Braniff Building Environmental Assessment

Dallas Love Field
Redevelopment of the DalFort Site

Environmental Assessment
PREPARED FOR:
Department of Aviation, City of Dallas, Texas
PREPARED BY:
RI CONDO & ASSOCI ATES, I NC.
I N ASSOCI ATI ON WI TH:
Farmer & Associates, Inc.
Geo-Marine, Inc.
Mead & Hunt, Inc.
Modern Geosciences, Inc.
Synergy Consultants, Inc.
This Environmental Assessment becomes a Federal document when
evaluated, signed, and dated by the Responsible FAA Official.

July 2014
DRAFT
Responsible FAA Official. Date

DALLAS LOVE FI ELD J ULY 2014
[Draft]
EA for Redevelopment of the Dal Fort Site
Tabl e of Contents [i]
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 ..................................................................................................... 1-13
1.7 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
[Draft]
[ii] Tabl e of Contents
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............................................................................................................................3-26
3.8.2 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
4.3 Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental Justice, and Childrens Environmental
Health and Safety Risks ............................................................................................................ 4-7
4.3.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 4-7
4.4 Secondary (Induced) Impacts .................................................................................................. 4-9

[Draft]
Tabl e of Contents [iii]
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
4.6.3 Mitigation Measures ...........................................................................................................................4-14
4.7 Fish, Wildlife, and Plants ........................................................................................................ 4-15
4.7.1 Methodology .........................................................................................................................................4-15
4.8 DOT, Section 4(f) Properties .................................................................................................. 4-15
4.8.1 Methodology .........................................................................................................................................4-16
4.9 Historic, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources ...................................... 4-17
4.9.1 Methodology .........................................................................................................................................4-17
4.10 Light Emissions and Visual Impacts ...................................................................................... 4-19
4.10.1 Methodology .........................................................................................................................................4-19
4.11 Natural Resources and Energy Supply ................................................................................. 4-20
4.11.1 Methodology .........................................................................................................................................4-20
4.12 Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste .......................................... 4-21
4.12.1 Methodology .........................................................................................................................................4-21
4.12.4 Mitigation Measures ...........................................................................................................................4-26
[Draft]
[iv] Tabl e of Contents
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. ......................................................................................................... 8-3
8.5 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

[Draft]
Tabl e of Contents [v]
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Section 106 Consultation
Appendix B: Noise Analysis
Appendix C: Air Quality Analysis
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 Potential
Effect .....................................................................................................................................................................................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

[Draft]
[vi] Tabl e of Contents
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

[Draft]
Purpose and Need [1-1]
1. Purpose and Need
1.1 Introduction
Located within the City of Dallas, Texas, Dallas Love Field (the Airport) is classified as a medium-hub
commercial service airport in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). Hub classifications are
based on the number of passengers enplaned at airports, and a medium hub classification means that the
Airport accommodates between 0.25 percent and 1.0 percent of total U.S. enplaned passengers annually.
1

The Airport is owned by the City of Dallas and operated through the Citys Department of Aviation (Sponsor),
and is served by four commercial airlines, including Southwest Airlines, which maintains its corporate
headquarters at 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 Section
102(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 Aviation
Administration (FAA), as the lead federal agency tasked with ensuring compliance with NEPA for airport
development actions, must review the potential environmental effects of a proposed project before approving
the proposed project. This EA was also prepared in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental
Impacts: 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-makers
and the interested public a clear, accurate description of any potential environmental effects resulting from
proposed federal actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions. Through NEPA, the U.S. Congress has
directed federal agencies to integrate environmental factors in their planning and decision-making processes
and to encourage and facilitate public involvement in decisions that affect the quality of the human
environment. 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.
[Draft]
[1-2] Purpose and Need
alternatives to the proposed action, and a no action alternative (assessing the potential environmental effects
of not undertaking the proposed action).
The Sponsor is preparing this EA in compliance with FAA Orders 1050.1E and 5050.4B to evaluate the
potential environmental effects of proposed improvements at the former DalFort Aerospace site on the
northeastern side of the Airport, which is the Proposed Action evaluated in this EA. The proposed
improvements would not affect the routing of aircraft in the air to or from the Airport.
The purpose of and need for the Proposed Action are described in this section, along with background
information, a description of the Proposed Action, the aviation activity forecasts on which the recommended
improvements (i.e., the Proposed Action) were based, the requested federal action, and a general
implementation timeframe.
1.2 Background
Dallas Love Field is located approximately 3.5 miles north-northwest of the Dallas central business district.
The DalFort site is located on Airport property on approximately 26 acres of land currently occupied by the
former DalFort Aerospace facilities and the former terminal for Legend Airlines (the Legend Terminal) located
at 7701 Lemon Avenue and 7777 Lemon Avenue respectively in Dallas (Dallas County), Texas. The DalFort site
is located along the northeastern side of the Airport and its boundaries are Lemmon Avenue to the north,
DalFort Fueling to the east, properties associated with Love Field to the south, and Signature Flight Support to
the west. A general location and vicinity map is shown on Exhibit 1-1.
The former DalFort Aerospace facilities occupy the majority of the DalFort site. The facilities consist of a main
office area, hangars, and a parking lot, as well as other buildings and structures. The former Legend Terminal
occupies the remainder of the DalFort site and consists of the main lobby and terminal space. The gates
associated with the former Legend Terminal were demolished in 2009. A seven-story parking garage currently
used to store parked cars is also associated with the former Legend Terminal. In addition, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) occupies a building located at the northeast corner of the former Legend Terminal
site. Exhibit 1-2 depicts the existing facilities on the DalFort site.
The DalFort Aerospace facilities were constructed in 1958 by Braniff Airways, Inc., and used for the
maintenance and repair of Braniff International Airways aircraft. The facilities consisted of offices, classrooms,
laboratories, maintenance shops/areas, and aircraft bays within the airlines Operations and Maintenance
Building (OMB). Aircraft maintenance activities at the DalFort site ceased in April 2002. According to the
Sponsor, the former DalFort Aerospace facilities had been used as storage areas for the City of Dallas, by Jet
Aviation and Business Jet Center under month-to-month leases, and as daily lease areas until July 31, 2012;
the facilities are currently vacant. The former Legend Terminal was constructed in the late 1990s and included
gates and a lobby as support for Legend Airlines from 2000 to 2005. The gates associated with the former
Legend Terminal have been demolished and all building materials and debris have been removed from the
site.
General Location and Vicinity Map
Z:\Love Field\GIS\DalFort EAMXD\DAL_1-1_Location Map_20140527.mxd
SOURCE: City Boundary Data, North Central Texas Council of Governments, http: //www.nctcog. org/index. asp (accessed online: June 4, 2012). ; Google Ear th Pro, Aerial Imagery, 2014.
PREPARED BY: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., April 2014.
DAL L AS L OVE FI E L D J ULY 2 0 1 4
EXHIBIT 1-1
[
NORTH 0 0.5 mi .
Sources: Esri, DeLorme, HERE,
USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp.,
NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China
(Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom
DAL
Dallas
0 150 mi.
EA for Redevelopment of the DalFor t Site
Purpose and Need
[Draft]
LEGEND
City of Dallas
Airport Property Boundary
Project Si te
L
e
m
m
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e Bachman Lake
[Draft]

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN,
IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Project Site
Purpose and Need
Z:\Love Field\GIS\DalFort EAMXD\DAL_1-2_Project Site_20140320.mxd
SOURCE: ESRI Onli ne Database; ESRI Online Database, Aerial I magery, 2014.
DAL L AS L OVE FI E L D
[Draft]
J ULY 2 0 1 4
EXHIBIT 1-2
[
NORTH 0 300 ft.
U.S. Customs &
Border Protection
Former Legend Gates
Parking Garage
Former Legend Terminal
Former DalFort
Aerospace Facilities
Current Surface Parking
LEGEND
Area of Potential Effect
[Draft]


[Draft]
An initial plan considered by the Department of Aviation for redevelopment of the DalFort site included
demolition of all structures on the site prior to redevelopment. Through consultation regarding Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) initiated for the original plan, it was determined that the
OMB is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) because of its association with
Braniff International Airways and the importance of its architectural design
4
.
Certain known environmental conditions are present at the DalFort site, particularly within the DalFort
Aerospace 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 sand
and 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. The City
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 close outstanding
environmental issues associated with the DalFort site within the VCP. The current conditions of the former
DalFort Aerospace facilities and former Legend Terminal and known environmental conditions prevent the
reuse of existing structures without remediation. To generate revenue and maximize the utility of Airport
property, it is necessary to remediate the site before it can be redeveloped. In addition to environmental
conditions, the physical condition of the DalFort Aerospace facilities has deteriorated to the extent that
building siding materials and roofing are occasionally blown onto adjoining apron areas, resulting in 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 a
proposed action and the reasons it is needed. Identification of the purpose and need for a proposed action
provides the rationale and forms the foundation for identification of reasonable alternatives that can meet the
purpose for the action and, therefore, address the need or deficiency. The purpose of and the need for the
Proposed Action are discussed below.
PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 1.3.1
The proposed project would include remediation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment of the DalFort site in
compatible 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.
[Draft]
Preserving the seven aspects of integrity associated with the eligibility of the OMB for listing on the
NRHP.
NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT 1.3.2
The proposed project, to redevelop the DalFort site including the facilities for use as aeronautical facilities and
commercial development, would satisfy the following needs:
Redevelop vacant and underused facilities at the Airport to provide needed aeronautical facilities and
opportunities 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 available
development space within the Airport property. The Sponsor is currently revising land uses and development
plans along the northeastern side of the Airport. Redevelopment of the DalFort site would comply with those
plans. Because of the current state of the DalFort Aerospace facilities and the former Legend Terminal, only
marginal use can be made of the site in its existing condition. As of March 2014, space at the DalFort site was
used through temporary leases or as storage space for the Sponsor. Improvements must be made to the
DalFort site to address outstanding environmental issues so that the property can be suitable for long-term
leasing. Outstanding environmental issues within the DalFort site and the existing facilities need to be
addressed prior to any redevelopment.
1.4 Proposed Action
The Proposed Action includes the remediation and redevelopment of the DalFort site via the renovation of
existing facilities, as well as the construction of new mixed-use development. Specific elements associated
with 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 existing
building and surface parking at the southeast corner of the site;
Construction of new retail and commercial facilities along Lemmon Avenue, with partial demolition of
the parking garage; and
Rehabilitation of existing apron.
Exhibit 1-3 depicts the elements associated with development of the Proposed Action.
Lemmon Ave
Proposed Action
Purpose and Need
Z:\Love Field\GIS\DalFort EAMXD\DAL_1-3_Project Action_20140324.mxd
[Draft]
J ULY 2 0 1 4
EXHIBIT 1-3
[
NORTH 0 300 ft.
LEGEND
Mixed Use Development
New Aviation-Related Construction
Rehabilitati on and Renovati on
Operations and Maintenance Building
(to be Rehabilitated and Renovated)
Legend Terminal
Corporate GA
Hangar #1
Corporate GA
Hangar #2
Partial Demolition /
Converted Retail/Commercial Space
Demolition /
Parking Garage
Apron
Rehabilitation
Apron
Rehabilitation
Office Building
Lemmon Avenue
[Draft]


[Draft]
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 of
aircraft operations for the Airport through 2021 for both the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives. The
difference between the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives is an increase in based GA aircraft and
associated 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 or
air taxi operations at the Airport, no change in numbers of enplaned passengers is anticipated as a result of
the Proposed Action.
For purposes of this EA, an assumed aircraft fleet mix was developed for the proposed corporate GA hangars
associated with the Proposed Action. It was assumed that the hangars would accommodate the following
types 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) for
the Airport, aircraft fleet mix data contained in FAA aircraft operations databases, and historical aircraft fleet
mix data contained in the Dallas Love Field Impact Analysis Update.
5
The assumed aircraft fleet mix for the
corporate GA hangars was based on the existing corporate GA fleet at the Airport, as well as manufacturers
orders.

5
City of Dallas, Dallas Love Field Impact Analysis Update in the Absence of the Wright Amendment, May 31, 2006.
[Draft]
Table 1-1: Dallas Love Field Historical and Aircraft Operations Forecast
YEAR
1/

AIR CARRIER
OPERATIONS
AIR TAXI
OPERATIONS
GENERAL
AVIATION
OPERATIONS
MILITARY
OPERATIONS
TOTAL
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 February
2014 (Historical and Forecasted No Action); Ricondo & Associates, Inc., April 2014, based on Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Aviation Policy
and Plans, Terminal Area Forecast Detail Report, Dallas Love Field, issued February 2014 and projected based aircraft at the DalFort site (Forecasted with
Proposed Action).
PREPARED BY: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., June 2014.
[Draft]
EA for Redevelopment of Dal Fort Site
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 proposed
improvements pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 40103(b), 44718, and 47107(a)(16); Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace; and 14 CFR
Part 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 in
air commerce or in the interest of national defense.
Continued close coordination with the Sponsor and appropriate FAA program offices, as required, to
ensure 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 proposed
improvements, 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 be
operational in 2016.

[Draft]
EA for Redevelopment of Dal Fort Site

[Draft]
Alternati ves [2-1]
2. Alternatives
FAA Orders 1050.1E and 5050.4B set forth FAA policies and procedures to be followed in assessing the
environmental impacts of aviation-related projects in compliance with NEPA. These FAA orders require a
thorough and objective assessment of the Proposed Action, the No Action alternative, and all reasonable
alternatives that would achieve the stated purpose and need for the Proposed Action. The alternatives
analysis presented in this section of the EA is consistent with the requirements of FAA Orders 1050.1E and
5050.4B.
The process followed in identifying the range of initial alternatives to be considered and the screening process
used to determine which alternatives would reasonably satisfy the purpose of and need for the Proposed
Action are described in this section. Those alternatives that would satisfy the purpose and need for the
Proposed Action were carried forward for analysis of environmental consequences. Applicable federal laws
and regulations considered during the analysis are listed at the end of this section.
2.1 Identification of Alternatives
The DalFort site encompasses approximately 26 acres of land that would be available for development in
aeronautical and potentially commercial uses. No other sites on Airport property would provide adequate
space for such development, nor would development of such facilities at other sites address the
environmental concerns and deteriorating building conditions at the DalFort site. Therefore, no alternatives
other than development on the DalFort site were considered.
Two alternatives for development on the DalFort site, in addition to the No Action alternative, were identified
to potentially address the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action. As briefly described below, these
alternatives 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 would
result in no new facilities or improvements for aeronautical or commercial use on the site. The No Action
alternative would not address outstanding environmental issues related to the existing facilities on the DalFort
[Draft]
[2-2] Alternati ves
site; these facilities would remain open with the TCEQ. The No Action alternative would also not address the
deteriorating 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 to
ground level. Site environmental remediation and the closure of outstanding TCEQ environmental issues
would 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, along
with associated offices, facilities, taxilanes, and apron areas. Commercial development could occur on
portions of the DalFort site, with a portion of the site being designated for small commercial/retail
development.
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 (PROPOSED
ACTION)
This alternative, the Proposed Action, would include remediation, rehabilitation, and renovation of the OMB
for adaptive reuse and construction of new facilities on the DalFort site. Site environmental remediation and
closure 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 existing
office building and surface parking at the southeast corner of the site;
Construction of new retail and commercial facilities along Lemmon Avenue, with partial demolition of
the 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.

[Draft]
Alternati ves [2-3]
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 or
development of the site for aviation uses and revenue-generating activity. Once environmental remediation is
completed, the logical best use of the property would be development in appropriate aviation uses to take
advantage of the available airfield access considering that such development is consistent with Airport plans
and 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 Reuse
of the DalFort Site as the two alternatives aside from the No Action alternative to consider in the first
screening process, comparing the alternatives to the purpose and need.
Because of the historic eligibility criteria associated with the DalFort Aerospace facilities, the Sponsor must
ensure that any development proposal would maintain the historic integrity of the OMB to avoid adverse
effects to the historic resource in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA and to therefore meet the
purpose and need. Thus, the Sponsor determined that rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the OMB was the
only 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 increased
nonairline revenues. No additional alternatives were considered.
FAA guidance states that, If there are no unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available
resources, 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 concerning
alternative uses of available resources were identified. Although the No Action alternative would not meet the
stated purpose and need for the proposed project, it was retained for analysis in this EA to fulfill Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA and to comply with FAA Orders 1050.1E and
5050.4B. 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 the
project 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.
[Draft]
[2-4] Alternati ves
Table 2-1: Comparison of Alternatives
ALTERNATIVE
MEETS PURPOSE
AND NEED?
REASONS FOR MEETING OR NOT MEETING
PURPOSE AND NEED
No Action No Would not allow for redevelopment or reuse of the DalFort site for
aeronautical uses and would limit the non-aeronautical revenue-
generating capabilities of the Airport. Would not address
environmental issues associated with or the deteriorating physical
condition of the existing facilities.
Demolition, Remediation, and
Redevelopment of the DalFort Site
No Would allow for improved use of Airport property and increase Airport
non-aeronautical revenue-generating opportunities. This alternative
would address outstanding environmental issues associated with the
former DalFort Aerospace facilities and former Legend Terminal, as
well as concerns related to deteriorating facilities. This alternative
would not preserve the seven aspects of integrity of the OMB related
to its eligibility for listing in the NRHP.
Remediation, Rehabilitation, and
Adaptive Reuse of the DalFort Site
Yes Would allow for improved use of Airport property and increase Airport
non-aeronautical revenue-generating opportunities. This alternative
would address outstanding environmental issues with the former
DalFort Aerospace facilities and former Legend Terminal, as well as
concerns related to deteriorating facilities. This alternative would
preserve all seven aspects of integrity of the OMB related to its
eligibility for listing in the NRHP.
SOURCE: 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 Sponsors
preferred alternative following the alternatives analysis described in Section 2.1.4. Because the Proposed
Action would meet the purpose of and need for the proposed project, would not result in any significant
adverse 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, executive
orders, 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.

[Draft]
Alternati ves [2-5]
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, as
amended 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 the
Clean 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.

[Draft]
[2-6] Alternati ves
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 Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations
59 FR 7629
Executive Order 13045 of 1997, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks
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 Circulars
U.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 Response
Information, Training Requirements, and Security Plans
[Draft]
Affected Environment [3-1]
3. Affected Environment
The affected environment for the proposed remediation, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse of the DalFort site
encompasses those areas that would be directly or indirectly affected by the Proposed Action if it were
implemented. This section identifies the potentially affected geographic areas and documents the existing
conditions in those areas. In accordance with FAA Orders 1050.1E and 5050.4B, those resources that could
potentially be affected by the Proposed Action are identified in this section. No farmlands, coastal resources,
or wild and scenic rivers are located within the Study Areas; thus, these resources are not discussed in this
section.
3.1 Identification and Description of the Study Areas
Two Study Areas were identified for the Proposed Action. The Direct Study Area, also known as the Area of
Potential Effect (APE), encompasses the area that would be physically disturbed by implementation of the
Sponsors Proposed Action. The APE is delineated by the former DalFort Aerospace facility and the former
Legend Terminal lease area boundaries (see Exhibit 3-1). The DalFort Aerospace facility and Legend Terminal
are located on Airport property northeast of Runway 13L-31R.
The former DalFort Aerospace facility encompasses the OMB, a large storage building, and a small storage
structure located on the northeast side of the Airport, along Lemmon Avenue. These facilities were
constructed between 1958 and 1985. The OMB was constructed in 1958 for Braniff International Airways as
part of a building expansion at the Airport undertaken between 1955 and 1958. Around 1960, the large
storage building, located east of the OMB, was constructed as part of Braniffs facilities. The small storage
structure, located southeast of the OMB, was constructed around 1985. In 1974, Dallas/Fort Worth Regional
Airport (now Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport [DFW]) opened and Braniff International Airways moved
its operations from Love Field to DFW. Plagued by financial difficulties, Braniff Airways, Inc., filed for
bankruptcy in 1982, and its facilities at Love Field were transferred to DalFort, a company created to operate
the bankrupt Braniff International Airways.
An Indirect Study Area was defined to encompass those areas that could be indirectly affected by the
Proposed Action. The indirect Study Area was identified based on a 1-mile buffer from the APE boundary to
examine potential indirect noise and traffic effects related to the Proposed Action (see Exhibit 3-2). The
Airport, located north-northwest of the downtown area within the City of Dallas, is constrained by both
natural and manmade boundaries. The Airport is bounded by residential property to the northeast, industrial
property and Bachman Lake to the northwest, Denton Drive to the southwest, and commercial property and
Mockingbird Lane to the southeast.
[Draft]
[3-2] Affected Environment


Affected Environment
Z:\Love Field\GIS\DalFort EAMXD\DAL_3-1_APE_040914.mxd
[Draft]
J ULY 2 0 1 4
EXHIBIT 3-1
[
NORTH 0 300 ft.
LEGEND
L
e
m
m
o
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
[Draft]


L
e
m
m
o
n

A
v
e
D
e
n
to
n
D
riv
e
C
e
d
a
r

S
p
r
i
n
g
s

R
d
M
o
c
k
i
n
g
b
ir
d

L
a
n
e
S
h
o
r
e
c
r
e
s
t

D
r
Bachman Lake
Bachman
Lake Park
H
a
r
r
y

H
i
n
e
s

B
o
u
le
v
a
r
d
Indirect Study Area
Z:\Love Field\GIS\DalFort EAMXD\DAL_3-2_Study Area_20140320.mxd
SOURCE: ESRI Onli ne Database; Google Ear th, Aerial I magery, 2014.
[Draft]
2 0 1 4
EXHIBIT 3-2
[
NORTH 0 2,400 ft.
Residential
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
Residential
Residential
LEGEND
Indirect Study Area
Industrial
[Draft]


[Draft]
3.2 Existing Land Use and Zoning
Existing land use plans and policies that affect development in the vicinity of the Airport are summarized in
this 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 central
business 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 support
facilities, 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 primarily
occupied by the Airport terminal building and aircraft gates and aircraft parking areas, along with
associated commercial aviation facilities. Two large parking garages are located adjacent to the
terminal building at the center of the Cedar Springs Drive terminal loop.
Southeastern Central Area: The area southeast of the Central Terminal Area between
parallel Runways 13L-31R and 13R-31L is occupied by business and FBO facilities for GA aircraft and
commercial rental car facilities.
Northwestern Central Area: The area northwest of the Central Terminal Area between parallel
Runways 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 FBO
facilities for GA aircraft located along Lemmon Avenue.
South Side: The area southwest of Runway 13R-31L is occupied by Southwest Airlines corporate
headquarters, aviation and training facilities, as well as other business and FBO facilities for GA
aircraft. Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) Green and Orange Line light rail routes and the DART
Burbank Station are located on the south side along Denton Drive, although outside the Airport
boundary.
[Draft]
The property occupied by the former DalFort Aerospace facility and the former Legend Terminal at 7701 and
7777 Lemmon Avenue, respectively, has been associated with Love Field operations since the 1950s. Prior to
becoming the DalFort Aerospace facility, the DalFort structures were owned and operated by Braniff
International 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 densely
developed. The primary land uses immediately surrounding the Airport are shown on Exhibit 3-2 and
discussed 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 with
some commercial parcels. Greenway Parks, Bluffview, and Bachman Hollow are the three residential
neighborhoods immediately adjacent to the Airports northeastern boundary. Commercial uses northeast of
the Airport consist of automobile dealerships, public storage spaces, and a nursing home, as well as various
other 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 residential
uses. 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 developments
along Mockingbird Lane and Lemmon Avenue. Beyond the industrial and commercial development are
several 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 Inwood
Road.
3.2.2.4 South of the Airport
Portions of the City of Dallas Vision and Policy Plan: Stemmons Corridor Southwestern Medical District Area
Plan (the Stemmons Corridor Plan) and the Maple-Mockingbird Project Plan & Reinvestment Zone Financing
Plan (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 multifamily
residential, commercial, and institutional uses beyond the industrial district. The Southwestern Medical
Center, a large University of Texas medical campus, is located approximately 0.5 mile south-southwest of the
Airport. The Stemmons Corridor Plan seeks to maintain a mix of uses in this district, while enhancing access
to public park space and public transportation.
[Draft]
3.2.2.5 Southeast of the Airport
The area southeast of the Airport is mostly developed in single-family residential uses, with industrial areas
surrounding the residential development. A small area in the central portion of the residential development is
designated as institutional use. These institutional-use parcels are home to Our Lady of Perpetual Help
Catholic (elementary) School and Obadiah Knight Elementary School. Beyond the residential and institutional
areas 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 residential
use beyond. The K.B. Polk Elementary School and a public park are also located in this area, designated as
institutional land uses.
3.2.3 EXISTING ZONING
City of Dallas zoning is maintained and mapped by the Citys Development Services Department. The Airport
is currently zoned as Industrial Research. Generally, zoning in the immediate areas surrounding the Airport
tends to be Multi- and Single-Family Residential or Industrial, which is consistent with the current land use for
these areas. Several areas in the immediate vicinity of the Airport consist of Planned Development District
zoning. This zoning has specific stipulations and requirements particular to each district. These specific
designations 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 the
assessment of aircraft noise. The methodology to be used in analyzing aircraft noise is established in FAA
Order 1050.1E. The FAA has determined that the cumulative aircraft noise exposure experienced by
individuals must be established in terms of the yearly day-night average sound level (DNL) metric (expressed
in A-weighted decibels).
The Noise Control Program for the Airport was officially adopted by the Dallas City Council in December 1981
to provide a voluntary noise abatement and mitigation program that could be implemented over time. To
balance the operating needs of the Airport with the needs of surrounding communities, the City adopted the
Dallas Love Field Policies. These policies recognize Love Fields importance to the Dallas community at large
and also establish a noise reduction goal aimed at minimizing the effects of Airport operations on
surrounding neighborhoods.
Sensitive noise receptors (residential uses, schools, hospitals, etc.) were examined in proximity to the APE; the
nearest sensitive noise receptor to the Proposed Action is residential housing, located approximately 370 feet
east-northeast of the DalFort leasehold boundary. The City of Dallas conducted noise studies in 2001 for the
updated Airport Master Plan and in 2006 to assess impacts from the repeal of the Wright/Shelby Amendment.
[Draft]
3.3.1 2001 MASTER PLAN NOISE ANALYSIS
For the 2001 Dallas Love Field Airport Impact Analysis/Master Plan, a noise impact analysis was conducted
using the FAAs Integrated Noise Model and actual data from the Airports noise monitoring system. Noise
exposure contours and peak period data were developed to determine the effects associated with the
Airports 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 to
be 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 mandatory
and 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 the
Wright Amendment of 1979. This federal regulation restricted flights and destinations served at the Airport to
protect 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 air
service impacts that would occur in the absence of the Wright/Shelby Amendment, and to compare those
impacts 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 that
estimated for the 2001 Master Plan 32-Gate Scenario, while noise exposure would increase under the
2006 32-Gate No Wright Amendment Scenario. Table 3-1 comparatively summarizes the inputs and
results of the modeling of each scenario.
The DNL 65 noise exposure contour for the 20Gate No Wright Amendment Scenario encompasses
and area approximately 4.3 percent smaller than that for the 2001 Master Plan 32-Gate Scenario and
includes approximately 3,800 fewer people.
The DNL 65 noise exposure contour for the 32-Gate No Wright Amendment Scenario encompasses
and area approximately 4 percent larger than for the 2001 Master Plan 32-Gate Scenario and includes
approximately 4,350 more people.
In each of the No Wright Amendment scenarios, the regional jet fleet mix for the 2001 Master Plan 32-Gate
Scenario was replaced, for the most part, by standard air carrier jets. These aircraft are larger and have a
louder 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 takeoff
weights to serve more distant nonstop destinations than those possible under the Wright/Shelby
Amendment.

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

MASTER PLAN 32 GATES
20 GATES
NO WRIGHT AMENDMENT
32 GATES
NO WRIGHT AMENDMENT
NOISE EXPOSURE LEVEL
SQUARE
MILES POPULATION
SQUARE
MILES POPULATION
SQUARE
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.
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. Executive
Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations, 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 the
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair
treatment means that no groups of people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups, should bear a
disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and
commercial 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 project
funded by the federal government.
A series of census tracts in the immediate vicinity of the Airport and the DalFort site was identified for
socioeconomic analysis. Exhibit 3-3 depicts these census tracts in relation to Airport property. The tables
that follow provide information on the communities surrounding the Airport. The Indirect Study Area includes
Census Tracts 4.06, 71.02, 73.02, and 9801.

[Draft]


#73.02
#71.02
#9801
#4.06
100
M
o
c
k
in
g
b
ir
d

L
n
Census Tracts
EA for Redevelopment of the Dalfor t Site
Z:\Love Field\GIS\DalFort EAMXD\DAL_3-3-2010_Census_Tracts_20140325.mxd
SOURCE: 2010 U. S. Census Tracts, North Central Texas Council of Governments, http: //www.nctcog. org/index. asp (accessed online: June 4, 2012). ; Google Ear th Pro, Aerial Imagery, 2014.
PREPARED BY: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., April, 2014
[Draft]
J U 2 0 1 4
EXHIBIT 3-3
[
NORTH 0 1,500 ft.
LEGEND
U.S. Census Tract Boundary
U.S. Census Tract # 1234
[Draft]


[Draft]
The Indirect Study Area has a population that is predominantly white (46.2 percent), with Hispanics or Latinos
accounting for the next largest ethnic group (see Table 3-2)
1
A mix of median household incomes, ranging
from $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 Airport
property, 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 Pacific
Islander 2,773 0.1% 1,042 0.1% 9 <0.1%
Some other race 317,014 13.3% 180,639 15.0% 6,767 35.6%

Hispanic or Latino and Race
Total population 2,379,214 100.0% 1,207,202 100.0% 19,000 100.0%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 908,199 38.2% 507,405 42.0% 10,249 53.9%
Not Hispanic or Latino 1,471,015 61.8% 699,797 58.0% 8,751 46.1%
Median Household Income $49,159 N/A $42,436 N/A See Table 3-3
Persons below Poverty Level 18.8% N/A 23.6% N/A See Table 3-3
NOTE:
1/ This calculation is representative of race alone or in combination of another race of the total population.
Some respondents may identify with more than one race; therefore, total percentages might exceed 100 percent.
SOURCE: Census Bureau, 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, http://factfinder2.census.gov (accessed: February 26, 2014).
PREPARED BY: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., February 2014.

1
This calculation is representative of race alone or in combination of another race of the total population.
[Draft]
Table 3-3: Income Data by Census Tract
CENSUS TRACT MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME
PERCENT OF POPULATION BELOW THE
POVERTY LEVEL
1/
4.06 $38,419 32.2%
71.02 $52,253 19.7%
73.02 $131,477 11.6%
9801
2/
N/A N/A
NOTES:
1/ Poverty level is $10,890 for one person and an additional $3,820 for each additional family member in the lower 48 contiguous United States and
Washington, D.C., according to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2011.
2/ Tract 9801 consists mainly of Airport property which includes no residents. Thus, median income and percent of population below the poverty level are
not available.
SOURCE: Census Bureau, 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, http://factfinder.census.gov (accessed: February 26, 2014).
PREPARED BY: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., February 2014.
3.5 Natural Environment
3.5.1 AIR QUALITY
3.5.1.1 Air Quality Standards
The federal Clean Air Act, as amended, requires individual states to identify general geographic areas where
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are not met for seven criteria pollutants.
2
The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has designated such areas as nonattainment areas. A state with a
nonattainment area must prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that describes the programs and
requirements that the state will implement to attain the NAAQS by the deadlines specified in the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) and subsequent related documents promulgated by the USEPA. In Texas, the
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is responsible for formulating and maintaining the SIP.
The CAAA require federal agencies to ensure that their actions conform to the appropriate SIP. Conformity is
defined as demonstrating that a project or action conforms to the SIPs purpose of eliminating or reducing the
severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and achieving expeditious attainment of such standards. The
USEPA has approved conformity regulations in the Texas SIP, which are codified in Texas Administrative Code
at Title 30, Part 1, Chapter 101, Subchapter A, 101.30.

2
The criteria pollutants include ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter less than 10 microns in
diameter, particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter, and lead.
[Draft]
Generally, to comply with the requirements of the general conformity regulations, two criteria must be met:
(1) it must be shown that total direct and indirect pollutant emissions
3
resulting from a project in a
nonattainment area or a maintenance area (i.e., an area that has been redesignated from nonattainment to
attainment) are accounted for in a SIP, or it must be shown that they would be below de minimis
4
emissions
levels established for the nonattainment or maintenance area, and (2) it must be demonstrated that pollutant
emissions from the project would not be regionally significant (i.e., the project would not contribute
10 percent or more of the regions total emissions for a criteria pollutant). If it is determined through an
emissions inventory that the direct and indirect pollutant emissions from a project would be below de minimis
levels and not regionally significant, no further air quality analysis is required and the project is presumed to
conform with the applicable SIP. If a projects emissions would equal or exceed the annual de minimis levels,
or be regionally significant, a positive conformity determination/NAAQS assessment is required, including
requisite pollutant dispersion analyses.
NAAQS have been established for seven air contaminants or criteria pollutants. These contaminants are:
Carbon monoxide (CO)
Nitrogen dioxide (NO
2
)
Ozone (O
3
)
Sulfur dioxide (SO
2
)
Lead (Pb)
Particulate matter (PM
10
)
Fine particulate matter (PM
2.5
)
The primary standards were established at levels sufficient to protect public health with a satisfactory margin
of safety. The regulation and management of ambient (i.e., outdoor) air quality conditions in Dallas County
are the combined responsibility of federal, State, and local governmental agencies.
On the federal level, the USEPA establishes the guiding principles and policies for protecting air quality
conditions throughout the nation. Relevant to this assessment, the USEPA is also responsible for
promulgating the NAAQS, approving the SIP, and regulating aircraft emissions.
On the State level, the Texas SIP helps ensure that federal air quality requirements are met and guidelines are
followed. The Texas Emissions Reduction Program (TERP) was established to monitor air quality and regulate
mobile sources of emissions (i.e., onroad and offroad motor vehicles and equipment). The TCEQ operates 11

3
Total direct and indirect emissions are the sum of the emissions increases and decreases associated with a proposed project, or the net
change in emissions anticipated to occur as a result of a proposed project [40 CFR Part 93.152].
4
Refers to emissions so small as to be negligible or insignificant. If a project/action would result in de minimis emissions, a conformity
determination/NAAQS assessment pursuant to the CAAA is not required [40 CFR Part 93.153c].
[Draft]
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
nearest the Airport is located approximately 1.3 miles southwest of the Airport in Dallas. No air quality
monitoring stations 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 for
ozone (8-hour).
6

3.5.2 WATER QUALITY
The presumed local hydrogeologic gradient at the DalFort site, as interpreted by surface topography and
drainage patterns, is expected to flow toward the south-southwest. The regional hydrogeologic gradient is
also presumed to flow toward the south-southwest. However, the actual hydrogeologic gradient may be
affected 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 the
State. The designated major aquifer in this region of the State is the Trinity Group Aquifer, which serves all or
part 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 sand
with interbedded clays, limestone, dolomite, gravel, and conglomerates. These strata were deposited in
fluvial, deltaic, strandplain, and shallow marine environments. Saturated thickness of the water-bearing units
ranges from approximately 100 feet in the outcrop area to a maximum of 1,200 feet near the downdip limit of
the fresh to slightly saline water. Water quality from the Trinity Group Aquifer is acceptable for most
municipal and industrial purposes.
7

A minor aquifer is defined as one that yields large quantities of water in small areas or relatively small
quantities of water in large areas of the State. The designated minor aquifer in this area of the State is the
Woodbine Aquifer, which consists of sands, clays, sandstones, shales, and limestones. The saturated thickness
of the water-bearing sand and sandstone beds reaches a maximum of about 600 feet in the downdip areas to
the east. Fresh, good quality water is produced from wells in or near the outcrop area of the Woodbine
Aquifer. Water quality deteriorates rapidly downdip from the outcrop, with total dissolved solids, sodium,
chloride, and bicarbonate concentrations increasing. The Woodbine Aquifer furnishes municipal, industrial,

5
State of Texas, Commission on Environmental Quality, Geographical Texas Air Monitoring, online mapping database,
http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/monops/sites/mon_sites.html (accessed June 21, 2012).
6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Criteria Pollutant Reports, http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/multipol.html (accessed:
August 23, 2012).
7
Benchmark Environmental Consultants, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, City of Dallas, DalFort Aerospace and Former Legend
Terminal, 7701 and 7777 Lemmon Avenue, Dallas, Dallas County, Texas, November 17, 2008.
[Draft]
and small irrigation water supplies to several counties in the area.
8
The outcrop area for both the Trinity
Group and Woodbine Aquifers encompasses the Dallas metropolitan area. Important aquifer recharge occurs
within an aquifer outcrop area via surface infiltration of precipitation.
Groundwater
A Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the DalFort site was conducted in June 2009. The
groundwater at the DalFort site was determined to be affected with solvents and metals from former
operations. The release of solvents and metals was reported to the TCEQ because the concentrations of the
contaminants of concern (COCs) in groundwater exceeded the TCEQ Texas Risk Reduction Program (TRRP)
Tier 1 Residential protective concentration limits (PCLs).
9

The Drinking Water Survey Report documents that no private drinking water wells exist within the 0.5 mile
search radius, and that the City of Dallas Water Utilities Department provides drinking water to properties
within the entire 0.5 mile search radius.
10
A 0.5-mile-radius records search and 500-foot and 0.25-mile
receptor surveys did not locate any private drinking water wells.
Representative groundwater samples were collected from temporary monitoring wells installed in soil borings,
and from permanent monitoring wells installed at the DalFort site during a previous, unassociated, study. The
laboratory analysis of the groundwater samples included total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) analyzed using
Texas Method 1005, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) analyzed using USEPA Method 82608, and eight
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals analyzed using USEPA Method 6010817470.
Table 3-4 lists the COCs detected in the groundwater samples that exceed TCEQ PCLs. The COCs detected in
the groundwater at the DalFort site included several VOCs, TPH, and metals.
11

Groundwater exceeding these standards, removed as part of construction site dewatering, is subject to
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting in addition to State and local regulations.
Stabilized water levels in the monitoring wells ranged between 2.89 feet and 12.16 feet below ground surface
(BGS), indicating unconfined conditions in the shallow aquifer. The affected aquifer is an unnamed shallow
aquifer, which lies unconformably over the Austin Chalk Formation. The Austin Chalk Formation is less than
100 feet thick beneath the DalFort site (near the up-dip, western base of the formation). The underlying Eagle
Ford Shale is approximately 400 feet thick. Both formations act as an aquiclude, preventing the migration of
shallow affected groundwater to the underlying Woodbine Aquifer. The shallow aquifer is discontinuous and
nonhomogenous. The yield capacity of the shallow aquifer is not known. However, the use of the shallow
aquifer for human consumption would not be prudent because of the possibility of contaminants and

8
Ibid.
9
Farmer & Associates, Inc., Drinking Water Survey Report, Former DalFort Aerospace/Legend Airlines Terminal , 7701-7777 Lemmon Avenue,
Dallas (Dallas County), Texas 75235, June 16, 2009.
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid.
[Draft]
pathogens infiltrating the shallow aquifer from surface source areas and from leaking subsurface utilities, such
as City sewers.
12

Table 3-4: Constituents of Concern Exceeding TCEQ Protective Concentration Levels
1/

CONSTITUENT CLASSIFICATION EXCEEDENCE
1,1,1-Trichloroethane VOC
2/
Tier 1 Residential PCL
3/

1,1-Dichloroethane VOC Tier 1 Residential PCL
1,1-Dichloroethene VOC Tier 1 Residential PCL
1,2-Dichloroethane VOC Tier 1 Residential PCL
Chloroethane VOC Tier 1 Residential PCL
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene VOC Tier 1 Residential PCL
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene VOC Tier 1 Residential PCL
Trichloroethene VOC Tier 1 Residential PCL
Vinyl Chloride VOC Tier 1 Residential PCL
C6-C12
TPH
4/
Tier 1 Residential PCL
C12-C28
TPH Tier 1 Residential PCL
Cadmium RCRA
5/
Metal Tier 1 Residential PCL
NOTES:
1/ The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment shows groundwater sample results compared with TCEQ Tier 1 Residential PCLs. Ongoing groundwater
investigations related to the Proposed Action will be used to compare groundwater levels with less stringent TCEQ Tier 1 Commercial/Industrial PCLs,
which pertains to redevelopment of the site as described in the Proposed Action.
2/ VOC = Volatile Organic Compounds;
3/ TCEQ Tier 1 Residential PCL = Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Protective Concentration Limit threshold for residential properties.
4/ TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons;
5/ RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, PCL = Protective Concentration Limit
SOURCE: Farmer & Associates, Inc., Drinking Water Survey Report, Former DalFort Aerospace/Legend Airlines Terminal 7701-7777 Lemmon Avenue,
Dallas (Dallas County), Texas 75235, June 16, 2009.
PREPARED BY: Ricondo & Associates, April 2014.
The City of Dallas currently receives water from the following area reservoirs: Lake Ray Hubbard, Lake
Lewisville, Lake Grapevine, Lake Ray Roberts, and Lake Tawakoni. Because of its poor quality, groundwater
underlying the Airport is not used for drinking, irrigation, or industrial supply purposes. The City of Dallas
approved the Municipal Setting Designation (MSD) Ordinance in 2005, which restricts the use of groundwater

12
Ibid.
[Draft]
in areas designated as contaminated for potable water by ordinance/restrictive covenant.
13
The City of Dallas
is in the process of obtaining an MSD Ordinance for the entire Airport.
Surface Water
Surface water in the vicinity of the Airport consists primarily of Bachman Lake to the northwest. Rainfall on
runways, taxiways, and industrial and commercial sites comes in contact with a multitude of pollutants. These
pollutants dissolve in the runoff or are absorbed by soil particles and are quickly transported by gravity flow
through the network of concrete channels and underground pipes that are a part of the Airport storm drain
conveyance systems. These systems ultimately discharge the polluted runoff, without treatment, directly to
the City storm water system, Bachman Lake, or nearby streams and drainage channels. Pollutants typically
found in the Airport runoff include sediment, nutrients (e.g., fertilizers), oxygen-demanding substances (e.g.,
decaying vegetation), bacteria, heavy metals, synthetic organics (e.g., fuels, oils, solvents, lubricants),
pesticides, and other toxic substances.
14

Authorization for storm water discharges from the Airport is required under the Texas Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (TPDES) permit. The requirement is based on the Airports Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) code. The TPDES permit provides authorization for point source discharges of storm water
associated with industrial activity and certain non-storm water discharges to surface water. The permit
contains effluent limitations and requirements applicable to all industrial activities covered under the TPDES
permit.
15

In addition to the pollutants contributed by storm water or wet weather flows, dry weather runoff can also
seriously degrade the quality of the receiving water. Dry weather flows conveyed by the storm water
conveyance system, which can be substantial, consist of flows from groundwater infiltration and accidental,
improper, or illegal discharges to the storm water conveyance system. Common examples of the latter are
illegally disposed used motor oil and antifreeze. These pollutants can severely degrade the beneficial uses of
receiving surface waters.
16

3.5.3 WETLANDS
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetland Delineation Manual defines wetland areas that have
positive indicators for hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils as areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or ground water 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. The USACE typically takes jurisdiction over wetlands only when they lie within or adjacent to

13
City of Dallas, Office of Environmental Quality, Municipal Settings Designation Ordinance, http://www.dallascityhall.com/oeq/msd.html
(accessed June 7, 2012).
14
City of Dallas, Department of Aviation, April 2012. Love Field Airport Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan,
http://www.dallascityhall.com/aviation/lovefield_swppp.html (accessed June 7, 2012).
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid.
[Draft]
navigable waters, or tributaries of such waters where those tributaries bear an ordinary high water mark. An
ordinary high water mark is defined as that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and
indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in
soil character, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, presence of litter or debris, or other appropriate means
that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.
The Airport is highly developed (i.e., buildings, paved surfaces, ornamental landscaping) and contains few
areas with the potential to support wetlands. Virtually all areas that would be affected by the Proposed Action
consist of bare earth, paved surfaces, structures, or ornamental (low habitat value) landscaping.
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory online wetland mapper,
no wetlands exist within at least 1.5 miles of the Airport.
17
The body of water nearest the Airport is Bachman
Lake, located more than a mile to the northwest. No wetlands or other waters of the United States are
present within the APE of the DalFort site.
3.5.4 FLOODPLAINS
Executive Order 11988 was enacted to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse impacts
associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect support of
floodplain development wherever a practical alternative exists. The Executive Order was issued in furtherance
of NEPA, the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, and the Flood Disaster Act of 1973. Floodplains are
defined as lowland and flat areas adjoining waters that are subject to a 1.0 percent or greater chance of
flooding in any given year, i.e., a 100-year flood event.
The Proposed Action would be implemented outside of the 100-year flood zone, as delineated on Federal
Emergency Management Agency maps. The Airport, including the DalFort Aerospace site, is within Flood
Zone X (area of minimal flood hazard, usually depicted on Flood Insurance Rate Maps as above the 500-year
flood level).
3.5.5 COASTAL AREAS
The Coastal Barriers Resources Act of 1982 prohibits federal financial assistance for development within the
Coastal Barrier Resources System, which contains undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf
Coasts and the Great Lakes. The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 ensures effective management,
beneficial use, protection, and development of the coastal zone. Coastal Zone Management Programs,
prepared by states according to guidelines issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
are designed to address issues affecting coastal areas. Coastal resources are identified in accordance with the
Coastal Public Lands Management Act of 1973 (Management of Coastal Public Land, Texas Natural
Resources Code, Chapter 33 et seq.). This Act, which is consistent with the Federal Coastal Zone Management
Act, contains the States adopted policies with regard to the protection of coastal resources.

17
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory Interactive Map, http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html (accessed
July 27, 2012).
[Draft]
The nearest coastal zone to the DalFort site is the Gulf of Mexico, which is more than 200 miles to the
southeast. No other coastal zones are located on or near the Indirect Study Area.
3.5.6 BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Dallas County, Texas,
the soil at the DalFort site is classified as Urban land. The APE consists of extensively built up areas where 75
percent or more of the surface is covered with buildings and pavement. The soils in these areas have been
altered or covered during urban development; therefore, it was not feasible to identify and separate them in
mapping.
The habitat surrounding and including the Airport supports a limited number of biological resources because
much of the area is already extensively developed. The entire area within the perimeter of the Airport
boundary is developed or disturbed in some manner with no native vegetation existing on the site. According
to the USFWS Critical Habitat Portal, no critical habitat can be found within Dallas County.
18
Because of the
lack of habitat and the developed condition of the DalFort site, no threatened or endangered species are
present or known to use the APE.
3.6 DOT Section 4(f) Properties
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966, which was recodified and renumbered as
Section 303(c), dictates that, for any program or project, U.S. DOT must consider whether actions undertaken
or approved by the DOT would have any impact to the use of any publicly owned land of a public 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. The Act prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from, approving
actions that would result in use of these properties for transportation purposes unless no prudent and feasible
alternative exists and all efforts have been made to minimize impacts.
Using the APE for the Section 106 process (as described in Section 3.7 Historic, Archaeological, Architectural,
and Cultural Resources), properties that are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as well
as park/recreational/refuge uses were identified. The APE represents the construction area, whereas the
Indirect Study Area of the various environmental disciplines discussed in other sections of this EA identifies
other effects that the Proposed Action might have on Section 4(f) resources.

18
U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service, Critical Habitat Portal, http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/crithab/ (accessed July 30, 2012).
[Draft]
Due to recent Section 106 consultation regarding the DalFort site, the largest facility on the site (the OMB) is
considered eligible for listing in the NRHP
19
and is thus subject to review under Section 4(f) of the DOT Act of
1966. There are no other properties subject to Section 4(f) of the DOT Act located within the APE.
There are a number of existing parks and other recreational areas near the Airport within the Indirect Study
Area. None of the parks/recreational resources/reserves are located within the APE. No other sites on the
NRHP were identified in the immediate Airport vicinity bound by Inwood Road to the south and east, Walnut
Hill Lane to the north, I-35E to the west. The Greenway Parks Historic District, a National Register District, is
located between Inwood Road and Dallas North Tollway, between University Blvd and Mockingbird Lane. This
historic district is noted as a residential suburbs of the United States between 1830-1960.
Recreational resources were identified based on a review of City parks maps. Midway Manor Park is located
northeast of Runway 13L-31R on the Airport property, but is maintained by the City of Dallas Park and
Recreation Department. This park is a small neighborhood park that includes an outdoor basketball court.
Other public parks northeast of the Airport include Field Frazier Park and Bluff View Park, which serve the
neighborhoods of this area. Bachman Lake Park is located immediately adjacent to the northwestern Airport
property boundary and is the largest park in the vicinity of the Airport. This park encompasses all of Bachman
Lake with scenic recreational trails surrounding the lake shore. Bachman Lake Park is home to the Dallas
Rowing Club, which uses Bachman Lake for training and rowing events. To the east of Bachman Lake is the
Bachman Creek Greenbelt, owned and maintained by the Dallas Park and Recreation Department. Other
parks in the vicinity of the Airport include Grauwyler Park to the southwest which includes athletic fields,
recreational center and the Grauwyler Park Library. Weichsel Park is located to the south-southwest of the
Airport and is associated with the Thomas J. Rusk Middle School. East of the Airport is Polk Park, a small
neighborhood park associated with the K.B. Polk Elementary School. All public parks and lands located in the
vicinity of the Airport are operated and maintained by the Dallas Park and Recreation Department. Because
none of these parks have used land and water conservation funds, no further consideration is given in this EA
to Section 6(f).
3.7 Historic, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources
Numerous laws and regulations require that possible effects on historic, architectural, archaeological, and
cultural resources be considered during the planning and execution of federal undertakings. These laws and
regulations stipulate a process of compliance, define the responsibilities of the federal agency proposing the
actions, and prescribe the relationships among involved agencies. NEPA directs federal agencies to assess the
environmental impacts of their proposed actions, including impacts to historic and cultural resources. In
addition to NEPA, the primary laws that pertain to the treatment of historic, architectural, archaeological, and
cultural resources during environmental analyses are the National Historic Preservation Act (especially

19
See Section 3.7.
[Draft]
Sections 106 and 110), the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, the American Indian Religious Freedom
Act, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.
Section 106 of the NHPA requires that federal agencies consider the effects of their undertakings on historic
properties through consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). A historic property is
defined as any prehistoric or historic district site, building, structure, or object listed in, or eligible for listing in,
the NRHP. To complete this review, the FAA consulted with the Texas Historical Commission in its role as the
Texas SHPO to consider the projects potential effects on historic properties and resolve any adverse effects.
The CEQ and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation have advised agencies to integrate the NEPA and
Section 106 processes when feasible, to improve efficiencies in the regulatory process and to improve
environmental reviews. Section 106 regulations, as codified at 36 Code CFR 800, provide that NEPA public
involvement processes may be used in lieu of Section 106 processes, provided they are adequate and
consistent with Section 106 public involvement requirements. The FAA is integrating NEPA and Section 106
public involvement activities, as noted below.
The THCs Historic Sites Atlas was consulted for the presence of previously designated or identified historic
properties within the APE, including properties listed in the NRHP, designated as State Archaeological
Landmarks, or designated as Recorded Texas Historic Landmarks. The records search resulted in no findings
of previously designated historic properties located within the project APE.
A historic and architectural resources survey of the projects APE was conducted on June 20, 2012.
20
Three
buildings on the DalFort site were identified and documented, as follows:
The OMB, constructed in 1958 with later additions and alterations
A large storage building, constructed circa 1965 with later addition and alterations
A small storage building, constructed circa 1985
No archaeological or other cultural resources were found or are known to be present at the DalFort Aerospace
site. Ground disturbance, associated with construction of the DalFort facility and adjacent Airport-related
facilities, has occurred throughout the APE.
During the Section 106 consultation process, interested parties provided input regarding the significance of
the DalFort facility via letters sent to the City of Dallas, the THC, the FAA, and the National Park Service. These
parties included the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Texas, Preservation Dallas, the North
Texas Chapter of Documentation and Conservation of the Modern Movement.

20
More information regarding the survey and evaluation methodologies is available in Geo-Marine, Inc., Redevelopment of the Former
Braniff/DalFort Aerospace Facility at Dallas Love Field, Dallas County, Texas, October 2012, Appendix A.
[Draft]
Additional Section 106 public involvement requirements will be fulfilled through FAAs NEPA public
involvement process. The FAA in coordination with the THC, identified a list of consulting parties for further
consultation regarding historic properties. The EA, including information on the proposed actions impact to
historic properties, will be sent to these consulting parties for review and comment during the public
comment period. Information on historic properties will also be incorporated into the NEPA public workshop
for the project.
Through consultation among the FAA, the THC, and the National Park Service, the 1958 OMB was determined
eligible for listing in the NRHP, as indicated by the Keeper of the NHRP in May 2013. The building is
significant under NRHP Criterion A at the local level of significance for its historical association with aviation
development in Dallas. It is also significant under NRHP Criterion C at the local level of significance as a
notable example of the Midcentury Modern style (a style that was prevalent in the Dallas area during the
1950s) designed by nationally prominent architects William Pereira and Charles Luckman and overseen by
locally prominent architect Mark Lemmon. Character defining features include a wall of windows, flared roofs,
and the use of concrete, glass, and steel. The National Park Service determined that the building retains
sufficient integrity to convey its historic and architectural significance and is, therefore, eligible for listing in
the NRHP. The two storage buildings were determined not to be eligible for NRHP listing. Appendix A
contains correspondence related to the Section 106 consultation process.
3.8 Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste
Four primary laws have been passed governing the handling and disposal of hazardous materials, chemicals,
substances, and wastes. The two laws most applicable to airport projects are the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended by the Federal Facilities Compliance Act of 1992; and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended (also known as Superfund).
RCRA governs the generation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes. CERCLA provides for the
cleanup of any release of a hazardous substance (excluding petroleum) in the environment.
3.8.1 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Hazardous materials are regulated by a number of federal laws and statutes, most of which are promulgated
by the USEPA. These include the RCRA and CERCLA, as mentioned above, in addition to the CAAA, the Clean
Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, and the Emergency
Planning and Community Right to Know Act.
Together, these regulations serve as guiding principles governing the storage, use, and transportation of
hazardous and other regulated materials from their time of origin to their ultimate disposal. The recovery and
cleanup of environmental contamination resulting from the accidental or unlawful release of these materials
and substances are also governed by these regulations.
On the State level, hazardous materials include substances or materials, including mixtures and solutions that
the TCEQ has identified as hazardous or dangerous wastes and that the USEPA has designated for special
[Draft]
consideration under the Toxic Substances Control Act, the CAAA, or the Clean Water Act, as defined under
Section 101 of CERCLA, as well as hazardous wastes that must be considered under the RCRA. Hazardous
materials also include constituents of petroleum products, marine pollutants, or elevated temperature
materials that have been determined by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to be capable of posing an
unreasonable risk to health, safety, and property when transported in commerce.
Information was collected and reviewed to obtain an understanding of any releases of regulated hazardous
substances that occurred on or near the DalFort site. Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) conducted an
environmental database search (on September 30, 2008) of the properties within a 1.0-mile radius of the
DalFort site. The following databases were researched by EDR:
Federal National Priorities List (NPL) sites
Federal Delisted NPL sites
Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) list
Federal CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned site List
Federal RCRA Corrective Action Sites (CORRACTS) facilities list
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS Treatment, Storage, and Disposal facilities list
Federal RCRA generators list
Federal institutional controls/engineering controls registries
Federal Emergency Response Notification System list
State and tribal equivalent NPL
State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
State and tribal institutional control/engineering control registries
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
State and tribal brownfield sites
Local brownfield sites
Local Lists of landfill/solid waste disposal sites
Local Lists of hazardous waste/contaminated sites
Local land records
Other ascertainable records
EDR Proprietary Records
[Draft]
Table 3-5 provides the status of known underground storage tanks (USTs) on the DalFort site and Table 3-6
summarizes the environmental database listings for the site.
Table 3-5: DalFort Site Underground Storage Tank Records
UST #
CAPACITY
(GALLONS) STATUS DATE CONTENTS
1 500 Abandoned in place, exact location not known. August 1990 Used Oil
2 8,000 Removed, soil samples did not show signs of impact. June 1990 Used Oil
3 8,000 Removed, soil samples did not show signs of impact. June 1990 Used Oil
4 330 Abandoned in place, located approximately 15 feet below the
surface in the basement of the DalFort main building.
August 1990 Used Oil
5 6,500 In service, exempt under 31 Texas Administrative Code 334.3(a)(2).
Located in the southwestern DalFort parking lot.
- Diesel Fuel
6 10,000 Removed; prior to removal, registration shows that the last date
the UST was used was April 1985 and that it was filled with an
inert material.
July 1990 Solvent Oleum
inert material.
inert material.
9 1,000 Abandoned in place for City of Dallas due to reconstruction
requirements at the aircraft ramps in proximity to hangar doors
August 1990 Used Oil
10 2,000 Removed (in-place closure of soil along sewer line). June 1989 Used Oil and
Mixed solvents/
Degreasers
11 2,000 Removed (in-place closure of soil along sewer line). June 1989 Used Oil and
Mixed Solvents/
Degreasers
12 4,000 Removed. December 1986 Solvent Oleum
SOURCES: QORE, Inc., Draft Report of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Additional Services, DalFort Aerospace 7701 Lemmon Avenue, Dallas,
Dallas County, Texas 75209, August 2003; Benchmark Environmental Consultants, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, City of Dallas, DalFort
Aerospace and Former Legend Terminal, 7701 and 7777 Lemmon Avenue, Dallas, Dallas County, Texas, November 17, 2008.
PREPARED BY: Ricondo & Associates, Inc, August 2003.

[Draft]
Table 3-6: DalFort Site Environmental Database Listings
COMPANY NAME ADDRESS
DATABASE
LISTING SUMMARY OF LISTING
Braniff, Inc.
7701 Lemmon
Avenue
CERCLIS-NFRAP
1/

Not listed on NPL. No further remedial
action planned.
DalFort Aerospace
7701 Lemmon
Avenue
CORRACTS
2/

RCRA-TSD
3/

UST
4/
/LPST
5/

VCP
6/

Low corrective action priority.

Listed for arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
lead, silver, cyanide, phenol, and
halogenated and non-halogenated
solvents.

13 violations identified.
Twelve USTs listed at the subject
property. See Table 3-5 for additional
UST information.
Chrysler Technologies Airborne Systems
7701 Lemmon
Avenue
RCRA
7/

Facility classified as a non-generator, with
no violations.
Not specified
7701 Lemmon
Avenue
ERNS
8/

June 1996: 50-gallon fuel spill reported.

April 1999: 50-gallon fuel spill reported.
Fuel was collected in storm drain sand
trap.

May 1999: 50-gallon fuel spill reported.
Not specified
7701 Lemmon
Avenue
IHWS
9/

Three IHWS listings classified as waste
generators. Two listings are inactive, one
listing is closed.
Transfer to TD
7701 Lemmon
Avenue
SPILLS
10/

July 1994: 25 gallons of jet fuel spilled.
Listed as minor.

June 1996: 250-gallon jet fuel spill
reported. Listed as minor.
NOTES:
1/ CERCLIS-NFRAP: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System-No Further Remedial Action Planned
2/ CORRACTS: RCRA Corrective Action Sites;
3/ RCRA-TSD: RCRA-Treatment, Storage and Disposal
4/ UST: Underground Storage Tank Database
5/ LPST: Leaking Petroleum Storage Tank Database
6/ VCP: Voluntary Cleanup Program.
7/ RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act;
8/ ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System
9/ IHWS: Inactive Hazardous Waste Site
10/ SPILLS: Spills Database
SOURCES: QORE, Inc., Draft Report of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Additional Services, DalFort Aerospace, 7701 Lemmon Avenue, Dallas,
PREPARED BY: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., August 2012.
[Draft]
Activities at the DalFort Aerospace site included maintenance and repair services for commercial airline
aircraft. In addition to database listings, other potential environmental issues observed during a Phase I ESA
21

at the site included:
A former hazardous materials storage area was observed in the southeastern portion of the site. The
types of materials stored included, but were not limited to, stripper, lacquer thinner, alcohol, chromic
acid, cyanide, and methylene chloride. No signs of staining or leaking were observed on the concrete
pavement.
A former plating room was observed in the DalFort facility. The plating room appeared to be in poor
condition. Plating basins in the room were observed to contain residue. Wooden pallets that
formerly lined the floor were removed. A groove pump running the length of the floor was also
observed. The groove leads to a drain that passes from the room to an unknown location. Located at
the back of the room was a door with signage indicating that cadmium was once stored in the plating
room. Observations of the room indicated that it is vacant.
Several sand and aluminum oxide blasting areas were observed in the DalFort facility. The materials
sandblasted in each room are not known; however, the potential exists for the resulting dust to
contain hazardous materials.
Hydraulic pumps, as well as associated hydraulic equipment, were observed throughout the DalFort
facility. Minor to moderate staining of the concrete floor was observed in the areas surrounding the
pumps and various hydraulic equipment. The floor staining observed on the site is not a recognized
environmental condition at the subject property.
The overall largest quantities of substances used at the former DalFort facilities classifiable as hazardous
include aircraft and motor vehicle fuels. These fuels were contained in USTs ranging in size from 500 gallons
to 10,000 gallons located on the DalFort site. The aircraft fuel types included Jet-A and Avgas and the motor
vehicle fuels included gasoline and diesel.
Other, smaller amounts of petroleum products (e.g., lubricants and solvents), waste materials (e.g., used oils,
cleaning residues, and spent batteries), and manufactured chemicals (e.g., herbicides, fertilizers, paints, fire-
fighting foam, and deicing fluids) were used at the DalFort site. These products were characteristically used
on a routine basis in support of aircraft and motor vehicle maintenance activities and for a range of other
functions.
A number of sites and facilities located on, or adjacent to, Airport property are known, or have the potential,
to contain environmental contamination of the soil and/or groundwater. Identification of these sites was
based on documents and other sources of information from previous environmental reports on the DalFort
site; an electronic search of federal, State, and local agency databases; and an in-field survey of existing

21
[Draft]
conditions. From this assessment, six individual sites (five on the Airport and one off the Airport) were
identified, as presented in Table 3-7.
Table 3-7: Environmental Database Listings for Properties Adjacent to or near the Area of Potential Effect
COMPANY NAME ADDRESS
DATABASE
LISTING
DISTANCE (FEET),
DIRECTION SUMMARY OF LISTING
Signature Flight Support
7515 Lemmon Avenue
Building J
RCRA-CESQG
1/

TCEQ-LPST
2/

102 feet northeast of
APE
Conditionally exempt, no
violations.

November 1989: leaking
incident, contaminated soils.
Status: closed.
Dallas Airmotive, Inc.
7515 Lemmon Avenue
Hangar L
RCRA-NonGen
3/

APE
violations.
Signature Flight Support
Regional Maintenance
Center
7511 Lemmon Avenue
Hangar C
RCRA-CESQG
APE
violations.
Signature Flight Support 8001 Lemmon Avenue
RCRA-CESQG

TCEQ-PST
4/

TCEQ-LPST
533 feet northwest
of APE
Conditionally exempt, one
minor violation found.

Currently nine 20,000 gallon
tanks containing either
gasoline or jet fuel.

October 1993: leaking
incident, contaminated soils.
Corrective action plan issued.
DalFort Terminal 8036-7440 Aviation Place TCEQ-VCP
5/

1,818 feet south-
southwest of APE
This facility is classified as a
maintenance aircraft fueling
facility. The contaminant
reported as hydrocarbons.
Currently in the investigation
phase.
Sewell Village Cadillac
4350 West University
Boulevard
TCEQ-VCP
1,992 feet southeast
of APE
Soils and groundwater are
reported to be contaminated
with total petroleum
hydrocarbons. VCP has been
completed for this facility.
NOTES:
1/ RCRA-CESQG: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act - Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators;
2/ TCEQ-LPST: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality-Leaking Petroleum Storage Tank Database;
3/ RCRA-NonGen: RCRA - Non Generators;
4/ TCEQ-PST: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Petroleum Storage Tank
5/ TCEQ-VCP: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality-Voluntary Cleanup Program.
SOURCES: QORE, Inc., Draft Report of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Additional Services, DalFort Aerospace, 7701 Lemmon Avenue, Dallas,
[Draft]
Because of facility status, distance from the project site, and depth to groundwater (over 450 feet), none of
these facilities shown in Table 3-7 represents an environmental concern for the site.
22

In addition to database listings, other potential environmental issues observed during a Phase I ESA
23
at the
DalFort site include two historical automobile stations and two historical dry cleaning facilities identified less
than 840 feet northeast and topographically upgradient from the DalFort site.
Locally, the City of Dallas Office of Environmental Quality (OEQ) oversees environmental issues in the City.
USTs are handled in accordance with International Fire Code regulations. Importantly, no sites or facilities at
the Airport or in the immediate vicinity are listed on the federal Superfund National Priorities List (NPL).
Prior ESAs and sampling activities conducted on the DalFort site identified the presence of the hazardous
materials discussed above. While sufficient data were available for the majority of hazardous substances and
petroleum products confirmed to be present on the DalFort site, analytical data regarding polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) only recently became available. To ensure worker safety during rehabilitation and
construction activities, and to further characterize hazardous materials on the DalFort site, additional sampling
was conducted. With regard to PCBs, approximately nine liquid samples of suspect oils (e.g., liquid filled
transformers, hydraulic elevator oil) and eight surface wipe samples of suspect areas (e.g., mechanical and
electrical rooms) were tested for the presence of PCBs. With the exception of two wipe samples, PCBs were
not detected in the remaining samples. The wipe samples had concentrations of PCB 1254 ranging from 2.82
to 10.8 micrograms per wipe. Based on these data, PCBs appear to be limited in distribution on the DalFort
site. Additional sampling for the presence of PCBs is ongoing for the purposes discussed above.
3.8.2 SOLID WASTE
The City of Dallas Sanitation Services provides solid waste disposal services throughout the metropolitan area.
One landfill and three waste transfer stations are located within the City of Dallas; the northwest (Bachman)
transfer station is closest to the Airport, located approximately 1,000 feet to the west-northwest. The
McCommas Bluff Landfill is more than 11 miles south-southeast of the Airport at 5100 Youngblood Road.
24

With an overall area of 1,029 acres, McCommas Bluff Landfill only accepts municipal solid waste and
nonhazardous industrial waste. The landfill is not permitted for, nor does it accept, hazardous waste. As of
2007, the McCommas Bluff Landfill had a remaining capacity of more than 106 million cubic yards.
25
Waste
designated as hazardous or special waste must be handled, transported, and disposed of at licensed facilities

22
Texas Water Development Board, Highest Daily Water Level, March 11, 2009. http://midgewater.twdb.state.tx.us/twdbwells/el_paso
(accessed April 30, 2012).
23
24
City of Dallas Sanitation Services, McCommas Bluff Landfill, http://dallascityhall.com/sanitation/mccommas_bluff.html (accessed June 5,
2012).
25
North Central Texas Council of Governments, Landfill Information: McCommas Bluff Landfill,
http://www.nctcog.org/envir/SEELT/disposal/facilities/details.asp?FacilityID=62 (accessed June 5, 2012).
[Draft]
in accordance with all federal, State, and local regulations. The TCEQ provides assistance for permitting and
regulation of these wastes.
3.8.3 REGULATORY ACTIVITY
The City of Dallas is currently amending an MSD that will cover the entire Airport, which is not limited to the
DalFort site. The MSD enables the removal of groundwater ingestion consideration within the regulatory
closure for properties where the shallow groundwater bearing unit is not a viable source of potable water
provided that the City of Dallas supports the measure, and appropriate coordination is completed. The City of
Dallas had passed more than 100 MSDs as of February 2014.
In response to the concerns noted during the Phase I ESA activities, the City of Dallas engaged a consultant to
assist with the environmental assessment and closure activities for the DalFort site. Soil sample results
indicated a concentration of cadmium in the soil, 1 to 2 feet in depth. During this work, an MSD Application
was filed (November 2012) that includes the DalFort site. An Affected Property Assessment Report was
prepared with the use of MSD-adjusted Critical PCLs. Various prior reports and recent surface wipe samples
collected to identify potential source areas were reviewed. All suspected source areas were below significant
thresholds for hazardous materials. Pending discussions with the City of Dallas, a Response Action Plan will
be prepared to address the two soil PCLE zones. This plan may include the use of institutional controls (i.e.,
commercial/industrial deed recordation) or engineering controls (i.e., surface cap).
Additional monitoring data were collected at the request of the TCEQ and a Response Action Plan is being
prepared to outline the proposed deed language to initiate proposed engineering and institutional controls.
3.9 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions
Cumulative impacts to environmental resources result from incremental effects of future actions combined
with other past, present, and planned projects in the area. Cumulative impacts can result from individually
minor, but collectively substantial, actions undertaken over a period of time by various agencies (federal,
State, and local) or individuals. In accordance with NEPA, a discussion of cumulative impacts resulting from
projects proposed, under construction, recently completed, or planned for implementation in the near future
is required. For purposes of this analysis, projects implemented within the last 5 years or proposed to be
implemented within the next 5 years within 1-mile of the proposed improvements were identified (see
Table 3-8).
[Draft]
Table 3-8 (1 of 2): Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions in the Indirect Study Area
PROJECT
SPONSOR PROJECT DESCRIPTION YEAR STATUS
DOA Braniff Drainage Improvements / TV Inspection of
Existing Storm Sewer System/Parking Garage Storm
Water Repairs
2008 Complete
DOA Taxiways A, B, and D Reconstruction 2008 Complete
DOA TW "L" Reconstruction and Extension 2010 Complete
DOA Holding Pad Reconstruction 2010 Complete
DOA TW "C" Reconstruction 2010 Complete
DOA TW "B" Modifications 2010 Complete
DOA Taxiways A, B and D Reconstruction 2011 Complete
DOA Airport Perimeter Roads Rehabilitation 2011 Complete
DOA Demolition and renovation of the interior area of the
Enterprise Customer Service Area
2012 Complete
DOA Sallyport - Common entry and inspection point for
terminal concessions and tenants
2012 Complete
DOA Snow and Ice Removal Facility 2013 Complete
DOA Holding Pad Reconstruction 2013 Complete
DOA Remove the Underground Storage Tanks (Enterprise) 2013 Complete
DOA Taxiway Shoulder Reconstruction (A, M & B) 2014 Complete
DOA Runway 13L-31R Joint Reseal 2014 Complete
TxDOT Construct intersection improvements from west of
Midway Rd. to U.S. Highway 75
2014 Ongoing
DOA Airport Perimeter Roads Rehabilitation 2015 Ongoing

[Draft]
Table 3-8 (2 of 2): Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions in the Indirect Study Area
PROJECT
SPONSOR PROJECT DESCRIPTION YEAR STATUS
DOA Decommissioning of Runway 18-36 and Conversion to
a Taxiway
2015 N/A
DOA Airfield Drainage - Construction 2018 N/A
DOA Parking Garage Construction 2017 N/A
DOA TWB Reconstruction (B4 to B6) Design 2015 N/A
DOA TW K, D3 & D Reconstruction 2016 N/A
DOA TWB Reconstruction (B6 to approach of 13L) 2017 N/A
DOA TW A Reconstruction (Approach 31R to A2) 2017 N/A
DOA TW A Reconstruction (A2 to Delta) 2017 N/A
DOA TW C Reconstruction (C2 and C from C2 to C4) 2018 N/A
DOA Crossfield Geometry Reconfiguration Study 2018 N/A
DOA TW D & C Reconstruction 2018 N/A
DOA TWB Reconstruction (B2 to B4) Construction 2016 N/A
DOA TWB Reconstruction (B2 to approach of 31R) 2018 N/A
DOA TWB Reconstruction (B2 to B4) Design 2015 N/A
DOA Rehabilitate Runway 18-36 Intersections with Taxiways
P & C and Remove TW J (Design)
2015 N/A
DOA Runway Holding Position Relocation (Design) 2015 N/A
DOA Pavement Analysis Project (Planning) 2016 N/A
DOA Relocate Runway 31R Glideslope (Design) 2016 N/A
DOA Rehabilitate Taxiway C from Taxiway D to Taxiway C2
(Design)
2017 N/A
DOA Crossfield Geometry Reconfiguration (Design) 2017 N/A
DOA Relocate Runway 31R Glideslope (Reimbursable
Agreement for Construction Inspection)
2017 N/A
DOA Airport Perimeter Roads Rehabilitation (Construction) 2017 N/A
DOA Rehabilitate Taxiway B from B2 to Runway 31R and
Connectors B1 & B2 (Construction)
2017 N/A
DOA Rehabilitate Taxiway B from Runway 13L to Runway 18
(Design)
2018 N/A
DOA Crossfield Geometry Reconfiguration (Phase 1
Construction)
2018 N/A
DOA Rehabilitate Taxiway C from Taxiway D to Taxiway C2
(Construction)
2018 N/A
DOA Construct a new Administration Building 2017 N/A
NOTE:
DOA = City of Dallas Department of Aviation
TxDOT = Texas Department of Transportation
SOURCE: City of Dallas, CIP Projects List, August 2012; Texas Department of Transportation Current TxDOT Projects: Dallas District, May 2014.
[Draft]
EA for Redevelopment of the DalFort Site


[Draft]
Envi ronmental Consequences [4-1]
4. Environmental Consequences
The potential environmental consequences associated with the No Action and the Proposed Action
alternatives are discussed in this chapter. The environmental categories evaluated, as specified in FAA
Order 1050.1E,
1
are as follows:
Noise
Compatible Land Use
Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental Justice, and Childrens Environmental Health and Safety Risks
Secondary (Induced) Impacts
Air Quality
Water Quality
Fish, Wildlife, and Plants
DOT, Section 4(f) Properties
Historic, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources
Light Emissions and Visual Impacts
Natural Resources and Energy Supply
Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste
Construction Impacts
Cumulative Impacts
The following environmental resources are not present within the Study Areas and, therefore, would not be
affected by the No Action or Proposed Action alternatives: farmlands, floodplains, wetlands, coastal
resources, and wild and scenic rivers.

1
Federal Aviation Administration, Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Change 1, effective March 20, 2006.
[Draft]
[4-2] Envi ronmental Consequences
4.1 Noise
FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, and FAA Order 5050.4B, National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions, provide requirements for a
noise analysis pertain to evaluating potential increases in aviation-related noise from a proposed action. As
indicated in Section 1.5, Aviation Activity Forecasts, the Proposed Action would result in an increase in the
current number of corporate and general aviation aircraft operations at the Airport.
Potential noise impacts on adjacent land uses during construction and operation of the Proposed Action are
addressed in Section 4.13, Construction Impacts, and Section 4.2, Compatible Land Use, respectively.
4.1.1 METHODOLOGY
Noise exposure contours for the Airport were prepared in 2001 as part of the 2001 Master Plan Noise Analysis,
and later in 2006 for the Dallas Love Field Impact Analysis Update. DNL contours for then existing conditions
(2006) and future conditions (2014) were generated for the 2006 Dallas Love Field Impact Analysis Update.
FAA Order 1050.1E specifies the applicable process for assessing potential noise impacts associated with the
Proposed Action compared with the No Action alternative. According to FAA Order 1050.1E, Appendix A
14.4a:
For proposed actions involving a single airport which result in a general overall increase
in daily aircraft operations or the use of larger/noisier aircraft, as long as there are no
changes in ground tracks or flight profiles, the initial analysis may be performed using the
FAA's Area Equivalent Method (AEM) computer model. The time of day is also part of the
equation used in the AEM method. If the AEM calculations indicate that the proposed
action would result in less than a 17 percent (approximately a DNL 1 dB) increase in the
DNL 65 dB contour area, it may be concluded that there would be no significant impact
over noise sensitive areas and that no further noise analysis is required. If the AEM
calculations indicate an increase of 17 percent or more, or if the proposed action is such
that use of the AEM is not appropriate, then the proposed action must be analyzed using
the INM or HNM to determine if significant noise impacts will result.
2

The Proposed Action would result in an increase in the number of based aircraft at the Airport and an
associated increase in the number of corporate GA operations, but would not change runway use, ground
tracks, or flight profiles for any aircraft operating at the Airport. Thus, AEM Version 7.0 was used to determine
if the Proposed Action would result in less than a 17 percent increase in area exposed to aircraft noise of
DNL 65.

2
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, March
20, 2006; and FAA Order 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions, April 28, 2006.
[Draft]
4.1.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The No Action alternative would not affect the number of aircraft operations at the Airport or the routing of
aircraft in the air to and from the Airport. Thus, the No Action alternative would not result in any change in
aviation-related noise.
4.1.3 PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Table 4-1 presents the area (in square miles) that would be exposed to DNL 65 and higher calculated using
AEM 7.0 and the aircraft activity forecasts discussed in Section 1.5. The numbers of landing/takeoff cycles
3
for
2016 and 2021 used in the AEM calculations are provided in Appendix B. As shown in Table 4-1, the AEM was
used to calculate that the area exposed to DNL 65 and higher would be less than 1 percent greater under the
Proposed Action compared to the No Action alternative for the same time period, below the 17 percent
significance threshold.
Table 4-1: 2016 and 2021 Area Equivalent Method Results
DNL
(A-WEIGHTED
DECIBELS)
NO ACTION AREA
(SQUARE MILES)
PROPOSED ACTION
AREA
(SQUARE MILES)
CHANGE IN AREA
(SQUARE MILES)
2016
65 438.6 439.6 0.2%
70 147.1 147.4 0.2%
75 49.7 49.9 0.4%
2021
65 525.8 528.2 0.5%
70 177.0 177.9 0.5%
75 60.0 60.3 0.5%
SOURCE: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., April 2014, based on calculations using AEM 7.0.
As shown in Table 4-1, the Proposed Action would result in increases of less than 17 percent in the area
exposed to DNL 65 and higher compared with the No Action alternative in 2016 and 2021. Thus, the
Proposed Action would not result in a significant noise impact.

3
The landing/takeoff cycle includes both the landing and takeoff of an aircraft at the Airport, which would be counted as two aircraft
operations.
[Draft]
4.2 Compatible Land Use
Impacts to existing and planned land uses in the vicinity of an airport are usually associated with the extent of
aircraft noise impacts related to operations at that airport. As indicated in Section 4.1, the Proposed Action
would result in a change in the area exposed to DNL 65 and higher of less than 1 percent compared with the
No Action alternative.
This section summarizes existing land use plans and policies that affect development of the DalFort site and
surrounding area. Land use plans that apply to the area surrounding the DalFort site include City of Dallas
community and redevelopment plans. The potential land use impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action
alternatives are identified in relation to each of the onsite and surrounding land use plans.
4.2.1 METHODOLOGY
The existing onsite and offsite land uses and the surrounding area land use plans and policies are
documented herein. The offsite land uses relate to nearby communities and recreation areas. The relevant
offsite land use plans consist of the 2001 Dallas Love Field Airport Master Plan, the City of Dallas
Comprehensive Plan, the Stemmons Corridor Plan, and the Maple-Mockingbird Plan. Additionally, the analysis
is based on a site reconnaissance of the APE and the surrounding areas. The significance criteria used to
assess the impacts of the Proposed Action related to land use are discussed below.
In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, the Proposed Action is compatible with existing and future land uses if
the following apply:
The noise analysis conducted for the Proposed Action concludes that there is no significant impact,
and
The Proposed Action is consistent with plans (existing at the time the project is approved) of public
agencies for development of the area in which the Airport is located.
Under the No Action alternative, there would be no changes to the existing facilities, structures, or airfield at
the Airport. The No Action alternative would not result in any change in noise impact, or defer appropriate
action that is being taken to consider and control the use of land adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of
the Airport to activities and purposes compatible with normal Airport operations.
As described in Section 4.1, there would be no significant aircraft noise impacts associated with the Proposed
Action.
[Draft]
The Airport Master Plan Advisory Committee has implemented several measures to help ensure the
compatibility of aircraft operations with land uses surround the Airport.
4
These measures have included:
Noise Abatement Advisory Committee Members of the committee meet quarterly to review Airport
operations, the effectiveness of the overall noise abatement program, incidents of noncompliance,
records of noise complaints, and potential adjustments or improvements to the noise control
program.
Noise Monitoring System The Sponsor has installed 13 permanent noise monitors in key locations
around the Airport. The system has the ability to collect noise, runway use, and flight track
information for every aircraft arrival and departure at Love Field. The data are stored and can be
referenced at any time and various reports can be produced.
Noise Abatement Information Noise abatement information for pilots and Airport users is key to the
effectiveness of the noise abatement rules. Signs have been installed at the runway ends to inform
pilots to follow noise abatement procedures. In addition to signs, an information package is updated
and distributed on a regular basis to FBOs and pilots.
For the 2001 Dallas Love Field Airport Master Plan, the Sponsor agreed to include the DNL 55 and
DNL 60 noise exposure contours in the analyses for informational purposes.
Noise Complaint Hotline Aircraft-related noise disturbances can be reported 24 hours a day to
Airport Operations personnel. Any disturbance is recorded and an investigation is initiated at that
time. Entities (e.g., airlines) that may have caused the disturbance are contacted and encouraged to
comply with all of the voluntary noise abatement procedures in place at Love Field.
The 2001 Dallas Love Field Airport Master Plan includes 14 CFR Part 150 Land Use Compatibility
Guidelines that were compared with yearly DNLs for applicable land uses within the Airport area.
4.2.3.1 Surrounding Land Use Plan and Policies
2001 Dallas Love Field Airport Master Plan
Using the Citys zoning maps, other land use maps developed in the late 1980s, and a windshield survey of the
entire area, a land use survey was generated for the 2001 Dallas Love Field Airport Master Plan to depict the
types of land uses located within the immediate vicinity of the Airport and within area exposed to DNL 65 and
higher. In addition to general land use categories, noise-sensitive sites, such as schools, churches, and
hospitals, located near the Airport were identified. In the Airport Master Plan, it was recommended that the
City of Dallas Planning Department and the Sponsor work closely together during the development of any
future land use plans.
5

4
City of Dallas, Dallas-Love Field Airport Impact Analysis/Master Plan, March 30, 2001.
5
Ibid.
[Draft]
City of Dallas Comprehensive Plan
The proposed improvements would be located on existing Airport property, in those areas noted for Airport-
related uses in the City of Dallas Comprehensive Plan. Use of this land for the proposed improvements would
be consistent with the highly disturbed current and past uses of the land.
The proposed improvements would not extend into surrounding communities. As such, there would be no
significant disruption or division of established communities. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not cause
significant offsite impacts to the surrounding communities. There would also be no significant change in
noise exposure in the surrounding communities based on the Proposed Action. As a result, there would be no
significant impacts to these communities related to noise (see Section 4.1).
City of Dallas Community Plans
The compatibility of the Proposed Action with the City of Dallas community plans for those communities
adjacent to and surrounding the Airport is discussed in this section.
Vision and Policy Plan: Stemmons Corridor Southwestern Medical District Area Plan
(Stemmons Corridor Plan). The Stemmons Corridor Plan focuses on redevelopment of the area
adjacent to Love Field to the southwest. Among the redevelopment plan focus areas are expansion of
the Medical District as an employment center; new development occurring around the American
Airlines Center and Design District activity hubs; transportation improvements, including new DART
stations to enhance regional accessibility and influence development patterns; and the Trinity River
project and anticipated public and associated private development. The Stemmons Corridor Plan
incorporates considerations for land use restrictions surrounding the Airport within the plan limits.
The Proposed Action would not result in any inconsistency with the Stemmons Corridor Plan.
6

Maple-Mockingbird Project Plan & Reinvestment Zone Financing Plan (Maple-Mockingbird
Plan). The Maple-Mockingbird Plan focuses on the area adjacent to Love Field to the south-
southwest and encompasses some of the same areas as the Stemmons Corridor Plan. The Maple-
Mockingbird Plan seeks to encourage redevelopment of property in the Maple/Mockingbird Tax
Increment Financing District, which includes infrastructure/utility improvements (including streetscape
improvements), environmental remediation and rehabilitation, affordable housing, and grants for
retail projects. The Proposed Action would not result in any inconsistency with the Maple-
Mockingbird Plan.

6
City of Dallas, Vision and Policy Plan: Stemmons Corridor Southwestern Medical District Area Plan, A Forward Dallas Implementation
Project, June 2010.
[Draft]
4.3 Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental Justice, and Childrens
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
The Proposed Action and No Action alternatives were evaluated for the potential to result in the relocation of
residences and businesses as well as the potential to alter surface transportation patterns, divide established
communities, disrupt orderly planned development, or create an appreciable change in employment. The
potential for the Proposed Action or No Action alternative to result in disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations or disproportionate health and
safety risks to children is also discussed in this section.
4.3.1 METHODOLOGY
The potential for the project alternatives to cause social impacts or community disruption was evaluated
qualitatively. Potential conflicts with Executive Orders addressing environmental justice and the protection of
children were evaluated based on the requirements of those orders and implementing guidance published by
the federal government.
4.3.1.1 Socioeconomic Impacts
FAA guidance in FAA Order 1050.1E (Appendix A, Section 16) for analysis of socioeconomic impacts states
that the Proposed Action would have a significant population and housing impact if it would:
Displace a substantial number of people,
Displace a substantial number of residential units,
Substantially reduce the levels of service of roadways serving the Airport and its surrounding
communities,
Create a substantial loss in the community tax base, and/or
Induce substantial population growth that would affect the population/housing balance.
Based on these guidelines, an alternative would have a significant socioeconomic impact if it would lead to
substantial, adverse physical changes in the social environment.
4.3.1.2 Environmental Justice
Environmental justice significance was assessed to determine if the Proposed Action would conflict with the
requirements of Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 [1994]), Environmental Justice for Low Income and Minority
Populations. This Executive Order directs federal agencies to make achieving environmental justice part of its
mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States. Based on this guidance, the Proposed Action would have a significant
environmental justice impact if it would cause disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or low-income populations.
[Draft]
4.3.1.3 Protection of Children
The significance of impacts on the protection of children was assessed to determine if the Proposed Action
would conflict with the requirements of Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19883 [1997]), Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. Under this Executive Order, each federal agency shall:
(a) Make it a high priority to identify and assess environmental health risks and safety risks that may
disproportionately affect children, and
(b) Ensure that its policies, programs, activities, and standards address disproportionate risks to
children that result from environmental health risks or safety risks.
4.3.1.4 Surface Transportation Impacts
Surface transportation was assessed to determine if the Proposed Action would cause increased traffic that
would adversely affect the Indirect Study Area. An adverse impact would mean a significant increase in traffic
that would result in a decrease in the level of service on adjacent and nearby roads to unacceptable
conditions.
The No Action alternative does not include any property acquisition or construction and, therefore, would not
result in the relocation of residences or businesses, alteration of traffic patterns, division of communities,
disruption of planned development, or appreciable changes in employment. The quality of life and noise
levels in surrounding areas would not be affected, and no impacts to low-income populations, minority
populations, or children would occur.
The Proposed Action would not include any property acquisition and construction activities would be limited
to areas already in commercial/industrial uses, within the Airport boundary (construction impacts are further
addressed in Section 4.13). The Proposed Action would not result in the relocation of residences or
businesses, alteration of traffic patterns, division of communities, disruption of planned development, or
appreciable changes in employment. No impacts to low-income populations, minority populations, or
children would occur. There is a signalized intersection at the entrance to the DalFort site along Lemmon
Avenue at West Lovers Lane. Additionally, on the southeastern end of the site, there is a signalized
intersection along Lemmon Avenue at Bluffview Boulevard.
Although the Proposed Action would result in an increase in traffic along Lemmon Avenue compared with
existing conditions, the level of vehicular traffic associated with the proposed development is anticipated to
be relatively minor on a daily basis. Based on the results of the Traffic Impact Assessment for the
Redevelopment of the DalFort Aerospace Facilities on an original site plan that included two car dealerships,
traffic signal monitoring and additional lane storage length on Lemmon Avenue would be recommended to
[Draft]
alleviate traffic congestion for future 2019 build conditions.
7
The current development associated with the
Proposed Action would be much less than that projected in the previous study, based on the proposed
mixed-use of commercial and retail space within the APE. The anticipated trip generation associated with the
Proposed Action considered in this EA would be inherently lower than that assessed in the Traffic Impact
Assessment. In general, all the signalized intersections on Lemmon Avenue would operate at acceptable levels
of service, LOS C or better, according to the Traffic Impact Assessment. Thus, no significant decrease in the
level of service on adjacent and nearby roads is anticipated to occur as a result of the Proposed Action.
4.4 Secondary (Induced) Impacts
The Proposed Action was evaluated for its potential to cause secondary impacts on the surrounding
communities. Such impacts would include any shifts in patterns of population movement and growth,
demand for public services, and changes in business and economic activity that would be influenced by
Airport development.
According to FAA Order 1050.1E, secondary impacts would not normally be significant except where there is
also a significant impact in another category, particularly noise, compatible land use, or social impact. As the
Proposed Action would not result in impacts exceeding the threshold of significance in any impact category,
secondary impacts would not be expected.
Development of the Proposed Action improvements would occur on existing Airport property. As noted in
Section 4.3, no residences or residents would be displaced during construction. Also, the Proposed Action is
not expected to induce population growth within the region that would lead to the demand for new public
services or facilities.
There would be no effect on population or public service demand associated with implementation of the No
Action or Proposed Action alternative. The Proposed Action would have no impact on performance objectives
of police protection, fire protection, schools, parks, or other public service facilities. The Proposed Action
would not generate any increase in the number of students or number of park users. The Proposed Action
would not result in additional police or fire protection services compared with existing conditions. Therefore,
no secondary impacts on these public services would be anticipated. The Proposed Action would not result in
changes in business or economic activity that would be influenced by Airport development; therefore, no
significant secondary (induced) impacts would result from the Proposed Action.

7
Ricondo & Associates, Inc., Dallas Love Field, Redevelopment of DalFort Aerospace Facilities Traffic Impact Assessment, January 22, 2013.
[Draft]
4.5 Air Quality
The primary sources of guidance for assessing potential air quality effects are FAA Orders 1050.1E and the Air
Quality Procedures for Civilian Airports and Air Force Bases (Airport Air Quality Handbook).
8
Typically, an
emissions inventory is prepared for each reasonable alternative, including the No Action alternative.
Additional analyses, including dispersion modeling or roadway intersection hot spot analyses, are not typically
required if the estimated emissions of each criteria pollutant would not exceed thresholds listed in the general
conformity regulations. Information presented in the Airport Air Quality Handbook can be used to determine
whether an NAAQS assessment
9
should be performed for a proposed action.
4.5.1 METHODOLOGY
The objective of the air quality analysis completed in support of this EA was to assess the potential air quality
impacts of the Proposed Action by estimating the emissions associated with the Proposed Action compared
with the No Action alternative and comparing the differences against the applicable de minimis thresholds.
Emissions associated with the Proposed Action include operational emissions, such as emissions from aircraft,
ground support equipment, and ground access vehicles, as well as construction emissions, including emissions
from construction equipment, employee vehicles, and material hauling and delivery trips. The FAAs Emissions
and Dispersion Modeling System, Version 5.1.3, was used to analyze operational emissions. Standard industry
methodologies were used to assess construction emissions associated with the Proposed Action. Emissions
were estimated for CO, VOC, oxides of nitrogen (NO
2
), oxides of sulfur (SO
2
), PM
10
, and PM
2.5
. A more detailed
description of the air quality analysis methodology, assumptions, and results is provided in Appendix C.
Under the No Action alternative, no construction would occur and the number of aircraft operations at the
DalFort site would not increase. Therefore, the No Action alternative would not result in increased air
pollutant emissions.
The Proposed Action would result in the initiation of new corporate and general aviation aircraft operations
on the redeveloped DalFort site, thereby increasing operational emissions. Construction-related activities
associated with the Proposed Action would result in an increase in emissions compared with the No Action
alternative during construction in 2015. Total emissions (operational and construction) for the Proposed
Action are summarized in Table 4-2. The information in Table 4-2 also serves as a general conformity

8
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Air Quality Procedures for Civilian Airports and Air Force Bases, Report
No. FAA-AEE-97-03, Washington, D.C., April 1997, including the addendum, Report No. FAA-AEE-04-03, September 2004.
9
When a Proposed Action could cause or contribute to an exceedance of the NAAQS, concentrations of criteria pollutants of interest are
estimated using air dispersion modeling. The FAAs Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System incorporates algorithms from the
USEPAs AERMOD dispersion model.
[Draft]
applicability analysis by comparing emissions associated with the Proposed Action with applicable de minimis
thresholds.
Table 4-2: Emissions Summary and General Conformity Applicability Analysis
SOURCE BY YEAR
CO
(tons/year)
VOC
(tons/year)
NO2
(tons/year)
SO2
(tons/year)
PM10
(tons/year)
PM2.5
(tons/year)
2015
Construction impacts
1/
8.154 3.219 18.464 0.081 2.881 0.582
De minimis threshold N/A
2/
100 100 N/A N/A N/A
2016
Operational impacts
2/
161.048 13.681 16.812 0.500 0.856 0.486
De minimis threshold N/A 100 100 N/A N/A N/A
2021
Operational impacts
2/
149.330 11.705 12.443 0.556 0.802 0.438
De minimis threshold N/A 100 100 N/A N/A N/A
NOTES:
CO = Carbon Monoxide
N/A = Not Applicable
NO2 = Oxides of Nitrogen
PM10 = Particulate Matter
PM2.5 = Fine Particulate Matter
SO2 = Oxides of Sulfur
VOC = Volatile Organic Compounds
1/ Emissions associated with remediation activities were provided by Modern Geosciences, April 2014.
2/ Operational impacts represent emissions associated with aircraft and ground operations (including vehicle access) associated with the Proposed Action.
The analysis of operational impacts reflects trip generation projected in the previous Traffic Impact Assessment, based on the original site plan that
included mixed-use commercial and retail development, including car dealerships, within the APE. The anticipated trip generation with the Proposed
Action would be inherently lower than that assessed in the Traffic Impact Assessment, as would the reported operational emissions.
As described in Section 3.5.1 of this EA, the Airport and the DalFort site are located in the City of Dallas. The
Dallas-Fort Worth area has been designated by the USEPA as being in attainment for all criteria pollutants
except ozone, for which it is designated as a moderate nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone standard.
[Draft]
The applicable de minimis thresholds for ozone general conformity purposes are 100 tons per year of VOC
and 100 tons per year of NO
2.
10

The applicability analysis was based on the emissions inventories described and presented in Appendix C. The
differences in VOC and NO
X
emissions under the Proposed Action, by year, were computed and compared
against applicable de minimis threshold levels.
The emissions presented in Table 4-2 represent the construction-related emissions and the net change in
operational emissions that would result from implementation of the Proposed Action. As shown, the
emissions in 2015, 2016, and 2021 would be below established de minimis thresholds for the Proposed Action.
In addition, the Proposed Action would not be considered regionally significantemissions under the
Proposed Action would represent a minute fraction of total emissions in the region. Therefore, a general
conformity determination is not required for the Proposed Action. No adverse air quality impacts are
expected to result from implementation of the Proposed Action; therefore, it is presumed to conform with the
SIP.
4.6 Water Quality
In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, the Sponsor must follow local, State, tribal, and federal ordinances and
regulations to address impacts to the quality of water resources. The Clean Water Act provides the authority
for the USEPA to establish water quality standards, control discharges, develop waste treatment management
plans and practices, prevent or minimize the loss of wetlands, protect aquifers and sensitive ecological areas,
such as a wetlands area, and regulate other issues concerning water quality.
FAA Order 1050.1E states that significant effects on water quality include the following:
If the Proposed Action has the potential to contaminate an aquifer designated by the USEPA as a sole
or principal source of drinking water for the area.
If the Proposed Action would impound, divert, drain, control, or otherwise modify the waters of any
stream or other body of water, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act applies.
Exceedances of water quality standards and any water quality issues that cannot be avoided or
satisfactorily mitigated would be identified as significant impacts.
As described in Section 3, authorization is required for storm water discharges from the Airport under the
TPDES permit. The TPDES permit provides authorization for point source discharges of storm water
associated with industrial activity and certain non-storm water discharges to surface water. The permit sets

10
Following standard industry practice, ozone was evaluated by evaluating the emissions of VOC and NOX, which are precursors in the
formation of ozone.
[Draft]
forth effluent limitations and requirements applicable to all industrial activities covered under the TPDES
permit.
11

As a result of the historical use of the DalFort site for aeronautical maintenance and storage activities, current
site conditions include elevated contaminant levels in groundwater samples, as discussed in Section 3.5.2.
Groundwater issues at the site are further discussed in Section 4.12, Hazardous Materials, Pollution
Prevention, and Solid Waste.
4.6.1.1 Hydrology
Under the No Action alternative, there would be no change to the impervious surface area and no drainage
system improvements; therefore, there would be no impacts to surface hydrology or drainage patterns.
4.6.1.2 Water Quality
The No Action alternative would not involve grading; therefore, there would be no potential for downstream
erosion or sedimentation or modified drainage patterns. No earthwork would be associated with the No
Action alternative and, accordingly, no potential exists for pollution and contamination impacts nor does the
need for sediment and erosion control. Under the No Action alternative, the existing uses within the APE
would remain, and groundwater issues related to former site uses would not be addressed through any
remediation measures. Potential contaminants would remain within the soil and groundwater at the DalFort
site and would potentially affect the provisions of the Love Field Airport Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP).
4.6.2.1 Hydrology
Under the Proposed Action, existing structures within the APE would be modified and it is unlikely that the
existing storm water drainage system would be substantially modified given the existence of impervious
surfaces. As the current site is nearly completely paved with impervious surfaces, there would be little change
in impervious surface area throughout the DalFort site. Therefore, no additional runoff would occur as a result
of the Proposed Action compared with existing conditions. There would be no notable change in surface
hydrology other than the storm drainage system improvements as a result of site redevelopment; therefore,
no significant impacts to hydrology would occur.

11
City of Dallas, Aviation Administration, Love Field Airport Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, April 2012,
http://www.dallascityhall.com/aviation/lovefield_swppp.html (accessed June 7, 2012).
[Draft]
4.6.2.2 Water Quality
Operations
As noted above, the Proposed Action would not modify existing uses within the APE and would likely not
modify the existing storm water drainage system. The proposed redevelopment of the DalFort site would
retain the OMB on the DalFort Aerospace site with the development of two new GA hangars. In general terms,
such development would not increase sediment loads or bacteria pollutants in surface water runoff compared
with the No Action alternative. It is not anticipated that a substantial change in activities or potential sources
of surface water pollutants would occur at the DalFort site or be different from activities that already occur at
the Airport. Similar to the No Action alternative, under the Proposed Action, potential surface water
pollutants associated with these ongoing uses would include, but not be limited to, fuels, lubricants, and other
hydrocarbon products, metals, paints, brake fluid, antifreeze, rubber particles, solvents, battery acid, and other
such contaminants.
Water quality best management practices (BMPs) would be integrated into the construction plans for the
Proposed Action, in accordance with the Airport SWPPP and applicable water quality regulations, along with
other measures, as necessary and appropriate. In addition to water quality BMPs incorporated into the
project design, ongoing implementation of Airportwide water quality measures, such as source control BMPs
(i.e., non-storm water management, waste handling/disposal, good housekeeping, spill prevention, control,
and cleanup), as set forth in the Airport SWPPP, would also help address potential water quality impacts
associated with the proposed improvements.
Construction
Construction activities associated with the Proposed Action have the potential to generate water pollutants,
such as sediments from grading/ground disturbance; fuels, oil, grease, and solvents from construction
equipment fueling and servicing; metals from steel/iron work; paints and miscellaneous chemicals stored and
used during construction; and trash and debris. Potential water quality impacts would be addressed through
compliance with the construction activity requirements specified in the Airport SWPPP. Additionally, the
Proposed Action alternative would allow for site soil and groundwater sampling to determine what, if any
remediation methods are necessary per TCEQ regulations (see Section 4.12). Construction impacts are further
addressed in Section 4.13.
4.6.3 MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are required in addition to those already proposed as project design features or
otherwise mandated by provisions in the Airport SWPPP and TPDES General (Construction) Permit. However,
[Draft]
in addition to the measures described above, the Sponsor has applied for an MSD, which restricts the use of
groundwater in areas designated as contaminated for potable water by ordinance/restrictive covenant.
12

4.7 Fish, Wildlife, and Plants
The potential for the project alternatives to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat is discussed in this section.
4.7.1 METHODOLOGY
The potential of impacts to biotic communities and threatened and endangered species was assessed through
a review of earlier documents, USFWS Endangered Species lists, and assessment of the potential for the
Airport to support vegetation communities/habitat.
Under the No Action alternative, no development would occur at the DalFort site and indirect impacts would
not occur compared with existing conditions. As there would be no site redevelopment and the APE already
supports a limited number of biological resources, the No Action alternative would have no impact on fish,
wildlife, and plants.
As discussed in Chapter 3, the habitat surrounding and including the Airport supports a limited number of
biological resources because much of the area is already extensively developed. The entire area within the
DalFort site is developed or disturbed in some manner with no native vegetation present on the site.
According to the USFWS Critical Habitat Portal, no critical habitat can be found within Dallas County.
13

Because of the lack of habitat and the developed condition of the DalFort site, no threatened or endangered
species are present or known to use the APE; therefore, no impacts to fish, wildlife, and plants would occur as
a result of the Proposed Action.
4.8 DOT, Section 4(f) Properties
Both direct and constructive use impacts to Section 4(f) properties were considered. Direct impacts include
physical takings of a Section 4(f) property. Indirect impacts, such as noise, were considered to determine if
the effects would result in a substantial impairment to the resource that would constitute a constructive use.

12
City of Dallas, Office of Environmental Quality, Municipal Settings Designation, http://www.dallascityhall.com/oeq/msd.html (accessed June
7, 2012).
13
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Critical Habitat Portal, http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/crithab/ (accessed July 30, 2012).
[Draft]
Per FAA Order 1050.1E (Appendix A.6.2f) substantial impairment occurs only when the activities, features, or
attributes of the source that contribute to its significance or enjoyment are substantially diminished. If there
would be no substantial impairment, the action would not constitute a constructive use.
4.8.1 METHODOLOGY
Section 3.6 identifies the resources that are considered Section 4(f) that are located in the Airport environs.
The properties in the APE would represent a direct taking while nearby resources were considered relative to
the effect that the Proposed Action would have on the resources to determine if these indirect effects would
rise to the level of being a constructive use.
As noted, there is one resource, the DalFort OMB, a site eligible for the NRHP that is located in the APE. In the
Airport environs, one historic district (Greenway Parks Historic District) was identified that is on the NRHP as
well as numerous neighborhood parks.
Under the No Action alternative, no changes to existing conditions would occur. Accordingly, the No Action
alternative would have no effect on DOT Section 4(f) properties.
The Proposed Action would have the following potential effects on DOT Section 4(f) lands.
4.8.3.1 Direct Effects
A direct effect occurs when the project would incorporate DOT Section 4(f) properties into the proposal, as
occurs with the Proposed Action. Through consultation with THC and interested parties, the FAA made a
determination of de minimis regarding the effect of the Proposed Action on the DalFort OMB. This de minimis
finding was based upon the incorporation of rehabilitation of the OMB; remediation of the site; demolition of
portions of the non-historic additions; rehabilitation of the existing parking garage on the northeast corner of
the property to include retail space; construction of a new commercial building on the southeast corner of the
property; and, construction of two new aviation related buildings on the apron north of the operations and
maintenance building.
As is noted in Appendix A, the THCs February 3, 2014 letter notes that subject to the proposed project
elements, the Proposed Action would have no adverse effect on historic properties. In accordance with FAA
guidance, the FAA may make a de minimis finding under DOT 4(f), if under Section 106 of the NHPA, it has
determined the project will not adversely affect or not affect historic properties. Written concurrence on a de
minimis finding was received from the THC (the SHPO), and this Section 106 finding was developed in
consultation with parties consulting in the Section 106 process. Thus, in accordance with FAA guidance and
the ongoing review and notification process under Section 106 consultation, Section 4(f) is considered
satisfied with respect to historic sites. If the Secretary makes a de miminis impact finding.
[Draft]
4.8.3.2 Indirect/Constructive Use Effects
Based on the evaluation of environmental effects of the Proposed Action, the Proposed Action would not
have a significant impact on any of the environmental resource categories, and the effects that would occur
would not rise to the level of being a constructive use for any DOT Section 4(f) properties.
As described in Section 4.1, Noise, and Section 4.13, Construction Impacts, the Proposed Action would not
generate noticeable changes in noise off Airport property that would affect the recreational aspects on nearby
parks nor on the nearby historic district. All of the nearby parks are used for active recreation which is
compatible with noise levels up to DNL 75. Project-related noise impacts are expected to be well below DNL
75 and thus, a constructive use effect on park/recreation/refuge-related uses would not be expected. Noise
impacts from the project to the nearby Greenway Parks Historic District would not be substantially different
from that experienced today.
While the Proposed Action would alter lighting conditions on-Airport, that lighting would be consistent with
general airport facility lighting and street lighting along Lemmon Ave. Accordingly, there would be no light-
related effects to the recreational facilities near the Airport. Similarly, for the reasons described in Section
4.10, Light Emissions and Visual Impacts, the Proposed Action would not significantly affect views or light
emission impacts at Midway Manor Park, or other nearby parks, or the Greenway Parks Historic District. Thus,
no lighting or visual impacts resulting in a constructive use impact would be expected.
Air emissions associated with the Proposed Action are expected to result in de minimis impact and thus, while
additional emissions would occur due to the Proposed Action, the emissions are not expected to result in a
constructive use impact.
Additional surface traffic would be generated by the Proposed Action. However, surface traffic conditions are
not expected to impair access to the nearby historic district or the nearby parks/recreational sites, as a
degradation in the level of service on area roadways would not be expected to be caused by the use of the
Proposed Action. Thus, a constructive use effect from traffic is not expected. As such, the Proposed Action
would have a less than significant impact on recreational resources.
4.9 Historic, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources
To comply with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and Archaeological and Historic Preservation
Act of 1974, cultural resources that have the potential to be affected by a proposed action must be identified,
documented, and assessed.
4.9.1 METHODOLOGY
A NRHP evaluation was completed in August 2012 for the Study Areas and Proposed Action. This evaluation
was conducted in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended through 2000 [16 U.S.C. 470 et
seq.; Public Law 89665; 80 Stat. 915], requiring the identification, documentation, and assessment of NRHP
eligibility for historic non-archaeological resources. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine if the
[Draft]
resources are eligible for listing in the NRHP and, if so, to determine if the Proposed Action would cause an
adverse impact.
14

Under the No Action alternative, existing land uses would continue, with no rehabilitation of buildings at the
DalFort Site. Therefore, there would be no adverse effect to the NRHP-eligible OMB. However, deterioration
of the OMB would be expected to continue in the absence of rehabilitation or stabilization activities.
The Proposed Action alternative would result in the rehabilitation of the NRHP-eligible OMB for adaptive
reuse. Detailed information regarding the Proposed Action alternative is provided in Chapter 1. The
Proposed Action would retain the historic buildings primary character-defining features, as noted in the
NHPA Section 106 consultation among the City of Dallas, the FAA, the National Park Service, and the THC.
These features include:
Multilevel inverted gable roof
Asymmetrical footprint
Glass curtain wall with steel frame on north elevation
Steel cladding throughout the buildings exterior
Dramatic open-span hangar space
Association as an aircraft hangar and operations facility
The Proposed Action would partially remove two additions to the original OMB that were constructed late in
its period of significance or after its period of significance:
A portion of the east wing connecting the 1958 building with the storage building constructed circa
1980 (approximately half of the east wing adjoining the new office building would remain in place)
1995 terminal gate extension of the original west wing
The FAA determined that the Proposed Action would have no adverse effect on the NRHP-eligible OMB, as
long as the following conditions are met:
The City and/or the developer team will prepare an existing conditions assessment of the buildings
exterior materials to determine where historic fabric can be feasibly repaired and retained. A copy of
the conditions assessment will be provided to the THC for review.

14
Geo-Marine, Inc., Draft-Redevelopment of the Former Braniff/DalFort Aerospace Facility at Dallas Love Field, Dallas County, Texas, August
2012,Appendix A.
[Draft]
The rehabilitation/adaptive reuse project will meet the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part 68), specifically the Standards for Rehabilitation (36 CFR
Part 67.7).
The City and the FAA will provide the THC with a copy of 35-percent-complete plans for review. THC
staff may request additional follow-up review of plans at later stages if the 35-percent plans warrant
continued review.
The FAA, through the City and its consultants, will inform consulting parties and other interested
groups of Section 106-related information, including the Finding of No Adverse Effect, as part of the
NEPA-related public involvement process. The City will also transmit a courtesy Section 106 packet to
inform Preservation Dallas about the project.
The FAA transmitted its determination to the THC on January 28, 2014. The THC concurred with the FAAs
determination of no adverse effect with the above-listed conditions on February 3, 2014. See Appendix A for
copies of Section 106 consultation correspondence and related materials.
4.10 Light Emissions and Visual Impacts
The primary sources of light emissions from airports are the FAA-required lighting for security, obstruction
clearance, and navigation. An analysis of the impacts of light emissions on the surrounding environment is
required when proposed projects include the introduction of new lighting that may affect residential or other
sensitive land uses.
Airport improvement activities involving the potential disruption of the natural environment or the visual
integrity of the area or any activities that may affect sensitive locations, such as parks, historic sites, or other
public use areas, are relevant visually.
4.10.1 METHODOLOGY
4.10.1.1 Light Emissions
The potential light emission impacts of the Proposed Action were determined by evaluating the current
Airport light sources associated with the DalFort property and assessing future lighting effects related to the
Proposed Action.
4.10.1.2 Visual Impacts
The purpose of the visual impacts section is to describe the existing visual conditions of the APE and analyze
the potential impacts of the proposed improvements on its visual character and the visual character of the
surrounding areas as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action.
[Draft]
The No Action alternative would not result in any modifications to Airport facilities; therefore, there would be
no light emissions or visual impacts associated with this alternative.
4.10.3.1 Light Emissions
The Proposed Action would change existing light emissions and nominally increase the number of lights
during construction and operation of the proposed facilities. The Proposed Action would result in new
lighting sources at the DalFort site; however, these lighting sources would be consistent with the surrounding
commercial and industrial land uses and would not create an annoyance or interfere with the normal activities
of people in the surrounding area. Additionally, the Proposed Action preliminary development plans would
place future aeronautical structures further from Lemmon Avenue, toward the airfield side, than existing under
existing conditions. Therefore, no significant light emission impacts would occur as a result of the Proposed
Action.
4.10.3.2 Visual Impacts
The DalFort site is located on the northwestern side of the Airport along a commercial/industrial corridor. The
areas south, southeast, west, and northwest of the site are dedicated to Airport use and are occupied by
aviation-related businesses. Directly east-northeast of the DalFort site is Lemmon Avenue, with commercial
automobile dealerships and residential properties beyond.
The architectural aesthetic of both on- and off-Airport areas around the DalFort site is largely utilitarian in
nature, dominated by roadside aeronautical buildings, hangars, and light and general industrial/
manufacturing structures. The buildings are fairly uniform in height, ranging from one- and two-story
buildings on and immediately adjacent to the Airport property.
The topography in the Airport area is relatively flat. The Proposed Action alternative would not obstruct views
of any distinct natural or significant landmark within the area. The Proposed Action would improve the
appearance of the OMB, whose condition has deteriorated over time. Thus, no adverse visual impacts would
result from implementation of the Proposed Action.
4.11 Natural Resources and Energy Supply
In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, the alternatives were examined to identify any resulting measurable
effects on local supplies of natural resources or energy.
4.11.1 METHODOLOGY
FAA Order 1050.1E does not establish any significance thresholds for natural resources or energy supply. The
Order requires that the Proposed Action be examined to identify any major changes that would have a
[Draft]
measurable effect on local supplies of natural resources or energy. However, the Order states that "[t]he use
of natural resources other than for fuel need be examined only if the action involves a need for unusual
materials or those in short supply." The Order further states that "[f]or most actions, changes in energy
demands or other natural resource consumption will not result in significant impacts."
The No Action alternative would not have any impacts related to natural resources and energy supply.
The soils in these areas have been altered or covered during urban development; therefore, it was not feasible
to identify and separate them in mapping.
15
There are no known mineral resources within or adjacent to the
DalFort site.
The Proposed Action would have no impact on mineral resources, nor would implementation of the Proposed
Action require the use of significant energy resources. Although additional based aircraft and associated
aircraft operations would occur at the Airport as a result of the Proposed Action, it is anticipated that the
aircraft would relocate from other airports in the region and would not represent an overall regional increase
in energy consumption. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not have a significant impact on natural
resources or energy supplies.
4.12 Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste
Information regarding the potential to generate, disturb, or dispose of hazardous materials and the potential
to generate or dispose of additional solid waste is provided in this section. The TCEQ is responsible for
regulating USTs and ASTs, and for managing potential sources of surface and groundwater contamination,
such as the cleanup of UST and AST spill sites. The City of Dallas OEQ oversees environmental issues within
Dallas, which follows State and federal environmental guidelines. USTs are handled in accordance with
International Fire Code regulations.
4.12.1 METHODOLOGY
4.12.1.1 Hazardous Materials
Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials associated with the No Action and Proposed Action
alternatives were analyzed by mapping areas of known or potential environmental contamination identified in
Chapter 3, Affected Environment, and then comparing these areas to the locations of the proposed
improvements. For those areas where no existing source(s) or evidence of environmental contamination or

15
[Draft]
hazardous materials exists, no additional analysis was conducted. However, in cases where the proposed
improvements would be located on or adjacent to properties where these substances and materials could be
encountered, the potential impacts were further evaluated.
The types of improvements included in the Proposed Action, with emphasis on the use, storage, and disposal
of hazardous materials during the construction and operations phases, were also evaluated. The basis of this
evaluation was developed from what is known about existing land uses and facilities at the Airport, combined
with information about current construction practices.
4.12.1.2 Solid Waste
FAA Order 1050.1E states that "FAA actions to fund, approve, or conduct an activity may require consideration
of solid waste impacts in NEPA documentation." Potential solid waste impacts were evaluated by assessing
whether area landfills have the capacity to accept the waste anticipated to be generated by the proposed
rehabilitation and construction activities.
The No Action alternative would not involve construction or other subsurface activities during which
hazardous materials or environmental contamination could be encountered, nor would it have any effect on
the types or quantities of hazardous materials currently used at the Airport. The No Action alternative would
not generate additional solid waste from construction, rehabilitation, or other activities, and, therefore, would
have no impact on solid waste disposal at the Airport. The No Action alternative, however, would not address
outstanding environmental issues that exist within the APE. Potential site soil, groundwater, and building
material contamination exist as a result of the historical uses of the DalFort site and the past and present
existence of USTs within the APE. These issues would not be addressed by the No Action alternative and
adverse impacts to soil, air, and water quality within the APE and the Indirect Study Area could occur.
A variety of hazardous materials typically associated with operation of a commercial airport, including those of
airport tenants, are used at the Airport. Such use and activities are strictly regulated by numerous federal,
State, and local safety regulations. Because the Proposed Action would not involve the generation, use, or
storage of hazardous materials in quantities or types that are substantially different from those currently
associated with the Airport, the Proposed Action would not create additional long-term risks to the public or
the environment from these substances. Further, development of new facilities at the Airport would be
subject to current safety management requirements and design standards that serve to minimize, if not avoid,
the potential for, and significant hazards from, upset and accident conditions. Potential impacts would,
therefore, be less than significant.

[Draft]
Activities at the former DalFort facility included maintenance and repair services for commercial airlines. In
addition to database listings, other potential environmental issues observed during a Phase I ESA
16
at the
DalFort site were related to the following onsite facilities and equipment:
A former hazardous materials storage area
A former plating room
Several sand and aluminum oxide blasting areas
Hydraulic pumps, as well as associated hydraulic equipment throughout the DalFort facility
12 USTs and ASTs ranging in capacity from less than 300 gallons to 10,000 gallons
Other, smaller amounts of petroleum-products (e.g., lubricants and solvents), waste materials (e.g., used oils,
cleaning residues, and spent batteries) and manufactured chemicals (e.g., herbicides, fertilizers, paints, fire-
fighting foam, deicing fluids) were routinely used at the DalFort site in support of aircraft and motor vehicle
maintenance and for a range of other functions.
Remediation Plan
In accordance with applicable regulations, a Remediation Plan (RP) would be implemented during the
rehabilitation of the DalFort facility. The presence of asbestos-containing building materials (ACBMs) has
been confirmed within the DalFort facility. To the extent practicable, all confirmed ACBMs would be
abated/removed from the DalFort facility and properly disposed of in accordance with applicable federal and
State regulations, and good industrial hygiene practices. In the event that any ACBMs are managed in place,
such abatement would also be conducted in accordance with applicable federal and State regulations, and
good industrial hygiene practices. Prior to conducting the general rehabilitation activities in predetermined
areas of the DalFort facility requiring asbestos abatement, final inspections and final air clearance sampling
would be conducted and all affected spaces would be decontaminated to the levels required by State
regulations.
During rehabilitation activities, it is presumed that additional suspect ACBMs will be encountered that were
previously inaccessible or concealed during past asbestos inspections. Rehabilitation activities will be
monitored by an Asbestos Inspector licensed by the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) to aid
identification methods and procedures. If any potential ACBM is identified during the rehabilitation activities,
adequate sampling would be conducted by a DSHS-licensed Asbestos Inspector and analyzed in a timely
manner to determine the material's content. No work shall be permitted where suspect materials were
uncovered until the materials in question are either determined to be non-asbestos-containing or have been
properly abated.

16
[Draft]
Certain indicators of the presence of fungal growth or other contaminants may have been latent, inaccessible,
unobservable, or not present during past assessment/sampling activities and may subsequently become
observable or exposed during rehabilitation activities. Past fungal growth and bioaerosol assessment
activities at the DalFort facility, by their nature, are opinion-oriented because findings are derived from:
(1) analyses and observations made at a specific date and time; (2) predominantly non-invasive and non-
destructive sampling and reconnaissance activities; (3) occupant interviews as to source and location of
potential areas of fungal growth; and (4) lack of applicable regulatory and/or medical guidelines.
During the rehabilitation activities, if potential fungal growth is observed, appropriate sampling and remedial
activities would be initiated (if required). Areas exhibiting visual evidence of fungal growth would be
physically sampled by tape lift sampling methods. In addition, limited bioaerosol sampling of the air within
the immediate vicinity of the suspected fungal growth would be conducted to assess concentrations of fungi.
All fungal growth remediation activities would be undertaken by an experienced and appropriately licensed
fungal abatement contractor in accordance with the Texas Mold Assessment and Remediation Rules.
In addition, the RP would address post-rehabilitation activities associated with the regulatory closure of the
onsite leaking USTs and subsurface impacts attributable to past spills, leaks, or releases of hazardous
substances and/or petroleum products. The RP would include pertinent information from the DalFort facilitys
soil management plan (SMP) and groundwater management plan (GMP) because of the presence of
hazardous substances and/or petroleum products that have affected the subsurface. The RP would also
incorporate pertinent aspects of the Airports SWPPP.
The purpose of the RP would be to ensure that human health would not be affected as a result of the
Proposed Action and that impacts to the environment would be remediated to the extent practicable. The RP
would be developed in compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards and
requirements of the Texas DSHS. The RP would address the proper identification, handling, removal, and
disposal of contaminated and/or hazardous materials present at the DalFort facility.
The RP would be developed with assistance and direction from the City of Dallas OEQ. It has been
determined that remedial activities at the DalFort facility are subject to the TCEQ TRRP rule, Title 30 Texas
Administrative Code (30 TAC) Chapter 350.
17
Therefore, the RP would be designed to conform to the remedial
guidance and standards set forth in the TRRP rule. The TRRP rule applies to releases that occur under the
jurisdiction of a TCEQ Remediation Division program. The intent of the TRRP is to provide a common risk-
based set of criteria for releases that can threaten human health and the environment. TRRP also provides for
specific requirements that govern proposed remedies for these releases.
The TRRP rule specifies the assessment, monitoring, cleanup, reporting, and any post-response care and
financial assurance requirements that certain response actions and waste management unit closures must

17
The TRRP rule and confirming rule changes were originally published in the Texas Register on September 17, 1999, became effective on
September 23, 1999, and were revised effective March 19, 2007.
[Draft]
meet. The State of Texas is authorized by the USEPA to carry out the federal RCRA program in place of the
USEPA for closures, corrective actions, and other core RCRA functions. Prior to TRRP, RCRA closures and
corrective actions were conducted under the Risk Reduction Rule (30 TAC Chapter 335, Subchapters A and S).
Where comparable federal regulations exist, the TRRP rule has been designed to mesh with those regulations
so that compliance with both State and federal requirements can be accomplished without conflict. As
indicated in 30 TAC 350.2(a), any more stringent or additional requirements found in the RCRA program
must be met.
In accordance with requirements set forth in the TRRP rule, analytical sampling data generated from the
DalFort facility related to remediation would be generated by a laboratory accredited by the TCEQs Texas
Laboratory Accreditation Program under the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference
standard for matrices, methods, and parameters of analysis.
The Sponsor is concurrently pursuing an MSD for the Airport, which includes the DalFort facility. The
analytical data, environmental reports, and regulatory interaction associated with the DalFort facility
investigation and remediation will aid the Sponsors MSD application process. The purpose of an MSD is to
allow the removal of a groundwater ingestion pathway through passage of a City ordinance and then TCEQ
certification. The MSD is applicable to sites where shallow groundwater use did not include potable uses.
The DalFort facility entered the Texas VCP in 2012 and investigations have been completed, as summarized in
an Affected Property Assessment Report (APAR) prepared to both Commercial/Industrial standards and
Residential standards. Based on the APAR conclusions, necessary remedial measures will be undertaken to
complete closure. The APAR will include land use classification, groundwater classification, selection of target
COCs, review and reporting of COC concentration data, screening target COCs from PCLs, description of
institutional controls, notification requirements, development of human health PCLs, and notation of any PCL
Exceedance Zones. The final remedy proposed will be outlined within a Response Action Plan and
documented in the subsequent Response Action Completion Report.
Sampling activities designed to identify contaminated or hazardous materials and substances are ongoing and
will continue during the rehabilitation activities in accordance with applicable regulations. The full extent of
contamination is unknown at this time because of the potential of encountering additional areas of
contamination and the inaccessibility of areas beneath the DalFort facilities. Additional contamination may be
encountered during activities such as UST excavations and rehabilitation activities that expose previously
inaccessible ACBMs.
Proposed Action Facilities
Implementation of the Proposed Action, which includes construction and operation of corporate GA facilities,
may involve the handling of hazardous materials/wastes; however, such materials/wastes would generally be
of a common nature, such as fuels, lubricants, paints, cleansers/solvents, and the like. No acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or wastes are anticipated to be associated with the proposed corporate GA facilities. As
stated earlier, the handling of hazardous materials/wastes at the Airport is subject to a number of federal,
State, and local safety regulations. Based on the nature of the materials/wastes associated with the Proposed
[Draft]
Action and the existing regulatory framework that applies to the handling of such materials/wastes, potential
impacts, if any, in the nearby area would be less than significant.
In summary, the Proposed Action would not involve the generation, use, or storage of hazardous materials in
quantities or types that are substantially different from those currently associated with the Airport and would
not create a significant long-term hazard to the public or the environment.
4.12.3.1 Solid Waste
Operation of the proposed corporate GA facilities is anticipated to result in an increase in solid waste
generated at the Airport. This increase would be negligible in comparison to the available disposal capacity.
Construction and rehabilitation activities would result in a temporary increase in solid waste generated at the
Airport. However, recycling, salvage, reuse, and disposal options would be identified in the RP in advance of
all activities to minimize the amount of debris directed to local landfills. Locations for sorting of materials for
reuse and recycling would also be identified. Therefore, the Proposed Action would have a less than
significant impact on the solid waste disposal system. The disposal of municipal (nonhazardous) waste would
likely occur at the McCommas Bluff Landfill in accordance with applicable State and local requirements.
Any special or hazardous waste resulting from construction, rehabilitation, and operations at the Airport
would not be disposed of at the McCommas Bluff Landfill and would instead be disposed of at a landfill
approved to receive special or hazardous waste, as required by local and State regulations, or otherwise
treated/managed in accordance with federal, State, and local requirements. The RP would address specific
waste issues based on site COCs once necessary investigations identify all existing COCs and concentrations.
Asbestos is considered a special waste, as defined in 30 TAC 330, and it must be transported by a licensed
asbestos waste transporter to a licensed asbestos waste facility/landfill, most likely the Lewisville Landfill. Soil
must be characterized through sampling and laboratory analysis prior to the determination of disposal
methods. The RP would address any necessary soil excavation, transportation, and disposal once the full
investigation and analysis are complete.
The potential impacts of the Proposed Action related to the regulation of solid waste would be less than
significant.
4.12.4 MITIGATION MEASURES
As noted above, several measures would be used to mitigate the impact of hazardous materials, pollution, and
solid waste resulting from the Proposed Action. An RP would be developed for the specific needs of the
Proposed Action and would identify and address hazardous materials, pollution, and solid waste generated by
development and operation of the Proposed Action. The RP would identify specific issues related to existing
facilities at the Airport and ensure that these issues are addressed in accordance with federal, State, and local
regulations; an SMP and a GMP would be included. The Sponsor is also in the process of obtaining an MSD
for the Airport that would restrict the use of wells and groundwater. Additionally, the construction process
and future facilities at the DalFort site would be in accordance with the Airport SWPPP and be subject to
federal, State, and local storm water regulations.
[Draft]
4.13 Construction Impacts
Construction of the Proposed Action may create some unavoidable temporary impacts to surrounding
communities, such as noise, fugitive dust, and degraded water quality. Most of these impacts can be
mitigated using proper construction techniques, many of which are regulated. The Proposed Action would be
undertaken in accordance with applicable State and local ordinances and regulations, and FAA Advisory
Circular 150/5370-10F, Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports, Item P-156, Temporary Air and Water
Pollution, Soil Erosion, and Siltation Control. Construction activities related to the Proposed Action would
include partial demolition of certain facilities on the DalFort site. The potential effects of all activities related
to the Proposed Action, including any demolition, have been considered in this section.
As no construction activities would occur under the No Action alternative, the following analysis of
construction-related impacts is specific to the Proposed Action.
4.13.1 EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION
Proposed short-term grading, excavation, and construction activities would increase the potential for erosion
and the offsite transport of eroded material (sedimentation). Erosion control requirements under TPDES
standards are discussed in Section 4.6, Water Quality, because of the relationship between this issue and
water quality concerns.
4.13.2 NOISE
Construction activities associated with implementation of the Proposed Action may result in the temporary
exposure of Airport employees and patrons to the generation of groundborne vibration and groundborne
noise. Rehabilitation of the DalFort facilities and soil and groundwater remediation would require some minor
excavation. Because of the location of the DalFort site relative to the airfield and local roadways, the noise
generated by construction activities would not be significantly greater than the noise generally experienced in
the surrounding areas. Therefore, any groundborne vibration or noise impacts resulting from construction
activities would be temporary and have no significant effect.
4.13.3 AIR QUALITY
Construction activities would include rehabilitation, site preparation, grading, structure construction, paving,
and partial demolition of some facilities on the DalFort site. These activities would require the use of heavy
trucks, excavating and grading equipment, material loaders, dozers, cranes, and paving equipment. Emissions
would occur as a result of these activities from: (1) engine exhaust from construction worker vehicle trips to
and from the site, (2) trips by trucks hauling raw materials, supplies, and fill material and the operation of
construction equipment at the site, and (3) fugitive dust emissions during ground-disturbing activities,
materials handling, and equipment use on unimproved surfaces. The construction period would extend
through 2015.
Section 4.5, Air Quality, presents a discussion of emissions related to the Proposed Action as part of the
overall conformity determination air quality analysis. Construction-related activities associated with the
[Draft]
Proposed Action would result in an increase in emissions compared with the No Action alternative during the
2015 construction period. Total emissions (operational and construction) resulting from the Proposed Action
are summarized in Table 4-2.
The emissions presented in Table 4-2 include the construction-related emissions resulting from
implementation of the Proposed Action. As shown, the emissions associated with the Proposed Action would
be below established de minimis thresholds. In addition, the Proposed Action would not be considered
regionally significantemissions resulting from the construction of the Proposed Action would represent a
minute fraction of total emissions in the region. Therefore, a general conformity determination is not required
for the Proposed Action. No adverse air quality impacts are expected to result from implementation of the
Proposed Action; therefore, the Proposed Action is presumed to conform with the SIPs addressing the Dallas-
Fort Worth area.
4.13.4 WATER QUALITY
As discussed in Section 4.6, construction activities associated with the Proposed Action have the potential to
generate water pollutants, such as sediments from grading/ground disturbance; fuels, oil, grease, and solvents
from construction equipment fueling and servicing; metals from steel/iron work; paints; miscellaneous
chemicals stored and used during construction; and trash and debris. Potential water quality impacts would,
however, be addressed through compliance with the construction activity requirements specified in the RP,
the Airport SWPPP, and the TPDES General Permit to Discharge Wastes (TXR150000) for construction sites,
which requires the preparation and implementation of an SWPPP specific to the proposed construction
activities.
4.13.5 NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY SUPPLY
Construction associated with the Proposed Action would require natural resources, including, but not limited
to: petrochemical construction materials, lumber, sand and gravel, steel, copper, and other metals and
construction materials. Fossil fuels for construction equipment and vehicles would also be consumed.
Construction activities for the Proposed Action are anticipated to follow up-to-date industry standards and all
applicable federal, State, and local regulations. Therefore, the incremental increase in the demand for natural
resources and energy from construction activities is expected to be less than significant.
In addition, construction of the Proposed Action would require water for dust suppression and would
generate small amounts of construction waste and construction debris. Minimal wastewater is expected to be
generated during construction. These utility and service needs would be within the capacity of the respective
utility and service systems and would not cause a significant impact.
Construction of the Proposed Action could also require that the relocation of existing utility infrastructure.
Prior to severing existing utility lines, replacement lines would be brought into service. Accordingly, service
disruptions would be avoided or limited to the short amount of time necessary to connect replacement lines.
All utilities would be relocated in close coordination with (or by) the respective service providers. Accordingly,
construction impacts on utilities and service systems would not be significant.
[Draft]
4.13.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, POLLUTION PREVENTION, AND SOLID WASTE
As discussed in Section 4.12, the proposed improvements are located in, or adjoining, areas of the Airport that
potentially contain hazardous materials or environmental contamination. In accordance with applicable
regulations, an RP would be developed and implemented during the rehabilitation of the DalFort facilities.
The RP would be developed for the specific needs of the Proposed Action and would identify and address
hazardous materials, pollution, and solid waste generated by development of the Proposed Action. The RP
would identify specific issues with existing facilities at the Airport and ensure that these issues are addressed
in accordance with federal, State, and local regulations, and that an SMP and GMP would be included. The
Sponsor is also in the process of obtaining an MSD for the Airport that would restrict the use of wells and
groundwater. Additionally, the construction process and future facilities at the DalFort site would follow the
Airport SWPPP, and be subject to federal, State, and local storm water regulations.
During construction of the proposed improvements, hazardous materials (i.e., fuel, waste oil, solvents, paint,
and other hydrocarbon-based products) would be used in quantities that are typical in the construction
industry. The construction contract documents would require that these materials be stored, labeled, and
disposed of in accordance with State and local regulations. The contractors would also be responsible for
reporting any discharges of hazardous materials or other similar substances (in amounts above their
reportable quantities). Contractors would be required to stop work in the event that previously unknown
contaminants are discovered during construction, or a spill occurs during construction, until the National
Response Center is notified. The RP would stipulate that local, State and federal authorities be notified in the
event of hazardous material spills and the responsible contractor shall be accountable for cleanup and
disposal of materials in accordance with applicable regulations.
Contaminated building materials, soil, or groundwater associated with the Proposed Action may be
encountered by the construction contractor. Therefore, the RP, plans, and specifications for the Proposed
Action would require the contractor(s) to include provisions for handling and disposing of these materials in
accordance with State and local regulations, if it becomes necessary.
Construction and rehabilitation activities would result in a temporary increase in solid waste generation at the
Airport. However, recycling, salvage, reuse, and disposal options would be identified in the RP in advance of
all activities to minimize the amount of debris directed to appropriate facilities. The RP would include the
identification of locations for the sorting of materials for reuse and recycling. Therefore, construction of the
proposed improvements would have a less than significant impact on the solid waste disposal system.
4.14 Cumulative Impacts
Consideration of potential cumulative impacts applies to those impacts resulting from implementation of the
Proposed Action. The consideration of cumulative impacts addresses the potential for individually minor but
collectively significant impacts to occur over time.
[Draft]
CEQ Regulations, Section 1508.7, define cumulative impacts as the incremental impacts of the action when
added to the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of the agency (federal or
non-federal) undertaking such actions. The impacts related to aircraft noise and compatible land use resulting
from the minor change in aircraft operations would not reach or exceed the threshold of significance when
considered with the impacts of the reasonably foreseeable future projects in the Indirect Study Area. Because
the Proposed Action would result in minor construction impacts and have minimal or no impact on other
resources, the Proposed Action in combination with other foreseeable future projects in the Indirect Study
Area would not reach or exceed thresholds of significance.
4.15 Other Considerations
The Proposed Action is not likely to be environmentally controversial and no known organized opposition to
the Proposed Action exists. The Proposed Action is consistent with the plans, goals, and policies of the
Sponsor. In addition, the Proposed Action is not likely to directly, indirectly, or cumulatively create a
significant impact on the human environment.

EA for the Redevelopment of the DalFort Site
Agency Coordinati on and Publ ic Involvement [5-1]
5. Agency Coordination and Public
Involvement
Under 40 CFR 1501.4, federal agencies are required to involve environmental agencies, applicants, and the
public, to the extent practicable, in preparing EAs. Therefore, when conducting the NEPA process, the FAA
and the airport sponsor are encouraged to begin early coordination with the appropriate federal, state, tribal,
and local agencies, including surrounding municipalities, to identify any possible environmental concerns as
the Draft EA was prepared. As described in Section 3.7, the FAA is integrating the NEPA and NHPA Section
106 public involvement processes. Therefore, the public involvement process has been specified to meet the
requirements of both regulations. Following release of the Draft EA document, a public workshop will be held
to present and receive input on the findings presented in the Draft EA. The primary components of the
agency coordination and public involvement program for the EA have included or will include:
Notification of the publication of the Draft EA for agency and public review in local English and
Spanish newspapers
A public workshop on August 11, 2014; and
Preparation of a Final EA that includes responses to comments received on the Draft EA and any
necessary revisions to the EA.
Keeping agencies and the public informed and gathering their input is an essential component of any
environmental study. The following sections summarize the agency coordination and public involvement
program for this EA.
5.1 Agency Coordination
Agency consultation was conducted by the FAA and DOA to explain the Proposed Action and solicit
comments and questions regarding the historic eligibility of the OMB. All coordination has been documented
in Appendix A. The following agencies were consulted by the FAA and DOA as part of the Draft EA
development and Section 106 process:
THC in its role as SHPO
National Park Service
City of Dallas
National Trust for Historic Preservation

[5-2] Agency Coordinati on and Publ ic Involvement
Preservation Texas
The North Texas Chapter of Documentation and Conservation of the Modern Movement
5.2 Availability of the Draft EA for Review
The Draft EA is available for review by the general public, government agencies, and interested parties
beginning on July 9, 2014. The Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EA for review and of the workshop
was published on July 11, 2014 in the following media:
The Dallas Morning News in print and electronically on http://www.dallasnews.com/
Al Da in print and electronically on http://aldiatx.com/
The NOA was also posted electronically on:
The DOA website: http://www.dallas-lovefield.com/
The City of Dallas website: http://dallascityhall.com
Copies of the Draft EA and the NOA are available for review at the locations listed in Table 5-1, which include
the DOA, area libraries, and the FAA Southwest Regional Office, Texas Airports Development Office, in Fort
Worth, Texas.
Table 5-1: Publication Locations for Draft EA
LOCATION ADDRESS CITY ZIP
FAA, Southwest Regional Office, Texas
Airports Development Office
2601 Meacham Boulevard Fort Worth 76137
DOA Office 8008 Cedar Springs Road Dallas 75235
Bachman Lake Library 9480 Web Chapel Road Dallas 75220
Grauwyler Park Library 2146 Gilford Street Dallas 75235
SOURCE: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., June 2014.
Anyone wishing to comment on the Draft EA is offered the opportunity to do so in writing, or in person at the
public workshop described in Section 5.3. Written comments must be postmarked no later than Monday,
August 25, 2014, and should be sent to:
Ms. Lana Furra
Assistant Airport Director
Dallas Love Field
City of Dallas Department of Aviation
8008 Cedar Springs Road
Dallas, TX 75235

Agency Coordinati on and Publ ic Involvement [5-3]
Comments may also be submitted until midnight, Monday, August 25, 2014 to the following electronic mail
address: DalFortEA@dallascityhall.com.
All comments received on the Draft EA will be considered by FAA and DOA in preparing the Final EA.
5.3 Public Workshop
A public workshop will be held to present the Draft EA, and to receive comments on the Draft EA from the
public and government agencies. The format of the workshop will be structured to provide an opportunity
for the public to discuss aspects of the Draft EA in an informal setting, and an opportunity to submit written
and/or verbal comments. The public workshop will be conducted from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. CDT on
Monday, August 11, 2014 at the following location:
Frontiers of Flight Museum
6911 Lemmon Avenue.
Dallas, TX 75209
A Spanish interpreter will be available at the workshop.
Notification of the public workshop has been accomplished through press releases and the published NOA in
the local media, as described in the previous section. Members of the public or agency representatives
wishing to comment will be able to provide verbal comments during the public workshop or written
comments at any time during the public review period. Free parking will be provided.
All comments received during the public and agency review period and responses to those comments will be
provided in the Final EA.


[5-4] Agency Coordinati on and Publ ic Involvement


[Draft]
References [1]
6. References
Benchmark Environmental Consultants, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, City of Dallas, DalFort Aerospace
and Former Legend Terminal, 7701 and 7777 Lemmon Avenue, Dallas, Dallas County, Texas, November 17,
2008.
City of Dallas, Dallas Love Field Impact Analysis Update in the Absence of the Wright Amendment, May 31, 2006.
City of Dallas, Maple-Mockingbird Project Plan & Reinvestment Zone Financing Plan, September 2009.
City of Dallas, Vision and Policy Plan: Stemmons Corridor Southwestern Medical District Area Plan, A Forward
Dallas Implementation Project, June 2010.
City of Dallas, CIP Projects List, August 2012.
City of Dallas, Dallas-Love Field Airport Impact Analysis/Master Plan, March 30, 2001.
City of Dallas, Department of Aviation, Love Field Airport Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, April 2012,
http://www.dallascityhall.com/aviation/lovefield_swppp.html (accessed: June 7, 2012).
City of Dallas, Office of Environmental Quality, Municipal Settings Designation,
http://www.dallascityhall.com/oeq/msd.html (accessed: June 7, 2012).
City of Dallas, Sanitation Services, McCommas Bluff Landfill,
http://dallascityhall.com/sanitation/mccommas_bluff.html (accessed: June 5, 2012).
ESRI, Microsoft Corporation-Bing Maps, Bing Maps Aerial-Dallas, TX, 2010.
ESRI, U.S. Geological Survey, Topographic Map-Dallas, TX, 2010.
Farmer & Associates, Inc., Drinking Water Survey Report, Former DalFort Aerospace/Legend Airlines Sit. 7701-7777
Lemmon Avenue, Dallas (Dallas County), Texas 75209, June 16, 2009.
Geo-Marine, Inc., Draft-Redevelopment of the Former Braniff/DalFort Aerospace Facility at Dallas Love Field, Dallas
County, Texas, August 2012, Appendix A.
[Draft]
[2] References
North Central Texas Council of Governments, Landfill Information: McCommas Bluff Landfill,
http://www.nctcog.org/envir/SEELT/disposal/facilities/details.asp?FacilityID=62 (accessed: June 5, 2012).
QORE, Inc., Draft Report of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Additional Services, DalFort Aerospace 7701
Lemmon Avenue, Dallas, Dallas County, Texas 75209, August 2003.
Ricondo & Associates, Inc., Dallas Love Field, Redevelopment of DalFort Aerospace Facilities Traffic Impact
Assessment, January 22, 2013.
State of Texas, Council on Environmental Quality, Geographical Texas Air Monitoring, online mapping database,
http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/monops/sites/mon_sites.html (accessed June 21, 2012).
Texas Water Development Board, Highest Daily Water Level, March 11, 2009,
http://midgewater.twdb.state.tx.us/twdbwells/el_paso (accessed April 30, 2012).
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, American Fact Finder, http://factfinder2.census.gov
(accessed May 4, 2012).
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, http://factfinder.census.gov
(accessed: May 4, 2012).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey of Dallas County, Texas online Web Soil Survey,
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/ (accessed August 29, 2012).
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, How to Apply the National
Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin 15, Washington, D.C., 1997.
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, Guidelines for Evaluating
and Documenting Historic Aviation Properties, National Register Bulletin. Washington, D.C., 1998.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Report No. FAA-AEE-97-03, Air Quality
Procedures for Civilian Airports and Air Force Bases, Washington, DC, April 1997, and the addendum, Report
No. FAA-AEE-04-03, September 2004.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Order 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions, April 28, 2006.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Report to Congress: National Plan of
Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), 2011-2015, September 27, 2010.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures, Change 1, effective March 20, 2006.
[Draft]
References [3]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Criteria Pollutant Reports,
http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/multipol.html (accessed: August 23, 2012).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 93, Determining Conformity of
Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans, Subpart B, November 30, 1993, as amended.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Critical Habitat Portal, http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/crithab/ (accessed July 30, 2012).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory Interactive Map,
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html (accessed July 27, 2012).
[Draft]
[4] References

[Draft]
List of Acronyms [7-1]
7. List of Acronyms
A
AC Advisory Circular
ACBM Asbestos Containing Building Material
AEM Area Equivalent Method
ALP Airport Layout Plan
APAR Affected Property Assessment Report
APE Area of Potential Effect
ARFF Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting
AST Aboveground Storage Tank
B
BMP Best Management Practices
C
CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
CBP Customs and Border Protection
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System
CESQG Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity
Generators
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO Carbon Monoxide
CORRACTS Corrective Acton Sites
COCs Contaminants of Concern
D
DART Dallas Area Rapid Transit
dBA A-weighted Decibels
DFW Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport
DNL Day-Night Average Sound Level
DOT Department of Transportation
DSHS Department of State Health Services
E
EA Environmental Assessment
EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
ERNS Emergency Response Notification
System
ESA Environmental Site Assessment

[Draft]
[7-2] List of Acronyms
F
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FBO Fixed Base Operator
FR Federal Register
G
GA General Aviation
GMP Groundwater Management Plan
H

I
IHWS Inactive Hazardous Waste Site
K

L
L&WCF Act Land and Water Conservation
Fund Act of 1965
LPST Leaking Petroleum Storage Tank
M
MSD Municipal Setting Designation
N
N/A Not Available or Not Applicable
depending upon context of information.
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NFRAP No Further Remedial Action Planned
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NO
X
Oxides of Nitrogen
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
NPIAS National Plan of Integrated Airport
Systems
NPL National Priorities List
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
O
O
3
Ozone
OEQ Office of Environmental Quality
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
OTHM Official Texas Historical Markers
P
PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PCL Protective Concentration Levels
PM
10
Particulate Matter
PM
2.5
Fine Particulate Matter
Q

R
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RP Remediation Plan
S
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
SIC Standard Industrial Classification
SIP State Implementation Plan
[Draft]
List of Acronyms [7-3]
SMP Soil Management Plan
SO
X
Oxides of Sulfur
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
T
TAC Texas Administrative Code
TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality
TERP Texas Emissions Reduction Program
THC Texas Historical Commission
TPDES Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TRRP Texas Risk Reduction Program
TSD Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
U
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S.C. United States Code
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
UST Underground Storage Tank
V
VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
W

X

Y

Z

[Draft]
[7-4] List of Acronyms


[Draft]
List of Preparers [8-1]
List of Preparers 8.
The following individuals contributed to the preparation of the Environmental Assessment. The information
provided in this section includes the organizations for which the individuals work, brief synopses of their
relative experience and qualifications, and their responsibilities in preparing this document.
8.1 Principal Federal Aviation Administration Reviewers
Dean McMath, Regional Environmental Team Lead
Qualifications Over 28 years of experience in NEPA compliance.
Responsibilities FAA review of the EA
John McFarlane, Environmental Protection Specialist
Qualifications Over 15 years of experience in biological assessment and NEPA compliance, with
significant experience preparing categorical exclusions, environmental assessments, and
environmental impact statements.
Responsibilities FAA coordination and review of the EA
8.2 City of Dallas, Aviation Administration
Mark Duebner, Director of Aviation
Qualifications Over 20 years of municipal experience with significant experience in business
development, procurement, police, public works, aviation, and special projects for the City Managers
Office. His main areas of expertise are finance, land use, real estate development, electronic
government applications, and customer service delivery.
Responsibilities Overall Project Direction as Airport Director.
Lana Furra, Assistant Director of Aviation
Qualifications Over 20 years of aviation experience, with significant experience in the Airports
Capital Development Program, Master Planning for Love Field and Dallas Executive Airport, the
Emergency Management Division, and the Love Field Art Program.
[Draft]
[8-2] List of Preparers
Responsibilities Overall review of the EA and coordination with the FAA.
Bill Brewer, Sponsors Contracting Project Manager
Qualifications Over 10 years of experience in environmental administration, reviewing NEPA
documentation, compliance oversight of storage tanks including remediation, air quality, municipal
setting designation, voluntary cleanup program, storm water, wildlife management, EMS, and the
noise quality program.
Responsibilities Review of air quality and hazardous materials sections.
8.3 Ricondo & Associates, Inc.
John Williams, Senior Vice President
Qualifications Over 30 years of experience in airport environmental and facilities planning studies,
with significant experience preparing and managing environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, airport master plans, and aviation activity forecasts.
Responsibilities Project management and quality assurance/quality control.
Stephen D. Culberson, Director
Qualifications More than 20 years of experience in airport environmental and planning analyses,
with significant experience preparing and managing environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, airport master plans, and aviation activity forecasts.
Responsibilities Project management; NEPA documentation; and purpose and need, alternatives,
affected environment, and environmental consequences analyses and documentation.
Christen Suda, Managing Consultant
Qualifications Nearly 10 years of experience in airport environmental and planning analyses, with
experience in facility planning, airport master planning projects, environmental impact statements,
environmental assessments, sustainability planning and implementation, and the management of on-
call planning projects.
Responsibilities NEPA documentation; and affected environment and environmental consequences
analyses and documentation.
Jason Apt, Managing Consultant
Qualifications 12 years of experience in airport environmental and planning analyses, with
significant experience preparing and managing air quality analyses in support of environmental
assessments, environmental impact statements, master planning projects, and State Implementation
Plan updates.
Responsibilities Air quality and noise analysis related to environmental consequences.
[Draft]
List of Preparers [8-3]
Charlie Cummings, Senior Consultant
Qualifications More than 5 years of experience in airport environmental and planning analyses,
with significant experience preparing categorical exclusions, environmental assessments and
environmental impact reports, and airport master planning projects.
Responsibilities NEPA documentation; and alternatives, affected environment, and environmental
consequences analyses and documentation.
Brian Philiben, Consultant
Qualifications More than 5 years of environmental consulting experience, with particular expertise
in land use planning.
Responsibilities Managing EA documentation and project records.
8.4 Farmer & Associates, Inc.
Christopher T. Jackson, Environmental Scientist
Qualifications More than 6 years of experience in environmental consulting. Field and report
preparation experience includes: Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments, including soil,
groundwater, and soil gas sampling; environmental assessments; affected property assessment
reports; municipal setting designations; biological evaluations; asbestos inspections (Texas
Department of State Health Services - licensed Asbestos Inspector - License #603140); wetlands and
waterway delineations; and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans and Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasures Plans.
Responsibilities Assisted in reviewing prior reports, site inspection, agency consultation, affected
environment, and remediation plan.
8.5 Geo-Marine, Inc.
Marsha Prior, PhD, Principal Investigator
Qualifications More than 18 years of experience conducting and managing cultural resources
investigations, including in-depth historical context, documentation of architectural resources, and
National Register of Historic Places eligibility recommendations. Meets the Secretary of the Interiors
Professional Qualification Standards for history and architectural history.
Responsibilities Management and quality control of evaluation, documentation, and National
Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 coordination with the Texas Historical Commission for
architectural resources.

[Draft]
[8-4] List of Preparers
Tanya McDougall, Architectural Historian
Qualifications More than 5 years of experience conducting historical and architectural
investigations, and conducting intensive research on and NRHP evaluations of buildings, structures,
and objects. Meets the Secretary of the Interiors Professional Qualification Standards for history and
architectural history.
Responsibilities Documentation and NRHP evaluation of architectural resources for National
Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 coordination with the Texas Historical Commission
8.6 Mead & Hunt, Inc.
Richard Mitchell, AICP, Cultural Resources Practice Leader
Qualifications 20 years of experience in cultural resources management, with primary focus on
historic resource surveys and evaluations, management plans, alternatives analyses, and National
Register of Historic Places nominations
Responsibilities National Register of Historic Places evaluation and analysis.
8.7 Modern Geosciences, Inc.
Kenneth Tramm, Phd, PG, CHMM
Qualifications More than 20 years of experience in noise, air quality, soil and groundwater
evaluations and analysis.
Responsibilities Hazardous materials evaluation and analysis.
8.8 Synergy Consultants, Inc.
Mary L. Vigilante
Qualifications More than 35 years of experience focused on the area of airport environmental
impact analysis, with significant experience preparing and managing environmental assessments and
environmental impact statements, DOT 4(f) statements, Part 150 studies, and sustainability plans.
Responsibilities DOT 4(f) evaluation and analysis.

Appendix A
Section 106 Consultation Documentation

DALLAS LOVE FI ELD MAY 2014
[DRAFT]
Secti on 106 Consultation Documentation
[1]
Section 106 Consultation
Documentation
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), through consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), consider the effects on historic
properties for the redevelopment of the DalFort site at Dallas Love Field in Dallas, Texas. A historic property is
defined as any prehistoric or historic district site, building, structure, or object listed in, or eligible for listing in,
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
During the Section 106 consultation process, interested parties provided input regarding the significance of
the DalFort facility via letters sent to the City of Dallas, the Texas Historical Commission (THC), the FAA, and
the National Park Service (NPS). These parties included the National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP),
Preservation Texas, Preservation Dallas, the North Texas Chapter of Documentation and Conservation of the
Modern Movement (DOCOMOMO).
Through consultation among the FAA, the THC, and the NPS, the 1958 Operations and Maintenance Building
(OMB) of the DalFort site was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, as indicated by the Keeper of the
NHRP in May 2013. The building is significant under NRHP Criterion A at the local level of significance for its
historical association with aviation development in Dallas. It is also significant under NRHP Criterion C at the
local level of significance as a notable example of the Midcentury Modern style (a style that was prevalent in
the Dallas area during the 1950s) designed by nationally prominent architects William Pereira and Charles
Luckman and overseen by locally prominent architect Mark Lemmon. Character defining features include a
wall of windows, flared roofs, and the use of concrete, glass, and steel. The NPS determined that the building
retains sufficient integrity to convey its historic and architectural significance and is, therefore, eligible for
listing in the NRHP.
The Section 106 Consultation Documentation Report, also referred to as Appendix A for the Environmental
Assessment (EA) of the Redevelopment of the DalFort Site, includes the following supporting letters and
reports (in chronological order):
Redevelopment of the Former Braniff/DalFort Aerospace Facility at the Dallas Love Field, Dallas
County, Texas Draft Report (August 2012);
Letter to Mark Wolfe at THC on behalf of Marsha Prior of Geo-Marine Inc. (August 23, 2012);
Request for SHPO Consultation Form on behalf of the FAA (October 2012);
[DRAFT]
Secti on 106 Consultation Documentation
[2]
Redevelopment of the Former Braniff/DalFort Aerospace Facility at the Dallas Love Field, Dallas
County, Texas Final Report (October 2012);
Letter to Linda Henderson at THC on behalf of David Preziosi from Preservation Dallas (November 19,
2012);
Letter to Linda Henderson at THC on behalf of Robert L. Meckfessel from the DOCOMOMO
(November 27, 2012);
Letter to Ms. Linda Henderson at THC on behalf of Lana Furra from the City of Dallas Department of
Aviation (DOA) (December 7, 2012);
Letter to Mark Wolfe at THC on behalf of J. Michael Nicely from the Texas Airports Development
Office of the FAA (February 12, 2013);
Letter to J. Michael Nicely at the Texas Airports Development Office, FAA, on behalf of Mark Wolfe
from the THC (March 1, 2013);
Letter to Carol Shull at NPS on behalf of Kelvin L. Solco, from the Airports Division at the FAA (March
12, 2013);
Letter to J. Michael Nicely at Texas Airports Development Office of the FAA on behalf of Beth
Wiedower from the NTHP (March 15, 2013);
Letter to Carol Shull at NPS on behalf of Anna Glover Hudson, Charlene Orr, and Walter Diggles, Sr.
from Preservation Dallas (March 25, 2013);
Determination of Eligibility Notification from the NRHP of the NPS (May 8, 2013);
Letter to Justin Kockritz at the THC on behalf of John MacFarlane from the Texas Airports
Development Office, FAA (January 28, 2014); and
Letter to John MacFarlane at Texas Airports Development Office, FAA, on behalf of Justin Kockritz
from the THC (February 3, 2014).

REDEVELOPMENT OF THE FORMER
BRANIFF/DALFORT AEROSPACE FACILITY
AT DALLAS LOVE FIELD,
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

DRAFT

by
Tanya McDougall

Principal Investigator
Marsha Prior, PhD

for
Ricondo & Associates, Inc.
Chicago, Illinois

MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS OF INVESTIGATIONS
NUMBER 569

August 2012

REDEVELOPMENT OF THE FORMER BRANIFF/DALFORT
AEROSPACE FACILITY AT DALLAS LOVE FIELD,

DRAFT

by
Tanya McDougall

Marsha Prior, Ph.D.

for
20 North Clark Street, Suite 1500
Chicago, Illinois 60602

NUMBER 569

Geo-Marine, Inc.
2201 K Avenue, Suite A2
Plano, Texas 75074

August 2012
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... iv
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY ............................................................ 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1
Consulting Parties ........................................................................................................................ 4
Area of Potential Effect ............................................................................................................... 5
Previously Designated and/or Identified Historic Properties ...................................................... 5
Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 5
Criteria for Listing on the NRHP ............................................................................................ 6
Eligibility Under Criteria Considerations ................................................................................ 7
CHAPTER 2 HISTORIC CONTEXT .............................................................................................. 8
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 8
Brief History of Dallas Love Field .......................................................................................... 9
Braniff Airways and Dallas Love Field ................................................................................. 11
CHAPTER 3 RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 14
NRHP Eligibility Recommendation .......................................................................................... 14
Operations and Maintenance Building .................................................................................. 14
Large Storage Building.......................................................................................................... 23
Small Storage Structure ......................................................................................................... 26
Dettermination of Effects .......................................................................................................... 28
REFERENCES CITED .................................................................................................................. 30

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Topographic map showing the project APE and evaluated resources .................................... 2
2. Aerial photograph showing the project APE and evaluated resources .................................... 3
3. 1942, aerial view of Braniff facilities on Roanoke Drive ..................................................... 12
4. Artist rendering of 1958, Braniff operations and maintenance building ............................... 12
5. 1958, aerial photo of Braniff operations and maintenance building ..................................... 13
6. View of faade, facing southwest ......................................................................................... 15
7. View of south and west elevation, facing east ...................................................................... 16
8. View of faade entrance and center bay, facing southwest ................................................... 17
9. View of south entrance, facing east ...................................................................................... 17
10. Showing partially closed retractable wall, facing east .......................................................... 18
11. View of retractable wall railing and pocket, facing northeast ............................................... 18
12. Showing ca. 1980 addition attached to main building, looking southwest ........................... 19
13. View of ca. 1980 addition, facing south ................................................................................ 20
14. View of ca. 1980 addition, facing northeast .......................................................................... 20
15. View of ca. 1995 addition, facing northeast .......................................................................... 21
16. View of parking structure north of west wing, facing southwest .......................................... 22
17. Oblique view of large storage building, facing east .............................................................. 24
18. View of west elevation, facing southeast .............................................................................. 24
19. Showing top of north addition, facing southwest .................................................................. 25
20. View of west elevation, facing east ....................................................................................... 26
21. Oblique view of small storage structure, facing southeast .................................................... 27

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author would like to thank several individuals involved in the creation of this report. Thanks
are extended to Anthony Asaad, City of Dallas, for his obliging support in the field. Thanks are
also extended to those at Geo-Marine, Inc., who were instrumental in producing this report.
Appreciation is extended to Michelle Wurtz and Marsha Prior for editing, Erin King for
developing topographic and historic site specific maps, and Denise Pemberton for formatting and
compiling the report.
1

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

The City of Dallas (City), is proposing to redevelop the former Braniff/Dalfort Aerospace facility
located on the northeast side of the Dallas Love Field airport (DAL), in Dallas, Texas. The
proposed project is sponsored by the City of Dallas, Aviation Administration, and reviewed by
the Federal Aviation Administration, acting as the lead federal agency to ensure compliance with
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for airport development actions.

The proposed redevelopment project would consist of the demolition of three architectural
resources, including the operations and maintenance building, large storage building, and small
storage structure (Figures 1 and 2). Following the demolition of all three buildings, the site
would be redeveloped for construction and operation of corporate aviation hangars and/or similar
aviation-related uses. Specifically, the site would be redeveloped with up to four corporate
general aviation hangars. Additional development would also include taxilanes and an apron to
accommodate new aeronautical facilities (Appendix A). Construction activities for the proposed
project would begin with the demolition of the three architectural resources in the fall of 2012,
which has a target timeline of up to one-year. This would allow construction of the general
aviation facilities to begin in the spring of 2013, with a target timeline of one-year.

The purpose for the proposed redevelopment project includes:
Utilize Airport property currently not in use or under-utilized
Improve Airport support facilities
Small storage structure
Large storage building
Operations and maintenance building
Figure 1. Topographic map of the Love Field APE and evaluated resources.
2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
mi
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
km
Source: Dallas (1981) USGS 7.5' quadrangle

G:\30xx\30582.00.02 Love Field\Figure1_Topo.mxd
APE
Operations and
maintenance
buildng
L
e
m
m
o
n

A
v
e
W
Lovers Ln
Figure 2. Aerial imagery of the Love Field APE and evaluated resources.
3
0 100 200 300 400 500
ft
0 50 100 150
m
Source: Bing Maps aerial imagery

G:\30xx\30582.00.02 Love Field\Figure2_Aerial.mxd
APE
4
Remediate outstanding environmental issues
Replace facilities unsuitable for reuse at the Airport
Increase non-airline revenue

The need for the proposed redevelopment project includes:
Accommodate plans for future aeronautical development at Dallas Love Field
Utilize otherwise vacant and developable building/property
Remove potential safety hazard
Remediate contaminated land and close outstanding environmental issues

Geo-Marine, Inc. (GMI), of Plano, Texas (GMI project #30582.00.02), was contracted by
Ricondo & Associates, Inc. (R&A) to perform the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
evaluation for the resources affected by the proposed redevelopment project. This evaluation was
conducted in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended through 2000 [16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.; P.L. 89665; 80 Stat. 915], requiring the
identification, documentation, and assessment of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
eligibility for historic non-archaeological resources. The purpose of this evaluation is to
determine if the resources are eligible for listing on the NRHP, and if so, to determine if the
proposed project would cause an adverse impact.

CONSULTING PARTIES

The following organizations or individuals are recommended as consulting partners:
City of Dallas
Dallas County Historical Commission
Preservation Dallas
Dallas Historical Society
Ricondo & Associates, Inc; and
Geo-Marine, Inc. (subcontractor)

5
AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT

The area of potential effect (APE) for this evaluation is defined as the former Braniff/Dalfort
Aerospace facility, located on the northeast side of the Dallas Love Field airport complex and on
the southwest side of Lemmon Avenue (see Figures 1 and 2). The total size of the APE is
approximately 18.8 acres. Determination for the APE boundary was based on the proposed
project location, project description, and resource types within the project area and adjacent areas.

PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED AND/OR IDENTIFIED HISTORIC PROPERTIES

Prior to conducting fieldwork, the THCs Historic Sites Atlas was consulted for the presence of
previously designated and/or identified historic properties within the APE including NRHP
properties, State Archeological Landmarks (SAL) and Official Texas Historical Markers
(OTHM), which includes Recorded Texas Historic Landmarks (RTHL), historic cemetery
markers, thematic markers, and 1936 Centennial Markers. The records search found no
previously designated historic properties are located within the project APE. However, located
approximately .05 miles south of the APE are three RTHLs with marker titles Love Field,
Oath of Office of President J ohnson, and Texas First Airmail and Passenger Service. In
addition, one RTHL was also found approximately .65 miles northwest of the APE with the
marker title Cochran Homeplace. These historic properties are a significant distance from the
APE and will not be affected by the proposed project.

METHODOLOGY

The architectural evaluation of the three resources formerly associated with Braniff/Dalfort
Aerospace was performed by Tanya McDougall, an architectural historian who meets the
Secretary of the Interiors professional qualification standards. The approach for this
architectural evaluation was guided by the National Park Service, Bulletin 15, How to Apply the
National Register Criteria for Evaluation (1997) and the bulletin, Guidelines for Evaluating and
Documenting Historic Aviation Properties (1998).

6
The project fieldwork was conducted on J une 20, 2012, and consisted of an on-site evaluation
noting features, conditions, and modifications of all three resources. Each resource was further
documented with digital photography. Contextual information regarding the physical, cultural,
and historic condition of the resources was gathered from the Dallas Public Library and on-line
sources. Research materials included topographic maps (Dates: 1965, 1973, and 1995), historic
aerials (Dates: 1953, 1968, 1970, 1982, 1989, 1995, and 2012), newspaper archive database, on-
line resources, and secondary literary sources. The information collected through research and
on-site observation provided the basis for the site specific historic context and information for
evaluating the significance of the three resources associated with the former Braniff/Dalfort
Aerospace facility.

Criteria for Listing on the NRHP

Buildings over 50 years of age may be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP based on four criteria
presented in 36 CFR Part 60.4 [a-d]. These four criteria are applied following the identification
of relevant historic themes or patterns. In brief, a resource may possess significance for:

(a) its association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
of history; or
(b) its association with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
(c) its illustration of a type, period, or method of construction, or for its aesthetic values, or
its representation of the work of a master, or if it represents a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
(d) its ability or potential to yield information important in prehistory or history.

Not only must a resource possess significance in order to be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, it
must also maintain a certain level of integrity. The National Register defines seven aspects of
integrity: (1) location, (2) setting, (3) design, (4) materials, (5) workmanship, (6) feeling, and (7)
association. Although not all seven aspects of integrity must be present for the resource to be
eligible, the resource must retain, overall, the defining features and characteristics that were
present during the propertys period of significance.

7
Eligibility Under Criteria Considerations

Ordinarily certain types of resources are not usually considered for listing in the NRHP, including
religious properties, birthplaces and graves, cemeteries, reconstructed properties, commemorative
properties, and resources achieving significance within the past fifty years. However, they can be
eligible if they meet one of the following Criteria Considerations in conjunction with one or more
of the four standard NRHP criteria listed above:

(a) a religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction
or historical importance; or

(b) a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant
primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly
associated with a historic person or event; or

(c) a birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no
appropriate site or building directly associated with his or her productive life; or

(d) a cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent
importance, from age, from distinctive design features, from association with historic
events; or

(e) a reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and
presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other
building or structure with the same association has survived; or

(f) a property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value
has invested it with its own exceptional significance; or

(g) a property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional
importance.

Since one of the resources to be evaluated is under 50 years of age, Criteria Consideration G will
be applied.

8

CHAPTER 2
HISTORIC CONTEXT

INTRODUCTION

The former Braniff/Dalfort Aerospace facility consists of two buildings and one structure located
on the northeast side of the Dallas Love Field airport complex along Lemmon Avenue in Dallas,
Texas. The three resources associated with the facility include the operations and maintenance
building, large storage building, and small storage structure. These resources were constructed
between 1958 and ca. 1985. The operations and maintenance building was constructed in 1958
for Braniff Airways as part of a building expansion at Love Field undertaken between 1955 and
1958. Soon after, ca. 1960, the larger storage building, located east of the operations and
maintenance building, was constructed as part of Braniffs facilities. The small storage structure,
located southeast of the operations and maintenance building, is a later addition constructed ca.
1985. In 1974, the Dallas/Fort Worth Regional Airport (now DFW International) was completed,
and Braniff moved their flight service from Love Field to DFW. Plagued by financial difficulties,
Braniff filed for bankruptcy in 1982, and the Dallas Love Field facilities were transferred to
Dalfort, a company created to operate the bankrupt Braniff Airways. In 1992, Braniff Airways
ceased all operations. The potential area of significance for the evaluated resources is
Transportation-air related, and the period of significance for the Braniff/Dalfort Aerospace
facility is 1958 through 1992, which encompasses the construction of the operations and
maintenance building in 1958, through the end of Braniffs existence in 1992.
9
Brief History of Dallas Love Field

Dallas Love Field was first established in 1917, as a flight training base for the U.S. Army during
World War I. The site for the base, located seven miles northwest of downtown Dallas, was
chosen by the Dallas Chamber of Commerce and leased to the U.S. Army (Bleakley 2011:7;
Cearley 1989:5). The base was named Love Field in honor of Lieutenant Moss Lee Love, who
was killed in 1913, in an airplane crash in San Diego, and was the eighth aviation officer killed
and the 10
th
fatality in Army aviation (Dallas Love Field 2012a). Buildings constructed in
support of the flight training base included 11 hangars, aviation repair depot, a restaurant, post
exchange, housing, and other military support buildings. The hangars and several other buildings
constructed during this period were located on the northwest side of the airfield. Love Field
remained a major training base through the end of the war, but military flight operations ceased in
1921. After the war, the facilities constructed for the military, including the hangars remained
intact. This allowed Love Field to continue its association with aviation activities, such as aerial
exhibitions, flight instruction, and occasional unscheduled air taxi flights to other cities (Bleakley
2011:7-8).

Through the 1920s, the popularity of commercial aviation increased dramatically, largely due to
the Air Mail Act of 1925, which allowed the U.S. Post Office to award contracts to commercial
air carriers. Public interest in aviation was also prompted by Charles Lindberghs 1927 New
York to Paris flight (Bleakley 2011:8). In 1927, the city of Dallas purchased 167 acres of the
airfield for a private airport, which was truly the beginning of Love Fields development as a
commercial airport. Soon after in 1928, Delta Air Service, Inc., began offering regular passenger
service from Love Field to J ackson, Mississippi (Dallas Love Field 2012b). Later that same year,
Braniff Air Lines, an Oklahoma based company, started its service from Love Field to Wewoka,
Tulsa, and Oklahoma City (Cearley 1989:6). Between 1930 and 1940, the demand for
commercial flights at Love Field had increased so much it became necessary to construct a new
terminal building. The 1940 terminal building was located at what is now George Coker Circle,
near Lemmon Avenue.

Only two years after the terminal building was constructed, the United States entered World War
II, and Love Field was reinstated for military service. During the war, the airfield served as the
headquarters for the United States Air Transport Command, providing a maintenance depot and
10
hub for the 5
th
Ferrying Group. Also stationed at Love Field were a large group of service pilots,
including the famed Women Airforce Service Pilots or WASP (Bleakley 2011:8).

After World War II, military operations were withdrawn from Love Field and commercial
aviation resumed. Due to the growing popularity of air travel during the postwar years, it was
necessary for Love Field to expand the 1940 terminal building by adding an east wing and north
wing, completed between 1947 and 1948 (Dallas Love Field 2012b). However, it was not long
before Love Field outgrew even the expanded terminal. Plans for a completely new terminal
building began in the early-1950s, and was completed in 1958. The new terminal featured three
concourses with moving sidewalks and the Luau Room restaurant above the main lobby (Love
Field Modernization 2012).

Although the new terminal building generated additional revenue and increased commercial
flights, in 1964 it was decided that a new airport would be constructed to serve both the Dallas
and Fort Worth areas. The issue over a common airport had been debated since 1940, but with
the onset of World War II, followed by additional limitations, a firm decision was never made
until the Civil Aeronautics Board forced the two cities to agree on a single facility in 1964
(Bleakley 2011:89). Construction of the new airport began in 1969, which led to all existing
airlines flying in the Dallas/Fort Worth area to sign an agreement to move their flights to the new
airport, once it opened. However, the new airport did not open until 1974, and airlines were
forced to expand their operations at Love Field until that time (Love Field Modernization 2012).

With the opening of the Dallas/Fort Worth airport, Love Field lost all of its carriers except for the
newly established Southwest Airlines, a low cost carrier founded in 1971. Since Southwest was
established after 1969, it had not signed the airport agreement and was allowed to continue
service from Love Field after 1974 (Leatherwood 2012; Love Field Modernization 2012).
Subsequent legal battles ensued over the issue, but in 1977, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
upheld an injunction by the U. S. District Court, allowing Southwest Airlines to continue
operations from Love Field (Love Field Modernization 2012). In 1978, the airline industry was
deregulated, which provided Southwest with the opportunity to offer service beyond cities in
Texas. Since then, Southwest has continued service at Love Field, which has developed into a
significant airport facility, offering flights throughout the United States (Love Field
Modernization 2012).
11
Braniff Airways and Dallas Love Field

Braniff Airways began as Braniff, Inc., in 1928, with Paul R. Braniff as president and Tom
Braniff as vice-president. The Oklahoma City based company offered a variety of services,
including distribution, charter operations, and aviation training. In 1929, the company was sold
to Universal Aviation Corp. of St. Louis, and incorporated as Braniff Air Lines, Inc. Later that
year Braniff began offering passenger service from Dallas Love Field to Wewoka, Tulsa, and
Oklahoma City (Cearley 1989:11). In 1934, The U.S. Post Office awarded Braniff the airmail
route between Dallas and Chicago, and later that year the company moved its operations and
maintenance facilities to Love Field, though company headquarters remained in Oklahoma City
(Kutner 2012).

Keeping the company headquarters in Oklahoma City proved to be difficult, thus in 1941, Braniff
began construction on a new headquarters at Love Field, which officially opened in 1942 (Motta
1986:11). In that same year, Love Field began serving military purposes in support of World War
II. Braniff, along with other airlines helped supply planes to the military by turning over a
portion of their fleet. In addition to supplying aircraft, Braniff assisted in the war effort by
training pilots, radio operators, and mechanics (Kutner 2012).

Following the war, Braniff experienced tremendous growth, adding hangars and shops to their
facilities at Love Field along Roanoke Drive (Figure 3). However, due to the continued increase
in commercial air travel during the postwar years, both Braniff and Love Field eventually
outgrew their existing facilities. To remedy this, Braniff signed a 30-year agreement with the
City of Dallas for the lease and construction of a new operations and maintenance building, which
was constructed in conjunction with the new Love Field terminal building. Construction of both
buildings was completed in 1958, with the terminal building located at the former Braniff site on
Roanoke Drive and the new Braniff building located on the northeast side of the airfield (Figures
4 and 5; Grand Prairie Texas 12 J une 1955). During this period, Braniff also constructed a new
ten-story headquarters building, located west of Love Field at Exchange Park in Dallas (Cearley
1980:25).
12

3. 1942, aerial view of Braniff facilities on Roanoke Drive

Figure 3. 1942, aerial view of Braniff facilities on Roanoke Drive (photo acquired from Cearley 1989:32).

4. Artist rendering of 1958, Braniff operations and maintenance building

Figure 4. Artist rendering of 1958, Braniff operations and maintenance building (photo acquired from Cearley
1986:90).

In 1964, the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth agreed to construct a common airport, and all airline
carriers operating in the Dallas/Fort Worth areas signed agreements in 1969, to move their flights
to the new airport, upon its opening. The DFW airport opened to commercial flights on January
13, 1974. In that same year, Braniff began to occupy a maintenance hangar at DFW, but also
maintained its facilities at Love Field. By 1978, Braniff moved from its headquarters at
Exchange Park and into its new World Headquarters at DFW (Braniffpages 2012).

13

5. 1958, aerial photo of Braniff operations and maintenance building

Figure 5. 1958, aerial photo of Braniff operations and maintenance building (photo acquired from Cearley 1986:88).

Between 1958 and 1978, Braniff experienced immense growth, adding destinations throughout
the world to its service area. After the airline industry was deregulated in 1978, company
president Harding L. Lawrence began to borrow funding to further expand the airlines routes and
equipment. The investment would prove to be a failure and in 1982, the company was forced to
file for bankruptcy (Bleakley 2011:103). After two failed attempts to revive the company, the Jay
Pritzker family of Chicago obtained bankruptcy court approval to revive the company, and thus
created the company Dalfort to operate Braniff (Kutner 2012; Galveston Daily News 14 June
1988). Faced with continual financial problems, and an increasingly competitive market, Braniff
(operated by Dalfort) ceased operations in 1992 (Kutner 2012). Aircraft activities at the former
Braniff Love Field facilities came to a complete end in 2002. Since then, the facilities have been
utilized as storage for the City of Dallas with some areas leased to various companies for other
purposes.

14

CHAPTER 3
RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In total, three resources associated with the former Braniff/Dalfort Aerospace facility were
evaluated for listing in the NRHP. These resources include the operations and maintenance
building, large storage building, and small storage structure. The potential area of significance
for these resources is Transportation-air related. The period of significance for the
Braniff/Dalfort Aerospace facility is 1958 through 1992, which includes the construction of the
operations and maintenance building in 1958, through the end of Braniff Airways in 1992.

NRHP ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION


General Description:
The former Braniff operations and maintenance building is located on the northeast side of the
Dallas Love Field airport complex. The building was constructed in 1958, for Braniff Airways as
part of an agreement between Braniff and the City of Dallas. The building was constructed in the
Mid-Century Modern style of architecture, a style that was prevalent in the Dallas area during the
1950s. Though the character defining features for this style can vary and are often dictated by
function, common features include a wall of windows, flared roofs, and the use of concrete, glass,
and steel.
15
The operations and maintenance building has three levels with the third level being a pop-up in
the center of the building, creating the multi-level inverted gable roof. The buildings east, west,
and south elevations are sheathed with corrugated metal, while the north elevation (faade)
displays glass, plaster, and corrugated metal (Figures 6 and 7). The building has an irregular
floor plan with a total area of approximately 400,000 square feet. The main body of the building
is rectangular in shape and measures approximately 438 feet (ft) in width and 466 ft in length.
Two wings project east and west from the north end of the main building and measure
approximately 110 ft in length with varying widths, 183 ft (east wing) and 397 ft (west wing). Of
the two wings, the west wing is original to the building (with additions) and the east wing was
added ca. 1980. Projecting from the center of the faade (north facing) and flanking the main
entrance are two additional wings. These wings are original to the building, identical in shape
and size, and measure approximately 91 ft in width and 50 ft in length.

6. View of faade, facing southwest

Figure 6. View of faade, facing southwest.
16

7. View of south and west elevation, facing east

Figure 7. View of south and west elevations, facing east.

Constructed to support Braniffs operations and aircraft maintenance, the building provides space
for both office purposes and aircraft maintenance. The office areas are located primarily at the
north end and center of the building, within all three levels. The main entrance, located on the
north elevation, consists of two sets of two single panel glass doors separated by fixed glass
panels. The glass doors blend with the fixed glass-panel wall covering the central bay of the
faade, which is flanked by the two north wings (Figure 8). A second primary entrance is located
on the south elevation. This entrance is centrally located and consists of a flat roof enclosed entry
with wrap around fixed-glass windows supported by a concrete wall. The doors to this entrance
are double single-glass panel and located on the east and west sides of the enclosure (Figure 9).

The buildings maintenance area encompasses the majority of the main building south of the
faade. This area is divided into an east bay and west bay with the south entrance and office
space separating the two. Each bay can be opened or closed with a metal retractable wall on rails
that retracts into a pocket located on the north end (Figures 10 and 11).

17

8. View of faade entrance and center bay, facing southwest

Figure 8. View of faade entrance and center bay, facing southwest.

9. View of south entrance, facing east

Figure 9. View of south entrance, facing east.
18

10. Showing partially closed retractable wall, facing east

Figure 10. Showing partially closed retractable wall, facing east.

11. View of retractable wall railing and pocket, facing northeast

Figure 11. View of retractable wall railing and pocket, facing northeast.
19
Additions and Modifications:
Since its construction in 1958, the operations and maintenance building has had two significant
additions. The first addition was completed ca. 1980, and includes a two-story wing projecting
from the north end of the east elevation. This addition is visible from the north and south, and
has a flat roof, corrugated metal sheathing, inset porch entrance on the west side of the north
elevation, and an enclosed stairwell on the west side of the south elevation (Figures 1214). The
second addition was added to the buildings original west wing ca. 1995, and includes a one-unit
and two-story projection off of the wings west end (Figure 15).

12. Showing ca. 1980 addition attached to main building, looking southwest

Figure 12. Showing ca. 1980 addition attached to main building, looking southwest.

Additional modifications made to the building have included the removal of the Braniff logos
from the center, east, and west bays of the south elevation; the addition of corrugated metal
sheathing along the south, east, and west elevations; the addition of corrugated metal sheathing
along the south side of the pop-up, now covering the once continuous band of windows; and the
20

13. View of ca. 1980 addition, facing south

Figure 13. View of ca. 1980 addition, facing south.

14. View of ca. 1980 addition, facing northeast

Figure 14. View of ca. 1980 addition, facing northeast.
21

15. View of ca. 1995 addition, facing northeast

Figure 15. View of ca. 1995 addition, facing northeast.

addition of several new openings to the south elevation, for both doors and windows.
Furthermore, the buildings setting has been altered by the addition of a multi-story parking
structure, constructed ca. 1995, located directly north of the west wing, completely blocking the
view of the west wing from the north (Figure 16).

The dates and nature of the additions and modification to the operations and maintenance
building were determined through the comparison of historic topographic maps, historic aerial
photographs, modern aerial photographs, a ca. 1960 color image, and on-site observation
(Braniffpages 2012; Google Earth 1995 and 2012; Perry-Castaeda Library Map Collection 1968,
1973, and 1995; United States Geological Survey [USGS] 1953, 1968, 1970, 1982, and 1989).

22

16. View of parking structure north of west wing, facing southwest

Figure 16. View of parking structure north of west wing, facing southwest.

Integrity:
The operations and maintenance building has remained in its original location on the northeast
side of the Dallas Love Field complex and continues to be associated with the airfield. Thus, the
resource has retained integrity of location, association, and feeling. However, due to the
additions, modifications, and alteration to its original setting, the resource has lost integrity of
materials, workmanship, design, and setting.

NRHP Recommendation:
The operations and maintenance building is not associated with a significant pattern of
development in aviation history in Dallas County and is not associated with any other historically
significant events or persons; therefore, the transportation air-related resource is recommended as
not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criteria A and B. The resource does exhibit the
features associated with the Mid-Century Modern style of architecture, but due to the lack of
integrity it is not a good example of its style; therefore, the resource does not possess sufficient
23
significance to meet NRHP eligibility under Criterion C for architecture at the state and local
levels. Furthermore, the resource has little potential to provide information that may contribute to
an understanding of human history or prehistory. Therefore, it is recommended not eligible for
inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion D.

Large Storage Building

Constructed ca. 1960, the large storage building is located within the Braniff/Dalfort Aerospace
facility and east of the operations and maintenance building. The large storage building was not
constructed in a discernible architectural style, but does exhibit a rectangular floor plan that
measures approximately 127 ft in width and 217 ft in length (Figure 17). The building is four
bays wide, one-story, and has a side gable roof covered with corrugated metal. Along the peak of
the roofline are six metal vents. The exterior walls of the building are sheathed in corrugated
metal sheets. The faade (facing west), exhibits two solid metal doors flanked by two overhead
doors, a centrally located filled-in overhead door opening, and two window openings covered
with solid metal sheets (Figure 18). Projecting from the north elevation is an addition with a
rectangular plan and side gable roof that sits lower than the primary roof (Figure 19).

One addition has been added to the large storage building since its construction ca. 1960. The
addition, constructed ca. 1980, projects from the north end of the building and has a corrugated
side gable roof that is lower than the buildings primary roof. Additional modifications include
the replacement of corrugated metal sheathing throughout the building and the infill of the
centrally located overhead door.

The dates and nature of the additions and modification to the large storage building were
determined through the comparison of historic topographic maps, historic aerial photographs,
modern aerial photographs, and on-site observation (Google Earth 1995 and 2012; Perry-
Castaeda Library Map Collection 1968, 1973, and 1995; United States Geological Survey
[USGS] 1953, 1968, 1970, 1982, and 1989).
24

17. Oblique view of large storage building, facing east

Figure 17. Oblique view of large storage building, facing east.

18. View of west elevation, facing southeast

Figure 18. View of west elevation, facing southeast.
25

19. Showing top of north addition, facing southwest

Figure 19. Showing top of north addition, facing southwest.

Integrity:
The large storage building has remained in its original location on the northeast side of the Dallas
Love Field complex and continues to be associated with the airfield. Thus, the resource has
retained integrity of location, association, feeling, and setting. However, due to the addition and
modifications the resource has lost integrity of materials, workmanship, and design.

The large storage building is not associated with a significant pattern of development in aviation
history in Dallas County and is not associated with any other historically significant events or
persons; therefore, the transportation air-related resource is recommended as not eligible for
inclusion in the NRHP under Criteria A and B. The resource also does not exhibit the work of a
master craftsman and was constructed in a common architectural style for storage buildings;
therefore, the resource does not possess sufficient significance to meet NRHP eligibility under
Criterion C for architecture at the state and local levels. Furthermore, the resource has little
26
potential to provide information that may contribute to an understanding of human history or
prehistory. Therefore, it is recommended not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion
D.

Small Storage Structure

The small storage structure, constructed ca. 1985, is located south of the large storage building
and southeast of the operations and maintenance building. The small storage structure measures
approximately 90 ft in length and 50 ft in width, and consists of a corrugated metal gable roof
supported by a metal frame and metal posts (Figures 20 and 21).

20. View of west elevation, facing east

Figure 20. View of west elevation, facing east.
27

21. Oblique view of small storage structure, facing southeast

Figure 21. Oblique view of small storage structure, facing southeast.

Through the comparison of historic topographic maps, historic aerial photographs, modern aerial
photographs, and on-site observation, it does not appear that the small storage structure has been
modified since its construction (Google Earth 1995 and 2012; Perry-Castaeda Library Map
Collection 1968, 1973, and 1995; United States Geological Survey [USGS] 1953, 1968, 1970,
1982, and 1989).

Integrity:
The small storage structure has remained in its original location on the northeast side of the
Dallas Love Field complex and continues to be associated with the airfield. In addition, the
structure has not been modified since it was constructed ca. 1985. Thus, the resource has retained
integrity of location, association, feeling, setting, materials, workmanship, and design.

28
The small storage structure is not associated with a significant pattern of development in aviation
master craftsman and was constructed in a common architectural style for storage structures;
D. As a resource under 50 years of age, it does not meet the requirement for exceptional
importance under Criteria Consideration G.

DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS

During this evaluation, no previously recorded historic resources were found within the APE.
Three architectural resources associated with the facility, including the operations and
maintenance building, large storage building, and small storage structure, were recorded and
evaluated for listing on the NRHP. Of these, only the small storage structure was found to have
retained all seven aspects of integrity. However, none are associated with a significant pattern of
development in aviation history in Dallas County and are not associated with any other
historically significant events or persons; therefore, these transportation air-related resources are
recommended as not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criteria A and B. The resources
also do not exhibit the work of a master craftsman and either lack integrity or were constructed in
a common architectural style; therefore, the resources do not possess sufficient significance to
meet NRHP eligibility under Criterion C for architecture at the state and local levels.
Furthermore, these resources have little potential to provide information that may contribute to an
understanding of human history or prehistory. Therefore, they are recommended not eligible for
inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion D. The small storage structure, under 50 years of age,
does not meet the requirement under Criteria Consideration G.

29
In view of the fact that none of the resources evaluated are NRHP eligible, the proposed actions
would have no adverse impact. Furthermore, no undocumented historic districts were
encountered during the survey and no potential historic districts are proposed as a result of this
investigation.
30

REFERENCES CITED

Bleakley, B.
2011 Dallas Aviation. Arcadia Publishing. Charleston, South Carolina.

Braniffpages
2012 Braniffpages. http://www.braniffpages.com/1965/1965.html. (accessed August 1,
2012).

Cearley, W.
1980 Braniff-With a Dash of Color and a Touch of Elegance. Airline Historical
Publications. Dallas, Texas.

1986 Braniff International Airways: The Building of a Major International Airline. Airline
Historical Publications. Dallas, Texas.

1989 A Pictorial History of Airline Service at Dallas Love Field. Airline Historical

Dallas Love Field
2012a History. http://www.dallas-lovefield.com/love-notes-history.html. (accessed June
20, 2012).

2012b Love Notes-Chronology of Events. http://www.dallas-lovefield.com/love-notes-
chronology-of-events.html. (accessed June 20, 2012).

Galveston Daily News, Galveston, Texas
1988 Report says Piedmont execs to buyout Braniff. 14 June 1988.

Google Earth
1995 Dallas Love Field. 325054.12N and 965028.81W. (accessed June 20, 2012).

2012 Dallas Love Field. 325054.12N and 965028.81W. (accessed June 20, 2012).

31
Grand Prairie Texan, Grand Prairie, Texas
1955 Dallas and Braniff Sign 30 Year Pad on 4 Million Base. 12 June 1955.

Kutner, J.
2012 Braniff Airways. http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/epbqm.
(accessed July 27, 2012).

Leatherwood, A.
2012 Love Field. http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/epl01. (accessed
July 27, 2012).

Love Field Modernization
2012 Love Field, History. http://www.lovefieldmodernizationprogram.com/history.
(accessed June 20, 2012).

Motta, D.
1983 A Short History of Braniff: The Early Years From 1928 to 1956: Dallas Public
Library. Unpublished Masters thesis, Department of Liberal Arts, Southern
Methodist University.

National Park Service (NPS)
1997 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register
Bulletin 15. National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

1998 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Historic Aviation Properties. National
Register Bulletin. National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, U.S.

Perry-Castaeda Library Map Collection
1968 Dallas Quadrangle. http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/topo/texas/txu-pclmaps-topo-
tx-dallas-1968.jpg (accessed July 26, 2012).



United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1953 Photo ID ARA001160101438: Roll 000010: Frame 1438. (search Aerial Photo
Single Frame). http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/ (accessed July 26, 2012).

1968 Photo ID AR1VBZU00030110: Roll 000003: Frame 110. (search Aerial Photo

1970 Photo ID AR6128A01200081: Roll 000012: Frame 81. (search Aerial Photo

32
1982 Photo ID AR5820031531714: Roll 03153: Frame 1714. (search Aerial Photo

REQUEST FOR SHPO CONSULTATION:

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and/or the Antiquities Code of Texas
This is a new submission.
This is additional information relating to THC tracking number(s):
Project Information
PROJ ECT NAME
PROJ ECT ADDRESS PROJ ECT CITY PROJ ECT ZIP CODE(S)
PROJ ECT COUNTY OR COUNTIES
PROJ ECT TYPE (Check all that apply)
Road/Highway Construction or Improvement
Site Excavation
Utilities and Infrastructure
New Construction
Repair, Rehabilitation, or Renovation of Structure(s)
Addition to Existing Structure(s)
Demolition or Relocation of Existing Structure(s)
None of these
BRIEF PROJ ECT DESCRIPTION: Please explain the project in one or two sentences. More details should be included as an attachment to this form.
Project Contact Information
PROJ ECT CONTACT NAME TITLE ORGANIZATION
ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE
PHONE EMAIL
Federal Involvement (Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act)
Does this project involve approval, funding, permit, or license from a federal agency?
Yes (Please complete this section) No (Skip to next section)
FEDERAL AGENCY FEDERAL PROGRAM, FUNDING, OR PERMIT TYPE
CONTACT PERSON PHONE
ADDRESS EMAIL
State Involvement (Antiquities Code of Texas)
Does this project occur on land or property owned by the State of Texas or a political subdivision of the state?
CURRENT OR FUTURE OWNER OF THE PUBLIC LAND
CONTACT PERSON PHONE
ADDRESS EMAIL
Please see instructions for completing this form and additional information on Section 106 and Antiquities Code
consultation on the Texas Historical Commission website at http://www.thc.state.tx.us/crm/crmsend.shtml.
VER 0811
Redevelopment of the Former Dalfort Aerospace Facility at DAL

7701 Lemmon Ave Dallas 75325
Dallas County
The proposed redevelopment includes the demolition of the former Dalfort Aerospace facility, including the operations and
maintenance building, large storage building, and small storage structure. The site would then be redevelopment for
construction and operation of corporate aviation hangars and/or similar aviation-related uses (See attached report).
William Brewer Environmental Manager City of Dallas - Aviation
8008 Cedar Springs Road, LB 16 Dallas TX 75235
214-670-6654 william.brewer@dallascityhall.com
Federal Aviation Administration Review only-Funding from City of Dallas

Paul Blackford 817-222-5607
2601 Meacham Boulevard
Fort Worth, TX 76137
paul.blackford@faa.gov
City of Dallas
William Brewer 214-670-6654
8008 Cedar Springs Road, LB 16
Dallas, TX 75235
william.brewer@dallascityhall.com
Identification of Historic Properties: Archeology
Does this project involve ground-disturbing activity?
Describe the nature of the ground-disturbing activity, including but not limited to depth, width, and length.
Describe the previous and current land use, conditions, and disturbances.
Identification of Historic Properties: Structures
Does the project area or area of potential effects include buildings, structures, or designed landscape
features (such as parks or cemeteries) that are 45 years of age or older?
Is the project area or area of potential effects within or adjacent to a property or district that is listed in or
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places?
Yes, name of property or district: No Unknown
In the space below or as an attachment, describe each building, structure, or landscape feature within the
project area or area of potential effect that is 45 years of age or older.
ADDRESS DATE OF CONSTRUCTION SOURCE FOR CONSTRUCTION DATE
Attachments
Please see detailed instructions regarding attachments.
Include the following with each submission:
Project Work Description
Maps
Identification of Historic Properties
Photographs
For Section 106 reviews only, also include:
Consulting Parties/Public Notification
Area of Potential Effects
Determination of Eligibility
Determination of Effect
For SHPO Use Only
Submit completed form and attachments to the
address below. Faxes and email are not acceptable.
Mark Wolfe
State Historic Preservation Officer
Texas Historical Commission
P.O. Box 12276, Austin, TX 78711-2276 (mail service)
108 W. 16th Street, Austin, TX 78701 (courier service)
PAGE 2 / VER 0811
REQUEST FOR SHPO CONSULTATION -- PROJECT NAME:
Three existing architectural resources will be demolished down to the foundation. The foundation will also be removed
followed by soil and groundwater remediation in limited areas associated with abandoned or former underground storage
tanks. The extent of remediation required won't be known until the buildings are demolished and the foundation removed,
but it is anticipated that excavations will be limited to 10-15 feet below ground level.
Project site completely paved over for aviation related uses. Two aviation related buildings and one aviation related
structure currently occupy the site. Only existing vegetation is landscaping developed during site's original construction in
1958.
See attached report
Redevelopment of the Former Dalfort Aerospace Facility at DAL

7701 Lemmon Ave Dallas Dallas County

REDEVELOPMENT OF THE FORMER
BRANIFF/DALFORT AEROSPACE FACILITY
AT DALLAS LOVE FIELD,

FINAL DRAFT

by
Tanya McDougall

Marsha Prior, PhD

for
Chicago, Illinois

NUMBER 569

October 2012

REDEVELOPMENT OF THE FORMER BRANIFF/DALFORT
AEROSPACE FACILITY AT DALLAS LOVE FIELD,

FINAL DRAFT

by
Tanya McDougall

Marsha Prior, Ph.D.

for
20 North Clark Street, Suite 1500
Chicago, Illinois 60602

NUMBER 569

Geo-Marine, Inc.
2201 K Avenue, Suite A2
Plano, Texas 75074

October 2012
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... iv
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY .......................................................... 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1
Consulting Parties ........................................................................................................................ 4
Area of Potential Effect ............................................................................................................... 5
Previously Designated and/or Identified Historic Properties ...................................................... 5
Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 5
Criteria for Listing on the NRHP ............................................................................................ 6
Eligibility Under Criteria Considerations ................................................................................ 7
CHAPTER 2. HISTORIC CONTEXT ............................................................................................ 8
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 8
Brief History of Dallas Love Field .......................................................................................... 9
Braniff Airways and Dallas Love Field ................................................................................. 11
Overview of the Architects .................................................................................................... 14
CHAPTER 3. RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................... 16
NRHP Eligibility Recommendation .......................................................................................... 16
Operations and Maintenance Building .................................................................................. 16
Large Storage Building.......................................................................................................... 20
Small Storage Structure ......................................................................................................... 22
Determination of Effects ........................................................................................................... 23
REFERENCES CITED .................................................................................................................. 25

APPENDICES:
A. Map of Proposed Action ................................................................................................. A-1
B. Results and Recommendations Figures ........................................................................... B-1
iii

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Topographic map showing the project APE and evaluated resources ...................................... 2
2. Aerial photograph showing the project APE and evaluated resources ..................................... 3
3. 1942, aerial view of Braniff facilities on Roanoke Drive ....................................................... 12
4. Artist rendering of 1958, Braniff operations and maintenance building ................................ 12
5. 1958, aerial photo of Braniff operations and maintenance building ....................................... 13

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author would like to thank several individuals involved in the creation of this report. Thanks
are extended to Anthony Asaad, City of Dallas, for his obliging support in the field. Thanks are
also extended to those at Geo-Marine, Inc., who were instrumental in producing this report.
Appreciation is extended to Michelle Wurtz and Marsha Prior for editing, Erin King for
developing topographic and historic site specific maps, and Denise Pemberton for formatting and
compiling the report.
1

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

The City of Dallas (City), is proposing to redevelop the former Braniff/Dalfort Aerospace facility
located on the northeast side of the Dallas Love Field airport (DAL), in Dallas, Texas. The
proposed project is sponsored by the City of Dallas, Aviation Administration, and reviewed by
the Federal Aviation Administration, acting as the lead federal agency to ensure compliance with
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for airport development actions.

The proposed redevelopment project would consist of the demolition of three architectural
resources, including the operations and maintenance building, large storage building, and small
storage structure (Figures 1 and 2). Following the demolition of all three buildings, the site would
be redeveloped with up to four corporate general aviation hangars and future non-aeronautical
uses (to be determined). Additional development would also include taxilanes and an apron to
accommodate the new aeronautical facilities (Appendix A). Construction activities for the
proposed project would begin with the demolition of the three architectural resources in early
2013 with construction starting later in the year

The purpose for the proposed redevelopment project includes:
Utilize Airport property currently not in use or under-utilized
Improve Airport support facilities
Operations and maintenance building
Figure 1. Topographic map of the Love Field APE and evaluated resources.
2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
mi
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
km
Source: Dallas (1981) USGS 7.5' quadrangle

G:\30xx\30582.00.02 Love Field\Figure1_Topo.mxd
APE
Operations and
maintenance
buildng
L
e
m
m
o
n

A
v
e
W
Lovers Ln
Figure 2. Aerial imagery of the Love Field APE and evaluated resources.
3
0 100 200 300 400 500
ft
0 50 100 150
m

G:\30xx\30582.00.02 Love Field\Figure2_Aerial.mxd
APE
4
Remediate outstanding environmental issues
Replace facilities unsuitable for reuse at the Airport
Increase non-airline revenue

The need for the proposed redevelopment project includes:
Accommodate plans for future aeronautical development at Dallas Love Field
Utilize otherwise vacant and developable building/property
Remove potential safety hazard
Remediate contaminated land and close outstanding environmental issues

Geo-Marine, Inc. (GMI), of Plano, Texas (GMI project #30582.00.02), was contracted by
Ricondo & Associates, Inc. (R&A) to perform the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
evaluation for the resources affected by the proposed redevelopment project. This evaluation was
conducted in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended through 2000 [16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.; P.L. 89665; 80 Stat. 915], requiring the
identification, documentation, and assessment of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
eligibility for historic non-archaeological resources. The purpose of this evaluation is to
determine if the resources are eligible for listing on the NRHP, and if so, to determine if the
proposed project would cause an adverse impact.

CONSULTING PARTIES

The following organizations or individuals are recommended as consulting partners:
City of Dallas
Dallas County Historical Commission
Preservation Dallas
Dallas Historical Society
Ricondo & Associates, Inc; and
Geo-Marine, Inc. (subcontractor)

5
AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT

The area of potential effect (APE) for this evaluation is defined as the former Braniff/Dalfort
Aerospace facility, located on the northeast side of the Dallas Love Field airport complex and on
the southwest side of Lemmon Avenue (see Figures 1 and 2). The total size of the APE is
approximately 25 acres. Determination for the APE boundary was based on the proposed project
location, project description, and resource types within the project area and adjacent areas.

PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED AND/OR IDENTIFIED HISTORIC PROPERTIES

Prior to conducting fieldwork, the THCs Historic Sites Atlas was consulted for the presence of
previously designated and/or identified historic properties within the APE including NRHP
properties, State Archeological Landmarks (SAL) and Official Texas Historical Markers
(OTHM), which includes Recorded Texas Historic Landmarks (RTHL), historic cemetery
markers, thematic markers, and 1936 Centennial Markers. The records search found no
previously designated historic properties are located within the project APE. However, located
approximately .05 miles south of the APE are three RTHLs with marker titles Love Field,
Oath of Office of President J ohnson, and Texas First Airmail and Passenger Service. In
addition, one RTHL was also found approximately .65 miles northwest of the APE with the
marker title Cochran Homeplace. These historic properties are a significant distance from the
APE and will not be affected by the proposed project.

METHODOLOGY

The architectural evaluation of the three resources formerly associated with Braniff/Dalfort
Aerospace was performed by Tanya McDougall, an architectural historian who meets the
Secretary of the Interiors professional qualification standards. The approach for this
architectural evaluation was guided by the National Park Service, Bulletin 15, How to Apply the
National Register Criteria for Evaluation (1997) and the bulletin, Guidelines for Evaluating and
Documenting Historic Aviation Properties (1998).

6
Initial project fieldwork was conducted on J une 20, 2012, and consisted of an on-site evaluation
noting features, conditions, and modifications of all three resources. Each resource was further
documented with digital photography. A second on-site visit was conducted October 1, 2012, to
obtain interior digital photographs and collect additional information regarding construction and
modifications. Contextual information regarding the physical, cultural, and historic condition of
the resources was gathered from the Dallas Public Library and on-line sources. Research
materials included topographic maps (Dates: 1965, 1973, and 1995), historic aerials (Dates: 1953,
1968, 1970, 1982, 1989, 1995, and 2012), newspaper archive database, on-line resources, and
secondary literary sources. The information collected through research and on-site observation
provided the basis for the site specific historic context and information for evaluating the
significance of the three resources associated with the former Braniff/Dalfort Aerospace facility.

Criteria for Listing on the NRHP

Buildings over 50 years of age may be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP based on four criteria
presented in 36 CFR Part 60.4 [a-d]. These four criteria are applied following the identification
of relevant historic themes or patterns. In brief, a resource may possess significance for:

(a) its association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
of history; or
(b) its association with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
(c) its illustration of a type, period, or method of construction, or for its aesthetic values, or
its representation of the work of a master, or if it represents a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
(d) its ability or potential to yield information important in prehistory or history.

Not only must a resource possess significance in order to be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, it
must also maintain a certain level of integrity. The National Register defines seven aspects of
integrity: (1) location, (2) setting, (3) design, (4) materials, (5) workmanship, (6) feeling, and (7)
association. Although not all seven aspects of integrity must be present for the resource to be
eligible, the resource must retain, overall, the defining features and characteristics that were
present during the propertys period of significance.

7
Eligibility Under Criteria Considerations

Ordinarily certain types of resources are not usually considered for listing in the NRHP, including
religious properties, birthplaces and graves, cemeteries, reconstructed properties, commemorative
properties, and resources achieving significance within the past fifty years. However, they can be
eligible if they meet one of the following Criteria Considerations in conjunction with one or more
of the four standard NRHP criteria listed above:

(a) a religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction
or historical importance; or

(b) a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant
primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly
associated with a historic person or event; or

(c) a birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no
appropriate site or building directly associated with his or her productive life; or

(d) a cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent
importance, from age, from distinctive design features, from association with historic
events; or

(e) a reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and
presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other
building or structure with the same association has survived; or

(f) a property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value
has invested it with its own exceptional significance; or

(g) a property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional
importance.

Since one of the resources to be evaluated is under 50 years of age, Criteria Consideration G will
be applied.

8

CHAPTER 2
HISTORIC CONTEXT

INTRODUCTION

The former Braniff/Dalfort Aerospace facility consists of two buildings and one structure located
on the northeast side of the Dallas Love Field airport complex along Lemmon Avenue in Dallas,
Texas. The three resources associated with the facility include the operations and maintenance
building, large storage building, and small storage structure. These resources were constructed
between 1958 and ca. 1985. The operations and maintenance building was constructed in 1958,
and designed by the architectural team of William Pereira and Charles Luckman for Braniff
Airways. Construction of the operations and maintenance building was completed as part of a
building expansion at Love Field undertaken between 1955 and 1958. Soon after, ca. 1960, the
large storage building, located east of the operations and maintenance building, was constructed
as part of Braniffs facilities. The small storage structure, located southeast of the operations and
maintenance building, is a later addition constructed ca. 1985. In 1974, the Dallas/Fort Worth
Regional Airport (now DFW International) was completed, and Braniff moved their flight service
from Love Field to DFW. Plagued by financial difficulties, Braniff filed for bankruptcy in 1982,
and the Dallas Love Field facilities were transferred to Dalfort, a company created to operate the
bankrupt Braniff Airways. In 1992, Braniff Airways ceased all operations. The potential area of
significance for the evaluated resources is Transportation-air related, and the period of
significance for the Braniff/Dalfort Aerospace facility is 1958 through 1992, which encompasses
the construction of the operations and maintenance building in 1958, through the end of Braniffs
existence in 1992.
9
Brief History of Dallas Love Field

Dallas Love Field was first established in 1917, as a flight training base for the U.S. Army during
World War I. The site for the base, located seven miles northwest of downtown Dallas, was
chosen by the Dallas Chamber of Commerce and leased to the U.S. Army (Bleakley 2011:7;
Cearley 1989:5). The base was named Love Field in honor of Lieutenant Moss Lee Love, who
was killed in 1913, in an airplane crash in San Diego, and was the eighth aviation officer killed
and the 10
th
fatality in Army aviation (Dallas Love Field 2012a). Buildings constructed in
support of the flight training base included 11 hangars, aviation repair depot, a restaurant, post
exchange, housing, and other military support buildings. The hangars and several other buildings
constructed during this period were located on the northwest side of the airfield. Love Field
remained a major training base through the end of the war, but military flight operations ceased in
1921. After the war, the facilities constructed for the military, including the hangars remained
intact. This allowed Love Field to continue its association with aviation activities, such as aerial
exhibitions, flight instruction, and occasional unscheduled air taxi flights to other cities (Bleakley
2011:7-8).

Through the 1920s, the popularity of commercial aviation increased dramatically, largely due to
the Air Mail Act of 1925, which allowed the U.S. Post Office to award contracts to commercial
air carriers. Public interest in aviation was also prompted by Charles Lindberghs 1927 New
York to Paris flight (Bleakley 2011:8). In 1927, the city of Dallas purchased 167 acres of the
airfield for a private airport, which was truly the beginning of Love Fields development as a
commercial airport. Soon after in 1928, Delta Air Service, Inc., began offering regular passenger
service from Love Field to J ackson, Mississippi (Dallas Love Field 2012b). Later that same year,
Braniff Air Lines, an Oklahoma based company, started its service from Love Field to Wewoka,
Tulsa, and Oklahoma City (Cearley 1989:6). Between 1930 and 1940, the demand for
commercial flights at Love Field had increased so much it became necessary to construct a new
terminal building. The 1940 terminal building was located at what is now George Coker Circle,
near Lemmon Avenue.

Only two years after the terminal building was constructed, the United States entered World War
II, and Love Field was reinstated for military service. During the war, the airfield served as the
headquarters for the United States Air Transport Command, providing a maintenance depot and
10
hub for the 5
th
Ferrying Group. Also stationed at Love Field were a large group of service pilots,
including the famed Women Airforce Service Pilots or WASP (Bleakley 2011:8).

After World War II, military operations were withdrawn from Love Field and commercial
aviation resumed. Due to the growing popularity of air travel during the postwar years, it was
necessary for Love Field to expand the 1940 terminal building by adding an east wing and north
wing, completed between 1947 and 1948 (Dallas Love Field 2012b). However, it was not long
before Love Field outgrew even the expanded terminal. Plans for a completely new terminal
building began in the early-1950s, and was completed in 1958. The new terminal featured three
concourses with moving sidewalks and the Luau Room restaurant above the main lobby (Love
Field Modernization 2012).

Although the new terminal building generated additional revenue and increased commercial
flights, in 1964 it was decided that a new airport would be constructed to serve both the Dallas
and Fort Worth areas. The issue over a common airport had been debated since 1940, but with
the onset of World War II, followed by additional limitations, a firm decision was never made
until the Civil Aeronautics Board forced the two cities to agree on a single facility in 1964
(Bleakley 2011:89). Construction of the new airport began in 1969, which led to all existing
airlines flying in the Dallas/Fort Worth area to sign an agreement to move their flights to the new
airport, once it opened. However, the new airport did not open until 1974, and airlines were
forced to expand their operations at Love Field until that time (Love Field Modernization 2012).

With the opening of the Dallas/Fort Worth airport, Love Field lost all of its carriers except for the
newly established Southwest Airlines, a low cost carrier founded in 1971. Since Southwest was
established after 1969, it had not signed the airport agreement and was allowed to continue
service from Love Field after 1974 (Leatherwood 2012; Love Field Modernization 2012).
Subsequent legal battles ensued over the issue, but in 1977, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
upheld an injunction by the U. S. District Court, allowing Southwest Airlines to continue
operations from Love Field (Love Field Modernization 2012). In 1978, the airline industry was
deregulated, which provided Southwest with the opportunity to offer service beyond cities in
Texas. Since then, Southwest has continued service at Love Field, which has developed into a
significant airport facility, offering flights throughout the United States (Love Field
Modernization 2012).
11
Braniff Airways and Dallas Love Field

Braniff Airways began as Braniff, Inc., in 1928, with Paul R. Braniff as president and Tom
Braniff as vice-president. The Oklahoma City based company offered a variety of services,
including distribution, charter operations, and aviation training. In 1929, the company was sold
to Universal Aviation Corp. of St. Louis, and incorporated as Braniff Air Lines, Inc. Later that
year Braniff began offering passenger service from Dallas Love Field to Wewoka, Tulsa, and
Oklahoma City (Cearley 1989:11). In 1934, The U.S. Post Office awarded Braniff the airmail
route between Dallas and Chicago, and later that year the company moved its operations and
maintenance facilities to Love Field, though company headquarters remained in Oklahoma City
(Kutner 2012).

Keeping the company headquarters in Oklahoma City proved to be difficult, thus in 1941, Braniff
began construction on a new headquarters at Love Field, which officially opened in 1942 (Motta
1986:11). In that same year, Love Field began serving military purposes in support of World War
II. Braniff, along with other airlines helped supply planes to the military by turning over a
portion of their fleet. In addition to supplying aircraft, Braniff assisted in the war effort by
training pilots, radio operators, and mechanics (Kutner 2012).

Following the war, Braniff experienced tremendous growth, adding hangars and shops to their
facilities at Love Field along Roanoke Drive (Figure 3). However, due to the continued increase
in commercial air travel during the postwar years, both Braniff and Love Field eventually
outgrew their existing facilities. To remedy this, Braniff signed a 30-year agreement with the
City of Dallas for the lease and construction of a new operations and maintenance building, which
was constructed in conjunction with the new Love Field terminal building. The Braniff
operations and maintenance building, a Mid-Century Modern style building, was designed by the
prominent California architectural firm Pereira & Luckman with Mark Lemmon as associate
architect in Dallas. Construction of both the Love Field Terminal building and Braniff operations
and maintenance building was completed in 1958, with the terminal building located at the
former Braniff site on Roanoke Drive and the Braniff building on the northeast side of the airfield
(Figures 4 and 5; Grand Prairie Texas 12 J une 1955). During that same period, Braniff also
constructed a new ten-story headquarters building, located west of Love Field at Exchange Park
in Dallas (Cearley 1980:25).
12

3. 1942, aerial view of Braniff facilities on Roanoke Drive

Figure 3. 1942, aerial view of Braniff facilities on Roanoke Drive (photo acquired from Cearley 1989:32).

4. Artist rendering of 1958, Braniff operations and maintenance building

Figure 4. Artist rendering of 1958, Braniff operations and maintenance building (photo acquired from Cearley
1986:90).

In 1964, the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth agreed to construct a common airport, and all airline
carriers operating in the Dallas/Fort Worth areas signed agreements in 1969, to move their flights
to the new airport, upon its opening. The DFW airport opened to commercial flights on J anuary
13, 1974. In that same year, Braniff began to occupy a maintenance hangar at DFW, but also
maintained its facilities at Love Field. By 1978, Braniff moved from its headquarters at
Exchange Park and into its new World Headquarters at DFW (Braniffpages 2012).

13

5. 1958, aerial photo of Braniff operations and maintenance building

Figure 5. 1958, aerial photo of Braniff operations and maintenance building (photo acquired from Cearley 1986:88).

Between 1958 and 1978, Braniff experienced immense growth, adding destinations throughout
the world to its service area. After the airline industry was deregulated in 1978, company
president Harding L. Lawrence began to borrow funding to further expand the airlines routes and
equipment. The investment would prove to be a failure and in 1982, the company was forced to
file for bankruptcy (Bleakley 2011:103). After two failed attempts to revive the company, the J ay
Pritzker family of Chicago obtained bankruptcy court approval to revive the company, and thus
created the company Dalfort to operate Braniff (Kutner 2012; Galveston Daily News 14 J une
1988). Faced with continual financial problems, and an increasingly competitive market, Braniff
(operated by Dalfort) ceased operations in 1992 (Kutner 2012). Aircraft activities at the former
Braniff Love Field facilities came to a complete end in 2002. Since then, the facilities have been
utilized as storage for the City of Dallas with some areas leased to various companies for other
purposes.

14
Overview of the Architects

The operations and maintenance building was designed in the Mid-Century Modern style by well-
known California architects William Pereira and Charles Luckman (Pereira and Luckman) with
prominent Dallas architect, Mark Lemmon, serving as local associate architect (Dallas Morning
News [DMN] 31 J uly 1956). The Mid-Century Modern style, known for its function in form and
natural shapes, lent itself well to the space-age tone of the airline industry during the late 1950s.
At that time, the architects involved in the project were known for their modern designs, which is
likely why they were chosen by Braniff to design the operations and maintenance building at
Love Field.

Prior to their partnership, William Pereira and Charles Luckman both obtained degrees in
architecture from the University of Illinois in 1931, but after graduating the two men chose very
different paths. Pereira, born in Chicago in 1909, immediately began working for a Chicago
architectural firm designing movie theaters for Balaban and Katz. In the early 1940s, he moved
to Los Angeles to work with movie studios as a designer. In 1949, Pereira stopped working for
movie studios and became a professor of architecture at the University of Southern California
(Los Angeles Times [LAT] 14 November 1985). In contrast to Pereira, Charles Luckman, born in
Kansas City in 1909, began his career in business as a brochure designer for a soap company. By
1942, Luckman had become president of the Pepsodent Company and in 1946 was president of
Lever Brothers. While at Lever Brothers, Luckman assisted with plans for the companys New
York skyscraper. Invigorated by the opportunity, Luckman returned to architecture and joining
Pereira in Los Angeles in 1950, to form the architectural firm of Pereira and Luckman (LAT 27
J anuary 1999). The partnership lasted from 1950 to 1959, and during that time the two designed
several modern style buildings, mostly in the California area. One of their most well-known
designs is the Theme Building at the Los Angeles International Airport. After nine years
together, Pereira and Luckman dissolved the partnership, but continued working in architecture
with Pereira forming William L. Pereira and Associates and Luckman organizing his firm
Luckman Partners (Modern San Diego 2012).

The associate Dallas architect for the Braniff project, Mark Lemmon, was born in Gainesville,
Texas, in 1889. Lemmon obtained a degree in architecture and engineering from Massachusetts
Institute of Technology in 1916, and soon after served as a member of the 77
th
Engineering
15
Division during World War I (DMN 23 December 1975). After the war, Lemmon moved to
Dallas to begin his career as an architect. During his early years, Lemmon was known for his
revival style designs (Gothic, Romanesque, Georgian, and Neo-Classical), but by the late 1920s
and early 1930s began incorporating Moderne and Art Deco influences. Some notable examples
of his work include the Tower Petroleum Building and Hall of State, both in Dallas. In the late
1930s, Lemmon transitioned back to the revival styles, but by the late 1950s, became known for
his reductivist modernism including the Benjamin Franklin Middle School in Dallas (Fuller
1999:146; Long 2012). After serving as architect and consulting architect for over 50 years,
Mark Lemmon died in Dallas on December 22, 1975 (DMN 23 December 1975).

16

CHAPTER 3
RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In total, three resources associated with the former Braniff/Dalfort Aerospace facility were
evaluated for listing in the NRHP. These resources include the operations and maintenance
building, large storage building, and small storage structure (for figures referenced in this section
see appendix B). The potential area of significance for these resources is Transportation-air
related. The period of significance for the Braniff/Dalfort Aerospace facility is 1958 through
1992, which includes the construction of the operations and maintenance building in 1958,
through the end of Braniff Airways in 1992.

NRHP ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION


The former Braniff operations and maintenance building is located on the northeast side of the
Dallas Love Field airport complex. The building was constructed in 1958 for Braniff Airways as
part of a lease agreement between Braniff and the City of Dallas. Designed by the prominent
California architectural firm Pereira and Luckman with well-known local architect Mark
Lemmon as associate architect, the building was constructed in the Mid-Century Modern style of
architecture, a style that was prevalent in the Dallas area during the 1950s. Though the character
defining features for this style can vary and are often dictated by function, common features
include a wall of windows, flared roofs, and the use of concrete, glass, and steel.
17
The operations and maintenance building is three stories with the third story being a pop-up in the
center of the building. The pop-up, modified at the south end post-1965, helps create the multi-
level inverted gable roof visible from the north and south sides. The building has an irregular
floor plan with a total area of approximately 400,000 square feet. However, when originally
constructed the floor plan was asymmetrical with a wing constructed west of what is now the
central part of the building. Due to additions to the east side of the building, the floor plan is now
more symmetrical (Figures B-1 and B-2). The central portion of the building is rectangular in
shape and measures approximately 438 feet (ft) in width and 466 ft in length. The buildings
east, west, and south elevations are sheathed with corrugated metal, while the north elevation
(faade) displays glass, plaster, and corrugated metal (Figures B-3 and B-4).

Projecting from the faade (north facing) and flanking the main entrance are two small wings.
These wings are original to the building, identical in shape and size, and measure approximately
91 ft in width and 50 ft in length. Projecting east and west from the center of the building are two
larger wings that measure approximately 110 ft in length with varying widths, 183 ft (east wing)
and 397 ft (west wing). Although originally constructed with a west wing, due to heavy
modifications to the building and setting, this wing is nearly unnoticeable from the north (Figure
B-5). The east wing, a two story rectangular-shaped addition connected to the large storage
building to the east, was conjoined to the operations and maintenance building in ca. 1980
(Figures B-6 and B-7). This portion of the building was not part of the original plans (Figures B-
8 and B-9).

Constructed to support Braniffs operations and aircraft maintenance, the building provides space
for both office purposes and aircraft maintenance. The office areas are located primarily at the
north end and center of the building, within all three levels. The main entrance, located on the
north elevation, consists of two sets of two single panel glass doors separated by fixed glass
panels. The glass doors blend with the fixed glass-panel wall covering the central bay of the
faade, which is flanked by the two north wings (Figure B-10). A second primary entrance is
located on the south elevation. This entrance is centrally located and consists of a flat roof
enclosed entry with wrap around fixed-glass windows supported by a concrete wall. The doors to
this entrance are double single-glass panel and located on the east and west sides of the enclosure
(Figure B-11).

18
The buildings maintenance area/hangars flank the central part of the building. This area is
divided into an east bay and west bay with the south entrance and office space separating the two.
Each bay can be opened or closed with a metal retractable wall on rails that retracts into a pocket
located on the north end of each bay (Figures B-12 and B-13).

Since its construction in 1958, the operations and maintenance building has undergone several
major additions and modifications. One of the most significant changes to this building is the
addition of the east wing, completed ca. 1980. This addition, visible from the north and south
sides, has a flat roof, corrugated metal sheathing, inset porch entrance on the west side of the
north elevation, and an enclosed stairwell on the west side of the south elevation (Figures B-14
and B-15). Initially, what now is the east wing began as one-story addition attached to the north
end of the large storage building located approximately 183 ft east of the operations and
maintenance building. The addition, projecting west approximately 160 ft was completed
between ca. 1965 and 1968, leaving approximately 23 ft between it and the operations and
maintenance building. In ca. 1980, the gap between the two buildings was filled with new
construction and the addition of a second story abutting the operations and maintenance building
(Figures B-16B-19). At that time, interior openings were also created to allow continuous
interior access from the operations and maintenance building, through the addition, and on to the
large storage building (Figures B-20B-24).

In 1995, the operations and maintenance buildings original west wing was renovated for use as
the Legends Terminal. One of the most significant alterations to occur as a result of the
renovations was the reconstruction of the south half of the second story. This action changed the
wings original roof type from a low pitch side gabled roof to a flat roof, and removed the
original materials from the second story of the south elevation (Figures B-25B-27). Additional
modifications, due to the 1995 renovation, included the installation of new doors and windows
along the north and south elevations; the construction of an approximate 40 ft addition to the west
end of the west wing; the addition of a canopy connecting the west wing to the ca. 1995 parking
structure located approximately 40 ft northeast; and the construction of several terminal gates
projecting south from the addition (the terminal gates have since been removed; Figures B-28B-
31). Along with the structural modifications, the setting surrounding the west wing was also
severely altered by the construction of the ca. 1995 multi-story parking structure and the
19
construction of a brick wall lining the west boundary line of the parking lot to the east. Due to
these visual obstructions, when looking at the building from the north side the west wing appears
isolated and independent from the operations and maintenance building (Figures B-32B-34).

Modifications to the central part of the building include an 80 ft addition to the south end of the
third story pop-up. Originally, a narrow covered path with an inverted gable roof projected
southward from the center of the pop-up. However, at some point after 1965, the narrow path
was encased by an addition, changing the buildings original roofline (Figures B-35B-39).
Additional modifications to the building include the removal of the Braniff logos from the center,
east, and west bays of the south elevation; the addition of corrugated metal sheathing along the
south, east, and west elevations; and the addition of several new openings to the south elevation,
for both doors and windows.

The dates and nature of the additions and modification to the operations and maintenance
building were determined through the comparison of historic topographic maps, historic aerial
photographs, modern aerial photographs, a 1965 color image, historic black and white
photographs, newspaper articles, original plans, and on-site observation (Braniffpages 2012;
Google Earth 1995 and 2012; Perry-Castaeda Library Map Collection 1968, 1973, and 1995;
United States Geological Survey [USGS] 1953, 1968, 1970, 1982, and 1989).

Integrity:
The operations and maintenance building has remained in its original location on the northeast
side of the Dallas Love Field complex and continues to be associated with the airfield. Thus, the
resource has retained integrity of location and association. However, due to the additions of the
east wing, modifications to the original west wing, and addition to the third story changing the
original roofline, the building has lost integrity of materials, workmanship, and design.
Furthermore, due to alterations to the setting on the north side that block portions of the original
building, the operations and maintenance building has also lost integrity of setting and feeling.

As a transportation air-related building, constructed in 1958, the operations and maintenance
building is associated with mid-twentieth century aviation development in Dallas and the
redevelopment of Love Field, which was necessary due to the increased popularity of air travel
20
post World War II. Thus, the operations and maintenance building is associated with important
trends at the local level (Criterion A). Designed in the Mid-Century Modern style by prominent
architects and overseen by a locally prominent architect, the operations and maintenance building
is also associated with significant architecture at the local level (Criterion C). However, due to
several alterations (east wing addition, west wing reconstruction and modification, roofline
alterations, and visual obstructions), the operations and maintenance building has lost integrity of
design, setting, materials, workmanship, and feeling, and as a whole, does not retain the visual
quality to convey its historic or architectural significance under Criteria A and C. Furthermore,
the operations and maintenance building is not associated with historically significant persons
(Criterion B), nor does it possess the potential to provide information that may contribute to an
understanding of human history or prehistory (Criterion D). Therefore, the operations and
maintenance building is recommended not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.


Constructed ca. 1965, the large storage building, located within the Braniff/Dalfort Aerospace
facility east of the operations and maintenance building, was not an original part of the Love
Field redevelopment plans. Although it is unknown who designed the large storage building for
Braniff, there is no indication that it was designed by the architectural firm of Pereira and
Luckman or Mark Lemmon. Constructed with no discernible architectural style, the large storage
building exhibits an irregular floor plan due to additions. The original floor plan was likely
rectangular and measured approximately 127 ft in width and 217 ft in length (Figure B-40). The
building is four bays wide, one-story, and has a side gable roof covered with corrugated metal.
Along the peak of the roofline are six metal vents. The exterior walls of the building are sheathed
in corrugated metal sheets. The faade (facing west), exhibits two solid metal doors flanked by
two overhead doors, a centrally located filled-in overhead door opening, and two window
openings covered with solid metal sheets (Figure B-41). Projecting from the north elevation is an
addition with a rectangular plan and side gable roof that sits lower than the primary roof (Figure
B-42).

21
Between ca. 1965 and 1968, a rectangular shaped addition was added to the north end of the large
storage building. The addition projected west from the large storage building approximately 160
ft, but at that time was not connected to the operations and maintenance building located to the
west. In ca. 1980, the space between the addition and operations and maintenance building was
filled by new construction and a second story addition (Figures B-43 and B-44). At the time of
these modifications, interior openings were created to allow continuous interior access from the
operations and maintenance building, through the addition, and on to the large storage building
(Figures B-45 and B-46). Additional modifications to the building include the replacement of
corrugated metal sheathing throughout the building and the infill of the centrally located overhead
door.

The dates and nature of the additions and modification to the large storage building were
determined through the comparison of historic topographic maps, historic aerial photographs,
modern aerial photographs, original plans, and on-site observation (Google Earth 1995 and 2012;
Perry-Castaeda Library Map Collection 1968, 1973, and 1995; United States Geological Survey
[USGS] 1953, 1968, 1970, 1982, and 1989).

Integrity:
The large storage building has remained in its original location on the northeast side of the Dallas
Love Field complex and continues to be associated with the airfield. Thus, the resource has
retained integrity of location, association, and setting. However, due to the addition on the north
end of the building, the conjoining of the addition to the operations and maintenance building,
and exterior modifications the resource has lost integrity of materials, workmanship, design, and
feeling.

As a transportation air-related building constructed in ca. 1960, the large storage building is
associated with mid-twentieth century aviation development in Dallas. However, due to
alterations (north addition and exterior modifications), the building has lost integrity of design,
materials, workmanship, and feeling, and does not retain the visual quality to convey its historic
significance under Criteria A. Furthermore, the large storage building is not associated with any
other historically significant persons (Criterion B), it does not exhibit the work of a master
22
craftsman and was constructed in a common architectural style (Criterion C), nor does it posses
the potential to provide information that may contribute to an understanding of human history or
prehistory (Criterion D). Therefore, the large storage building is recommended not eligible for
inclusion in the NRHP.

Small Storage Structure

The small storage structure, constructed ca. 1985, is located south of the large storage building
and southeast of the operations and maintenance building. The small storage structure measures
approximately 90 ft in length and 50 ft in width, and consists of a corrugated metal gable roof
supported by a metal frame and metal posts (Figures B-47 and B-48).

Through the comparison of historic topographic maps, historic aerial photographs, modern aerial
photographs, and on-site observation, it does not appear that the small storage structure has been
modified since its construction (Google Earth 1995 and 2012; Perry-Castaeda Library Map
Collection 1968, 1973, and 1995; United States Geological Survey [USGS] 1953, 1968, 1970,
1982, and 1989).

Integrity:
The small storage structure has remained in its original location on the northeast side of the
Dallas Love Field complex and continues to be associated with the airfield. In addition, the
structure has not been modified since it was constructed ca. 1985. Thus, the resource has retained
integrity of location, association, feeling, setting, materials, workmanship, and design.

The small storage structure is not associated with a significant pattern of development in aviation
23
master craftsman and was constructed in a common architectural style for storage structures;
D. As a resource under 50 years of age, it does not meet the requirement for exceptional
importance under Criteria Consideration G.

DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS

During this evaluation, no previously recorded historic resources were found within the APE.
Three architectural resources associated with the facility, including the operations and
maintenance building, large storage building, and small storage structure, were recorded and
evaluated for listing in the NRHP. Of these, only the small storage structure was found to have
retained all seven aspects of integrity; however, it is not associated with any other historically
significant events or persons (Criteria A and B), it does not exhibit the work of a master
craftsman and was constructed in a common architectural style (Criterion C), nor does it posses
the potential to provide information that may contribute to an understanding of human history or
prehistory (Criterion D). Therefore, the small storage structure is recommended not eligible for
inclusion in the NRHP. The small storage structure, under 50 years of age, does not meet the
requirement under Criteria Consideration G.

The operations and maintenance building, a transportation-air related building constructed in
1958, is associated with important mid-twentieth century aviation trends at the local level
(Criterion A) and prominent architects (Criterion C). However, due to several alterations (east
wing addition, west wing reconstruction and modification, roofline alterations, and visual
obstructions), the operations and maintenance building has lost integrity of design, setting,
materials, workmanship, and feeling, and does not retain the visual quality to convey its historic
or architectural significance under Criteria A and C. Furthermore, the operations and
maintenance building is not associated with historically significant persons (Criterion B), nor
does it possess the potential to provide information that may contribute to an understanding of
24
human history or prehistory (Criterion D). Therefore, the operations and maintenance building is
recommended not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

Finally, the large storage building, a transportation-air related building constructed in ca. 1965, is
associated with important mid-twentieth century aviation trends at the local level (Criterion A).
However, due to alterations (north addition and exterior modifications), the building has lost
integrity of design, materials, workmanship, and feeling, and does not retain the visual quality to
convey its historic significance under Criteria A. Furthermore, the large storage building is not
associated with any other historically significant persons (Criterion B), it does not exhibit the
work of a master craftsman and was constructed in a common architectural style (Criterion C),
nor does it posses the potential to provide information that may contribute to an understanding of
human history or prehistory (Criterion D). Therefore, the large storage building is recommended
not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

In view of the fact that none of the resources evaluated are recommended NRHP eligible, the
proposed actions would have no adverse impact. Furthermore, no undocumented historic districts
were encountered during the survey and no potential historic districts are proposed as a result of
this investigation.
25

REFERENCES CITED

Bleakley, B.
2011 Dallas Aviation. Arcadia Publishing. Charleston, South Carolina.

Braniffpages
2012 Braniffpages. http://www.braniffpages.com/1965/1965.html. (accessed August 1,
2012).

Cearley, W.
1980 Braniff-With a Dash of Color and a Touch of Elegance. Airline Historical

1986 Braniff International Airways: The Building of a Major International Airline. Airline
Historical Publications. Dallas, Texas.

1989 A Pictorial History of Airline Service at Dallas Love Field. Airline Historical

Dallas Love Field
2012a History. http://www.dallas-lovefield.com/love-notes-history.html. (accessed J une
20, 2012).

2012b Love Notes-Chronology of Events. http://www.dallas-lovefield.com/love-notes-
chronology-of-events.html. (accessed J une 20, 2012).

Dallas Morning News [DMN], Dallas, Texas
1955 Council OKs Braniff Deal With Planner. 12 September 1955.

1956 Council Approves Braniffs Plans. 31 J uly 1956.

1975 Architect Lemmon Dies At 86. 23 December 1975.

26
Fuller, L.
1999 The American Institute of Architects Guide to Dallas Architecture: with Regional
Highlights. Dallas Chapter American Institute of Architects, Dallas, Texas.

Galveston Daily News, Galveston, Texas
1988 Report says Piedmont execs to buyout Braniff. 14 J une 1988.

Google Earth
1995 Dallas Love Field. 325054.12N and 965028.81W. (accessed J une 20, 2012).

2012 Dallas Love Field. 325054.12N and 965028.81W. (accessed J une 20, 2012).

Grand Prairie Texan, Grand Prairie, Texas
1955 Dallas and Braniff Sign 30 Year Pad on 4 Million Base. 12 J une 1955.

Kutner, J .
2012 Braniff Airways. http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/epbqm.
(accessed J uly 27, 2012).

Los Angeles Times [LAT], Los Angeles, California
1985 Pereira, Architect Whose Works Typify L.A., Dies. 14 November 1985.

1999 Architect Charles Luckman Dies. 27 J anuary 1999.

Leatherwood, A.
2012 Love Field. http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/epl01. (accessed
J uly 27, 2012).

Long, C.
2012 Lemmon, Mark. http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fle64.
(accessed September 28, 2012).

Love Field Modernization
2012 Love Field, History. http://www.lovefieldmodernizationprogram.com/history.
(accessed J une 20, 2012).

Modern San Diego
2012 William Pereira and Charles Luckman. http:www.modernsandiego.com/Pereira
Luckman.html. (accessed September 27, 2012).

Motta, D.
1983 A Short History of Braniff: The Early Years From 1928 to 1956: Dallas Public
Library. Unpublished Masters thesis, Department of Liberal Arts, Southern
Methodist University.

National Park Service (NPS)
1997 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register
Bulletin 15. National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, U.S.
27
1998 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Historic Aviation Properties. National
Register Bulletin. National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, U.S.

Perry-Castaeda Library Map Collection
tx-dallas-1968.jpg (accessed J uly 26, 2012).



United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1953 Photo ID ARA001160101438: Roll 000010: Frame 1438. (search Aerial Photo
Single Frame). http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/ (accessed J uly 26, 2012).

1968 Photo ID AR1VBZU00030110: Roll 000003: Frame 110. (search Aerial Photo

1970 Photo ID AR6128A01200081: Roll 000012: Frame 81. (search Aerial Photo



APPENDIX A

MAP OF PROPOSED ACTION
X X X X X X
X
X X X X X
A
D
G

I
I
I

T
L
N
1
0
0
'
3
0
0
'
A D G I I I T L N
A D G I V T L N
U S C B P A C C E S S
A D G I I I T L N
1
0
0
'
7
5
'
T
W
Y

A
P
E
R
I
M
E
T
E
R

R
O
A
D
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
a
c
ilit
y
7
5
'
T
h
i
s

h
a
n
g
a
r
c
o
u
ld
a
c
c
o
m
o
d
a
t
e

a

B
o
e
in
g
B
B
J
1
2
7
'
1
2
5
'
1
0
0
'
1
G
u
l
f
s
t
r
e
a
m

5
5
0
3
C
h
a
ll
e
n
g
e
r

3
0
0
2
H
a
w
k
e
r

8
5
0
X
P
5

C
i
t
a
t
io
n
J
e
t
4
L
e
a
r
j
e
t
3
1
A
2
G
u
l
f
s
t
r
e
a
m

5
5
0
2
L
e
g
a
c
y
6
0
0
4
H
a
w
k
e
r

8
5
0
X
P
3
C
h
a
ll
e
n
g
e
r

3
0
0
8
1
'
1
1
2
.
5
'
F
o
r
m
e
r

L
e
g
e
n
d
G
a
t
e
s
,
D
e
m
o
l
is
h
e
d
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
:

E
S
R
I
,

M
i
c
r
o
s
o
f
t

C
o
r
p
.
,

B
i
n
g

M
a
p
s

2
0
1
0
;

D
a
l
l
a
s

L
o
v
e

F
i
e
l
d

A
i
r
p
o
r
t

L
a
y
o
u
t

P
l
a
n
,
2
0
0
9
;
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

A
i
r
p
o
r
t

G
o
o
d

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r

P
l
a
n
,

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
1
.
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
.,
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
2
.
2
5
0

f
t
.
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

A
c
t
i
o
n
O
C
T
O
B
E
R

2
0
1
2
D
A
L
L
A
S

L
O
V
E

F
I
E
L
D
[
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y

D
r
a
f
t

f
o
r

D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n

P
u
r
p
o
s
e
s

O
n
l
y
]
E
A

f
o
r

R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

o
f

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

S
i
t
e
P
u
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

N
e
e
d
N
O
R
T
H
D
r
a
w
in
g
:
Z
:
\L
o
v
e

F
ie
ld
\
D
a
lF
o
r
t\
C
A
D
\
D
A
L
-
G
A
H
a
n
g
a
r
s
L
a
y
o
u
t_
2
0
1
2
0
6
1
4
.d
w
g
_
L
a
y
o
u
t:
D
A
L
E
A
1
-
3
_
O
c
t 1
2
, 2
0
1
2
, 1
0
:2
3
a
m
0
E
X
H
I
B
I
T

1
-
3
L
E
G
E
N
DT
o

B
e

D
e
m
o
l
i
s
h
e
d
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

H
a
n
g
a
r
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

F
e
n
c
e
X
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

A
p
r
o
n
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n

L
i
n
e
D
a
l
f
o
r
t

S
i
t
e

B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
T
a
x
i
l
a
n
e

O
b
j
e
c
t

F
r
e
e

A
r
e
a
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

T
a
x
i
l
a
n
e
APPENDIX B

RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FIGURES
B-2
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE BUILDING
Figures B-1 through B-39
B-3

Figure B-1. 1968 aerial view of operations and maintenance building, showing original building footprint.

West Wing
North Addition
B-4

Figure B-2. 2009 aerial view of the operations and maintenance building, showing changes in building footprint.
ca. 1995 Parking Structure
1995 West Wing Addition
and Reconstruction
East Wing Addition and
Second Story Addition
Pop-up Addition
B-5

Figure B-3. View of north elevation (faade), facing southwest.

Figure B-4. View of south and west elevations, facing east.

B-6

Figure B-5. View of west wing, facing southwest.

Figure B-6. View of east wing, facing southwest.
B-7

Figure B-7. View of east wing, facing northeast.

Figure B-8. 1959, newspaper photograph showing the site lacking the east wing and large storage building (Dallas
Morining News 16 J anuary 1959).
B-8

Figure B-9. Building footprint from 1956 As Built Construction Plans (Courtesy of AMX Construction and Specialty
Service, LP)

B-9

Figure B-10. View of north elevation (faade) entrance and center bay, facing southwest.

Figure B-11. View of south entrance, facing east.
B-10

Figure B-12. Showing partially closed retractable wall, facing east.

Figure B-13. View of retractable wall railing and pocket, facing northeast.
B-11

Figure B-14. View of ca. 1980 addition, facing south.

Figure B-15. View of ca. 1980 addition, facing northeast.
B-12

Figure B-16. Exterior view of east addition, facing east.

Figure B-17. View of east addition from inside the northeast corner of the central portion of the operations and
maintenance building, facing northeast.
B-13

Figure B-18. Exterior seam between the large storage building (right) and east wing (left), facing east.

B-14

Figure B-19. Exterior view of seam between operation and maintenance building (left) and east wing (right), facing
north.

B-15

Figure B-20. Interior view of the west end of the original one-story addition, facing northeast.

Figure B-21. Interior view of the original east elevation of the operations and maintenance building, facing north.
B-16

Figure B-22. First story interior view of door opening between the east wing and large storage building, facing south.

Figure B-23. Second story interior view of hallway connecting the operations and maintenance building to east wing
addition, facing southeast.
B-17

Figure B-24. Second story interior view of utility closet in east wing addition showing the original west elevation of
the operations and maintenance building, facing northwest.
B-18

Figure B-25. View of the west wings reconstructed second story, facing northwest.

Figure B-26. Interior view showing a comparison of the west wings original concrete construction (right) and new
construction (left), facing west.
B-19

Figure B-27. View of the west wings south elevation, showing the combination of original and new materials, facing
northeast.

B-20

Figure B-28. View of west wings south elevation and ca. 1995 addition, facing northeast.

Figure B-29. View of west wing north elevation, showing added windows, doors, and canopy, facing west.

B-21

Figure B-30. Interior view of west wing (Legends Terminal), facing northeast.

Figure B-31. Interior view of west wing (Legends Terminal), facing northwest.
B-22

Figure B-32. View of west wing and parking structure north of west wing, facing southwest.

Figure B-33. View of west wing from the north side of the building, facing west.
B-23

Figure B-34. View of central part of building from north side of west wing, facing south.

B-24

Figure B-35. Showing the narrow projection at the south end of the pop-up as shown on the 1956 As Built
Construction Plans (Courtesy of AMX Construction and Specialty Service, LP).

B-25

Figure B-36. 1961 photograph of operations and maintenance building, showing the south end of the pop-up (image
courtesy of Braniffpages.com).

Figure B-37. View of enclosed narrow path on pop-up, facing east.
B-26

Figure B-38. View of pop-up south end addition, showing difference in roofline, facing northwest.

Figure B-39. Interior view of pop-up south end addition, facing southwest.
B-27

LARGE STORAGE BUILDING
B-28

Figure B-40. Oblique view of large storage building, facing east.

Figure B-41. View of west elevation, facing southeast.
B-29

Figure B-42. View of large storage building, showing top of north addition, facing southwest.

Figure B-43. View of large storage building north addition and second story, facing southwest.
B-30

Figure B-44. View of the large storage building, addition, and operations and maintenance building, facing northeast.

Figure B-45. Interior view, showing first story of large storage building north addition, facing west.
B-31

Figure B-46. Interior view, showing second story of large storage building north addition, facing east.
B-32
SMALL STORAGE STRUCTURE
B-33

Figure B-47. View of small storage structure west elevation, facing east.

Figure B-48. Oblique view of small storage structure, facing southeast.
27 November 2012
Ms. Linda Henderson
Historian, Federal Programs
History Programs Division
P.O. Box 12276
Austin, Texas 78711-2276
Re: Braniff Operations and Maintenance Building, Love Field, Dallas, Texas
Dear Ms. Henderson:
As you know, the 1958 Braniff Building at Love Field is threatened with demolition by a recent
motion of the Dallas City Council. We understand that the Texas Historical Commission is
currently reviewing the building to determine its eligibility for possible inclusion on the
National Register of Historic Places.
Two representatives of our organization (myself included) had the pleasure of visiting the
building yesterday for some three hours, walking through almost every portion of its rather
vast area. We were most encouraged and excited by what we saw, which was a modern
industrial building designed by one of the leading architects of the mid-20th century in
generally good condition, with almost all signicant features intact. And, where those features
have been modied, the modications appear to be easily reversible.
The signicance of this building from a number of standpoints cannot be understated. To
name a few, quickly:
1. Architecturally, it represents a unique example of modern industrial architecture by
architects Charles Luckman and William Peireira, two of the leading practitioners of the
modern style in the 20th century, in collaboration with Mark Lemmon, one of the leading
architects of Dallas during this same period.
2. Culturally, the Braniff story of innovative design is unmatched. One of the rst airlines to
emphasize design, Braniff created a seamless, progressive image that included jelly-
bean planes, modern lounges, designer stewardess uniforms, sleek graphics, and hip
advertising. The Braniff O&M Building, with its soaring V-shape, is an integral part of that
story.
3. Technologically, the Braniff O&M Building housed the rst computerized reservations
system in the US, and was the site of several innovative maintenance programs on a
variety of jets, including one of the rst eets of iconic 747s.
To nd a modern industrial building, in good condition, with such a multi-faceted history, is
rare. For these reasons, and others, we believe that the Braniff Operations and Maintenance
Building is eligible for, and should be listed on, the National Register of Historic Places.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Meckfessel, FAIA Catherine Horsey
Board Member, DOCOMOMO US NTX Board Member, DOCOMOMO US NTX
North Texas Chapter of DOCOMOMO US
DOcumentation and COnservation of the MOdern Movement
3200 Main Street, Suite 1.2
Dallas, TX 75226

December 7, 2012 VIA EMAIL

Ms. Linda Henderson

RE: Supplemental Information to the Redevelopment of the Former Braniff/Dalfort Aerospace Facility
at Dallas Love Field, Dallas County, Texas
Dear Ms. Henderson:
A draft report was prepared on behalf of the Dallas Aviation Department in October 2012 assessing the
eligibility of the former Braniff/Dalfort Aerospace Facility buildings located at Dallas Love Field. That
report concluded that due to modifications to the original structure, the former Braniff/Dalfort Aerospace
Facility did not meet criteria for potential inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) indicated that based on the information they had reviewed to
date, they believed that the Braniff/Dalfort Aerospace Facility may be eligible for inclusion on the NHRP.
FAA requested that if the Dallas Aviation Department had additional information to support their
conclusion that the Braniff/Dalfort Aerospace Facility did not meet criteria for potential inclusion on the
NRHP, that they should provide that information as soon as possible.
Subsequent to that request, a site visit of the former Braniff/Dalfort Aerospace Facility was conducted on
November 26, 2012 with representatives of the Texas Historical Commission, FAA, and Preservation Dallas.
Additional research was also conducted by consultants to the Dallas Aviation Department, who were able
to obtain some original elevation drawings and design drawings from the Dallas Public Works Archives
and from within the former Braniff/Dalfort Aerospace Facility itself. The results of our additional research
and observations from the site visit are summarized and provided below for your consideration. The
discussion focuses on whether or not the former Braniff/Dalfort Aerospace Facility maintains sufficient
integrity to be considered a historic resource.
The Braniff operations and maintenance building, completed in 1958, was constructed in the Mid-Century
Modern style of architecture by prominent architects, William Pereira and Charles Luckman, and overseen
by a locally prominent architect, Mark Lemmon. When constructed, the building consisted of a three-
story, large rectangular area which formed the main body of the building, plus a two-story wing,
projecting from the northwest corner. Both the northeast and southwest elevations of the building were
and continue to be visible to the public; the northeast elevation from Lemmon Avenue and the southwest
elevation from the Dallas Love Field Airport terminal. As originally intended, this building was for the

Ms. Linda Henderson
December 7, 2012
Page 2 of 30

operation and maintenance activities performed by Braniff employees. Interior public spaces were limited
to the visitors lobby and public relations display area at the north end of the building.
As a building constructed in the Mid-Century Modern style of architecture, a style dictated by function
with common features, including glass curtain walls, flared rooflines, and prominent use of concrete, glass,
and steel, the operations and maintenance building exhibited four distinct character-defining features as
originally constructed (Figures 1 and 2). These features included:
multi-level inverted gable roof;
original asymmetrical footprint;
glass curtain wall with steel frame on the north elevation;
glass and steel cladding used throughout the building.
Due to a number of modifications, the integrity of the Braniff operations and maintenance building has
been compromised and several character-defining features have been impacted (Figures 3 and 4). The
seven aspects of integrity include: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and
association.

Ms. Linda Henderson
December 7, 2012
Page 3 of 30

Figure 1: Architectural Drawings of Northeast, Southeast, and Southwest Elevations

SOURCE: William Pereira and Charles Luckman, July 1956 Plan Set located at the Airport Archives, Terminal 1 (Love Field)
PREPARED BY: Geo-Marine, Inc., December 2012.

Ms. Linda Henderson
December 7, 2012
Page 4 of 30

Figure 2: Artist Rendering of Braniff Operations and Maintenance Building

SOURCE: Dallas Morning News, January 16, 1959 (obtained from Newsbank Database)

Ms. Linda Henderson
December 7, 2012
Page 5 of 30

Figure 3: Overview of Exterior Modifications

PREPARED BY: AirOps, LLC., Geo-Marine, Inc. , and Ricondo & Associates, December 2012.

Ms. Linda Henderson
December 7, 2012
Page 6 of 30

Figure 4: Aerial View of Braniff Operations and Maintenance Building with Modifications Noted

SOURCE: Google Earth Pro

Ms. Linda Henderson
December 7, 2012
Page 7

1. Location
Place where historic property was constructed
The Braniff operations and maintenance building remains in its original location; therefore it retains
integrity of location.
2. Design
Combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of property
Various modifications have impacted the character-defining features and overall design of the Braniff
operations and maintenance building.
Multi-level Inverted Gable Roof
- Ca. 1965 enclosure of canopy and addition to third story pop-up at southwest elevation
dropped and flattened the original design of roofline (Figures 5 through 9).
Asymmetrical Footprint
- Addition of southeast projecting wing connects large warehouse at southeast of site to main
block of building, creating continuous internal connection to warehouse (see Figure 2;
Figures 10 through 13).
- Full-faade expansion of northwest projecting wing completely fills green space originally
located in front of the wing faade (see Figures 2 and 4).
- Extension of northwest projecting wing at northwest corner impacts original footprint (see
Figures 2 and 4).
Glass Curtain Wall and Steel Frame
- Interior view of glass curtain wall impacted by additional walls constructed in lobby and
public relations area; this disjoins original interior spaces and divides the public relations area
from office space (Figure 14).
Glass and Steel Exterior Surface
- Extension of third story pop-up at southwest end completely obscures glass and steel surface
(see Figures 5, 6, and 8)

Ms. Linda Henderson
December 7, 2012
Page 8 of 30

In addition to the above modifications to character-defining features, sometime after 1985, the overhead
doors on the eastern-most loading dock of the northeast elevation were removed and replaced with fixed
sash, aluminum-cased windows (Figures 15 and 16).
Figure 5: Detail of Southwest Elevation

SOURCE: William Pereira and Charles Luckman, July 1956 Plan Set located at the Airport Archives, Terminal 1 (Love Field)

Ms. Linda Henderson
December 7, 2012
Page 9 of 30

Figure 6: View of Southwest Entrance, Facing East

SOURCE: Photo taken by Tanya McDougall, November 28, 2012

Ms. Linda Henderson
December 7, 2012
Page 10 of 30

Figure 7: 1961 Photograph of Operations and Maintenance Building, Showing the South End of The Pop-Up

SOURCE: www.braniffpages.com

Ms. Linda Henderson
December 7, 2012
Page 11 of 30

Figure 8. View of Enclosed Narrow Path on Pop-up Facing East

SOURCE: Photo taken by Tanya McDougall, November 28, 2012.

Ms. Linda Henderson
December 7, 2012
Page 12 of 30

Figure 9. View of Pop-up Southwest End Addition, Showing Difference in Roofline, Facing Northwest


Ms. Linda Henderson
December 7, 2012
Page 13 of 30

Figure 10: Exterior View Of Southeast Projecting Wing, Facing East


Ms. Linda Henderson
December 7, 2012
Page 14 of 30

Figure 11: View of Southeast Addition from Inside the Northeast Corner of the Main Block, Facing Northeast


Ms. Linda Henderson
December 7, 2012
Page 15 of 30

Figure 12. Exterior Seam Between Large Storage Building (right) and Southeast Projecting Wing (left), Facing
East.


Ms. Linda Henderson
December 7, 2012
Page 16 of 30

Figure 13: Exterior View of Seam between Operation and Maintenance Building (Left) and Southeast
Projecting Wing (Right), Facing North.


Ms. Linda Henderson
December 7, 2012
Page 17 of 30

Figure 14. Original Interior Plan of Main Entrance Area (image obtained from 1956 building plans)

SOURCE: AMX Construction and Specialty Services (obtained from 1956 building plans).
KEY:
GREEN- LOBBY AND PUBLI C RELATI ONS DI SPLAY AREAS ( VI SI TOR ENTRANCE)
RED-MAI N ENTRANCES
BLUE-PLANT PROTECTI ON AND RECEPTI ON AREA (EMPLOYEE ENTRANCE)

Ms. Linda Henderson
December 7, 2012
Page 18 of 30

Figure 15. Detailed Northeast Elevation, Showing Overhead Doors.

SOURCE: William Pereira and Charles Luckman, July 1956 Plan Set located at the Airport Archives, Terminal 1 (Love Field).

Ms. Linda Henderson
December 7, 2012
Page 19 of 30

Figure 16. Fixed Sash, Aluminum-cased Windows on Southeast End of Northeast Elevation.


Ms. Linda Henderson
December 7, 2012
Page 20 of 30

3. Setting
Physical environment of a historical property
Integrity of setting impacted by:
Construction of multi-story parking garage at northwest corner fills an original open space
(Figures 17 and 18; see Figures 2 and 4).
Construction of southeast projecting wing fills an original open space and connects to warehouse
facility, altering the spatial relationship between two historically separated facilities (Figures 19
and 20; see Figures 2, 4, and 10).
Extension and expansion of northwest projecting wing impacts original green space in front of
faade of the wing (see Figures 2 and 4).
4. Materials
Physical elements combined during particular period of time in particular pattern to form historic
property
Several modifications have impacted the materials of character-defining features of the Braniff operations
and maintenance building.
- Enclosure of canopy and corresponding roofline adds additional materials to southwest
elevation (see Figures 5, 7, and 8).
- Removal of windows at third story pop-up at southwest elevation displays a loss of original
glass and steel framing (see Figures 5 through 8).
- Addition of glass and aluminum surface material at eastern-most loading dock completely
replaces overhead doors and original wall cladding (see Figures 1 and 16).
In addition to the above modifications to character-defining features, two stacks have been attached to
the north small wing on the northeastern faade (Figure 21), a dividing wall has been added to the south
end of the northeast faade and retaining walls constructed on the northeast elevation (Figure 22), and
the extension/expansion of the northwest projecting wing removed the Braniff metal sign and introduced
new windows, doors, and a canopy (Figures 23 and 24).

Ms. Linda Henderson
December 7, 2012
Page 21 of 30

Figure 17: View of Northwest Wing and Parking Structure, Facing Southwest


Ms. Linda Henderson
December 7, 2012
Page 22 of 30

Figure 18: View of Northwest Wing and Parking Structure, Facing West


Ms. Linda Henderson
December 7, 2012
Page 23 of 30

Figure 19: View of circa 1980 Southeast Projecting Wing, Facing South


Ms. Linda Henderson
December 7, 2012
Page 24 of 30

Figure 20: View of Circa 1980 Southeast Projecting Wing, Facing Northeast


Ms. Linda Henderson
December 7, 2012
Page 25 of 30

Figure 21: View of Northeast Elevation Entrance and Center Bay, Facing Southwest


Ms. Linda Henderson
December 7, 2012
Page 26 of 30

Figure 22: View of Northeast Elevation, Facing Southwest. Note Dividing Wall with Pole and Retaining Wall


Ms. Linda Henderson
December 7, 2012
Page 27 of 30

Figure 23: View of Northwest Projecting Wing, North Elevation, Showing Added Windows, Doors, and
Canopy, Facing West


Ms. Linda Henderson
December 7, 2012
Page 28 of 30

Figure 24: View of Northwest Projecting Wing, South Elevation and Circa 1995 Addition, Facing Northeast


Ms. Linda Henderson
December 7, 2012
Page 29 of 30

4. Workmanship
Physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history
Several modifications have impacted the workmanship observed in character-defining features of the
Braniff operations and maintenance building.
- Roofline alteration at southwest elevation obscures original workmanship (see Figures 5 and
8).
- Original sense of rooflines defining lines visually obstructed by parking garage (see Figures 1,
2, and 22).
- Extension of third story pop-up at southwest end obscures original craftsmanship
demonstrated in glass and steel construction (see Figures 2, 5, 6 and 8).
5. Feeling
A propertys expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time
Ca. 1995 construction of multi-level parking garage alters sense of a late 1950s aviation-related
office and maintenance space, therefore, impacting the overall feeling of the site.
6. Association
A direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property
The Braniff operations and maintenance building is still able to convey its association with late
1950s aviation activities in the City of Dallas; therefore, it retains integrity of association.
Summary of Integrity
Due to additions and alterations that have directly and indirectly affected the Braniff operations and
maintenance building, the following aspects of integrity have been compromised: setting, design, feeling,
materials, and workmanship.

Ms. Linda Henderson
December 7, 2012
Page 30 of 30

The Braniff operations and maintenance building retains integrity of: location and association.
In conclusion, we believe that the integrity of design and setting has been greatly compromised. The
integrity of materials, workmanship, and feeling have been impacted to a lesser extent. Based on this
information, it is our position that the integrity of the building, as a whole, has been compromised
sufficiently to determine that the former Braniff/Dalfort Aerospace Facility should not be considered a
historic resource.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,

Lana Furra

cc: Mr. Paul Blackford, Texas Historical Commission
Read File
c:\documents and settings\tlanning\my documents\projects\dal\dalfort ea\tx historical comm_120712.docx
All attachments are included as separate files (listed chronologically) in the enclosed
Appendix A: Section 106 Consultation Documentation
DALL AS LOVE FI ELD

SOURCE: Dallas Morning News, January 16, 1959 (Obtained from Newsbank Database)
MARCH 2013
NORTH
Z:\Love Field\Graphics\DAL Exhibits Mar 2013\DAL Exhibits.indd
EXHIBIT 3
Artist Rendering of Braniff Operations and Maintenance Building
0 Not to Scale
1
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w

o
f

E
x
t
e
r
i
o
r

M
o
d
i
f
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
D
A
L
L
A
S

L
O
V
E

F
I
E
L
D
M
A
R
C
H

2
0
1
3
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

B
Y
:

A
i
r
O
p
s
,
L
L
C
.,
G
e
o
-
M
a
r
i
n
e
,
I
n
c
. ,
a
n
d

R
i
c
o
n
d
o

&

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
2
.
Z
:\
L
o
v
e
F
ie
ld
\G
r
a
p
h
ic
s
\
D
A
L
E
x
h
ib
its
M
a
r
2
0
1
3
\
D
A
L
E
x
h
ib
it 4
.in
d
d
N
O
R
T
H
0
N
o
t

t
o

S
c
a
l
e
E
X
H
I
B
I
T

4
2
Aerial View of Braniff Operations and
Maintenance Building with Modifcations Noted
DALL AS LOVE FI ELD
SOURCE: Google Earth Pro
MARCH 2013
NORTH
Z:\Love Field\Graphics\DAL Exhibits Mar 2013\DAL Exhibits.indd
EXHIBIT 5
0 Not to Scale
Northwest wing extension
Northwest projecting wing
Addition of dividing wall
Southeast projecting wing
Eastern-most entrance
Orginal features affected by modifcations
Additions
Parking Structure
0 50 100 150 200 250
ft
m
0 20 40 60 80
N
Third foor pop-up southwest extension
3
United States Department of the Interior

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.20240
DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY NOTIFICATION
National Register of Historic Places
National Park Seruice
Name of Property: Braniff Ainruays / Dalfort Aerospace Facility at Dallas Love Field
Location: Dallas State: TX
Request submitted by: Kelvin L. Solco, Manager, Airports Division, FAA, Southwest Region,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Ft. Worth, TX76137
Date received: 03/2512013 Additional information received:
Opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer:
X Eligible
-Not
Eligible
_No
Response
_Need
More lnformation
Gomments:
The Secretary of the lnterior has determined that this property is:
X Eligible
_Not
Eligible
Applicable criteria: Griteria A and G
Comment:
See attached comments
the National Register
wAso-28
The Braniff Airways Operations and Maintenance Building is eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places at the local level under Criterion A and C. Completed in 1958, the Branitf
building represents a significant facility directly associated with the post-war development of the
aviation industry in Dallas, and in particular at Love Field, which in the immediate post-war era
became a vitaltransportation hub within the United States.
The building represents a dynamic local illustration of mid-twentieth century, Modernist design, as
uniquely applied to a conventionally utilitarian property type. The work of respected master architects
William Pereira and Charles Luckman, the design incorporated modern materials (concrete,
aluminum, glass) and expressive futuristic forms (inverted gable roof, glass entry faade, long-span
trusses), to create a distinctive, "modern-age" facilitythat reflected Braniffs progressive attitudes and
commitmenttohighqualitydesignandaesthetics.
ConstructionoftheBraniffoperationalfacilitywas
coincident with the arrival of the "jet age" in commercial aviation (First regular
jet
service across
United States-1958, Braniffs first
jet
aircraft acquisition
-1959).
Based on the documentation submitted there is actually very little dispute regarding the property's
localsignificance under National Register Criteria A and C. Rather, the main point of disagreement
is whether the facility retains sufficient physical integrityto merit listing in the National Register. After
carefulty reviewing the documentation
provided to our office, we have determined that the building
does retain adequate integrity to convey its historic significance and is therefore eligible for listing in
the National Register.
The various alterations and changes that have occurred to the building over the years have indeed
affected elements of the original building design, but when viewed in a holistic manner, the building
clearly retains the majority of features and design forms that defined its unique historic character.
The building, for all of its minor cosmetic changes, still conveys its most dominant character-defining
elements-space-age roofline, dramatic open-span hangar space, highly visible public faade-and
reads as a substantial aircraft hangar/operations facility, One can not dismiss the fact that the
building at its core was first and foremost an operational aircraft hangar internally linked to office and
management facilities through a unique structural design. Maintenance operations, a dominant
component of the building's original significance, could seemingly restart tomorrow with the opening
of the intact roller doors based on the current documentation of the hangar space. The majority of
the identified alterations were confined to secondary elevations or supporting, utilitarian wings. One
could even contend that the alterations to what is known as the third floor pop-up/observation deck,
occurred
[c.
1968-1973] during the period of significance identified with Braniff s continued use of the
facility.
Our office believes that the Braniff Airways Operations and Maintenance Building retains integrity of
location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling and association sufficient to convey its
historic significance under National Register Criteria A and C.
Paul Lusignan, Historian
National Register of Historic Places
National Park Service

Appendix B
Noise Analysis

[Draft]
Appendix B Noise Analysis [B-1]
2016 Landing and Takeoff Cycles

NO ACTION PROPOSED ACTION
INM AIRCRAFT
TYPE
1/

DAYTIME
LTO CYCLES
NIGHTTIME
LTO CYCLES
DAYTIME
LTO CYCLES
NIGHTTIME
LTO CYCLES
737300 13,600.55 557.40 13,600.55 557.40
737500 715.82 29.34 715.82 29.34
737700 32,927.65 1,349.49 32,927.65 1,349.49
737800 1,431.64 58.67 1,431.64 58.67
BEC58P 886.00 203.04 886.00 203.04
C130 391.88 - 391.88 -
CL600 3,389.96 188.33 3,455.68 191.98
CL601 3,151.08 413.87 3,348.26 424.82
CNA172 126.57 29.01 126.57 29.01
CNA206 632.86 145.03 632.86 145.03
CNA441 4,033.03 453.77 4,033.03 453.77
CNA500 11,791.15 655.06 12,054.06 669.67
CNA55B 442.17 24.56 442.17 24.56
DHC6 1,114.97 129.65 1,114.97 129.65
DHC830 357.91 14.67 357.91 14.67
EMB145 1,263.16 235.51 1,263.16 235.51
F10062 1,768.67 98.26 1,768.67 98.26
GASEPF 1,116.93 149.57 1,116.93 149.57
GASEPV 1,050.97 193.65 1,050.97 193.65
GIIB 294.78 16.38 294.78 16.38
GIV 1,621.28 90.07 1,621.28 90.07
GV 2,010.76 103.89 2,010.76 103.89
IA1125 884.34 49.13 884.34 49.13
LEAR25 147.39 8.19 147.39 8.19
LEAR35 6,485.13 360.29 6,813.76 378.54
MU3001
1,031.73 57.32 1,031.73 57.32
Totals LTO's 92,668.37 5,614.13 93,522.81 5,661.60

Annual
Operations
185,336.73 11,228.27 187,045.62 11,323.20
196,565 198,369
Notes:
LTO Cycle = Landing and Takeoff Cycle (1 takeoff and 1 landing = 2 operations).
1/ Aircraft types are identified in accordance with the Federal Aviation Administrations Integrated Noise Model (INM).
SOURCE: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., March 2014, using the Federal Aviation Administrations Area Equivalent Method (AEM) noise model, Version 7.0c.
PREPARED BY: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., March 2014.
[Draft]
[B-2] Appendix B Noise Analysis
2021 Landing and Takeoff Cycles

NO ACTION PROPOSED ACTION
INM AIRCRAFT
TYPE
1/

DAYTIME
LTO CYCLES
NIGHTTIME
LTO CYCLES
DAYTIME
LTO CYCLES
NIGHTTIME
LTO CYCLES
737300 3,025.57 124.00 3,025.57 124.00
737500 - - - -
737700 52,947.54 2,169.98 52,947.54 2,169.98
737800 3,025.57 124.00 3,025.57 124.00
BEC58P 750.27 171.94 750.27 171.94
C130 - - 391.88 -
CL600 3,057.85 169.88 3,136.03 174.22
CL601 2,800.42 331.53 3,034.96 344.56
CNA172 125.05 28.66 125.05 28.66
CNA206 625.23 143.28 625.23 143.28
CNA441 4,130.73 480.32 4,261.35 480.32
CNA500 12,668.24 703.79 12,980.98 721.17
CNA55B 582.45 32.36 582.45 32.36
DHC6 1,239.22 144.10 1,239.22 144.10
DHC830 336.17 13.78 336.17 13.78
EMB145 1,099.88 205.06 1,099.88 205.06
F10062 1,601.73 88.99 1,601.73 88.99
GASEPF 1,345.95 173.65 1,345.95 173.65
GASEPV 1,038.30 191.31 1,038.30 191.31
GIIB 291.22 16.18 291.22 16.18
GIV 1,601.73 88.99 1,601.73 88.99
GV 2,442.17 123.43 2,442.17 123.43
IA1125 728.06 40.45 728.06 40.45
LEAR25 - - - -
LEAR35 7,280.60 404.48 7,671.51 426.20
MU3001
1,019.28 56.63 1,019.28 56.63
Totals LTO's 103,763.24 6,026.76 105,302.11 6,083.23

Annual
Operations
207,526.48 12,053.52 210,604.23 12,166.45
219,580 222,771
Notes:
LTO Cycle = Landing and Takeoff Cycle (1 takeoff and 1 landing = 2 operations).
1/ Aircraft types are identified in accordance with the Federal Aviation Administrations Integrated Noise Model (INM).
SOURCE: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., March 2014, using the Federal Aviation Administrations Area Equivalent Method (AEM) noise model, Version 7.0c.

Appendix C
Air Quality Analysis

DALLASLOVE FI ELD APRI L 2014
[DRAFT]
EA for Redevelopment of Dal Fort Aerospace Site
Appendix C Ai r Quality Anal ysis [C-1]
Appendix C Air Quality Analysis
C.1 Introduction
This appendix documents the methods used to calculate emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), oxides of nitrogen (NO
x
), and oxides of sulfur (SO
x
), particulate matter less than ten
microns in diameter (PM
10
), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM
2.5
) from operational
and construction-related sources of emissions associated with the Proposed Action. The emissions analysis
was conducted to develop emissions inventories pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA), and to determine whether emissions associated with the Proposed Action would exceed applicable de
minimis thresholds as documented in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys (EPAs) general conformity
regulations.
Estimates of construction-related emissions were developed for the Proposed Action using standard industry
methodologies and techniques. Construction-related activities are anticipated to occur in 2015; hence
construction emissions estimates were developed for calendar year 2015. Operational activity (aircraft
operations and vehicle trips associated with the proposed development) on the redeveloped DalFort site are
anticipated to commence in 2016. For purposes of this analysis, a full year of operational activity was
assumed to occur in 2016. Operational emissions inventories for the Proposed Action were developed for
2016 and 2021.
C.2 Operational Emissions Analysis
Operational emissions associated with the Proposed Action were calculated using the FAAs Emissions and
Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) Version 5.1.4.1. EDMS is a combined emissions and dispersion model
developed by the FAA. EDMS is the FAAs and EPAs preferred guideline model for air quality analyses at
airports. The primary applications of the model are to generate an inventory of emissions caused by sources
on and around an airport and to calculate pollutant concentrations in the surrounding environment. EDMS
data tables include emission factors for civilian and military aircraft, ground support equipment, and motor
vehicles.
The EDMS emissions inventory module incorporates EPA-approved methodologies for calculating aircraft
emissions, on- and off-road vehicle emissions, and stationary source emissions. Pollutants currently included
in EDMS for emissions inventories are CO, total hydrocarbons (THC), non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC),
DALLAS LOVE FI ELD APRI L 2014
[DRAFT]
[C-2] Appendix C Ai r Quality Anal ysis
VOC, NO
X
, SO
X
, PM
10
, and PM
2.5
. EDMS was used to estimate airport-related emissions from the following
sources:
Aircraft operations
Ground support equipment
Ground access vehicles (associated with vehicle movements on roadways and in parking lots)
The methodologies and assumptions used to develop the operational emissions estimates are described in
the sections that follow.
C.2.1 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
Annual aircraft emissions are a function of the number of annual operations, the aircraft fleet mix (types of
aircraft/engines used), the length of time aircraft spend in various modes (taxi/idle, takeoff, climbout,
approach, and landing role), and the emission rates of the engine. The EDMS database contains an expansive
list of aircraft types (airframes) and engine types for use in air quality analyses.
Aircraft LTO Cycles and Fleet Mix
Annual landing and takeoff (LTO) cycles data were assembled to determine existing and projected pollutant
emissions from aircraft operations. LTO cycles are one-half the number of total aircraft operations, because
one aircraft operation represents one takeoff or landing.
Aircraft LTO cycles were developed based on the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action aircraft
operations forecasts for 2016 and 2021, as presented in Table 1-1, along with the number and types of
additional aircraft anticipated to be accommodated at the redeveloped DalFort site, as listed in Section 1 and
restated as follows:
6 Challenger 300s (23.1 percent of total additional aircraft)
5 Citation jets (19.2 percent of total additional aircraft)
3 Gulfstream 550s (11.5 percent of total additional aircraft)
6 Hawker 850XPs (23.1 percent of total additional aircraft)
4 Learjet 31As (15.4 percent of total additional aircraft)
2 Legacy 600s (7.7 percent of total additional aircraft)
According to the operations forecasts, 1,804 additional general aviation aircraft operations are anticipated in
2016 as a result of the Proposed Action, with 2,146 additional general aviation aircraft operations anticipated
in 2021. These operations were converted to LTO cycles (divided by 2) and applied to the share of each
aircraft type anticipated to be accommodated by the Proposed Action.
Table C-1 depicts the LTO cycle fleet mix for 2016 and 2021 under the Proposed Action. For purposes of this
analysis, EDMS default engine types were assigned to each aircraft. It should be noted that the LTO cycle fleet
[DRAFT]
mix presented in Table C-1 represents an incremental fleet mix compared to the No Action Alternative. Under
the No Action Alternative, the DalFort site is not redeveloped and the additional aircraft operations are not
realized. Therefore, an LTO cycle fleet mix was not developed for the No Action Alternative.
Table C-1 Aircraft Landing and Takeoff Cycles Proposed Action

LANDING AND TAKEOFF CYCLES
2/

AIRCRAFT EDMS AIRCRAFT EDMS ENGINE
1/
2016 2021
Challenger 300 Bombardier Challenger 300 AS907-1-1A 208 248
Citation Jet Cessna 525 CitationJet JT15D-1 series 174 206
Gulfstream 550 Gulfstream G550 BR700-710A1-10 104 124
Hawker 850XP Raytheon Hawker 900XP TFE731-2-2B 208 248
Learjet 31A Bombardier Learjet 31 TFE731-2-2B 139 165
Legacy 600 Embraer Legacy AE 3001A1/3 Type 1
69 82

902 1,073
Notes:
1/ EDMS engine types represent default engines for each aircraft type.
2/ A landing and takeoff (LTO) cycle is equal to two aircraft operations (a landing and a takeoff).
SOURCE: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., March 2014.
Aircraft Time in Mode
To model aircraft emissions, it is necessary to determine the time for each of the five operating modes that
make up an LTO cycle approach, taxi-in, taxi-out, takeoff, and climbout. To derive times spent in the
approach, takeoff, and climbout modes, EDMS uses a dynamic flight performance modeling module that
accounts for aircraft weight and meteorological conditions. Default values of 7 minutes per LTO cycle for taxi-
in and 19 minutes per LTO cycle for taxi-out were conservatively assumed for purposes of this analysis.
C.2.2 GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
Ground support equipment (GSE) includes a wide range of vehicles used to service aircraft. Examples of GSE
include tugs that haul baggage carts, fuel trucks, catering trucks, and ground power units that provide
electrical power to aircraft when the engines are not running. The EDMS database includes default GSE
assignments for each aircraft type. These default assignments are expressed in terms of total operating times
by specific type of GSE per LTO cycle. Default GSE assignments were selected for all of the aircraft included in
this analysis.
C.2.3 GROUND ACCESS VEHICLES
Motor vehicle traffic (on airport roadways and in parking lots) can be a significant source of pollutant
emissions at an airport. For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that the additional aircraft operating at
[DRAFT]
the Airport as a result of the Proposed Action would result in additional vehicle trips by pilots, passengers, and
other personnel associated with the aircraft. In addition, it was assumed that vehicle trips by employees and
customers, as applicable, would be generated by proposed commercial retail development.
To estimate emissions from vehicles operating on roadways, EDMS requires the definition of roadway
segments and parking lots, the total annual vehicle volumes utilizing the roadway segments and parking lots,
and speed-specific emission factors. Annual vehicle aircraft-related (e.g., pilots and passengers) traffic
volumes associated with the Proposed Action for 2016 and 2021 were computed by using a factor of 2.59
vehicle trips per itinerant LTO cycle.
1
Annual commercial retail development-related vehicle trips were
obtained from a traffic impact assessment conducted for the Proposed Action.
2
It was assumed that
commercial retail development-related vehicles trips would remain constant for the 2016 and 2021 analysis
years. It was assumed that all vehicles associated with the Proposed Action would travel a distance of
approximately 10 miles per trip. This information was used to calculate annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
under the Proposed Action for 2016 and 2021, which is presented in Table C-2.
Table C-2 Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled Proposed Action
AIRCRAFT-RELATED VEHICLE TRIPS
YEAR LTO CYCLES
ANNUAL VEHICLE
TRIPS
1/

ROUNDTRIP
DISTANCE (MILES)
TOTAL VEHICLE MILES
TRAVELED
2016 902 2,336 10 23,360
2021 1,073 2,779 10 27,787

COMMERCIAL RETAIL DEVELOPMENT-RELATED VEHICLE TRIPS
FACILITY TYPE ANNUAL VEHICLE TRIPS
1/
DISTANCE PER TRIP (MILES)
TOTAL VEHICLE MILES
TRAVELED
Total (2016 and 2021) 2,177,590 10 21,775,900
Notes:
1/ Based on a factor of 2.59 vehicle trips per itinerant landing and takeoff (LTO) cycle, as obtained from Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip
Generation Manual, Fifth Edition.
2/ Based on Parsons Brinckerhoff, Dallas Love Field, Redevelopment of the Dalfort Aerospace Facilities SiteTraffic Impact Assessment, January 22, 2013. The
traffic assessment study reported daily projected traffic volumes. Daily traffic volumes were multiplied by 365 days to derive annual trips.
SOURCE: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., March 2014, based on the sources noted in footnotes 1 and 2 above.

1
Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, Fifth Edition.
2
Parsons Brinckerhoff, Dallas Love Field, Redevelopment of the Dalfort Aerospace Facilities SiteTraffic Impact Assessment, January 22, 2013.
The traffic assessment study reported daily projected traffic volumes. For purposes of this analysis, daily traffic volumes were multiplied
by 365 days to derive annual trips. This assumption is likely conservative, as some of the proposed facilities may not operate 365 days per
year.
[DRAFT]
To calculate emissions from vehicles operating on roadways, EDMS multiplies the calculated VMT by an
emission factor for each modeled pollutant. Assuming a speed of 35 miles per hour, EDMS default emission
factors were used, as calculated by the MOBILE6.2 emission factor model incorporated into EDMS.
EDMS was also used to estimate emissions generated by vehicles operating in parking lots. For this analysis, it
was assumed that all vehicles associated with the Proposed Action (1/2 of vehicle trips in Table C-2) would be
parked in existing and proposed parking garages and surface lots on the DalFort site. Once in a parking
lot/garage, it was assumed that each vehicle would travel an average of 1,500 feet at a speed of 10 miles per
hour, with an average idle time of 1.5 minutes. For 2016 and 2021, default MOBILE6.2 emission factors (in
grams per vehicle) were used, as derived from EDMS.
C.2.4 SUMMARY OF OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ANALYSIS
Table C-3 presents the 2016 and 2021 operational emissions estimates associated with the Proposed Action.
Emissions from aircraft are anticipated to increase from 2016 to 2021 as the level of forecast aircraft
operations increases. However, emission standards are anticipated to be more stringent in the future and
therefore, pollutant emission rates from GSE and ground access vehicles are generally anticipated to be the
same or lower in 2021 compared to 2016.
Table C-3 Operational Emissions Inventory Proposed Action

EMISSIONS (TONS/YEAR)
SOURCE CO VOC NOX SOX PM10 PM2.5
2016
Aircraft 7.211 2.346 1.420 0.275 0.078 0.078
Ground support equipment 1.890 0.065 0.192 0.007 0.008 0.007
Parking facilities 4.333 0.505 0.374 0.004 0.013 0.007
Roadways
147.614 10.765 14.826 0.214 0.757 0.394
Total 161.048 13.681 16.812 0.500 0.856 0.486

2021
Aircraft 8.572 2.787 1.692 0.328 0.093 0.093
Ground support equipment 1.179 0.041 0.104 0.009 0.005 0.005
Parking facilities 4.000 0.418 0.264 0.004 0.012 0.006
Roadways
135.578 8.460 10.383 0.216 0.692 0.334
Total 149.330 11.705 12.443 0.556 0.802 0.438
Note: Columns may not add to totals shown because of rounding.
SOURCE: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., March 2014, based on output from the Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System, Version 5.1.4.1.
[DRAFT]
C.3 Construction Emissions Analysis
This section documents the analysis of estimated emissions generated through construction-related activities
associated with implementing the Proposed Action. Components of the Proposed Action included in the
construction emissions analysis include the following:
Demolition and partial demolition of various existing structures within the DalFort development site.
Construction of two new conventional hangar facilities (approximately 42,000 square feet total)
Construction of concrete apron areas (approximately 226,150 square feet)
Renovation of the existing DalFort Operations and Maintenance Building (OMB), including hangars
(approximately 140,000 square feet), vehicle parking (approximately 26,000 square feet), and other
public, commercial, retail, and miscellaneous interior space (approximately 170,000 square feet)
Conversion of a portion of the existing parking garage to retail facilities (approximately 24,500 square
feet)
Construction of an underground parking facility, including surface parking (283 total parking spaces).
Construction of new office/retail facilities (approximately 100,000 square feet)
Remediation activities associated with renovation of the existing OMB facility.
Construction emissions analyses generally require information such as the type of construction equipment to
be used, the amount of time the equipment will operate, estimates of required construction material, areas to
be paved, and the number of employees anticipated to be on site. Such data was largely unavailable for
purposes of conducting this analysis. To estimate construction emissions associated with the Proposed
Action, applicable data were derived and scaled from data provided by Bechtel Infrastructure Corporation for
construction emissions analyses in support of environmental documents prepared for East Lot Development
3

and construction of Terminal 3
4
at McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas, Nevada.
The East Lot Development and Terminal 3 construction projects included a number of components generally
applicable to the projects/facilities included in the Proposed Action. In general, the East Lot Development
project consisted of the demolition of air cargo facilities, construction of new air cargo facilities, the expansion
aircraft parking aprons, and construction of a new taxiway. The Terminal 3 project consisted of development
of a new passenger terminal, along with associated apron areas, roadways, and parking areas. The data
provided by Bechtel for both projects included a comprehensive list of construction equipment types,

3
Ricondo & Associates, Inc., Documented Categorical Exclusion for East Lot Development at McCarran International Airport, September
2006.
4
Ricondo & Associates, Inc., Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment of the Construction of Terminal 3 at McCarran International
Airport, September 2005.
[DRAFT]
including horsepower ratings and fuel type. The methodology used to develop activity estimates for the
Proposed Action was as follows:
To the extent possible, Proposed Action project components were matched to similar project
components of the East Lot Development or Terminal 3 project.
An appropriate unit measurement (i.e., area) for the Proposed Action component was divided by the
unit measurement of the corresponding East Lot Development or Terminal 3 project component.
Activity, materials, and labor estimates (as appropriate) developed by Bechtel were scaled based on
the ratio calculated previously to derive estimates for the corresponding Proposed Action component.
As an example, the East Lot Development project included construction of new air cargo facilities for which
specific construction equipment and activity estimates were made by Bechtel. Based on available scaled
drawings of the Proposed Action, the area of the proposed hangars was determined and divided by the
estimated area of the new air cargo facilities, resulting in a scaling factor. The scaling factor was applied to
the East Lot Development cargo facilities equipment activity estimates to estimate construction activity
associated with the proposed hangars. A similar methodology was applied to each project component
associated with the Proposed Action, except for the remediation activities, for which emissions estimates were
developed and provided by Modern Geosciences.
C.3.1 ON-ROAD CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Emissions from on-road construction vehicles/equipment were calculated using the methodologies outlined
in U.S. EPA AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors Fourth Edition, Volume II: Mobile Sources.
5
On-
road construction vehicle trips include construction employee vehicle trips to and from the job site, off-site
hauling trips, and material delivery trips.
The first step in calculating total on-road construction equipment emissions was to determine total VMT
during each construction year. VMT is calculated by multiplying the total number of vehicle trips by the trip
distance. For construction employee vehicle trips, it was assumed that employees would travel a roundtrip
distance of 20 miles per trip. Hauling/material delivery trips include deliveries of concrete, asphalt, and
construction materials, as well as hauling excavated and demolished material from the construction site. All
hauling/material delivery trips were assumed to be 50 miles roundtrip. Where applicable, concrete was
assumed to be delivered in transit mixer trucks with a capacity of 10 cubic yards. Asphalt was assumed to be
delivered to the site in trucks with a capacity of 12 cubic yards.
The VMT data were then multiplied by appropriate emissions factors to calculate potential emissions. The
emissions factor data were developed using the MOBILE6.2 module in EDMS, Version 5.1.4.1, assuming an
average speed of 35 miles per hour for all trip types.

5
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors AP-42, Volume II: Mobile Sources, 1989.
[DRAFT]
Table C-4 presents the MOBILE6.2 emission factors used to calculate emissions for on-road construction
equipment for the Proposed Action for 2015. The emission factor for entrained road dust accounts for
emissions of fugitive dust particulate matter entrained by vehicular travel on paved roads.
Table C-4 On-Road Construction Equipment Emission Factors

EMISSION FACTORS (GRAMS/VEHICLE-MILE)
1/

YEAR CO VOC NOX SOX PM10 PM2.5
ENTRAINED
ROAD DUST
2/

2015 6.732 0.529 0.831 0.009 0.036 0.020 0.0000004390
Notes:
1/ Assuming an average speed of 35 miles per hour for on-road vehicle trips.
2/ Entrained road dust emission factor measured in tons/vehicle-mile and derived from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors AP-42, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Chapter 13.2.1, Paved Roads, updated January 2011.
SOURCE: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., March 2014, based on output from the Federal Aviation Administrations Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System,
Version 5.1.4.1.
Table C-5 presents emissions estimates for on-road construction equipment for the Proposed Action.

[DRAFT]
Table C-5 On-Road Construction Equipment Emissions 2015

EMISSIONS (TONS PER YEAR)

ROUNDTRIPS
PER YEAR VMT
1/
CO VOC NOX SOX PM10
2/
PM2.5
Hauling trips/material
deliveries 5,583 279,164 1.944 0.145 0.208 0.003 0.132 0.005
Employee vehicle trips 26,790 535,797
3.731 0.278 0.399 0.005 0.254 0.010
Total

5.676 0.423 0.607 0.008 0.387 0.015
Notes:
Columns may not add to totals shown because of rounding.
1/ Vehicle miles traveled is calculated by multiplying the total number of vehicle trips by the trip distance. The average trip length for construction
employees is assumed to be 10 miles (20 miles roundtrip). The trip length for hauling and material deliveries is assumed to be 25 miles (50 miles
roundtrip).
2/ PM10 emissions include entrained road dust.
SOURCE: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., March 2014, based on information provided by Bechtel Infrastructure Corporation.
C.3.2 NONROAD CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Nonroad construction equipment includes bulldozers, loaders, sweepers, and other heavy-duty construction
equipment that generally does not travel on roadways. Emissions for nonroad vehicles equipped with diesel-
powered engines are regulated under 40 CFR Part 89.112,
6
Oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon,
and particulate matter exhaust emission standards. Emission factors associated with diesel engines vary by
engine year and horsepower according to Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, and Tier 4 emissions standards, as presented in
Table 1 of the U.S. EPA report NR-009c, Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling
Compression-Ignition.
7
Nonroad construction equipment emissions under the Proposed Action were
calculated based on the engine horsepower, hours of equipment use, load factor, and the average age of the
equipment. The EPA recommends the methodology shown in Equation C-1 for calculating emissions from
nonroad construction equipment.

6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Control of Emissions from New and In-Use Nonroad Compression-Ignition Engines, Oxides of
nitrogen, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon, and particulate matter exhaust emission standards. 40 CFR Part 89.112.
7
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources, Exhaust Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling Compression-
Ignition, Report No. NR-009c, April 2004.
[DRAFT]
Equation C-1 Nonroad Construction Equipment Emissions Calculation Equation
M
i
= (N)(HRS)(HP)(LF/100)(EF
i
)
where:
M
i
= mass of emissions of i
th
pollutants during the inventory period;
N = source population (units);
HRS = annual hours of use;
HP = average rated horsepower;
LF = typical load factor;
EFi = average emissions of i
th
pollutant per unit of use (e.g., pounds per horsepower-hour).

SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission StudyReport, November 1991.
Emission factors associated with diesel engines vary by the year the engine was manufactured and by
horsepower. The fleet age of the diesel equipment that would be used for construction of the Proposed
Action was estimated to range over 8 years (e.g., for the 2015 construction year, it was assumed that the
oldest piece of equipment on-site would have been manufactured in 2008). Through the use of the vehicle
age spread, a weighted average of Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, and Tier 4 emissions standards was developed for each
equipment type and horsepower range. This methodology is the most representative approach for
calculating pollutant emissions for nonroad construction equipment equipped with diesel engines.
In addition to exhaust emissions of PM
10
, fugitive dust emissions were also estimated for nonroad
construction equipment. Fugitive dust during construction occurs during earthmoving activities such as
excavating, grading, dumping, loading, or pushing dirt.
The data used to estimate emissions from nonroad construction equipment in 2015, as well as total emissions
by equipment type, are presented in Table C-6.
[DRAFT]
Table C-6 Nonroad Construction Equipment Emissions 2015
EMISSION FACTORS (POUNDS PER HORSEPOWER-HOUR)
1/
EMISSIONS (TONS PER YEAR)
2/

EQUIPMENT FUEL
LOAD
FACTOR
3/
HORSEPOWER HOURS CO VOC NOX SOX PM10 FUGITIVE
CONVERSION
FACTOR
4/
CO VOC NOX SOX PM10
5/
PM2.5
6/

Air Compressor Diesel 0.43 80 3,704 0.0011 0.0003 0.0043 0.0000 0.0003 0.0000 0.0005 0.067 0.022 0.273 0.002 0.016 0.000
Asphalt Paver Diesel 0.59 200 139 0.0008 0.0003 0.0043 0.0000 0.0001 0.1443 0.0005 0.007 0.003 0.035 0.000 0.001 0.010
Backhoe Diesel 0.21 124 1,768 0.0007 0.0003 0.0043 0.0000 0.0001 0.1465 0.0005 0.017 0.008 0.099 0.001 0.003 0.130
Bulldozer Diesel 0.59 405 808 0.0013 0.0003 0.0043 0.0000 0.0001 0.1443 0.0005 0.124 0.031 0.414 0.002 0.013 0.058
Compactor Diesel 0.55 145 828 0.0007 0.0003 0.0043 0.0000 0.0001 0.1443 0.0005 0.024 0.011 0.142 0.001 0.005 0.060
Concrete Boom Diesel 0.59 430 43 0.0013 0.0003 0.0043 0.0000 0.0001 0.1443 0.0005 0.007 0.002 0.023 0.000 0.001 0.003
Concrete Drill Diesel 0.59 30 208 0.0035 0.0004 0.0066 0.0000 0.0003 0.0000 0.0005 0.006 0.001 0.012 0.000 0.001 0.000
Concrete Paver Diesel 0.59 460 208 0.0013 0.0003 0.0043 0.0000 0.0001 0.1443 0.0005 0.036 0.009 0.121 0.001 0.004 0.015
Concrete Saw Diesel 0.78 56 208 0.0011 0.0003 0.0043 0.0000 0.0003 0.0000 0.0005 0.005 0.002 0.020 0.000 0.001 0.000
Crane Diesel 0.43 200 2,098 0.0008 0.0003 0.0043 0.0000 0.0001 0.1443 0.0005 0.073 0.029 0.387 0.002 0.012 0.151
Dump Truck Diesel 0.21 360 664 0.0013 0.0003 0.0043 0.0000 0.0001 0.1443 0.0005 0.032 0.008 0.108 0.001 0.003 0.048
Excavator Diesel 0.59 222 942 0.0008 0.0003 0.0043 0.0000 0.0001 0.0435 0.0005 0.050 0.020 0.264 0.001 0.008 0.020
Flatbed Truck Diesel 0.59 360 151 0.0013 0.0003 0.0043 0.0000 0.0001 0.1494 0.0005 0.021 0.005 0.069 0.000 0.002 0.011
Fork Lift Diesel 0.21 80 4,244 0.0011 0.0003 0.0043 0.0000 0.0003 0.1443 0.0005 0.037 0.012 0.153 0.001 0.009 0.306
Generator Diesel 0.43 749 9,510 0.0007 0.0005 0.0062 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0005 1.128 0.742 9.424 0.036 0.291 0.000
Hoe Ram Diesel 0.59 250 45 0.0008 0.0003 0.0043 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0005 0.003 0.001 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000
Loader Diesel 0.21 220 1,032 0.0008 0.0003 0.0043 0.0000 0.0001 0.2198 0.0005 0.019 0.008 0.102 0.001 0.003 0.113
Motor Grader Diesel 0.59 215 1,279 0.0008 0.0003 0.0043 0.0000 0.0001 0.9076 0.0005 0.066 0.026 0.348 0.002 0.011 0.580
Scissors Lift Diesel 0.21 30 5,364 0.0035 0.0004 0.0066 0.0000 0.0003 0.0000 0.0005 0.058 0.006 0.112 0.000 0.005 0.000
Scraper Diesel 0.59 450 107 0.0013 0.0003 0.0043 0.0000 0.0001 1.5949 0.0005 0.018 0.005 0.061 0.000 0.002 0.085
Transit Mixer Diesel 0.43 430 70 0.0013 0.0003 0.0043 0.0000 0.0001 2.2298 0.0005 0.008 0.002 0.028 0.000 0.001 0.078
Water Truck Diesel 0.59 870 3,451 0.0007 0.0005 0.0062 0.0000 0.0002 0.1494 0.0005 0.653 0.429 5.451 0.021 0.168 0.258
Welder Diesel 0.21 46 3,855 0.0011 0.0003 0.0043 0.0000 0.0003 0.0000 0.0005 0.020 0.006 0.080 0.000 0.005 0.000
Total

2.479 1.386 17.739 0.073 0.566 1.928
Notes: Columns may not add to totals shown because of rounding.
1/ Emission factors were derived from Tier standards and an 8-year spread for construction equipment was used to create a weighted average emission factor.
2/ Vehicle emissions are calculated by multiplying the annual hours, load factor, horsepower, emission factor, usage factor, and conversion factor to create a value of tons per year for each piece of equipment.
3/ Load factor is defined as the average fraction of rated power (horsepower) used in a duty cycle.
4/ The conversion factor is the number of pounds per ton 1 ton/ 2,000 pounds = 0.0005.
5/ PM10 emissions include fugitive dust.
6/ For nonroad construction equipment, PM2.5 emissions were assumed to be equal to PM10 emissions but do not include fugitive dust.
Source: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., March 2014, based on information provided by Bechtel Infrastructure Corporation.

[DRAFT]
C.3.3 ASPHALT PAVING
Asphalt surfaces and pavements are composed of compacted aggregate and an asphalt binder. Aggregate
materials are produced from rock quarries as manufactured stone or are obtained from natural gravel or soil
deposits. Asphalt binders take the form of asphalt cement (the residue of the distillation of crude oils) and
liquefied asphalts. Asphalt cement, which is semi-solid, must be heated prior to mixing with aggregate.
Asphalt paving operations can be a source of VOC emissions. VOC emissions are created by the evaporation
of the petroleum distillate solvent, or diluent, used to liquefy asphalt cement. Emissions from asphalt paving
activities were calculated for the Proposed Action using the methodologies presented in Section 4.5, Asphalt
Paving Operations of AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I.
The only project component of the Proposed Action anticipated to include significant asphalt paving are the
surface parking lots that serve proposed facilities. The formula used to calculate VOC emissions caused by
asphalt paving operations is presented in Equation C-2.
Equation B-2 Asphalt Paving Emissions Calculation Equation
M
i
= (A)(AR)(VD)(EF)(D)
where:
Mi = mass of emissions of ith pollutants during inventory period;
A = area of land affected (square meters);
AR = application rate of liquefied asphalt over area (liters per square meter);
VD = percent, by volume, of diluent in liquefied asphalt (percentage);
EF = percent of diluent (mass) that evaporates and becomes VOC (percentage);
D = density of solvent used (pounds per liter).

SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area
Sources, Section 4.5 Asphalt Paving Operations, January 1995.
The following assumptions were used to estimate VOC emissions associated with asphalt paving operations:
The asphalt would be put down in two lifts (layers). The asphalt paving process would include two tack
coats (one tack coat for each lift). There would be one prime coat paving.
Asphalt paving operations were assumed to include liquefied asphalts as the asphalt binder. Liquefied
asphalts would include emulsified asphalts. No cutback asphalts would be used for the project.
Emulsified asphalts were assumed to be 3 percent VOC by volume.
The application rate for the tack coat would be 0.4528 liter of emulsified asphalts per square meter of
paving.
[DRAFT]
Table C-7 is a summary of VOC emissions associated with asphalt paving activities for the Proposed Action.
Table C-7 Asphalt Paving Emissions 2015
APPLICATION
PAVED AREA
(M
2
)
1/

SOLVENT
DENSITY
(LB/L)
2/

APPLICATION
RATE (L/M
2
)
3/

PERCENT VOC
EMITTED
4/

CONVERSION
FACTOR
(TON/LB)
TOTAL VOC
EMISSIONS
(TONS)
Tack coat 5,203 1.8 0.453 3% 1/2000 0.127
Prime coat 5,203 1.8 1.358 20% 1/2000
1.272
Total 1.399
Notes: M = meter; L = liter; LB = pound.
1/ The areas to be paved were assumed by Ricondo & Associates, Inc., March 2014, based on project drawings and Google Earth Pro (image date 10/18/13).
2/ Solvent density is for kerosene. It is standard industry practice to use kerosene to liquefy asphalt cement.
3/ Application rates are consistent with standard industry practice.
4/ The percent VOC emitted for the tack coat is consistent with the use of emulsified asphalt. The percent VOC emitted for the prime coat is based on data
found in Table 4.5-1 of Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Section 4.5 Asphalt
Paving Operations, July 1979 (reformatted January 1995). The value is based on medium cure cutback and 35 percent, by volume, of diluent in cutback for
the prime coat.
SOURCE: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., March 2014, based on the sources noted above.
C.3.4 REMEDIATION ELEMENT EMISSIONS
Once the existing DalFort Aerospace facility has been rehabilitated, the Proposed Action includes a
remediation element whereby, a portion of the underlying soil would be excavated and removed, and one or
more underground storage tanks would be removed. Estimates of NO
x
and VOC emissions associated with
this task was developed by Modern Geosciences and is summarized on Table C-8. All remediation-related
activities and resulting emissions are assumed to occur in 2015.
Table C-8 Remediation Element Emissions
EQUIPMENT HOURS
NOX
POUNDS/HOUR
NOX
(TONS/YEAR)
VOC
POUNDS/HOUR
VOC
(TONS/YEAR)
Pick ups and Misc. Vehicles 6 1.07 0.003 0.11 0.000
Highway Trucks 16 2.42 0.019 0.32 0.003
Rubber Tire Loader 40 1.94 0.039 0.16 0.003
Back Hoe 16 0.94 0.008 0.13 0.001
Excavators 40 2.47
0.050
0.16
0.003
Total 0.118 0.010
Note: Columns may not add to totals shown because of rounding.
SOURCE: Modern Geosciences, August 2012.
[DRAFT]
C.3.5 SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS ANALYSIS
A summary of total construction-related emissions for the Proposed Action in 2013 and 2014 is presented in
Table C-9.
Table C-9 Construction Emissions Summary

CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (TONS/YEAR)
SOURCE CO VOC NOX SOX PM10 PM2.5
2015
On-Road Equipment 5.676 0.423 0.607 0.008 0.387 0.015
Nonroad Equipment 2.479 1.386 17.739 0.073 2.494 0.566
Asphalt Paving 0.000 1.399 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Remediation
1/

0.000 0.010 0.118 0.000 0.000 0.000
Total 8.154 3.219 18.464 0.081 2.881 0.582
Notes:
Columns may not add to totals shown because of rounding.
1/ Emissions associated with remediation activities were provided by Modern Geosciences, August 2012.
SOURCE: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., March 2014.

PLEASE VI SI T OUR WEBSI TE AT:
www.ricondo.com

Braniff Building Environmental Assessment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Braniff Building Environmental Assessment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dallas Love Field

Redevelopment of the DalFort Site

Source: Dallas (1981) USGS 7.5' quadrangle

Source: Bing Maps aerial imagery

REQUEST FOR SHPO CONSULTATION:

Redevelopment of the Former Dalfort Aerospace Facility at DAL

Federal Aviation Administration Review only-Funding from City of Dallas

See attached report

Redevelopment of the Former Dalfort Aerospace Facility at DAL

Source: Dallas (1981) USGS 7.5' quadrangle

Source: Bing Maps aerial imagery

DALL AS LOVE FI ELD

United States Department of the Interior

You might also like