19970064 Ver 1_Complete File_19970203 (2)

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
May 9, 1997
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe
THROUGH: Alan Clark
A fflZ.WYWA
00
ED EHNFI

RE: Comments on DEHNR # 97-0674; DWQ#11585
U.S. Postal Center on 58.7 acres, EA Scoping
Greensboro, Guilford County
?q I%CF??FO
?MF?T?c 99
0
R 42-

These comments have been prepared by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
Planning Branch. They are provided in addition to the comments provided by Greg Price,
with the Division's Environmental Sciences Branch, dated April 29, 1997. The Planning;
Branch has reviewed the above EA scoping request for a new postal center and has the
following comments on the proposal:
a) The facility as currently designed will impact several hundred feet of an unnamed
tributary to Brush Creek, which has a N.C. Surface Water Classification of WS-III
NSW (nutrient sensitive waters). The WS-III means that the water within these
streams is being used for public water supply and should be protected from the
addition of pollutants. According to the State Water Supply Watershed Protection
Act, the development has a maximum built-upon surface area limitation, mandatory
stormwater controls if above a specific density, and minimum stream buffer
protection requirements.
b) The WS-III classification also means that these waters should be protected from
excessive erosion and sedimentation impacts, which will undoubtedly occur with
the filling and relocating of the streams as proposed. If possible, it is recommended
that the facility be redesigned to avoid these natural stream areas and provide the
required protective stream buffers around these streams, as set forth in the State
Water Supply Watershed Protection Act, which is implemented locally within the
Guilford County Development Ordinance. Depending on the percentage of built-
upon surface area proposed for the development, this required buffer could be 30 or
100-feet in width. According to the State Watersupply Watershed Protection Act,
no buildings can be placed within this buffer area. However, if redesigning the
project is not feasible to avoid impacting the natural drainage areas of the site, the
requirement for protecting the unbuildable buffer around any relocated streams on
the site would still apply.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Melba McGee
DEHNR# 97-0674
May 9, 1997
Page 2
c) The scoping request does not specify the amount of built-upon area planned for the
development. Therefore, it is not possible to determine if the project exceeds the
maximum built-upon limits as specified in the State Water Supply Watershed Act or
the Guilford County Development Ordinance. The scoping request also does not
discuss in detail the specifics of the "detention" facilities indicated on the sketch
plan. Without this information, it is not possible to determine if the proposal would
meet those parameters of the State Water Supply Watershed Protection Act. Since
this issue will be regulated by the Guilford County Planning Department for this
project, the applicant should contact that office regarding this issue.
d) Comment No. 1 provided by Mr. Price in his April 29 memo (copy attached) states
that the project impacts regarding water quality will be significant. If the EA being
developed for this project is to lead to a Finding of No Significant Impact, then the
EA will need to include how the wetlands and water quality impacts associated with
the project construction will be adequately mitigated.
Please give me a call at 919-733-5083, ext. 567 if you have any questions.
mis:\970674
cc: John Dorney, ESB - WQ Lab
NC DEM WQ ENVSCI Fax:[phone]
'Mate : of
Wt-th : aroiina
C:'
rt R Invir n en
t t,
ea1tft-. ? 6d':NM,Ural;;Resources
'. Divisie?i`.:??'lN?at?• f7?ia?ty
:la rftiettBc` Flt' J"r:= 3aoYeirear
is . r•
J:dilatFs Howea.':Secreta'ry
A Praattln h46i ?ardr,Jr:; P.E., Director
1i I
¢ 1 'M FAvirgme>EitA- ?ehees Araneb (FSB) is concemed with the ma 6, ht of stream
chanriels:emd wet ds.to be impaciedfiotu'this pmjecrcodstructiort and kheves that these
impacts vvill• ixsit:regat+dmg water gAity. Based on the location ,.of the proposed
iittpa.Ctod i SUVs .sni3•wcdancJs; ii 4ppcars. these areas arc pcsfori,zg valtiable..water quality
f inctloas` ".,m..a .W.JL . supply Watershed. The prdject as!proposed VAR. require a 401
WcQglityerpfication requrrin8. stnaig and wetland mitigation; '
•Fhe-EfiB ? coticeent d about storntwater management on this site. A. stocmwater
ttlat geni=t Pte. needrs to be'ttaenaoned•;in the EA wWe the details of tho ph%* be carried
out;
iltia "tom:: g.Priycess,
duri°g'• :?.. Perms...
Tttc BSB:1?bgaests?thaF it map(s) showip# the s wedandsAelineation be included
for all thts? tta'c3t tii!ee (i:e..other locations) m the EA: A tabular accounting o€fill by site
for each- ahahadve wY t6u .d.alao be helpful.
4. irii Eves't f;i:ll p?±oposed alternatives along with an explanation for their
vbn*efez cue's should lie-}aoluded in the EA.
5:: l tosiarci•control messim: should not, be placed iii wetlands.
`,Badort?etiSm of:aa -EA/FONSI :by DWQ would not preclude tlte.denial of a 401
C` ti upiput application if wetland impacts havo not been avoided and minimized to
t6e:maac3 3wme t:pmcticabte, Quest onsregatdin the 461 Certification should be
dgected- GrO, Thee: (733--l786 ) irvDWQ's Environmental Sciences Branch.
IvJlchelle'Sirvcrlatibbe
Bi 40ttinmm Scieocei33; : • 4401. Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Cuglina 27607
Telephaas 939-733-94611 I VAX M 733.9939
Ax.84°??'OPP •!l 'A. 4i4-AI;di* Enplaw 50%FSM761mit/lowPoe mmumr PROW
h1"
Apr 30 '9T 7:54 P.02/02
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
? Project located in 7th floor library
'Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All R/O Areas C Soil and Water .? Marine Fisheries
ill
? F
tt I,Air ? Coastal Management ? Water Planning
ev
aye
e Water ? Water Resources Environmental Health
? Mooresville Groundwater .Wildlife ? Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh ZLand Quality Engineer P Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
? W
hi ? Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources ? David Foster
ngton
as 01 Coastal Management Consultant VE Parks and Recreation El Other (specify)
El Wilmington
? Others
i Environmental Management
Winston-Salem PWS Monica Swihart
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/A y:

Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
-In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
?Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
DConsistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
yyy,,,NEPA and SEPA
Lis Uther (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
as 104
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Ja mes i3. Hunt, Jr., G ove mor
Jonathan R Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
April 29, 1997
MEMORAND
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dom*
From: Greg Price A"
LT.RMAA,
17
C) FE F1
Subject: US Postal Service Processing and Distribution Center Scoping Comments
Guilford County
EHNR #97-0674
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands. The following comments are
offered in response to the scoping request.
1. The Environmental Sciences Branch (ESB) is concerned with the amount of stream
channels and wetlands to be impacted from this project construction and believes that these
impacts will be significant regarding water quality. Based on the location of the proposed
impacted streams and wetlands, it appears these areas are performing valuable water quality
functions with in a water supply watershed. The project as proposed will require a 401
Water Quality Certification requiring stream and wetland mitigation.
2. The ESB is concerned about stormwater management on this site. A stormwater
management plan needs to be mentioned in the EA while the details of the plan be carried
out during the permitting process.
3. The ESB requests that a map(s) showing the streams/wetlands delineation be included
for all the alternatives (i.e. other locations) in the EA. A tabular accounting of fill by site
for each alternative would also be helpful.
4. Narratives of all proposed alternatives along with an explanation for their
nonpreferences should be included in the EA.
5. Erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
6. Endorsement of an EA/FONSI by DWQ would not preclude the denial of a 401
Certification upon application if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable. Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be
directed to Greg Price (733-1786) in DWQ's Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Michelle Suverlmibbe
Environmental Sciences Branch 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
Environmental Review Tracking Sheet
J U
DWO - Water Ouality Section J / [-as
.
&4EMORANDUM
TO:
RECEIVEC'
Env. Sciences Branch
* Wetlands-
John Dorney ??
? Eric -Oai-. Mb (D&r)
X Greg Price (airports, COE)
? Steve Kroeger (utilities)
* Bio. Resources, Habitat, End. Species
? Trish MacPherson - - -
? Kathv Herring (forestJo[tw/xQw)
* Toxicology
? Larry Ausley
Planning Branch
?
Technical Support Branch " e 9 15
? Coleen Sullins, P&E ENVIRO^'M"Nrgesci?
? Dave Goodrich, P&E, NPDES .
? Carolyn McCaskill, P&E, State
? Bradley Bennett, PRE, Stormwater
? Ruth S wanek, Instream Assess. (modeling)
? Carla Sanderson, Rapid Assess.
Operations Branch -(/J hS
? t
? Tom Poe, Pretreatment
'*% Lisa Martin, Water Supply Watershed
Regional Water (duality Supervisors
? Asheville ? Mooresville ? Washington
? Fayetteville ? Raleigh ? Wilmington
? Winston-Salem
FP.ON•t:
RE:

'/?" ev .
Attached is a copy of the above document. Subject to the requirements of the North Carolina
En?uonmenral Policy Act, you are being asked to review the document for potential significant impacts
to the environment, especially pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or permit authority.
Please check the appropriate box below and return this form to me along with your written comments, if
any, by the date indicated.
Thank you for your assistance. Suggestions for streamlining and expediting this process are
greatly appreciated!
Notes: l? V_Zlil ' 10010 AALZ IAAJAiA k&06L- _ t9U94 /11
You can reach me at:
phone: [phone], ext. 567 fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
mLs:`ci:=cmo.doc
Michelle Suverl-rubbe. Planning Branch
0
771
r Roy F. Weston, Inc.
1880-H Beaver Ridge Circle
Norcross, Georgia 30071-3833 RR 21, 19?
0 770-263-5400 - Fax [phone]
MANAGERS DESIGNERSICONSULTANTS M i Y
VV A i t
SECTioN
April 18, 1997
Mr. Steve Tedder
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Re: United States Postal Service Proposed Processing and Distribution Center, Greensboro NC
Early Coordination for Environmental Assessment
WESTON Work Order No. 01779-077-027-0020-00
Dear Mr. Tedder:
The United States Postal Service intends to construct a new mail processing and distribution
center (P&DC) on Regional Road, near Brush Creek, in Guilford County, North Carolina (see
Site Location Map, enclosed). An Environmental Assessment of this proposed action was
conducted in 1990 prior to site acquisition. A Supplemental Environmental Assessment is now
being prepared to assess the potential project-specific impacts to the environment. On behalf of
the Postal Service, Roy F. Weston, Inc., (WESTONa) hereby solicits your comments regarding
this site relative to your field of expertise.
The site consists of approximately 58.7 acres of property on the east side of Regional Road
North, north of Skyway Drive, west of Greensboro, North Carolina (see USGS Topographic
Quadrangle, enclosed). The property is currently undeveloped and almost entirely forested. There
is a perennial stream flowing southeast across the property into a 1.77-acre wetland which has
been subject to formal jurisdictional determination by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (File
199700322). Development of the eastern portion of the site is constrained by the proximity of
radar installations under the jurisdiction of the Greensboro-Highpoint Airport Authority.
The proposed site development plan calls for a 413,700-sq. ft. main building including work
rooms and support with six penthouse mechanical equipment rooms and 44 perimeter loading
docks (see Proposed Site Development Plan, enclosed). Single level passenger car parking (480
employee spaces), a 15,120-sq. ft. storage building, and rough grading for 120,000 sq. ft. future
workroom expansion are also included. The stream will be diverted to the north of the proposed
building in an enclosed culvert and the building finish floor elevation has been set to balance the
amount of cut and fill.
NORM: V 77=771027100201EC%EC-LTR D0C
ngmfl
Mr. Steve Tedder
April 18, 1997
Page 2
Please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone] [fax: [phone]; e-mail:
[e-mail]] should you have any questions or comments regarding this
solicitation. I look forward to receiving your timely input at this early stage of project planning.
Sincerely,
ROY F. WESTON, INC.
Richard B. Darling
Senior Project Scientist
RBD/rbd
cc: Kathleen O'Reilly
Sandra Farmer
Enclosures: Site Location Map
USGS Topographic Quadrangle
Proposed Site Development Plan
NORM:w1 779OT7%02T 20%EC%EC-QTR.DOC
i
i
65 I
I
158 68
of
U i
L
o 15
U-
L
I
66
j
311
j?
68

'

o I;

HH I
of
0
.

>
D
D

62
TH SVI
Map Supply, Inc.
Lexington, NC
U.S. Postal Service
Proposed P & D Center
Greensboro, NC
Environmental Assessment
Site Location Map
Rockingham County
SUI3JLCT
Sr ?• ? .A It
0
1'ROPI?R`I'Y
Pi mont Triad--:
national Airport
.. °-?_ ,? sY w.?•*
spy` l
Guilford County
X70 ! o
10
i?
jE
Randolph County
61 la
I
I
I
I
62 I
I
I
I
I
.._._._._.1
LI
N
A Not to Scale
;R)
MANAGERS DESIGNERSICONSULTANTS
AWN FDA DES.ENG DATE W O. No.
??? 9 01779-077-027-0(
ECKED E APPROVED DATE DWG. No
YV \ s.l 1 ? i .i -.? ? \ /???? ?• ? -? iF j- T ? I (t sl 1' ..?\ ? _ ? ,_ ? t _,' 7? .
1
i1:36' , t h; r ? , {?:, I ,. ¦ ?t ¦ fir' 1 ?:
?, I._.irs ,•.?,.?.I? ,j,' I' 1 - ?,
?.,?
_ 1 L 1 ? I
f ,Ir ('{? II \,+I 7?. t I). ?•. .1\ - V? ^? t -1 l I''',I
. • `- .-'ril \ ?? St\ ? II ,, r_ ? 1 i ?(y ,`? \.. i i 1;_. I ? I. ?.• ?.
? ? i`? ' I?p.?u.SO ., {1` r^, ?I11f l ;-. - : 11 .''G? .._ ? 1'0 ? 1 1 ??
t n ? i . ? j by - S \ y'1',? ?` I ?' -" 5'?\? ?? 4 a ., I
1 { f ? I?1 ,? r 51 i?/ - 15 I` K , 'mil li+
C ?t ,! 1 i ?\? ? jN a 'w `? L 1 :.! I t 'CSI :?,"'\' 1 .1
1
? 1 r'1 -r t I I r 1 I `; `j1?` i s4 ?_ !i^,.11r` \{•. ii `t i , ? ? .:?R. I ?:
Ilft 1 I I -_„_?\\? \\-s:i?:;, I I I ?{ -?.?. _rr \i i?l• 1{ .ti.
1 ? a? ,?.. 1 it •?5 ;.
1 If/ry 1. IV I .b\II alfl i? ?? ? ?, f s may'
y' !F
V
414
.? k. a
., #7-
i\ I 1 a ?
Y`+5Y \ ` y f? I' it \y r 1 ?I'
gigs'
1 ,'I
li.lY? ?.
41\ r- _ \? P? ff 14 ? r f, I I ? i 11 I I l'' A t 1
?.. ?..?+ J ?I. \? ?+ ? ? 1• 1 ?. r - cur' t4
7s ? ? ? ? ? tI ?a
N
U.S. Geological Survey Scale in Miles
Guilford, N.C. Quadrangle mormw?
1951, Revised 1994. A0.5 0 0.5 1
U.S. Postal Service
Proposed P & D Center
Greensboro, NC
i;
Environmental Assessment MANAGERS DESIGNERS WICONSULTANTS
Topographic Map DRAINN DAT/yiry DESENG DATE WO. Nn
J ]r 01779-077-027-0020
CHECKED DATE APPROVED DATE DWG. No.
. -F
z Q
? b
? •3
C's
o ;
cd
C/? N
O
O
O
o
0,
00
O
O
00
0 o co or--
0 0 Oo co
'Nom V
"soma C) 0
00
3
cd
ti
I _ O ? Lt, 00
I.
?w •.
-En ! ooo
¦
•
O
O
DO
I

o I
O
O ¦
c

0
0
O

I
00
o I-
°' I co
¦,_ V)
o' o
Q
C)
rn
I
I
I '.
i
a?
U
O ;o
Q
44
O
.b
W '
O

N
O .?
? b
? > rn

a
a
a
a?
a
0
d
A
v?
as
0
a
a
Q
U
a
a
U
?r
F-.
3
?
w
0
0
0
K
4
w
a
6
W
Y
U
w
x
U

O Q

N

o ¦

.

U :k O
A I$.
o
as a

I U
// W o
o
? lO >
•
v'
o i
`
a

I
N

Cd

I
-- .. V.,

O
¦ i
.
' .. .....
...............
00001•

I
O
bA

z
J
7
z
O
U
w
W
z
0
30
z
z
w
vi
W ?
zz
r.
0
a?
U
?UZ
?QoCd
Cd
v o .?
w 0
a 7?
August 13, 1997
MEMORANDUM
To: Michele Suverkrubbe
Through: John Dorn co)p( 0
From: Eric Galamb
SUBJECT: Supplemental EA for US Postal Service Processing and Distribution Center
Guilford County
Project No. 98-0005, DWQ No. 11684
The United States Postal Service is planning to construct a processing and distribution
center on a 58.7-acre site on Regional Road in Guilford County. The site is primarily
forested and approximately 1,535 feet of Bush Creek and approximately 1200 feet of
intermittent tributaries to Bush Creek flow through the site. These streams are in a
protected watershed and are classified as WS-III NSW. Additionally, there are
approximately 1.77-acres of wetlands associated with Bush Creek.
The proposed site development plan calls for a 413,700-sq. ft. main building including
work rooms and 44 perimeter loading docks. There will be 480 employee parking spaces,
a 15,120-sq. ft. storage building and rough grading for a 120,000 sq. ft. future expansion.
Approximately 1600 feet of perennial tributaries to Bush Creek and 900 feet of
intermittent tributaries will be diverted and placed in a pipe.
The EA did a good job of describing the habitat and the impacts that will occur at the site.
We are pleased that the wetland has been avoided and can continue to provide habitat and
important water quality functions. However, the EA did not discuss any options or
designs that would avoid placing 1600 feet of perennial stream and 900 feet of intermittent
stream in a pipe.
I met with the Postal Service and their consultants on July 15, 1997. The comments I
expressed during that meeting are also included here. The following comments and
requests for information should be addressed in the FONSI:
1. Alternative designs or changes that would permit the stream to remain in an open
channel should be investigated. This may be accomplished by using retaining walls
for the parking lot and/or building. The stream may be relocated to the south so
that an open channel would exist between the parking area and the building with a
small road crossing.
2. Stormwater management will be needed for this site.
After demonstrating that the stream impacts cannot be avoided or minimized
further, mitigation for unavoidable impacts may be necessary within the Bush
Creek watershed due to its water supply classification.
4. Provide information on how the wetland will be protected from scouring when the
creek is straightened and how lost water quality functions will be compensated.
Additionally, address what impacts straightening or culverting the creek will have
on downstream flooding and how any loss flood storage will be mitigated.
cc: Owen Anderson, WRC
Environmental Rrview Tracking Sheet (0?
DWO - Water
Section
MEMORANDUM
M- Env. Sciences Branch (WQ Lab)
* Wetlands
O John Dorney
O Cyndi Bell (Dar)
,.Eric Galamb (others)
O
* Bio. Resources, Habitat, End. Species
O Trish MacPherson
O Kathy Herring (forest/oRw/HQw)
O
* Toxicology
O Larry Ausley
O
Planning Branch (Archdale - 6th)
O
ERQM; Michelle Suverkrubbe, Planning Branch
BE.
Technical Support Branch (Archdale 9th)
O Coleen Sullins, P&E
O Dave Goodrich, P&E, NPDES
O Kim Colson, P&E, State
O Bradley Bennett, P&E, Stormwater
O Ruth Swanek, Instream Assess. (modeling)
O Carla Sanderson, Rapid Assess.
O
Operations Branch (Archdale 7th)
O Kent Wiggins, Facility Assessment
O Tom Poe, Pretreatment
O Lisa Martin, Water Supply Watershed
Regional Water Quality Supervisors
O Asheville O Mooresville O Washington
O Fayetteville - O Raleigh O Wilmington
O Winston-Salem
Attached is a copy of the above document. Subject to the requirements of the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act, you are being asked to review the document for potential significant impacts
to the environment, especially pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or permit authority. Please
check the appropriate box below and return this form to me along with your written comments, if any, by
tho .into 1"AlnntuA
Thank you for your assistance. Suggestions for streamlining and expediting this process are greatly
appreciated !
misAcircmemo - mac version
I can be reached at:
phone: [phone], ext. 567 fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
t
,,.. .
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA

n

June, 1997
United States Postal Service
Major Facilities Office
225 North Humphreys Boulevard
Memphis, Tennessee 38166-0300
1
. . ,o.

S?o t? r
tv-ali eel
?w
S- I.C6
G.pb?'eim? Wad /?J ? I`l2 ac ? ?Np ?
7?1"^ K3^'??1?4 ? e I w,'(1
Cumnr? ?'mv0 sm' .? sfrm-

? ?fz?
nrl? ? ran ? ? C'e?a
vs w?--
?- 4 WA
4rA lot-j(?Lql
>1 Pt I
?J.
S Vill
NCWRC,HCP,FALLS LAKE
TEL:[phone] Aug 12'97 18:45 No.007 P.02
® Nortih Carolina Wil"e Resources Commmion
512, N. SaliAnny Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604.11$8, 919-733.3391
Charles R. Fullwood,l?aoscutive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legis=icont Affairs
From : Owen F. Anderegion Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Datc: August 12, 1997
SUBJECT: Supplemental Environmental Assessment for US Postal Service Processing and
Distribution Center, Bush Creek, Ouilford County, Project No. 98-0005
StaiTbiologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed
the subject prRiect for potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources and sensitive habitats. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332 (2) (C)), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C 661-667d), and the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 through
113A-10; 1 NCAC 25).
The United States Postal Service is planning to construct a processing and distribution
center on a 58.7-acre site on Regional Road in Ouiltbrd County. The site is primarily forested
and approximately 1,535 feet of Bush Creek and approximately 1200 feet of intermittent
tributaries to Bush Creek flow through the site. These streams we in a protected watershed and
are classified as WS-111 NSW. Additionally, there are approximately 1.77-4cres of wetlands
associated with Bush Creek.
The proposed site development plan calls for a 413,700-sq, ft. main building including
work rooms and 44 perimeter loading docks. There will be 480 employee parking spaces, a
I 5,120-sq. ft. storage building and rough grading for a 120,000 sq. it. future expansion.
Approximately 16001bet of perennial tributaries to Bush Creek and 900 feet of intermittent
tributaries will be diverted and placed in a pipe.
The site is currently forested with a typical Piedmont upland hardwood forest consisting
of very high quality wildlife habitat. The proximity of the forest to the creek and wetland
enhances the situ ibr wildlife.
Thu FA did a good job of describing the habitat and the impacts that will occur at the sito.
We are pleased that the wetland has been avoided and can continue to provide habitat and
NCWRC,HCP,FALLS LAKE
US Postal Service
Project 99-0005
August 12, 1997
We have the following comments and requests for information that should be addressed;
1. Consider alternative designs that would leave the stream in an open channel.
2. Provide information on how the wetland will be protected from scouring when the creek
is straightened and how loss water quality functions will be compensated. Additionally,
address what impacts straightening or culverting the creek will have on downstream
flooding and how loss flood storage will be compensated.
3. Any wetland/stream mitigation for unavoidable impacts should occur within the
watershed that is impacted.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for this
project. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at [phone],
TEL:[phone] Aug 12'97 18:46 No.007 P.03
cc: John I Iefner, Supervising Biologist USFWS
Brie Calamb, Division of Water Quality
SB7 BY! 7- 8-97 ; 14=44 ROY F WESTON 919 733 99594 2/ 3
r- -
Inter-Office Memorandum
0
aah WMMMOMSUITAMTS
Atlanta Office
DATE: July 8, 1997
TO: Distribution
PM FACWWHILE
THROUGH: Kathleen L. O'Reilly
FROM: Richard B. Darling
RE: Proposed Greensboro P&DC; Guilford County, NC
Pre-Application Conference
The meeting to discuss wetlands and water quality permitting issues for the proposed Greensboro
Processing and Distribution Center (P&DC) is scheduled for Tuesday July 15, 1997 at 1:00 PM at
WESTON's Morrisville, NC office located at 1000 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite E; Morrisville, NC
27560; telephone [phone] (Directions attached. Please do not hesitate to contact me at
[phone] with any questions or comments. WESTON appreciates your availability at such
short notice.
Distribution:
Mr. John Thomas Raleigh Regulatory Held Ofte; [phone]
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, x25
Wilmington District [phone]
Mr. Eric Galamb North Carolina Department of [phone]
Environment, Health and Natural [phone]
Resources; Division of Water
Quality
Mr. Steve Moony/ North Carolina Department of [phone]
Mr. Ron Linville Environment, Health and Natural [phone]
Resources; Winston-Salem Offlce
Mr. John Malueg City of Greensboro; [phone]
Environmental Services [phone]
Mr. Mike Sandor Lockwood Greene Engineers, Inc. [phone]
[phone]
Ms. Sandra Farmcr United States Postal Service; [phone]
Major Facilities Office [phone]
KLO/rbd
Attachments: Dirmtions(I page)
N0WA017rs T=r0WWAC,K1XX
SECT BY, 7- 8-97 ; 14=44 ROY F WESTON-a
T
AvW
ou"m CW "W" r
?.mm
*AM moo tam
caiw?wnm ?.
wW
I
919 733 9959;# 3/ 3
1 Roo
J
I
j"fft*mWpm
?'?+4?co?uwrwt
or lover b soh cll.
Isom AkW - ftkW *M on 84pa hm Airw Wm* NO "W",
Yaw branAkpq * 4. lam' "W?_
Onor ? arar NIO you wN p? rn a+uuc msN on 1? ?
?' ? ? ? ?t ?rAr ar a,INt poll N? rMrn?r t~srk
Tunl MIIQ aw Art pa ?
??p ?1p b dMt 0t?np
P"" W 6" bound (N WWn/r;'1„ pN ? • eM MO It 00 MI0Qq ort Md.
vo%mmft%paftm"
Oe % ft ss=W ooh! &m fpm 1* ft p&v4W pok
FcftW ft sb" &vcft*
From 1/0 W" bawd (Ro"h) -ft WO ?t ?dt ?a?,Ahpwt ahrd.
ftml.caMWpGfftm ,
&vftWm walk
o ftn Mm a grlp
->I
MMM"o
(("N"9 e?eee?? - z
P?
IMIC ft Mn -,
(9,00-m
L4QftMn.s
ombl in ipsa lso
0i/QT#!NUsrA f-ON HolawN -, MU-TT L6-8 -L , N0199m:AV 1,09
SENT BY: 7- 8-97 ; 14:44 ROY F WESTON-+ 919 733 9959;# 1/ 3
Roy F. Weston. Inc- FACSIMIX.IIr TIEiANSIY MAIL
ise
1t16o-Fi 8aavar Ftdga girds FAX: [phone]
Norcfon, Gwrph 300%1.3833
„0.263-5400 • Fain "0.2634450
11MlAGER$ oESKatEr+6rCOm ulmrs
TO: T"Y\ Y' a-x r_ Recipient's Teleco y }?
Telephone: j, - 1 1?Jc
Recipient's
Telephone:
':K?NL, A _&?.,,
FROM: Originator's
Telephone:
TOTAL PAGE, S: ? rrneludJHg eowr rJeap
DATE: I ?I W.O. No:
COMMENTS:
Providing duality environmental management and consulting engineering services for over 40
years in the areas of.
Analytical Testing/Characterization
Air Quality
Water Quality/Wastewater
Hazardous, Solid, Radioactive Waste
Health and Safety
Life Sciences
Strategic Environmental Management
Information Management
Constru cti on/Remed i at i o n
Geosciences
55 Offices Worldwide
The documents accompanying this telewpy transmission contain confidential, privileged, or proprietary information
that either constitutes the property of Roy F. Weston, Inc., (WESTON*) or, if the property of another, represents
information that is within WESTON's care, custody, and control. The information is intended to be for the use of
the individual or entity named on the transmission sheet. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any
disclosure, copying, or use of the contents of this telecopled information Is prohibited. If you have received this
telecopy in error, please notify us by telephone irnmediately so that we can arrange for the retrieval of the oriciml
documents at no coat to you. Thank you for your assistance.
AWft-MWAXCOV &WC
r7H7
Click to WESTON Oil The Web http,//www.rfwtSton.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Section Df& F-M
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................1-1
1.1 KEY ISSUES ............................................................................................................. 1-1
' 1.2 POSITIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ........................ 1-1
1.3 RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER ACTION .................................................. 1-2
2 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE ............................................................................................... 2-1
' 2.1 PURPOSE .................................................... ...........................................................2-1
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS ...................................... 2-1
' 3 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION .........................................................................3-1
3.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................................................................ 3-1
3.2 PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................................................... 3-1
3.3 REASONS FOR PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................... 3-2

1

4 PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS/ALTERNATIVES .......................................................... 4-1
4.1 ALTERNATIVES TO BE EVALUATED ................................................................4-1
4.2 SELECTED ALTERNATIVE ................................................................................... 4-3
4.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ................................................................................. 4-7
5 EVALUATION OF IMPACTS ............................................................................................. 5-1
5.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................. 5-2
5.1.1 Topography ................................................................................................. 5-2
5.1.2 Geology and Soils ....................................................................................... 5-4
5.1.3 Hydrology/Water Quality ........................................................................... 5-5
5.1.4 Prime Farmland ........................................................................................... 5-8
5.1.5 Fish and Wildlife ......................................................................................... 5-8
5.1.6 Botanical Element ....................................................................................... 5-9
5.2 CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................. 5-10
5.2.1 Historic and Archaeologic ........................................................................ 5-10
5.2.2 Local Employment and Economics .......................................................... 5-11
5.2.3 Land Use and Zoning Patterns .................................................................. 5-11
5.2.4 Transportation ...........................................................................................5-13
5.2.5 Noise ......................................................................................................... 5-13
5.2.6 Air Quality ................................................................................................ 5-14
5.2.7 Population Trends and Housing ................................................................ 5-15
NOR/K\01779\077\027\0020\DSEA-RPT.DOC ii 11:41 AM 6/27197
i
5.2.8 Relocation of Employees, Residences and Businesses ............................. 5-15
5.2.9 Community Services ................................................................................. 5-17
5.2. 10 Utilities .................................................................................................... 5-16
5.2.11 Energy Requirements and Conservation ................................................. 5-16
5.3 POSTAL ENVIRONMENT ....................................................................................5-16
6 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES ............................................................... 6-1
7 REQUIRED PERMITS .......................................................................................................... 7-1
8 REFERENCES/COORDINATION ......................................................................................8-1
8.1 AGENCY COORDINATION ................................................................................... 8-1
8.2 PREPARERS/CONTRIBUTORS ............................................................................. 8-3
8.3 SPECIAL REFERENCES ......................................................................................... 8-4
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A INTERGOVERNMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
APPENDIX B NOTICE OF INTENT
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4-1: Regional Location .................................................
Figure 4-2: Project Site Location .............................................
Figure 4-3: USPS Site Plan ......................................................
Figure 5-1: USGS Map of Site Area ........................................
Figure 5-2: Floodplain Map .....................................................
Figure 5-3: Wetlands Map .......................................................
Figure 5-4: Project Area Zoning ..............................................
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4-1: Alternate Site Impact Summary ................
Table 5-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts.........
NOR/K:10 1 7 7 910 7 7102 71002 01DSEA-RPT DOC
iii
................................................... 4-4
................................................... 4-5
................................................... 4-6
................................................... 5-3
................................................... 5-6
................................................... 5-7
................................................. 5-12
......................................................... 4-2
......................................................... 5-1
11:41 AM 6/27/97

1

Section 1

Cl)

1

SECTION 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Supplemental Environmental Assessment Report (SEA) was performed in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (NEPA) for the purpose of evaluating
environmental impacts of construction and operation of the proposed Greensboro Processing and
Distribution Center (P&DC), located on approximately 58.7 acres on Regional Road North in
Greensboro, North Carolina.
1.1 KEY ISSUES
Site topography and geology and soils will be impacted by proposed development of the site but
there are no significant issues precluding the proposed project in relation to these physical
I elements.

Fi

The unavoidable diversion of a perennial stream will impact site hydrology and water quality,
and construction of the P&DC will displace existing forested habitat. Adherence to site-specific
erosion control, stormwater management, and wetlands and water supply regulations and permits
as well as careful development scheduling and preservation of the wetland and undeveloped
portion of the property should minimize these impacts. The proximity of a radar installation of
the Piedmont Triad Airport Authority also restricts development of the eastern portion of the site.
Land use, transportation, noise, community services, utilities, and energy requirements and
conservation will also be affected by the proposed project. Increased utilization of local roads
and services by United States Postal Service (USPS) personnel has been planned for by the City
of Greensboro.
The P&DC will benefit USPS operations for the Piedmont Triad region and is a necessity for
1.2 POSITIVE. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
continued service based on past and projected growth for the area. A new Greensboro P&DC is a
critical factor in improving the distribution productivity index. In a centralized environment, the
NOR/K 10177%07n027\00201DSEA-RPT.DOC I - I 11:41 AM 6!27/97

' increased percentage of bar-coded mail can be processed on the minimum amount of automated
equipment with fewer employees.
1.3 RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER ACTION
This supplemental environmental assessment concludes that significant environmental impacts
' would not occur if construction and operation of the proposed Greensboro P&DC is pursued
consistent with all applicable environmental regulations and recommended impact minimization
' and mitigation measures. Therefore, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is
not deemed necessary.

1

I NOR/K101779\077\027\0020\OSEA-RPT.DOC 1 -2 11:41 AM 6/27/97

L
1

Section 2
0
N

f,

SECTION 2
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
This report summarizes the SEA of the P&DC performed to identify environmental
consequences of the proposed action by USPS.
2.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to supplement the preliminary Environmental Assessment (EA)
drafted by Bellomo-McGee, Inc. (BMI, 1990) for the proposed USPS facility in the vicinity of
the Piedmont Triad International Airport. While the referenced report reviewed several
environmental elements for five alternate sites, the present report assesses the impacts of the
proposed P&DC at the recommended (preferred) site on the physical, cultural, and postal
environment. Due to the age of the referenced report, the unavailability of project parameters at
that time, and the refinement of USPS standards, the SEA is required to evaluate the impacts of
site development and operation as well as identification of the environmental permits needed.
N 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS

This impact analysis complies with the Facilities Environmental Handbook (USPS, 1991) and is
consistent with USPS Major Facilities Office specific content and format directives
(USPS, 1997). The SEA is conducted by USPS to comply with NEPA requirements to evaluate
the proposed USPS action for each alternative for each site under consideration for development.
The assessment document includes a description of the proposed action, project alternatives
considered, and a discussion of the environmental consequences. The SEA is to be used during
the planning stages of the proposed Greensboro P&DC to identify environmental consequences
of the proposed action.
o NOR/K\0I 779Z771027100201DSEA-RPTDOC 2-1 AM 6127ry7
Section 3

U
a
U
0
0 SECTION 3
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The existing conditions, proposed action, and reasons for the proposed action are described in
order to provide the basis for consideration of alternatives and subsequent evaluation of
environmental impacts.
3.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing Greensboro P&DC is a Sectional Center Facility (located on 11 acres in downtown
Greensboro at 900 East Market Street) serving Greensboro, Winston-Salem, High Point, and 118
Associate Offices. Because of prior, current, and expected growth, this facility is challenged to
continue serving the growing population of the Piedmont Triad Area (USPS, 1996). Several
improvements to the center from 1982 through 1996 have resulted in maximum use of available
space for mail processing. The existing building is 28 years old. The roof and ten-year-old
heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) need replacement. Electrical power capacity
has been maximized. The site is land-locked, eliminating the possibility for any further
expansion.
3.2 PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action includes construction of a new P&DC for all mail processing operations on
a .site owned by USPS centrally located between Greensboro, Winston-Salem, and High Point
within three miles of the Airport Mail Center. The new P&DC will consolidate the Greensboro
District Office (including the Human Resources staff, presently located at the Bulk Mail Center),
the Business Center, the Computer Forwarding System, and provide sufficient storage area for
equipment and district files. The existing leased District Administrative Office building,
Greensboro Plant Annex, and the Business Center will be vacated and the leases terminated. The
existing P&DC and driveway access leases will be disposed of in the most economical manner
by USPS.

0
110R/K101779107710211002010SEA-RP7.110C 3-1 11:41 AM 6727191
D
The proposed new facility will function as the P&DC for Greensboro, High Point, Winston-
Salem, and 118 associate offices; replacing the existing center. It will also serve as an area
distribution center for first class letter and flats, priority mail, newspapers, and bulk business
mail. The new P&DC will house the District Administrative Office for Greensboro, the computer
forwarding system, and the Postal Business Center. No delivery routes will emanate from the
proposed P&DC and collection will be transported from the Greensboro stations, branches, and
other points.
3.3 REASONS FOR PROPOSED ACTION
The renovations to the existing P&DC referenced in Section 3.1 enabled operating methods to be
improved for the short term only. However, as a result of enclosing dock space to provide
additional workroom and support area, platform operations have become inefficient. Dock space
inadequacies and tractor-trailer maneuvering area shortage has negated efficient and safe use of
tow motors. Normal platform distribution operations have been forced inside to an already
overcrowded workroom and receipt and dispatch are held up and delayed to prevent mishandling
of mail. Revenue protection measures have also become compromised due to operational area
conflicts with the business mail entry unit. Operational inefficiency is further compounded and
congested by the lack of sufficient empty equipment storage space.
Operational timesharing, now necessary, is labor intensive due to constant tearing down and
setting up of equipment. Space for breakdown, mail preparation, staging, and centralized
dispatch is required to reduce labor costs.
Mail-flows in the facility are "piecemeal" due to lack of floor space. Staging areas for
automation are located in the few remaining aisles. Operations have been "shoehorned" into the
mail-flow stream because of inadequate floor space resulting in a loss of efficiency. There is not
enough space to effectively transport mail to and from sorting machines, or for staging of
dispatch equipment. Due to inadequate space, manual operations have been scattered about the
work floor, further complicating dispatches.
a
NOR/K10 1 7 7 910 7 710 2 71002 01DSEA-RPT.DOC 3-2 11:41 AM 6/27197
[d
Reclassification of second and third class mail requires that the opening unit operation be
relocated from the Greensboro Bulk Mail Center to the Greensboro Plant. Further, an additional
25,000 square feet (sq. ft.) required for relocation of mail volume from Charlotte is not available
at the present P&DC.
The age of the existing building suggests that costly renovations must occur in the near future.
The roof, the HVAC system, and the electrical systems will all require improvement.
a
NOR/IC10177910IM2711102CIDSEA-RPT.DOC 3-3 11:41 AM 6/27(97
0
0
Section 4
a

0
A
I
n

0
U
L'
L
u

SECTION 4
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS/ALTERNATIVES
Preliminary project concept alternatives evaluated by USPS included construction of a limited
new facility and retaining the existing P&DC (Alternative B), constructing an annex on the new
site (Alternative C), leasing a building for the annex (Alternative D), and leasing a site from the
Piedmont Triad Airport Authority (Alternative E). Five alternate sites were evaluated for location
of a new P&DC and at least six alternate site development concepts have been considered.
4.1 ALTERNATIVES TO BE EVALUATED
Four preliminary alternative project concepts were evaluated by USPS in addition to the
preferred alternative (Alternative A, described in Section 3.2) and the no action alternative, as
follows (LGI, 1997):
Alternative B

J
n
n
Construct new P&DC for all mail processing operations. The plant will also house the
computer forwarding service unit. Retain and renovate the existing leased P&DC for district
office activities (including human resources staff presently located at the Bulk Mail Center),
the Business Center, and sufficient storage area for equipment and district files. The existing
leased District Administrative Office building and the Business Center will be vacated and
the leases terminated.
Alternative C
Retain and renovate the existing P&DC for all originating, managed mail, and computer
forwarding service operations. Construct an annex on new site for ten operations and dispose
of any excess USPS owned land not required.
1 NOR/K10 1 7 7 910 7 710 2 7100 2 010SEA-RPT.DOC 4-1
11:41 AM 627197

Alternative D
Same as Alternative C, except lease and renovate an existing or new building for the annex
and dispose of USPS owned land.
Alternative E
The Piedmont Triad Airport may be willing to build and lease a building and site for a
combined P&DC and airport mail center adjacent to a planned new runway. Relocate all mail
processing operations and consolidate the offices (as in Alternative A). Vacate all other
offices and terminate or dispose of the leases and property including the airport mail center
lease.
USPS screened several candidate sites for a proposed facility in the vicinity of the Piedmont
Triad International Airport and selected five for further consideration in the preliminary EA
(BMI, 1990). These five sites were evaluated in terms of nine environmental elements with a
recommendation for development of the preferred site (Site 5) summarized in Table 4-1 as
follows:
Table 4-1: Alternate Site Impact Summary
Element Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5
Topography S N S S S
Hydrology N N N S N
Farmland L S N S S
Cultural N N N N N
Biological S N S N S
Land Use N S N N S
Transportation N N N N N
Noise S N L L N
Utilities S N N S S
N = No known short or long term issues
S = Short term or construction issues
L = Long term issues
NOR/K10177910771027=20%DSEA-RPT.DOC 4-2 11:41 AM 617/97
a
Descriptions of the five sites along with the affected environment and environmental
consequences are summarized in the preliminary EA (BMI, 1990). Site 5 was the recommended
alternative and consequently is the site currently under consideration for project development.
4.2 SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
The preferred project alternative, described in Section 3.2, includes construction of a new P&DC
for mail processing operations, storage, equipment, and offices.
The recommended project site, selected based on the preliminary EA, is located on Regional
Road, near Brush Creek, in Guilford County, North Carolina (Figure 4-1). The site consists of
approximately 58.7 acres of property on the east side of Regional Road North, north of Skyway
Drive, within the Greensboro city limits (Figure 4-2). The property is currently undeveloped and
almost entirely forested. There is a perennial stream flowing southeast across the property into a
1.77-acre wetland which has been subject to formal jurisdictional determination by the United
States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). Development of the eastern portion of the site is
constrained by the proximity of radar installations under the jurisdiction of the Piedmont Triad
Airport Authority.
The proposed site development plan calls for a 413,700-sq. ft. main building including work
rooms and support with six penthouse mechanical equipment rooms and 44 perimeter loading
docks (Figure 4-3). Single level passenger car parking (480 employee spaces), a 15,120-sq. ft.
storage building, and rough grading for 120,000 sq. ft. future workroom expansion are also
included. The stream will be diverted to the north of the proposed building in an enclosed culvert
and the building finish floor elevation has been set to balance the amount of cut and fill.

0
NOR/K101779107710271002MOSEA-RPT.DOC 4-3 11.41 AM 627/97
N

7 1
of
U i
c ,
of
N .
-a
r
co i
r-
Map Supply, Inc.
Lexington, NC
U.S. Postal Service
Proposed Greensboro P&DC
Guilford County, NC
Environmental Assessment
Regional Location
Fieure 4-1
I
I
62 j
1
I
i
---------------
i
N
Not to Scale
J
MANAGERS DESIGNERS/CONSULTANTS
DRAWN DATE
I 1 DES.ENG DATE W O. No.
01779-(
CHECKED DATE APPROVED DATE UNG.No.
T,(

U.S. Postal Service
Proposed Greensboro P&DC
Guilford County, NC
Environmental Assessment
Project Site Location
Figure 4-2
MANAGERS 0ESIGNERSICONSULTANTS
DRAWN DATE DES.ENG OATS W O. No.
01779-(
CHECKED DATE APPROVED DATE DING. No.
Lo
IG.CDR
N
Map Supply, Inc. Scale in Miles
Guilford County Map
0.5 0 0.5 1 A
z B
wood 00.0 6
=Now 0 .. a u .00" ,"No a MONO
I I
¦
I ?
¦
I ¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
? I
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦ I
¦
¦ I
¦
¦
i ¦
¦ I
¦
¦ I
¦
• I
¦
•
¦ 1
¦
¦ I
I .... o
I' ??; wWQ ¦
? U •
•
¦ o?O ? I
an .r o
• ? o o ¢, I
U o
i a3
I o
! e o W
C) cn
0
F~
I
i 1
I
Imo., 1
1
:...........................
I
cl ?.
000*
L
0.1 LL]r `
0
0
7
U
U
G:.
•U
r
U
O
N
U
v
a?
cl
0
°
Q
0
0
C3
?-1
5
CA
U °
oU
?ti)
aj
L.
o .
o
U

a
1
U
v
Z°¢
3
v
w w
0 0

x Ix
O U
U
az
P
o N a M
) ¢ U
C3 ° C.,
v a?i U ? 10
? o
o C7 -b
ra. -0 tf

?3 0 .
o
w
a

n
4.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
If an alternative is not approved, services would be maintained by leasing and renovating an
annex for bulk business mail, second class, parcel post operations, and empty equipment storage.
Additional space (25,000 sq. ft) will be required to house the mail operation to be relocated due
to reclassification. The existing P&DC would be retained and renovated as the primary
automation facility. District offices and the Business Center would remain in leased quarters and
® Human Resources offices would remain at the Bulk Mail Center. Computer forwarding services
would remain at Hilltop Annex and retail operations would remain at the Airport Mail Center.
The no action alternative would not contribute to improved service and would increase operating
costs. Mail processing and transportation windows would be increased resulting in decreased
productivity. Consolidation of mail processing operations would not be achieved and the
objective of the corporate automation plan would not be realized.

NO 1 119101T101 71002 0MEA-RPTLOC 4-7 11:41 AM 627/97
a
0
Section 5
a
0

SECTION 5
EVALUATION OF IMPACTS
The baseline environmental conditions developed for the purpose of evaluating the proposed
Greensboro P&DC include physical, cultural, and postal elements. Conditions were evaluated
based on field data collected during site visits of January 8 and 9, and April 29, 1997; personal
interviews with agency staff; and from published references. Descriptions of the baseline
conditions are summarized in the following subsections. Potential impacts from the proposed
action are discussed following the description of each environmental element and summarized in
Table 5-1:
Table 5-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts
Element
Physical Environment
Topography
Geology and Soils
Hydrology/Water Quality
Prime Farmland
Fish and Wildlife
Botanical Element
Cultural Environment
Historic and Archaeologic
Local Employment and Economics
Land Use and Zoning Patterns
Transportation
Noise
Air Quality
Population Trends and Housing
Relocation of Employees,
Residences and Businesses
Community Services

Impact
Construction Operation No Action
MP N N
Mt N N
Mt MP* N
N N N
Mt Mp* N
Mt Nlp* N
N N N
B N N
N N N
Mt MP N
Mt MP N
Mt N N
N N N
N N N
Mt B S
0 NOR/K%01 7 7 910 7 710 2 7100 2 0%DSEA-RPT.DOC 5-1 11.41 AM 6127197
u
Element Impact
Construction Operation No Action
Utilities Mt MP N
Energy Requirements and Mt B S
Conservation
Postal Environment Mt B S
L=.J

u
0

PI1,
B = Beneficial
N = None/Negligible
M = Moderately adverse
S = Significantly adverse
t = temporary
p = permanent
* = adverse impacts can be mitigated
5.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
Topography, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, prime farmland, fish and wildlife,
and botanical elements are described for the subject property followed by assessment of proposed
project impacts to these physical elements.
5.1.1 Topography
Site topography ranges from a high of approximately 930 feet (ft) mean sea level (MSL) along
the western property edge to 850 ft MSL in the southeastern region. The land surface is varied
due to the presence of several drainage features but is somewhat rolling westward toward
regional Road North. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-Minute Series
Topographic Map of the Guilford Quadrangle, North Carolina, includes an unnamed tributary to
Brush Creek traversing the site from northwest to southeast (Figure 5-1). Slopes to this stream
are scalloped by three intermittent surface drainage features on the north side of the stream and
one on the south.
Generally, because the western portion of the property is higher and includes shallower slopes to
the surface drainage features, site development on this side of the property will entail less
earthwork than if the eastern portion were included or favored.
NORlK10177M7M2710020%DSEA-RPr.DOC 5-2 11.41 AM 6127/97

J

Li
7
0

\Ilt 1 ¦ C- ?¦?a¦? cl?; r\ +;I ` 5.
iv r51 `{*" Y.? ? 5I(.?, lty?r ( •.??? t( t?l¦ /
r i ?•..l _. ;..r )j 1`, :I r ,\?I :, r ?:.Y4 ? ?.'' ! I?ti ??' - o,y r. •? !, r I?',.I
'r V ,,
fr t-••,•I) \'1 ?\ it ?1,i r ,' It I1n` r p?l• V
t \? r 1 l rl 1.. .' 1 ` ?• ? Y 't _? t I ? \5 I` ?? ? +1f ?. .?.
`I it \ - i 7 I ??, 1! t ...r 1r1 ? r \ 1... .5j r a ?p_? (\. ?1 1 !' r• Iri l-
I I 1. J?
r :) I ?t t ,.II ) r' of ?i ? % '•c \? ?' ?nl`` \ f a '? ?t i R,It -?.' r '`''
\ I ,
7, 5f I ? ? ? - ? I i - 11 r
-?
T j/.Gll I ' I •\ r I? ?i
-- _ 1.f+}: i ., ?! t^ j? ."'t i ?I?.I?,Ihr I •1 ? +? \ : 'r? f t ? \? I? •? \ . ?? r?i A?.,d
' \1' ?\\.• -??1, ; Irk Y-? r IIF I 11 LL 1lll \
? ., i _ -„-? -" c lye, , •-.?.
;I 5'` x)11 ''t+ r t?" 'I t'' t?
I ?, •?fy 't,7 5 t '. I r I ? ,? , c `Pl I \ ? i. \\ ?` r I
7`r f T J- ,rj 1'7r?ti ??r 1?. ? ;. It ? - • 19 ?? r ?a • + i ?_ " \:\? 'C .1 tl ? r } , tti
_.Ir I _u1 + t ?" . t ? ? t 4, n ti , ? ? I -tE ~ „ co' _•-" .r-r ?} 11,55
I r I FI?a
U.S. Geological Survey Scale in Miles
Guilford, N.C. Quadrangle -
1951, Revised 1994. 0.5 0 0.5 1
U.S. Postal Service
Proposed Greensboro P&DC
Guilford County, NC
Environmental Assessment MANAGERS DESIGNERSICONSULTANTS
DRAWN DATE DES.ENG DATE WO. No
UJSGS GS Map 01779-077-027-0020
CHECKED DATE APPROVED DATE DWG. No.
- Figure 5-1 1 T4C'T0,-FTC•T C'.DT2

Slopes greater than 5% are located throughout the property although the steeper portions, up to
35%, are associated with the sides of the drainage features. Site development has been planned to
approximately balance quantities of cut and fill.
5.1.2 Geology and Soils
Greensboro is located in the Piedmont physiographic province of North Carolina. The greater
part of Guilford County is underlain by Carboniferous granite. In the project area, porphyritic
granite is the dominant substrate (DEHNR, 1982), outcropping at one area in the perennial
stream in the middle of the site.
Upland soils on the property are mapped as Cecil Sandy Loam, Madison Sandy Loam, and
Madison Clay Loam, with well-drained slopes ranging from 2 to 35 percent (MRCS, 1977). The
wetland area near the southern property line is mapped as Chewacla Sandy Loam which is
included on the List of Hydric Soils of North Carolina.
No faults, joints, or sinkholes are depicted on or near the property on available geologic maps
(DEHNR, 1982). Depth to bedrock is described as greater than 60 inches for all upland soils
(MRCS, 1977). There are no known impediments to site development arising from subsurface
conditions.
According to the environmental database review , the average radon concentration for the project
area is 0.6 picoCuries per liter which is below the United States Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) action levels of 4.0 picoCuries per liter for inside air in residential homes.
During April 1997, WESTON completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)
(WESTON, 1997) on 8.9 acres of property adjacent to the USPS-owned P&DC site (Parcel "A").
This assessment revealed no recognized environmental conditions in connection with Parcel "A"
or the subject property.
0
NOR/K70177907 710 2 7100 2MOSEA-RPT.DOC 5-4 11:41 A!A 6x17197
0
0 5.1.3 Hydrology/Water Quality
Surface runoff is channeled via four drainage features to the perennial stream which flows
generally east south east across the site and forms meandering channels through a wetland
located at the southeastern property boundary. The stream channel is incised from 1 to 6 feet into
the ground surface at the higher elevations in the western region of the property. The stream
includes approximately 1,535 linear feet with a 5-foot average width of nonwetland waters. This
channel is well defined in the field and depicted on the USGS topographic quadrangle.
Seasonal water table elevations are typically more than six feet below ground surface in the
upland soils (MRCS, 1977). Water table depth at the surface after rainfall (as noted during field
verification), and saturated soils within the upper 12 inches during normal conditions, were
observed in the wetland area at the southeastern property boundary. Sediment deposits and
visible drift lines of vegetative debris also indicated occasional flooding of the wetland area.
The perennial stream located on the subject property flows southeasterly to Brush Creek which is
approximately 1 mile southeast of the property boundary. Brush Creek is classified by the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR) Division of
Water Quality as a water supply stream for Lake Brandt (class WS-I11 NS`). No other
significant streams or lakes are located adjacent to the site.
According to the Guilford County Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) (Figure 5-2), the subject
property is not within a delineated flood zone. The nearest flood zone is located over 1,000 feet
southeast of the property boundary at the junction of the perennial stream with Brush Creek. The
proposed project will entail no impacts to the 100-year or the 500-year floodplain of Brush
Creek.
An approximately 1.77-acre (77,145-sq. ft.) jurisdictional wetland exists in the southeastern area
of the subject site. This wetland encompasses the junction of the perennial stream traversing the
site from west to east with an intermittent stream and has been subject to formal jurisdictional
determination by ACOE and designated Action ID 199700322 (ACOE, 1997) (Figure 5-3). The

NOR/K%01779Q7M27=20%DSEA-RPT.DOC 5-5 11.41 AM 5/27197
r

I
1
1
V
Caindale Drive
Greciisboro P&QC !

3entley Rd.
?
N
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Scale in Feet
Flood Insurance Rate Map, Guilford County
Community Panel No. 370111 0105 B, June 1980 1.000 0 2.000
U.S. Postal Service
Proposed Greensboro P&DC
Guilford County, NC
Environmental Assessment
Floodplain Map
Figure 5-2
M[M 8
MANAGERS DES IGNERSICONSULTANTS
DRAWN DATE DES.ENG DATE WO. No
01779-077-027-0020
CHECKED DATE APPROVED DATE DWG No
I
I
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
1
. 1
Perennial Stream / Watet 1
(1,535 linear ft. by 5-ft. av
Jurisdictional Wetland 1
(1.77 acres)
• ACOE Action ID 1994322
1
.000
. 1
? I
Scale in Feet
7--Apr 0 , 400
The horizontal position for jurisdictional wetlands was obtains
Position System hardware. A Trimble Pathfinder Pro XL Seri
ntounted in a backpack and used as a rover in the field to survey the k,
boundary points. These field data were differentially corrected UsitAGERS DESIGNERS/CONSULTANTS J
from a local base station, the North Carolina Geodetic Survey
Raleigh, North Carolina. The differential correction improved the DES.ENG. DATE wo. No
wetllnd boundz serve to less than 1 meter Corrected data were t 01779-(
ry y APPROVED DATE DWG. No
into the site geographic database as an Arc/Info GIS coverage. WET-FIG
z B
N
N
SOON =moo
MOWN a "moo
Q
0
o N 0 I
I o ?Q
U
• "d ? W I
¦ I
C)
o ?U
N
O ?
z; ° 3
a,
Z zr- ?
J ?O
0
?2
w?
If w w W
Z
? o 0
W
O
3?
?. W
°
z >
W °
U) a
o Q
a
U
W
U
m
a mom I' 6 0
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
GJ
0
O
0
O
O
N
I
I
I
a
0
03
U
O
¦ 'O
O
? O
( 04
0.
• a
cz
i
• O
?^^
¦
I
I
I
I
I
¦
i
. .0000•
J
I ?I
•
.000 000
U
?
Q

U 7 N
> °

Z! O c3
C)

r? O 'O O
LS. >
O O
a. W
a
p ,? cJ
u o` "0
> Q T
c a? ° ° cn U 0
? ? cn b y ? ,c
'L3 ? ? ..q Ca h a?
N
L
c ° H l.. .V n.'b V
?L O O ,b >
D «y.
O
C .D 4=. c3 (,7 ' ? ? Cn
? ? °? ? ca a?i U V
c
o 1-0
? L
L
5
L y N N
O El
? L ? Lr C ?
C v c3 y .? ?j T'D
S3 '1 a? C
:oC?l
U
CL 1 cNS U Z' o`n
o N r
CJ .y 0 3 C •? - O
o C3
O O

wetland is a relatively flat alluvial floodplam surrounding the stream channels, bounded
topographically by the well-defined toe of the adjacent upland slopes. Near the southern property
boundary, the wetland jurisdictional line is not as well defined topographically, but changes in
vegetation, soils, and hydrology are evident. The small floodplain of an intermittent stream and a
seep at the northern end of the wetland are also included as jurisdictional. The National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI) map depicts only the stream channel on the property as palustrine, forested,
broad-leaved deciduous, temporarily flooded wetlands (USFWS, 1995).
The project does not include development in designated "Areas of Environmental Concern" by
the DEHNR Division of Coastal Management because Guilford County is not one of the twenty
counties regulated under the North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act of 1974 (CAMA).
Although the wetland on the subject property will not be directly impacted by site development,
approximately 1,600 feet of the perennial stream will be diverted north of the proposed building
and culverted. Approximately 900 feet of intermittent stream will also be directly impacted.
Because this stream length is greater than 500 feet, an Individual Permit (under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act) will be required from ACOE, including State Water Quality Certification
(under Section 401 of the Clean water Act) from DEHNR Division of Water Quality.
5.1.4 Prime Farmland
No area of the site is currently being cultivated or actively farmed. Adjacent property to the north
appears to have been used as a horse farm. Although the definition of prime farmland does not
require current cultivation, it excludes land in or committed to urban development.
5.1.5 Fish and Wildlife
Native fauna expected to utilize the site include deer and small mammals as well as birds and
reptiles typical for this area. Surrounding development and historic farming of the region limit
the value of the on-site habitat. Wildlife on this property will be displaced for construction of the
proposed P&DC and some habitat for fauna observed and potentially present would be lost.

0 NORIK10 1 77 910 7 710 2 7100 2 010SEA-RP7.OOC 5-8 11:41 AM 6127/97
C:
Initial site preparation activities commencing from Regional Road and progressing towards the
east should allow for resident wildlife to relocate to the eastern portion of the property which will
not be impacted by this project. Preservation of the wetland and forested uplands in the eastern
portion of the property would maintain the existing habitat value of this area for native fauna.
No rare, endangered, protected, or species of special concern were noted during site field review
nor are any occurrences known for this site by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) or the DEHNR Division of Parks and Recreation (Appendix A).
5.1.6 Botanical Element
The project site is almost entirely wooded. Although the area is currently unmanaged, it has been
cut-over in the past. Forest soils mapped on the proposed project site are components of the
Cecil-Madison association (see Section 5.1.2) with moderately high potential productivity for
important trees and no significant limitations for woodland use.
Uplands on the site include scrub pine (Pines virginiana) on gentle slopes with less dense
broadleaf forested areas dominated by white oak (Ouercus alba), black oak (Ouercus velutina),
scarlet oak (Ouercus coccinea), southern red oak (Ouercus falcata), yellow poplar (Lyriodendron
adipifera), and red maple (Ater rubrum). Understory species include flowering dogwood
(Corpus jlorida), sassafras (Sassafras albidunt), and cedar (Juniperus virginiana) with ground
cover of ground cedar (Lycopoditun coniplanatunz), greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia), and
® Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
The wetland area, beginning at the toe of the upland slopes is dominated by crack willow (Salix
fragilis) and ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana) with a few sycamore (Platanus occidentalis),
sweetgum (Liquidambar styracif ua), and red maple trees. Herbaceous cover is predominantly
Japanese honeysuckle and moneywort (Lysiniachia nunzmularia).
Development of the site will result in the loss of approximately 35 acres of forested uplands. The
wetland and forested uplands in the eastern portion of the property would not be developed,
resulting in the preservation of a significant portion of the site as forested land.
0
NOR/K10177910771027=201DSEA-RP7.DOO 5-9 11:41 NA 6127197
0
0 No rare, endangered, protected, or species of special concern were noted during field reviews of
the subject property and none have been recorded for the site by the DEHNR Division of Parks
and Recreation. Based on recommendations of the DEHNR Division of Forest Resources
(Appendix A), the following provisions will be adhered to during site development to minimize
impacts to forest resources:
¦ The contractor will make provisions to sell any merchantable timber or woody material
that is to be removed during site development. Emphasis will be on selling all wood
products first, including energy chips. If wood products cannot be sold, then efforts will
be made to haul the material off or turn it into mulch. This practice will minimize the
need for piling and burning debris during construction, to reduce the danger of escaped
fires and smoke on nearby highways, and to reduce smoke management problems to the
traveling public, towns, and cities.
¦ If any open burning is needed, the contractor will comply with all laws and regulations
pertaining to debris burning. Guilford County is a non-high hazard county.
¦ The contractor will take provisions during construction to prevent erosion, sedimentation,
and damage to forest land outside the construction limits by protecting tree trunks from
"skinning" by machinery; preventing soil compaction and root exposure or injury by
heavy equipment, not adding layers of fill dirt over the root systems of trees; and
prohibiting accidental spillage of petroleum products or other damaging substances over
the root systems of trees.
Cumulative impacts to woodlands are not anticipated as a result of this project because the
proposed P&DC is being developed as a result of area growth and is not a stimulus for it.
5.2 CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT
Aspects of the cultural environment described with reference to the Greensboro P&DC include
historic and archaeologic elements; local employment and economics; land use and zoning
patterns; transportation; noise; air quality; population trends and housing; relocation of
employees, residences, and businesses; community services; utilities; and energy requirements
and conservation.
5.2.1 Historic and Archaeologic
According to 36 CFR 60.4(a-d), the USPS is required to evaluate the potential adverse effects
that a proposed development will have on significant archaeological resources on a site.

NOR/K1017791077\027\0020\DSEA-RPT.DOC 5-10 11.41 Al 6127!97
0
Correspondence from the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources indicated that no
impacts to archaeological and/or historical resources are expected as a result of the project
(Appendix A).
5.2.2 Local Employment and Economic
Anchored by Greensboro, Winston-Salem, and High Point, the Piedmont Triad area benefits
from a prosperous economic climate and continued business growth. For almost a century,
textile, tobacco, and furniture industries have provided a strong economic base. With growth in
the service industry, high technology enterprises, and the small manufacturing sector, the Triad
economy has diversified and expanded.
Building of the P&DC will provide additional short-term jobs during the facility construction
phase. In terms of permanent employment opportunities, there will be a relocation of USPS staff
from the existing downtown facility to the new P&DC. No long-term increase or decrease in
employment at the new facility is anticipated.
Existing facilities occupied by USPS including the downtown P&DC, the district administrative
office building, Greensboro plant annex, and the business center will be vacated by USPS and
leases terminated. Real property disposal will be according to the best interests of USPS.
5.2.3 Land Use and Zoning Patterns
The entire project site is zoned as Business Park (CP) by the City of Greensboro (Figure 5-4).
The proposed Greensboro P&DC would be classified as a "Bulk Mail and Packaging" facility
and, though not specifically included as a permissible use within the Business Park land use
zone, Federal government buildings are exempt from local zoning restrictions.
Landscaping proposed in conjunction with the proposed P&DC is subject to review and approval
by the City of Greensboro Landscape Planning Department. Based on aerial photography
reviewed back through 1938 during the Phase I ESA, the property has been wooded or farmland
since that time. There is no record of any other use of the property.

NOR11110177110171027=20111 SEA-11PT.DOC 5-11 11:41 AM 6127197
AC?
Ll
Greensboro Planning and Development Board
Zoning Map, Sheet 436
1997.
U.S. Postal Service
Proposed Greensboro P&DC
Guilford County, NC
Environmental Assessment
Project Area Zoning DRAWN
Figure 5-4 CHECKED
- ?, ................•.
¦ .ter ¦ ..r ¦? L d}
0
¦
i AR
¦
7L it N-rw
5 ?
ctyl 6gMCCO f.71. S. ?1 AR
f Y i ?^a? •(36 1` l ? •r
N
Scale in Feet
500 0 1,000
f?
MANAGERS DESIGNERS /CONSULTANTS
DATE DES.ENG DATE WO. No
01779-(
DATE APPROVED DATE OWG.No
701
912
A radar installation for the Piedmont Triad Airport is located east of the property adjacent to
p Caindale Road. Because a 1,500-ft radius clear zone is required around the radar, the eastern
portion of the subject property will not be developed. The building elevation as well as any other
structures to be constructed will not exceed 30 feet in height. Final site development plans will
be coordinated with the Piedmont Triad Airport Authority and the Federal Aviation
Administration.
5.2.4 Transportation
Information on transportation resources is important for determining whether present and
11 projected traffic flows/patterns on roads surrounding the site will affect, or be affected by, traffic
0 generated by facility construction/operation or by other transportation changes resulting from the
13 proposed action. Most traffic generated by the proposed action, whether it consists of traffic
created as construction workers and materials travel to and from the site or as shipments of mail
and materials to and from the new facility, will be on the local road networks. Therefore, road
networks are of primary interest for this analysis.
There will be short-term impacts to the Regional Road and State Route (S.R.) 68 area from the
movement of construction equipment and building supplies to and from the site. In addition,
construction workers will be making daily commutes but these short-term impacts should not
have a significant effect on existing traffic conditions.
Development of the Greensboro P&DC is predicted to increase traffic volume along segments of
Regional Road and S.R. 68. The intersection of Regional Road with Pleasant Ridge Road, north
of the proposed P&DC, is planned for improvement as the U.S. 220 Connector interchange after
the year 2004.
5.2.5 Noisc
During the construction phase of the project, noise levels will increase on a short-term basis in
the project vicinity. However, adherence to construction noise standards will be ensured. Noise
levels generated from different types of earthwork and construction equipment generally range
NOR/K 101779107710271002011SEA-RP7.000 5-13 11.41 AM 6127197

0 from 70 to 90 decibels A-weighted (dBA) at a distance measured 50 feet from the source. This
impact will vary as a result of vegetative and topographic buffers on and around the development
site. To minimize noise impact, construction schedules will be planned for normal business
hours, and not during sensitive times such as early morning and night. Upon completion of this
phase of development, there will be no construction or related noise.
During the operation phase of the new facility, noise levels will increase on a long-term basis due
to traffic to and from the facility. The primary source of the increased noise levels will be from
truck deliveries and dispatches to and from the new facility. Locating loading docks, truck
parking and maneuvering areas away from potential receptors and establishing buffers will
reduce impacts resulting from increased noise levels. The limited noise levels generated by
automated equipment inside the new facility will have no significant impacts on nearby sensitive
receptors.
There are no receptors that would be sensitive to noise in the vicinity of the site. The nearest
potential receptors are residences located on Caindale Drive over 500 feet from the proposed
facility buffered by topographic and vegetative barriers.
5.2.6 Air Quality
The Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, lead, and carbon
monoxide. Air quality is monitored by EPA and the DEHNR Division of Air Quality to assess
the compliance status of counties and metropolitan areas with regard to NAAQS. Generally, an
area is assessed according to the ambient concentration of a pollutant for that area. If an area is
below the standard, the area is considered to be an attainment area. If the area exceeds the
standard, it is considered to be a non-attainment area for that pollutant.
The air quality at the proposed location for the P&DC should not be significantly impacted by
the construction of the facility. Since the facility will not include combustion or stationary air
pollution sources, overall ground-level nitrogen oxide emissions will not be affected.
?I
NOR/K101779107M27100201DSEA-RPT.DOC 5-14 11:41AlA 6127197

a As discussed previously, traffic patterns along the access route to the proposed site are expected
to increase as a result of the development of the Greensboro P&DC. The increase in traffic will
result from employees commuting and facility mail deliveries. Increases in ambient carbon
monoxide (CO) concentrations are more likely to occur when traffic flow is very slow, causing
an increase in engine idle time. Planned transportation corridor improvements (see Section
5.2.4), anticipating traffic increases, will alleviate this potential.
5.2.7 Population Trends and Housinb
The existing population of the Piedmont Triad area exceeds one million people. The North
Carolina Office of State Planning estimates that the population has grown 15% over the last
12 years, and the Census Bureau projects a population exceeding 1.3 million by the year 2000.
The population growth anticipated for the future is supported by strong economic indicators such
as Bureau of Statistics data on job growth of 3.4% which ranks Greensboro as 42nd among the
top 100 areas. Total employment is expected to rise at the rate of 1.8% per year in the Triad area
versus a national employment rate increase of only 0.9% per year. Unemployment in the Triad
area is approximately 4% compared to 5% nationally.
Local firms will be used to the extent practicable for construction of the proposed Greensboro
P&DC, minimizing the impact on population trends and housing. No new employees will be
hired for the operational phase of the project. Housing and other essential community services
are available in the areas surrounding the proposed P&DC site.
Construction and operation of the proposed facility should not significantly impact the
demographics of the City of Greensboro, Guilford County, or the Piedmont Triad region.
5.2.8 Relocation of Employees, Residences and Businesses
The proposed P&DC will be located within the Greensboro city limits, a short driving distance
from the existing P&DC in the downtown area. The new facility will entail relocating USPS
employees currently working at the East Market Street facility, however, this will not require
employees to move or relocate their private residences. Since the site is currently undeveloped,
no businesses will be required to relocate or move as a result of construction of the new facility.
NOR/K101779107n027=200S EA-RPT.DOC 5-15 11:41 AM 6(27!97
0
111
5.2.9 Community Services
Various public food services are available within five miles of the site area. A full line in-house
cafeteria will be installed at the proposed P&DC.
The Wesley Long Hospital is located approximately 12 miles from the subject site and the area is
served by numerous doctors' offices.
5.2.10 Utilities
Currently, neither potable water nor sewer facilities are hooked up to the subject property. Hookups
are available through the City of Greensboro Utility Department from lines located in Regional
Road. Two electric grids serve this area, reducing the risk of an outage, and fiber optic cable is
available nearby. The site is also serviceable by natural gas.
5.2.11 Energy Requirements :end Conservation
There will be short-term and long-term impacts to both energy requirements and conservation
resulting from the proposed Greensboro P&DC. Short-term impacts are related to construction
and involve the production of building materials (concrete, steel, etc.) used for the structure of
the new facility, and electricity, gasoline, and diesel fuel to operate construction equipment and
to provide transportation to the site. Long-term impacts resulting from operation of the new
facility are expected to be beneficial due to more advanced automation and energy efficient
processes compared to the existing facility.
5.3 POSTAL ENVIRONMENT
Impacts of the proposed project to the Postal environment are assessed in terms of retail and post
office box services, delivery services, working conditions, and operational productivity.
A new Greensboro P&DC, equipped with advanced automation, will allow for a more efficient
and streamlined mail flow necessary to meet future "Customer Perfect" goals. It will offer
expanded operating windows for downstream offices and provide for a finer depth of sort with
significant reductions in manual handlings. The efficiencies of automation will provide an
opportunity to meet or exceed the current and external first class composite goals for overnight,
NOR/K10177M7M2710020TSEA.RPT.DOC 5-16 11.41 AM 6127197

two-, and three-day first class mail. It is expected that service will improve a minimum of one
percent over current performance scores. A new facility will be instrumental in helping the
Greensboro service area achieve established goals for intra center and district services. These
improvements are expected to occur within the first two operating years at the new facility.
Due to the new building, modern facilities, increased space, and other improvements proposed,
working conditions for USPS employees will be significantly enhanced.
An overall increase of six percent in productivity is expected from 1995 to 1998. Most of the
projected increase would be due to centralized automation plans. Without the element of
centralization, the ability to achieve a maximum level of improvement cannot be realized.
Delivery and collection efficiency will be indirectly affected by automation as more efficient
carrier operations and work hour reductions will be afforded by walk sequence distribution. A
new facility drives this improvement by providing the space for additional centralized
19 distribution.

NOR/K101 7 7 910 7 710 2 7100 2 010SEA-RPT.000 5-17 11.41 AM 6127197
0

Section 6
0
u
0

0
m
I
0
I
SECTION 6
RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
The construction of the proposed Greensboro P&DC on undeveloped forested property with a
perennial stream would physically impact hydrology/water quality, fish and wildlife, and
botanical elements. Impacts to cultural environmental elements such as land use, transportation,
noise, and utilities may be minimized or accounted for through appropriate planning.
Minimization of potential adverse impacts to water quality and hydrology should be achievable
through adherence to applicable erosion control and stormwater management regulations
governing site development. Mitigation for impacts to the perennial stream will be determined
during the ACOE permit process for impacts to Waters of the U.S.. DEHNR Division of Water
Quality policy on stream mitigation is to require 1:1 replacement for the length of permanent
streams being culverted. If a suitable length of stream cannot be located for restoration, a
contribution to the state Wetlands Restoration Program at $125 per linear foot may be
appropriate.
Impacts to wildlife, habitat, and forest resources will result from development of the western
portion of the site. These impacts can be minimized by progressing from west to east in the site
clearing activities and ensuring no disturbance to project areas not scheduled for direct
development. Mitigation for impacts to natural resources could include preservation and
maintenance of the eastern portion of the property as a conservation easement. Protection of this
forested upland and the jurisdictional wetland as a natural greenspace could be afforded through
dedication to DEHNR, Guilford County, the City of Greensboro, or other appropriate entity.
NOR/K101779107710271002010 S EA-RPT.DOC 6-1 11:41 AM 6a7/97
0
0
0
Section 7
N
CD
n
0
V
I
I
0
0
SECTION 7
REQUIRED PERMITS
The number and type of environmental permits required for the construction and operation of the
new postal facility are limited by the type of operation planned, the building designs and layout,
and the setting of the site. Specific permit requirements evaluated were:
¦ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater discharge permit.
¦ Air discharge permit.
¦ Wetlands permit.
A permit to construct and operate sewer system extensions and sewer systems not discharging
into state surface waters will be required from DEHNR.
An NPDES permit to discharge into surface waters will be required through coordination with
DEHNR and the City of Greensboro. Stormwater management permitting will also be
coordinated through the DEHNR Division of Water Quality and development of a Stormwater
Management Plan will be undertaken during the permitting process.
Due to the nature of the activities at the new facility during construction and operation there
should be no requirement for an air permit.
Since construction of the new facility will impact waters of the U.S., a wetland (dredge and fill).
permit will be required from ACOE (with DEHNR Section 401 Water Quality Certification). The
specifics of this permit would be determined after final site plans have been prepared, showing
proposed dredge and fill activities/quantities in the stream.
Any open burning associated with the proposal must be in compliance with
15A NCAC 2D.11900.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land
disturbing activity. An erosion and sedimentation control plan will be required for more than one
acre of disturbance. Stream protection measures must be addressed consistent with the State
NOR/K101779107710271002010 SEA-RPT.DOC 7-1 11:41 AM 6127/97

Water Supply Watershed Protection Act, which is implemented locally within the Guilford
County Development Ordinance.
Appropriate construction permits may also be required from the City of Greensboro and
coordination of final site development plans with the Federal Aviation Administration and the
Piedmont Triad Airport Authority will be necessary due to the proximity of the radar installation.
J-

?a
u
0 NOR/KI01779101MI 10020\DSEA-RP7 DOC 7-2 11:41 AM 6127197
a
it
Section 8
0
w
a

9
0
SECTION 8
REFERENCES/COORDINATION
0
WESTON relied on information and data obtained from environmental agency personnel,
published and unpublished documents, and site-specific reports generated for USPS, as available
and applicable to the SEA.
8.1 AGENCY COORDINATION
The following agencies/personnel were provided preliminary project information during the early
stages of the SEA scoping process and solicited for comments. Significant comments received
are included in Appendix A and addressed in previous sections.
Center for Environmental Health and Injury
Control; Centers for Disease Control; U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services;
Special Programs Group, Mail Stop F-29
1600 Clifton Road
Atlanta, GA 30333
Chief, Natural Hazards Branch; Federal
Emergency Management Agency
1371 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 700
Atlanta, GA 30309
Director, Ecology and Conservation Office;
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration; HCHB SP, Room 6117
14th Street & Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20230
Regional Environmental Officer; U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban
Development; Richard B. Russell Federal
Building
75 Spring Street, S.W.
Atanta, GA 30303-3309
Regional Administrator; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365-2401
Southeast Regional Office; National Park
Service; U.S. Department of the Interior;
Richard B. Russell Federal Building
75 Spring Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303
0 NOR/K101 7 7 910 7 710 2 71002 0IDSEA•RPT.DOC 8-1
11:41 AM W7197
Ffl
Lij]
LJ

Chief, Review Unit; Environmental Affairs
Program, M.S. 423; U.S Geological Survey
Chief, U.S. Department of the Interior; Room
213318
12201 Sunrise Valley Road
Reston, VA 22092-9998
Mr. Richard Beard
Greensboro Chamber of Commerce
P.O. Box 3246
Greensboro, NC 27402-3246
Ms. Lisa Elmore
Greensboro-Highpoint Airport Authority
P.O. Box 35445
Greensboro, NC 27425
Ms. Renee Gledhill-Early
State Historic Preservation Office
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601-2807
n
Mr. Mike Hinton
Natural Resources Conservation Service; U.S.
Department of Agriculture
4405 Bland Road, Suite 205
Raleigh, NC 27609
Ms. Candice Martino
Raleigh Field Office; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636
Mr. Craig McKinney
City of Greensboro Transportation Department
P.O. Box 3136
Greensboro, NC 27402-3136
Ms. Loray Averett
City of Greensboro Planning Department
P.O. Box 3136
Greensboro, NC 27402-3136
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section; Division of
Environmental Management; North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Ms. Jeanette Furney
State Clearinghouse; State of North Carolina
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27603-8003
Mr. Lennox Goodridge
Airspace Coordinator; Airway Facilities
Division; Federal Aviation Administration;
ASO472
P.O. Box 20636
Atlanta, GA 30320-0631
Mr. Barry Levine
Planning and Development Board; City of
Greensboro
P.O. Box 3136
Greensboro, NC 27402
Mr. Kenneth Mayer
Planning Board; Guilford County
Commission
230 North Elm Street, Suite 1200
Greensboro, NC 27401
Mr. Clay Moore
Eastern States Office; Bureau of Land
Management; U.S. Department of the Interior
411 Briarwood Drive, Suite 404
Jackson, MS 39206
1108/K10177910711027=20101EA-RPTDOC 8-2 11:41 AM 687197
J
0
Mr. Dave Moorefield
Utilities; City of Greensboro
P.O. Box 3136
Greensboro, NC 27402
Mr. Don Robbins
Division of Forest Resources; North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources
2411 Old U.S. 70 West
Clayton, NC 27520
Mr. David Short
Air Traffic Control Tower; Federal Aviation
Authority
P.O. Box 35448
Greensboro, NC 27425
Ms. Susan Reece Giles
Information Specialist, Natural Heritage
Program; Division of Parks and Recreation;
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Mr. Bill Ruska
City of Greensboro Planning Department
P.O. Box 3136
Greensboro, NC 27402-3136
Mr. Steve Tedder
Division of Environmental Management;
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Mr. John Thomas
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office; U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
8.2 PREPARERS/CONTRIBUTORS
Mr. Frank Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch; North
Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
This SEA was prepared by the following personnel:
Mr. Richard B. Darling Ms. A. Kim Bell
Senior Project Scientist Senior Project Manager
Roy F. Weston, Inc. Roy F. Weston, Inc.
1880-H Beaver Ridge Circle 1880-H Beaver Ridge Circle
Norcross, GA 30071 Norcross, GA 30071
Ms. Kathleen L. O'Reilly Dr. Barry J. Dubinski
Program Manager Technical Director
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
5599 San Felipe, Suite 700 Roy F. Weston, Inc.
1 Weston Way
Houston, TX 77056 West Chester, PA 19380

NOR1K\01779Q77\02710020\0SEA-RPT.DOC 8-3
11:41 AM 6127!97
D
8.3 SPECIAL REFERENCES
ACOE, 1997. Jurisdictional Determination, Action ID 199700322. United States Army Corps of
Engineers Wilmington District; Raleigh Regulatory Field Office.
BMI, 1990. Alternative Site Evaluation Environmental Assessment for General Mail Facility;
Greensboro, North Carolina. Preliminary draft report prepared for United States Postal
Service Facilities Center, Philadelphia, PA.
DEHNR, 1982. Geologic Map of Region G, North Carolina. Regional Geology Series 2. North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources; Division of Land
Resources; Geological Survey.
LGI, 1997. Alternative Building Configuration Analysis Greensboro P&DC. Report prepared by
Lockwood Green, Inc., for United States Postal Service Major Facilities Office.
NRCS, 1977. Soils Survey of Guilford County, North Carolina. United States Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service [now Natural Resources Conservation Service] in
cooperation with Board of Commissioners, Guilford County, North Carolina, and North
Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station.
USFWS, 1995. National Wetlands Inventory map for Guilford Quadrangle. United States
Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
USPS, 1991. Facilities Environmental Handbook RE-6. United States Postal Service, Office of
Facilities Planning and Management, Facilities Department.
USPS, 1996. Facility Planning Concept; Greensboro P&DC. Report prepared by United States
Postal Service Mid-Atlantic Area Operations.
USPS, 1997. Request for quotation to perform Supplemental Environmental Assessment;
Proposed Greensboro, NC Processing & Distribution Center; Contract 475450-94-B-
0304. Letter from Mr. Scott Vincent, United States Postal Service Major Facilities Office
to Ms. Kathleen O'Reilly, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
WESTON, 1997. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of Parcel "A" (Cain Family Trust),
Greensboro, North Carolina. Report prepared for United States Postal Service by Roy F.
Weston, Inc.

0 NOR/K10177910771027100201DSEA-RPT.DOC 8-4 11:41 AM 6127!97

;Appenc i;c A
D
a
a
a
x
D
o
ij

Comment 1: DEHNR Division of Forest Resources (Letter, 04/18/97)
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
f)ivWon of Fore;t PB=urce3s
James B. Hurst, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary Grifrtlts Foresscy Cealttr
Sion.ord M. Adams, Director 2411 old US 70 w«t
Ctayloa, North Catolim 27520
April 13, 1997
Mr. Riebird B. Darling, Senior ProicctSeienlist
Ray F. Wcsicn, Inc,
t 8S0•H Beaver Ridge Circler
Norcross, CA 30071-3833
?EH IFNZ
'1 M-1
rA?PR 2 31997
_TT.7,. :Ii
PC: SuppIrmenlal EA Seeping. fbr Noposbd U.S. Postal Service Processing and Distribution Ceintr im 55,7 Acre
Tract, West of Ginnam in 15vilWd County, N.C.
Deu Mr. Darling:
Reference is trade to our telephone converation on April 17, 1497, and your fax Irtter of April 17, 1947, slso
Conocrning the above subject ruvpascd project. Your lcttcr indicates a major project heru and the 58.7 acre troll is
almost entirely fortsted. Sinoe woodland Is involved here, the below iufarnation should be lielpfiil to you.
T•n^ fTflnrcrm-itk+Nbit W,- could 1'ke to Im In 11111 EnvlronmentIl rkvglnerttto dims fmp-rtes to Wondl9nd The
following should be addrmsc9 for each alternative or total project.
1. The total forest land =wS b;• type: and merchantaWity sspcuts that would Ire taken but of fcrost productioo
cv rcrooxd asansuit ornewrigbt•of-way pvrcWr_s,easements, mid all eonslruction =NW-s. bmpbasis nods
to bs directed towaMs redtrcia3 impscts,wMnever possible tp tho following typ of uuodlond in the following
order ofpriority =
a. high site index productive land Ihat is curanflyunder utlvs forestmwopmcm.
b. Productive forestod wttlands.
e. Lower site index productiwt land there is currently under active forest management.
d. Unique or unusual fwtst ccasysterns,
e. Unmanaged, nelly slaked woodland.
f. Unmenaged, cutuver curet woodland.
g. UiNin woodland.
2. The productivity of the forest soils as indicated by the soil suit that would be iovotyW within the props td
Faojcct.
3. The impact upon existing grccnways within thrum of the proposed project.
4, The provisions that the contractor will lake too sd1 any roercbxitable tonbtr or woody material that is to be
mno`,td. Emphasa should be on styling all uocd produces first, including txrcrgy chips. 1f uvod produus U'IrT-7t
be sold, then efforts should be made to haul (be numeiial off or nm Ihyougli a tub grinder and tuned into mulch.
This prutice is cacoura3ed Io SoQmplish the following -
L Minimize the need for piling and bunting debris during consttuWw.
b. To r-ditce the danger of ascapod fires and smoke on nearby highways,
r- P.tduce smoke rnarugematt problems to the (raveling public, ttrvns and cities.
4WK
P. O. Box 2ASB 1. Roleigh. North Cu-otlna 27626-0591 M Equal Opportunlty Mlrrnt:tivo Action Ernptoyor
WiC0914.733.2162 FAX [phone]r7brecyclt?110?po:l•con?,morPquor
r
a
0 NOPJK10177907 710 2 710 0 2 01SFA-APP DOC A-2
3:54 PM 6125/97

Comment 1 (cont.): DEHNR Division of Forest Resources (Letter, 04/18/97)
g, tyondlan.d. land Charing and Ornt -ing- Ifinyopen buming is heeded, the co3itractor4huuld comply with
ell laws and rcgulatboas pertaining to debris burning. The regulation of Open fires arc covaird uudcr G.S. 113-
60.21 thru 113.60.31 all inclttsivo. Laud cleuing mitraC°itSrs should make particular note of G.S. 113-6023 high
Na irdCounties requiringa spoeial permit ftomourloeal ommtyrmgm3and 11340.24 far Olxn BuninginNan-
l ligh l lazard Counties requiiinga regular burning permit froin our i=l lranting permit agents.
J
fGuilford County is a non-high hazard county anal G.S. 113.60.21 would axpty. Ceitain oonditions tttay exist is
the time than would ftcmntthe issuance ofthis Permit Alsotheru mavbo other local rcquimmcnts Such as most
cities do not nu%v allow any burning End Lame cuuntits nuw• huvea bumingordnanw lh-t wvubJ takes pnxcdcnoa
-the pavisions that the contrietor will take during the construction phase to prcvtxmt erosion, scdimcr=ian and
instruction damage to forest land ouuidahe rigllc•ef-way and canslruaion ]arils. 7bees outside the eettstarctian
limits should be pracucd from con.Krucdcm activities to avoid:
A. Skinning of tree tnutks by machinery.
b. Soil compaction and tooccxposure or injury by heavy cquipmntart.
e. AULng layers of fill din over the root systems OClite; a practice that impairs Toot a=lion.
d• AGCidental spillins of petroleum pmducls or ocher dehnagirtg yult;tanee3 over the heat systems of tnxc.
%N'arnr and mwnr lints and troulmant plynrs -
a. Numtallynew Water disbibutiortlinesdohotimpaumuclttvoodLvmdt,mwsetlteyuegetterallyplscedwidiin
mcfsting ri6hts-of-ways. Wa think this is a good idea.
lx New sewer Ilnea do Impact woodland andproductlve woodland because dmey normally run adjacent m crreks
axed sucams of water.
c. WMIR are normally larger facilities and cut have highe7 irnpac lo
)+oadlaud.
d. Water plants can impact wuodland if they are eonstrutled next to rivers andhnn strearns;
e. We would maim/ be eoncemed if any mverplans prop=4 now construction offaci lilies chat in tun) would
hrmthe pcdcntialtu impact any wucdland; irru)y ounslrucAun was proposed for any Existing woodland zeta.
Therefore, the bttster Plana sholdd lake the following into consideration:
1. Avoid woodland ifat all possible.
2. 1Fwoodland cannot bo avoided, then address all imp9ct3 tothi.s woodland.
S. Any cumulative impacts to woodland Asa result of the total project or outer improvements iu the service arm.
Of paniculor cnncrm woutd tic a road mdrasic of faurre lass of %vodtand acres fto:n f xtu c dcvclopment coming
into the tervite area Os a result Of Ihtit improvements.
Eflo)1s should be madc to address the obove items end w reduce impacts to wcodland. We would hope that the
improvemenlswould have the IeaN-t impact to forest and relmed resources in that area.
^Slu?cerely, i
Don II. Robbins i
Staff PoiWcr
pc: M1*1bompson,k'arrenDloyette-CO
l:.cn Jeffries - R2
VicOwei-D10
David Hendenon - Guilford County
File

NOR/K101779t0771027100201S1A-APP.DOC A-3 3.54 PM 6125197

Comment 2: U.S. Bureau of Land Management (E-Mail, 04/22/97)
From: Clay W. Moore
To: DARLINGR
Subject: USPS Distribution Center, Greensboro, NC
Date: Tuesday, April 22, 1997 1:23PM
The Jackson Mississippi District of the Bureau of Land Management has reviewed
the plan for construction of a new mail processing and distribution center
in Guilford County, NC. The plan as proposed will not affect any natural
resource management programs over which we have jurisdiction. This includes
subsurface Federal mineral estate. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
NORX10 1 7 7 710 7 7102 7100 2 01sEA.APP.DOC A-4
3:54 PM 6125/97
u
Comment 3: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Letter, 04/23/97)

Date: April 23, 1997
TO: Richard B. Darling
Roy F. N'cston,InL:.
Sttbieet.• Proposed New United SWIcs Postal Service Processing mid Distribution 0?nter, located
off of Regional Road, adjacent to Brush Crock, near Gmemboro, in Guilford County, Nvrdi
Cnnolinj, Weston Work OrderNo. 01779-077-027-0020-00, Action ID 199700372
The April 18, 1997, lcllcrfrom Mr. Richard 13. Darling of Roy F. Weston, Inc. requested
commems on the proposed Nu%v Unitod. States Postal Smice Processing and Distribution Center,
located off of Regional Roud, adjacmit to B=11 Creek, neor Greensboro, in Guilford County,
North Carolina. Review of the subjected project indicates that the proposed work- inay involve
the discharge of fill material into waters and wetlands of B coslt Crock.
All work restrictcd to existing high ground oreas will not rcyu ire prior Federal permit
authorization. !however. Department of the Army permit authorization pursuant to Section 40
of the Clean Water Aot will be required for the discharge of exeavatcd or fill niaterial within the
aforeinentioned waters and wetlands. Specific perinil requirements will depaid on design of the
projecr, extent of fill work within streams and ti cdand arras (dirnm3ions, fill tunaunts, etc.),
construction methods, and other factors.
At this point in time, construction plans mere not available forn:vicw. When final plans
art completed, including the extent and location of development witliin any waters and wetlands,
the applicant should oontact Mr. John Thomas at the Roleigh Field Office, telephone (919) 876-
8441, for a final detortnination of the Federal petmit requirements.
jig
APR 3 0199 97
NOR K10 1 111101 710 2 7100 2 01SEA-APP.DOC A-5 3:54 PM 6125/97
fl rK
0
Comment 4: Greensboro Area Chamber of Commerce (Letter, 04/29/97)
0/7N X77 0??- 0420 - cn
0
j
lot 046
GREENSBORO
Greensboro Area Chamber of Commerce
April 29, 1M
Mr. Richard B. Darling
Scrim Project Scientist
Roy F. VVcsrort, Inc.
18u't)•1I Beaver Ridge Circle
Norcross, GA ?0071-3833
D j
MAY 0 2 1997
Dear Richani:
0
Thank you for }our letter dared April 19, 1997, eonCCnring 010 dtvc,opmenl of the United States Posta3
service proposed mail pmceaaing an4 dlsui bud on cCrutr. According to your letter, the center will I)a
constmcled on Regional Road on a site lueviously acqult> d by the U.S. Postal Sctyioe.
The proja t as described in ycur letter is eenalr ly eompadble with exUftg davcI(Vwnl in tho rtr>ra. The
iota if cure nlij/ onC{i Ci'. Pc rrrtittcd uSCS int ludo t'ost O1Gee>; and distribution. Please refarAce.1ho
attached "CP Di=ict Permitted Usos" docutnenl.
Amm fnlm the Regional Road site to State Route 69, which is tha access mute to lrilerst: 40. is
undtrgoing cxtcnSiva impromrwrils. Ibis jwptova= includes a"fly-over" access fmot Airport
Boulevard onr17 State Route 0. This will eliminate hAving to tress uvsr }iighway 68 hunt Airl)Ort
BcwlcYard via a bignaled We= ion.
The propascd site is located n=Piedmant.Und inxxrutitblal Aigmrt, wbicli will give excellent actxss to
the airport fcr any disuibution via aircraft. Tlie Piedmont Triad Airport. Authority is availttblc to discttss
u4JItions or cnharrcerncnts ai accommodate any additional necdn the U.S. Postal Scnirx may have at their
cu=f rangy facility.
Thank inu far tlrr *Mrtunity to comment ca this cxpan3Wa facility. Shuuld yL% have any additional
questions, pleas. do oat hesitate to contact rte.
Sig
T. Richard Bcard, fr.
Proj;.c? Manager .' ,
Economic D?vcloprtlcnt
Enclosures
e...
P,O, t3Wt 32AG • Geensboro, North Carolina 27402-3Z46 •[910) 275.8675 • fax [phone]
0
g NOR/11 10177910771027100201SEA-APP.DOC A-6
3.54 PM 6125/97
0
0
Mr. Richard B. Darling
Senior Project Scientist
Roy F. Reston, Inc.
1880-H Beaver Ridge Circle
Norcross, GA 30071.3833
1, 1997
May
?c : OIT'T?-? d27-G?211-0'a
ED)?
SUBJECT: Rare Specks, High Quullily Natural Communities, and Significant Natural
Areas in the Proposal Construction Site of the United States Postal Service
Processing and Distribution Center, near Gmansboro, Guilford County, North
Carolina.
Dear Mr. Darting:

Comment 5: DEHNR Division of Parks & Recreation (Letter, 05/01/97)
State of North Carollna
Department of Environment.
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Parks & Recreation
Jam95 5• Hunf, Jr., Govgrnoi
Jonathan B. Howes, Secrelaty
Dr. PhiJlp K. MCKndly, Director
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program does not have records of known rare species, high
quality rutural comimrnities, or sigi ificant natural area.: occurring at or within a 1-mile radius of the
proposed U.S. Postal Service Processing and Distribution Center lrrojea area. '1'o our knowledge,
Guilford Coumv has not been s)-itentatically inventoried and we. cannot definitively state that rare
SNCICs Or Significant natural areas do not occur there.
kincloscd is a list of rare species that arc known to occur in Guilford County. If suitable habitat for
any of these species occurs in the project area, then those species may be present at the project site.
If it is necessary to be certain that this site does not contain rare spcc;ies, a field survey would need
to be conducted.
Contact me at the address below or call me at [phone] if you havo any questions or need
further information.
fl-L-]
Sincerely,
Susan Recce •3
Information Spccialisl
Naturul Hcritago Proglrn
/SMRG
13=103urc3
P.D. gox 27687. (?cralgh. North Camino 27611-7687
An EScroi 0ppar1vrtyArfrmW" Acripi EmPoyer
'A
r
TelepFuulo 419.7?5•A 181 fAX 914715?J'S
SO?recyclxl; t07f,,:Cet•cu??.merpac»r
NOR/K%0177910771027100201SEA-APP.DOC A-7
3:54 PM 6125197
Comment 5 (cont.): DEHNR Division of Parks & Recreation (Letter, 05/01/97)
SCIENT FW AND STATE FED. STAU GWDAL
CoAn=;IAhm PRGT. PILOT- I2xn RANX
G?7tmrd
Ye?tebr>ni?g
AMBY 4TOA4A TALPOIDEUM SC $2 135
MOLE SALAMANDER
11T =TCWA CALLTS 5C $3 03
CAROLINA DARTER
HAT.IAFIi1M LBUCOCIiPII&W3 B LT 91B,S2N 934
BALD I!A=
LANIUS LUDOWLINW UTDOYICIANDS SC 5313,5311 OM
,LOGGHRIIBAD SHRIKE
?m'ertcbratcs
CANZARUS CATAGIUS 5R - 5233 GtJ
Gc'tI3[i3Mf11t0 BIIRI MMO CRAYI?Iq?
Yr?nilsr pLurts
'AQAI-111I3 DIWC,F 9WM SR - 52? 134
PIEDUM. OBRARDIA
BERBBRI3 CANADENSIS SR - 82 G4
AMERMAN AART3UAY
CARDAIV= DISSECTA C 32 04?
DISSECTED TOOTHWORT
C=INSONL4 T'UERROSA C si 0Q.,
P=MOPt'P I1wE MLM
OYAPIIALIUM IISLLMU VAR HZLLERI SR S2? 040STI
HEUER'3 RAU= TOBACCO
NSSTROICA U?v=LULA SR - 89 G4
PARTHENMt AURICULAT•UM C 81 G3?Q
MSDE WILD QUUTDW
PIATANTIEERAPERAMOMA C 81 Gs
PURPLE px N{313L1?$9 ORCH D
QUBRCUS PRINOIDBS C 811 0$
DWAVr CnIXQUAFIN OAS
SMIIA:{LASIONEURA ' C - &H OS
A'CARXON-RDWE t
*THERMO= M01= Sr1tM STitZM SR - S2? 0304
APPALACHIAN 0OfL17EXQkNNRIt
Natural wmvutrlwm
BASIC MESIC FT?REST (PIEDMONY-MMT.B) - - S2 05T3
SAICOA)WIICKORYFOREST S3 q4
LOW BLEVATION SIMP - - 63 94?
PIf: MONT1LOW MOUNTAIN ALLUY7AL FOREST - - 55 05
PISDNIONT/MOUNTAIN SWAMP FORH,S'p - S1 02
UPLAND DJURESSION SWAMP FORM S2 G3
GWO&Ic texurcT
IMAMMU SCARS
NCNATGSALIMMAOEPAOGXW, KCMYWOVOI PARES AND BECFd'A=(, D=qt F3MARY IM

NOR/K101779W771027100201SEXAPP.DOC A-8 3:54 PM 6125197

Comment 6: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Letter, 05/12/97)
rile.: ?rrr? oar aaT•oaap-ao
United States Deparnent of the Interior
rTSH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
P.06Rli Pidd pfr"
ti- `.- •, post 0.1 ice Box 13715
` Wtlegh.,?urtl: C., mlus x7-39-3•8%i0
T0: W es{-th ,
(880 - m aea+ler p? Ct?G? e.
S?a^?ross t Cse,mr.Gic. ea ?? - 3833
Thank you for your letter requesting ;nfdcmatlon or recormfendations from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This form provides the Service's response
pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Spec_en Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as am nded (16
U.S.C. 661-667d). ?,<R.J c-D.
Re: 046. ?C_z40-Q SCIVice. POCCC.6&? ars?I.??a?-;aT,n??, °YeeiaS}?ro, ft?C.
Project Naoe/Location/County ?T
Date of Incoming Letter Log )Ius er

The attached page(s) 115t(6) the Federally-listed species which
:,occur within the project area.
7Bad .on the information provided, it appears that your project site
daps not contain suitable habitat for any Federally-tasted
endangered or threatened species known to occur in the area.f;e
believe that the requirements of Section 7 of the Act have been
satisfied. We remand you that obligations under Section 7
consultation must be reconsidered if; (1) new informatioa reveals
impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or
critical habitat in a canner not previously considered; (2) this
action iE subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered
in this review; (3) a ucw species is listed or critical habitat
determined that nap be affected by the identified action.
If the proposed project will be removing pines 9" DBH or greater, cr
30 years of age in pine or pine/ hardwood habitat, surveys should be
conducted for active red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees in
appropriate habitat vithin a 1/2 mile radius of project boundaries.
If red-cockaded woodpeckers are observed within the project area or
active cavity trees found, the project has the potential to affect
the red-cockaded woodpecker, and you should contact this office for
further information.
n H-
MAY 151997 111 a, l? - b/ z/9,
Biolo3ist Da (( /
0
g NOR/K1017791077102T"2MEA-APP.000 A-9 3:54 PM 6/15197
I
u
a?
C

L
Comment 7: North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources (Letter, 05/12/97)
071-,?'- D7r-627- 020• au
'?J fi' }
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Jmes M Huot rr„ Conmor Mvisicn of Axhivcs and HNAq
oeuy Ray McCa;n, Soettwrr kff(ty J. Crow, DIV=
May 12, 1997
Richard 13. Darling
Senior Project Scientist
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
1680•H Beaver Ridge Circle
ftcrcr:,ss,•Gecrg:a 30071-3833
Re: U,S. Postal Service processing and distribution
center, Greensboro, Guilford County, Weston
No. 01779-077-027-0020-00, ER 97-9032, 97-
E-0000-0874
Dear Mr. Darling:
We havo rocelvod information concerning the above project from the State
CJearinghouse, as well as your letter of April 18, 1997.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no properties of
architectural, historic, or brchaeological significance which would be affected by the
project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as currently proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.

0

U
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you havo questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
roviow coordinator, of 919033.4763.
Sincerely, /
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:sI'N
cc: State Clearinghouse
4,tiAY 19 ti997
M Fast 10x.1 S11=1- RaWf 1, t OWi t_ar0trea27W1.2M7

N0PJK101779107M27M201SEA•APP.D0C A-10
3.54 PM 6/15197
0
U
Comment 8: North Carolina Department of Transportation (Letter, 05/12/97)
0
?F.: C?IT99-67T~Oa7•DUZd -Gv
STATE OF NOI;TH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF T RANsPORTATION
JAb(ES B. HUNT )PL prVlSr()N OF HIGHWAYS GAiuAND B. GAMETT JR.
G(WERNOR P.Q DOX2MG1. KALE ICH. KC 274511.9201 StLREwKr
May 14 1997
Mr. ?ticlurd )a. Darling
Roy F. Weston, inc.
1580-11 B eaver Ridge Circle
Norcross, Gcoraia 30071-3833
Dear Mr. Darling:
Subject: US Postal Service Proposed Processing and Aistribution Centex,
Greensboro, North Carolina
"Thank yo11 for your recent letter and the opportunity to comment on the above referenced
project. I am not aware of any Department of'1'ransp0rt11i0n pl3n3 or projects that would
directly impact the proposed site for the distribution center.
One project in the vicinity is the NC 65 t US 220 Connector (identified as project
R-2413). This project would include a new interchange at the intessectien of NC 68 and Pleasant
Ridge Road and a slight relocation ofRcj?onal Road tlorth of the subject site. Other than
possible short icrm disruptions in traffic doting constiuction, which is not scheduled to begin until
after the year 2004, there should be no long teem imp=3 to the pnopowd facility from this
projcrq.
I have attached a copy of the plans for the now interchange and the relocated Rejonal
Road. If you have any questions or need additional Wbmution re,,,•srdhn„ this proj ecl; ple.aso
contact the project manager, Tom Kendig, at [phone].
Sincerely
t-• - --
i
H. FranUin Vick, P. E., Maws er
?-' Planning and Emironmental Bnnch
HF Vftk
e 4
e L
1 L
Attachment
Ant
0 NOR/K10177910771027100201SEA-APP DOC A-11 3 54 PM 6125197
r.
0
May 141.9`71
01771 -077-02 p Qa20 -DD
ED F-77 6 V ITS1
mz, iucbmiD. par]Lq rru
Scnlor Pzojmt Scicnd,t D
RcyF. Weston, Inc,
L36a11 B'ar'er Ridp LICEA.
t 1991
(?1RY 2
Noxross. CA?M71•Sa50 ,
h
Dcar:.1Y, purling "ELEILSO
RFi 3roFingrco ncntc
Un1c: d States Posia? Scrrice - Pnc?d Iziocsasing aad Disvibwion Cuottc -
Gttcn bl m NC
(ivilfanl Cowry
MM staff bwe ro.iowed your 13 Apzil 199 lei=rbich requostrd =umwts regardiag plsns to dove]op a ntw mail
Proxssing and distri5ution ankr none On,s b Crock iu Grecastxan, AQmdina to your Ictler, yon will neod to clAwrt about
LOCO rut o? Po m=nt scream utd abcut'7CVfut c? inl•nnittwu srrcaut to locate the buildlnp atA associated Lcilitia, I
&i sumo Lha1 ttus pccyct will Ira baalled by the U3 Army Omys crBn&inccK under ao iodi idv4 P-rm;I. Y;t c the stream lei, glb
to W irapaqul i3 poster titan SW lino:? feel. Irnder our 40L Mier Qurlity Ctoilicatloa ruk-s (15.3 NC AC:9II 0W (i)), a.ben
the U.S. Amy Cnrpr & EAZLn ers is corduuing m "[Lan aGws walysis, ibco ttx 401 Corti riot o t carom dopLiovc tbnt nvicw.
Our rdu fce impact to we" U SA NCA.C 211.0505(x)) will rcyaita 1ta=W11Cr atanaVmant (i.a., pectuancnt wet detel6M
ponds) M well ns 1smw r miU&&1;ou far any Iva cz deWnJrt6cn of re wk life as inibo strcn 3-L Our policy in regard Coat-,-=
nlrigaiien is to rulcure a I:1 replawnent fa AM. length cd pcr?,nent sucares Lxing cuirertcd. You %ill citber Laic co lxvc a
auitablo iertgeh of saran to rwtore k(laKint a tn1[1gall0it plan cppxwcd by MVQ or 3-m map b: ablo to Ray $125 per linesr fm
into 1hr Wcdancis Itt:ILCration Progrmo (oMtnct Mi. Ikt1 Ferrell at 914-73'3-5033. cm. 35S). Tit option fx reliigatlon wits lbo
Wut&&J3 Rtatceatioa P;Wnrn wi 11 also aced to to eppmvtd by tbo Cocl+ g.C eglncCra. Mr. FcaclL cnn d'ucern Lno coly tL=
1,y;o in that rraard. I have lmdu!od copic6 dour rule and biftainuim ca the Wailarntl Rcstcra:lcu rtv?[= as wail at Slrwo
widgaticm rroc?ccs.
finally tha mroc,e in qucatLon is a tributmy Lpirzush Creek tahicb is cl:ssificd aS 7 watcr wpplyshram fa Lake
Braudt (class WS-LUNS1V). I will fornard Lmpycdywr lctla u thit rasro isc W Ms. Liao A1on n in thoR'attr Supply
Pruec(Lm nog= for 2= renew anlc =bell u M a srpanic cover. Iferrrbgyamis vcryl0cclyto6nve rylw wltic9 cruld
afkcct the am?enl orinpcrelCtts surface for tbia rrxjuL at Kroll t] slertnwatcrzcquircrnena.
0
E?
F:
[p
i
Comment 9: DEHNR Division of Water Quality (Letter, 05/16/97)
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
,lamesB. Hunt, Jr., GOYemor
Jonathan EL Howes, Secretary
A. Freston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
I bcpe ibis iorcamaeicn it bolpful In dcrclopaunt cfyomr Plans for Lhia Pml= Please cell trta at919.733173G it you
bnv- xny gmAGous.
l o?vs
Jul Ii.1Xa,cy
gznsposLhc
cr. Ilan I^nrille. NViostonSalcm UWQ RcairiPal OfTice
Ron L'trrcll, Wullandt Rc:taratLou rr0„T&m
Lisa Mulin, VJAW 5uri'ly Prvtueiion Program
MIA Tho nu, US Army C%N cf Fnginccrs Ralcigb Field 01rim
3-n a] File
clviar?ntal Sclmws Blanch - 4401 RaACY Cr0'A Iiaad fl3laig6, fioflll CBtolicti 71601
TatephCAA 019.73349GO FAX I- 785.1959
M E?twl O'gxrun l j P1Kn:t3hY Ada+ E+r?t?,er :? rcc}r#riP%paatoana+mn P]p4t
9 NORIK\01779\077102710020\SEA-AP P.DOC A-12
3:54 PM 6125197

0

Comment 10: DEHNR Division of Water Quality (Memorandum, 04/29/97)
t C ;)EM W? ENVXI Fax:[phone]
8666: 36rfti Ca c?lir(a i
;: ; ??,l::'.-.Depa3?i?rigi?:of.?t_nutrormtenr
•' • •? ••, . ?;E;f?alth;ar?r?.[?Iatuta.C?e§burces
• -.•;1d:tit?stB:?;?{t11ir'•?lc:;:fibVettmor
. ,]c?fLD?,y3rT•B.?HOOvQ:OS?•,ScT?t4t?t3+
A :Pse=9eoii ii? 40 •Ditec.tor-
• •• .I _ April 29.
• . tTo? •' i;Jlrltin`It?1?Gc?
• ?iiotigh:: •1-Ic}jri•L?o'r •
. 3.;'>;?c?E?43.?cgiicsts'that'a?btsp(syshoprin;•.the stttiainsh?•ct3a?ids drSiaani t? irdtx'.rd
i ia>al!'tha?ltezuari'ves {i a otherlocatinng) in the FA. ti'tahular atCtintin ofill by site
Svr:e4b.altci74 ,e'zvpuld:alcbbeielphl. .
4?.,.Ntrtatt;tsofuli.proADSCd aI(untnv?s along with an cxplanwiott foe ttirii
Boiiprrttscpccs sfidu2 .bc'sncludc?in the FA.
:S'.??,T:ro'siiStisrdnfrol:rncg3trceS•Sf?,oUldndt66pl.ucdin?vrcTl?u3a. - ,
:.>7 rati nrp€aii 4 ONSIbyAVIQwould notpr"dc lhc&6W of-La-401
tl•iirpaG4havCnctti?CRa?O1?SD(4IIUnirni^rlito
lCi'?12p(}it c*d6il U%vt p?.d
tp?act;ealile:'Quesii arcK=dI6 gth?401 fcadonshbWdbr
`dirct"' tgiGic'y,'I'iicc,{733=I7b5)in-DWQ's ]3a-rironutal'Scie?ecs;$rlino.
cc: hTi<hdle'Sirvcflsraf?be
I ruo=cnhlScima Briac4 440tkt-*)a"kR4ed Eaki •IYOnhCain![m,2?,Sp7
&elephanc Q19`"3-c960• •:`, " FAX [phone]
AA 4i-l appnvi?; l}tf?5w' Aoian:R,.,,t. fs Sol. mUf-;mod l pN rl\ wwrnu S+F-
%
F} r 30 ' 97 7 55
P. 0242
99'7
:. ;Spujci?t: ?.;.::??ClttotrtrvicGl'mctssitzgend Aistxihution CScntcr?cDp
ilf ord [7 ing Conlnients
LI VA'#9174674
. ?hc`subjc&ti3aciu?Zni??es:been;ipvie?vui>;?ythis vifire. Thcl?ivlsiodof_ti't7?scr Quality .
D?V isusps??iAbtofoTQic3?suaucco th?5eraiod4Q1NvaccrQnalitycc? rl atien.for
' zttivitics??iki?h'Impact?ta'Ater:pf?t5e's?toiuclud%ngwetlands.'Ihelotloivin?.conimentsatr
,bffeYcd iritxs?t>n?e.ro tho;s.",oplno Ir?llt:5t: .
I:`finvirgtmeatal Scia?cesBinncFr (>?S13} is cor?ccmcd:7ritb•th?umoirnEtrf sur:
e dsaliifyvcilancl3ttsbc.irnpactcdNM:ttzispmcr nsInKd6nattit6rlitvcs.ittaFthcso.
uri 4S.aill.tie signiticeiu: cg ingyvaf-;quality. I3asc3 tiri the ltit;atiatt'of:the proFoszd:
d
r iirrpacirid arirjs' an wctlt nd3. i?,aPFe tftch n>Yasi tug peittuiPS:v'stuabla wutrr goality
' ; ., :'Suricti;;at'.?vitit'iri,a'.ivareF supply a atet5htd 'theptvItct rL proposed tv11irtquLre 401
`Yste?Qn?Iigt CC%i(t :;< gn.tcquiring su, ai and,.rctlarui msngaiion: .'
' ?:?'t?i,r"t.•SII.?'ctinc?nei3aliwtstrnn?atcrmar,sg?xt#ond3issit?.•.il.siorr?vatez
tiLVZit tnuni-pJaigi) cod "to. be rnca(ionoc Imthe ZN whilo thodcsalJ,s6f9m pUn be c jr!cd
'. ?6pt:dti??.t}ie;pc?i$ttiti? ?toccxs. '
r
NOR/K10t7 7 910 7 710 2 7100 2 01SEA-APP.DOC A-13
N 3:54 PM 6125197

J
a
Comment 11: DEHNR Division of Water Quality (Memorandum, 05/09/97)
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, ? .t
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality ter 11
Jamos B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan S. Howes, Socrotary
A. Preston C) FEE n 1[?
A. Howard, Jr., P.E., D lr$ctor u u 9 'V 11-?
May 9, 1997
TO: hfelbaMcGee
FROM: Michelle Sm-crkrubba
TTI120UGH: Alan Clark
Comments on DEEM #97-0674; DIVQ911585
U.S. Postal Center on 58.7 acres. IIA 5copins
Greensboro, Guilford County
T71ese comments have been prepared by the Divisicm of Water Quality (1AVQ)
Plannine Branch. They= provided in addition to tho comments provided by Greg Price,
with the Division's Environmental Sciences Branch, dated April 29, 1997. The Planning
Branch has tt Mewed the above EA, &coping request for a new postal comer and has tim
fallowing comments on the proposal.
a) The facility as currently desi?ncd will impactmveral hundred fret of an unnamed
tributary to Drush Crt ek, which has a N.C. Surface Water Classification of NVS-111
NSW (nutrient sensitive %;atcm). The WS-III means that the water within these
stte.-trns is being used for public water supply and should be protected from tiro
addition of pollutants. According to the State Water Supply Watershed Protection
Act, the development has a maximum built-upon surface area limitation, ruandatory
stormwater controba if aboi c a specific density, and minimum strum huffier
protection requirements.
b) Tho WS-III classification also tncarts that these wafers should be protocted from
excessive erosion and sedimentation impacts, which will undoubtedly occur with
the filling and relocatin; of tho streams a3 proposed. If possible, it is recommended
that the facility be redesigned to avoid these natural stream antes and provide the
required protective stream buffers around these slrram5, as set forth in the Smto
Water Supply Watershed Protection Act, which is implemented locally within the
Guilford County Development Ordirmm Depending on the percentage of built-
upon surface area proposed for the development, this required buffer could be 30 ar
100-felt in width. According to the State Watersupply Watershed Protoction Act,
no buildings can be placed within this buffer aria. However, if wx csigning the
project is not feasible to avoid impacting the natural drainago areas of the site, tho
requirement for protecting the unbuildable buffer around any relocated sire=s on
Iho site would still apply.
P.O. Box 29535, Pal* h. flo;th Carol'na 27626-4535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportun?rf Afflrmotive Action Employer sati recycled' 10%post-con`vrwr paper
191
NOR/K10177910771027\00201SEA-APP.DOC A-14 3.54 PM 6MW
Comment 11 (cont.): DEHNR Division of Water Quality (Memorandum, 05/09/97)
M;)ba.McGeo
DEHNRif 97-0674
24'!ay 9, 1997
Pago 2
C) The scoping rcq=t door trot specify the amount of built-upon area planned for the
dl°selopment. 'Ib=fore, it is not possible to determine it the projxt excaeds the
maximwu built-upon limits as spertGed in the State Water Supply Watershed Act cr
the Guilford Cmmty Development Ordinance. The scoping request also does not
discum in detail the speafics of the "dei:ntion" facilities indicated on the slxtch
plan. Without this innfformation, 4 is not pomiblo to determine if the pro sal would
nwetthosc ?arstnetcrs of the State Water Supply Watershed Protection Act. Since
ibis issue w,ll be regulated by the Guilford County Planning Dtpartmcrnt for this
project, the applicant should contact that office regarding this issuo.
d) Comment No. I provided by Mr. Price in his April 29 memo (copy attached) states
that the pro E -t impacts rcpzardiag watcr quality will be siguif'rcant. 1f the ?Abeing
developed for this project is to lend to a Finding of No Sig Wcant Impact, then the
EA will nccd Co include how the wetlands and wafer quality ir»pact$ associated with
the pr0}'ctconstruc6on will- . • he adequately mitigated.
Ptease give me a call at 919-733-5033, ext. 567 if you have any questions.
m1s:1970674
cc: John Dorney, ESH - WQ lab
NOR/K10177910771027100201SEA-APP.DOC A-15 3:54 PM 6125197
n
Comment 12: North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (Memorandum, 05/13/97
HCWRC.HC?,FALLS LP.KE ' TELt919-528-9839
ra ,
Mau 13'97 14:49 Nc.005 P.03

P North Carolina WIk ife Resources Conirnission Lq
512 N. S*14bury Stmct, ]1;aWO2, North Ctmlina 27604-1188,919-733-3391
Charles R. Pullsvood, Eucutive Director
MENIORANDUy1
Tip: i'.vicllaa Mcoce
OzTretr orL°gislativo and 1 0' etr?eut'?l Affairs
Pram: Owcn F. Ander..on,-17 edmonttiRegioon Coordinator
Habitnt Conservation Program
Date: May 13, 19117
SUBJECT: Seeping for US Postal Service Prci;=ing and Distribution Center, IN sh Crc A,
Guilrord County, Project No. 97.0674
Stuff hiologists with the North Carolina Wildlife llescurccs C:otnmissiun hovo revicw'ed
the subject project for potcnital irnoris to fish and %yildlifo resource; and sensitive habitats. Our
eonunents are provided in accordance with pprrovislons of the National Euvironin=ial Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332 (2) (C)), the Fish and WildlIN Coordination Act (48 Stat. 441, zs satcudCd; 115
U.S.C 651.667d), and the Norih Carolina Envimnmenial Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 through
I I3A-10; 1 1;CAC 2S).
The United States Postal 6ervics is paining to construct a prow sling and distribut'ton
center an a 58.7 ecru site on Regional Road in Guilford County. Tha site is prtrnariiv forestcd
and approximately 1,535 feet of Bush Crock and npproximately 1200 feet of intcTmi atom
tributaries to Bush Creek flow through tho site. 3 here rtre=s are ill a protected wucrshed and
are classified a; ?','S-liF NSSV. Addidur>ally, there are approximately 1.77-acre3 of*wetlands
associated with Bush C?cck.
The proposed site devclvpmcnt plan calls for a 413,700-3q. f3. main building iuchuling
vAnk rooms and 44 perimeter loading docks. There will be 480 unpto ee parking a7av=, a
15,120-sq, ft. store a building and rough grading fbr a 120,000 Fq. it. future ex) anston.
Approximately 1200 feet of Bush Creek and 1200 fW of intermittent tributaries will be divencd
and placed in a pipe.
'this prn)cet may cause significant attverse impacts iv high quality ripu;Ln habitat and
water quality within a protected -.2tershad. The Nvetl: ndo associated with this 'dw ?re likely
providing Aignifictntt water quality functions and fish and -MtdliIb habitat. The Bald eagle, u
`cdtrall,' listed %hreutxned sgveieq, is known to use the habitat downstream at lake Ilibgius.
The 413plicant should examine additional design alternatives for site devetopn:ent that
would eliminato the need to impact Bush Creek and a 100-foot forestcd ripnrian bufrcr along the
crock or the associated wcltands. Acquiring additional land at this site to provide more
fl3xibility in layout also should be considered.

0 NOP/K101779107710271002MSEA•APP.DOC A-16
3:54 PM 6125197
i

Comment 12 (cont.): Wildlife Resources Commission (Memorandum, 05/13/97)
t1CWRC.ti7-P,FFAt_LS LRKE TEL[phone] May 13'9? 1:.:50 NO-COS .°.04
US POSW Service 2 May 13, 1997
Projcil IP-%'14
'Fhs map provided shows several delta ion basins; however, we question ffic location and
size of the basins to treat the sturra atcr from the site. The final design should inclvdc sufl?elcni
CtormwattT ponds to treat water front the entire site and upstream drainage. Pvh and bust
management Factices should be desiped to teduco pollutants and dissipate enazy so that
dov'=ircam riparian and wetltrid hobimt and -wata r quality ere not degraded.
The infarmathm pro vided is rot sufficient foc our staff to stake definitive
recnrmrlendotiors or conclusions Concerning this project, Due to staxIirtvtations, this
standardi=d response was developed for prof eas such asthis. Althvugh sume of (hc
informnthm, requests and comments may tot be applicable to certain projects, ihwe uuidelinw
should faoilitate preparation offish and wildlife impact czaessments. This information will he
very usoful !fit becomes necessary to prepare an imviramrnental docuancnt.
In addition to addressing Cie concerns discussed above, the envlrormcntal document
should include a detailed assessment of exlsanr ri=ral resources within these areas ofpoteatial
development and shoulddiscros thcputeatiol ofinitigatingdetrolopment impacts to ?Nrtlands,
wa;crs and high qualiy upla.id habitat, Additionally, to proYide a rteartin8Fu1 ccviCtiv of
propomcd prujcet taipacts on fish and wildlife resout>r. we guest that consultants, project
spvnsnrd a penrit applicants provldo the following itL{orniatien in the envirormont.2 document:
J . Include descriptions of fish and wildli (o tt;sourees within the proj ect area, and- ousting of
federally or state designated threatened, endaned of special concern species. When
practicable, potential barrow areas to be wsW for project Cctistwctlon should b.- included
in the invenwriea. A Itsting of designated spccics can ba devclried through consultation
t%iar The Natural Heritage Program, NC Division of Parks and Rt=. 6U-3' P.O. 13ox
27687, Raleigh, N. C. 27611, PH: [phone].
2. Include descriptions ofany streams or Nvcthinds affected by the Iirojctn.
3. Includ: pm?e: t map9 lcicnti ng wetland :eras. Idcntifien ion of wetlands may be
accoinp ishcd throuUlt cone 1nMton with the U.S. Amy Corps of Enginet'S (CAF). I:
the CUE is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be identified and
C.i.(CE4listed.
4. 1'royide tt dexLription ofproject ectivides that will occur within wetlands, such as fill or
channel alteration. Acreage of wetlands linpacted by alternative project designs should
be listed.
5. Provide a description and a covcr type map shoAino acrua4c of upland µ ldlilc habitat
irnp=t.d by the project.
6. Discuss the cxtcnt to which the project wil I result in loss, dcgadadoa or fia _rn.ntation of
wfkflifc habitat (wcilsrxis and uplands).
7. Discuss any :)teasums prupu.-cd to avoid or teduoe impacts of the project or to mitigate
unavoid abte habitu losses,
8. Discuss the cumulative impacts of any secondary devtloproen( fm;ilita(ed by the oropowd
Lui?iii+.s, csaeeially the impacts on tizater t?ualitp in Bush Creel; and Lake }-Egg'ias. Such
discussion should weigh the economic bcncfit3 of such grvwth against t-ha costs of
ossociaird environrretmt degradation.
(r1) Include spcuific measures thatwlll L•e used to addru-3s storinwater nt the source.

0 NOR/K 101779t0771027100201SEA-APP.110C A-1
3.54 PM 6!25197
7al
I
0
Comment 12 (cont.): Wildlife Resources Commission (Memorandum, 05/13/97)
NCW2C-NCP.PRLLS LAKE TEL:[phone] ?Iaq 13157 14150 hlo.005 P.05
US Postul Scrviuc 3 Mix;, 13, 1997
Project 97-OG74
(b) Include, specific rnmsu= that will be vscd to protect stre:ttn corridors, riparian
h4 imt and a miuimurn of a 100-year floodplain.
9. Include a list of document prep rerv whMi shokvs each individual's professional
background and qualifications.
Measures to avoid or minimize itnpaets to sensitive r=urccs, including wetlands, should
ba implemented during wnsttuction. Where impacts to wxdands we unavoidable, we will
recommend mitigation ofIlte losses. In ttddltion to providing wildlife habitat,Iva-land arca:s
pcrfbrm impurtunt fu=tions of flood control and water quality protection.
To avoid or minimize wetland impacts, w'6 offer several generalized recommendations.
Utilityy lines should be pluced in or 4acent to gland areas. It is recommended that a minimum
I00-foot buffer of natural t•cgctation ho Idt bctwten construction cQn•idors and the banks of
al rrreams. These buffers wlll he?lpp minirnizc impacts to water quality, stabili= stream
E=nd provide Iz4VO corridors for wildlife. Trees and shrubs should be regained or
established in the 1yuJTers. Buffers should also be icit along intermittent drai;u or screams.
Constriction corridors should be no vvidur than absolutely nc c=iry, Tito 401
ce:tiflcadon for Nationwide Permit 12 stipulates that 1wetlaud cons:ructim corridors are not to
exceed 40 feet and pe-rmanent maintained corrldora are not to exceed 10 feet except at access
point3. Plain communities should be r"stablis',ed which would result in wzdand plant
community succession into btbitat of equal or greater valuo than iliac which was destroyed.
Disturbed v.•rllund areas should be roturned to original soils and contours. Tempcmrily disturbed
wetlands should be restedtdwith ttrutual mull grainsapprupOurc for Ih. s4450n (e.g. Oats, millet,
rye, wheat, annual Iespedeza or rye grass) and bo ellotved to revers to natural wetland vcgctatitnt.
r0e..inLS Ofw•ctlonds rind Strtarrts should he minimized, located at narrow areas, and made
perpendicular to rho strewn.
Thnnk you for the opportunity to provide input in the early pl-envino stages for this
prujecl. l the can be vJ' !'u ttwr ussist»noe, please contact our offico tit [phone].
cc: John Hefter, Supervising Biologist U5171's
0
0 NOR/K10 1 7 7 910 7 710 2 7100 2 01SEA-APP.Doc A-13
3.54 PM E2&W
i
Comment 13: Guilford County Planning and Development Department (Letter, 05109/97)

8 9
GUILFORD COUNTY
1rLAN91NG AND DEVELOMIEW IMET'AIMM>r\'f
May 9, 1947
Piedmont Triad Council of Governments
Intergovernmental Review Proccss
2215 West Meadowview Road
Greensboro, N. C. 27407-3480
Gentlemen;
Guilford County endarms the construction of a new U.S. Postal Distribution Facility on Regional Road
North.
TrwacnortAtion: This site has access to Airport Parkway to the south, and. NC68 to the north. In the
near future NC68 will be com cited to the newly approved Interstate 73 (I-73), Of course; air
transportation facilities are available at the Piedmont Triad International Airport (PT(A) just next door.
i i ' : Two electric grids serve this area thus reducing the risk of an outage. Fiber optic cable is
available nearby. The site is served by water, sewer, and natural gas. This is an excellent
Telecommunications Age location.
Fnyironmerit: Preservation of wetlands on the eastern position of the site is significant. The innitution
of stormwater detention structures is also commendable as this site is within the Reedy Fork Basin which
is Greensboro's water supply,
i and Regulations: The local, jurisdiction to contact is the City of Greensboro, although most Federal
projects are gcamlly exempt from local land use regulation. FAA height and radar restrictions ntighc
impact this construction. It is recommeirded FAA bo contacted early in the process.
Please call me (373-3050) if any assistance is needed from Guilford County.
Sincerely,
St=
am UCP
r of Planning and Development Department
is
cc: Roger Cottcn, County Manager
Alul Wyman, P11tnning Director
1'mc [Lome Boa 3427 • Grccn;bom, Nardi Carolina 27402
Telephone: [phone]
NOR/K101779%01110 1 7=101S EA,APP, 00 C A-19 3:54 PM 6125/97
0
0
0
D
Appendix B
C.
X
w
0
I
Text for Public Notice
The United States Postal Service intends to construct a new mail processing
facility on Regional Road, near Brush Creek, in Guilford County, North Carolina.
An Environmental Assessment of this proposed action was conducted in 1990
prior to site acquisition. A Supplemental Environmental Assessment is now being
prepared to assess the potential project-specific impacts to the environment.
Parties interested in additional information pertaining to this project should
contact the Environmental Specialist; U.S. Postal Service; Major Facilities Office;
225 N. Humphries Blvd.; Memphis, TN 38166-0300.
0 NOR/K1017791077102TZ0201SEA-APP DOC B-2
3.54 PM 6125197
0
0
Proof of Publication
V%0.: 0177 -pry-a2?c?a? - va
t7EWS & 'RECORD
Published by
Yaws t, Record, Inc.
Greensboro, North Carolina
Etorth Carolina, Guilford County
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATIOH
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said
county and state, duly conminsicned, qualified and
authorized by law to administer oaths, personally
appeared Becky Johnoon who being first duly sworn,
deposes and says:
1. That she iA the Publishers Representative of
the Greensboro Nows & Record, Inc. a corpora-
tion, engaged in the publication of newspapers
known as "Trews and Record " , published, is-
?.ur»ssu..Fa.r
e,• Id awns . ?+ sued and entered as second class mail in the
.
city of Greensboro in said county and State;
TIM Gr1?µt?yveIl acWl
mrI ,-j1%
2. That she is authorized to make this affidavit
and sworn statement, that the notice or other
l
l
d
ti

l ega
a
ver
sement, a true copy of which is
'".? Z
` attached hereto, was published in the
i + l Erm(ten af1M.q

.. .?.r
-.a NEVIS & RECORD
ir; M
,.r
rtcrns?. v s,t. MH
on the following dates:
.12i7 Z01QQ nn"
April 18, 1997
for PUBLIC VOTICE and
placed through ROY F WRSTcu, I24C (1110MRD DA$-
LING)
3. That the said newspaper (or newspapers) in
which such notice, paper, document, or legal
advertisement was Published was, at the time
of each and every such publication, a newspa-
per meeting all of the requirements and quali-
fications of Section 1-597 of the General
Statutes of North Carolina and was a qualified
newspaper within the meaning of section 1-597
of the General Statutes of laorth Carolina.
This 18th day of April , 1997
APR 2 4 1997 -7 yl) is hers epresen a ive
sworn to and subscribed before me, this 18 day of
April 1997
----"T.-PAMISH'+ ? o ary ub7-ic
t4O7AW PQELIO My Cc=ision expires: April 10, 2001
/,LAVAANCE COUNTY, NC
xemmlwoftrz;;=A-104,4
0
g NOW11,1017791071"+0 2 7100 2 01SEA-APP.DOC B-3
3:54 PM 6!25!97
0
L

lif,
H:
0
0
0
0
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources ® e
Division of Water Quality r/ f
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor '
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
December 2, 1997
Dr. Sandra J. Farmer
U.S. Postal Service
225 N. Humphrey's Blvd.
Memphis, TN 38166-0300
Dear Dr. Farmer:
Subject: Proposed Greensboro N.C. Postal Center
Guilford County
On 21 November 1997, dir. Eric Galamb, Mr. Brian Smith and Ms. Jenny Rankin met
Ms. Susan Rabold and other City of Greensboro staff on the proposed Greensboro Postal
Center site. The purpose of this meeting was to investigate the stream onsite which is a
tributary to Brush Creek. This creek has a WSIII stream classification. Rule 15A NCAC 02B
.0215(3)(b)(i)(G) requires vegetated buffers along perennial streams for all new development
activities. This requirement was included in DWQ's comments on the environmental
assessment (EA).
During the site visit, schools of fish were observed in the stream upstream from the water
fall. The most recent version of the U.S.G.S. 1:24,000 scale topographic map indicates that
this stream is perennial. City staff believe that this stream is perennial and are in the process
of modifying their watershed map. Based on our field visit, we concur that the stream is
perennial.
The issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification is a statement that the State's Water
Quality Standards would not be violated. The buffer requirement is a water quality standard.
Therefore, this buffer requirement is an issue for the 401 Certification.
DWQ believes that the placement of the stream into a pipe would require a variance from
the Environmental Management Commission (EIiC). Additionally, a variance would be
needed if the buffer requirement could not be met. If the built upon area could be reduced
to 24 percent or less, then a 30 foot buffer on each side of the stream bank would be
required. If impervious cover remains above 24ci'o and below 50%, a 100 foot stream buffer
would be needed. In any event, the USPS cannot exceed 50% impervious cover.
Please be aware that DWQ staff would not support a variance request for a design which
results in culverting the stream beyond that needed for road crossings. Also, DWQ staff
probably would not support a variance for a relocated stream since we believe that the site can
be redesigned (to forego the expansion) and then not require a variance from the EMC.
In the latter case if a variance would be required due to encroaclunent into the buffer, DWQ
staff would consider supporting that variance depending on the detailed design.
In this regard and as we discussed in our conference call, alternative designs that were
once discarded may now be acceptable such as B-l. During the telephone conversation, you
or your consulatants stated that the plans for future development expansion were to be
eliminated from the project. We expect that these alternative designs will be discussed in our
December 5, 1997 meeting and also in the FONSI.
Division of Water Quality • Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
elm
M

22
LL
1 a

u H ,,YY
V .Oi r1 V'Nti •?A E'+ y N
H tJ
H o aye E?? o .?
r O u A u?? u M C
V G ''? O V? N C? ? H W
V 4 O O V .d b.. V N N
Q A E V O u 0 ?%l . ? H
V A Q H ?'i N
V
orn ?o u o a? g
w q a F. o o u $
. ? ?+ H ?j G H N H ty
OH ru7 .0+ 3 G CO t4 a 7
u b v ai '° 0 'r' s s
v `? o co u? o > a
c* a.r
o
u
v u
V •y d V V N 7
C o C q, $ a4 o-
`7 G a 0 C m o G
V'rJ cy? u;b X00 > o
0-4
C a a u? w A y
.?-. u? N? ? u N u O G O
H u u C? s u-- G A vni W
u w G O cf u O.
Dq O V 'C C..)
?1•?f/J? Z u V il O N v L?7 c0
rf/ dl N K ?n a? V 'O ~ ? ? ?
c° S a a b
o r Ci „ G w u `V)
Q
0. 0
W 12 t! o
,0 0
IM4
?0 Cod
O O .S u+? ?' Q V
z N m OC?a,O.,. u
? •? it a°. '? °': ?' ti
c o 2 p u u
40,
?y •y fi C.?! .yi C a
1-3 LD N '? •a C
O 't-4
N G u-Z :7Ou
QQ O <y u W p h L3 - 60 ?J?~? C ?A C
?uo;;A? su
C u ?0 ' ?
A I v '? tD Gu
r C w 3 ?u rC,?
?J w ?
Q C o u°'s aN
0- 0
21 ;0: 2
r--1 c, O C :; N
p " 0 u .n o
0 (7 O V
.? - Q. a -2 ova
4- W u ? u
av o 3 0
,?Ta N O
A z a O N>
® ° m vi r? t 3 o -0
v G o " o
G
m$ s V ?w- tui?
POSTAL SERVICE
Continued From Page DI
Postal officials are evaluating the 67-acre tract to

.0 determine what to do with iL The agency bought most
1
of the property in 1990 and has since added to it. The
j property cost $2.4 million.
V Larson said she doesn't know whether the Postal
Service will look outside Greensboro for a new site.
"
'
This one is replacing a current one so you
re
talking about employees who are established in an
_ .. r- area,". she said of the centers. "I don't know the
likelihood of them moving a great distance because of
the impact on the current work force. Now if you were
talking about a processing plant in addition to what
vnn aon that unn1A ha ? `iiff--t ct-"
3
jilk

'A i'4

z ?
u
L
0
rf
E
45
W
O ?
? h
N
[M ?
C ?
h
a

0
? O O
?
C
0

1 • ? •
O
-
O
I O
I ?
V ^ ? ?

•
? u L•7 L
o

=
c0
Im

O I_ /
f
/ I

C
Q°
\ 1 i - ?? - I I! u
o
i
p i•

G
C ,

c

I
, C
' p G

to

a O
G
1l
T
c' -

V
° v
u

rn
I"
.
=
?
.I u
I
T

I

_ .... O

,6 r

V C
U
u 7 r
b ?
u ?
0
$ ? u
u
.0.7 Q t
O
C_
?? u U
?UZQ
fn A O h
fl C u
cO
. u `b
N p
L C
h
3
Z
E
G
0
.?i
h
u
G
L
A
a
r
G
w
0
is
n
N
7nR
a
D
M
I.1

Lo,

L ???:-?c:« ? ^,.._ ,?•-- ----- _.._........._ .. fir.. ?.,..?e
_._..,.,_ ........................_.....-_........., I........................_. .
L999 T6Z t16 YVA Tt:TO L6/C-Z/TT
} ?l ?C7 ?
A
ji1 t? c3? rre, U f>
d rvs -
S?Xne ?-
A/L4 Ulf ` t,L ta)CLr? I?
kA--l Li
Sc- V--Al 19 '7 r'? d nct,? vo cm,
? c
UW\?
??`? G? ?'???? - V1 u?za ??, ?? ?x?st` ??essc s
QAk

s?-a•?J --?,o r?12? 1 ? Y? ??
0

M?

c
q ,
?J
N R (-.AL vv. (uyk G?
c

C `RAI I
a Ma,
uv'
k?
70
?-o a? - ? o ? ?n un';?l u?2
. I
v
4?- f2l c?lylfl ; M -V-,Y?- ?t IC-1
? 3 ?Z Cov1T1'??-r ?s
?-a

VV
`
? t ? ltiti? \ n I
VU
r'"^'0 ' YO ?L'C
V b
YY)A
a
•T
S5?,
oh f2-1))?

S-17 nv
l e fpw
_?? cep
40

'7 4m' -- C ?? )
vVrn
I-Yyy
S,
i ??? it ???, ?_ ??, ;?
-Dec 7 q7

lq6ENc Y
f?isl??uT,o? ?
Er?, C- 6?al? ric- --Pvj?y-
M(64mo, S'?t k?u 1170 ???
ITT ?Ry c tT Y ©F ?REC?.1S3 a
?jc
q3 Oa6%-k fzt-? r C?o
M C'op?, L S, Lb c ?Z v? o v n 6 6Z?eN
SA? ?'?c, 3 ?a-r??-e ?
?h Ise c? 1?
M? R
Pfaq
Mer 4-itr5 ik-i Fib,
/r

NC Dwq
-T,,:F"Lc?/ /vE :?-'
(919) 733-/7?Y6`
/9/?) 7 3 3 --5z23 -3
wc-37?-2Z/ `7?4
C 9 I 0-) 3 73 - z?Z-S
-7 0
2\ 2) Jr q ?5 '63 o v
9(--' ( \'-K'-) - `744 -
loo/, 747. 7-5/0
46I . '151'7• 7ikl7
-7(-?,/&aI - I & -0
7/3 / -1 -s-o Lf -7
l \14oly& 1?-A of o\, S PoS?n ?1r?5?bz ?ivi StrY? Ji ewi?? s yOl- 7q7 7e// 2
'733 1706
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
LT ?
and Natural Resources •
Division of Water Quality `1r
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor F=
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary N
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
December 2, 1997
Dr. Sandra J. Farmer
U.S. Postal Service
225 N. Humphrey's Blvd.
Memphis, TN 38166-0300
Dear Dr. Farmer:
Subject: Proposed Greensboro N.C. Postal Center
Guilford County
On 21 November 1997, Mr. Eric Galamb, Mr. Brian Smith and Ms. Jenny Rankin met
Ms. Susan Rabold and other City of Greensboro staff on the proposed Greensboro Postal
Center site. The purpose of this meeting was to investigate the stream onsite which is a
tributary to Brush Creek. This creek has a WSIII stream classification. Rule 15A NCAC 02B
.0215(3)(b)(i)(G) requires vegetated buffers along perennial streams for all new development
activities. This requirement was included in DWQ's comments on the environmental
assessment (EA).
During the site visit, schools of fish were observed in the stream upstream from the water
fall. The most recent version of the U.S.G.S. 1:24,000 scale topographic map indicates that
this stream is perennial. City staff believe that this stream is perennial and are in the process
of modifying their watershed map. Based on our field visit, we concur that the stream is
perennial.
The issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification is a statement that the State's Water
Quality Standards would not be violated. The buffer requirement is a water quality standard.
Therefore, this buffer requirement is an issue for the 401 Certification.
DWQ believes that the placement of the stream into a pipe would require a variance from
the Environmental Management Commission (EI1C). Additionally, a variance would be
needed if the buffer requirement could not be met. If the built upon area could be reduced
to 24 percent or less, then a 30 foot buffer on each side of the stream bank would be
required. If impervious cover remains above 24% and below 50%, a 100 foot stream buffer
would be needed. In any event, the USPS cannot exceed 50% impervious cover.
Please be aware that DWQ staff would not support a variance request for a design which
results in culverting the stream beyond that needed for road crossings. Also, DWQ staff
probably would not support a variance for a relocated stream since we believe that the site can
be redesigned (to forego the expansion) and then not require a variance from the EMC.
In the latter case if a variance would be required due to encroachment into the buffer, DWQ
staff would consider supporting that variance depending on the detailed design.
In this regard and as we discussed in our conference call, alternative designs that were
once discarded may now be acceptable such as B-1. During the telephone conversation, you
or your consulatants stated that the plans for future development expansion were to be
eliminated from the project. We expect that these alternative designs will be discussed in our
December 5, 1997 meeting and also in the FONSI.
Division of Water Quality • Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer - 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
Page 2
Proposed Greensboro N.C. Postal Center
Guilford County
The December 5, 1997 meeting will be at our lab (directions attached) starting at 2:00
pm. The City of Greensboro, Mr. Boyd DeVane, Mr. Brent McDonald and Ms. Kathleen
O'Reilly have received a verbal invitation. Recipients of this letter are also invited. Please
feel free to invite all other individuals that could play a role in this project.
Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Eric Galamb or me at (919) 733-
1786. We look forward to our December 5th meeting.
Si e elv
1
J R. Dornev
Biological Supervis r
cc: Susan Rabold; City of Greensboro
Lisa Martin; DWQ
Brent McDonald; D W Q
Eric Galamb; DWQ
Boyd Devane; DWQ
Michelle Suverkrubbe; DWQ
Greg Thorpe; DWQ
Kauileen O'Reilly; Weston
Dennis Ramsey; DWQ
Winston-Salem DWQ Regional Office
Mike Sandor: Lockwood Greene
Barry Dubinski: Weston
Joel Roitenburg; USPS
USPS GREENSBORO DISTRIBUTION CENTER
DECEMBER 5, 1997
AGENDA
INTRODUCTIONS
PROJECT HISTORY -------------------------------------- USPS
DECEMBER 2, 1997 LETTER--------------------------ERIC GALAMB
WS BUFFER RULES--------------------------------------LISA MARTIN
ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS ------------------------------ USPS
404/401 PERMITTING ISSUES
DISCUSSION
GREENSBORO PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION CENTER DECEMBER 5, 1997
1. DESIGN CRITERIA
• ONE-STORY WORKROOM WITH 3:2 CONFIGURATION.
• CENTRALIZED, SECURE EMPLOYEE PARKING
• SECURE TRUCK-LOADING AND MANEUVERING AREAS
• ADA (AMERICAN' WITH DISABILITIES ACT) PARKING IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO
MAIN ENTRANCE.
• EXPANSION CAPABILITY LINEAR TO LOADING DOCKS
• PREFFERED ACCESS BY USPS AND CITY IS COLLECTOR STREET (REGIONAL ROAD NORTH)
• CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO AIRPORT.
11. ORIGINAL DESIGN
• Truck docks along southern edge to minimize effects of prevailing winds.
• Acquisition of additional property to northwest ; building moved west to minimize wetland impact.
• Stream culverted in this design, flow redirected and re-entered just upstream of wetlands.
III. ALTERNATE DESIGNS
ALTERNATIVE PREFERRED BY USPS
Building sited as far south as possible between relocated stream and employee parking on south.
Employee parking reduced.
1900 ft of original stream to be relocated; 2300 ft of channel will be constructed for relocation.
38.8% Impervious Surface.
• Relocated stream will retain original conveyance functions.
• Bioengineering employed where possible.
• Will require easement on adjacent property to accommodate buffer zones.
• Retains operational efficiencies of USPS functions.
• Retains security for operations, employees, and visitors.
• Americans With Disabilities (ADA) access maintained as dictated by Federal Law.
• Retains expansion capabilities.
ALTERNATIVE A
Construct building on pillars over stream.
• Lost vegetation, light.
• Building floor would be structural member.
• Erosion problems.
• Security issues.
ALTERNATIVE B-1
Building sited between southern property line and stream buffer.
450 Ft. Stream Relocation.
33% Impervious Surface
• Remote employee parking, security issues
• Difficult to meet ADA requirements
• Traffic hazards
• Remote expansion; unacceptable operational inefficiencies.
ALTERNATIVE B-2
Two story workroom, building sited between southern propety line and stream buffer; remote parking.
450 Ft. Stream Relocation.
23.7% Impervious Surface
• Two story workroom causes unacceptable operational inefficiencies.
• Remote employee parking, security issues
• Traffic hazards
0 $6.5 million construction cost increase

? ? ? ? ? $ G
YC?
G y 5 ? ?
5t ° .w_e = 5 I 7
b $? ? E °
5
o n o
-; ¦ H a
- ? ° 23
Y }! `u'
a
y ?? II tat
52 Y C $

? y ° ? Y „
m H
? $
?
V C
o t
3
? ' V
? V
o
?
°
` p .E

° o _
ga
S _r

%J
'
5 s
3 „?
•

$

5

u
E
o
3
O m
c n
? ?
k c
=
° 3 m
i
?
< ?
n _ o E
'c S > 3
g k $
?+
E y
w s E

•
S
h m
7
y ° i

u/ X 4
E
G
Y 1
q
O Ea
}xt
t
¢
Y
F $ ° ` O N
-
ag o L ? - ' r
iuU
N
$
e
u C
u? ?
? y
Y
x? ? 2

0
w E?: e
e
o
Cw.. ? A it < 3 v

t
00

r E y??( p
< d rn ri OL ?.J 9 • It
t00
C Y
m
LW
F ?3 X3
?+
.7 Z ? c
U 3 ? o
U c
c
OG < ?o zcw zc3? us
u B
3 3
` <
.
s
J
Z u
1?t u-
?t ? y
•

3
O
pO ? 3
?'sJT[
N
w ? ?3 3

N

?PG15 R'o ?rl.
c LA-1 "eM 7
M?
-P-Kpo c.-

A ??71YOI-7
.,2 ??(9? 5'3b",?O-
l i"
VQ?J'a4,t-V -=7 var,,, ? ?
17 ?
?a"y Cu2Q

fit
r
e.
m

fie(
UJY 5 s?.
c?
VY
nay ` - S?wu.?7a?t,_ ?rea?Yr?-?
Gou?-,- L:?()tYkj-5?

?v03?

(X9 (Tm a-tA

. Cameo?? ??,,t,,?,?
a
SOU
? 9-,V-Ofm
-rw '?? ?
CS
SlM \, n
6cy*
Ju?? ?,? ?°"ter ry^^^
z?

%Xc

A:L?
S z?rvv S?

b
O
7
0
Vl
G
n
d
n
7

m
o. ?
C p
.o C7rt
rv
°
a
i
???II11
A
N
N
s
z
Pf
0
.I
I'
m
o
r ;a I
_, •
(m
(10
0
O
VJ
VI
.M. m
a°
m T
n
c:
v
J
G
n 7c'
a' F
w ?,g
K.
6 O'
a' A
.::..
a I
a
I:
a
-?
b
? o I •. 3 0
A I?
b
m
N I CA
O 7' C
n \.
p\ r
o
c
o m m ? ? '
fL a
1 ,
'Ti
i
o I
o?•
N O / \?
O
O
O
n
y
n
L
O

?
C Y ? ? ] rJ' ? m C s ? ?
r

C to
j?
cu
c, c
o
??
E E
v 9? iE

yy
y
a
o
u
y` r-O
o ru C .? o

E
_ g 1 5
u
E
1 1 1 q 5 7S c

u c 3 ° x c

a .0 'as
W _ _ a ?xt

Z S o
- ? ` T V „ ? 3 V
?

m g
_ !
„
U . y ? $Y ?! ? c 4 Ci ?pp j ? ? Eo
`Z ='w w ir I CJ
\
O ` L ? 5m

? E
0 Y °? w
?
. ?
?k
{ ?
Q y1
yQ
? 7 ? ? y
T
y
C }Cw? ? ? L
H
9
_

O
O
G
Y=1 ?1j
?i < s y ?' o?c U of '3
m
a ?

3 ? u ?3 ` X33 ? °
< ua
aC ?o icw d3?

3 3 .s

ZC a u?

OL ? JS 3 3

N
USPS GREENSBORO DISTRIBUTION CENTER
DECEMBER 5, 1997
AGENDA
INTRODUCTIONS
PROJECT HISTORY -------------------------------------- USPS
DECEMBER 2, 1997 LETTER--------------------------ERIC GALAMB
WS BUFFER RULES--------------------------------------LISA MARTIN
ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS ------------------------------ USPS
404/401 PERMITTING ISSUES
DISCUSSION
GREENSBORO PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION CENTER DECEMBER 5, 1997
1. DESIGN CRITERIA
• ONE-STORY WORKROOM WITH 3:2 CONFIGURATION.
?• CENTRALIZED, SECURE EMPLOYEE PARKING
/• SECURE TRUCK-LOADING AND MANEUVERING AREAS
• ADA (AMERICAN' WITH DISABILITIES ACT) PARKING IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO
MAIN ENTRANCE.
• EXPANSION CAPABILITY LINEAR TO LOADING DOCKS
• PREFFERED ACCESS BY USPS AND CITY IS COLLECTOR STREET (REGIONAL ROAD NORTH)
• CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO AIRPORT.
11. ORIGINAL DESIGN
• Truck docks along southern edge to minimize effects of prevailing winds.
• Acquisition of additional property to northwest ; building moved west to minimize wetland impact.
• Stream culverted in this design, flow redirected and re-entered just upstream of wetlands.
111. ALTERNATE DESIGNS
ALTERNATIVE PREFERRED BY LISPS
Building sited as far south as possible between relocated stream and employee parking on south.
Employee parking reduced.
1900 ft of prig stream to be relocated; 2300 ft of channel will be constructed for relocation.
38.8% I rvious Surface.
• l M stream will retain original conveyance functions.
• Bioengineering employed where possible.
• Will require easement on adjacent property to accommodate buffer zones.
• Retains operational efficiencies of USPS functions.
• Retains security for operations, employees, and visitors.
• Americans With Disabilities (ADA) access maintained as dictated by Federal Law.
• Retains expansion capabilities.
ALTERNATIVE A
Construct building on pillars over stream.
• Lost vegetation, light.
• Building floor would be structural member.
• Erosion problems.
• Security issues.
ALTERNATIVE 13-1
Building sited between southern property line and stream buffer.
450 Ft. Stream Relocation.
33% Impervious Surface
• Remote employee parking, security issues
• Difficult to meet ADA requirements
• Traffic hazards
• Remote expansion; unacceptable operational inefficiencies.
ALTERNATIVE 0-2
Two story workroom, building sited between southern propety line and stream buffer; remote parking.
450 Ft. Stream Relocation.
23.7% Impervious Surface
• Two story workroom causes unacceptable operational inefficiencies.
• Remote employee parking, security issues
• Traffic hazards
0 $6.5 million construction cost increase
? /) ;TeV O??e
7?L
W
vrC P? /P o PGf She ? ? ?1 ?^-?"^ 5
AIL' d
O
\ 69V
w JF - 7

_ 0 5 c STS
hca,Qo OS4 lrll?
(JAZ
(L Z?.II°? 30'1x'' OK ?? ?`?c
yvlD?c ?
?S ? l1C
?- U???`crJ ??taf
SRh
?.Q?yrbn?i Jes
S?
pN h
'm ovt -/, S.

?601&U 5???j # ?? ?j C/ 791--
lItA:&
?S wo u?SO " IED. "??/, ?
wed o ku

a
r
DID
gog
------------ m
I ? I
HUMP
Q
I °C'
Ili

v
Z
i
N 6
G
A
-' e
n
?g
LM:
-Q
0
W
I~ ? i
I ?
V\,
I-

eM-

c2l
I
1
I
kklli?l
C1.01 m? NC
wcc?,s?-..ems. - kiw, - nuw wn
W

-1
J
Z
r
Z

clot m
N/ q ?r e
r
a?
c
c
?d1y01??d •". ?• ?/?s
y ,r

r
x

/f I
i
A ?` r I
its
k"k
ry- ? / rj•
I?jl
OJT' i ????;? ?F?I / r ? / /? / ? j ? I rt ? \ t •` ? r 1Y? ?ihr
O ' j ,•? ?/ % ?? r / Jul /. % i I i
a Harr ,,? ?Mra_err39?RO He
u ......,,„ SBE

J-?

r
d
P
L
N
r
WJA?
'ou
AOQQMVLM- BONN
,..._, T Mn M=1,07 T 7 . n T ICN ANAR?I7 nnommno7 = woma 90 • 9L L6-E S -nON

904?t
?C 0 0-in
1A
ke
wawa" 'T? Jo,-? k,,t WG atie (7-1-1 A welt
- L51 Pv*7 -?v q? 4al ?u ?a?
qoi y sue" c? cJ9 s ?c/
t& ?7

I
tAl) U??S
lam- 7t?
? --?
?? S l? ? ?vv?t l?oS
-7 ??GQ(U ?ST&
?i
II
I
I?I
I n
?U f?? ? LNG Y
1
NC-
f?> `5 1-?J?Vu 7io,,,J
5. P5 /kt--r?tr5 ??-? Fc

/r
ein?h `5 94y. Fac - ro jv

NC- Pwt(
C.

733-179,4'
373-2?f7
C9?a? 37? - Zlz'?
-\ Z) X54 ?5 -5-3 9(--1 \ -14-1 -`744 3
Flo/, 747. 73/0
qa l . 7217. 'Ne17
'-( (')/&aI- I & a 0
-l3 / -?2,? -J-Of
90/- 7y7 ry/
9/Q- 733-/?96
'7/ q-733 - 57 3
f yko"?)& S?n?,co-Aw-. a r,s
J `???\- ?c i? O U 1 l?l? QaL, 150- ?n ! ,V\,
t,

Dec 4 '97 1051
T.2.1 Check condition of remote Fax. [phone]
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Janes D. F-lunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howiard, Jr., P.E., Director
1 4:•
[D LE ?--? N F
Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences. Branch
4401 Ready Creek Road
FAXED Raleigh, N.C- 27607
FAX:(9'1 ?) 73'3-9959
DEC a,3 19911
Dato
FAX TO.' FAX NUMBER:
PHONE ,1
NO.OF PAGES INCLUDINGTHIS SHEET: 4
-)UM 04-P

I ?,c'
'??? ?, ylir??'o
70 UI ?5. f? Ul .0

Dec 3 '97 10:59
D.0.7 Check condition of remote Fax. [phone]
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quailty
James D. Hunt; Jr., Governor
Wayne MoDovitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E:, Dfrentor
EH'?H IV ;
Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Road
FAXED Raleigh, N.C. 27607
FAX-[phone]
DEC 0,3 19971
Date
PHC: L
NO, OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET:
0-14( fwd
i•KG ???nv?
!.?;" j7f.1?1?5K I
job 1(2G, (T

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
A 141
[D EHNR
Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Road
FAXEL Raleigh, N.C. 27607
DEC 0,30 19971 FAX:[phone]
Date
FAX TO: - I FAX NUMBER:
FROM: l?.? 6
PHONE: 1-3 17Y6
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET:
Mee
t?<<Iv d?
1 ?
X I '0 _??sbL !,/

M IK?-
Poe

Job ito M

Environmental Sciences Branch 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
ART
4 1,
[D FE F1
Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Road
SAP! Raleigh, N.C. 27607
DEC 0 :: 19911 FAX:[phone]
Date
FAX TO: 140r, MOVL- t c_//Jw cc . S?Nn)Y FAX NUMBER:
Tl-rvl 1 0, &C(( 15iz FROM: A-? tt+??
PHONE:
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET:
Environmental Sciences Branch 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director

UtC 0%a 1991
Date
A ffl'.K;V?
T4 0 0
L7EHNR
Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
FAX:[phone]
FAX TO: a,?6 7ttoKPtI- , ?;o 71d Pt ?4,dr , qt,, Ifni.c E. I FAX NUMBER:
FROM:
R?^g
PHONE:
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET:
Environmental Sciences Branch 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
dft
ED EHNFi
Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Road
FARE ( Raleigh, N.C. 27607
DEC 0,.-?4 1"71 FAX:[phone]
Date
FAX TO: I,l Sk MA(`([tJ '?eep? i" ` D1) N"'L D I FAX NUMBER:
FROM: C? I C- C lam"
PHONE:
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET:
7v ()f? c
Environmental Sciences Branch 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
•;• NC DWO WO ENVSCI Fax:[phone]
>k-k Transm i t Journa 1 >k>k
Dec 1 '97 - Dec 3 '97
Dec 3 '97 11:31
No. To: Mode Start Time Page Code Result Note
0012 NC DOT P&E NORMAL 1,15:34 2'00" 3 0000 0 K
0013 NC DIV COAST MGM NORMAL 1,16:41 1'07" 2 0000 0 K
0014 WaRO NORMAL 1,17:04 0'51" 1 0000 0 K
0001 WIRO NORMAL 2, 9:03 0'47" 2 0000 0 K
0002 98819249 NORMAL 2, 9:56 0143" 1 0000 0 K
0003 WIRO NORMAL 2,10:00 0'44" 1 0000 0 K
0004 WIRO NORMAL 2,11:17 2'29" 5 0000 0 K
0005 97157476 NORMAL 2,12:34 1'24" 3 0000 0 K
0006 82022192152 NORMAL 2,14:15 3'33" 6 0000 0 K
0007 82022192152 NORMAL 2,14:21 3'59" 8 0000 0 K
0008 98819249 NORMAL 2,16:50 0'52" 1 0000 0 K
0001 A7;-3,636969 NORMAL 3,10:22 1'50" 4 0000 0 K
0002 89104126315 NORMAL 3,10:25 2122" 4 0000 0 K
0003 97332496 NORMAL 3,10:27 0'53" 1 0000 0 K
0004 86107017401' NORMAL 3,10:30 1'53" 4 0000 0 K
0005 98765823 NORMAL 3,10:36 2'19" 4 0000 0 K
0006- 97156048 NORMAL 3,10:41 1'09" 3 0000 0 K
0007 DEM PLANNING NORMAL 3,10:43 1'06" 1 0000 T.4.1
0008 89OL7477408 NORMAL 3,10:46 2'12" 4 0000 0 K
0009 DEM PLANNING NORMAL 3,10:48 1'09" 2 0000 0 K
0010 WSRO NORMAL 3,10:50 2'01" 3 0000 0 K
0011 97156048 NORMAL 3,10:52 0'55" 2 0000 0 K
0012 NC DOT P&E NORMAL 3,11:05 2'07" 5 0000 0 K
0013 NC DOT P&E NORMAL 3,11:07 0'40" 1 0000 0 K
0014 NC DOT P&E NORMAL 3,11:17 0'53" 2 0000 0 K
SENT BY=
Memo
11- 5-97 ; 3:23PM ;
919 733 9959;# 1/ 1
Ta Dr. Sandra Farmer USPS

Mr_ John Thomas U9 COE [phone]
Mr. Eric Galamb DEHNR Division of Water Qualit y (919) 73333-00tfp59
Mr. Owen Anderson DEHNR Wildlife Resouroes Commission [phone]
Mr. Scott Bryant City of Greensboro Stormwater Services Gro
up
Ms. Susan Rabold City of Greensboro Planning Department [phone]

Mr. Michael Sandrr Lockwood-Greene (910) 4126315

Dr. Barry DubinAl Roy F. Weston (212) 5454400

From; Kathleen L. O'Reilly Roy F. Weston [phone]
Project Manager
DahW November 5, 1997
Rol Meeting Conflm latlorl United States Postal Service - Greensboro PBDC
I appreciate all of you taking the time to attend this meeting 10 be held on November 14 1997, starting at 12:00 noon.
The meeting will be held In the Morrisville (Raleigh) offices of Roy F. WESTON. The address is:
Suite E
1000 Perimeter Park Drive
MunlSville. NC 27580
(919) 492.-8900
The purpo3e of this meeting is to present the very recent alternatives analysis that the USPS has compieted as a
response to comments on the Environmental Assessment Report for the Greensboro P&DC. At the same time, we
would like to resolve and finalize the mitigation approactmS. All of the parties above have been apprised of recent
developments on this project and have given us good advice on the most effective way to proceed. Our
this meeting is to make decisions with your concurrence so this project can go forward quickly, so please come
prepared with that In mIM. As time is somewhat limited, we plan to have lunch in the WESTON offices served from a
nearby delicatessen, Unless we hear from you, we'p count on you for lunch-please call me at [phone] if any
schedule conflicts arise.
C& ??? D k ce
-?,4 p( >JJ
cca
n
NOV 17 '97 09:10AM EHNR-PUBLIC AFFAIRS
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources ` • •
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor ¦
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary ID C H
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
August 13, 1997
TCY, Melba McGee
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe /??
THROUGH: Alan Clark AG
RE. Comments on DEt3NR # 98-(1005; DWQ#11684
Draft Supplemental EA. - Postal Processing and Distribution Center
Greensboro, Guilford County
P.2/4
The United States Postal Service is planningg to construct a processing and distribution
center on a 58.7-acre site on Regional Road in Guilford County. The site is primarily forested and
approximately 1,535 feet of Bush CwA,,k and approximately 1,200 feet of intermittent tributaries to
Bush Creek flow through the site. These streams are in a protected watershed and are classified as
WS--III NSW (used for water supply and sensitive to nutrients). Additionally, there arc
approximately 1,77-acres of wetlands associated with Bush Creak on the site.
The proposed site development plan calls for a 413,7Msq. ft. main building including
work rooms and 44 perimeter loading docks. There will be 480 employee parking spaces, a
15,120-sq. ft. storage building and rough grading for a 120,000 sq. ft. future expansion.
Approximately 1,600 feet of perennial tributaries to Bush Creek and 900 feet of intermittent
tributaries will be diverted and placed in a pipe.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has reviewed the above Supplemental EA (SEA) and
finds that, although some our scoping comments have been provided in the SEA, many of the
serious water quality concerns with the project have not been adequately addressed. The following
comments and requests for information should be addressed in an amended FA or in the final EA/
FONST for the project-
I . The alternatives analysis section of the SEA is incomplete and inadequate to properly weigh
the impacts of this project against alternative sites and designs. Due to the significance of
the stream impacts proposed by this prq,'r'cct, it is crucial that all feasible alternatives to tws
project be thoroughly discussed in this EA_ Simply referring to the conclusions from the
previous EA written for this project 7 years ago (i.e. Table 4-1 on page 4-2) is not
satisfactory without including, at the minimum, a description of these alternatives. The
SEA does not provide enough information regarding all project alternatives to know where
they are located, what they would include or the extent of their potential environmental
impacts. Without this information, it cannot be said that the applicant has made all
practicable attcmPts to relocate or redesign the project to avoid or minimize its potentially
significant water quality impacts.
P.O. Box 29535, Raloigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 5o;6 recycled/ 1o% post-consumer paper
NOV 17 '97 09:10AM EHNR-PUBLIC AFFAIRS P.3/4
DF,HM # 98-0005
August 13, 1997
Page 2
2. The EA did a good )0b of describing the habitat and the impacts that occur on the proposed
project site. DWQ rs pleased that the wetland on-site has been avoided and can continue to
provide habitat and important water quality functions. However, the SEA did not discuss
any options or designs that would avoid placing 1,600 feet of perennial stream and 900 feet
of intermittent stream in a pipe. If possible, it is recommendod that the facility be
redesigned or an alternate site be selected that would avoid these natural strea(m?areas.
Alternative designs or changes that would permit the stream to remain in an clia king
should be investigated. On-site design options include using retaining walls for the lot ardor building. The stream may also be relocated to the south so that an open channel
would exist between the parking area and the building with a small road crossing.
ent or
3. The SEA does not specify the amount of built-upon area planned for the deevvelloope.
any details of the proposed stormwater "detention" devices proposed
Under the State Water Supply Watershed Act (15A NCAC 2B.0100 -.0300), the
maximum built-upon area allowed for a WS-111 protected area is 50% (if spociftic types of
stormwater control devices that control the first inch of rainfall are constructed on the site).
This means that on the 58.7 acre let, the maximum area allowed to be covered with
impervious surfaces (such as roads, parking lots, loading docks and roof-tops of current
and proposed expanded buildings) cannot exceed 29.35 acres or 1.28 million square feet-
The SPA should describe the total amount of impervious surfaces (i.e. built-upon area)
proposed with the proposed project (including all future expansions) and discuss in detail
the specifics of the "detention" facilities indicated on the sketch plan.
Also, since the Guilford County Planning and Development Department will be the lead
be contacted
agenccyy on processing the watershed that plans for w po ? development
rrrgarding requirements might apply pmen
4. At the minimum, any project alternative on the proposed site should provide the required
protective stream buffers around existing stream, as required by tM North Carolina Water
Supply Watershed Protection Act (15A NCAC 2B .0100 - .0300). Depending on the
percentage of built-upon surface area proposed for the development, a 30 or lwfect wide
buffer will be required. If the built-upon area does not exceed 24% of the sits, a 30-foot
wide buffer will be required. If the built-upon area exceeds 24% (but is below 50%). then
a lWfoot buffer will be required. No buildings or structures
not fees bgle to avoid lots) can
be placed within this buffer area. If redesigning the prof
imacting the natural drainage areas of the site, the requirement for protecting the
unMdable 30 or 100 foot buffer around any relocated streams on the site would still
apply. The SEA should indicate how the proposed altemativo would comply with thew
requirements.
5. If the proposed site remains the preferred option, the EA should e%d??k r ??ghtencd
when
how the wetlands on the site will he protected from scouring
and how lost water quality functions will be compensated. Additionally, the EA should
address what impacts straightening or culvcrting tlx: crock will have on downstream
flooding and how any loss flood storage will be mitigated.
6. Written concurrence of a 401 Water Quality Certification is required for the project as
currently proposed. This 401, Certification cannot be issued until a FONSI has been
approved. The applicant should W aware that a 401 Certification may be denied if wetland
or water impacts have not been avoided and minimized W the maximum extent praCticablc.
r...-. NOV 17 '97 09:11AM EHRR•- b Eh AFFAIRS
DEHNR # 98-OWS
August 13, 199'1
Page 3
please have the applicant give me a call
questions.
m1s,%0005 Greensboro Post Ofrue
at 919-733-5o83, ext. 567 if they should have any
P. 4/4
cc' den Anderson, WRC
M S VIG-
ct 67x".11 //bail 00,
2 - 3
-
1
(nJv? I ?itC?L C?li.; v
O /
P?,??O PD??'?? r
?lav? (" a "Iuje y
aZ??ti- 5 toaw- 7LXC/s
C d1'1 cl Ud a9r?
d
nA 0A
1170
n ?
f? 1
c ?
Pat
Yj 14-tj
?O?7 ee,
(AAA C411 V/? ? f
1?ou
?j°, duP6 S o,-6-t
4
i
c
Z
11/14,97 12:04 FAX [phone];
E??

011

b
0
A
0
F

Sol
I 1 ?!
xy?a$y?a:
' ,rte

9
a x

1

VAN,
CIDI
Z 02
•,- iv v I ic:uy r.13 alp Ial YG37
. f'1
a
y3 :M?.1
Ml?.>i ? ikt?T
!!AJ
Y

L
N
f

' AP.

y
1
/ '1

•
? Y

w•
,i
Omp
n
f.
10
-- a
O
?o
O
It f )j
lM,IIY
-y. .... _. __ ._...
^'?•1+FnLr.. -x .. ....... f. ...rte... rsw -
ll,'14,a7 iz:ua FAX U14 101 b657

4 04
t
i ?' ? ? ?+ .?•' , .yam .?/?' / ? ?''
i
r
mOr - ?`
it a •r'/ , , i !. 1.
71A AY-'A
10
.moo Ow
mmmw IT
11 TV;
S/0 mOt1d { 01,61 WINE T C, Q i AN 3NZRUO QOOr X50'1 ° HOHA 90,89 AN-C t -ADN
11 ly U/ 1G:V4 rAA M14 LN1 3037
Q U3
r
+ 2 ilk
off
-_ ? : • ';gyp '? '-'T'-?
j r s
• ? ? l f/?.' ?,/ . ! /?? ? 1„ - ? - ?/rte .
-?+-•,T..rte,--?,._..?-....,?..,:•?-.-- - _.. _ _
9/S 3!)Vd Ob99b9Z i Z Q I AN EN33HO QOOMWOO-1 - Wa?id e0._9l 66-•E L -AONI
11,'14/97 12:04 FAX [phone]
.
Qol
L.OCKWOOD GREENE
ftnnwVEnC1roae 1/AmfiftwWManapors
FAX Transmittal T?
To: Ms. Kathleen L. O'Reilly From: Lockwood Greene Engineers Inc
Weston
Att:
Fax: [phone]
Job: P&DC - Greensboro, NC
Message:
215 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Sent by: Mike Sandor Rages: 5
Date: November 14, 1997
Job No:
Attached are sketches.
John Dorney
From: John Dorney [john @dem.ehnr.state. nc.us]
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 8:49 AM
To: '[e-mail]. nc.us'; '[e-mail]';
'[e-mail]. nc.us'; '[e-mail]'
Cc: '[e-mail]'; 'john @dem.ehnr.state. nc.us'
Subject: FW: GBO post office
WE need to meet before the meeting on Dec 5 to be sure we are all on same page. Please call
Eric to schedule. Thankx
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Galamb FSMTP:[e-mail]
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 1997 8:33 AM
To: dennisR( dern.ehnr.state. nc;.us
Cc: sieve @dem.ehnr,stale.-nc...us:
johnC(?.dern.ehnr state,nc us
Subject: GBO post office
John and I had a conference call yesterday regarding a proposed post office distribution center in
Greensboro. I have had at least two meetings with them during the env. documenUpermitting
phases. A perennial stream bisects the property. This stream has a large number of approx. 6
inch fish in it. The UT to Brush Creek has been classified as WSIII. The impervious surface is
greater than 24% and therefore John and I believe that a 100 foot buffer is required. The post
office cannot meet this buffer requirement. Therefore they want to go in front of the EMC for a
variance.
The City of GBO has visited the site with me. Apparently they will not support a variance.
Can they pipe the stream to avoid the buffer requirements? Can they relocate the stream without
having to go to the EMC? A tentative meeting has been scheduled for DEC 5 at 2 pm. at the lab.
Eric Galamb
Division of Water Quality
Ph. [phone], FAX [phone]
11/25/97 01:41 FAX [phone]
X01
L,OCKWOOD UnCONB
Planners/Fngina*M/Architects/ Managers
FAX Transmittal
To: Mr. Eric Galamb From; Lockwood Greene Engineers, Inc.
215 Lexington Avcnue
New York, NY 10016
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Att: Sent by: Mike Sandor #Pages: 1
Fax: [phone] Date: 11-24-97
Joh: USPS Greensboro Job No: 003475.01
Message:
Map-Showing Areas of Impervious.
?i`?c r r 'VPV ?c il?
v?or?oa?

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Z Ilq
Date
096WAIT
?EHNR
Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
FAX: [phone]
aAP - _ W FAX NUMBER: 101- `149-
FAX TO:
'4 FROM:
PHONE:
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET:
W,
AUD-Cs

Environmental Sciences Branch 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
A4?j
ED EHNR
Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
FAX:[phone]
Date ,?I?41I
FAX TO: FAX NUMBER: 13- (o a I ?jj
FROM:
PHONE:
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET:
Environmental Sciences Branch 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
EHNR - ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
(V) remainder of tract to remain in vegetated or natural state;
(VI) area in the vegetated or natural state may be conveyed to a property owners
association; a local government for preservation as a park or greenway; a
conservation organization; or placed in a permanent conservation or farmland
preservation easement;
(VII) a maintenance agreement for the vegetated or natural area shall be filed with the
Register of Deeds; and
(VIII) cluster development that meets the applicable low density option requirements
shall transport stormwater runoff from the development by vegetated convey-
ances to the maximum extent practicable;
(E) A maximum of 10 percent of each jurisdiction's portion of the watershed outside of the
critical area as delineated on July 1, 1993 may be developed with new development
projects and expansions of existing development of up to 70 percent built-upon surface
area in addition to the new development approved in compliance with the appropriate
requirements of Sub-Item (3)(b)(i)(A) or Sub-Item (3)(b)(i)(B) of this Rule. For
expansions to existing development, the existing built-upon surface area is not counted
toward the allowed 70 percent built-upon surface area. A local government having
jurisdiction within the watershed may transfer, in whole or in part, its right to the 10
percent/70 percent land area to another local government within the watershed upon
submittal of a joint resolution and review by the Commission. When the water supply
watershed is composed of public lands, such as National Forest land, local governments
may count the public land acreage within the watershed outside of the critical area in
figuring the acreage allowed under this provision. For local governments that do not
choose to use the high density option in that WS-III watershed, each project must, to
the maximum extent practicable, minimize built-upon surface area, direct stormwater
runoff away from surface waters, and incorporate best management practices to
minimize water quality impacts; if the local government selects the high density
development option within that WS-III watershed, then engineered stormwater controls
must be employed for the new development;
(F) If local governments choose the high density development option which requires
engineered stormwater controls, then they shall assume ultimate responsibility for
operation and maintenance of the required controls as outlined -in Rule .0104 of this
Subchapter;
(G) Minimum 100 foot vegetative buffer is required for all new development activities that
exceed the low density requirements as specified in Sub-Item (3)(b)(i)(A) and Sub-Item
(3)(b)(ii)(A) of this Rule, otherwise a minimum 30 foot vegetative buffer for
development is required along all perennial waters indicated on the most recent versions
of U.S.G.S. 1:24,000 (7.5 minute) scale topographic maps or as determined by local
government studies; nothing in this Section shall stand as a bar to artificial streambank
or shoreline stabilization;
(H) No new development is allowed in the buffer; water dependent structures, or other
structures such as flag poles, signs and security lights, which result in only diminimus
increases in impervious area and public projects such as road crossings and greenways
may be allowed where no practicable alternative exists; these activities shall minimize
built-upon surface area, direct runoff away from surface waters and maximize the
utilization of BMPs;
(I) No NPDES permits shall be issued for landfills that discharge treated leachate;
(ii) Critical Area Nonpoint Source and Stormwater Pollution Control Criteria:
(A) Low Density Option: New development limited to either no more than one dwelling
unit of single family detached residential development per acre (or 40,000 square foot
lot excluding roadway right-of-way) or 12 percent built-upon area for all other
residential and non-residential development; Stormwater runoff from the development
shall be transported by vegetated conveyances to the maximum extent practicable;
(B) High Density Option: If new development exceeds the low density requirements
specified in Sub-Item (3)(b)(ii)(A) of this Rule, then engineered. stormwater controls
must be used to control runoff from the first inch of rainfall; development, shall not
exceed 30 percent built-upon area;
NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 06130197 Page 19
CW?a..a?.-?R ?uP? Ve??? ' .?wv? Deck
UI ? - ?? De6:..kr
??w?c.? AEJI' ?,?
oq(o
-t om

vd,411w -vk. -
O-C
TCX c C.1 a? jvw? ?o °1 t y J"?
?%?'1/l ? s? U
ily
TL
j a. Tc -Pwu-i"-Cj (eme)
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Ja mes B. Hunt, Jr., G ovemor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Steven J. Levitas, Deputy Secretary
I LT.W;Irj
T 0
0 Walk MMMM
?EHNF1
/13 Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
FAX:[phone]
FROM: G&
j Pi Le
PHONE: [phone]r,
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET:
.y
Us )PO
f CGy,r C.d'.N., f 3
p(N"?j 6? G05?e- ko V
?6 1'14 t 7 o
y
j SeN,ee,"
?lw t-1
YAok fL A "V ;of Vs
C d5
?Qpas c?((c? l ac.
AGM V Q MAk e
?" C/L 0 ?c h lam-
l
to)
OPERATIONS BRANCH - WO Fax:[phone] Nov 18 '97 12:3C P.01/03
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Water Supply Watershed Protection
C) EH N Fi
TO: Susan Rabold
OR City of Greensboro
PHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
FROM: Brent C. McDonald
PHONE : [phone], ext. 508
FAX: [phone]$
DATE,
November 17, 1997
NUMBER OF PAGES (induding this sheet): 3
Hello Susan,
This in reference to the proposed U.S. Postal Processing and Distribution
Center (DE'1I'N'1Z #98-MO5, L' WQ #11684) to be located within the Lake Brandt
WS-111 watershed in the City of Greensboro. The site is nearly bisected by a
stream which, if determined to be perennial, would require a buffer along
each bank.
The appropriate USGS topographic map appears to show that the stream is
perennial, however, there is some doubt as to the map's accuracy. Please
have Scott Bryant of Stormwater and/or David Goode of Erosion Control
contact Eric Galamb of DWQ's Environmental Sciences Branch at (919) 733-
1786 to discuss whether this determination has been made. Eric is willing to
travel to Greensboro, if necessary, in order to visually inspect the site.
The issue of perennial vs. intermittent is critical on this project because the
development proposed would cover much of the site with irnpervious areas
inakiri6 provision of the upproprilate buffer width extremely difficult.
cT: Fric: Galamb, ESB t--,TX-
Mirhelle Siiverkrubbe
A ttaehinents: location map, site plan
P.O. Box 28535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
hl.th:/1120 elkr.srrtr..ne.us/wswp/
OPERATIONS BRANCH - WQ Fax:[phone] Nov 18 '97 12:31 P.02/03
7 ••i Jam" ?,.t,e ? , i? i
?x
N
U.S. Geological Survey Scale in Miles
Guilford, N.C. Quadrangle
1951, Revised 1994. A0.5 0 0.5 1

'.• i v X14;
7 ,yi?ti ?:1.
i+?••r Yt
U.S. Postal Service
Proposcd P & 17 Center
Greensboro, NC
Environmental Assessment
Topographic Map
St (.. .
ti.
?•.,-.u. ,l i`. .?y ,_lj tom' .. l l'1^.1` 1: -._N
ftr•- •,`?u (.? ?R?t tip.=•1y ? ? ,i , ?:
rs?
_,? ?•'. ? :_ .-d?+ S 1:'1.11-, •,i
f4o
V V V V P
MANAGERS DESIGNERS/CONSULTANTS
ERAWN Ow DES.ENG DATE W O. No
9 01770-077-027-0020
PATE IDwo.
OPERATIONS BRANCH - WQ Fax : [phone] Nov 18 '97 12:32 P.03/03
•g"" .1 qr
ell
?. -? N

w?
{y Y

r'
A

m

t?

jt
1 ;

4
0
1
C?

'a
O
a
w

Y
P?
A
a