federally- and state -
listed species, and federally- and state -designated significant natural heritage areas are not known or
expected to exist within the DSA. There are no known threatened or endangered rare plant or animal
species in the DSA. In addition, based on review of information from the FWS, the project site does not
contain any formally designated critical habitat. Habitat for one federally -listed species known to occur in
Guilford County, small whorled pogonia, may exist within the DSA but no specimens were found in a
1982 field survey within the DSA.. Correspondence from the FWS dated July 11, 2013 states the project
is not likely to affect any federally -listed or endangered species, their formally designated critical habitat,
or species currently being prepared for listing at these sites.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-29 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
TABLE 4.6-2
ACRES OF IMPACTS TO LAND USE/VEGETATIVE COVER
RESULTING FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Vegetative Community/
Land Use Description
Near -Term
Project
(2015)
Long -Term
Project (2020)
Proposed
Project
(Full Build -
Out)
Disturbed Open Field
205
139
344
Forested Wetlands
2
2
4
Oak Hickory Forest
242
134
376
Virginia Pine Forest
15
0
15
Yellow Poplar - Sweet Gum Lowland Forest
4
0
4
Early -Successional Mixed Hardwood — Pine
Sere
95
0
5
Open Water
7
0
7
Developed — Commercial/Industrial
58
88
146
Developed — Recreational
108
0
108
Developed — Residential
59
22
81
Developed — Paved Road
20
22
42
Total
725
407
1,132
Source: URS, 2013.
4.6.3.4 Proposed Project (Full Build -Out)
Upon full build -out of the Proposed Project aviation -related businesses and tenants would occupy the
site. No additional site development or construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would
occur upon completion of the Long -Term Projects. Table 4.6-2 provides data on the total acreage of
habitat type having the potential to be impacted due to implementation of the Near- and Long -Term
Projects and following full build -out of the Proposed Project. Based on the data provided in Table 4.6-2 it
is anticipated that construction of the Proposed Project (both Near -Term and Long -Term Projects) would
not result in a significant impact to biotic communities.
4.6.4 Comparison of Significant Impact Thresholds
Thresholds indicating significant impact include actions that would jeopardize the continued existence of
threatened or endangered species, result in the destruction or adverse modification of federally -
designated critical habitat, or have substantial impacts to non -listed species. The Proposed Project is not
anticipated to impact any federally -listed species, convert designated critical habitat, or have substantial
impacts to non -listed species. Therefore, thresholds indicating significant impacts would not be
exceeded.
4.6.5 Cumulative Effects
The DSA is located within an urban region that is already fully built out. The DSA will be bisected by the
proposed six -lane, 1-40/NC 68/1-73 Connector. Cumulative impacts to fish, wildlife, and plants could
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-30 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
occur as a result of the Proposed Project when considered in conjunction with other on- and off -airport
development actions. These cumulative projects would result in a permanent alteration of existing
habitat. However, as noted above, the existing habitat is already characterized as disturbed and
fragmented. The only wildlife species are those that are typically adapted to human disturbance within
urban environments.
4.6.6 Mitigation
Because no significant impacts to fish, wildlife, and plants were identified, it is not anticipated that
mitigation measures for this resource category are required.
4.7 FLOODPLAINS
4.7.1 Overview of Impacts
Under the No -Action Alternative, the Proposed Project would not be constructed and there would
be no encroachment on 100 -year floodplains. The Near -Term Project would have the potential to
impact approximately 1 acre of a 100 -year floodplain. The Long -Term Project would have the
potential to impact up to an additional 16.8 acres of floodplain. The full build -out of the Proposed
Project has the potential to impact up to 17.8 acres of floodplain.
4.7.2 Methodology
Potential floodplain encroachments associated with the Proposed Project were determined from a
comparison of the areas of disturbance for both the Near -Term and Long -Term components of the
Proposed Project with the geographic information system (GIS) -based FEMA Digital Flood Insurance
Rate Maps (DFIRM).
Executive Order 11988 directs federal agencies to take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize
flood impacts, and to preserve floodplain values. Department of Transportation Order 5650.2, Floodplain
Management and Protection, and FAA Orders 1050.1 E and 5050.413 contain policies and procedures for
implementing the Executive Order and evaluating potential floodplain impacts. These orders require the
FAA to review potential floodplain impacts, and where encroachment would occur, take steps to minimize
potential harm to or within the base floodplain. In case of significant encroachment, a finding is required
to confirm there is no practical alternative and all measures to minimize harm are included in the project.
FAA Order 1050.1 E states that if a project is not within the limits of a base floodplain, no further analysis
is required. However, if the only practicable alternative results in a floodplain encroachment, further
analysis is needed. The analysis would consider ways to minimize potential harm and determine if the
encroachment is significant or not. A significant encroachment would involve: 1) high probability of loss of
life; 2) substantial cost or damage, including interruption of aircraft service or loss of a vital transportation
facility; and/or, 3) cause adverse impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values. If the potential
impact is considered significant, a finding would be required to confirm there is no practicable alternative
to placing the project in a floodplain and that all measures to minimize harm would be included in the
project.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-31 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
4.7.3 Impacts
The PTAA and its prospective tenants would generally seek to avoid floodplains as airfield infrastructure
and aviation -related facilities are developed. The PTAA and its tenants would also be required under
local floodplain management programs to avoid, minimize, and mitigate unavoidable impacts. Because
the site development needs of prospective tenants are not fully known at this time, and for purposes of
disclosing potential impacts in this EA, it is assumed that all floodplains within the development site could
potentially be affected by the Proposed Project. Because avoidance and minimization measures would
be considered in the implementation of the Proposed Project and design of aviation facilities, it is
anticipated that floodplain impacts would be less than that evaluated in this EA.
4.7.3.1 No -Action Alternative
Under the No -Action Alternative the Proposed Project would not be constructed; therefore, the No -Action
Alternative would not affect floodplains.
4.7.3.2 Near -Term Project (2015)
The Near -Term Project may result in an encroachment on up to 1.0 acre of 100 -year floodplain (Zone
AE4). The 1.0 acre of potential floodplain impacts within the Near -Term development area include
approximately 0.1 acres of floodway5. The location and extent of floodplains in the DSA are depicted in
Figure 4.7-1 and potential impacts are quantified in Table 4.7-1.
TABLE 4.7-1
POTENTIAL FLOODPLAIN IMPACTS
FEMA Designation
Proposed Project
Near -Term Project
Long -Term Project
Proposed Project (Full
Build -Out)
Zone AE (Floodplain)
0.9
15.9
16.8
Zone AE (Floodway)
0.1
0.9
1.0
Total
1.0
16.8
17.8
Note: For purposes of disclosing potential environmental impacts, it is assumed that the Proposed Project could
affect all of the floodplains within the development area. However, the design of airfield infrastructure and
aviation -related facilities would seek to avoid and minimize impacts on floodplain, which would be expected
to result in less floodplain impact.
Source: URS Corporation, 2013.
4 Zone AE includes areas subject to inundation by the 1 -percent -annual -chance flood event determined by detailed methods. Base
Flood Elevations are provided.
5 A "floodway" or "regulatory Floodway" means the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must
be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a
designated height. Communities must regulate development in these floodways to ensure that there are no increases in upstream
flood elevations.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-32 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

cage courtesy -of USGS ©201
i
P E
TA I A BRIDGE
M VE 1
. L 7_� i(C
I IN
Legend
Proposed Taxiway
Conceptual
Development
Potential Aviation
Related Development
Proposed Rail Line
FEMA Flood Zones
AE
AE, Floodway
x
Road Removal
`4d
IX
Sources:
- URS Corp, 2013
N
1
Feet
w -E
0 2,000
S
PIEDMONT TRIAD FLOODPLAIN IMPACTS
Pri. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT WITHIN THE PROPOSED FIGURE
4.7-1
a Environmental Assessment PROJECT (FULL BUILD -OUT)
a

DRAFT
The potential floodplain encroachments would be on the south corner of the proposed rail transfer facility
development area and along two channels on the northwest side of Runway 5L/23R for construction of a
rail spur. A comparison of recent aerial photography and FEMA floodplain boundary information shows
that the mapped floodplains have since been modified by airfield development, including the construction
of Runway 5L/23R. The floodway is located at the southerly corner of the rail transfer facility
development area. Based on its location, it is likely that the future design of the rail transfer facility could
avoid the floodway.
4.7.3.3 Long -Term Project (2020)
The Long -Term Project may result in a substantial encroachment on up to 16.8 acres of 100 -year
floodplain. Approximately 5 acres of floodplain would be associated with the development of the parallel
taxiway and approximately 11.8 acres would be associated with the development of aviation -related
facilities. The 5 acres of potential floodplain impacts associated with the development of the parallel
taxiway includes approximately 1 acre of floodway. The floodplain and floodway affected by the proposed
parallel taxiway have been modified previously by airfield development, including the construction of
Runway 5L/23R.
4.7.3.4 Proposed Project (Full Build -Out)
The full build -out of the Proposed Project has potential to impact up to 17.8 acres of floodplains6. This
includes up to 16.8 acres of floodplain and 1.0 acre of floodway encroachment.
In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, measures to minimize potential harm were considered and an
analysis was made to determine if the encroachment is significant or not. A significant encroachment
would involve: 1) high probability of loss of life; 2) substantial cost or damage, including interruption of
aircraft service or loss of a vital transportation facility; and/or, 3) cause adverse impacts on natural and
beneficial floodplain values. If the potential impact is considered significant, a finding would be required
to confirm there is no practicable alternative to placing the project in a floodplain and that all measures to
minimize harm would be included in the project. Although, as discussed below, no significant floodplain
impact is expected, the Proposed Project also mets the avoidance and minimization tests.
Alternatives Considered to Minimize Harm —The development of alternatives to the Proposed Project
included an evaluation of reasonable alternatives. As discussed in Chapter 2.0, there are no feasible
alternatives to the Proposed Project that would achieve its Purpose and Need. Therefore, no practicable
alternative avoiding floodplain encroachment was identified.
Methods to Minimize Adverse Effect — The Proposed Project's site preparation design process and the
subsequent site design for individual tenants would seek to avoid floodplains and floodways. Where
floodplains and floodways cannot be avoided, measures to minimize impacts will be considered. The
Proposed Project design will incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to meet applicable state
6 As stated previously, the PTAA and its prospective tenants would generally seek to avoid floodplains during site layout and
preparation and as subsequent airfield infrastructure and aviation -related facilities are developed. It is anticipated that floodplain
impacts would be less than that evaluated in this EA.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-34 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
stormwater discharge requirements (i.e., attenuation). Mitigation measures would be implemented, as
necessary, to offset unavoidable floodplain impacts.
Potential Significance of Impact — Based on FEMA and FAA guidance, floodplain impacts are considered
significant if a proposed project results in: 1) a high probability of loss of human life, 2) substantial
encroachment -related costs or damage that cause interruption of aircraft service or loss of a vital
transportation facility, and 3) notable adverse impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values. The
analysis of potential floodplain impacts indicates that Proposed Project would encroach on a 100 -year
floodplain and its associated floodway. However, this unavoidable encroachment is not considered to
exceed any one of the criteria listed above and a federal finding is not required based on the following
conclusions:
1. The Proposed Project does not have a high probability of loss of human life. The PTAA
would not approve development of inhabited buildings and structures at GSO that do not meet
local floodplain management policies and ordinances. Further, the Proposed Project would not
encourage secondary (off -airport) development in a floodplain and would not substantially
increase flood potential. Therefore, the Proposed Project does not have a high probability of loss
of human life.
2. The Proposed Project does not have substantial encroachment -related costs or damage
and would not cause interruption of aircraft service or loss of a vital transportation facility.
Substantial encroachment -related costs or damage are not expected. The Proposed Project
would not increase the likelihood of interruption of aircraft service or loss of a vital transportation
facility. The proposed parallel taxiway would be similar in design and location to the adjacent
Runway 5L/23R and include appropriate drainage features, such as box culverts, to
accommodate flow volumes.
3. The Proposed Project would not have an adverse impact on natural and beneficial
floodplain values. The affected floodplains provide varying levels of value for flood volume
storage and infiltration. Natural beneficial values (i.e., habitat) include segments of natural
stream channel and stream channel segments containing forested wetlands. The Proposed
Project would provide mitigation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands and streams. Mitigation
would include participating in state-sponsored mitigation bank programs that restore degraded
stream and wetland habitats. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have a net adverse
effect on natural and beneficial floodplain values.
4.7.4 Cumulative Effects
Past development actions at GSO, as well as in the vicinity of GSO, have encroached on floodplains to
varying degrees. Recent examples include the construction of Runway 5L/23R (36 acres) and nearby
road and highway projects. The upcoming 1-73 Connector project would impact less than a tenth of an
acre of floodplains. Future projects at the airport may result in additional minor floodplain impacts.
However, recent and future unavoidable floodplain impacts would be offset by mitigation. Because the
impacts associated with the Proposed Project would be minimized and mitigation measures are
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-35 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
implemented for unavoidable impacts, cumulative impacts on floodplain values would be reduced to less
than significant levels.
4.7.5 Comparison of Significant Impact Thresholds
According to FAA Order 1050.1 E, floodplain impacts are considered significant pursuant to NEPA if they
result in notable adverse impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values. The Proposed Project is
anticipated to include unavoidable construction within 100 -year floodplains; however, the impacts are not
expected to result in notable adverse effect on natural and beneficial floodplain values.
In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1 E, the FAA shall provide the public with an opportunity to review the
proposed floodplain encroachment.
4.7.6 Mitigation
The unavoidable impacts of the Proposed Project FEMA floodplain would require mitigation. Available
mitigation measures include storm water detention mitigation, fill mitigation, and floodway conveyance
volume offsets. For further details on proposed mitigation for impacts to the floodplain and regulatory
floodway, see Chapter 5.0, Mitigation, of this EA.
4.8 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/HAZARDOUS WASTE
4.8.1 Overview of Impacts
The Proposed Project would affect six sites with environmental concerns (four RCRA, one
PCS/ICIS, and one AST). None of the RCRA or PCS/ICIS facilities were identified as having open
violations. Contaminants relating to their current and/or past operations may be discovered
during demolition of these facilities. If contaminants were discovered, their discovery could also
result in a regulatory oversight of the remedial effort.
The Proposed Project does not appear to have the potential to impact sites involving hazardous
materials or environmental contamination. During construction of the Proposed Project Pollution
prevention measures will be implemented to minimize the potential for release of hazardous
materials or contaminants into the environment. The Proposed Project would not generate
additional municipal solid waste or affect collection, transportation, or disposal of these wastes.
Substantial impacts associated with the collection, recycling, and/or disposal of construction
wastes are not anticipated.
The Proposed Project would include the acquisition of several commercial and industrial
properties along Business Park Drive, Bentley Road, and Caindale Drive. An additional industrial
business currently operated on PTAA land and would be relocated. One industrial site was listed
under EPA's AIRS/AFS (Air Facility Subsystem) and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
programs and another was listed under EPA's PCS/ICIS (water discharge facilities) program.
Neither site was identified as having recent violations.
S:\BD\Marketing\Wp_Wpro\12011299_ Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-36 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
4.8.2 Methodology
Hazardous materials data from PTAA's current Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC)
Plan (Baker, 2011) and the November 2007 GSO EA (FAA, 2007) were reviewed for this EA. In addition,
environmental databases were reviewed to identify potential sites with environmental concern within and
immediately adjacent to the DSA. Sites located within the DSA were then evaluated with regard to the
type and extent of the hazardous materials associated with each site and if database records indicate
past spills, releases, and/or violations, which would indicate environmental issues and possible
contamination'.
4.8.3 Impacts
4.8.3.1 No -Action Alternative
Because the No -Action Alternative does not involve construction or land clearing associated with the
Proposed Project, there are no anticipated impacts to sites, facilities, or activities involving hazardous and
other regulated materials or environmental contamination. Similarly, the No -Action Alternative would not
generate solid waste impacts or result in an increase the amount of waste generated.
4.8.3.2 Near -Term Project (2015)
The Near -Term Project includes construction of a cross -field taxiway, site preparation, and subsequent
aviation -related facilities development on approximately 553 acres of land. The Near -Term Project also
includes construction of a rail spur from an existing rail line at West Market Street to the Near -Term
Project site or construction of a rail transfer facility south of West Market Street with roadway/taxiway
connections to the Near -Term Project site, and designation of a 72 -acre site located between Runway
5L/23R and Highway 68 for future aviation use.
RCRA Sites — The Near -Term Project would affect two Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) sites$ (see Table 4.8-1). Neither of the sites has violations reported for the last five year period,
which indicates a low potential for hazardous materials issues and contamination. However, there is
some potential that contaminants relating to current and/or past operations may be discovered during
demolition of these facilities. Their discovery could result in some regulatory oversight and remedial
efforts during the design and permitting phases of the project.
This overview was prepared for NEPA disclosure purposes only and is not meant to serve as, or replace, a formal Environmental
Site Assessment (ESA) or environmental compliance audit. For this reason, the information should not be solely relied upon to
evaluate the absence, presence, or extent of hazardous materials and environmental contamination in the study area, should
they exist.
8 The EPA RCRA database lists facilities that store, generate, transport, treat, and dispose of hazardous wastes. It should be noted
that sites included in this database do not necessarily involve contamination.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-37 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
TABLE 4.8-1
PROPOSED PROJECT RCRA SITES
Source: US Environmental Protection Agency, 2013.
1 Compliance and enforcement information available in the EPA ECHO report is only available for previous five-
year period.
Regulated Materials — The Near -Term Project would not affect sites with listed fuel storage tanks.
During construction, contractor staging areas will be located at various locations in the DSA. The staging
areas will likely include portable aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) for fuel storage. The construction
contractor(s) will be required to implement pollution prevention, spill prevention, and response plans
documenting the measures that will be taken to prevent accidental releases to the environment and,
should they occur, the actions that will be undertaken to minimize the environmental impact. In addition,
new aviation -related tenants would, in most cases, be required to implement site-specific pollution
prevention plans (i.e., Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan) that reduce the potential for
substantial impacts associated with regulated materials. See Section 4.4, Construction Impacts, and
Section 4.14, Water Quality, for more information on pollution prevention measures available to minimize
construction phase and operational impacts.
Other Environmental Concerns — A tenant on the PTAA-owned 72 -acre site was identified in EPA's
database as water discharge source under the PCS/ICIS (Permit Compliance System/Integrated
Compliance Information System). The facility report lists no PCS/ICIS violations.
Tenant Facility Development - At this time, the number and type of tenants that may develop facilities in
association with the Near -Term Project are unknown. Future tenants may engage in activities that
include the use, transport, or storage of hazardous materials and/or the generation of hazardous wastes
that are regulated under federal and state programs. This may include the storage of fuel and chemicals
and use of paints, solvents, degreasers, and cleaning materials. Tenants will be required to obtain and
comply with any required federal and state permits and registrations necessary for their operations.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-38 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment
Compliance/
Site
Handler ID/
Enforcement
ID
EPA ID
Name/Address
Generator List
Issues'
Near -Term Project
10
NCR000011460
Metal Craft of Mayville Southeast Inc.
Inactive
None
110004059410
7055 Caindale Drive
NCR000004853
Fred Turner Racing
Small Quantity
20
10004055076
107 Brush Road
Generator -
None
Active
Long -Term Project
NCD9820975111
PPG Industries Incorporated
Small Quantity
12
0018558988
7601 Business Park Drive
Generator -
None
Active
4
110012278347
Etherington Conservation Center
Inactive
None
7609 Business Park Drive
Source: US Environmental Protection Agency, 2013.
1 Compliance and enforcement information available in the EPA ECHO report is only available for previous five-
year period.
Regulated Materials — The Near -Term Project would not affect sites with listed fuel storage tanks.
During construction, contractor staging areas will be located at various locations in the DSA. The staging
areas will likely include portable aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) for fuel storage. The construction
contractor(s) will be required to implement pollution prevention, spill prevention, and response plans
documenting the measures that will be taken to prevent accidental releases to the environment and,
should they occur, the actions that will be undertaken to minimize the environmental impact. In addition,
new aviation -related tenants would, in most cases, be required to implement site-specific pollution
prevention plans (i.e., Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan) that reduce the potential for
substantial impacts associated with regulated materials. See Section 4.4, Construction Impacts, and
Section 4.14, Water Quality, for more information on pollution prevention measures available to minimize
construction phase and operational impacts.
Other Environmental Concerns — A tenant on the PTAA-owned 72 -acre site was identified in EPA's
database as water discharge source under the PCS/ICIS (Permit Compliance System/Integrated
Compliance Information System). The facility report lists no PCS/ICIS violations.
Tenant Facility Development - At this time, the number and type of tenants that may develop facilities in
association with the Near -Term Project are unknown. Future tenants may engage in activities that
include the use, transport, or storage of hazardous materials and/or the generation of hazardous wastes
that are regulated under federal and state programs. This may include the storage of fuel and chemicals
and use of paints, solvents, degreasers, and cleaning materials. Tenants will be required to obtain and
comply with any required federal and state permits and registrations necessary for their operations.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-38 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
Solid Wastes — Most solid waste and debris from land clearing, construction, and demolition activities
would be recycled. Construction and demolition materials that cannot be recycled would be disposed at
permitted Construction and Demolition (C&D) landfills in the area.
Because the type of potential tenants is unknown at this time, it is difficult to estimate the types and
amounts of additional municipal solid wastes that would be generated at GSO if the Near -Term Project
was implemented. However, it is estimated that the Near -Term Project could create up to 10,000 new
aviation and aerospace manufacturing jobs at GSO. Further, the types of solid waste generated by
potential tenants in the near-term is expected to be similar to that generated by other airport tenants
involved in aviation manufacturing and aviation -related services. This may include metals, glass, and
plastics; paper, cardboard, and other office wastes; and food wastes. It is anticipated that much of these
waste materials would be recycled through existing programs operated by the City of Greensboro. Some
production waste (i.e., metals) may also be recycled by the manufacturer and/or specialty recycling
companies. Given the availability of recycling programs, it is expected that the local solid waste transfer
facilities and landfill would accommodate the additional volume of non -recyclable solid waste without
substantial impact.
4.8.3.3 Long -Term Project (2020)
The Long -Term Project includes construction of a parallel taxiway on the northwest side of Runway
5L/23R, site preparation, and subsequent aviation -related facilities development on approximately 407
acres of land.
RCRA Sites - Site preparation associated with the Long -Term Project would affect two RCRA sites (see
Table 4.8-1). Neither site has violations reported for the last five year period, which indicates a low
potential for hazardous materials issues and contamination.
Regulated Materials — The Long -Term Project would involve the relocation of the FAA ASR facility. The
radar facility has a 2,000 -gallon aboveground fuel tank that contains diesel fuel. There are no reported
incidents associated with this tank. Because of the relatively small tank size and lack of reported
incidents, the risk of encountering contamination at this location during site preparation phase of the
Long -Term Project is considered to be low. The storage and handling of fuel and other regulation
materials during construction phase and facility operation would be subject to the same controls and
requirements as described above for the Near -Term Project.
Other Environmental Concerns — PPG Industries Inc., one of the RCRA sites discussed above, was
identified in EPA's databases as an air emissions source and as a Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA)
facility. The review also indicated that PPG Industries was classified as a Minor source of air emissions
and the site's current status as an air emissions source is Permanently Closed. Although listed in the
database as a TSCA facility, the facility report presently lists no TSCA chemicals at the site.
Tenant Facility Development - As with the Near -Term Project improvements, it will be incumbent on
each future tenant whose operations involve the emission, transfer, transport, storage, and generation of
materials regulated under the federal and state hazardous materials programs to obtain all required
permits and registrations necessary for their operations.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-39 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
Solid Wastes — Same as the Near -Term Project, solid waste and debris from land clearing, construction,
and demolition activities would be recycled or disposed of at permitted facilities. The Long -Term Project
could employ an additional 3,000 people at GSO. Based on the availability of recycling programs, local
transfer and disposal facilities would be capable of handling the additional volume of non -recyclable solid
waste generated if the Long -Term Project was implemented.
4.8.3.4 Proposed Project (Full Build -Out)
The full build -out of the Proposed Project (Near -Term Project plus Long -Term Project) would affect four
RCRA sites and one AST site with a relatively small diesel tank. None of these sites have reported
violations or incidents that would suggest contamination or substantial environmental issues. However,
there is some potential that contaminants may be discovered during demolition of these facilities and that
some level of clean-up may be required. If necessary, the extent of any remedial efforts would be
coordinated with applicable state and local regulatory agencies. No sites on the EPA National Priorities
List (NPL) are located within or in the vicinity of the DSA.
The storage and handling of fuel and other regulation materials during construction will be subject to
pollution prevention controls and requirements that would minimize the potential for a release of fuel and
regulated materials into the environment. The operation of the aviation -related facilities will also be
subject to pollution prevention and regulated materials management requirements. Collectively, these
measures reduce the potential for the release of hazardous and regulated materials into the environment.
The volume of solid waste generated at GSO would increase as tenant facilities are developed and
become operational. At full build -out, approximately 13,000 new employees could work at GSO. Most of
the solid waste generated by aviation manufacturing processes and employees would be recycled. Non -
recyclable waste would be disposed in local landfills. Overall, local waste handling and disposal facilities
could accommodate non -recyclable wastes generated by the Proposed Project.
4.8.4 Cumulative Effects
GSO and its surrounding area are largely built -out and a variety of land uses are present in the vicinity of
the airport. Sites with known releases and contamination are presumed to be under some level of
regulatory oversight and likely subject to monitoring and/or remediation. With the exception of recent
runway and highway development projects, past airport, industrial, commercial and residential
development in the study area appears to have been mostly conducted on greenfield sites with minor
hazardous materials involvement. Future development and redevelopment projects in the vicinity of GSO
may involve sites where hazardous materials are used or stored and sites with soil and/or groundwater
water contamination. Those projects would be required to comply with federal, state, and local
regulations governing hazardous wastes and substances. Future development is expected to result in
increased demand for solid waste collection, recycling, and disposal. The relatively low hazardous
material, pollution, and solid waste impacts of the Proposed Project, when considered in addition to
similar impacts of other on- or off -airport projects, are not expected to lead to substantial cumulative
hazardous materials and solid waste impacts.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-40 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
4.8.5 Comparison of Significant Impact Thresholds
The need for additional information or analysis is required only if problems are anticipated with respect to
meeting applicable local, state, Tribal, or federal laws and regulations on hazardous or solid waste
management. Actions involving properties listed (or potentially listed) on the NPL are considered
significant by definition. For the Proposed Project, there are no NPL sites affected. Early coordination of
the Proposed Project and the analyses conducted for this EA indicate no problems regarding the ability to
meet applicable laws and regulations.
4.8.6 Mitigation
Because significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project have not been identified, mitigation is
not warranted.
4.9 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.9.1 Overview of Impacts
Under the No -Action Alternative, there would be no construction or development activities
associated with the Proposed Project. Therefore, there would be no impacts to historic or
archaeological resources resulting from the No -Action Alternative. There is one NRHP-eligible
historic property within the APE, the Campbell -Gray House and Barn. This property was
previously determined NRHP-eligible under NRHP Criterion C for its architecture. FAA has
determined that there will be no adverse effect on this property as a result of construction and
implementation of the Proposed Project. FAA will continue ongoing consultation with the North
Carolina SHPO regarding this determination as required by Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) [36 CFR, Part 800.5]. Section 106 coordination between the FAA and
SHPO will be concluded and documented in the Final EA.
4.9.2 Methodology
Determining potential environmental impacts on historic and/or archaeological resources requires the
identification of any NRHP resource, whether listed or eligible for listing, having potential for direct or
indirect impacts. According to Section 106 of the NHPA, a proposed action has an effect on a historic
property when the action may alter characteristics of the property that may qualify it for inclusion in the
NRHP [36 CFR, Part 800.9(a)]. An effect would be considered adverse when it diminishes the integrity of
the property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Adverse effects
include the physical destruction of all or part of the property, changes to aspects of the property's setting,
or alteration of character -defining features [36 CFR, Part 800.9(b)].
Field surveys of potentially historic aboveground resources within the DSA and APE were conducted as
described at Section 3.7.3, above. As a result of these field surveys, the FAA determined and the SHPO
concurred that the Campbell -Gray House and Barn was the only NRHP-eligible property included within
the APE. This property was determined NRHP-eligible under NRHP Criterion C for its architecture in
1995 (see Appendix D).
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-41 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
SHPO staff reviewed the project for potential effects on archaeological resources, and they concluded
that no archaeological studies were needed because the APE has low potential for containing significant
archaeological resources and was probably previously disturbed (see Appendix D).
4.9.3 Impacts
4.9.3.1 No -Action Alternative
Under the No -Action Alternative, there would be no construction or development activities associated with
the Proposed Project. Therefore, there would be no impacts to historic or archaeological resources
resulting from the No -Action Alternative.
4.9.3.2 Near -Term Project (2015)
As noted in Section 4.9.2 above, the FAA determined and the SHPO concurred that the Campbell -Gray
House and Barn was the only NRHP-eligible property included within the APE. The FAA has determined
that the Near -Term Project will not change the characteristics that qualify this property for NRHP eligibility
and therefore that the Near -Term Project will have No Adverse Effect upon the property. Section 106
coordination between the FAA and SHPO is on-going regarding this determination and will be concluded
and documented in the Final EA.
As noted in Section 4.9.2, above, the SHPO has indicated that the Proposed Project (both Near -Term
and Long -Term components) has been reviewed for potential effects on archaeological resources and
they concluded that no archaeological studies were needed because the APE has low potential for
containing significant archaeological resources and was probably previously disturbed.
Accordingly, it is anticipated that there would be no impact to archaeological resources resulting from
development of the Near -Term Project.
4.9.3.3 Long -Term Project (2020)
As noted in Sections 4.9.2 and 4.9.3.2 above, the FAA determined and the SHPO concurred that the
Campbell -Gray House and Barn was the only NRHP-eligible property included within the APE. The FAA
has determined that the Long -Term Project will not change the characteristics that qualify this property for
NRHP eligibility and therefore that the Long -Term Project will have No Adverse Effect upon the property.
Section 106 coordination between the FAA and SHPO is on-going regarding this determination and will
be concluded and documented in the Final EA.
SHPO also indicated that no archaeological studies were needed because the APE has low potential for
containing significant archaeological resources and was probably previously disturbed. Based on
coordination with the SHPO, it is anticipated that there would be no impact to archaeological resources
resulting from development of the Long -Term Project.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-42 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
4.9.3.4 Proposed Project (Full Build -Out)
Upon completion of the Near -Term and Long -Term Projects there would be no further site development
activities ongoing at GSO related to the Proposed Project. As such, it is anticipated that there would be
no impact to historic or archaeological resources following full build -out of the Proposed Project.
4.9.4 Comparison of Significant Impact Thresholds
A threshold indicating a significant impact is not clearly defined in FAA's guidance; however, it generally
involves a review of specific situations and advice from the SHPO and Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation. The FAA has determined that the Proposed Project will have No Adverse Effect upon any
National Register -listed or eligible historic properties within the APE. Therefore, at this time, the
Proposed Project is not expected to exceed any threshold indicating a significant impact. Section 106
coordination between the FAA and SHPO is on-going and will be concluded and documented in the Final
EA.
4.9.5 Cumulative Effects
It is possible that other area development actions could have direct or indirect impacts upon NRHP-listed
or eligible historic resources. Federal and state funded projects with such potential impacts upon historic
properties would require coordination with the SHPO, documentation, and mitigation measures, if
warranted. The Proposed Project is not expected to generate impacts to historic resources. Therefore,
the project, when considered in addition to potential impacts of other on- or off -airport projects, is not
expected to lead to significant cumulative impacts upon historic resources.
4.9.6 Mitigation
Based on the analyses conducted for this EA, the Proposed Project would have No Adverse Effect upon
NRHP-listed or eligible historic aboveground resources. Also, the Proposed Project is not expected to
affect archaeological resources. Therefore, no mitigation is warranted. Section 106 coordination
between the FAA and SHPO is on-going regarding this determination and will be concluded and
documented in the Final EA. However, if prehistoric or historic artifacts are encountered at any time
during construction, the project would cease all activities involving subsurface disturbance in the
immediate vicinity of such discoveries and the SHPO will be notified.
4.10 LIGHT EMISSIONS AND VISUAL IMPACT
4.10.1 Overview of Impacts
The Proposed Project would develop land and construct aviation facilities adjacent to, and in the
vicinity of, residential areas. The anticipated light sources are expected to be similar to that for
similar facilities at GSO and as found on existing industrial land uses adjacent to the Proposed
Project's development site. Conceptual layouts of the development area include the use of
buffers along portions of the site's boundary. Overall, the residential areas in the immediate
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-43 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
vicinity of the Proposed Project development area would notice some change in lighting and light
sources; however, the potential to cause substantial annoyance is considered to be low.
New buildings and support facilities would be similar to existing structures at GSO and industrial
sites in the immediate vicinity of the DSA. While the visual landscape would change as a result of
the Proposed Project, it would be compatible with the airport environs and not result in intrusive
visual impacts.
4.10.2 Methodology
Airport -related light emissions are considered to have a notable impact if light emissions are directed
towards light-sensitive land uses (i.e., residential areas) and have the potential to cause annoyance.
Impacts from lighting were determined by evaluating the potential lighting systems as they relate to light-
sensitive land uses, especially residences. The number and specific type of lighting systems would be
determined in the design process for the new taxiway segments and the facility needs of tenants that
would operate within the aviation development areas.
The evaluation of visual impacts includes a review of conceptual planning information and existing
conditions in the vicinity of the DSA. Landscape character and visual/aesthetic attributes were
qualitatively assessed in terms of the anticipated changes associated with the No -Action Alternative and
both the Near -Term and Long -Term components of the Proposed Project.
4.10.3 Impacts
4.10.3.1 No -Action Alternative
Because the No -Action Alternative would not include airfield changes or aviation -related development
associated with the Proposed Project, no impacts to light-sensitive land uses would occur and no change
to the visual landscape in the vicinity of GSO would occur.
4.10.3.2 Near -Term Project (2015)
Light Emissions
Airfield lighting changes associated with the Near -Term Project would consist primarily of the installation
of lights along the new sections of taxiway, along new roads in the development area, at the potential
development of a rail transfer facility, and around the new aviation facilities and their adjoining aircraft
parking aprons and vehicle parking lots. These systems would include the following:
• Pole- and building -mounted area flood lights to illuminate building exteriors, portions of
aircraft parking aprons, access roads, parking lots, and other related outdoor
improvements.
• Pole- and building -mounted area flood lights to illuminate buildings and work areas of the
rail transfer facility (if developed).
• Edge lighting would be installed along new sections of taxiway and entrances to aircraft
parking aprons. Lighted directional signs would also be installed to provide directional
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-44 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
guidance to and from the new taxiways and the aviation facilities in the Near -Term
Project development area.
• Temporary exterior lighting may also be installed at construction staging areas and
project work sites.
The area in the vicinity of the DSA contains urban, suburban, and built-up land uses, including multi -lane
highways, industrial development, commercial development, and residential neighborhoods. Residential
areas adjoin sections of the northeast and northwest sides of the Near -Term development area. Several
residential structures would be located within 200 feet or less of the development area boundary.
Conceptual layouts of the development area include the use of buffers along portions of the site's
boundary, which would provide some physical shielding that would help reduce the view of new light
sources. In addition, the use of high-intensity light sources, directional lights, or flashing lights are not
anticipated. Overall, the residential areas in the immediate vicinity of the Near -Term development area
would notice some change in lighting and light sources; however, the potential to cause substantial
annoyance is considered to be low.
The proposed rail transfer facility or rail spur would be located in an area that consists of predominantly
industrial, airport land uses and transportation land uses, including multi -lane roads and a railroad line.
However, several residences and a NRHP-eligible house and barn near the intersection of West Market
Street and South Regional Road are located adjacent to the proposed rail transfer facility site. Lighting
associated with the proposed rail transfer station is expected to be comparable in its nature and intensity
to existing surrounding industrial facilities. For the NRHP-eligible property, a review of its nomination file
notes that the house and associated barn were deemed eligible for their architecture. This suggests that
changes in lighting sources, even if adjacent to the property, should not affect the property's eligibility
standing. Coordination of potential effects of the Proposed Project on this property is on-going and will be
finalized before the Final EA is issued and the FAA makes its environmental decision on the Proposed
Project.
Visual Impacts
Because no modifications to runways at GSO are included in the Proposed Project, changes to aircraft
flight patterns would not occur. New buildings and support facilities would be developed in context with
other existing structures at GSO (i.e., similar size, type and construction). While the visual landscape
would change as a result of the Near -Term Project, it would be compatible with the airport environs and
not result in intrusive visual impacts.
4.10.3.3 Long -Term Project (2020)
ht Emissions
The Long -Term Project is expected to include essentially the same site preparation requirements and
subsequent facilities as discussed above for the Near -Term Project. Therefore, additional light sources
associated with the Long -Term Project would be similar to that described for the Near -Term Project. A
multi -family residential apartment complex adjoins a section of the northwest side of the Long -Term
development area. For the same reasons discussed above for the Near -Term Project, residents in the
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-45 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
immediate vicinity of the Long -Term development area would notice some change in lighting and light
sources; however, the potential to cause substantial annoyance is considered to be low.
Visual Impacts
For the same reasons discussed above for the Near -Term Project, changes in the visual landscape would
be compatible with airport and industrial land uses and not result in intrusive visual impacts.
4.10.3.4 Proposed Project (Full Build -Out)
Based on the evaluation of both the Near -Term and Long -Term components of the Proposed Project, the
Proposed Project would develop land adjoining residential areas. However, the anticipated light sources
are expected to be similar to that found on existing industrial land uses adjacent to the development site
and use of buffers would minimize the potential for substantial annoyance and impact.
New buildings and support facilities would be similar to existing structures at GSO and industrial sites in
the immediate vicinity of the DSA. While the visual landscape would change as a result of the Proposed
Project, it would be compatible with the airport environs and not result in intrusive visual impacts.
4.10.4 Cumulative Effects
Other than planned highway improvements, future large-scale airport, public, and private development
projects in the vicinity of the DSA, with potential for substantial light emissions and changes in visual
setting, have not been identified. Past airport projects that resulted in changes in light emissions and
visual setting include the new Runway 5L/23R, new FedEx facility, and aircraft manufacturing and
maintenance facilities. Off -airport projects include the intense development of industrial land use in the
vicinity of the airport. To a lesser extent, the large residential neighborhoods to the east of GSO have
also contributed to a change in light emissions. Given the urban, suburban, and built-up land uses
around GSO, the Proposed Project, when considered with other area development, would not result in a
significant cumulative lighting or visual impact.
4.10.5 Comparison of Significant Impact Thresholds
Thresholds to determine the significance of lighting and visual impacts have not been established by the
FAA due to the subjective nature of these impacts. However, a possible threshold indicating the need for
further study may include cases with substantial light annoyance, substantial interference with activities,
and/or substantial public concern regarding views. The airfield lighting modifications associated with the
Proposed Project are not expected to cause changes in light emissions resulting in substantial annoyance
or causing interference with normal activities. Although the new facilities associated with this project will
be visually noticeable, the visual impact associated with the Proposed Project is not considered
significant.
4.10.6 Mitigation
The Proposed Project would not result in significant light emission and visual impacts. Therefore, no
mitigation is required. However, the PTAA can incorporate design considerations during site preparation
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-46 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
and subsequent facility development to minimize light impacts and enhance the visual appeal of the
development area.
4.11 NOISE
4.11.1 Overview of Impacts
The Proposed Project and its Near -Term and Long -Term components are not expected to result in
any significant forecast or induced increase in aircraft operations; therefore, there will be no
impacts resulting from aircraft noise. Any impacts resulting from construction noise will occur
during daytime hours and will be temporary in nature. Potential change in aircraft noise exposure
around the airport was not modeled for this EA, as the 2007 Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study
(Andrew S. Harris, Inc., 2007) forecast a much higher number of aircraft operations for the 2014
future condition that those expected to occur at GSO in either the Near -Term or Long -Term study
years. The Near -Term and Long -Term Projects would not result in significant aircraft -generated
noise impacts, and mitigation measures beyond any proposed in the Part 150 Study are not
warranted.
4.11.2 Methodology
The Proposed Project, at this time, is not expected to generate a significant increase in the number of
aircraft operations or substantially alter the aircraft fleet mix at GSO because the aircraft manufacturing
and MRO facilities that are expected to result from the project do not generate a high volume of aircraft
operations. In addition, the Proposed Project would not alter runways, flight tracks, aircraft approach
profiles, departure profiles, or instrument approach procedures at GSO. Therefore, modeling and a
detailed analysis of aircraft noise were not performed for this EA. However, the number of aircraft
operations at GSO for 2012 was compared to the operational levels evaluated in GSO's 2007 Part 150
Study to gauge whether or not the present level of activity combined with a potential modest increase in
activity from the Proposed Project would exceed that documented in the Part 150 Study.
4.11.3 Impacts
4.11.3.1 No -Action Alternative
The No -Action Alternative would result in no change in noise exposure at GSO and have no noise related
impacts.
4.11.3.2 Near -Term Project (2015)
The Near -Term Project will develop aviation facilities at GSO and may induce a modest level of additional
activity at the airport. Based on the nature of the facilities, the Near -Term Project is not expected to
substantially increase the number of aircraft operations at GSO, when compared to the No -Action
Alternative. The primary tenants anticipated by PTAA include aviation -related manufacturing,
maintenance, and repair facilities. These type facilities typically generate a relatively small number of
aircraft operations, when compared to other airport users, such as airlines, Fixed Base Operators, and
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-47 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
cargo operators. Other tenants may generate little to no aircraft operations. In addition, the Near -Term
Project would not alter runways, flight tracks, aircraft approach profiles, departure profiles, or instrument
approach procedures at GSO. Changes to aircraft fleet mix at GSO as a result of the Near -Term Project
cannot be accurately predicted. However, it is expected that the MRO and aviation -related manufacturing
facilities could involve a range of general aviation jet aircraft and large commercial aircraft models, many
of which presently operate at GSO. Because the increase in aircraft operations expected to occur if the
Proposed Project was implemented would be modest, the change in noise exposure in the vicinity of
GSO is expected to be modest and not to result in a significant noise impact.
A review of the FAA's 2012 Terminal Area Forecast for GSO shows that the projected number of aircraft
operations at GSO for 2015 (91,543 operations) and 2020 (103,544 operations) are substantially below
the 174,453 aircraft operations forecasted for Future Year 2014 in the GSO Part 150 Study (see Table
3.8-1 in Section 3.8 of this EA). This indicates that areas in the vicinity of GSO that may experience
some change in noise exposure as a result of the Proposed Project are well within the areas bounded by
the noise exposure contours generated for the Part 150 Future Year condition and that the mitigation
specified in the Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program should be sufficient for any increase in noise
exposure that may result from the Proposed Project.
Noise associated with construction activities is discussed in Section 4.4 of this EA. In summary, noise
from construction equipment and vehicles would temporarily increase ambient acoustic levels within and
in the immediate vicinity of the development site. However, construction -related noise is expected to
have a minor, temporary impact.
4.11.3.3 Long -Term Project (2020)
The Long -Term Project would further increase the amount of land at GSO for aviation -related
development. For the same reasons discussed above, the Long -Term Project is not expected to result in
a significant noise impact.
4.11.3.4 Proposed Project (Full Build -Out)
The full build -out of the Proposed Project will result in new aviation facilities at GSO and induce activity at
the airport. However, the types of anticipated aviation facilities are not expected to substantially increase
the number of aircraft operations at GSO. In addition, the Proposed Project would not alter runways,
flight tracks, aircraft approach profiles, departure profiles, or instrument approach procedures at GSO. It
is expected that the aviation facilities could involve a range general aviation jet aircraft and large
commercial aircraft models, many of which presently operate at GSO. Because the increase in aircraft
operations expected to occur if the Proposed Project was implemented would be modest, the change in
noise exposure in the vicinity of GSO is expected to be modest and not result in a significant noise
impact.
4.11.4 Cumulative Effects
The Proposed Project is not expected to generate significant aircraft noise impacts. Past projects at GSO
have generated significant noise impacts. The 2001 Environmental Impact Statement for new Runway
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-48 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
5L/23R documented significant noise impacts in the vicinity of GSO, which required mitigation (e.g., land
acquisition, sound insulation, and avigation easements). The FAA's 2008 Record of Approval for the
GSO Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program approved operational, land use, and program management
measures to address aircraft noise levels in the vicinity of GSO. Other project at GSO have also had
varying effects on aircraft noise exposure. Overall, the modest change in noise exposure attributed to
the Proposed Project, in conjunction with established noise mitigation programs, indicates the Proposed
Project would not have a significant cumulative effect in regard to aircraft noise.
4.11.5 Comparison of Significant Impact Thresholds
Since the forecast of aircraft operations provided by the FAA's TAF for this EA are much lower than those
used for the 2007 Part 150 Study, and neither the 2015 Near -Term nor 2020 Long -Term Projects are
forecast to produce any measurable change in aircraft operational levels, it is reasonable to conclude that
no significant impact thresholds will be met or exceeded resulting from the Proposed Project.
4.11.6 Mitigation
Because Proposed Project is not expected to generate significant noise impacts, no mitigation is required
or proposed.
4.12 SECONDARY (INDUCED) IMPACTS
4.12.1 Overview of Impacts
Under the No -Action Alternative, the Proposed Project would not be constructed; therefore, no
secondary (induced) impacts would occur.
Development of Proposed Project would not involve any construction or development activity in
residential areas, and there would be no significant shifts in population movement or increase
significantly in the demands for public services. Aircraft operational levels at the airport would
not increase significantly above those projected for the No -Action Alternative, consistent with the
GSO aviation forecast. Induced impacts from Proposed Project would include a short-term
increase in employment, output, and income benefits associated with site development activities.
These impacts would be temporary and minor in context of the construction -related job industry
in the Piedmont Triad area. Long-term employment at GSO would increase as site development is
completed and tenants are secured to utilize the development site. The number and type of
employment opportunities projected for the site are contingent upon the type of businesses which
locate at the airport.
4.12.2 Methodology
The No -Action Alternative, Near- and Long -Term Projects, and the full build -out of the Proposed Project
were evaluated for their potential to result in the following secondary (induced) impacts. This included an
evaluation of:
S:\BD\Marketing\Wp_Wpro\12011299_ Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-49 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
• Shifts in population movement and growth,
• Changes in public service demands,
• Changes in business and economic activity, and
Appreciable change in employment.
Secondary impacts in terms of shifts in population movement and growth and changes in public service
demands were evaluated through the analysis of impacts associated with other environmental impact
categories such as land use.
Economic impacts were assessed for the effects of airport development on the local economy and are
characterized as direct or indirect impacts. Direct impacts are those realized on-site at the airport that
directly relate to construction and operation of new facilities. Indirect impacts are those created by the
multiplier or "ripple" effect of spending and result from successive rounds of spending by employees at
both direct and indirect facilities.
4.12.3 Impacts
4.12.3.1 No -Action Alternative
The No -Action Alternative assumes the Proposed Project would not be implemented at GSO. The
No -Action Alternative does not include any land development actions or improvements beyond those that
have already been undertaken by the Airport Sponsor, planned, environmentally reviewed, and/or that are
needed for safety, security, or maintenance reasons. As a result, there would be no impacts to
population centers, roadways, businesses, or land uses. This alternative would not result in secondary
induced impacts.
4.12.3.2 Near -Term Project (2015)
Population Movement and Growth
New or expanded aviation -related and allied industries at GSO would create employment opportunities in
several light trades (i.e., aircraft manufacturing and repair, parts assembly, engineering, management). It
is expected that a majority of jobs would be filled by people residing in Guilford County and adjoining
communities. Although some employees may relocate to the area, the Near -Term Project is not expected
to cause a major shift in population, and, therefore, would not place a substantial demand on housing and
public services.
The Near -Term Project would require the acquisition of approximately 249 acres of land which includes
14 residences and three business parcels. In addition, development of the Near -Term Project would
impact the Pleasant Ridge Golf Course and the Sharpe Bros asphalt plant. The golf course was
purchased by PTAA for future airport development and is operated under a tenancy at will. Similarly, the
asphalt plant located on PTAA land is also operated under tenancy at will.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-50 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
The Near -Term Project would require a limited number of residential displacements; however, available
replacement housing exists in Guilford County to accommodate the displaced residences. Based on the
availability of comparable replacement housing in Guilford County, the Airport Sponsor concluded that the
Near -Term Project would not result in significant secondary (induced) impacts in 2015. The Airport
Sponsor will develop a relocation mitigation program to oversee the relocation of all residences. All
relocation efforts will be consistent with the requirements of the Uniform Relocation Act.
Changes in Public Service Demand
The Near -Term Project would not increase the number of passengers at GSO, or have a substantial
effect on local residential or businesses development patterns or activities within the GSA or Guilford
County. Therefore, the Near -Term Project would not have a substantial effect on the provision of, or
demand for, public services such as police, fire, and emergency response. The Near -Term Project would
require the relocation of Greensboro Fire Station Number 20 which is located on West Market St, within
the Near -Term acquisition area.
Changes in Business and Economic Activity
Three commercial/industrial properties would be acquired as part of the Near -Term Project. In addition,
operation of the Pleasant Ridge Golf Course and the Sharpe Bros asphalt plant would be impacted. Both
properties on which these facilities are located are owned by the PTAA and designated for future aviation
use in the Airport's Master Plan. Both the golf course and the asphalt plant are currently operated under
a tenancy at will.
Because the exact nature of the tenants and facilities that may be constructed as part of the Near -Term
Project are not known, quantification of potential effects on the local economy are difficult to estimate.
Table 4.12-1 provides examples of aerospace and aviation -related companies located within the
Piedmont Triad area, including companies that need airport sites of the type that are being developed
through the Proposed Project. Data for the Savannah, Georgia and Jacksonville, Florida area are also
provided for comparative purposes. As this table illustrates, each new facility or tenant could generate a
substantial level of revenue. A portion of this revenue would transfer into the local economy in the form of
tax revenue, employee salaries, and the purchase of associated goods and services.
TABLE 4.12-1
EXAMPLES OF AEROSPACE COMPANIES/FACILITIES
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-51 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment
Facility
Area of
Size
Number of
Company Name
Operation
(sq. ft.)
Business Type/Product
Revenue
Employees
Genesis Aviation, Inc.
Piedmont
50,000
Aircraft Part &
$6M
40-50
Triad
Accessories
Cessna Citation
Piedmont
45,000
Aircraft maintenance,
$20-50M
100
Service Center
Triad
inspection, and repair
Aircraft Manufacturing
Local
850
Honda Jet
Piedmont
147,000 sq. ft. hangar.
Unknown
(350 more
Headquarters
Triad
215,000
World Headquarters
($38M
in future
68,000 sq. ft. office
world-
anticipated)
space.
wide)
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-51 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
TABLE 4.12-1 (CONTINUED)
EXAMPLES OF AEROSPACE COMPANIES/FACILITIES
Sources: LSI, 2013. Arcieri, 2012a -c and 2013a and 2013b. Catanoso, 2013. JAXUSA Partnership, 2013. Manta,
2013a -I. Barron, 2013. Bridgestone, 206. BuzzFile, 2013. Cessna, 2013. Carver, 2013. Darm, 2013.
Flightstar, 2013. Honda, 2013. InsideView, 2013. MRO, 2013. Opportunity Greensboro, 2013. TIMCO,
2013. Unison, 2013. Zoominfo, 2013. Area Development Online, 2013.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-52 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment
Facility
Area of
Size
Number of
Company Name
Operation
(sq. ft.)
Business Type/Product
Revenue
Employees
Triad International
Aviation Service
Maintenance Company
Piedmont
Operations/design/
Not
(TIMCO) (Facility at
Triad
705,000
product testing,
Available
1,800
GSO to be acquired by
manufacturing
HAECO)
Local
B/E Aerospace
Piedmont
Hardware Distribution,
Unknown
(Winston-Salem and
Triad
90,000
Aircraft Maintenance/
($842M
850-1100+
High Point locations)
Interior Retrofitting
Nation-
wide)
Bridgestone Aircraft
Piedmont
160,000
Manufacturing Aircraft
Not
95-100
Tire
Triad
Tires
Available
Machine Specialist,
Piedmont
150,000
Aerospace Parts — Proto-
$3M
140
Inc.
Triad
tooling/engineering
Piedmont
Not
Manufacturing aircraft
General Dynamics
Triad
Available
detection and navigation
$20-50M
100-249
equipment
Art -Line Service
Piedmont
NotTriad
Aircraft Manufacturing
$10-20M
5-9
Available
Landmark Aviation
Piedmont
Not
Charter and Aircraft
$2M
24
Triad
Available
Management
LSI — Logistics
Jacksonville
National Headquarters
Services International
Florida
124,000
Defense Systems
500
Training
Neptune Precision
Headquarters Aerospace
Composites (also
Jacksonville
21,000
composites
$5 M
25-35
known as Neptune
Florida
Tech Services, Inc.)manufacturing
350,000
Headquarters Heavy
Jacksonville
and 1M sq.
maintenance and repair
700
Flightstar
Florida
ft. ramp
for commercial aviation
Unknown
and 200
(Plan 130,000 sq. ft.
contractors
space
expansion)
Goodrich -Aerospace,
Jacksonville
Polymers for aviation
$20-$50M
Jax
Florida
industry
(Nation-
110
wide)
Jacksonville
Manufacture of electronic
$10M-
Unison Industries
Florida
183,000
laser ignition and engine
$20M
600
electricals stems
KCI Aviation
Jacksonville
30,000
Aviation Maintenance and
Unknown
30
Florida
Repair
7,500+ in
Gulfstream Aerospace
Savannah,
600,000
Aircraft Manufacturing
>$113
Savannah,
Corp
Georgia
11,500+
world-wide
Sources: LSI, 2013. Arcieri, 2012a -c and 2013a and 2013b. Catanoso, 2013. JAXUSA Partnership, 2013. Manta,
2013a -I. Barron, 2013. Bridgestone, 206. BuzzFile, 2013. Cessna, 2013. Carver, 2013. Darm, 2013.
Flightstar, 2013. Honda, 2013. InsideView, 2013. MRO, 2013. Opportunity Greensboro, 2013. TIMCO,
2013. Unison, 2013. Zoominfo, 2013. Area Development Online, 2013.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-52 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
Appreciable Change in Employment
During the period of construction, the Near -Term Project would support short-term construction jobs
required to implement the proposed improvements. The temporary increase in construction jobs would
be expected to be filled by local workers. If needed, temporary non -local workers would be
accommodated in the Greensboro area.
As noted in Table 4.12-1, the potential post -construction change in employment associated with the Near -
Term Project will be highly variable depending on the type of aviation -related business(s) which are
developed. Based on the amount of land to be made available as part of the Near -Term Project and the
type of facilities which may be constructed, it is conservatively estimated that on-site employment with the
Near -Term Project could range from 3,000 to more than 10,000 employees. This increase in jobs would
have a positive impact on employment in the GSA. Over the past decade the Piedmont Triad area
experienced a greater net job loss than anywhere else in the state of North Carolina, with manufacturing
jobs suffering the greatest loss (News 14 Carolina, 2012). During the period ending July 2013, total
nonagricultural wage and salary employment in the Piedmont Triad area was essentially flat, as
compared to an increase of 1.6 percent annually for national employment (UNCG, 2013).
4.12.3.3 Long -Term Project (2020)
Population Movement and Growth
New or expanded aviation -related and allied industries at GSO would create employment opportunities in
several light trades (i.e., aircraft manufacturing and repair, parts assembly, engineering, management). It
is expected that a majority of jobs would be filled by people residing in Guilford County and adjoining
communities. Although some employees may relocate to the area, the Long -Term Project is not
expected to cause a major shift in population, and, therefore, would not place a substantial demand on
housing and public services.
The Long -Term Project would require the acquisition of approximately 166 acres of land for the purpose
of having a contiguous area of suitable size for future development of aviation -related activities. As part
of this acquisition, the Airport Sponsor would acquire 16 parcels of business property and 13 residences.
Businesses to be impacted as part of the land acquisition include a construction company, small light
industrial shops, and several commercial sites which include office space and retail shops. No off -airport
businesses or residential acquisitions or relocations would be required outside of the proposed 166 -acre
acquisition area.
Based on the limited number of residential and business displacements, the Long -Term Project would not
result in a substantial shift in population or influence the pattern of growth in the GSA or Guilford County
in 2020. Available replacement housing exists in Guilford County to accommodate the displaced
residences. Likewise, sufficient commercial property, both buildable vacant land and improved leasable
space, is available in the GSA and Guilford County to accommodate the relocation of the residences and
businesses. Based on the availability of comparable replacement housing and business space in Guilford
County, the Airport Sponsor concluded that the Long -Term Project would not result in significant
secondary (induced) impacts in 2020. The Airport Sponsor will develop a relocation mitigation program to
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-53 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
oversee the relocation of all residences and businesses. All relocation efforts will be consistent with the
requirements of the Uniform Relocation Act.
Changes in Public Service Demand
The Long -Term Project would not increase the number of passengers at GSO, or have a substantial
effect on local residential or businesses development patterns or activities within the GSA or Guilford
County. Therefore, the Long -Term Project would not have a substantial effect on the provision of, or
demand for, public services such as police, fire, and emergency response.
Changes in Business and Economic Activity
Development of the Long -Term Project would require acquisition of 16 parcels of business property
located within the acquisition area for the Proposed Project. The acquisition of these business parcels
would result in a small number of relocations to other areas, possibly outside the GSA. These
acquisitions and relocations would have no appreciable impact on the economic makeup of the GSA, the
level of economic activity in the GSA, or local tax bases. As noted above, the businesses are expected to
be re-established within the County. Eligible business owners would receive payment for relocation and
moving expenses in accordance with Uniform Relocation Act.
Because GSO possesses a number of the assets including runway facilities, repair operations, and room
to grow, which are critical to the development of aviation- and aerospace -related industries, it is
anticipated that upon completion of the site preparation activities, aviation -related businesses will develop
on the site. As previously discussed, the precise nature of the facilities that new tenants could construct
as part of the Long -Term Project are unknown at this time and; therefore, quantification of potential
effects on the local economy are difficult to estimate. However, based on data for the aviation -related
companies presently operating on, or in the vicinity of GSO and at other airports of similar size (see Table
4.12-1), it is estimated that as many as 1,000 to 3,000 additional on-site workers would be required to
support tenant operations under the Long -Term Project in 2020.
Appreciable Change in Employment
During the period of construction, the Long -Term Project would support short-term construction jobs
required to implement the proposed improvements. The temporary increase in construction jobs would
be expected to be filled by local workers. If needed, temporary non -local workers would be
accommodated in the Greensboro area.
Similar to the change in employment associated with the Near -Term Project, the post -construction
change in employment associated with the Long -Term Project would be highly variable depending on the
type of aviation -related business(es) which are developed. Based on the amount of land to be made
available as part of the Long -Term Project and the type of facilities which may be constructed, it is
conservatively estimated that on-site employment with the Long -Term Project could range from 1,000 to
3,000 on-site employees based on the potential area for facility development. This increase in jobs would
have a positive impact on employment in the GSA.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-54 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
4.12.3.4 Proposed Project (Full Build -Out)
Poaulation Movement and Growth
Following full implementation of the Proposed Project, development associated with the Near- and Long -
Term Projects would be completed. However, it is not anticipated that the Proposed Project would
generate substantial growth or movement of the local population beyond that expected in an established
community.
Changes in Public Service Demand
The Proposed Project would not have a substantial effect on the provision of, or demand for, public
services such as police, fire, and emergency response with the GSA. However, some increase in
demand for public services would exist to support the increased employee and resident populations in the
GSA. Full build -out of the Proposed Project would not increase the number of passengers at GSO, or
have a substantial effect on local residential or businesses development patterns or activities within the
GSA or Guilford County.
Changes in Business and Economic Activity
Because GSO possesses a number of the assets including runway facilities, repair operations, and room
to grow, which are critical to the development of aviation- and aerospace -related industries, it is
anticipated that upon completion of the site preparation activities associated with the Near- and Long -
Term Projects, aviation -related businesses will develop on the site. As previously discussed, the precise
nature of the facilities that new tenants will develop is unknown at this time and; therefore, quantification
of potential effects on the local economy are difficult to estimate. However, based on data for the
aviation -related companies presently operating on, or in the vicinity of GSO and at other airports of similar
size (see Table 4.12-1), it is estimated that as many as 4,000 to 13,000 additional on-site workers would
be required to support tenant operations under the full build -out condition at GSO.
Appreciable Change in Employment
Following development of the Near- and Long -Term Projects, employment associated with the Proposed
Project would be variable depending on the type of aviation -related business(es) which are developed.
Upon completion of the Proposed Project it is estimated that on-site employment with could range from
4,000 to 13,000 on-site employees. This increase in jobs would have a very positive impact on
employment in the GSA.
4.12.4 Comparison of Significant Impact Thresholds
No specific thresholds have been established in FAA Order 1050.1E for secondary (induced) impacts.
However, the Proposed Project would not include substantial shifts in patterns of population movement or
growth, substantial public service demands, or changes in business and economic activity that would
have an adverse impact on the community. Since the Proposed Project would not involve substantial
induced or secondary impacts on surrounding communities, as described above, a significant impact
threshold would not be exceeded.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-55 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
4.12.5 Cumulative Effects
While past development projects on and in the vicinity of GSO have resulted in growth and development,
present and reasonably foreseeable projects are not expected to generate substantial secondary
(induced) impacts (i.e., changes in population movement and growth or changes in public service
demands). Secondary (induced) development actions, that may occur if the proposed project was
implemented, will be subject to local zoning ordinances, land development regulations, and other
applicable approvals and permits.
The limited secondary (induced) impacts of the Proposed Project, when considered with respect to similar
impacts of other on- or off -airport projects, are not expected to lead to substantial cumulative secondary
impacts.
4.12.6 Mitigation
Acquisitions of residential and business parcels would occur as a result of both the Near -Term and Long -
Term Projects. These acquisitions would be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform
Relocation Act, which provides that eligible individuals, families, businesses, and non-profit organizations
displaced by a federal or federally -assisted program shall be offered relocation assistance services for the
purpose of locating a suitable replacement property. Eligible displaced persons and businesses are also
entitled to reimbursement of moving costs and certain moving -related expenses. The Airport Sponsor
would develop and implement an acquisition and relocation program such that the secondary (induced)
impacts associated with the Near -Term and Long -Term Projects would not be significant. Mitigation for
the relocations associated with the alternatives is discussed in Chapter 5.0, Mitigation, of this EA.
4.13 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND CHILDREN'S
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS
4.13.1 Overview of Impacts
The Proposed Project would result in the acquisition and relocation of residents and community
businesses. Sufficient replacement commercial property, both buildable vacant land and
improved leasable space, is available in the GSA and Guilford County to accommodate the
relocation of the commercial businesses. In addition, available replacement housing exists in
Guilford County to accommodate the displaced residences. Neither the No -Action Alternative nor
the Proposed Project would disrupt local traffic patterns or reduce the levels of service (LOS) of
the roads serving the airport and its surrounding communities. There would be no environmental
justice impacts or impacts to the health and safety of children as a result of the No -Action
Alternative or from the development of the Proposed Project.
4.13.2 Methodology
Socioeconomic impacts as a result of the Near -Term, Long -Term Projects, and the Proposed Project (Full
Build -Out) were evaluated based on the following FAA Order 1050.1E thresholds of significance (FAA,
2006a):
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-56 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
• Extensive relocation of residents without sufficient replacement housing,
• Extensive relocation of community businesses that would create severe economic
hardship for the affected communities,
• Disruptions of local traffic patterns that substantially reduce the LOS of the roads serving
the airport and its surrounding communities, and
• A substantial loss in community tax base.
Social impacts were determined through the evaluation of the areas affected by each alternative.
Potentially affected land, buildings, and transportation facilities were identified using information from GIS
databases and on-site surveys.
Environmental justice impacts were evaluated through quantification of populations and households
affected by land acquisition and potential noise impacts for each alternative to determine if there would be
a disproportionately high adverse impact on minority and low-income populations and households.
Census data was used to determine the demographic characteristics and households affected by each
alternative.
Year 2010 U.S. Census data (which is the most current published Census Tracts and census Block
Group data) was used in this analysis. The data for the census blocks within the Socioeconomic Study
Area (SSA) described in Section 3.9 was compared to similar information obtained from the 2007-2011
American Community Survey (ACS) for the GSA and the County to assess the potential for
disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income families (ACS, 2007-2011). 2010 U.S. Census Block
geography was overlaid with the GSA.
Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risk, requires
federal agencies to identify and assess environmental health and safety risks that may disproportionately
affect children and ensure that their actions address any disproportionate risks. Environmental health
risks and safety risks include risks to health or to safety that are attributable to products or substances
that a child is likely to come in contact with or ingest, such as air, food, drinking water, recreational
waters, soil, or products they might use or be exposed to. This evaluation was based on the alternatives'
potential to result in direct impacts to children in a residential or business setting within the GSA.
4.13.3 Impacts
4.13.3.1 No -Action Alternative
The No -Action Alternative assumes that the proposed cross -field taxiway and site preparation activities
would not occur; however, other on-going or planned actions at GSO that are needed for maintenance,
security, or safety reasons would be implemented. Since no off -airport improvements are associated with
the No -Action Alternative, no direct off-site impacts would occur. Therefore, the No -Action Alternative
would not result in socioeconomic impacts, environmental justice impacts, or risk to children's health and
safety.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-57 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
4.13.3.2 Near -Term Project (2015)
Socioeconomic Impacts
Residential and Business Acquisitions and Relocations
Development of the Near -Term Project would require acquisition of approximately 249 acres of land. This
acquisition would include three parcels of commercial/industrial property, 14 residential units, and one
institutional or community facility. Development of the Near -Term Project would also impact the Pleasant
Ridge Golf Course and the Sharpe Bros asphalt plant. Both properties on which these facilities are
located are owned by PTAA and designated on the airport's Master Plan as an area for future aviation -
related use. Both properties are leased to the respective business operators under a tenancy at will
agreement. Acquisition of these parcels and relocation of residences located therein as required to
support the Near -Term Project are not considered to constitute "extensive relocations." In addition,
available replacement housing exists in Guilford County to accommodate the displaced residences.
Disruption of Established Communities and Planned Developments
Development activities associated with the Near -Term Project would not result in any disruption of
established communities or orderly planned developments within the GSA or Guilford County, nor would
the Near -Term Project affect or disrupt essential community services. There would be no substantial
adverse impact to local tax bases associated with the Proposed Project.
Disruption of Local Transportation Patterns
The Near -Term Project would not result in any long-term disruption of local transportation patterns. The
NCDOT's planned development of the 1-73 Connector traverses the development site for the Proposed
Project. This roadway will provide sufficient access to the Near -Term development area such that
additional major roadway modifications would not be needed. Some development of local roadways may
be required to meet tenant needs and to provide access to the Near -Term development areas. Roadway
improvements to accommodate traffic in and out of the site would depend on several factors, including
the location of entrances to the site, the rate of new development at the site, the nature of each business
and number of employees, and work shift schedules. Based on these factors, it is likely that sections of
Pleasant Ridge Road, Old Oak Ridge Road, and/or Market Street may be upgraded to include turn lanes
at ingress/egress points. Based on factors described above, the future installation of traffic signals may
also be necessary, as well as widening road sections to three or more lanes. However, specific
improvements would only be known at the time potential tenants approach PTAH, individual site
development plans are prepared, and traffic is evaluated during the PTAA and local development plan
review process.
The Proposed Project would not substantially increase aircraft operations at GSO and, with the exception
of a minor and temporary increase in vehicular traffic during construction, would not substantially increase
traffic or reduce the LOS on any area roads.
Environmental Justice Considerations
Implementation of the Near -Term Project would not significantly change the type or number of aircraft
operations at GSO. Temporary increases in noise associated with earthwork and construction would
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-58 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
affect the immediate project area, which is largely within airport property. Construction noise would
temporarily increase ambient noise levels. However, distance rapidly attenuates noise levels, so noise
experienced by area residents may include a slight and temporary increase in ambient background
conditions. The potential noise impacts associated with earthwork and construction may be noticeable,
but are not expected to be substantial. As discussed below, the residential areas surrounding GSA that
would be affected by short-term changes in noise levels associated with the Near -Term Project reflect the
ethnic and economic distribution found throughout the County. Therefore, the Proposed Project is not
expected to result in a disproportionately high and adverse direct impact to minorities, ethnic groups,
Tribal nations, or low-income households.
The data for the SSA (discussed in Section 3.9.1 of this document) reveals that the white population
comprises approximately 75 percent of the SSA's total population; the black or African American
population 14.7 percent; and the combined percentage of American Indian, Asian, and other races is
10.3 percent. The data for Guilford County shows the white population comprising 58.3 percent of the
County's total population; the black or African American population 32.3 percent; and the combined
percentage of American Indian, Asian, and other races is 9.4 percent. Accordingly, the proposed
development of the Near -Term Project is not anticipated to result in a disproportionate impact to minority
residents.
Children's Environmental Health and Safety Risk
The Near -Term Project would not result in the acquisition or relocation of any schools, child care centers,
or other similar facilities. Limited acquisition or relocation of residential units would be required. No
schools or child care facilities are located in areas that would be affected by significant changes in noise
levels associated with the Near -Term Project. The Near -Term Project is not anticipated to increase
environmental health and safety risks or exposures to children in the surrounding community. There
would be no disproportionate health and safety risk to children resulting from the Near -Term Project.
4.13.3.3 Long -Term Project (2020)
Socioeconomic Impacts
Residential and Business Acquisitions and Relocations
Development of the Long -Term Project would require acquisition of approximately 166 acres of land
located to the northwest of Runway 5L/23R and south of the proposed 1-73 Connector. This acquisition
would include 16 parcels of commercial/industrial property, and 13 residences. Acquisition of these
parcels and relocation of businesses and residences located therein as required to support development
of the Long -Term Project in 2020 are not considered to constitute "extensive relocations." Sufficient
replacement commercial property, both buildable vacant land and improved leasable space, is available
in the GSA and Guilford County to accommodate the relocation of the off -airport commercial businesses.
In addition, available replacement housing exists in Guilford County to accommodate the displaced
residences.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-59 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
Disruption of Established Communities and Planned Developments
Development activities associated with the Long -Term Project would not result in any disruption of
established communities or orderly planned developments within the GSA or Guilford County, nor would
the Long -Term Project affect or disrupt essential community services. The neighborhoods in the vicinity
of the proposed cross -field taxiway do not function as organized, cohesive communities. Demographic
data suggests the racial makeup of the population in the project area associated with the Long -Term
Project is predominately white, with the white population making up a larger percentage of the total than
in Guilford County as a whole. There would be no substantial adverse impacts to local tax bases
associated with the Proposed Project.
Disruption of Local Transportation Patterns
The Long -Term Project would not result in any long-term disruption of local transportation patterns. As
noted above, the NCDOT's planned development of the 1-73 Connector traverses the 800 -acre site
proposed for development as part of the Proposed Project. This roadway will provide sufficient access to
the Long -Term development area such that additional major roadway modifications would not be needed.
The Proposed Project would not induce activity at GSO and, with the exception of a minor and temporary
increase in traffic during construction, would not increase traffic or reduce the LOS on any area roads.
Environmental Justice Considerations
Implementation of the Long -Term Project would not significantly change the type or number of aircraft
operations at GSO. Temporary increases in noise associated with earthwork and construction would
affect the immediate project area, which is largely within airport property. Construction noise would
temporarily increase ambient noise levels. However, distance rapidly attenuates noise levels, so noise
experienced by area residents may include a slight and temporary increase in ambient background
conditions. The potential noise impacts associated with earthwork and construction may be noticeable,
but are not expected to be substantial. As discussed above and in Section 3.9, the residential areas
surrounding GSO that would be affected by short-term changes in noise levels associated with the Long -
Term Project have a higher percentage of white population and a higher median income than Guilford
County as a whole. Therefore, the Proposed Project is not expected to result in a disproportionately high
and adverse direct impact to minorities, ethnic groups, Tribal nations, or low-income households.
Children's Environmental Health and Safety Risk
The Long -Term Project would not result in the acquisition or relocation of any schools, child care centers,
or other similar facilities. Limited acquisition or relocation of residential units would be required. No
schools or child care facilities are located in areas that would be affected by significant changes in noise
levels associated with the Long -Term Project. The Long -Term Project is not anticipated to increase
environmental health and safety risks or exposures to children in the surrounding community. There
would be no disproportionate health and safety risk to children resulting from the Long -Term Project.
4.13.3.4 Proposed Project (Full Build -Out)
Upon competition of the Near -Term and Long -Term Projects, the development site would be fully
prepared and available for occupancy by aviation -related tenants and businesses. Full development of
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-60 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
the Proposed Project site would require the acquisition of 415 acres of property, and the acquisition and
relocation of 19 parcels of commercial property and 27 residential units and the relocation of two
businesses that currently operate on airport property under a lease at will agreements. As noted for both
the Near -Term and Long -Term Projects, the full development of the Proposed Project would not result in
any long-term disruption of local transportation patterns, nor result in environmental justice or children's
health and safety risks.
4.13.4 Comparison of Significant Impact Thresholds
According to FAA Order 1050.1E, significant impacts would occur if there were disproportionately high
and adverse impacts on low-income and minority populations, disproportionate health and safety risks to
children, extensive relocation of residents without sufficient relocation housing available, relocation of
businesses that would create severe economic hardship, disruption of traffic patterns affecting the LOS
on area roads, and a substantial loss in community tax base. The analysis presented above does not
indicate that any of these thresholds would be exceeded.
4.13.5 Cumulative Effects
Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development projects in the City of Greensboro and
Guilford County have little potential to generate extensive residential and business relocations, alter or
degrade local transportation patterns, or disrupt established or planned communities. The limited
socioeconomic, environmental justice, and children's health impacts of the Proposed Project, when
considered in addition to those associated with other development projects, is not expected to lead to
substantial cumulative impacts.
Recent and future transportation projects (i.e., 1-73 Connector) will improve traffic circulation in the vicinity
of GSO, improved access to GSO, and reduced congestion on the local highway system. These
cumulative projects addressed existing and projected traffic volumes and were subject to detailed
planning, justification, and environmental analyses by the federal and state sponsoring agencies. Other
development projects on, and in the vicinity of, GSO would have a low to moderate potential to generate
an increase in traffic volumes, substantially alter transportation patterns, or require that new major
roadways be built. Traffic impacts associated with each project would be addressed locally during the
zoning/land use approval process and include mitigation measures as determined necessary (i.e., turn
lane improvements or traffic signals). Although the Proposed Project may require some local road and
intersection improvements, the Proposed Project is not expected to have an adverse cumulative effect on
local transportation patterns. When considered in addition to those associated with other development
projects, are not expected to generate a significant cumulative impact.
4.13.6 Mitigation
The potential for significant impacts was not identified; therefore, no mitigation measures have been
identified.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-61 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
4.14 WATER QUALITY
4.14.1 Overview of Impacts
The No -Action Alternative would not involve site development actions or subsequent
development of aviation facilities associated with the Proposed Project and there would be no
impacts on water resources and water quality.
The projected 810 -acre increase in impervious surface at GSO and the associated change in storm
water runoff from the Proposed Project's facilities would be substantial when compared to the No -
Action Alternative. However, run-off from the new impervious surfaces associated with the
Proposed Project can be attenuated and treated adequately via appropriate Best Management
Practices (BMPs)9. During the construction phase, erosion and the use of fuels, lubricants,
solvents, and other materials have the potential to affect water quality. Measures to minimize
erosion, control pollution sources, and maintain water quality throughout the construction phase
are available and would be implemented for Proposed Project.
Under the Proposed Project, there is a possibility of the release of contaminants to groundwater
during construction or during the operation of the new aviation facilities. However, project -
specific BMPs to be designed and implemented by the PTAH, construction contractor, and
tenants would prevent or minimize the potential release of contaminants into groundwater.
Based on average potable water usage rates for aircraft maintenance facilities and the potential
number of tenants/employees resulting from the Proposed Project, the demand for potable water
resulting from the Proposed Proejct was projected to be 445,000 gallons per day. The City of
Greensboro's water plants treat and deliver an average of about 32 million gallons per day to meet
local demand. The potential additional demand attributed to the Proposed Project would be 1.4
percent of the system's capacity. The projected increase in water consumption for the Proposed
Project can be accommodated by a relatively small increase in production rates at existing public
drinking water treatment facilities.
Based on average daily wastewater generation rates for industrial park land uses and the potential
number of tenants/employees for the two phases of the Proposed Project, the projected increase
in daily wastewater generation at GSO was estimated to be 409,500 gallons per day. Because the
City's wastewater treatment plants have excess treatment capacity, the plants will be able to
accommodate the projected increase in local wastewater generation associated with the Proposed
Project.
9 Stormwater BMPs are implemented as a way of treating or limiting pollutants and other damaging effects of stormwater runoff in
order to meet North Carolina Administrative Code requirements. The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources developed a manual to assist designers, developers, owners, contractors, and local officials in determining what
stormwater regulations apply to their situation, what the best stormwater BMP to meet those regulations might be, and how to
then design and maintain that particular stormwater BMP (DWQ, 2007). The NCDENR Manual includes a chapter entitled "BMP
Toolbox for Public Airports" that describes stormwater BMPs that are appropriate to public airports. The airport BMPs provide for
effective stormwater management while minimizing wildlife hazards.
S:\BD\Marketing\Wp_Wpro\12011299_ Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-62 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
4.14.2 Methodology
Applicable elements of federal, state, and local statutes and regulations regulating water resources and
water quality were reviewed for the analysis of potential water quality impacts10. The applicable statutes
and regulations establish water quality standards, control discharges and pollution sources, protect
drinking water systems, prevent/minimize the loss of wetlands, and protect aquifers.
Potential impacts to water quality were assessed based on the location, conceptual site layout plans, and
intended function of the Proposed Project. For comparative purposes, the effects of the No -Action
Alternative were also evaluated. The proposed disturbed areas and new impervious areas were analyzed
to evaluate the short-term construction and long-term operational impacts to surface waters and
groundwater. Increases in potable water consumption and wastewater generation were also considered
in regard to the capacity of existing water utility systems serving GSO.
4.14.3 Impacts
4.14.3.1 No -Action Alternative
Because the No -Action Alternative does not include site development and subsequent development of
new taxiways, airfield infrastructure, or industrial sites, the amount of impervious surface, construction
activities, potable water use, or wastewater discharge would not increase. Therefore, no consequent
impacts to surface water, groundwater, water supply, or waste water would occur under the No -Action
Alternative.
4.14.3.2 Near -Term Project (2015)
Surface Water Quality
The Near -Term Project would create approximately 511 acres of additional impervious surface at GS011
This includes approximately 445 acres of impervious surface in the Near -Term development area, 43
acres of impervious surface in the future aviation area, and approximately 23 acres of impervious surface
associated with taxiways, a rail spur, rail transfer facility, and access road. Potential surface water quality
concerns associated with the Near -Term Project consist of sediment transport and potential release of
pollutants during the construction phase and increased stormwater runoff volumes, and potential release
of pollutants following project completion.
Stormwater Treatment and Discharge — Because site requirements and the physical footprints of
potential tenants that may establish operations during development of the Near -Term Project are not fully
known at this time, only preliminary estimates can be made regarding changes in the amount of
impervious surface associated with the aviation -related industrial facilities. The projected maximum
10 Statutes, regulations and programs considered for the evaluation of water quality impacts in this EA included, but was not limited
to, the Clean Water Act; Federal Water Pollution Control Act; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; applicable NC
General Statutes regulating water resources and ecosystems; NC Water Supply Watershed Protection Program; and NC Jordan
Lake Water Supply Watershed Buffer Rules.
11 The projected amount of new impervious surface was derived from conceptual site layout plans and conceptual site build -out
assumptions (i.e., 90 percent impervious surface in aviation facility development areas). These impervious surface estimates are
subject to change based on site layout decisions, tenant needs, environmental factors, and other considerations that would be
addressed during the design process. The projected amount of impervious surface would likely be less than the amount
evaluated in this EA.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-63 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
amount of impervious surface, for both taxiways and new facilities, is approximately 511 acres. The
change in stormwater runoff from the proposed cross -field taxiway and the near-term aviation
development sites would be substantial when compared to the No -Action Alternative. However, run-off
from the additional impervious surfaces associated with the Near -Term Project can be attenuated and
treated adequately via new and/or expanded BMPs as described in the airport section of NCDENR's
Stormwater BMP Manual. It is anticipated that each tenant would be required by the PTAA to comply
with applicable stormwater attenuation and treatment requirements within their respective lease areas.
Alternatively, the site preparation design process may also result in the development of one or more
common use BMPs appropriately sized to accommodate projected runoff volumes. PTAA's Water Supply
Watershed Management and Protection Rules require engineered stormwater controls for new
development resulting in more than 5 acres of new impervious surfaces. These controls must remove, on
an average annual basis, at least 85 percent of total suspended solids. Under PTAA's Stormwater
Management Plan, the post development peak discharge from stormwater detention ponds must not
exceed the predevelopment peak discharge for any storm event up to and including the 10 -year storm.
Taxiways and other development that provide for overland stormwater flow are deemed to be permitted
under NGS 143-214.7 but only if these facilities promote infiltration and treatment of stormwater into
grassed buffers, shoulder grass swales. Due to the implementation of the required BMPs, the increase in
impervious surface resulting from the project should have no more than minimal effect on existing GSO
stormwater collection and treatment systems and would have minimal effect on water bodies and
wetlands.
The PTAA has a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to discharge
stormwater from areas at GSO that service and maintain aircraft, vehicles, equipment and conduct de-
icing operations. To comply with the conditions of the permit and protect water quality, the PTAA
implements an overall Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SPPP) and monitors stormwater discharge.
The SPPP includes a Stormwater Management Plan; a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures
Plan (SPCC); a Spill Prevention and Response Plan (SPRP); and other BMPs, such as "good
housekeeping" and employee training,
Because the capture and treatment of stormwater is largely an engineering exercise and because no
issues indicating a problem meeting state and local stormwater regulations were identified during early
agency coordination conducted for this EA, significant stormwater-related impacts are not expected.
Modification of existing water resource permits or the addition of new outfalls to PTAA's existing NPDES
permit would be required for the Proposed Project's Near -Term components. An individual NPDES
permit for construction activities (e.g., sediment and erosion control) would also be required for the
Proposed Project's Near -Term components.
BMPs designed for the Proposed Project would meet the requirements of FAA AC 150/5200-33B,
Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports, for maximum water detention periods and NCGS 143-
214.7.
Operational -Related Water Quality Impacts — From an operational standpoint, the Proposed Project's
Near -Term components would increase the potential to introduce new or higher levels of pollutants to
surface waters when compared to the No -Action Alternative. Although the Near -Term Project is not
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-64 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
expected to substantially increase the number of aircraft operations at GSO, there would be a change in
the use of taxiways and aircraft parking areas on the airfield. In addition, the Proposed Project would
introduce new activities, such as aircraft manufacturing, to new areas on the airfield.
In regard to aircraft taxiing and parking at new locations on the GSO airfield, taxiing aircraft are not a
substantial source of pollutants, such as oil and grease, on airfield pavements. As noted above,
stormwater from the taxiways and aircraft parking aprons would be captured and treated in accordance
with state and local regulations, GSO's water quality permits, and other applicable water protection rules
and protocols. The new graded surfaces adjoining taxiways would be grassed and maintained in
mowable condition, which would assist in stormwater overland flow detention and aid in pollutant filtering
and uptake processes12.
Stormwater runoff from aircraft parking aprons would be appropriately attenuated and/or treated using
suitable Best Management Practices (BMPs) developed for each individual aviation site or conveyed to
new communal BMPs. BMPs would be designed and operated in accordance with applicable state and
local regulations in regard to attenuation and treatment. Aircraft deicing activities, if needed, would be
conducted at locations within the development site that would be designed to comply with applicable
requirements.
The discharge of "airport industrial facility" stormwater runoff to surface water bodies at or adjacent to
GSO is controlled by the airport's NPDES Permit to Discharge Stormwater. Receiving waters include
Brush Creek, East Fork Deep River, and Horsepen Creek and their tributaries in the Cape Fear River
Basin. The NPDES permit requires quarterly monitoring at stormwater discharge points found throughout
the airport and monitoring after a set number of de-icing events. The permit also requires that GSO
maintain and implement a SPPP, Stormwater Management Plan, Spill Prevention and Response Plan,
and BMPs to minimize the potential for industrial aviation activities to negatively impact stormwater runoff.
Notably, water quality in segments of Brush Creek and East Fork of Deep River located within the DSA
are designated as "impaired" by the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (DWR). A 2012 NC
Integrated Impaired Waters List denotes Brush Creek as Reporting Category 5, where a pollutant(s)
impairs the water and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is required (NCDENR, 2012). The segment of
Brush Creek has impaired ecological and biological conditions influenced by non -point pollution sources,
habitat degradation, sedimentation, and changes in watershed hydrology.
Because new aviation -related industrial development would be required to implement SPPP, Stormwater
Management Plans, Spill Prevention and Response Plans, Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasures Plan, and implements BMPs, the potential for substantial operational water quality
impacts associated with the Near -Term Project is considered to be low. This is evidenced by the fact that
GSO does not have a history of noncompliance in regard to meeting water quality standards from its
operational areas.
12 North Carolina General Statutes 143-214.7(c4) deems runways, taxiways, and any other areas that provide for overland
stormwater flow that promote infiltration and treatment of stormwater into grassed buffers, shoulders, and grass swales permitted
pursuant to the State post -construction stormwater requirements.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-65 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
Summary — Based on the ability of the PTAA and/or the prospective aviation -related industrial tenants to
design and implement stormwater conveyance and treatment systems that meet applicable state and
local requirements, stormwater discharges associated with the Near -Term Project are not expected
exceed applicable water quality standards. In addition, the Near -Term Project is not expected to
contribute to or further degrade water quality and habitat found in impaired stream segments on or
adjacent to GSO. Therefore, the characteristics of stormwater discharges are not expected to be
substantially different when compared to the No -Action Alternative. No substantial impacts to surface
water quality resulting from operational activities are anticipated.
Construction -Related Water Quality Impacts
It is anticipated that up to 725 acres of land would be disturbed by clearing, grading, and construction
activities associated with the Near -Term Project, including construction of rail facilities providing access to
the aviation -related development site. Construction activities are expected to include excavation and fill,
site preparation, drainage modifications, and installation of utilities. These construction activities can
cause erosion, increased turbidity in water bodies, and sedimentation. Since these activities would also
involve the use of vehicles and equipment, fuels and lubricants, and the storage of construction materials,
there is a risk of release or spills of construction -related hazardous materials or petroleum substances.
In this regard, the Near -Term Project has the potential to exceed applicable state water quality
standards 13. This potential exists as areas of disturbed land would be exposed to rainfall which could
result in stormwater discharges with suspended solids and sediment transport in excess of applicable
water quality standards. Turbidity and sedimentation have the potential to adversely affect water quality,
aquatic organisms, and benthic habitats. The site development construction phase is also expected to
involve the use of fuels, lubricants, solvents, and other materials during construction. A release, spill, or
improper storage would have the potential to introduce these materials and substances into surface
waters in excess of state water quality standards.
However, measures to minimize erosion and sedimentation and maintain water quality throughout the
construction phase are available and would be implemented for the Near -Term Project. These include
project -specific design measures and BMPs designed to prevent a project from exceeding applicable
water quality standards. BMPs generally fall into two categories, structural and non-structural. Structural
BMPs are devices or features that minimize the introduction of pollutants (i.e., suspended solids) and help
remove pollutants from stormwater runoff before being discharged from the project site. Non-structural
BMPs are measures that reduce the generation or accumulation of pollutants and are sometimes referred
to as "source controls." BMPs and construction -related control measures would be specifically designed
to minimize water quality impacts during construction of the Near -Term Project and would be incorporated
into the erosion and sedimentation control plans that are required by the North Carolina Division of Land
Resources for the project as a condition for NPDES construction permits. The development of BMPs for
the Proposed Project would incorporate regionally -accepted methods and practices for stormwater
discharges. Land development and construction guidance provided in FAA AC 150/5370.1 OF, Standards
for Specifying the Construction of Airports, would also be incorporated into the project plans and
13 As promulgated in NCAC, Title 15A — Environmental and Natural Resources, Subchapter 213 — Surface Water and Wetland
Standards
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-66 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
specifications to reduce potential for erosion and minimize construction -related impacts. Specific
measures and practices that may be implemented are discussed below.
Design Measures — The final design would consider, and include design measures as appropriate, to
minimize erosion potential and sediment transport. Measures may include, but not be limited to,
maintaining gentle slopes that promote sheet flow and minimizing the limits of construction to reduce
exposed land.
Construction Sequencing and Erosion Control Measures — Construction sequencing and phasing
would be specified in the Proposed Project's final design plan. Construction sequencing is an effective
method to minimize erosion by reducing the amount of exposed land at any one time. In addition to
construction sequencing, erosion control measures further reduce the potential to exceed water quality
standards. These measures consist of reducing erosive effects of rain on exposed soils through the use
of temporary and permanent soil stabilization measures, stabilizing slopes, and re-establishing vegetation
to stabilize disturbed areas and reduce stormwater flow velocities. Common erosion control measures
that may be used during construction of the proposed Near -Term Project include mulching, sodding,
and/or seeding to stabilize exposed soils and establish ground cover. Construction would incorporate
construction sequencing and erosion control measures, as appropriate, to minimize exposed land and
erosion.
Structural Controls to Minimize Sediment Transport — The use of structural controls during
construction to minimize erosion and sediment transport would be further detailed in the final design plan.
Potential water quality impacts may be minimized through the use of structural controls that reduce
stormwater velocities and allow settling of solids. Structural controls may include, but not necessarily be
limited to: staked hay bales, silt fences, and floating baffles in adjacent water bodies. The Near -Term
Project would include the use of structural controls, as appropriate, to minimize erosion and sediment
transport.
Pollution Prevention and Control — Project -specific pollution prevention and waste management plans
would also be developed and implemented by the contractor to provide an effective means to address the
storage, handling, and disposal of fuels, lubricants, and other materials used in the construction of the
Near -Term Project. This may include, but not be limited to, implementing a construction -phase SPPP,
Solid Waste Management Plan, and SPCC. In addition, the contractor would be required to comply with
federal, state, and local hazardous materials/waste management regulations to assure proper
management of hazardous and other special waste streams for the Proposed Project.
Collectively, these erosion control measures, BMPs, and pollution prevention plans would be expected to
preclude substantial construction -related water quality impacts and any significant potential for the Near -
Term components of the Proposed Project to exceed applicable water quality standards.
Groundwater
Under the Near -Term Project, the potential for operational impacts to groundwater resources is
considered to be negligible. There is a possibility of the release of contaminants to groundwater during
construction or operation of the new aviation facilities. However, project -specific BMPs and SPPPs to be
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-67 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
designed and implemented by the PTAA, construction contractor, and tenants would prevent or minimize
the potential release of contaminants into groundwater. The BMPs and SPPPs would require measures
to prevent spills, provide swift response to accidental spills, and define acceptable on-site storage of fuel
and lubricants. Given the availability of regionally -accepted BMPs and the design of project -specific
plans, the Proposed Project would not have a substantial impact on groundwater resources.
Water Supply
The types of tenants expected to occupy the site include aerospace manufacturers, aircraft parts
manufacturers, and other similar aviation -related businesses. These types of operations do not usually
have high water demands and do not involve water -intensive industrial processes. However, the potential
aviation -related industrial development associated with the Near -Term Project would result in an increase
in the use of potable water at GSO. The increased demand for water would primarily result from new
water consumption by employees.
Based on average potable water usage rates for aircraft maintenance facilities and the potential number
of tenants/employees in the Near -Term Project area, the demand for potable water was projected to be
approximately 350,000 gallons per day. This was estimated using a rate of 35 gallons per day per
employee times approximately 10,000 employees. The City of Greensboro's water plants treat and
deliver an average of about 32 million gallons per day (City of Greensboro, 2013), based on demand.
The increase in demand attributed to the Proposed Project's Near -Term Project is approximately
1.1 percent of the City's water production capacity. The projected increase in water consumption for the
Near -Term Project can be accommodated by an increase in production rates at existing public drinking
water treatment facilities. Therefore, the Near -Term Project would not have a significant impact on public
drinking water resources or supplies.
The development of aviation -related industrial facilities would require the installation of water utilities with
the capacity and pressure to meet local fire protection code requirements. This would entail sizing water
mains to handle daily potable water consumption and fire protection flows or installation of separate fire
protection systems. In either case, water consumption related to fire protection systems would result from
periodic system testing and use when responding to fires. In the latter case, it is not possible to predict
the frequency of such events or the amount of water consumed.
Wastewater
Potential aviation -related industrial development associated with the Proposed Project Near -Term Project
would result in increased amounts of process wastewater and sanitary wastewater generated at GSO.
Based on average daily wastewater generation rates for industrial park land uses and the potential
number of tenants/employees in the Near -Term Project area, the projected increase in daily wastewater
generation was estimated to be 315,000 gallons per day (90 percent of water demand). Because the
City's wastewater treatment plants operate at approximately 46 percent of total treatment capacity, the
plants have sufficient capacity to accommodate the projected increase in local wastewater generation
associated with the Near -Term Project. Therefore, the wastewater generated by the proposed Near -Term
Project would not have a significant impact.
S:\BD\Marketing\Wp_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-68 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
4.14.3.3 Long -Term Project (2020)
Surface Water Quality
In 2020, the Long -Term components of the Proposed Project could result in approximately 299 acres of
additional impervious surface at GSO. This includes approximately 272 acres of impervious surface in
the Long -Term development area and approximately 27 acres of impervious surface associated with the
proposed parallel taxiway system. Potential surface water quality concerns associated with the Long -
Term Project consist of sediment transport and potential release of pollutants during the construction
phase and increased stormwater runoff volumes following project completion. The stormwater
attenuation and treatment measures discussed for the Near -Term Project (see Section 4.14.3.2) would
also be implemented for the Long -Term Project development area and parallel taxiway. For the same
reasons stated for the Near -Term Project, substantial adverse water quality impacts associated with
increased stormwater runoff and changes in airport operations would not occur with the implementation of
the Proposed Project.
Construction -Related Water Quality Impacts
Construction activities associated with the Long -Term Project are expected to be similar to that
undertaken for the Near -Term Project. Approximately 407 acres of land are projected to be disturbed by
construction activities associated with the Long -Term Project.
The construction -related water impacts associated with the construction of the Long -Term Project would
be similar to that discussed for the Near -Term Project in Section 4.14.3.2. If the area were developed
over time, presumably by several tenants, construction -related impacts would not be concentrated in
time. Many of the same structural and non-structural BMPs implemented to protect water quality during
construction would be implemented. For the same reasons stated for the Near -Term Project, substantial
adverse water quality impacts associated with construction activities would not occur with the
implementation of the Long -Term Project.
Groundwater
Similar to the Near -Term Project, the Long -Term Project's potential for operational impacts to
groundwater resources is considered to be negligible and project -specific BMPs and SPPPs would
prevent or minimize the potential release of contaminants into groundwater. Given the availability of
regionally -accepted BMPs and the design of project -specific plans, the Long -Term components of the
Proposed Project would not have a substantial impact on groundwater resources.
Water Su
The potential aviation -related industrial development associated with the Long -Term Project would result
in an increase in the use of potable water at GSO over and above that associated with the Near -Term
Project. Similar to the Near -Term Project, the increased demand for water would result from new
aviation -related companies at the airport and water consumption by their employees. Based on average
potable water usage rates for aircraft maintenance facilities and the potential number of
tenants/employees in the Long -Term Project's development area, the additional demand for potable
water was projected to be 105,000 gallons per day. This was estimated using a rate of 35 gallons per
day per employee times 3,000 (approximate) additional employees. The City of Greensboro's water
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-69 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
plants treat and deliver an average of about 32 million gallons per day to meet local demand. The
potential additional demand attributed to the Long -Term components of the Proposed Project would be
0.3 percent of the present daily production. This increase could be accommodated within present
production rates or with a minimal increase in production. No substantial impact is anticipated. Similar to
that discussed in Section 4.14.3.2, the aviation -related industrial facilities would require the installation of
water utilities with the capacity and pressure to meet local fire protection code requirements. This would
entail sizing water mains to handle daily potable water consumption and fire protection flows or
installation of separate fire protection systems. In either case, water consumption related to fire
protection systems would result from periodic system testing and use when responding to fires. In the
latter case, it is not possible to predict the frequency of such events or the amount of water consumed.
Wastewater
Potential aviation -related industrial development associated with the proposed Long -Term Project would
result in increased amounts of process wastewater and sanitary wastewater generated at GSO. Based
on average daily wastewater generation rates for industrial park land uses and the potential number of
tenants/employees for the Long -Term components of the Proposed Project, the projected increase in
daily wastewater generation was estimated to be 94,500 gallons per day. The local wastewater treatment
plants have capacity to accommodate this increase; therefore the increase in wastewater associated with
the Long -Term Project would not have a substantial impact.
4.14.3.4 Proposed Project (Full Build -Out)
The Proposed Project's full build -out includes the 2015 Near -Term Project facilities evaluated previously
in Section 4.14.3.2 plus the Long -Term components of the Proposed Project. As a result, the total
acreage of impervious surface created as a result of the Proposed Project would total approximately 810
acres. Overall, the Proposed Project would disturb up to 1,132 acres of land during construction. As
discussed previously in this section, implementation of BMPs would avoid substantial adverse water
quality impacts that could occur from construction -phase activities and the resulting increased stormwater
runoff and changes in airport operations associated with the full build -out of the Proposed Project.
In total, the Proposed Project, including both the Near -Term and Long -Term components, would increase
the local demand for potable water by 455,000 gallons per day by 2020. This represents 1.4 percent of
present daily production. The projected increase in water consumption for the full build -out could be
accommodated by a relatively small increase in production rates at existing public drinking water
treatment facilities. Therefore, the full build -out of the Proposed Project would not have a significant
impact on public drinking water resources or supplies.
The full build -out of the Proposed Project would generate approximately 409,500 gallons of wastewater
per day. Because the City's wastewater treatment plants are reported to have excess treatment capacity,
the plants will be able to accommodate the projected increase in local wastewater generation associated
with the Proposed Project.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-70 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
4.14.4 Cumulative Effects
Past and present residential, commercial, and industrial development in the vicinity of GSO has
contributed to water quality impacts on surface water bodies. The 1-73 Connector and other reasonably
foreseeable development projects could also result in temporary and permanent impacts to water quality
and potentially exceed applicable water quality standards. Temporary impacts may result from land
clearing, site disturbance, and grading associated with construction activities. Temporary construction
impacts could be minimized through use of project -specific BMPs and applicable federal, state, and local
construction mitigation guidelines. Permanent water quality impacts could result from stormwater runoff
from newly constructed impervious surfaces. Each development project would be expected to comply
with applicable state regulations that require on-site attenuation and treatment of stormwater. Because
land in the immediate vicinity of GSO is largely built -out, the potential of the development project to
substantially increase stormwater discharges and generate considerable impacts is considered low. In
summary, the cumulative development projects have potential to generate water quality impacts.
However, it is expected that existing programs, policies, and regulatory requirements would prevent
and/or minimize the potential water quality impacts to a level below a substantial impact. The limited
water quality impacts and minor increase in impervious surface of the Proposed Project, when compared
to potential impacts of other development projects, are not expected to lead to substantial cumulative
water quality impacts.
4.14.5 Comparison of Significant Impact Thresholds
FAA Order 1050.1E states that if the EA and early consultation show that there is a potential for
exceeding water quality standards, identify water quality problems that cannot be avoided or satisfactorily
mitigated or indicate difficulties in obtaining required permits, an EIS may be required. This statement
provides a threshold that can be used to determine if the potential impacts associated with the Proposed
Project would be considered significant or not.
Measures to maintain water quality are available and would be implemented by the PTAA and tenants to
minimize construction and operational impacts. These measures include project -specific design
measures, BMPs, and pollution -control plans designed to prevent a project from exceeding applicable
water -quality standards. The public drinking water supplies and wastewater treatment systems would
accommodate increases in water resource demands associated with the development of the project site.
Given the nature of the Proposed Project, it is expected that water quality standards would not be
exceeded.
Early coordination of the Proposed Project with federal, state, and local regulatory agencies was
conducted at the outset of this EA. The early coordination effort did not identify any specific water quality
concerns which could not be avoided or mitigated or indicate issues regarding the ability of PTAA or its
tenants to obtain necessary permits.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-71 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
4.14.6 Mitigation
In consideration of the above information, the Proposed Project is not expected to exceed thresholds
indicating a significant impact. Because no significant water quality impacts are anticipated, no mitigation
measures are proposed.
4.15 WETLANDS
4.15.1 Overview of Impacts
The No -Action Alternative will not impact wetlands. The Near -Term Proposed Project could
impact up to 6.7 acres of open water, 2,084 linear feet of intermittent streams, 7,051 linear feet of
perennial streams, and 1.2 acres of forested wetlands. The Long -Term Proposed Project could
impact up to an additional 7,606 linear feet of perennial streams, 1,573 linear feet of intermittent
streams, and 2.5 acres of forested wetlands.
The overall Proposed Project, including both Near -Term and Long -Term components, would
impact up to 14,657 linear feet of perennial streams, 3,657 linear feet of intermittent streams, 6.7
acres of open water, and 3.7 acres of forested wetlands. Mitigation for unavoidable jurisdictional
stream and wetland impacts would be accomplished through participation in wetland mitigation
banks and stream mitigation programs operated by the State of North Carolina
4.15.2 Methodology
Waters of the United States, including wetlands, in the DSA were delineated in 2012 and the jurisdictional
status and boundaries were verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in 2013 (SAW -2012-
01547). The area in which the jurisdictional determination was conducted covers a majority, but not all, of
the DSA. The portions of the DSA not subject to the jurisdictional determination include the land
associated with providing rail access to the development site. This area was reviewed for the presence of
jurisdictional waters and wetlands using reasonably available information, including past environmental
studies at GSO, aerial photographs, and FWS Nationwide Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps. The wetland
boundaries were compared to the Proposed Project's site boundary to determine the amount of wetlands
within the areas subject to site development.
4.15.3 Impacts
The PTAA and its prospective tenants would generally seek to avoid wetlands and streams as sites in the
study area are developed. The PTAA and its tenants would also be required under federal and state
water resource permit programs to avoid and minimize wetland and water body impacts whenever
possible. Because the site development needs of prospective tenants are not fully known at this time,
and for purposes of disclosing potential impacts in this EA, it was assumed that all wetlands on the
development site could potentially be affected by the Proposed Project. Permitting agencies including the
USACE will require mitigation for unavoidable impacts.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-72 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
4.15.3.1 No -Action Alternative
The No -Action Alternative will not result in construction of any the improvements associated with the
Proposed Project. The No -Action Alternative would not impact wetlands.
4.15.3.2 Near -Term Project (2015)
The Near -Term Project could result in impacts of up to 6.7 acres of open water; 2,084 linear feet of
intermittent streams, 7,051 linear feet of perennial streams, and 1.2 acres of forested wetlands. The open
water areas consist of the ponds located on the Pleasant Ridge Golf Course, which is presently owned by
PTAH. These ponds, which are jurisdictional `other waters," are included in the calculation of project
impacts, but impact to these ponds should not require mitigation.
Approximately 18 acres of open water and forested and emergent wetlands, and 26,991 linear feet of
intermittent and perennial streams are located within the DSA. The largest intact areas of forested
wetlands are located in the eastern portion of the DSA, north of Joseph M. Bryant Boulevard. These
forested wetlands are not included in the area to be developed and would not be impacted. This wetland
area, streams, and associated conservation easement were dedicated as partial wetland, stream, and
buffer mitigation for impacts from the "FedEx Project" (Runway 5L/23R, proposed new overnight express
air cargo sorting and distribution facility, and associated developments) previously permitted under
Individual 404 Permit (Corps Action ID SAW -2000-21655, 12/08/2003) and related 401 Water Quality
Certification (DWR File 00-0846, 11/10/2003).
As explained in Chapter 1.0, the Near -Term Project includes the construction of a cross field taxiway
linking the existing airfield with the Near -Development area on the north side of the future Interstate 73.
The taxiway will cross the highway over a taxiway bridge. The proposed alignment for the cross field
taxiway is shown on Figure 1.2-2. This alignment would cross a stream, with impacts to both perennial
and intermittent stream segments of the south side of the Interstate. An analysis has been performed to
determine if there are any alternatives to the proposed alignment that would have fewer impacts to this
stream and its adjacent buffers, while at the same time meeting FAA design criteria and the required
clearance of the taxiway bridge above the highway. This analysis concludes that there are no practicable
alternatives that would reduce the impacts. The taxiway alternatives analysis is attached to this EA as
Appendix E.
4.15.3.3 Long -Term Project (2020)
The Long -Term components of the Proposed Project could impact (up to) an additional 7,606 linear feet
of perennial streams, 1,573 linear feet of intermittent streams, and 2.5 acres of forested wetlands. The
majority of the affected intermittent and perennial streams are unnamed tributaries to Brush Creek. The
majority of the wetlands are located within the riparian floodplain of these tributaries.
4.15.3.4 Proposed Project (Full Build -Out)
Full build -out of the Proposed Project, which includes both the Near -Term and Long -Term Projects, could
impact up to 14,657 linear feet of perennial streams, 3,657 linear feet of intermittent streams, 6.7 acres of
open water, and 3.7 acres of forested wetlands. The Proposed project would require permits from the
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-73 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
USACE pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Water Quality Certification 14 by the North
Carolina DWR under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
4.15.4 Cumulative Effects
The proposed NCDOT 1-73 Connector will connect NC 68 and Bryan Boulevard, west of the Greensboro
Western Loop (Future 1-840/1-73) with a new 1.6 -mile, four -lane divided freeway. The proposed
alignment bisects the Proposed Project site development area. According to the EA prepared for the
road project by NCDOT in March 2012, the proposed connector freeway will impact approximately 470
linear feet of intermittent and perennial streams, 0.3 acre of open water and less than 0.1 acre of other
wetlands.
While past and present development projects on and in the vicinity of GSO have resulted in a
considerable modification to the existing landscape and a reduction in wetlands, reasonably foreseeable
projects are not expected to generate substantial changes in natural habitats or result in an appreciable
further reduction in wetlands. Potential additional residential, commercial, and transportation
developments could result in additional impacts to wetlands; however, the net effect of these projects is
expected to be minimal and mitigation for these impacts would be required by both state and federal
agencies. Required mitigation would off -set these impacts and result in minimal to no overall impact to
wetlands. The wetland and stream impacts associated with the Proposed Project, when considered with
past, present and reasonably foreseeable wetland impacts, is not expected to lead to substantial
cumulative wetland impacts.
4.15.5 Comparison to Significant Impact Thresholds
As noted previously, the site development needs of prospective tenants are not fully known at this time.
The PTAA and prospective tenants will be required to obtain permits and provide mitigation for
unavoidable wetland impacts associated with the implementation of the Proposed Project. An USACE
Section 404 permit will require that applicants demonstrate avoidance and minimization of wetland
impacts for each specific project, and provide suitable mitigation to offset adverse effects of any
unavoidable wetland impacts. Potential compensatory mitigation strategies to offset wetland, stream, and
stream buffer impacts include purchasing credits from a private mitigation bank or the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) in -lieu fee mitigation program, or permittee -responsible
creating/restoring wetlands and streams.
Stormwater controls required by PTAA's Water Supply Watershed Management and Protection Rules will
minimize impacts to water quality. The DWR 401 Water Quality Certification required prior to construction
will require mitigation if warranted. Based on these considerations, it is anticipated that potential impacts
to the stream channel, and wetlands associated with the Proposed Project would not exceed significant
threshold impacts.
14 The DWR (Division of Water Resources) is the state agency responsible for issuing 401 water quality certifications (WQC), which
are required for any federally -permitted or licensed activity that result in a discharge to Waters of the U.S. When the state issues
a 401 certification it certifies that a given project will not degrade waters or violate state water quality standards.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-74 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
In regards to the impact thresholds identified in FAA Order 1050.1E, the following statements can be
made based on the avoidance and minimization requirements that will apply to the Proposed Project and
expected mitigation of any unavoidable impacts:
• The Proposed Project would not adversely affect the function of wetlands to protect the
quality or quantity of municipal water supplies, including sole source, potable water
aquifers.
• The Proposed Project would not alter the hydrology needed to sustain the functions and
values of wetlands to which they are connected.
• The Proposed Project would not substantially reduce the ability of wetlands at GSO or in
the vicinity of the Proposed Project to retain floodwaters or storm -associated run-off.
Therefore, threats to public health, safety, and welfare are not expected.
• The Proposed Project would not adversely affect the maintenance of natural systems that
support wildlife and fish habitat or economically -important timber, food, or fiber resources
in the affected or surrounding wetlands.
• The Proposed Project would not promote development of secondary activities or services
that would impact Waters of the U.S. or wetlands.
• The Proposed Project would be consistent with applicable state wetland strategies.
Pursuant to federal and state wetlands regulations, impacts to wetlands would be
avoided to the greatest extent practicable and for those impacts which could not be
avoided, they would be minimized.
Therefore, wetland impacts associated with the Proposed Project would not appear to exceed significant
threshold impacts.
4.15.6 Mitigation
Proposed mitigation for unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional streams and wetlands would be
accomplished through participation in wetland mitigation banks and stream mitigation programs operated
by the North Carolina DWR. See Section 5.0, Mitigation, for more information.
4.16 NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY SUPPLY
4.16.1 Overview of Impacts
The No -Action Alternative will not result in a change in energy demands at GSO. The
development of aerospace and aviation -related industries facilitated by the Proposed Project
would increase the demand for energy, primarily electric power, at GSO. There are no known
issues related to local energy suppliers meeting this increased demand for electric power.
4.16.2 Methodology
A conceptual estimate of peak electric power demand was made for the Proposed Project. This was
compared to the availability and capacity of local electric power providers.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-75 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
4.16.3 Impacts
4.16.3.1 No -Action Alternative
The No -Action Alternative would not affect any natural resources or change energy demands at GSO.
4.16.3.2 Proposed Project (2015)
There are no known natural resources within the DSA that are unusual in nature or are in short supply.
The development of aerospace and aviation -related industries would increase the demand for energy at
GSO, including electric power and natural gas. However, at this time it is not possible to accurately
predict the actual near-term demand for the types and amounts of energy required by prospective
tenants.
The development of aerospace and aviation -related facilities at GSO is expected to center around aircraft
and aircraft parts manufacturing and aircraft maintenance, repair and overhaul. The facilities would
typically include large manufacturing buildings or hangars that require lighting, air conditioning, and power
for office equipment and specialized production equipment. Duke Energy, the electric power supplier to
GSO, has a network of power generation plants, substations, and distribution lines capable of serving
existing and prospective tenants at GSO. The existing infrastructure serving GSO is sized to
accommodate the terminal buildings, aircraft maintenance facilities, air cargo facilities, and other large
facilities operating at the airport. As the Proposed Project site is developed and prospective tenants are
identified, the tenant(s), PTAH, and economic development agencies would help coordinate electric and
gas power needs with utility companies and energy suppliers. Based on the specific demands of
prospective tenants, existing electric service infrastructure in the vicinity of GSO may need to be
upgraded or augmented (i.e., additional substations). At this time there are no known issues related to
local energy suppliers meeting the increased demand.
Overall, there is sufficient capacity to meet the projected increased energy demand and energy suppliers
are expected to accommodate the increased demand. No substantial energy-related impacts are
expected with the implementation of the Near -Term Project.
4.16.3.3 Proposed Project (2020)
The Long -Term Project would support the development of additional aviation -related industries at GSO,
which, in turn, would increase the demand for energy. For the same reasons discussed above, no
substantial energy-related impacts are expected with the implementation of the Near -Term Project.
4.16.3.4 Proposed Project (Full Build -Out)
By 2024, the PTAA projected a possible increase in peak electric energy demand of 20.25 MW by
aerospace and aviation -related industries accommodated by the Proposed Project at full -build -out. As
noted above, energy demands would be determined as each tenant plans and develops their facilities.
Although it is possible that a single, large tenant approaches the PTAA for facility development, it is
assumed that energy demands, and any infrastructure upgrades necessary to meet the demands, would
take place over time. Overall, there is sufficient capacity to meet the projected increased energy demand
S:\BD\Marketing\Wp_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-76 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
and energy suppliers are expected to be able to accommodate the increased demand. No substantial
energy-related impacts are expected with the implementation of the Near -Term Project.
4.16.4 Cumulative Effects
While past and present development projects on and in the vicinity of GSO have resulted in an increase
in energy demand, reasonably foreseeable projects are not expected to generate substantial increases in
power demand in the vicinity of GSO. Potential new residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation
developments could result in additional energy demand; however, the net effect is expected to be minimal
because the area immediately surrounding GSO is developed with relatively few open areas available for
development. Therefore, the substantial energy demands associated with the Proposed Project, when
considered with past, present and reasonably foreseeable development projects, are not expected to lead
to substantial cumulative energy-related impacts.
4.16.5 Comparison to Significant Impact Thresholds
Although a threshold has not been specifically identified by the FAA, it was determined that the Proposed
Project would not have a significant impact on natural resources and energy supplies. The existing
infrastructure serving GSO is sized to accommodate large facilities and could accommodate the
additional facilities that the Proposed Project is intended to support. As typically done for new facility
development, the existing energy supply infrastructure at GSO (or portions thereof) would be upgraded to
meet the demand of new tenants.
4.16.6 Mitigation
No mitigation is required.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 4.docx 4-77 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 5.0
MITMATIM]
5.1 INTRODUCTION
DRAFT
Although the Proposed Project would not result in significant environmental impacts, the following
sections describe mitigation measures anticipated to be required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) and the State of North Carolina [through its Division of Water Resources (DWR)] related to
potential wetland and stream impacts, as well as mitigation measures for residential and business
relocations, and floodplain impacts. Other voluntary mitigation measures that would serve to reduce non-
significant environmental impacts are discussed in the Air Quality, Construction Impacts, and Water
Quality sections in Chapter 4.0 of this Environmental Assessment (EA).
5.2 MITIGATION FOR UNAVOIDABLE WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS
The Proposed Project could impact up to 14,656 linear feet of perennial streams, 3,657 linear feet of
intermittent streams, 6.7 acres of open water, and 3.7 acres of forested wetlands. The intermittent and
perennial streams are unnamed tributaries to Brush Creek and East Fork Deep River. The affected
wetlands are located within the riparian floodplain of the Brush Creek tributaries. The areas of open
water are associated with the ponds located within the Pleasant Ridge Golf Course and are jurisdictional
"other waters" included in the calculation of project impacts. However, impacts to these ponds should not
require mitigation.
The Proposed Project would require permits from the USACE pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act and Water Quality Certification' by the North Carolina DWR under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. Permit applications would need to demonstrate that: 1) unnecessary wetland impacts were avoided
and 2) that unavoidable impacts were minimized. After these two steps are satisfied, mitigation can be
evaluated for unavoidable impacts. As the site is improved by the PTAA and subsequently developed by
prospective tenants, avoidance and minimization would be considerations during site design and
permitting phases.
As discussed in Section 4.15 of this EA, the site development needs of prospective tenants are not fully
known at this time. Therefore the consideration of possible mitigation requirements and measures
assumed that all wetlands and streams on the development site could potentially be affected by the
Proposed Project. Mitigation options available for unavoidable impacts associated with the Proposed
Project include:
• Purchasing mitigation credits from an approved mitigation bank.
The North Carolina DWR is the state agency responsible for issuing 401 water quality certifications (WQC). When the state
issues a 401 certification (which is required for any federally -permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters
of the U.S.), this certifies that a given project will not degrade Waters of the State or violate state water quality standards.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 5.docx 5-1 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
• Purchasing mitigation credits through the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP)2.
• The applicant creating and/or restoring wetlands and streams either at the project site or
at an off-site location.
The PTAA has unused program credits that can be applied towards mitigation for stream and wetland
impacts associated with the Proposed Project. If necessary, the PTAA would purchase additional
mitigation credits to satisfy any remaining mitigation requirements through the NCEEP. Credits are
presently available through the NCEEP program and the State of North Carolina is continuing to develop
new mitigation and watershed projects that would provide additional credit availability. The PTAH,
through the permit application process, will work closely with the USACE and DWR to identify mitigation
requirements for initial site preparation activities undertaken by the PTAH. Subsequent site development
needs of prospective tenants would be subject to separate permit processes and mitigation requirements,
as needed. Impacts and mitigation credit requirements would be determined during the Proposed
Project's project design phase and permit application process and during any subsequent site
development projects that would affect wetlands and/or streams.
If for some reason participation in a mitigation bank or NCEEP is limited or not possible (i.e., credits are
not available at the time of the permit application), the PTAA would develop an individual mitigation plan.
This plan may include, but not be limited to, the creation and/or restoration of wetlands and streams
within the affected watershed basin. This could be accomplished on public property in cooperation with
local governments or on (off -airport) property purchased by the PTAA for the purpose of implementing the
required mitigation.
5.3 MITIGATION FOR RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS RELOCATIONS
To mitigate the potential social impacts of the land acquisition requirements associated with the Proposed
Project, the PTAA will conduct all land acquisition activities and provide all relocation services in
compliance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970,
as amended (Uniform Act), Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 24, as amended, and in
conformance with applicable Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) policies and procedures. FAA
policies and procedures are contained in FAA Order 5100.37B, Land Acquisition and Relocation
Assistance for Airport Projects and FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5100-17, Land Acquisition and
Relocation Assistance for Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Assisted Projects.
5.4 MITIGATION FOR UNAVOIDABLE FLOODPLAIN IMPACTS
The Proposed Project could impact up to 17.8 acres of 100 -year floodplains, which includes 1.0 acre of
floodway. The Proposed Project would require mitigation for unavoidable floodplain and floodway
impacts. Commonly -accepted measures include, but may not necessarily be limited to:
2 NCEEP is a mitigation program designed to restore and protect North Carolina's natural resources while supporting responsible
economic development. The multi -agency initiative restores streams, wetlands, and riparian buffers where the need is greatest.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 5.docx 5-2 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
• Stormwater Detention Mitigation — includes measures to offset the amount of
additional storm runoff from a site due to the increase in the amount of impervious cover
on the ground.
• Fill Mitigation — includes measures to offset the amount of fill material brought on to a
site in the floodplain. This may include, but not be limited to, the creation of new
floodplain compensation areas (i.e., landscaped low areas or ponds).
• Floodway Conveyance Offset Volume — includes measures to offset the potential loss
of conveyance in the floodway due to new construction on vacant land. This may
include, but not be limited to, the use of appropriately sized culverts and pipes.
Because the PTAA cannot predict accurately the type, size, and layout of facilities required by
prospective tenants at this time, it is not possible to fully define mitigation requirements and measures
necessary to offset floodplain impacts. The PTAA and prospective tenants will evaluate site development
plans throughout the planning and design stages to identify unavoidable floodplain impacts, coordinate
those efforts with local flood management officials, and develop mitigation measures consistent with local
regulations, ordinances, and practices.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 5.docx 5-3 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
CHAPTER 6.0
COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Agency coordination and a public involvement program were implemented to ensure information
regarding the proposed airport development and potential environmental impact is made available to the
general public and public agencies and that input from interested parties is received and considered. The
primary components of the agency and public participation program for this Environmental Assessment
(EA) include:
• Early agency coordination during the development of the Draft EA,
• Publication of the Draft EA for public and public agency review,
• Public Workshop/Public Hearing, and
• Public notice of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) decision of whether to issue
a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS).
The following summarizes the public involvement and review process.
6.2 EARLY AGENCY COORDINATION
Federal, state, and local agencies and local governments were contacted to inform the agencies that an
EA was to be prepared, to provide information on the Proposed Project, and to solicit information and
preliminary comments. Coordination was conducted for environmental issues having greatest potential
for impact and with agencies having specific regulatory authority. A copy of the early coordination letter,
a list of recipients, and copies of response letters received during this early coordination phase are
contained in Appendix A-1.
6.3 AGENCY COORDINATION MEETING
An agency coordination meeting was held on August 12, 2013 at the Airport to present the Proposed
Project, a conceptual building development plan, and to answer questions and solicit comments from the
represented agencies. A brief slide presentation was made to familiarize attendees with the Proposed
Project. A question and answer session followed the presentation. Appendix A-2 includes meeting
materials including a list of attendees, printout of the Microsoft PowerPoint slide presentation, and a
summary of meeting minutes.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 6.doc 6-1 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
6.4 DRAFT EA AVAILABILITY FOR REVIEW
This Draft EA will be available for review by the general public and interested parties from December 6,
2014 through January 19, 2015. Notification of the document's availability will be accomplished through
legal advertisements in the News & Record, High Point Enterprise, and the Winston-Salem Journal, which
are newspapers of local circulation. This Draft EA document was made available for review at the
locations listed below.
Piedmont Triad International Airport
City of Greensboro Central Library
Kathleen Clay Edwards Library
Hemphill Public Library
Anyone wishing to comment on the information and conclusions in this Draft EA may do so at any time
during the advertised public review and comment period. All comments should be submitted to Piedmont
Triad International Airport (GSO) in written form to the following address:
J. Alex Rosser, P.E.
Deputy Executive Director
Piedmont Triad Airport Authority
1000-A Ted Johnson Parkway
Greensboro, NC 27409
The Draft EA comment period will begin on December 6, 2014 and will close on January 19, 2015. All
comments must be postmarked by January 19, 2015.
6.5 LIST OF AGENCIES RECEIVING THE DRAFT EA
A list of agencies receiving a copy of this Draft EA is provided below.
FEDERAL
Chief Regional Environmental Officer
Regulatory Branch Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Region 4
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 3003 Chamblee Tucker Road
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587 Atlanta, GA 30341
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Ecological Service Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Director
Flood Insurance and Mitigation Division
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Region IV
3003 Chamblee Tucker Road
Atlanta, GA 30341
Chief, Environmental Services Staff
Office of Trust Responsibilities
Bureau of Indian Affairs — US DOI
Room 4560, Interior Building
18th and C Street NW
Washington, DC 20245-0001
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 6.doc 6-2 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

John F. Sullivan, III P.E.
Division Administrator
North Carolina Division
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410,
Raleigh, NC 27601
Director
Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance
U.S. Department of the Interior
Main Interior Building, MS 2340
1849 C. Street NW
Washington, DC 20240
STATE
Sheila Green
N.C. State Environmental Review Clearinghouse
1301 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1301
Gordon S. Myers
Executive Director
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
1701 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1701
Bobby Walston, PE
NCDOT State Aviation Director
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1560 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1560
Jennifer M. Fuller, PE
Airport Project Manager - North West
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1560 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1560
LOCAL
Bruce E. Davis
County Commissioner, District 1
1010 Greensboro Road
High Point, NC 27260
Bill Bencini
Vice Chair
County Commissioner, District 2
1412 Trafalgar Drive
High Point, NC 27262
Linda O. Shaw
Board Chair
County Commissioner, District 3
PO Box 8618
Greensboro, NC 27419
DRAFT
Regional Director
Southeast Region
National Park Service
100 Alabama St. SW
1924 Building
Atlanta, GA 30303
N.C. State Publications Clearinghouse
Documents Branch
4643 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4643
Sandra P. Castle
Regional Administrative Office Manager
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
State Historic Preservation Officer
North Carolina Department of Cultural
Resources
4610 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4610
Alan Branson
County Commissioner, District 4
3731 Old Julian Road
Julian, NC 27283
Jeff Phillips
County Commissioner, District 5
6108 Mountain Brook Road
Greensboro, North Carolina 27455
Hank Henning
County Commissioner, District 6
6412 Woodmont Road
Jamestown, NC 27282
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 6.doc 6-3 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
Carolyn Q. Coleman
Zack Matheny
County Commissioner, District 7
District 3 City Council Member
PO Box 3427
City of Greensboro
Greensboro, NC 27402
PO Box 3136
Greensboro, NC 27402-3136
Ray Trapp
Nancy Hoffmann
County Commissioner, District 8
District 4 City Council Member
1016 W. Meadowview Road
City of Greensboro
Greensboro, North Carolina 27406
PO Box 3136
Greensboro, NC 27402-3136
County Manager
Guilford County Administration
Tony Wilkins
301 West Market Street
District 5 City Council Member
PO Box 3427, Greensboro NC 27402
City of Greensboro
PO Box 3136
Robbie Perkins
Greensboro, NC 27402-3136
Mayor
City of Greensboro
Nancy Vaughan
PO Box 3136
At Large City Council Member
Greensboro, NC 27402-3136
City of Greensboro
PO Box 3136
T. Dianne Bellamy -Small
Greensboro, NC 27402-3136
District 1 City Council Member
City of Greensboro
Marikay Abuzuaiter
PO Box 3136
At Large City Council Member
Greensboro, NC 27402-3136
City of Greensboro
PO Box 3136
Jim Kee
Greensboro, NC 27402-3136
District 2 City Council Member
City of Greensboro
PO Box 3136
Greensboro, NC 27402-3136
NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES
Mr. Jeremy Hyatt
Principal Chief Assistant
Eastern Band of Cherokee
PO Box 455
Cherokee, NC 28719
LIBRARIES
City of Greensboro Central Library Hemphill Public Library
219 N Church St 2301 W. Vandalia Road
Greensboro, NC 27401 Greensboro, NC 27407
Kathleen Clay Edwards Library
1420 Price Park Drive
Greensboro, NC 27410
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 6.doc 6-4 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
6.6 OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC HEARING
The Airport Sponsor and the FAA will afford the opportunity for a formal Public Hearing. The purpose of
the hearing is to solicit additional comment regarding the Proposed Project. A notice for the Public
Hearing will be published in conjunction with the notice of availability of the Draft EA for public review.
The date and location for the Public Hearing will be included in the notice of availability of the Draft EA.
6.7 FINAL EA AVAILABILITY FOR REVIEW
This Draft EA will be revised as necessary to summarize and incorporate comments received during the
public and agency review period. PTAA and the FAA will consider and address all pertinent comments
received from the general public, agencies, and organizations in development of the Final EA.
Summaries of comments received, responses, and any necessary revisions to the EA will be incorporated
into the Final EA. The Final EA will be submitted by the airport to the FAA for their review and
determination of whether to issue a FONSI or to prepare an EIS.
S:\BD\Marketing\Wp_Wpro\12011299_ Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 6.doc 6-5 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 7.0
LIST OF PREPARERS
7.1 LIST OF PREPARERS
DRAFT
As required by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 5050.4B, the names and qualifications of the
principal persons contributing information to this Environmental Assessment (EA) are identified. It should
be noted, in accordance with Section 1502.6 of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations,
the efforts of an interdisciplinary team, consisting of technicians and experts in various fields, were
required to accomplish this study. Specialists involved in this EA included those in such fields as airport
planning, biology, historic/archaeological, water resources, and other disciplines.
AIRPORT SPONSOR
Kevin Baker, P.E. — Airport Director, Piedmont Triad Airport Authority
J. Alex Rosser, P.E. — Director of Planning and Engineering, Piedmont Triad Airport Authority
URS CORPORATION- PRIME CONSULTANT
Paul Behrens — Project Manager. M.S. Biology, B.S. Marine Science, 31 years of experience in
environmental assessment and impact analyses. Responsibilities include project management, agency
and public coordination, environmental and aviation planning, environmental impact analyses, and
technical writing.
Peter Green, AICP — Quality Assurance. B.S. Environmental Resource Management & Planning, MPA
Public Administration/Coastal Zone Studies, 24 years of experience in environmental assessment and
impact analysis. Responsible for quality assurance.
Russell P. Forrest, GISP — Project Coordinator. B.A. Zoology; M.S. Environmental Engineering. 29
years of experience. Responsibilities project management and coordination, public involvement,
environmental impact analysis, and document production.
Ann Venables, AICP — Senior Transportation Planner, B.S. Biology, M.S. Wildlife Ecology, 28 years of
experience in Project Development and Environmental Studies, impact analysis and environmental
permitting, responsible for Socioeconomics and Section 4(f) impact assessment.
Marvin Brown — Senior Architectural Historian and Historian. B.A. and M.A. American Civilization, J.D.
Law, 29 years experience. Responsible for cultural resources impact assessment.
Daniel Cassedy, Ph.D. — Archaeologist. Ph.D., M.A., and B.A. in Anthropology, 31 years of experience.
Responsible for archaeological evaluation.
Daniel Botto — Senior Airport Environmental Planner. B.S. Aviation Business Administration, 16 years of
experience. Responsible for noise modeling, noise impact analysis, and technical writing.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch Tdoc 7-1 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
Charles Benton, PWS, VAPWD — Environmental Scientist. B.A., Ecology. 16 years of experience in
environmental investigations and environmental permitting. Responsible for Biotic Communities.
Rhiannon Kincaid, PE — Environmental Engineer. B.S., Environmental Engineering. 11 years of
experience. Assistance with on-site field investigations.
Robert Morris — Senior CAD Specialist. 21 years experience. Responsible for CAD, project drawings,
and analysis.
Dale Edgar — GIS Analyst. B.A. Geography, 10 years of experience. Responsibilities include GIS
mapping, database development, and data analysis.
Lindsay Herman — Document Specialist. 10 years of experience. Responsible for the overall document
production including word processing, editing, and assembly.
DW ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING — SUB -CONSULTANT
Deborah Dutcher Wilson, PMP — Sr. Air Quality Meteorologist. M.S. Meteorology and Project
Management Professional (PMP), 22 years of experience in air quality assessments & permitting.
Responsible for Air Quality.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch Tdoc 7-2 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
CHAPTER 8.0
REFERENCES
ACS, 2007-2011. ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates, 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5 -
Year Estimates. http://factfinder2.census.gov/.
Airbus, 2012. Brookley Aeroplex's infrastructure will facilitate the production of A320 Family aircraft in the
U.S. www.airbus.com/newsevents/news-events-single/detail/brookley-aeroplexs-infrastructure-
will-facilitate-the-production-of-a320-family-aircraft-in-the-u/. Accessed 2013.
Andrew S. Harris, Inc„ 2007. FAR Part 150 Study for Piedmont Triad International Airport Final Report.
Andrew S. Harris, Inc. November 2007.
Arcieri, 2012a. "TIMCO Aviation Adding 130 More Jobs at Piedmont Triad International Airport," The
Business Journal. Katie Arcieri. September 21, 2012. http://www.bizmournals.com/triad/print-
edition /2012/09/21 /ti mco-aviation-adding-130-more-'obs-at.htmI (accessed October 10, 2013).
Arcieri, 2012b. "B/E Aerospace Moves into New Offices in Winston-Salem," The Business Journal. Katie
Arcieri. November 2, 2012. http://www.biz'ournaIs.com/triad/news/2012/11/02/be-aerospace-
finalizes -move-to-new.html (accessed October 10, 2013).
Arcieri, 2012c. "Aircraft Co. Breaks Ground on $20 M MRO Facility at PTI," The Business Journal. Katie
Arcieri. September 27, 2012. http://www.bizmournals.com/triad/news/2012/09/27/honda-aircraft-
co-breaks-ground-on.htmI?page=2 (accessed November 7, 2013).
Arcieri, 2013a. "B/E Aerospace Reports Revenue Rise in 1Q," The Business Journal. Katie Arcieri. April
22, 2013. http://www. biz'ournals.com/triad/news/2013/04/22/be-aerospace-reports-1st-grt-
revenue. html (accessed November 7, 2013).
Arcieri, 2013b. "Honda Hiring 'In All Areas' to Prepare for Jet Production, Delivery," The Business Journal
Triad BizBlog. Katie Arcieri. October 15, 2013. http://www.bizmournals.com/
triad/blog/2013/10/honda- ram ps-up-with-customer-service.htmI (accessed November 7, 2013).
Area Development Online, 2013. Area Development Online News Desk (March 19, 2013), "Flightstar
Aircraft Services Plans $30.5 Million Expansion at Jacksonville Florida's Cecil
Airport". http://www.areadevelpment.com/newsitems/3-19-13 (accessed November 8, 2013).
Baker, 2001. Piedmont Triad International Airport Stormwater Management Plan. Baker and Associates.
2001.
Baker, 2011. Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan for the Piedmont Triad International
Airport. Baker and Associates. January 11, 2011.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 8.docx 8-1 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
Barron, 2013. "TIMCO Sale Expected to Increase Work in Greensboro," News & Record. Richard M.
Barron. October 25, 2013. http://www.news-record.com/business/local business/article
7d2a7c4e-3ca8-1le3-a7e5-00la4bcf6878.html (accessed November 7, 2013).
Bauerlein, 2011. "Aviation Industry Growing in Jacksonville, Despite Lack of Trained Workers," The
Florida Times -Union. David Bauerlein. May 16, 2011. http://Oacksonville.com/business/2011-05-
16/ story/aviation-industry-growinq-iacksonville-despite-lack-trained-workers (accessed
November 8, 2013).
Bridgestone, 2006. "Bridgestone Aircraft Tire Announces Move," Bridgestone News. May 10,
2006. http://www.bridgestone-firestone.com/corporate/news/060510b.htmi (accessed November
7, 2013).
Brookley Aeroplex's Infrastructure Will Facilitate the Production of A320 Family Aircraft in the
U.S. http://airbus.com/presscentre/. Airbus. July 2, 2012.
BuzzFile, 2013. Neptune Precision Composites in Jacksonville, Florida. http://www.buzzfile.com/business/
Neptune -Precision -Composites -904-646-2700 (accessed November 8, 2013).
Catanoso, 2013. "Greensboro North Carolina is All About Aviation," Expansion Solutions Magazine.
Justin Catanoso. June 4, 2013. http://www.greensboroeda.com/pdfs/AirshowAviationArticle.pdf
(accessed October 10, 2013).
Caver, 2013. "B/E Aerospace Buys Site on Oak Plaza Boulevard," Winston-Salem Journal. Richard
Carver. August 23, 2013. http://www.'ournalnow.com/business/business news/local/
article ea7cd09a-Oaca-11e3-a6b3-001a4bcf6878.html (accessed November 7, 2013).
CEQ, 1978. Regulations for Implementing NEPA. Council on Environmental Quality. 43 Federal Register
55990. November 28, 1978.
Cessna, 2013. Greensboro Citation Service Center. http://www.cessna.com/citation-service/greensboro-
nc (accessed October 10, 2013).
City of Greensboro, 2012. http://www.greensboro-nc.gov.
City of Greensboro, 2013. City of Greensboro Water Resources Department. http://www.greensboro-
nc.gov. Accessed on October 31, 2013.
City of Greensboro GIS, 2013. GIS Data & Mapping. http://www.greensboro-nc.qov.
Clean Air Act, as amended. U.S.C. 1990. Vol. 42 §7401.
Clean Water Act, as amended. U.S.C. 1977.Vol. 33 §1251 et seq. 1992.
Countess Environmental, 2006. WRAP Fugitive Dust Handbook, September 2006.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 8.docx 8-2 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
Daniel, et al. 1998. Ground -Water Recharge to and Storage in the Regolith -Fractured Crystalline Rock
Aquifer System, Guilford County, North Carolina. Charles C. Daniel, III and Douglas A. Harned.
U.S. Geological Survey, Raleigh, North Carolina. 1998.
Darm, 2013. "Hernandez Knows His Business from the Ground Up", Jacksonville Business Journal.
Lauren Darm. August 9, 2013. http://www.biz'ournals.com/'acksonville/ (accessed November 8,
2013).
DWQ, 2007. Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual. North Carolina Division of Water Quality.
July 2007 (as amended).
Economic & Planning Systems, et al., 2013. Brookley Aeroplex Economic Development and Strategy -
Final Report. Prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, GDeS, and JWD Group. November
2003.
Endangered Species Act, as amended. U.S.C. Vol. 16 § 1531 et seq. (1973).
EPS, 2003. Brookley Aeroplex Economic Development and Strategy - Final Report. Economic &
Planning Systems, GDeS, and JWD Group. November 2003.
EPA, 2005. Air Quality Designations and Classifications for the Fine Particles (PM2.5) National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (Vol. 70, No. 3). Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC.
Government Printing Office. January 5, 2005.
EPA, 2013. EnviroMapper Database. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.er)a.gov/emefdata
/em4ef. home (accessed September 9, 2013).
FAA, 1997. Air Quality Procedures for Civilian Airports and Air Force Bases. (Air Quality Handbook) FAA
Office of Environment and Energy, April 1997 and the September, 2004 Addendum.
FAA, 2001. Piedmont Triad International Airport Final Environmental Impact Statement. Federal Aviation
Administration. http://www.faa.gov/airports/environmental/. December 31, 2001.
FAA, 2003. Select Resource Materials and Annotated Bibliography on the Topic of Hazardous Air
Pollutants Associated with Aircraft, Airports, and Aviation, FAA Office of Environment and Energy, July
2003.
FAA, 2006a. Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures. FAA Order 1050.1 E, Change 1. Federal
Aviation Administration. March 20, 2006.
FAA, 2006b. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions.
FAA Order 5050.4B. Federal Aviation Administration. April 28, 2006.
FAA, 2007. Environmental Assessment Runway 5R Safety Area Improvements, 2007. Federal Aviation
Administration ATADS. September 2013.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 8.docx 8-3 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
FAA, 2011. Standards for Specifying the Construction of Airports. Advisory Circular 150/5370-1 OF,
Federal Aviation Administration. September 30, 2011.
FAA, 2012. Airport Design. Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A. Federal Aviation Administration.
September 28, 2012.
FAA, 2013. Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic Activity Data
System. http://aspm.faa.gov/opsnet/sys/Main.asp?force=atads, September 2013.
FDOT, 2005. Florida Airports Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual. Statewide Airport
Stormwater Study. Florida Department of Transportation. June 2005.
FHWA, 2013. Richmond Rail Connector Project Environmental Assessment with Finding of No
Significant Impact. Section 2.2.4 - Air Quality - NEPA Analysis, Table 2.2.4-14. Federal Highway
Administration, January 2013. http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/documents/richmond rail/
environmental assessment with fonsi.pdf.
FindTheCompany, 2013. Lockheed Martin Corporation in Greensboro, North Carolina. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid. (accessed November 7, 2013).
Flightstar, 2013. Flightstar Aircraft Services- Facility Overview. http://flightstarmax.com/facility-over view.
html (accessed November 8, 2013).
FWS, 2013a. Environmental Conservation Online System. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013.
FWS, 2013b. Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Federal Species of Concern, and Candidate
Species Guilford County, North Carolina. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013.
Greensboro, 2012a. City of Greensboro 2012 Annual Water Quality Report (PWS# 02-41-010). Water
Resources department, City of Greensboro, North Carolina. 2012.
Greensboro, 2012b. Sewage Collection and Water Reclamation Plant report for 2012. Water Resources
department, City of Greensboro, North Carolina. 2012.
Greensboro Economic Development Partnership, 2013. Labor Force Statistics - August 2013.
Greensboro North Carolina Economic Development Alliance. http://www.greensboroeda.com.
2013.
Guilford County, 2012a. Guilford County website. http://countyweb.co.guilford.nc.us.
Guilford County, 2012b. Solid Waste Management Plan Update 2012, for Guilford County and
Municipalities, June 2012.
Guilford County GIS, 2013. http://countyweb.co.quilford.nc.us/gis-home.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 8.docx 8-4 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
Honda, 2013. "Honda Aircraft Company to Establish World Headquarters and Production Facility in
Greensboro, North Carolina," Honda News Release. February 9, 2007. www.honda.com/ news
and views/article.aspx?id=2007020934372 (accessed November 7, 2013).
InsideView, 2013. Genesis Aviation, Inc. - Company. http://www.insideview.com/directory/genesis-
aviation-inc (accessed October 10, 2013).
JAXUSA Partnership, 2013. JAXUSA Partnership for Regional Economic Development, Major Aviation &
Aerospace Operations. http://'axusa.org/about/news/category/aviation-and-aerospace (accessed
November 8, 2013).
Livingston and Alexander, 2013. "Trends Affecting Business Parks Today," Site Selection Magazine.
George Livingston and Christie Alexander. November 2010. http://www.siteselection.com
(accessed August 20, 2013).
LSI, 2013. LSI - Facility Locations - Cecil Commerce Center, FL, http://lsiiax.com/locations.html
(accessed November 8, 2013).
Manta, 2013a. Avmax Montana Inc. - Jacksonville, Florida Company Profile. http://www.manta.com/c/
mw2n7dr/avmax-montana-inc (accessed November 8, 2013).
Manta, 2013b. Goodrich Corporation - Jacksonville, FL, Company Profile. http://www.manta.com/c/
mmd8c46/goodrich-corp (accessed November 8, 2013).
Manta, 2013c. Aerospace Companies in Jacksonville, Florida. http://www.manta.com/mb 53?GO 34P/
aerospace/iacksonville fl (accessed November 8, 2013).
Manta, 2013d. Parker -Hannifin Statoflex (Parker -Hannifin Corporation) - Jacksonville,
Florida. http://www.manta.com/c/mm3rzkg/parker-hannifin-stratoflex. (accessed November 8,
2013).
Manta, 2013e. Aerospace Studies Air Force. http://www.manta.com/c/mtw7h5b/aerospace-studies-air-
force (accessed October 10, 2013).
Manta, 2013f. Art Line Service (Wham Aviation LLC) - Greensboro, North
Carolina. http://www.manta.com/c/mt9ng8z/art-line-service. (accessed October 10, 2013).
Manta, 2013g. Cessna Citation Service Center (The Cessna Aircraft Company) - Greensboro, North
Carolina, Company Profile. http://www.manta.com/c/mmOcd-5/cessna-citation-service-center
(accessed October 10, 2013).
Manta, 2013h. Comair Inc. - Greensboro, North Carolina, Company Profile. http://www.manta.com/c/
mmnlp40/comair-inc (accessed November 7, 2013).
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 8.docx 8-5 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
Manta, 20131. Esib Solutions - Greensboro, North Carolina, Company Profile. http://www.manta.com/
c/mx37vg8/esib-solutions (accessed October 10, 2013).
Manta, 2013j. General Dynamics Corp. - Greensboro, NC, Company Profile. http://www.manta.com/
c/mtw7xgz/general-dynamics-corp (accessed October 10, 2013).
Manta, 2013k. Landmark Aviation - Greensboro, NC, Company Profile. http://www.manta.com/
c/mtc5sff/landmark-aviation (accessed November 7, 2013).
Manta, 20131. Lockheed Martin Corp - Greensboro, NC. http://www.manta.com/c/mtw7khp/lockheed-
martin-corp (accessed October 10, 2013).
MRO, 2013. "Room to Grow," MRO Management, Volume 15, Issue 3. MRO editorial
team. www.mromanagement.com (accessed November 8, 2013).
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended. U.S.C. 1969. Vol. 42 §4321 et seq.
(1988).
National Historic Preservation Act, as amended. U.S.C. 1966. Vol. 16 §470 et seq.
NCDENR, 2003. Executive Summary. Assessment Report: Biological Impairment in the Horsepen Creek
Watershed. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality, Planning Branch. March 2003.
NCDENR, 2012. 2012 North Carolina Integrated Report (303(d) Impaired Waters). North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. October 2013.
NCDOT, 2004. Greensboro Urban Thoroughfare Plan Guilford County, North Carolina. North
Carolina Department of Transportation. October 27, 2004.
NCDOT, 2012. 1-73 Connector, from NC 68 to West of Greensboro Western Loop, Greensboro, Guilford
County Environmental Assessment (Federal -Aid Project No: NHF-0073(25). North Carolina
Department of Transportation. February 24, 2012.
NCNHP, 2013. Heritage Data Search. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
2013. http://www.ncnhp.org/.
News 14 Carolina, 2012. Piedmont -Triad Suffers Largest Net Job Loss, Aviation Sector Takes
Off. http://triad.news14.com/content/news/654726/piedmont-triad-suffers-largest-net-lob-loss--
aviation-sector-takes-off. News 14 Carolina. March 7, 2012.
NPS, 2013. "National Wild and Scenic Rivers System Map." www.rivers.gov.
Opportunity Greensboro, 2013. "Machine Specialties Announces $3.25 Million Investment, Will Hire 20
New Employees," Greensboro Economic Development Alliance. October 4,
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 8.docx 8-6 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
2010. http://opportunitygreensboro.com/earning/machine-specialties-announces-3-25-million-
investment-will-hire-20-new-employees/ (accessed November 7, 2013).
Pace, Thompson, 2004. Examination of the Multiplier Used to Estimate PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Emissions
from PM10 U.S. EPA, 2004.
PART, 2002. North Carolina Department of Transportation Research Project 2002-2011: Regionalizing
Public Transportation Services. North Carolina Department of Transportation. October 25, 2002.
Port of Huntsville, 2013. Jetplex Industrial Park. flvhuntsville.com/iip/. 2013.
Schafale, 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina, (Fourth Approximation). North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Michael Schafale. March 2012.
Solid Waste Management Plan Update 2012, for Guilford County and Municipalities, 2012. Guilford
County Planning & Development Department. June 2012.
Tesken, 2013. Tesken Incorporated. http://tesken.com/nc-aerospace/ (accessed November 7, 2013).
TIMCO, 2013. TIMCO Aviation Services. http://www.timco.aero/ (accessed October 10, 2013).
Triangle Business Journal, 2005. "State Grants $106,000 for Comair Project," Triangle Business Journal.
January 28, 2005. http://www.bizmournals.com/triangle/stories/2005/01/24/daiIV48.htmi (accessed
November, 2013).
UNCG, 2013. The Dixon Hughes Goodman Triad Business Index. Center for Business and Economic
Research, Bryan School of Business & Economics, UNCG. July 2013.
Unison, 2013. http://www.unisonindustries.com/ (accessed November 8, 2013).
URS, 2003. Air Emissions Inventory for the Aviation Growth Projects at DFW, Section 6.0 Construction -
Related Emissions Inventory Table 4 and Appendix D. Prepared for Dallas Fort Worth
International Airport, October 28, 2003.
URS, 2005. Dulles (IAD) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for New Runways, Terminal Facilities
and Related Facilities at Washington Dulles International Airport, Construction and Air Quality
Sections and Appendix G, January 2005.
USACE, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. NTIS
No. AD Al 76912. 1987.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2011. American FactFinder Guilford County North
Carolina. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/4sf/pages/community facts.xhtml.
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 8.docx 8-7 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 40 CFR Part 50, National Primary and Secondary Ambient
Air Quality Standards, Revised October 2011.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 40 CFR Part 51. Requirements for Preparation, Adoption,
and Submittal of Implementation Plans, July 1999.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 40 CFR Part 51. Subpart W. Determining Conformity of
Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans. November 1993.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 40 CFR Part 93.153. General Conformity Rule, November
1993.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Estimating Particulate Matter Emissions from Construction
Operations, Final Report Prepared by Midwest Research Institute (MRI), for EPA, September 30,
1999.
U.S. President, 1977a. Executive Order No. 11988. "Floodplain Management." Federal Register (10
February) vol. 43, no. 6030.
U.S. President, 1977b. Executive Order No. 11990. "Protection of Wetlands." Federal Register (24 May)
vol. 59, no. 7629, as amended by Executive Order 12608, Federal Register (9 September) vol.
52, no. 34617.
U.S. President, 1994. Executive Order No. 12898. "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low -Income Populations." Federal Register (16 February) vol. 59, no.
7629.
U.S. President, 1997. Executive Order No. 13045. Protection of Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks. Federal Register (April 23) 62, no. 78, p. 19883-19888.
Zoominfo, 2013. Unison Industries Inc. Company Profile, http://www.zoominfo.com/c/Unison-Industries-
Inc/91848974 (accessed November 8, 2013).
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 8.docx 8-8 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
CHAPTER 9.0
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS. ACRONYMS. AND GLOSSARY
9.1
LIST OF ACRONYMS
A
FR
Federal Register
FTA
Federal Transit Administration
AC
Advisory Circular
FWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
ACS
American Community Survey
ADP
Airport Development Program
V
AIRS/AFS
Air Facility Subsystem (EPA)
ALP
Airport Layout Plan
GIS
Geographic Information System
APE
Area of Potential Effect
GSA
Generalized Study Area
ASR
Airport Surveillance Radar
GSE
Ground Service Equipment
AST
Aboveground Storage Tank
GSO
Piedmont Triad International Airport
GTCC
Guilford Technical Community
B
College
GUA
Greensboro Urban Area
BGPA
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act
u
H
BMPs
Best Management Practices
HAPs
Hazardous Air Pollutants
C
C&D
Construction/Demolition
CEQ
Council on Environmental Quality
1-73
Interstate 73
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
ICIS
Integrated Compliance Information
CO
Carbon Monoxide
System (EPA)
CY
Calendar Year
INM
Integrated Noise Model
D
L
DAQ
Department of Air Quality (NCDENR)
LCID
Land Clearing and Inert Debris
dB(A)
Decibels A -weighted
LOS
Level of Service
DNL
Day -Night Average Sound Level
LRTP
Long Range Transportation Plan
DOT
Department of Transportation
LWCF
Land and Water Conservation Fund
DSA
Detailed Study Area
DWR
Division of Water Resources
M
(NCDENR)
MGD
Million Gallons per Day
E
MITL
Medium Intensity Taxiway Lights
MOVES
Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator
EA
Environmental Assessment
MPO
Metropolitan Planning Organization
EAC
Early Action Compact
MRO
Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection
MSATs
Mobile Source Air Toxics
Agency
MSW
Municipal Solid Waste
MTIP
Metropolitan Transportation
F
Improvement Program
MW
Megawatt
FAA
Federal Aviation Administration
FEIS
Final Environmental Impact
A'
N
Statement
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management
N/A
Not Applicable
Agency
NAAQS
National Ambient Air Quality
FHWA
Federal Highway Administration
Standards
FIRM
Flood Insurance Rate Map
NCAC
North Carolina Administrative Code
SAMMarketing0p_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 9.docx
9-1
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
NCDAQ
North Carolina Division of Air Quality
ROD
Record of Decision
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of
RPZ
Runway Protection Zone
Environment and Natural Resources
NCDOT
North Carolina Department of
c
`7
Transportation
NCEEP
North Carolina Ecosystem
SAV
Savannah/Hilton Head International
Enhancement Program
Airport
NCNHP
North Carolina Natural Heritage
SHPO
State Historic Preservation Officer
Program
SIP
State Implementation Plan
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
SO2
Sulfur Dioxide
NFIP
National Flood Insurance Program
Sox
Sulfur Oxides
NHPA
National Historic Preservation Act
SPCC
Spill Prevention Control and
NO2
Nitrogen Dioxide
Countermeasures
NOx
Nitrogen Oxide
SPPP
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge
SSA
Socioeconomic Study Area
Elimination System
NPL
National Priorities Listing
T
NRCS
National Resource Conservation
Service
TAF
Terminal Area Forecast
NRHP
National Register of Historic Places
TIMCO
Triad International Maintenance
Company
O
TIP
Transportation Improvement
Program
03
Ozone
TRI
Toxic Release Inventory (EPA)
OFA
Object Free Area
TSCA
Toxic Substances Control Act
TSP
Total Suspended Particulate
P
U
PART
Piedmont Authority for Regional
Transportation
pg/m3
Micrograms per cubic meter
Pb
Lead
USACE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
PCBs
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
U.S.C.
U.S. Code
PCS
Permit Compliance System (EPA)
UST
Underground Storage Tank
PM
Particulate Matter
ppm
Parts per Million
V
PTAA
Piedmont Triad Aviation Authority
PTRWA
Piedmont Triad Regional Water
VOCs
Volatile Organic Compounds
Authority
W
R
WQC
Water Quality Certification
RCRA
Resource Conservation and
WTP
Water Treatment Plan
Recovery Act
9.2
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
A partial glossary of terms used in this EA is provided below. The definitions are not to be taken as
comprehensive, but solely to aid the non-technical reader.
Air Carrier - An airline that provides air transport services for passengers and/or freight. The airline
generally operates with a recognized operating certificate or license.
Airport Layout Plan (ALP) - A scaled drawing of existing and proposed land and facilities necessary for
the operation and development of the airport. The ALP shows boundaries and proposed additions to all
areas owned or controlled by the airport operator for airport purposes, the location and nature of existing
S:\BD\Marketing\Wp_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 9.docx 9-2 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
and proposed replacement airport facilities and structures, and the location on the airport of existing and
proposed non -aviation areas and improvements thereon.
Aircraft Operation — An aircraft take -off (departure) or a landing (arrival) conducted at an airport.
Airport Reference Code (ARC) - A coding system used to relate airport design criteria to the operational
and physical characteristics of a design aircraft (typically the most demanding) intended to operate at the
airport.
Airspace - the portion of the atmosphere controlled by a particular country over its territory and territorial
waters. Controlled airspace exists where air traffic control is exercised over aircraft flying in that airspace.
Uncontrolled airspace is airspace in which air traffic control does not exert control, though it may act in an
advisory manner. Sections of airspace may be designated restricted and/or prohibit certain aeronautical
activities.
Approach Lighting Systems (ALS) - A series of lights that assists the pilot when aligning aircraft with the
extended runway centerline on final approach at night or during periods of inclement weather.
Area of Potential Effect (APE) — The geographic area or areas within which a federal undertaking may
directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties
exist.
Avigation Easement - An easement for certain property rights related to aircraft overflights, including the
right to generate noise. In addition, such an agreement usually restricts the property owner from
obstructing airspace or an approach to a runway.
Base Floodplain - That area subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year
(i.e., the 100 -year floodplain).
Best Management Practices (BMP) - Methods employed during construction and included in the
development for ensuring environmental management to the greatest possible extent.
Biotic Communities - A group of interdependent organisms (i.e., plants, mammals, birds, reptiles,
amphibians, fish, and invertebrates) inhabiting the same area or region and interacting with each other,
usually comprising or inhabiting distinct habitat types.
Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA) - An ambient air pollution control strategy based on the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and a provision that individual states would develop
implementation plans to meet and maintain the standards.
Coastal Zone Management - Under the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), the State of
Florida reviews Federal actions in light provides for preservation, protection, development, and restoration
of the nation's coastal zones. The entire State of Florida is subject to the provisions of this Act.
Compatible Land Use - Compatibility of existing and planned land uses in the vicinity of an airport is
usually related to the noise impacts associated with the operation of an airport. Evaluation consists of
S:\BD\Marketing\Wp_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 9.docx 9-3 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
assuring that proper zoning or other land use controls are being undertaken, to ensure compatible
development near the site.
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations - Regulations that implement the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Cultural Resources - Cultural resources include historic, historic architectural, and archaeological
resources (including prehistoric or historic sites, districts, buildings, structures, or objects), which have
been listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP).
Cumulative Impacts - Cumulative impacts are considered the incremental effect of an action when added
to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
Day -Night Average Sound Level (DNL) - DNL is the 24-hour average sound level in decibels using the A -
weighted scale (dBA). This average is derived from all aircraft operations during a 24-hour period
representing an average annual operational day.
Decibel (dB) - A unit of noise level representing a relative quantity. This reference value is a sound
pressure of 20 micronewtons per square meter.
Dependent Instrument Approaches - allow aircraft to approach parallel runways, but controllers must
ensure a minimum separation from aircraft on the adjacent approach path (diagonal spacing) in addition
to maintaining standard separation behind aircraft on the same approach path (in -trail spacing). Aircraft
may not pass or be passed once they are established on their approaches. All standards require a 1000 -
foot vertical separation until established on the appropriate approach path. Individual controllers are not
required for each runway, nor are discrete communications frequencies required for each runway (Mitre
Corporation, 2006).
Department of Transportation (DOT) Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Lands - Section 4(f) provides that the
Secretary of Transportation will not approve any program or project that requires use of any publicly -
owned land from a park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local
significance, or land from a historic site of national, state, or local significance, unless there is no feasible
and prudent alternative. The project must include all possible measures to minimize harm resulting from
the use.
Design Aircraft - The most critical aircraft type currently using, or projected to use, an airport. It can either
be one aircraft or a group of aircraft.
Detailed Study Area (DSA) — The geographic area which includes the areas of the Proposed Project and
its reasonable alternatives that is established for environmental considerations that deal with specific and
direct construction -related issues such as land clearing, wetlands, floodplains, archaeological resources,
and/or hazardous materials and which has the potential for physical disturbance during clearing and
construction activities.
Environmental Assessment (EA) - A concise document that assesses the environmental impacts of a
proposed federal action. It discusses the need for, and environmental impacts of, the proposed federal
actions and alternatives. An EA provides sufficient evidence and analysis for a Federal determination
whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or issue a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI).
S:\BD\Marketing\Wp_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 9.docx 9-4 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) - A detailed, concise document that provides a discussion of the
significant environmental impacts which would occur as a result of a proposed Federal action, and
informs decision -makers and the public of alternatives which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) - FAA is the Federal agency responsible for ensuring the safe and
efficient use of the nation's airspace, for developing civil aeronautics and air commerce, and for
supporting the requirements of national defense.
Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) - Series of rules and regulations administered by the FAA that govern
the operation, maintenance, construction, acquisition, etc. of airports, aircraft, and associated aviation
activities.
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) - A FONSI is a document briefly explaining the reasons why an
action would not have a significant effect on the human environment and for which an EIS, therefore, is
not necessary.
Fixed Based Operator (FBO) - An FBO is the primary provider of services to general aviation (GA) aircraft
and operators at an airport. An FBO may be a private enterprise, municipality, or airport -owner operated.
Multiple FBOs may be located at an airport.
Fleet Mix - The mix or differing types of aircraft operating in a particular environment.
Flight Tracks - The use of established routes for arrival and departure by aircraft to and from the runways
at the airport.
General Aviation (GA) - GA includes all facets of aeronautical activity except for those carriers certified by
the U.S. DOT to provide commercial passenger and air cargo service. GA activities includes corporate
aviation, recreational and sport flying, flight training, aerial application flights (crop dusting), aerial
mapping, and air ambulance flights.
Generalized Study Area (GSA) — The geographic area, for which a broad range of indirect environmental
impacts are evaluated such as noise, air quality, and certain socioeconomic factors, and which has the
potential for affect beyond the immediate airport environs.
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) - An information system that is designed for storing, integrating,
manipulating, analyzing, and displaying data referenced by spatial or geographic coordinates.
Hazardous Materials - For the purposes of this FEIS, hazardous materials includes regulated hazardous
wastes, hazardous substances, and dangerous goods; environmental contamination to soil, surface
waters, and groundwater; as well the range of similarly regulated substances such as fuel and other
petroleum-based products commonly associated with airports.
Independent Instrument Approaches - Simultaneous approaches to parallel or near -parallel instrument
runways where radar separation minima between aircraft on adjacent extended runway center lines are
not prescribed.
S:\BD\Marketing\Wp_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 9.docx 9-5 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
Instrument Approach Procedures (IAP) — An instrument approach procedure is a defined method of air
navigation that allow a pilot to land an aircraft on a particular runway in instrument meteorological
conditions (IMC) (reduced visibility) or to reach visual conditions permitting a visual landing. The FAA
develops and publishes IAPs for airports in the U.S. Approaches are classified as either precision or
nonprecision, depending on the accuracy and capabilities of the navigation aids used.
Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) - An aviation flight category that describes weather conditions
that normally require pilots to fly primarily by reference to instruments and, therefore, under Instrument
Flight Rules (IFR), rather than by outside visual references under Visual Flight Rules (VFR).
Land Use Compatibility - The ability of land uses surrounding the airport to co -exist with airport -related
activities with minimum conflict.
Local Operation — An aircraft flight that begins and ends at the same airport.
Mean Sea Level (MSL) - The average height of the surface of the sea for all stages of the tide; used as a
reference for elevations; also called sea level datum.
Mitigation Measures — Action taken to reduce or eliminate environmental impacts of a proposed action.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) - Standards established by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) used for protecting and improving air quality.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) - The original legislation establishing the
environmental review process for proposed Federal actions.
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) —This legislation requires that projects that occur on
Federal lands, are funded by Federal monies, or that require a Federally -issued permit, be evaluated for
their impacts to historic properties.
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) - Federal permit required by the EPA for point
source and non -point source stormwater discharges.
Navigational Aids (NAVAIDs) - Any facility used by an aircraft for navigation.
Object Free Area (OFA) — An area on the ground centered on a runway, taxiway, or taxilane centerline
provided to enhance the safety of aircraft operations by having the area free of objects, except for objects
that need to be located in the OFA for air navigation or aircraft ground maneuvering purposes.
Operation - A take -off or landing by an aircraft.
Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) System - a stanchion mounted, directional, high intensity,
upward angled, two-color light system producing a bi-color split beam: white above and red below.
Record of Decision (ROD) - The ROD is a concise public record that states FAA official's decision and
rationale for approving or not approving a proposed action.
SABD\Marketing\Wp_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 9.docx 9-6 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

DRAFT
Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL) - Two synchronized flashing lights, one on each side of the runway
threshold, which identify the approach end of the runway.
Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) - An area, trapezoidal in shape and centered about the extended runway
centerline, designated to enhance the safety of aircraft operations. It begins 200 feet beyond the end of
the area usable for take -off or landing. The RPZ dimensions are functions of the aircraft, type of
operation, and visibility minimums.
Runway Safety Area (RSA) - A defined surface surrounding the runway prepared or suitable for reducing
the risk or damage to airplanes in the event of an undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from the runway.
Scoping - The Scoping process is the initial step in the preparation of an EIS. As a part of the scoping
process, formal Scoping meetings are held to obtain input from agencies and the public as to the scope of
studies conducted for the EIS and to identify issues of concern.
Simultaneous Approaches — approaches that allow aircraft to approach runways independently of
adjacent parallel runways. Aircraft may pass or be passed by aircraft on the adjacent approach path, but
must maintain standard separation behind aircraft on the same approach path.
Social Impacts - Social impacts are those generally associated with property acquisition or relocation,
changes to surface transportation, or other community disruptions that may be caused by airport
development.
Socioeconomic Impacts - Patterns of population movement and growth, public service demands, and
changes in business and economic activity may be affected by airport development.
Visual Flight Rules (VFR) - A set of regulations which allow a pilot to operate an aircraft in weather
conditions generally clear enough to allow the pilot to see where the aircraft is going. Specifically, the
weather must be better than basic VFR weather minimums, as published for an airport. If the weather is
worse than VFR minimums, pilots are required to use IFR.
Wetlands - Those areas that are influenced by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
S:\BD\Marketing\Wp_Wpro\12011299_Piedmont EA\Draft EA\Ch 9.docx 9-7 Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment

APPENDIX A
AGENCY CONSULTATION
This appendix contains various government agency correspondence related to the development of the
EA.
A-1 Early Agency Coordination
A-2 Agency Coordination Meeting
A-3 Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment (To be provided in Final EA)

APPENDIX A-1
EARLY AGENCY COORDINATION
This appendix contains the Early Agency Coordination letter, a list of Agencies to whom the letter was
sent, and responses for the Early Agency Coordination effort.
Responses
Agency Date
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) July 11, 2013
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) July 19, 2013
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) August 13, 2013

Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment
Early Agency Coordination
Mailing List
Representative
Organization 1
Organization 2
Address
city
Mr. Stanley Meiburg
Acting Regional Administrator
US EPA, Region 4
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Mr. Brian Cole
State Supervisor
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Dr. Willie Taylor
Director of Env. Policy and Compliance
U.S. Dept. of Interior
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240
Ms. Jean Gibby
Raleigh Reg. Field Office Chief
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Dr. Jeffrey Crow
State Historic Preservation Officer
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
4610 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4610
Ms. Chris Baggett
N.C. State Publications Clearinghouse
Documents Branch
14643 Mail Service Center
Ralh
ei , NC 27699-4643
Ms. Sheila Green
State Env. Review Clearinghouse
1301 Mail Service Center
Ralei h, NC 27699-1301
Ms. Dee Freeman
Secretary
N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources
11601 Mail Service Center
lRaleigh, NC 27699-1601
Mr. F. Gary Cox
District Conservationist
NRCS Greensboro Service Center
3309 Burlington Rd
Greensboro, NC 27405-7605
Mr. Jeremy Hyatt
Principal Chief Assistant
Eastern Band of Cherokee
PO Box 455
lCherokee, NC 28719

URS
June 21, 2013
«Title» «First Name» «Last Name»
«Organization_1
«Organization_ 2»
«Address 1»
«Address 2»
«City», «State» «Zip»
RE: EARLY COORDINATION REVIEW FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED NORTHWEST
TAXIWAY AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AT PIEDMONT TRIAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
(GSO), GUILFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Dear «Title» «Last Name»:
The Piedmont Triad Airport Authority is proposing several airport improvement projects in conjunction with developing
approximately 750 acres of land located immediately adjacent to and northwest of the airfield at GSO.
The proposed improvements would address the need for expanded airport facilities to accommodate additional aviation -
related development at GSO. These improvements would not increase the capacity of the existing airfield at GSO. The
proposed improvements include the following actions:
• Site preparation of approximately 750 acres of land for future aviation related development, including
clearing, grading, and excavation,
• Construction of a cross -field taxiway system linking the proposed development area to the existing
airfield,
• Construction of a full-length parallel taxiway on the northwest side of Runway 5L/23R to link the
remainder of the new development area to the runway,
• Extension of utilities to the development area, including electrical, natural gas, water, sanitary sewer,
stormwater collection and treatment, communications, and other related utilities,
• Acquisition of approximately 194 acres of land,
• Relocation of GSO's existing airport surveillance radar (ASR) facility from its current location to a new
location outside the proposed aerospace development area, and
• Implementation of mitigation measures for unavoidable wetland and stream impacts.
The enclosed figures show the site location (Figure 1) and the proposed airport improvements and approximate project
area limits ((Figure 2). The facility layout illustrated in Figure 2 represents the alignment for the proposed taxiways and
a conceptual plan for potential site improvements which may be modified in the future to meet specific the needs of
aviation related development.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
implementing regulations, the Airport Authority is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to consider and
document the potential social, economic, and environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Project. The EA will
7605 West Courtney Campbell Causeway
Suite 700
Tampa, FL 33607-1462
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
URS Corporation
www.urscorp.com

June 12, 2013
Page 2
be submitted to the FAA for acceptance and a decision to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or to issue a
Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. URS is the consultant for the EA.
During the course of the EA, investigations will be conducted to identify potential Social, Economic, and Environmental
(SEE) impacts related to the improvements being considered. As part of our early coordination efforts for the EA, and
on behalf of the Airport Authority, URS is attempting to identify key issues that will need to be addressed in the
NEPA process. To accomplish this we would like to receive your comments relative to the proposed improvements as
they relate to your specific area of expertise or regulatory jurisdiction including permitting or mitigation requirements.
In order to sufficiently address key project issues and maintain the project schedule, your written comments are
requested by July 22, 2013. Please respond to me at the address provided below and feel free to contact me if you
have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
URS CORPORATION
Paul J. Behrens
Project Manager
Enclosures (2)
Copy: Dana Perkins, FAA
J. Alex Rosser, P.E., Piedmont Triad Airport Authority
File

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
July 1 l , 2013
Paul Behrens
URS Corporation
7605 West Courtney Campbell Causeway
Suite 700
Tampa, FL 33607-1462
Re: EA for Proposed Northwest Taxiway & Site Development Project at Piedmont Triad Airport
Authority- Guilford County, NC
Dear Mr. Behrens:
This letter is to inform you that a list of all federally -protected endangered and threatened species
with known occurrences in North Carolina is now available on the U.S. Nish and Wildlife
Service's (Service) web page at http://wA,w.fws.gov/raleigh. Therefore, if you have projects that
occur within the Raleigh Field Office's area of responsibility (see attached county list), you no
longer need to contact the Raleigh Field Office for a list of federally -protected species.
Our web page contains a complete and frequently updated list of all endangered and threatened
species protected by the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)(Act), and a list of federal species of concern] that are known to occur in
each county in North Carolina.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non-federal
representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally -listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulfill that requirement and in determining whether additional consultation with the
Service is necessary. In addition to the federally -protected species list, information on the
species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or
evaluation and can be found on our web page at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh. Please check the
web site often for updated information or changes.
I The term "federal species of concern" refers to those species which the Service believes might be in need of
concentrated conservation actions. Federal species of concern receive no legal protection and their designation does
not necessarily imply that the species will eventually be proposed for listing as a federally endangered or threatened
species. However, we recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to
federal species of concern.

If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally-listed species known to be
present within the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect those species. As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine
the species' presence or absence within the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural
Heritage program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a federally-protected species, you should notify this office with your
determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects
of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects,
before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed
action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally
listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence (unless an
Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you should maintain a complete record
of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified personnel
conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles.
With regard to the above-referenced project, we offer the following remarks. Our comments are
submitted pursuant to, and in accordance with, provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
Based on the information provided and other information available, it appears that the proposed
action is not likely to adversely affect any federally-listed endangered or threatened species, their
formally designated critical habitat, or species currently proposed for listing under the Act at
these sites. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act have been satisfied for
your project. Please remember that obligations udder section 7 consultation must be
reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species
is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
However, the Service is concerned about the potential impacts the proposed action might have
on aquatic species. Aquatic resources are highly susceptible to sedimentation. Therefore, we
recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid adverse impacts to aquatic species,
including implementing directional boring methods and stringent sediment and erosion control
measures. An erosion and sedimentation control plan should be submitted to and approved by
the North Carolina Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section prior to construction.
Erosion and sedimentation controls should be installed and maintained between the construction
site and any nearby down-gradient surface waters. In addition, we recommend maintaining
natural, vegetated buffers on all streams and creeks adjacent to the project site.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has developed a Guidance Memorandum (a
copy can be found on our website at (http://www.fws.gov/raleigh) to address and mitigate
secondary and cumulative impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources and water quality.
We recommend that you consider this document in the development of your projects and in
completing an initiation package for consultation (if necessary).
K

We hope you find our web page useful and informative and that following the process described
above will reduce the time required, and eliminate the need, for general correspondence for
species' lists. If you have any questions or comments, please contact John Ellis of this office at
[phone] ext. 26.
Sincerely,
�r7
Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor

List of Counties in the Service's Raleigh Field Office Area of Responsibility
Alamance
Beaufort
Bertie
Bladen
Brunswick
Camden
Carteret
Caswell
Chatham
Chowan
Columbus
Craven
Cumberland
Currituck
Dare
Duplin
Durham
Edgecombe
Franklin
Gates
Granville
Greene
Guilford
Halifax
Harnett
Hertford
Hoke
Hyde
Johnston
Jones
Lee
Lenoir
Martin
Montgomery
Moore
Nash
New Hanover
Northampton
Onslow
Orange
Pamlico
Pasquotank
Pender
4
Perquimans
Person
Pitt
Randolph
Richmond
Robeson
Rockingham
Sampson
Scotland
Tyrrell
Vance
Wake
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Wilson

� SSAT� 4
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Kluttz
July 19, 2013
Paul Behrens
URS
7605 West Courtney Campbell Causeway
Suite 700
Tampa, FL 33607-1462
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Northwest Taxiway and Site Development, Piedmont Triad International Airport, Guilford County,
ER 13-1261
Dear Mr. Behrens:
Thank you for your letter of June 21, 2013, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or renee.gledhill-
earley(@ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced
tracking number.
Sincerely,
�3KRamona M. Bartos
Location: 109 lust fones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service (:enter, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

Forrest, Russell
From: Cox, Gary - NRCS, Greensboro, NC <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 6:37 AM
To: Venables, Ann
Subject: RE: Proposed Site Development at Piedmont Triad International Airport - Letter Sent
August 13, 2013 - Early Coordination
Ann,
I have reviewed the soils and land area of the site. There are no prime farmland soils in the area. IF you need something
more formal from me I will not be in my office again until Aug 30tH
Call my cell if you have questions. I am conducting field reviews in other counties. 1-336-266-0223.
Thanks,
Gary
Gary Cox
District Conservationist
USDA-NRCS
3309 Burlington Road
Greensboro, NC 27405
[phone] ext. 104
From: Venables, Ann [mailto:ann.venables(aaurs.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 11:14 AM
To: Cox, Gary - NRCS, Greensboro, NC
Cc: Behrens, Paul
Subject: Proposed Site Development at Piedmont Triad International Airport - Letter Sent August 13, 2013 - Early
Coordination
Importance: High
I

Gary,
As we discussed, we would appreciate a response to the attached letter. It does not appear that
there are any farmlands within the Detailed Study Area, but confirmation that your agency has no
concerns would be very helpful for preparation of the Environmental Assessment.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Ann Venables
Ann Venables, AICP
Project Manager/Senior NEPA Planner
URS Corporation
7650 W. Courtney Campbell Causeway
Suite 700
Tampa, Florida 33607
Direct: 813.675.6725
Mobile: [phone]
Main: 813.282.1711
ann. venablesPurs. com
This e-mail and any attachments contain URS Corporation confidential information that may be proprietary or privileged. If you
receive this message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain, distribute, disclose or use any of this
information and you should destroy the e-mail and any attachments or copies.
This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended recipients. Any
unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the
law and subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have received this message in error,
please notify the sender and delete the email immediately.

APPENDIX A-2
AGENCY COORDINATION MEETING
This appendix contains materials associated with the Agency Coordination Meeting held on August 12,
2013 at the airport.
List of Agencies and People in Attendance
Slide Presentation
Summary of Proceedings (TO BE PROVIDED)

Name
Shari Bryant
Lyn Hardison
Patrick Grogan
Matt Gant
Toby Vinson
Shannon Leonard
Aana Taylor -Smith
Lisa Elmore
Alex Rosser
Kevin Baker
Richard Darling
Larry Allen
Amy Euliss
Sue Homewood
Andrew Williams
Lonnie Brooks
Jimmy L. Travis
Rodger Rochelle
Paul Behrens
GSO Northwest Taxiway meeting on August 12, 2013
Record of Attendance
eencv Phone Email
NC WRC
336-449-7625
[e-mail]
NCDENR-SEPA
252-948-3842
[e-mail]
NCDENR
704-235-2107
[e-mail]
NC DEMLR LQ
336-771-5000
[e-mail]
NC DEMLR LQ
919-707-9220
[e-mail]
NC DEMLR LQ
336-771-5037
[e-mail]
NC DEMLR LQ
336-771-5034
[e-mail]
PTAA
336-665-5639
[e-mail]
PTAA
336-665-5600
[e-mail]
PTAA
336-665-5600
[e-mail]
Baker
919-481-5740
[e-mail]
Baker
336-662-4242
[e-mail]
NCDENR DWR
336-771-4959
[e-mail]
NCDENR DWR
336-771-4964
[e-mail]
USACE
919-554-4884
[e-mail]
NC DOT
919-707-6619
([e-mail]
NC DOT
919-707-6602
[e-mail]
NC DOT
919-707-6601
[e-mail]
URS Corp.
813-675-6505
[e-mail]
ON THE PHONE: Dana Perkins, Rusty Nealis, Peter Hughes, Aaron Braswell, Tommy Dupree,
Tim Hester all from the FAA.

Provide suitable sites with airfield access for new aviation related development
• Achieve highest and best use of idle land
• Expand capabilities of the airport
F

• Site preparation of approximately 750 acres of land for future aviation related
development, including clearing, grading, and excavation,
• Construction of a cross -field taxiway system linking the proposed development
area to the existing airfield,
• Construction of a full-length parallel taxiway on the northwest side of Runway
5L/23R to link the remainder of the new development area to the runway,
• Extension of utilities to the development area,
• Acquisition of approximately 194 acres of land,
• Relocation of GSO's existing airport surveillance radar (ASR) facility from its
current location, and
• Implementation of mitigation measures for unavoidable wetland and stream
impacts.
F

%k q •`
Legend
0 3.500
Grdinal( HtlL .ry
' FPS• � ` Q� :E nfry Cl
I � r�r.•f �r
W
owl cr..�`� YR�nn�nd� � 3
X F
-j1},�•rrf\^f1\ 1 � �p ERIE .
.—
—APLE
RICGL
vt I ,r•ISE � ■a. A � �
i' 1�➢R •� onic\ L
1Ei��� 1d � `Ml.00ws Roe
c ` ✓ P—N
n..p, Re re G -Lon LO—VIEw HILLS
Aim
�°°'a. tt -_ FF.LE �Zp ■ t �E Qu..Ex Arvfs coLE:ccE
L. tin.,• FK ~ _ • � r �• Ti' .. \ � �3 ! ,IyF
�.. - r' �WFnenrty ■ '
TLELKER FR PEEPMOnE .�+ •Es r " �'� mwfNo AREA .!�• •% MADISON WOODS
PARK CoRPniwiw; ~ •��.✓ '�� _ W- ­A. Ha Hf
8 • 'F—ER ObwHS � �9 • 4! J `' ! ,y c _ �� w. %.
� v
4 46
f?aar AEPPbR[0•NI '■� �^ fr _ •• BnE PopW Rd- ^tel _ F�.,f.
" 4 .` `• ��`0 5 n . J. Qa FRIEN➢sW[IO[I -' .
SADDLE BROOK - � • • ��F •' • � r
! _ _ • .. _.,FRP r...•_ _ f. r _ • � ~.i w — .'.4.I,d�:i��"�"°�°`�`�,uj;j�
F j

019000@09 y/79ffle A§�P@179
LEGEND
77"',
— Eilatlr�RlghlAFWay/PmpeM1y
Z Ong Amort
Pmoam �fl I 4 f
r+ •'
E>Vaeng WnlaMe and streams
��Ex�.tl�Pwenande.ed stra.roa � ^fi��ti
lglnmaap ' I i
Fuhn I-70 Com0udl n
+~ �--- P -..W NCOGT R ghl-0f-way
----- _��----_ Fdwe Air<eld ImPrman gf%
Imwst Are a of Taexay Anwsl-79 '
(D—of Proposed
[Nher lmpac�d Areas .. vy, �� r �`
DwMw e,g PW, 511e \ a
payWdpment Plan
Proposed Sloe Erpanalan f
IPos1A$R Ram Will kN.
7800 Arym)r'Ne Swire 100 h
Greanalm-' hdn, INCN87409
Wo I
?"Wo 77—
� PRG POS ED FI1LL-LEXGTX PARALLEL
lw
Iri �
lX �
I$�
Lu
O
lz
a
W
H
O
0.
FIGURE
2
Proposed Project (PTI
PIEDMONTTRIAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

• Feh[ ' ' A Y* � R I 1 C ntE}CIUO' i i•� V 5� fi
jaIIA.IP ef�N
_ a t � C" �•i
��x � � -1 ��'`� �,~• F....,�. ��� . n �(;f��n'r�q SnIIUIF�PEE
Legend
ASRSIfingAftemobve
Airport Property 4P,
,µ6
P•�
ye.'s
_ q � 'a'� 1111 �p 1 �F •. / �^-- r U.�; 1 ...
s i 3 r WIM
44
- Sfri �;� �=\ME.00ws RoPINAIOGE •--1..
/ �- IF{iFPSON
• Gwl1Of N5
LO Ll5 GuMo�n
Nryllk AJ _ LONGVIEW HILLS Cdlega
116
I x' �F,•�� -
G ILFOAO'
T �+ Ae -. iY... ■ i f �UPNEa A,11 COLiFGe \y p E
{ , F.— - g
' e ■ `' F
$ a- T.<FFR/�. PIEUMONI •�! ! F V + A'� F A—Mn OISON W000s
A 4 J -�' • �• �, � p mwfSrnINO �
f COKNOA.11 6AEo A I: '�, - y - '• /
�* P­ C.
'FRn11EC GOWNS 9'---.ti _ 'II •I .F"�' I '� [ IBJ y'' _ �•
•
40
Am—, ONF •w ■MAul
® R: . •a °wF.. �^d�/• r• �o -Rlo'� e. a
� � r * �. •r �`aP°�� ` �' � t/'7r JI� Qa FRILNFrsw000 �r , ,.�
j

APPENDIX A-3
COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This appendix contains all other project related agency correspondence.
(TO BE PROVIDED IN THE FINAL EA)

COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(TO BE PROVIDED IN THE FINAL EA)

APPENDIX B
AIR QUALITY
This appendix contains assumptions and tables associated with the air quality analysis performed in this
EA.
B-1 Existing Conditions
B-2 Assumptions and Note Used in the Air Quality Modeling

APPENDIX B-1
EXISTING CONDITIONS

DW
ENVIRONMENTAL
IRONME'.ITAL
CONSULTING
P"—ftr s#rQ�d#0
Date: August 20, 2013
To: Paul Behrens, URS
From: Debbie Wilson, DW Environmental
Subject: Air Quality Tables for Greensboro, NC (PTIA)
Memorandum
This memo presents information on existing air quality conditions for the Greensboro area, including the
area around PTIA, along with the Tables for Section 4 (Affected Env) for Appendix C — Air Quality.
Background Information
Regional Climate - The airport is located in Guilford County, NC (part of the Greensboro Triad Area), at
an elevation of approximately 926 feet above mean sea level. Based on the NC Normals (1981-2010),
the mean annual temperature is 58.1 OF, and average annual precipitation is 42.23 inches. The
maximum average high occurs in July and is 87.9 OF, while the minimum average low occurs in January
and is 29.5 OF.
TARI FS
TABLE B-1
AGENCIES INVOLVED IN AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN THE GREENSBORO AREA
Agency
Air Quality Roles and Responsibilities
U.S. Environmental
l
Federal Agency - Sets national policies and standards under the CAA;
Protection Agency (EPA)
reviews and approves SIPS. (Greensboro is located in Region 4 of
EPA.)
North Carolina Department of
State agency - Sets and enforces state policies, rules and regulations;
Environmental Natural
issues operating permits; compiles SIP -related documents and
Resources (NCDENR)
submits them to EPA for approval; conducts ambient air monitoring.
Prepares periodic emissions inventories under the CAA.
Greensboro Urban Area
Local Agency - The Greensboro Urban Area MPO analyzes the
Metropolitan Planning
current and anticipated effects of patterns of land use and socio -
Organization (GUAMPO)
economic activity and their relationship to travel demand; responsible
for TIP development in Guilford County.
CAA = Clean Air Act, MPO = Metropolitan Planning Organization
SIP = State Implementation Plan, TIP = Transportation Improvement Plan
Source: URS, 2006, DW Environmental 2013.
Page 1 of 5

DW
ENVIRONMENTAL
IRONME'.ITAL
CONSULTING
faluii—ft" 7"'YI #r ealitYCwcc—
Memorandum
EPA has set National Ambient Air Quality Standards for six principal pollutants, which are called "criteria"
pollutants. They are listed below. Units of measure for the standards are parts per million (ppm) by
volume, parts per billion (ppb) by volume, and micrograms per cubic meter of air (pg/m3).
TABLE B-2
NATIONAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS - PRIMARY
Secondary standard designed to protect public weltare, where the rest are Nrimary standards, which protect public health.
ppm = parts per million. ppb = parts per billion
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter.
Source: NCDENR and EPA, 2013. (www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html)
Note: the Annual SO2 standard was revoked in June 2010. Updated lead standard was established in November
2008. In 1997, EPA revoked the 1 -hour ozone standard (0.12 ppm, not to be exceeded more than once per year)
in all areas, although some areas have continued obligations under that standard ("anti -backsliding").
Page 2 of 5
Averaging
Standard
ppm
/m3
Pollutant
Times
Notes
1 hour
35
40,000
Not to be exceeded more than
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
once a year.
8 hour
9
10,000
Not to be exceeded more than
once a year.
Lead (Pb)
Rolling 3-
---
0.15
Not to be exceeded.
month Avg
1 hour
100 ppb
---
98th percentile, averaged over 3
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
ears
Annual
0.053
100
Annual Mean - Not to exceed this
level
Annual fourth -highest daily
Ozone (03)
8 hour
0.075
---
maximum 8 -hr concentration,
averaged over 3 years
Particulate Matter
Not to be exceeded more than
with a diameter <_ 10 pm
24 hour
---
150
once a year on average over 3
(PMto)
years.
Particulate Matter
24 hour
---
35
98th percentile, averaged over 3
with a diameter <_ 2.5 pm
ears
Annual
---
12
Annual mean, averaged over 3
(PM2.5)
ears.
NCDENR Standard:
Total Suspended
24 hour
---
150
Not to be exceeded more than
Particulates (TSP)
once per year.
Annual
---
75
NCDENR Standard:
Not to exceed this level
3 hour a
0.50
1,300
Not to be exceeded more than
Sulfur Oxides (SO)j
once a year.
(measured as SO2)
24 hour
0.14
365
Not to be exceeded more than
once a year.
Secondary standard designed to protect public weltare, where the rest are Nrimary standards, which protect public health.
ppm = parts per million. ppb = parts per billion
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter.
Source: NCDENR and EPA, 2013. (www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html)
Note: the Annual SO2 standard was revoked in June 2010. Updated lead standard was established in November
2008. In 1997, EPA revoked the 1 -hour ozone standard (0.12 ppm, not to be exceeded more than once per year)
in all areas, although some areas have continued obligations under that standard ("anti -backsliding").
Page 2 of 5

DW
ENVIRONMENTAL
IRONME'.ITAL
CONSULTING
P"—ftr s#rQ�d#0
Air Monitoring Data
Memorandum
The NC-DAQ currently operates three monitoring sites in the Greensboro -High Point MSA. These sites
are located at Mendenhall and Colfax (Guilford County), and Bethany (Rockingham County). Colfax is a
fine particle monitoring site; Mendenhall is the ozone and particle monitoring site; Bethany is an ozone
monitoring site. Colfax site was established in 2007 as the second fine particle monitoring site in the
Greensboro -High Point MSA. At that time, the MSA was required to have two fine particle monitors
because the design value was greater than 85 % of the NAAQS.
TABLE B-3
2012 AIR MONITORING DATA — TRIAD AREA, NC
Source: EPA AIRS Database. 2013.
Page 3 of 5
Distance
Site
Monitoring
(miles)
pollutants
Highest Recorded
No.
Station
and
Measured
Concentrations a
Location
Direction
from PTIA
2127 Sandy
24 -Hour: 19.9 pg/m3
1
Ridge Rd.,
4.4 WSW
PM2.5
Annual: 8.5 pg/m3
Colfax City
03
1 -Hour: 0.111 ppm
205
8 -Hour: 0.087 ppm
PM10
24 -Hour: 28 pg/m3
2
WilBol
7.7 East
dghby
24 -Hour: 20.7 pg/m3
Greensboro
PM2.5
Annual: 8.5 pg/m3
6371 NC 65
03
1 -Hour: 0.089 ppm
@ Bethany
8 -Hour: 0.079 ppm
3
School,
15.2 NNE
Rockingham
SO2
1 Hour: 23 ppbb
Co
24 Hour: 5 ppb
NO2
1 -Hour: 52 ppb
03
1 -Hour: 0.102 ppm
1300 Blk.
8 -Hour: 0.087 ppm
Hattie
SO2
1 -Hour: 32 ppb
4
Avenue,
16.3 W
Winston-
24 -Hour: 3 ppb
PM10
24 -Hour: 32 Ng/m3
Salem
PM2.5
24 -Hour: 22.5 pg/m3
Annual: 8.9 tag/m3
1401
Corporation
1 -Hour: 1.9 ppm
5
Pkwy
18.1 W
CO
8 -Hour: 1.3 ppm
Winston-
Salem
Source: EPA AIRS Database. 2013.
Page 3 of 5

DW
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTING
.�� IA e-&� C --
Memorandum
a A value above the NAAQS does not necessarily represent a violation (see Table C-2, NAAQS).
b. S02 values in Greensboro MSA are from 2011, only reported every 3 years.
Pg/M3 = micrograms per cubic meter ppm = parts per million
ppb = parts per billion 03 = Ozone
CO = carbon monoxide PM = particulate mater
NO2 = nitrogen dioxide SO2 = sulfur dioxide
Attainment/Nonattainment Status
Table B-4
ATTAINMENT/NONATTAINMENT DESIGNATIONS FOR GUILFORD COUNTY
Pollutant
Designation
Carbon monoxide (CO)
Attainment
Lead
Attainment
Nitrogen oxides (NOX)
Attainment
Ozone (03) (8 -hr)
Attainment
Particulate matter (PMjo)
Attainment
Particulate matter (PM2.5)
Maintenance
Sulfur oxides (SOX)
Attainment
Source: EPA, 2013.
The geographic limits of the PM2.5 maintenance area for PTIA include Guilford and Davidson Counties.
Page 4 of 5

DW
ENVIRONMENTAL
IRONME'.ITAL
CONSULTING
P"—ftrsyell�ra
Sources of Airport Air Emissions
Memorandum
TABLE B-5
TYPICAL AIRPORT -RELATED SOURCES OF AIR EMISSIONS
Sources
Emissions
Characteristics
= hydrocarbons.
• CO
• HC
Exhaust products of fuel combustion that vary greatly depending
Aircraft
0 NOX
on aircraft engine type, power setting, and period of operation.
= sulfur dioxide.
PM
Except for short periods of takeoff and approach, aircraft altitude
precludes measurable offsite ground -level impacts.
• SO2
CO
• HC
Exhaust products of fuel combustion from passenger and
Motor vehicles
0 NOX
employee traffic approaching, departing, and moving about the
• PM
airport site. Emissions vary greatly depending on vehicle type,
distance traveled, operating speed, and ambient conditions.
SO2
• CO
Ground service vehicles
• HC
0 NOX
Exhaust products of fuel combustion from service trucks, tow
• PM
tugs, belt loaders, and other portable equipment.
• SO2
Formed from the evaporation and vapor displacement of fuel
Fuel storage and transfer
HC
from storage tanks and fuel transfer facilities. Emissions vary
facilities
with fuel usage, type of storage tank, refueling method, fuel type,
vapor recovery, climate, and ambient temperature.
CO
Exhaust products of fossil fuel combustion from boilers dedicated
• HC
to indoor heating requirements and emissions from incinerators
Stationary Source facilities
NOX
used for waste reduction. Emissions are generally well
• PM
controlled with operational techniques and post -burn collection
SO2
methods.
• CO
Construction activities at airports represent temporary sources of
• HC
emissions primarily associated with the exhaust from
Construction activities
0 NOX
construction equipment, dust generated during construction
• PM
activities and land clearing, and evaporative VOCs from asphalt
• SO2
paving operations.
Source: URS, 2006.
Note: Although there are no NAAQS for HC, they are included in this analysis as they are considered to be one of the precursors to the
formation of ozone. VOCs are a subset to HC.
CO
= carbon monoxide.
HC
= hydrocarbons.
NOx
= oxides of nitrogen.
PM
= particulate matter.
SO2
= sulfur dioxide.
Page 5 of 5

APPENDIX B-2
ASSUMPTIONS AND NOTE USED IN THE AIR QUALITY MODELING

Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Assessment
Air Quality Modeling: Note and Assumptions
Year(s)
PTIA Construction Projects
Reference
Source of calculation
Notes:
2014-2015
Earthwork over 430 acres with 6,054,365 cu yards
Fugitive Dust Equation from MRI (1999)
0.011 ton/acre-month plus 0.059 ton/1000 cu yds of cut/fill
Assumed 100 acres of dirt to be disturbed at one time
2014-2015
Earthwork over 67 acres with 1,582,593 cu yards
Fugitive Dust Equation from MRI (1999)
0.011 ton/acre-month plus 0.059 ton/1000 cu yds of cut/fill
2014-2015
Earthwork over 225 acres w/ 2,040,000 cu yards
Fugitive Dust Equation from MRI (1999)
0.011 ton/acre-month plus 0.059 ton/1000 cu yds of cut/fill
2014-2015
Cross -field taxiways for a total of 4,640 feet
IAD Runway 1W/19W (1L/19R) Alt 3
49% of Dulles (IAD) Runway emissions (over 2 yrs)
Dulles Runway 1/19 is 9,473 foot long (150 ft wide)
2014-2015
JPaving Emissions for 4,640 ft taxi
IAD Runway 1W/19W (1L/19R) Alt 3
49% of Dulles (IAD) Runway emissions (over 1 yr)
- also included aprons and other paved areas
2014-2015
Buildings (12) for a total of 3.6 M sf
Martin State (MTN) FBO Facility and Corporate Hangar Complex
385% of Building emissions
MTN Building complex is 1,167,999 sf
2014-2015
Extension of utilities to the Near-term development area
IAD Installation of NAVAIDS (2008, 2010)
100% over 2 year period
Assumed equivalent emissions
2014-2015
Linear feet of proposed Railway for Rail project (20,403 = 3.1 mi)
Richmond, CA Railroad EA Project (2013) 1
310% of emissions for 1.25 mi Rail Project
Richmond (CA) Rail Connector Project EA January 2013
2014-2015
Linear feet of proposed Roadway for rail project (4,223 = 0.8 mi)
IAD Runway 1W/19W (1L/19R) Alt 3
33% of Dallas Perimeter Taxi emissions
2014-2015
Paving Emissions for 4,223 ft roadway
IAD Runway 1W/19W (1L/19R) Alt 3
45% of Dulles (IAD) Runway emissions
Also included with this analysis are projects being conducted currently and over the 2014-1015 timeframe
2014 Taxiway from previous Cat -Ex document of 1,200 ft
Runway 1W/19W (1L/19R) Alt 3
13% of Dulles Runway emissions
Dulles Runway 1/19 is 9,473 foot long (150 ft wide)
2014 Paving emissions for 1,200 foot taxiway
Runway 1W/19W (1L/19R) Alt 3
13% of Dulles Runway emissions
2016-2020
Earthwork for 407 acres with 3,800,000 cu yards
Fugitive Dust Equation from MRI (1999)
0.011 ton/acre-month plus 0.059 ton/1000 cu yds of cut/fill
Assumed 50 acres to be disturbed at one time.
2016-2020
Parallel Taxiway for a total of 7,250 ft.
Runway 1W/19W (1L/19R) Alt 3
77% of Dulles Runway emissions (over 2 years)
Dulles Runway 1/19 is 9,473 foot long (150 ft wide) over 2 years
2016-2020
Paving for paralell 7,250 ft taxiways
Runway 1W/19W (1L/19R) Alt 3
77% of Dulles Runway emissions
Emissions over 1 year
2016-2020
Buildings (12) for a total of 2.4 M sf
Martin State (MTN) FBO Facility and Corporate Hangar Complex
128% of Building emissions
MTN Building complex is 1,167,999 sf
2016-2020
Closure of a portion of Joseph M. Bryan Blvd. and other local roads (5,600 ft)
IAD Concourse Demolition
lAssumed 100%
Over 3 years
2016-2020
Relocation of GSO's existing airport surveillance radar (ASR)
IAD Installation of NAVAIDS
100% over 1 year
lAssumed equivalent emissions over 1 year
2016-2020
Extension of utilities to the Long-term development area
IAD Installation of NAVAIDS
100% over 2 years
I Emissions over 2 years
Notes:
Taxiways can generally be constructed within a year. For conservatism and because the exact year is unknown,
emissions during the 2016 - 2020 period have been averaged, but taxiway emissions were added in one year
Additionally, the relocation of the Radar unit was estimated to be completed within one year
Therefore, the maximum annual emissions during the 2016 thru 2020 period are shown as a maximum annual number.
The Acres of construction are determined usually from a published relationship of construction cost to acres disturbed. The acres used here were based on worst case (most conservative) schedule developed by PTIA from phone call on 12/4/2013
1 Richmond Rail Connector Project, Environmental Assessment with FONSI. January 2013.
Section 2.2.4 - Air Quality - NEPA analysis, Table 2.2.4-14
Activities included: Track -bed Preparation, Turn -Out Pad, and Track/Signal Installation.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/documents/richmond_rail/environmental_assessment_with_fonsi.pdf

Years) PTIA Construction Projects
2014-2015 Earthwork over 430 acres with 6,054,365 cu yards (2 -yrs)
2014-2015 Earthwork over 67 acres with 1,582,593 cu yards (2 -yrs)
2014-2015 Earthwork over 225 acres w/ 2,040,000 cu yards (2 -yrs)
2014-2015 Cross -field taxiways for a total of 4,640 feet, w/assoc. aprons (2 -yrs)
2014-2015 Paving Emissions for 4,640 ft taxi (1 -yr)
2014-2015 Buildings (12) for a total of 3.6 M sf (2 -yrs)
2014-2015 Closure of a portion of Joseph M. Bryan Blvd. and other local roads (5,600 ft)
2014-2015 Extension of utilities to the Near-term development area (2 yrs)
2014-2015 Linear feet of proposed Railway for Rail project (20,403 = 3.1 mi) (2 -yrs)
2014-2015 Linear feet of proposed Roadway for rail project (4,223 = 0.8 mi) (1 -yr)
2014-2015 Paving Emissions for 4,223 ft roadway (1 -yr)
Total Project Emissions
CO
NOx
VOC
PM10
PM2.5
Paving for paralell 7,250 ft taxiways (1 -year)
2016-2020
Buildings (12) for a total of 2.4 M sf (5 -yrs)
582
58
2016-2020
Extension of utilities to the Long-term development area (2 -yr plan)
2016-2020
133
13
353
29
10
180
18
16
43
4
4
4
5
11
8
1
1
530
43
15
3
3
13
31
3
3
3
5
11
1
1
1
6
6
3
1
1
6
3
1
0
0
7
577
138
43
907
102
Also included with this analysis are projects being conducted currently and over the 2014-1015 timeframe
2014 Taxiway from previous Cat -Ex document of 1,200 ft 4 11 1 1 1
2014 Paving emissions for 1,200 foot Taxiway M Extension 2
Total of estimated construction emissions for maximum annual year (2014) 4 11 3 1 1
2014-2015 Total Emissions from ALL proposed projects. 581 149 46 908 103
2016-2020
Earthwork for 407 acres with 3,800,000 cu yards ( 5 yrs)
2016-2020
Parallel Taxiway for a total of 7,250 ft. w/assoc. aprons, etc. (2 yr)
2016-2020
Paving for paralell 7,250 ft taxiways (1 -year)
2016-2020
Buildings (12) for a total of 2.4 M sf (5 -yrs)
2016-2020
Relocation of GSO's existing airport surveillance radar (ASR) (1 -yr plan)
2016-2020
Extension of utilities to the Long-term development area (2 -yr plan)
2016-2020
Total of estimated construction emissions for maximum annual year
2014-2020 Total Construction Emissions for both Near and Long -Term Projects (2014-2020)
971 1 268 1 77 1 1473 1 169
Notes:
For fugitive dust emissions a factor of 10% was used to estimate PM2.5 emissions from PM10 emissions.
All other construction projects assumed 100% of PM10 was PM2.5
Maximum Annual Emissions
554
55
25
67
6
7
7
0�©00
12
353
29
10
2
2
5
11
1
1
1
5
11
1
1
1
389
119
31
565
66
971 1 268 1 77 1 1473 1 169
Notes:
For fugitive dust emissions a factor of 10% was used to estimate PM2.5 emissions from PM10 emissions.
All other construction projects assumed 100% of PM10 was PM2.5
Maximum Annual Emissions
0000
111
11
13
34
3
4
3
0�©00
12
71
6
2
2
2
5
11
1
1
1
3
6
1
1
1
91
57
19
118
18
©0000
0©000
0000
111
11
13
34
3
4
3
0�©00
12
296 1 82 1 32 1 455 1 52
111
11
13
34
3
4
3
12
71
6
2
2
2
5
11
1
1
1
3
6
1
1
1
91
57
19
118
18

APPENDIX C
WETLANDS, FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PLANTS
This appendix includes information related to the coordination efforts with the North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) concerning biotic resources in the area of the
Proposed Project.
(TO BE PROVIDED IN THE FINAL EA.)

TO BE PROVIDED

APPENDIX D
HISTORIC RESOURCES/SECTION 106 COORDINATION
This appendix contains the correspondence and information from the North Carolina State Historical
Preservation Officer (SHPO) relating the historic architectural resources, and a record of conversation
between URS and the NC Office of State Archaeology pertaining to the evaluation of the potential for
archaeological resources in the area of the Proposed Project.
• Response Letter from the SHPO to FAA — July 19, 2013
• Email Record of Conversation with NC Office of State Archaeology — October 10, 2013
• Response Letter from the SHPO to FAA — November 5, 2013
• Addendum to Reconnaissance -Level Inventory of Potential Historic Resources — May 23, 2014
• Response Letter from the SHPO to FAA — June 17, 2014
• Section 106 Determination — November 19, 2014

� SSAT� 4
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Kluttz
July 19, 2013
Paul Behrens
URS
7605 West Courtney Campbell Causeway
Suite 700
Tampa, FL 33607-1462
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Northwest Taxiway and Site Development, Piedmont Triad International Airport, Guilford County,
ER 13-1261
Dear Mr. Behrens:
Thank you for your letter of June 21, 2013, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or renee.gledhill-
earley(@ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced
tracking number.
Sincerely,
�3KRamona M. Bartos
Location: 109 lust fones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service (:enter, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

From: Cassedy, Daniel
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 3:27 PM
To: Brown, Marvin; Kincaid, Rhiannon
Subject: RE: PTIA EA - section 4 archaeology text
Rhiannon,
I am sending you this record of my phone conversation concerning the archaeological review of the PTIA project so you
can include it in the project files.
I called Susan Meyers at the NC Office of State Archaeology and asked her to check on the review of the PTIA Northwest
Taxiway and Site Development project, which is tracked by their ER #13-1261. She looked in their electronic project
review database and said that the record indicated that Dolores Hall, Deputy State Archaeologist, reviewed the project
in June 2013 and recommended that no archaeological studies needed to be conducted because there were no known
sites and the project area had a low potential for containing significant archaeological sites.
Datdd ewje4, Ph.D., RPA
Principal Archaeologist
URS Corporation
1600 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 400
Morrisville, NC 27560
Office 919-461-1442
Cell 919-522-5885
This e-mail and any attachments contain URS Corporation confidential information that may be
proprietary or privileged. If you receive this message in error or are not the intended recipient, you
should not retain, distribute, disclose or use any of this information and you should destroy the e-mail
and any attachments or copies.

d4a. STATg Q.
r�'Man �r
Quw
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Kluttz
November 5, 2013
Marvin Brown
URS Corporation - North Carolina
1600 Perimeter Park Drive
Morrisville NC 27560
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Piedmont Triad International Airport, Northwest Taxiway and Site Development, Guilford County,
ER 13-1261
Dear Mr. Brown:
Thank you for meeting with our staff on October 21, 2013, concerning the above project and for presenting
the reconnaissance level inventory of potential historic properties.
As discussed at that meeting, we concur that at this time no additional survey work is warranted and that,
barring additional information to the contrary, the following properties are not eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places:
■ Barn at Pleasant Ridge Golf Course, 1518 Pleasant Ridge Road;
■ House, 6647 Old Oak Ridge Road;
■ House, 6421 Old Oak Ridge Road;
■ House, 6415 Old Oak Ridge Road;
■ House, 708 North Regional Road; and,
■ Cahn Farm, 7099 Caindale Drive.
Accordingly, we are aware of no historic properties that would be affected by the proposed project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or renee.gledhill-
earleynncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced
tracking number.
Sincerely,
(�. w -�L
Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

ADDENDUM
to
Reconnaissance -Level Inventory of Potential Historic
Resources
Northwest Taxiway and Site Development,
Piedmont Triad International Airport,
Guilford County
Environmental Assessment
(ER 13-1261)
Prepared by:
URS Corporation — North Carolina
Presented to:
North Carolina Historic Preservation Office
May 23, 2014

Management Summary
On October 21, 2013 URS Corporation -North Carolina presented to the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office (HPO) the results of a reconnaissance -level inventory (see Attachment A) of historic
architectural resources located within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the Northwest Taxiway and Site
Development at Piedmont Triad International Airport in Guilford County (the Undertaking). In a letter dated
November 5, 2013 (see Attachment B), the HPO concurred that no additional survey work was warranted
within the APE and that, barring additional information, the six presented resources were not eligible for listing
in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Subsequently, the study area of the undertaking was extended to the south, thereby expanding the APE. This
addendum to the initial reconnaissance -level inventory includes descriptions and photographs of the five
resources located within the expanded APE that are 50 years old or older. One of these resources—the
Campbell -Gray House and Barn at I10 Regional Road South—was determined eligible for NRHP listing in
1995. It is believed that this property continues to be NRHP eligible within the boundaries that were mapped for
it. The other four resources—houses at 105, 109, and I I 1 Adair Road and a barn behind 312 Industrial Road
South—do not appear to be significant under any of the NRHP Criteria. They are therefore recommended as not
meriting any further investigation to determine their potential NRHP eligibility.
I

-h r...- .-... .. _ _
:r
4*
1 �
# 1 I
c
A
/ I
Extension of Historic Architecture APE
/ Legend
Historlo A rch ite ctu ra I
APE
l 1 I tom_ Detailed Study Area
- lige Corp, 201
-Fd=L
0 3.000
e
g
PIEDMONT TRIAD
PT, INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL FIGURE
AREA OF POTENTIAL AFFECT (APE)
Environmental Assessment

Campbell -Gray House and Barn
110 Regional Road South, Greensboro
The Campbell -Gray House and Barn received an Official Determination of Eligibility (DOE) for listing in the
NRHP on September 20, 1995. The parties to the DOE were the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) and the North Carolina HPO. The resource was determined NRHP-eligible under Criterion C for the
architecture of its house and barn. The boundaries described in the NCDOT report that assessed the property are
those of the 4.13 -acre parcel the house sits on (0097991) and the 1.87 -acre parcel the barn sits on (0098003).
The boundaries as shown on the map in the report are those of the two parcels and the strip of land separating
them. The two parcels are owned by Charles R. Gray. The strip of land between them, which is part of a largely
overgrown 151.27 -acre parcel (0098004) that extends north, south, and west of the house and barn, is held in
the name of Southern Region Industrial Realty Inc. of Roanoke, Virginia.
The Campbell -Gray House and Barn is little changed from its DOE determination in 1995 and is still eligible
for listing in the NRNP. The appropriate NRHP boundary continues to be that of the 1995 sketch map, which
encompasses approximately seven acres.
Campbell -Gray house looking NE (Marvin Brown, August 2013)
4

Campbell -Gray house and outbuilding looking NW from Regional Road S (Marvin Brown, August 2013)
Campbell -Gray house and outbuilding looking SW from Regional Road S (Marvin Brown, August 2013)
5

Campbell -Gray House and outbuildings looking SW from Regional Road S (Marvin Brown, August 2013)
Campbell -Gray barn looking NW from lane that passes between the house and barn (Marvin Brown, August
2013)
C.

Campbell -Gray barn looking SW from lane that passes between the house and barn (Marvin Brown, August
2013)
x�'
4
Al
l
• t�!'ti� � � �YW �r
Aerial view of Campbell -Gray House and Barn with barn at lower left, house at center, and lane between them
(Google maps)
7

} d X a h![p::'yi:.cagdheid..—: yudfer�l' P - a -1 L$ The Sayre -Home GyiYcrd c
Map Scale Papa Size Orientation Include Resolution
[P 6.5 x 31 [[%t4f} . lJ Portrait D OvervleW ' •' Hormal I Aflnt . i Can[eS I
V Land5ca" •Hlyh
w�r�imr: wh.Ve ere�ynR rt rr madam ka�iK mornndadever Rein[mie[acewam mdip-nr�n, cuWN uwtLdw rw[rarnry•tM Hap Scala
ruMmnc,tr o�accyracy oFvxh inRmunon. xe wamanws, eyreu wimpn'e4 an orerdM krthe mxMi amNw maq�iiy hta Awe�n, wkr hnr uu L inch - 186 Fee!
^•'ew�teF'w+6r tt.t lJrw- LIV2014
Campbell -Gray House and Barn parcels (base map: Guilford County GIS map)
Campbell -Gray House and Barn site plan and NRHP-eligible boundary map (source: NCDOT eligibility report)
8

Luther and Elsie Boyd House
105 Adair Road, Greensboro
According to Guilford County tax records, this single-family residence was built in 1965 by Luther and Elsie
Boyd. A plainly finished, one-story, brick -veneered, gable -end ranch house with a carport attached to its south
side elevation, it does not appear to be significant under any of the NRHP Criteria. It is therefore recommended
as not meriting any further investigation to determine its potential NRHP eligibility. The house and its 0.88 -acre
parcel (0097990) are currently owned by the Piedmont Triad Airport Authority (Guilford County Deed Book
7406/Page 2219 (2012)).
Note: This house was viewed in August 2013, but as the APE for the Undertaking did not extend to its parcel at
that time, and as it appeared to have no architectural or historical significance, it was not photographed. The
photographs below, which capture the appearance of the house, are Google images.
Luther and Elsie Boyd House (Google images)
E]

James B. Lindsay House
109 Adair Road, Greensboro
According to Guilford County tax records, this one-story, concrete -block, gable -end, single-family residence
was built in 1949 by James B. Lindsay. Alterations include the replacement of sash and the central chimney
stack and the addition of artificial siding. It does not appear to be significant under any of the NRHP Criteria
and is therefore recommended as not meriting any further investigation to determine its potential NRHP
eligibility. The house and its 0.35 -acre parcel (0097993) are currently owned by the Piedmont Triad Airport
Authority (Guilford County Deed Book 7577/Page 1079 (2014)).
Note: This house was viewed in August 2013, but as the APE for the Undertaking did not extend to its parcel at
that time, and as it appeared to have no architectural or historical significance, it was not photographed. The
photographs below, which capture the appearance of the house, are Google images.
James B. Lindsay House (Google images)
10

Cora Lindsay House
111 Adair Road, Greensboro
Guilford County tax records identify the first owner of this single-family house as Cora Lindsay, who owned it
in 1953. It is a modest, one-story, gable -front, frame dwelling with altered sash, no chimney stack, and artificial
siding that may have been built earlier in the century. The house does not appear to be significant under any of
the NRHP Criteria and is therefore recommended as not meriting any further investigation to determine its
potential NRHP eligibility. The Piedmont Triad Airport Authority acquired the dwelling and its 0.37 -acre parcel
(0098000) in 2012 (Guilford County Deed Book 7406/Page 2111).
Cora Lindsay House (Marvin Brown, August 2013)
11

Barn within industrial buildings
312 Regional Road South
This barn sits on a 7.54 -acre parcel (0098408) owned by Six Guys Property of Greensboro (Guilford County
Deed Book 6651/Page 3023 (2006)). A large metal -clad industrial warehouse, erected by Piedmont Truck Tires
in the late 1970s or early 1980s according to tax records, stands to the barn's east along Regional Road S. The
barn, which appears to have been erected as a dairy barn between about 1940 and 1960, is encased on three
sides by additions that may once have served the farm with which it was associated. It is built of concrete block
with a tall gambrel roof. Its original entry bays have been removed or covered and modern window bays have
been inserted into its gambrel ends. No evidence remains of the farmhouse and other outbuildings that would
once have been associated with the barn. It now stands within a landscape of modern industrial buildings,
asphalt and gravel parking lots, and tractor trailer trucks.
Barn, parcel and surroundings (base map: Guilford County GIS map)
12

Barn and additions looking NW
"A
PO
Barn and additions looking NE
13

Additions to barn, looking SE (barn not visible)
Barn looking NW
14

ATTACHMENT A
15

Reconnaissance -Level Inventory of Potential Historic
Resources
Northwest Taxiway and Site Development,
Piedmont Triad International Airport,
Guilford County
Environmental Assessment
(ER 13-1261)
Prepared by:
URS Corporation — North Carolina
Presented to:
North Carolina Historic Preservation Office
October 21, 2013
16

PIEDMONT TRIAD
tPT► INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT HISTORIC RESOURCES FIGURE
4 4.X -x
Environmental Assessment
2
17
4 Ar
f: l Historic Site Resources =
Interstate
�HistariCArchitecturWAPE
Other Roads
4
4 o>herFeatures
Proposed Roads
© Detailed Study Area
Lakes
EwistingAirport Facilities
Streams
Airport Property
sNsdm:
a Arport FEIS, 2lW1
-Pekhboh
- N e ghhonng C unoav�e, Inc., 2006
gC ampte,,I
• VPS Coep-7000
N
- Feet
E
YYY ❑ 2,❑❑❑
s
PIEDMONT TRIAD
tPT► INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT HISTORIC RESOURCES FIGURE
4 4.X -x
Environmental Assessment
2
17

Resource A —1518 Pleasant Ridge Road (at Pleasant Ridge Golf Course), Greensboro:
IN
' 45 -1. 1 . -

ti
K:
Wit, #L,4 ..N ►.wr..
- Z7- r
At
�I4iY•'®•'•'• ' r _ r � %a . �.�`' a -` . � .� a a. � �`��.
- vot. -Ok5l
f v.. .y � b. ` •
'Ar, �" J

AM.
Y.
Nzr�
ti�6q - CA
47
A

ol
31
•�•: ;-a'`i�`:',•J R•. - 1 �• • . + . .[ .•il�d_ -u�..� • '# -!.
07 Ali
rim ;.,. ; ,<
'� *~
WAIMM
P'=i! mfr--". .., � •;. ,r "�IIR y��'1�1� .: ..
t- _ .qCPO.
fA
"�4

v
—ad
'1'1�
FA- 11, il—qk "

Resource F — 7099 Caindale Drive, Greensboro:
Formerly property of Robert Hugheston Cain (1898-1979) and wife Abbie Dale Cain (1900-1983); acquired by
airport from heirs
Cains are buried at Ai Methodist Memorial Church, Oak Ridge, Guilford County
Not located in Greensboro city directories of 1940s -1960s, but identified in 1930 and 1940 federal census
schedules:
• In 1930 Robert Cain (32) and wife Abbie (29) live in Friendship Township; Robert is a farmer; they
have 6 children.
• In 1940 Robert H. Cain (42) and wife Abbie D. (37) live in Friendship Township; Robert is a farmer; his
house is valued at $2,500; they have 10 children.
23

w
jr
Al
�� � - C k`� �, it d �'i•., _,
_ Mlih, i
VA
rl
y

,.p_ i
Ir
ex,
..+�f� fir.. � 1 •��� ,�� • � - 1
-'elf
L... - •*
if
IC
Ae
kl
'-
jo
17
- " 4k _
• .rte ��.. '
_ s .a. - .. >��s ..► ._� ....... v 1111 Y.4.E`• y
Ilk'-. •- - rte.'-. - ; r s ,. %rf�'-S1y+!'-
-
- � • � � � " � � � : rte• � - --i��:•y1,_

'• fi : � S� f t"5
'��; a .�. - .�; ,� '• ;� r tom. i � ,� a �,
-tie'•- �y•t,� -' o' '� +.. - '.,��'. �;� .� �L' ..k f�
Or
• ` fI }
All
� rr
t �: •'rpt+ . �.-�� _ �'
9 FT
... � �yy y • RF �� 4T
1 '; x-• - ��` �r _ �� I tom- _ -�� �;wy.µ f'�- -
.. ` � f'�+ �. - � "�-til: r,��.��+-:'�i:�� -. .• - r Y � —n'. `-�:.Q,
', ��"�� , y,a�•. 'F r? _ '�`:4. a �'' ��,.' �A :� • �. .
144
At—

L'J
- 9C
` jw
MW
L'J

W3

ow
1 � -� � � _�; �''•� is _. -
r r i
••lie 4.
r
! Y z t
_41`ZOO,,
ate..
� ..lr Jot •a! }�-. - -
' i. r

.f _
_ • �� l � s a � �e. I f � - � � _. % � � � .x/'41 � �'�
,.. � ` .q�, 14� � � 7r � Yy��l`.i�r� �, �*': � .��•� �.`• i - -. _ fir �,

N

la,�r F-
- - - -- --------
4-
XMile
-7
I ..- ! 9i0, -.q VWA.W,,jp �n". :.' ZLWRLf'�

e,
.+V.�Y
r

'� * ►' . � }��i.'r+� _ y . r. n �,y - r _ _ _mac _
our
yam: A
A M-= am.
'4�'•
rl
WL
ir 4-2
Ao
Ift
1� _ i f•.
fir• 1� ..
�r.' "s . r.R���1 � � �•ar "
r �. y� - i.•y "'.: ANk
i 1 Ya 'moi +tit
4t
ti.. ". eF . I •+ r
OF IL J :a

l
v •, w ,
zt A:;,
�` ' r�`� .�t � -' L ',.F I y + � •' :Tri
.11 Ort
.41
5�.. �iC,Y-•fie'. � �- �y ,
k�� '' •• ' •, � i '"'�`;.'.� ,� r *' -raj ,:: ,�, _ ,{Yy , R�`
-� 'ti�•_ >>,;.. `.' Y .� .?yr QCT`]
.: s r ��}ij k - •t N ,�-, F i 'p`. 4 : ;� [+` _ .�r`' •rte ii .
F3 • Y •':moi 16L�� . �'�••• � Tc" ri - �� - �� • ��
�7ALL_.
i • S. y� a7 � � R•� 1a +�
�* S
77 �µlJ.
i 1. ,j •' �� � L e� K.�
r ' V.
Jr
OVA
,�r!�y��'.i�'+�:'r`�`'�C:. �5` - -_ - -., -- _ r - .i YY � �'L'�.�Y�=':'*'�tia•['s t�d'�`•3+�.�,�
ok
i7���ti. s&,, . � Y. ;t i ��... M1 R ,ice . •��'}:'�n{'��e�.�'�r-. {`apt' �',j• '/r
�.. • ''�,. ' .:-irk-`r•'.i� w.t �� ', oy,.-�!�•1� � .C� �=.r,�.�..°`'���'` f•,��.-W=�i
iii R Sf - _ .?♦.'•. ',{�..

36

A
yst ,
Ifti-4
_ -
OP�

�� �' i' •� ►� •� ,� s:"°y a `:� ,�'. •'�!.i1 a�
17
AMA
�' 'i � .. ti,� ;�r �^� ter' � ry- y01� � i' ' • !�Y ;: r r . •.$s•�f • .'- .
..�� � r �1j ��. _ � .• : @@@ ,* ., � � L:. •• rte.,
Al"
� -� .l'i'd i ��' rw�J, !' � i �• � �� •J'
... .r`� � ���. Rte' :� I.' .. ._ �r �.�•_ .
-. - . � r .. •,,y � .' Ka`'. • ' let r ' *'�,'. ' � ^ � -� • .. � � f �" .a y
t.. l ��M ►^. ''µ_Vi? mak! 1 + �� - !� ;
Imo. s ,dw
•�
WAM
rl
lk

40

��• l .. -, ;1s.4-- r � .�'�•.S�' •.l.�r.� tea*
. -�'-+� .� -ham .- ,� S.:La� + �p '' � Yy.. '•_. �•l•
.;:r r '. j ti.�s.�; e. ,fit � � .. �f �. � - • ^� �-{,�. .: � n
At
F "x
�. s•p -ell
.4c.
.30
tri
•;} � r � '� � - ` '1c; .� ..fes
rwlI
or
9F 1
ti M• a
- �,�+r . �•^r': �� �, � " 'V ��� �ti � fr• � nor • �� !" � �"° '
is o'er. � 1
Vii' � �i,• `.�,A � � , -�
,.; 'tel/•aq�_1 {t r'r
1 %4V. V i
OF
i �1 £6r T•�• - 5 -. - f ••i.

ATTACHMENT B
43

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Barton, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Klum
November 5, 2013
Marvin Brown
URS Corporation - North Carolina
1600 Perimeter Park Drive
Morrisville NC 27560
Office of Archives and History
deputy secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Piedmont Triad International Airport, Northwest Taxiway and Site Development, Guilford County,
ER 13-1261
Dear Mr. Brown:
Thank you for meeting with our staff on October 21, 2013, concerning the above project and For presenting
the reconnaissance level inventory of potential historic properties.
As discussed at that meeting, we concur that at this time no additional survey work is warranted and that,
barring additional information to the contrary, the following properties are not eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places:
■ Barn at Pleasant Ridge Golf Course, 1518 Pleasant Ridge Road;
■ House, 6647 Old Oak Ridge Road;
■ House, 6421 Old Oak Ridge Road;
■ House, 6415 Old Oak Ridge Road;
■ House, 708 North Regional Road; and,
■ Cain Farm, 7099 Caindale Drive.
Accordingly, we are aware of no historic properties that would be affected by the proposed project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 146 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or renee.gledhill-
[e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced
tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 Fast Jones Streer, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Lull service Center, Raleigh NC_ 27699-4617 Tekphone/Fa. [phone]/807-6599
44

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Kluttz
June 17, 2014
Marvin Brown, Sr. Architectural Historian
USR Corporation — North Carolina
1600 Perimeter Park Drive
Morrisville, NC 27560
marvin.brown(c�urs. com
RE: Addendum to Reconnaissance -Level Inventory of Potential Historic Resources
Northwest Taxiway and Site Development, Piedmont Triad International Airport,
Guilford County, ER 13-1261
Dear Mr. Brown:
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Thank you for your May 23, 2014, email transmitting the above -referenced report addendum. We have
reviewed the report and concur that the Campbell -Gray House and Barn (GF0425) at 110 Regional Road
South remain eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and that the boundaries in the 1995
Determination of Eligibility are still appropriate.
We concur that the houses at 105, 109, and 111 Adair Road and a barn behind 312 Industrial Road South are
not eligible for listing in the National Register.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or renee.gledhill-
earle T a,ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced
tracking number.
Sincerely,
6j"(Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

a
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
November 19, 2014
Mrs. Renee Gledhill -Earley
Environmental Review Coordinator, North Carolina
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
Dear Mrs. Gledhill -Earley:
RE: SECTION 106 DETERMINATION
Memphis Airports District Office
2600 Thousund Oaks Blvd, Suite 2250
Memphis, TN 38118
Phone: [phone]
PIEDMONT TRIAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT — GREENSBORO, NC
ER 13-1261
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Memphis Airports District Office (ADO) is
seeking concurrence for a determination under Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) for a proposed undertaking at the Piedmont Triad International
Airport in Greensboro, NC. The proposed undertaking includes development of aviation
related infrastructure on the northwest side of the airfield. The enclosed report details the
proposed undertaking which includes railroad development near an eligible resource.
After considering the information contained in the report, the FAA has concluded that the
proposed undertaking would not affect historic properties. I respectfully request your
review of the enclosed report and determination. If you have any questions, please feel
welcome to contact me at [phone] or by email at aaron.braswellgfaa.eov.
Sincerel���2�����%/ /
Aaron Braswell
Environmental Protection Specialist, Memphis Airports District Office
Enclosures
cc: Alex Rosser, Lisa Elmore; Piedmont Triad Airport Authority (electronic copy)
Paul Behrens; URS Corporation (electronic copy)

Section 106 Effects Determination
for
Cross -Field Taxiway
and Site Development Projects
at
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Greensboro, North Carolina
November 2014
Prepared bv:
Piedmont Triad Airport Authority
1000-A Ted Johnson Parkway
Greensboro, North Carolina 27409
„-A
URS
URS Corporation
7650 W. Courtney Campbell Causeway
Tampa, Florida 33607-1462
For the:
Federal Aviation Administration
2862 Business Park Drive
Memphis, Tennessee 38118

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
FAA SECTION 106 EFFECTS DETERMINATION.......................................................................................1
GeneralAirport Information: ............................................................................................................. 1
Description of the Undertaking/Proposed Action: ............................................................................ 1
Determination of and Description of the Area of Potential Effects (APE): ....................................... 5
Steps Taken to Identify Historic and Archaeological Properties in the APE: ................................... 5
FAAAssessment of Effect: .............................................................................................................. 8
FAADetermination of Effect: .......................................................................................................... 14
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1
Airport Location Map and Proposed Project..........................................................................2
2
Proposed Project Conceptual Development Plan..................................................................
3
3
Historic Architectural APE and Historic Properties................................................................6
4
Historic Architectural APE and Historic Properties................................................................7
5
Campbell -Gray House and Barn Parcels with Airport at Upper Right (Base Map:
GuilfordCounty GIS Map)......................................................................................................8
6
Campbell -Gray House and Barn Parcels (Base Map: Guilford County GIS Map).................9
7
Campbell -Gray House and Barn Site Plan and NRHP-Eligible Boundary Map
(Source: North Carolina Department Of Transportation Eligibility Report) ............................9
8-A
A Proposed Project Conceptual Rail Gantry Crane.............................................................11
8-B
B 366 ICW 20 Track Centers...............................................................................................12
8-C
Mi -Jack 1000R Plan.............................................................................................................12
9-A
Proposed Project Conceptual Rail Reach Loader...............................................................13
9-B
Proposed Project Conceptual Rail Reach Loader
Reach Loader Gloria-DRG420-450 Sales Brochure............................................................14
W:\12011299—Piedmont EA\Section 106\FAA Determination of Effect PTIA-11-17-14.doc i Piedmont Triad International Airport
106 Effects Determination

FAA SECTION 106 EFFECTS DETERMINATION
GENERAL AIRPORT INFORMATION:
Piedmont Triad International Airport (GSO), 1000 A Ted Johnson Parkway, Greensboro, NC 27409; N 36° 06'
04.7731" Latitude and W 079° 56' 28.0444" Longitude. Piedmont Triad International Airport (GSO) is owned
and operated by the Piedmont Triad Airport Authority (PTAA). The airport encompasses approximately 4,000
acres, and has three runways. The main runway 5R/23L is 10,001 feet long, the cross -wind runway 14/32 is
6,380 feet long and the parallel runway 5L/23R is 9,000 feet long. PTIA is located approximately 10 miles west
of the central business district of Greensboro, 17 miles east of Winston-Salem, and 10 miles north of High Point,
North Carolina. An airport location map and airport vicinity map is provided on Figure 1.
DESCRIPTION OF THE UNDERTAKING/PROPOSED ACTION:
The project proposed by PTAA would improve existing and previously disturbed and developed parcels of land
collectively located immediately adjacent to and northwest of the GSO airfield. These land areas would be
improved to provide approximately 972 acres of land suitable to accommodate existing and anticipated future
demand for aviation -related and aviation -allied activities. The use of the approximately 972 -acre development
area is predicated upon the development of various taxiway system and infrastructure improvements that would
provide unrestricted aircraft operational access to the airport's existing system of runways and supporting
taxiways. The Proposed Project will serve to preserve and protect the PTAA's ability to continue the on-going
development of the airport for aviation -related use.
The exact site layout, composition (number and size of tenants), and development schedule for the aviation
facilities cannot be determined at this time. The acreage and site development requirements of each
prospective tenant would be influenced by prevailing market conditions, the operational needs of each tenant,
and respective business decisions by prospective tenants and the PTAA. The proposed 972 -acre development
project also includes construction of a rail transfer facility to support development and operation of the proposed
future aviation -related activities. The Proposed Project would be accomplished in two phases, referred to as the
Near -Term Project and Long -Term Project. A conceptual development plan is depicted in Figure 2.
The Near -Term Project improvements evaluated in this EA are listed below.
• Acquisition of approximately 249 acres of land;
• Site preparation of approximately 553 acres of land for aviation development, including
clearing, grading, and excavation';
• Extension of utilities to the Near -Term development area, including electrical, natural gas,
water, sanitary sewer, communications, and other related infrastructure;
' The acreage figure for the land to be acquired includes the entire tract that PTAA will have to buy for a rail
transfer station (discussed below). However, the Proposed Project does not involve any development on that
tract other than the transfer facility itself so the remaining land is not included in this EA in the acreage to be
develoaed.
W:\12011299—Piedmont EA\Section 106\FAA Determination of Effect PTIA-11-17-14.doc 1 Piedmont Triad International Airport
106 Effects Determination

FIGURE 1
AIRPORT LOCATION MAP AND PROPOSED PROJECT
/
Virginia
Piedmont Triad
International Airport
Gre®sboro
+
\Fio stop -Salem
Durham
International Airport
Asheville
Raleigh
Greeoaille
Runway
North Carolina
Municipality
Charlotte
Interstate
r
%J
County
Fa�enev-ille
— U.S. Road
South Carolina
Water
w -e
o eo
Miles 5ti ilm iogtoo
1
Atlantic
,p--
-ONE—p-2009
Ocean
3
777�LLLLL::LLL111111��� �.-
l"j_ -ESRI Street—p-2008
5
7..,X
FORSYTH
COUNTY
r�
Kernersville
4
DAVIDSONP
COUNTY
I
Project Site
zr-
ROC4M
CU0UA'TY_rlTY
Summerfield
\ � vv �
Piedmont Triad
International Airport
GUILFORD QUEM21M
COUNTY
W:\12011299—Piedmont EA\Section 106\FAA Determination of Effect PTIA-11-17-14.doc 2 Piedmont Triad International Airport
106 Effects Determination
�
421
Legend
O Piedmont Triad
+
Project Site
gum
International Airport
Airport Property
11�a
Runway
Municipality
Interstate
r
%J
County
— U.S. Road
Water
State Road
Sources
-NCD0T-2009: URS. 2009
N
MEles
,p--
-ONE—p-2009
W E
0
3
777�LLLLL::LLL111111��� �.-
l"j_ -ESRI Street—p-2008
5
W:\12011299—Piedmont EA\Section 106\FAA Determination of Effect PTIA-11-17-14.doc 2 Piedmont Triad International Airport
106 Effects Determination

FIGURE 2
PROPOSED PROJECT CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
e courtesy of USGS'(
C
Legend
Conceptual Airport Site
Development Plan
Taxiway Development Area
Rail Development Area J
Future Aviation Use
i . Y Conceptual Buildings
Proposed Project
Airfield Pavement
......•••••• Proposed Taxiway \
Future 1-73 Connector
Existing Airport Boundary
+� Proposed Rail Line
$DIJRes'
-ESRI. 2013
-URS CDrp. 2013
Feet
0 2.000
W:\12011299—Piedmont EA\Section 106\FAA Determination of Effect PTIA-11-17-14.doc 3
I�
Abu u IL IM4`.0 r
Piedmont Triad International Airport
106 Effects Determination

• Extension and/or installation of stormwater collection and treatment infrastructure within the
Near -Term development area;
• Construction of aircraft parking aprons and associated aviation -related facilities within the
Near -Term development area;
• Closure of a portion of Joseph M. Bryan Boulevard and other local road closures;
• Construction of a cross -field taxiway system linking the proposed Near -Term development
area to the existing airfield;
• Development of aviation support and service facilities as needed to support aviation -related
activities associated with the Near -Term development;
• Construction of access roads;
• Development of a rail spur or a transfer facility connecting the proposed development site to
the Norfolk Southern Railroad tracks located to the southwest of GS02; and
• Implementation of mitigation measures for unavoidable wetland and stream impacts
associated with the Near -Term development.
The Long -Term GSO improvements evaluated in this EA (hereinafter referred to as the "Long -Term Projects")
include the following:
• Acquisition of approximately 166 acres of additional land;
• Site preparation of approximately 407 acres of additional land for aviation -related
development;
• Extension of utilities to the Long -Term development area, including electrical, natural gas,
water, sanitary sewer, communications, and other related infrastructure;
• Extension and/or installation of stormwater collection and treatment infrastructure within the
Long -Term development area;
• Construction of aircraft parking aprons and associated aviation -related facilities within the
Long -Term development area;
• Relocation of GSO's existing airport surveillance radar (ASR) facility from its current
location to a new location outside the proposed development area (see below);
• Construction of access roads within the Long -Term development area;
• Construction of a full-length parallel taxiway on the northwest side of Runway 5L/23R to link
the remainder of the new development area to the runway; and
• Implementation of mitigation measures for unavoidable wetland and stream impacts.
` Conceptual plans for providing railroad access to the development area are being considered by the PTAA and FAA. One option is to
provide direct rail access to the development area by constructing a spur from the existing Norfolk Southern Railroad line. If a spur is
determined to not be practicable or feasible, another option entails developing a rail transfer facility south of West Market Street. At the
transfer facility, material (i.e., aircraft components) wool be off-loaded from rail cars onto vehicles that would transport the material across
the airfield to the development site. Because the final selection of a rail option requires substantial planning and coordination, both rail
options are consolidated in this EA for the purposes of evaluating and disclosing impacts.
W:\12011299—Piedmont EA\Section 106\FAA Determination of Effect PTIA-11-17-14.doc 4 Piedmont Triad International Airport
106 Effects Determination

Although the relocation of the ASR has been included in the Long -Term Project, PTAA's ability to complete the
relocation within the time frame of the other Long -Term Projects is uncertain due to the need for PTAA to secure
adequate funding for the relocation and due to the length of time required for PTAA to obtain the use of a
temporary ASR tower during the transition from the existing to the new ASR facility. There are only a few
temporary ASR towers nationwide and a long lead time is needed before they become available. The ASR
would only be relocated for the purpose of constructing new aviation facilities on the existing ASR site.
DETERMINATION OF AND DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS (APE):
The FAA determined that the undertaking's components would not substantially increase the number of aircraft
operations at GSO. In addition, the proposed project would not alter runways, flight tracks, aircraft approach
profiles, departure profiles, or instrument approach procedures at GSO. Because any potential increase in
aircraft operations resulting from the proposed project would be modest, the change in noise exposure in the
vicinity of GSO is expected to be modest and not result in a significant noise impact. Consequently, there was
no need to establish an APE to take into consideration additional aircraft noise impacts that might affect
National Register of Historic Places (NRNP) -listed or -eligible historic properties whose listing or eligibility would
potentially be affected by noise.
An APE for the proposed project was initially established to include those areas proposed for conceptual airport
site development and taxiway development (Figure 3). The APE was subsequently expanded to include the
potential development of a rail spur or a transfer facility connecting the proposed development site to the Norfolk
Southern Railroad tracks located to the southwest of GSO (Figure 4). The ultimate APE included the area
encompassed by the undertaking and an additional area within which the undertaking might cause alterations in
the character or use of historic properties. This additional area extended out approximately one-half mile beyond
the footprint of the proposed project.
STEPS TAKEN TO IDENTIFY HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROPERTIES IN THE APE:
Correspondence from SHPO dated July 19, 2013 stated that the SHPO was aware of no historic resources that
would be affected by the project (Attachment 1). A field survey of the initial APE was conducted in August 2013
to identify any previously unidentified historic architectural resources. Six resources aged 50 years or older were
newly identified during the course of this survey. Coordination was undertaken with the SHPO for these
resources, which included a presentation on October 21, 2013 and a Reconnaissance -Level Inventory of
Potential Historic Resources . Based on the results of the coordination process, the SHPO concurred that these
six resources were not eligible for listing in the NRHP (see SHPO letter of November 5, 2013, Attachment 2).
Within the ultimate APE as extended (Figure 4), the SHPO GIS Web Service database
(http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/) showed one previously inventoried historic resource, the Campbell -Gray House
and Barn. It had received an official Determination of Eligibility (DOE) for listing in the NRHP on December 20,
1995. Fieldwork associated with the extended APE identified this property and four additional resources that
were 50 years old or older that had not been previously inventoried. Following the submittal of the Addendum to
Reconnaissance -Level Inventory report of May 23, 2014 (Attachment 3), the SHPO (see letter of June 17,
2014, Attachment 4) concurred that the four newly inventoried resources were not eligible for NRHP listing and
that the Campbell -Gray House and Barn continued to be NRHP-eligible.
W:\12011299—Piedmont EA\Section 106\FAA Determination of Effect PTIA-11-17-14.doc 5 Piedmont Triad International Airport
106 Effects Determination

Layer -Credits: Image courtesy of USGS i
Ift Corporation 62014'Nokia O)AAD
RverHllb.D�
fi
f
Teunl - Dr.,.., l
oo
p ..
>t ix canes Dr
-'b
Fl-Iddge Golf C.. 1
]oseph M Bryan Bhd ~'
�4
4,
3 is j'
Rd u � R�nNty RJ 4
00
Lo
d
0
C
LZ
A
70Rd�
ll

FIGURE 4
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL APE AND HISTORIC PROPERTIES
�ice.Layer.Credits: Image courtesy of_USGS
M
r
W:\12011299—Piedmont EA\Section 106\FAA Determination of Effect PTIA-11-17-14.doc 7
2014 Nokia ©AND
WLV
- —
P
Legend
Historic Architectural
® APE
National Register
Eligible Historic Property
Detailed Study Area
Sources:
- URS Corp, 2013
N
we Feet
5
o a.oco
Piedmont Triad International Airport
106 Effects Determination

SHPO staff reviewed the project for potential effects on archaeological resources in June of 2013, and they
concluded that no archaeological studies were needed because the APE, which was plotted upon the footprint
of the undertaking, had low sensitivity and was probably previously disturbed. This assessment was intended to
be conveyed in their comment letter dated July 19, 2013 (Attachment 1), which stated that the SHPO was
aware of no historic resources that would be affected by the project. In a phone conversation of October 10,
2013, SHPO staff confirmed that the project had been reviewed for potential effects on archaeological
resources and they had concluded that no archaeological studies were needed because the APE has low
potential for containing significant archaeological resources and was probably previously disturbed. On January
9, 2014, an additional consultation with SHPO staff was held to confirm that this determination was also
applicable to the added portion of the APE that extends to the south of West Market Street.
FAA ASSESSMENT OF EFFECT:
The only resource within the APE that is NRHP-eligible is the Campbell -Gray House and Barn. Its NRHP-
eligible boundaries encompass the 4.13 -acre house parcel (#0097991), the 1.87 -acre barn parcel (#0096003),
and the strip of land connecting them (an approximately one -acre portion of 151.27 -acre parcel #0098004)
(Figures 5, 6 and 7). The property was determined NRHP-eligible solely under NRHP Criterion C for its
architecture.
FIGURE 5
CAMPBELL -GRAY HOUSE AND BARN PARCELS WITH AIRPORT AT UPPER RIGHT (BASE MAP:
GUILFORD COUNTY GIS MAP)
W:\12011299—Piedmont EA\Section 106\FAA Determination of Effect PTIA-11-17-14.doc 8 Piedmont Triad International Airport
106 Effects Determination

FIGURE 6
CAMPBELL -GRAY HOUSE AND BARN PARCELS (BASE MAP: GUILFORD COUNTY GIS MAP)
'r--'• _ � ' '- •mss ��.. I-� • �'�s�`' .~fJ7eu
�1tr -. �c.nr• .; ,�i� tea.:.
y
BARN 1 ��
Parcel 0096003 Fr_�
1.87 acres
f--
"1'
r
FIGURE 7
CAMPBELL -GRAY HOUSE AND BARN SITE PLAN AND NRHP-ELIGIBLE BOUNDARY MAP (SOURCE:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ELIGIBILITY REPORT)
aqaql t
W:\12011299_ Piedmont EA\Section 106TAA Determination of Effect PTIA-11-17-14.doc 9 Piedmont Triad International Airport
106 Effects Determination
arce10097991
F
.13 acres
Parcel 00
151.27 acres
ofewt...
BARN 1 ��
Parcel 0096003 Fr_�
1.87 acres
f--
"1'
r
FIGURE 7
CAMPBELL -GRAY HOUSE AND BARN SITE PLAN AND NRHP-ELIGIBLE BOUNDARY MAP (SOURCE:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ELIGIBILITY REPORT)
aqaql t
W:\12011299_ Piedmont EA\Section 106TAA Determination of Effect PTIA-11-17-14.doc 9 Piedmont Triad International Airport
106 Effects Determination

The undertaking does not propose the acquisition of the 4.13- or 1.87 -acre parcels, but does include the
purchase of the approximately 151 -acre parcel that contains the approximately one -acre strip of land that
connects them. However, the undertaking does not propose that any of the near-term or long-term
improvements will take place within the NRHP-eligible boundaries of the Campbell -Gray House and Barn.
Therefore, the undertaking will not directly alter any of the characteristics that qualified the historic property for
NRHP eligibility.
One proposed improvement has the potential to indirectly alter the characteristics that made the Campbell -Gray
House and Barn NRHP-eligible. This is the development of a rail transfer station and associated gantry crane or
reach loader operation connecting the proposed development site to the Norfolk Southern Railroad tracks
located to the southwest of GSO. Conceptual plans for providing railroad access to the development area are
being considered by the PTAA and FAA. One option is to provide direct rail access to the development area by
constructing a spur from the existing Norfolk Southern Railroad line. Another option entails developing a rail
transfer facility south of West Market Street (Figure 2). At the transfer facility, material (i.e., aircraft components)
would be off-loaded from rail cars onto vehicles that would transport the material across the airfield to the
development site. Because the final selection of a rail option requires substantial planning and coordination,
both rail options are evaluated in NEPA documentation being prepared for the proposed project for the purpose
of evaluating and disclosing impacts.
Two conceptual options for the rail transfer station are shown in Figures 8 and 9. Figure 8 illustrates a
conceptual rail gantry crane and Figure 9 illustrates a rail spur/reach loader system. These improvements, or
ones similarly designed and positioned, would be constructed on a portion of the approximately 151 -acre parcel
located a minimum of approximately 500 feet southwest of the NRHP-eligible boundaries of the Campbell -Gray
House and Barn.
As it was when it was determined NRHP-eligible in 1995, the Campbell -Gary House and Barn property is
located adjacent to GSO, which is brightly lit and operational 24 hours a day, and is surrounded by a busy and
well -lit network of roads and large warehouse, industrial, and commercial facilities. The tracks of the Norfolk
Southern Railroad continue to operate immediately to its north. Therefore, the introduction of the rail spur
improvements will not alter any of the characteristics that made the historic property NRHP eligible.
W:\12011299—Piedmont EA\Section 106\FAA Determination of Effect PTIA-11-17-14.doc 10 Piedmont Triad International Airport
106 Effects Determination

c�
FIGURE 8-A
A PROPOSED PROJECT CONCEPTUAL RAIL GANTRY CRANE
;'courtesy of USGS © 2014 Microsoft Corporation © 2014 Nokia © AN D
r �
\
/
i
i
TRACK CAPACITY:
EACH TRACK 1,120' CLEAR DISTANCE
@ 70' CAR LENGTHS = 16 CARS PER TRACK
TRANSFER FACILITY FOOTPRINT= 9.5 AC. (APPROX.)
.0_
M Feet
1.000 �
W:\12011299_ Piedmont EA\Section 106TAA Determination of Effect PTIA-11-17-14.doc 11 Piedmont Triad International Airport
106 Effects Determination
--w-4x
Sou R BBI
-ESRI. 2013
-URSCorp,2014
W:\12011299_ Piedmont EA\Section 106TAA Determination of Effect PTIA-11-17-14.doc 11 Piedmont Triad International Airport
106 Effects Determination

FIGURE 8-B
B 366 ICW 20 TRACK CENTERS
FIGURE 8-C
MI -JACK 1000R PLAN
CK MACK
TRA
20. -
my
to, �Y
., yj 1
�.
,r
2'-1 o- 1
CLEAR i 1
75'-6" GYEAR I 25'-6- CRANE PAO
w CRANE PAD
" Y -D 1/2" aa• -s" TREAD WIDTH 2P-I-
iaooRe
FACE OF TACE OF YOKE HnRRo-� rpKe
CRAB BAR
TERNMU OPERATIONS
A9 C C W- — 20- TRACK CENTERS
C,1 5 In 15 20 25 3n 35 arr 45 5U V DENOTES DIMENSION TAKEN
GHAPNIC SCALE IN FEET FROM FACE OF YOKE.�aa "•"'� �-2601-A
W:\12011299_ Piedmont EA\Section 106\FAA Determination of Effect PTIA-11-17-14.doc 12 Piedmont Triad International Airport
106 Effects Determination

c�
FIGURE 9-A
PROPOSED PROJECT CONCEPTUAL RAIL REACH LOADER
ourtesy of USGS © 2014 Microsoft Corporation © 2014 Nokia © AN D
i
i
i
V
GQ,�e��a
a�5 s
TRACK CAPACITY:
EACH TRACK 1,120' CLEAR DISTANCE
@ 70' CAR LENGTHS = 16 CARS PER TRACK
TRANSFER FACILITY FOOTPRINT= 9.5 AC. (APPRC
.0_
M Feet
1.000 �
--,w-4x
SouR I
-ESRI. 2013
-URSCorp,2014
W:\12011299_ Piedmont EA\Section 106TAA Determination of Effect PTIA-11-17-14.doc 13 Piedmont Triad International Airport
106 Effects Determination

FIGURE 9-B
REACH LOADER GLORIA-DRG420-450 SALES BROCHURE
11
FAA DETERMINATION OF EFFECT:
An elevation in uptime.
Tne 3a ,G -.)tion F reachstacn-&r alrc.;:i:; iri ulAme, has finally rret its i i
With the Generation G, we've rrenaged to boost pedonnanoe once again with
inproved operator interfacas and newly deslg]ed integrated components. The result?
Simplified maintenance. lewerfaults and a major increase in service intervals
Imprewe camperael klmgraeen Rv/eura momwlrq
Based on an evaluation of the details of the proposed undertaking/proposed action in conjunction with the
research and precautionary measures summarized above, the FAA has concluded that the proposed
undertaking/proposed action would not affect any historic properties.
Aaron Braswell Date
Environmental Program Manager
Federal Aviation Administration
Memphis Airport District Office
Findings of State Historic Preservation Office:
Concur Non -concur
Signature:
Name /Title:
W:\12011299—Piedmont EA\Section 106\FAA Determination of Effect PTIA-11-17-14.doc 14 Piedmont Triad International Airport
106 Effects Determination
w—.„0-1 -j, am,. Ir, :•-
:Noam
lox wairyaanwedcgarmm
-:MG gNam
the Gft rr,dreicdaan�ieliai
�.]dwnoe%Ay
sAw 4,oW harem efiedrme�reri
w
'+r1on
alraextra
llnd 1.006how
9FkfiM9Wlh ftdwWp-
vmmmrEastlit ka lrr eeeok�
T+:ir-� E:1
o�nq..nm iha ekwvrez,are
moFnpinc man aaxaer donarqe.
m
rclaepll.feNeo7111,H�/fiNod
bawdmaW adwi�uw
&Q. Vlalmv oercn fifer mqa
'w1vA Kx Mrtark bdtll/M.kllfend
f/dllrLl[ CANbm iodma4 _aaww
nterwq-r�tlWry erre zde
w1Al�faownwd tll�.. IMWh
v Klmw who Wyuvpka n
pi. servo llM enl cd n l0'leh mqp
fw_�o9BrJ wnRa'ori140nd
tleM WY P-1.. u.drd
vppe�-haw alv t- da UPpa
fi &*Riese+/ wire rgawia
It eufamMcdy bcalea Maas, o7,r1-
Awn %0 lo I t1W fun ewnnred
rdalhw � ym min mup
Pwb wm C.kw"”. m
w a lona cavo. a/ d"« .
...-� r.a •r: Seib k.W nM
mmaRare Wl] Mme—Ald
-9-k vaK eexird W—+ Maas
. ..
ryrm rre Srce 1rKkAdri
mucv+rw+c qtr f rralnn rue
pmdrshdy
� � �.ae. r
�f
me[3ene'afion F. loP coram
LergH eeni[a
lfe hams—"g.,Kyr®naed
.�dalm ad olla
}er a�yrean[enavw elma�mam
Al -r
t� ,%56
a ir�d n �xta
eempmenre taro-e.mpra.
eaylos, /oma. ttr caw Iver nr.
Dem mored more assay m me
TAgf.pmbaa mins Dare- lha
lh!Ane naespin
Cremei
Oradlp V w." re frerne
w
`
fAa epnmk/C a.epevhary apwl
r pin myJ[eV tlld! b pnva/ 1hM
crry mrMYne�eWd W+e a+sy
_
�. /erw san�lo Opynli
Based on an evaluation of the details of the proposed undertaking/proposed action in conjunction with the
research and precautionary measures summarized above, the FAA has concluded that the proposed
undertaking/proposed action would not affect any historic properties.
Aaron Braswell Date
Environmental Program Manager
Federal Aviation Administration
Memphis Airport District Office
Findings of State Historic Preservation Office:
Concur Non -concur
Signature:
Name /Title:
W:\12011299—Piedmont EA\Section 106\FAA Determination of Effect PTIA-11-17-14.doc 14 Piedmont Triad International Airport
106 Effects Determination

ATTACHMENT 1
RESPONSE LETTER FROM THE SHPO TO FAA - JULY 19, 2013

� SSAT� 4
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Kluttz
July 19, 2013
Paul Behrens
URS
7605 West Courtney Campbell Causeway
Suite 700
Tampa, FL 33607-1462
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Northwest Taxiway and Site Development, Piedmont Triad International Airport, Guilford County,
ER 13-1261
Dear Mr. Behrens:
Thank you for your letter of June 21, 2013, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or renee.gledhill-
earley(@ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced
tracking number.
Sincerely,
�3KRamona M. Bartos
Location: 109 lust fones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service (:enter, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

ATTACHMENT 2
RESPONSE LETTER FROM THE SHPO TO FAA - NOVEMBER 5, 2013

d4a. STATg Q.
r�'Man �r
Quw
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Kluttz
November 5, 2013
Marvin Brown
URS Corporation - North Carolina
1600 Perimeter Park Drive
Morrisville NC 27560
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Piedmont Triad International Airport, Northwest Taxiway and Site Development, Guilford County,
ER 13-1261
Dear Mr. Brown:
Thank you for meeting with our staff on October 21, 2013, concerning the above project and for presenting
the reconnaissance level inventory of potential historic properties.
As discussed at that meeting, we concur that at this time no additional survey work is warranted and that,
barring additional information to the contrary, the following properties are not eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places:
■ Barn at Pleasant Ridge Golf Course, 1518 Pleasant Ridge Road;
■ House, 6647 Old Oak Ridge Road;
■ House, 6421 Old Oak Ridge Road;
■ House, 6415 Old Oak Ridge Road;
■ House, 708 North Regional Road; and,
■ Cahn Farm, 7099 Caindale Drive.
Accordingly, we are aware of no historic properties that would be affected by the proposed project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or renee.gledhill-
earleynncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced
tracking number.
Sincerely,
(�. w -�L
Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

ATTACHMENT 3
ADDENDUM TO RECONNAISSANCE -LEVEL INVENTORY OF
POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCES - MAY 23, 2014

ADDENDUM
to
Reconnaissance -Level Inventory of Potential Historic
Resources
Northwest Taxiway and Site Development,
Piedmont Triad International Airport,
Guilford County
Environmental Assessment
(ER 13-1261)
Prepared by:
URS Corporation — North Carolina
Presented to:
North Carolina Historic Preservation Office
May 23, 2014

Management Summary
On October 21, 2013 URS Corporation -North Carolina presented to the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office (HPO) the results of a reconnaissance -level inventory (see Attachment A) of historic
architectural resources located within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the Northwest Taxiway and Site
Development at Piedmont Triad International Airport in Guilford County (the Undertaking). In a letter dated
November 5, 2013 (see Attachment B), the HPO concurred that no additional survey work was warranted
within the APE and that, barring additional information, the six presented resources were not eligible for listing
in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Subsequently, the study area of the undertaking was extended to the south, thereby expanding the APE. This
addendum to the initial reconnaissance -level inventory includes descriptions and photographs of the five
resources located within the expanded APE that are 50 years old or older. One of these resources—the
Campbell -Gray House and Barn at I10 Regional Road South—was determined eligible for NRHP listing in
1995. It is believed that this property continues to be NRHP eligible within the boundaries that were mapped for
it. The other four resources—houses at 105, 109, and I I 1 Adair Road and a barn behind 312 Industrial Road
South—do not appear to be significant under any of the NRHP Criteria. They are therefore recommended as not
meriting any further investigation to determine their potential NRHP eligibility.
I

-h r...- .-... .. _ _
:r
4*
1 �
# 1 I
c
A
/ I
Extension of Historic Architecture APE
/ Legend
Historlo A rch ite ctu ra I
APE
l 1 I tom_ Detailed Study Area
- lige Corp, 201
-Fd=L
0 3.000
e
g
PIEDMONT TRIAD
PT, INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL FIGURE
AREA OF POTENTIAL AFFECT (APE)
Environmental Assessment

Campbell -Gray House and Barn
110 Regional Road South, Greensboro
The Campbell -Gray House and Barn received an Official Determination of Eligibility (DOE) for listing in the
NRHP on September 20, 1995. The parties to the DOE were the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) and the North Carolina HPO. The resource was determined NRHP-eligible under Criterion C for the
architecture of its house and barn. The boundaries described in the NCDOT report that assessed the property are
those of the 4.13 -acre parcel the house sits on (0097991) and the 1.87 -acre parcel the barn sits on (0098003).
The boundaries as shown on the map in the report are those of the two parcels and the strip of land separating
them. The two parcels are owned by Charles R. Gray. The strip of land between them, which is part of a largely
overgrown 151.27 -acre parcel (0098004) that extends north, south, and west of the house and barn, is held in
the name of Southern Region Industrial Realty Inc. of Roanoke, Virginia.
The Campbell -Gray House and Barn is little changed from its DOE determination in 1995 and is still eligible
for listing in the NRNP. The appropriate NRHP boundary continues to be that of the 1995 sketch map, which
encompasses approximately seven acres.
Campbell -Gray house looking NE (Marvin Brown, August 2013)
4

Campbell -Gray house and outbuilding looking NW from Regional Road S (Marvin Brown, August 2013)
Campbell -Gray house and outbuilding looking SW from Regional Road S (Marvin Brown, August 2013)
5

Campbell -Gray House and outbuildings looking SW from Regional Road S (Marvin Brown, August 2013)
Campbell -Gray barn looking NW from lane that passes between the house and barn (Marvin Brown, August
2013)
C.

Campbell -Gray barn looking SW from lane that passes between the house and barn (Marvin Brown, August
2013)
x�'
4
Al
l
• t�!'ti� � � �YW �r
Aerial view of Campbell -Gray House and Barn with barn at lower left, house at center, and lane between them
(Google maps)
7

} d X a h![p::'yi:.cagdheid..—: yudfer�l' P - a -1 L$ The Sayre -Home GyiYcrd c
Map Scale Papa Size Orientation Include Resolution
[P 6.5 x 31 [[%t4f} . lJ Portrait D OvervleW ' •' Hormal I Aflnt . i Can[eS I
V Land5ca" •Hlyh
w�r�imr: wh.Ve ere�ynR rt rr madam ka�iK mornndadever Rein[mie[acewam mdip-nr�n, cuWN uwtLdw rw[rarnry•tM Hap Scala
ruMmnc,tr o�accyracy oFvxh inRmunon. xe wamanws, eyreu wimpn'e4 an orerdM krthe mxMi amNw maq�iiy hta Awe�n, wkr hnr uu L inch - 186 Fee!
^•'ew�teF'w+6r tt.t lJrw- LIV2014
Campbell -Gray House and Barn parcels (base map: Guilford County GIS map)
Campbell -Gray House and Barn site plan and NRHP-eligible boundary map (source: NCDOT eligibility report)
8

Luther and Elsie Boyd House
105 Adair Road, Greensboro
According to Guilford County tax records, this single-family residence was built in 1965 by Luther and Elsie
Boyd. A plainly finished, one-story, brick -veneered, gable -end ranch house with a carport attached to its south
side elevation, it does not appear to be significant under any of the NRHP Criteria. It is therefore recommended
as not meriting any further investigation to determine its potential NRHP eligibility. The house and its 0.88 -acre
parcel (0097990) are currently owned by the Piedmont Triad Airport Authority (Guilford County Deed Book
7406/Page 2219 (2012)).
Note: This house was viewed in August 2013, but as the APE for the Undertaking did not extend to its parcel at
that time, and as it appeared to have no architectural or historical significance, it was not photographed. The
photographs below, which capture the appearance of the house, are Google images.
Luther and Elsie Boyd House (Google images)
E]

James B. Lindsay House
109 Adair Road, Greensboro
According to Guilford County tax records, this one-story, concrete -block, gable -end, single-family residence
was built in 1949 by James B. Lindsay. Alterations include the replacement of sash and the central chimney
stack and the addition of artificial siding. It does not appear to be significant under any of the NRHP Criteria
and is therefore recommended as not meriting any further investigation to determine its potential NRHP
eligibility. The house and its 0.35 -acre parcel (0097993) are currently owned by the Piedmont Triad Airport
Authority (Guilford County Deed Book 7577/Page 1079 (2014)).
Note: This house was viewed in August 2013, but as the APE for the Undertaking did not extend to its parcel at
that time, and as it appeared to have no architectural or historical significance, it was not photographed. The
photographs below, which capture the appearance of the house, are Google images.
James B. Lindsay House (Google images)
10

Cora Lindsay House
111 Adair Road, Greensboro
Guilford County tax records identify the first owner of this single-family house as Cora Lindsay, who owned it
in 1953. It is a modest, one-story, gable -front, frame dwelling with altered sash, no chimney stack, and artificial
siding that may have been built earlier in the century. The house does not appear to be significant under any of
the NRHP Criteria and is therefore recommended as not meriting any further investigation to determine its
potential NRHP eligibility. The Piedmont Triad Airport Authority acquired the dwelling and its 0.37 -acre parcel
(0098000) in 2012 (Guilford County Deed Book 7406/Page 2111).
Cora Lindsay House (Marvin Brown, August 2013)
11

Barn within industrial buildings
312 Regional Road South
This barn sits on a 7.54 -acre parcel (0098408) owned by Six Guys Property of Greensboro (Guilford County
Deed Book 6651/Page 3023 (2006)). A large metal -clad industrial warehouse, erected by Piedmont Truck Tires
in the late 1970s or early 1980s according to tax records, stands to the barn's east along Regional Road S. The
barn, which appears to have been erected as a dairy barn between about 1940 and 1960, is encased on three
sides by additions that may once have served the farm with which it was associated. It is built of concrete block
with a tall gambrel roof. Its original entry bays have been removed or covered and modern window bays have
been inserted into its gambrel ends. No evidence remains of the farmhouse and other outbuildings that would
once have been associated with the barn. It now stands within a landscape of modern industrial buildings,
asphalt and gravel parking lots, and tractor trailer trucks.
Barn, parcel and surroundings (base map: Guilford County GIS map)
12

Barn and additions looking NW
"A
PO
Barn and additions looking NE
13

Additions to barn, looking SE (barn not visible)
Barn looking NW
14

ATTACHMENT A
15

Reconnaissance -Level Inventory of Potential Historic
Resources
Northwest Taxiway and Site Development,
Piedmont Triad International Airport,
Guilford County
Environmental Assessment
(ER 13-1261)
Prepared by:
URS Corporation — North Carolina
Presented to:
North Carolina Historic Preservation Office
October 21, 2013
16

PIEDMONT TRIAD
tPT► INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT HISTORIC RESOURCES FIGURE
4 4.X -x
Environmental Assessment
2
17
4 Ar
f: l Historic Site Resources =
Interstate
�HistariCArchitecturWAPE
Other Roads
4
4 o>herFeatures
Proposed Roads
© Detailed Study Area
Lakes
EwistingAirport Facilities
Streams
Airport Property
sNsdm:
a Arport FEIS, 2lW1
-Pekhboh
- N e ghhonng C unoav�e, Inc., 2006
gC ampte,,I
• VPS Coep-7000
N
- Feet
E
YYY ❑ 2,❑❑❑
s
PIEDMONT TRIAD
tPT► INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT HISTORIC RESOURCES FIGURE
4 4.X -x
Environmental Assessment
2
17

Resource A —1518 Pleasant Ridge Road (at Pleasant Ridge Golf Course), Greensboro:
IN
' 45 -1. 1 . -

ti
K:
Wit, #L,4 ..N ►.wr..
- Z7- r
At
�I4iY•'®•'•'• ' r _ r � %a . �.�`' a -` . � .� a a. � �`��.
- vot. -Ok5l
f v.. .y � b. ` •
'Ar, �" J

AM.
Y.
Nzr�
ti�6q - CA
47
A

ol
31
•�•: ;-a'`i�`:',•J R•. - 1 �• • . + . .[ .•il�d_ -u�..� • '# -!.
07 Ali
rim ;.,. ; ,<
'� *~
WAIMM
P'=i! mfr--". .., � •;. ,r "�IIR y��'1�1� .: ..
t- _ .qCPO.
fA
"�4

v
—ad
'1'1�
FA- 11, il—qk "

Resource F — 7099 Caindale Drive, Greensboro:
Formerly property of Robert Hugheston Cain (1898-1979) and wife Abbie Dale Cain (1900-1983); acquired by
airport from heirs
Cains are buried at Ai Methodist Memorial Church, Oak Ridge, Guilford County
Not located in Greensboro city directories of 1940s -1960s, but identified in 1930 and 1940 federal census
schedules:
• In 1930 Robert Cain (32) and wife Abbie (29) live in Friendship Township; Robert is a farmer; they
have 6 children.
• In 1940 Robert H. Cain (42) and wife Abbie D. (37) live in Friendship Township; Robert is a farmer; his
house is valued at $2,500; they have 10 children.
23

w
jr
Al
�� � - C k`� �, it d �'i•., _,
_ Mlih, i
VA
rl
y

,.p_ i
Ir
ex,
..+�f� fir.. � 1 •��� ,�� • � - 1
-'elf
L... - •*
if
IC
Ae
kl
'-
jo
17
- " 4k _
• .rte ��.. '
_ s .a. - .. >��s ..► ._� ....... v 1111 Y.4.E`• y
Ilk'-. •- - rte.'-. - ; r s ,. %rf�'-S1y+!'-
-
- � • � � � " � � � : rte• � - --i��:•y1,_

'• fi : � S� f t"5
'��; a .�. - .�; ,� '• ;� r tom. i � ,� a �,
-tie'•- �y•t,� -' o' '� +.. - '.,��'. �;� .� �L' ..k f�
Or
• ` fI }
All
� rr
t �: •'rpt+ . �.-�� _ �'
9 FT
... � �yy y • RF �� 4T
1 '; x-• - ��` �r _ �� I tom- _ -�� �;wy.µ f'�- -
.. ` � f'�+ �. - � "�-til: r,��.��+-:'�i:�� -. .• - r Y � —n'. `-�:.Q,
', ��"�� , y,a�•. 'F r? _ '�`:4. a �'' ��,.' �A :� • �. .
144
At—

L'J
- 9C
` jw
MW
L'J

W3

ow
1 � -� � � _�; �''•� is _. -
r r i
••lie 4.
r
! Y z t
_41`ZOO,,
ate..
� ..lr Jot •a! }�-. - -
' i. r

.f _
_ • �� l � s a � �e. I f � - � � _. % � � � .x/'41 � �'�
,.. � ` .q�, 14� � � 7r � Yy��l`.i�r� �, �*': � .��•� �.`• i - -. _ fir �,

N

la,�r F-
- - - -- --------
4-
XMile
-7
I ..- ! 9i0, -.q VWA.W,,jp �n". :.' ZLWRLf'�

e,
.+V.�Y
r

'� * ►' . � }��i.'r+� _ y . r. n �,y - r _ _ _mac _
our
yam: A
A M-= am.
'4�'•
rl
WL
ir 4-2
Ao
Ift
1� _ i f•.
fir• 1� ..
�r.' "s . r.R���1 � � �•ar "
r �. y� - i.•y "'.: ANk
i 1 Ya 'moi +tit
4t
ti.. ". eF . I •+ r
OF IL J :a

l
v •, w ,
zt A:;,
�` ' r�`� .�t � -' L ',.F I y + � •' :Tri
.11 Ort
.41
5�.. �iC,Y-•fie'. � �- �y ,
k�� '' •• ' •, � i '"'�`;.'.� ,� r *' -raj ,:: ,�, _ ,{Yy , R�`
-� 'ti�•_ >>,;.. `.' Y .� .?yr QCT`]
.: s r ��}ij k - •t N ,�-, F i 'p`. 4 : ;� [+` _ .�r`' •rte ii .
F3 • Y •':moi 16L�� . �'�••• � Tc" ri - �� - �� • ��
�7ALL_.
i • S. y� a7 � � R•� 1a +�
�* S
77 �µlJ.
i 1. ,j •' �� � L e� K.�
r ' V.
Jr
OVA
,�r!�y��'.i�'+�:'r`�`'�C:. �5` - -_ - -., -- _ r - .i YY � �'L'�.�Y�=':'*'�tia•['s t�d'�`•3+�.�,�
ok
i7���ti. s&,, . � Y. ;t i ��... M1 R ,ice . •��'}:'�n{'��e�.�'�r-. {`apt' �',j• '/r
�.. • ''�,. ' .:-irk-`r•'.i� w.t �� ', oy,.-�!�•1� � .C� �=.r,�.�..°`'���'` f•,��.-W=�i
iii R Sf - _ .?♦.'•. ',{�..

36

A
yst ,
Ifti-4
_ -
OP�

�� �' i' •� ►� •� ,� s:"°y a `:� ,�'. •'�!.i1 a�
17
AMA
�' 'i � .. ti,� ;�r �^� ter' � ry- y01� � i' ' • !�Y ;: r r . •.$s•�f • .'- .
..�� � r �1j ��. _ � .• : @@@ ,* ., � � L:. •• rte.,
Al"
� -� .l'i'd i ��' rw�J, !' � i �• � �� •J'
... .r`� � ���. Rte' :� I.' .. ._ �r �.�•_ .
-. - . � r .. •,,y � .' Ka`'. • ' let r ' *'�,'. ' � ^ � -� • .. � � f �" .a y
t.. l ��M ►^. ''µ_Vi? mak! 1 + �� - !� ;
Imo. s ,dw
•�
WAM
rl
lk

40

��• l .. -, ;1s.4-- r � .�'�•.S�' •.l.�r.� tea*
. -�'-+� .� -ham .- ,� S.:La� + �p '' � Yy.. '•_. �•l•
.;:r r '. j ti.�s.�; e. ,fit � � .. �f �. � - • ^� �-{,�. .: � n
At
F "x
�. s•p -ell
.4c.
.30
tri
•;} � r � '� � - ` '1c; .� ..fes
rwlI
or
9F 1
ti M• a
- �,�+r . �•^r': �� �, � " 'V ��� �ti � fr• � nor • �� !" � �"° '
is o'er. � 1
Vii' � �i,• `.�,A � � , -�
,.; 'tel/•aq�_1 {t r'r
1 %4V. V i
OF
i �1 £6r T•�• - 5 -. - f ••i.

ATTACHMENT B
43

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Barton, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Klum
November 5, 2013
Marvin Brown
URS Corporation - North Carolina
1600 Perimeter Park Drive
Morrisville NC 27560
Office of Archives and History
deputy secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Piedmont Triad International Airport, Northwest Taxiway and Site Development, Guilford County,
ER 13-1261
Dear Mr. Brown:
Thank you for meeting with our staff on October 21, 2013, concerning the above project and For presenting
the reconnaissance level inventory of potential historic properties.
As discussed at that meeting, we concur that at this time no additional survey work is warranted and that,
barring additional information to the contrary, the following properties are not eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places:
■ Barn at Pleasant Ridge Golf Course, 1518 Pleasant Ridge Road;
■ House, 6647 Old Oak Ridge Road;
■ House, 6421 Old Oak Ridge Road;
■ House, 6415 Old Oak Ridge Road;
■ House, 708 North Regional Road; and,
■ Cain Farm, 7099 Caindale Drive.
Accordingly, we are aware of no historic properties that would be affected by the proposed project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 146 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or renee.gledhill-
[e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced
tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 Fast Jones Streer, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Lull service Center, Raleigh NC_ 27699-4617 Tekphone/Fa. [phone]/807-6599
44

ATTACHMENT 4
RESPONSE LETTER FROM THE SHPO TO FAA - JUNE 17, 2014

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Kluttz
June 17, 2014
Marvin Brown, Sr. Architectural Historian
USR Corporation — North Carolina
1600 Perimeter Park Drive
Morrisville, NC 27560
marvin.brown(c�urs. com
RE: Addendum to Reconnaissance -Level Inventory of Potential Historic Resources
Northwest Taxiway and Site Development, Piedmont Triad International Airport,
Guilford County, ER 13-1261
Dear Mr. Brown:
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Thank you for your May 23, 2014, email transmitting the above -referenced report addendum. We have
reviewed the report and concur that the Campbell -Gray House and Barn (GF0425) at 110 Regional Road
South remain eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and that the boundaries in the 1995
Determination of Eligibility are still appropriate.
We concur that the houses at 105, 109, and 111 Adair Road and a barn behind 312 Industrial Road South are
not eligible for listing in the National Register.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or renee.gledhill-
earle T a,ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced
tracking number.
Sincerely,
6j"(Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

APPENDIX E
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
CROSS FIELD TAXIWAY ALIGNMENT
This appendix sets forth the FAA's analysis of alternative alignments for the Cross Field Taxiway and
whether there are any alternatives to the proposed alignment of the taxiway that would have fewer
impacts to jurisdictional resources.

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
CROSSFIELD TAXIWAY ALIGNMENT
Estimated Stream and Buffer Impacts of the Proposed Taxiway Alignment
The proposed alignment of the Cross Field Taxiway is shown on Exhibit 1 of this Appendix, with the
proposed Taxiway Bridge depicted in green. Due to a required crossing of an unnamed tributary to Brush
Creek, as shown on Exhibit 1, the proposed Taxiway may impact approximately 222 linear feet (I.f.) of
perennial stream channel, and 115 U. of intermittent stream channel, and may also impact approximately
20,855 square feet (ft.2) of vegetative buffer within 30 feet of the stream banks on each side of the stream
(N.C. Jordan Lake Buffer, Zone 1), and 11,275 ft.2 of vegetated buffer within the next 20 feet from the
stream banks (Zone 2), or a total of 0.75 acre stream buffer impact. This jurisdictional channel runs
parallel to, and Northwest of, existing Bryan Boulevard and flows in a Southwest direction to a larger
wetland/stream complex.
Purpose and Need of the Taxiway Project
As described in this EA, the Taxiway is needed to provide airfield access to the approximately 569 -acre
development site on the north side of the future 1-73. Development of airfield access to the 569 -acre site
is needed to:
• provide suitable sites with airfield access for new aviation -related development
• provide development opportunities for use of idle land
• meet schedule needs of potential aviation tenants
As emphasized in this EA, it is critical to the Purpose and Need for PTAA to prepare sites, with airfield
access, in advance of having a tenant for the sites, since potential tenants require sites to be available
within a short time frame to meet their scheduling needs.
Avoidance of Impacts
The connection of the 569 -acre site to existing airfield facilities can only be achieved by building a taxiway
across the 1-73 segment that is being constructed at the Airport by NCDOT (Transportation Improvement
Project 1-5110). The taxiway must cross over the highway on a Taxiway Bridge. The profile for the
NCDOT project is constrained in two locations:
1. On the east side of the 1-5110 project, the project ties into Bryan Boulevard at the Airport/Old
Oak Ridge Road Interchange. This sets the starting elevation of the 1-5110 profile on its east
side.
2. The 1-5110 alignment is required to span over highway NC 68 on the west side of the
highway project. The vertical clearance of the 1-5110 roadway over NC 68 sets the elevation
of 1-5110 on the west side.

The profile from the existing Airport/Old Oak Ridge Road Interchange to the future Taxiway Bridge has
been set to its lowest possible elevation based on the maximum allowable grade of the roadway profile
between the Airport Interchange and NC 68.
The Taxiway and Bridge have been carefully positioned to meet the constraints imposed by the highway
profile and, at the same time, to provide for the safe and efficient operation of the Taxiway:
• The Taxiway must cross over the highway, along the Taxiway Bridge, at a height of at least
17 ft. above the highway pavement to meet FHWA standards. To clear this height, the
Taxiway must rise from its starting elevation of 856.81 ft. Mean Sea Level (MSL) at future
Taxiway G (see "Proposed Cross Field Taxiway" on Exhibit 1) to a minimum elevation of
896.58 ft. MSL at the Taxiway Bridge, or a total climb of 39.77 ft. The maximum grade for a
taxiway at an air carrier airport is 1.5% per FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13A. After
a required transition to the uphill grade, the proposed Taxiway must be long enough to climb
the necessary 39.77 ft. at the 1.5% grade. In its proposed alignment, the proposed Taxiway
runs a sufficient distance for the climb, but the margin is minimal for shifting the location of
the Taxiway and still achieving the necessary clearance above the road.
• The Taxiway must be straight for safe and efficient operation. The FAA recommends
minimizing changes in direction along a taxiway to reduce the risk of aircraft running off the
paved surface during reduced visibility. In addition, curving the Taxiway would not reduce
stream impacts unless the curve was to the north. This alignment would route the Taxiway
behind the elevated site for the Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR) (as shown in blue on Exhibit
1), which would block the Line -of -Site from the Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) to the
Taxiway. Due to this obstruction, the ATCT would be unable to assist pilots in moving along
the Taxiway, and their own view down the taxiway would also be obstructed by the ASR and
taxiway curve. These impediments would create an aircraft hazard because pilots would not
be able to see aircraft approaching from the opposite direction until they had already entered
the taxiway and were facing the opposing traffic. If, in the future, the ASR were relocated, the
Line -of -Site issue would likely remain, since the ASR would not be relocated unless the site
were needed for tenant facilities, which could also block both the ATCT's and the pilot's Line -
of -Sight.
The Proposed Taxiway alignment meets the foregoing height and safety criteria, and, as shown below,
also avoids unnecessary impacts to jurisdictional waters.
A range of alternative alignments has been considered to determine if there are any practicable
alternatives to the proposed taxiway alignment that would have fewer impacts to jurisdictional waters.
None of these options achieves the Purpose and Need for the taxiway or reduces the stream or stream
buffer impacts:
Shift to the Southwest
This concept is illustrated in yellow on Exhibit 1. The limits for shifting the Taxiway to the
Southwest, and still providing for adequate clearance above the highway, are very constrained
because the highway climbs at a steeper angle than the 1.5% taxiway limit. Even within this
narrow range, the combined impact to perennial and intermittent streams from a Southwest shift

is somewhat greater than in the case of the proposed alignment. (See impact figures on Exhibit
1.) Therefore shifting the Taxiway to the Southwest, within the feasible limits, increases rather
than reduces impacts and is not an acceptable alternative.
Shift to the Northeast
As illustrated on Exhibit 1, the side slope of the proposed Taxiway on its Northeast side already
abuts the ASR site, and the Taxiway cannot be shifted at all in this direction without cutting into
the embankment for the ASR. Even if the ASR were relocated, a shift of the taxiway to the
Northeast of as little as 30feet would shorten the taxiway to the point that it would not climb
enough at the 1.5% grade for the necessary clearance above the highway. A shift of to the
northeast of only 30 feet would result, at most, in a 23 foot reduction in the stream impacts, which
would not be significant even if it the ASR were moved to accommodate the change.
Curved Taxiway
This alternative was examined despite its adverse effect (discussed above) on the safety and
efficiency of the taxiway. As pointed out above, the only way a curved Taxiway would avoid a
stream crossing is by following an alignment to the North, which would place it behind the ASR
site from the point of view of the ATCT. This alignment would result in the Line -of -Sight issues
discussed above and create a hazard for traffic along the Taxiway. Furthermore, even measured
along the curve, this alignment would not have sufficient length for the necessary climb above the
highway. This limitation excludes this alignment from further consideration.
Spanning Over Stream
Consideration has also been given to building a bridge structure, or bottomless culvert, to carry
the taxiway over the stream and avoid any discharge of fill material in the stream channel. The
dimensions of the structure would have to be sufficient to span from one bank of the stream to the
other and to match the full width of the taxiway from the outside of the Object Free Area on one
side of the taxiway to the outside of the Object Free Area on the other side (which, in the case of
a bottomless culvert, would require the culvert to be 280 feet long since the taxiway crosses the
stream at a slight angle). The structure would have to be high enough over the stream to
accommodate the structure itself and would have to be designed with sufficient strength to meet
FAA standards for Category V aircraft. Based on the cost of a comparable structure that was
recently constructed at the Airport, PTAA estimates that the cost of spanning the stream would be
in the range of $2.85 million, or about 18% of PTAA's $16 million estimate for building the taxiway
without the structure. Due to this increased cost, spanning the stream would not be a practical
alternative.
As shown on Exhibit 1, the Cross Field Taxiway will be extended in a Northwest direction to the
development areas on the north side of 1-73. As pointed out in Chapter 1 of this EA, it is not possible to
determine how these areas will be developed, and how the taxiway will have to be designed to support
such development, until prospective tenants have been identified and their needs are known. The
extension of the taxiway, or the development of tenant sites, will likely impact artificial ponds and their
adjacent buffers on the north side of the Interstate, but the extent of the impacts cannot be determined at

this time. Care will be taken in the design of tenant sites and the taxiway system to avoid unnecessary
impacts to jurisdictional resources within the larger development area.
For the reasons discussed above, there is no alternative alignment for the Taxiway that is both feasible
and that would reduce stream or buffer impacts resulting from the proposed alignment. The proposed
alignment, in turn, sets the location of the Taxiway Bridge at the location shown in green on Exhibit 1.
Minimization and Compensatory Mitigation
This analysis considers only the issue of whether any impacts to jurisdictional waters can be avoided
through alternative alignments of the Taxiway. In its design of the Cross Field Taxiway, PTAA will be
required to minimize the unavoidable impacts from the taxiway, through measures such as making the
side slopes of the taxiway as narrow as possible, within FAA design limitations, to reduce the width of the
project footprint at the stream crossing. PTAA will also be required to meet compensatory mitigation
requirements for the unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional resources that will result from the taxiway
project.

NOTE:
LEGEND
fAPT,
ple•samA+
.�
,< Taxiway �/f(
Streams and wetlands depicted on property not......................... Existing Line
p p p y
J owned b PTAA have not been delineated or
`/ y
PIEDMONT TRIAD AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1000 A Ted Johnson Parkway
Pkosant
Location
verified by USACE or
Future Roadway Construction
NCDENR.
Greensboro,
INC 27409
�•
v
�, �
�
< • Proposed NCDOT Right -Of -Way
----------------- Proposed Taxiway Grading Limits
----------- Southwest Alt. Grading Limits
Northeast Alt. Grading Limits
Wetlands
Piedmont Triad
�
International Airport 'O0�
Highway 68
-----------------
------------- +Piedmont I Conservation Easement
a -i
t Interchange
a X D❑ (��/ o
o• \� ❑
<� �l U s t 'tag
4 k4
Perennial Stream
Intermittent Stream
O o G
ran Buffer one -
4 p
_ ___
'
A
Z
a �
__
� �� -�
_
) ��
a ..-
i
--- -._.._.._.._............ it
-
p
,
oC \
„ \
0 0
LU
VICINITY MAP
'
LL
V
NORTHEAST ALT. ---------
o
Q
Size: 32 ac }
O
\ %
�\
o
O Pie
Streams (Perennial): 1701.f. o �,
Streams (Intermittent): 144 L1 o a
Zone 1 Jordan Buffer (30'): 19,551 s.f. p
Zone 2 Jordan Buffer (20'): 11,140 s.f. o
Wetlands: 0.00 ac °o
D p
Preliminary 2 Earthwork _ �-
Cut: 257,7, 143 cu yd
Fill: 331,551 cu yd
/\
Borrow: 74,408 cu yd O
O
i /1
V/1
ip SOUTHWEST ALT.
„
�''�
v
77
QSize: 34 ac
° Streams (Perennial): 400 If
' i Streams (Intermittent):
Zone 1 Jordan Buffer (30'): 37,278 s.f.
Zone 2 Jordan Buffer (20'): 30,804 s.f.
------L
11....��
ac
Wetlands: nary
PralimiEarthwork
nary
Cut: 214161 cu yd
I I I
�••�••�
'
`
Fill: 408,002 cu yd
Borrow: 193,841 cu yd
4�-
'`
PROPOSED TAXIWAY—
Size: 33 ac
Streams (Perennial): 2221.f
oA Streams (Intermittent): 11 I.f.
5
�-
i.
'
tAlrpOr�
�(
Zone 1 Jordan Buffer (30'): 20,855
Zone 2 Jordan Buffer 11,275
t exchange
n -
,,
(20'):
Wetlands: 0.00 ac
A
' / I
raliminary Farfhwnr
Pel
254250 cu yd k
Fill: 342,876 cu yd
Borrow: 88,626 cu yd
,., Area Not To Be
,
'; i 30' Shift For Northeast Alt.
Disturbed -
1
..
.
B8`
- -� �
Jose h M
Centerline
i Northeast Alt
Centerline
S uthwest Alt.
`
-_-------_-_-------
---------------
`@NN-EEi@R—FWV—o-
---------------------------------�---
----
n-
___________________--__- ---------------------------- Centerline
-------- ---_ _----_------ -----
I `FUTURETAYG-
46' Proposed T/W
Exhibit
1
FOR
-Rur aY�23�TOT
("'ONST1 1A.1711IO�
oo w o 000