20000846 Ver 1_Complete File_20060101 (3)

C
X ()
O Co
Q?
QQ

I
J
r
??

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

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

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

CO
75

as

L
\
?
?? W
The Alternative N-D air cargo facility size, package handling rate, and employment levels would be the
same as for Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, W1-A1, and N-E. Therefore, the MSW generation rates would be
the same. Table 5.18.4-1 shows the estimated annual MSW generation rates of the alternatives. This
increase in MSW is capable of being accommodated by the City of Greensboro without resulting in
significant impacts to the remaining landfill capacity (City of Greensboro Landfill, August 30, 1999).
The Phase 1 generation of construction/demolition debris for Alternative N-D would be greater than that
generated in Alternatives W2-A and W3-A. However, construction/demolition debris for Alternative N-D
would be capable of being accommodated at the White Street Landfill without resulting in significant
impacts to the remaining landfill capacity. The generation of demolition debris would be closely phased
with construction activities and, therefore, would not occur at once. This would allow the waste products
to be disposed of in an orderly, planned fashion that would reduce the overall impact to the White Street
Landfill.
The nearest solid waste landfill, the City of High Point's Kersey Valley Landfill, is located approximately 8
miles south of the existing airport property; therefore, Alternative N-D would not result in an increase in
bird strike potential. Also, Alternative N-D is consistent with guidance provided in FAA Order 5200.5A,
'Waste Disposal Sites On or Near Airports."
at once. This would allow the waste products to be disposed of in an orderly, planned fashion that would
reduce the overall impact to the White Street Landfill.
PTIA is not located adjacent to an existing or proposed solid waste landfill. The nearest solid waste
landfill, Kersey Valley Landfill, is located approximately 8 miles south of the existing airport property.
Therefore, this alternative would not result in an increase in bird strike potential. The development of the
air cargo sorting and distribution facility is consistent with guidance provided in FAA Order 5200.5A,
"Waste Disposal Sites On or Near Airports."
Based on the above, it was concluded that although the level of MSW and construction and demolition
wastes generated at PTIA would increase for Alternative W2-A when compared to the No-Action
Alternative, no adverse impacts are anticipated. The White Street Landfill has sufficient capacity to
accommodate the projected increase.
5.18.5.3 Alternative W3-A
The Alternative W3-A air cargo facility size, package handling rate, and employment levels would be the
same as for Alternatives W2-A, N-D, W1-A1, and N-E. Therefore, the MSW generation rates would be
the same - an increase of 21,600 cy more MSW generated annually over Phase 2 of the No-Action
Alternative. Table 5.18.4-1 shows the estimated annual MSW generation rates of all alternatives. This
increase in MSW is capable of being accommodated by the City of Greensboro without resulting in
significant impacts to the remaining landfill capacity (City of Greensboro Landfill, August 30, 1999).
The Phase 2 generation of construction/demolition debris for Alternative W3-A would be similar to that
generated in Alternatives W2-A and W1-A1, and would, therefore, be capable of being accommodated at
the White Street Landfill without resulting in significant impacts to the remaining landfill capacity. The
generation of demolition debris would be closely phased with construction activities and, therefore, would
not occur at once. This would allow the waste products to be disposed of in an orderly, planned fashion
that would reduce the overall impact to the White Street Landfill.
The nearest solid waste landfill, the City of High Point's Kersey Valley Landfill, is located approximately 8
miles south of the existing airport property; therefore, Alternative W3-A would not result in an increase in
bird strike potential. Also, Alternative W3-A is consistent with guidance provided in FAA Order 5200.5A,
"Waste Disposal Sites On or Near Airports."
Based on the above, it was concluded that although the level of MSW and construction and demolition
wastes generated at PTIA would increase for Alternative W3-A when compared to the No-Action
Alternative, no adverse impacts are anticipated. The White Street Landfill has sufficient capacity to
accommodate the projected increase.
W:\PIEDMOMIDEIS\Ch•2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-181 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
5.18.5.4 Alternative N-D
The Alternative N-D air cargo facility size, package handling rate, and employment levels would be the
same as for Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, W1-A1, and N-E. Therefore, the MSW generation rates would be
the same - an increase of 21,600 cy more MSW generated annually over Phase 2 of the No-Action
Alternative. Table 5.18.4-1 shows the estimated annual MSW generation rates for each alternative. This
increase in MSW is capable of being accommodated by the City of Greensboro without resulting in
significant impacts to the remaining landfill capacity (City of Greensboro Landfill, August 30, 1999) .
The Phase 2 generation of construction/demolition debris for Alternative N-D would be similar to
Alternative WE and slightly less than that generated for Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, and W1-A1, and would,
therefore, be capable of being accommodated at the White Street Landfill without resulting in significant
impacts to the remaining landfill capacity. The generation of demolition debris would be closely phased
with construction activities and, therefore, would not occur at once. This would allow the waste products
to be disposed of in an orderly, planned fashion that would reduce the overall impact to the White Street
Landfill.
The nearest solid waste landfill, the City of High Point's Kersey Valley Landfill, is located approximately 8
miles south of the existing airport property; therefore, Alternative N-D would not result in an increase in
bird strike potential. Also, Alternative. N-D is consistent with guidance provided in FAA Order 5200.5A,
'Waste Disposal Sites On or Near Airports."
Based on the above, it was concluded that although the level of MSW and construction and demolition
wastes generated at PTIA would increase for Alternative N-D when compared to the No-Action
Alternative, no adverse impacts are anticipated. The White Street Landfill has sufficient capacity to
accommodate the projected increase.
5.18.5.5 Alternative W1-A1
The Alternative W1-A1 air cargo facility size, package handling rate, and employment levels would be the
same as in Alternatives W2-A, MA N-D, and N-E. Therefore, the MSW generation rates would be the
same - an increase of 21,600 cy more MSW generated annually over Phase 2 of the No-Action
Alternative. Table 5.18.4-1 shows the estimated annual MSW generation rates of all alternatives. This
increase in MSW is capable of being accommodated by the City of Greensboro without resulting in
significant impacts to the remaining landfill capacity (City of Greensboro Landfill, Coggins, August 30,
1999).
The Phase 2 generation of construction/demolition debris for Alternative W1-A1 would be similar to that
generated in Alternatives W2-A and W3-A and would, therefore, be capable of being accommodated at
the White Street Landfill without resulting in significant impacts to the remaining landfill capacity. The
generation of demolition debris would be closely phased with construction activities and, therefore, would
W:\PIEDMONTWEIS\Ch•2\S_SCombined.doc\03125/00 5-182 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
not occur at once. This would allow the waste products to be disposed of in an orderly, planned fashion
that would reduce the overall impact to the White Street Landfill.
The nearest solid waste landfill, the City of High Point's Kersey Valley Landfill, is located approximately 8
miles south of the existing airport property; therefore, Alternative W1-A1 would not result in an increase in
bird strike potential. Also, Alternative W1-A1 would be consistent with guidance provided in FAA Order
5200.5A, "Waste Disposal Sites On or Near Airports."
Based on the above, it was concluded that although the level of MSW and construction and demolition
waste generated at PTIA would increase for Alternative W1-A1 when compared to the No-Action
Alternative, no adverse impacts are anticipated. The White Street Landfill has sufficient capacity to
accommodate the projected increase.
5.18.5.6 Alternative N-E
The Alternative WE sorting/distribution facility size, package handling rate and employment levels would
be the same as in Alternatives W2-A, MA N-D, and W1-A1. Therefore, the MSW generation rates
would be the same - an increase of 21,600 cy more MSW generated annually over Phase 2 of the No-
Action Alternative. Table 5.18.4-1 shows the estimated annual MSW generation rates of all alternatives.
This increase in MSW is capable of being accommodated by the City of Greensboro without resulting in
significant impacts to the remaining landfill capacity (City of Greensboro Landfill, Coggins, August 30,
1999).
The Phase 2 generation of construction/demolition debris in Alternative N-E would be similar to that
generated in Alternative N-D and would therefore be capable of being accommodated at the White Street
Landfill without resulting in significant impacts to the remaining landfill capacity. The generation of
demolition debris will be closely phased with construction activities and, therefore, will not occur at once.
This will allow the waste products to be disposed of in an orderly, planned fashion that will reduce the
overall impact to the White Street Landfill.
The nearest solid waste landfill, the City of High Point's Kersey Valley Landfill, is located approximately 8
miles south of the existing airport property, therefore Alternative N-E would not result in an increase in
bird strike potential. Also, Alternative WE is consistent with guidance provided in FAA Order 5200.5A,
"Waste Disposal Sites On or Near Airports."
Based on the above, it was concluded that although the level of MSW, construction and demolition waste
generated at PTIA would increase for Alternative N-E when compared to the No-Action Alternative, no
adverse impacts are anticipated. The White Street Landfill has sufficient capacity to accommodate the
projected increase. However, measures to minimize the amount of MSW and other waste requiring
disposal should be implemented.
W:\PIEDMOMIDEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-183 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
5. 1&6 MITIGATION MEASURES
The No-Action Alternative and Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W1-A1, and WE would result in an
increase in the amount of MSW and construction and demolition wastes generated at PTIA. These
increases would not result in significant impacts to the ability of the area to transport, store, and dispose
of solid waste materials. However, measures to minimize solid waste impacts are presented in Chapter
6.0, Mitigation.
5.19 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
5.19.1 OVERVIEW OF IMPACTS
Implementation of any of the six alternatives, including the No-Action Alternative, would result in
temporary construction impacts on air quality, noise, water quality, traffic flow, and visual
impacts. The No-Action Alternative includes a new interchange, relocation and realignment of
roadways, and a reconstructed airport entrance road and would cause less disruption and
impacts than the five Build Alternatives.
Four of the five Build Alternatives (W2-A, W3-A, N-D, and N-E) include similar surface
transportation improvement projects as the No-Action Alternative. Alternative W1-A1 includes
surface transportation projects that are different from the other four Build Alternatives. In
addition, all five of the Build Alternatives include the construction of a parallel runway and an air
cargo sorting and distribution facility. All five Build Alternatives would have greater Phase 1 and
Phase 2 construction impacts than the No-Action Alternative.
Development of all of the alternatives would result in wetland and floodplain impacts. Soil
erosion and sedimentation control would be required for Phase 1 of the No-Action Alternative, as
well as Phases 1 and 2 of Alternatives W2-A W3-A, N-D, W1-A1, and N-E.
Traffic delays, fugitive dust and increased emissions from construction vehicles, visual or
aesthetic impacts, and additional noise are expected as a result of all the alternatives. These
impacts would be temporary and would be minimized through the establishment and use of
environmental controls, such as Best Management Practices (BMPs), and Federal, state, and local
construction mitigation guidelines.
All on-airport construction activities should adhere to FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-10A,
Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports and North Carolina Department of
Transportation Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures. Mitigation measures for
construction impacts are presented in Chapter 6.0, Mitigation, of this DEIS.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch•2\S 5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-184 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
5.19.2 METHODOLOGY
Potential impacts from construction activities were evaluated by their potential to result in adverse impacts
to air quality, water quality, traffic flow, and ambient noise levels.
5.19.3 PHASE 1 IMPACT POTENTIAL
Much of the construction activity would occur during Phase 1 for all of the six alternatives. Phase 1
construction activity for each alternative is discussed in Section 3.4. The impacts associated with each
alternative are summarized below.
5.19.3.1 No-Action Alternative
Construction of the surface transportation improvements with the implementation of the No-Action
Alternative would include operations such as land clearing, grading, foundation work, excavation, paving,
landscaping, dredging, filling, and pile driving within approximately 89 acres in the Brush Creek Sub-
basin, 7 acres in the Horsepen Creek Sub-basin, and 2 acres in the East Fork Deep River Sub-Basin.
Therefore, water quality impacts from construction operations would primarily occur in the Brush Creek
Sub-basin and be minimal in the Horsepen Creek and East Fork Deep River sub-basins. Construction
operations would involve the disturbance and movement of large quantities of earth as well as the activity
of construction crews, which generate debris. The primary mechanism by which material may reach
Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek, and the East Fork Deep River is scouring of cleared areas from overland'
runoff during rainstorms, resulting in erosion and siltation. Turbid waters may result, which create
conditions for low dissolved oxygen concentrations by blocking sunlight and inhibiting plant growth.
Turbidity is considered a short-term impact because the elevated suspended solids creating turbid
conditions tend to dissipate soon after land disturbance commences. However, surface water impacts
from sediment-laden stormwater runoff during construction should be minimal because of the use of
BMPs as described in Chapter 6.0, Mitigation.
Water quality impacts during construction may also include long-term impacts such as the disturbance of
soils with heavy metals, nutrients, and pesticides. These pollutants are physically and/or chemically
bound in sediments and may be introduced to surface waters in sediment-laden runoff. However, this
long-term impact should be negligible because the existing land uses that would be disturbed by the
construction of the No-Action Alternative consist of woodlands, meadows, and grassed and impervious
areas associated with the airport entrance roads, Bryan Boulevard, Regional Road, and Old Oak Ridge
Road. These land uses typically do not accumulate large concentrations of pollutants such as those
found in agricultural and heavy industrial land uses.
Impacts to groundwater quality during construction would occur if excavations encroach into the saturated
lower regolith zone. This zone is located at depths ranging from 0 feet to 150 feet in recharge/discharge
areas (Daniel and Harned, 1998). Excavations may expose the water table to potential contamination
from existing hazardous materials or adjacent Transfer, Storage, and Disposal (TSD) facilities. However,
this potential harm to groundwater sources would be temporary because it would commence after the
W.\PIEDMONMEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/28/00 5-185 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
excavated area is filled. The implementation of temporary BMPs during construction would minimize this
impact (see Chapter 6.0, Mitigation).
Roadway construction projects have associated emissions from excavation and land clearing, open
burning, construction equipment, asphalt, and motor vehicles. Emitted pollutants include particulate
matter (PM), hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of sulfur (SOX), and oxides of nitrogen
(NO,,).
Particulate matter generated during land clearing and earthwork operations associated with construction
projects is generally re-deposited close to the source. Smaller particles, however, can become
suspended during certain meteorological conditions. A variety of control measures will be employed to
reduce impacts associated with fugitive dust. Furthermore, construction equipment will emit pollutants
that are typical of gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles: CO, HC, NOx, PM, and SOX. Air quality impacts
associated with construction equipment will vary with temporal and meteorological factors, but they will be
temporary and relatively small when compared to other emissions sources in the Greensboro area.
Construction in the No-Action Alternative is projected to occur in Phase 1, and impacts during this phase
are expected to be approximately 10 percent of the Build Alternative impacts, based on preliminary
construction activity estimates.
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) prepared baseline
and future-year air emission inventories for Guilford County for the 1994 Redesignation Demonstration
and Maintenance Plan. These emission inventories are inclusive of all construction equipment use in the
county including those associated with the proposed improvements at PITA.
Construction noise would increase ambient noise levels. Grading and scraping operations are the noisiest
activities, with equipment noise levels as high as 70 to 90 dBA within 50 feet of their operations. However,
distance would rapidly attenuate noise levels so area residences would experience only a slight increase
in ambient background levels.
5.19.3.2 Alternative W2 -A
Alternative W2-A includes all the Phase 1 surface transportation improvements as in the No-Action
Alternative. However, due to the addition of airfield and sorting/distribution facility construction associated
with this alternative, construction impacts would be greater.
Construction of Alternative W2-A Phase 1 would include operations such as land clearing, demolition
grading, foundation work, excavation, utility system installation, building construction, paving,
landscaping, dredging, filling, and pile driving within approximately 654 acres in the Brush Creek Sub-
basin and 28 acres in the Horsepen Creek Sub-basin. Construction within the East Fork Deep River Sub-
basin would be limited to the land clearing, demolition, grading and utility installation required for the
installation of runway approach lights within 77 acres of the RPZ. Therefore, water quality impacts from
construction operations would primarily occur in the Brush Creek Sub-basin and to lesser extents in the
Horsepen Creek and East Fork Deep River sub-basins.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03127/00 5-186 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
Construction operations would involve the disturbance and movement of large quantities of earth as well
as the activity of construction crews which generate debris. The primary mechanism by which material
and debris may reach Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek, and the East Fork Deep River is the scouring of
cleared areas from overland runoff during rainstorms, resulting in erosion and siltation. These turbid
waters may create conditions for low dissolved oxygen concentrations by blocking sunlight and inhibiting
plant growth. Turbidity is considered a short-term impact because the elevated suspended solids
creating turbid conditions tend to dissipate soon after land disturbance commences. However, surface
water impacts from sediment-laden stormwater runoff during construction should be minimal because of
the use of BMPs as described in Chapter 6.0, Mitigation.
Water quality impacts during construction may also include long-term impacts such as the disturbance of
soils with heavy metals, nutrients, and pesticides. These pollutants are physically and/or chemically
bound in sediments and may be introduced to surface waters in sediment-laden runoff. However, this
long-term impact should be negligible because the existing land uses that would be disturbed with the
construction of Alternative W2-A Phase 1 include woodlands, meadows, light commercial, and grassed
and imperious areas associated with airport development. These land uses do not accumulate large
concentrations of pollutants such as those found in agricultural and heavy industrial land uses.
Impacts to groundwater quality during construction would occur if excavations encroach into the saturated
lower regolith zone. This zone is located at depths ranging from 0 feet in recharge/discharge areas to
150 feet. Excavations may expose the water table to potential contamination from existing hazardous
materials or TSD facilities. However, this potential harm to groundwater sources would be temporary
because it would commence after the excavated area is filled. The implementation of temporary BMPs
during construction would minimize this impact.
Construction equipment emissions, fugitive dust pollution from excavated areas, and burning of
vegetative material can all result in temporary impacts to ambient air quality. However, these impacts can
be minimized by using methods that would minimize air quality impacts by treating excavated areas with
water, covering graded areas with fast-growing grasses, and not allowing open burning during
unfavorable weather conditions.
Land clearing and grading operations associated with the construction of the proposed airport
improvements will generate air emissions, with particulate matter (dust) having the greatest potential
impact. Most of this dust will be redeposited close to the source, since it is generated low to the ground.
However, some dust will be transported through the atmosphere away from the project site during windy
conditions. EPA standards dictate that dust (PM-10) levels must not exceed 150 micrograms per cubic
meter during the construction period.
Other potential sources of dust associated with the construction period are asphalt and concrete batch
plants. Potential emission points include: (1) wind erosion over storage piles, (2) loading/unloading
operations, (3) aggregate screening and drying, and (4) mixing of materials.
W:\PIEDMONrDEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-187 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
Heavy construction equipment used at the site will emit exhaust that contains CO, NOx, VOCs, and
particulate matter. Air quality impacts associated with these sources will vary depending on the local
weather conditions, level of construction activity, and the nature of the construction operation, but are not
expected to be significant. It is expected that the state air quality planning emissions inventories would
include this and all other projects within Guilford County.
Preliminary construction-related air quality analyses indicate that Alternative W2-A would have the lowest
impacts among the Build Alternatives during Phase 1 construction. Because of additional construction
activities associated with the Alternative W2-A airfield development projects, construction emissions from
Alternative W2-A would be 9.50 times higher than construction emissions from the No-Action Alternative.
The types of construction-related solid wastes generated by construction activities could include materials
such as excess concrete washed out from concrete mixer trucks, excess wiring, conduits and other
electrical materials, empty construction supply containers, etc.
Construction noise would increase ambient noise levels. Grading and scraping operations are the noisiest
activities, with equipment noise levels as high as 70 to 90 dBA within 50 feet of their operations. However,
distance would rapidly attenuate noise levels so area residences would experience only a slight increase
in ambient background levels.
5.19.3.3 Alternative W3-A
The amount of disturbed area from Alternative W3-A Phase 1 in the Horsepen Creek Sub-basin would be
equivalent to what would be disturbed in Alternative W2-A Phase 1. However, moving the proposed
Runway 5V23R approximately 1,032 feet to the southwest would result in shifting approximately 29 acres
of disturbed area from the Brush Creek Sub-basin to the East Fork Deep River Sub-basin. Therefore, the
areas disturbed by the construction and operation of Alternative W3-A Phase 1 include approximately
625, 28, and 106 acres within the Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek, and East Fork Deep River sub-basins,
respectively. Water quality construction impacts in the Horsepen Creek Sub-basin would be the same as
those described for Alternative W2-A Phase 1 in Section 5.6.3.2 because the disturbed area would
remain at approximately 28 acres. A minor reduction in water quality construction impacts is expected in
the Brush Creek Sub-basin because the disturbed area would be reduced by approximately 29 acres to
625 acres. Consequently, a minor increase in water quality construction impacts is expected in the East
Fork Deep River Sub-basin because the disturbed area would be increased to approximately 106 acres.
Groundwater impacts would be similar to Alternative W2-A.
Construction noise would increase ambient noise levels. Grading and scraping operations are the noisiest
activities, with equipment noise levels as high as 70 to 90 dBA within 50 feet of their operations. However,
distance would rapidly attenuate noise levels so area residences would experience only a slight increase
in ambient background levels.
Relative to air quality, Alternatives W2-A and W3-A are comparable, with the exception of the location of
the proposed parallel runway. Therefore, the construction impacts associated with these two alternatives
W.\PIEDMONMEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03125/00 5-188 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
in Phase 1 are expected to be nearly equivalent, with slightly (approximately 2 percent) higher emissions
under Alternative W3-A. Because of additional construction activities associated with the Alternative W3-
A airfield development projects, construction emissions from Alternative W3-A would be 9.67 times higher
than construction emissions from the No-Action Alternative.
5.19.3.4 Alternative N-D
The extension of the existing east/west Runway 14/32, development of a new parallel runway, relocation
of existing rental car service area and air cargo facilities, and locating the proposed air cargo sorting and
distribution facility northwest of Bryan Boulevard would result in approximately 1,332 acres of disturbed
area. This would increase the affected area from what would be impacted in Phase 1 of Alternatives
W2-A and W3-A by approximately 75 percent. The distribution of the disturbed area from Alternative N-D
Phase 1 would include approximately 828, 408, and 96 acres within the Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek,
and East Fork Deep River sub-basins, respectively. Construction impacts would be similar to, but
increased in magnitude to those described for Alternatives W2-A and W3-A because the amount of
disturbed area would be increased in all three sub-basins. Groundwater impacts would be similar to
Alternative W2-A, as discussed above.
Construction noise would increase ambient noise levels. Grading and scraping operations are the noisiest
activities, with equipment noise levels as high as 70 to 90 dBA within 50 feet of their operations. However,
distance would rapidly attenuate noise levels so area residences would experience only a slight increase
in ambient background levels.
Because Alternative N-D requires a larger amount of earthwork and a higher level of construction activity
than Alternative W2-A, air quality impacts would be greater. From preliminary estimates, emissions would
be approximately 8 percent higher under Alternative N-D when compared to Alternative W2-A. Because
of additional construction activities associated with the Alternative N-D airfield development projects,
construction emissions from Alternative N-D would be 10.30 times higher than construction emissions
from the No-Action Alternative.
5.19.3.5 Alternative W1-A1
The amount of disturbed area from Alternative W1-A1 Phase 1 in the Horsepen Creek and East Fork
Deep River sub-basins would be equivalent to what would be disturbed in Alternative W3-A Phase 1.
However, the surface transportation improvements in Alternative W1-A1 would increase the amount of
disturbed area in the Brush Creek Sub-basin by approximately 197 acres. Therefore, the area disturbed
by the construction and operation of Alternative W1-A1 Phase 1 would include approximately 822, 28,
and 106 acres within the Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek, and East Fork Deep River sub-basins,
respectively. Water quality construction impacts in the Horsepen Creek and East Fork Deep River sub-
basins would be the same as those described for Alternative W3-A Phase 1. A substantial increase in
water quality construction impacts would occur in the Brush Creek Sub-basin because of the large
increase in land disturbance from the surface transportation improvements.
WAPIEDMONTDEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-189 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
Groundwater impacts would be similar to Alternative W2-A and would occur if excavations encroach into
the saturated lower regolith zone. Excavations may expose the water table to potential contamination
from existing contamination or existing facilities. However, the potential for harm to the groundwater
sources is temporary. The implementation of temporary BMPs during construction would minimize this
impact.
Air quality impacts associated with the airside components of Alternative W1-A1 would be similar to the
impacts of Alternatives W2-A and W3-A. On the landside, however, Alternative W1-A1 has roadway
improvements that are unique to it: a new interchange for relocated Bryan Boulevard and Old Oak Ridge
Road and alterations in the design of airport access and egress roads. Because of the additional
roadway improvements associated with this alternative, the construction impacts to air quality are
expected to be approximately 8 percent higher when compared to Alternative W2-A. Because of
additional construction activities associated with the Alternative W1-Ai airfield development projects,
construction emissions from Alternative W1-A1 would be 10.30 times higher than construction emissions
from the No-Action Alternative.
Construction noise would increase ambient noise levels. Grading and scraping operations are the noisiest
activities, with equipment noise levels as high as 70 to 90 dBA within 50 feet of their operations. However,
distance would rapidly attenuate noise levels so area residences would experience only a slight increase
in ambient background levels.
5.19.3.6 Alternative N-E
The extension of the existing east/west Runway 14/32, development of a new parallel runway, relocation
of existing rental car service area and air cargo facilities, and locating the proposed air cargo sorting and
distribution facility east of PTIA would result in approximately 1,289 acres of disturbed area. This would
increase the affected area from what would be impacted in Phase 1 of Alternatives W2-A and W3-A by
approximately 70 percent. The distribution of the disturbed area from Alternative WE Phase 1 would
include approximately 618, 575, and 96 acres within the Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek, and East Fork
Deep River sub-basins, respectively. Construction impacts would be similar to those described for the
other alternatives. However, the magnitude of the impacts would be decreased in the Brush Creek Sub-
basin and increased in the Horsepen Creek and East Fork Deep River sub-basins because the amount of
disturbed area would decrease in the Brush Creek Sub-basin and increase in the Horsepen Creek and
East Fork Deep River sub-basins. There may also be a potential for releasing pollutants bound in
sediments during the demolition of the existing aviation and warehouse facilities east of the airport to
accommodate the construction of the air cargo facility in the Horsepen Creek Sub-basin. Best
Management Practices would be employed during demolition activities to avoid the transport of potentially
hazardous sediments to Horsepen Creek in stormwater runoff. Groundwater impacts would be similar to
Alternative W2-A, as discussed above.
Construction noise would temporarily increase ambient noise levels. Grading and scraping operations
are the noisiest activities, with equipment noise levels as high as 70 to 90 dBA within 50 feet of their
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-190 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
operations. However, distance would rapidly attenuate noise levels so area residences would experience
only a slight increase in ambient background levels.
Because Alternative N-E requires a larger amount of earthwork and a higher level of construction activity
than Alternative W2-A, air quality impacts would be greater. From preliminary estimates, emissions would
be approximately 24 percent higher under Alternative WE when compared to Alternative W2-A. Because
of additional construction activities associated with the Alternative WE airfield development projects,
construction emissions from Alternative WE would be 11.74 times higher than construction emissions
from the No-Action Alternative.
5.19.4 PHASE 2 IMPACT POTENTIAL
Phase 2 projects involve further airside improvements in Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W1-A1, and N-E.
Section 3.4 contains specific information concerning the stages of development for each of the
alternatives. There are no Phase 2 developments for the No-Action Alternative.
5.19.4.1 No-Action Alternative
No surface transportation improvements or airside improvements would be constructed in Phase 2.
Therefore, implementation of the No-Action Alternative would have no additional surface water,
groundwater, or air quality impacts related to construction.
5.19.4.2 Alternative W2-A
Construction of Alternative W2-A Phase 2 would disturb approximately 75 and 28 acres in the Brush
Creek and Horsepen Creek sub-basins. No construction activity would occur within the East Fork Deep
River Sub-basin. Therefore the cumulative amounts of disturbed area contributed by Alternative W2-A
Phase 1 and Phase 2 improvements within the Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek, and East Fork Deep River
sub-basins would be approximately 729, 56, and 77 acres, respectively. Increases in turbidity may result
in Brush Creek and Horsepen Creek and their tributaries, as described in Phase 1 for Alternative W2-A.
However, the potential severity of the turbidity may be reduced because less area would be disturbed in
Phase 2. Long-term water quality impacts from the disturbance of soils with heavy metals, nutrients, and
pesticides are not expected. BMPs would be implemented to minimize impacts from sediment-laden
stormwater runoff during construction. Impacts to groundwater quality during construction would be
similar to those described for Alternative W2-A Phase 1.
Construction air quality emissions and noise levels are expected to be similar in composition but lower in
magnitude than Alternative W2-A Phase 1 projects. Analysis based on preliminary construction estimates
indicates that Phase 2 impacts to air quality would be approximately 30 percent lower than Phase 1
impacts under this alternative.
W:\PIEDMONTDEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03125/00 5-191 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
The five Build Alternatives and the No-Action Alternative were evaluated with respect to the surface
transportation improvements identified within the Detailed Study Area. Under the No-Action Alternative,
surface transportation improvements consist of:
• Relocation of a portion of Old Oak Ridge Road;
• Construction of a new interchange at Old Oak Ridge Road and Bryan Boulevard;
• Construction and operation of new airport entrance interchanges off Bryan Boulevard
to the PTIA terminal area (modification of existing North Triad Boulevard and
development of a new South Triad Boulevard interchange),
• The closure and relocation of a portion of Regional Road.
All of the above-listed improvements are also considered to be part of Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D, and
N-E.
The proposed surface transportation improvements specific to Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, and N-D include
the following:
Construction of a tunnel for Bryan Boulevard under the proposed parallel runway;
and
• Construction of two connector taxiway bridges over Bryan Boulevard.
The proposed surface transportation improvements specific to Alternative W1-Al include the following:
• Relocation of Bryan Boulevard to the northwest of the proposed parallel runway;
• Construction of a new airport access road (Airport Road);
• Construction of a new interchange at Bryan Boulevard and proposed Airport Road;
and
• Modification of existing North Triad Boulevard and South Triad Boulevard to
accommodate one-way traffic to and from the airport.
Alternative W1-A1 will also include the relocation of a portion of Old Oak Ridge Road and the relocation
of a portion of Regional Road (similar to Alternatives W2-A and W3-A). Construction of two connector
taxiway bridges over the proposed Airport Road is included under Alternative W 1-A1.
The proposed surface transportation improvement specific to Alternative N-E includes the following:
• Construction of tunnel for Bryan Boulevard under the proposed parallel runway, and
• Improvements to Friendly Avenue/Old Friendly Road intersection.
Impacts to various resources in the Detailed Study Area as a result of surface transportation
improvements were calculated and evaluated. The impacts expected to occur under the No-Action
Alternative are also expected to occur as cumulative impacts under Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, and N-D,
W:\PIEDMONTDEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-200 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
TABLE 5.20.6-1
FAA CRITERIA AND/OR REQUIREMENTS FOR EVALUATING PROJECT INVOLVEMENT WITH
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
No. Criteria/Requirement Response
1. Would the project(s) involve hazardous None of the proposed alternatives would impact
materials or generate hazardous waste? sites or facilities that are known, or suspected, to
involve significant amounts of hazardous wastes
or environmental contamination. During the
construction period, the servicing and refueling of
heavy equipment would involve limited amounts of
petroleum-based fuels and other similar
substances.
2. The project(s) must be in compliance with PTAA requires that contractors and tenants
Federal, state, and local regulations. adhere to all pertinent regulations associated with
the use, storage, and discharge of hazardous
materials. In addition, both PTAA and FedEx
have guidelines in place that govern their use of
these materials.
3. Ensure that responsible parties would report During the construction period, the general
any discharges of hazardous materials or contractor would be held responsible for reporting
other similar substances. any discharges of hazardous substances (in
amounts above their reportable quantities). Both
PTAA and FedEx also have similar spill-reporting
requirements.
4. Any sites in the study area listed on the As discussed in Section 4.3.7, there are no sites
National (or State) Priority List (NPL) must located on PTIA, or its immediate vicinity, that are
be identified and impacts discussed. on the National (or State) Priority List.
5. All hazardous material sites that are not As discussed in Section 4.3.7, sites and facilities
NPL sites, in the study area must be that are reported, or have the potential, to contain
identified and located. hazardous materials, environmental contami-
nation, and/or other regulated substances on, or in
the vicinity of, PTIA have been identified and
located as part of this DEIS.
6. Consultation with Federal, state, and/or Throughout the environmental review process,
local agencies must be documented. Federal, state, and local agencies involved with
hazardous materials and environmental
contamination have been given opportunity to
comment on the PTIA Alternatives. Thus far, no
documentation has been received in connection
with this matter. Should this change, all related
documents would be included in the Final EIS
and/or the project files.
7. Demonstrate that the project(s) would not Because there are no sites or facilities located in
interfere with ongoing or planned remedia- areas of PTIA identified for the alternatives
tion programs or further spread contamina- improvements that are known to be contaminated
tion. or are under remediation, it is not expected that
the implementation of any of the alternatives
would spread contamination further or interfere
with any cleanup activities.
Source: URS Greiner, Inc., 1999.
W:\PIEDMON'RDEIS\CH-5\T 5206-1.doc\3/27/00
and N-E. Direct impacts to the surface transportation system for all of the Build Alternatives would also
occur.
In addition to impacts occurring as a result of surface transportation improvements, the surface
transportation network, under all Build and No-Action scenarios, was evaluated with regard to projected
traffic volumes and capacities. Traffic data were received from the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) Statewide Planning Branch. The traffic model used by the NCDOT includes a
number of assumptions, which are described in greater detail in the Surface Transportation Technical
Memorandum contained in Appendix I.
5.21.3 PHASE 1 IMPACT POTENTIAL
The phases of the proposed development activities relate primarily to the development of the air cargo
sorting and distribution facility. From a surface transportation and traffic perspective, it is expected that
air cargo will proportionately generate a greater percentage of traffic in Phase 1 than in Phase 2.
However, with or without the proposed PTIA and air cargo development activities, land uses and
development activities in the vicinity of PTIA are expected to be similar in type and magnitude through the
year 2019. Therefore, the net impacts of Phase 1 and Phase 2 activities between the No-Action and
Build Alternatives are not expected to be substantial or recognizable.
5.21.3.1 No-Action Alternative
With the construction of the surface transportation improvements for the No-Action Alternative, impacts
would occur to approximately 23.1 acres of floodplains, 40.5 acres of upland biotic communities, and 9.8
acres of wetlands. Table 5.21.3-1 summarizes the impacts under the No-Action Alternative. These
impacts are also identified as cumulative impacts under Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, and N-D. Additional
information regarding impacts under the No-Action Alternative is provided in Section 5 of the Surface
Transportation Technical Memorandum contained in Appendix I.
With regard to travel demand, traffic volumes, and system deficiencies, it is anticipated that land
development and population growth would continue to increase in the Detailed Study Area. Traffic
projections are based on existing land uses and land development expected to occur in the future. Under
the No-Action Alternative, industrial, manufacturing, and commercial development would occur within and
around PTIA. As a result, traffic volumes, both auto and truck, would continue to increase. The surface
transportation improvements expected to occur under the No-Action Alternative would generally improve
the overall transportation system in the vicinity of PTIA. Access to and from the airport would be
enhanced with the improvements to existing North Triad Boulevard and the construction of the South
Triad Boulevard interchange. The construction of the Bryan Boulevard/Old Oak Ridge Road interchange
would improve access to and from the northeast portion of the PTIA property. It would also improve
access to Bryan Boulevard and, hence, NC 68 and the proposed Western Urban Loop for the adjacent
communities. However, this could also have an adverse impact on residential areas in terms of increased
traffic on neighborhood roads, as the additional interchange between Old Oak Ridge Road and Bryan
Boulevard would make Bryan Boulevard more accessible to nearby communities, particularly those
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03125/00 5-201 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
(2) Encouraging and developing an integrated transportation system relying on competitive
market forces to decide the extent, variety, quality, and price of services provided.
(3) Providing services without unreasonable discrimination, unfair or deceptive practices, or
predatory pricing.
The potential development of an overnight, express air cargo hub at PTIA is consistent with FAA's
responsibility to support locally-sponsored projects that fulfill the above referenced public policy
objectives.
The majority of the roadways in the vicinity of PTIA are currently operating at acceptable Levels of
Service (LOS). These Levels of Service would decrease in the future as traffic volumes increase and
high levels of congestion would occur in the peak travel hours. All of the alternatives would implement
infrastructure projects, which would improve long-term traffic flows in the PTIA area. Refer to Appendix I
for additional information concerning surface transportation improvements.
W:\PIEDMONrDEIS\Ch-2\S_5Combined.doc\03/25/00 5-212 Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences
41,
3
E
at the six measurement sites range from a decrease of DNL 9.7 dB to an increase of DNL 1.8 dB. Noise
levels at 42 specific points experience an increase in the noise levels over the Phase 1 No-Action
Alternative. A total of 11 specific points (Sites 14, 17, 21, 22, 35 to 38, 40, 42, and 47) experience
increases of DNL 1.5 dB or greater (DNL 1.9 to 26.5 dB) within the DNL 65 dB contour. The FAA's
"Threshold of Significance" is exceeded at these points. An additional 16 specific points (Sites 15, 16, 18
to 20, 23, 39, 41, 43 to 46, 48, 49, 52, and 54) experience increases of DNL 3.0 dB or greater (DNL 6.2 to
21.6 dB) within the DNL 60 dB contour.
A total of 4,666.5 acres of land would be located within the DNL 65 dB noise contours for the Phase 1
Alternative N-D (with mitigation). Of that, 2,026.3 acres are airport property. Of the remaining 2,640.2
acres of land within the contours and outside of airport property, a total of 1,124.3 acres would be noise-
sensitive single-family residential, multi-family residential, or park land use. This compares to 1,171.0
acres under the non-mitigated Alternative N-D (a decrease of 46.7 acres).
Under the Phase 1 Alternative N-D (with mitigation), the number of people and households within the
DNL 65 dB noise contour would decrease to 5,431 and 2,327 respectively, a decrease of 304 people and
129 households over the non-mitigated Alternative N-D. A total of 5,413 people and 2,319 households
would experience significant noise impacts with increases of DNL 1.5 dB or greater. This would be a
decrease of 308 people and 132 households over the non-mitigated Alternative N-D. A total of 7 other
noise-sensitive receptors would still be located within the DNL 65 dB noise contour for the Phase 1
Alternative N-D (with mitigation) including two churches, two community facilities, two nursing homes, and
one school. A total of 17,857 people and 7,612 households would experience increases of DNL 3.0 dB or
greater within the DNL 60 dB noise contours. This is an increase of 74 people and 32 households when
compared to the non-mitigated Alternative N-D.
6.2.1.5 Alternative W1-A1
Figure 6.2.1-4 presents the mitigated noise exposure contours for the year Phase 1 Alternative W1-A1.
Tables 6.2.1-4 and 6.2.1-5 present the specific point analysis and the land use impacts for all Phase 1
Build Alternatives including Alternative W1-A1. Tables 6.2.1-6 and 6.2.1-7 list all population, housing,
and noise-sensitive receptor impacts. Table 6.2.1-8 lists the significant noise impacts for all population
and housing within the DNL 65 dB and DNL 60 dB contours.
Between the Phase 1 No-Action and the Phase 1 Alternative W1-A1 with mitigation, changes in noise
levels at the specific points range from a decrease of DNL 6.1 dB to an increase of DNL 9.8 dB. Noise
levels at the six measurement sites range from a decrease of DNL 0.7 dB to an increase of DNL 7.3 dB.
Noise levels at 49 specific points experience an increase in the noise levels over the Phase 1 No-Action
Alternative. A total of 8 specific points (Sites 2, 5, 7, and 10 to 14) experience increases of DNL 1.5 dB or
greater (DNL 1.8 to 9.8 dB) within the DNL 65 dB contour. The FAA's "Threshold of Significance" is
exceeded at these points. An additional 7 specific points (Sites 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 25) experience
increases of DNL 3.0 dB or greater (DNL 3.0 to 7.7 dB) within the DNL 60 dB contour.
WAPIEDM0NT\DEIS\Ch-6\ S_ 6.doc\03/22100 6-5 Chapter 6.0 Mitigation
A total of 4,625.3 acres of land would be located within the DNL 65 dB noise contours for the Phase 1
Alternative W1-A1 (with mitigation). Of that, 2,009.5 acres are airport property. Of the remaining 2,615.8
acres of land within the contours and outside of airport property, 287.5 acres would be noise-sensitive
single-family residential land use. This compares to 305.8 acres under the non-mitigated Alternative
W1-Ai (a decrease of 18.3 acres).
Under Phase 1 of Alternative W1-A1 (with mitigation), the number of people and households within the
DNL 65 dB noise contour would increase to 419 and 178; respectively, a decrease of 2 people and 1
household over the non-mitigated Alternative W1-Ai. A total of 387 people and 164 households would
experience significant noise impacts with increases of DNL 1.5 dB or greater. This would be an increase
of 3 people and 1 household over the non-mitigated Alternative W1-Ai. One juvenile detention center
would still be located within the DNL 65 dB noise contour for Phase 1 Alternative W1-A1 (with mitigation).
A total of 1,034 people and 428 households would experience increases of DNL 3.0 dB or greater within
the DNL 60 dB noise contours. This is a decrease of 62 people and 24 households when compared to
the non-mitigated Alternative W1-A1.
6.2.1.6 Alternative N-E
Figure 6.2.1-5 presents the noise exposure contours, with mitigation, for Phase 1 of Alternative N-E.
Tables 6.2.1-4 and 6.2.1-5 present the specific point analysis and the land use impacts for all Phase 1
Alternatives including Alternative N-E. Tables 6.2.1-6 and 6.2.1-7 list all population, housing, and noise-
sensitive receptor impacts. Table 6.2.1-8 lists the significant noise impacts for all population and housing
within the DNL 65 dB and DNL 60 dB noise contours.
Between the Phase 1 No-Action and the Phase 1 Alternative N-E with mitigation, changes in noise levels
at the specific points range from a decrease of DNL 9.8 dB to an increase of DNL 27.6 dB. Noise levels
at the six measurement sites range from a decrease of DNL 9.6 dB to an increase of DNL 2.1 dB. Noise
levels at 41 specific points experience an increase in the noise levels over the Phase 1 No-Action
Alternative. A total of 14 specific points (Sites 14 to 18, 20 to 23, 35 to 38, & 40) experience increases of
1.5 dB or greater (DNL 2.0 to 27.6 dB) within the DNL 65 dB contour. The FAA's "Threshold of
Significance" is exceeded at these points. An additional 9 specific points (Sites 19, 41, 42, 49, 52, 70, 71,
73, and 74) experience increases of DNL 3.0 dB or greater (DNL 9.0 to 22.7 dB) within the DNL 60 dB
contour.
A total of 4,747.1 acres of land are located within the DNL 65 dB noise contours for Phase 1 Alternative
WE (with mitigation). Of that, 2,022.1 acres are airport property. Of the remaining 2,725.0 acres of land
within the contours and outside of airport property, a total of 1,286.8 acres are noise-sensitive single-
family residential, multi-family residential, community facility, mobile home, or park land use. This
compares to 1,338.1 acres under the non-mitigated Phase 1 Alternative WE (a net decrease of 51.3
acres).
Under Phase 1 of Alternative N-E (with mitigation) the number of people and households within the DNL
65 dB noise contour would increase to 3,951 and 1,681; respectively, a decrease of 45 people and 18
W:\PIEDMOMIDEIS\Ch•6\ S_ 6.doc\03/22/00 6-6 Chapter 6.0 Mitigation
The following measures may be implemented by the PTAA to mitigate adverse land use and social
impacts from the Build Alternatives.
6.2.2.1 Remedial Land Use Mitigation
• Implement Land Acquisition Program to relocate residential uses from high noise
areas,
• Implement Sound Insulation and Voluntary Sales (Transaction) Assistance Programs,
• Implement Voluntary Sound Insulation Program for noise-sensitive community
facilities,
• Implement Voluntary Residential Sound Insulation Program, and
• Implement Voluntary Limited Avigation Easement Program.
6.2.2.2 Compatible Land Use Planning
• Coordinate land use management measures with local municipalities,
• Coordinate comprehensive planning and discretionary review with local
municipalities,
• Coordinate compatible use zoning/rezoning by assisting with the revisions of the local
jurisdictions' zoning maps of the Airport Overlay District to be consistent with the new
noise contours for Phase 1 and Phase 2 operations. Other preventive land use
measures include extending zoning districts with large lot zoning and encourage the
use of non-residential zoning such as industrial or commercial zoning in high noise
areas.
• Coordinate building codes, and
• Implement advance vacant property acquisition.
6.2.2.3 Program Management Measures
• Implement noise program management measures, and
• Install a noise management (monitoring) and radar tracking system.
One consideration may be that the PTAA conduct a subsequent Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study to
include the expanded airport facilities should the FAA issue a decision approving a development
alternative. This may allow Federal funds to become available to the PTAA for implementation of a noise
mitigation program.
Social impacts due to airport development from any of the Build Alternatives would be primarily in the
form of displaced persons, homes, businesses, and community facilities. These impacts would be
mitigated by ensuring that all property acquisition and relocations would be implemented according to the
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. This act establishes a
WAPIEDM0NTDEIS\Ch-6\ S_ 6.doc\03/22/00 6-9 Chapter 6.0 Mitigation
standard process for Federally approved or supported projects for relocation activities and requires fair
market value to be paid for properties acquired plus relocation costs. Fair market values for properties to
be acquired for airport expansion purposes would be determined by appraisal of comparable properties,
including properties whose selling price would not be affected by the airport development program. PTAA
would develop a detailed plan for the relocation of all properties including residential, commercial, public,
and nonprofit organizations. The program would be consistent with FAA Advisory Circular 150/5100-17,
Land Acquisition and Relocation Assistance for Airport Improvement Program Assisted Projects.
6.2.3 POSSIBLE AIR QUALITY MITIGATION MEASURES
Air quality mitigation measures for airports and aviation-related activities in general, and PTIA in
particular, are most effectively implemented during the planning and design stages of the project. In this
way, air emissions associated with the construction and operational phases are minimized through the
practical application of engineering, construction and pollution-prevention techniques.
Several of these air quality mitigation measures are already in place at PTIA, or are inherent to the
planned improvements, as summarized below:
Adequate capacity on the airside infrastructure (e.g., runways, taxiways, terminal
area aprons and gates) to efficiently accommodate the existing and forecasted
activity levels; thus avoiding airfield delays, conflicts and other bottlenecks which
contribute to excess aircraft emissions. The proposed project for PTIA is intended to
ensure that the existing and future capacity of the airfield meets the forecasted
demand through year 2019.
Efficient layout and design of the runway/taxiway/terminal area systems enabling
smooth, swift and uninterrupted movements of aircraft from the runway ends to the
terminal/cargo areas; thereby reducing fuel consumption and the resultant emissions.
Again, the PTIA proposed project is intended to optimize the airfield layout based on
the existing and future demands on the facility.
Adequate capacity and efficient design of the landside infrastructure (e.g.
access/egress roadways, terminal area curb front, and on-site parking facilities)
which help to reduce excess emissions associated with slow-moving, idling and
roaming motor vehicles. Currently, the PTIA access/egress roads (e.g., Bryan
Boulevard, North and South Triad Boulevards.) provide for high speed and efficient
circulation to, from and circulating about the Main Terminal area; the short and long-
term parking facilities are conveniently accessed, and the terminal building curb front
remains uncontested.
Avoidance, or minimization, of areas or structures (e.g., terminal buildings, parking
structures, etc.) which contribute to zones of restricted air movement and create
localized "hot-spots" of air pollution. From review of the 1994 PTIA Master Plan, it is
evident that the existing and future Airport Layout Plan (ALP) provides for the
separation and placement of the primary support facilities (e.g., main terminal
buildings, air cargo facilities, general aviation and aircraft maintenance hangars, fuel
facility, etc.) in a manner that helps prevent the build-up of pollutants.
Open-space, or "buffer zones", that provide distance between the air emission source
locations (e.g. runway ends, taxiways, fuel facilities, parking garages) and any nearby
WAPIEDM0NT\DEIS\Ch-6\ S_ 6.doc\03/22/00 6-10 Chapter 6.0 Mitigation
potentially sensitive receptors (e.g., homes, schools, parks, etc.). Again, the ALP for
PTIA indicates that the necessary Runway Protection Zones and Safety Areas,
Building Restriction Lines, Future Aviation Development Areas, roadway rights-of-
way, and other areas will help avoid conflicts between airport-related air emissions
and sensitive receptors.
During the construction phases, potential short-term impacts to air quality can be avoided, minimized,
and/or mitigated by the adherence to the following measures:
• Through the General Contractor's work provisions, all construction activities shall be
carried out in full compliance with the pollution control provisions and specifications
contained in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-10A, Standards for Specifying
Construction of Airports, and/or required by any local guidelines or ordinances.
• Any required air quality permits for land clearing, open burning, asphalt and concrete
batch plants, etc. will be obtained before the commencement of related activities.
• Stockpiles of soil, dirt, rocks and other raw materials shall be covered or stabilized to
help prevent the generation of wind-blown particles and debris (e.g. fugitive dust).
• Heavily used work sites (e.g. construction staging areas, haul roads,
loading/unloading platforms) shall be shielded, treated, or otherwise maintained to
help prevent the generation and release of dust.
• To the extent feasible, staged construction schedules will be employed that will help
reduce the exposure of wind-erodable soils to minimal amounts and time-periods.
• Construction equipment (e.g., earthmovers, haul trucks, excavators, etc.) shall be
properly maintained and cleaned, as necessary, to help minimize excess exhaust
emissions.
6.2.4 POSSIBLE WATER QUALITY MITIGATION MEASURES
Implementation of the No-Action Alternative and Phases 1 and 2 of Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D,
W1-A1, and WE would result in impacts to surface water quality that would require mitigation.
Stormwater mitigation is mandated in the State of North Carolina water quality regulations. Regulations
for the water quality programs in the State of North Carolina are derived from a number of Federal and
state legislative mandates. The Federal mandates are found in sections of the Clean Water Act, as
Amended in 1987, and state mandates for North Carolina are found in state statutes of the North Carolina
Administrative Code (NCAC).
The NCDENR promulgates stormwater management laws in the State of North of Carolina. These laws
are intended to maintain and or improve the current water quality standards in the State of North Carolina.
NCDENR requires local governments with land use authority to pass local legislation to control the effects
of stormwater runoff resulting from development within the local governments' authority. The PTAA is
recognized and considered to be a local government with land use authority for the property it currently
owns. A Stormwater Master Plan (SWMP) is currently being developed for PTIA. The PTAA is
considered a local authority permitted by NCDENR to develop its own stormwater ordinances for PTIA.
The PTAA is currently updating its stormwater ordinances in a SWMP for PTIA.
WAPIEDM0NT\DEIS\Ch-6\S_6.doc\03/22/00 6-11 Chapter 6.0 Mitigation
PTIA lies downstream and upstream of the Guilford County and City of Greensboro jurisdictions,
respectively. Therefore, the PTAA would incorporate stormwater ordinances from Guilford County and
the City of Greensboro in the PTIA SWMP to be compliant with state standards and be a good upstream
and downstream neighbor. A summary of the Guilford County and City of Greensboro stormwater
ordinances pertinent to the project are as follows:
The property under consideration for the new Runway 5U23R and new air cargo
facility lies within the Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek, and East Fork Deep River sub-
basins. The Brush Creek and Horsepen Creek sub-basins are sub-basins of the
Reedy Fork Basin (03-06-02) within the water supply watershed for the City of
Greensboro. Surface waters within the Brush Creek and Horsepen Creek sub-basins
are classified WS-III. The East Fork Deep River Sub-basin is a sub-basin of the East
and West Fork Deep River Basin (03-06-08) within the water supply watershed for
the City of High Point. Surface waters within the East Fork Deep River Sub-basin are
classified WS-IV. Two overlay districts cover designated water supply watersheds.
They are Watershed Critical Areas (WCA) and the General Watershed (GWA). The
WCA covers the portion of the watershed adjacent to a water supply intake or
reservoir. The GWA covers the rest of the watershed draining to the reservoir or
intake. Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W1-Ai, and N-E are located within the GWA.
Environmental regulations for developments within WS-III and WS-IV watershed
classifications in a GWA are located in Article VII, Section 7-1 and Sections 7-2 of the
Guilford County Development Ordinance and Sections 30-7-1 and 30-7-2 of the City
of Greensboro Development Ordinance and Chapter 27 of the City of Greensboro
stormwater ordinance.
The following minimum control criteria have been promulgated by the State of North
Carolina for non-point source and stormwater pollution for WS-III watersheds under
the high density option:
Control runoff from the first 1 inch of rainfall and release over a 2- to 5-day period.
2. New development shall not exceed 50 percent built-upon area.
3. The percentage of airport built-upon area (impervious area) for Alternatives W2-A,
W3-A, N-D, W1-Al, and WE will exceed the 50 percent limit. However, NCAC 2B
0.100 allows for the following two options in lieu of the 50 percent option: the 10/70
option allows 10 percent of each jurisdiction's portion of the watershed outside the
critical area as delineated on July 1, 1993, may be developed up to 70 percent built-
upon surface area. This option provides a mathematical average of 52 percent
built-upon area. The second option allows flexibility of including the entire
jurisdictional area or project-specific areas. The preliminary draft of the SWMP
indicates the PTAA will employ the 10/70 option.
4. Engineered stormwater controls must be employed for new development. A
minimum 100-foot vegetative buffer is required for all new development activities
along perennial waters. No new development is allowed in the buffer. Flagpoles,
signs, security lights, water-dependent structures, and other structures that result in
minimal increases in impervious area may be allowed. Public projects such as road
crossings and greenways may be allowed where no practicable alternative exists.
WAPIEDM0NIIDEIS\Ch-6\ S_ 6.doc\03/22/00 6-12 Chapter 6.0 Mitigation
• WS-III control criteria apply to non-point source and stormwater pollution for WS-IV
watersheds under the high-density option, with the exception that new development
may not exceed 70 percent built-upon area.
A draft copy of the SWMP is currently being reviewed by the PTAA. A final draft of the SWMP will be
available when one of the alternatives for Runway 51J23R and the associated improvements or the No-
Action Alternative has been selected as the FAA's preferred alternative. The SWMP would provide
guidelines and design criteria for mitigation measures to surface water quality impacts resulting from
future land development, such as the selected alternative for Runway 5U23R and the air cargo facility
(Mid-Atlantic Hub), that may occur within the land owned by the PTAA. The SWMP could include wet
detention ponds, dry detention ponds, dedicated deicing agent collection system, collection separation
and disposal of spills, oil/water separators, and erosion and sediment control during construction as
possible measures to mitigate potential surface water quality impacts. A preliminary evaluation of the
effectiveness of these mitigation measures in minimizing surface water quality impacts from the No-Action
Alternative and Phases 1 and 2 of Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D, .W1-A1, and WE was conducted and is
summarized in the following sections.
6.2.4.1 Wet Detention Ponds
Wet detention ponds can be used for water quality treatment and floodwater management. The function
of wet detention ponds in floodwater management is discussed in Section 6.2.7.2.
Wet detention ponds are one of the best methods for removing pollutants from runoff. Wet detention
ponds are estimated to be 85 percent effective in removing pollutants, based upon the total pollutant
mass (Guilford County Wet Detention Ponds Design Criteria Section 5.6). EPA found in the National
Urban Runoff Program (NURP) Studies that when wet detention ponds are adequately sized, particulate
removals in excess of 90 percent can be obtained.
Preliminary required wet detention areas within the Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek, and East Fork Deep
River sub-basins for the No-Action Alternative and Phases 1 and 2 of Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D,
W1 -Al, and WE are shown in Table 6.2.4-1. The pond areas shown represent a preliminary estimate of
the total required pond area by sub-basin. The number, location, and type (dry or wet) of ponds will be
included in the SWMP. These preliminary pond areas were determined according to the following
Guilford County design criteria published in the Guilford County Wet Detention Ponds Design Criteria
Section 5.6:
• Guilford County ordinances require wet detention ponds to contain a sediment
volume capacity, permanent water quality pool, and temporary water quality pool.
• The sediment storage volume provides for 1/8 acre-inch per acre of the total on-site
and off-site area draining to the pond. The minimum depth of sediment storage shall
be 3 inches (0.25 feet).
• The permanent water quality pool shall be provided meeting or exceeding the surface
area to drainage (SA/DA) ratio listed in Figure 5.6-2 in the Guilford County Wet
Detention Ponds Design Criteria Section 5.6. The SA/DA is the ratio of the required
WAPIEDMONl1DEIS\Ch-6\ S_6.doc\03/23/00 6-13 Chapter 6.0 Mitigation
Horsepen Creek Sub-basin Brush Creek Sub-basin Total
Stream Restoration (linear feet) 9,269 10,500 19,769
Stream Preservation (linear feet) 2,344 9,500 11,844
Wetland Restoration (acres) 25 21 46
Wetland Preservation (acres) 1 68 69
The main stem of Horsepen Creek, which traverses Longview Golf Course on the southeastern side of
PTIA, has been confirmed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of Water Quality (DWQ) as
suitable for restoration. Segments of Horsepen Creek and certain suitable tributaries may constitute the
main component of on-site stream mitigation and appear to offer "Priority 1" type stream restoration
potential. The golf course and property adjacent to Horsepen Creek also offer potential for wetland
restoration. The wide, well-developed floodplain appears suitable for restoration of hydrology, regrading
(if necessary) and replanting of wetlands, similar to areas further upstream and downstream.
Upland areas adjacent to Brush Creek and associated wetlands and floodplain on the northwest side of
the airport along Bryan Boulevard may be restored and/or created into wetlands. This concept would not
only expand and enhance the existing wetlands associated with Brush Creek but preservation,
maintenance, and monitoring of the entire system on airport property would contribute significantly to
downstream water quality.
6.2.7 POSSIBLE FLOODPLAINS MITIGATION MEASURES
Development of the No-Action Alternative and Phases 1 and 2 of Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W1-A1,
and WE would result in floodplain impacts that warrant mitigation. The goals and objectives of the
floodplain mitigation measures are to minimize impacts to floodplains and to not increase downstream
flooding or induce upstream flooding. Measures to mitigate floodplain impacts have been identified and
are described as follows.
6.2.7.1 Culverts
Floodplain impacts would occur within the floodplains of Brush Creek and Horsepen Creek. These two
floodplains are the primary conveyances in their respective drainage sub-basins and exhibit abrupt
increases in flows and stages during major storm events due to runoff from the rolling terrain and
imperious surfaces. Obstructing these two primary drainageways with fill would decrease their
capacities and subsequently increase flood stages. Therefore, culverts (circular or box) would be
constructed within the main channel of Brush Creek and Horsepen Creek at runway, taxiway, and
roadway crossings of these creeks. These culverts would be designed to minimize floodplain impacts by
maintaining natural drainage paths and water levels at or below permissible 100-year flood elevations
within the floodplains of Brush Creek and Horsepen Creek. Additionally, the culverts may create post-
development creek flow velocities higher than pre-development velocities. Therefore, maximum
acceptable outlet velocities would be determined to prevent scour and downstream creek channel
erosion. If possible, culvert headwaters should be set to produce acceptable velocities with the design of
WAPIEDM0NT\DEIS\Ch-6\ S_ 6.doc\03123!00 6-19 Chapter 6.0 Mitigation
large culvert openings; otherwise, stabilization or energy dissipation should be provided at the culvert
outlet.
A large percentage of the floodplain impacts would be within the floodway of Brush Creek and Horsepen
Creek. Section 7-5.3(c)(1) of the Guilford County Development ordinance indicates that development
within a floodway requires a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers supported with technical data
demonstrating the development would not result in any increase in flood levels during occurrence of the
100-year flood. Therefore, a detailed hydraulic analysis of the pre-development and post-development
conditions of Brush Creek and Horsepen Creek should be conducted during the project design phase to
ensure flood stages and flows would be maintained at or below existing levels.
6.2.7.2 Stormwater Detention
To offset potential filling of floodplains within Brush Creek and Horsepen Creek and construction of new
impervious area, detention storage volume can be provided to reduce peak discharges downstream,
provide for floodplain storage compensation volume, and avoid airport-induced increases of flood
elevations upstream. The following design guidelines, from the Guilford County Design Manual, would be
implemented to design wet or dry detention ponds with respect to water quantity (additional design
guidelines for wet and dry retention ponds with respect to water quality are discussed in Section 6.2.4):
• The 2-year post-development peak discharge rate would not exceed the 2-year pre-
developed peak discharge rate through dewatering holes (orifices) (see 2-year pre-
and post-development flows previously shown on Table 5.12.3-2 in Section 5.12 of
the DEIS).
• The 2-year peak water surface elevation would not exceed the temporary water
quality storage elevation (crest of the principal spillway) (see 2-year pre- and post-
development flows previously shown on Table 5.12.3-2 in Section 5.12 of the DEIS).
• The 10-year post-development peak discharge rate would not exceed the 10-year
pre-developed peak discharge rate through the principal spillway (see 10-year pre-
and post-development flows previously shown on Table 5.12.3-2 in Section 5.12 of
the DEIS).
• The 10-year post-developed peak storm maximum water surface elevation would
equal the crest of the emergency spillway.
• The 100-year post-developed peak storm would pass through the combination of the
principal spillway and the emergency spillway. The principal spillway would pass
only the 10-year post-developed peak flow, and the remaining peak flow would be
passed through the emergency spillway.
• The top of the embankment would be measured with 1 foot of freeboard above the
maximum water surface elevation experienced by the 100-year post developed
storm.
Preliminary required wet and dry detention areas within the Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek, and East Fork
Deep River sub-basins for the No-Action Alternative and Phase 1 and 2 of Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D,
W1-A1, and WE were previously shown in Table 6.2.4-1. These preliminary pond areas were determined
WAPIEDMONTDEIS\Ch-6\ S_ 6.doc\03/23/00 6-20 Chapter 6.0 Mitigation
according Guilford County design criteria described in Section 6.2.4 (see Appendix K of the DEIS or
calculations). The Guilford County design criteria do not include water quantity requirements. Therefore,
the preliminary pond area estimates shown on Table 6.2.4-1 may have to be increased to accommodate
100-year runoff volumes. However, the increase should not be substantial because approximately 2 feet
of freeboard from the emergency spillway to the top of bank was considered in the calculations. Pond
locations will be identified in the Stormwater Master Plan (SWMP) for PTIA when a preferred alternative is
selected. The layout of the alternatives makes the Brush Creek floodplain the most logical location for
ponds. Therefore, additional impacts to the 100-year floodplain could occur.
An SWMP is currently being developed for PTIA. The PTAA is considered a local authority permitted by
NCDENR to develop its own stormwater ordinances for the airport. The PTAA is adopting most of the
stormwater ordinances for Guilford County and the City of Greensboro into its SWMP. A draft copy of the
SWMP is currently being reviewed by the PTAA. A final draft of the SWMP will be available when one of
the alternatives for Runway 5U23R and the air cargo facility has been selected by the FAA as the
preferred alternative. The SWMP will provide guidelines and design criteria for mitigation measures to
offset floodplain impacts resulting from future land development, such as the selected alternative for
Runway 5U23R and the air cargo facility, that may occur within the land owned by the PTAA.
6.2.7.3 Limit Fill Within the F/oodplain Areas
During design of the proposed runways, taxiways, air cargo facility, and surface transportation
improvements, the placement of fill within the floodplains of Brush Creek and Horsepen Creek should be
minimized. However, airport runways and taxiways must be designed to meet specific criteria related to
runway profiles and cross slope. Some fill within the floodplain areas is unavoidable. Infield areas should
be graded to reduce potential floodplain impacts.
6.2.8 POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental regulations for developments requiring soil and erosion and sedimentation control are
located in Article VII Section 7-4 of the Guilford County Development Ordinance and Section 30-7-3.2 of
the City of Greensboro Ordinance. A summary of these regulations relevant to this project follows.
• An erosion control plan shall be prepared which specifies temporary and/or
permanent BMPs to control surface water, control sedimentation and manage
stormwater runoff with the objectives limiting exposed areas and the time of
exposure.
• The angle for graded slopes and fills shall be no steeper than 2:1 if they are to be
stabilized with vegetative cover. Slopes or fills steeper than 2:1 must be protected by
structures. Slopes left exposed will, within thirty days of completion of any phase of
grading, be planted or otherwise provided with ground cover, devices, or structures
sufficient to restrain erosion.
• Stream banks and channels downstream from any land-disturbing activity shall be
protected from increased degradation by accelerated erosion caused by increased
velocity of runoff from the land-disturbing activity
WAPIEDM0NT\DEIS\Ch-6\ S_ 6.doc\03/22/00 6-21 Chapter 6.0 Mitigation
• Soil erosion and sedimentation control measures structures and devices shall be
planned, designed and constructed to provide protection from the calculated
maximum peak rate of runoff from the 10-year storm event. Runoff rates shall be
calculated using procedures in the USDA, Soil Conservation Service's "'National
Engineering Field Manual for Conservation Practices," or other acceptable calculation
procedures.
Mitigation measures, which would be used to minimize impacts during construction, include BMPs such
as erosion control and stormwater runoff control and drainage and crossing structures. To compensate
for unavoidable impacts to wetlands, mitigation through creation, restoration, enhancement and
preservation would be proposed.
The collection, separation, and disposal of hazardous chemicals during spills must be considered. The
proposed development would implement a series of diversion chambers and holding tanks or oil water
separators in the layout of the stormwater collection system. These diversion chambers or oil water
separators would be located upstream of any stormwater management pond. In the case of a rainy day
spill event, the volume of the holding tank would be 100 percent of the anticipated maximum spill, plus the
first 30 minutes of runoff volume of a 5-year storm event.
In terms of air quality mitigation, all on-airport construction activities should adhere to FAA Advisory
Circular 150/5370-10, Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports and North Carolina Department
of Transportation Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures. Several control measures to
mitigate construction emissions are available should emissions associated with construction warrant
mitigation:
• Exposing the minimum area of erodable earth,
• Temporary mulch with or without seeding,
• Water trucks or other means of using moisture for dust control,
• Covered haul trucks,
• Dust stabilizers or penetration asphalt on haul roads,
• Plastic sheet coverings,
• Alternative power sources or fuels for construction equipment,
• Maintaining construction vehicles and using reduced speeds, and
• Suspending certain activities during high-wind conditions.
6.2.9 POSSIBLE HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES MITIGATION MEASURES
If left unmitigated or undiscovered, the misuse of hazardous substances or the disruption of contaminated sites
can cause deleterious impacts to the environment and have adverse effects on project construction budget-
WAPIEDM0NMEIS\Ch-6\ S_ 6.doc\03/22/00 6-22 Chapter 6.0 Mitigation
Based on the results of the analysis conducted as part of this DEIS, there appear to be no sites of hazardous
substances or environmental contamination within, or in the immediate vicinities of, any of the alternatives. For
those few facilities that contain LISTs and any petroleum contamination, standard operating procedures have
already been developed and adopted by regulatory agencies for closing such sites.
Similarly, the storage, use, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials and other regulated substances
is governed by a wide network of Federal, state, and local regulations. Combined with existing technologies
and work practices developed to properly manage these substances, the risks of causing environmental
contamination would be substantially reduced.
6.2.10 POSSIBLE LIGHT EMISSIONS MITIGATION MEASURES
All of the alternatives, including the No-Action Alternative, would have the potential to create off-airport
light emission impacts. Through shielding and screening techniques, light emission impacts would be
minimized on surrounding residential areas. It is anticipated that no additional adverse impacts from
airside, landside, or roadway light emissions would occur as a result of implementation of Alternatives
W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W1-A1, or N-E; therefore, no additional mitigation measures are recommended.
6.2.11 POSSIBLE SOLID WASTE MITIGATION MEASURES
Future solid waste generation volume associated with all of the Build Alternatives is capable of being
accommodated at the existing City of Greensboro White Street Landfill facility without resulting in impacts
to landfill handling practices, or future capacity. However, the PTAA, air cargo operator, local
municipalities, businesses, and waste handlers should work together to develop and implement source
reduction strategies, resource recovery facilities, markets for recyclables, and waste to energy facilities to
achieve a significant reduction in solid waste disposal volumes entering landfills throughout the City of
Greensboro and the Triad.
WAPIEDM0NMEIS\Ch-6\ S_ 6.doc\03122/00 6-23 Chapter 6.0 Mitigation
CHAPTER 7.0
COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A public involvement program was conducted to ensure that information was provided to the public and
public agencies and that input from interested parties was received, reviewed, and considered by the FAA
in the EIS process. The program to date included scoping meetings, a public information workshop,
newspaper advertisements, newsletters, and an internet web site. The following presents a summary of
the various elements of the Public Involvement process for the EIS that have been conducted to date.
7.1 SCOPING MEETINGS
Two scoping meetings were conducted at the Greensboro - High Point Marriott Hotel on August 17, 1998,
as part of the EIS scoping process for this study. An agency scoping meeting was held in the afternoon,
and was followed by a public scoping meeting in the evening. A hearing officer was present to supervise
the orderly presentation of public verbal comments. In addition, several court reporters were present to
record all testimony given at the two meetings. A handout was distributed and presentation boards were
displayed, and a computer slide presentation was shown at both meetings that summarized the proposed
project, as well as the scoping and EIS processes.
7.1.1 AGENCY SLOPING MEETING
A scoping meeting specifically for Federal, state, and local governmental agencies was held at the
Greensboro - High Point Marriott Hotel on August 17, 1998, between the hours of 1:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m.
FAA presided over the meeting. The scoping meeting was initiated with a brief presentation by the FAA
and the consultant team, after which a question and answer session was held. A total of 14 people signed
in at the meeting. Comment forms were available for participants to submit a written comment either at
the meeting or by mail to the FAA Project Manager by August 31, 1998. A court reporter was present to
take a verbatim transcript of the meeting who recorded the comments of 2 speakers. During the scoping
meeting comment period from August 18, 1998 to April 26, 1999, a total of 7 Federal, 18 state, and 60
local agency comments were received.
7.1.2 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING
A public scoping meeting was held at the Greensboro - High Point Marriott on August 17, 1998, between
the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. The scoping meeting began with a introduction by the FAA and a
video presentation describing the scoping process, the EIS process, and the proposed project by the FAA.
Following the video presentation, the public was invited to view numerous presentation boards describing
the proposed project, the scoping process, and the EIS process. A total of 416 signed in to attend the
meeting.
Representatives of the FAA, the PTAA, and the consultant team were present to discuss the materials
displayed as well as to answer questions from the public. Comment forms were available for participants
W:TIEDMONrDEIS\Ch-7\section7.doc\03/14/00 7-1 Chapter 7.0 Coordination and
Public Involvement
to submit written comments either at the meeting or by mail to the FAA Project Manager by August 31,
1998. A hearing officer presided over the orderly hearing of public verbal comments, and three court
reporters were present to take verbal comments from any person attending the meeting wishing to
comment. There were 54 speakers whose comments were recorded by the court reporters.
Public scoping comments include all comments received from the scoping meeting to the public
information workshop. During this period, a total of 459 public comment letters and oral testimonies were
received. Summarized, categorized, and consolidated comments from the letters, petitions, e-mails, and
oral testimony received during the EIS agency and public scoping process are contained in Volume 3,
Appendix S, of the EIS.
7.2 PUBLIC INFORMATION WORKSHOP
A public information workshop was held on April 26, 1999, at the Western Guilford High School from 5:30
p.m. to 8:30 p.m. The workshop presented the results of the preliminary purpose and need analysis,
preliminary development of the alternatives, and the affected environment. Participants were invited to
examine 41 displav exhibits and boards. After reviewino the workshon informational mitPri; l_ the ni,hlir
8.2 PARTIES TO WHOM THE DRAFT EIS WAS DISTRIBUTED
Congressional Delegation
The Honorable Jesse Helms
United States Senate
310 New Bern Ave., Suite 122
Raleigh, NC 27601
1 copy DEIS
The Honorable Howard Coble
U.S. House of Representatives, District 6
155 Northpoint Ave., Suite 200-B
High Point, NC 27262-7723
1 copy DEIS
The Honorable John Edwards
United States Senate
300 Fayetteville St. Mall, Suite 301
Raleigh, NC 27602
1 copy DEIS
The Honorable Richard Burr
U.S. House of Representatives, District 5
2000 W. First St., Suite 508
Winston-Salem, NC 27104
1 copy DEIS
Federal Agencies
Ms. Donna M. Meyer
FAA - Atlanta Airports District Office
1701 Columbia Ave., Suite 2-260
College Park, GA 30337-2747
14 copies DEIS
The Honorable Melvin Watt
U.S. House of Representatives, District 12
8 W. 3rd Street, Suite 100
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
1 copy DEIS
Ms. Donna Wieting
Director, Ecology & Env. Conservation Office
Department of Commerce
14t St. & Constitution Ave., NW
HCHB SP, Room 5805
Washington, DC 20230-9999
1 copy DEIS
Mr. Heinz J. Mueller
Chief, Office of Environmental Assessment
U.S. EPA, Region IV
61 Forsyth St. SW, EAD-13
Atlanta, GA 30303
3 copies
Mr. David Leckson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
107 Union Drive, Suite 202
Washington, NC 27889
1 copy DEIS
Roy Shelton
Division Engineer
Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Ave., Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601-1442
3 copies DEIS
W:\PI EDMONTDEI S\Ch-8\ch apter8. doc\03/30/00
Mr. William Straw
Environmental Officer
Federal Emergency Management Agency
3003 Chamblee-Tucker Rd.
Atlanta, GA 30341
1 copy DEIS
Mr. Joseph Canny
Deputy Director, Environment & Policy Review
U.S. Department of Transportation
400 Seventh St., SW
Washington, DC 20590
2 copies DEIS
Ms. MaryAnn Naber
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Old Post Office Building
1100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Room 809
Washington, DC 20004
1 copy DEIS
8-5 Chapter 8.0 List of Preparers, List of
Parties to Whom Sent
Mr. Willie Taylor
Director, Office of Environmental Policy and
Compliance
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240
12 copies DEIS
Mr. John Andrews
District Conservationist
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
Natural Resource and Conservation Service
3309 Burlington Rd.
Greensboro, NC 27405-7805
1 copy DEIS
Dr. G. Wayne Wright, Ph.D.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
69 Darlington Ave.
Wilmington, NC 28403
1 copy DEIS
Mr. John Thomas
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
1 copies DEIS
State Agencies
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Statewide Clearinghouse
NC Division of Environment,
Resources
116 W. Jones St.
Raleigh, NC 27603
20 copies DEIS
Local Agencies
Mr. Richard Sanderson
Office of Federal Activities
EIS Filing Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building (South Oval Lobby)
Mail Code 2252-A, Room 7241
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20460
5 copies DEIS
Harry Walls/Linda Poythress
Regional Environmental Officer
HUD, Atlanta Regional Offices, 4th Floor
Five Points Plaza Building
40 Marietta Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
2 copies DEIS
Mr. Kenneth W. Holt, M.S.E.H.
Special Programs Group (F16)
Centers for Disease Control
Chamblee 27, MS F29
1600 Clifton Road, NE
Atlanta, GA 30333
1 copy DEIS
Ms. Cheryl McLean
Special Collections Management Br.
Health & Natural State Library of North Carolina
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601-2807
1 copy DEIS
F. Hudnall Christopher
Chairman
Piedmont Triad Airport Authority Board
101 S. Stratford Rd., Ste. 201
Winston-Salem, NC 27104
1 copy DEIS
Nido Qubein
Creative Services
Piedmont Triad Airport Authority Board Member
P.O. Box 8008
High Point, NC 27262
1 copy Executive Summary
W:\PIEDMONTDEIS\Ch-8\chapter8.doc\03/30/00 8-6 Chapter 8.0 List of Preparers, List of
Parties to Whom Sent
William J. Armfield, IV Director
Spotswood Capital, LLC Greensboro Department of Transportation
Piedmont Triad Airport Authority Board Member P.O. Box 3136
P.O. Box 308 300 W. Washington Street
Greensboro, NC 27402 Greensboro, NC 27402-3136
1 copy Executive Summary 4 copies DEIS
Peter S. Brunstetter James D. Elza, Jr., Director
Kilpatrick Stockton LLP Guilford County Dept. of Planning & Dev.
Piedmont Triad Airport Authority Board Member 201 S. Eugene Street
1001 W. Fourth Street Greensboro, NC 27402-3427
Winston-Salem, NC 27101 1 copy DEIS
1 copy Executive Summary
Walter Cockerham
Cockerham Construction
Piedmont Triad Airport Authority Board Member
Commissioner - Guilford County, At Large
1108 Grecade St.
Greensboro, NC 27408
1 copy Executive Summary
Guy L. Cornman, III
Davidson County Planning
Governmental Center
913 Greensboro Street
Lexington, NC 27293-1067
1 copy DEIS
Henry Isaacson Mr. Edward A. Johnson
Isaacson & Isaacson Piedmont Triad Airport Authority
Piedmont Triad Airport Authority Board Member Airport Director
P.O. Box 1888 6415 Airport Parkway
Greensboro, NC 27402 Greensboro, NC 27419
1 copy Executive Summary 8 copies DEIS
Kenneth W. McAllister
Wachovia Corporation
Piedmont Triad Airport Authority Board Member
100 N. Main St.
Winston-Salem, NC 27150
1 copy Executive Summary
H.B. Lewis
Guilford Soil & Water Conservation District
3309 Burlington Rd.
Greensboro, NC 27405
2 copies DEIS
State Government
The Honorable Alma Adams The Honorable Michael Decker
State Representative State Representative
26th District, Guilford County 84th District, Forsyth & Guilford Counties
#2 Mandela Court 5105 Yorkwood Dr.
Greensboro, NC 27401 Walkertown, NC 27051
1 copy Executive Summary 1 copy Executive Summary
W.\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch-8\chapter8.doc\03/30/00 8-7 Chapter 8.0 List of Preparers, List of
Parties to Whom Sent
The Honorable Steve Wood The Honorable Theresa Esposito
State Representative State Representative
27th District, Guilford County 88th District, Forsyth County
1221 E. North Main Street 207 Stanaford Rd.
High Point, NC 27262 Winston-Salem, NC 27104-2721
1 copy Executive Summary 1 copy Executive Summary
The Honorable Joanne Bowie The Honorable Mary Jarrell
State Representative State Representative
28th District, Guilford County 89th District, Guilford County
106 Nut Bush Dr., E. 1010 Wickliff Ave.
Greensboro, NC 27410 High Point, NC 27262
1 copy Executive Summary 1 copy Executive Summary
The Honorable Flossie Boyd-McIntyre The Honorable Margaret Jeffus
State Representative State Representative
28th District, Guilford County 89th District, Guilford County
217 Cloverbrook Dr. 1801 Rolling Road
Jamestown, NC 27282 Greensboro, NC 27403
1 copy Executive Summary 1 copy Executive Summary
The Honorable Paul McCrary The Honorable Jerry Dockham
State Representative State Representative
37th District, Davidson County 94th District, Davidson County
310 Westover Dr. 35 Anderson
Lexington, NC 27292 Denton, NC 27329
1 copy Executive Summary 1 copy Executive Summary
The Honorable Larry Womble The Honorable Robert Shaw
State Representative State Senator
66th District, Forsyth County 19th District, Davidson County
1294 Salem Lake Rd. 4901-E Tower Road
Winston-Salem, NC 27107 Greensboro, NC 27410
1 copy Executive Summary 1 copy Executive Summary
The Honorable Warren Oldham The Honorable Hamilton Horton
State Representative State Senator
67th District, Forsyth County 20th District, Forsyth County
3211 Cumberland Rd. 324 N. Spring St.
Winston-Salem, NC 27105 Winston-Salem, NC 27101
1 copy Executive Summary 1 copy Executive Summary
The Honorable Jim Phillips, Sr. The Honorable William Martin
State Senator State Senator
23rd District, Davidson County 31St District, Guilford County
400 Western Blvd. 300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 411
Lexington, NC 27295 Raleigh, NC 27603
1 copy Executive Summary 1 copy Executive Summary
The Honorable Lyons Gray The Honorable Kay R. Hagan
State Senator State Senator
39th District, Forsyth County 32nd District, Guilford County
420 W. Fourth St., Suite 202-C 305 Meadowbrook Terrace
Winston-Salem, NC 27101 Greensboro, NC 27408
1 copy Executive Summary 1 copy Executive Summary
W:\PIEDMOMIDEIS\Ch-S\chapter8.doc\03/30/00 8-8 Chapter 8.0 List of Preparers, List of
Parties to Whom Sent
Local Government
The Honorable Keith Holliday The Honorable Nancy Vaughan
Mayor Councilmember
City of Greensboro City of Greensboro, District 4
300 W. Washington Street, Rm 222 7009 Cessna Drive
Greensboro, NC 27401 Greensboro, NC 27409
1 copy DEIS 1 copy Executive Summary
The Honorable Yvonne Johnson The Honorable Sandy Carmany
Mayor Pro Tern Councilmember
City of Greensboro, At Large City of Greensboro, District 5
300 W. Washington Street, Rm 222 1504 Larson Street
Greensboro, NC 27401 Greensboro, NC 27407
1 copy DEIS 1 copy Executive Summary
The Honorable Earl Jones The Honorable Claudette Burroughs-White
Councilmember Councilmember
City of Greensboro, District 1 City of Greensboro, District 2
201 S. Elm Street 4100 Hope Valley Lane
Greensboro, NC 27401 Greensboro, NC 27401
1 copy Executive Summary 1 copy Executive Summary
The Honorable Donald Vaughan The Honorable Robbie Perkins
Councilmember Councilmember
City of Greensboro, At Large City of Greensboro, District 3
300 W. Washington St. 127 N. Greene Street
Greensboro, NC 27401 Greensboro, NC 27401
1 copy Executive Summary 1 copy Executive Summary
Mr. Edward Kitchen Mayor
City Manager City of Gibsonville
City of Greensboro 129 West Main Street
300 W. Washington Street Gibsonville, NC 27249
Greensboro, NC 27401 1 copy Executive Summary
1 copy Executive Summary
The Honorable John W. Wray, Jr. The Honorable Victor Euliss
Mayor Mayor
Town of Summerfield City of Graham
4914 Rhondan Road 113 W. Gilbreath St.
Summerfield, NC 27358 Graham, NC 27253
1 copy Executive Summary 1 copy Executive Summary
The Honorable William D. Whitsett The Honorable Arnold J. Koonce, Jr.
Councilmember Mayor
Town of Whitsett City of High Point
7214 Whitsett Park Rd. 1002 Nuthatch Ct.
Whitsett, NC 27377 High Point, NC 27262
1 copy Executive Summary 1 copy DEIS
W:\PIEDMONTDEIS\Ch-8\chapter8.doc\03/30/00 8-9 Chapter 8.0 List of Preparers, List of
Parties to Whom Sent
The Honorable Jack Cavanaugh, Jr. The Honorable William Ragsdale
Mayor Mayor
City of Winston-Salem Town of Jamestown
101 N. Main Street 411 Main St. East
Winston-Salem, NC 27101 Jamestown, NC 27282
1 copy DEIS 1 copy Executive Summary
The Honorable Bob Landreth The Honorable Thomas Brown
Chairman, Board of Commissioners Mayor
Guilford County, District 4 Town of Oak Ridge
200 Ward Road 8417 Linville Rd.
Greensboro, NC 27405 Oak Ridge, NC 27310
1 copy DEIS 1 copy Executive Summary
The Honorable W.G. Dunovant The Honorable William S. Wright
Commissioner Acting Mayor
Guilford County, District 1 Town of Pleasant Garden
513 Ellwood Dr. 6402 Nazarene Church Rd.
High Point, NC 27260 Pleasant Garden, NC 27313
1 copy Executive Summary 1 copy Executive Summary
The Honorable Stephen Arnold The Honorable Ruth L. Smith
Commissioner Mayor
Guilford County, District 2 Town of Sedalia
1610 Bridges Dr. 6222 Burlington Road
High Point, NC 27262 Sedalia, NC 27342
1 copy Executive Summary 1 copy Executive Summary
The Honorable Linda O. Shaw The Honorable Randle L. Jones
Commissioner Mayor
Guilford County, District 3 Town of Stokesdale
4901-E Tower Rd. 8000 Eversfield Road
Greensboro, NC 27410 Stokesdale, NC 27357
1 copy Executive Summary 1 copy Executive Summary
The Honorable Phyllis Gibbs Mr. David S. Cheek
Commissioner County Manager
Guilford County, District 5 Alamance County
4311 Burning Tree Dr. 124 Elm Street
Greensboro, NC 27406 Graham, NC 27253
1 copy Executive Summary 1 copy Executive Summary
The Honorable Jeff Thigpen Ms. Faye Mise
Commissioner County Manager
Guilford County, District 6 Caswell County
500 S. Mendenhall St., Apt. 3 County Courthouse, 139 E. Church Street
Greensboro, NC 27403 Yanceyville, NC 27379
1 copy Executive Summary 1 copy Executive Summary
The Honorable Mary Rakestraw Mr. Robert C. Hyatt
Commissioner County Manager
Guilford County, District 7 Davidson County
101 E. Avondale Dr. 913 Greensboro Street
Greensboro, NC 27403 Lexington, NC 27293
1 copy Executive Summary 1 copy Executive Summary
WAPIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch-8\chapter8.doc\03/30/00 8-10 Chapter 8.0 List of Preparers, List of
Parties to Whom Sent
The Honorable Melvin Alston Mr. Graham Pervier
Commissioner County Manager
Guilford County, District 8 Forsyth County
2820 Dulaire Rd. Hall of Justice
Greensboro, NC 27407 Winston-Salem, NC 27101
1 copy Executive Summary 1 copy Executive Summary
The Honorable Warren Dorsett Mr. Gary McCaskill
Commissioner County Manager
Guilford County, District 9 Montgomery County
1000 N. English Street 102 E. Spring Street
Greensboro, NC 27405 Troy, NC 27371
1 copy Executive Summary 1 copy Executive Summary
The Honorable John Parks Mr. Frank Willis
Commissioner County Manager & Finance Officer
Guilford County, At Large Randolph County
3313 Colony Dr. 725 McDowell Road
Jamestown, NC 27282 Asheboro, NC 27204-4728
1 copy Executive Summary 1 copy Executive Summary
Mr. Roger C. Cotton Mr. Jerry D. Myers
County Manager County Manager
Guilford County Rockingham County
301 West Market Street 371 NC 65
Greensboro, NC 27402 Wentworth, NC 27375
1 copy Executive Summary 1 copy Executive Summary
Mr. Craig Greer Mr. Frank Barefoot
County Manager Government Documents Librarian
Stokes County Greensboro Public Library
1012 Main Street 219 N. Church Street
Danbury, NC 27016 Greensboro, NC 27402
1 copy Executive Summary 2 copies DEIS
Mr. Dennis Thompson Ms. Linda Davis
County Manager High Point Public Library
Surry County 901 N. Main Street
118 Hemby Road, Suite 329 High Point, NC 27261
Dobson, NC 27017 2 copies DEIS
1 copy Executive Summary
Mr. Cecil E. Wood Delois Cue
County Manager Government Documents Librarian
Yadkin County Forsyth County Library - Headquarters
217 E. Willow 660 W. Fifth Street
Yadkinville, NC 27055 Winston-Salem, NC 27101
1 copy Executive Summary 2 copies DEIS
Mr. Kenneth Windley Ms. Carol Cothern
County Manager Hege Library of Guilford College
Davie County 5800 West Friendly Avenue
123 S. Main Street Greensboro, NC 27410
Mocksville, NC 27028 2 copies DEIS
1 copy Executive Summary
W:\PIEDMONMEIS\Ch-8\chapter8.doc\03/30/00 8-11 Chapter 8.0 List of Preparers, List of
Parties to Whom Sent
Interested Organizations
Ms. Linda Hollis
High Point Chamber of Commerce
1101 N. Main Street
High Point, NC 27262
1 copy Executive Summary
Media
Mr. Taft Wireback
Greensboro News and Record
200 E. Market Street
Greensboro, NC 27402
1 copy DEIS
Ms. Tamara Carmel
Triad Business Journal
100 S. Elm Street, Suite 400
Greensboro, NC 27401
1 copy DEIS
Ms. Penny Whiteheart
Greensboro Chamber of Commerce
342 N. Elm St.
Greensboro, NC 27402
1 copy Executive Summary
Mr. Paul Johnson
High Point Enterprise
210 Church Avenue
High Point, NC 27262
1 copy DEIS
W:\PIEDMON7\DEIS\Ch•8\chapter8.doc\03/30/00 8-12 Chapter 8.0 List of Preparers, List of
Parties to Whom Sent
CHAPTER 9.0
REFERENCES
The following reference materials were used in the preparation of the DEIS. These materials are not
included in Volumes 1, 2, or 3 of the DEIS but are available for inspection at the FAA Southern Region
Airport Division office in Atlanta, Georgia. Many of these materials will also be available at the PTAA
Administrative Office at 6415 Airport Parkway, Greensboro, North Carolina.
1. Allen, Carolyn S., Mayor of City of Greensboro, NC. January 27, 1999. Letter to Mr. Tony
DiGirolama - Manager of Airport Relations and Development, FedEx.
2. AI-Shenbaz, I. 1988. Cardamine dissecta, a New Combination Replacing Dentaria multifida
(Cruciferae), Journal of Arnold Arboretum. Volume 69.
3. Baker and Associates. March 1999. Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan.
Piedmont Triad Airport Authority, Greensboro, North Carolina.
4. Baker and Associates. 1999. Draft Piedmont Triad International Airport Stormwater
Management Plan.
5. Bostic, Joe E., Chairman of Guilford County, NC Board of Commissioners and Mr. Walter C.
Cocherman, Vice Chairman. January 26, 1999. Letter to Mr. Tony DiGirolama -
Manager of Airport Relations and Development, FedEx.
6. Brunstetter, Peter. Forsyth County Chairman of Board of Commissioners. January 28, 1999.
Letter to Mr. Tony DiGirolama - Manager of Airport Relations and Development,
FedEx.
7. Bureau of the Census. November 1998. County Business Patterns. Register Analysis Branch.
8. Carlucci, Richard. Town of Plainfield, Indiana Town Manager. March 26, 1999. Telephone
Interview with Hayes & Associates.
9. Cavanagh, Jack. Mayor of City of Winston Salem, NC. January 29, 1999. Letter to Mr. Tony
DiGirolama - Manager of Airport Relations and Development, FedEx. City of
Greensboro. August 17, 1999 [Online]. City of Greensboro Code of Ordinances
Chapter 30 Zoning, Planning, and Development Ordinance.
www.ci.greensboro.nc.us.planning.
10. City of Greensboro. Local Water Supply Plan for Calendar Year 1997.
11. City of Greensboro. May 1999. Stormwater Best Management Practices Guidance Manual
Review Draft.
12. City of Greensboro Chamber of Commerce. April 1998. The Economic Impact of the FedEx
Mid-Atlantic Hub on the Piedmont Triad. Prepared by D.G. Jud. University of North
Carolina at Greensboro, North Carolina.
13. City of Greensboro, Environmental Services: Landfill Operations. July 23, 1999 [Online].
222.ci.greensboro. nc.us/env%5fsvcs/sold%20waste/landfil.htm.
14. City of Greensboro, Landfill. August 10, 1999. Telephone interview with Frank Coggins.
W:\PIEDMON-RDEIS\Ch-9\Ch_9.doc\03129/00 9-1 Chapter 9.0 References
15. City of Greensboro, Landfill. August 30, 1999. Telephone interview with Frank Coggins.
16. City of Greensboro, Parks and Recreation Department. April 20, 1999. Personal
Communication. Telephone Conversation with Dan Maxson.
17. City of Greensboro, Parks and Recreation Department. June 8, 1999 [Online].
www.ci.greensboro.nc.us/leisure/recenter.
18. City of Greensboro, Parks and Recreation Department. July 10, 1999. Personal
Communication. Telephone Conversation with Bernadette White.
19. City of Greensboro, Parks and Recreation Department. July 20, 1999. Personal
Communication. Telephone Conversation with Bernadette White [Fax].
20. City of Greensboro, Parks and Recreation Department. August 31, 1999 [Online].
www.ci.greensboro.ns.us/leisure/parks.
21. City of Greensboro, Water Supply Division. January 1999 through February 1999. Water
Quality Reports. Water Treatment Processes.
22. City of High Point. June 1995. West Wendover Avenue/Guilford College Road Corridor Plan
23. City of High Point. August 1998. Draft Land Use Plan for the High Point Planning Area.
Recommended by the High Point Planning and Zoning Commission.
24. City of High Point. October 1998. Draft Johnson Street/Sandy Ridge Road Area Plan, U.S. 311
to Interstate 40.
25. City of High Point. September 14, 1999 [Online]. The GIS Data Clearinghouse.
http://comment2.ci.high-point.ne.us/clearinghouse/City of High Point Solid Waste
Collection and Disposal Facilities. July 26, 1999 [Online].
www.highpoint.neVdept/pubsrv/envfac.htm.
26. City of High Point, Parks and Recreation Department. August 31, 1999 [Online]. www.high-
point.net/dept/pr/p&rfacil.
27. City of Winston-Salem, Sanitation Division. July 26, 1999 [Online]. 222.ci.winston-
salem.nc.us/sanitation/sanit.html.
28. Coles, Kevin. FedEx correspondence of March 23, 1999, February 19, 1999, and July 23,
1999.
29. Colins, H.L., Jr. (Assembled by). 1981. Harper and Row's Complete Field Guide to North
American Wildlife, Eastern Edition. Harper & Row, Publisher's Inc., New York.
30. Daniel, C. C., III and Harned, D.A. 1998. Groundwater Recharge to and Storage in the
Rego Iith-Fractured Crystalline Rock Aquifer System, Guilford County, North Carolina:
U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4140.
31. Division of Coastal Management (NCDEHNR). 1999 [Online]. North Carolina Coastal
Management Program. http://www.nos.noaa.gov/ocrm/czm/Czm.northcarolina.
32. Dorwin, J. 1977. Archeological Survey of the Greensboro/High Point Airport Expansion.
Guilford County, North Carolina. Soil Systems, Inc., Marietta, Georgia.
W.\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch-9\Ch_9.doc\03/29/00 9-2 Chapter 9.0 References
33. Elza, J. August 26, 1999. Guilford County Planning Director. Telephone Interview with Hayes
& Associates.
34. Elza, J., and Bardsley, R. February 20, 2000. Personal Communication - Alternative N-E.
35. Ernst & Young and the International Association of Corporate Real Estate Executives. 1992.
Reshaping America: The Migration of Corporate Jobs and Facilities.
36. Federal Aviation Administration. 1985. Aviation Noise Effects. Report No. FAA-EE-85-2. p.70.
37. Federal Aviation Administration. 1985. Order 5050.4A, Airport Environmental Handbook.
38. Federal Aviation Administration. January 1991. Standards for Specifying Construction of
Airports. Advisory Circular 150/5370-10A. Washington, DC.
39. Federal Aviation Administration. April 1997. Air Quality Procedures for Civilian Airports and Air
Force Bases. United States Air Force Armstrong Laboratory, Tyndall AFB.
40. Federal Aviation Administration. May, 1 1997. Advisory Circular No. 1450/5200-33.
Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports.
41. Federal Aviation Administration. August 5, 1999 and August 31, 1999 [Online]. Air Traffic
Publications Library. Aeronautical Information Manual. www.faa.gov/ATPubs/AIM.
42. Federal Aviation Administration. Advisory Circular No. 150/5300-13. Change 5. Standards
and Recommendations for Airport Design.
43. Federal Emergency Management Agency. May 18, 1988. Flood Insurance Study. City of
Highpoint, North Carolina Davidson, Forsyth, Guilford, and Randolph Counties.
44. Federal Emergency Management Agency. November 18, 1988. Flood Insurance Study.
Volume 1 and 2. Unincorporated Areas of Guilford County, North Carolina.
45. Federal Emergency Management Agency. December 5, 1989. Flood Insurance Study. City of
Greensboro, North Carolina.
46. Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON). August 27, 1992. Federal Agency Review
of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues. Washington, D.C.
47. Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise (FICUN). 1980. Guidelines for Considering
Noise in Land Use Planning and Control.
48. FedEx. 1999. FedEx Environmental Policy and Procedure Handbook. Memphis, Tennessee.
49. FedEx. July 30, 1999. Correspondence from David C. Swaim.
50. Geolytics. April 22, 1999. Census CD + Maps. [CD-ROM] (Version 2.0, 1998).
51. Gigerich. Indianapolis Economic Development Corporation. January 12, 1999. Telephone
Interview with Hayes and Associates.
52. Greater Greensboro Realtors Association. September 1999. Telephone Interview - Median
Housing Values of Real Estate Sales.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Ch-9\Ch_9.doc\03/29/00 9-3 Chapter 9.0 References
53. Greensboro Area Chamber of Commerce. May 5, 1999 [Online].
www.webcom.com/greens/cw.
54. Guilford County, North Carolina; Guilford County Development Ordinance; Article VII
Environmental Regulations.
55. Guilford County. July 1985. Airport Area Land Use Plan. In Cooperation with the City of High
Point, the City of Greensboro, and the Regional Airport Authority.
56. Guilford County. January 1997. Chapter 5.6 Guilford County Wet Detention Pond Criteria.
57. Guilford County. May 4, 1999. Guilford County Development Bulletin. Drainage. Guilford
County. August 16, 1999 [Online]. Guilford County Development Ordinance.
www.co.guilford.nc.us/government/planning.
58. Guilford County. September 1, 1999 [Online]. Guilford County Parks and Recreation.
hftp://www.co.guilford.nc.us.
59. Guilford County. May 4, 1999. Guilford County Development Bulletin. Watershed Protection.
Guilford County Planning Department. May 1998. Northwest Area Plan.
60. Guilford County Planning Department. May 1998. Northwest Area Plan.
61. Guilford County School System. July 7, 1999 and July 19, 1999. Personal Communication.
Schools within the Generalized Study Area.
62. Gutzwiller, Harold. March 12, 1999. Mooresville Economic Development Commission.
Telephone Interview with Hayes & Associates.
63. Hayes and Associates. July 12, 1999. Memo reporting revised Cargo Component,
Employment, and Population Projections for the PTIA EIS to Allan Nagy of URS
Greiner Woodward Clyde.
64. Henson, Memphis Chamber of Commerce. November 19, 1998. Telephone Interview with
Hayes & Associates.
65. Holden, K., Peel, D.A., and J.L. Thompson. 1994. Economic Forecasting: An Introduction,
Cambridge University Press.
66. Holm, M. A. and L. Lautzenheiser. 1999. Archaeological Overview, Proposed Improvements,
Piedmont Triad Airport, Guilford County, North Carolina. Coastal Carolina Research,
Inc., Tarboro, North Carolina.
67. Indianapolis Economic Development Corporation. March 4, 1999 [Online].
www.indychamber.com.
68. Keith, G.F. and R.S. Webb. May 27, 1998. Letter reporting archaeological survey findings to
Mark Morgan of Law Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.
69. King, K., D. Carver, D. Worley, and T. Bostwick. 1991. Induced Ground-Vibration Study at
Pueblo Grande, Phoenix, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey.
70. King, Michael. Greater Plainfield Chamber of Commerce. March 11, 1999. Telephone
Interviews with Hayes & Associates.
W:\PIEDMONnDEIS\Ch-9\Ch_9.doc\03/29/00 9-4 Chapter 9.0 References
71. Law Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. 1998a. Report of the Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment Piedmont Triad International Airport - South Site,
Greensboro, North Carolina.
72. Law Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. 1998b. Report of the Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment Piedmont Triad International Airport - North Site,
Greensboro, North Carolina.
73. Law Engineering and Environmental Services. May 1998. Preliminary Protected Species
Survey. Piedmont Triad International Airport Federal Express Parcel Greensboro,
North Carolina.
74. Law Engineering and Environmental Services. 1999. Wetland and Stream Evaluation,
Piedmont Triad International Airport, Greensboro, North Carolina. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
75. Lee, D.S., et al. 1980. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes, Library of Congress
Cataloging in Publication Data.
76. Memphis Chamber of Commerce. November 18, 1998 [Online]. www.memphischamber.com.
77. Michael Gallis & Associates. 1996. The Regional Imperative - The Piedmont Triad Strategic
Plan, Part Il, page 12.
78. National Audubon Society. 1997. Field Guide to North American Birds - Eastern Region.
Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York.
79. National Park Service. July 7, 1999 [Online]. Park Net: Gateway to the National Park Service,
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. www.nps.gov/htdocs3/rivers/new.htmi.
80. Natural Heritage Program of the North Carolina Department of Environment, Division of Parks
and Recreation. December 7, 1998. Letter From Susan Reece Giles to Virginia
Baker, URS Greiner, Inc.
81. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management, Air Quality Section. January 1994. Redesignation
Demonstration and Maintenance Plan for Raleigh/Durham and Greensboro/Winston-
Salem/High Point Ozone Nonattainment Areas.
82. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management, Air Quality Section. March 1995. Guidelines for
Evaluating the Air Quality Impacts of Transportation Facilities,
83. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management, Water Quality Section. April 1995. Basinwide
Assessment Report Support Document Cape Fear River Basin.
84. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality.
October 1996. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan.
85. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality.
May 15, 1998. 303(d) List.
86. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality.
July 1998. Stormwater Best Management Practices.
WAPIEDMON-RDEIS\Ch-9\Ch_9.doc\03/29/00 9-5 Chapter 9.0 References
87. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and
Recreation, Natural Heritage Program. December 30, 1998. Fax correspondence
from Susan Giles.
88. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. April 16, 1999 [Online].
Cape Fear River Basin: Subbasin Index Number, Map Number, and Class.
http://h20.ehnr.nc.us/strmclass/alpha/cpf.html.
89. North Carolina Department of Transportation. May 26, 1999 [Online]. www.dot.nc.us.
90. North Carolina Employment Security Commission. May 13, 1999 [Online].
www.esc.state.nc.us.
91. North Carolina Office of State Planning. LINC County Profile - Guilford. August 26, 1999.
HTTP://www.Ospl.State.nc.us/sdn/LiNCprof/guilf.htmI
92. North Carolina Office of State Planning. May 3, 1999 [Online]. Municipal Populations for 1990
and 1997. www.ospl.state.nc.us.
93. Nussbaum, Jay. Executive Vice President of Oracle Government. 1998. Education and Health.
Fairfax Prospectus. Fourth Quarter.
94. Oppermann, Langdon Edmunds. February 1991. Final Report: Historic and Architectural
Resources in the Area of Potential Impact of the Proposed Construction of the
Greensboro Western Urban Loop, Guilford County. State Clearinghouse Number 90-
E-4220-0276, TIP Number U-2524. Prepared for Kimley-Horn and Associates.
95. Oster, Clinton; Rubin, Barry; and John Strong. December 1997. Economic Impacts of
Transportation Investments--The Case of FedEx. American Society of
Transportation and Logistics Transportation Journal.
96. Piedmont Triad Airport Authority. May 7, 1998. Piedmont Triad International Airport Categorical
Exclusion Runway 14 Safety Area. LPA Group Aviation Consultants.
97. Piedmont Triad Council of Governments Regional Data Center. January 4, 1999. PRIN
Database, First Quarter 1999. Greensboro, NC. North Carolina Office of State
Planning Projections.
98. Piedmont Triad Council of Governments. April 1993. Piedmont Triad Commuting Patterns.
99. Pittsylvania Office of Economic Development Web Site. October 1998.
100. Raba-Kistner Consultants, Inc. 1986. Report on Vibration Monitoring. Transplan, Inc. New
York, New York.
101. Radford, A.E., Ahles, H.E., and C.R. Bell. 1987. Manual of Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill
102. Regional Science Research Corporation. 1986-1996. A Regional Impact Model for the
Personal Computer. Hightstown, New Jersey.
103. Smothers, Rebecca R. Mayor of City of High Point, NC. January 27, 1999. Letter to Mr. Tony
DiGirolama - Manager of Airport Relations and Development, FedEx.
W.\PIEDMONTDEIS\Ch-9\Ch_9.doc\03/29/00 9-6 Chapter 9.0 References
104. State Climate Office of North Carolina. May 17, 1999 [Online]. Greensboro-Winston-Salem,
NC. Normals, Means, and Extremes. www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu.sco/climate-info/
greensboro.html.
105. State of North Carolina. North Carolina Administrative Code Subchapter 213 - Surface Water
and Wetland Standards.
106. State of North Carolina. North Carolina Administrative Code Subchapter 2L - Groundwater
Classification and Standards.
107. The SGM Group, Inc. January 1999. Potential Economic Impacts of Proposed Improvements to
Piedmont Triad International Airport-Compilation of Employment and Wage Data for
the Twelve-County Piedmont Triad Region, prepared as part of the Environmental
Impact Analysis for the Piedmont Triad International Airport.
108. Thornton, Bill. Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce. December 10, 1998. Telephone interview
with Hayes & Associates.
109. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1.
110. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. August 30, 1999. Regional Economic Information Service.
hftp://fisher.lib.virginia.edu.reis.
111. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Guilford Natural Conservation Service. 1977. Soil Survey of
Guilford County, North Carolina. Natural Cooperative Soil Survey.
112. U.S. Department of Agriculture. U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1978. Soil Survey of Guilford
County, North Carolina.
113. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Natural Resource Conservation Service. 1999. Personal
Communication. Telephone conversation with John Andrews [Fax].
114. U.S. Department of Commerce. NOAA. Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management.
August 20, 1999 and September 15, 1999 [Online]. North Carolina Coastal
Management Program.
115. U.S. Department of Transportation. August 17, 1995. Federal Highway Administration and
North Carolina Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Final
Environmental Impact Statement. Greensboro Western Urban Loop. Record of
Decision.
116. U.S. Department of Transportation. August 23, 1999. Federal Highway Administration.
Personal Communication. Planning Status Report from Felix Davila [Fax].
117. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Federally-listed Species that May Occur within the
Project Area.
118. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. August 20, 1999 [Online]. The Coastal Barrier Resource
System. What Are Coastal Barriers? www.fws.gov/cep/whatbarr.htmi.
119. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. September 15, 1999 [Online]. The Service's Coastal Habitat
Conservation Programs and List of Coastal Barrier Resources System Units.
hftp://www.fws.gov/cep.
W:\PIEDMON-RDEIS\Ch-9\Ch_9.doc\03/29/00 9-7 Chapter 9.0 References
120. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Data. 1999, North Carolina Water Year 1998,
Volume 1. Surface-Water Records, Water-Data Report NC-98-1.
121. U.S. Geological Survey. Guilford Quadrangle Map.
122. U.S. Geological Survey. Summerfield Quadrangle Map.
123. U.S. Postal Service Web Site. February 9, 1999 [Online]. www.usps.gov/cgi-bin/zip4/ctyszip.
124. Waste Industries, Inc. August 12, 1999. Personal Communication. Telephone interview with
Bill Weeks.
125. Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service. January 1999. University of Virginia. Charlottesville,
Virginia. www.virginia.edu/coopercenter.
126. Withey, Nigel. Vice President and General Manager of BSI, Inc. 1998. Fairfax Prospectus.
Fourth Quarter.
127. Woodall, J.N. 1978. Test Excavations at the Greensboro/High Point Airport. Ms. on file.
Archeology Laboratories, Museum of Man. Wake Forest University. Winston-Salem,
NC.
128. Yandora, K. nd. Rapid Bioassessment of Benthic Macroinvertebrates Illustrate Water Quality
in Small Order Urban Streams in a North Carolina Piedmont City. City of
Greensboro, Storm Water Services, Greensboro, NC.
W:\PIEDMONTDEIS\Ch-9\Ch_9.doc\03/29/00 9-8 Chapter 9.0 References
4
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PIEDMONT TRIAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
CHAPTER 10
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS,
AND GLOSSARY
CHAPTER 10.0
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY
10.1
A
AC
ACE
AG
AGL
ALP
ALPA
ALS
ALSF-1
ALSF-2
AMSL
APE
AQCR
ARC
ARFF
ARTCC
ARTS
ASR
AST
ASV
ATC
ATCT
AWOS

BCA
BMP
BOD
BRL
BTU
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Advisory Circular
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
Agricultural Land
Above Ground Level
Airport Layout Plan
Airline Pilot Association
Approach Light System
High Intensity Approach Lighting
System with Sequenced
Flashers (Category 1)
High Intensity Approach Lighting
System with Sequenced
Flashers (Category II)
Above Mean Sea Level
Area of Potential Effect
Air Quality Control Region
Aircraft Reference Codes
Airport Rescue and Firefighting
Facility
Air Route Traffic Control Center
Automated Radar Terminal
System
Airport Surveillance Radar
Aboveground Storage Tank
Annual Service Volume
Air Traffic Control
Air Traffic Control Tower
Automatic Weather
Observing/Reporting System
Benefit Cost Analysis
Best Management Practices
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Building Restriction Line
British Thermal Unit
C
CAA
CAB
CATI
CATI I
CATI I I
CBD
CBRA
C&D
CE
CEQ
CERCLA
CERCLIS
CERFA
CFR
CL
CMP
CMSA
CO
COD
COE
CWA
cy
CY
CZMA
CZMP
Clean Air Act
Civil Aeronautics Board
Category I Instrument Landing
System
Category II Instrument Landing
System
Category III Instrument Landing
System
Central Business District
Coastal Barriers Resources Act
Construction/Demolition Debris
Categorical Exclusion
Council on Environmental
Quality
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and
Liability Act
Sites which may require clean-
up under RCRA or CERCLA
Community Environmental
Resource Facilitation Act
Code of Federal Regulations
Centerline Lights
Corrugated Metal Pipe
Consolidated Metropolitan
Statistical Area
Carbon Monoxide
Chemical Oxygen Demand
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Clean Water Act
Cubic Yards
Calendar Year
Coastal Zone Management Act
Coastal Zone Management
Program
WAPIEDMONMEIS\Ch_10\Ch_10.doc\3/14/00 10-1 Section 10.0 List of Abbreviations,
Acronyms, and Glossary
D
dB Decibels
DNL Day-Night Equivalent Sound
Level (See also Ldn)
DOE Department of Energy
DOI Department of the Interior
DOT Department of Transportation
DEIS Draft Environmental Impact
Statement
dBA Decibels A-weighted
E
EA Environmental Assessment
EAV Equalized Assessed Valuation
EDMS Emissions and Dispersion
Modeling System
EIS Environmental Impact
Statement
EPA U.S. Environmental. Protection
Agency
F
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAEED FAA Aircraft Emissions
Database
FAR Federal Aviation Regulations
FBO Fixed Base Operator
FedEx FedEx Corporation
FEIS Final Environmental Impact
Statement
FEMA Federal Emergency
Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIA ----- -----Federal Flood Insurance
Administration
FICON Federal Interagency Committee
on Noise
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FIS Federal Inspection Services
FLIP Flight Information Publication
FO Forested Land
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
HIRL High Intensity Runway Lights
HITL High Intensity Taxiway Lights
HOV High Occupancy Vehicle
HSR High Speed Rail
HUD U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Welfare
IFR Instrument Flight Rules
ILLWAS Low-Level Wind Sheer Alert
System
ILS Instrument Landing System
I/M Inspection and Maintenance
Program
IMC Instrument Meteorological
Condition
INM Integrated Noise Model
10 Input/Out Model
K
kwh Kilowatt Hours
L
LCID Land Clearing Inert Debris
LDA Landing Distance Available or
Localizer Type Direction Aid
LDIN Sequenced Flashing Lead in
Lights
Ldn Day-Night Equivalent Sound
Level
FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act
G
GA General Aviation
GIS Geographic Information System
GPS Global Positioning System
GPSS Global Positioning Satellite
System
GS Glide Slope (ILS)
H
WAPIEDM0N7\DEIS\Ch_10\Ch_t0.doc\3/14/00 10-2 Section 10.0 List of Abbreviations,
Acronyms, and Glossary
LdnT Day-Night Equivalent Sound
Level-Total (including non-
aircraft related sounds)
Lmax Maximum Sound Level
LOC Localizer (ILS)
LOS Line of Sight or Level of Service
LTO Landing and Takeoff Cycle
LUST Leaky underground storage tank
LWCF Land and Water Conservation
Fund
M
MALS Medium Intensity Approach
Lighting System
MALSR Medium Intensity Approach
Lighting System with Runway
Alignment Indicator Lighting
System
MCF Million Cubic Feet
mgd Million Gallons Per Day
MIRL Medium Intensity Runway Lights
MITL Medium Intensity Taxiway Lights
MLS Microwave Landing System
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MOT Maintenance of Traffic
MP Master Plan
MPU Master Plan Update
MRF Material Recycling Facility
MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area
MSL Mean Sea Level
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
N
N/A Not Applicable
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
NADP Noise Abatement Departure
Procedures
NAS National Airspace System
National-TA F National Terminal Area Forecast
NAVAIDS Navigational Aids
NCDENR North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural
Resources
NCDOT North Carolina Department of
Transportation
NCP Noise Compatibility Plan
NDB Non-Directional Beacon
NEM Noise Exposure Map
NEPA National Environmental Policy
Act
NHPA National Historic Preservation
Act
NLR Noise Level Reduction
NM Nautical Mile (6,076 feet)
N02 Nitrogen Dioxide
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
NOAA National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
NPL National Priority List
NPS National Parks Service
NRCS National Resource Conservation
Service
NRPA National Recreation and Park
Association
NWI National Wetland Inventory
NWS National Weather Service
O
03 Ozone
OAG Official Airline Guide
O&D Origin and Destination
OF Open Fields
P
PA Programmatic Agreement
PAH Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
PAPI Precision Approach Path
Indicator System
W APIEDMONTDEIS\Ch_10\Ch_10.doc\3/14/00
10-3 Section 10.0 List of Abbreviations,
Acronyms, and Glossary
Pb Lead S02 Sulfur Dioxide
PCi/L picoCuries/Litre SPCC Spill Prevention Counter Control
PFC Passenger Facility Charge SPL Sound Pressure Level
PLASI Pulsating Visual Approach Slope SQG Small Quantity Generator
Indicator SSALR Simplified Short Approach Light
PM Particulate Matter Systems with Runway Alignment
PM10 Particulate Matter less than 10 Indicator Lights
gm in diameter STAR Standard Terminal Arrival Route
PRM Precision Runway Monitor SWMDP Storm Water Master Drainage
PTAA Piedmont Triad Airport Authority Plan
PTIA Piedmont Triad International SWPPP Storm Water Pollution
Airport Prevention Plan
R T
R/W Runway TAF Terminal Area Forecast
RAIL Runway Alignment Indicator TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone
Lights TCA Terminal Control Area
RCP Reinforced Concrete Pipe TDZ Touchdown Zone
RCRA Resource Conservation and TIP Transportation Improvement
Recovery Act Program
REIL Runway End Identifier Lights TODA Takeoff Distance Available
RI/FS Remedial TORA Takeoff Runway Available
Investigation/Feasibility Study TRACAB Terminal Radar Approach
ROD Record of Decision Control in the Tower Cab
ROFA Runway Obstacle Free Area TRACON Terminal Radar Approach
RPZ Runway Protection Zone Control
(Formerly Clear Zone) TSA Taxiway Safety Area
RSA Runway Safety Area
U
S USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
SCS U.S. Soil Conservation Service USAF U.S. Air Force
redesignated as Natural USC U.S. Code
Resources Conservation USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
Service USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
SEL Sound Exposure Level
-- USGS U.S. Geological Survey
--- - SHPO- -
State Historic Preservation UST Underground Storage Tank
Officer
SIAP Standard Instrument Approach V
Procedure VASI Visual Approach Slope Indicator
SID Standard Instrument Departure VFR Visual Flight Rules
SIP State Implementation Plan VMC Visual Meteorological Condition
SM Statute Mile (5,280 feet) VOC Volatile organic compounds
SMGCS Surface Movement Guidance
Control System
W:\PIEDMONTDEIS\Ch_10\Ch_10.dx\3/14/00 10-4 Section 10.0 List of Abbreviations,
Acronyms, and Glossary
VORTAC Very High Frequency
Omnidirectional Range with
Tactical Air Navigation
W
WGUL Western Greensboro Urban
Loop
WAPIEDMONTDEIS\Ch_10\Ch_10.doc\3/14/00 10-5 Section 10.0 List of Abbreviations,
Acronyms, and Glossary
10.2 GLOSSARY OF TERMS
A-Weighted Sound Level (dBA) - A measurement representing a sound generally as the human ear hears
it by filtering out as much as 20 to 40 decibels of sound below 100 hertz (Hz). Used for aircraft noise
evaluations.
Automated Radar Terminal Systems (ARTS) - Computer-aided radar display subsystems capable of
associating alphanumeric data with radar returns.
Base Floodplain - That area subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year (i.e.,
the 100-year floodplain).
Baseline Condition - The existing conditions or conditions prior to future development which serve as a
foundation for analysis.
Best Management Practices (BMP) - Methods employed during construction and included in the
development for ensuring environmental management to the greatest possible extent.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) - The oxygen used in meeting the metabolic needs of aerobic
microorganisms in water-rich inorganic matter.
Day-Night Equivalent Sound Level (DNL or Ldn) - The average sound level over a 24-hour period with
noise events occurring between the hours of 2200 and 0700 subject to a penalty of 10 decibels.
Decibel (dB) - A unit of noise level representing a relative quantity. This reference value is a sound
pressure of 20 micronewtons per square meter.
Enplane - To board an airplane. Number of enplanements refers to the number of passengers boarding
aircraft.
Farmland Conversion Impact Rating - A form (form AD-1006) used by the National Resources
Conservation Service, formerly known as the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, to evaluate soils which are
potentially eligible for protection as Prime or Unique Farmland under the Farmland Protection Policy Act of
1981.
Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) - Series of rules and regulations administered by the FAA that govern
the operation, maintenance, construction, acquisition, etc. of airports, aircraft, and associated aviation
activities.
Flight Track Utilization - The use of established routes for arrival and departure by aircraft to and from the
existing runways at the airport.
WAPIEDMONT\DEMCh 10\Ch 10.doc\3/14/00 10-6 Section 10.0 List of Abbreviations,
Acronyms, and Glossary
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) - Federal Aviation Regulations rules that govern the procedures for
conducting instrument flight (FAR Part 91).
Integrated Noise Model (INM) - A computer model developed and maintained by the FAA to predict the
noise impacts generated by aircraft operations.
Land Use Compatibility - The ability of land uses surrounding the airport to co-exist with airport-related
activities with minimum conflict.
Landing and Takeoff (LTO) Cycle - The time that an aircraft is in operation at an airport. An LTO cycle
begins when an aircraft starts its final approach (arrival) and ends after the aircraft has made its climb-out
(departure).
Location Impact Analysis (aka Single Point Analysis) - An analysis conducted to determine if noise level
increases associated with projected development would approach the FAA threshold of a 1.5 DNL
increase within the 65 DNL or greater noise contours over any noise-sensitive land use.
Mitigation Measures - Controls which are used to lessen the environmental impacts of a proposed
development action.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) - Standards established by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency used for protecting and improving air quality.
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System - Federal permit required by the EPA for point-source and
non-point source stormwater discharges.
Noise Contour - An outline graphically displayed on a plan or map identifying the limits of an area exposed
to a specific sound level (example: 65 DNL noise contour).
Operational Demand - The need of an airport to adequately accommodate the existing or forecast level of
aircraft operations.
Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) - A tax on enplaning passengers that may be used to supplement local
airport revenues to fund needed airport development without a direct charge imposed on passengers by
the airport proprietor.
Peak Hour - The hour of the day during which the greatest amount of aviation activity occurs.
Runway Capacity - The number of aircraft operations which can be accommodated by a runway without
undue delay to aircraft. Undue delays are defined as delays of departures averaging four minutes during
the normal peak two-hour period of the week.
WAPIEDMONTWEIS01_1O\Ch_1O.dx\3/14/00 10-7 Section 10.0 List of Abbreviations,
Acronyms, and Glossary
State Implementation Plan (SIP) - A plan developed by counties that identifies non-attainment areas
(areas where NAAQS standards are exceeded) in order to improve air quality conditions.
Total Airport and Airspace Modeling (TAAM) - A computer model developed to predict the movement of
aircraft on the ground and in the airspace surrounding an airport.
Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) - A terminal air traffic control facility co-located with an air
traffic control tower. It uses radar data acquisition and air/ground communication equipment to provide
approach and departure traffic control services under IFR conditions.
Visual Flight Rules (VFR) - Federal Aviation Regulations rules that govern the procedures for conducting
visual flight (FAR Part 91).
WAPIEDMONMEIS\Ch_10\Ch_10.doc\3/14/00 10-8 Section 10.0 List of Abbreviations,
Acronyms, and Glossary
a
ems:
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PIEDMONT TRIAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
CHAPTER 11
INDEX
CHAPTER 11.0
INDEX
Paqe
Affected Environment .................................................................................................................................4-1
Air Quality ................................................................................................................ ...............4-60, 5-71, 6-10
Alternatives ............................................................................................................. 3-1, 3-2, 3-11, 3-41, 3-47
No-Action Alternative ................................................................................. ................................. 3-41
Alternative W2-A ........................................................................................ .................................3-41
Alternative W3-A ........................................................................................ .................................3-42
Alternative N-D ......................................................................................... ................................. 3-44
Alternative W 1-A1 ...................................................................................... ................................. 3-45
Alternative WE ......................................................................................... ................................. 3-46
Biotic Communities ................................................................................................. ............................... 5-128
Climate .................................................................................................................... ................................. 4-35
Coastal Zone Management Program and Coastal Barriers .................................... ...............................5-154
Construction Impacts .............................................................................................. ......................5-184, 6-21
Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................ ............................... 5-209
Energy Supply and Natural Resources ................................................................... ............................... 5-161
Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................................................5-1
Farmlands .............................................................................................................................................. 5-157
Floodplains ...........................................................................................................................4-55, 5-145, 6-19
Forecasts ...................................................................................................................................................1-9
Hazardous Substances .......................................................................................................................... 5-193
Historic and Archaeological Resources ...............................................................................4-22, 5-121, 6-17
Human Environment .................................................................................................................................. 4-1
Induced Socioeconomic Impacts .............................................................................................................5-55
Land Use ...........................................................................................................................4-1, 5-24, 5-37, 6-8
Light Emissions .............................................................................................................................5-166, 6-23
Mitigation .................................................................................................................................................... 6-1
Noise ......................................................................................................................... 4-31, 5-2, 5-20, 6-1, 6-7
Other Considerations ............................................................................................................................. 5-205
Physical Environment ...............................................................................................................................4-35
Preparers ................................................................................................................................................... 8-1
Public Hearing ............................................................................................................................................7-3
Public Involvement .....................................................................................................................................7-1
Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................................2-1, 2-13
References ................................................................................................................................................. 9-1
Scoping ...................................................................................................................................................... 7-1
Section 303(c) and Section 6(f) ......................................................................................................4-13, 5-98
Social Impacts and Environmental Justice .............................................................................................. 5-38
Soils ......................................................................................................................................................... 4-58
Solid Waste Impacts ..............................................................................................................................5-173
Surface Transportation ...............................................................................................................5-199, 5-207
Threatened and Endangered Species ..........................................................................................4-72, 5-134
Water Quality ..................................................................................................................................5-82, 6-11
Water Resources .....................................................................................................................................4-36
Wetlands ..............................................................................................................................4-70, 5-141, 6-18
Wild and Scenic Rivers .................................................................................................................4-65, 5-156
WAPIEDM0NMEIS\CH_11\INDEX.DOC\3/28/00 11-1
DRAFT, JANUARY 16, 2001 FOR JIM MULLIGAN
According to the Clean Water Act, a Corps 404 Permit cannot be issued until a 401
?-
Y-A°- A w_
??

117A

?i
0..
r

Ir

I
4
DRAFT, JANUARY 16, 2001 FOR JIM MULLIGAN
Jim Mulligan: With this background information, let me discuss the schedule for this
evening. First, representatives of FEDEX and the Piedmont Triad International Airport,
including , and , will
discuss the project's design and present plans for compensatory stream and wetlands
mitigation.
We will then take written or oral statements from every individual who signed up to
speak at the front table. If you missed that opportunity, please see DWQ staff members,
Mr. Steve Kroeger, Mr. Bob Zarzecki, Mr. Larry Coble, Ms. Jennifer Frye or Ms.
Shannon Stewart in the back of the room sometime this evening. I request that you limit
your speaking time to **** minutes in length. Ms. Karoly will hold up signs indicating
that you have one minute left to speak as well as when your time is up in order to keep
this hearing on schedule. More lengthy, detailed comments can be made in writing to the
following address:
Mr. Jim Mulligan
Care of Mr. Cyndi Karoly
NC Division of Water Quality
Water Quality Laboratory
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC, 27699
The hearing record will remain open until February 28, 2001 for this purpose. Anyone
wishing to make a written statement is welcome to do so by that time. After that time, I
will evaluate all the information and statements and make a recommendation regarding
the 401 Certification to Kerr Tommy Stevens. If he decides to deny the Certification,
FEDEX will either have to modify their plans to make them acceptable to the Division or
4
DRAFT, JANUARY 16, 2001 FOR JIM MULLIGAN
appeal the decision through the NC Office of Administrative Hearings. If Mr. Stevens
decides to issue the Certification, FEDEX will have to obtain a 404 Permit from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers before filling wetlands or waters. Any conditions that the
Division of Water Quality includes in the Certification will become conditions of the 404
Permit as well. Finally, we will be tape recording this meeting and I ask that you speak
clearly into the microphone in front.
Now I will ask to explain the project and its design.
Now I will ask
plans for the project.
to explain the wetland and stream mitigation
Now I will ask any elected officials that would like to make a statement to do so now
after I call their names.
Now I will call on citizens who have asked to speak. I will also call the name of the next
speaker and ask that she or he be ready to speak promptly. Ms. Karoly will assist me in
keeping the speaker to * * * * minutes. Please be considerate of other speakers and keep
your remarks to * * * * minutes.
MULTIPLE SPEAKERS
DRAFT, JANUARY 16, 2001 FOR JIM MULLIGAN
Jim Mulligan: Thank you for your respectful attention during this hearing. As I
mentioned before, the hearing record will remain open until February 28, 2001. After
that time, I will make a recommendation regarding this Certification to the Director of the
Division. This concludes the Public Hearing for the 401 Water Quality Certification for
the proposed new FEDEX Runway at the Piedmont Triad International Airport.
JM/cbk
phspeech
6
[Fwd: GSO]
Subject: [Fwd: GSO]
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:45:05 -0500
From: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: Re: GSO
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:18:44 -0500
From: Steve Zoufaly <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR Division of Water Quality Planning Branch
To: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
I guess it is time to ask Jill how to define "public". I'll see what she says if I
can get her. Or, I might have her and Glen talk it out so I'm not in the middle
trying to relay opposing thoughts.
Cyndi Karoly wrote:
> I would think use too. I would think the opposing parties' lawyers would argue
> use.
> Steve Zoufaly wrote:
> > I just talked to Glenn and he thought the runway/taxiways would be public (at
> > least publicly funded). HE is going to verify. So the question is, is the
> > project public because of funding or use? I would have thought use but.....
> > John Dorney wrote:
> > > good decision.
> > > Steve Zoufaly wrote:
> > > > OK, based on our discussions I'll let Glenn Dunn and Bill Cooper
> > > > (represent GSO) know that we think that it is very likely that the FedEx
> > > > runways/taxisways will require a 401 and be subject to the water supply
> > > > rule's major variance process. Glenn and Bill asked for our assessment.
> > > > of whether a major variance would be necessary.
Steve Zoufaly <steve.zoufalykncmail.net>
Env. Supervisor
Division of Water Quality / Planning Branch
NC DENR
1 of 2 01/29/01 8:12 AM
Phone number for fedex hearing
Subject: Phone number for fedex hearing
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:35:42 -0500
From: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail];
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail];
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]
The phone number for the Guilford County Ag Center, in case anybody gets
lost or needs to be contacted for emergencies, is 336-375-5876. I will
also have my personal phone on me at 919-622-2221 if you need to contact
me before the hearing.
1 of 1 01/29/01 8:12 AM
fedex
Subject: fedex
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:25:07 -0500
From: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Jim, Steve Zoufaly will be calling you sometime today to discuss the
probable need for a major Water Supply variance for FEDEX to be approved
by the EMC.
I've been forwarding the newspaper articles to you as they roll in. I'm
here all day Friday 1/26 and Monday morning until lpm when we leave for
Greensboro. I'm not going to bug you unnecessarily. Call me if you
need anything.
I of 1 01/29/01 8:12 AM
GSO
Subject: GSO
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:55:07 -0500
From: Steve Zoufaly <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR Division of Water Quality Planning Branch
To: John Dorney <[e-mail]>, Boyd Devane <[e-mail]>,
megan owen <[e-mail]>
CC: Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>
OK, based on our discussions I'll let Glenn Dunn and Bill Cooper
(represent GSO) know that we think that it is very likely that the FedEx
runways/taxisways will require a 401 and be subject to the water supply
rule's major variance process. Glenn and Bill asked for our assessment
of whether a major variance would be necessary.
Steve Zoufaly <steve.zoufaly2ncmail.net>
Env. Supervisor
Division of Water Quality / Planning Branch
NC DENR
1 of 1 01/29/018:13 AM
[Fwd::: News:: Application lists FedEx land-use impact]
Subject: [Fwd::: News:: Application lists FedEx land-use impact]
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 200109:44:37 -0500
From: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject::: News :: Application lists FedEx land-use impact
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:12:02 -0500
From: Susan Massengale <[e-mail]>
To: Jennifer Frye <[e-mail]>, Larry Coble <[e-mail]>,
John Dorney <[e-mail]>, Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
Danny Smith <[e-mail]>
CC: Ernie Seneca <[e-mail]>, Johanna Reese <[e-mail]>,
Don Reuter <[e-mail]>
http://www.hpe.com/2001/01/25/news/125news5.html
Take 'Th Select.-North t5lina.Gi 2 Y `'
1 of 4 01/29/018:14 AM
Thursday, January 25, 2001
[Fwd::: News:: Application lists FedEx land-use impact]
Main
Sports
Opinion
On Record
Lifestyles
Business
Weather
Classifieds
HPO Mall
Special Sections
Community
Circulation
Advertising
Online Training
Web Services
Print Services
Job Openings
Television
Movies
Tourism & Leisure
ESP Magazine
Enterprise Tuner
Business Director
Advertisers Index
Furniture
Triad Business
News
Application lists FedEx land-use impact
By Erik Huey
The proposed Federal Express Corp. cargo
hub at Piedmont Triad International
Airport (PTIA) will affect 14,937 linear
feet of streams and 23.39 acres of
wetlands.
But those land-use totals will be offset by
the creation, restoration and preservation
of 20 acres of wetlands and 10,500 linear
feet of stream channel off site.
Those figures are listed in the Piedmont
Triad Airport Authority's application to
state officials granting them water quality
certification for construction of the hub
facility.
The state's Division of Water Quality will
receive public testimony, both oral and
written, on the certification at a public
hearing in Greensboro Monday evening.
The application, and the public hearing
are part of a multi-step process the
airport authority needs to complete in
order for the certification to be granted.
The state's certification would validate
that the project does not violate any state
water quality standards and regulations.
In addition, a permit from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers is required for the
proposed impact to waters.
Water and wetlands mitigation are all part
of a number of unanswered questions that
need to be addressed before the $300
million hub can be built.
Opponents of the project contend that
water quality and wetlands mitigation will
be in jeopardy if the hub is to be built, in
addition to their concerns about increased
noise and traffic, and degradation of air
quality.
Proponents of the project, including
several area city councils, chambers of
commerce and economic development
groups, say the hub's economic benefits
will outweigh the negative aspects.
The application's executive summary
noted there are approximately 3,100
linear feet of on-site stream segments
1
%P,....
Send to a friend
[(? Related articles
Quick Find IV I
G
E o!
2 of 4 01/29/018:14 AM
[Fwd::: News:: Application lists FedEx land-use impact]
that are proposed for restoration based on
a preliminary field review of "on-site
stream morphology."
"The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources have
preliminarily concurred that the main
stream of Horse Pen Creek, which
traverses the Longview Golf Course on the
southeastern side of the airport, may be
suitable for restoration," the summary
said. "Segments of Horse Pen Creek,
select unnamed tributaries, adjacent
property, and the Longview Golf Course
constitute the location of the majority of
the proposed on-site stream and wetland
compensatory mitigation."
Wetland creation and restoration is
proposed on the golf course and adjacent
property along Horse Pen Creek where the
wide, well-developed flood plain can be
restored to wetlands, the report said.
In addition, at least 50 acres and 4,000
linear feet of the Brush Creek will be
preserved as part of the plan.
Wetlands mitigation, according to the
application, will be conducted in phases
and will include soil fertility analysis
through soil sampling and laboratory
analysis, the installation of a mitigation
basin and stream channel, hydrologic
control structures, special revetments,
vanes, and/or weirs. Landscaping will
involve establishing new vegetation
activities.
The airport wanted to begin its application
process concurrently with the federal
environmental impact statement process,
according to Jennifer Frye, a project
engineer with the N.C. Division of Water
Quality regional office in Winston-Salem.
"The reason for the hearing is to get
public comments specific to the
application," Frye said. But she cautioned
that the process won't be complete until
the final EIS is released this spring.
Activities about the FedEx project are
intensifying as the Federal Aviation
Administration prepares to release its
final EIS.
3 of 4 01/29/01 8:14 AM
[Fwd::: News:: Application lists FedEx land-use impact]
Opponents of the hub plan today to
announce the formation of the Alliance for
Legal Action, a non-profit corporation that
will mount a legal challenge if the hub
project proceeds. FedEx project critic
Mark Warren of Summerfield said the
alliance will take action if the FAA
approves the airport's plan.
FedEx project critics will detail their plans,
including an effort to raise funds for the
alliance, at a news conference in
Greensboro this afternoon.
Meanwhile, the Greensboro Area Chamber
of Commerce has reiterated its support of
the FedEx project.
At its annual dinner last weekend, the
chamber indicated in its 2001 mission
that it "will aggressively support the
FedEx mid-Atlantic hub without
reservation." The support was
unanimously endorsed by the chamber's
board of directors.
Staff writer Paul Johnson contributed to
this report.
Erik Huey can be contacted
at 888-3627 or ehueyCalhpe.com
ID Related articles
Home I News I Sports I Opinion ( Lifestyles I On Record lGeneral
Info I Search Classifieds I Archives
I n t e r n a $ E d I ti l o n
4 of 4 01/29/018:14 AM
fedex hearing speech
Subject: fedex hearing speech
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:08:33 -0500
From: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Jim, I am sending another copy of the draft public hearing speech for
FEDEX. This one has been updated to reflect additional volunteers we
expect to be available to help out. I've been in and out of the office
a lot, playing phone tag with Jennifer Frye. You might want to call her
with respect to a meeting she was at yesterday. There will need to be a
water supply variance and I thought you might want to add that to this
speech. It would be best to get the proper wording from Jennifer or
from Steve Zoufaly.
phone numbers, as I will be out of the office on Thursday, Jan 25, back
on Friday.
Jim Mulligan 252-946-6481
Jennifer Frye 336-771-4608 ext 275
Steve Zoufaly 919-733-5083 ext 566
Cyndi Karoly 919-733-9721
Steve Z - if you'd like to tag along to our hearing, we have a caravan
going out at lpm on Monday, January 29. Please let me know if you'd
like to attend and I'll get the relevant info to you.
Name: phspeech.doc
hs eech.doc Type: Winword File (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
1 of 1 01/29/01 8:14 AM
I?
U
7

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
Proposed Runway 5U23R, Proposed New Overnight Express
Air Cargo Sorting and Distribution Facility,
and Associated Developments

G

PIEDMONT TRIAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
City of Greensboro, Guilford County, North Carolina
This EIS is submitted for review pursuant to the following public law requirements: Section 102(2)(c) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969; 49 USC 47106; Section 303(c) of the US Code, Subtitle I; Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act; Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act; and E.O. 11990, E.O. 11998, E.O. 12898, and other
applicable laws.
A Notice of Intent to prepare this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was published in the Federal Register on April 30, 1998.
This DEIS addresses the environmental impacts anticipated by the proposed projects identified in the 1994 Master Plan for
Piedmont Triad International Airport. Specifically, this DEIS includes the evaluation of the following projects and associated
developments proposed by the Piedmont Triad Airport Authority. Acquisition of land, new runway, taxiways, lighting,
navigational aids, air traffic procedures, associated grading, drainage, utility relocations, air cargo sort/distribution facility,
tunneling and bridging of Bryan Boulevard, and closing a portion of North Regional Road, west of Bryan Boulevard.
VOLUME 2: APPENDIX A - J

APRIL 2000
PIEDMONT
?w TRIAD
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
For further information:
Ms. Donna M. Meyer
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
1701 Columbia Ave, Suite 2-260
College Park, GA 30337-2747
404/305-7150
1

I F I

1
t
f

n

C

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
Proposed Runway 5U23R, Proposed New Overnight Express
Air Cargo Sorting and Distribution Facility,
and Associated Developments
PIEDMONT TRIAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
City of Greensboro, Guilford County, North Carolina
This EIS is submitted for review pursuant to the following public law requirements: Section 102(2)(c) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969; 49 USC 47106; Section 303(c) of the US Code, Subtitle 1; Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act; Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act; and E.O. 11990, E.O. 11998, E.O. 12898, and other
applicable laws.
A Notice of Intent to prepare this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was published in the Federal Register on April 30, 1998.
This DEIS addresses the environmental impacts anticipated by the proposed projects identified in the 1994 Master Plan for
Piedmont Triad International Airport. Specifically, this DEIS includes the evaluation of the following projects and associated
developments proposed by the Piedmont Triad Airport Authority. Acquisition of land, new runway, taxiways, lighting,
navigational aids, air traffic procedures, associated grading, drainage, -utility relocations, air cargo sortfdistribution facility,
tunneling and bridging of Bryan Boulevard, and closing a portion of North Regional Road, west of Bryan Boulevard.
30,;,
VOLUME 2: APPENDIX A - J
APRIL 2000
J

For further information:
PIEDMONT
TRIAD
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT,"
Ms. Donna M. Meyer
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
1701 Columbia Ave, Suite 2-260
College Park, GA 30337-2747
404/305-7150

t
r
r
a
e
r

PRELIMINARY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PIEDMONT TRIAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
APPENDIX A
AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE

t
1

APPENDIX A
AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
This appendix contains various government agency correspondence related to the development of the
EIS. Letters are primarily related to the collection of data and clarification of EIS-related issues. Official
letters of comment from the various government agencies received during the comment periods are
contained in Appendix O. Letters are provided in chronological order and an index is provided below.
Date A enc
9-15-99 North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
8-27-99 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conversation Service
8-11-99 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conversation Service
8-02-99 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration
5-19-98 North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
12-7-98 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Natural Heritage Program
12-7-98 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
9-20-95 North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
5-21-91 North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
11 W:\PIEDMONT\DEISWppendices\appendix_intro.doc\1 /12/00
as STATE a
•? q i.`
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
September 15, 1999
Donna M. Meyer
Environmental Program Specialist
Federal Aviation Administration
Atlanta Airports District Office
1701 Columbia Ave., Campus Bldg.
r, Atlanta, Georgia 30337-2747
Re: Piedmont Triad International Airport Improvements, Guilford County
ER 99-7232 and ER 00-7300
Dear Ms. Meyer:
Thank you for your letter of August 2, 1999, concerning preparation of the Environmental Impact
Statement for the above reference project and the accompanying archaeological overview by Coastal
Carolina Research, Inc.
We have reviewed the document and find it to be a thorough compilation and analysis of existing
archaeological data for the proposed project vicinity. Our copy of the overview, however, is missing page
7. Please forward this page so we may insert it into our copy.
' We have also reviewed the proposal for a phased approach to addressing potential effects to
archaeological resources resulting from the airport improvements. We concur with your assessment that
this approach will be most effective for all concerned parties.
We look forward to working with your and your consultants on this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
?' Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
1 109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

cc: URS Greiner/Woodward-Clyde, Inc.
PO Box 31646 (33631-3416)
Tampa, Florida 33607-1462
w
Loretta Lautzenheiser
Coastal Carolina Research, Inc.
310 E. Baker Street
Tarboro, NC 27886
f
1

1
I
1

1
1
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
August 27, 1999
NATURAL
RESOURCES
CONSERVATION
SERVICE
Mr. David Alberts
Environmental planner
URS Greiner Woodward Clyde
7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway
Tampa, FL 33607-1462
600 WEST INNES STREET
SALISBURY, NORTH CAROLINA
28144-4143
Re: Piedmont Triad International Airport
Guilford Co., N.C.
Dear Mr. Alberts:
Attached is the completed AD-1006 Farmland Conversion Impact
Rating forms for Alternative N-D: Phase 2 (116.2 ac.).
If there are any questions, please contact me at [phone].
W. E. Woody
Resource Soil/ cientist
cc: Mike Washington w/o attachments
Milton Cortes w/ attachments
John Andrews w/ attachments
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Form AD-1006
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART 1 (To be completed by Federal Agency) 1. Date of Land Evaluation Request
8/3/99 2.
Sheet of
3. Name of Project
Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed
Improvements at Piedmont Triad International Airport Federal Agency Involved
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
5. Proposed Land Use
Airport Property 7. County and Stale
Guilford, North Carolina
PART II(To'be completed by MRCS)- Date`est.R eivedQfiy NRCS. - 2..Persor Completing the NRCS parts of,ihis fort
3. Does the site or,comdor.contain prime, unique statewide o' local important farmland? -Yes No '?
(If no,;the FP' PA doesnot`apply" Do, not complete additlonalparts=of this fort)) - 4. Acres Imgated

\-e
M A
w 5 Average Farm Size

V60
;
6. Major 1Ctop(s)

p`C'A . arrfa6?'e Land In Govemn)ent Jur sTdi/c?or) '°-
1 '3
*'Acres ' 4;Z y 1 ?7r 8. mount of Farmlend As Dennneed in FPPA

Acres'
:3 2_6 G. ?Q.
9. Name of Land Evaluation System Used 10 .Name of tLoccal Site Assessment Sys±em -
0 HIP '1 t. Da nd Ev3 ua 'o'o'rT Retume$ by NRCS
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Site Rating
Phase 2 No-Action W2-A W3-A N-D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 0 0 0 116.61
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly, Or To Receive Services 0 0 0 0
C. Total Acres in Site 0 0 0 116.61
''PARTAV=(To,be`completed'by NRCS} Land.Evalvatfon'(rilorrnatlon
'9;-To€al -Acres Prime and'Unique FaRnfand =
-B; Total Acres Statewide and;L-ocal Important Fahnland
C ,Percenta I ge;of Farmlandln Countyor Loral ovt Uniftote`ConJerted` r
lDr,Percentage of'Farmfand.?in Govt. TJunsdicild ith_Same'dr High6r Refauve Value `.
PART V, ;(TO be oomplefed byNRCSJ Land Et alusdon Crlteriort3' - '_ .
Relative Value ofFarmland to be Serviced or;Converted (Scale of 0 - 100 Points) //
t?f
ART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Corridor or Site
:assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained In7 CFR 658.5(b & c)) Max. Points
1. Area in Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use
3. Percent of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided by State and Local Government
5. Distance from Urban Built-up area
6. Distance to Urban Support Services
7. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared to Average
8. Creation of Non-Farmable Farmland
9. Availability of Farm Support Services
10. On-Farm Investments
11. Effects of Conversion on Farm Support Services
12. Compatibility with Existing Agricultural Use
TOTAL CORRIDOR OR SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value of Farmland (from Part V above) 100
Total Corridor or Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local site
assessment) 160
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines) 260
PART VIII (To be completed by Federal Agency after final alternative is chosen)
1. Corridor or Site Selected: 2. Date of Selection: 3. Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes ? No ?
4. Reason For Selection:
Signature of person completing the Federal Agency parts of this form.
DATE
jE- ?1r.;S S:c1v,<< base av? 5 Sup vc tp vA1os4 cc) i r? l ckl T. 04A kci
o..cc o?.\sa lOase? d h ? ?1-f S a + 15 .
EAPT! A\E!S T=_x'\AD1006.DOC
' f
UNITED STATES NATURAL 600 WEST INNES STREET
DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES SALISBURY, NORTH CAROLINA
AGRICULTURE CONSERVATION 28144-4143
?? SERVICE
August 11, 1999
Mr. David Alberts
Environmental-planner
URSGreiner Woodward Clyde
7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway
i Tampa, FL 33607-1462
Re: Piedmont Triad International Airport
Guilford Co., N.C.
Dear Mr. Alberts:
Attached are the completed AD-1006 Farmland Conversion Impact
Rating forms for the above project. Please note the comments on
the AD-1006 forms. The evaluations are based on a soil survey
published in 1977. I suspect that there has been land use
changes in the areas you had marked on your soil maps. In my
opinion this would lower the relative values to some degree. I
would hope that the values in part VI will account for that.
Also note that I did not complete the AD-1006 form for the N-D
site (116.6 ac.). I was not sure of its location. I suspect that
the relative value would be no higher than the no-action site
(59.3 ac.) and most likely lower. I have also attached a rating
guide for part VI of the Ad-1006 form.
If there are any questions, please contact me at [phone].
W. E. Woody
Resource Soil Scientist
cc: Mike Washington w/o attachments
Milton Cortes w/ attachments
John Andrews w/ attachments
t

U.S. DFPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
Form AD-1006
PART 1 (To be completed by Federal Agency) 1. Date of Land Evaluation Request
8/3/99 2.
Sheet 1 _ of 2_
3. Name of Project
Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed
Improvements at Piedmont Triad International Airport Federal Agency Involved
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
5. Proposed Land Use
Airport Property 6. County and State
Guilford, North Carolina
PART II (To be completed by NRCS) 1. Date Request Received byNRCS
S 5` qq 2. Person Completing the NRCS parts of this form
?•E, ?oeL
3. Does the site or corridor contain prime, unique statewide or local important farmland? Yes No ?
(If no, the FPPA does not apply-.Do not complete additional parts of this form) 4. Acres Irrigated
t o py1 5. Average Farm Size
t o o
6. Major Crop(s)
1. ciY V? 7. Farmabie'Land in Government Jurisdiction
Acres: 3Z 6 (G 2 % 1 • 8. Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPAp
Acres: 3 Z?. ?v a Z % 1 O S
9. Name of Land Evaluation System Used
%..`V"V4 vil 10. Name of Local Site Assessment System
?o E 11. Date Land E
1% at ation Retumed by NRCS
901 wow
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Site Rating
Phase 1 No-Action W2-A W3-A N-D
A. Total Acres To Be Convened Directly 59.26 662.54 662.54 1057.31
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly, Or To Receive Services 0 0 0 0
C. Total Acres in Site 59.26 662.54 662.54 1057.31
PART IV (To be completed by III Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime and Unique' Farmland 3' . I
. •i
?_S
B. Total Acres Statewide and Local Important Farmland . 21.0 rj t7. -? ? Z 2 .
C. Percentage of Farmland in County or Local Govt. Unit to be Converted ?, 0 D
D. Percentage of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction with Same or Higher Relative Value 14, 32 r 3 '7 /?
D
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion `
Relative Value of Farmland to be Serviced or Converted (Scale of 0. 100 Points) (.0 3 9
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Corridor or Site
Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in7 CFR 658.5(b & c)) Max. Points
1. Area in Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use i
3 Percent of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided by State and Local Government
5. Distance from Urban Built-up area
6. Distance to Urban Support Services
7. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared to Average
I
I
8. Creation of Non-Farmabie Farmland
9. Availability of Farm Support Services
10. On-Farm Investments
11. Effects of Conversion on Farm Support Services
12. Compatibility with Existing Agricultural Use
TOTAL CORRIDOR OR SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value of Farmland (from Part V above) 100
Total Corridor or Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local site
assessment) 160
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260
• ... _ vn P'__ uy reuerdr Agency aner nnar anernanve is cnos en)
1. Corridor or Site Selected: 2. Date of Selection: 3. Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes ? No ?
4. Reason For Selection:

Signature of person completing the Federal Agency parts of this form: DATE

Z?:
?
? S
\ ?
S
v
b?i
? .
--
-?
S •
;cJ.?.rt
JASC ? a o.
? ey Qv.
C
ur
S
tne_ ACAS
h \q1,

E:\PTIA\EIS_TEXT\AD1006.DOC 011"11-
'?e a ?•S?n • 0.v cam. CL .
I U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Form AD-1006
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
w
PART 1 (To be completed by Federal Agency) 1. Date of Land Evaluation Request
8/3/99 2
Sheet _2_ of
3. Name of Project
Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed
Improvements at Piedmont Triad International Airport Federal Agency Involved
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
5. Proposed Land Use
Airport Property 7. County and State
Guilford, North Carolina
PART it (To be completed by NRCS) 1. Date Req est R ived by NRCS
? S Q q 2. Person Completing the NRCS parts of this form
? Z.? U.? ? 4 fl
3. Does the site or corridor contain prime; unique statewide or local important farmland? Yes No ?
(If no,'the'FPPA does not apply - Do not complete additional parts of this form) 4. Acres Irrigated
N b A' E 5. Average Farm Size
k O 0
6. Major Crop(s) 7. Farmable Land in Government Jurisdiction
Acres. $Z % 18 8. Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: 2 % gt S
9. Name of Land Evaluation yste Used
.,.
% l 10. Name of Local Site Assessment; System

004\e.. 11. D to nd E luation Returned by NRCS

(Bli I Q q
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Site Rating
Phase 2 No-Action W2-A W3-A N-D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 0 0 0 116.61
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly, Or To Receive Services 0 0 0 0
C. Total Acres in Site 0 0 0 116.61
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime and Unique' Farmland s Y.
01
41. Ali

b 'C q +

b

Ci
B. Total Acres Statewide and Local Important Farmland K C. S4"
C..'Percentage,of Farmland in County or Local Govt. Unit to be Converted 1 4
D. Percentage of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction with Same or Higher Relative Value
4 0-? f CN T
PART :V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value of Farmland to be Serviced or Converted (Scale of 0 - 100 Points) 006
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Corridor or Site
4ssessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in7 CFR 658.5(b & c)) Max. Points
1. Area in Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use
3. Percent of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided by State and Local Government
5. Distance from Urban Built-up area
6. Distance to Urban Support Services
7. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared to Average
8. Creation of Non-Farmable Farmland
9. Availability of Farm Support Services
10. On-Farm Investments
11. Effects of Conversion on Farm Support Services
12. Compatibility with Existing Agricultural Use
TOTAL CORRIDOR OR SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value of Farmland (from Part V above) 100
Total Corridor or Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local site
assessment) 160
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260
PART VIII (To be completed by Federal
1. Corridor or Site Selected:
1
1
t after final alternative is chos
4. Reason For Selection:
2. Date of Selection: 13. Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes ? No ?
ignature of person completing the Federal Agency parts of this form:
DATE

E:\PTIA\EI S_TEXT\AD1006.DOC

1

E
f

1

08/18/1999 12:00 4043057155 ATLANTA ADD PAGE 02
l w
1
U.S. Department Atlanta Airports District Office
of Transportation 1701 Columbia Ave., Campus Bldg.
Federal Aviation Atlanta, GA 30337-2747
Administration Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
August 2, 1999
Mr. David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Division of Archives and History
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Dear Mr. Brook:
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is in the process of preparing an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for improvements to the Piedmont Triad International Airport located
near Greensboro, Guilford County, North Carolina. These improvements would include a
proposed new parallel runway and a proposed integrated air cargo hub facility to house
Federal Express operations. As part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
review process, we are addressing potential archaeological and historic architectural
resources located within the area of potential effect (APE) of the project in accordance with
36 CFR Part 800.4. We are sending this letter to your office to initiate.formal consultation of
our proposed testing and evaluation strategy for archaeological resources located within the
APE. As described below, we propose phasing the project and conducting a full
archaeological survey after the completion of the Draft EIS (DEIS), but prior to release of the
Final EIS (FEIS). We. request your concurrence with our approach.
The project consists of three action alternatives and a fourth No-Action alternative. In order
to streamline the process and avoid unnecessary archaeological fieldwork and evaluation, we
propose utilizing a phased process in our identification and evaluation efforts as provided by
the revised Section 106 regulations (36 CFR Part 800.4(b)(2)).
At the outset of this project, Coastal Carolina Research, Inc. (CCR) conducted background
research and prepared. a report entitled Archaeological Overview, Proposed Improvements,
Piedmont Triad Airport, Guilford County, North Carolina (January 1.999), a copy which is
enclosed herein for your review and concurrence. We propose, as the first part of the phased
approach, to utilize the findings of this report to analyze the project alternatives- The analysis
will identify the potential for each alternative to impact National Register-eligible
archaeological resources and will describe potential locations of these resources. The
impacts resulting from each alternative will be weighed and analyzed with the results
presented in a summary report for your review. The results of the alternatives analysis and
review, and the SHPO's concurrence, will then be documented in the DEIS,
Partners In Creating Tomorrow's Airports
9 +
I?
08/18/1999 12:00 4043057155 ATLANTA ADD PAGE 03
2
As the second part of the phased approach, we propose conducting final identification and
evaluation of archaeological resources after a preferred alternative is selected (36 CFR Part
800.4(b)(2)). This identification effort would take place after the Public Hearing and before
the drafting of the FEIS. The results of this identification effort and subsequent consultation
with your office would be reported in the FEIS. These results would also be presented in an
archaeological report prepared pursuant to the guidelines of the North Carolina Office of
State Archaeology.
Projected noise contours are still under development for this proposal. Therefore, we are
unable to establish or survey a historic architectural APE. We propose to complete the
historic architectural survey in accordance with SHPO guidelines and submit the report for
your review and concurrence prior to issuance of-the DEIS.
We appreciate your prompt response to our request, Your response will aid us in developing
the text for the preliminary DEIS currently under preparation. If you have questions or need
additional information, please contact either Mr. Terry Klein of URS Greiner Woodward
Clyde, the consultant assisting the FAA, on [phone] or myself on [phone].
Sincerely,
/s/ DONNA MEYER
Donna M. Meyer
Environmental Program Specialist
Atlanta District Office
Enclosures

1

?? `HTM• ba
y
11 North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
:s B. Hunt JL. povcraor
r Ray McCain. Secretary
may 19, 1998
Grace F. Keith
R. S. Webb & Associates
P.O. Drawer 1319
Holly Springs GA 30142
Re: Tobacco barns, Piedmont Triad Airport site,
Guilford County, R. S. Webb & Associates 98-
LAW-137, ER 98-8996
Division of Archives and History
Jcffrcy J. Crow. Director
Dear Ms. Keith:

1
t
Thank you for your letter of April 23, 1998, providing the excellent photographs
and map of the tobacco barns located during the cultural resources survey of the
Piedmont Triad Airport site.
We have reviewed the photographs and other material, and have determined that
these structures are not historically significant. Therefore, we have no further
comment on them.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above, comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
bmw? xDavid Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
I
t
V*/^
,...t:.,,1-Unt ')arc, 6.
1
i

A
1

1

t

1
IMES B..HUNTJ
GOVERNOR
AYNE.MCDEVITl, , ?'
ECR6TARY
i
DR. pHILi R;.
MCK4

t 1,"'

n

Ms. Virginia Baker
URS Greiner, Inc.
P.O. Box 31646
Tampa, FL 33631-3416
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
December 7, 1998
SUBJECT: Rare Species, High Quality Natural Communities,
State/Federal Priority Areas, and Significant Natural Heritage
Areas at the Proposed Runway Development, Piedmont Triad
International Airport, Greensboro, Guilford County, N.C.
Dear Ms. Baker:
The NC Natural Heritage Program does not have records of rare species, high quality
natural communities, state/federal or Significant Natural Heritage Areas at or within a
1.0 mile radius of the site for proposed development of a runway at the Piedmont
Triad International Airport, Greensboro, Guilford County, NC.
Enclosed is a list of rare species known to exist in Guilford County. If habitat for any
of these species exists at the site, they may be present there. In order to be sure that
no rare species exist at the site, a survey might be needed.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at the address below or call me at (919) 715-
8703 if you have any questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
Gs,
Susan Reece Giles, Information Specialist
Natural Heritage Program
Enclosure
/SMRG
P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH NC 2761 1 -7687 PHoNE [phone] FAX [phone]S
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER

GLOBAL AND STATE RANKS
These ranks are determined by The Nature Conservancy's system of measuring rarity and threat status. "Global" refers to
worldwide ranks and "State" to statewide ranks.
STATE RANK DEFINTITONS
S1 Critically imperiled in North Carolina because of extreme rarity or otherwise very vulnerable to extirpation in the state
S2 Imperiled in North Carolina because of rarity or otherwise vulnerable to extirpation in the state.
S3 Rare or uncommon in North Carolina.
S4 Apparently secure in North Carolina, with many occurrences.
S5 Demonstrably secure in North Carolina and essentially ineradicable under present conditions.
SA Accidental or casual; one to several records for North Carolina, but the state is outside the normal range of the species.
SH Of historical occurrence in North Carolina, perhaps not having been verified in the past 25 years, and suspected to be s
extant in the state.
SR Reported from North Carolina, but without persuasive documentation for either accepting or rejecting the report.
SX Believed to be extirpated from North Carolina.
SU Possibly in peril in North Carolina, but status uncertain; more information is needed.
S? Unranked, or rank uncertain.
_B Rank of breeding population in the state. Used for migratory species only.
N Rank of non-breeding population in the state. Used for migratory species only.
_Z_ Population is not of significant conservation concern; applies to transitory, migratory species.
GLOBAL RANK DEFINITIONS
G 1 Critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity or otherwise very vulnerable to extinction throughout its range.
G2 Imperiled globally because of rarity or otherwise vulnerable to extinction throughout its range.
G3 Either very rare and local throughout its range, or found locally in a restricted area.
G4 Apparently secure globally, although it may be quite rare in parts of its range (especially at the periphery).
G5 Demonstrably secure globally, although it may be quite rare in parts of its range (especially at the periphery).
GH Of historical occurrence throughout its range.
GX Believed to be extinct throughout its range.
GU Possibly in peril, but status uncertain; more information is needed.
G? Unranked, or rank uncertain.
G_Q Of questionable taxonomic status.
T Status of subspecies or variety; the G rank refers to the species as a whole.
ADDITIONAL DEFIMTIONS 11
Elements following county names marked with one or two asterisks indicate obscure or historic records.
* Obscure record: the date the element was last observed in the county is uncertain.
** Historic record: the element was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
Scientific and common names listed in parentheses are synonyms listed in US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1992, Endangered and
Threatened Species of the Southeastern United States (The Red Book).

101- V %'rTm %T T=T)TTArT: nnnrT) %-N:T nTNrTCTn1V nF PAVTCC A KM PPr"VA'rT(W nvxm TIOvIC
P
ENTo`United States Department of the Interior
a ?
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
y ,9 Post Office Box 33726
'ACN ?• %e Raleigh. North Carolina 2-7-
TO: 726
ms. Vif?ihio gc??? ) 13?a v RS Ore"3 h ems. , Ty^e
P 0.Gcr- 1 (P 460 ( 33(,31 3` 16)
{m, , FL 334o7-J477-
Thank you for our letter requesting information or recommendations from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This form provides the Service's response
pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species' Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
!
Re: G1?1
Project Name/Location/County

Date of Inc wing Letter Log Number
The attach
d
e
a e s list(s) the Federally-listed species which
may occur within the project area.
Based..on the information provided, it appears that your project
site
does not contain suitable hab itat for any Federally-listed
endangered or threatened species known to occur in the area.We
believe that the requirements of Section 7 of the Act have been
satisfied. We remind you tha t obligations under Section 7
consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals
impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or
critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this
action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered
in this review; (3) a new species is listed
i
i
or cr
t
cal habitat
determined that may be affected by the identified action.
If the proposed project will be removing pines 9" DBH or greater, or
30 years of age in pine or pine/hardwood habitat, surveys should be
conducted for active red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees in
appropriate habitat within 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.
i
Biologist D to
1
Accounts of Selected Federally Listed Species In GUILFORD County
Data represented on these maps are not base on comprehensive inventories
of this county. Lack of data must not be construed to mean that listed
species are not present.
84 79 45
36'15'
36'
.moo„ Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service o 1 2 3 4 5 MILES
based on data provided by NC Natural Heritage Program o 1 2 3 4 5 KILOMETERS
D. Newcomb, K. Tripp 1/15/98
expires 1/31/99
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
1
1
1
i
1
1
1

Birds
\ Bald Eagle
Peregrine Falcon
0 Piping Plover
Red-cockaded Woodpecker
?.? Roseate Tern
p Wood Stork
Fish
O Cape Fear Shiner
Waccamaw Silverside
Mussels
Dwarf-wedge Mussel
Tar Spinymussel
Mammals
J? Eastern Cougar
Red Wolf

Plants
? American Chaffseed
Canby's Dropwort
Cooley's Meadowrue
Harperella
Michaux's Sumac
Pondberry
0 Rough-leaved Loosestrife
Schweinitz's Sunflower
Seabeach Amaranth
Sensitive Joint-vetch
Small Whorled Pogonia
Smooth Coneflower
Sea turtles are seasonally ubiquitous along coastal regions,
and therefore, are not labeled. Shortnosed Sturgeon and Manatees
are seasonally ubiquitous in estuarine areas and are also not labeled.
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
STATE FED. STATE GLOBAL
STATUS STATUS RANK RANK
Guilford
Vertebrates
mbystoma talpoideum Mole Salamander
.Stheostoma collis Carolina Darter
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle
Lanius ludovicianus ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike
Vascular plants
Berberis canadensis American Barberry
Cardamine dissecta Dissected Toothwort
Collinsonia tuberosa Piedmont Horsebalm
Gnaphalium helleri var helleri Heller's Rabbit Tobacco
Parthenium auriculat?m Glade Wild Quinine
Platanthera peramoena Purple Fringeless Orchid
Quercus prinoides Dwarf Chinquapin Oak
Smilax lasioneura a carrion-flower
Thermopsis mollis sensu stricto Appalachian Golden-banner
Natural con=,ni ties
Basic Mesic Forest (Piedmont -
Subtype)
Basic Oak--Hickory Forest -
Low Elevation Seep -
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial -
Forest
Piedmont/Mountain Swamp Forest -
Upland Depression Swamp Forest -
Guilford*
Vascular plants
Agalinis decemloba Piedmont Gerardia
SC - S2 G5
SC - S3 G3
E T S2B,S2N G4
SC - S3B,S3N G5T5
SR - S2 G3
C - S2 G4?
C - S1 G3G4
SR - S2? G4G5T3
C - S1 G3?Q
C - 51 G5
C - SH GS
C - SH G5
SR - S2 G3G4
- - S2 G5T3
- - S3 G4
- - S3 G4?
- - S5 G5
- - S1 G2
- - S2 G3
SR - S2? G4Q
NC NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM, DIVISION OF PARRS AND RECREATION, DENR
July 1998

t
1

a

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
September 20, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Historic Structures Survey Report for
Replacement of Bridge 74 on SR 1695 over US
421 and Southern Railroad, Guilford County, 8-
3175, Federal Aid Project BRZ-1695(1), State
Project 8.2493101, ER 96-7411
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of August 28, 1995, transmitting the historic structures
survey report by Clay Griffith concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following property is eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places under the criterion cited:
Campbell-Gray House and Barn. This property includes an intact Colonial-
Revival style main house and a highly unusual and impressive polygonal barn,
and is eligible under Criterion C for architecture.
The following property was determined not eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places:
Needham House. This house is an undistinguished example of a common
house type found throughout the county.
The report in general meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of
the Interior.
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.
L
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ?=?
Nicholas L. Graf
September 20, 1995, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
Guilford County Joint HPC
bc: File
BrowCS?vin
County
RF

1
1
1

u

1

•? I A:
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
May 21, 1991
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 26806
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Re: Historic Structures Survey Report for
Greensboro Urban Loop, Guilford County,
ER 91-7981, State Project No. 6.49001T,
TIP U-2524
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
The properties listed below were inadvertently omitted from our letter dated April
22, 1991.
The following properties are listed in the National Register of Historic Places:
Guilford College (P246). Guilford College was included in the National
Register on June 21, 1990.
Guilford Courthouse Military Park (P272). Guilford Courthouse Military Park
was included in the National Register on October 15, 1966.
Hoskins Farmstead Historic District (P271). Hoskins Farmstead Historic
District was included in the National Register on March 15, 1988.

The following properties are included in our state study list for eventual nomination
to the National Register and in effect are considered eligible:
Arcadia (Lewis Lyndon Hobbs House) (P267). Arcadia was placed on our
state study list for eventual nomination to the National Register on May 20,
1977.
Thomas Cook Farm (P148). Thomas Cook Farm was placed on our state
study list for eventual nomination to the National Register on October 11,
1990.

Kimrey-Haworth House (P218). Kimrey-Haworth House was placed on our
state study list for eventual nomination to the National Register on January
17, 1991.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
[phone]
r
galas L. Graf
y 21, 1991, Page 2
The following properties were determined not eligible for listing in the National
J Register of Historic Places for the reasons cited:
Gray-Pegram Farm (P164). The farm has undergone numerous character-
altering changes.
Smith-Hodgin Dairy Farm (P197). The farm has undergone numerous
character-altering changes.
Whippoorwill (Ballinger Stewart House) (P157). The house has undergone
numerous character-altering changes.
Woodyside Store and Houses (P31-P34). Woodyside does not retain
integrity necessary for listing in the National Register.
We apologize for any inconvenience this omission may have caused.
With reference to our April 22, 1991, letter, we note that the report was
considered final by the highway agencies' reviewers and authors. Given the minor
nature of our concern about National Register Criterion A being added to the
determination of Celia Phelps Church's eligibility for the National Register of
Historic Places, we feel no further revisions are necessary.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
?/bavid Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: L. J. Ward
B. Church
Kay Simpson
Marty Bowers
Langdon Oppermann
b c : 106
l--
,
,
Southeqi/StaTncil
County ?-
RF

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX B
NOISE MEASUREMENT PROGRAM/ SUPPLEMENTAL METRICS
I
This appendix contains information regarding the Noise Measurement Program conducted for this DEIS
and Supplemental Metrics Data for specific point locations.
I;

1

1

1

Nc1nt011wp wpro\P IEDMONTIDEISIAppendices\appendix_intro.docl31111W
I

1
1
1

I NOISE MEASUREMENT PROGRAM
11

1

1

11
1
I

APPENDIX B-1
NOISE MEASUREMENT PROGRAM
Noise measurements provide important input to an understanding of the existing noise environment.
PTIA does not have a permanent noise monitoring system. Therefore, project staff measured existing
' noise conditions with portable noise monitors from January 11 through January 20, 1999. These
measurements provided the DEIS with information on single event and cumulative noise exposure
information and aircraft operations information that was useful for development of the noise contours at
PTIA. A summary of the objectives, design, and execution of the portable measurement program and
presents the results, including a summary of the cumulative noise measurements at all measurement
sites is provided in this appendix.
Measurement Program Objectives, Design, and Execution
Noise Measurement Program Objectives - The noise measurement program was conducted with these
' objectives as guidelines:
• To gather information regarding specific aircraft flight operations.
• To address specific community concerns regarding aircraft noise exposure.
' To sample aircraft single event noise levels at representative community locations.
• To measure cumulative noise exposure for comparison with noise contours.
To accomplish these objectives, a team member conducted noise measurements at six locations. At all
of the locations, except Site 5, the measurements covered the full 10-day period of the measurements,
providing a good sample of daily DNL noise levels. Measurements at Site 5 were interrupted by
equipment malfunctions, but included five and one-half days of measurements. Measurements at all of
' the sites also included aircraft single event levels.
It is important to note that the noise measurement data were not used to "adjust" or "calibrate" the
Integrated Noise Model (INM), a procedure that would require prior approval from the FAA. Rather, the
noise measurements provide useful information about the existing, overall noise environment in the
vicinity of PTIA.
Noise Measurement Site Selection - Noise monitors were set up on January 11, 1999, at sites that were
selected by the project team. Sites were selected after discussions with members of the Airport staff
concerning local conditions. Overall site-selection criteria included:
• Sites should be located near flight corridors to maximize the number of operations
observed.
'i
Li
I W:\PIEDMONT\DEISWppendices\App•b\b.doc\02/03/00 1

• Sites should be in typical residential neighborhoods or other noise-sensitive areas.
• Sites should provide information on noise levels produced by aircraft activity
including; arrivals, departures, pattern activity, takeoff roll, and thrust reverse.
• Sites should be where complaints are generated, or where community members may
be concerned with the existing or future noise environment.
Table B.1-1 identifies the measurement locations and the total elapsed measurement time at each site.
Figure BA-1 depicts the locations of the measurement sites.
Noise Measurement Instrumentation - Measurements at all six sites were conducted with Larson-Davis
Model 870 (LD 870) noise monitors. These instruments are portable devices capable of long-term
unattended operation. The LID 870 is a precision integrating noise monitor that meets American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) S1.4-1983 standards for a Type I sound level meter. Calibrations of the
equipment were carried out in the field before and after each of the measurements. These calibrations
are traceable to the United States National Institute of Standards and Technology ("NISI", formerly the
National Bureau of Standards). The portable monitors clocks were synchronized to facilitate the
correlation of aircraft noise events measured at multiple sites.
The LD 870 were programmed to record levels, including Leq and DNL; statistical levels, such as L1, L10,
L50, L90 and L99, and single event levels, Lmax and SEL.
Day-Night Average Sound Level Results - Table B.1-2 summarizes the Day-Night Average Sound
level (DNL) measurement results for the six measurement sites during the measurement period. ,
Section 4.2.5.5 of the DEIS compares the measured levels at the measurement locations to the modeled
estimates of annual average day (DNL) for 1998.
Site-by-Site Results - This section provides site-by-site discussions of the short-term monitoring
locations. For all sites measurement results include single event results, in terms of Lmax, and
cumulative exposure, in terms of DNL and hourly Leq. The summaries present the Lmax data in
graphical form, as described below.
Lmax measurements provide a basis for comparing the maximum level produced by aircraft and non-
aircraft sources at any given site, and for comparing single event levels among sites. For each
measurement location (Sites 1 to 6) there is a figure that presents Lmax data in a "thermometer" form.
Representative sound levels from typical community sources are on the left of the thermometer. The ,
ranges of Lmax values for observed aircraft operations are on the right. These figures provide a visual
basis for comparing levels caused by different aircraft types and different types of operations, and for
comparing levels at different sites. I
1
W:\PIEDMONnDE1S\Appendices\App-b\b.doc\02/03/00 2 1

I Table B.1-1 Summary of Noise Measurement Sites

11

Site Site Location Total Time
Monitored
1 4532 Walpole Road - Guilford Count 9.5 days
2 8109 Thomdike Road - Guilford County 9.5 days
3 112 Arrow Road - Greensboro 9.4 days
4 6504 Lytham Court - Guilford Count 9.8 days
5 3916 Sa amore Drive - Guilford County 5.5 days
6 3200 Clarkson Road - Guilford County 9.4 days
I Source: HMMH, 1999.

1
1

1
1

Table B.1-2 Summary of Day-Night Average Sound Level Measurements (DNL) I
Measured Dail DNL d6

Site Range of Daily
DNL No. of
Dail DNL's Average
DNL
1 62-64 10 63
2 60-67 10 63
3 63-66 10 64
4 60-64 10 63
5 53-62 6 58
6 58-65 10 62
Source: HMMH, 1999
1
t

J

C

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I

I

Figure B.1-1
?l) ?I
1

Generalized Lj?j PTIA N
Study Boundary Noise Measurement _
Roads 1A Location
i ?.
5000 0 5000 Feet
I
Noise Measurement Locations
11
L
L',
1

1
F?
1

[I

i
1
l
1

The figures group the aircraft data by type of operation (i.e., arrival or departure by runway) and by
aircraft or event category. The aircraft and event categories are:
• "Air Carrier Jet" - Turbojet-powered passenger jet aircraft.
' "Business/Regional Jet" - Turbojet-powered business and regional passenger
aircraft.
• "Single Piston" - Single-engine piston-powered propeller driven aircraft.
• "Twin Piston" - Twin-engine piston-powered propeller driven aircraft.
• "Twin Turbo Prop" - Twin-engine turbine-Powered propeller driven aircraft.
'
• "Jet" - Unidentified turbojet-powered aircraft.
• "Other Events" - Miscellaneous aircraft and non-airport noise sources.
Each site discussion includes the hourly Leq and the daily DNL for each calendar day during which
measurements were performed at the individual site.
Site 1: 4532 Walpole Road, Guilford County - Site 1 was located southwest of the airport on Walpole
Road in Guilford County, approximately 3.25 miles south of the arrival threshold to Runway 05 and
approximately 0.25 mile north of the extended runway centerline. Most takeoffs and landings at the
airport were audible at this site. The most important flight operations at this site are arrivals to Runway 05
or departures from Runway 23. This site was located off of a dead-end gravel road and is a very quiet
location. Figure B.1-2 presents the maximum A-weighted noise levels measured at Site 1. The figure
presents the ranges and averages of the Lmax values observed and measured.
Approximately 11.5 hours were spent at this site recording information on individual aircraft events. A
number of individual aircraft were identified and correlated with noise levels. The majority of the
correlated noise events were for commercial air carrier aircraft operations departing from Runway 23.
The majority of these aircraft flew on an initial runway heading over the site or in close proximity to it.
Maximum noise levels from these events were in the low-60's dBA up to the mid-80's dBA. Only three
business/regional jets created Lmax levels greater than 75 dBA. The remainder of the business/regional
jets ranged from the low 50's dBA to the low 70's dBA.
This noise monitor was set up over a 10-day period to measure daily DNL noise levels. The average
measured DNL for the entire period of measurements was 63 dBA. The daily DNL ranged from 62 to 64
dBA.
The average hourly Leq for the 10-day period varied from 40 to 63 dBA. The hours with the lowest noise
occur in early morning between 0100 and 0400 hours. Levels start to rise around 0500 hours. Figure
I \\clnt01\Wp_Wpro\PIEDMONTDEISWppendices\App•b\b.doc\02/03/00 3
B.1-3 presents average hourly noise levels at Site 1 for the 10-day period. Figure B.1-4 presents the
individual hourly noise levels during the full measurement period.
Site 2: 8109 Thorndike Road, Guilford County - Site 2 was located southwest of the airport on
Thorndike Road in Guilford County, approximately 2.25 miles south of the arrival threshold to Runway 05
and approximately 0.5 mile north of the extended runway centerline. Arrivals to Runway 05 and
departures from Runway 23 are audible at this site. This site is located on a very quiet residential lot that
is set well back from the roadway. Approximately 9.5 hours were spent at this site recording information
on individual aircraft events. A number of individual aircraft events were identified and correlated with
noise levels. The majority of the correlated noise events were commercial air carrier operations departing
from Runway 23. Maximum noise levels from these events were in the low-60's dBA up to the high-80's
dBA. Several aircraft in the business/regional jet created events and had maximum noise levels between
the high-50's and mid-80's dBA. Figure B.1-5 presents the maximum A-weighted noise levels measured
at Site 2.
This noise monitor was set up over a 10-day period to measure daily DNL noise levels. A total of 10 daily
DNL noise levels were measured. The average measured DNL for the entire period of measurements
was 63 dBA. Daily DNL levels ranged from 60 to 67 dBA.
The average hourly noise levels for the 10-day period ranged from 39 to 65 dBA. The individual hourly
Leq varied from 31 to 70 dBA The lowest levels occurred in the early morning between 0100 and 0500
hours (30 to 50 Leq). However, the highest average hourly level occurred at 0600 hours. During the
0600 hour, levels varied from 60 to 70 dBA throughout the 10- day period. Figure B.1-6 presents average
hourly noise levels at Site 2 for the 10-day period. Figure B.1-7 presents the individual hourly noise levels
during the full measurement period.
Site 3: 112 Arrow Road, Greensboro - Site 3 was also located southwest of the airport on Arrow Road
in Greensboro, approximately 0.25 mile south of the arrival threshold to Runway 05 and approximately
0.75 mile north of the extended runway centerline. The most important flight operations at this site are
arrivals to Runway 05 or departures from Runway 23. This site is also influenced by departures and
arrivals to Runway 14-32 as well as numerous aircraft ground noise activities. This site is located in a
residential area with higher ambient noise levels that result from its proximity to Highway 421. Figure B.1-
8 presents the maximum A-weighted noise levels measured at Site 3.
Approximately 10 hours were spent at this site recording information on individual aircraft events. A
number of individual aircraft events were identified and correlated with noise levels. The majority of the
correlated noise events were commercial air carrier operations departing Runway 23. Maximum noise
levels from these events were in the mid-60's dBA up to the high-80's dBA. Several aircraft in the
business/regional jet created events and had maximum noise levels between the mid-50's dBA to the
high-70's dBA. Figure B.1-9 presents the maximum A-weighted noise levels measured at Site 3.
This noise monitor was set up over a 10-day period to measure daily DNL noise levels. A total of 10 daily
DNL noise levels were measured. The average measured DNL for the entire period of measurements
\\clnt01\Wp_Wpro\PIEDMOMIDEISWppendicesWpp-b\b.doc\02/03/00 4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Figure B.1-2: Site 1 Maximum Observed A-Weighted Levels
Source: HMMH, 1999
Some Sound
Common Level
Levels dBA
Rock Band 110
100
Gas Lawnmower
at3ft
Diesel Truck 90
at 50 ft Shouting at 3 ft 80
Auto at 50 ft,
55 mph
70
Normal Speech
at3ft
60
50
i 40
Ke :
Maximum
Average
Minimum
# Number of events
Measured
Maximum
Levels
CD N
6 C
0 0 o o o 0 0 o rn
0 ? CL o a) a°i o 0 ? o
1 o c o c D o c !L o c CD
N y N N -2 O N N N '2 o N' N N '2 y Q N Z
•` y j N d •` N N o_ '` N 7 N d 'E co 7 N d a C
fa C H Q. C H d N 0 C~ a C~ c- N O Y t
U c c a' U c c 5' U• c c m' U c c m' 0 v
co
'3 '3 c 3 '3 '3 c '3 '3 c ' i 3 '3 '3 c a) c
:3 C
m H in a CD H w 'a m in •a co te a=
a
1
54 2
16 2
2 ¦
6 1
2 1
5
16
Rwy 23 Rwy 23 Rwy 5 Rwy 32 Other
Departures Arrivals Departures Departures Events
Figure B.1-3: Site 1 Average Hourly Noise Levels
Source: HMMH, 1999
Figure B.1-4: Site 1 Hourly Noise Levels
Source: HMMH, 1999
Hourly Noise Levels
Site 01
80
70
60
50
Q
00
40
o-
a?
J
30
20
10
0
0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18
01/11/99 01/12/99 01/13/99 01/14/99 01/15/99 01/16/99 01/17/99 01/18/99 01/19/99 01/20/99
Hour of Day
Average Hourly Noise Levels
Site 01
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
Figure B.1-5: Site 2 Maximum Observed A-Weighted Levels
Source: HMMH, 1999
Some Sound
Common Level
Levels dBA
Rock Band 110
100
Gas Lawnmower
at3ft
Diesel Truck 90
at 50 ft Shouting at 3 ft 80
Auto at 50 ft,
55 mph
70
Normal Speech
at3ft
60
50
-EL- 40
Ke :
T Maximum
* Average
1 Minimum
# Number of events
Measured
Maximum
Levels
N
c a
0 0 c
o a
o c a
o o
o o
Cc 00
rn
(D a c a> O1 d c a>
7 I CL c a? y d c C
EC o

(? c
O 2
N 72 OC o

? c
O 2
n N m o c 2
N '2 O n' 72
N DC o
m ? c
O °
N' >
O N

m N j
I- N
d CL
N 'E
N N
C 7
F- N
d d 'E
a? `m N 7 N IL
F- d m 'E
m N 7
H N
d CL
m
m CL
O y C
t
U c C 5' U c c 5' U c r a'
c c U c
o C 5
c
' U U
.6 2 m U
co
Q c 3
m H 3
F- c
(A Q m 3
H 3
F- c
Cn Q co H I- U) Q n
M H F ip Q 2 1- U 2

58 2 ,
12 ;
2
2 ;
5
4
4
Rwy 23 Rwy 23 Rwy 5 Rwy 32 Other
Departures Arrivals Departures Departures Events
Figure 5.1-6: Site 2 Average Hourly Noise Levels
Source: HMMH, 1999
Figure 5.1-7: Site 2 Hourly Noise Levels
Source: HMMH, 1999
Hourly Noise Levels
Site 02
Hour of Day
Average Hourly Noise Levels
Site 02
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Figure B.1-8: Site 3 Maximum Observed A-Weighted Levels
Source: HMMH, 1999
Some Sound
Common Level
Levels dBA
Rock Band 110
100
Gas Lawnmower
at3ft
Diesel Truck 90
at 50 ft Shouting at 3 ft 80
Auto at 50 ft,
55 mph
70
Normal Speech
at3ft
60
50
?- 40
Key
[LAver? mum
ge
um
er of events
Measured
Maximum
Levels
C o. C a C o. C Q. L
0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0
a? 4 c; a C N y a c m S O c t
C ?O CO N ¢ o O D: O y m .0 p t"oi/ > Z,
N N N -2 N N N -2 N y
N 7 y Q. N 5 N O_ 'E N 7 N CL •E N 7 O N D- d C
(6 C H d N C~ d N CO C o- (D CU C H d N o Y
U .N C C y C C p? U •y C C m U y C C U U
3 3 c ili 3 3` 0 3 3 3 3 c 5 co
Q m I- F rn co F- H U) ; Q co I- F- U) ; Q m 1- F U) Q S F- U
¦
1
3
2 ¦
63 5
3 ; 4
6 8
' 8 9
19
5
6
Rwy 23 Rwy 5 Rwy 5 Rwy 32 Other
Departures Departures Arrivals Departures Events
Figure B.1-9 Site 3 Average Hourly Noise Levels
Source: HMMH, 1999
Average Hourly Noise Levels
Site 03
Figure B.1-10: Site 3 Hourly Noise Levels
Source: HMMH, 1999
Hourly Noise Levels
Site 03
Hour of Day

' was 64 dBA. Daily DNL levels ranged from 63 to 66 dBA. The average hourly noise levels ranged from
50 to 63 dBA. The lowest levels occurred in the early morning between 0100 and 0500 hour. However,
the highest average hourly level occurred at 0600 hours. During the 0600 hour, levels varied from 60 to
65 dBA throughout the 10-day period. Figure B.1-9 presents average hourly noise levels at Site 2.
' The 1500 hour on Wednesday, January 14th is noted has having an hourly Leq of 71 dBA. Although
three Runway 05 departures were observed with Lmax levels between 73 and 78 dBA, most of the sound
energy during the hour was created by a nearby garden tractor. The monitor measured two events from
the tractor. The events covered a total time of approximately 21 minutes and had an overall Lmax of 81
dBA. Figure B.1-10 presents the individual hourly noise levels for the full measurement period.
' Site 4: 6504 Lytham Court, Guilford County - Site 4 is located northeast of the airport on Lytham Court
in Guilford County, approximately 0.5 mile north of the arrival threshold to Runway 23 and approximately
1 mile north of the extended runway centerline. This site is located in a very quiet residential area and is
not directly affected by flight operations at PTIA, but is located in a residential area that is most likely to
be affected by the new runway. The most important flight operations at this site are arrivals to Runway 23
or departures from Runway 05.
Approximately 11.5 hours were spent at this site recording information on individual noise events. A
number of individual aircraft events were identified and correlated with noise levels. The majority of
correlated noise events were the takeoff roll noise created from jets departing on Runway 23 away from
the site. Maximum noise levels from these events were in the high 50's dBA to high 80's dBA. Only two
air carrier jet departures from Runway 05 were recorded. These two events produced Lmax levels in the
mid-70's dBA. Figure B.1-11 presents the maximum A-weighted noise levels measured at Site 4.
This noise monitor was set up over a 10-day period to measure daily DNL noise levels. A total of 10 daily
' DNL noise levels were measured. The average measured DNL for the entire period of measurements
was 63 dBA. The measured DNL for the 10-day period varied between 60 and 64 dBA.
' The average hourly Leq for the 10-day period varied from 45 to 62 dBA. Site 4 had its quietest hours
during the early morning hours, between 0100 and 0400. The individual hourly Leq during these hours
ranged from 39 to 56 dBA, however, only four individual hours had levels greater than 50 dBA. The
average hourly level was at its highest during the 0600 hour at 63 dBA. Figure B.1-12 presents the
average hourly noise levels at Site 4 for the 10-day period. Figure B.1-13 presents the individual hourly
noise levels during the complete measurement period.
Site 5: 3916 Sagamore Drive, Guilford County - Site 5 is located northeast of the airport on Sagamore
Drive in Guilford County. This site is located approximately 1.5 miles north of the arrival threshold to
Runway 23 and approximately 1.25 miles north of the extended runway centerline. The most important
flight operations at this site are arrivals to Runway 23 or departures from Runway 05. This site is also
located in a very quiet residential area and is not directly affected by flight operations at PTIA, but is
located in a residential area that is most likely to be affected by the new runway.

\\clnt01\Wp_Wpro\PIEDMONT\DEISWppendices\App•b\b.doc\02/03/00 5
Figure 5.1-11: Site 4 Maximum Observed A-Weighted Levels
Source: HMMH, 1999
Some Sound
Common Level
Levels dBA
Rock Band 110
100
Gas Lawnmower
at3ft
Diesel Truck 90
at 50 ft Shouting at 3 ft 80
Auto at 50 ft,
55 mph
70
Normal Speech
at3ft
60
50
40
Ke :
T Maximum
iI Average
Minimum
# Number of events
Measured
Maximum
Levels
N N
CU m (0
m C CL
o rn
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 L
a c a> a c a? a c m a c c
M o c o 72 oC o c 8 -' ¢ o c o A m o c o >
U) 7 y D (n 7 y d y 7 N d i y 7 N d N
CD
C H d o m
CD d N co I- c- o m o Y c
c c m U c c m U c c o, U c c m Y o
3 3 c 3 3 c 3 3 c ?? 3 3 c .o 2 m co
co F H t4 Q M H F- CA Q M F- I- to Q M I- F 20 Q 2 F- U
2
¦
28
Rwy 23 Rwy 23 Rwy 5 Rwy 5 Other
Departures Arrivals Departures Arrivals Events
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Figure B.1-12: Site 4 Average Hourly Noise Levels
Source: HMMH, 1999
Average Hourly Noise Levels
Site 04
Figure B.1-13: Site 4 Hourly Noise Levels
Source HMMH, 1999
Hourly Noise Levels
Site 04
80
70
60
Hour of Day
Approximately 10 hours were spent at this site recording information on individual noise events. The
majority of aircraft events were the takeoff roll noise created from jets departing on Runway 23. The
measured maximum levels from these events varied from low-60's dBA to the mid-70's dBA. A few jets
arriving to Runway 23 were also observed. These arrivals had a measured Lmax in the high-60's to high
70's dBA. Figure B.1-14 presents the maximum A-weighted noise levels measured at Site 5.
Although the noise monitor was set up over the 10-day measurement period, an equipment malfunction
prohibited collection of the full 10 days of DNL values. Only six days of daily DNL noise levels were
collected. The average measured DNL, using all available data, was 58 dBA. The six daily DNL values
varied from 53 to 62 dBA. The average hourly Leq varied from 39 to 59 dBA. Site 5 had its quietest
hours during the late night and early morning hours (0100 to 0500). Hourly noise levels during this time
ranged from 38 to 48 dBA Leq,. The morning hours (0600 to 0800) had the highest average hourly levels
varying from 47 to 64 dBA. Only three individual hours had measured an Leq of 60 dBA or greater. All
three of these hours were in the morning hours (0600 to 1000). Figure B.1-15 presents average hourly
noise levels at Site 5 during the six-day measurement period. Figure B.1-16 presents the individual
hourly noise levels during the measurement period..
Site 6: 3200 Clarkson Road, Guilford County - Site 6 is located northeast of the airport on Clarkson
Road in Guilford County. This site is located approximately 1.25 miles north of the arrival threshold to
Runway 23 and approximately 0.25 mile south of the extended runway centerline. The most important
flight operations at this site are arrivals to Runway 23 or departures from Runway 05. This site is located
in a quiet residential area that dead-ends against a utility corridor off of Fleming Road.
Approximately 8 hours were spent at this site recording information on individual aircraft events. A
number of individual aircraft events were identified and correlated with noise levels. Although the majority
of the correlated noise events were arrivals to Runway 23, the loudest events were from Runway 05
departures. Air carrier jets departing to Runway 05 created maximum levels between the mid and high
80's dBA. Air carrier jets arriving to Runway 23 created maximum levels between the mid-60's and the
high 70's dBA. Figure B.1-17 presents the maximum A-weighted noise levels measured at Site 6.
This noise monitor was set up over a 10-day period to measure daily DNL noise levels. Although 7 hours
of data on January 15th (0400 to 1000) were adversely affected by rain leaking into a cable and therefore
deleted from the analysis, a total of 10 daily DNL noise levels were measured. The average measured
DNL for the entire period of measurements was 62 dBA. The measured DNL for the 10-day period varied
between 58 and 65 dBA.
The average hourly Leq for the 10-day period varied from 44 to 59 dBA. The lowest levels occurred
during the early morning hours between 0000 and 0500 and ranged between 44 and 55 dBA. The
average hourly Leq does not reflect this due to a single unidentified event that occurred seven of the nine
nights measured. The cause of this recurring event is not known. The unidentified event occurred each
night between 2330 and 0700, although most nights it occurred between 0000 and 0400. The maximum
measured value of the event varied from the low-80's to the low-90's dBA. The hourly Leq between 0000
and 0500 that contained this event varied from 58 to 68 dBA. However, early morning hours not
\\c1nt01\Wp_Wpro\PIEDMOMIDEIS\Appendices\App•b\b.doc\02/03/00 6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Figure B.1-14: Site 5 Maximum Observed A-Weighted Levels
Source: HMMH, 1999
Some Sound
Common Level
Levels dBA
Rock Band - W- 110
100
Gas Lawnmower
at3ft
Diesel Truck 90
at50ft
Shouting at 3 ft 80
Auto at 50 ft,
55 mph
70
Normal Speech
at3ft
60
50
i- 40
Ke :
Maximum
Average
Minimum
# Number of events
Measured
Maximum
Levels
74,
CL C a C 1 C L
0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o m
°?o c tm d c v° n_ c m D c C
cC o co ° oC o a N o -' ti >
N a N N a Ch N p
?2
CO o n d y> 0 CL y N CL N o L' d n c
C~ it y F- d a) (6 H 11 o as c H n. y 0 y L
c c m c c U c c m U N c c rn ?3 0 0
(n co
3 ;
11 ;
Rwy 23 Rwy 23 Rwy 5 Rwy 5 Other
Departures Arrivals Departures Arrivals Events
Figure B.1-15: Site 5 Average Hourly Noise Levels
Source: HMMH, 1999
Average Hourly Noise Levels
Site 05
Figure B.1-16: Site 5 Hourly Noise Levels
Source: HMMH, 1999
Hourly Noise Levels
Site 05
Hour of Day

Figure B.1-17: Site 6 Maximum Observed A-Weighted Levels
Source: HMMH, 1999
Some Sound
Common Level
Levels dBA
Rock Band 110
100
Gas Lawnmower
at3ft
Diesel Truck 90
at 50 ft
Shouting at 3 ft 80
Auto at 50 ft,
55 mph
70
Normal Speech
at3ft
60
50
?- 40
Ke :
i Maximum
Average
Minimum
# Number of events
Measured
Maximum
Levels
N
ca
as
a c a c a c n L
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0?
(D d c N °1°d c v °' n c o c c
c° 72 !?E- o c o-2 ° 0 c o c o a> Cc: .0 0 >
N 3 N d '? N 7 N Q. '? N 7 N d N 7 N
C H d N R3 C H N (6 C ?'• D_ (D C F• 0_ N ?p ° Y L
c c m U c c U c c m c c o, 6` °
F- I- i4 Q m' H F U) Q m F- H to CO H F U) Q 2 H U
co
2
' i f¦
2
24
2
6 12
4
29
Rwy 23 Rwy 23 Rwy 5 Rwy 5 Other
Departures Arrivals Departures Arrivals Events

containing this event ranged from 34 to 55 dBA. Figure B.1-18 presents the average hourly noise levels
for the 10-day period. Figure B.1-19 presents the individual hourly noise levels during the measurement
period. '

r

\\clnt01\Wp_Wpro\PIEDMONT\DEISWppendicesWpp-b\b.doc\02/03/00 7 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Figure B.1-18: Site 6 Average Hourly Noise Levels
Source: HMMH, 1999
Average Hourly Noise Levels
Site 06
Figure B.1-19: Site 6 Hourly Noise Levels
Source: HMMH,1999
Hourly Noise Levels
Site 06
n

1

1
I I

J
1

H

P)
t
w

SUPPLEMENTAL METRICS

r
n r

11

a

1

PIEDM ONT TRIAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SPECIFIC POINT ANALYSIS
1998 2005 Difference 2019 Difference
ID TYPE Basecase NOACTION from Basecase NOACTION from Basecase
1 Mobile Home 63.7 61.4 -2.3 62.1 -1.6
2 SF Residential 67.0 64.1 -2.9 64.7 -2.3
3 SF Residential 61.2 59.5 -1.7 60.7 -0.5
4 Church 60.7 59.2 -1.5 59.9 -0.8
5 SF Residential 61.8 59.6 -2.2 60.3 -1.5
6 SF Residential 58.4 57.1 -1.3 57.7 -0.7
7 SF Residential 59.3 57.6 -1.7 58.2 -1.1
8 Church 60.3 57.5 -2.8 58.2 -2.1
9 Church 60.0 57.2 -2.8 57.9 -2.1
10 Hotel 69.3 67.7 -1.6 68.3 -1.0
11 SF Residential 73.0 71.0 -2.0 71.7 -1.3
12 Historic 70.5 68.6 -1.9 69.2 -1.3
13 SF Residential 76.0 74.0 -2.0 74.6 1.4
14 SF Residential 66.1 64.5 -1.6 65.0 -1.1
15 Mobile Home 57.4 56.1 -1.3 57.3 -0.1
16 SF Residential 58.4 57.1 -1.3 58.7 0.3
17 Mobile Home 58.6 57.8 -0.8 59.9 1.3
18 SF Residential 57.0 56.2 -0.8 58.1 1.1
19 Church 54.4 51.6 -2.8 52.2 -2.2
20 SF Residential 49.3 45.6 -3.7 46.2 -3.1
21 SF Residential 45.4 42.3 -3.1 42.9 -2.5
22 SF Residential 44.1 41.6 -2.5 42.3 -1.8
23 SF Residential 52.6 48.7 -3.9 49.3 -3.3
24
25 SF Residential
SF Residential 54.7
56.0 51.1
52.7 -3.6
-3.3 51.7
53.3 -3.0
-2.7
26 SF Residential 50.5 47.1 -3.4 47.7 -2.8
27 SF Residential 57.0 54.7 -2.3 55.3 -1.7
28 SF Residential 51.3 48.9 -2.4 49.6 -1.7
29 Church 74.1 72.3 -1.8 72.9 -1.2
30 SF Residential 67.8 66.3 -1.5 68.0 0.2
31 SF Residential 66.0 64.2 -1.8 66.0 0.0
32 SF Residential 65.8 64.1 -1.7 66.0 0.2
33 Fut. School/ Rec 60.2 58.6 -1.6 60.4 0.2
34 MF Residential 63.7 61.0 -2.7 61.6 -2.1
35 Leonard Rec. 60.9 57.8 -3.1 58.4 -2.5
36 King George 52.9 49.2 -3.7 49.9 -3.0
37 Woods of Guilford 52.9 49.1 -3.8 49.7 -3.2
38 Guilford Middle 45.9 43.3 -2.6 44.0 -1.9
39 Mitchell Park 42.6 41.6 -1.0 42.5 -0.1
40 SF Residential 49.3 45.7 -3.6 46.3 -3.0
41 Church 47.1 43.3 -3.8 44.0 -3.1
42 SF Residential 43.3 41.5 -1.8 42.3 -1.0
43 Nursing Home 47.8 47.2 -0.6 47.9 0.1
44 SF Residential 58.8 56.8 -2.0 57.4 -1.4
45 SF REsidential 53.1 51.8 -1.3 52.4 -0.7
46 Mobile Home 50.6 49.2 -1.4 49.8 -0.8
47 Mobile Home 65.1 63.4 -1.7 64.1 -1.0
48 MF Residential 56.7 53.5 -3.2 54.1 -2.6
49 W. Guilford High 50.6 47.7 -2.9 48.4 2.2
50 SF Residential 59.5 58.7 -0.8 60.6 1.1
51 SF Residential 60.1 58.3 -1.8 59.4 -0.7
52 MF Residential 55.3 51.8 -3.5 52.4 -2.9
53 SF Residential 42.3 41.0 -1.3 41.9 -0.4

PIEDMONT TRIAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SPECIFIC POINT ANALYSIS
ID TYPE
54 SF Residential
55 MF Residential
56 MF Residential
57 SF Residential
58 SF Residential
59 SF Residential
60 SF Residential
61 SF Residential
62 SF Residential
63 SF Residential
64 SF Residential
65 SF Residential
66 SF Residential
67 SF Residential
68 SF Residential
69 SF Residential
70 SF Residential
71 SF Residential
72 SF Residential
73 SF Residential
74 SF Residential
75 MF Residential
ID TYPE
1 Site 1
2 Site 2
3 Site 3
4 Site 4
5 Site 5
6 Site 6
1998 2005 Difference 2019 Difference
Basecase NOACTION from Basecase NOACTION from Basecase
42.2 39.7 -2.5 40.5 -1.7
41.7 39.9 -1.8 40.7 -1.0
50.5 44.2 -6.3 45.1 -5.4
43.6 42.8 -0.8 43.7 0.1
55.0 52.4 -2.6 53.2 -1.8
56.3 54.4 -1.9 55.0 -1.3
60.3 58.2 -2.1 58.9 -1.4
57.6 55.9 -1.7 56.6 -1.0
54.3 52.3 -2.0 53.1 -1.2
53.4 52.1 -1.3 53.1 -0.3
56.8 55.7 -1.1 56.4 -0.4
55.2 53.9 -1.3 54.6 -0.6
53.0 51.0 -2.0 51.7 -1.3
57.4 54.9 -2.5 55.7 -1.7
52.9 52.0 -0.9 52.7 -0.2
53.2 51.3 -1.9 52.0 -1.2
54.7 53.9 -0.8 55.6 0.9
50.2 47.8 -2.4 48.8 -1.4
46.3 45.2 -1.1 46.2 -0.1
48.8 46.5 -2.3 47.5 -1.3
43.8 41.2 -2.6 42.0 -1.8
53.5 50.8 -2.7 51.4 -2.1
1998 2005
Basecase NOACTION
60.7 59.3
63.1 61.4
65.4 63.5
56.0 52.6
51.0 48.5
62.6 61.0
Difference 2019 Difference
from Basecase NOACTION from Basecase
-1.4 60.0 -0.7
-1.7 62.1 -1.0
-1.9 64.0 -1.4
-3.4 53.2 -2.8
-2.5 49.1 -1.9
-1.6 62.2 -0.4
c0D t0(0 n Or M V M OCA OON r N MM ODr OOMn Or OO r 0N(L M'"' 000000000 N r r N
N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r O 0 0 V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2
O
-
O r r
N r r
O
N .
O V
C Q
O b
Z
O c

w CO O CO t` O cM N(q V' N cq r W m CA n C M r q O M t` N r ?Y CA O r (" cl (0 CA 0 0 0 0 0 O O O r (0 N r N
cM M V N V N 'T N N N O O O) (D O r r r 0 0 0 O O O r 0 0 0 d' r r N r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N

r
r V r
r
N N
3
0
'0
M
c y
3 w 0
U)
(0 C 0N MW q q (0(O (O (O M t` r Cn NMM Or OOMn ONOOR OO N M 1Y r 000000000N r r (n
U
D O r r O N r (+) --- N r N N O O O O r O 0 0 0 0 r O O O M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O
Cf
U
N
a
`
w Z
O 0

N N N N CD V' N CO W n CU N cq r M Cn •7 t` V O r 0 0 M r N N V O) O r t, M N O) O O O O O O O O r O N r N

? 0 h (A r O r r r r 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 O V r r (V r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N
M O 'T N K N C N N r
It r
' +
+ R y r r N
N
N

E N
c CO (O 0 (P CO OON N OO r p OON MM Or OOr h Or 0O) n (O NOMr 0000000 p p N r r(0
0
0 0 0
0
0
Z 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
r O r O 0 0 V 0 0 0 0 0 0
? O r r O r r N r r N M N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0) r
0 ? Q
b

O
w
n OOOOOOOOr (ON r N
0 N CA V MN 0) N CO V OT V CAr 00r(? NrC 0(OrTMO
M CD CD CO
C
•p '£ M O M N M N N N N (O N O r r 0 0 0 O r O r O O r r r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N
C
a r r r
? N C;
0)
? A
H d U
N
07 c N N M n N M N C a (O M W r a q N M M O r 0 0 V 00 O N r (A CO O N f0 ? r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N r r LL7
N O O r r O N r M --- N r N N 0 0 0 0 r O O C r O r O 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O C
Q
Nib
az
0 c

(0 N M f` N N N O (0 0D N O r 00 O V t` O r 0 0 C CO N N l0 0 (n r n q (0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 (0 N r N
M O C N C N N N r 0 l0 CA (O r r r r r 0 0 0 r O r O O r O V r r N r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N
W d r N r N V r r r
D

? 07
(co U
O
d c OD O f` N N N M M N O O N CO M r N M M N r O O N M O r r (p CO O N O M r 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O N r r (0
O r r '- N r N r r N M (V N M O O O O O O O O O O r 0 0 0? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
•

a (Oj
U

J i0
c
a ?Z
Z o
O
M O g N N C r (0 M N m c! M m m CP,: V (0 r O O N OM N r (0 r-: t` r^ T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O r (O N r N
0
'
a N 0 0 0 O N
N N N N O N (? O r r 0 0 O O O O r 0 0 0 R r r N r 0 0 0 0 0 0
O•£ M O a M v (V d
r r r
Z N te;
r
c
? a ?N?

Z
z N
OU C l0 N 07 v, p ?t N f) (D V Cn r r N M M 0 r O O N M Orr (0 O (O N (O R r O O O O O O O O O N r r (n
r
0 a ? O r r N r M r r N r N V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r O 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r r
N 0)

a O C Q
Z N d b

F
a 0 0
,
``
v
O lO N (0 V O O r t, O 00 M O r (0 (n V T Q O r O O N M N r (0 n (f) r n M Ln W O O D 0 0 0 0 0 r (O N r N
LL M CO V M R N (M N r O M M CO O r r 0 0 0 O O O r 0 0 0 O V r r N r 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O N

O
W

r
r r C r
C (a N N
w a 4 0
a N
Z O O N O O N M N r N M r O V 0 (O O f` O O O O O O N O V r O h M M p q O O O O O O O O r M M N r
r
r M r O O O O O O O O O O O N
p M (0 M N N r r O V n V r r N r O O O O O O O O O O O V r
r
r r
(0 r r r N co
o U
N Q
O
Z
a
0 CD a) U p
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m cc -° m an d m.? 0) a)
Y
E C c C G c C C c E c E c c C C C C c C C C C c C::-- c N O)(5
c c o c C E E
0) 0) 0) 0) 0 0) 0 0) M 0) 0) 0 0) 0) 0) a) 0) O 0) ? O 0) 0) 0) 0 O O
0)
0)
0) 0)
° 0)
?
0:u 'o
=
v
v
_:o:o?v_;o :off 2
:oZ
=;o •v_ ?av :o _;o=
:2:2
M
fn N r N N N t t N U N 0 0 W r 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 N t 0 N N V) CA U) (?
' WL i CC CC - ? ? ? cc g ¢ ¢ ? Cc d ? `' (L m x Cc ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ Q J CL LL CL J CL
O ,? •= Q ? ¢ J CL CL a L
r
LLL O
IL OLL LLL LL LL LLLL LL NLL LL OLL OLL LLL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LLL LL LL cLL d C O O•?LL
H (n(nU(n(nU)UUS(nS(ocn (n (oU(o(A(nU) (n(4(Dm(nU(o(o(nLL2?Y?U UUUZ LL U LL U) O O
O r NM Tm(O N co mO 2 V(f)On WCAO NM V(n(O r. 000)O NM Vr MW r, M M 0 NM V (0(0 r.
r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M l 7 V •7 V V -It V -It

C O O N N O O O O O O r 0 V V M N V M M 1, V O) r r 0 0 0 c q C( 0 0 O? O h 0
? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O C 0 0 0 C C O O C O C O 0 0 0 C C ? C O r r O C
d
V d
V
O
C Q d
C Q
Z Z
4) N
O
O
?
"Nr nOOOOOOOM U) W N (,NNM U) V OR O) Or 0000
E O O M r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r O O r O O r O O r O 0 0 0 r U)O i? N M O)
D E N Y U) r O r
C')
Q 3 Q v 3
co
'? N 3 B N
N U
m y y U
m c O O co N O O O O O O r r N CM M N V V M I, U) N r r 0 0 0 O)
U m C M W r 0 (? O
U
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r 0 0 0 0 0 0
G V V ? ? O O O N r 0 0
N d «.
N d
b N d
0 Z w Z
O

? O
?
(n N r 1. 0 0 0 O O O O M V CG r n U) N W U) V O) N O r 0 0 0 r V O) O) N W Cn
' O C C (7 r O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 r C G r 0 r r 0 0 0 0 r ' O N C M (n r G r
m d
O N m d
p N
_ r m U MU

C O O O N 0 0 0 0 0 O r O V V M N M M M (? M O r r 0 0 0 O C U) M C O O h o
Z d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 0 0 d 2 6 6 r r 0 0
Q C Q C Q

p E o E
o O
N r n 0 0 0 O O O O M N N N f U) r M U) V i O O r 0 0 0 r
- = V Q) O N W
Q ooo o r
00 CO-000o00C.0rr06 6 6 x 6 9 EciM0 or
d Q v 3 Q v 3

t N C d
? y tyC N C y
? y tyo
?-- ad) U y U
V C O O (O N O O O O O O r r N M M N M M M M V N r r 0 0 0 M V C U) CO O rr-? 0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ln O O O N r O O
LO
N C Q
0 b N C Q
b
Z Z
O
O
N r n 0 0 0 O O O O M V (q r 1? U) r M U) N W N O r 0 0 0 r V 0) M M W q
OOMr 00000000 rr 00+-00+-0 r r 0000r 'O NM U).-0 r
m d
O / m d
O N
U
O m N
M C O O N N O O O O O O r O V V M N V M M (O O r r r 0 0 0 O) c (O m t o O M O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 6 N r O 6
Q d
C Q d
c Q

Q 0Z 2z
O O
0
?, N r n 0 0 0 O O O O M U) c q N (, U) N W U) M O (, O r 0 0 0 r
' r U) O M N V W
Q N O
? 00(7r000 O O O OOr r 00x00 rrO r000 Or 'O N V O r O r
Z (q 0 3 Tv 3
C C
W J 3y m 3y R
F Q d U d U
Z
Z "
m C O O O D N O O O O O O r r N M M N V V M h (? M r r 0 0 0 0) y
(° C U) O) M O V O
0
Q .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 6 0 .0 0 0 N r 0 0
Q W
in W
in
Q
Z N d b N d a
~
i
-d °o °o
Z U ~
_
O
N r n 0 0 0 O O O O M V O r (? U) N M U) 'It r q O r 0 0 0 r
V O co N U) O)
0 LL OOMr 00000OOOr,-OOrOOr?Or0000r O N7(OrO r
Q U
W c N 9 N
W
- ;?U m0
EL
ccn U)
Z N r (3) N O O 0 0 0 0 V U) V M V M OO (o N h V O r 0 0 O O N Z O r OO N r O)
? O O N r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 O r M M O O r
O O
N Q N Q
O 0
Z Z
N
.

t
0tC _ m - -tC m __ - V -70 (-6 N ( - m - N - m- -6 N tq ro - m - m - - m - - - m m - -m (6 - W.5

= ._ y
T

i0
C
N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N d Q
?
N
O •O 'O m 'O -0 V .? 'O
'O
'00 "O
U 'a U 'O 'a 'a 'O _0 -D U U 'D -0 C
_
_
_
d' d d d d d d d y N N N N V7 y N V) N N N N N N N N N d
oil
0.CC( cc cc CC ¢crCC Q¢mccoc¢mmm¢mm¢2mm¢mm
'0
IL W rNM V (n to
} LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL
f-?3(nm?( (n??(n(n(j(n(1) co cn(n(n(1)u)U) )U)U) )U)U) C }
(nFO cnFO Fn
E
d
OD M O N M V U) (D N CO O) O N M V U) CO N CO O) O N M V U)
o
n G r N co V' U) (O
0
V V LO U) U) U) U) U) N U) U) U) co (
to O (O O O co O O r
r n r N to
d

t
11

N
Q
7
C
E
J
z
c
Ln
ti
d
O
Q
d
G
O
a
Q
J
a
z
O
Q?
CCN
LU J
za
Z
a
az
F O
?a
z U
O IL
U
W W
_a
a cn
r_ n L P? M N r N 7 O N O (O (O O) O CO r r L C? N N r N r O (1 r C) O L n n L Ih L N O M N L r rV: L M L
0 N V N r 7 7 7 7 r Ci (D N O h I? r O O V 0 0 r r 0 0 0 O 0 M O O r 0 M rn M rl N L V V r O O r O
V •? r N r r r r ...' r r r
a) Q
? b
Z
E
M L L N N r r 00 W.* tow V r (C O M N N- N- 0- 00 I- M NN or, MN M M No - N N m on
,0. 666666 O O O rrr)ri ri a; oi(M,-O V 00 nr0000 Lrrr O M 00 M n N L4 V rr OrM
Wa3 r rr rr r
r al
z N
dtnU
y
m
U CnLn ww Nr O N 0w m N N N V L L.T OO(O V N r O MrmO(orn LO W L N M M C V rV: L MO
p N V. N r. . r m (D N N t-: ? O m 0 L O O )` r 0 0 0 0 ,O .M O O O N 6 M f, N L V C r O O r o
N C a r r r . •- ?' .'
O O
Z
O EE
M L L N N r r r r 0 C) L() N N N a V N (O V' (C (O N r O r 0 0 r?! M N N L f0 L N W M N (O N N N OO N M
9 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O r r r (? (7 (O O N r O L 0 0 f? r 0 0 0 O (O r r r C m C) Ci (h r N L V •7 r r O r M
a7 Q! r r r r r r r
a ?
(=a U
N
C O O N O O N CM N r N C) r O v 0 (O O n q O O O O O N O 7 r C) n rn w m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 ()R M N IA
C pj In M N N r 7 r 0 I? C Ih V r r N r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 099 N 7 r r C7 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A O N
C Q i r N i i i
O
.d z
E
` 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a.?ooooo0000000000000000000000000oooooaooooo000000
0?3
z m
y N U
a7
U = n L th O OR r N r O N 0 (q n M 1, L T N M V C L N r r O M r C) O L nr*.? O L N (q N W (O M r C) h N M 0
O N C N r . . r m (O N .- a a n n O M W O r r 0 0 0 0 0 M O O T Ci N V O M I? L (D r r r N M
O r N M r
N C Q r r r
°i S
z
o
M L L N N r r 0 0) N M r n r D) O) M V K L N r r O r 0 0 n M N N O (D N (O N (fl L M r O L L L n
'O O O O O O O O O O r r r L M L CO Q) CO O M M O r r 0 0 0 0 L r r r 0 7 0 N V O M fl L O N N r N L
r N r r r
m 4)
a ?
M U
N Z O O N O O N M N r N C) r 0 0 (D O h 0 0 0 0 0 O N O• f r C) (, C) C) C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O r O M N)
(M L M N N r r r +- C 1? n V r r N r 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O M 'V ^ r r (h r 0 0 O O O O O O O O O N
L rrrN
0
1--
0
N Q
O
z
'o
0
m m m m m m m m m m g m m -Cu m m m m m `-a m m¢ - O m m E m ro
E c c c E c c c c E E E c c c c c E c c c E c c c o a, aa)) p o a c c o c c E E
O 0) a) a) a) a) N a) a) O a) O W N m a) m a) N a) a) N a) a) a) O a ¢ LL m a) = 0 O O
S :o a s a D M S'2 M: 'R :o a :o :2 :o M y :2 v :2 v :2 L .- S S
N N L 'W W' cc L L (? U N y W y L N N u) N N V7 N N (/) L N N m N - N L N (T (?)
11.-' ¢ cr ¢¢ E E d¢- C a) d m m 65
C C d d d d 0 C d` c a? C (p M C M o- t¢ E¢ 'v) ¢¢ a a
IL n > > > g ¢ ¢ ¢ g ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ U
?. O LL LL LL LL LL LL OLL NLL LL OLL OLL LLL LL LL LL LL LL (L LL LL LLL U- LL jLL O N C O ILL L LL LLLL O O
1-2(n(nU(n(A(n UUSUn2(nUn2Un2UnU(n(n(n(n(n (n(n(n(n U(n(n(n LL M-j y ?0 (n U(n z(nU
O r N M V L (O n aD Q) O T N M R L L n a0 O N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M VO' V* R V V V V

N
d
7
C

Z Gtt 7U- O V V MME V O Vqn V.MnV N(q O.- vMN
2 r M N
N r r r 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V N- M N O Cn WMrrO
o
N N 0 0
d
7
7 d
?
-
? =a ?a
?b 2b
? Z d Z
_
° o ° o
>
0 n N V N q V M M 0 V V r r r 0 0 r r O r O r N O r V M 0 N CO M r O Cl)
Q ,0 £r MOON rr r 00OOOOOOOOOOOOtoN r M N 0 ,p =00-000

d w 3 w 3

Z w N C
Z r N
y N V N F U
A
G 0 r M O V V M M to V O V M n V M n V N O V r n N r n O N A
N G h M V r r M
G p r M CV N r r 0 0 0 O r 0 0 0 O O O O O O M CV M N O p r f V N O O
N V V O d_
G Q N C Q

Z ? Z
O C O p

f? N V N V V M M lO V V r r r O O r r O r O r M N r n O O
0
0
0 N Cl) V r O M
'O 66
r M O O N ---
0 0 0 V N r M N 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
R d
p N -000
cc d
'p N

F, (0
(GO U
(Ga U
? fA N
O G N r M N 0 0 0 0 0 O V tO V W V M M N N n V O r 0 0 0 0 N C M r M N r M
a 2 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O *- 0 0 0 0 0 2 r M M 0 0 r
d d
'
Q d 5 d a
J 2z CD Z
Q oo co
Z
O 0000000000000000000000000000 000000
?, ? •? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? .? 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q fn

N °v 3 °v 3
Z .m. N Z S N
W J dCD d0 Co
y
?"' Q m (
a
Z Z U G(+?Nvoaomr nMO Ovr?nvMnvN(ov,rvnv(OMN U Gnw nrr(D
Q G d O N V N r N r N r O r 0 0 O O O O O O O O O N O O N r'6 0 d O r N N O O r
Q F- N G Q N C Q
z 2 b b
O Z
° Z
t-a 0 °0
Z
O
LL (O M tO N W M r Lq M O O r r r 0 0 r r O r O r to n V tO M 0 N CO Cl) r O Cl
? N V O O N r N r C r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M O O N r C ? O O r 0 0 0
Q W y N
A p N
w
EL in
Z N r M N 0 0 0 0 0 0 V (D V C Rd: M M L Q N n V O r 0 0 0 0 N Z m.- N N. -- M
OO O N r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 Or M M O O r
O ~ O p
N Q N Q
O O
z z
N
.

L
N = N N 76 (C N F ia R cO N (O N N (0 f6 lC (0 N cC (0 (O N (C i0 N y
T
G
G C C G C C G C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Q
d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d
.0 0 ?o V U -0 M V 'O 'O 'O 'O a 'O 'o 'O 'O 'O V V -0 'O 'O V 'O .?
C
N w .N .N N .N V5 N N .N N .N .(A .tn .N N Z Z Z .N •V1 .N 5; .fq .N N .y N
d 7 d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d
°a?cs¢¢Xcc¢cc cc ¢cc ac¢¢rc¢¢¢cz¢¢ac¢rta[¢¢m
O
M V, Lo CD
o a d d

}LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL
H2?0020co 22CD 00000000000co 000002 a) (D a)
C }"?= - _-
CD
F- U) (n OOto cn
0
d
°W MO NMV U) On CO MO NM V Ln mn CO MO NMV(n
V V N N to to to Lo ID 1n V) Ul (D O (D to (D (D co O (D O n n n n n n 7 °
N r N co V N cD
(0
d

r
C (p V N h N r N O M 0 st O V N M O OR M h O K r N V 7 O M N r r O N r r to (O r M ih (7 to t0 O M N V T to O N r
O O r M 0 a0 M (O W r 0 0 0 9 M n V V N O M M M M N M V 7 -00 r r M t'7 r
O (V M r r 0 0 c) V
N
7 7 7 d
r r r r r N r r
C Q
W d O
Z Z
d L ]
y O

U '=
ct M N CO N N r r O M (O M M N r? h n O V r N V r 0 r 0 '7 N n tc N M (O (O r aD t` M to N r ch n M V t` r (n N
r r
N M N t o V 7 r r O r a r O') O O
O
N
000000000 r N r to V N M h (n O M O (O W r 0 0 0 0 (c N r r O M
O d d r r r r r r r r
N O A
U
?
C M V N n O r N O M 0 R O O N M t` M O M r (O n n N r O M Nq r q N 0 r M a N M N M M n tT M V n W C N r

r N (n N to n r N r N (n N'T (7 r
r` r 0 0 0 0 m f` a' V N O O
r r
r 0 0 to V N 0 M O) cT 0?
N sT M
d
7 7 7 7
N
r 7
C Q
c i 5
Z d
E
N
m w

(n U
M M N (O N N r r r r O M CO t` N N M to q M r (c n t` N r O r 0 (O N t` CO M M tT V of M N c? M n O (O (O M r (c m O N
M
O O
N V
CM 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O r N r 0 M t` r. N r O V r r t- r 0 0 O O (c N r r O M T N r N N N (c t` N M r N
r r r r r r
N O H
R
(tea U
E (n
..
J
r O O M V M h h n tc tI) n r r r V to N N N O O V r V N 0 0 O v r (D V r 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O N O r M 0 0 M Cl
0
O
0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r N N O M N N r r N a N In In O O O O r O 0 0 0 r r O O r N O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0
Z
Q Q a Q

Lf) M O
2! G
7
Z
4) a
O
> ?
0 L) O M W M V N O w n (c N M V (c N h r N N 0 0 V r 0 N O N N M N N M r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r (c N r (n N r 0 0

6MnNNMNODMrrc r 0000rr6 6 r6 W 6 6 rc6 6 6 660006 OOON0 O0 r
M'O v 66c
?
Q r r r
r r
O d d
N
m U
cn

C O O N O N r Lq In O N n r N r V N 1n q r 0 0 t` r (n N r N O C r (c [f x 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O N O r 0D O O M M
r
O r N N O M N 1n r r N V N u7 7 0 0 0 0 r O 0 0 r r r O O r N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r 0
dl'
Q
fV °2' Q
C
d
Z
y O
l0 n
U O W m t, O V O N O N M V t` N t` r n M r 0 0 n r N N M a N M M N M r r 0 0 0 0 0 O O r (p N r to N r 0 0

M 9 V O (n N N M O N N M (O M t` CO r r N r r 0 0 0 r r O O r (n (Sj N to r M r 0 0 O O O O O O O O O N O O N r
r

V r r r
O `m d r N r CO
N V w
c
(
o U

C r 0 0 0 M V' M n N (O (O M r N N R to N M r O O N V N r r CD O R r M V r O O O O O O O O O N O r M O O M m
O r (V N N M N tl7 r r N V N N n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O r 0 0 0 N O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O r 0
d w
U O
Q O
0
0 d
3 ? E
d N O

? `
t0
_ U O M ap M M O t0 M (O (O M lA 7 t` r n r n M r O O N V n r (O O to M m N M r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r (p N r N N r 0 0
Q M'O R6 6 6 666cro NM[OODr`r rc r666000rtj6 6c66 6 r6 ?000006 6 6 666CN606 1-
J
Q rp (C d r N r CO r v r r r
N g o
z !go
y
O z M M M M O N M r 0 0 t, M M (O M r (c N 0 0 0 O O O N O U N N M n to c! N r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r N N N M N r n M
Q N
r
0 N V CO r N r r r (n N V r N N N 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 M N N N CO -000000000c, 0 Cl) O O CO
V •-
?
Z
>. N r M
M
CC N Q
J

a z
ZZ
QL

Q r
° a m
m m m m 6 c m m d m m m m m a m 5 m m m 6 m¢ 5 ° m m m 76 76
d d U d= d d
Y E 2
E
Z_ c E E c v c c 'r 0
E c c c c c c c c E c E c c c c c c c c c c c c c d m(? c c
O -O
O
L
I- 0
a ;
= N 2 :2 :2 2 :2 N N N N :2 U? N79 = N= N N N N N N y N N N N N L N O a N t M N== N ?
C 2C
2
0
C
r
2
M
7
c
C
C¢
LL
C
C
C¢
a
0
0
AC
C
O
O
to °
o
`L
¢¢C
a MOC ?2¢cc , a¢ 2CCT ¢ CC
C
T-0
¢¢c
?
?(
Z U
L. OLL TLL LL O LL O LLt LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LLt LL LL. U. jLL d C O j -LL rLL 7LL LL O OLL LL LL
>- OLL LL L LL LL LL C
2cncnUcntncnUU2cnSU)U)2(n2U) (n ntncncncn(n(ntnUCA(n(nLL 2_j2 ?0 U(nztncn222?i(ntn
0 LL -

w
w a
00 CY)
00 0) 0
D r N :co V N co r W M O r N M of n O n M M N N N N N N N N N N Cl) M M M M M M M co cc) M? ct V C V V nV C V N N
rrrrrrrrrr
?
a V/

11
C N M m V 111 10 r V N n V C l n V M 111 '7 0 M O N '- M N
o N rr r o ooo
000G 0000010Nr 10M O c n rn r r r co
° NNO or
a1
7 O
=a ca
Wpb Wpb
z z zwz
N Q E N Q E
0
U U
~
p 1 07 M : 10 10 •: r r r 0 0 r r O r O r M M N r M o
o
0 N M (0 r O Cl
T
7
N --- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 (O N- 0m 0 O O r O O o
N
N y 9 y
R
U
« U
y N
C n m r h o P7 0 V N n V M n? M 10 V' O o n V M 11) N
.2N ,:N r O r r O r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M O O M r 0 c n n M r r (O
2 r N N o o
a)
O
7
=a ca
z z
z0 z
N O N 0
t0 ` O O
?.
w
U U
?
(n CO 107 n Q MMrrr00rrOrOr In n'7 M 11) O
0).0
' NMM r 0M
C)
' O
Q c V r (V r O r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O d
O O M r 0
N 0 0 x 0 0 0
N c
D y y
_ 2C.) ca L)

.r
J
CO r 0 0 0 0 0 r r 10 C M N CJ C( 7 n n N M 0 0 0 0 N
00000
0000000000-
0000-
CO U? M W 10 o N
00N--o
z 9
9
0=9 0=
D a d a
b a k a
M o
z 4! z
Q y Q O y Q O
> m
~ as
Q U
0 0 0 G O O N CO N N n N r O) (O M r M N 0 0 0 0 V
O U v CO C N r r

a T OOOOOOOOrrOOrOOrrrrO000r OT NM(dr rN

d N'0 N
U N O N
c
m c
cU

F
C r 00 OOOr r 10 of NN M MCO W LQ MMOOOO (h
D O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r O 0 0 0 0 r Cu'1M n 0 N
? O O N r r 0
O
O U O
U u
aa
N d b aQ
N d O
w z
N 0 N
cc w
U O O O G O O NMMNM 1t)r M(O V O)7N 000010
r
O
O 0 a1 w
U V CO M CON r
)
N
r r
O O r
0 0 r
9 O O O O O O O O r r O O
N 'O y d
T
M O r r N
N 00 N
(co U (ca U
N N
C r 0 0 0 0 0 r r 10 { (M N C] M c l (O O M M 0 0 0 0 M C 10 O) N 10 10 N
00000009000000000-090000- O O O V' r 0 0

a o
d z d
IL (A 0 U) 0
w w m w

Q U O O O G O O N (0 co N n 10 r co (0 N V' O N 0 0 0 0 10
1 'O U K M co n (O r
h h
v
J Q
OOO OOO o O r r 66 r 66 rrrr 0000r
a1 o ?T N C
r OC
a1 0
Q o
N= N p
N a N
z mU ?oU
O
z r 00000M 10 M OJ V M M to M(0 V r10 O OO 0 N zO) OON r O)
a Cl) 000000000-000000000-00000 Q r M M O O r
z FD
CAS
s
?F
N N
W J O O
F Q z z
z z
oa
a F- m m m a m m m a a m 6 m m m m m m m m m

0 4 0 0 0 0-0-0-0 oav o 0 -ov-o,v_v 0-0-0 4
,

CL y V)
N N N 65 &5 41 6 T w to fN NZ to N F. N
W 0 0 0 a) a1 w w 0 0 0 a) m a) a) a) 0 a) N N 0 o w w O
?¢o???¢¢¢¢oC¢?¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢?
W r N M C 0 c0

z U a
>- LL LL LL LL LL U. LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL U- LL LL LL LL LL LL LL M a 0 a c m d
>!=!-'

W W M.?
100Nwm0rNMV 1n(0n(o0)OrNMV
10
0N OrNMRIn(O

(L M
1010w 0 10 M00 0 O M O OOM n n n n n
<n
n
-
a cn

C 0)"(•(n rnV? m vv rn rn m nv r V OOMr mMnn CO OON V m'"N(p NMM V noN00rn V 00N M
0 0 r r r N N (G CM 0 0 0 0 0 M O 0 0 0 V tp M N 0 0 0 V O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O M 0 0 N r 7 7 7 r o
O
O U

-
aZ
00

_
+-0 0 rn O n rn n r M W r n rn n N m n q N 0 m o rn.r M O (n (p q r m m 0 0 V rn M M O M M n 0 M M M 0 10
m V
0 n
'
N
E 0 rn 0 0 0 M M 0 V (0 ?2 M^ N 0 N 0 o 0 w O N (0 m m T^ m m m 0 N m m n v O n V O
0 0 0 0 0 rn rn CD CO rn M N rn rn rn rn O rn
0 0 O rn rn W rn O rn rn rn
r r
(C O O O O O 0 0 0 O r r 0
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
? N U

N (0 0 V n N CO (0 CD W n n (- (0 uO N V 0 w (p 0 0 V r O o rn tD V M M O N g r q m m c0 Orr q 01 V g 0 N V
O
U p O O r r m (V n c+i (`? O O O O m 0 0 0 0 V 0 M N (p 0 0 V O (p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O M O O N r r 0
O
O
.1 U
(
N d Q

Z
a E
.
M M 0 N O N V 0 N 0 rn 0 M cO m m n 0 0 r r m v q M 0 n rn r 0 m 0 V m m n N O N n f? o CD CD m 0 0
r

J ma wmr, V m0 0N(n('2 a2 V N cm n
0)m co 0 m a)0.- 00) co 0 N co m n V On V 0O)V Non
R y o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r r o 0 0 0 o rn rn m rn o o rn rn rn r r o 0 0 0 o rn rn m ao rn co M rn rn rn rn o rn
Ll
I v? r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r rrrrr r r
.
U) m U
y
C CD r T V 0 m 0 M W rn rn CO n N M M 0 0 m q W r cq q M1,? h W V M r N 0 N M m V M o N O o m V (p 0 N m
? O r r N N 0 N N 0 0 0 O M O O O O V t0 N N n CO (D V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O (h O O N ? r 0
d
U V
G Q
?a
az
00

++ 0 0 rn rn m n M 0 N CO 7 n rn 0 V O n r 0 0 m N O V M r o r q r 0 (0 0 0 V rn O N O M W n 0 M M m 0 0
0 Qi lA V (CI c7 n v v N (O M M V N N N 0 O M m OJ m O n r m m m w N M m n V O N V 0 rn V N 0 n
o
0
0 0
o M rn o r r o 0 0 0 o rn rn m rn rn ao m rn rn rn rn o rn
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r r
0 0
o rn rn 0
Q v 3 r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
N C d
3 N
H U
W C (0 m V 0 m 0 n N r n (p m V m 0 0 M 0 O N V V 0 0 n O M M o N g 7 N N M M O r r 0 0) V 0 0 N V
U
O

O O r r N N 0 M m 0 0 O O m 0 0 0 O V (O M N ap 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M O O N r r 0
0 w
O C Q
°
N W
a
? Z

O
M M (O O (p q 0 rn 0 (p 0) 0 W (P 0 0 n r n o 0 0 0 W 0 V 0 M rn r 0 M (f) V M W n N O N n n 0 W W Cl 0 0
N N N n 0 a0 M 0 rn O 0? rn rn M 0 N m M n V O n V 0 rn V N (O n
? 0 rn 0 0 0 V M V V
(C d 0 0 0 0 O O O O O r r 0 0 0 O O rn rn M O O O rn rn O r r 0 0 0 0 0 rn rn o7 ao rn W w rn rn rn rn O rn
M
V
.O ? r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
r r r
.
-
N U
?

IL CCOrnaoMCDOMNMMMNN00(OWOMrNMMOnoNV MrN0NMMV N 0 N 0 a M W M M
?Orrr m N0mM000 O V 0006 m0MN V V r,:6_: ; o o o 00 0 0 0 0 O M O O C r r0
I V V
Q da

? dZ
z

O

F. w 0 0 g m r N m q 0 W r y O 0) 0 r CO 0 O V M 0 m r 0 O r 0) 0 0 ^ (p M 0 (N V rn N cM 0 (7 CO n 0 M) N M 0 0

'p' 0rn 00 n V N O V N 0 M0 N 00mm mm mm rn mn? m
mm m n 0. n'm O mm V N(pn
M m
ooooornrnm COrnornrnrrooooornaomQ mmrnrnrnorn
E
ooooooooo
a N F
F
-r rT
rr r r r rrr r r
? 3 r r r r r r r r r r r
_
Z fn ?d
R y
7
N
F-
a
Z
Z R C 0 0 V O m q N n 0 n n n 0 V r V In 0 n n q M M M N 0 O V M M O N 0 r N M M W o r r q m V (p 0 N V
O
0
U O o o r N M m n M m o 0 0 o r o 0 0 0 co 0 Cl) N 0 V n Cl) r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m o
N r 7 7 7 r
O U V

z N a
0
Z
?
r

v
O
- M M 0 0 0 o O V O CJ rn 0 W n N m n 0 (O N W O 0 N N M rn n rn r 0 M 0 V M rn n N O N h I? O W W M 0 0
LL 'O 6600n4606 N6 mC66 N (066066 V 06 6 6 r6 66 6 N6 6 r-? V ors V 66 V N6 P,
r 0 0 0 0 0 m rn M m O O m m rn T 0 0 0 0 0 rn rn m m rn W D7 rn rn rn rn 0 rn
N d 0 0 0 0 O O O O O r
r r r r r r
-
Q W .
r r
C r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
w a (? Cc
a in
Z n V N 0 M V N n V g N rn N M r q N 0 rn 0 0 n N V O V rn m o V 0 0 r m r 0 V O O r M n rn N : M n rn
.
ULO aDaMm rONWr NM nonmm u) r- CDMOrrnrnV ONMmco non(p OMnn

T 0 0 0 0 O rn rn a0 a0 rn M M rn O rn rn O rn
- 0 0 0 O rn rn M a0 rnmm rn mm r r
0 F 0 0 0 0 O O O o O
T
r r
r r r
r r r r r
r r
N
r r r r r r r r r

O
Z
-o
U ?
9 T Rf N (C 5 n N N '70 N N N (C cC cC (C R R1 (C ca ,c6 ¢ ',%-. _ c0 N N cO cli N
N E
m m (7 N N N O N
C
0
N N N E N 0 0 N N 0
N N d N
C
'
C
0
0
C
)
) a))
'll
a)) a)) C
) 0)) 0))
N C
0 0
° :4:4?sa o o?aM 'g=v °
_:g:2 :g?72 a a om
22? 'oa?2:gmaM
°
.
-22
-
.
N V7 L N C) C) ,C L V) U C) N y N L N (/) N N N N (? N N L N (? C) U C) 'O C) Np - C1 L N N N N
W m d? a) d j a) a) a) a) m d d d m? d a) °) co
¢ ¢ ¢¢'-¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ Cl ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ c
¢ ¢ ¢
¢ ¢ ¢ m¢ o
o o U Q ¢ ¢ Q a :n ¢
Y O LL LL LLL LL LLL L OLL !!)LL LL OLL OLL r- LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL r- LL LL
LL jLL N C O LL LL ALL LL
rn
O OLL
F?(p(gU(A(4rno0a: n2(A(D2() (AU(D W(n(A()cnU) A(DU(Aco (ALL2JY?C7?(n0(nZWW222
C r N co v (n 0 n CD rn O T N M V 0 V] n 2 rn N N N N N N LO (D N N N CO 0) 0 N co M M M (V7 C07 (07 Cl) co 00 m? V V V C V V V

J
W
Cl)
H
O
M
a
J
Q
z
O
Q Cl)
CC N
w J
Z ZZ
Q
Q
it Z
5
Z U
OLL
? U
W W
LU
CL U)
v V V N O I
C
r W N r Un q n r V W UD W 0 V W N N r a) M M (D
0000 V' N N M V r00 r-N - r - MN N Un9 N (n C (7)
2 ?? rN
r O
(
?
V N n
0 0
Q
C O Q
C
` b CC) O
E Z li.(
o o0
?
_ OD n O) M n 0) (n V V V W r (7 0 (q ug r N to 0) n r V r N V n
_ V N W N N N (D N W Ch m W O W W
M N W
E rn n (D f` N rn n

D v (O r V W N
c
o o rn W W W W W rn rn o o rn rn o o rn o rn o rn rn rn Wo
o
?? 3 rr rr rr r
? o o r o rn o
;
,
r r Q.o
rrrr r
CTM N
N M « U
NU 3N
j
N
N (
d
o L W V V r o N W N r N r V cq r (n un r M (D rn (O N N T M V W
V
6 A O m W W M N
C
a 0
o o V N N co V 79o 0 N r r (V co N N to O r O r N N
N d . U
O r O N N (D O
O D U D U

N
4) a
O O

O
C Q
N i O
Z w z
DC ?o
n n 0) N n co u) V <t (n W O h c? (0 M rn r` N r r vn r N (g 0)
9 V N (O N N N (D V w
m
O (D (D r- n r n
,
W N co m o w
N m m N W
O La) O OO) W W W W W D)m 0001010 0 W Oa1O01rnrn W W 0
.
rr rr rr co r t{ a) N
v
(p d00r OQ)O
off
r r r .o?rrrr r
U uU
y W
Cv V7NOr WNr(g rnrv cu V h W(O(O MNr OMMr
0 0 0 0 0
r
- Cr a1V (p(DN
N N M V r o O
N r r r N N N( n O.
O r N (O r O N co (O o
Q C
y
0 Q
?a

O C
?Z
o
?Z
«eornDlMna1(OV V V rnrr?o(gvrnor,? W cDrv.- N VN
'O V N (D N N N (D V (A W M m W m w W 0) M N W n(D(g(avn
V W r N p N
p 0 0 m W W W W W m 4) 0 0 W 01 O m m 0 a) O m W D) m co
O
Q v; r r r r r r r E
O O O r O p 0
3
r
N L N Q o
r r r r r
N L O
a' N
3N R «
3N u)
d U
N W U

(? L m V V r O N W N r N r V W r (n V m r O n W N N m c? V M

V O O o
O V N N M 'V
+j N
(4 C O W W W co
N
V
o
r 0 0 0 N r r r (
N N In O r O r N (D
M
t U O r O N W W O
N
o
Oo d Q p o U
O Q
N
O
N i a

0
O E
a
n n 01 N n W (0 V V V (O W O n (7 It r M 0 0 g 7 N r N un v ? (D O n n (D n
st N (DN N N(O V mw N O W W O o wN m N 0)M N W
(p y 01 0 0 W W W W W W W 0) O W O) O O O D) O O) 01 D) W W O
r r V (Or 6 m m
O y 0 0 r 0 01 0
O N
r r r r r r r .O ? r r r r r
L
«U U
«
U
L 'V"V M N 0) r W N r U) 7 n 7 V W (D W O) g T M N r M M N V c
O W M p N
0 0 0 O M N N CM V r O O r N r r r N N N V O
O r N
(D
a
04
r N W V 0

U Q
L

L
U Q ,?
o c
z wZ
o o
_
,«, CO n O m w m w V V v n 7 M O W (O o r v N W r v r N M W
(D N N N ro V h W M W W O W m00)MN W
M O O Q) W W W W W W O O O O) m 0 0 m O Q) O W
0 ?„ W n O N n n
'p' V W N Mn In
E
01
) m W 0
C? 3 r r r r r r r r r O O r 0 01 O
m r r r r
r
N
w 0
GNU Q C w
« N
3NU
N N
(p L N V V r O N co N .- (0 r V W r tD n r N (O N n N N m V M (D N C r 0 01 In N N
U O O o o o V N N M V r O o o N r r N M N M V o r o r N (r;
? a r r N (D N 0
U U
C L Q l0
p U V

O
N O
N
O i S
w z
O a d) Z
p
o
rnr- rnNrn W (D V V v(OW OnMrnMvn(nN7vn co vn nnr V On
72 vN(DN N NCDvmwN O m w OW rm mm N W r
(p y Q) O O m W W W W W 4) O) O m O) O O O O O) O O) O) m D1 W 0
r r .a V (DNMW Vi
(p y 0 0 r O m 0
r r r r r r r
L N r r r r r
(
V U U
? N
Z N M Cl r n o q (D 0 rn (O V N q W o N N r M (n M Cl N 0) r z (O N N 0) W 01
ON V MW WNNQ) W (DW NO W cDO W ((?O W WmNOO(O la
o F m 0 0 Q1 W W W W W m O O O Q) Q) O p a) m W 0) m m p W W 01
r r ?M(n O)(DNm
a F 0 0 0 m a) O
r r r N
r r r r
N Q
O Q ?

z
O
z .
N
.T
L _5 75 a m m m m m m o m ro m o m o m m m m m m m m
? C C L C C L C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C L Q
N N d N N? O N N N N d N

0
v N N N N 0 N N 0) N N 0 d
o,,v_vav 4ag
avvv
v -0 v
v v
va v2
o
v

c
'U
_
_
,
_
Vl N
'US 'a
N N y N N N N? N N (q N N N N N 41 N N tN N N N (/1 ?
W N N d N d d N U) N N N N N U) N d d N N d N N N N N '
O
p,(7 Q¢¢ CC CL¢cc cc ¢¢¢cc cc Q¢Q¢QCL ¢ftm?Qcc cc O. W rCV CO VLO CD

>- LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL
F C A (A? l A f Q ! A ( n ( n N y (n f n V ) f n N t o W N f n W N N N
C m
}a =m !=m =d =a) ?d
W w w w w w
F
-
201)U') W WnWOO NMV W Wn W W0 NM<t(D
N(OW W WNNInW(D(O(D WtD(D(OW(D(Onnnnnn 0 OrNMV V1 fD
d

1
CJ

1

J
w
N V; Ln N+- WmVMM Vf` W m N W M O O M Ln rm y r Ln m Ln o OR 7 W O r N O N N O h Ih M W WNmMNN
to Oi W Oi aD W f` aD aD m m (D N m 0 0 0 W m V V IA W O r'T T^ T W T W r Oi M O N W V O m m O M W r 0
a) r r r. r r N N r N N N r N N r
U U
C Q
Z
E
= (h m 0 V p Ln C V r W Ln M M W m W N W N O (p W W Ln Ln q V; M W M m In 0 Ln r r W O t. cq r M Ln o q 7 Ln r
E W W W V N N V' M M N Ln w O M O N M r p r r W (O M V O W M O O W W r n M O M V' tD W O N W M
R m m m m m m m m m o 0 o r r o r r o o m m m m o 0 0 o m o r r o r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
w v 3 r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
Z r N
m
V V to N r W O V M M V? h 0 V V n W h M O N M Ln N V O V O OD r W O r M O Ln N 0 t` h M (p W N W M'M N
N C Oi Q) OD Oi n lb CO m m (66 N 6 66 m 66 V W W W O N 4 Mr,: W 6 66 r? M O N W v 666 O M W r W
O N N N- N N N r N N r '
N = Q
i O
Z
O
C?) T O V O V d; V r N Ln N N r Ln O W M N Ln o 0 h (O W V; Ln M W M m Ln q g r r W o h W r M N O N r V r
M W W V In N V Cl) CO N N V] O M O (V N r O N N W M Co V O OD M O O W W .-- n ('M O M V W M O N (O M
A y m m m m m m m m m O O O r r O r r 0 0 m m m m 0 0 0 O m O r r o r 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 m
? y r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
la
=(a, U
cn
c V W N 7 W O Ln V M V h t` O 7 m w r W 7 m N V W N '7 r V 0 aJ r W O W V V N W t` n W W M M O O N n O
p W m m m h OD W 01 (p W N W W f` t' (D n N M N W O N V (M h W W 9 r r Oi V o M W 0 o r r N W O r W
Q N« r N N r N N N r N N N r r
IL 0
? Q
w O
a Z
a
Z Mm o vO V MM - WLn N.NN0MM V Ov Or lhW WLn W M W M M M M r, 0 r N r` t` r` W ONN V O V M
O p' Wm mm Wm Vm N N. Vm mm m N Ln co O M W W O m v W O O W W M V O W M O o W (D r 6 v r 6 6 W 6 M M CV V of M
O E m m O O O?? 0 0? 0 0 0?? 0 0 m m m m O O O O m O T r r? O T 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0
Q N O?m rrr rr rrr rr rrrr r r rrrrrrrr
y
? N d to U
w J y V N N r W O V V M V t` h o V m n n W r W V M V r Ln O m W
V r W o n V M M W V V V n r m Ln V In
V r
Z Z O Cp O) T W T W M t` aD aD 91 O) (p aD N W W P, r, W n N co t2 W O N V N I? OD co T y r O) N N N Wr N N
N N r N W O N W
Q U ,O r r r
C Q
a?
Z w+ z
H a o 0
O V M m O V o V V M 7 W Lq N N n O O m V O M m O W Ln Ln V Ln V W C7 m N V t` V m o V V Ln m W N n W g r O.
C LL' 9 W W W V Lo N V M M N Lo W o co co m O m r W m o co W CO V O CO M O O W W r N V r Ln U) co h M CO N V O V
C U) M y m m m m m m m m m O O O r r O O r O O O O r O O m m m m O O O O m O r r O r O O O O O O r O
o w ?m rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrr rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
a cn
z n V N W co V W t` V m N m N M r M N W m W W n N V O C m M W V W N r M r W V O o 7 W n m N V W t- m
0 W00V'MM rWNWr (VM NOt`WMInr, WMWrpimvLO(VMMW N0?(D WMt`N
LO H O O O O O O O O O r r p o 0 0 m m W W m m m m m m r r 0 0 0 0 0 m m W W m W W m O m m O m
O U r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
N 0
Z
m m m m m ro m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m ? °- m m d 6 m m
oacim a?iacia?i aci a?ia)ooa?i a c) ac)a?i60i¢v)C°-may ?o??E E?
_ ) 0 0 w 0 w_ 0_ 0 L N N N 0 N N y y :M L y N N V y E (w S a N L N O) (d V) = _ 0
d D d m j d d d? a) C 0)) d a d? a) N W N a) a) a) a) a) ? a) d a) co O co M 0= U Q C X Q 1] A? ID
?m cr QQ N?Qc¢¢._¢._¢ a¢¢ar¢¢o¢ac rr¢ ¢¢or Q O L
.D Q
OLL LL L LL LL LL LL OLL !L)LL LL OLL OLL LLL LLLL LL LL LL LL LL LLL LL LL LL =LL
0 C LL L LL mLL LL 0 OLL
?2tA fAUfnwwuc-)MU)Tcomm(n 2 wC)U)(A(q(nfnln(Aunt)Ufn(gun LL 2 JY?0(720(n Ocn Z(n U) M 22
0 r N Ln W n W m 0 N M V M CO N W M 0 ;;CM (M V N W n W M 0 N M V M 0 t. W
r N M V (n W r- W m M
r rr.V - r.- r .-r N NNN NNNNN NM7M MM M MMMM V V V V V V V V V
J
W
N
cc
O
M
cc
Q
J
Q
Z
O
Q fA
z
CC (A
w J
ZZZ
Q
Q _Z
p
?a
Z U
O a:
U
W a.
_a
E in
Olt- mm mm h r V V m r N "t m V M m M I, m r N q q q r V co N m M
O V N N min 6 6 mrnr(f)?00NN m OD N N N 010 MOi(7 pmmOr NN
,2 r r r r r r r
C Q C a
b °1 b
4) Z dZ

r m rn N 0 1A m m M (q 0') N m r V V V m rn M O N rn V V Ui 1* r

E m m m M N M CD N CO N M N rn rn rn n ;; 0) n N M O V LQ N
D r_ 0 M O r M m

E V m O m O m

?p O 0 0 0 O O m m m m m rn m m rn m m m rn O 0 0 0 0 rn
m
a 3 r r r r r r rrr r
w

rn rn r rn rn rn
w a 3
Z Co U) Z ?o y
NU U
m
U m V r rn m m M 1- N V V m r N V W V M M N N M'IT V m r M U r V N V V m
N V N l? m iA m m m rn r 6 m m N N m
m N N^ 66 T O M O N N rn 0 .- N N
i
0 d r r r r r N
0
r
00 .
N= Q N C a

Z Z
O
O
mrnN 0 Li)m(O MIS MN mr V V V m rn qr Omh m 1:N N U-) C') rn M V m
'O m m m N N M m h m N M N rn rn rn r rn m M O V m N
?? o rn rn o 0 0 o rn rn rn rn rn rn m m rn m m rn m rn o 0 0 0 o rn V m rn m O m
? y rn rn o rn rn rn
a yr rrrr rrrrr
m V .o y r
m U
N
N N O g q r O m m N V 0 r N u) m M 0 O V r N In N N r rn r V N M V N
=
C N n n rn m rn h O r M m m m N N c6 6 N m, N O V m r-: N r-: N O rn of O r N N
V .? r r r r r r r r V .?
ca ca
b b
dz wz
O c c

r rr cn N M V Mr N for V M V NN-Mm0mVr MN m co rn N Vrl
a' n r- CO LnN V NOOON MN MM MN mm V 0 N M M N
E O 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rn rn m m m rn m m rn m m 0 0 m 0 0 m a' V (0 0) mom
E rn rn o rn rn rn
`
3 r r rrrrr r r r r r ,
AO 3 r
o c d c d

w N
Z Cc
y
w N
yU
m
U
N a)
N
V M r rn N r r O m tf) V V m r N l[) m N lit rn V N m l() N N h rn V r V I? N V N
ou?Ncoa mrnno
MCOmed N n ? ed N ^NovmnNnN ornrnorNN
0 W r r r r r r
c
. c
0 W
N O U N V V

Z ? Z
O o
O O
LO N V M m r M N O M N m r V g V 1*? h N rn 1, r m V r m N U) M rn r V ,.
I? r m m N '7 N O O O N M N rn rn rn n m m V 0 r-? M M N
?p y O rn rn 0 0 0 O O O O rn rn rn m m rn m m rn m rn 0 0 rn 0 0 rn 'O V m rn m O m
c0 y rn rn O rn rn rn
y r r rrrrr r r r r r .O y
«U ?gU
N w
Z N M M r Ih O M m N rn m V N m m q N N 7 M l() M M N rn r 7

. . . . . . . . . . . .
N rn m rn
. Z m N. . . . .
O N V M m m lA In rn m m m N O m m O m t!) rn m m rn N O O m N
N rn 0 0 rn m m m m m rn rn O O rn rn 0 rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn m rn ? M It) rn m N m
a O O O rn rn 0
r r r r r r r r r
N N a
Q
O O
Z Z
N

t .N
}

-iu m m? m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m?
° m
m
C C C C G C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
- Q
Q
N N d N N N N N N N U) N N N N N N N N d d N N
oo:o:4
a??v
v
i?l
vaavv:o :o v:o :o :g :o 2:2 :2 o: :
v
c
•
_
q_
N
N N N N 0 0 0 w 0 N N N 0 N N N N N m `o w
`-
U4 U5
v5 '
w 7 N N N N d 0 N 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
c7¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢ O_ W r N M V M m
0
a
} LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL -0000OW
C }= ==
1- ? fA (A ? Cn fn ? ? fn fn fA fn fA CA (n Cn M (n (n [n In (n (n (n (n fn s 0) F-W U) U) U) U) Cn
O
Q rn 0 N M V in m N m m 0 N CO V U) m ? CO 0) 0 N M V N H G r N M V 0 m
V Nm m m Ln LnLO to m LO mm m m m m m m m m lln r N Nr
d

1
C

t
11

C r N O N 0 C0 n O lO M l0 O O W O O O O O O O M O N O N M M O M r N N V r In M M n n N r N r O N N
066c6 66 O t; c0 a66 of n aor M O M O O N N N(n 6 O N v N r- co 666 M(70 OROMMOMm?
d ?, r r r N N N r N N r
U U
C Q
Wb
z dz
u0i o E
V 2
M Md' Mnr M CnM rM M M(O MNr N Of`'V M V MM CO MOOM OO V Or O L7O M V N M r ((/O V O
(O (O V' (O N V M M N N O O M r M V N K r Cry ('2 0 N ? M m O M v (O r? r n V O T (O co (O O N w
N M d M M M O) O) M O) M M 0 0 0 r r r r r r O r r r O O M M M M 0 0 0 O M O T r r O T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.O ? r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
r V
fA
C rNON OOOO (q c! (OOOraDNONMONNONM N MOh N r N OO V OO COM O P- NMOMMO
OM(n aD??aD I?fOO??nhr 0 w r, r, (OO M V(n(O O N V Nr,? OO(A r, M V OM rR MO rMto OM
r N N r N N N N N N r
C Q r
z0 z
d p E
0 O
M M C M t" r M a MOM M M n N t` O O V 7 O O M r O O M O M V r O V N M M O (n N O r M t" OR 0 r r
G O M O V (n N V M M N Ln O O M CO m N O V O r r M N r m (O O M T N r r O R N O O O O M (t) M U) r
(a y M M M M M M M M M 0 0 0 r r O O r r O O r r O O M M M M O 0 0 0 M O r r O r 0 0 0 0 0 0 .-
N ,O ? r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
(ra M
N
C -m M M M n M N No M n ON r M O O O N M to n V O N r N C N N N R N m M M ON r r r 0 O n O V
U O r r r r M M 06 V <i r O 6 6 M 6 6 6 6 n M N O m 6 N O r` O O O O O 66666 6 66 N N r
J Q c¢
w M0 z
(n 3?
m E
N
U
r M n O O-T n •- O NV O N n O 0 V CO r 0rl (D N N r M O M O r r"T O M O Ch N O N O r r In O r O r
M ap A CA (O In N . 6 C6 6 M a N N M M O M O N V O O O r` N O O V N N V V n v O CO 6 O M (O N O
p (p y 0 0 0 0 0 0 r O O r r T 0 0 0 0 0 M M CO 0 0 0 M O O r r 0 0 0 M M CO N M O co M M M M 0
N 'p N r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
V
co
c r M CO Ih C t,? O N O M r O O M V O O 0 r N N rr. 1 V M CO O V N N N V N (M M (O M N r r r O O r O R
O O r r r r Ci M r M M r 0 0 0 M O O ? O N n M N M O f` O O n 0 0 0 O O O O O O O M O O N N r
U U
C Q
Nib
z
yOj ° O
(0 `-
V r M n O N r M (n r N V O N N N r V dJ n M O M O N n O r N In r (? ? (O M O M N N? O r r N O r O r
M7 poi t66 n 66(n 6 CM (O 464 N N M Mr,: MNNV rO hNOO V 6N4 V r`v 6.6 6 6 66 NO
co m y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r r r 0 0 0 O O M M O O O O M O O T r r 0 0 0 M M O O M O O M M M M O
N 'p y r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
c ca
(2 U
N
C r M O V O N O r O O M O r (`'> O O O O O M O V M r N N N O a N N N C N M M N O N r O r 0 O r (O K
Or r r N ci V h V ar 000 V OOr OM(O Cl) N(O 0 CO V- 0 0909900009CO00 NNr 77
Q O Q
a) Z
O 3 E
a N° a
r M n M h M 0 0 (O N a r M O M (O It O M rT N V M M M In n (n rPl? It O 0 O M N O N O N r N O r N r
a M? r M Oro CU to 66 6 66 V 6(f) N M r M M O Ui(n O Mt?NOO V MNV V n V 0 M M O M 0 N W
? y 0 0 0 0 0 0 T 0 0^ r r r ? O O O O O M M CO M O O M O M? r r^ O O O M M O O M O O M M M M O
N U r r r r r r r r r rrr r r r r r r r r
N
Z
O z q O M M r N M O N N M O (n M r V O 7 O O r N O M h M r r M N (q O n M O n V n N N N (n V O N r
L O O [t M"t N N (n M O r M V N O O n r M (n N M M n N O O N 0 N V M O n O N - N O' O
a (n M F 000000 0 r 0 r 0 r r O O O O M M O O M M M MM r r 0 0 0 M M O O M O O MrO M M O
Z C-/) N Q r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
J z
Z a
z
U
Q O
a F (V Y N N N N N ro S9 d ro d T N N N N N (a N N (a N t6 N LL? U? .0 Y - (t1 E- - - ? a) (D
w wE 'E 0 w 0 wc r- 0 ac) o aZ CC M C7 a Q)) = ac ac o 0 :2 2
) W d 0 0 0E 'E 0 0 0E '
` Z 0 m W aa)) aa)) (D 0 WE 0
1? O = 'O :O "O V U _"O=U :oU V mgmDm? 2?? U N y'D- N L M'2 N
(l) SS
y Cc M W ,= m 0 N N m 0 N N N L 0 N N
¢¢ L1ccN N c L
2 2 L ?c occ M ? ?¢ ?ccccccccc ?¢¢Mcc c mo 0r- ?m cr¢a
Z L) } OLL LL LL LLLL LL OLL NLL LL OLL O LL L LL (L LL LL LL LL LL LL LL L LL LL LL jLL 0,C O -(yLLL ?5 LLLL O O
LL F-2(n(A U(O(A(A 00 (nS(O(A2(A2(nU(A(D(n(A(A(A(n(n(n U(A(A(A LL?JY?C7 ? cn 0 U)Z(A (A??
2 5
O W 2-Nm T m o ,OMOrNMK(nOhCOMO N NM V 000-MM0 NM V M0r`OMO V NM V'(n(Dr`
w a r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M V V 7 V V V V
a fn
t
C N (D (D N m q (0 N (D N (D r CO CO r q N M 0 0 (0 m N O n (0 n c m [t r M M V
0 0 (? n CO W m m CO m r (0 W 1? (O n W (? I? O O N V N N O CA O r N f?
r r r r r r y
d Q C Q
W a W:a
Z Z Z Z

o
U U
m (D N co n v CO Nr m CD M m M CO N c! ?M V OD c> rOm r0m m r n ID O O N
p 0 Mnnm NN V Nw w 00 N4NOONON mnn(0 (D nN
N l0 4) 0 0 m m 0 0 0 O m m M m m m m M m M N W m m O O O O O m GT 6(O 6m Om
N m 4) m m O m m m
_? r r r r r r r r r r r C? r
(o U « U
N (n
C M (D N CA M n O r q N (0 r 1r m m N V M (0 N N O m m N W n W
0 o m t(j m? r N v (D D? n (O r CO cC n c0 r o .. n N n N
' (: m er q N M
2 cp Oj O r N f
-
? r r r r r r r r
V ?
? Q C Q
o a o?a
z )z Z 0Z
Ne E n E
(0 ca
(0 O

m h r N O cq N (D O M (0 N m M Oo r N O M O N (0 m r (? r N N n m r n (D (0 O M
T d MMr,M 11M NCNO0NO CO MW n ?V tN
N O y 0 0 m m 0 0 0
O O O O m m m m m m m m m m m O O m O O m ? (n(0 m0 m
o y m m O m 01 m
r
? yrr rrrrrr rr rr N,o H r
?a

U
is

« U

C: ? (D (O V' N M g M V M fl? W N R m m n M (0 0o n r (n r m q (0 (0 C r O N m 0 0
0 0000 o V Nc c? 'T 0 rN r r NMN M (O Or Or N(D O rr N co r, o
J c Q c Q

Cl) ? Z 3 Z
N d
0
4 O
N
7 w
U
Or M M nN MOMr(0(o M 0 M C'Or MN N M OnMn n 0n
m'O
n 6
7
66
6
f
V o
NoMm
6
i cc
U r.- n r N(0
:
m
MN m M(0 M M C
C
(
(
N o
mC
m
C
ND
N
o dMMOOmcomeommMmooMMOOCD M M M W roOO
0 (ri r,
o M doorooo
N .0 U) r r r r r r r r r r N .0 0 rrrrr r
SO M U
N (q
C V CO (0 R N M M M V Cl? n (D N V (0 m m O V r M V r m M W r = r m N 0 (D O
0 O O O O O V N N M V 7 o N r r N m m m w O r 0 r N n 0 +- 0 N O N o
O
U U _ r
N d a Q Q
N a
z
w
3 Z
y 0 0 d 0 0
N
F w
U
m OrMLO nNMOmr(0 co M 0 M CO O(0 O(0 N N 00 M n n 0(D m
U r0nNn(0
m
0 (oc 6 M N Mri M (O In In m M N m m N O m N O M MM NMN
p Ca d m m 00 MCO W W W 00 mm 00m M00M000mmm m COO D 61hr BOO
o (a 0OOr 000
N.0 0 rr rr rr rrr r N.? yrrrrrr
U « U
N N
C V (D (0 V NMMm ?M nCD N V (D mON (0 nr N (0r 00q
0 0 0 o 0 0 V N N M V r O r r N r N N C7 N C N O r O r N n =Nr n MmO
O r .- N n (t) O
a
a r
d ca
a
a

O 3i5 E 3?E
a 0 0

Q ? Orm(OnNMOmr(p (pm0(OMa00rrmrmm?nMM U NNN(n co (D
?
m N N 66 M C6 C7 ro ui to 6 ri N 66 N Om N O c 66 NOJN
y 0) 0) m.0 CO CO co CO (D mOG m moo C), mmmmNO
r r r r r r r r r m? (D IA N C'Mm
D y00rOm0
r
N N V N r r r r r
z .20 « U
O U U
I..? Z O m V m N N CO m M V M 0 (,? O O V R (D (0 er W m N CO M V W W Z O r CO N N (D

a
u) Q NNlO mw n(0(n O m n m N 0 N n O CA(00) (D co O N O (D to
m mmooMcococomcommOOmmOmmmmmOmMrndom 0 V(00)n C') (D
m
OOOmmo
r r r r r r F
r r r r
N Q N Q
W J
F
-
a z z
Z z
p a L
a F- = a m 5 m i0 5 m 6 v m m N O is 8 m m m _m N N N 6 R of
•
•
'
z c c C c c C C-
c c c
c c c c c c c c c c c
c c c c C
0
d 0) 0) a) 07 07 N N a) 0) 0) a) a) 4) a) d m a) a) a) Q) a) 4) a) a) a) a)
f Q a Ov_a o-0 o? 2-0vo.0-0 ov.0 aaa'ov o 0 o,o-D-0 4
'
N

a y y
N fp (? N y N N (? N N (? N N N N (? N (? N N N N (n
-:Iu a) 7 a) 4) a) a) N a) a) a) a) a) N a) N d N m a) a) N a) N a) a) a) N
¢ C7 ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢
W r N CO 7 (17 CO

O Z
U
}LL LL LL U- LL U- LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL
3(nc)2(ncn22(n()(n(n(ncn(n(nvncn(n(n(n(n(1)coU) n? a

f-Cl)WCO (nCD (n
LL

W W
CL 0 00 m 0 N CO V (0 CD n m CD O N CO V (N CD n CO m 0 n N CO -.t (0
R V CO (n N W Lo 0 (0 (f) (D )D to (O to (D (0 (D (D (O (D M n n n n n r N M V to m
a cn

C

r,
1

J

y
L
.C COmm M0e{?r0 W OMr?Nm cq 00M W't r-: W Mh OON N(ONW rr?t Wvn Mr(gOV Nr VNN'- M
v p 0 a) D) N D) Oi m O W W r 4 M V? O N N N W N O M'T N h l? T C9 i; r m N N N W N N N O 9 V 0 O M (n (D
N . _ r r r r r r r r r
F... p a r
d O
(? d Z
Z 0
Q
w M Cl ((7 r N OO M W r N N O N M N rlzt m r Cl m M (n M N CR GO W M m 0 W Cl r W m (O CO r N V N (O M VP,: W M
.I E V P- M N m O N T Ch M N M M M M- N M N W (D M M 0) r CO N'-t M 0 (D N W N C7 N M O m m W N M V
N C V V C 'R C V V O M M M M M (D W (D W M (D W (D M M V R V M M M V V IT M (D W W M M (D M M M V V M M M M v
LU
C y
dUU
N
() O O M W W 'Q M N r m r N M W m 0 0 O V r M to N N O M m r W W N (D N O W W V W W N W r V T 0 M M r r M
M CO 66 C6660i m m mrnO WC6OMM V V Om m r? nr M CM N P-: n W a?(?N6C6ON W MO 66466 W 66
O r r r r N N N r N N N r N N N r
N C Q r
d C
Z
O E.
M N M n N W N M M O r 0 W W n W M M W O N OR m m W M m m h V M M m r M r W O r m r M V M R V r o W M
a n M N M O N w M W W N `7 V N M M V M W W M M m n W n M W O W N m N M f` M O m m W N M V
A y V V V V V V V ' 7 V ' (n M M M M W W W W M M W W M (n V V d' M M (n a V 7 M W W W M M W M M M V `7 (A M M M
c Cc
0~C is U
O U)
O. aOOO N N m w MMmrm T .TNNW W W N - NM n00 v tr V OMW NNMN01 V W OMOOW M M M
cc p 2666666) 66 O NOD Of`r,: t-: m M V n n O M M r r`, r-? 66 o N O W N(?: Mn N MM MO V 6.6 nM
r N N r r N N N N N N N r r r r
.I o
Q Z
Z oa
O
M N V' W r n m V r q r W n V m N M W N 7 N p W g W m q r m (D W r 7 (D M O B (n c0 W r` c0 O V W 7 R W M lh
Q N E `cf h M N M 0 V N W M M n N M W W W W W M a 0 n W W M (D m K M r W W m lt) M (D N '7 W M
N V V V V 'Q ?? V '? M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 7? 'V V M M K? V M W W W W M W M M M M M M W M M V
Z C y
w} Z'om
w Q w y U
Z Z V C O m 0 W N M W N N W r? N V M r V V m q h 0 W V W V m m (n M 7 It W N g M m W r M N r O CM W W m W M O
Z Q M y. O O m M M m m M m M M O W W O N t- N N m m N N (O N O M M r t? h OO W M N O N N N N N N N M W O (O W I? In
D O O U r r r r
Z N d Z
F. IL O
O ~ M M V n r n r M N r r O m N M n O M m W N M (O V W m r cq (n W 7 (n M N W r O N N M (h O N V r M r N 0
U
C w T V IZ M N M ON ? MW ow N Non N W w W (D M M O N m W O O W v M r ? W W M 0 (O m W M M W o
G (p y R V ?f V V 7 M M M M M M M M 0W M M M M M `7 '7 t V M M T c{ M (D (D W (D M W M M M M M M (O M M V
A
w N
w (L
CL ?
VI/
0
um .52 .5 m mm m m mmm?a_mAmmm miom¢m -°- m mdm??0=m
v
Ecc ccc c cCEcEC CCCCCCccc ccc?ca?t,cry:2 C cEoccEEcvc
ODU vvv vv=°°'0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w 0 0 vvvLac o p?av v=v?22.? oa
(! N N N N N U N N H (A h N N N N N N N N N N d 'O = 0) L N (n N
c C l W N N¢ 'p O
W N d d 0 0 0 N 2 2 d N O) V N N d O) 01 N 0/ 0) N U N 0 0 (n p c (7 `p L 0) ` 4)
CLQ ¢¢¢ NQ o(r a: cr?cr g¢CC cr cc cc¢¢CC¢ g¢¢¢ Q c mpz OQ >Q ?CLLLad C72
} O LL LL L LL LL LL L L O LL N LL LL O LL O LL L LL LL U. LL LL LL LL LL LL L LL LL LL j LL 0 C O 'j (y, L LL D LL LL O O LL LL
)- a) (n U a) 0) w U 0 2(n2(o(A 2 U) (n L) U) U) CD M CO (n N W In U 0 W W LL 2 J 230 w00 ZWW2223 to
?r NMOMW f`Wm°r12 ?2.?-??2 ?2 ? N N N N N N N N N N COl) N MM M MMMMIV Itv<vV) w N 00 vvv v0 N co
L
.C VN7(q('•)CO Ih V; O ODr Mrr OR t` N O Ih 00 Mr ODr
? Ulm V (O(f)M
0
v (O m M N OD O? r OD O) ? i? OD ? W r OD OD N T (0 N (O N N
r r r r r r
. 0) 0) N N 7
.
?
U
Q ?
V
0
Z
i5 dZ
Z °
G s
°

W
J «f, M NO f, 00 M O M Ulm n M0 Mr (O MM M n m N
•E v V N O n O O O M n O m m M m f` O n N M N n «M f?M No M
E N V M W O O
R V (n M N M V V V M V M M M M M M M M V (0 N (0 (0 (0 V
W v 3 R V V (!7 V V V
3
W
Z (D N
10
U C
Z ~ N
U)
w
U N
U
(0 N r c0 M O N M r OD r W O r M O N m 7 M (0 (0 n n m
r
0> 0)
00 0) co n ap f
C(O M(O Om O
N o m V) O V r ( j (0 M m m V OO
r(p
^
m
?
•
p d.- rNrr rrrrN
- O 0. ..
O d•-
CD
N C Q N C Q
i O i O
d Z d Z
O EO ° C
(orvaonrown V (0M(OOI,M(OmNO(OM(0Mh0 Mf,(O(Dr0
'O V V NOS MOM m N n mM mmnOO(DM (OON
R d V N N L V V V M V CO M M M Cl) Cl) co co V (0 (0 (0 (0 UD V N V N W O f`
R d V V (O V V V
R C R
cl: «U mU
0 °
a. C m (O m (O CO m O) (0 N co r O V N r (0 M V (0 O V (0 (O N M C 10 m n (O N (O
26 Om 66h(6 6666 6 m rnGD W OOO V NNr Mr
r r N N r r r r 266c6c (
,
a C Q C Q
J O SD O
a wZ =Z
z oa og
0

^ N V N OD O h m m q (0 m V O (O O h N f` V M N (0 N N O
? E1O 10 NMMCJ N M M(?(Omm lf) ?ro t c)M (O MN «_ M n O M M N
D E N V N OOr
a ,
V_, (p V (0 (0 (0 N w (0 l0 M V M M M M M M M M V (0 V V N O V cc V V 10 V V V
Cl) r
° °

,. -
r- d
N d
N
J
W Z R
N Z R
U)
F
- a y
U y
U

Z r-! M r (O V (O V M .- m r 0 (0 N r (0 M V r N M V (D r r
-
V R (0 M r M N (D
U
l

a O N O M O (0 n O OD M M W OD m 0) OD W W
V CO CO r m N
( 0 y r r N N r r r r O M M C
) N r O
(0 d
0
a O O V
N C Q O D U
N C Q

f 0 Z
° d Z
°°
t-a °
-
0
C_
G V N V m OD V V M V (0 M V (0 O O h N r O ((') 7 V N r W
(0 (0 N M N N N N Oi V m (- (O m m m m (O m O m (O M
R d V (0 (0 (0 tO (0 (0 (0 M M M M M M M M M V (0 V V (0 (A V M h D O M N
? N V N OD O f-
(p y V V (0 V V V

o U
W N
6 N
W my .°U
IL N
N
.

omiamm u am ommmmmmmmmmm?
m y
T
10
c
_
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Q
d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d
vd
vvavavav:o?
v
v:o?vvavv o
v
'
C
•
•
_
•
_
N H N h (n (? N N N N N 4) N N _N w- N N H N N N N
d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d Q d d d d d d d d d
a. -It M W
•O
wU- U. LL LL U- LL LL LL wwNLL NLL U. LL U. NU- NNNL.L LL
d
° NM V (O (O nODmO NM V (O (DnOmO NM V (0
(0 10 (0 (O lO 10 (0 (0 10 tO (O (O O (O M O (O (O (O f` f` n r` n n ? ° r N M V lO (O
cc
R
d
C f` O M (D (P Ln " M N 0 0 N V O 1` O V r Ln M r O) N h O% W N M OD O r N V T W M N O) Ln q r r M M N q O r
O O (D M O n O (D O O r r 0 0 0 r r? O r N 0 O r t? V r r 0
OO
O O M M N N N r
N (n
'
N
r
r
Ln M
p M d
U d r
ca
?a
4! z
00
u.
.+NNnrn vn a) (qc NO)Ln c0r crn rn rn(O Or 0) O(O O M rnrO(DM n Ln O (Q O m O) O M 0) 0) ODN M V I-
?£ W n (!? O N f` O M r M O O r V O M M O N r W M f` M O O O Ln N M V V Of O r O M M V N V M
M M N M M M V V M Ln
lO to (p (n N Vp N O Ln N O O O O O? V V V In V V M Ln O Ln V V V O N N M N N Ln V V M N M
U
A
)
M
c
' d N
U
N
U C N Ln (O M co N M r 0 0 0 0) r m r LA O Ln Lq N Lb V O 'It M O (n Ln N r M co O r O V M f` N O N M U-1 M V r r n
(O V O Lp P- r- O r`r.-000r V Or NOOrn V NNO
M M V M (O O N h r, N N r N Ln r a OP n 0)
T
LO
r r
O V
V
N

O
`
w Z
Z
O 0
v- h O N r V O OO 'It Lq W O N (O t` M M r 0 Lq n O r O r O M N O W V N Ln N M cO Ih N OO v Lq r, N O M O N V O n
V
` O f`(p 0) OM?h MOMOi rMN N M M N MnN O)O n OOO(nN M M V MM n M M V N V N
Ln
f
A d N (D (n In (n O O l0 N (D O O O (p V V V V (n V V M N (n w V V V O N In O N 0 N V V M N M M M N M m M Mq q M
C d
.-. to U
i rA
CnOMMQ1NNNNOO N V VOVOLn nN N4)NVO n(O OO D)rNv v r N OV N (7) Ln q Or q M N OD c0 t,
ODOV M M n w Ot-rOOOOrrrrr 0rNO(prr V rrO
M<f LnMV (n0(n(n MMNNVr,f w t
d
;
r r
= ca
z
(')
Z cE
' O
J N N n (O n V m 0) w m N q (n N M V M r r Ln q V (O V N r Lq q r r O M h N (O Ln O O M (D q O) O M N N V n 0) f`

E O Ln (I) M r M W O n N N N N W r M N M n CL7 O) f` W CD W O M N M V V M M r 0 M M V N V M
0 n N Ih to
M M M M M M V V M to
cO (n O (n N N h O Ln (n O (D O O O V V V V Ln V M M O o O V V V (D Ln O N Ln Ln M V V M N M
3
N
C
d

d U
N
'
a O r (,
(0 C N Ln (p N (D W M O) M O O D) r N M W O N N r (p r q O) 0) O d1 M (n r M M O r V O N (D M n N to N M Ln tn
9 00r r r r r V•OrNCMr nV (V NO
U
2 M('MV Mtn VI rNONNrNNOMhI? Oi?(()MNODrhOODrr
,

0
,
r r
,
N r
a
o ?
N L. S
Z
O
O
w !l r q M V O O O M O M fD N O (n q r V O) V Ln q Ln r t` W CD M Lb O) V N !n N M Mrl-? (q N a N r OD O M (D N Lq tD n
'O n O Ih N O O N O O M O M O O O N N O O r V M M f` LD O O t` O O O Ln N M M V O) M n 0) M M V N V M

Ln
V v U) (O 0 N U) Ln (n N V V M N M M M N M M M V V co
O y Ln to Li) N Ln In O in N (D co O (D CD V V V V to V V M Lo Ln U)
O Co
c
U
VJ
0 c n q M N V O r r m O O N V O V Ln (o q V N (D (O M O 0) F O N OR 0) r N v M M N N O U, q O r Ch M N CO [0 r
IL OM V 0 V(D(0 O(D m m M N NCO C L N; (OO 0 M M O n m -0-9999 r r r r r V r r N O(O?r V 77
'
CD
V r

a c a
?a
J ?Z
Q E
o
Z O
,1`
0 M Co mNmLnW VM?t`M m m MO CO t` M O N r r(p q n Ln O O O O O) h c0 m q w U? W V N`O?
NNn0 NN V
•
'fl ELD n OD)O OtD M f`MmMO V 661 f` OOM N w to rtp (O (DONNM V m m m n OM M V N V LL
l0 LnONNNLn (D Ln N(D (DOOO V V V V V V V MIn OLn V V V LD Ln Ln Ln Ln 00 V MNMMMMMMM V V MLL7
Q N 3
a
Z m
W 3L)
J

F- Q
Z Z d
N N O n n N W n O) n O (D O r 01 r0 O M O N r M r r N to M N Cl) Ln r M M (O .- . r (D V M n M V N M Ln N V O O n
co co V V r O T (D (D N N N N OD r N Op n n O co q 0) t` co (D r O r 0 0 0 r r r r r V O r N 0 O r n N N O
U
77 7
Q O O p r
0
Lo
Q ~ N d 0
Z w Z
F-00 00

O U (` r 0 0 0 V O r M LD h N r O M O O (p V N M M V M N O O) LD O) '7 N Lf) N M V OO W W V O W LD O M O N O n f`
O (n N M M V O) Oi 1- M M M V N V c6
D
C LL_ (D
t. O N N O i? N M (D M m V r.: V N O OO OD O V (D Q) c0 (O I- (
r. Wtom0CD(DCD(D V V V V Lnv V m000 V V V tom00LnMm V V MNMMMNMMM V V MLn
0U
W V
W U
d y
Z LnN V mw N n r. V O N t`r OD CJ CO M(D V c7 O) N N: N CO N N O Cl O r Nrr 0) C) N N rn MN O M W r O LnnO
0 0 V P- Ln M m 0 A M (p V V V N O r N n 0 O (O V O N N O V M O V O a V N O O O
U V r N N N 0 0 0
M N M O Ln Ln (n In u7 WW O (D Lo V V Lo V V co M M V V V V V V O N M In N N to V V M M M M M V V V V M V V Ln
N
F
o U
N a

Z
-o
O L
d m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m pC '_° •?-dp Y ,m m d m !? d d ro= m

.
d d•
B c c
d
c 0 E E c
C C C C
0
d
0 (f
v
c c c c c c c E c E G 0 G 0 0 0 C C C C
c
0
p d d d d d d d d p d p d d d d d d d d d d d d d 0 d LL d d d x d d O O d d
'D a v?2 o
p
v
v
:9:2
o
,0-
v__ 0 0
_
x•v_v •v_v•v_ v vv_x,v_xa v_v•
i
'-
-2 a
0 0- (D _ 0 0 0 0 w 0 0 d 0 0 0 ` N N N( j d m? -Np p d N U N C(D W d d d D d
d d
(D -O
d N N cLj N N Q') U U_
¢ ?Q¢ o nxC7Q
- -oc x x x x x ccxx x c rno ?¢
o

?
x x x x x x
x
x
> j
a?xx,xCccc d
LL O OLL LL
7LL
Occ LL LLL LL LL LL OLL !LNLL LL OLL OLL LLLLL LL LL LL LL LL LL LLL LL LL LL jLL y C 0 =LLLLL
?mwwocnm(noUx(nxm0)2cn2(no(nv?(nCn(n(n(n(n(nU(nvD(nLL 2?x3C7?(nUVnz(n(n2223(n
?r N M V Lo co r, co p).O NMV Ln O n MM 0 N N N N N 0 N N NC09 MCNp cM'?MMmMMMV V N?? V V ????
cao(cOroRwcl i.r-: rcouncoMInNrnIP corlnvnM cMn7ungq
O r r r Or o?(D hN my to tom v to v mmchr Cr m0
. 0 m N m W r'r
.
?
U d
c
b °
?' b
dz dz
o o

!' M M M V m Mn q N O r O Cn my rl M O(n hr r-O nN
T £ m m N N O m m m O to m O N m N M N N W r O r- gmNmm
£ M n m V m N
Q A V V M M M N N N M M M M tow r m M M V V O7 V ow
c7 C 3 O M M M M V M
fr) V 3
Ru 3Md
y
d) y W 0
dN c
y U U
C m cl M N O m V N N N m r m m m N m V M M V m M N co U C r m V r m N
O O r r r O Nc? cD n N M M M V c7 V m V M O c7 r O r V (p G O M N M m r r
O V V r p
C
N C Q N
Q
O O
CD Z d Z
O C O E

N N O r V N m N n M m M m h m V m M V m N m r N n to N r m m
m m N N O m m m m V N O m N O N V N N m m O
lC d V V M M M N N N V M M LoV M M M M M M v v m V M M M r- m V m N
d M M M M v M
a y
'O y

L m N
or- oOrmMMr n ?rMMnmNNNmMMm V rim ?NorMmO
?..? d .- r r 0 r oD T r N M V M M M M M V M m M r O r c6 m
r d .- M N M m h r
F, V V
r Q C Q

a) Z dZ
Z O p O E
Q

W V (o MV m cl r, M N O.- O M M O V mmnmr mO r?r?
'o EmmNNOmmmOMM ON mNOMNNm t`O MNmN V m
'O ENn 00 to mcm
J (p V V co co M N N N M M M M w o N V M N M V V M V co M
N v 3 M M M M K M
Q
a 3

C 04

d
j
7 N ? Y
y
y U U y N U
U O? T cl N O n V N N N m r m m V m M N m V V m M N V
ONm(Dn N c)MM VM V Mto R C O M M r (p N
2

M O.
7
mOMrOr V r,
U
r N d
MNMOmr
V r
p
u
,
p C Q p (>
p C Q
N Z N V
O
?Z

O O
N N O r V r M N r- M m M m m to r V M h m N m r N M ~ V r O m r (p
9 m co N N O m m m m v N O m N O M V N N m m
(p y V V M M M N N N V M M M V M M M M M M V V m V M m ay M f- m M O N
(p y m M M M M M
C O N
c
? mU (
aU
co
!n
O C n (p 97 n M M O h r m m N N M 7 M M (p q r, V to r C V m (7 m N 0
CL O r r r O r c9 (p n N M V M M V V M V M m M r O r 07 r,
d o M N V r. (D r
.-
= O
s
a b
v a
d
J Z Z
o _
o
Z
O
a M M V n M n V N O r O M O M M N V N r h 0 N O
O E m m N N O m m m O M M O M D) N N N N m r. ?+ m V O M O m
T E N N, O M m N
Q N 3 V V M M M N N N M M M M M Lo M V M M M V V M V M M M M m M V M
9 3
Z y
W J a r H
in a« d

NU
d
Q
Z Z y m q M r O m V N N N n r m q r O h m 7 M to m m m h
U 0 7 r r O N OP T f: N m m M V V V m 7 (D m cM r O r m N m N co co N N N
V G (M N R co n r
Q Q O V •C1 p (0,1 .V
a~ d b
N N
d b
Z Z Z
HO oo 0
a o
z U
_
O
MNONV N m c4 r, M n M mr m N m O O m q m N m m
m V Mm r.(O
LL
'+ T mmNNOco co co mV NOmM Ocm cm MNNm N
y V V CO CO CO N N N V M M M V M M M M M M 'Q V CO V M M 'O Mr-?O CM mN
N M M to M V M
W a c
W
a U mU
IL Cl) ?
U)
Z r rn qc? tco9 V to r?O VOmrc r rnMmOmOm
. . Zv(p r?r?tom
p r V PJ N N cp to to n r m M to m h V co u) M co o cV M
M M M M V V V
V M co
M V V V V V V V V V V co co co V N V M M r M

M M Lo V V M
O
F O F
N Q N Q
O O
Z Z
y
.y
T
_
N <6 R Rf Rf c0 <d -a a N N N N ltl N N (0 (0 (0 c0 f6 N C
C C C C C C C C C c c C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Q
N d N d N N y N 01 N O) 01 01 N 0) N N N 0) N N N N N d
'c a a?? a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a :4
.
•
.
.
.
.
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
c

d
N
N
O
N N N
N N
N N
N y
N
y
N
y
y
N
y
y y y
WV.: y y u)
? d N N N N N N N N N N N N N d N N N N N d
W

¢¢?????¢¢rr¢rro?a?oe¢¢¢QOeQ¢rta¢? r N M V M m
IL
- IL
} LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL
I- co 2 (j) U) M M co) cn cn Cn In U) In fn y(J(n W fn co rn Cn fn(n? y r
C
o h(n(n In rn u) V)
d
0 N CO V M m N CO m 0 N M V M m N m m 0 N M V M
to MMMMMMMM(p (O mmmmmm( wN rlnnn y r N M V M m
t0
m

I

1

1

ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
TYPE
Mobile Home
SF Residential
SF Residential
Church
SF Residential
SF Residential
SF Residential
Church
Church
Hotel
SF Residential
Historic
SF Residential
SF Residential
Mobile Home
SF Residential
Mobile Home
SF Residential
Church
SF Residential
SF Residential
SF Residential
SF Residential
SF Residential
SF Residential
SF Residential
SF Residential
SF Residential
Church
SF Residential
SF Residential
SF Residential
Fut. School/ Rec
MF Residential
Leonard Rec.
King George
Woods of Guilford
Guilford Middle
Mitchell Park
SF Residential
Church
SF Residential
Nursing Home
SF Residential
SF REsidential
Mobile Home
Mobile Home
MF Residential
W. Guilford High
2019
NOACTION
55.4
58.0
53.8
53.1
53.6
51.0
51.4
51.6
51.3
61.6
65.0
62.4
67.9
56.5
50.2
51.7
52.9
51.1
44.2
39.1
35.7
35.2
42.5
45.0
46.6
41.0
48.5
42.8
66.0
61.1
59.1
59.0
53.3
54.8
51.6
43.0
42.9
37.0
35.1
39.4
37.1
35.1
40.8
50.6
45.5
42.9
57.3
47.2
41.5
PIEDMONT TRIAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SPECIFIC POINT ANALYSIS
LEQ-NIGHT (9hrs)
2019 Case W-1A1
Standard Difference
Case from No-Action
59.0 3.6
61.8 3.8
58.9 5.1
58.5 5.4
61.9 8.3
59.1 8.1
63.8 12.4
58.8 7.2
58.4 7.1
64.5 2.9
67.9 2.9
64.6 2.2
70.1 2.2
66.0 9.5
48.8 -1.4
46.7 -5.0
43.6 -9.3
42.5 -8.6
52.3 8.1
49.8 10.7
42.7 7.0
39.8 4.6
52.2 9.7
52.7 7.7
56.7 10.1
47.7 6.7
50.2 1.7
50.8 8.0
67.7 1.7
60.7 -0.4
59.4 0.3
59.2 0.2
53.0 -0.3
56.2 1.4
53.3 1.7
44.5 1.5
44.8 1.9
36.1 -0.9
31.2 -3.9
40.6 1.2
38.7 1.6
33.1 -2.0
31.2 -9.6
35.0 -15.6
34.7 -10.8
36.0 -6.9
43.5 -13.8
45.8 -1.4
39.9 -1.6
2019 Case W-2A
Standard Difference
Case from No-Action
58.9 3.5
61.8 3.8
58.9 5.1
57.2 4.1
60.2 6.6
58.0 7.0
63.7 12.3
58.0 6.4
57.6 6.3
64.5 2.9
67.9 2.9
64.6 2.2
70.1 2.2
62.4 5.9
50.3 0.1
48.0 -3.7
44.3 -8.6
42.9 -8.2
55.5 11.3
50.8 11.7
41.9 6.2
39.4 4.2
55.9 13.4
54.4 9.4
55.9 9.3
49.0 8.0
49.7 1.2
52.6 9.8
67.7 1.7
60.7 -0.4
59.4 0.3
59.2 0.2
53.0 -0.3
56.2 1.4
53.3 1.7
44.4 1.4
44.8 1.9
35.9 -1.1
31.1 -4.0
40.6 1.2
38.7 1.6
33.0 -2.1
31.2 -9.6
35.0 -15.6
34.7 -10.8
36.0 -6.9
43.5 -13.8
45.8 -1.4
39.9 -1.6
2019 Case W-3A
Standard Difference
Case from No-Action
58.9 3.5
61.8 3.8
58.9 5.1
57.5 4.4
60.9 7.3
58.4 7.4
64.7 13.3
59.0 7.4
58.7 7.4
64.5 2.9
67.9 2.9
64.6 2.2
70.1 2.2
63.0 6.5
49.7 -0.5
47.3 -4.4
43.9 -9.0
42.6 -8.5
54.6 10.4
51.0 11.9
43.2 7.5
40.1 4.9
53.1 10.6
54.0 9.0
55.3 8.7
48.9 7.9
49.5 1.0
51.8 9.0
67.7 1.7
60.7 -0.4
59.4 0.3
59.2 0.2
53.0 -0.3
56.2 1.4
53.3 1.7
44.5 1.5
44.8 1.9
36.0 -1.0
31.1 -4.0
40.6 1.2
38.7 1.6
33.0 -2.1
31.2 -9.6
35.0 -15.6
34.6 -10.9
36.0 -6.9
43.5 -13.8
45.8 -1.4
39.9 -1.6

PIEDMONT TRIAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SPECIFIC POINT ANALYSIS
LEQ-NIGHT (9hrs)
ID
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
TYPE
SF Residential
SF Residential
MF Residential
SF Residential
SF Residential
MF Residential
MF Residential
SF Residential
SF Residential
SF Residential
SF Residential
SF Residential
SF Residential
SF Residential
SF Residential
SF Residential
SF Residential
SF Residential
SF Residential
SF Residential
SF Residential
SF Residential
SF Residential
SF Residential
SF Residential
MF Residential
2019
NOACTION
53.4
52.4
45.6
34.3
33.2
33.3
37.7
36.1
46.4
48.3
52.2
49.9
46.4
46.2
49.6
47.9
44.9
49.1
45.9
44.7
48.5
42.0
39.1
40.8
35.0
44.7
2019
ID TYPE NOACTION
1 Site 1 53.2
2 Site 2 55.4
3 Site 3 56.4
4 Site 4 46.5
5 Site 5 42.3
6 Site 6 55.2
2019 Case W-1A1
Standard Difference
Case from No-Action
54.5 1.1
51.1 -1.3
47.3 1.7
33.3 -1.0
33.4 0.2
31.7 -1.6
29.7 -8.0
30.1 -6.0
29.8 -16.6
51.1 2.8
55.8 3.6
54.0 4.1
51.8 5.4
51.6 5.4
54.5 4.9
53.0 5.1
51.5 6.6
54.1 5.0
54.2 8.3
54.5 9.8
44.3 -4.2
43.8 1.8
40.3 1.2
42.8 2.0
39.4 4.4
53.9 9.2
2019 Case W-1 Al
Standard Difference
Case from No-Action
56.6 3.4
58.4 3.0
61.8 5.4
56.0 9.5
50.2 7.9
54.6 -0.6
2019 Case W-2A
Standard Difference
Case from No-Action
54.5 1.1
51.1 -1.3
47.3 1.7
33.3 -1.0
33.4 0.2
31.7 -1.6
29.6 -8.1
30.1 -6.0
29.7 -16.7
51.1 2.8
55.8 3.6
53.9 4.0
51.8 5.4
51.6 5.4
53.8 4.2
52.7 4.8
51.4 6.5
54.7 5.6
53.3 7.4
56.1 11.4
44.4 -4.1
43.8 1.8
40.4 1.3
42.7 1.9
39.7 4.7
53.5 8.8
2019 Case W-2A
Standard Difference
Case from No-Action
56.4 3.2
58.1 2.7
60.3 3.9
58.5 12.0
52.0 9.7
54.6 -0.6
2019 Case W-3A
Standard Difference
Case from No-Action
54.5 1.1
51.1 -1.3
47.3 1.7
33.3 -1.0
33.4 0.2
31.7 -1.6
29.6 -8.1
30.1 -6.0
29.8 -16.6
51.1 2.8
55.8 3.6
53.9 4.0
51.8 5.4
51.6 5.4
53.9 4.3
53.1 5.2
51.8 6.9
54.2 5.1
53.6 7.7
55.9 11.2
44.3 -4.2
43.8 1.8
40.3 1.2
42.7 1.9
39.7 4.7
52.9 8.2
2019 Case W-3A
Standard Difference
Case from No-Action
56.5 3.3
58.2 2.8
60.5 4.1
57.3 10.8
51.4 9.1
54.6 -0.6

I

ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
TYPE
Mobile Home
SF Residential
SF Residential
Church
SF Residential
SF Residential
SF Residential
Church
Church
Hotel
SF Residential
Historic
SF Residential
SF Residential
Mobile Home
SF Residential
Mobile Home
SF Residential
Church
SF Residential
SF Residential
SF Residential
SF Residential
SF Residential
SF Residential
SF Residential
SF Residential
SF Residential
Church
SF Residential
SF Residential
SF Residential
Fut. School/ Rec
MF Residential
Leonard Rec.
King George
Woods of Guilford
Guilford Middle
Mitchell Park
SF Residential
Church
SF Residential
Nursing Home
SF Residential
SF REsidential
Mobile Home
Mobile Home
MF Residential
W. Guilford High
2019
NOACTION
55.4
58.0
53.8
53.1
53.6
51.0
51.4
51.6
51.3
61.6
65.0
62.4
67.9
56.5
50.2
51.7
52.9
51.1
44.2
39.1
35.7
35.2
42.5
45.0
46.6
41.0
48.5
42.8
66.0
61.1
59.1
59.0
53.3
54.8
51.6
43.0
42.9
37.0
35.1
39.4
37.1
35.1
40.8
50.6
45.5
42.9
57.3
47.2
41.5
PIEDMONT TRIAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SPECIFIC POINT ANALYSIS
LEO-NIGHT (9hrs)
2019 Case N-D
Standard Difference
Case from No-Action
45.7 -9.7
48.4 -9.6
45.4 -8.4
43.5 -9.6
43.8 -9.8
41.6 -9.4
42.9 -8.5
42.1 -9.5
41.9 -9.4
52.1 -9.5
55.2 -9.8
54.2 -8.2
60.3 -7.6
57.3 0.8
57.1 6.9
58.4 6.7
59.6 6.7
58.0 6.9
54.4 10.2
59.1 20.0
61.1 25.4
61.3 26.1
59.5 17.0
52.6 7.6
47.4 0.8
44.8 3.8
44.9 -3.6
41.4 -1.4
58.8 -7.2
53.2 -7.9
50.6 -8.5
50.3 -8.7
47.1 -6.2
57.4 2.6
62.2 10.6
70.0 27.0
65.0 22.1
64.4 27.4
59.2 24.1
67.4 28.0
59.4 22.3
61.0 25.9
56.2 15.4
58.3 7.7
56.8 11.3
58.0 15.1
64.9 7.6
56.5 9.3
59.3 17.8
2019 Case WE
Standard Difference
Case from No-Action
45.7 -9.7
48.4 -9.6
45.4 -8.4
43.6 -9.5
43.9 -9.7
41.8 -9.2
43.2 -8.2
42.3 -9.3
42.1 -9.2
52.0 -9.6
55.1 -9.9
54.1 -8.3
59.8 -8.1
58.6 2.1
64.2 14.0
66.1 14.4
66.2 13.3
64.5 13.4
55.3 11.1
64.4 25.3
66.1 30.4
66.0 30.8
60.0 17.5
53.3 8.3
48.3 1.7
44.8 3.8
45.2 -3.3
41.2 -1.6
58.6 -7.4
53.1 -8.0
50.5 -8.6
50.1 -8.9
45.6 -7.7
57.0 2.2
61.3 9.7
67.0 24.0
63.3 20.4
60.1 23.1
54.1 19.0
64.7 25.3
57.8 20.7
56.5 21.4
51.2 10.4
50.9 0.3
50.4 4.9
52.3 9.4
57.4 0.1
53.6 6.4
56.5 15.0

PIEDMONT TRIAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SPECIFIC POINT ANALYSIS
LEO-NIGHT (9hrs)
2019 Case N-D 2019 Case WE
2019 Standard Difference Standard Difference
ID TYPE NOACTION Case from No-Action Case from No-Action
50 SF Residential 53.4 47.9 -5.5 46.5 -6.9
51 SF Residential 52.4 46.7 -5.7 45.8 -6.6
52 MF Residential 45.6 56.2 10.6 54.9 9.3
53 SF Residential 34.3 53.5 19.2 52.3 18.0
54 SF Residential 33.2 54.9 21.7 53.6 20.4
55 MF Residential 33.3 54.1 20.8 51.7 18.4
56 MF Residential 37.7 54.0 16.3 48.8 11.1
57 SF Residential 36.1 54.6 18.5 48.5 12.4
58 SF Residential 46.4 54.5 8.1 48.0 1.6
59 SF Residential 48.3 40.6 -7.7 40.6 -7.7
60 SF Residential 52.2 42.7 -9.5 42.7 -9.5
61 SF Residential 49.9 41.1 -8.8 41.2 -8.7
62 SF Residential 46.4 38.8 -7.6 39.0 -7.4
63 SF Residential 46.2 38.1 -8.1 38.6 -7.6
64 SF Residential 49.6 40.7 -8.9 40.9 -8.7
65 SF Residential 47.9 39.1 -8.8 39.5 -8.4
66 SF Residential 44.9 36.6 -8.3 37.8 -7.1
67 SF Residential 49.1 40.0 -9.1 40.9 -8.2
68 SF Residential 45.9 37.8 -8.1 38.5 -7.4
69 SF Residential 44.7 46.2 1.5 47.7 3.0
70 SF Residential 48.5 52.4 3.9 58.9 10.4
71 SF Residential 42.0 51.1 9.1 58.1 16.1
72 SF Residential 39.1 47.7 8.6 55.2 16.1
73 SF Residential 40.8 54.0 13.2 58.4 17.6
74 SF Residential 35.0 54.5 19.5 60.0 25.0
75 MF Residential 44.7 43.0 -1.7 43.3 -1.4
2019 Case N-D 2019 Case WE
2019 Standard Difference Standard Difference
ID TYPE NOACTION Case from No-Action Case from No-Action
1 Site 1 53.2 43.9 -9.3 44.0 -9.2
2 Site 2 55.4 45.6 -9.8 45.7 -9.7
3 Site 3 56.4 53.8 -2.6 55.1 -1.3
4 Site 4 46.5 49.1 2.6 50.1 3.6
5 Site 5 42.3 41.6 -0.7 41.5 -0.8
6 Site 6 55.2 48.5 -6.7 48.2 -7.0
0
' C IR r (p tp OR N M V V M M r M V r V (D N V O M M f` t` CO O h N M M r N (p N M V V n M N r O M V (A N N V
2 O r r N N co M M 0 0 0 O M O O O O V O M N N 0 (n r 000969966 o o O N O O N r -9 7 7
7
O
.
O V
d Q
O
Z
? o

r (0 tl M )0 M n V V t` Ci (0 M M (O M h M N V (O q n V (D r r M h N M r r 0 (O V M r M V M f` V (0 6 r N
?'E !'. O M M 1- V MO (n M (O C M (O N M N t, M M M 0 O O N O M V 0 M a V h V' O M M O O N N r-: CD
O O N In W N N m O O O O M m m N V '7 co R N W V (O o o (O O N (O O W V V M M V M M V 0 V V O V
1C
?
Q
M tit
3 « N
d U
N
?
L O C 00 V N N M 0 M OO M M (p )0 10 N V O (O t` N O 10 N O O M (0 V N g r N (D r N M M t` M N N O 0n V (O (n N V
N
D O O r r M N n M M 0 0 0 O M O O O O V M M N (p (O (p V O (D O O O 0 0 O O O O O N O O (V r r 0
O
Q

N 0. 0
v d Z

W 0
-1 w
M M M M n M r N W M (D N V14: OU? M n N n n N O O (O M r M N t` N M r O M (0 M M r M M M t` V 0 M r N
W
0
t
N
0
0
v
' mM
mnv0
WM0-I
M00
M V CO NYVh
OMWO0MNnm
MAONNM Mt, V M0
t. (D
O y l0 t0 t0 l0 (0 N M N N (p (p O fD (O (O N (O N N V M l0 N (O V (O (O fD O 10 N (O N V V M M V M M V N V V (0 V

i U
N
C M r (O tT V MOM CO M Mf` MMNM(D N(O MMr cq 7q W (p OR MMr NCR NMM V h M N r O? M V (n(nN V
20 r r NNoNN0000M0000 V (DNNf owvO(p0000000000N097 r0
'
C Q
O
Z
0 0

... r r 0 0 M M N N M V t- M 0 N O O M n r r O V (O r M M N h (D h N M r r O U7 V M h q a V f` V 0 q `- N
'E 'E n O (D N M V N 0 V M M V M 10 N N M M n M N M M O O f` 0 M V 0 M V V n 'O O M (0 O O (0 N n m
10 (O O N (0 N t0 N N (D M O M M l17 M to N (0 V V M 10 m (0 V (n (n (D (D O N to M N V V M M v M M V (0 v v (A v
N V 3
C y
3 r C7

N
GNU
C (p M M t0 n (D n N N W a0 0 to V M M O N M V O N V V (0 r 0 r N M r N (O r N M M W M r N O M V 0 (0 N V
V
.
O O r r N N 0 M M 0 0 0 O M 0 0 0 0 V w m N M 0 (D (0 O n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N 0 0 N r r 0
U
7 7 7
O 0
N W Q
i O
a Z
O a
M M N M N 0 N L N M (D N V M 7 O M t` V O r (0 N V r r N 0 0 h N M r O M (0 M m t- CO M M h V m m r N
O M (D N h V M N N M O V Oi N N N M M n M N N V n O f` O M V O N V V r V O W N O O N N r aD
(0 y N (0 (0 l0 l0 (0 (0 10 l0 (O 0 0 0 O N O (0 N W r V M h l0 N V N N O O 0 t0 N N N V V M M V M M V l0 V V )O V

?
0
O N
Co
?
0 U

X C CO r (D M M O V M Cl? M M r N N r V O M N N r N M 0 O f` M N 17 M r N O N g V V f` M N r M m V N N N V
O O r r r M N (O M CO O O O O V O O O O M t0 M N v v N M O t0 O O O O O O O O O O N O O r 7 7 7 7 r 0
J
Q `¢
0Z
Z
?
O o
F
VJ r r r 09 MCO MO q V hM(0r n 0Mh O V N(0 h(O(O f` N r(D Ih N M r r 0(q V M nOf V V f` V N M7 C4
nO0WNV W l0 (O 00v ai (D NM NO M CD a q M0Mn
OM V 0M V V n V O N (0 00 0N h m
E
' Z
Cl) Z;
n n(n(n(n n n n(ncp D(D(D(onWO nOlt V n(nv(nc(p(D n n(n nvvMM V MM V nvvu v

U
Z a
Q CO (O M V r N N r N n 00 CO n 0 V O V (O W N (O M M co CO N O M V N CO r N 0 r N Cl) CO h M N r O M V M M N V
V
O O r N M M r, M M 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 O O M L6 M N (0 V r-Z v 0 (n 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O N O O N r r 0
O
N
Z N ?O O
O wz
F CL o OE
V
O M M ('? N N N (D O n q O C7 v g W N M f. N CO V (q r 00 M O (0 M N t? N M r q M 0 cl q n q v, cl f, V 0 M r N
i
V
C
G (D O
(D (D N l0 M (O l0 M (D V M (O N M N (D O V (O O M h O M V (O N V ?f f?
O CD (0 O O (0 N 1? CD
(p C> (0 (0 l0 t0 N 10 10 1f1 t0 (O (O (O (D (O (0 WO 10 W .T V m Mv V l0 (0 V (0 V (O (D (D N (0 (0 (0 V V M M V M M V (0 V V (0 V
a
U v y

w
a
a cn
Z M O M r M O (0 M O N M O M CA M M CD N N N r co co O (O O (D M co O r r n M N N O (D (p f` l0 M O N O V M M

6 4
4 4
6 r,
6 6
(0 (0 W U) N (N N to (O (ND (NO to (0 (O M W N M V V CO M V V V V V V CD (ND (D (O N (O (N V V M C7 V M M V (0 V V (rte) V
to
;
p
F
,,
N Q
0
Z
U
y O
_
?mm mmm m mmym?m m?mmAmm m mmm¢ °(i ?vYCO -pE 0dm-°
•
'
O
E E c c c c c
E Z E E E c c E 5 c E c c c c c c c -
°i(} 3 c c o c E E
06) d
O C) W C) 0 0 0 M 0 O W O 0 0 N 0 0 0 d 0 0 d d d C) O ¢ ?? 0) C) d N O O N
O
? O

D
72 :9
0) 0 N 'O CI 'p .-
V) L y M h ? N
.0=00.=2 0 0 `0 = N= N N N N N V N h N N N N N L
w d d j d d_ d c w d m d? m a d d d d d m m= d d °) ¢ o$ o¢¢¢¢ a a
¢¢¢
-
-
¢¢ ¢¢¢ d¢o¢¢
¢ ¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢
¢
n
} OLL LL t LL LL LL LL O LL V; LL LL OLL 0LL r LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL -LL U- LL j LL O C 0 LL LL OLL U. O OLL
t-?v)toocn(ncn()oxtnx(n(n2U) (no(ncn(n(naitn(n(n(nt?<oW(0LL 23 (9M(nUmzu)(nmmm
OrNM V (OOnCDMO.r-N"(O(DhCOM NNNNNNNNNNMM ON7NMNNMMmIT vvv vvvv
c V V M N m r n N r N r n r V O N m 0 V N N N r O M M n
00000 C? N CV C?QrCC?CVr r.=oiN CV 00.-0- N0 c - m V n r N
O?CNf,tCO
U Q •
d ? Q
Z Z
_

«• V: a) CD m V (0 N O r 0 N n CA (q N r n N r U) M n q fh W O V
?NU)M (D C? f7m n U)mM Oi0 NO0 NOJ Nma N m ++ V M M N U) V
TAE ON cv w m 0
V U) U) V M M M M M V V U) U) V V U) U) V U) V U) V V V V M U)

M C 3
U) N O U) V U)
C
CO
a
r 0) •O3
M C 0)
3NC ;
U dNU
N
0
L R C a V M r O N O N r U) r U) m q (O U) r V m m rl? N N m V c m
U 0 0 0 0 0.7 NN m4
9 o 0N r r NMNN 0
r 0 0 ? C O OJ U) aD V M
0
C
0
7
9
Ln a) r ONn
D
V
N O
cC
04 0 C Q
N b O c
N d Q
Q Z N Z
W °o °0

V M(D0 (q Vr Or or U)rV Or mN Vm 0u nr t.mr U)
'O MN VMODM
'
N U) M(O M M M n U) 0 0m 010 N 0 M N M NM T N0
(p y V 0 W V CO CO Cl) Cl) M v V U) (O V V U) U) V U) V (0 V V V V M (O O vin N(Om(O
N y U) LO to U) V U)
O N
U
a
N N
C V V M N m r n N r U) r n r V m U) n m O V M N N W CM M N
00000 co NN C?) V r 00 r Nr - -N NN L0O r OrN to
•
COO co V nON
r O N W m p
?
U ? °
ca
5 a

m
?Z arZ
° ° o
°
V M(Dm V U)N O r O CO n m(D M r U)O My v n r nmO Cn
9 EN LO MOM MM n LO (D CAM mm N oMNm c\' 0) V Nm
U
n ?.. MNMNO V
4 O O
n
N
E U)
O
N 3 V h
) V M CO M M CO V V U) (
V V U) U) V U) V N V V V V CO In a
(O
(O
(D
(O LO LO
3
C N
Ca M
dNU dNU
N
W
U C V VMrpNMNrU)rU)mr(DU)rnrmCDMNNM VU)M
0 0 0 0o
N
m -q 00 cc cmogV mrnM
v N
o
0 Nr r r m cm N Ui o-o
O V 0 N d000N OU) O

N d b O 0 U
N 0 a
Z 0) Z
° °
O O
V M O W M V O r O r U) n ch q r n m U) m m n r P,: m N 0 ~ N N C% V M M
9 N U) M (O M M M n U) (D m M m (A N O a0 N m N m V N m N
(0 y V U) U) V M M M M M V V U) U) V V N N V U) V U) v v V v M (O U) n N O O (D
O W O M O M O O
cc A U U
O (n r

a N
C V V cl N m 7 n N r U) r n r V m n m m V m V N N g q N V C r m n M m N
0 0 0 0 0 M N N C7 C r O O r N r - N N N V O r O r N O
0) O O N O V O

J 0
?c
` 0 U
ca
0
Z
O Z
°0 4)) Z
00

Q N «vM(om'I*:U oroMnrn(DrlMnt,?rro(nnrncomr
9 E N N M m M M M n U) O m M m m N O N N m m y N a0 N vr?(DaoMa
N n N M a0 O
} a
3 V M U) V M M M CO M V V U) U) V V U) U) V N V U) V V V V M U) U) U) O U) V U)
Z
W
? C a 3
"'
z ¢ w N
NE w N
cc
Z N in
m
Q V
0 V V MNONON7 U17 U) m N(D W rN CDr m N N W V M' CD
00
7 V DOmwU)N M

Q 0
0Oa NN c
V r 900 Nrr NM (V C7 V O r0r CV (C)
Q U) d-r 0N00O
n 00
L
V
Z N r
b o
N 2 a
z Z
f-a oa o0
V - `

u
Q vM(O m Mar oror U) r, v moMrrnnr nC o
O MMn o(DM
C
'
G j? N
M (O M M M n (O m M m v U) N p U) m V U) N (O O m V V N m N
(p y V(O U) V M M M M m M V V U) 'V
10 V U) V V V CO U) 4 n N N

R yO (0 U) (DO U) VO
U)
LL,
W U
M
CL
A
«U
a in N N
Z CD m m n q O m N N N N O W N V O CO 00 n q r m m m U) n n z M V m U) V (q
?N V MO^ U)O m M O n n om(mm?nmN O 0U)
LO V U) U) V M M M M V M M V V U) U) V V U) V V V V V V V V V M V QV CDmnM(D
U) U) m V V U)
H
N }
N
0 0
Z Z
N

r
m m a 70 2 R f6 m m m m m tC m a N tO m fa cO 6 R i0 N ro co
T
c
-? C C C C C G C C C C C C C C C c c C C C C C C C C C
c
c Q
0)
O
01 0) 0) 0) N 0) 0) N 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) d N 0) 0) 01 0) 0) O) 0)
O U .0 ,0
m? V V :O O V :O :O O :D M M
O U -0:2
:2 :
y y 0
!I w (? N N y N N M N fq N N N N N V! N N N N N? N N N
.?. W 7 0) d 0) 0) O N 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) O) O 0)
ct
cr
?LLU-¢ C

.0

U)O
d W rNM d'
LL
Cc m m m ir m¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢ m¢¢ m
d
} LLLLLL LL U. LL LL LL LL U. LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL
N??NNNN co U) (n N N N N N N N N N N(n? ,
C 0y' ::0 «) «) d «)
Ffn (A (n c`n to (?
E
F,
°m0 U) NM V U) (D n co 0) 0 NM V U)0nmm0 N co V (O
v N U) U) m U) U) U) in U) 0 (p (D CO (D (D 0 CD (D (D n n n n n n y ° rN M V U) f0
0)
1

i
' t

N
Q
W
' J
1

0

O
a

a
z
O
Q
U)

L J
Q
Z
Z
Q
Q
Z
1--0
Z a
U
OLL
? U
0 W
W n.
M cn

c M u) M r M CU V M M K M h 0 177 1` M O r M u) r q V 7 LO O? u) O 0) r q O O N O Ln N O th lh M f` In N M V N N
G Oi 07 T O> CD T 1; T T 9 T (D CD N Oi O! 0 C CO CA V v u) (D O r K M n OD OP O) OD r C7) M CD N O It O C M 9 M CO - u)
r
r N N r N N N r N N
r r
Q
C
O
Z
L
is O
« O 17) CO O O r r 0 r N g q 10 N M M M th N N N r r O r T V M N r [` r h h N O M V co O r (D M M r OR
9 •E n (D (D (() u) M u) V M M (D (D O V M M N V O N N M N n Cl) LO 0 O) Cl) O n n V O V Ln CO n N O N n Cl)
(a V V V V V V V V L0O U) CD (D (D(O(DOLO (DCD CO LO LO V V V V V) LO u)u) V LO OOOCD M (D N U) In N u) 1n u)N
LL v 3
Z M y
m
aiNU
m
U c V u7 Co r 0) O L0 CO M V (D h r V M OD M th M O) CD M U) N Cl) O U) O M r Ln O r CO r u) N O r n M n 0 N CO Cl) N r
Lo 0 of m ao a) W (o f. OO W6 O) ci (O c6 N 6 O) W m (O D) V u) ul (O O N 4 M h a5 W O) c r M M O N (O V O (n W O M co r N
0 V ?U r N N r N N N r N N
0 r '
N d Q
4) O
m z
o O
~ O) u) O O (D r 0 0 n r q 0 OO N r n u) M M r n M M N M O r q q (p r (p N O r N M M V O O r O CO n r n
9 OCAMU)u)MN V MMOMC V N M V N NMNh V 100MM (On P, V O V LO CO hN O Nr`CO
m mV V V V V V V V V M u) to 0 w CO O(DO to 0 w0 V) V V V V L0 u)u)u) V hM (D co CO N co LO u) u)u) u7 u) u) u)
v m
m
w U
y c V u) M 7 M M u) M M V (O OR r V M r CO M r M U) V U7 N V r u) O OR r u) O M U) V U) M r r (D r O7 N O O N n M
O (7) (7) c9 T OO W n W T T T (O T N O O r N w r N M u) O O N K N 1` OO OO 9 n .- 0) v O M N Ln O N (D O .- u)
U U r N N r N N N r N N N r r
c Q
O
O
.+(7)u)(D O(D r OOn rN MO OO M(O (O U)O(O OMh M NN r r 0u) O(Or W V r nMMMM NONOOMO U)
9 E(0(D M U) LO M LO '?t M M O(D O V co 0) O V W OOMNr v LO 0)M MhN OD V NO CO MMMMM V O V
m V V V V V V V V V LO LOu7(OOLOLOO(DU)V) D(DNu) V V V aNIgIAIn V LO O(D co CD LnCD to u)Nbu)LO Co u)
o r 3
z ,R N
m N V
m
U C V L0 M r CA M u) q M V (p h q V 0 n (O O N n N V V r h q u) Cl) 0 7 u) O 1` V M M n V V M P r N U) V Ln V O
Ln 0M M. ai OO OO f` Wtp Oirn (D ao N(O tOnrMnN MlO O O N a N h W W O)nrm V OMMm0 rNU)ONO
r N N r N N N T N N N r
N d S r
z
O 0
M LO (O O (P r O O h r N q Of M u7 (O M O h 0 O n N r r O r O V M (D r O Ch O N 1` O O N N V OR M V M n M
M C» (O u) u) M u) V M M O O O V M tT O V M O O
fD N V V u) M M n t` N O V N O CD (7i M M V M V O V
m mV V V V V V V V V u)t0117MOU)u)OU)InMOW U)u)VV V V lnNU)u)V u)OO(OOU)OU)NlnLOU)u)(OU)
•O N
m U
cn
z q 0 0) r 0 O U) M O LO O (O M M M M 0) N u) N r M M O O O M M CM O r 7 1` 0A h N 0 (D (D 1` u) Cl) O M O V CM M
OOCD V V V NNNNN0MM NMN A MNM0t? NMMhN00 g0NV V (DhOOOnN nvwm
N?u)u)u)u)u)tONNU)O(D (D (O CO UI U) 1O(n V V MMvv V V V V MMO(DN U)u)VvMco V MMV Ln V V Lo
O U
N Q
0
z
v
d o
m m c m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m s m m m R m m¢ --mo _m -?v m ? m m-0
) 0 ac) ac) ac) ac) ac) aci aci aci aci aci aci aci 0 ac) ¢ rn C7 ° am y y O aci aci o o 0
0 aci aci aci aci aci 0 0 0 p ac 0
=vv vvv v _ _ =_=a vvvva:2 ,v_ av v_ 0 0 o?tl v M2: G•g:o==a
N N L N N N L ,c N U N N N N L N N m N tO H N N N L !/) N m U N 0 = :41 L N N N N
a m m= m m m j=_ m•c m m a m m= m m m m m m m m m? m m m m m o ¢? ` ?m LU 02
OC¢ LL¢CC a;c $M CC .0 CC.0X ¢QXQQCC CC XCC XCC cc CC c
OU. LL LIl. LL LL LL OLL !)LL LL OLL 0LL M LL LL LL U. LL LLLL LL LL L LL LL LL jLL y c OLL LL
L ?LL LL O OLL
?2mvo0(nv)(oUUx(nxm(n2(n2v)om(ntn(nvo(n(n(n(n0(n(n(nLL 2?Y3(92(nU(nz(n(n2
rNM V u)(Dn nOOO.-N M'q' IO (DnOO)O NM V M O NM V N M O MO NM V LOMnM
r r r r r r r r r r N N N N NN NN NN N N N N M M M M M M MM M M M V V V V V V V V V
L
N
a
w
-.1
C (D V r M OD O M n r N V CO r r v cD V (h OJ M r- r r N (o (O M C r (n H M V
O O V I? n W (n w M M M r (D W m r- rh co co (- (l O O T O M M N
r r r r r r r d 2 O) M O r N n
Q C Q
C
a,o
w z w z
0 o 0 0
?. V (n M O r (n N M (0 0 O7 N n r 0 0 V (O M (? W M O r r co W
'O ? r f` M (n M V N M m N V N O O N O m m I- (D V 0 (D N « N M to M O N
E (0 M O W M
(O V V M M M M V V V V V V V V V V M V M V (n M (O N (n V
W 'O 3 (p V V O V V V
W M 3

Z
2 y C y
Z M N
.
CO U (0
y
0 U
U C M V r M CO M V n r (n V N r r V D V M CO M (n V V M M r M U C r M n V V V
Ln 00V I-? n 066 co O N Mr cD w w h rh co OD(ln n O(DT O M NN
p r r r r r
r CD 0Omm Or Nr,
U
N C Q N d Q
o
m Z d z
O 0

V (0 co M r (n M M g q OD N n r O O V LO M n O M M N V M 00 N M (D M O N
'O n n(D(n M'ct N w w MNV NOONOm Mr`mv (0 (DN
(y 0 In V V (n (n (n (n V V V V V V V V V V M V (M V (n N N N u7 V 'O NtDOW M
l0 d V V O V V V
F" rU ?U
N N
a
C N r M M O r r cq n M V OJ r N (n O N N M V N CO O N N r M C r N O C0 M M
O(n r 1'? 01 OT M 19 OD O7 n n C7 OD n n(? O V001'- N
r r O ODi Di Or Nn
C Q r r r r r
a C Q
? `
z
-
a m ?z
z o0 0o
o - 1
.+ M (O O O M t` O O M M M N n O M O M M N (D M f` N r (- v CO
72 E M N' n O M V M O O N V N O M N O W m N V M M V N N M 0 N r M
'O E (0 O O OD M
a N A (0 V V (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 W V V V V M V V M V M V (n N v (0 (0 v
3 (Q V V (D V V V
ZN o?
1= } Z .f0 ?n Z m
w J d y U y N U
N
Z Z U C V r M N r N 0 W V (n V M r N M W 0 (0 M V CM M 0 N N (- M
V V C r l0 (D N M M
m

Q
M n N t` N
n (?
O M r` 0 M W M h O r M (D T W h r N N r O
N
•
r r r r r r r r
T 0- cV
N 0.2
0
?
a f"' CD U
0
N C Q p 0
N Q
Z d
d o
z
Ha Z
° °0
0

LL
O
N co q M ,4T W M N (D O N N Ih O M O M M m O V h V r 1- V m
N M (n n r M
_ co n r (0 co V N O O N V N O M N O w m V N OM V N
(p 0 (n v v (0 (0 0 0 0 0 (0 V V V V M V V M V M V 0 0 V 0 N V (0 M O m M
(O 0 V V (D V V V
U
? w 'O N
C (a •O N
c (?
w IL
o. fn
Z OR M M n M (D M N N N N O N N V O O OJ I- O r M M M (0 r r Z M V M N V O
o N V M (D n (0 (0 O M n M co O r` h O co (0 M h n M N O (D (0
V (0 Lo v co CM M V (7 V V Ln (n v v LO V V V V V V V V V co V O V M M h co M
LO N (0 V V (0
p U
N
N Q
Z 0
N

L
m a i0 -R m <o m a m iO N m io m i0 io m m m m m a to

c

0 N 0 O) O) O d O) N N O) 01 O1 01 N N O) N O) O) O) N N N O1 d
vvvv?v
v
v?:?
v
v
v
v
vv
v
o
vv-D
c
,
_
•
_
,
_
•
_
••
_
N N y N N N N N N (? (? N Vi N N N N N (? N N N N N (A
•7 N 0 d N a) N N y N d1 N N N 0) d d O) O) N N N O) N d 0 0 0
p
W r N M V LL O
W
aC7nC¢?[LLYcrcr . Cc cc Cc Qcc CC a[¢¢cc cc cc cc cc Cc Q¢cc cc ,
d
a; d d
LL LL LL U. LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL U. LL LL LL LL LL

(n(nMtnco 22tnt)U)0(gtn(ncn(n(n rnwcnco(nv)(ncn2 ? d m
C
inin nin
E
d
M O N(n t M O n co M 0 N CO V (O p h co o) O N M V N
V an N (0 (0 h O N N (n (n (D (O M O CO O O (D (D O n n n h n h N O r N Co V (n (D
d
' C r M O r r CO (,? n (O V g q O OD n g q m to (0 q a m N r N M OR n N n q M V' N Uo M m q n N O N r OR `- C N
N 0 m 00 Cn m Oi I` OO T T m n W r m O m m W 0 to f0 l2 CO O N V N r,? CPT m T r M M O O V O m 0) O M W r i0
N N N r N N N r N N r
d Q
w
S

?
d p E
co O
L NMmNmNnCONMOOrOmm(D ntnonvovnMrcDOOmoUO ChNNOMN
(Orm(
m (00(0?l'(
,=

cr .
.
?f V O V Uo O tt N n P,: N a0 V N N m n N N M n V
C 9 N O N In W m 0 M M M m O M N M M to CV N n N
M y st C V V V 7 V V to Uo U) (O O (D O O O Uo O (O O O to V 'T 'T V• 0 l0 to N V N co co CO (D N t0 to N 0 N m m 0 N
N
v N
0
' «U
N
J C r M 0 r r rn n n n v cO 0 q n OR co c0 OON r N M n M V r C m n N(O N m 0 v(D OR n m t0 nNV Om W OV
O r ('? to O M O
M O
N
O
CA aD 0I W f` W T CA T n n r O c0 n n (D O N N to (D O N N h CO CD m r r m
0
m
r r r N r r
N
N
N N
N
N
0

z
d)
0
' Zdz
N ?
A O
U ?mOUnvnUo (PUNNmMOOmM(Or0toc0Omn(0toc0tr,0r, N0mmt0N?0MnN V t0nMnnv
CA
0) V M V LO U7
C
V N N n n N m Un N n (O 01
G 9 n a n to 0 M M M CO CO O O co m O N to m N m N n V to
/0 Q7 V to 7 t C V C 7 to N U) O (0 N O (D (D Un to t0 (O to M 't V' V V (0 t0 N LO V LO (D m co (D LO W to N to (n to t0 O LO
' N
U
N
m m (u n O N r m q N n N N O O m q N m O OR R m r O N v r N r N M V"t Uo m N N O N O O t` (O 'It V
C r
T
O r r (7 (h OG V V O r O O M O O r O N r Ch N O O m (n O n 0 0 0 O O O G O O O M O O N N r 7 7 r 0
' d r
C Q
C,
3 g z
?
y
O
U CO to d' a m r 'V dp V m r n? M r N 0 7 OO O M M m N CO to (0 N r CO M r N (D to O CO N N M W n r? n M M (O
.
N V CO Uo CO LO O L6 M n co
n O n O m m (D (D M n m N N 64 N M N N O O N V. n 0 CO N. N (D M
A d M O to N M 1n O to M (0 O (D m O (o l0 to to to V? V' to N N N to W O O (0 N to N V V M M V Coco V N V V c0 V
{- N C to
cr « U
O h
Q. C r N M r, v v r, (n .t 0) 00O n 0V to m 0) to r N CO r 00 CO) Cl) n mV r CM toM V Cl t0 mNr 0r0W NW V V

O r r C) cM n (h C) O r 0 0 M 0 0 0 O to n M N m O n to O n 0 666 0 6666 0 (h 66 N N r r 0
r r
Q N
c¢
J N i b
Q Z
Z do c
O ("0
?
U
00 to M N N 0(Or r m r n mr 0 Mc! cl to OONN M n n N 7 Cp M r N tO N m 0 N N N CO 0r Nh q M t0
N
Q N CO n N
m 'O n O N O m N O 0 N M n '7 m to N M V N q w V O M M to n O N M N N O M-t 11 m M M to O
d N (O to N to to (0 lA to (D (O (D (O (O to N to h to V C to to l0 V to N O O (O O to N to V V M M V MM V to V V' m V
?
Z
N
N
'
O
N
R U
lJ.l N

Z Z C r N m V to r CO O O m O m n M O n O m O M (qQ m r r r r O C r N r N M V R Un m c\! N O r 0 to n O V V
O r r r N V V n V M O r 0 0 V O O r O M (O M N to m N V r (D O O O O O O O O O O M O O N N r 0

Z a O 6
' F- O 3 E
°
F-a H
O
Z ()
O
ONQmMN m tD N w r n m c m O,t (Dn0r0(n r for Mr wMr N(O N 0 O0 N N(7070O? to n m Mm
c
LO Oto co n co
'
6
'
'
LL to mM to v m to
o
c
m
O N
O n(O m(O O m(O M n v m(O N M V NNN'N00 (O CO 0
N l0 O N N O O M O O N l0 N N N V [t V N N to V N N 0 (D tD (O 0 In to It V M M V• M M a Uo V' V to V
t
V o N
tO d to O
C
W N C N
L!1
a +a U
EL vi U)
znMUON WC'OOOMmrmNrtomOMmV V'n7 q tggnrn?NI,: Mr(q Mr'ItrOR mr-7 1' o
0 tD CZ Lo <t v N N N N N m M O) N N CO LO M m co nv to CO N 0V'nN In (D Mt V 0) 00 CO n co Nn v COm
to to es to tD to to to to W CD(0 CO m LO UO(o In V V'MMV -IT v -ItLO O(OOO(n to to V'sY co co V co co IT Uo V V U) V
' m F
N
00
z

U O
m m m m o m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m¢ 1 -° m m 0) m m m
•
•
•
'
C -- C d ?, (} M C c , c C E E C
c 1c 'E
E Z c c
c
E E C c C C c E c E 'c E 'E
_.DCD a) w Q) cu 4) M 0 a 72 72 M B
0:_:_.0 X12 :9 :2 UD2?? :2:9:2 p?LL'OO '0=-9:2
.
N N L N y N L L (n U N N N W r 0 N 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 L w 0 0 U N L
0) 'C C) a) N a) N C) ` N d C) N N N (U (O N` d N N ¢ (U ca m 0 p O O) ` N N W
C) d C) N N (U O
-, L O
aa¢¢ 2¢¢¢ > j ° ¢g¢¢a¢?¢ ?¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢ ?¢¢¢ o ?¢ ?i ?¢¢ ¢
LL O OLL
> OLL LL L LL LL LL LL OLL NLLLL OLL OLL LLL LL LL LL LL LLLL LL ILL LL LL LL jLL a) C O LL LLL ?LL
'Fr (D(DUt0(q(AUU2U)2(A(A?U) tDU(A(AUCD Uto(D(O(AUCD (4(ALL2 JY C7 toUtoz t0(n222

CO a O r N M V N m n W m O T N M rV N O n m m N N N CO N N N N N N m M M M co ) Cl) M M M M? V V 7 V V' V V , CD
v
r r r r

[J
c M fD N O M M N",? N M r N t? Cp r M N M 0 0 N M N O OR to r O it r t\ N V
C V' r N M t0 M M r (O OD n CO t` OC CO r CO n O 6 N r a O N
'
r rr r O r N r
V
?
V
rr rN
C Q
W ` b W O
W cZ
Z z 2 2 E
w - E
° N (D D
p
U Q
N U
L M eq ?d•r? M OD ONMNM tO COM n OOO V Oh Mtn 00O V'
M r M N M M M
t. Mt`OM V NMMMM V MOON MN OMN MNOD rhm
N A dM't V'tn to MMV V V'v -,t V'V'T V V MV V'. V'M to to to LO M o r, OO M
O m 0'a V w"t q- V
O N
U N 9 N
c

O
m . V
.10

w (n
J C (D NO V't`OOO Ntn r to nM N'I•M (O N r OM0 NMOR M O V OM N7
G
to n n m L6 M n N V' (O W r (O n OD t` N' f` 0 V' M r N f` CV
r r r r r r r U Oj O r N r
V
O
C Q d O
° 0 b ° ?z
z z z v E
° E N
N
U •` •=
V °
M MMM M W N OM N V Lq MLq nM O CA ON MN f` V fl.: M M r, Cl) rN (OM
'O M M n (O M N M N N M V' M O O N O W O n N N OD V' V M
N W y N V' V 0 N N M In tO (n V' V' V V M V V V' N tO V' M LO V 9 tD t. O M M
N A d V V O V V V
c W 9 N
toU «U
y to
.. c N (O tO M N M O V' M n O r V' to q h M h CO r N R N M M (n (q
2 0 0 6 6 V' N (h M V CD r r N r r N M N M (D O r C r N M r q M CO O r
V r r N CO N O
4)
Q d Q
C) a Q (?j C
M Z
3 z 342 E
me c
N vow

to m O

U
N O r V M M (O N N N N 0 O r M N M O M r r IT (O CO CO (D n
i
i
m co N't n OD N
M'O
NtDV r, v
v
M t. tO(DO V NOMN ON MO:V NCO
N
O tC d V' M N ? M M M M M 7 In N (n N C O LO V O M O M V V V M (n (n ENO O t.
C R y M M M In N M
N 0 N V N
cc t?aU MU
O in
w
C t0(O(nMNMO V Mrl (OrvtOM(OO V r NM V'NMM(Or
0 00 O V N (
O
N
N M M M 6 O
O
lh CD ONM t0r
` O
_ h M y
r r
r r
d
r
r N V r r N M t
a c Q
4 d p
J 2 b
N N C Z
Q 3z
E 3mo
z
O u o
H 4)
0O.
_ R
U ~ n O r V CA M (p N n N N N M r M (p N (O r q N V (O M M n N
V N N M Go co N
M
Q N O V' P, co co co N LO (O O V N O M N (n M M O M O V NM M M

V' N N V M M M M M V N N IA O V' M V (O N M M V V V M N
G 9
L6 n N n r
(n M O M l19 M
C M
Z
? N
N C ?
U N
N 9
?
U
W to
y t
a
y
? Q
Z z ct0(OV MNMOV M r n rv to q O N N M r NV Ncq V• rCO m Mr
00000 V'NMM'77OrrNNNCM CO N V'M9-OrNh rrNN t0O
F- c ¢ U
Q
?z a
b 70z
c
FO 0
z
3;5E adE
0 yew
z V
O N 0 N V MM W 0r, NM tO ror OOV r, N(nr- V OM"tM to U co OJ MNCN
M? N64 NMMM r`tn(DO V NOOM MN NO [f NMMM

'V NN V MMMMMV toLO toLO LO LO LO V LO LO tOLO V'V'V'MV)
W d M9 uj t. N uj M f`

C 10 0tn(O(otO V M
W N N
W (,4U «U
d N N N
Z NO(O r rN (OM OM (O V N(D OONN O V to OR V•OOr z rte,-M co c!
0M(DV NCO (O(OOC?MM NN M(00 r`NOM NN(O
M- V N LO V M M m V V V C (O 0 V V O V V h V V LO Nt V v m 7 Q V (OOnMt-
LO N (O V V N
M
N F
O N
Q
O
Z Z
t

- -
76 75
m m m m ro m m R m m m m io m m m m m m m m m m
-2 C C C c c C
C C C C C C C C c c c a C C c c c c C
D
0 0 O) N 0 N c N N N d d N Q) d 0) 0 0 N N 0 0) 0 0 N ?
O
O U U:2-0 :0:O?000 O:O V V .0 ;o V a :o ;2 ? U :O :O ;O V
a
N
w (? y N .N N N Fn N N N y N N N N N N W t0 N N (A
7 N N d N 0) (D 0) a) N w N N U1 N 0) N N N O) N N N N N N d
a (} cc cs cc cc cc 2 2 ir cc LL Q Q Q M T cc cc cc cc M LL Q cc Ir Q Q

W
r N Cl) a N M
} LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL

i(n(A2(AfO22(D(i(O(n(O(A(D(n(0 U) (1) (n(O(O(Ato (0(02 1
}
F-Fn (n(A(A F/5 (0

° M O N CO V to CO f? 00 M O N CM V M (D n N M O N M V-' to
V LO lO M LO U) LO (O to LO (O to (O (O tD (O (O (O (O (O (O n (? r n n N. ° r N M 'R LO (0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX C
FLIGHT TRACKS
This appendix contains graphic information depicting the arrival and departure flight tracks assumed in
the noise modeling for the No-Action Alternative as well as all Build Alternatives. The following graphics
are included in this appendix:
C-1 Flight Tracks - No-Action Alternative
C-2 Flight Tracks - Alternative W2-A
C-3 Flight Tracks - Alternative W3-A
C-4 Flight Tracks - Alternative N-D
C-5 Flight Tracks - Alternative W1-A1
C-6 Flight Tracks - Alternative WE
W :\P I EDMONT\D EI S\Append ices\2ppendix_i nt ro. doc\3/20/00
range of 100 million million (a 100 trillion) to 1. This huge number, 100 trillion or
(100,000,000,000,000, with 14 zeros after the 1) is much more conveniently represented
on the logarithmic scale as 140 dB (14 x 10). Figure I further illustrates the
relationships among the pressure scale, ,the pressure-squared scale, and the decibel
scale.
The use of the logarithmic decibel scale requires somewhat different arithmetic than
we are accustomed to using with linear scales. For example, if two similar but
independent noise sources operate simultaneously, the measured mean square sound
pressure from the two sources will add together to give a value twice that which
would result from either source operating alone. The resulting sound pressure level in
decibels from the combined sources will be only 3 dB higher than the level produced
by either source alone, since the logarithm of 2 is 0.3 and 10 times 0.3 is 3. In other
words, if we have two sounds of different magnitude from independent sources, then
the level of the sum will never be more than 3 dB above the level produced by the
greater source alone. If the two sound sources produce individual levels that are
different by 10 dB or more, then adding the two together produces a level that is not
significantly different from that produced by the greater source operating alone, as
illustrated in Figure 2.
Two sounds which have the same sound pressure level may "sound" quite different
(i.e., a rumble versus a hiss) because of differing distributions of sound energy in the
audible frequency range. The distribution of sound energy as a function of frequency
is termed the "frequency spectrum" (see Figure 3 for an example). The spectrum is
important to the measurement of the magnitude of sounds because the human ear is
more sensitive to sounds at some frequencies than at others. For example, the human
car hears best in the frequency range of 1,000 to 5,000 cycles per second (or Hertz)
than at very much lower or higher frequencies. Therefore, in order to determine the
magnitude of a sound on a scale that is proportional to its magnitude as perceived by
a human, it is necessary to weight that part of the sound energy spectrum humans
hear most easily more heavily when adding up the total sound magnitude as perceived.
Figure 4 illustrates this concept of weighting the physical sound spectrum to account
for the frequency response of the car.
Freauencv Welebtlne
Scientists who work in acoustics have attempted for many years to find ideal
method to weight the frequency spectrum just as does the human car. These attempts
have produced many different scales of sound measurement, including A-weighted
sound level (and also B, C, D, and E-weighted sound levels), perceived noise level, and
loudness. A-weighting, which was developed in the 1930's for use in a sound level
meter, accomplishes the weighting by an electrical network which works in a manner
similar to the bass and treble controls on a hi-fi set.
A-weighting has been used extensively throughout the world to measure the
magnitudes of sounds of all types. Because of its universality, it was adopted by EPA
and other government agencies for the description of sounds in the environment. A
newer weighting, such as the D or E weightings which are based on the decade of
research leading to the perceived noise level scale, might eventually supplant A-
weighting as the universal method. But until one of these newer scales is in common
use and its superiority over A-weighting for measurement of environmental sounds is?
demonstrated, A-weighting is expected to dominate.

I

q
It.
W
p
a
k
y
y
ti
y
4
DECIBELS
2
Sound Pressure Level - 10 Log ?P-r)
where pr is the reference pressure of
20 micron-newtons per squire meter
Fig. I_ The Logarithmic Nature of the Decibel
Source: Transportation Noise and its Control,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1972

/reswrt heswe DetibN
Suit Sowred Sts k
Sisk
? I' dE
100 10.000 Cor"Wnetion
of Sounds
No.1 and No.2
Sound No.2
Sound No.1
3 dG
10 100 .20
1L 1L0L vA
h?,= ?,?,,? Oec+iw p) Addino Two Sounds of Eowl
Soso Souse d Sok U-nnitude
Sak
Comp:na ti
of Sowds
No.1 and N
Sound No.)
Sound No.2
101 AOding Two Sounds of
Different marAwde
Fig. 2. Example of the Change on the Decibel Scale
Resulting From Adding the Mean Square Values
of Two Sounds Together
Source: Transportation Noise and its Control,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1972

?T
I?
?I
i?
1.
ti
9

m
v
J
v
7
M
V
a
C
V
w
C
0
w
v
0
Frequency Spectrum of
the Sound (a different
level exists at each
part of the spectrum)
The acoustic energy all
across the spectrum adds to
give the overall sound
pressure level (a single
number)
31.5 63 125 250 500 1,000 2.000 4.000 8.000
Octave Band Center Frequency in Cycles Per Second
----= - ------
Piano
Scale
-- -- - - 1 - -- - - -
i
261.6 1046.4
(Middle C) (2 Octaves
above Middle C)
Fig. 3. Example of a Frequency Spectrum of a Sound
Source: Transportation Noise and its Control,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1972
C
O
N
C
O
E
E
O
U
4- •
O
Cl
tT
ro
cr
d
z
4W
4-
O
a
E
ro
X
W
0
O N
N ?

0
P
L
y
O C.
c.. w
0 0 0 . E

y M

0O
l l(
P P G

M
C
I r
•

I v
1 C O C
p .i.? CD ?
o ' I o
I
I I
I L
I
1 ( _ n ._ 1i g
p
n
•
O
I?IIi
L
?l

1 1 1
I I •?
?o
i .?
r- 0
v
a ? E E
` ?- y h O C o
.. O O u. rOj 0 0 ?i !7 ?O O C
O G _ _
• O
> h p •; d 1% C.? 0 0 d ` C
o. c `o o o-` o 0 0 0 0 Co-
0 v
O0 Es c F :, c IF v? ° °' > > - z c o
o v . c? . a_
c' ; cock °o??_? o°
N O J H N 1?J " - • ? 7 O O w N O E u V O -C •
ID =1
0 C)
•+ ° KKC ; -a o 0 y0 > > o o ° o o -° = }b~ it
V%n 0.1..NL dNG r-O V «O O =a?> W V W }CL
O o
? N
v
L
m
o
'o c
0
H
O ?
r
_a
v
t
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
Early Afternoon
Cars on Nearby Aircroft
80 8ovlevcrd Overflight
70
60
N
.\ $0
T Local Corr 7
Sports Stondord

-- of -- ---- Wr...a.-
Z _- ---yL
N LO - Nni •tv Level
` t 1
,01 1 ?
30 1 2 3 4 5 6
C 0
time in Minutes
v
v
lcte Evening
• o
Z
Intermittent
Local Con
0 80 Dog BcAs
Distcnt
70 Cars -
t
60
7 8
Steady Borking of Two Dogs
1 ? ! tl ? tI
50
Residual Noise level
30 t 2 - 3 4 S 6 7 8
0 ?
Time in Mi nut es
MicNoise in rophoneaLocNormal ated 2ObFeetn
Fig- 6' Nei Samles rhoodowitth Outdoor
9hbo
From the Street Curb
Source: Community Noise, U.S. Environmental Protection
. Agency, 1971
Third, although each single event may be partially characterized by its maximum
level, its time pattern is also of major significance. For example, the sound level of
the aircraft in the example is above that of the residual sound level for approximately
80 sec., whereas the sound levels from the cars passing by on the street arc above the
residual sound level for much shorter durations, ranging between about 5 and 20 sec.
Clearly, if the sound associated with these single events were of sufficient magnitude
to intrude on an individual's activities -- conversation, thinking, watching television, I
etc. -- the duration factor might be expected to affect the resulting degree of
annoyance. Similarly, it might be anticipated that the number of times such an event
recurred also would affect the degree of annoyance.
The data in these continuous recordings of sound arc very instructive in the
understanding of the nature of the outdoor sound environment at any neighborhood I
location. However, to quantify an outdoor sound environment at one location so that
it can be compared with that at others, it is necessary to simplify its description by
eliminating much of the temporal detail.
One way of accomplishing this simplification is to measure the value of
the residual sound level and the values of the maximum sound level for
specific single event sounds at various times during the day, using either'
a simple sound level meter or the continuous graphic level recording of
its output.
Another method of quantifying the sound environment is to determine'
the statistical properties of the .sound level by attaching a statistical
analyzer to the output of the sound level meter. This allows one to
determine the amount of time that the sound level exceeds any stated
sound level, or, conversely, the sound level which is exceeded for a
stated percentage of the time.
A third method is to determine the value of a steady-state sound which'
has the same average value of A-weighted mean square sound pressure as
that contained in the time-varying sound. This value is termed th?
Equivalent Sound Level.
Each of these descriptors has its own special usefulness. Residual and maximum
sound levels. are easily 'measured by a hand-held sound level meter or a sophisticate
computer-based monitoring system. However, such measurements give no indication o
the duration of the various single events, nor a notion of the average "state" of the
environment.
The statistical method can be crudely accomplished by use of a hand-held sound level
meter, but it is a time-consuming, tedious process, not very accurate in many cases.
is best accomplished with a sophisticated instrument or monitoring. system design
for the purpose. It can give the complete detailed statistical distribution curve
sound level versus time for any desired duration: for example, each hour of the da ,
daytime or nighttime, or 24-hour day. Such a curve is often a most useful reducti
of the detail contained in the graphic level recording, although it eliminates
information about specific events. However, if a single value is required for
convenience, it is necessary to make an arbitrary choice of a point (level at?
duration) on the curve, eliminating most of the statistical information.

mehas thoa
The measurement,of the Equivalnt case, the problems are aboutnihe sa wit
' held sound level meter; to this
encountered in a similar statistical
monitoring system
Sound Level, however, is best
a single instrument
designed specifically for this purpose. diecSuch
dcsired duraionna
forianyl g
' Sound Level Meter. It can provide value which includes all of the time-varying sound in the measurement period. As
such, it is a more complete description than a single value of level and time taken
' from a statistical description. For example, if the "level which is exceeded 10% of the
total time" is used as the descriptor of the time varying sound, its value remains
constant and independent of the magnitudes of all higher level sounds as long as their
durations are less than 10% of the total time. In contrast, these sounds of higher level
' are fully accounted for in the Equivalent Sound Level descriptor.
The major virtue of the equivalent sound level is that its magnitudc correlates well
of
with the effects on humans that result from a wide variation in types
environmental sound levels and time patterns. It has been proved to provide good
correlation between noise and speech interference and noise and risk of hearing loss.
It also is the basis for measure of the total rnoise and to h the results
' Sound Level, which correlates well with community reaction to
of social surveys of annoyance to aircraft noise. level for
The Day-Night Sound Level is defined as the A- he equivalent sound
sound levels
the 24-hour period with a +10 dB weighting applied t the equivalent
measured during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. -The nighttime
weighting acts to increase the levels measured in nighttime by 10 dB. Hence, an
environment that has a measured daytime equivalent sound level of 60 dB and
measured nighttime equivalent sound level of SO dB has a weighted nighttime soL
level of 60 dB (50 + 10) and a Day-Night -Sound Level of 60 dB. Examples oc
measured Day-Night Sound Levels are given in Figure 7.
l Characterizing- Specific Sounds
' The sounds that combine to make environmental sound can be considered a collection
d the sounds from time-
of sounds from steady-state sources (such as transformers) an
single-event sources which occur at random or regular intervals (such as
nd level of
in
g
vary
osed on a quasi-steady-state residual or backgrou
i
mp
moving vehicles), super
ounds which are indistinguishable.
' s
steady-state sound is simply the A-weighted sound level and the
h
h
i
f
e
t
t
The descriptor o
The descriptor for the time varying sounds associated w
duration of the event.
single events must include both magnitude and duration. One method is to measure
nd level is above a stated
h
e sou
the maximum sound level and the duration in which t
the number of seconds
level: for example
i
,
mum
number of decibels below the max
e that the sound rises from 10 dB below maximum, to maximum, and
i
m
between the t
which produces a
falls again to 10 dB below maximum. An alternative description,
is the Sound Exposure Level, the level
t
,
single value for the sound of the single even
the microphone resulting from the event. These
of the total sound exposure at
concepts are illustrated in Figure 8.
'
r

r

QUALITATIVE
DESCRIPTIONS

Ldn
DAY-NIGHT
SOUND LEVEL'
DECIBELS OUTDOOR LOCATIONS
CITY NOISE
(DOWNTOWN MAJOR
METROPOLIS)
a
F-
z
W
e
N
W
NOISY
NOISY URBAN
URBAN
0- i
LOS ANGELES - 3rd FLOOR APARTMENT NEXT TO
- FREEWAY
LOS ANGELES - 3/4 MILE FROM TOUCH DOWN AT
=
- -- MAJOR AIRPORT '
)- LOS ANGELES - DOWNTOWN WITH SOME CON-
STRUCTION ACTIVITY
HARLEM - 2nd FLOOR APARTMENT

~
BOSTON - ROW HOUSING ON MAJOR AVENUE
WATTS - 8 MILES FROM TOUCH DOWN AT
MAJOR AIRPORT

NEWPORT - 2.5 MILES FROM TAKEOFF AT i
SMALL AIRPORT
LOS ANGELES - OLD RESIDENTIAL AREA
i
FILLMORE -SMALL TOWN CUL-de-SAC
SMALL TOWN A-SAN DIEGO-WOODED RESIDENTIAL '
3UIETSUBURBAIC
CALIFORNIA-TOMATO F1ELD'ON FARM '
Fig. 7. Examples of Outdoor Day/Night Sound Level in
dH (re: 20 micro-newtons per square meter) i
Measured at Various Locations
Source: Information on levels of Environmental Noise
Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare ,
With an Adequate Margin of Safety, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1974
1
i
i
i
i
i
i
ti

0
a
c
N
'Q
O
.r
r
0
0
3
t
Haximm Sound Level
Shaded area in which energy
10 is su=med to obtain total
energy for the event - sour
e ,cs_re level
Duration at 10 dB
below raxi=um
''ter Residual
Level
Ti=e
S
4
Fig. 8. Description of the Sound of a Single Event
Source: Noise in America, The Extent of the Noise
Problem, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency,. 1981
Key Descriptors of Sound
For the purpose of quantifying environmental sound in this discussion, four quantities
listed in Table I are useful. All arc based on the A-weighting which accounts
approximately for the frequency response of the ear. All have logarithmic scales, all
use the decibel (dB) as their unit, and all have the same magnitude of the reference
sound pressure of 20 micron-newtons per square meter.
The sound level (L) in decibels is the quantity read on an ordinary sound level meter.
It fluctuates with time following the fluctuations in magnitude of the sound. Its
maximum value (Lmax) is one of the descriptors often used to characterize the sound
of an airplane flyby. However, Lmax only gives the maximum magnitude of .a sound -
it does not contain any information on the duration of the sound. Clearly if two
sounds have the same maximum level, the sound that lasts longest will generally cause
more interference with human activity than does the one that lasts for a shorter time.
Both of these factors arc included in the concept of sound exposure which adds up all
of the sound occurring in a stated time period or during a specific event. The
logarithmic form - Sound Exposure Level (SEL) - is read from integrating sound level
meters and is the quantity that best describes the totality of the noise from an
airplane flyby.
The equivalent sound level (Lcq) is simply the log of the average value of the sound
exposure during a stated time period. It is often used to describe sounds with respect
to their potential for interfering with human activity, e.g., speech interference.
A special form of Leq is the day-night sound level (Ldn). Ldn is calculated by adding
up all the sound exposure during daytime (0700-2200 hours) plus 10 times the sound
exposure occurring during the nighttime (2200-0700 hours) and averaging this total
sum by the number-of seconds during a 24-hour day. The multiplication factor of 10
applied to the nighttime sound exposure is often referred to as applying a penalty of
10 dB to noises that occur at night. The Ldn was developed by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for use in describing environmental noise and estimating its
potential effects on humans.
In 1980, a Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise published Guidelines for
Considering Noise in Land Use Planning and Control. This committee included the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Defense, and the
Veterans Administration. Its report classifies noise exposure as described by Ldn as
shown by Table 2.
The report suggested land use compatibility guidelines designate noise zones below
Ldn 65 dB as compatible for residential use, but also states:
"The designation of these uses as "compatible" in this zone
reflects individual Federal agencies' consideration of general cost
and feasibility factors as well as past community experiences and
program objectives. Localities, when evaluating the application
of these guidelines to specific situations, may have different
concerns or goals to consider. For an indication of possible
community noise, Table D-1 should be consulted!
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.
?I
?I
1.
?I
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table 1 Principal Descriptors of Environmental Sound
Symbol
Quantity Abbreviation Descriptor Uses
Sound Level L Mean square value of Describes magnitude
A-weighted sound of a sound at a
pressure level at specific position
any time re a refer- and time.
ence pressure.
Sound Le Time integral of the Describes magnitude
Exposure mean square A-weight- of all of the sound
Level ed sound pressure re at a specific posi-
a mean square refer- tion accumulated
ence pressure and during a specific
1 second duration. event, or for a
stated time interval.
Equivalent Leq Level of a steady Describes average
Sound Level sound which has the (energy) state of
same sound exposure environment. Usua..,
level as does a employed for dufa-
time-varying sound ation of:
over a stated time 1 hr CLeq(1)19
interval 8 hr CLeq(8)1, or
24 hr[Leq(24)].
Day/Night Ldn Equivalent sound Describes average
Sound Level level for a 24 hr environment in resi-
period with a +10 dential situations
dB weighting applied accounting for effect
to all sounds occur- of nighttime noises
ring between 10 p.m. often is averaged
and 7 a.m. over a 365-day year.

•? 1
>, M
U C
C m
?J
Q•
roC
G1
? DJ
C N O
- CD
~ 00,
.rZ.?
f? v
L (T
• Tp? r .?
y .N 1
O L 0
LL v
E M
-1 --+
O N D
L C ro
4- of--
al U
O O '.
O 4- O
as L
n. N y
0) C
C C O
0 U
a, O'D -
ul p C
Z
O a) C
N 4j ro
4j i .-+
U (_
4- E 4l
4- O N
W U D
A
IT,
W
ro
H
w
a
a
O
W
96
Z Z*
O C
W Q
ZZ)
w
O°
w
ft7 0
'O
Y
r?
rrl
a
r

A y
Oc° `y G w
w 3- M
v
go c
.y. w w
c
ca E e

p j w•-

>
? c
w
o?
E s p E E v i v C E E w
o Eo = `os ?o
V a< Ly, w °v

E
06
E
?

u C

E c
T= _ E E v
y o0
`
•
V .
O V.
O
° O O OL ?
C
V
V<
V .
.. V
O Y V
O V V C

7
V V
y

y

C
r E

i.E c

CL
YN
«
« V
>
N
c a _
« V
s V V
L
o V O

O
c
Z i Z i Z w ?
Z O Z>

V c
A 2
C
Y a V
Y V
V w
V ° 10
= E V > ' 'y =
'?
E

<
r
N
V:
Y

f
c
4A
V
0

y O C • • • •
w
o Ot
` r
•" r
r h a f
e 1%
o ?

° °
C .n °
v
a C
-..
., o c
O :
« Y Y ?
w
?
O
w.
?
8 g
- ? ? 8

v =
= 8 8
?? a

r • •
= o e

? ?

S
_

- y s ?_ 7 B O O O u
?
OCC 35? 3Zu 7-
32y
CP

lal h ? e- .o ?^ a
Y' ^ A r
a
' v y
Z L
r
i? > O Q
w t .7

D-2

w w u
i C L
7 V V
G

J 7 _
_
? ' L V

Z _ ? Q.w w

G C o C
•
? s Y _O V V
7 L >

O L L
G '
C ? L y v
y p V
G
? H 9 L
7 E
V w?
M
•
?L ? u
w ?

G «L D u
C
A
C « V y
7 L 4
i 7 ? L O Z

a E c . u
? ,?.°ca

A c E Yi `v
y.
.
C• j L Y 7 C
C i y w L? C C
V
A O V w
J ' =
L Q
7 = 1
= Y w

f Z '
c-•!, _: y cc
N< p O 0
u Z V
Y K ; C
C ? .v y V O .
_ 7 Y O. -; 1.0
C 0
40 r- C
C.
?- °O?
,E
• ? V ?_ C V C
• C = C w ' C
C r J a •' C `• V r
7S 2
f f ~ Q r
E E V v
V r G O w «" C'
y?EE? g;ce
w a'?
. i `Oc V
w .. U w C V i
w : ? c ? O y rt > ?
?Eecc <yOo
v y w EJ C O' Y y?
L.,J.Z ZL 7 ° ? C.
E'? G u u as
C> C C w L
Z! w V O V V VL 7
~
w _
t z v C V C t
V
Z J[ y V 1Y V
N n

I I
Table D-1 is taken directly from the interagency report referenced above. It
' summarizes the typical findings of the effects of noise on people in residential area
Table D-1 classifies noise at an Ldn value of 65 dB as "significant." Below this level,
noise is indicated to be "moderate" to "slight" According to the table, there will still
be a certain percentage of the population highly annoyed below 65 dB. This
' percentage decreases as the Ldn level decreases. Quoting from footnote 4 of table D-1,
"Noise at low levels can still be an important problem, particularly when it intrudes
into a quiet environment."
The FAA has combined the suggestions of the Interagency Committee and others in its
table of land use compatibility with Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Levels in its
FAR Part 150 Regulation. This table is reproduced here as Table 3. It suggests that
areas where the yearly Ldn is less than 65 dB are compatible for residential use. FAR
Part 150, Appendix A, Section A.150.101.(b), states:
"(b) Table 1 of this appendix describes compatible land use
information for several land uses as a function of YDNL values.
The ranges of YDNL values in Table I reflect the statistical
variability for the responses of large groups of people to noise.
Any particular level might not, therefore, accurately assess an
individual's perception of an actual noise environment.
Compatible or non-compatible land use is determined by
comparing the predicted or measured YDNL values at a site with
the values given. Adjustments or modifications of the
descriptions of the land-use categories maybe desirable after
' consideration of specific local conditions."
' DAY NIGHT AVERAGE SOUND LEVEL-(DNL)
In- 1981, the Federal Aviation Administration formally adopted Day-Night Average
Sound Level (DNL) as the single system for determining exposure of individuals to
airport noise. DNL is the most widely accepted descriptor for aviation noise because
of the following characteristics:
1. DNL is a measurable quantity.
2. DNL is simple to understand and use by airport planners and the public
' who arc not familiar with acoustics or acoustical theory.
3. DNL provides a simple method to compare the effectiveness of alternative
airport scenarios.
i
'
i
4. es
t
DNL is a "figure of merit" for noise impacts which is based on commun
reactions to environmental noise.
_.5. DNL is the best measure of noise exposure to identify significant impacts on
the quality of the human environment.
6. By Federal interagency agreement, DNL is the best descriptor of all noise
sources for land use compatibility planning.
7. DNL is the only metric with a substantial body of scientific survey data .
the reactions of people to noise.
' _R w

N

a
LL
E
0
W
D
ro
N
as ?
ro ?
CL ?-
E
U Q
aj x
to
-0 W
c a
co a
J Q
m
_0)
D
ro
F-
O
z
W
O
}
3
0
R ?
Zb ®R
r.
Y
b1z
b? a
a aw
Y la
a ?q s
lift E
lit
E
? Mild 2

Y 1
Day-Night Average Sound Level, abbreviated as DNL and symbolized as Ldn, is the
24-hour average sound level, in decibels, obtained from the accumulation of all event
with the addition of 10 decibels to sound levels in the night from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
The weighting of nighttime events account; for the usual increased interfering effects
of noise during the night, when ambient levels arc lower and people arc trying to
sleep.
The emergence of DNL as the standard descriptor of aviation noise and the figure of
merit in land use compatibility planning is due chiefly to the efforts of the U.S. EPA.
I I In the spring of 1973, in an effort to comply with the Noise Control Act of 1972, the
EPA convened a task group with the function to "consider the characterization of the
impact of airport community noise and to develop. a community noise exposure
I measure." To accomplish this, the task group had to determine the merits and
I shortcomings of methods to characterize the impact of the noise of present or proposed
airport operations on the public health and welfare; determine which of such methods
is most suitable for adoption by the Federal Government; and determine the
' implications of issuing Federal regulations establishing a standard method of
characterizing the aviation noise, and of specifying maximum permissible levels for
public health and welfare. The task group's recommendations included the following:
' 1. Adoption of the Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) as the measure of
environmental noise.
' i
i
se
rport no
2. This measure should be used for aircraft noise studies and a
standards.
3. The prediction procedures should be standardized.
In 1976, EPA formally recommended that FAA adopt DNL as the standard aircraft
noise description. FAA's decision to adopt DNL was also based on a number of other
factors. In 1980, the Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise consolidated
Federal guidance on the incorporation of noise considerations in local land planning
s and site review "to encourage noise sensitive development, such as housing, to be
? located away from major noise sources' Members of the committee included U.S.
EPA, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD), U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and the Veterans
Administration (VA). The Committee adopted DNL as the best descriptor of noise for
land use planning and established related land use compatibility guideline. In the
same year,- the Acoustical Society of America developed an American National
Standard (ANSI S3.23-18980) which specified DNL as the acoustical measure to be
used in assessing compatibility between various land uses and the outdoor noise
environment. In addition, Congress established a voluntary program of airport noise
compatibility planning (Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act) and directed FAA
to issue regulations which would:
a. establish a single system of noise measurement to be uniformly applied in
measuring noise at airports and in surrounding areas for which there is a
highly reliable relationship between projected noise and surveyed reaction
of people to noise;
iduals to
di
f i
f
i
i
v
n
or determ
n
ng the exposure o
b. establish a single system
noise which results from the operations of an airport; and

C. identify land uses which are normally compatible with various exposures of
individuals to noise.
Accordingly, in 1981. FAA issued Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150, I
Airport Noise Compatibility Planning. As part of this regulation, FAA formally
adopted DNL. I
Beyond the political and regulatory factors and the need for standardization, the
adoption of DNL was the clear choice on scientific grounds. In general, the effects of
noise on people -result from complex relationships of numerous factors, and separating
the effects of these often confounding factors is impractical if not impossible. The
variability in the way individuals react to noise makes it impossible to accurately
predict how any one individual will respond to a given noise. However, when the I
community is considered as a whole, trends emerge which relate noise to annoyance.
DNL alone provides an adequate indicator of community annoyance to aircraft noise.
Other recent studies continue. to indicate that DNL is the descriptor of choice in
representing community reaction to noises of all kinds. A recent study to assess the
nighttime weighting factor used in DNL concluded that there is no credible evidence
to use anything other than the accepted DNL ("Cumulative Airport Noise Exposure
Metrics: An Assessment of the Evidence for Time-of-Day Weightings,* DOT/FAA/EE-
8610). Another study concluded that DNL satisfactorily represented surveyed
community annoyance from helicopter noise for flyovers as infrequent as one
operation per day ("A Community Survey of Helicopter Noise Annoyance Conducted
under Controlled Noise Exposure Conditions," NASA Tech. Memo 86400). Given that
annoyance is a phenomenon for which there is no perfect descriptor,.all known
research illustrates that DNL provides an excellent portrayal of airport noise exposure
for the purposes of assessing land use compatibility and controlling noise.
-SINGLE EVENT NOISE MEASURES
The use of single event noise levels provides a means of comparing individual aircraft
flyovers and aircraft operation procedures, such as quantifying the merits of differen
noise abatement procedures. FAA Order 1050.I1), Polices and Procedures fo
Considering Environmental Impacts, also indicates that. single event levels, in terms of
Sound Exposure Level (SEL), Maximum A-weighted Sound Level (ALm), and one-thir
octave sound pressure levels, are important for investigating noise sensitive sites fo
possible soundproofing projects. As described in the section, Measures of Sound. soup
is measured on a decibel scale (dB) as a convenient means of representing the typic
range of sound pressures; A-weighting (dBA) simulates the reaction of the human c
to the frequency spectrum of a sound; and Sound Exposure Level (SEL) characteriz
not only the maximum magnitude of a sound in dBA, but also the duration.
ALm is useful for compa-rig the-loudness of different events, such as, aircral
flyovers. The maximum level can be easily understood in terms of everyday
experience with aircraft noise and other common sources a-s shown in t?
accompanying charts of common noise sources.
In addition to the magnitude of sound as measured in terms of Alm, anothc
characteristic is its duration. SEL is a measure of the total sound energy of an evi

t

1

r
1

taking into account amplitude, frequency and duration. SEL is a tittle mor,
complicated to envision than ALm. but the duration factor has significant
implications for identifying annoyance. If the sound of an event is of sufficient
magnitude to intrude on an activity such 'as conversation, then the duration of that
event could affect the degree of annoyance. The more events, the higher the degree
of annoyance. Thus, the measure of community annoyance to aircraft noise is Day
Night Average Sound Level (DNL) which is the accumulation of SEL events over a 24
hour period with a 10 decibel penalty applied to the nighttime events.
Because SEL includes both magnitude and duration, the SEL of an event will always
be..higher than the corresponding ALm; and, for aircraft events, SEL. will consistently
track with the maximum level. For many common noise sources, the SEL cannot be
easily determined, even when the ALm is known, because the duration of the event is
an unknown and uncontrolled quantity. But, for moving objects, such as an aircraft
flyover, the duration of the noise event is determined by the speed of the object, i.e.
the aircraft velocity, and the distance from source to the receptor. Typically, the
farther the distance, the longer the duration. A general rule of thumb for aircraft
flyovers is that the difference between SEL and ALm is between 5 and 10 decibels.
For example, if computer analysis indicates a takeoff generated SEL 80 dB at a given
location, then the ALm is probably between 70 and 75 dBA. This information can
then be used to relate back to other common noise sources.

COMMON OUTDOOR NOISE LEVEL
SOUND LEVELS d8, (A)
110
B- 747 Takeoff at-2 ml.
Gas Lawn Mower at 3 ft.
Diesel Truck at 160 ft.
OC-9-30 Takeoff at 2 ml.
Noisy Urban Daytime
B-767 Takeoff at 2 ml.
Commercial Area
Quiet Urban Daytime
Quiet Urban Nighttime
Quiet Suburban Nighttime
Quiet Rural Nighttime
COMMON INDOOR
SOUND LEVELS
Rock Band I
00 Inside Subway Train
(New York)

)0
Food Blender at 3 ft.
Garbage Disposal at
30 Shouting at 3 ft.
1 t
t
Cl
rO eaner a
Vacuum
Normal Speech at 3 fl
30
ffi
i
c
Large Business O
50 Dishwasher Next Room
N
30 Small Theatre. Large
Conference Room
(Background)
30 Library
Bedroom at Night
Concert Hall (Backgrot:
ZO
Broadcast & Records :
10 Studio
Threshold of Hearing

0
• FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION SEMINAR PRESENTED BY SOLT
BERANEK AND NEWMAN. INC. NOISE CONTROL PLAN DEVELOPMENT, 1979
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ADVISORY CIRCULAR 3e-3C.ESTIMATJ
•
AIRPLANE NOISE LEVELS IN A-WEIGHTED DECIBELS 11983
s

I
t

r
SOUND LEVEL LOUDNESS
COMMON SOUNDS d5A -Compared to 70 dBA
130
120 UNCOMFORTABLE
Oxygen Torch ? 32X AS LOUD
i
Rock Band 110
707 Landing at 370 ft. 100 VERY LOUD 1 16X AS LOU[
707 Takeoff at 1000 ft. 1
1
Diesel Truck at 50 ft. 90
? 4X AS LOUD
Garbage Disposal 80
MODERATE
?
1
Vacuum Cleaner at 10 ft. 70
I 1 /4 AS LOL
Air Conditioner at 100 ft. 60
IQuiet Urban Daytime 50
QUIET 1
,? 11/16 AS LOU
Quiet Urban Nighttime 1
1.
30 r
Bedroom at Night
20
Recording Studio
10 JUST
AUDIBLE
Threshold of Hearing
-I 0
Sources: Aviation Planning Associates; Calculations of Maxim
Civil Aircraft o um A-wel hted
perations, FAA,
sound Levels (dBA) Resulting
Noise From
Control Plan Develop ment, presented

18; Semin
1978, p-
for Departmentof
ar on
Federal Aviation
Transportation,

Administrat..
by Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc., 1979, p. 17. t"
B-22
Day Night Average Sound Level
(DNL)
The Descriptor of Choice for Airport Noise Assessment
March 16, 1990
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration .
Office of Environment and Energy
I-
U
Day Night Average Sound Level.(DNL):
The Descriptor of Choice for Airport Noise Assessment
F11
[]A

t

In 1981, the Federal Aviation Administration formally adopted Day Night Average Sound Level
(DNL) as the single system for determining exposure of individuals to airport noise. DNL is the
most widely accepted descriptor for aviation noise because of the following characteristics:
1. DNL is a measurable quantity.
2. DNL is simple to understand and use by airport planners and the public who are
not familiar with acoustics or acoustical theory.
3. DNL provides a simple method to compare the effectiveness of alternative
airport scenarios.
4. DNL is a "figure of merit" for noise impacts which is based on communities'
reactions to environmental noise.
5. DNL is the best measure of noise exposure to identify significant impacts on the
quality of the human environment.
6. By Federal interagency agreement. DNL is the best descriptor of all noise
sources for land use compatibility planning.
7. DNL is the only metric with a substantial body of scientific survey data on the
reactions of people to noise.
Day Night Average Sound Level, abbreviated as DNL and symbolized as Ldn, is the 24 hour
average sound level, in decibels, obtained from the accumulation of all events with the addition of
10 decibels to sound levels in the night from 10 P.M. to 7 A.M. The weighting of nighttime
events accounts for the usual increased interfering effects of noise during the night, when ambient
levels are lower and people are trying to sleep.
The emergence of DNL as the standard descriptor of aviation noise and the figure of merit in land
use compatibility planning, is due chiefly to the efforts of the U. S. Environmental Protection -
Agency (EPA). In the spring of 1973, in an effort to comply with the Noise Control Act of 1972.
EPA convened a task group with the function to "consider the characterization of the impact of
airport community noise and to develop a community noise exposure measure." To accomplish
this, the Task Group had to: determine the merits and shoncomings of methods to characterize
the impact of the noise of present or proposed airport operations on the public health and welfare;
determine which of such methods is most suitable for adoption by the Federal Government; and
determine the implications of issuing Federal regulations establishing a standard method of
characterizing the aviation noise, and of specifying maximum permissible levels for public health
and welfare. The Task Group's recommendations included the following:
1. Adoption of the Day Night Average Sound Level (DNL) as the measure of
environmental noise. -

2. This measure should be used for aircraft noise studies and aircraft noise standards.
3. The prediction procedures should be standardized.
In 1976, EPA formally recommended that FAA adopt DNL as the standard aircraft noisc
descriptor. FAA's decision to adopt DNL was also based on a number of other factors. In 1980,
the Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise consolidated Federal guidance on the
incorporation of noise considerations in local land planning and site review "to encourage noise
sensitive development, such as housing, to be located away from major noise sources." Members
of the committee included U.S. EPA, U_ S. Department of Transportation (DOT), U.S. .
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and
the Veterans Administration (VA). The Committee adopted DNL as the best descriptor of noisc
for land use planning and established related land use compatibility guidelines. In the same year.
the Acoustical Society of America developed an American National Standard (ANSI Sa.23-1980)
which specified DNL as the acoustical measure to be used in assessing compatibility between
various land uses and the outdoor noise environment. In addition, Congress established a
voluntary program of airport noise compatibility planning (Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement
Act) and directed FAA to issue regulations which would:
a. establish a single system of noise measurement to be uniformly applied in
measuring noise at airports and in surrounding areas for which there is a highly
reliable relationship between projected noise and surveyed reaction of people to
noise;
b. establish a single system for determining the exposure of individuals to noise
which results from the operations of an airport; and
c. identify land uses which are normally compatible with various exposures of
individuals to noise.
Accordingly, in 1981, FAA issued Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150, Airport Noise
CompatibiliryPlmrning. As pan of this regulation. FAA formally adopted DNL
Beyond the political and regulatory factors and the need for standardization, the adoption of DNL
was the clear choice on scientific grounds. In general, the effects of noise on people results from
complex relationships of numerous factors, and separating the effects of these often confounding
factors is impractical if not impossible. The variability in the way individuals react to noisc
makes it impossible to accurately predict how any one individual will respond to a given noise.
However, when the community is considered as a whole, trends emerge which relate noise to
annoyance. DNL alone provides an adequate indicator of community annoyance to aircraft noise.
EPA, in the publication titled "Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect
Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety (550/9-74-004), states "This
formula of equivalent level [DNL] is used here to relate noise in residential environments to
chronic annoyance by speech interference and in some pan by sleep and activity interference."
This report, which is usually identified as EPA's 'Levels Document,' goes on to say that "Tie
short-term annoyance reaction to individual noise events, which can be studied in the field as well
as in the laboratory, is not explicitly considered, since only the accumulating effects of repeated
annoyance by environmental stimuli can lead to environmental effects on public health and
welfare." -

2
V
1
As EPA has so clearly stated in the Levels Document, any contention that single event noise
analysis is needed to supplement DNL to describe airport noise impacts ruts counter to the fact
that annoyance already embodies interference with human activity, which includes sleep and
speech. In a research report titled "Impact Characterization of Noise Including Implication of
Identifying and Achieving Levels of Cumulative Noise Exposure, Aircraft/Airport Noise Report"
(NTID 73.4, July 1973), EPA concluded that because annoyance is caused by noise levels which
interrupt speech, annoyance is a better criterion than speech interference. In identifying levels for
interference, the EPA's Levels Document proclaims: "Although speech-interference has been
identified as the primary interference of noise with human activities and is one of the primary
reasons for adverse community reactions to noise and long-tdnn annoyance, the 10 dB nighttime
weighting (and, hence, the term Ldn) is applied to give adequate weight to all of the other adverse
effects on activity interference." EPA's conclusion is partially predicated on the fact that the
relationship between other interference factors, such as, sleep interference, and the desired level
of sound are not well quantified. All of the sleep disturbance research done to date has been in
the laboratory and, as the researchers point out, what relationships they have derived in the lab
experiments cannot be applied to home experience (Lukas, J.S. "Noise and Sleep: A Literature
Review and a Proposed Criterion for Assessing Effect").
Other recent studies continue to indicate that DNL is the descriptor of choice in representing
community reaction to noises of all kinds. A recent study to assess the nighttime weighting factor
used in DNL concluded that there is no credible evidence to use anything other than the accepted
DNL ("Cumulative Airport Noise Exposure Metrics: An Assessment of the Evidence for
Time-of-Day Weightings," DOT/FAA/EE-86/10). Another study concluded that DNL
satisfactorily represented surveyed community annoyance from helicopter noise for flyovers as
infrequent as one operation per day ("A Community Survey of Helicopter Noise Annoyance
Conducted under Controlled Noise Exposure Conditions," NASA Tech. Memo 86400). Given
that annoyance is a phenomenon for which there is no perfect descriptor, all known research
illustrate that DNL provides an excellent portrayal of airport noise exposure for the purposes of
assessing land use compatibility and controlling noise.
In compliance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and in
accordance with EPA proposals on aviation noise standards, FAA Order 1050. Policies and
Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, established DNL as the descriptor of choice
in representing environmental effects upon public health and welfare; and categorized
compatibility of existing and planned land uses as the extent of the noise impacts. FAA's choice
of DNL as its primary airport noise descriptor does not negate the supplementary use of single
event noise analysis. As FAA Order 1050.11) states (in statements which have been misquoted
back to FAA on many recent projects), "Any noise impact study will be enhanced by single event
analyses. In some situations the single event analysis is absolutely essential to evaluating noise
impact." This statement, taken out of context, seems to say that single event noise analyses will
provide additional information on community annoyance which is not incorporated in DNL But,
the paragraph in Order 1050.11), from which this quote was taken, goes on to say, "An example
would be the measurement of noise from the flyover of a single aircraft for comparison with other
single event flyovers." Thus, Order 1050.11) identifies single event noise analysis as a means to
compare aircraft operating procedures, such as, quantifying the merits of different noise
abatement procedures. In a later section, the order also indicates that single event levels, in terms
of sound exposure level, maximum A-weighted sound level and one-third octave sound pressure
levels, are important for investigating noise sensitive sites for possible soundproofing projects.

But, single event noise levels have never been shown to be of any use in predicting community
reactions to aircraft noise or developing compatible land use plans. EPA selected DNL as the
single-number measure for the purpose of identifying levels of environmental noise, in part to
achieve, as is stated in the Levels Document: "...the ultimate goal is to characterize with
reasonable accuracy the noise exposure of whole neighborhoods (within which there may actually

exist a fairly wide range of noise levels), so as to prevent extremes of noise exposure at any given
time, and to detect unfavorable trends in the,future noise climate. For these purposes, pinpoint
accuracy and masses of data for each location are not required, and may even be a hindrance,
since one could fail to see the forest for the trees."

4
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

APPENDIX E
I SOCIOECONOMIC DATA
This appendix contains the socioeconomic data utilized in the analysis of Induced Socioeconomic
Impacts detailed in Section 5.4.
P,
J

t

1

11

1
I W:\PIEDMOMIDEISVIppendioes\appendix_intro.doc\2/3/00

f
1

t

PIEDMONT TRIAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
POTENTIAL SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE
PIEDMONT TRIAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared by.
Hayes & Associates
2222 Mimosa Place
Wilmington, NC 28403
The SGM Group, Inc.
12010 Canter Lane
Reston, Virginia 20191-2113

1
Under Contract to:
URS Greiner Woodward Clyde, Inc.
Tampa, Florida
AUGUST 1999
REVISED JANUARY 2000
11

I

t
r

11

SECTION 1.0
INTRODUCTION
1
11

F1

r

r
1.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT
This Technical Memorandum evaluates the socioeconomic impacts that will be generated by the
proposed improvements at the Piedmont Triad International Airport (PTIA.) The 20-year planning period
for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is from 2000; the first year that construction would begin,
through 2019. Construction and operation of the proposed PTIA airport improvements will occur in two
phases. Phase I projects consist of the following developments that would be constructed between 2000
and 2004 and be fully operational by the year 2005:
• Construction of a new parallel 9,000 ft. by 150 ft. Transport-Category runway capable of
accommodating Airplane Design Group D-V air carrier jet aircraft (DC-10). The airfield
system complex consists of the runway and taxiway as described; parallel and
connecting taxiways; lighting; CAT II/III NAVAIDS; runway safety areas and protection
zones, and associated grading, drainage, and utility relocations;
• Cross-field extension of Taxiway D;
• Construction and operation of Phase 1 (736,000 square feet) of the air cargo hub
sort/distribution facility;
• Construction of a high speed exit taxiway for Runway 5/23;
• Construction and operation of 174,000 sq. yards. of aircraft parking / cargo ramp
associated with the sort/distribution facility;
• Realignment of a portion of Old Oak Ridge Road;
Construction of a tunnel for Regional Road under the proposed runway;
• Construction of one connector taxiway bridges over Bryan Boulevard;
• Closure of a portion of Regional Road ;
• Construction and operation of new airport entrance roads off Bryan Boulevard to the
PTIA Terminal Area (modification of existing Triad Boulevards North and South);
Implementation of air traffic procedures below 3,000 feet above ground level (AGL);
• Acquisition of approximately 88.37 acres of land; and
• Obtaining State Water Quality Certification Section 401 and USACE Section 404 Wetland
fill permits prior to start of construction and implementation of mitigation measures.
W:\W:\PIEDMONTDEISWppendicesWpp•e\Sec1.0.doc 1-1
It is anticipated by the sponsor that Phase 2 of the project will be constructed between the years 2005
and 2009 and be fully operational in the year 2009. These projects, which are environmentally reviewed
in this DEIS, include:
• Construction of a second connector taxiway bridge over Bryan Boulevard;
• Extension of the cross-field connector taxiways to the Phase 2 apron area;
• Construction of Phase 2 of the air cargo sorting/distribution facility (approximately
509,000 square feet including the sort/distribution building and parking); and
• Construction of Phase 2 of the air cargo aircraft parking and cargo ramp (approximately
281,000 square yards).
1.2 STUDY OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH
Hayes & Associates, in association with The SGM Group, Inc., conducted various studies in order to
delineate the Study Area and project the economic impacts for the proposed PTIA airport improvements.
The study approach is illustrated in Figure 1.1. Two study objectives are addressed in this Technical
Memorandum. The first objective is to determine the geographic region that most likely would be
impacted by the Proposed Project and/or any of the Build Alternatives. The second objective is to predict
employment and population growth for both the No-Action and Build Alternatives. The No-Action
Alternative assumes that the Proposed Project or any of the other build alternatives would not be
developed. The PTIA would continue to operate using existing facilities. The Build Alternative forecasts
how the Proposed Project or any of the other build alternatives would affect employment and population
growth. For the Build Alternatives, it is presumed that the PTIA's increased cargo capacity and the
presence of the air cargo sorting and distribution facility (Mid-Atlantic Hub) are the most influential factors
affecting the region's economy. It is assumed that any of the Build Alternatives would achieve the same
objectives outlined in the Purpose and Need. Consequently, the socioeconomic impacts predicted by the
economic impact analysis would be the same for any of the Build Alternatives.
1.2.1 DELINEATION OF STUDY AREA
In the beginning of the EIS process, there was speculation that the economic and social impacts of the
proposed third runway and air cargo facility (Mid-Atlantic Hub) may extend beyond the boundaries of the
North Carolina and spillover into neighboring Virginia cities and counties. For this reason, the EIS study
team began its analysis with a broad geographic region and narrowed its geographic focus as the study
results indicated as illustrated in Figure 1.1. The 16-County Initial Study Area includes the 12 North
Carolina counties within the Piedmont Triad Region and the nearby Virginia counties of Patrick, Henry,
Pittsylvania, and Campbell as shown on Figure 1.2. The social and economic characteristics of this 16-
county region are described in Section 2.0. This analysis revealed the importance of the Danville MSA in
Pittsylvania County and the City of Lynchburg in Campbell County as employment and growth centers for
W:\W:\PIEDMONMEISWppendices\App-a\Sec1.0.doc 1-2

u

1
FIGURE 1.1
ANALYTICAL STEPS FOR DELINEATION OF STUDY AREA AND
ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
16-County Initial Study Area
Socioeconomic Overview -
Guilford County
NO ACTION
Determination of 14-County Are ALTERNATIVE:
for Input-Output Anal sis Employment and
l Po ulation Pro'ection
Commuting -? Results of Input-Outpt
Patterns and Case Overviews of Memphis and Analysis and Air Carg
Future Highway Indianapolis FedEx Hubs Capacity Stud
Improvements
DELINEATION OF ACTION
Source: Hayes and Associates, May 1999

t
r

?

u

?

?

.

M co
c
?
O
cm

c
:3 Q
O>,
U?

'r-
to
0

>

c-6
UO

cc?

c-

c ._
O
EE
-0N

a c

L
?

..

f'
N

c

N

d

o

u.

2

N

;

N

0

o
L>

1-;

iJ
a
A

y
e
o
-

LL D

' the Virginia area. It is these Virginia employment centers that will have the most direct relationship with
business activities generated by the Mid-Atlantic Hub and PTIA airport improvements. For this reason,
the economic modeling discussed in Section 4.0 reports its findings for the 12-county Piedmont Triad
Region, the two Virginia counties of Pittsylvania and Campbell, and the total 14-county area. The final
delineation of the Study Area is based upon Guilford County, NC commuting data, future highway
transportation improvements, the case study findings of two existing FedEx Hubs, and the results of the
economic impact analysis as discussed in Section 5.0.
1.2.2 ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
The general process used to analyze the economic impacts is based on four analytical components as
illustrated in Figure 1.1. Section 4.0 includes a thorough explanation of the economic impact analysis.
i
The first component is the baseline conditions analysis. This step defines the existing character of the 16-
county Initial Study Area and identifies those strengths and weaknesses that are, in turn, dependent on
transportation-related facilities.
The second component is an evaluation of how counties within the Piedmont Triad Region would develop
between the years 2000 through 2019 based upon their existing conditions and if the Proposed Project or
any of the other Build Alternatives are not built. This analysis is referred to as the No-Action Alternative.
The third component of the impact measurement process is the derivation of input-output models
describing the cyclical effects of employment growth and the wages and salaries, which that growth
generates. This process uses traditional input-output modeling techniques to measure the indirect and
induced effects of projected employment growth in terms of wages and salaries and value added. Trend
analysis estimates effects of the No-Action Alternative as measured by projected employment growth.
Changes from employment growth predicted under the No-Action Alternative are the basis for defining
impacts associated with the proposed airport improvement project, i.e. the Build Alternatives.
The fourth component in the impact measurement process involves defining the linkage between
increased cargo capacity and potential changes in projected employment growth over that predicted
under the No-Action Alternative. As a significant change in location factors, coupled with the potential
growth and development which that change can induce, changes in air freight capacity and airport facility
improvements can represent a significant generator of economic value for the region.
L
F_J
I W:\W:\PIEDMONMEISWppendices\App-e\Secl.0.doc 1-3
SECTION 2.0
OVERVIEW OF THE INITIAL STUDY AREA
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this component of the study is to compile and review information concerning existing
demographic and economic conditions for the Initial Study Area. The Initial Study Area includes the 12-
county Piedmont Triad Region and several bordering Virginia counties and cities.
' Toward that end, data collection in this phase of the analysis has concentrated on three primary sources
of information. The first is the Regional Economic Information Service (REIS) of the Bureau of Economic
' Analysis (BEA) of the US Department of Commerce. Information provided by PTCOG is contained in
their PRIN database, prepared by the Regional Data Center (PRIN Database, 1996-1997 Wages, First
Quarter 1999, PTCOG Regional Data Center, Greensboro, North Carolina, and January 4, 1999). The
third source of applicable information is County Business Pattern data available through the US Bureau of
the Census up to and including 1996.
BEA data is currently complete through 1996 for counties and is presented in two-digit Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) format covering major economic sectors. BEA also provides information on wages
and salaries, per capita personal income, and population. For the impact region, data is available for the
North Carolina and Virginia counties, for the Piedmont Triad Region as a whole, and for the State of North
Carolina.
Because BEA data is available for all wage and salary classifications for a period of years, it is most
useful for preparing growth projections and for calculation of economic base characteristics changing over
time. County Business Pattern data is also used in the analysis because of its detailed availability for 4-
digit Standard Industrial Classifications (SIC). This information is most useful for identifying major
economic sectors that help to drive the local economy. When looking at the potential impact of airport
facility improvements, the combination of information helps to identify that portion of the regional economy
most dependent on accessibility to cargo capacity. The possible link between airport investments and
future growth and development will evolve through analysis of the economic sector data.

2-1
2.2 PIEDMONT TRIAD REGION
2.2.1 OVERVIEW
The Piedmont Triad International Airport is located in Greensboro, NC, and is situated in the western
portion of Guilford County. Growth of the surrounding 12-county region is aptly described in a 1996
Strategic Plan sponsored by the Piedmont Triad Partnership: "The Piedmont Triad Region is a triangular
12-county region with the three largest cities (Greensboro, Winston-Salem, and High Point) located in the
two central counties of Forsyth and Guilford. As these cities grow, they are merging to form a
metropolitan "Triad" in the center of the region." (Michael Gallis & Associates. The Regional
Imperative-The Piedmont Triad Strategic Plan. Part ll, 1996, 12.)
The Piedmont Triad International Airport is located basically in the center of this merging "Triad."
Consequently, the airport area has been the focus of rapid growth since the 1980's. This section of the
Technical Memorandum briefly reviews population and employment growth and the economic base
characteristics of the Piedmont Triad Region and its 12 counties. It is a summary of a detailed technical
reference entitled Compilation of Employment and Wage Data for the Twelve-County Piedmont Triad
Region, prepared by The SGM Group in January 1999.
The first set of tables contains information on employment and population for the Piedmont Triad Region
and its twelve individual North Carolina counties. These counties are Alamance, Caswell, Davidson,
Davie, Forsyth, Guilford, Montgomery, Randolph, Rockingham, Stokes, Surry, and Yadkin. Data is
presented for 1970 through 1996; the latest available reported information. As indicated, the source of
information is the REIS system maintained by BEA, compiled by the University of Virginia, located in
Charlottesville, Virginia (Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, University of Virginia, Charlottesville,
Virginia, January 1999.)
2.2.2 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION BY. JURISDICTION AND RATES OF GROWTH
As shown in the Table 2.1, Guilford and Forsyth Counties together dominate the regional environment. In
1980 the two counties contained 49 percent of the region's population and 61 percent of the employment.
By 1996 the population share had decreased slightly to 48 percent while the employment share had
increased slightly to 62 percent. For the twelve-county area, population growth has averaged
approximately 1.13 percent annually from 1986 through 1996, while employment growth has averaged
nearly 2.0 percent annually during the same period. Guilford County's share of population declined only
slightly from 1980 to 1996, from 28 percent to 27 percent. Forsyth County's share stayed nearly constant
at 21 percent.
Employment share was slightly more dynamic as indicated in Table 2.2. Guilford County employment
share grew from 36 percent in 1980 to 38 percent in 1996; Forsyth, however, declined slightly from 25
percent in 1980 to 24 percent in 1996. None of the 12 counties exhibited any significant change in
regional share, either in population or in employment capture. The distribution reflects the combined
strength of Guilford and Forsyth counties as the central area of the Piedmont Triad region. The region
2-2
1
has been and remains one characterized by a strong centralized demographic and economic core with
employment even more centralized than population. As indicated, population has grown at an average
annual rate of just over 1.0- percent while employment has grown at nearly 2.0 percent. Growth is not
rapid but it has been steady.
For individual counties, population growth from 1986 through 1996 has ranged from a low of
approximately -0.01 percent in Caswell to a high of 1.70 percent in Randolph. Employment growth during
the same period has ranged from a low of 0.50 percent in Montgomery to a high of 4.11 percent in
Stokes. The largest counties, Guilford and Forsyth, experienced population growth rates of 1.3 percent
i and 0.94 percent respectively, and employment growth rates of 2.12 percent and 1.68 percent
respectively.
Population growth rates from 1986 through 1996 were the following:
• Alamance: 1.18%
• Caswell: -0.01%
0 Davidson: 1.24%
• Davie: 1.23%
• Forsyth: 0.94%
' • Guilford: 1.30%
• Montgomery: 0.47%
• Randolph: 1.70%
• Rockingham: 0.50%
• Stokes: 1.65%
• Surry: 0.79%
• Yadkin: 1.43%
• Twelve-County: 1.13%
I During the same period, the rate of employment growth for the region averaged 1.98 percent:
• Alamance: 2.03%
• Caswell: 2.84%
• Davidson: 1.46%
• Davie: 3.30%
• Forsyth: 1.68%
• Guilford: 2.12%
• Montgomery: 0.50%
• Randolph: 2.25%
• Rockingham: 1.54%
• Stokes: 4.11 %
' 2-3
• Surry: 2.28%
• Yadkin: 3.67%
• Twelve-County: 1.98%
Guilford and Forsyth Counties dominate in terms of total regional employment. By 1996, Guilford County
employment reached nearly 278,000. Forsyth County employment reached nearly 181,000; and the next
largest County, Alamance, captured only 63,250 employees. As shown, from 1986 through 1996, growth
in employment outside of the two primary counties was level. From 1986 through 1996, Forsyth County
wages and salary employment grew at an average annual rate of 1.68 percent. Guilford County wages
and salary employment grew at an average annual rate of 2.12 percent. Other counties grew at faster
rates but represent only a small percentage of overall employment. As indicated, the 12-county region
grew at an average annual rate of 1.98 percent during the same period.
2.2.3 EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION BY ECONOMIC SECTOR
From 1970 through 1996 and continuing, employment distribution throughout the Piedmont Triad Region
has shown a marked trend from an industrial to a service economy. In 1970, 42 percent of employment in
the region was in the manufacturing sector while 14 percent was in the services sector. By 1996,
manufacturing had decreased to 25 percent of the employment base (full- and part-time; 27 percent of
wage and salary employment) while services had increased to 25 percent (full- and part-time
employment; 31 percent of wage and salary employment) as shown in Figure 2.1. Estimates for 1998
indicate the trend is continuing with total wage and salary employment in the service sector reaching
nearly 239,000 (31 percent of wage and salary employment) while manufacturing had declined to just
under 212,000 (27 percent of wage and salary employment). By 2019, total wage and salary employment
in the 12-county area is expected to reach nearly 1,008,000 with service sector employment reaching
nearly 409,000 (41 percent) and manufacturing employment declining to nearly 187,000 (18.6 percent).
During the same period, retail sector employment is expected to grow to 237,700 (23.6 percent of wage
and salary employment). Manufacturing is expected to remain strong but with a decreasing regional
share of employment.
Centralization of employment is also expected to continue but at a slightly smaller rate. By 2019, Guilford
County is expected to capture nearly 40.5 percent of the region's wage and salary employment with an
additional 19 percent in Forsyth County for a total of 59.5 percent as compared with 60.9 percent
estimated for 1998. In the same year, projections show that Guilford would capture nearly 35 percent of
the service sector employment and Forsyth nearly 31 percent. Projections also indicate that, if current
trends continue, Guilford County would capture nearly 40.8 percent of the region's retail sector
employment with Forsyth capturing an additional 19 percent. (The SGM Group, Inc., January 1999.)
In all jurisdictions, the rate of growth in employment is greater than that of population. Total employment
growth from 1980 through 1997 for the twelve-county area was just over 216,700. Of that total, nearly
84,000 or 38.7 percent was located in Guilford and 52,800 or 24 percent was in Forsyth.
2-4

F

1
1

Figure 2.2 shows the growth in the twelve-county region from 1970 through 1997 has been dominated by
the services sector with manufacturing remaining relatively steady. Both services and retail trade
exhibited the highest rates of growth. Other sectors, which illustrate positive growth trends that result
from overall regional economic growth, are the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate sector (FIRE) and
construction. Employment in both of these sectors is often a result of overall growth and development.
Guilford County, given its dominant share of regional wage and salary employment, mirrors the pattern of
growth for the 12-county area. In this case, however, manufacturing has experienced a general decline
while services and retail trade have increased. Services have experienced the highest sector growth
rate, averaging 4.58 percent annually between 1980 and 1997. 'Retail trade grew at nearly 3.0 percent
while manufacturing declined at -0.38 percent. Forsyth County experienced similar trends, with the
services sector growing at nearly 5.4 percent annually, retail trade at nearly 3.5 percent annually, while
manufacturing declined at nearly -1.5 percent annually.
If recent trends continue, both Guilford and Forsyth Counties would exhibit both population and
employment growth but with shifting employment concentration. Patterns indicate an ongoing
centralization of employment within the region coupled with a decline in manufacturing and a rise in
service sector employment.
The following are general employment characteristics for the remaining ten counties:
• Alamance: Manufacturing has generally been on the decline with significant growth in
services and retail trade. Other sectors have shown only slight increases in number of
jobs.
• Caswell: Growth sectors include government (correctional facilities) and services. There
has also been some growth in retail trade and construction. Manufacturing employment,
until 1994 through 1996, has generally been on the decline.
• Davidson: Growth sectors include services and retail trade, paralleling population
growth.
• Davie: Manufacturing and services indicate some growth along with a smaller
contribution from the retail trade sector.
• Montgomery: Slow growth in government, services, and retail trade, representing only a
small percentage of the overall regional employment numbers.
• Randolph: Manufacturing, services, and retail trade indicate some growth trends.
• Rockingham: Manufacturing has been leveling off at approximately 16,000 employees
with some growth experience in the services and retail trade sectors.
• Stokes: Significant rates of growth in services with small growth rates in retail trade and
construction.
• Surry: General increases in manufacturing, retail trade, services, government, and
construction with continued dominance by the manufacturing sector.
2-5
• Yadkin: Continued growth in manufacturing, services, retail trade, government, and
construction.
2.2.4 ECONOMIC BASE OF THE PIEDMONT TRIAD REGION
Comparing the individual counties of the Piedmont Triad Region to the state as a whole indicates where
relative economic strengths are concentrated. Using data for 1986 and 1996, location quotients for major
economic sectors reveal which of these sectors act as "basic" or export sectors within the regional
economy. The location quotients are based on BEA numbers for individual counties, for the twelve-county
region, and for the state.
In its most common form, the location quotient (LQ) is a device for gauging the relative specialization of a
region in selected industries. It is not a definitive measure of relative strength or weakness of a selected
economic sector but, rather, a reasonable first estimate of general economic characteristics. The unit of
measure conventionally used is employment, but the calculation could also be applied to measures of
income or total product, if comparable data is available. Employment in a selected industry is related to a
reference variable, usually total employment, at the regional or national levels. Employment in a selected
industry is measured against total employment using a simple ratio.
The ratios at the county and the regional levels are compared using an additional ration. The LQ is the
ratio of the two ratios, which indicates the relative strength of the given economic sector. An LQ greater
than 1.0 generally indicates relative strength for the specific sector; an LQ less than 1.0 generally
indicates relative weakness. Strong sectors are described as "export" industries; weak sectors are
described as "import" industries. For example, if a region exhibits an LQ for the retail sector significantly
greater than 1.0, then that region attracts retail shoppers into the area from a broader geographic region.
The level of retail services exceeds that required to service the population residing in the defined region.
xdRVs xs as a fraction of RVS
Location quotient =
x„/RV„ x„ as a fraction of RV,
Where
XS = employment in industry x in the study area
x„ = employment in industry x in the broader region
RVs= reference-variable value for the study area (total employment)
RV„= reference-variable value for the broader region (total employment).
As an example of the output, numbers for Guilford County indicate relative strength in the transportation;
wholesale trade; finance and, to some degree, in the services sectors. Strength has been increasing in
transportation. Retail trade is slightly under-served; manufacturing is comparable to the state as a whole.
2-6
In comparison, Forsyth County indicates relative strength in transportation, finance, and services. Retail
trade is virtually on par with the state as a whole. Both the finance and services sector appear to be
growing in relative strength. The government sector is relative weak.

[J
fl

The Piedmont Triad Region as a whole shows relative strength in manufacturing, transportation,
wholesale trade, and services. Increasing concentration of employment is indicated in both the
transportation and services sectors. The retail trade sector is on par with state characteristics, while
manufacturing remains relatively strong in the region. In contrast, the government sector is relatively
weak in comparison to the state, while construction is also virtually on par with the state as a whole. The
finance sector indicates some potential for increasing relative strength. Table 2.3 summarizes relatively
strong, growing, and weak sectors for the region and individual counties.
Table 2.4 is a listing of the top ten major employers for the Piedmont Triad Region. This information
provided by the Piedmont Triad Council of Governments, lists major employers for the region as a whole
as well as for individual counties (PTCOG Regional Data Center.) These top ten industries together
employ approximately 62,300 or 8 percent of the total wage and salary employment in the region;
indicating again how centralized the regional economy has been in the past. In general, the list of the ten
employers in particular and the list of major employers in general reinforce the conclusions of the
economic base analysis for the region as a whole. That analysis indicates regional strength in
manufacturing, transportation, wholesale trade, and services-all of which are well represented on the list
of major employers.
2.2.5 PROJECTED POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH OF THE PIEDMONT TRIAD REGION
Population and employment growth is described in the following section for each of the 12 counties as
well as for the Piedmont Triad Region as a whole. The NC Office of State Planning as reported by the
PTCOG Regional Data Center provides population projections. The SGM Group prepared all 1998-2020
employment projections based on BEA data for 1970 through 1996. For these projections, the
employment category used is "wage and salary employment," a subset of total full and part-time
employment for the region. Wage and salary employment excludes proprietor's employment, chosen as
a basis for long-term estimates since calculation of average wages is distinct from income attributed to
the self-employed. For the state as a whole, wage and salary employment represents approximately 85
percent of total full- and part-time employment.
For the region, population is expected to reach nearly 1.6 million at an average annual growth rate of 0.68
percent from 1998 through 2019. Over the same period, Guilford County population is expected to reach
just over 454,000 or nearly 28.5 percent of the region's total population. Forsyth County is projected to
be 333,500 by 2019 or nearly 21 percent of the total. Together, Guilford and Forsyth are expected to
remain at just over 49 percent of the total regional population.
2-7
During the same period, wage and salary employment in the 12-county region is expected to reach nearly
1.0 million. Growth from 1998 through 2019 is expected to average just over 1.2 percent annually. By
2019, at these projected rates, the ratio of wage and salary employment to population is expected to grow
from 56 percent to 63 percent, indicating a continued growth in both labor force participation rates and
commutation into the central area. Guilford County employment is projected to reach 401,921 in 2019 at
an average annual growth rate of 1.68 percent while Forsyth County employment is projected to reach
192,327 in 2019 at an average annual growth rate of only 0.12 percent. Under this projected baseline
conditions scenario, Guilford County would increase its share of regional employment and continue
current trends in geographic centralization of the economy.
2.2.5.1 Alamance County
Current population (1998) is estimated at just under 120,000. The County experienced a growth rate of 1
percent annually from 1980 through 1997, and future growth is estimated at 0.63 percent annually
(LINC/NC). Based on that projected rate, 2019 population will reach approximately 137,700. Applying
the projected growth targets as defined by the state would seem to generate estimates somewhat lower
than past trends might suggest. As employment growth projections are a function of population estimates
and labor force participation rates, long-term wage and salary employment estimates may therefore also
be somewhat lower than past trends might suggest.
Projections indicate that manufacturing employment is expected to decline at an average annual rate of -
0.43 percent while services are expected to grow at 3.54 percent annually. Retail sector employment
also is projected to grow at just over 3 percent annually. As a result, for Alamance County, by 2019, the
services sector would represent over 46 percent of the county's wage and salary employment with retail
sector employment growing to just over 25 percent. For the 12-county area, Alamance wage and salary
employment would grow to represent approximately 9.45 percent of the region's total wage and salary
employment while capturing approximately 8.6 percent of the population.
2.2.5.2 Caswell County
Currently the smallest county in the region in terms of both population and employment, Caswell is
expected to continue in that position. Population estimates for 1998 place Caswell at just over 21,524 or
1.57 percent of the 12-county area population. Employment estimates for 1998 are at nearly 4,100 or 0.5
percent of total area wage and salary employment. By 2019, it is estimated that population would remain
at near 21,300 (1.3 percent of the region's population) with employment growing to approximately 5,625
(0.57 percent of region's employment). As with Alamance County, the trend experience would seem to
imply that state population projections for Caswell County are low. As a result, employment projections
may also be somewhat low.
The relative share of important economic sectors is not expected to change significantly during the
forecast period. Manufacturing employment is expected to grow to 1,200 by 2019, surpassed by the
2-8

' service sector as it approaches 1,650. Retail trade sector employment is expected to remain below 750.
Total employment is expected to remain at approximately 0.57 percent of the total regional employment in
2019.
2.2.5.3 Davidson County
Davidson County presently accounts for approximately 10 percent of the region's population and 7
percent of the employment. Not much change is projected for 2019. Population is expected to grow from
near 142,000 estimated for 1998 to 168,487 in 2019. At the same time, wage and salary employment is
expected to grow from a current level of approximately 54,300 to 71,209.
From 1980 through 1997, Davidson County population grew at 1.26 Percent annually. From 1998
through 2019, that rate of growth is projected to decrease to 0.82 percent. Over the same period, wage
and salary employment grew at 1.59 percent with an expected future growth rate of 1.29 percent
annually. Manufacturing employment is expected to continue to decline at a faster rate while service and
retail trade employment continues to grow. By 2019, Davidson County population should continue to
represent about 10 percent of the region's total population and about 7.1 percent of the total employment..
2.2.5.4 Davie County
Davie County is also one of the smaller counties within the study area, capturing approximately 2.25
percent of total area population and 1.57 percent of area wage and salary employment. The county's
employment is still dominated by the manufacturing sector, but the service sector is growing significantly
' faster (6.82 percent versus 2.45 percent from 1980 through 1997). That disparity is expected to intensify
with manufacturing growth slowing to 1.29 percent annually while services continues to grow at just over
4.5 percent annually through 2019. By 2019, at those growth rates, manufacturing would comprise 32.6
percent of the county's employment while services would expand to nearly 52 percent of the county's total
' wage and salary employment.
By 2019, population in Davie County should represent nearly the same share of the study region as it
presently does-2.28 percent. Employment in 2019 should represent nearly 2 percent of the region's
total.
' 2.2.5.5 Forsyth County
At just over 290,000, population in Forsyth County for 1998 represents 21 percent of the region's total
population. By 2019, based on state population estimates, that share is expected to remain virtually the
same but slightly less at just under 21 percent. Employment share, however, based on the statistical
models, is expected to decline from just over 24 percent in 1998 to just over 19 percent in 2019. Again,
from the figure that follows, it would appear that past trends would suggest a slightly higher rate of
population growth than that predicted by the state and, as a result of the functional relationship, a higher
employment growth rate.
2-9
By 2019, it is expected that service sector employment would have grown to nearly 66 percent of the
county's total wage and salary employment while manufacturing would have decreased from 18 percent
in 1998 to approximately 7.4 percent in 2019. Retail trade sector employment would remain at nearly 24
percent, a slight increase from a current capture of 19.8 percent of the county's total wage and salary
employment. Projections indicate potential for continuation of a strong shift from a manufacturing-based
to a services-based economy.
2.2.5.6 Guilford County
Based on current trends, Guilford County is expected to continue to evolve as the employment center
within the region. Growing at an average annual rate of 1.69 percent, employment is expected to reach
401,921 by 2019 and represent over 40 percent of the 12-county area's total wage and salary
employment. This growth rate would be a decrease from the 1980 through 1997 rate of 2.14 percent
annually. At the same time, population is projected to grow from a current level of nearly 388,000 to
451,231 by 2019 at an annual rate of 0.72 percent. As a result, under this scenario, Guilford County
would continue to attract an increasing percentage of commuters to fill the growing employment
demands.
Manufacturing would decline at an annual rate of -0.18 percent to just fewer than 55,000 by 2019. This
total would still represent nearly 13.5 percent of the county's total wage and salary employment and
nearly 30 percent of the region's manufacturing employment. The growth sector, as with other counties in
the region, would be the services sector, increasing to over 142,000 jobs by 2019 capturing nearly 35
percent of the county's total employment and nearly 35 percent of the region's total service sector
employment.
Guilford County would also continue to be the retail center for the region with nearly 97,000 jobs expected
by 2019. This total would comprise nearly 24 percent of the county's total wage and salary employment
but nearly 41 percent of the region's retail trade sector employment.
Population growth, as projected by the state, would slow to 0.72 percent annually, reaching just over
454,000 in 2019. Population in Guilford at this point would represent 28 percent of the region's total
population, virtually unchanged from 1998.
2.2.6.7 Montgomery County
Montgomery County is one of the smallest counties in the region. With a current population of 24,300 it is
only slightly larger than Caswell County. Total wage and salary employment is on the order of 12,300
and is projected to grow to 14,240 by 2019. Population is projected to grow to just over 25,500 at an
average annual rate of 0.22 percent.
The manufacturing sector presently employs more than 53 percent of the county's employment base, with
a projected decline to 39 percent by 2019. In contrast, the services sector is projected to increase its
2-10

share of county employment from 14.5 percent in 1998 to 17.3 percent by 2019. Also by 2019, the retail
trade sector is expected to employ nearly 2,400 or 16.5 percent of the county's employment base.
Montgomery County is a small county and is expected to remain small. By 2019, its share of the region's
population is expected to decline to 1.6 percent and its share of the region's employment is expected to
remain at approximately 3 percent.
2.2.5.8 Randolph County
Population in Randolph County is expected to grow from an estimated 121,000 in 1998 to 151,214 in
' 2019-an average annual growth rate of 1.06 percent. Its share of the region's total population is
projected to increase from 8.8 percent currently to just over 9.5 percent by 2019. At the same time, wage
and salary employment in the county is expected to grow from a current level of just over 52,400 to just
over 72,744 by 2019, increasing its share of regional wage and salary employment from 6.8 percent in
1998 to 7.3 percent in 2019.
Manufacturing should remain strong in the county, comprising about 47 percent of wage and salary
employment in 1998 declining to nearly 41 percent by 2019. As with the region as a whole, service sector
employment is expected to increase to over 25 percent of the county's wage and salary employment and
reach just over 18,500 by 2019 from a current level of 11,500. The retail trade sector is also expected to
i grow, reaching 13,500 by 2019 and 18 percent of the county's employment.
2.2.5.9 Rockingham County
Both population and employment in Rockingham County are projected to remain nearly level throughout
the study time period. Population is expected to reach just over 92,600 by 2019, increasing at a rate of
only 0.11 percent annually according to state projections. Employment is expected to remain fairly level
as well, increasing at 0.13 percent annually to 40,267 in 2019 from 39,100 estimated for 1998. Under this
' scenario, Rockingham County's share of regional population would remain at about 4 percent while
employment share declines from 6.58 percent in 1998 to 5.8 percent in 2019.
Historically, population and employment levels have risen in tandem in the county. As a result, the state
projection assuming nearly level population growth has a similar affect on the forecast for employment
i growth. Manufacturing employment is expected to decline to 11,350 from a current level of 16,120 while
service sector employment is expected to increase from nearly 8,600 in 1998 to nearly 11,640 in 2019.
The retail trade sector is also expected to grow to just over 11,000 by 2019.
2.2.5.10 Stokes County
Population in Stokes County is currently at 43,673 or 3.18 percent of the region's total population.
' Employment at about 9,430 comprises approximately 1.2 percent of the region's total wage and salary
employment By 2019, population is projected to reach over 54,000 while employment grows to 12,700.
1 2-11
Stokes County is a highly residential environment with a significant out-commutation pattern. Along with
Caswell County, Stokes has one of the lowest employment-to-population ratios at just over 21.5 percent.
That ratio is expected to increase only slightly by 2019 to nearly 23.5 percent.
The manufacturing sector employs about 21 percent of the county's wage and salary employment while
services and retail trade together comprise over 60 percent of the total. This relationship is expected to
continue through 2019 as manufacturing employment continues to decline while services and retail trade
increase.
2.2.5.11 Surry County
Current population in Surry County is just over 67,400 and is expected to grow to nearly 74,000 by 2019.
Its share of the region's total population, however, is expected to decrease from a current level of 4.9
percent to 4.6 percent by 2019. Employment, now at approximately 42,000, is expected to increase to
56,422 with growth in services and retail trade and slight growth in manufacturing.
By 2019, the manufacturing sector is expected to remain at about 32 percent of the county's wage and
salary employment, down from approximately 40 percent currently, while the services sector increases to
19 percent and the retail trade sector to 21.2 percent.
2.2.5.12 Yadkin County
Current population is approximately 35,680 and is expected to grow to 43,420 by 2019. At the same
time, wage and salary employment is presently just over 11,200 and is expected to grow to nearly 16,683
by 2019. Yadkin has captured approximately 2.6 percent of the region's population but only 1.45 percent
of the wage and salary employment. By 2019, the population share is expected to increase to nearly 2.75
percent while the employment share increases to just under 1.7 percent.
Manufacturing employment is expected to continue to grow from just under 4,000 currently to just over
6,600 by 2019. Services and retail trade are also expected to grow, to 4,900 and 4,100 respectively, by
2019.
2.2.5.13 Piedmont Triad Region
Based on analysis of the individual counties, total population in the region is projected to grow to nearly
1.6 million by 2019 at an average annual rate of 0.68 percent. As indicated, the trend-line analysis would
seem to show that the state projections might be somewhat low, affecting the long-term employment
projections as well. As a result, during the same period, employment growth is estimated at 1.2 percent
annually from a current level of just over 771,000 to nearly 1.0 million. Both the services sector and retail
trade sector would help drive overall employment growth in the region. The manufacturing sector is
expected to decline to 18.5 percent of total wage and salary employment while services increases to over
2-12

11
J
1

1

1

40.5 percent and retail trade to nearly 23.6 percent. By 2019, services and retail trade could comprise
nearly 65 percent of total wage and salary employment in the region.
Manufacturing employment could decline from a current level of 211,000 to 187,000 by 2019 while
services increases from 239,000 to over 400,000 and retail trade increases from nearly 150,000 to nearly
238,000. As shown, the 12-county region is expected to experience continued growth and development
as it continues to shift from manufacturing to services and trade. In 1980 the area employment base was
concentrated in the manufacturing sector, employing over 40 percent of the region's wage and salary
workers. By 2019, that capture rate is expected to decrease to 18.5 percent. In 1980 the services and
retail trade sectors together comprised 35 percent of the area's workforce; by 2019 that total is expected
to increase to over 64 percent of the employment base. This ongoing pattern of change would continue
to have a profound effect on the region and its growth and development requirements.
2.3 VIRGINIA INITIAL STUDYAREA
2.3.1 INTRODUCTION
Some speculate that the economic and social impacts of the proposed third runway and air cargo sorting
and distribution facility may extend beyond the boundaries of the Piedmont Triad Region and spillover
into neighboring Virginia cities and counties. This section briefly examines the social and economic
characteristics for Patrick County, the City of Martinsville and Henry County, the City of Danville and
Pittsylvania County which comprise the Danville MSA, and the City of Lynchburg and Campbell County
which comprise a significant portion of the Lynchburg MSA.
The population trends for these jurisdictions are stated in Table 2.5. Population growth in Campbell
County/City of Lynchburg and in Patrick County/City of Danville has been steady but modest since 1970.
The Campbell County/City of Lynchburg population has increased by more than 17,500 residents since
1970 from 97,663 to 115,199 residents in 1996. Patrick County's 1970 population of 15,345 residents
increased slowly to 18,055 residents in 1996. Both the Martinsville/Henry County and the Danville MSA
experienced fluctuating population levels since 1970 with the 1996 population only slightly higher than the
1970 population. The Martinsville/Henry County 1996 population is 71,979 residents just 1,353 more
than its 1970 population. The Danville MSA 1996 population is 109,569 residents, which is 4,331 more
than its 1970 population.
Wage and salary employment for the Virginia cities and counties is stated in Table 2.6. The number of
wage and salary workers increased in all four jurisdictions since 1970. By far, the Campbell County/City
of Lynchburg area is the major employment center for the region with 75,762 workers in 1996 and a net
employment increase of 23,667 since 1970. Employment in the Danville MSA has grown from 39,761 in
1970 to 46,143 in 1996. The Martinsville area experienced modest employment growth from 35,012 wage
and salary workers in 1970 to a high of 45,186 workers in 1986. Employment has been declining in the
Martinsville area ever since 1986 to a low of 41,430 in 1996. Employment in rural Patrick County
2-13
increased from 3,581 in 1970 to 5,910 in 1996 - a net increase of 2,329 workers during this 26-year
period.
2.3.2 PATRICK COUNTY
Patrick County, VA is a predominantly rural county experiencing modest population growth since 1970.
Patrick County borders Stokes and Surry Counties in North Carolina. State Road 8 links Patrick County
to various North Carolina secondary roads connecting to Guilford County, NC. There is not a major city
located in Patrick County. It is approximately 72 driving miles between Stuart, VA, and the Piedmont
Triad International Airport.
The population in Patrick County only increased by 2,710 residents between 1970 and 1996, and most of
that growth occurred during the 1970s. The 1970 population of 15,345 residents rose slowly to 18,055
residents in 1996. Modest growth has continued over the recent years. Between 1986 and 1996, the
county population increased by 700 residents for a 4 percent increase during this ten-year period.
Employment growth has also been modest. The number of wage and salary workers in Patrick County
increased from 3,581 workers in 1970 to 5,910 workers in 1996. Most of the employment growth has
occurred over the past ten years. Between 1986 and 1996, the number of employees increased by 981
workers representing a 19.9 percent increase.
Of the total wage and salary employment in Patrick County, nearly 48 percent is in the manufacturing
sector with an additional 22 percent in the services sector. Manufacturing continues to show some
increase, albeit in a cyclical fashion, with recent declines from a peak which occurred in 1995. The
majority of manufacturing employment remains in the textile mill products sector with little additional
concentration apparent. The major employment sector within the services industries relates to health
services. Retail trade sector employment is concentrated in providing support to the resident population
(1996 County Business Patterns, US Bureau of the Census).
2.3.3 MARTINSVILLE/ HENRY COUNTY
The City of Martinsville and Henry County, Virginia, border Rockingham County, NC. Route 220 is the
major highway linking Martinsville and Henry County to Guilford County, NC. Martinsville, the largest city,
is approximately 50 miles from the Piedmont Triad International Airport.
The Martinsville-Henry County population has fluctuated since 1970 as stated in Table 2.5. The area
experienced modest population growth from 70,626 residents in 1970 to a high of 76,168 residents in
1978. The population has been declining ever since. Between 1986 and 1996, the city/county population
decreased from 74,929 to 71,979 residents-a net loss of 2,950 residents since 1986. Only 1,353 more
residents lived in the county in 1996 than in 1970.
2-14

The Martinsville area experienced modest employment growth from 35,012 wage and salary workers in
1970 to a high of 45,186 workers in 1986. Employment has been declining ever since 1986. Between
1986 and 1996, the number of workers decreased from 45,186 to 41,430-a net decrease of 3,756
workers.
The employment distribution in the Martinsville/Henry County region is similar to that occurring in Patrick
County but at nearly 7 times the total. Manufacturing employment remains at approximately 48 percent of
total wage and salary employment, with an additional 22 percent concentrated in the services sector. The
' predominant manufacturing sectors include textile mill products and furniture and fixtures, capturing
nearly 50 percent of the total manufacturing employment. As with Patrick County, the services sector is
dominated by Health Services. The retail sector shows characteristics of employment in support of
resident population (1996 County Business Patterns, US Bureau of the Census).
2.3.4 DANVILLE/ PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY
The City of Danville and Pittsylvania County, Virginia, border Caswell County, NC, and form the Danville
MSA. Route 29 is the major highway linking the Danville MSA to Guilford County, NC. Danville is
approximately 45 miles from the Piedmont Triad International Airport.
The Danville MSA population has fluctuated since 1970 as stated in Table 2.5. The Danville MSA
experienced modest population growth from 105,238 residents in 1970 to a high of 111,813 residents in
1980. The population then declined to a low of 107,574 residents in 1988 but has been increasing slightly
since then. Between 1986 and 1996, the Danville MSA population increased from 108,556 to 109,569
residents-a net gain of 1,013 residents. The 1996 population is 2,244 residents less than the 1980
' peak population of 111,813.
During the same time period, wage and salary employment has grown from 39,761 in 1970 to 46,143 in
1996. Employment growth continued over the past ten years. Between 1986 and 1996, there was a net
increase of 3,510 employees representing an 8.2 percent increase.
1
11

Pittsylvania County along with the City of Danville is a strong manufacturing center. Although declining
over time, the manufacturing sector still demonstrates strength in several subsectors, including textiles
and apparel and wood and lumber products. Retail trade and services are also growing sectors that are
beginning to demonstrate a stronger presence. The government sector has remained relatively constant
between 1980 and 1996. During this period, manufacturing has declined at an average annual rate
exceeding 1.5 percent while retail trade has increased at approximately the same rate. Together,
services and retail trade are replacing the manufacturing sector as the dominant growth elements of the
local economy.
2-15
The major employers for the Danville MSA are shown on Table 2.7. Burlington Industries is the largest
manufacturing firm in the Danville MSA and produces textiles for a national market. Other major manufacturers
produce clothing, shoes, glass containers, coaxial cables, polymer tapes, furniture and wood products, and
chemicals. Isotoner has a major warehouse in the area, built in 1996. In general, manufacturing has declined
over the past 16 years while services and retail trade have increased in percentage of total area employment.
The larger industries serve east coast and national markets with a concentration on the southeast. Trucking is
the major source of access to raw materials and distribution of finished products for the Danville MSA.
2.3.5 LYNCHBURcV CAMPBELL COUNTY
The City of Lynchburg and Campbell County, Virginia, adjoin Pittsylvania County. Route 29 is the major
highway linking Campbell County and the City of Lynchburg to Guilford County, NC. Lynchburg is
approximately 110 miles from the Piedmont Triad International Airport.
The Campbell County/City of Lynchburg population has increased by more than 17,500 residents since
1970 as stated in Table 2.5. Most of this population growth occurred during the 1970's and early 1980's
when the population increased from 97,633 residents in 1970 to 113,402 residents in 1982. This area
experienced modest population growth since the 1980's. Between 1986 and 1996, area population
increased from 113,045 to 115,199 residents-a net gain of 2,154 residents for a 1.9 percent increase
during this ten-year period.
Wage and salary employment for the Campbell County/City of Lynchburg area has increased by more
than 23,600 workers since 1970 as stated in Table 2.6. Employment growth has been steady. Between
1986 and 1996, the number of wage and salary workers increased from 64,856 to 75,762 -a net increase
of 10,906 workers for a 16.8 percent increase during this ten-year period. The employment growth is
proceeding at a considerably greater rate than that of population. The increase in this rate indicates that
Lynchburg and the surrounding area is a significant employment center for its region with an apparently
large commuting shed.
Economic analysis for the Campbell County/City of Lynchburg area indicates a strong but declining
manufacturing sector along with a strong and growing services sector. Within manufacturing the most
important subsectors appear to include chemicals and allied products, printing and publishing, industrial
machinery, and electronic equipment. There is some apparel production as well as food and related
products.
Finance is also relatively strong in the area, as Lynchburg serves as the financial center for Campbell
County and the surrounding region. Also, as a center for business in the region, related business
services is strong and growing as is the health services component-all of which are encompassed in the
services sector.
2-16
' Although declining in actual employment, manufacturing remains strong in the Lynchburg/Campbell
County area. Major manufacturing concerns produce communications equipment, nuclear fuel, furniture,
snack foods, and other products. Markets served include the eastern seaboard as well as the Midwest
with air access from Lynchburg Regional Airport; Rail access via CSX, Norfolk-Southern, and Amtrak;
' port access through Hampton Roads; truck service via available north-south and east-west highways
Employment distribution in the Campbell County/City of Lynchburg area shows a shift from a manufacturing- to
' a service-based economy, with declines in manufacturing employment almost completely offset by service
sector employment gains. Major employers listed in Table 2.8 represent a broad range of disciplines from
' manufacturing to finance health and other service-based facilities.

11
n

1 2-17
cc
a)
Os
r
o
H
O
ti
a)
VII
Z
0
V
0=
L
QaE
N OCcc
W L. CL
J E
m W C-
cc
~ LU
L y..i C
O 00.
d W
a
O
oC
C7
Z
O
F-
Q
J
IL
O
CL
U
i
7
O
g
0
U
O
b
O
H
?bA
b

I

rn
Os
T
O

T
O
W p
r..
CL
p c
a?
QE
E
o c
Qocn
N
N ZEe*'aw
0 W C M

J
E
A `
-
W
C
cv ?
N rr
~ = C d
' I- E
m
LL d C C
O vm o 0
10
.!R W
O a

H
Z
W

O
J
IL
w

ui
L
O
U)
°o
0
0
b
o.
N
H
w
3
1

TABLE 2.3
PIEDMONT TRIAD REGION ECONOMIC STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
BASED ON LOCATION QUOTIENT ANALYSIS, 1996
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement '
'
IRIS N TH

Piedmont Triad Manufacturing, transportation, Transportation, finance, Government
Region wholesale trade, services services, retail trade

Alamance Manufacturing, retail trade Manufacturing, services Government '
Caswell Construction, manufacturing, Manufacturing, government Transportation,
government wholesale trade ,

Davidson Construction, manufacturing Construction, manufacturing, Government
retail trade

Davie Construction, manufacturing, Manufacturing, services Wholesale trade
transportation

Forsyth Transportation, finance, Finance, services, retail trade Government '
services

Guilford Transportation, finance, Transportation, retail trade Government

wholesale trade, services ,

Montgomery Construction, manufacturing Construction, manufacturing Transportation,
wholesale trade,
finance, services, retail
trade

Randolph Construction, manufacturing Construction, manufacturing Finance, government '

Rockingham Manufacturing Manufacturing Wholesale trade

Stokes Construction, services, Services Wholesale trade
government

Surry Construction, manufacturing Construction, transportation Wholesale trade

Yadkin Construction, manufacturing, Construction, manufacturing Finance .
retail trade
Source: The SGM Group, Inc., January 1999

W:\PIEDMONT\DEISWppendices\App-e\2.OTable and Fig\T2.3-prlq.doc/01/11/00 1

TABLE 2.4
TOP TEN EMPLOYERS IN THE PIEDMONT TRIAD REGION, 1998
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement

I'A1 C EMPL . NK E . R

Sara Lee & Subsidiaries Forsyth and 10,850 1 Hosiery, socks, active wear
others
Guilford County Public Guilford 7,500 2 (tie) Public education
Schools
RJR/Nabisco Forsyth 7,500 2 (tie) Cigarettes, snack foods
Novant Health, Inc. Forsyth 5,731 4 Medical services, hospital
NC Baptist Hospital Forsyth 5,544 5 Medical services, hospital
UNIFI Rockingham, 5,324 6 Yarn manufacturing
Yadkin and others
Lifestyles furnishings Intl. Various 5,130 7 Furniture
& subsidiaries
Wake Forest Forsyth 5,055 8 Higher education
University/School of
Medicine
Moses Cone Health Guilford 5,000 9 Medical services, hospital
Systems
Burlington Industries Alamance, 4,658 10 Textiles, drapery
Caswell I
Source: Piedmont Triad Council of Governments Regional Data Center, PRIN Database. January 4,
1999.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Appendices\App-e\2.OTable and Fig\T2.4-prtopemp.doc/01/11/00
TABLE 2
5 '
.
POP ULATION TRENDS FOR VIRGINIA CITIE S AND COUNTIES '
IN THE INITIAL STUDY AREA, 1970 TO 1996
Piedmont Triad International Ai rport
Environmental Impact Statement '
DANVI B; C!' L - ,
C P s !
!

1970
15,345
70,626
105,238
9
7,663 T288,872
1972 16,157 72,591 108,505 090 43

1974
16,713
74,426
109,393
104,659
305,191 '
1976 16,942 74,844 110,679 109,641 312,106
1978 17,544 76,168 111,605 112,082 317,399

1980
17,627
75,825
111,813
112,357
317,622 '
1982 17,454 75,281 110,811 113,402 316,948
1984 17,541 74,675 110,065 112,974 315,255
1986 17,355 74,929 108,556 113,045 313,885
1988 17,204 75,871 107,574 112,948 313,597
1990 17,420 73,062 108,975 113,878 313,335

1992
17,536
72,519
109,188
115,082
314,325 '
1994 17,663 72,530 109,915 115,098 315,206
1996 18,055 71,979 109,569 115,199 314,802
% Change 4.0% -3.9% 0.9% 1.9% 0.3%
1986-1996
Net Change 700 (2,950) 1,013 2,154 917
1986-1996
% Change 17.7% 1.9% 4.1% 18.0% 9.0%
1970-1996
Net Change 2,710 1,353 4,331 17,536 25,930
1970-1996

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis REIS, 1970 to 1996
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Appendices\App-e\2.OTable and Fig\T2.5-vapop.doc/01/11/00
1
1
TABLE 2.6
EMPLOYMENT TRENDS FOR VIRGINIA CITIES AND COUNTIES
IN THE INITIAL STUDY AREA, 1970 TO 1996
(Wage and Salary Employment)
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
1

r

YEAR,
PiAT CO. MAOINSVILLE/
Henry Co. DAN LLE/
Plus, luanla;Co. LYN UR
;m b Il A
nia
1970 3,581 35,012 39,761 52,095 130,449
1972 3,697 37,574 40,900 53,796 135,967
1974 3,788 38,205 44,091 58,235 144,319
1976 4,012 38,144 42,838 57,316 142,310
1978 4,143 41,152 44,982 61,888 152,165
1980 4,068 40,761 45,147 62,664 152,640
1982 4,000 39,605 43,088 61,300 147,993
1984 4,584 42,222 43,853 64,236 154,895
1986 4,929 45,186 42,633 64,856 157,604
1988 5,383 44,474 45,439 68,746 164,042
1990 5,714 44,207 44,983 71,004 165,908
1992 5,404 42,137 44,540 70,827 162,908
1994 5,823 41,597 46,346 74,866 168,632
1996 5,910 41,430 46,143 75,762 169,245
% Change
1986-1996 19.9% -8.3%a 8.2% 16.8% 7.4%
Net Change
1986-1996 981 (3,756) 3,510 10,906 11,641
% Change
1970-1996 65.0% 18.3% 16.11% 45.4% 29.7%
Net Change
1970 - 1996 2,329 6,418 6,382 23,667 38,796
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis REIS, 1970 to 1996
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Appendices\App-e\2.OTable and Fig\T2.6-vaemp.doc/01/11/00

TABLE 2
7
.
MAJOR EMPLOYERS IN THE DANVILLE MSA, 1997
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
L.? 71
? C
Y O
_OR R C
Ennis Business Forms Chatham Business Forms

Burlington Industries Hurt Textiles

Hickson DanChem Danville Chemicals

Star Paper Tube Blairs Textile Cores & Tubes

Southside Mfg. Corp. Blairs School Furniture

Princeton Homes Danville Modular Homes

Ti
Fib
C Ch
h
mes
er
omm. at
am Coaxial Cables

Basset-Walker, Inc. Chatham Knitted Outerwear
Owens-Brockway Glass Danville Glass Containers

Burlington Distribution Hurt Warehouse

Columbia Forest Products Chatham Plywood/Paneling

Intertape Polymer Corp. Danville Pressure Sensitive Tape

A. C. Furniture Axton Furniture

Pl
uma, Inc. Chatham Fleece Clothing

Aries Isotoner Blairs Warehouse

Capps Shoe Co. Gretna Shoes

Source: Pittsylvania Office of Econo mic Development Web Site, October 1998.
The SGM Group, Inc.

J

W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Appendices\App-e\2.OTable and Fig\T2.7-demp.doc/01/11/00 1

1
TABLE 2.8
MAJOR EMPLOYERS IN THE LYNCHBURG MSA, 1996
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
I

ODUCT P .^ AT
PLOYMENTM
Ericsson, Inc. Communications Equipment 2,800
BWXT (McDermott Intl.) Nuclear Fuel 2,000
Framatome Technologies Nuclear Maintenance & Repairs 1,700
The Lane Co. Furniture 1,350
Founders Furniture Furniture 980
R.R. Donnelley & Sons Publishing, Printing 925
Rubatex Closed Cell Rubber 850
Frito-Lay, Inc. Snack Foods 800
BGF Industries Fiberglass Fabrics 715
Ross Products (Abbott Laboratories) Adult/Infant Nutritional 700
First Brands Corp. "Glad" Brand Plastic Bags 400
Centra Health, Inc. (Hospitals) Health Care 3,180
J. Crew Outfitters Mail Order/Distribution 2,000
Central Virginia Training Center Health Care 1,800
Lynchburg City Schools Education 1,345
First Colony Life Insurance/GE Capital Insurance 1,000
Wachovia Financial Services 600
Randolph-Macon Woman's College Private College 325
Central Virginia Community College Public College 315
Belk Department Store Retail 220
Bell-Atlantic Virginia utility 163
I Source: Virginia's Region 2000,1997; The SGM Group, Inc.
I W:\PIEDMONT\DEISWppendices\App-e\2.OTable and Fig\T2.8-lemp.doc/01/11/00
FIGURE 2.1
1996 WAGE AND SALARY EMPLOYMENT BY COUNTY
FOR THE PIEDMONT TRIAD REGION
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
2;
-W/C
III Aar am ¦ CmdI 13 DWic bm 0 D Me ¦ Faa i III Wifad ¦ krkj r By 13 R3xbph ¦ F bcWro rn ¦ Wes 0 Sxy III Yaddn
Source: The SGM Group, Inc. Based on US Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic
Information Systems data, 1996.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Appendices\App-e\2.OTable and Fig\fig2.1 emp.doc/01/1 1/00
ic/ SIX 1% W/C
,e,
1
f
1
1
1
1
f
1
1
1
1
1
1

FIGURE 2.2
1996 EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR FOR THE PIEDMONT TRIAD REGION
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
25%
17%
5%
M Ag. Serv., forestry, fishing, and other ¦ Mining O Construction
El Manufacturing ¦Transportation and public utilities M Wholesale trade
¦ Retail trade 0 Finance, insurance, and real estate ¦ Services
¦ Government and government enterprises
Source: The SGM Group, Inc. Based on US Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic
Information Systems data, 1996
W:\PIEDMONT\DEISWppendices\App-e\2.OTable and Fig\FIG2.2EMPSEC.doc/01/11/00.

fl

1

SECTION 3.0
CASE OVERVIEW OF FEDEX HUBS LOCATED IN
INDIANAPOLIS, IN AND MEMPHIS, TN
1 3.1 INTRODUCTION
This section provides an overview of the impacts of the FedEx hubs located in Memphis, TN, and
Indianapolis, IN. The objective is to determine the relationship between these hubs' operations and the
growth and development of their surrounding MSA region. The experiences of Memphis and Indianapolis
' provide a basis for determining what geographic region would most likely to be affected by the proposed
Mid-Atlantic hub operations at the Piedmont Triad International Airport. The relationship between
employment growth and air freight volume of these FedEx hubs is discussed in Section 4.3.1 of this
Technical Memorandum.
Information for this case study overview is based on four sources of data. First, data is cited from FedEx
regarding hub operations, cargo and employment data from 1992 to 1998, and 1999 zip code data
regarding place of residence of hub employees. Second, employment and population data for the
Indianapolis and Memphis MSA is cited from the Regional Economic Information Service of the Bureau of
Economic Analysis (BEA) of the US Department of Commerce. The BEA data is currently complete
through 1996 for population, employment, and earnings. Employment data is presented in two-digit
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) format covering the major economic sectors, and population data
is reported for the years 1969 through 1996. Third, the geographic, transportation, and economic
characteristics of Memphis and Indianapolis is referenced from various local reports and web sites.
Fourth, this study also summarizes anecdotal information from various business leaders and public
officials located in North Carolina, Tennessee, Indiana, and Texas who were interviewed between
I December 1998 and March 1999.
The case study is limited to readily available data, a constraint that limits both the trend analysis as well
as the ability to quantify people's perceptions. For example, FedEx could only provide certain
information beginning with 1992. An effort was made to quantify where new businesses and industries
located in the Indianapolis MSA; however, there was no uniform source of data available which covered
the entire nine-county region. The Indianapolis Economic Development Corporation only had data
regarding their recruitment efforts within Marion County. Other counties within the Indianapolis MSA did
not have records of what new business had moved into their jurisdiction. As a result, this study had to
rely on anecdotal information obtained from telephone interviews with local officials.
1
1 3-1
3.2 PROFILES OF FEDEX HUBS IN MEMPHIS, INDIANAPOLIS, AND ALLIANCE FORT WORTH
FedEx opened its first hub in Memphis, Tennessee in 1973. Since then, FedEx has opened numerous
hubs throughout the United States and the world. Initially, the FedEx hubs located in Memphis,
Indianapolis, and Alliance-Fort Worth were reviewed for their compatibility to the proposed Mid-Atlantic
hub facility at the Piedmont Triad International Airport. According to FedEx, the Alliance Fort Worth Hub,
which opened in September 1997, is the most similar in terms of operations to the proposed Mid-Atlantic
hub facility. However, this Texas hub is located in a predominately rural area approximately 25 miles
from Dallas and Fort Worth. Numerous Piedmont officials who had visited the Alliance Forth Worth hub
as well as Texas officials believed that the rural location of the Alliance Fort Worth hub hindered
comparative analysis with the proposed Greensboro hub. Moreover, the Alliance Fort Worth hub has
been operating for less than two years, making trend analysis impossible. For these reasons, this study
examines the relationship between the FedEx hub operations and the growth and development of the
Indianapolis and Memphis MSA.
A brief profile of the Memphis and Indianapolis hubs is warranted. As mentioned previously, the Memphis
FedEx hub opened in 1973. The hub, which is located on 180 acres at the Memphis International in the
southwest corner of the city, is classified by FedEx as a worldwide hub. It has 57 wide-body gates, 82
narrow-body gates, and 22 feeder gates and a sorting facility, which has the ability to handle 145,000
boxes and 325,000 documents per hour. The number of hourly and monthly employees increased from
7,404 employees in 1992 to 12,299 workers in 1998-a net increase of 4,895 workers during this seven-
year period. (KL Coles FedEx correspondence of 2/15/99.)
The Indianapolis FedEx hub, which opened in 1988, is located on 240 acres at the Indianapolis
International Airport in the southwest quadrant of the city. FedEx classifies this hub as a regional
operation. It has 18 wide-body and 27 narrow-body gates and the capacity to sort 79,000 boxes and
96,000 documents per hour. The number of hourly and monthly employees increased from 1,628
employees in 1992 to 2,818 workers in 1998-a net increase of 1,190 workers during this seven-year
period. (KL Coles, FedEx correspondence of 2/15 and 2/19/99)
Both the Memphis and Indianapolis FedEx hubs are much larger hubs than the proposed Greensboro
hub. The Greensboro hub is projected to process 86,000 total packages per night when it becomes
operational in 2004, which is significantly lower than the 1998 total hourly processing figures of 470,000
packages for Memphis and 175,000 packages for Indianapolis.
3.3 OVERVIEW OF THE POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH OF THE INDIANAPOLIS,
MEMPHIS, AND GREENSBORO-W/NSTON-SALEM- HIGH POINT MSAS, 1970- 1996
The Indianapolis, Memphis, and Greensboro-Winston-Salem MSAs have remarkably similar population,
employment, and economic and geographic characteristics. The Indianapolis MSA is a nine-county region
3-2

consisting of Marion, Boone, Hamilton, Madison, Hancock, Shelby, Johnson, Morgan, and Hendricks
Counties. The Indianapolis MSA population increased from 1,251,432 in 1970 to 1,488,837 in 1996 -a
net population increase of 237,405. In 1996, the Indianapolis MSA was the 28th largest MSA in the United
States (US Census. Online: 8 March 1999). The Memphis MSA, a 5-county MSA crossing over three
state boundaries, includes Shelby, Tipton, and Fayette Counties in Tennessee as well as Crittenden
County in Arkansas and Desoto County in Mississippi. The Memphis MSA population increased from
858,143 in 1970 to 1,075,386 in 1996 -a net population increase of 217,243. In 1996, the Memphis MSA
was the 42nd largest MSA in the United States (US Census. Online: 8 March 1999). The Greensboro-
Winston-Salem-High Point MSA is an eight-county region including Alamance, Davison, Davie, Forsyth,
Guilford, Randolph, Stokes, and Yadkin Counties. The Greensboro MSA population increased from
842,201 in 1970 to 1,139,359 in 1996 -a net population increase of 297,158. In 1996, this MSA was the
38th largest MSA in the United States (US Census: Online 8 March 1999). Figure 3.1 illustrates the
population growth of these three MSAs from 1970 through 1996. As shown on the figure, the three MSAs
experienced population growth ranging from 0.67 percent annually for the Indianapolis MSA to 1.17
percent annually for the Greensboro MSA, during this 26-year period.
Employment growth parallels the population growth for all three MSAs as shown in Figure 3.2. Between:
1970 and 1996 the total wage and salary employment for the Indianapolis MSA increased from 583,595
workers in 1970 to 961,603 in 1996 -a net increase of 378,008 employees representing a 64.8 percent:
increase. During the same period, the wage and salary employment for the Memphis MSA rose from
380,828 in 1970 to 673,197 employees in 1996 -a net increase of 292,369 workers representing a 76.8
percent increase. The labor force in the Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point MSA likewise grew from
423,010 employees in 1970 to 743,041 in 1996 for a net increase of 320,031 employees representing a
75.6 percent increase.
All three MSAs have favorable geographic locations that help to stimulate growth and development,
especially in terms of transportation and distribution networks. In fact, the geographic location and
existing transportation networks were major factors influencing FedEx to begin its operation in Memphis
in 1973, to open its Indianapolis hub in 1988, and to propose building its Mid-Atlantic hub in Greensboro,
NC.
According to the Memphis Chamber's web site, Memphis is North America's Distribution Center because
°You can reach 45 states as well as major industrial sites in Canada and Mexico in two days."
Transportation access is enhanced by its road system, which includes Interstates 40 and 85 as well as
seven US highways converging in Memphis. Memphis is one of only three cities served by five Class 1
intermodal railroads. In addition, Memphis is the fourth busiest inland river port in the United States. The
Memphis International Airport is a hub of Northwest Airlines/KLM. UPS also has air cargo facilities at the
airport. (Memphis Chamber of Commerce. Online: 18 Nov. 98)
1 3-3
Indianapolis, like Memphis and Greensboro, is centrally located in the region and is served by an
excellent transportation system. Indianapolis is the center of multiple interstates including 65,465, 74, 69,
and 70 that branch out across the Midwest. Indianapolis is also served by five Class 1 railroads, and
there are more than 5,600 miles of railroad track in Indiana. Other air cargo carriers such as the United
States Postal Service Eagle Network, Royal Air, and UPS also serve the Indianapolis International
Airport. (Indianapolis Economic Development Corporation. Online: 4 March 99)
Greensboro, NC has functioned as a distribution and transportation center ever since 1856 when it was
included as a stop on the North Carolina Railroad. Today Greensboro is at the crossroads of Interstates
40 and 85 and has US Highway access to US 421, US 29, US 70, US 311, and US 220. The Norfolk
Southern Railway provides freight service with seven trains daily as of 1999. Greensboro is within six
hours driving distance to the Washington, DC and Atlanta metropolitan areas. (Greensboro Area
Chamber of Commerce. Online: 5 May 99)
3.4 THE IMPACT OF THE MEMPHIS AND INDIANAPOLIS FEDEX HUBS ON NEW BUSINESS
AND INDUSTRIAL LOCATION
The operation of a new hub at the Piedmont Triad International Airport would most likely attract new
businesses and industries to locate in.the Greensboro region. These off-site industries and businesses
are the secondary impacts of the proposed project. The potential amount of additional regional
employment stimulated by development of the Greensboro hub is predicted by the Input-Output model
discussed in Section 4. In response to that forecast, this step in the analysis examines where the new
industrial and business development might locate as influenced by the proposed hub and the increased
cargo capacity of the Piedmont Triad International Airport. It is reasonable to assume that the
experiences of Memphis, Indianapolis, and to a lesser extent, the Alliance Fort Worth hubs would be
indicative for the Greensboro hub. To help understand this possible influence, public officials and
representatives of private businesses in Tennessee, Indiana and Texas were interviewed by telephone
from December 1998 through March 1999.
Memphis, Indianapolis, and Fort Worth economic development officials all believe that the FedEx hubs
have numerous benefits on economic development for their respective regions. Table 3.1 lists the major
air freight uses in the Memphis MSA as of 1997. Many of these firms are computer companies, repair
businesses, parts distributors, check processing companies, pharmaceutical companies, and medical lab
testing firms. These firms are dependent upon rapid delivery services essential to "Just-In-Time"
processing and locate near the FedEx hub. For example, Pfizer, the pharmaceutical distributor of Viagra,
was able to facilitate a rapid distribution of this drug immediately after FDA approval because of its
proximity to the Memphis FedEx hub.
Mr. Henson of the Memphis Chamber of Commerce believes that up to 60 to 65 percent of all new
businesses recruited to Memphis during the past five years were influenced at least in part by the
3-4

proximity of the FedEx hub. (Telephone Interview with Hayes & Associates, November 24, 1998.) Data is
only readily available for 1997 and 1998. Table 3.2 lists the business expansions and relocations for
these years and over 4,000 jobs were created as the result of the FedEx hub operations. Mr. Henson
believes that new businesses dependent upon "Just-In-Time" processing locate as close as possible to
the FedEx hub and the airport to expedite their deliveries. In fact, it appears that most new businesses in
Memphis have located on infill sites within 5 miles to the airport. Eventually, new industries may have to
move further away, as vacant land near the airport becomes less available.
Another advantage for Memphis is its flat topography that is ideal for "Big Box" warehouse and
distribution centers. The availability of flat land is one reason why Hewlett Packard recently decided to
build a new distribution center in Memphis rather than in Nashville, which has rolling terrain. Many of the
large distribution centers have 300,000 square feet under one roof.
Indianapolis has had a similar experience according to several of its business leaders. The vicinity around
the Indianapolis airport has been the focus of new business and industrial development even prior to the
opening of the FedEx hub in 1988. According to Mr. Gigerich of the Indianapolis Economic Development
Corporation (IEDC), many Fortune 500 companies such as Duracell choose to locate in quality business
parks near the airport as a means to protect their investment (Telephone interview with Hayes and
Associates, 1/12/99). These companies want their assets to appreciate and believe that the best real
estate location for businesses is near the airport. The appeal of business development sites near airports
appears to be a national trend, which is already evident for the Piedmont Triad International Airport in
Greensboro, NC.
Th Indianapolis International Airport is located in the southwest corner of Marion County. Much of the
new industrial and business development in Marion County has occurred on land purchased by the
Indianapolis International Airport as part of its noise abatement program. For example, the AmeriPlex
Industrial Park is a 1,500-acre park located near the airport on this redeveloped land. The Town of
Plainfield and Guilford Township in Hendricks County border the airport site. This area has witnessed
conversion of former agricultural land to industrial use. Much of this new development has been oriented
toward "Big Box" warehouse distribution facilities with some value-added manufacturing sites. As shown
on Table 3.3. , nearly 7 million square feet of business park development has been built in the Plainfield
vicinity near the Indianapolis's airport since 1994. Apparently, there has not been much office
development in these locations according to local business leaders.
Business leaders in Plainfield, Mooresville, and Hendricks County believe that new companies attracted
to the area because of FedEx and/or the availability of enhanced airport services locate within 5 to 10
miles of the airport, usually in the Plainfield area. Mr. Gigerich of the IEDC believes that, in fact, the
geographic sphere of influence is broader. He stated that probably at least 75 percent of businesses
attracted to Indianapolis because of FedEx have located within 5 to 7 miles from airport. Mr. Gigerich
1 3-5
knew of 5 to 6 instances where businesses have located between 25 to 45 miles from the airport. For
example, one stereo company located 25 miles away. Another Japanese firm that manufactures control
parts located in a small town 45 miles away; however, many Asian firms want to locate in small towns
because available work force meets their particular needs. This firm also had a relationship with another
Japanese firm located 15 miles from small town.
Information indicates that FedEx has been an important attribute to for the Dallas-Fort Worth area as well.
According to Mr. Bill Thornton of the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, the impact of FedEx is actually
difficult to quantify. The FedEx hub has produced many intangible benefits for Forth Worth even though it
has been in operation for only two years (Telephone interview with Hayes & Associates, 12/10/98). The
appeal of FedEx was felt as soon as announcement was made in 1994. For example, Intel was attracted
to Fort Worth after the FedEx announcement because this company relies on a variety of shipping
alternatives. Three new pharmaceutical bulk companies also opened within 1/2 mile, 3 miles, and 7 miles
from FedEx hub. These operations, as with Intel and many others, use FedEx as part of their entire
shipping options. The good transportation infrastructure of Fort Worth attracts numerous businesses
because these operations have the ability to ship overnight by FedEx, use UPS, use rail, or use trucking
via the good interstate system. The Alliance project also has the ability to attract a wide range of
businesses because of its ample supply of land in the immediate airport vicinity. Alliance can
accommodate businesses that need as little as 10 acres, to major enterprises that need up to 1,000
acres. Experience indicates that the availability of FedEx or similar cargo shipment services is an
important location factor as part of a complete recruitment package that combines site availability with an
excellent transportation system.
Business leaders in all three metropolitan areas share similar views about the "intangible benefits" of
FedEx. The recruitment of any Fortune 500 firm is always considered "an important milestone" by local
business leaders. Moreover, there are other attributes of FedEx, which enhance the local business
climate. All of the Chambers include the availability of services at the FedEx hub as part of its recruitment
presentations. FedEx meets with prospective businesses on request and has developed special
marketing pieces to be used in these local recruitment efforts. Another selling point is the extra hours of
production time afforded by having FedEx nearby as stated in the following excerpt from the Plainfield
web site:
Studies show that a location near an air cargo HUB allows your company to have a later
shipment deadline, which results in five to seven hours more productivity and ultimately a
10 percent increase in your bottom line (Plainfield Economic Development Section.
Online: 3 March 99).
The fact is that businesses consider many factors prior to moving to a new site. FedEx would most likely
attract those firms relying on "Just-In-Time" processing. Such firms would be more willing to pay premium
land prices to acquire sites close to the airport and the Interstate system. For the most part, these
3-6

businesses in Memphis, Indianapolis, and Fort Worth have located within 5 to 7 miles of the FedEx hub.
Both Indianapolis and Alliance have ample industrial sites available meeting these criteria.
3.5 COMMUTING PATTERNS OF FEDEX HUB EMPLOYEES IN THE MEMPHIS AND
INDIANAPOLIS MSA
Employee commuting patterns to the FedEx Hubs in Memphis and Indianapolis are examined by zip code
analysis of the hub employees' place of residence. Tables 3.4 and 3.5 show zip codes, geographic
location, and the number of FedEx employees living within that particular zip code for the Memphis and
Indianapolis hub employees as of February 1999. Tables 3.6 and 3.7 rank these zip codes in terms of
mileage from the respective hub to the city or town of residence of the hub employees.
In Memphis, 9,914 of the 11,901 hub employees or 83 percent have one of the fifty city zip codes and live
within an estimated 18 miles to the FedEx hub. Ninety-two percent of the Memphis hub employees live
within a 20-mile radius of the hub, and nearly 97 percent of the hub employees live within a 30-mile radius
of the airport. The resulting commuting pattern is somewhat similar to that shown by the 1990 Census
journey-to-work information. The 1990 Census mean travel time to work is 21.6 minutes for the Memphis
MSA; however, hub employees may live closer to their place of work than most Memphis residents. Only
70.7 percent of Memphis MSA residents travel 29 minutes or less to work as compared to nearly 97
percent of hub employees who live within 30 miles to the FedEx hub.
In Indianapolis, 71.5 percent of the 2,692 hub employees have one of the 43 city zip codes and live within
an estimated 20 miles to the FedEx hub. Ninety percent of the Indianapolis hub employees live within 20
miles or less of the hub and 93.4 percent of the hub employees live within 30 miles or less of the hub and
airport. Again, this commuting pattern is somewhat similar to that of the 1990 Census journey-to-work
information. The 1990 Census mean travel time to work is 21.9 minutes for the Indianapolis MSA;
however, hub employees may live closer to their place of work than most of the region's residents. Only
68.7 percent of Indianapolis MSA residents travel 29 minutes or less to work as compared to nearly 93
' percent of hub employees who live within 30 miles to the FedEx hub.
3.6 COMMUNITY IMPACTS OF THE INDIANAPOLIS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
3.6.1 INTRODUCTION
Business and public officials interviewed regarding the economic impacts of the FedEx hub for the
Indianapolis MSA also noted community impacts of the airport operations. This anecdotal information
provides some insight into potential secondary impacts of the Mid-Atlantic Hub in Greensboro, NC. It is
important to note that the Indianapolis International Airport is a much larger and more heavily utilized
airport than the PTIA. Consequently, the on-going noise abatement program is far more extensive than
1 3-7
the potential noise impacts of the proposed PTIA improvements. Furthermore, in many instances, it is
difficult to distinguish between airport impacts directly linked to FedEx operations in contrast to other
airport operations such as the United States Postal Service Eagle Network as well as other cargo and
passenger services.
3.6.2 COMMUNITY IMPACTS OF THE INDIANAPOLIS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT FOR
PLAINFIELD, INDIANA
Plainfield, Indiana is located 4 to 5 miles from the Indianapolis International Airport and the FedEx hub.
Plainfield is located in Guilford Township of Hendricks County and its town boundaries are now
contiguous with the 5,000-acre airport site. This was not always the case. Back in the 1980's, town
officials realized that the predominantly rural land in Guilford Township bordering the airport would be
rapidly developed for industrial and distribution uses. According to the Plainfield Town Manager, Mr.
Richard Carlucci, the Town wanted to have control over this foreseeable development and consequently,
implemented numerous annexations in the direction of the airport (Telephone Interview with Hayes &
Associates, March 26, 1999.). The growing size of the Town of Plainfield is an indication of the proactive
stance taken by public officials. In 1989, the Plainfield was only 3.4 square miles and ten years later the
town now measures over 21 square miles. This annexed land was predominately agricultural land with
scattered subdivisions. There were no water and sewer services available in most of the annexed area
and the land was not densely populated. Much of the housing was located on one-acre lots.
The Plainfield town officials and private developers implemented an aggressive industrial development
"partnership." Both the public and private sectors recognize that industrial and commercial development
are the most suitable use for land located near the airport. Private developers purchased large 800 to
1,000-acre tracts of agricultural land and created several industrial parks such as Air West, Airtech, and
the Plainfield Business Park. The Town invested in the necessary infrastructure of water, sewer, and
roadways, zoned the land for industrial use, and offered a tax abatement program to attract businesses.
As a result, there is now over 6.5 million square feet of warehouse development and 2,300 acres of
industrial land located in Plainfield. The property tax base of Plainfield increased from $43 million dollars
in 1989 to $188 million dollars in 1998 according to the Plainfield Town Manager.
The Town Manager believes that the success of Plainfield's public and private industrial development
effort is the result of many factors. First, Plainfield has numerous tracts of available land that is properly
zoned and has public water and sewer services with the lowest utility rates in the county. These sites
also have great access to both the airport and the Interstate system. Land prices in Plainfield and
Hendricks County are much lower than land prices in nearby Indianapolis and Marion County. The Town
has also implemented a tax abatement program as an industrial recruitment incentive. Major national
industrial developers such as Dubiety Properties from Reno, Nevada, the Opus Corporation from
Columbus, Ohio, Prologis, who is the largest warehouse developer in the country, and Duke Realty have
3-8
invested in Plainfield and do extensive marketing and recruiting. Private developers are building shell
buildings and recruiting businesses. As a result, there has been massive development in the annexed
area. The local public and private officials are committed to a strong industrial recruitment program.
Overall, the Town of Plainfield has benefited from the conversion of residential and agricultural land to
industrial use according to Mr. Mike King of the Greater Plainfield Chamber of Commerce. (Telephone
interview with Hayes & Associates, March 11 and March 26,1999.) Plainfield is now the "hot spot" of
industrial development in Indiana.
Interestingly enough, Plainfield did not realize immediate recruitment results after the FedEx hub first
opened in 1988 according to Mr. King. It was only eight to ten years after the FedEx hub opened that
Plainfield began to notice the impacts in terms of industrial recruitment. Definitely, the presence of
FedEx is now a major selling point. Plainfield is currently attracting major FedEx customers such as Bright
Point, an international cellar Phone Company, and Hitachi data.
' Local officials noted the following community impacts:
• Demolition of Housing and Neighborhoods within the Noise Abatement Area: Approximately
750 homes have been purchased in the Plainfield annexed area as the result of the Airport's noise
abatement program. Several entire subdivisions have been demolished and all that remains is the
street system while in some other subdivision only 3 to 4 houses remain out of the original 65 to 70
houses. Participation in the noise abatement program is voluntary and some homeowners have
chosen to remain. There were no community facilities such as schools or parks located within the
noise abatement area.
• 24-hour Airport Noise Impact. According to Mr. King, the Indianapolis International Airport has
always been a very busy airport for 12 to 18 hours day. Mr. King believes that the biggest impact of
the FedEx hub is that the airport is now a 24-hour operation. Mr. King lives in a neighborhood located
in the flight path. His neighborhood is part of the 10 percent airport sales assistance program. Mr.
King can see and hear flights. The noise is more of a problem in the summer when windows are
open. The noise is also picking up on Saturdays as weekend service occurring more frequently. The
flights occur mostly at night and take off every 7 minutes. The noise impacts will be reduced as the
airlines and air cargo companies switch to the quieter Phase 3 planes and as new noise mitigation
programs such as the Standard Instrument Departure requirement are implemented.
• Community Disruption: Town officials and residents acknowledge that the airport's proximity is a
bonus for industrial development, but its operations have been disruptive for residential areas in the
flight path. Airport public meetings conducted in 1998 for the Part 150 Noise Study were very
controversial.
1 3-9
• Location of New Residential Development: Land use patterns are starting to change in Plainfield.
New residential development is occurring on the western and southwestern sections of the Town,
which are the furthest from the Indianapolis International Airport.
• Lower Property Tax Rate: Guilford Township, which includes Plainfield, has the lowest tax rate
because of its extensive industrial development. Businesses and industries in Indiana pay a greater
share of property taxes. The conversion of residential and agricultural land to industrial use positively
impacted tax rolls resulting in Guilford Township having the lowest tax rate in both Hendricks and
Marion Counties. The town tax rate went down by $.23 cents.
• Airport Acquired Land Exempt From Property Taxes: Private land acquired by the airport is
reclassified as public property and thereby tax-exempt. The local property tax base is reduced by this
conversion of private land to airport property. The Indianapolis International Airport according to Mr.
Carlucci now owns approximately 10 percent of Guilford Township. The airport purchased this land
as the result of its wetland mitigation program, Indiana Brown Bat habitat conservation program, and
noise abatement program. The land acquired for wetland mitigation and the Indiana Brown Bat
conservation program are permanent acquisitions by the airport and this land is consequently taken
off the public property tax rolls. On the other hand, property acquired under the noise abatement
program can be redeveloped as commercial and industrial uses that are considered compatible with
airport operations.
• Impact on School System: Mr. King of the Greater Plainfield Chamber of Commerce served on the
local school board when noise abatement program was first implemented. There were no schools in
the noise abatement area. During the early 1990's, the Plainfield school system lost 211 students
because of the demolition of housing in the noise abatement area. The impact upon school
revenues is related to how schools are funded by the State of Indiana. The State gives a "per
student" allotment each year based on the number of students. The State allotment also increases
for growing school systems in order to compensate for new school construction. During this 3 to 4-
year period, Plainfield lost 211 students and consequently, its State allotment decreased by
approximately $250,000 each year. The school enrollment and State funding now match their
previous levels. Basically, the impact to local schools was a short-term impact.
• New Industrial Development: Plainfield has one of the largest industrial areas in Indiana with 6.9
million square feet of industrial and warehouse space and 2,300 acres of industrial land.
• Tax Abatement Pro_aram: The industrial tax abatement program does reduce property tax revenues
during the time period that the businesses qualify. This is a relatively short-term effect. Plainfield's
3-10
town manager anticipates that property tax revenues will increase by $20 to $25 million dollars a year
as the initial tax packages begin to expire.
Overall, town officials believe that the airport-related improvements including the FedEx hub are a
positive gain for Plainfield. The negative impacts of the demolition of neighborhoods have been offset by
the increase in industrial property taxes and decrease in property tax rates. The impact to the school
system was relatively short-term lasting three to four years.
It is perhaps fortunate for Plainfield that industrial development is occurring within the same township that
it is located. The property tax system in Indiana is based upon townships. The township governments set
the property tax rates and assess property tax values. Businesses and industries in Indiana are
assessed at 60 percent of their value and therefore, pay a greater share of property taxes. The
conversion of residential and agricultural lands to industrial use has greatly increased both Guilford
Township and Plainfield's tax base. If this was not the case, then in theory Plainfield could be absorbing
all negative costs of household relocation and loss of school revenues from lower attendance without
realizing any economic gain. Mr. King notes that noise abatement programs can impact communities and
affected communities should plan for these impacts.
3.6.3 COMMUNITY IMPACTS OF THE INDIANAPOLIS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT FOR
MOORESVILLE, INDIANA
Mooresville, Indiana is located 5 to 6 miles south of the Indianapolis International Airport "as the crow
flies" and is approximately 10 to 12 miles from the airport by road. Mooresville is basically a bedroom
community according to Mr. Harold Gutzwiller of the Mooresville Economic Development Commission.
(Telephone Interview with Hayes & Associates, March 12, 1999.) The population has nearly doubled
over the past 10 years from 5,541 in 1990 US Census to approximately 10,250 in 1998. Growth has
i been fast as the result of new residential construction and annexations. Mooresville's growth is the result
of its great location being within close proximity to downtown Indianapolis and the airport. Traffic
congestion is also less severe in the southwest quadrant of the Indianapolis MSA. Many of Mooresville's
residents work at the airport-related businesses. For example, 112 town residents worked at the FedEx
I hub in February 1999. Land and housing prices are also affordable.
Mooresville is not in the current airport noise abatement program, but the community does have noise
impacts. The turning point to the Indianapolis airport approach is over Mooresville, which increases noise
levels. According to Mr. Gutzwiller, Mooresville residents do not notice the noise of the daytime flights,
just those at night. The biggest noise impact is from midnight to 4 am. The noise is worse when there is
a low ceiling and the planes must fly lower. Some residents complain that "their beds shake." This town
has not yet qualified for the noise abatement program, but probably eventually will after planned airport
improvements are implemented. The airport plans to relocate a section of 1-70 to make additional room
3-11
for the expanding FedEx hub. The airport will eventually build another runway, which would be located on
the south side of the airport close to Mooresville. This new runway may not be built for another 15 to 20
years. These airport-planned improvements would increase the noise impacts for Mooresville.
Consequently, the Town of Mooresville is requesting the State to appoint a town member as a
representative on the Airport Supervisory Board.

Mooresville, despite its proximity to the airport, has not yet attracted industrial development related to
FedEx or other airport-related business. Mooresville does have an industrial park, but town is located in
the secondary market. There is not a strong private sector in Mooresville recruiting business as in
Plainfield. Mooresville has received some inquiries about foreign trade zones, but this designation is not
an important recruitment factor to date. The foreign trade zone designation would be more important for
Japanese or European firms assembling parts. Most business inquires are from distribution firms looking
for cheaper land prices. The land in the Plainfield industrial parks is going for $60,000 to $80,000 per
acre whereas land in Mooresville ranges from $20,000 to $35,000 per acre. The key selling factor is the
standard real estate principle of "location, location, location." Many firms are now willing to pay higher
land prices to get good access to airport and interstate system offered by the Plainfield sites. Mooresville
will eventually attract spillover businesses because of its cheaper land prices.
3-12
r
r TABLE 3.1

r MAJOR AIR FREIGHT USERS IN THE MEMPHIS MSA, 1997
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement

HE=
DISTRIBUTION
Aircraft Parts International Aircraft Components
Anixter Power Voice, Data & Video S step
ASICS Tiger Sorts Footwear
Canon Computers Computers & Peripherals
Creative Computers, Inc. Computers & Peripherals
Disney Stores Gifts & Novelties for Disney Retail Sty
Disney Direct Marketing Mail Offer Gifts & Novelties
General Electric Medical Systems Diagnostic Systems
Genesis Direct Mail Order Catalog Fulfillment
Ingram Micro Computers & Peripherals
Nike Sorts Footwear & Apparel
Nova Factor Very High Value Pharmaceuticals
Pfizer, Inc. Pharmaceuticals
Philips Medical Systems Diagnostic Systems
Reebok Sorts Footwear
Siemens Medical System Diagnostic Systems
Starter Corp. Sports Apparel
Technicolor Video Video, DVD's
Toshiba American Information Systems Document Processing E ui ment
Troll Associates Children's Books
Williams-Sonoma Kitchenware & Home Products
MANUFA CTURING
Smith & Nephew Richards Orthopedic Implants
Wright Medical Technologies Orthopedic Implants
Josten's Recognition Class Rings
FINANCIAL
First Express Check Processing Check Processing
MEDICAL TESTING & BIOLOGICAL
Med-Ex ress Labs Reference Testing on Blood & Tissue Sc

r
r
r Source: Memphis Area Chamber of Commerce, November 1998.

:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Appendices\App-a\3.OTable and Fig\T3.1.doc/ 01/11/00
N
M
W
J
m
H
N
W
Z
Q
aQ
N
C) 2
GN
W Z
0 CL
Q W
O
a ?
CL
WW=E
ZZ C?
?W a C
W
Z-c?
+E
0CO
z C13
OAF' E
Z==c
Zxo0
QW E">
m G 'o c
OW dW
Qu.a
21-
Co c
0)
W
rY
C Z_
Z J
a
ti
o?
r
;I I I I I I I I I 16!;11
O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M
a o g g q q q q o g C g q q q q q o o
O O O LO CO O O LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (
CO O I- r ^ OD O CA N w 0 0 a 0 In In O O 1`
(A tl r 0 CD et I O r 1! r O C C N 0 a CO 1-
N N o r N CO O N m LO LO to to C O (?: OA
M N r r r r r N N N r r S O N V
r r N M
69 09. 6R 69 Q:} 69 69 40 ER 61} 6s 091 6S ea 10% EA EF? 69

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O N O O O O O CO pt a 0 0 0 C 0 C C C 1
O O O O O N CO r 01 w O In O ,* 0 0 0 N r
O N O O LO CO CO 1l- co OO N N O CO O N O w v
co v 0 N Il r 1*? r CO Ln N CO N IV N
N N N N ti
W w

ca co
M
.i
O O O Z
ca co Ctf V V Ca cc$ U

o
o
o
o
0
0 a
o a 0
o
cc T- X 0 0 LLJ m m
Z 7 7 7 J O c a 3
as

7
p >+ p >, O O Q
c K -S2 E T E ° n W n -co E
0 N E -co
w o w o 0 0 ; o co

° a - 0 a a
z < z ?

a
o
a
N Ll I
3 3
w w
z c c c c c c c c z c c c c c c c c
1. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ce CO 0 Cts c[s «s cts c c 0? trs C? Cts c c c c c
U r 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 Rf 0 m 0 0
CL CL X X X X
X N N 0 0 0 N X X 0 0 0 X
c oc oc Er w w a- ar cr w w w w w
O N LO CO In O Ch O to M V W to 0 0 0 1- N
O CO M O r N O h O LO N r C+7 N f? O O P. 00

i 1* N r d Ch N a) LO N N r- Cl)
r
0
z r N

O co
c

C 0
c
CU N

c
E 0
a)
~
0
J
H
(D
O
a
J
a
J
F
•' ' O o
0 0 0 E
O -X O > E
0 F
-
D

4)
L5 N

L- J

co 12 2 C)

7 O

Cl?
a M w w = a 5
0 y
.c O
N
E
Z
A
i 0
?
O
N
E
-5

O 0
= 0)
c 12
z
CO
N
U
X
3 co
N :3
CT
U co w
O
LL Ui o G cco co z CL Q C7 = = a c°) H 3 r
CU
O
w
TABLE 3.3
BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT IN PLAINFIELD, INDIANA SINCE 1994
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement

I

L g. .
F
Air West Business Park Covington 11 (Developer)
188,370
Gaylan's (Tenant/Owner)
225,000
Jacobson's (Tenant/ Owner)
240,000
Dermody(Developer) -Building 2
381,493
Demody (Developer) - Building 3
381,493
Owens Distribution (Owner/Tenant)
425,000
CTI (Owner/Tenant)
921,400
Balkamp (Owner/ Tenant)
330,000
Owens Distribution
204,800
Demody (Developer) - Building 4
400,000
Subtotal
3,697,556
Plainfield Business Center Covington I (Developer)
251,160,
Opus North (Developer)
401,670
Pep Boys (Owner/Tenant)
402,650
Opus North (Developer)
476,199
Subtotal
1,531,679
South by Southwest Park MEPT (Developer)
274,530
Air Tech Park (Browning Brightpoint World Headquarters
Investments Owner/Tenant 485,000
Plainfield Park Security Capital (Developer)
562,400
North Plainfield Park (Prologis) Bylane, L.P. (Tenant)
400,000
TOTAL
6,951,165
i Source: Greater Plainfield Chamber of Commerce, April 1999.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Appendices\App-a\3.OTable and Fig\t3.3.doc/01/11/00
TABLE 3.4
MEMPHIS FEDERAL EXPRESS HUB EMPLOYEES
PLACE OF RESIDENCE BY ZIP CODE, FEBRUARY 1999
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
I T
TENNESSEE
Memphis 50 zip-code area 9,914 81.2% 1 to 18 miles
38002 Arlington, Lakeland 80 0.7% 27
38004 Atokia 40 0.3% 28
38008 Bolivar 10 0.1% 70
38011 Alamo 16 0.1% 78
38017 Colliersville, Fisherville 237 1.9% 26
38018 Cordova 276 2.3% 18
38019 Covington 24 0.2% 37
38028 Eads 16 0.1% 16
38049 Mason 11 0.1% 37
38053 Millington 166 1.4% 14
38068 Somerville 26 0.2% 44
Subtotal 10,816 88.5% ---
MISSISSI PPI
38606 Batesville 10 0.1% 61
38611 Byhalia 45 0.4% 33
38618 Coldwater 45 0.4% 31
38619 Como 17 0.1% 48
38632 Hernando 77 0.6% 77
38635 Holly Springs 59 0.5% 45
38637 Horn Lake 108 0.9% 15
38651 Nesbit 43 0.4% 20
38654 Olive Branch, Mineral Wells 188 1.5% 23
38666 Sardis 11 0.1% 51
38668 Senatobia 30 0.2% 39
38671 Southhaven 186 1.5% 15
38680 Walls 57 0.5% 17
Subtotal 876 7.2% ---
ARKANS AS
72301 West Memphis 147 1.2% 9
72315 Blytheville 20 0.2% 73
72364 Marion 42 0.3% 11
Subtotal 209 1.7% ---
Other zip codes with < 10 employees 314 2.677 NA
TOTAL 12,215 100.0% ---
Source: Employee zip code information obtained from Federal Express, February 1999.
Zip codes obtained from US Postal Service Web Site: www.usps.gov/cgi-bin/zip4/Ctyszip
Mileage obtained from Mapquest web site: www.mapquest.com
W:\PIEDMONT\DEISWppendices\App-a\3.OTable and Fig\T3.4.doc/01/11/00.

1
1

t

TABLE 3.5
INDIANAPOLIS FEDERAL EXPRESS HUB EMPLOYEES PLACE OF RESIDENCE
BY ZIP CODE, FEBRUARY 1999
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
g
Zip odeGeo?graph
fe ..
Zip,,Code
sNum r Numb
Fed Hub
B to ees Percetlt of
Hub
tal
Mi agp t
u "
Indianapolis 43 zip codes 1,924 67.5% 1 to 20
Carmel 46032, 46033 15 0.5% 25
Fishers 46038 13 0.5% 26
Lebanon 46052 5 0.2% 28
Noblesville 46060 4 0.1% 24
Zionsville 46077 5 0.2% 15
Beech Grove 46107 24 0.8% 12
Brownsburg 46112 67 2.4% 15
Camby 46113 39 1.4% 15
Clayton 46118 20 0.7% 20
Cloversdale 46120 6 0.2% 32
Coatesville 46121 11 0.4% 27
Danville 46122 44 1.5% 19
Franklin 46131 19 0.7% 27
Greencastle 46142 86 3.0% 42
Greenwood 46163 62 2.2% 17
Jamestown 46147 5 0.2% 28
Lizton 46149 6 0.2% 25
Martinsville/ Centerton 46151 77 2.7% 34
Monrova 46157 12 0.4% 18
Mooresville 46158 112 3.9% 16
New Palestine 46163 8 0.3% 28
Paragon 46166 10 0.4% 40
Plainfield 46168 118 4.1% 5
Subtotal 2,692 94.5% ---
Zip Codes with less than 5 employees 157 5.5% NA
Total 2,849 100.0% ---
Source: Zip Code Location of Hub Employees obtained from Federal Express, February 1999.
Zip Codes obtained from US Postal Service Web Site: www.usps.gov/cgi-bin/zip4/Ctystzip
Mileage to Federal Express Hub obtained from Map Quest Web Site: www.mapquest.com.
1
1
I W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Appendices\App-a\3.OTable and Fig\T3.5.doc/01/11/00.

TABLE 3.6 1
MEMPHIS FEDERAL EXPRESS HUB EMPLOYEES COMMUTING DISTANCE
FROM PLACE OF RESIDENCE, FEBRUARY 1999
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement

taf
Memphis, TN 1 to 18 miles 9,914 83.3%
West Memphis. AR 9 147
Marion, AR 11 42
Millington, TN 14 166
Horn Lake, MS 15 108
Southhaven, MS 15 186
Eads, TN 16 16
Walls. MS 17 57
Cordova, TN 18 276
Nesbit, MS 20 43
Subtotal- 20 or less miles 10,955 92.1%
Olive Branch, MS 23 188
Colliersville, TN 26 237
Arlington, TN 27 80
Atokia, TN 28 40
Subtotal- 2 0 to 30 miles 545 4.6%
Subtotal - less than 30 miles 11,500 96.6%
Coldwater, MS 31 45
Byhalia, MS 33 45
Covington, TN 37 24
Mason, TN 37 11
Senatobia, MS 39 30
Subtotal- 3 0 to 40 miles 155 1.3%
Subtotal- less than 40 miles 11,655 97.9%
Somerville, TN 44 26
Holly Springs, MS 45 59
Como, MS 48 17
Sardis, MS 51 11
Batesville, MS 61 10
Bolivar, TN 70 10
Blytheville, AR 73 20
Hernando, MS 77 77
Alamo, TN 78 16
Subtotal- More than 40 miles 246 2.1%
Total 11,901 100.0%
Source: Hayes & Associates, February 26, 1999.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEISWppendices\App-a\3.OTable and Fig\T3.6.doc/01/11/00.
TABLE 3.7
INDIANAPOLIS FEDERAL EXPRESS HUB EMPLOYEES COMMUTING DISTANCE
FROM PLACE OF RESIDENCE, FEBRUARY 1999
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement

P--j

CITWN
Mileage to
lHubb, Number of .
=Fed Ex Hub -
4ftfp lq. a
Percent of
Tqj4AI
Indianapolis 1 to 20 1,924 71.5%
Plainfield 5 118
Beech Grove 12 24
Zionsville 15 5
Brownsburg 15 67
Camby 15 39
Mooresville 10 112
Greenwood 17 62
Monrova 18 12
Danville 19 44
Clayton 20 20
Subtotal- 20 or less miles 2,427 90.2%
Noblesville 24 4
Carmel 25 15
Lizton 25 6
Fishers 26 13
Coatesville 27 11
Franklin 27 19
Lebanon 28 5
Jamestown 28 5
New Palestine 28 8
Subtotal- 20 to 30 miles 86 3.2%
Subtotal- less than 30 miles 2,513 93.4%
Cloversdale 32 6
Martinsville 34 77
Paragon 40 10
Greencastle 42 86
Subtotal- 30 or more miles 179 61%
TOTAL 2,692 100.0%
Source: Hayes & Associates, February 26, 1999.

W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\AppendicesWpp-a\3.OTable and Fig\T3.7.doc/01/11/00.
FIGURE 3.1
POPULATION COMPARISON FOR CASE STUDY MSA REGIONS,
1970 TO 1996
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
1,600,000
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
600,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Appendices\App-a\3.OTable and Fig\F3.1 POPCOMP.doc/01/11/00
1 4" 40 11111 wo ? VP I we -*-Memphis MSA -w-Indianapolis MSA ° ro Greensboro MSA
i
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
i
1
1
i
FIGURE 3.2:
EMPLOYMENT COMPARISON FOR CASE STUDY MSA REGIONS, 1970 TO 1996
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
2
400,000
200,000
Source: The SGM Group, Inc.
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Appendices\App-a\3.OTable and Fig\f3.2empcomp.doc/01/11/00
pp? C? pN? tO+J? p<?
O O N (7 (O ^ n c9 aD GO ?ppp co CO co
in W On1 Oni Oni O O O O? O? O? O? O? O O? O? IN Of O? T O? O? Ql i?
- Memphis MSA -i-Indianapolis MSA Greensboro MSA

1
1

J

I
SECTION 4.0
ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
' 4.1 INTRODUCTION
The process of measuring economic value attributed to investment in transportation system
improvements in general and airport facilities in particular is complex, and controversial. In some
cases, this link between investment and development is cited as the rationale for investment. In other
cases, this supposed cause and effect relationship is used as an argument for maintaining the status
quo. In fact, experience indicates that the link between investment and development is far from
simple. The causes of growth and development are numerous, and rarely automatic.
Airport improvements that enhance accessibility and mobility within a region contribute to growth and
development, but other factors are often at least as important. In particular, in mature urban areas, an
extensive system of existing roads, highways, and rail facilities contributes to the attractiveness of an
area as a center for production and distribution of goods and services. What is often the limiting
factor for accommodating new development is the capacity of the existing system within a context of
market demand-the level of demand for new products and services. Market demand increases
' because of increasing population and because of an increase in the ability of producers to reach a
broader economic base. Market demand, however, is also the result of numerous factors that
1 characterize this increasing population base. These factors include the type of existing development
and need for additional support, demand for final products, availability of labor force, cost of
production and operation, relationship with land use plans and the agencies that administer those
plans, fiscal constraints and opportunities, quality of life, and others. How these factors compare
helps to define competition among different locations where new industry can locate. Where market
demand exists, as evidenced by development trends in coordination with opportunities for expansion,
capacity of the transportation system to accommodate that demand can become a critical issue.
The discussion that follows is in four parts. Part I describes the process of measuring economic
impacts. In particular this section defines the variables required to measure the value of changes
resulting from implementing the proposed "Build Alternatives." The process includes projecting
historic population and employment growth trends as the framework against which to compare
potential changes. Projecting historic growth and development trends represents effects associated
with the "No-Action Alternative." Also included in this discussion is the derivation of input output
models that will be used to measure the value of estimated changes.
?I
A
4-1

Part II measures the long-term economic value of estimated new employment at the proposed Mid-
Atlantic Hub. The potential impacts of this component of the Build Alternatives include the value of
wages and salaries and value added associated with the new facility and its supporting services.
Part III describes regional economic impacts that relate to changes in location factors affecting future
industrial locations, relocations, and expansions. This component of the analysis measures potential
effects on long-term employment growth resulting from increased regional air cargo capacity.
Predicted growth is in addition to new employment projected at the Air cargo sorting and distribution
facility because it represents a measurable potential change in regional character resulting from
improved availability of important transportation services. Part IV summarizes and combines the
results for both components of the impact analysis, measuring the total value created as result of
implementing the proposed improvements.
The discussion that follows is based upon the phases of the Mid-Atlantic Hub construction and
operations. Phase I corresponds to the time period 2000 through 2005 and is the initial construction
and start-up of the facility. Phase II encompasses the time period 2006 through 2009, which is the first
operational component of the air cargo sorting and distribution facility. The Operating Phase covers
the period 2010 through 2019, which is the proposed full-scale operation of the facility. The actual
impact analysis is carried through 2020 to bracket the projections.
4.2 ECONOMIC IMPACTS
One of the major contributions to long-term economic impacts results from the change in
transportation infrastructure and its effect on location factors considered by new and expanding
industries. This change can have a profound effect on future growth and development in the region, a
change that can generate substantial value to that region through associated wages and salaries and
total value added. The proposed Build Alternatives would expand existing runway facilities at PTIA as
well as initiate construction of the Mid-Atlantic Hub. The result would be an expansion of air freight
services as well as capacity at the airport. Access to expanded air freight capacity can act as an
important attraction to new and expanding industries that are dependent on market distribution of
goods and services produced.
4.2.1 LOCATION FACTORS
The impact of changes in transportation infrastructure on growth and development within a region is
part of a complex picture that includes numerous factors and their interaction. A recent study of the
migration of industries and corporations in the U.S. analyzes a series of considerations that vary in
importance as a function of the intrinsic economy (Reshaping America: The Migration of Corporate
Jobs and Facilities, Ernst & Young and the International Association of Corporate Real Estate
Executives, 1992). In this study, preferred site selection factors include the following categories:
4-2
1
M 1. Real Estate-Related Costs
2. Market/Corporate Accessibility
3. Taxes/Regulatory Environment
4. Quality of Life
' 5. Labor Quality/Availability
6. Infrastructure
Depending on the needs of the specific industry or corporation involved, each of these categories
plays a different role in the decision-making process. In terms of the evaluation, real estate-related
costs and quality and availability of labor rank highest as the most significant issues addressed in a
relocation or expansion decision. Availability of infrastructure and access to markets also play an
important role with the level of importance relating directly to the type of industry involved.
Infrastructure availability and capacity include access to airports as well as major highways. Each of
these factors is considered necessary in making the decision; none are considered sufficient by
themselves.
The importance of access to large airport facilities is apparent from recent relocations and expansions
in the Dulles Airport corridor in Northern Virginia. In the past several years, major companies have
relocated to this area, citing numerous reasons for the relocation decision which include access to
Dulles Airport-an expanding passenger and cargo facility located approximately 25 miles west of
Washington, DC. These expansions have contributed to the corridor's growth as a major technology
center. For example, the Oracle Corporation's new East Coast headquarters opened in November
1998 as a future employment center for up to 3,500 people because "it is convenient to Dulles Airport
and is the epicenter of the technology industry on the East Coast." (Jay Nussbaum, Executive Vice
President of Oracle Government, Education and Health, in "Fairfax Prospectus," Fourth Quarter
1998). Similarly, the British Standards Institute (BSI) recently expanded its North American
> headquarters in the Dulles Corridor. A spokesperson for BSI cited numerous reasons for staying and
expanding in this region, including the rapid growth of information technology firms in the area and the
close proximity to Washington Dulles International Airport (Nigel Withey, Vice President and General
Manager of BSI, Inc., in "Fairfax Prospectus, " Fourth Quarter 1998).
1 Experience expressed by these two major companies is not unique. It is important, however, to
remember that the decision-making process is a function of numerous factors, not the least of which
is accessibility. Accessibility includes access not only to highways but airports, both for passenger as
well as cargo demands. The stronger the manufacturing character of the industries considering the
region, the stronger the demand for cargo facilities that provide direct connections with markets
I required for sales and distribution.
11
4-3

4.22 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
As reported in Section 2, the Piedmont Triad represents a strong industrial and manufacturing
economy that is dependent on the manufacturing and services sector for a large percentage of its
regional income. As summarized in Table 4.1, this analysis of existing conditions indicated that growth
sectors in the 12-county Piedmont Triad Region include transportation and services, building on an
existing strength in manufacturing as well as wholesale trade and distribution. The character of the
existing economy is centered around the manufacturing and services sector, both of which are
dependent on transportation facilities including highway and airport capacity.
The analysis of existing conditions also includes population and employment projections through 2019
based on past trends. These projections, which represent impacts associated with the No-Action
Alternative, use population projections prepared by North Carolina Office of State Planning as
reported by the Piedmont Triad Council of Governments PRIN database. The growth trends are
illustrated in Figure 4.1.
As shown in Table 4.2, population is projected to grow from an existing estimate of 1.39 million to
nearly 1.6 million in 2019. At the same time, employment is estimated to grow from just over 780,000
currently to nearly 1.0 million in 2019. It is this projection, which represents the potential effect of the
No-Action Alternative, against which impacts associated with the Build Alternatives would be
measured. Where changes in transportation system capacity as measured by changes in projected
air freight volume increase potential growth and development, those changes would provide the basis
on which to measure the value of potential economic impacts.
4.2.3 MEASURING ECONOMIC IMPACTS
To measure the value of economic impacts of proposed airport improvements on the Piedmont Triad
Region, it is necessary to define elements that are characteristic of growth and development. Where
possible, these elements must be defined in quantitative terms, even when they represent changes in
qualitative conditions. Further, the definition of these quantitative elements must be reproducible.
Different audiences must be able to understand and reproduce the results so that measurements
themselves are not the source of controversy. These measurements should also be linked to the
results of public policy decisions so that both the public and their political representatives can
understand the ramifications of alternative development strategies. Therefore, a critical first step in
defining a method for measuring economic impacts is to make the connection between measures of
growth and development and public policy.
423.1 Ouandtative Measures
This analysis uses a series of factors to measure the value of potential economic impacts. The first of
these, and the most direct, is changes in population and employment that result from implementation
4-4
of the proposed improvement program. Changes in population and employment are basic measures
of growth and development. Both are directly linked. Growth in employment brings new households
(i.e. population) to a region, and growth in population generates demand for additional jobs. People
relocate to or within a region based primarily on employment opportunities. When demand for labor
increases, the number of households and total population increase concurrently. New households
also demand additional services, which in turn generate a demand for additional employment. This
spiraling increase represents what is known as the multiplier effect. New employment creates a need
for additional services that, in turn, creates a need for additional employment. Increases in population
also create a need for additional services that, in turn create a need for additional service
employment. The value of that multiplier effect is measured through application of input-output
models.
Associated with employment are wages and salaries. Wages and salaries in the form of household
income are used to purchase goods and services. Wages and salaries are paid to employees on the
basis of the value of goods and services received. Therefore, if we can measure the related change
in employment, then we can also measure the change in wages and salaries in a defined market area.
In addition, based on income, households and businesses pay taxes to state and local jurisdictions.
These taxes are used by the public sector to purchase goods and services and to pay public sector
employees. Therefore, taxes also generate employment and create value in the study area.
Other sources of income resulting from investments and from sale of products and services include
profit, dividends, and interest. The combination of all of these factors, including wages, state and local
taxes paid by households, dividends, interest, and profit, is known as value added. Value added
represents the total sum of value created by business and household expenditures in the study area
and, as such, is an effective measure of economic activity. In economic terms, value added is also
known as gross regional product. If the impact evaluation process can link possible changes in
employment and value added to changes in the transportation system capacity, then it can measure
the economic value of alternative transportation system investments in comparison to the No-Action
Alternative.
Economic growth and development take place within a complex framework. Because there are
numerous factors that contribute to growth, it is often possible only to measure the results of those
factors based on past experience. Past experience then provides a framework for predicting future
growth, if similar conditions prevail. It is not possible to predict all of the factors that affect growth.
Human conditions and psychology often have as much impact on growth as investment factors. What
can be done is to predict what might happen based on previous experience. This process is known
as the baseline conditions analysis. It shows what would happen if similar conditions continue-
whatever those conditions might have been in the past-and represents the impacts of the No-Action

4-5

Alternative. Using this method, we can estimate employment and population growth in the study area
targeted at a future target date.
The analysis of the No-Action Alternative, by its nature, assumes that infrastructure capacity exists to
accommodate projected growth on the order of what has occurred previously. If that capacity exists
and if we can measure that capacity in terms of its ability to accommodate additional households and
businesses, then we can link projected growth to future changes in the infrastructure. At the same
time, it is important to look for ways of demonstrating the effects of significant change in the economic
structure that cannot be predicted directly by examining past trends and assuming that those trends
will continue unabated. Changing the capacity and character of air cargo facilities in the context of a
regional economy that is grounded in manufacturing and transportation services, is one of those
"significant" changes in economic structure that has the potential to alter past growth and
development trends (Clinton Oster, Barry Rubin, and John Strong. "Economic Impacts of
Transportation Investments-The Case of Federal Express," American Society of Transportation and
Logistics Transportation Journal, December 1997, p. 6). The process used to analyze these impacts
is based on three analytical components as illustrated in Figure 2. The first is the baseline conditions
analysis and represents an evaluation of the potential effects of the No-Action Alternative. This step
defines the existing character of the regional economy and identifies those strengths and weaknesses
that are, in turn, dependent on transportation-related facilities. The results of this analysis are
summarized in Section 2.0 from the supplemental technical reference Compilation of Employment and
Wage Data (The SGM Group, Inc., January 1999).
The second component of the impact measurement process is the derivation of input-output models
describing the cyclical effects of employment growth and the wages and salaries that growth
generates. This process uses traditional input-output modeling techniques to measure the indirect
and induced effects of projected employment growth in terms of wages and salaries and value added.
Trend analysis estimates effects of the No-Action Alternative as measured by projected employment
growth. Changes from employment growth predicted under the No-Action Alternative are the basis for
defining impacts associated with the proposed airport improvement project, i.e. the Build Alternative.
The third component in the impact measurement process involves defining the linkage between
increased cargo capacity and potential changes in projected employment growth over that predicted
under the No-Action Alternative. As a significant change in location factors, coupled with the potential
growth and development which change can induce, changes in air freight capacity and airport facility
improvements can represent an important generator of economic value for the region. The
methodology is summarized in Figure 4.2.
The process of measuring effects of the No-Action Alternative has been completed. The next steps
are the derivation of the input-output model including relevant multipliers and the derivation of a multi-
4-6
1
1
1

1

variable regression model linking potential changes in air-freight volume and future employment
growth.
4.2.3.2 Input Output Model
As presented in this study, the method used to analyze the value of potential economic effects of
proposed transportation system improvements is an application of regional input-output models.
These models measure the result of direct, indirect, and induced spending on the economy. Building
on existing conditions and linkage characteristics, they are used to predict the potential value capture
resulting from a direct infusion of capital within a defined region.
To illustrate the principles involved, consider the example of increasing activity in the manufacturing
and warehouse distribution-two key economic sectors that could expand in the study region as a
function of improved air-freight capacity. Both of these sectors are important to the region. For the
warehouse distribution sector, multipliers are generally small, primarily because of the lack of diverse
intermediate products. For manufacturing, however, increasing development generates greater
demand for suppliers as well as some local demand for increased manufacture, depending on the
capabilities of the region. In turn, these increased demands require inputs before they can supply the
manufacturing sector. Input requirements satisfy intermediate demands, in contrast to final demands,
which are the requirements for consumption by individuals or households. In input-output analysis,
the pattern of intermediate demands is the prime consideration. By examining the relationship
between intermediate demand, industrial output, and final demand, it is possible to predict the effects
of a forecast change in the output of one industry on the rest of the economy, and also the effects on
each industry of a change in national output. Understanding and predicting these relationships is
essential to forecasting the impact of changes on the ability to support additional manufacturing (K.
Holden, D.A. Peel, and J.L. Thompson, Economic Forecasting: An Introduction, Cambridge University
Press, 1994, pp. 25-27).
Other components of spending include household spending resulting from wages received by workers
at expanded employment facilities in the study region. Wages received by employees are spent on
housing, food, clothing, and other required living expenses; and, subsequently, these expenditures
serve as income to those providing services to households. Expenditures continue to multiply as long
as they are captured within the region. These subsequent rounds of expenditures to acquire
additional goods and services are defined as induced impacts generated by the initial direct
expenditure. The value of those goods and services produced that are required as direct inputs to
construction and industrial facilities, that would locate within the region as a result of expanded
capacity of the airport, represent the indirect impacts resulting from the initial improvement
expenditure.

4-7

The combination of indirect and induced effects has a "ripple-like" quality, passing from one layer of
the economy to the next. The ripple effect is reduced, however, when the goods and services
purchased or labor resources employed, originate outside the specific region under study. It is
necessary to estimate this leakage function in evaluating the total impact of the successive rounds of
spending in the economy, and this estimate is generated by examining the capacity of the local
economy to provide the product and labor resources required for construction and manufacturing.
The indirect and induced effects of the initial direct expenditures of a public project are defined,
respectively, as follows:
• Indirect: The local jobs, materials, equipment, and services required to produce the non-labor I
resources; and
• Induced: The local jobs, materials, equipment, and services required to fulfill the household
demands for goods and services, which are generated by the wages of additional employees.
The ripple impact of the indirect and induced effects multiplies the original impact of the purchase,
represented by the cost of new construction of the airport improvements and the projected scale of
associated industrial activity. The common measure of the magnitude of the ripple effect is called a
multiplier. A multiplier measures the total magnitude of the impact on each particular economic
indicator as a multiple of the initial, direct effect. For instance, a multiplier of 1.0 would signify no
ripple effect, as the total impact was only 1.0 times the initial impact. In contrast, a multiplier of 2.0
would imply that the total impact of the proposed investment is twice the direct effect.
The actual magnitude of a multiplier depends on the likelihood that goods and services purchased in a
region would be produced in, or provided from, that region. A common technique used in the
performance of an economic impact study is to determine the total direct "economic impact" (by which
most studies mean the impact on one economic indicator: the total output) of the project and then
multiply that amount by an assumed multiplier. Such a method is inherently inaccurate, since the
actual multiplier depends on the nature of the purchases, the types of materials with which the goods
are produced, and the particular purchase patterns of the geographic region being measured. I
In this analysis, the model used is a sophisticated input-output model developed by Regional Science
Research Corporation (RSRC) to avoid inherent inaccuracy of assumed multipliers. This model '
estimates the total economic impact of the proposed development program when measured against
the employment projections predicted under the No-Action Alternative (Regional Science Research
Corporation, A Regional Impact Model for the Personal Computer, 1986-1996, Hightstown, New
Jersey). It does not assume a multiplier but, rather, uses past consumption and production patterns in
the surrounding region to estimate what portion of the purchased goods and services actually

4-8
n
L
originate or are produced in the region. The resulting multiplier is the total impact that the model
estimates, per indicator measured, divided by the amount of the original direct impact on the indicator.
The calculation of indirect and induced effects requires an input-output technology coefficient matrix,
otherwise known as the direct coefficient matrix. Elements in this matrix express the dollar's worth of
each resource required per dollar's worth of production. Generally, the data in such a matrix are
based on information collected by region-specific surveys, or by "regionalizing" a national technology
coefficient matrix. The latter are produced by several sources, most notably, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) of the US Department of Labor and the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) of the US
Department of Commerce.
The technological coefficients allow for the determination of changes in demand for resources by a
sector associated with a change in employment or production in that sector. In regional analysis,
these demands will, in general, only be partially fulfilled by other sectors in the same region. All or
part of the purchases of many goods and some services will leak out of the region and result in
payments for goods and services imported from other regions. These leakages reduce the indirect
and induced effects on the economy of the region where the direct changes occur and consequently
reduce the multiplier effects of that change.
RSRC built the input-output models used in this analysis through methods applied over a period of
years. These methods are designed to allow the estimation of the necessary region-specific data for
any region beginning at the county level. Although other approaches exist in theory, the most
pragmatic approach to regionalizing a US national 1-0 technological coefficients matrix is that based
on estimating the degree to which a region provides its own inputs. In the economic impact models
used to produce the results in the body of this analysis, regional purchase coefficients (RPCs) are
estimated at the four-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) level via regression analysis. An
' RPC for a specific good or service is defined as the proportion of the demand for that good or service
that is fulfilled by that region, rather than being imported from other regions.
' The regression equation is estimated using data on state imports and exports for each of the 50
states for four-digit SIC equivalent commodities available in the Census of Transportation. The
underlying theory that dictated the form of the RPC equation is that the variation in the size of the
RPCs for a given good among regions can be explained by the delivered cost of the good produced
by the region relative to the delivered cost to the region when produced elsewhere. The variables
used in the equation include relative wage costs of the industry in the region compared to that of the
nation, land area, weight-to-value ratio of the commodity, and the supply/demand ratio for the
commodity in the region.

4-9

In regionalizing the model with RPCs, it is assumed that technology is the same everywhere in the US,
and that differences in the use of goods across regions is strictly dependent on differences in
production in corresponding sectors. Therefore, it is the set of RPCs that is unique to a region and not
the technological relationships themselves. This greatly reduces the data needs of such a model,
making it both affordable and accurate.
The model uses information updated regularly for the fifty states to reflect recent employment and
wage data published by the federal government. These data are estimated at the four-digit SIC level,
aggregated to the two-digit SIC level where they are reconciled with published data and re-allocated to
the four-digit level so that an accurate, detailed analysis of a regional economy can be performed.
These data are then used in a pre-specified regression equation with other non-updated data to obtain
a set of RPCs specific to the region being modeled. The basic employment and wage data for this
study are based on the latest available County Business Patterns (1996). The CBP data, which are
available at the 4-digit SIC level, are regularly adjusted at the state level to sum to the Regional
Economic Information Service (REIS) data. The latter provide more complete and accurate coverage,
albeit at a higher level of aggregation, the 2-digit SIC. The better coverage in REIS, which includes
railroad, government enterprises, and other sectors not available in the CBP, comes from the use of
Covered Employment and Wages, or .ES-202, data. These data are collected regularly, year-round,
rather than being based on a survey in the single month of March, as is CBP. The REIS data at the
state level include wages, earnings, and employment, subject to disclosure problems.
Two other region-specific components of the modeling system are labor requirements and household
expenditures by industry. The labor requirements are specified in terms of wages, salaries, and
proprietor's incomes paid to labor and proprietors per dollar of production by each sector. Household
expenditures on the goods and services of a specific industry are expressed in dollars per dollar of
income. In this manner, households can be treated like any other industry with the labor requirements
representing its "sales" of labor services, and household expenditures representing the resources it
requires producing the labor demanded. The main difference between this sector and the others is
that all of the coefficients for this sector are tailored specifically to the region being modeled. Sources
for this effort include the Consumer Expenditure Survey, Census of Wholesale Trade, Census of
Retail Trade, Census of Manufactures, Annual Survey of Manufactures, County Business Patterns,
Earnings and Employment Estimates, and recent data from local sources. Other data elements do
not modify the impacts calculated by the model. Instead they are applied after the economic impacts
by sector are determined. These elements are region-specific state and local taxes and "other" value
added. "Other" value added consists primarily of federal taxes and returns to capital. As such, these
payments are assumed to leak out of the region.
This analysis uses two separate input-output models. The first, shown in Table 4.3, calculates the
multipliers for the 12-county Piedmont Triad Region. The second, shown in Table 4.4, calculates
4-10
I?
1
1

11

1
1
1
1
1

multipliers for the 14-county study area that adds two Virginia counties, Pittsylvania and Campbell.
The application of the input-output models to both regions allows determination of the 12-county
impacts, the Virginia county impacts, and impacts for the total 14-county area. Each of these models
is calculated based on 100 new direct jobs resulting from the expansion. The input-output model for
the 14-county area is similar to that of the Piedmont Triad Region, with a slightly larger multiplier
because of the larger region encompassed in the analysis. The employment multiplier for the 12-
county Piedmont Triad Region is 1.57 with a wage and salary multiplier of 1.32 and a value added
multiplier of 1.41. For the 14-county study area, the employment multiplier increases to 1.81; the
wage and salary multiplier to 1.48; and the value added multiplier to 1.83.
4.3 LONG-TERM IMPACTS-AIR CARGO SORTING AND DISTRIBUTION (FEDEX)
EMPLOYMENT
The first component of long-term economic impacts relates directly to new jobs projected at the Mid-
Atlantic Hub. Under the Build Alternative, this facility would comprise a new employment center in the
region, encompassing the existing FedEx employment base but greatly expanding it. Impacts would
result from direct employment as well as additional indirect jobs generated by suppliers and
supporting business operations, plus induced jobs in support of the additional employees.
Employment at FedEx is distinct from projected growth relating to increased air freight capacity and
operations because the latter represent potential new and expanded industry, transport, and services
drawn to the region. As discussed, that growth is expected to result from a change in location factors
affecting future regional development conditions.
4.3.1 ESTIMATED EMPLOYMENT
Employment at the proposed Mid-Atlantic Hub would combine part-time and full-time personnel. For
the purposes of the impact analysis, all part-time employment must be converted to "full-time"
equivalents based on the percentage of time worked. Projected totals are shown in Table 4.5. The
initial operations stage is scheduled to begin during the final two months of 2004 and extend until
approximately June 2005. As a result, the expected complement of employment, both full and part-
time, would be employed for only two months during 2004.
The process of calculating the value of the employment increase is based on annual incomes. As a
result, the proposed two-month employment levels are translated to annual value. Initial employment
during Phase I is projected at 338 full-time and 634 part-time Hub employees. Over a twelve-month
period, this two-month allotment translates to 56 full-time and 106 part-time employees for a total
annual equivalent of 162 full- and part-time employees. The part-time employees would on the
average, work approximately 45.5 percent of full-time hours. As a result, the total full-time equivalent
employment during the first year of partial operation is projected at 104. These totals are shown in
Table 4.5.
4-11

1
Total full- and part-time employment is projected to grow from 996 in 2005 to 2,650 in 2019. During
that time, part-time employment is projected to continue to average 45.5 percent of full-time during
Phase II, growing to 57.2 percent during its Operating Phase. Using these ratios generates a total full- '
time equivalent employment component growing from 642 in 2005 to 1,729 in 2019. Average
employment during that period is projected to be 1,137 (Table 4.5 and Figure 4.3).
Using the input output models derived in an earlier section of this analysis, total employment at FedEx
is expected to generate a large infusion of wages and salaries into the regional economy. This total
estimated employment results from application of the 1.57 multiplier discussed in the earlier section
on derivation of the input output model. As a result of this projected total employment, wages and '
salaries realized within the Piedmont Triad Region are expected to exceed $82 million by 2019. Value
added is expected to reach nearly $140 million in that same year. (Multipliers for value added and
wages/salaries are derived from the same input output models.) Total wages and salaries generated ,
during the 16-year period are projected to reach nearly $865 million with total value added exceeding
$1.46 billion (Table 4.6). As a result, although the additional employment at the Mid Atlantic Hub is
expected to represent less than a 0.3 percent increase over total projected Piedmont Triad
employment in 2019, the cumulative effect of additional wages and salaries and value added is
important. The projected value of accumulated wages and salaries and value added is the result of
multiplier effects of wages and salaries and resulting expenditures by households throughout the
region. ,
New employment and related households located in the Piedmont Triad would also contribute state ,
and local taxes. By 2019, total state tax contributions should approach $11.8 million with local taxes
on the order of $4.0 million annually. Over the 16-year period covered by this analysis, total state tax
contribution is expected to exceed $124 million with local tax contributions exceeding $41.6 million
(Table 4.7).
Impact on the 14-county study area is greater. Total employment related to the air cargo facility, r
including direct, indirect and induced is projected to reach approximately 3,127 by 2019, averaging
2,057 over the study period. Total wages and salaries generated by that employment are expected to
grow from $34.2 million in 2005 to $92.2 million by 2019 (Table 4.8).
Over the study period, the wages and salaries for the 14-County Study Area are projected to exceed ,
$970 million with total value-added of approximately $1.6 billion. As a result of the multiplier effects,
the relatively small increment of jobs in comparison to the overall regional employment base can
generate a large total value based on projected wages and salaries.
The difference between the impacts projected for the 14-County Study Area and the Piedmont Triad
Region are those expected to be felt by the two southern Virginia counties, Campbell and Pittsylvania.
4-12
As indicated in the analysis for the No-Action Alternative, these two counties are the location of
industries that require global distribution networks and whose productivity could be enhanced by
access to improved air freight facilities (Table 4.9). In the Virginia counties, additional employment
resulting from the Air cargo sorting and distribution facility could reach over 400 by 2019 with total
wages and salaries reaching $10.2 million. Over the 16-year study period, Virginia impacts could
include total wages and salaries reaching $107 million with total value added approaching $172
million.
In this section, the impact analysis has demonstrated that employment projected at the proposed Mid
Atlantic Hub can have measurable economic impacts on the surrounding 12 counties in the Piedmont
Triad region as well as some spillover effects into neighboring Virginia counties. These impacts,
which include increases in total wages and salaries and value added, are those directly related to
employment at the air cargo (FedEx) facility. They are separate and distinct from the regional-based
impacts resulting from changes in regional location factors discussed in the next section of the impact
analysis.
4.4 LONG-TERM IMPACTS-EMPLOYMENT GROWTH AND AIR FREIGHT VOLUME
' Demonstrating a possible linkage between future cargo volume and employment growth, the second
component of potential economic impact, involves two major steps. The first is a limited case study
' review of FedEx Hub experience at two other urban centers: Memphis, Tennessee, and Indianapolis,
Indiana. The second is an evaluation of past experience at Piedmont Triad Airport comparing growth
in air freight volumes by weight and employment growth as measured and projected under the trend-
line, No-Action Alternative analysis. Coupling the results of these two steps provides the basis for
creating a model that illustrates the potential impacts of long-term changes in air-freight volume on
' future growth in employment throughout the Piedmont Triad region.
4.4.7 FEDEX HUB EXPERIENCE IN MEMPHIS AND INDIANAPOLIS
Availability of cargo data from each of the existing FedEx hub facilities as well as historically from
PTIA offers an opportunity to explore a potential statistical link between growth in shipment volume
' and long-term increases in regional employment. Information on past trends in employment growth is
available through the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Employment Information Service, for the
Memphis, Tennessee, MSA, and the Indianapolis, Indiana, MSA in addition to the 12-county Piedmont
Triad region. Cargo volume estimates from FedEx are also available for shipments through the
FedEx terminals at Memphis and Indianapolis. Together with available cargo volume data from PTIA,
this information can be used to examine a potential linkage between employment growth and growth
in cargo shipment volume.
Future induced employment as a result of increased cargo shipment capacity at the airport is separate
and distinct from direct, indirect, and induced employment generated by new direct employment
I
4-13

located at the proposed air cargo facility. Employment superimposed on the region as a result of the
new cargo handling facility is concentrated primarily in the transportation services sector of the
economy with additional components in the trucking and warehousing sector. This direct employment
growth represents one component of the overall growth that could occur as a result of implementing
the proposed project. Indirect and induced employment is generated in support of the spending that
occurs as a function of this new employment, primarily to service the demands of the increased
employment base.
There is, however, an additional component of possible employment growth that could occur. As
indicated, this additional component could result because increased cargo shipment capabilities at the
airport can function as an improved location factor for production and distribution industries that might
consider the Piedmont Triad Region as a site for future development. This component of future
employment growth can be estimated using statistical analysis to help define a relationship between
past employment growth characteristics and changes in cargo shipment volume. To explore this
possible relationship, this step in the impact analysis uses data collected on cargo and employment
growth experience at the Memphis and Indianapolis airports as well as at PTIA. Tables 4.10 through
4.12 illustrate existing cargo data for the three facilities: Memphis, Indianapolis, and PTIA.
At the Memphis facility, cargo shipment volume has increased from just over 1.2 billion pounds in
1992 to just over 1.95 billion pounds in 1998. Average weight per wage and salary employee in the
region has grown from 2,278 pounds per employee to 3,100 pounds per employee.
The Indianapolis facility has experienced significantly less volume, growing from 213.8 million pounds
in 1992 to just over 415.8 million in 1998, from 276 pounds per wage and salary employee in the
region to 466 pounds per employee. At PTIA, total cargo shipments through the airport reached just
over 219.3 million pounds in 1997, averaging 288 pounds per regional employee.
Tables 4.13 and 4.14 illustrate projected wage and salary employment in the Memphis and
Indianapolis MSAs, using multi-variable regression analysis to identify a level of correlation between
employment growth, population, and cargo volume. The evaluation demonstrates, in the established
FedEx facilities at Memphis and Indianapolis, a statistical correlation based on extrapolated cargo
volumes, population, and wage and salary employment. The results at this stage of the analysis are
mixed. It would appear logical that increasing volumes of cargo shipments into and out of the existing
FedEx centers would correlate with increased employment growth; however, the relationship is not
always as direct as one might expect. What also results from this evaluation is the important role
played by existing economic activities and whether or not those activities rely heavily on air freight
accessibility.
4-14
1
In Memphis, where the cargo volume per regional employee is substantially greater than that in
Indianapolis, there does appear to be a positive statistical correlation. As a result, changes in the rate
of growth in cargo volume would correspond to an increase in the rate of employment growth as
illustrated in Figure 4.4. Using the data for Indianapolis, however, generates a slightly negative
statistical correlation as shown in Table 4.14, possibly because the cargo volumes per employee are
significantly less than those for Memphis. The only way to test this application further would be to
apply the methodology to other case study examples. In general, however, the data would seem to
indicate that the availability of cargo shipment capacity has had a greater impact on attracting
additional industry to the Memphis area than has occurred in the Indianapolis area.
' In Indianapolis, it would appear that cargo shipment capacity has not yet emerged as an important
location factor in attracting new industry to this area. One explanation is the differences in years of
' operation. The Memphis Hub opened in 1973 as compared to the 1988 opening of the Indianapolis
Hub. Consequently, the Indianapolis FedEx hub has only in recent years directly impacted industrial
recruitment (Telephone interview with Mike King of the Greater Plainfield Chamber of Commerce
conducted by Hayes & Associates, March 11, 1999). Other studies have also concluded that, during
the period of analysis, Indianapolis did not have sufficient investment in air transportation facilities
capable of influencing other business location decisions. (Clinton Oster, Barry Rubin, and John
Strong: "Economic Impacts of Transportation Investments-The Case of Federal Express,"American
Society of Transportation and Logistics Transportation Journal, December 1997, p. 6). As a result, as
shown in Figure 4.5, transportation-based employment increases related to the FedEx Hub in that
location did not have major impact on total employment in the region.
4.4.2 CARGO VOLUME LINKAGE-PIEDMONT TRIAD REGION
It is reasonable that, as employment in a given area increases at an increasing rate, cargo shipments
by volume would also increase at an increasing rate. In addition, if cargo shipment capacity increases
over previously experienced trends, then the ability to attract new industries that rely on cargo capacity
should also increase. Using that approach, increases in cargo volume capacity over time could then
' generate an increase in the employment base that contributes to that demand, where the existing and
potential industrial base is dependent on transportation services in general and air cargo accessibility
in particular. The existing condition analysis of the Piedmont Triad regional economy indicates the
importance of the manufacturing and transportation sectors to overall regional growth and
development. As a result, there appears to be a stronger potential linkage between access to
transportation facilities and future increases in regional employment.
The next step in the analysis uses an application of the employment/cargo volume correlation
1 approach to establish a model predicting a relationship between large increases in cargo shipment
volume at PTIA and future wage and salary employment growth. Table 4.15 illustrates the results of
' that application, a positive effect of increased cargo volume on future employment growth. This
4-15
1
process first projects wage and salary employment as a function of existing trends and then builds into
those projections a factor relating to existing cargo volumes. Based on the resulting statistical
relationship, increases in future cargo volumes based on FedEx forecasts could generate some
additional change in future employment linked to that increase.
The output shown in Table 4.15 illustrates the effect a 10 percent increase in overall cargo shipment
volume at PTIA would have on future regional employment. This percentage increase is chosen at
this point only as a test for application of the cargo linkage model. The actual projected increase ,
would be determined in the next section of this study. The statistical relationship demonstrates that a
10 percent increase in cargo volume corresponds to a 0.81 percent increase in estimated employment
differential in 2010. That rate of increase increases slightly over time. The statistical relationship is
relatively small; however, over time that increase is cumulative. When the annual increase in related
employment is valued using input-output models, the total can be large. The potential value of this
additional effect would be extended through 2019 and will be measured in the next section of this
analysis through application of the input-output model tables. I
4.4.2.1 Air Cargo Growth and Related Economic Impacts
The case study evaluation at Memphis and Indianapolis and the analysis of linkage between cargo
growth and regional employment in the Piedmont Triad Region together provide a mechanism for '
measuring potential long-term economic impacts. As discussed, the combination of an expanded
airport facility coupled with construction and operation of the Mid-Atlantic Hub creates a potentially
significant change in the regional location factors affecting future growth and development. '
This section of the analysis estimates the potential change in cargo volume throughout the study
period and uses the correlation model to predict a change in long-term regional employment in
comparison to projected conditions under the No-Action Alternative. Using the input-output models, it
is possible to measure the value of this change in long-range regional employment in terms of indirect ,
and induced employment, increased wages and salaries, overall increases in value added, and
potential increases in state and local tax revenues. I
4.4.2.2 Projected Growth in Cargo Volume
The next step in the analysis measures the future growth in cargo shipments through the airport as a '
result of FedEx operations in comparison to No-Action Alternative projections. The Mid Atlantic Hub is
expected to begin operation during the latter half of 2005, during the Phase I operations of what will
become a larger complex. At that time, as shown in Table 4.16, cargo activity through the facility is
expected to handle approximately 86,000 packages per day, increasing to 173,000 packages per day '
in 2010.

4-16
Based on the average number of packages per day, number of days in service per week, and average
weight per package, total volume is expected to begin at about 112.8 million pounds in 2005
(operating over six months), growing to approximately 454.1 million pounds in 2010. By 2019,
projections indicate a total cargo volume on the order of 704.5 million pounds.
To determine the change in future cargo shipment volume in comparison to the No-Action Alternative,
it is necessary to project existing patterns. The No-Action Alternative volumes are subtracted from the
total FedEx projections to leave a net change as a result of the new facility. The net FedEx change in
volume (net new cargo shipment volume attributed to the air cargo facility) is used in the cargo linkage
model to determine the resulting change in long-term regional employment. Table 4.17 illustrates the
calculation of net new cargo shipment volume attributed to the air cargo facility.
Only a portion of the net new air cargo volume represents capacity utilization by local industries. The
major portion of cargo that FedEx would handle at the facility would originate from outside the region
for processing and delivery to locations also outside the region. As a result, only a small portion that
originates within the region would affect future employment. Based on the case studies, a reasonable
estimate for that regional share is on the order of 20 percent of the net FedEx increase, which
represents a volume comparable to that experienced in other locations studied. From a broader
perspective, this regional share represents 14.1 percent of the total projected FedEx airfreight volume
during its Operating Phase.
It is important to recognize that this regional share is only an estimate. Additional case studies would
be necessary to finalize that estimated percentage. Total volumes attributed to local industries using
' this percentage, however, appear to be conservative. Table 4.18 indicates calculation of the regional
share attributed to local industry growth. Net new regional-based cargo volume shipped through the
' airport attributed to the expanded facilities and the Mid Atlantic Hub is estimated at 25.4 million
pounds in 2005, growing to 99.4 million pounds in 2019. As indicated, this total represents 20 percent
of the estimated net new FedEx cargo volume projected annually.
The next step uses both the No-Action Alternative cargo volumes and the net new regional-based
volumes to generate total estimate regional employment. This calculation uses the cargo linkage
model discussed in the previous section. Results are summarized in Table 4.19. The output of this
analysis is an estimate of the net employment increase for the region beginning with approximately
4,263 in 2006 (the first full year of operations), growing to 16,677 in 2019. That is, by 2019, the
estimated regional employment under the Build Alternative would be approximately 16,677 jobs
greater than that estimated under the No-Action Alternative model because of the expanded air freight
capacity and operations level at the airport. This estimated increase represents 0.5 percent over the
No-Action Alternative employment in 2006, growing to a 1.67 percent increase in 2019. As shown in
Figure 4.6, total expected increases are relatively small in relation to the regional employment base.
4-17

As discussed, the cargo model uses existing air freight volumes to project No-Action Alternative
conditions through 2019. Conditions associated with the No-Action Alternative represent those that
are expected to occur without implementing the proposed project. The first step in the forecasting
process estimates future FedEx total cargo volume expected to pass through the proposed Mid
Atlantic Hub. Next is an estimate of the share of total volume that could be attributed to local
industrial activity within the region as opposed to national cargo entering the system only for
redistribution. Based on these two steps, application of the cargo-linkage model generates a long-
term projected change in total regional employment as a result of the Build Alternatives. The model
output indicates that the differential employment effect is expected to be positive, representing just
less than 1.7 percent of the total regional employment by 2019.
4.4.3 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF LONG-TERM EMPLOYMENT GROWTH
Calculating the value of the additional employment growth impacts uses the input-output models
derived in an earlier section of this analysis. The total employment increase over the No-Action
Alternative estimate is expected to reach 16,677 by 2019, growing from 4,263 in 2006 during the first
full year of operation. This projected growth increment represents total employment change, including
indirect and induced employment in support of direct increases in new job opportunities.
As shown in Table 4.20, the direct increases are expected to grow from approximately 2,350
employees in 2006 to nearly 9,220 by 2019. These totals illustrate the direct employment, and
employment growth is the basis on which future economic value is determined. Value to the region is
divided into several components including total jobs, wages and salaries generated as a result of
those jobs, and value added representing the total value of goods and services generated as a result
of the productivity attributed to the direct employment. The calculations that follow further divide the
economic value into two separate regional outputs-the 12-county Piedmont Triad Region and the
additional two counties identified as part of the extended economic community located in southern
Virginia.
As shown in Table 4.21, total incremental employment generated within the 12-County Piedmont Triad
Region as a result of the airport air cargo facility expansion is expected to reach nearly 14,500 by
2019. At that time, total wages and salaries attributed to this employment growth would be on the
order of nearly $440 million annually. Value added for the 12-county region from increased
productivity and services would approach $742 million. Over the sixteen-year study period,
incremental employment in the 12-county area would grow from 3,700 in 2006 to nearly 14,500 in
2019. From 2009 through 2019, Annual wages and salaries would average over $330 million with
annual value added at nearly $567 million. From 2005 through 2019, total added wages and salaries
would reach nearly $4.04 billion over that generated by the No-Action Alternative (Figure 4.7).
4-18

For the 14-county study area, total employment represents the 16,677 predicted by the cargo linkage
model for 2019, comprising direct, indirect, and induced employment for the 12-county Piedmont Triad
Region plus that located in the two-county Virginia area (Table 4.22). Total wages and salaries are
expected to reach nearly $492 million with value added exceeding $828 million by 2019. Total wages
' and salaries from 2005 through 2019 are projected to exceed $4.5 billion with value added over the
same period totaling nearly $7.65 billion. The average employment increment is expected to be on the
order of 11,700 jobs with average annual wages and salaries on the order of $350 million and value
' on the order of $600 million.
' The Virginia portion of the 14-county study area illustrates the component of growth and development
that is expected to spill over into that portion of the study region. By 2019 the Virginia counties are
expected to realize nearly 2,200 new jobs with associated wages and salaries exceeding $54 million.
Value added in that year is expected to reach nearly $87 million (Table 4.23).
4.4.4 CONCLUSION
Although the overall employment increment predicted by the cargo linkage model for the Build
Alternatives is relatively small in comparison to projected employment in the region associated with
the No-Action Alternative, the value of that increment can be large. By 2019 additional jobs totaling
16,677 would generate annual wages and salaries exceeding $490 million with total value added
nearly $830 million. Although the number of jobs is incremental, the total wages and salaries and
value added represent annual benefits.
Local jurisdictions and the state also realize direct and indirect benefits as a result of the proposed
improvements. The input output model predicts local and state tax revenues as a component of
projected value added for the region. As shown in the earlier section, the expected increase in
employment would generate approximately $145,000 in increased local tax revenue per 100 new
' employees and approximately $434,000 in increased state tax revenue per 100 new employees in the
12-county Piedmont Triad Region. Based on those estimates, additional local tax revenues are
projected to reach $21 million annually and state revenues nearly $63 million annually by 2019. Over
the 16-year period, total additional local tax revenues are projected to be on the order of $194.5
million and state tax revenues on the order of $580 million (Table 4.24).
' The proposed improvements to the Piedmont Triad Airport, including expansion of its runway system
and the Mid-Atlantic Hub, have the potential to increase air freight activity in the region. That increase
is expected to represent a substantive change to the location factors affecting the region's ability to
attract new industry and related services. As a result, potential added growth and development in
transportation, manufacturing, services, and related economic sectors has the potential to generate
measurable financial benefits for the region in terms of additional wages and salaries, value added,
LI
4-19

and state and local taxes. The next section of the study calculates the total economic impact
comprising both components, including the estimated impacts of the cargo-based regional growth.
4.5 SUMMARYAND CONCLUSIONS
The economic impact analysis has evaluated two substantive areas of potential economic impact as a
result of the Build Alternatives. The first related directly to the improvements associated with the Mid-
Atlantic Hub and the new employment which it is expected to bring to the region. The second
addressed the long-term impacts of expanding air freight capacity at the airport and, therefore, for the
region. As discussed, major investments in transportation system improvement affect the set of
location factors by which new industries measure the attractiveness of the region. If the business in
which these particular industries are involved relies on the availability of air freight shipment capacity,
then the proximity to an airport with unique facilities increases the overall attractiveness of the region.
Not only does the proximity increase the potential productivity of the manufacturing sector; it also
increases the potential market penetration because of the increased connections to worldwide
markets. This section of the analysis combines these two impact components to present a total
possible measure of economic benefits associated with the proposed Build Alternatives.
Economic impacts of the proposed Mid Atlantic Hub and the additional improvements to the Piedmont
Triad Airport include total wages and salaries attributed to new employment as well as value added
representing total projected regional income. Projected increase in the number of jobs in the region
includes those associated with the air cargo (FedEx) facility as well as those resulting from potential
new industry moving into the region because of improved access to transportation and distribution
infrastructure. In this section of the impact study, total employment, wages and salaries, value added,
and state and local taxes are calculated by adding the individual components measured in the
previous two sections. The output is a measure of the projected total value of proposed
improvements and their regional economic effects.
By 2019, total additional employment in the Piedmont Triad region is expected to reach 17,198 and
includes those jobs related directly to the proposed Mid Atlantic Hub as well as those associated with
possible new industries attracted to the region. This total would represent a 1.7 percent increase over
the No-Action Alternative projection of nearly 1.0 million jobs. That increase in regional employment
would generate nearly $4.9 billion in additional wages and salaries over the 16-year period and a total
value added increment of just over $8.3 billion. As shown in Table 4.25 and Figure 4.8, annual wages
would average just over $300 million with average annual value added on the order of $520 million.
Similarly, the 14-County Study area, comprising the Piedmont Triad region and the additional two
Virginia counties, is projected to realize an increase of 19,800 jobs by 2019 with associated wages
and salaries in that year of nearly $584 million. Value added in 2019 is projected at nearly $985
million (Table 4.26). Over the 16-year period encompassed by this analysis, total wages and salaries
4-20
realized by the 14-County Study Area are projected to exceed $5.5 billion with nearly $9.3 billion in
value added (Figure 4.9).

E

The next component of economic benefits are estimated tax revenues, with total tax contribution to
the state of North Carolina estimated at $703 million accumulated over the sixteen-year study period.
During the same period, local tax revenues realized by the Piedmont Triad region could approach
nearly $236 million (Table 4.27).
By 2019, annual state tax revenues generated by new businesses and new households could
approach $78 million with local tax revenues at approximately $26 million. As a result, the total
contributions to the regional economy resulting from the Build Alternatives are expected to be
substantive, both in terms of the overall employment gains as well as revenues generated as a result
of that increased employment.
4-21

TABLE 4.1
ECONOMIC SECTOR STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESS FOR THE
PIEDMONT TRIAD REGION
Piedmont Triad Inter national Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
G
12-County Manufacturing, transportation, Transportation, finance, Government
Region wholesale trade, services services, retail trade

Alamance Manufacturing, retail trade Manufacturing, services Government

Caswell Construction, manufacturing, Manufacturing, Transportation,
government government wholesale trade

Davidson Construction, manufacturing Construction, Government
manufacturing, retail
trade

Davie Construction, manufacturing, Manufacturing, services Wholesale trade
transportation

Forsyth Transportation, finance, services Finance, services, retail Government
trade

Guilford Transportation, finance, Transportation, retail Government
wholesale trade, services trade

Montgomery Construction, manufacturing Construction, Transportation,
manufacturing wholesale trade,
finance, services,
retail trade

Randolph Construction, manufacturing Construction, Finance,
manufacturing government

Rockingham Manufacturing Manufacturing Wholesale trade

Stokes Construction, services, Services Wholesale trade
government

Surry Construction, manufacturing Construction, Wholesale trade
transportation

Yadkin Construction, manufacturing, Construction, Finance
retail trade manufacturing
Source: The SGM Group, Inc., January 1999

TABLE 4.2
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT FORECAST
j FOR THE PIEDMONT TRIAD REGION, 1990-2020
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
i
i
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
"s

QPWrATION
WAGE/SALARY
JIPWYME ; G
BAR
1990 1,245,885 676,462 $13,992,443
1991 1,259,263 663,896 $14,164,691
1992 1,271,754 673,686 $15,141,117
1993 1,287,192 692,205 $15,885,033
1994 1,304,446 714,754 $16,858,670
1995 1,322,532 732,713 $17,928,406
1996 1,340,045 746,510 $18,897,479
1997 1,362,238 761,093 $19,615,977
1998 1,374,995 771,474 $20,309,223
1999 1,388,798 782,036 $21,016,083
2000 1,401,236 792,725 $21,703,312
2001 1,411,069 803,592 $22,354,533
2002 1,420,903 814,459 $23,005,753
2003 1,430,736 825,325 $23,656,973
2004 1,440,570 836,192 $24,308,193
2005 1,450,403 847,059 $24,959,414
2006 1,460,878 857,747 $25,620,27
2
2007 1,471,352 868,435 $26,281,129
2008 1,481,827 879,124 $26,941,987
2009 1,492,301 889,812 $27,602,845
2010 1,502,776 900,500 $28,263,703
2011 1,511,850 911,284 $28,904,723
2012 1,520,924 922,069 $29,545,743
2013 1,529,997 932,853 $30,186,763
2014 1,539,071 943,637 $30,827,784
2015 1,548,145 954,422 $31,468,804
2016 1,557,712 965,109 $32,117,043
2017 1,567,278 975,796 $32,765,282
2018 1,576,845 986,483 $33,413,521
2019 1,586,411 997,170 $34,061,759
2020 1.595.978 1.007.857 $34.709.998
Rate of G rowth
1980-1997 1.05% 1.99% 6.45%
1998-2020 0.68% 1.22% 2.47%
Source: The SGM Group, Inc., and PTCOG, January 1999
TABLE-4 3-
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF 100 NEW AIR FREIGHT JOBS
PIEDMONT TRIAD REGION
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
(Employment in jobs, not necessarily exact full-time equivalents, dollar values in $1,000)

AGRICULTURE - $12.29 $0.74 $4.10
AGRI. SERV., FORESTRY, & FISH 0.20 $8.30 $1.16 $5.67
MINING - $0.53 $0.21 $0.32
CONSTRUCTION 2.70 $83.37 $56.28 $69.20
MANUFACTURING 4.10 $616.77 $146.27 $250.11
TRANSPORT. & PUBLIC UTILITIES 106.60 $9,824.22 $3,860.75 $6,247.40
WHOLESALE 1.80 $213.36 $59.75 $135.66
RETAIL TRADE 15.90 $724.82 $213.36 $407.93
FINANCE, INS., & REAL ESTATE 5.00 $544.64 $126.11 $333.06
SERVICES 19.90 $880.22 $250.74 $551.88
GOVERNMENT 0.90 $71.82 $29.82 $42.32
ADMIN. AUXILIARY - - - -
DIRECT EFFECTS 100.00 $9,008.37 $3,596.99 $5,705.81
INDIRECT AND INDUCED EFFECTS 57.10 $3,972.05 $1,148.18 $2,341.61
TOTAL EFFECTS 157.10 $12,980.42 $4,745.16 $8,047.41
MULTIPLIERS 1.57 1.44 1.32 1.41
WAGES-NET OF TAXES= $3,559.82
ST TAXES-VISITORS = -
INDIRECT ST TAXES = $433.97
TOTAL STATE TAXES = $433.97
LOC TAXES-VISITORS=
INDIRECT LOC TAXES= $145.53
TOTAL LOCAL TAXES = $145.53
FED TAXES-VISITORS= -
GEN. FEDERAL TAXES= $869.09
SOC SECURITY TAXES= $659.93
TOT. FEDERAL TAXES= $1,529.01
OTHER VALUE ADDED = $2,379.09
TOTAL VALUE ADDED = $8,047.41
DIRECT EXPENDITURES WITHIN REGION = $9,008.37
DIRECT EXPENDITURES IN OTHER REGIONS -
TOTAL INITIAL EXPENDITURE _ $9,008.37
EFFECTS PER MILLION DOLLARS OF INITIAL EXPENDITURE
EMPLOYMENT = 17.44 Jobs
INCOME =$ $526,747.00
STATE TAXES = $ $48172.90
LOCAL TAXES = $ $16,150.00
VALUE ADDED = $ $893,332.00
Source: Regional Science Research Corporation and The SGM Group, Inc., April 1999

TABLE `-4.4
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF 100 NEW AIR FREIGHT JOBS
14-COUNTY STUDY AREA
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
(Employment in jobs, not necessarily exact full-time equivalents, dollar values in $1,000)
r
e

t
r
w
e
AGRICULTURE $21.32 $1.05 $6.62
AGRI. SERV., FORESTRY, & FISH 0.30 $11.45 $1.68 $6.51
MINING - $0.95 $0.32 $0.63
CONSTRUCTION 3.80 $120.02 $80.64 $99.54
MANUFACTURING 6.00 $909.62 $221.03 $396.69
TRANSPORT. & PUBLIC UTILITIES 114.20 $10,595.55 $4,139.73 $6,680.49
WHOLESALE 2.50 $300.72 $85.58 $181.86
RETAILTRADE 18.80 $856.17 $251.90 $515.03
FINANCE, INS., & REAL ESTATE 6.80 $744.66 $169.05 $437.96
SERVICES 27.20 $1,212.54 $342.93 $611.31
GOVERNMENT 1.20 $95.87 $41.48 $52.19
ADMIN. AUXILIARY - - - -
DIRECT EFFECTS 100.00 $9,008.37 $3,596.99 $4,922.19
INDIRECT AND INDUCED EFFECTS 80.90 $5,860.58 $1,738.49 $4,066.62
TOTAL EFFECTS 180.90 $14,868.95 $5,335.47 $8,988.81
MULTIPLIERS 1.81 1.65 1.48 1.83
WAGES-NET OF TAXES= $4,090.70
ST TAXES-VISITORS = -
INDIRECT ST TAXES= $491.40
TOTAL STATE TAXES = $491.40
LOC TAXES-VISITORS--
INDIRECT LOC TAXES= $167.27
TOTAL LOCAL TAXES = $167.27
FED TAXES-VISITORS= -
GEN. FEDERAL TAXES= $875.81
SOC SECURITY TAXES= $664.97
TOT. FEDERAL TAXES= $1,540.77
OTHER VALUE ADDED = $2,698.68
TOTAL VALUE ADDED = $8,988.81
DIRECT EXPENDITURES WITHIN REGION = $9,008.37
DIRECT EXPENDITURES IN OTHER REGIONS
TOTAL INITIAL EXPENDITURE _ $9,008.37
EFFECTS PER MILLION DOLLARS OF INITIAL EXPENDITURE
EMPLOYMENT = 20.08 JOBS
INCOME =$ $592,278.20
STATE TAXES = $ $54,553.20
LOCAL TAXES = $ $18,566.60
VALUE ADDED = $ $997,828,30
Source: Hegional Science Research Corporation and The SGM Group, Inc., April 1999
LC?
W
J
a
H
It
0 a..r
C
a(D
'a E
C ++
0 CD
O ? V
CM w
N 01 Q
O 'p M
N `m r
r^ E
Y r
0 0
E •/
2 W
IL
? o
c C
p E
U 0)

7 a
o f

Z C-4
T
X N CD r l? M O O N CD O N r r N LA O CD to M
(D O N -t O M ti N ? O CD N M 0 r d O
Q r O O O O CC) CD ? ? M M IC) Ln (o ? ? oc
0 r r P r T r .- r N N N N N N N T T
U.

o
?"'
CO (D CO r co tl co N T T CO LO CO N T T N M
t
It
r
W
I? "1. M 0 , r n d CD CO O M r 't I\ O CO (D d' w
r -
z N co co CO M I,- 1- ? CO O T r r N N N t- ?
W ui
J ,. T T T T r r T
J??

U-
'0
UL W
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
,-
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T o
I`
L 1 U) LO LO Uf Un N N N N N N N N N N N OR O
Ln Ln Ln Ln LO 0 t- t- tl. t- Il- Il- Il- Il- t- t- t- N M
J d' It It It qCt It o Ln LO Ln LO LO m 0 Ll) LO LO LO LO
J

LL
0
o
Lu
(D O 0 co O co O N LO O N O Co co m N CD r r
W O m w co O Co O co Co O O LO M d' O w O Lo O
(D (D CD I,- N M M M d M M M O O r N co
T r r T T T T T N N N N T r

li
Q
IL

tl! 0 (D U() "t CO r r O O r O r N '-ct CD M O V- *-

?' tn IU) CO M O O T N 1;3 L() CD N M M T O O
. M M M M M M E It d 't d NT d' L.I) M CI

J
J
M
U.
U
N W M N M 'It N r r M CD LO M N M N ti In
O ? L() I` M m m w m N N O O 'I'd' Co N r- co r-
J UUJ r 0 CD 0 0 0 r r r N M M Co CD (D I- I? r r
Q u1 LL r r T r r T r r r T r r r
F- ?- J t
O
?U
_j
m
m U-
ui
3SVHd 1 11 6ui;eaadp

0
0
Cr N N
4 to CO 1? 00 /7> O r N @! ll7 CO 00 Q1 O 0 0
W O O 0 0 0 0 r r r r r r r r r N +
>. O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Q R cc
4) 4)
L L
J Q Q

L?

H

I

Ir
r
M
M
T
:3
U
C=

O

o

c o
a?
EN
0C
0
La ca

(D w
N
LL
Cis
7 U
C `
Q O

r
TABLE 4.6
BUILD ALTERNATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE PIEDMONT TRIAD
REGION-MID-ATLANTIC HUB, 2004-2020
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
t

t

R a
=
a JOBS
FULL-TIME

E?`QU[VALE rfTj * ,
OUTPUT

$1, . 0
WAGES

31,000
VALUE ADDED

51.000
2004 164 $13,554 $4,954 $8,400
2005 _ 1,009 $83,356 $30,465 $51,661
2006 1,034 $85,439 $31,227 $52,952
2007 1,060 $87,575 $32,008 $54,276
2008 1,086 $89,765 $32,808 $55,633
2009 1,505, $124,351 $45,449 $77,068
2010 1,781 $147,199 $53,800 $91,229
2011 1,826 $150,879 $55,145 $93,509
2012 1,872 $154,651 $56,523 $95,847
2013 = 1,918 $158,517 $57,936 $98,243
2014 2,400 $198,343 $72,492 $122,926
2015 a 2,460 $203,302 $74,304 $125,999
2016 O 2,522 $208,384 $76,162 $129,149
2017 2,585 $213,594 $78,066 $132,378
2018 2,650 $218,934 $80,018 $135,687
2019 2,716 $224,407 $82,018 $139,079
2020 2,784 $230,017 $84,069 $142,556

Average
2004-2019
1,787
$147,641
$53,961
$91,502
Summation $2,362,252 $863,375 $1,464,037
Average
2004-2020
1,845
$152,486
$55,732
$94,505
Summation $2,592,269 $947,443 $1,606,593
*Annualized employment totals-2004 employment is for two months only.
Source: The SGM Group, Inc., July 1999
1

TABLE 4.7

BUILD ALTERNATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR MID-ATLANTIC HUB,
NORTH CAROLINA TAX IMPACT-PIEDMONT TRIAD REGION
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement

YE R ?w£
= WtOTA EX
EMPLOYMENT
(FULL-TIME
EGUIVALEN .' STATE TAX
PER 100
EMPLOYEES
$1,900
TOTAL STATE
TAXES
1,000 L CAL'TAX
PER 100
EMPLOYEES
¢ S1,000
TOTAL LOCAL
TAXES
;$1,000
2004 164 $433.97 $711.84 $145.53 $238.71
2005 _ 1,009 $4,377.79 $1,468.09
2006 1,034 $4,487.24 $1,504.79
2007 1,060 $4,599.42 $1,542.41
2008 _ 1,086 $4,714.40 $1,580.97
2009 1,505 $6,530.84 $2,190.12
2010 1,781 $7,730.83 $2,592.53
2011 1,826 $7,924.10 $2,657.34
2012 1,872 $8,122.20 $2,723.78
2013 1,918 $8,325.26 $2,791.87
2014 'c 2,400 $10,416.90 $3,493.30
2015 a 2,460 $10,677.32 $3,580.63
2016 O 2,522 $10,944.25 $3,670.15
2017 2,585 $11,217.86 $3,761.90
2018 2,6501 1 $11,498.30 $3,855.95
2019 2,7161 1 $11,785.76 $3,952.35
2020 2,784 $12,080.41 $4,051.16

Total to
2019
$124,064.30
$41,604.92
Total to
2020
$136,144.71
$45,656.08
Annualized employment totals-2004 employment is for two months only.
Source: The SGM Group, Inc., July 1999
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\NppendiceslApp-a\4.OTable\TABLE 4.7rr.doc/01/26/00

t

1
i

n
1

r

r

TABLE 4.8
BUILD ALTERNATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE 14-COUNTY STUDY
AREA-MID-ATLANTIC HUB, 2004-2020
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement

kAa W

Q n
JOBS
(FULIIMjE
UIV LEN e

OU-'UT
S1,g

AGgS
1,g00

VALUE ADDED
$1,000
2004 189 , $15,529 $5,570 $9,385
2005 _ 1,162 $95,503 $34,253 $57,720
2006 1,191 $97,891 $35,110 $59,163
2007 1,220 $100,338 $35,987 $60,642
2008 1,251 $102,846 $36,887 $62,158
2009 1,733 $142,473 $51,100 $86,107
2010 2,051 $168,651 $60,489 $101,929
2011 2,103 $172,867 $62,001 $104,477
2012 2,155 $177,189 $63,551 $107,089
2013 2,209 $181,619 $65,140 $109,766
2014 2,764 $227,248 $81,506 $137,344
2015 Q. 2,833 $232,930 $83,543 $140,778
2016 O 2,904 $238,753 $85,632 $144,297
2017 2,977 $244,722 $87,773 $147,904
2018 3,051, $250,840 $89,967 $151,602
2019 3,127 $257,111 $92,216 $155,392
2020 3,205 $263,538 $94,521 $159,277

Average
2004-2019
2,057
$169,157
$60,670
$102,235
Summation $2,706,508 $970,724 $1,635,754
Average
2004-2020
2,125
$174,709
$62,661
$105,590
Summation $2,970,046 $1,065,245 $1,795,031
*Annualized employment totals-2004 employment is for two months only.
Source: The SGM Group, Inc., July 1999
I W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Nppendices\App•e\4.OTable\TABLE 4.8mdoc41/26/00
TABLE 4.9
BUILD ALTERNATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE VIRGINIA COUNTIES-
MID-ATLANTIC HUB, 2004-2020
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement

2004

_

25

$1,975 A

$616 LUE ADDED
x+1,4..:
$985
2005 153 $12,148 $3,788 $6,05911
2006 157 $12,451 $3,883 $6,211
2007 161 $12,763 $3,980 $6,366
2008 165 $13,082 $4,079 $6,525
2009 228 $18,122 $5,651 $9,039
2010 270 $21,452 $6,689 $10,700
2011 277 $21,988 $6,856 $10,968
2012 284 $22,538 $7,028 $11,242
2013 291 $23,101 $7,204 $11,523
2014 364 $28,905 $9,013 $14,418
2015 c 373 $29,628 $9,239 $14,778
2016 .
O 382 $30,368 $9,470 $15,148
2017 392 $31,128 $9,706 $15,527
2018 401 $31,906 $9,949 $15,915
2019 411 $32,703 $10,198 $16,313
2020 422 $33,521 $10,453 $16,720

Average
2004-2019
271
$21,516
$6,709
$10,732
Summation $344,256 $107,349 $171,717
Average
2004-2020
280
$22,222
$6,930
$11,085
Summation $377,777 $117,802 $188,438
'Annualized employment totals-2004 employment is for two months only.
Source: The SGM Group, Inc., July 1999
W:\PIEDMONINDEIS\Appendices\App-a\4.OTable\TABLE 4.9rt.dod01/26/00
1
1
TABLE 4.10
CARGO SHIPMENT VOLUME MEMPHIS FEDEX HUB, 1992-1998
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
r
i

F-1
t

r

r

i
t

Source: FedEx, March 1999

TABLE 4.11
CARGO SHIPMENT VOLUME INDIANAPOLIS FEDEX HUB, 1992-1998
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
1
t
11
r
1
r
1

Source: FedEx, March 1999
TABLE 4.12
' PTIA CARGO SHIPMENT VOLUME, 1992-1998
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
i,
r

1
t

t
r

Source: PTIA, March 1999
TABLE 4.13
PROJECTED CARGO VOLUME AND EMPLOYMENT LINKAGE, 1992-2020
MEMPHIS FEDEX HUB
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement

1992 1,029,958 532,601 532,601 -
1993 1,040,128 543,548 543,548 -
1994 1,052,690 566,711 566,711 -
1995 1,064,628 585,776 585,776 -
1996 1,075,386 593,722 593,722 -
1997 1,087,165 613,813 620,944 7,131
1998 1,098,700 630,260 637,351 7,092
1999 1,110,236 646,707 653,815 7,109
2000 1,121,772 663,154 671,531 8,378
2001 1,133,307 679,601 689,248 9,647
2002 1,144,843 696,048 706,964 10,916
2003 1,156,378 712,495 724,680 12,185
2004 1,167, 914 728,942 742,396 13,454
2005 1,179,450 745,389 760,112 14,724
2006 1,190,985 761,836 777,828 15,993
2007 1,202,521 778,283 795,545 17,262
2008 1,214,056 794,730 813,261 18,531
2009 1,225,592 811,177 830,977 19,800
2010 1,237,128 827,624 848,693 21,070
2011 1,248,663 844,071 866,409 22,339
2012 1,260,199 860,518 884,126 23,608
2013 1,271,734 876,965 901,842 24,877
2014 1,283,270 893,412 919,558 26,146
2015 1,294,806 909,859 937,274 27,415
2016 1,306,341 926,306 954,990 28,685
2017 1,317,877 942,753 972,706 29,954
2018 1,329,412 959,200 990,423 31,223
2019 1,340,948 975,647 1,008,139 32,492
2020 1,352,484 992,094 1,025,855 33,761

Rate of 1.08% 2.85% 3.04%
Growth
1992-19981 1
1998-2020 0.95% 2.08% 2.19% 7.35%
Source: Existing, FedEx; Projected, The SGM Group, Inc., March 1999

t

TABLE 4.14
PROJECTED CARGO VOLUME AND EMPLOYMENT LINKAGE, 1992-2020
INDIANAPOLIS FEDEX HUB
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement

r
t

t

ROM -0

IND A
1M pli AGE
SA RY
IVlI LOYMENT
PLAON INDIANAPO -t»- A
AND'VA6ARi'
kMP W YME
Gp P, F

D
1992 1,422,557 773,689 773,689 -
1993 1,440,272 793,211 793,211 -
1994 1,458,102 815,149 815,149 -
1995 . 1,473,468 836,482 836,482 -
1996 1,488,837 850,859 850,859 -
1997 1,506,374 873,161 872,652 (509)
1998 1,522,950 892,922 891,687 (1,235)
1999 1,539,525 912,684 911,759 (924)
2000 1,556,101 932,445 931,352 (1,093)
2001 1,572,676 952,206 950,944 (1,262)
2002 1,589,252 971,967 970,536 (1,430)
2003 1,605,828 991,728 990,129 (1,599)
2004 1,622,403 1,011,489 1,009,721 (1,768)
2005 1,638,979 1,031,250 1,029,314 (1,937)
2006 1,655,554 1,051,011 1,048,906 (2,105)
2007 1,672,130 1,070,772 1,068,498 (2,274)
2008 1,688,706 . 1,090,533 1,088,091 (2,443)
2009 1,705,281 1,110,295 1,107,683 (2,612)
2010 1,721,857 1,130,056 1,127,275 (2,780)
2011 1,738,432 1,149,817 1,146,868 (2,949)
2012 1,755,008 1,169,578 1,166,460 (3,118)
2013 1,771,584 1,189,339 1,186,052 (3,286)
2014 1,788,159 1,209,100 1,205,645 (3,455)
2015 1,804,735 1,228,861 1,225,237 (3,624)
2016 1,821,310 1,248,622 1,244,830 (3,793)
2017 1,837,886 1,268,383 1,264,422 (3,961)
2018 1,854,462 1,288,144 1,284,014 (4,130)
2019 1,871,037 1,307,906 1,303,607 (4,299)
2020 1,887,613 1,327,667 1,323,199 (4,468)

Rate of
G rowth
1992-1998 1.14% 2.42% 2.39%
1998-2020 0.98% 1.82% 1.81
Source: Existing, FedEx; Projected, The SGM Group, Inc., March 1999

TABLE 4.15
Source: The SGM Group, Inc., March 1999
W:\PIEDMONTDEIS\Appendices\App-e\4.OTable\TABLE 4.15ff doc/01/11/00
1

t

t
1

1

PROJECTED PTIA CARGO VOLUME AND EMPLOYMENT LINKAGE
1992-2010
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
t
1

1
1
1
1
1
TABLE 4.16
BUILD ALTERNATIVE-MID-ATLANTIC HUB CARGO VOLUME 2004-2020
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement

Y .k, Q
p CfCAGESV AY ?' AVERAGE TOTAL YEARLY VOLUME
1,000 POUNQS
..
2004
2005 86,000 112,875
2006 90,300 237,038
2007 94,815 248,889
2008 _ 99,556 261,334
2009 104,534 274,401
2010 173,000 454,125
2011 181,650 476,831
2012 190,733 500,673
2013 = 200,269 525,706
2014 a 210,283 551,992
2015 (D 220,797 579,591
2016 p 231,837 608,571
2017 243,428 638,999
2018 255,600 670,949
2019 268,380 704,497
2020 281,799 739,722

Rate of Growth
2006-2009
5.00%
2010-2020 5.00%
Source: FedEx and The SGM Group, Inc., July 1999
I W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Nppendices\App-a\4.oTable\TABLE 4.16rr.doUO1/26/00

TABLE 4.17
COMPARISON OF NO ACTION AND BUILD ALTERNATIVES
CARGO VOLUME FOR MID-ATLANTIC HUB 2004-2020
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement

MR

E .. ''t
& tu
Cn
Nb ACTION'
ALTERNATIVE--
PTIA CARGO
VOLUME
UNS n, . D
ITANAT IVE-
EXPECTED FEDEX
ANNUAL CARGO
VOLUME
1,000 POUR".) :
O A TION
ALTERNATIVE-
FEDEX CARGO
VOLUME
. 110('. SOU ,: 5
BUILD
ALTERNATIVE-NET
NEW FEDEX CARGO
VOLUME
1 Q ., POiiI1tI3S
2004 324,899 99,739 99,739 -
2005 _ 344,268 112,875 104,725 8,150
2006 362,659 237,038 109,962 127,076
2007 381,049 248,889 115,460 133,430
2008 399,440 261,334 121,233 140,101
2009 417,830 274,401 127,294 147,106
2010 436,221 454,125 133,659 320,466
2011 456,507 476,831 140,342 336,489
2012 476,793 500,673 147,359 353,314
2013 = 497,079 525,706 154,727 370,979
2014 ' 517,365 551,992 162,464 389,528
2015 Q 537,651 579,591 170,587 409,005
2016 O 557,217 608,571 179,116 429,455
2017 576,784 638,999 188,072 450,928
2018 596,351 670,949 197,475 473,474
2019 615,917 704,497 207,349 497,148
2020 635,484 739,722 217,717 522,005
Source: The SGM Group, Inc., July 1999
W:\PIEDMONTDEIS\Appendices\App•e\4.OTable\TABLE 4.17rr.dod01/26/00
1

1

1
1
i

I GO
T
W
J
m
Q

O
N
O
N
4
O
O
N
W =
Q O o },
Ma °-a
WpQ E
aQ eco
=wCa
= C E
m cn V ?a
J cc r
U z F- E
Or__
H
za o
Q w E '>
F-U U. ?W
Q
Qpa
?z
O
U
W
7
a

9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
z
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
m O

n o
0 0
0
T 0
0
T 0
0
T 0
0
T 0
0
T 0
0
T 0
0
T 0
0
T 0
0
T 0
0
T 0
0
T 0
0
T 0
0
T 0
0
T
gr

O a
0`° O
uj 0
"
C7 ? o
Q Q N
-
Ov
i
via
m
a: w
Wm
a.
' O LO CD O T M CO CO CD Co T T (D L0 O r
CO r CO N N M M M M O Cl M co M co O
J (D V CO O "t O N (O T Cn CD M T (D V- 14-
cc
0 LO W M M V r-- O -4 t- r tf) O E M z
W Q
W N N N N CO CD r- I- r" M M M M M O
T
D
a Q J d

°
Q
o
O d
a
? T
w
Iz
' O W 0 - CD W M qt M 0 L0 L0 M Ch CEO LO

X LLI LO I- M O O W M T I- N O M N I- qt 0

Lt1 M r O ? T r q: cY M M
O M O
M 't
0 M It T O

n= M N
N m
M 0
I ? O
N W M
L
- M 0
L M
- A N

J
r
T
T
T
M M
M O
M I
M 0O
Cl) O
d' N
? n
"t I
-t M N
LO
`W
=
O

W Q
O
ZUO
0
ui

ZU
' L0 co M qt r Lo r M 0 N T r M M I- N
I-
0 M CO M O
- N co I- O
1 M M I- 0) 't O) N
(n
J
? Q Z 0
N
r O
P-
M 00
00
d CO
r
CD V
4
h T
H
LO 00
M
t,- (O
O
O 1
,
LO
N M
r
LO LO
M
t- LO
co
O M
00
M 0)
0
t- "t
4
O ti
M
M
= T N N N N e d LO L0 L0 V) CD W W I- I-
QW?O
r
J a

< >
r
H
0 L0 0 It 0 0 m m m ? 11- w 0 (D M o 0
O 0 T M M O LO M M M M M N O M M
M O_ M CO L0 L0 O CD r- N N t?_ 00 IY CD M ? O O
LL! 0 o 'gd- M q9t CO T O O o O T M LO OD r LC) Ln
00 M M M O I` 00 M 0 N M 'I l0 0 M
?-
Q 'Q r r T r N N N N N N N N
Yp
U
a
a
3SVHd 1 II 6ul;eaado
t
3

Q
O lt)
O CC
O ti
O O
O OA
O O r N C"1 !t O tG ti 00 OA O LO O O

W
O
O
O
O
O
O r
0 r
0 r
0 r
0 r
0 r
0 r
0 r
0 r
0 r
0 N
O 0 O. N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N p N N
d O O

N N
M
M
M
X
W
N
LL
C
Co
U
C
7
0
O
O
O
0)
U
O
U)
s
N
v°
a

TABLE 4.19
1
POTENTIAL CARGO-GENERATED CHANGE IN REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT
NO-ACTION AND BUILD ALTERNATIVES, 2004-2020
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
\\clnt01\wp_wpro\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Appendices\App-e41.OTable\TABLE 4.19rr.doc/01/10/00

U
1

i
fl

Source: The SGM Group, Inc., July 1999
TABLE 4.20

t
t
1
1
BUILD ALTERNATIVE CARGO IMPACT-GENERATED DIRECT
EMPLOYMENT FOR THE 14-COUNTY STUDY AREA, 2004-2020
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
I \\clnt01\wp_wpro\PIEDMONTDEIS\Appendices\App-e\4.OTable\TABLE4.20n.doc/01/10/00
Source: The SGM Group, Inc., July 1999
TABLE 4.21
Source: The SGM Group, Inc., July 1999
\\c1 nt01\wp_wpro\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Appendices\App-a\4.OTable\TABLE 4.21 rr.doc/01/10/00
BUILD ALTERNATIVE CARGO-GENERATED ECONOMIC IMPACTS FOR
THE PIEDMONT TRIAD REGION, 2004-2020
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE 4.22
BUILD ALTERNATIVE CARGO-GENERATED ECONOMIC IMPACTS FOR
THE 14-COUNTY STUDY AREA, 2004-2020
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement

t
t
I W.\PIEDMONT\DEISWppendicesWppe\4.OTable\TABLE 422rc.doc/01/10/00
Source: The SGM Group, Inc., July 1999
n
TABLE 4.23
BUILD ALTERNATIVE CARGO-GENERATED ECONOMIC IMPACTS FOR
THE TWO VIRGINIA COUNTIES, 2004-2020
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
W:\PIEDMONT\DEIS\Appendices\App-a\4.OTable\TABLE 4.23rr.doc/01/10/00

1
t

1
1

Source: The SGM Group, Inc., July 1999

1
TABLE 4.24
BUILD ALTERNATIVE CARGO-GENERATED ECONOMIC IMPACTS
TAX REVENUES FOR NORTH CAROLINA AND THE PIEDMONT TRIAD
REGION, 2004-2020
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
1
r
1

n

Source: The SGM Group, Inc., July 1999

1
I W:\PIEDMONT\DEISWppendices\App-a\4.OTable\TABLE 4.25rt.docJ01/10/00
1

TABLE 4.25
1
BUILD ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY IMPACT ANALYSIS
PIEDMONT TRIAD REGION, 2004-2020
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement

Source: The SGM Group, Inc., July 1999

1
t

\\c1 nt01\wp_wpro\PIEDMOMIDEIS\Appendioes\App-e\4.OTable\TABLE 4.25rr.doc/01/1000 I

t

I Source: The SGM Group, Inc., July 1999

1
1
TABLE 4.26
I W.\PIEDMONTIDEIS\AppendicesWpp-e\4.OTable\TABLE 4.26rr.doc/01/10/00
BUILD ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY IMPACT ANALYSIS
14-COUNTY STUDY AREA, 2004-2020
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
TABLE 4.27
Source: The SGM Group, Inc., July 1999
W:\PIEDMOMIDEISWppendices\App-e\4.OTable\TABLE 4.27rr.dod01/10/00
BUILD ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY TAX IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE
PIEDMONT TRIAD REGION, 2004-2020
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
1
1
1
t
t
t
t
1
1
1
FIGURE 4.1
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT FORECAST
1980-2020
PIEDMONT TRIAD REGION
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
1,800,000
1,600,000
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
E
0
z 800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
Source: The SGM Group, Inc., and PTCOG, January, 1999.
-?- Population
ary Employment
-0--Wage/Sal
0
?.?? '0 .°jt'b .°?op ??N11, ti?Nry 2?N1, ti?°6 ti?N0 ti?ti?
14P le
1
FIGURE 4.2 1
ANALYTICAL STEPS:
MEASURING LONG-RANGE ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
Employment: No-Action Alternative- Air Freight Volume-
Wages and Salaries Trend Projections/ Existing and Projected for
Value Added Economic Base Analysis FedEx and Region
1
Economic Measures Change in Employment, FCargo Volume Model
Population, and
Households
1
Alternatives Analysis:
Action Alternative
1
Input-Output Model:
Multipliers
1
Regional Allocation:
Population, Households,
and Employment
Valuation-Employment
Change, Wages and
Salaries, Value Added
1 1
Fiscal Impact Analysis-
Tax revenues for state and
local jurisdictions

1
Long-Term Economic
Value for Proposed Action
Improvement Program i
Source: The SGM Group, Inc., March 1999
1