The Braniff Building Final Report

8/10/2019 The Braniff Building Final Report

1/405

October 2014FINAL

PREPARED BY:

RICONDO & ASSOCIATES, INC.

IN ASSOCIATION WITH:

Farmer & Associates, Inc.Geo-Marine, Inc.

Mead & Hunt, Inc.Modern Geosciences, Inc.Synergy Consultants, Inc.

Redevelopment of the DalFortSite Environmental AssessmentPREPARED FOR:

Department of Aviation, City of Dallas, Texas

Dallas Love Field

This Environmental Assessment becomes a Federal document when

evaluated, signed, and dated by the Responsible FAA Of cial.

Responsible FAA Of cial. Date


2/405

Finding of No Significant Impact


3/405


4/405


5/405


6/405


7/405


8/405


9/405


10/405


11/405


12/405


13/405


14/405


15/405


16/405

Redevelopment of the DalFort Site

Environmental Assessment


17/405


18/405

DALLAS LOVE FIELD OCTOBER 2014

Table of Contents

1. Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Background ................................................................................................................................ 1-2

1.3 Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................... 1-7

1.3.1 Purpose of the Proposed Project ..................................................................................................... 1-7

1.3.2 Need for the Proposed Project ......................................................................................................... 1-8

1.4 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................ 1-8

1.5 Aviation Activity Forecasts ..................................................................................................... 1-11

1.6 Requested Federal Actions ..................................................................................................... 1-131.7 General Implementation Timeframe .................................................................................... 1-13

2. Alternatives .............................................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Identification of Alternatives ................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.1 No Action ................................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.2 Demolition, Remediation, and Redevelopment of the Dalfort Site .................................... 2-2

2.1.3 Remediation, Rehabilitation, and Adaptive Reuse of the DalFort Site(Proposed Action)................................................................................................................................... 2-2

2.1.4 Summary of Alternatives Considered ............................................................................................. 2-3

2.2 Sponsors Preferred Alternative .............................................................................................. 2-4

2.3 Federal Laws and Regulations Considered ............................................................................ 2-4

3. Affected Environment ............................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Identification and Description of the Study Areas ............................................................... 3-1

3.2 Existing Land Use and Zoning ................................................................................................. 3-7

3.2.1 On-Airport Land Uses ........................................................................................................................... 3-7

3.2.2 Surrounding Land Uses and Land Use Plans ............................................................................... 3-8

3.2.3 Existing Zoning ........................................................................................................................................ 3-9

3.3 Noise ............................................................................................................................................ 3-9

3.3.1 2001 Master Plan Noise Analysis ...................................................................................................3-10

3.3.2 2006 Impact Analysis Update ..........................................................................................................3-10

3.4 Demographics and Socioeconomic Profile .......................................................................... 3-11


19/405


Table of Contents 3.5 Natural Environment ............................................................................................................... 3-16

3.5.1 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................3-16

3.5.2 Water Quality .........................................................................................................................................3-18

3.5.3 Wetlands ..................................................................................................................................................3-21

3.5.4 Floodplains ..............................................................................................................................................3-22

3.5.5 Coastal Areas ..........................................................................................................................................3-22

3.5.6 Biotic Communities ..............................................................................................................................3-23

3.6 DOT Section 4(f) Properties ................................................................................................... 3-23

3.7 Historic, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources ...................................... 3-24

3.8 Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste .................................................................................. 3-26

3.8.1 Hazardous Materials............................................................................................................................3-263.8.2 Solid Waste .............................................................................................................................................3-32

3.8.3 Regulatory Activity ...............................................................................................................................3-33

3.9 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions .............................................. 3-33

4. Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Noise ............................................................................................................................................ 4-2 4.1.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.1.2 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.1.3 Proposed Action Alternative .............................................................................................................. 4-3

4.2 Compatible Land Use ................................................................................................................ 4-4 4.2.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 4-4 4.2.2 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................................................... 4-4 4.2.3 Proposed Action Alternative .............................................................................................................. 4-4

4.3 Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental Justice, and Childrens EnvironmentalHealth and Safety Risks ............................................................................................................ 4-7 4.3.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 4-7 4.3.2 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................................................... 4-8 4.3.3 Proposed Action Alternative .............................................................................................................. 4-8

4.4 Secondary (Induced) Impacts .................................................................................................. 4-9


20/405


Table of Contents 4.5 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................. 4-10

4.5.1 Methodology .........................................................................................................................................4-10 4.5.2 No Action Alternative .........................................................................................................................4-10 4.5.3 Proposed Action Alternative ............................................................................................................4-10

4.6 Water Quality ........................................................................................................................... 4-12 4.6.1 No Action Alternative .........................................................................................................................4-13 4.6.2 Proposed Action Alternative ............................................................................................................4-13 4.6.3 Mitigation Measures ...........................................................................................................................4-14

4.7 Fish, Wildlife, and Plants ........................................................................................................ 4-15 4.7.1 Methodology .........................................................................................................................................4-15 4.7.2 No Action Alternative .........................................................................................................................4-15 4.7.3 Proposed Action Alternative ............................................................................................................4-15

4.8 DOT, Section 4(f) Properties .................................................................................................. 4-15 4.8.1 Methodology .........................................................................................................................................4-16 4.8.2 No Action Alternative .........................................................................................................................4-16 4.8.3 Proposed Action Alternative ............................................................................................................4-16

4.9 Historic, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources ...................................... 4-17 4.9.1 Methodology .........................................................................................................................................4-17 4.9.2 No Action Alternative .........................................................................................................................4-18 4.9.3 Proposed Action Alternative ............................................................................................................4-18

4.10 Light Emissions and Visual Impacts ...................................................................................... 4-19 4.10.1 Methodology .........................................................................................................................................4-19

4.10.2 No Action Alternative .........................................................................................................................4-20 4.10.3 Proposed Action Alternative ............................................................................................................4-20

4.11 Natural Resources and Energy Supply ................................................................................. 4-20 4.11.1 Methodology .........................................................................................................................................4-20 4.11.2 No Action Alternative .........................................................................................................................4-21 4.11.3 Proposed Action Alternative ............................................................................................................4-21

4.12 Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste .......................................... 4-21 4.12.1 Methodology .........................................................................................................................................4-21 4.12.2 No Action Alternative .........................................................................................................................4-22 4.12.3 Proposed Action Alternative ............................................................................................................4-22 4.12.4 Mitigation Measures ...........................................................................................................................4-26


21/405


Table of Contents 4.13 Construction Impacts .............................................................................................................. 4-27

4.13.1 Erosion and Sedimentation ..............................................................................................................4-27 4.13.2 Noise..........................................................................................................................................................4-27 4.13.3 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................4-27 4.13.4 Water Quality .........................................................................................................................................4-28 4.13.5 Natural Resources and Energy Supply .........................................................................................4-28 4.13.6 Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste .............................................4-29

4.14 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................................. 4-29

4.15 Other Considerations .............................................................................................................. 4-30

5. Agency Coordination and Public Involvement ................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Agency Coordination ................................................................................................................ 5-1

5.2 Availability of the Draft EA for Review .................................................................................. 5-2

5.3 Public Workshop ........................................................................................................................ 5-3

6. References ................................................................................................................................................ 6-1

7. List of Abbreviations and Acronyms .................................................................................................... 7-1

8. List of Preparers ....................................................................................................................................... 8-1

8.1 Principal Federal Aviation Administration Reviewers ......................................................... 8-1

8.2 City of Dallas, Aviation Administration .................................................................................. 8-1

8.3 Ricondo & Associates, Inc. ....................................................................................................... 8-2

8.4 Farmer & Associates, Inc. ......................................................................................................... 8-38.5 Geo-Marine, Inc. ........................................................................................................................ 8-3

8.6 Mead & Hunt, Inc. ..................................................................................................................... 8-4

8.7 Modern Geosciences, Inc. ......................................................................................................... 8-4

8.8 Synergy Consultants, Inc. ......................................................................................................... 8-4


22/405


List of AppendicesAppendix A: Section 106 Consultation

Appendix B: Noise Analysis

Appendix C: Air Quality Analysis

Appendix D: Public Involvement

List of Tables

Table 1-1: Dallas Love Field Historical and Aircraft Operations Forecast .......................................................................1-12

Table 2-1: Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................................................................................... 2-4

Table 2-2: Federal Laws and Statutes Considered ..................................................................................................................... 2-5

Table 2-3: Executive Orders Considered ........................................................................................................................................ 2-6

Table 2-4: FAA Orders, Advisory Circulars, and Federal Regulations Considered ......................................................... 2-6

Table 3-1: Comparison of Area and Population Affected by Various Noise Impact Scenarios .............................3-11

Table 3-2: Demographic and Socioeconomic Data .................................................................................................................3-15

Table 3-3: Income Data by Census Tract .....................................................................................................................................3-16

Table 3-4: Constituents of Concern Exceeding TCEQ Protective Concentration Levels ...........................................3-20

Table 3-5: DalFort Site Underground Storage Tank Records ..............................................................................................3-28

Table 3-6: DalFort Site Environmental Database Listings .....................................................................................................3-29

Table 3-7: Environmental Database Listings for Properties Adjacent to or near the Area of PotentialEffect .....................................................................................................................................................................................3-31

Table 3-8: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions in the Indirect Study Area ......................3-34

Table 4-1: 2016 and 2021 Area Equivalent Method Results .................................................................................................. 4-3

Table 4-2: Emissions Summary and General Conformity Applicability Analysis ..........................................................4-11

Table 5-1: Publication Locations for Draft EA .............................................................................................................................. 5-2


23/405


List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1-1: General Location and Vicinity Map .......................................................................................................................... 1-3

Exhibit 1-2: Project Site ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1-5

Exhibit 1-3: Proposed Action .............................................................................................................................................................. 1-9

Exhibit 3-1: Area of Potential Effect ................................................................................................................................................. 3-3

Exhibit 3-2: Indirect Study Area ......................................................................................................................................................... 3-5

Exhibit 3-3: Census Tracts in the Airport Vicinity ......................................................................................................................3-13


24/405


1. Purpose and Need

1.1 Introduction

Located within the City of Dallas, Texas, Dallas Love Field (the Airport) is classified as a medium-hubcommercial service airport in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). Hub classifications arebased on the number of passengers enplaned at airports , and a medium hub classification means that theAirport accommodates between 0.25 percent and 1.0 percent of total U.S. enplaned passengers annually. 1 TheAirport is owned by the City of Dallas and operated through the Citys Department of Aviation (Sponsor), andis served by four commercial airlines, including Southwest Airlines, which maintains its corporate headquartersat the Airport. Seven fixed base operators (FBOs) provide full-service facilities for general aviation (GA)maintenance, fuel, hangar rentals, charter flights, and additional executive class amenities.

This Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared by the Sponsor pursuant to the requirements of Section102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 42 United States Code [U.S.C.] 4321-4370h),

and Section 509(b)(5) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended. The Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), as the lead federal agency tasked with ensuring compliance with NEPA for airportdevelopment actions, must review the potential environmental effects of a proposed project before approvingthe proposed project. This EA was also prepared in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, EnvironmentalImpacts: Policies and Procedures 2 and FAA Order 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions. 3

NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare environmental documentation that discloses to decision-makersand the interested public a clear, accurate description of any potential environmental effects resulting fromproposed federal actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions. Through NEPA, the U.S. Congress hasdirected federal agencies to integrate environmental factors in their planning and decision-making processesand to encourage and facilitate public involvement in decisions that affect the quality of the humanenvironment. Federal agencies are required to consider the environmental effects of a proposed action,

1 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Report to Congress: National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems(NPIAS), 2011-2015, September 27, 2010.

2 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures ,June 8, 2004, Change 1, effective March 20, 2006.

3 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Order 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions , effective April 28, 2006.


25/405

p 4


26/405

G e n e r a

l L o c a

t i o n a n

d V i c i n i t y

M a p

Z : \

L o v e

F i e l d \ G I S \ D a

l F o r t

E A M X D \ D A L

_ 1

- 1_

L o c a

t i o n

M a p

_ 2 0 1 4 0 5 2 7

. m x d

S O U R C E :

C i t y

B o u n

d a r y

D a

t a ,

N o r t

h C e n

t r a

l T e x a s

C o u n c

i l o

f G o v e r n m e n

t s ,

h t t p : /

/ w w w . n

c t c o g . o

r g / i n

d e x . a

s p ( a c c e s s e

d o n

l i n e : J u n e

4 ,

2 0 1 2 ) . ;

G o o g

l e E a r t

h P r o ,

A e r i a

l I m a g e r y ,

2 0 1 4

.

P R E P A R E D B Y : R i c o n

d o

& A

s s o c

i a t e s ,

I n c . ,

A p r i

l 2 0 1 4

.

D A L L A S

L O V E F I E L D

O C T O B E R 2 0 1

E X H I B I T 1 - 1

N O R T H

0

0 . 5

m i .

S o u r c e s :

E s r i ,

H E R E

, D e

L o r m e ,

U S G S

, I n t e r m a p ,

i n c r e m e n

t P C o r p . ,

N R C A N

, E s r i

J a p a n ,

M E T I , E s r i

C h i n a

( H o n g

K o n g

) , E s r i

( T h a

i l a n

d ) ,

T o m

T o m ,

M a p m y I n

d i a

,

O p e n

S t r e e

t M a p c o n

t r i b u

t o r s ,

a n

d t h e

D A L

D a

l l a s

0

1 5 0 m

i .

E A f o r

R e d e v e

l o p m e n

t o

f t h e

D a

l F o r t

S i t e

P u r p o s e a n

d N e e

d

L E G E N D C

i t y o

f D a

l l a s

A i r p o r t

P r o p e r t y

B o u n

d a r y

P r o j e c t

S i t e

L e m

m o n

A v e

n u e

B a c

h m a n

L a

k e


27/405

it e1 4


28/405

S o u r c e :

E s r i ,

D i g i t a l G l o b e ,

G e o

E y e ,

i - c u

b e

d ,

E a r t

h s t a r

G e o g r a p

h i c s , C

N E S / A i r b u s

D S

, U S D A

,

U S G S

, A E X

, G e

t m a p p

i n g ,

A e r o g r i

d ,

I G N

, I G P

, s w

i s s

t o p o ,

a n

d t h e

G I S U s e r

C o m m u n

i t y

P r o

j e c t

S i t

E A f o r

R e d e v e

l o p m e n

t o

f t h e

D a

l F o r t

S i t e

P u r p o s e a n

d N e e

d

Z : \

L o v e

F i e l d \ G I S \ D

a l F o r t

E A M X D \ D A L

_ 1

- 2_

P r o

j e c t

S i t e

_ 2 0 1 4 0 3 2 0

. m x d

S O U R C E : E S R I O n l

i n e

D a

t a b a s e ;

E S R I O n

l i n e

D a t a b a s e ,

A e r i a l

I m a g e r y , 2

0 1 4

.

P R E P A R E D B Y : R i c o n

d o

& A

s s o c i a

t e s ,

I n c . ,

D A L L A S

L O V E F I E L D

O C T O B E R

2 0 1

E X H I B I T 1 - 2

N O R T H

0

3 0 0 f t

.

U . S .

C u s t o m s

&

B o r d e r

P r o t e c t

i o n

F o r m e r

L e g e n

d G a

t e s

P a r

k i n g

G a r a g e

F o r m e r

L e g e n

d T e r m

i n a l

F o

r m e r

D a l

F o r t

A e r o s p a c e

F a c i

l i t i e s

C u r r e n

t S u r f a c e

P a r

k i n g

L E G E N D A

i r p o r t

P r o p e r t y

B o u n

d a r y

A r e a

o f P o t e n t i a l

E f f e c t

A p r

i l 2 0 1 4

.


29/405


THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK


30/405


An initial plan considered by the Department of Aviation for redevelopment of the DalFort site includeddemolition of all structures on the site prior to redevelopment. Through consultation regarding Section 106of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) initiated for the original plan, it was determined that theOMB is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) because of its association withBraniff International Airways and the importance of its architectural design 4.

Certain known environmental conditions are present at the DalFort site, particularly within the DalFortAerospace facilities, as a result of its historical use as an aircraft maintenance facility. These conditions include

possible contamination from a former hazardous materials storage area, a former plating room, several sandand aluminum oxide blasting areas, hydraulic pumps and equipment, as well as underground storage tanks(USTs). The Former Legend Terminal also has fungal growth in some interior sections of the building. TheCity of Dallas is currently in the application process for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality(TCEQ) Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) for the DalFort site. Further action will be needed to closeoutstanding environmental issues associated with the DalFort site within the VCP. The current conditions ofthe former DalFort Aerospace facilities and Former Legend Terminal and known environmental conditionsprevent the reuse of existing structures without remediation. To generate revenue and maximize the utility ofAirport property, it is necessary to remediate the site before it can be redeveloped. In addition toenvironmental conditions, the physical condition of the DalFort Aerospace facilities has deteriorated to theextent that building siding materials and roofing are occasionally blown onto adjoining apron areas, resultingin hazards to aircraft on the adjoining apron areas.

1.3 Purpose and Need

Pursuant to NEPA and FAA Orders 1050.1E and 5050.4B, an EA must include a description of the purpose of aproposed action and the reasons it is needed. Identification of the purpose and need for a proposed actionprovides the rationale and forms the foundation for identification of reasonable alternatives that can meet thepurpose for the action and, therefore, address the need or deficiency. The purpose of and the need for theProposed Action are discussed below.

PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT1.3.1The proposed project would include remediation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment of the DalFort site incompatible Airport uses. The proposed project fulfills the Sponsors goals of :

Better using Airport property currently not in use or underused;

Remediating outstanding environmental issues;

Increasing nonaeronautical revenues;

Removing hazards associated with deteriorating buildings; and

4 Additional information is provided in Sections 3.7 and 4.9.


31/405


Preserving the seven aspects of integrity associated with the eligibility of the OMB for listing on theNRHP.

NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT1.3.2

The proposed project, to redevelop the DalFort site including the facilities for use as aeronautical facilities andcommercial development, would satisfy the following needs:

Redevelop vacant and underused facilities at the Airport to provide needed aeronautical facilities andopportunities to generate nonaeronautical revenue; and

Remediate contaminated land and close outstanding environmental issues at the DalFort site.

Implementation of the project is needed to enable the Sponsor to maximize the use of all availabledevelopment space within the Airport property. The Sponsor is currently revising land uses and developmentplans along the northeastern side of the Airport. Redevelopment of the DalFort site would comply with thoseplans. Because of the current state of the DalFort Aerospace facilities and the Former Legend Terminal, onlymarginal use can be made of the site in its existing condition. As of March 2014, space at the DalFort site wasused through temporary leases or as storage space for the Sponsor. Improvements must be made to theDalFort site to address outstanding environmental issues so that the property can be suitable for long-termleasing. Outstanding environmental issues within the DalFort site and the existing facilities need to beaddressed prior to any redevelopment.

1.4 Proposed Action

The Proposed Action includes the remediation and redevelopment of the DalFort site via the renovation ofexisting facilities, as well as the construction of new mixed-use development. Specific elements associatedwith the Proposed Action include:

Rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the OMB on the DalFort Aerospace site;

Site environmental remediation and closure of outstanding TCEQ environmental issues;

Construction of two new corporate GA hangars;

Construction of a new office building, with an underground parking garage, in place of the existingbuilding and surface parking at the southeast corner of the site;

Construction of new retail and commercial facilities along Lemmon Avenue, with partial demolition ofthe parking garage; and

Rehabilitation of existing apron.

Exhibit 1-3 depicts the elements associated with development of the Proposed Action.

t i o n

2 0 1 4


32/405

S o u r c e :

E s r i ,


G e o

E y e ,

i - c u

b e

d ,

E a r t

h s t a r

G e o g r a p

h i c s , C

N E S / A i r b u s

D

U S G S

, A E X

, G e

t m a p p

i n g ,

A e r o g r i

d ,

I G N

, I G P

, s w

i s s

t o p o ,

a n

d t h e

G I S U s e r

C o m m

P r o p o s e

d A c t

E A f o r

R e

d e v e

l o p m e n

t o

f t h e

D a

l F o r t

S i t e

P u r p o s e a n

d N e e

d

Z : \

L o v e


l F o r t

E A M X D \ D A L

_ 1

- 3_

P r o p o s e

d A c t

i o n

_ 2 0 1 4 0 3 2 4

. m x d

S O U R C E :

E S R I

O n

l i n e

D a

t a b a s e ;

E S R I O n

l i n e

D a

t a b a s e ,

A e r i a

l I m a g e r y ,

2 0 1 4

.

P R E P A R E D B Y :

R i c o n

d o

& A

s s o c i a

t e s ,

I n c . ,

D A L L A S

L O V E F I E L D

O C T O B E R

2

E X H I B I T 1 - 3

0

3 0 0 f t

.

L E G E N D A

r e a o

f P o t e n t i a l

E f f e c t

M i x e d

U s e

D e v e l o p m e n t

N e w

A v

i a t i o n - R

e l a t e

d C o n s t r u c t

i o n

R e h

a b i l i t a t

i o n a n

d R e n o v a t i o n

O p e r a t

i o n s a n

d M a i n

t e n a n c e

B u

i l d i n g

( t o

b e

R e h a b

i l i t a t e d a n

d R e n o v a

t e d )

F o r m e r

L e g e n

d T e r m

i n a l

C o r p o r a

t e G A

H a n g a r

# 1

C o r p o r a

t e G A

H a n g a r

# 2 P a

r t i a l D e m o

l i t i o n

/

C o n v e r t e d

R e t a i

l / C o m m e r c i a l

S p a c e

D e m o

l i t i o n

/

P a r

k i n g

G a r a g e

A p r o n

R e h a

b i l i t a t i o n

A p r o n

R e h a b

i l i t a t

i o n

O f f i c e

B u

i l d i n g

L e m m o n

A v e n u e

N O R T H

A p r i

l 2 0 1 4

.



33/405





34/405


1.5 Aviation Activity Forecasts

Aviation activity forecasts for the Airport were developed through 2021 for two scenarios: a No Action(without project) scenario and a Proposed Action (with project) scenario. Table 1-1 presents the forecast ofaircraft operations for the Airport through 2021 for both the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives. Thedifference between the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives is an increase in based GA aircraft andassociated aircraft operations assumed to occur if the DalFort site is redeveloped with two corporate general

aviation hangars (the Proposed Action). Because the Proposed Action would not affect commercial aircraft orair taxi operations at the Airport, no change in numbers of enplaned passengers is anticipated as a result ofthe Proposed Action.

For purposes of this EA, an assumed aircraft fleet mix was developed for the proposed corporate GA hangarsassociated with the Proposed Action. It was assumed that the hangars would accommodate the followingtypes of aircraft:

Six Challenger 300s Five Citation jets

Three Gulfstream 550s

Six Hawker 850XPs

Four Learjet 31As

Two Legacy 600s

The activity forecasts were developed based on information in the FAAs 2014 Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) forthe Airport, aircraft fleet mix data contained in FAA aircraft operations databases, and historical aircraft fleetmix data contained in the Dallas Love Field Impact Analysis Update. 5 The assumed aircraft fleet mix for thecorporate GA hangars was based on the existing corporate GA fleet at the Airport, as well as manufacturersorders.

5 City of Dallas, Dallas Love Field Impact Analysis Update in the Absence of the Wright Amendment , May 31, 2006.

DALLAS LOVE FIELD SEPTEMBER 2 0 1 4


35/405

DALLAS LOVE FIELD SEPTEMBER 2 0 1 4

Table 1-1: Dallas Love Field Historical and Aircraft Operations Forecast

YEAR1/ AIR CARRIEROPERATIONS

AIR TAXIOPERATIONS

GENERALAVIATION

OPERATIONSMILITARY

OPERATIONSTOTAL

OPERATIONS

Historical

2012 87,864 31,900 55,807 1,495 177,066

Forecasted No Action

2016 103,204 35,359 56,957 1,045 196,565

2021 125,283 36,238 58,059 1,045 220,625

Forecasted with Proposed Action

2016 103,204 35,359 58,761 1,045 198,369

2021 125,283 36,238 60,205 1,045 222,771

NOTE:

1/ Year (federal fiscal year) extends from October 1st to September 30th

SOURCE: Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Aviation Policy and Plans, Terminal Area Forecast Detail Report, Dallas Love Field, issued February2014 (Historical and Forecasted No Action); Ricondo & Associates, Inc., April 2014, based on Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Aviation Policyand Plans, Terminal Area Forecast Detail Report, Dallas Love Field, issued February 2014 and projected based aircraft at the DalFort site (Forecasted withProposed Action).PREPARED BY: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., June 2014.

1.6 Requested Federal Actions

The Sponsor is requesting the following federal actions by the FAA:

Unconditional approval of the Dallas Love Field Airport Layout Plan (ALP) depicting the proposedimprovements pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 40103(b), 44718, and 47107(a)(16); Title 14 Code of FederalRegulations (CFR) Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace ; and 14 CFRPart 157, Notice of Construction, Alteration, Activation, and Deactivation .

Determination under 49 U.S.C. 44502(b) that the Proposed Action is reasonably necessary for use inair commerce or in the interest of national defense.

Continued close coordination with the Sponsor and appropriate FAA program offices, as required, toensure safety during construction pursuant to 14 CFR Part 139, Airport Certification , under 49 U.S.C.44706.

1.7 General Implementation Timeframe

Implementation of the Proposed Action would begin upon FAA approval of the ALP depicting the proposedimprovements, if FAA issues a favorable environmental finding. Construction activities would begin in 2015.Subject to completion of the environmental review process, the corporate GA hangars are projected to beoperational in 2016.



36/405


2. Alternatives

FAA Orders 1050.1E and 5050.4B set forth FAA policies and procedures to be followed in assessing theenvironmental impacts of aviation-related projects in compliance with NEPA. These FAA orders require athorough a nd objective assessment of the Proposed Action, the No Action alternative, and all reasonablealternatives that would achieve the stated purpose and need for the Proposed Action. The alternativesanalysis presented in this section of the EA is consistent with the requirements of FAA Orders 1050.1E and5050.4B.

The process followed in identifying the range of initial alternatives to be considered and the screening processused to determine which alternatives would reasonably satisfy the purpose of and need for the ProposedAction are described in this section. Those alternatives that would satisfy the purpose and need for theProposed Action were carried forward for analysis of environmental consequences. Applicable federal lawsand regulations considered during the analysis are listed at the end of this section.

2.1

Identification of AlternativesThe DalFort site encompasses approximately 26 acres of land that would be available for development inaeronautical and potentially commercial uses. No other sites on Airport property would provide adequatespace for such development, nor would development of such facilities at other sites address theenvironmental concerns and deteriorating building conditions at the DalFort site. Therefore, no alternativesother than development on the DalFort site were considered.

Two alternatives for development on the DalFort site, in addition to the No Action alternative, were identifiedto potentially address the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action. As briefly described below, thesealternatives are:

No Action

Demolition, remediation, and redevelopment of the DalFort site

Remediation, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse of the DalFort site (Proposed Action)

2.1.1 NO ACTION

The No Action alternative would result in no remediation, rehabilitation, or reuse of the DalFort site and wouldresult in no new facilities or improvements for aeronautical or commercial use on the site. The No Actionalternative would not address outstanding environmental issues related to the existing facilities on the DalFort



37/405

site; these facilities would remain open with the TCEQ. The No Action alternative would also not address thedeteriorating physical conditions of the DalFort Aerospace facilities.

2.1.2 DEMOLITION, REMEDIATION, AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE DALFORT SITE

This alternative would include demolition of the former DalFort Aerospace facilities at the DalFort site toground level. Site environmental remediation and the closure of outstanding TCEQ environmental issueswould be undertaken as part of the demolition and site preparation.

This alternative would also include the construction of hangars for corporate and general aviation use, alongwith associated offices, facilities, taxilanes, and apron areas. Commercial development could occur onportions of the DalFort site, with a portion of the site being designated for small commercial/retaildevelopment.

Airfield access to the CBP facility at the western end of the Former Legend Terminal would be maintained.

2.1.3 REMEDIATION, REHABILITATION, AND ADAPTIVE REUSE OF THE DALFORT SITE (PROPOSEDACTION)

This alternative, the Proposed Action, would include remediation, rehabilitation, and renovation of the OMBfor adaptive reuse and construction of new facilities on the DalFort site. Site environmental remediation andclosure of outstanding TCEQ environmental issues would be undertaken as part of site preparation.

This alternative would include the following elements:

Rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the OMB on the DalFort Aerospace site;

Site environmental remediation and closure of outstanding TCEQ environmental issues;

Construction of two new corporate general aviation hangars;

Construction of a new office building, with an underground parking garage, in place of the existingoffice building and surface parking at the southeast corner of the site;

Construction of new retail and commercial facilities along Lemmon Avenue, with partial demolition ofthe parking garage; and

Rehabilitation of existing apron.

Airfield access to the CBP facility at the western end of the former Legend Terminal would be maintained.

Exhibit 1-3 shows the elements of the Proposed Action.



38/405

2.1.4 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

The DalFort site requires remediation and the outstanding TCEQ issues need to be closed prior to any reuse ordevelopment of the site for aviation uses and revenue-generating activity. Once environmental remediation iscompleted, the logical best use of the property would be development in appropriate aviation uses to takeadvantage of the available airfield access considering that such development is consistent with Airport plansand no other sites are available for possible development at the Airport. The Sponsor considered Demolition,Remediation, and Redevelopment of the DalFort Site and Remediation, Rehabilitation, and Adaptive Reuseof the DalFort Site as the two alternatives aside from the No Action alternative to consider in the firstscreening process, comparing the alternatives to the purpose and need.

Because of the historic eligibility criteria associated with the DalFort Aerospace facilities, the Sponsor mustensure that any development proposal would maintain the historic integrity of the OMB to avoid adverseeffects to the historic resource in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA and to therefore meet thepurpose and need. Thus, the Sponsor determined that rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the OMB was theonly prudent and feasible alternative to meet the purpose of and need for the project. This alternative would

maximize the use of Airport property, improve onsite facilities for corporate GA users, and generate increasednonairline revenues. No additional alternatives were considered.

FAA guidance states that, If the re are no unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of availableresources, the range of alternatives may be limited to the no action and proposed action alternatives. 1 Because all of the actions would occur on developed Airport property, no unresolved conflicts concerningalternative uses of available resources were identified. Although the No Action alternative would not meet thestated purpose and need for the proposed project, it was retained for analysis in this EA to fulfill Council onEnvironmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA and to comply with FAA Orders 1050.1E and5050.4B. Thus, only the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives were analyzed in detail for this EA.

Table 2-1 lists the alternatives considered and provides the reasons for whether or not they would meet theproject goals identified in Section 1, Purpose and Need.

1 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Change 1, paragraph 405d, March 20, 2006.



39/405

Table 2-1: Comparison of Alternatives

ALTERNATIVEMEETS PURPOSE

AND NEED?REASONS FOR MEETING OR NOT MEETINGPURPOSE AND NEED

No Action No Would not allow for redevelopment or reuse of the DalFort site foraeronautical uses and would limit the non-aeronautical revenue-generating capabilities of the Airport. Would not addressenvironmental issues associated with or the deteriorating physicalcondition of the existing facilities.

Demolition, Remediation, andRedevelopment of the DalFort Site

No Would allow for improved use of Airport property and increase Airportnon-aeronautical revenue-generating opportunities. This alternativewould address outstanding environmental issues associated with theformer DalFort Aerospace facilities and the Former Legend Terminal,as well as concerns related to deteriorating facilities. This alternativewould not preserve the seven aspects of integrity of the OMB relatedto its eligibility for listing in the NRHP.

Remediation, Rehabilitation, andAdaptive Reuse of the DalFort Site

Yes Would allow for improved use of Airport property and increase Airportnon-aeronautical revenue-generating opportunities. This alternativewould address outstanding environmental issues with the formerDalFort Aerospace facilities and the Former Legend Terminal, as wellas concerns related to deteriorating facilities. This alternative wouldpreserve all seven aspects of integrity of the OMB related to itseligibility for listing in the NRHP.

SOURCE: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., April 2014. PREPARED BY: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., April 2014.

2.2 Sponsors Preferred Alternative

The Proposed Action, as identified in Section 1.4 and described in Section 2.1.3, remains the Sponsorspreferred alternative following the alternatives analysis described in Section 2.1.4. Because the ProposedAction would meet the purpose of and need for the proposed project, would not result in any significantadverse environmental impacts, and would preserve all seven aspects of integrity of the OMB related to its

eligibility for listing in the NRHP, it is also the environmentally preferred alternative.

2.3 Federal Laws and Regulations Considered

In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, Paragraph 405(d)(4), the relevant federal laws and statutes, executiveorders, and FAA orders, advisory circulars, and other federal regulations considered during preparation of this

EA are listed in Table 2-2 , Table 2-3 , and Table 2-4 , respectively.



40/405

Table 2-2: Federal Laws and Statutes Considered

CITATION

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 4321 et seq.

Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Section 4(f) 49 U.S.C. 303(c) et seq .

Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 49 U.S.C. 47501 et seq.

Federal Aviation Act 49 U.S.C. 40101 et seq.

Endangered Species Act of 1973 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, asamended by the Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act of 1992

42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended by the Solid Waste

Disposal Act of 1980

42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, as amended 16 U.S.C. 469 et seq.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended (commonly referred to as theClean Water Act)

33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Section 10 33 U.S.C. 403 et seq.

Farmland Protection Policy Act 7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.

Toxic Substances Control Act 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 16 U.S.C. 1452 et seq.

Oil Pollution Control Act of 1990 33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.




41/405

Table 2-3: Executive Orders Considered

CITATION

Executive Order 11593 of 1971, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment 36 Federal Register (FR) 8921

Executive Order 11988 of 1977, Floodplain Management 43 FR 6030

Executive Order 11990 of 1977, Protection of Wetlands 42 FR 26961

Executive Order 12898 of 1994, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in MinorityPopulations and Low-Income Populations

59 FR 7629

Executive Order 13045 of 1997, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and SafetyRisks

62 FR 19883


Table 2-4: FAA Orders, Advisory Circulars, and Federal Regulations Considered

U.S. Department of Transportation and FAA Orders

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), FAA Order 1050.1E: Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures

U.S. DOT, FAA Order 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions

U.S. DOT, Order 5680.1: Final Order to Address Environmental Justice in Low-Income and Minority Populations

U.S. DOT, Order 5650.2: Floodplain Management and Protection

U.S. DOT, Order 5660.1A: Preservation of the Nations Wetlands

FAA Advisory CircularsU.S. DOT, FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5020-1: Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports

U.S. DOT, FAA AC 150/5200-33A: Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or near Airports

U.S. DOT, FAA AC 36-3H:Estimated Airplane Noise Levels in A-Weighted Decibels

U.S. DOT, FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design

U.S. DOT, FAA AC 150/5370-10A: Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports

Code of Federal Regulations

Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 71: Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points

Title 14 CFR Part 77: Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace Title 14 CFR Part 135: Operating Requirements: Commuter and On-Demand Operations and Rules Governing Persons on Board Such

Aircraft

Title 14 CFR Part 150: Airport Noise Compatibility Planning

Title 14 CFR Part 157: Notice of Construction, Alteration, Activation, and Deactivation

Title 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B: Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans

Title 40 CFR Part 122: EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

Title 40 CFR Part 123: State Program Requirements

Title 40 CFR Part 124: Procedures for Decisionmaking Title 40 CFR Part 172: Hazardous Materials Table, Special Provisions, Hazardous Materials Communications, Emergency ResponseInformation, Training Requirements, and Security Plans



42/405



43/405


D S

, U S D A

,

n i t y

t i a l

E f f e c t

T O B E R

2 0 1 4

I T 3 - 1


44/405

S o u r c e :

E s r i ,


G e o

E y e ,

i - c u

b e

d ,

E a r t

h s t a r

G e o g r a p

h i c s ,

C N E S / A i r b u s

D

U S G S

, A E X

, G e

t m a p p

i n g ,

A e r o g r i

d ,

I G N

, I G P

, s w

i s s

t o p o ,

a n

d t h e

G I S

U s e r

C o m m u

A r e a

o f P o t e n

t

E A f o r R

e d e v e

l o p m e n

t o

f t h e

D a

l F o r t

S i t e

A f f e c

t e d E n v

i r o n m e n

t

Z : \

L o v e


l F o r t

E A M X D \ D A L

_ 3

- 1_

A P E

_ 0 4 0 9 1 4

. m x

d

S O U R C E :

E S R I O n

l i n e

D a

t a b a s e ;

E S R I O n

l i n e

D a t a

b a s e ,

A e r i a

l I m a g e r y ,

2 0 1 4

.


R i c o n

d o

& A

s s o c

i a t e s ,

I n c . ,

D A L L A S L O V E F I E L D

O C T

E X H I B

N O R T H

0

3 0 0 f t

.

L E G E N D A i

r p o r t

P r o p e r t y

B o u n

d a r y

A r e a o

f P o t e n t i a l

E f f e c t

L e m

m o n

A v e

n u e

A p r i

l 2 0 1 4

.



45/405


S t u

d y

A r e a

C T O B E R

2 0 1 4

I B I T 3 - 2


46/405

L e m m

o n A v

e

D e n t o

n D

r i v e

C e d

a r S p

r i n g s

R d

M o c k

i n g b i r

d L a n

e

S h o r e

c r e s t D

r

B a c h m a n

L a k e

B a c h m a n

L a

k e P a r k

H a r r y

H i n e

s B o u

l e v a r d

I n d i r e c

t S

E A f o r

R e

d e v e

l o p m e n

t o

f t h e

D a

l F o r t

S i t e

A f f e c t e

d E n v

i r o n m e n

t

Z : \

L o v e


l F o r t

E A M X D \ D A L

_ 3

- 2_

S t u d y

A r e a

_ 2 0 1 4 0 3 2 0

. m x d

S O U R C E :

E S R I O n

l i n e

D a

t a b a s e ;

G o o g

l e E a r t

h ,

A e r i a

l I m a g e r y ,

2 0 1 4 .

P R E P A R E D B

Y :

R i c o n

d o

& A

s s o c i a

t e s ,

I n c . ,

D A L L A

S L O V E F I E L D

O C

E X H

N O R T H

0

2 ,

4 0 0

f t

.

R e s

i d e n

t i a

l

I n d u s t r i a l

C o m m e r c i a

l

R e s i

d e n

t i a l

R e s

i d e n

t i a

l

R e s

i d e n

t i a

l

L E G E N D A

r e a o

f P o t e n t i a l

E f f e c t

A i r p o r t

P r o p e r t y

B o u n

d a r y

I n d i r e c t

S t u

d y

A r e a

I n d u s t r i a

l

A p r i

l 2 0 1 4

.



47/405




48/405

3.2 Existing Land Use and ZoningExisting land use plans and policies that affect development in the vicinity of the Airport are summarized inthis section. Land use plans that apply to the area surrounding the Proposed Action site include:

2006 ForwardDallas Comprehensive Plan , City of Dallas, 2009;

The Stemmons Corridor Southwestern Medical District Plan , City of Dallas, 2010;

Maple-Mockingbird Project Plan & Reinvestment Zone Financing Plan, City of Dallas, 2009 ;

City of Dallas Community and Redevelopment Plans

3.2.1 ON-AIRPORT LAND USES

The Airport is located on 1,256 acres of land approximately 3.5 miles north-northwest of the Dallas centralbusiness district, and is the only commercial service airport within the Dallas city limits. Airfield facilities

consist of two parallel runways and one crosswind runway, along with associated taxiways and supportfacilities, including the Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) and the aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF)station. GA facilities are also provided at the Airport. Specific Airport facilities include:

Parallel Runway 13R-31L (8,800 feet long) and associated taxiway system.

Parallel Runway 13L-31R (7,752 feet long) and associated taxiway system.

Crosswind Runway 18-36 (6,147 feet long) and associated taxiway system.

Central Terminal Area : The area between parallel Runways 13L-31R and 13R-31L is primarilyoccupied by the Airport terminal building and aircraft gates and aircraft parking areas, along withassociated commercial aviation facilities. Two large parking garages are located adjacent to theterminal building at the center of the Cedar Springs Drive terminal loop.

Southeastern Central Area : The area southeast of the Central Terminal Area betweenparallel Runways 13L-31R and 13R-31L is occupied by business and FBO facilities for GA aircraft andcommercial rental car facilities.

Northwestern Central Area : The area northwest of the Central Terminal Area between parallelRunways 13L-31R and 13R-31L is occupied by business and industrial land uses.

North Side : The area northeast of Runway 13L-31R is primarily occupied by business and FBOfacilities for GA aircraft located along Lemmon Avenue.

South Side : The area southwest of Runway 13R-31L is occupied by Southwest Airlines corporateheadquarters, aviation and training facilities, as well as other business and FBO facilities for GAaircraft. Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) Green and Orange Line light rail routes and the DARTBurbank Station are located on the south side along Denton Drive, although outside the Airportboundary.



49/405

The property occupied by the former DalFort Aerospace facility and the Former Legend Terminal at 7701 and7777 Lemmon Avenue, respectively, has been associated with Love Field operations since the 1950s. Prior tobecoming the DalFort Aerospace facility, the DalFort structures were owned and operated by BraniffInternational Airways until the airline demised in 1982.

3.2.2 SURROUNDING LAND USES AND LAND USE PLANS

As the Airport is located less than 4 miles from downtown Dallas, land in the Airport vicinity is denselydeveloped. The primary land uses immediately surrounding the Airport are shown on Exhibit 3-2 anddiscussed below. No other historic or landmark districts are located in the immediate vicinity of the Airport.The nearest landmark district is Magnolia Station, approximately 3 miles southeast of the Airport.

3.2.2.1 Northeast of the Airport

The predominant land use north of the Airport consists of single-family residential neighborhoods along withsome commercial parcels. Greenway Parks, Bluffview, and Bachman Hollow are the three residentialneighborhoods immediately adjacent to the Airport s northeastern boundary. Commercial uses northeast of

the Airport consist of automobile dealerships, public storage spaces, and a nursing home, as well as variousother small commercial developments.

3.2.2.2 Northwest of the Airport

Bachman Lake and Bachman Lake Park are the predominant land uses immediately northwest of the Airport.A small area to the northwest is developed in industrial (mostly aviation-related) and single-family residentialuses. Beyond Bachman Lake is a mix of land uses, including a commercial corridor, multi- and single-family

residential developments, and a small area of industrial development.

3.2.2.3 Southwest of the Airport

Land use southwest of the Airport is dominated by industrial uses with a mix of commercial developmentsalong Mockingbird Lane and Lemmon Avenue. Beyond the industrial and commercial development areseveral parcels developed in institutional land uses, including Thomas J. Rusk Middle School, Weichsel Park,and Maple Lawn Elementary School. These institutional land uses are surrounded by a variety of residential

and commercial uses, the DART Orange and Green Lines, and the DART Inwood/Love Field Station at InwoodRoad.

3.2.2.4 South of the Airport

Portions of the City of Dallas Vision and Policy Plan: Stemmons Corridor Southwestern Medical District AreaPlan (the Stemmons Corridor Plan) and the Maple-Mockingbird Project Plan & Reinvestment Zone FinancingPlan (the Maple-Mockingbird Plan) include areas along Mockingbird Lane immediately adjacent to the

Airport. Existing land use in these areas consists of industrial land adjacent to the Airport, with multifamilyresidential, commercial, and institutional uses beyond the industrial district. The Southwestern MedicalCenter, a large University of Texas medical campus, is located approximately 0.5 mile south-southwest of theAirport. The Stemmons Corridor Plan seeks to maintain a mix of uses in this district, while enhancing accessto public park space and public transportation.



50/405

3.2.2.5 Southeast of the Airport

The area southeast of the Airport is mostly developed in single-family residential uses, with industrial areassurrounding the residential development. A small area in the central portion of the residential development isdesignated as institutional use. These institutional-use parcels are home to Our Lady of Perpetual HelpCatholic (elementary) School and Obadiah Knight Elementary School. Beyond the residential and institutionalareas is a mix of public park space, a commercial corridor, and industrial space along Harry Hines Boulevard.

3.2.2.6 East of the Airport

East of the Airport along Lemmon Avenue is a small corridor of commercial use with predominantly residentialuse beyond. The K.B. Polk Elementary School and a public park are also located in this area, designated asinstitutional land uses.

3.2.3 EXISTING ZONING

City of Dallas zoning is maintained and mapped by the Citys Development Services Department. The Airportis currently zoned as Industrial Research. Generally, zoning in the immediate areas surrounding the Airporttends to be Multi- and Single-Family Residential or Industrial, which is consistent with the current land use forthese areas. Several areas in the immediate vicinity of the Airport consist of Planned Development Districtzoning. This zoning has specific stipulations and requirements particular to each district. These specificdesignations vary in development intensity, the mix of uses, and types of uses allowed.

3.3 Noise

To comply with NEPA requirements, the FAA has developed specific guidance and requirements for theassessment of aircraft noise. The methodology to be used in analyzing aircraft noise is established in FAAOrder 1050.1E. The FAA has determined that the cumulative aircraft noise exposure experienced byindividuals must be established in terms of the yearly day-night average sound level (DNL) metric (expressedin A-weighted decibels).

The Noise Control Program for the Airport was officially adopted by the Dallas City Council in December 1981to provide a voluntary noise abatement and mitigation program that could be implemented over time. Tobalance the operating needs of the Airport with the needs of surrounding communities, the City adopted theDallas Love Field Policies . These policies recognize Love Fields importance to the Dallas community at largeand also establish a noise reduction goal aimed at minimizing the effects of Airport operations onsurrounding neighborhoods.

Sensitive noise receptors (residential uses, schools, hospitals, etc.) were examined in proximity to the APE; thenearest sensitive noise receptor to the Proposed Action is residential housing, located approximately 370 feeteast-northeast of the DalFort leasehold boundary. The City of Dallas conducted noise studies in 2001 for theupdated Airport Master Plan and in 2006 to assess impacts from the repeal of the Wright/Shelby Amendment.



51/405

3.3.1 2001 MASTER PLAN NOISE ANALYSIS

For the 2001 Dallas Love Field Airport Impact Analysis/Master Plan , a noise impact analysis was conductedusing the FAAs Integrated Noise Model and actual data from the Airports noise monitoring system. Noiseexposure contours and peak period data were developed to determine the effects associated with theAirports growth scenario for aviation traffic and the required facility development.

According to the 2001 noise analysis, the population exposed to DNL 65 and higher (considered by the FAA tobe significant noise exposure) was projected to decrease from nearly 27,000 in 1998 to 23,000 in 2010,because of the use of new, quieter aircraft that were scheduled to replace older models, along with mandatoryand voluntary noise abatement procedures.

3.3.2 2006 IMPACT ANALYSIS UPDATE

Following the opening of DFW in 1974, airline service at the Airport was limited under the restrictions of theWright Amendment of 1979. This federal regulation restricted flights and destinations served at the Airport toprotect DFW from nearby competition. These restrictions have gradually been phased out and the

Wright/Shelby Amendment will be completely repealed in fall 2014.

The noise analysis for the 2006 Dallas Love Field Impact Analysis Update was conducted to assess the airservice impacts that would occur in the absence of the Wright/Shelby Amendment, and to compare thoseimpacts with the 2001 Love Field Airport lmpact Analysis/Master Plan .

The 2006 noise analysis determined the following:

The noise exposure for the 20-Gate No Wright Amendment Scenario would decrease from thatestimated for the 2001 Master Plan 32-Gate Scenario, while noise exposure would increase under the2006 32-Gate No Wright Amendment Scenario. Table 3-1 comparatively summarizes the inputs andresults of the modeling of each scenario.

The DNL 65 noise exposure contour for the 20-Gate No Wright Amendment Scenario encompassesand area approximately 4.3 percent smaller than that for the 2001 Master Plan 32-Gate Scenario andincludes approximately 3,800 fewer people.

The DNL 65 noise exposure contour for the 32-Gate No Wright Amendment Scenario encompassesand area approximately 4 percent larger than for the 2001 Master Plan 32-Gate Scenario and includesapproximately 4,350 more people.

In each of the No Wright Amendment scenarios, the regional jet fleet mix for the 2001 Master Plan 32-GateScenario was replaced, for the most part, by standard air carrier jets. These aircraft are larger and have alouder noise footprint than the Canadair Regional Jet, Embraer 135, and Embraer 145 aircraft assumed in the

2001 Master Plan analyses. Furthermore, some of the standard jets were assumed to depart at heavier takeoffweights to serve more distant nonstop destinations than those possible under the Wright/ShelbyAmendment.



52/405

Table 3-1: Comparison of Area and Population Affected by Various Noise Impact Scenarios

MASTER PLAN 32 GATES20 GATES

NO WRIGHT AMENDMENT32 GATES

NO WRIGHT AMENDMENT

NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELSQUARE

MILES POPULATIONSQUARE

MILES POPULATIONSQUARE

MILES POPULATION

DNL 65 and Higher 4.6 24,872 4.4 21,045 4.8 29,219

DNL 70 and Higher 1.9 2,686 1.8 2,620 2 2,655

DNL 75 and Higher 0.9 - 0.8 - 0.9 -

NOTE:

DNL = Day-Night Average Sound Level, Expressed in A-Weighted Decibels.

SOURCES: City of Dallas,Dallas Love Field Impact Analysis In the Absence of the Wright Amendment , May 2006.PREPARED BY: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., April 2014.

3.4 Demographics and Socioeconomic Profile

Socioeconomics encompasses the activities and resources associated with the everyday human environment,particularly related to population centers, their demographics, and economic activities generated. ExecutiveOrder 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-IncomePopulations , was enacted in 1994. The purpose of this Executive Order is to ensure the fair treatment and

meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to thedevelopment, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fairtreatment means that no groups of people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups, should bear adisproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, andcommercial operations or the execution of federal, state, tribal, and local programs and policies.Environmental justice concerns must be considered for populations in the vicinity of a proposed projectfunded by the federal government.

A series of census tracts in the immediate vicinity of the Airport and the DalFort site was identified forsocioeconomic analysis. Exhibit 3-3 depicts these census tracts in relation to Airport property. The tablesthat follow provide information on the communities surrounding the Airport. The Indirect Study Area includesCensus Tracts 4.06, 71.02, 73.02, and 9801.



53/405


7 1

. 0 2

C e n s u s

T r a c t s

O C T O B E R

2 0 1 4

E X H I B I T 3 - 3


54/405

# 7 3

. 0 2

# 7

# 9 8 0 1

# 4

. 0 6

E A f o r R e

d e v e

l o p m e n

t o

f t h e

D a

l f o r t

S i t e

A f f e c t e

d E n v

i r o n m e n

t

Z : \

L o v e


l F o r t

E A M X D \ D A L

_ 3

- 3 - 2

0 1 0

_ C e n s u s

_ T r a c t s_

2 0 1 4 0 3 2 5

. m x

d

S O U R C E : 2

0 1 0 U

. S .

C e n s u s

T r a c

t s ,

N o r t

h C e n

t r a

l T e x a s

C o u n c i

l o

f G o v e r n m e n

t s ,

h t t p : /

/ w w w . n

c t c o g . o

r g / i n

d e x . a s p

( a c c e s s e

d o

n l i n e :

J u n e

4 ,

2 0 1 2 ) . ;

G o o g

l e E a r t

h P r o ,

A e r i a

l I m a g e r y , 2

0 1 4

.


R i c o n

d o

& A

s s o c i a

t e s ,

I n c . ,

D A L L A S L O V E F I E L D

N O R T H

0

1 ,

5 0 0

f t

.

L E G E N D

U . S . C

e n s u s

T r a c t

B o u n

d a r y

A r e a o

f P o t e n t i a l

E f f e c t

A

i r p o r t

P r o p e r t y

B o u n

d a r y

U . S . C

e n s u s

T r a c t

#

1 2 3 4

A p r i

l 2 0 1 4

.



55/405




56/405

The Indirect Study Area has a population that is predominantly white (46.2 percent), with Hispanics or Latinosaccounting for the next largest ethnic group (see Table 3-2 )1 A mix of median household incomes, rangingfrom $38,419 in Census Tract 4.06 to $131,477 for Census Tract 73.02, is represented in the Indirect Study Area(see Table 3-3 ). No data are provided for Census Tract 9801, because the tract consists mainly of Airportproperty, on which there are no residents.

Table 3-2: Demographic and Socioeconomic Data

DALLAS COUNTY CITY OF DALLAS INDIRECT STUDY AREA

ESTIMATE PERCENT ESTIMATE PERCENT ESTIMATE PERCENT

Race 1/

Total population 2,379,214 100.0% 1,207,202 100.0% 19,000 100.0%

White 1,409,404 59.2% 692,090 57.3% 8,774 46.2%

Black or African American 546,901 23.0% 307,333 25.5% 3,056 16.1%

American Indian and Alaska Native 31,054 1.3% 13,242 1.1% 845 4.4%

Asian 133,477 5.6% 39,062 3.2% 863 4.5%

Native Hawaiian and Other PacificIslander 2,773 0.1% 1,042 0.1% 9


57/405


58/405



59/405

permanent ambient air quality monitoring sites scattered throughout the Dallas/Fort Worth TCEQ Region as

part of its ongoing State and local air quality monitoring programs. 5 The air quality monitoring station nearestthe Airport is located approximately 1.3 miles southwest of the Airport in Dallas. No air quality monitoringstations are located directly on, or adjacent to, the Airport.

3.5.1.2 Attainment/Nonattainment Status

The Airport is located in the City of Dallas, which is currently designated as a moderate nonattainment area forozone (8-hour). 6

3.5.2 WATER QUALITY

The presumed local hydrogeologic gradient at the DalFort site, as interpreted by surface topography anddrainage patterns, is expected to flow toward the south-southwest. The regional hydrogeologic gradient isalso presumed to flow toward the south-southwest. However, the actual hydrogeologic gradient may beaffected by local influencing factors, such as the topography of the bedrock geology, underground structures,and other variables.

A major aquifer is defined as one that yields large quantities of water in a comparatively large area of theState. The designated major aquifer in this region of the State is the Trinity Group Aquifer, which serves all orpart of 56 Texas counties. The aquifer generally consists of the Paluxy, Glen Rose, and Travis Peak Formations.These Cretaceous-age rocks extend over a large area of north and central Texas and consist primarily of sandwith interbedded clays, limestone, dolomite, gravel, and conglomerates. These strata were deposited influvial, deltaic, strandplain, and shallow marine environments. Saturated thickness of the water-bearing unitsrang

Documents

The Braniff Building Final Report